How about phone manufacturers spend the extra dollar that it costs to put in the trivial circuitry necessary so that you can apply almost any voltage, current, or polarity to the device without it going up in smoke?
Pundits can read whatever they want into stock movements, I'm not convinced it means anything.
Well, I was being sarcastic, given Hillary's chummy relationship with Wall St and billionaires.
However, being serious for a moment, in many cases, it's not hard to figure out why people react to news. With the presidential election, there was a small collection of investors who panicked, but they were quickly overwhelmed by people who thought Trump's election wasn't a big deal. The German stock market dropped briefly on export worries, but is up significantly now.
I'm not at all convinced that what was appropriate then is appropriate now, particularly since people have had decades to learn to game the system, but restricting freedom of association was very useful then.
You live in a fantasy world in which private businesses oppressed people based on race and government came in to fix the problem. In actual fact, it has primarily been government that has oppressed people based on race (and sexual orientation, religion, etc.). Slavery was maintained by law and government; segregation was created by law and government (mostly progressives). And in the 1960's policies changed yet again, to yet another form of racial discrimination. And the motivation and justification for government racism, from slavery to today, is always "those poor minorities are too weak to help themselves, so we need to interfere in their lives".
The extreme racial disparities of the pre-1960s society were at least somewhat ameliorated by government intervention.
The extreme racial disparities of the pre-1960's society were created by government. And after the civil rights act came into force in the late 1960's, progress on reducing racial disparities largely stalled. In some areas, things even got worse. Furthermore, instead of encouraging minorities to integrate fully into society, it has branded them (us) permanently and legally as perpetual outsiders.
The only way to achieve racial equality is to create a race-blind government and then to have patience for civil society to heal on its own. That has never been tried in the US, mostly because people like you maintain the myth that without constantly picking at the scab of past racism, it won't heal. Well, the opposite is the case: every time government gets involved in helping minorities, it perpetuates the problems of racism and discrimination.
To deal with global warming, we have to reduce carbon emissions somehow. Right now, global warming is an economic externality. One of the important roles of the government in the market is imposing penalties on externalities so that the market can sort things out.
Even if your analysis about externalities were right, it wouldn't logically follow that "imposing penalties" is the fastest way, or even an effective way at all, for reducing carbon emissions.
I would say his track record of doing pretty much any unscrupulous thing possible for money would imply the opposite.
Many people apparently see a difference between a belief that someone might be corruptible, and a long, actual track record of taking money from foreign governments and influence seekers as a public official. Hence the election outcome.
Also, given his much larger net worth, it probably also takes a lot more money to corrupt Trump.
I trust you can use Google Scholar; you should start with the literature that shows that increased employer mandates and regulations have contributed significantly to slow wage growth.
Your wishful thinking isn't going to put money in your pocket.
You may be a selfish prick who only votes based on what puts money in his pocket, but I'm not. So even if your premise were true, I wouldn't care.
I want "less regulation, lower labor costs, and lower corporate taxes" because it's the right thing for the US as a nation and generally increases people's paychecks and liberty.
Just so you know, "lower labor costs" means your paycheck gets smaller, too.
"Lower labor costs" doesn't mean "smaller paycheck"; it primarily means "less money spent on non-salary costs associated with labor": compliance, reporting, mandatory benefits, taxes, etc. Even without taking into account the increased growth resulting from lower labor costs, the money employers save on labor costs is usually shared with employees in the form of larger paychecks.
If the ACA is repealed my family will have to figure out how to come up with at least $60K/year to keep her alive. My parents are retired and it's far more than I can afford. While healthcare in this country is fucked up and way overpriced, the alternative for many people of repealing the ACA is far far worse.
Repealing the ACA doesn't mean that there is no transition to a different system. I'd imagine that for a transitional period, people like your sister might be able to go on Medicaid even while working. Of course, your sister already has the option of quitting her job and going on Medicaid regardless of what happens with the ACA; with a supportive family like you, that can be a reasonable choice.
Every country has some weird traditions. USA's is electing a clown as president.
That's the way the US political system was designed: US presidents are not like leaders of European governments. It's a system that has served the US pretty well for a couple of centuries, despite a long series of mediocrities for president.
Deplorable is a judgement call, but the majority of people are sexist, misogynist, racist xenophobes. Nobody wants to believe that they could be any of those things, so they don't look inside and actually figure out which of those beliefs are based on some bullshit programming from early in their formative years
I think the problem with progressives is pretty much analogous to the problem with Christian conservatives. Christian conservatives believe that deep down, they are promiscuous, wanton homosexuals, and they need the state to protect them from themselves. And progressives believe they are "sexist, misogynist, racist xenophobes" and need the state to protect them from themselves. And the sad thing is: you are both right. Where you are wrong is assuming that everybody else is like you.
Doubtful, given her record as senator and SoS. I suspect she would have run into brick walls domestically, and then started a couple of wars to distract from her failures.
but she didn't have the charisma to break Democrats out of 8 years of complacency and idealism.
What you call "complacency and idealism" is a history of racial divisiveness, class warfare, and demonization of everybody who didn't toe their party line. It's also a history of failed policies. But that's only part of the problem.
The main problem Hillary had was that she was a lousy candidate: dishonest, untrustworthy, and with a poor track record. She won the Democratic nomination because of her and her husband's political power and connections.
The demographics keep moving towards the Democrats. There have never been more offended Latinos, women and immigrants from the Middle East. Heck, even the Mormons were having misgivings.
Perhaps some of the groups the Democrats were counting on aren't as easily manipulated as Hillary thought? I'm a gay immigrant, and there was no way I was going to vote for Hillary or most of the Democratic candidates.
This is Slashdot -- anyone here think that hacking voting machines is a strange thought with Russia's help?
Clinton lost by more than 1% margins pretty much everywhere she lost. But feel free to pursue that idea.
She lost by a couple percent. There are a lot of things she could have done differently that would have swayed things in her direction
Yeah, like not be involved in a corrupt charity, not be extremely careless with classified information, not give dozens of $250k speeches to Wall St, not get in bed with foreign dictators, not lie over and over again, not oppose gay marriage for many years, and not run a campaign based on bigotry and racism. And that's just for starters. But she had to do those things because that's who she is. And that's why she lost, even to a buffoon like Trump.
Anyway you slice it Hillary was rightfully the Dem nominee. Its moot now anyway because here we go...
Hillary became the Democratic presidential candidate according to the rules. But if the rules produce a candidate like Hillary, then it's time to rethink the rules.
The reason Trump won the election is because the Democrats couldn't produce anybody better than Hillary or Sanders, and because Hillary then engaged in a campaign of hate, bigotry, and divisiveness.
It should be pointed out that hawkish behaviour under the Bush regime meant a LOT of people didn't survive the Bush regime (literally bombed and shot to death).
And Clinton's hawkish tendencies are one of the reasons people didn't like her.
the rest of the world has been gravely worried about the potential dismantling of major world alliances
By "major world alliances", you mean military arrangements by which the US ends up going out and shooting people, while Europeans lean back and wag their fingers accusingly at US guns?
and free trade deals
We haven't had any "free trade deals" in a long time. What we have had is a bunch of trade deals that are riddled with regulations benefitting special interests.
People in the US need to realise that US guns in US hands kill a LOT of people around the world.
Believe me, "people in the US" realize that, because they usually deal with body bags full of US soldiers whenever European or Asian leaders ask the US for help again. That is another reason Hillary didn't get elected: her constant war boner and her callous disregard for the lives of Americans and non-Americans alike.
Correct. Tech and science are not the same as policy and values. For example...
The scientific fact that carbon emissions raise global temperatures does not mean that the only possible policy is for government to restrict carbon emissions.
The scientific fact that there are racial and gender disparities does not mean that the only possible policy is for government to intervene in freedom of association.
Science and tech (i.e., people in those areas) are jumping from observations and scientific results to policy based on their own preferences and interests. Usually, it goes something like "we discovered this problem, and now give us a lot of power to try and fix it". Well, as you are discovering, voters are rejecting that.
Trump stated that he wanted Apple to make it's products here in the USA. That might be possible with a system of tariffs.
It might also be possible with less regulation, lower labor costs, and lower corporate taxes. That's what Trump has been saying he is going to try to do.
Given the lower costs abroad it doesn't seem possible.
The costs abroad are only lower because we have artificially inflated US costs.
The only way to rekindle those kinds of jobs is through the development of new products. Which means science. And we are not going to see much of that.
I see your intellect and debating style are perfectly suited to Twitter. I suggest you go over there as soon as you can and don't bother us here on Slashdot.
You seem to have missed the point. Both of your posts here are less than 140 characters.
Yes, they are part of threaded conversations and a platform that supports long posts.
I wasn't saying that 140 character messages are never useful, on any platform, anywhere. What I was saying was that a platform that limits all its messages to 140 characters is going to be predominantly filled with "trolling", "baiting", "bragging", and "posturing". That's because a thoughtful exchange of ideas requires the availability of long posts, even if some posts are short.
Notice how even this concise response required more than 140 characters?
You seem to believe that "free speech" is an universal right, we believe "performing your religion" is an universal right.
What is at issue is not what people "believe", but what states actually deliver; sadly, both freedom of speech and freedom of religion are seriously curtailed in Germany.
You think "free speech" (what ever that means in your country)
I encourage you to read up on it; you might learn something.
Slashdot Mirror
How about phone manufacturers spend the extra dollar that it costs to put in the trivial circuitry necessary so that you can apply almost any voltage, current, or polarity to the device without it going up in smoke?
How nice. So Trump isn't the End Times after all.
Well, I was being sarcastic, given Hillary's chummy relationship with Wall St and billionaires.
However, being serious for a moment, in many cases, it's not hard to figure out why people react to news. With the presidential election, there was a small collection of investors who panicked, but they were quickly overwhelmed by people who thought Trump's election wasn't a big deal. The German stock market dropped briefly on export worries, but is up significantly now.
You live in a fantasy world in which private businesses oppressed people based on race and government came in to fix the problem. In actual fact, it has primarily been government that has oppressed people based on race (and sexual orientation, religion, etc.). Slavery was maintained by law and government; segregation was created by law and government (mostly progressives). And in the 1960's policies changed yet again, to yet another form of racial discrimination. And the motivation and justification for government racism, from slavery to today, is always "those poor minorities are too weak to help themselves, so we need to interfere in their lives".
The extreme racial disparities of the pre-1960's society were created by government. And after the civil rights act came into force in the late 1960's, progress on reducing racial disparities largely stalled. In some areas, things even got worse. Furthermore, instead of encouraging minorities to integrate fully into society, it has branded them (us) permanently and legally as perpetual outsiders.
The only way to achieve racial equality is to create a race-blind government and then to have patience for civil society to heal on its own. That has never been tried in the US, mostly because people like you maintain the myth that without constantly picking at the scab of past racism, it won't heal. Well, the opposite is the case: every time government gets involved in helping minorities, it perpetuates the problems of racism and discrimination.
Even if your analysis about externalities were right, it wouldn't logically follow that "imposing penalties" is the fastest way, or even an effective way at all, for reducing carbon emissions.
Many people apparently see a difference between a belief that someone might be corruptible, and a long, actual track record of taking money from foreign governments and influence seekers as a public official. Hence the election outcome.
Also, given his much larger net worth, it probably also takes a lot more money to corrupt Trump.
I trust you can use Google Scholar; you should start with the literature that shows that increased employer mandates and regulations have contributed significantly to slow wage growth.
You may be a selfish prick who only votes based on what puts money in his pocket, but I'm not. So even if your premise were true, I wouldn't care.
I want "less regulation, lower labor costs, and lower corporate taxes" because it's the right thing for the US as a nation and generally increases people's paychecks and liberty.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
"Lower labor costs" doesn't mean "smaller paycheck"; it primarily means "less money spent on non-salary costs associated with labor": compliance, reporting, mandatory benefits, taxes, etc. Even without taking into account the increased growth resulting from lower labor costs, the money employers save on labor costs is usually shared with employees in the form of larger paychecks.
I do care about those things, but it's not the only thing I care about.
And the politicians who say they care about them often just use them as smoke screens for pushing crony capitalist policies.
Repealing the ACA doesn't mean that there is no transition to a different system. I'd imagine that for a transitional period, people like your sister might be able to go on Medicaid even while working. Of course, your sister already has the option of quitting her job and going on Medicaid regardless of what happens with the ACA; with a supportive family like you, that can be a reasonable choice.
That's the way the US political system was designed: US presidents are not like leaders of European governments. It's a system that has served the US pretty well for a couple of centuries, despite a long series of mediocrities for president.
I think the problem with progressives is pretty much analogous to the problem with Christian conservatives. Christian conservatives believe that deep down, they are promiscuous, wanton homosexuals, and they need the state to protect them from themselves. And progressives believe they are "sexist, misogynist, racist xenophobes" and need the state to protect them from themselves. And the sad thing is: you are both right. Where you are wrong is assuming that everybody else is like you.
She most certainly is.
Doubtful, given her record as senator and SoS. I suspect she would have run into brick walls domestically, and then started a couple of wars to distract from her failures.
What you call "complacency and idealism" is a history of racial divisiveness, class warfare, and demonization of everybody who didn't toe their party line. It's also a history of failed policies. But that's only part of the problem.
The main problem Hillary had was that she was a lousy candidate: dishonest, untrustworthy, and with a poor track record. She won the Democratic nomination because of her and her husband's political power and connections.
Perhaps some of the groups the Democrats were counting on aren't as easily manipulated as Hillary thought? I'm a gay immigrant, and there was no way I was going to vote for Hillary or most of the Democratic candidates.
Clinton lost by more than 1% margins pretty much everywhere she lost. But feel free to pursue that idea.
It's also not necessary. Simply refusing government services to illegal immigrants is sufficient. It's what most civilized countries do.
It is "the real thing"; that doesn't mean that trillions in crony capitalist spending and massive new taxes are the only answer.
Yes: with Hillary out of the picture, they are worried that they can't buy influence for $250k a pop from a corrupt crony capitalist anymore.
I always encourage people to vote with their feet. Freedom of movement is probably the most basic freedom.
Yeah, like not be involved in a corrupt charity, not be extremely careless with classified information, not give dozens of $250k speeches to Wall St, not get in bed with foreign dictators, not lie over and over again, not oppose gay marriage for many years, and not run a campaign based on bigotry and racism. And that's just for starters. But she had to do those things because that's who she is. And that's why she lost, even to a buffoon like Trump.
Hillary became the Democratic presidential candidate according to the rules. But if the rules produce a candidate like Hillary, then it's time to rethink the rules.
The reason Trump won the election is because the Democrats couldn't produce anybody better than Hillary or Sanders, and because Hillary then engaged in a campaign of hate, bigotry, and divisiveness.
Indeed it is.
Well, yes, just like Germany.
No, just strongly scrutinize immigration from countries with lots of terrorists. You know, the same policy as Clinton or much of Europe.
Kind of like some European countries
No argument there.
And Clinton's hawkish tendencies are one of the reasons people didn't like her.
By "major world alliances", you mean military arrangements by which the US ends up going out and shooting people, while Europeans lean back and wag their fingers accusingly at US guns?
We haven't had any "free trade deals" in a long time. What we have had is a bunch of trade deals that are riddled with regulations benefitting special interests.
Believe me, "people in the US" realize that, because they usually deal with body bags full of US soldiers whenever European or Asian leaders ask the US for help again. That is another reason Hillary didn't get elected: her constant war boner and her callous disregard for the lives of Americans and non-Americans alike.
Correct. Tech and science are not the same as policy and values. For example...
The scientific fact that carbon emissions raise global temperatures does not mean that the only possible policy is for government to restrict carbon emissions.
The scientific fact that there are racial and gender disparities does not mean that the only possible policy is for government to intervene in freedom of association.
Science and tech (i.e., people in those areas) are jumping from observations and scientific results to policy based on their own preferences and interests. Usually, it goes something like "we discovered this problem, and now give us a lot of power to try and fix it". Well, as you are discovering, voters are rejecting that.
It might also be possible with less regulation, lower labor costs, and lower corporate taxes. That's what Trump has been saying he is going to try to do.
The costs abroad are only lower because we have artificially inflated US costs.
Actual science isn't about product development.
Absolutely fscking true.
We may have a sexist buffoon for a president now, but at least democracy has a chance for another four years.
I see your intellect and debating style are perfectly suited to Twitter. I suggest you go over there as soon as you can and don't bother us here on Slashdot.
Yes, they are part of threaded conversations and a platform that supports long posts.
I wasn't saying that 140 character messages are never useful, on any platform, anywhere. What I was saying was that a platform that limits all its messages to 140 characters is going to be predominantly filled with "trolling", "baiting", "bragging", and "posturing". That's because a thoughtful exchange of ideas requires the availability of long posts, even if some posts are short.
Notice how even this concise response required more than 140 characters?
What is at issue is not what people "believe", but what states actually deliver; sadly, both freedom of speech and freedom of religion are seriously curtailed in Germany.
I encourage you to read up on it; you might learn something.