While I don't 100% agree with Keynesian explanation for the Great Depression, the events leading to the Depression, and the immediate monetary responses to it were anything but Keynesian.
You are talking straight out of your asshole.
Keynesian economics took off after the Great Depression precisely as a way of preventing it from happening again, and still largely holds today on several of its tenets. Did you see monetary *deflation* during the recent recession?
The Great Depression was a result of unregulated market speculation going batshit crazy over the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act, and government and monetary laissez-faire reactions to the sudden massive contraction of the money supply caused by the bank's responses to the crumbling market value. It's pretty goddamn hard to get *further* from Keynesian economics than that. The cascade of events was practically a fucking advertisement for a change to Keynesian economics, which isn't much of a surprise, since he formulated it *right in the middle of the Depression*
Private banks formed buying cartels in an attempt at keynesianesque bailouts of the failing stocks, but in the end, their pooled resources weren't enough to add confidence in the market and stop the collapse, but they did stave it off.
Is it any surprise to you that Keynesian economics are starting to come into favor again after 2008, after almost 30 years erosion to their mind-share?
And you're right- I just wanted to dispel the idea that representative democracy is somehow a sub-form of Democracy. It's not. What you're calling "full democracy" is direct democracy. Both forms are a full democracy.
There's been a lot of people yelling that we're not a democracy lately, and it makes me cringe, because it's usually done by people trying to justify laws that haven't been struck down yet that still favor oppression from when they were the majority. Sure we're not a direct democracy, but who the hell is? We have aspects of direct democracy incorporated into many of our state constitutions, though, and people should never be discouraged from thinking their votes matter. Otherwise, we get into situations like today, where people think they don't matter. And in the case of Democracy, if you think they don't matter, they don't.
It sounds like they're doing what they can, which is nice... that is their job, after all.. But I'm still pretty sure they lack the power to do anything about this until they're authorized to intervene by some statute empowered by the Commerce Clause.
A superficially cool idea... However, it ultimately defeats the purpose of a representative democracy. That's more like a random sampled direct democracy. One could argue that may be a better system (I wouldn't), but it certainly wasn't how the country was framed... Though I suppose in all fairness, much of the government has changed just as radically over time.
People forget that the United States is a Democracy (our people vote for government), and a Republic (we no king.)
Great Britain is also a Democracy, though a Monarchy instead of a Republic.
"For fiscal year 2003, the Senate, under Democratic control in 2002, failed to pass a budget resolution of any kind. For fiscal years 1999, 2005 and 2007, the House and the Senate failed to reconcile their different bills and pass a compromise measure. In these latter three cases, the Republicans were in the majority in both chambers of Congress."
I guess the Dems finally caught up with the Republicans.
Also, the Democratic congress did pass a joint budget resolution for FY2010 (in 2009).
Is the budget really that big of a deal though? Whether it's implemented in one single continuing resolution, or 8 of them, does it really matter? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Single budgets are kind of a joke starting in 2001, anyway, with the "war supplementals".
2 budget resolutions died while Reagan was in office, as well. I never thought to criticize him for his bad leadership at the time.
Not unless there is statute authorizing them to do so, which currently, there isn't... Which is why the response said Congress needs to pass one.
I'm torn on whether or not he should have someone introduce legislation though, since that could very well backfire into a highly partisan war the second the house critters heard of it.
That's funny though, because interstate commerce intrusion is one of the actual enumerated powers of the Federal government, unlike a lot of other shit that it does that are... interpreted powers.
And when demonstrating how a democratically elected government can fall into dictatorship.
Ultimately, it's not inconceivable that with enough resources and power, some day a US executive could... dismiss Congress.
There is a legitimate contention however regarding whether or not it's OK to have troops in the area not engaged in "military action" after the sunset of the non-authorized force allowance expires.
I also wouldn't try too hard to draw a lot of parallels between the Iraq War, and the super limited Libyan intervention, you'll sprain your brain.
The AG can't sue them unless the States are in violation of some Federal statute, which they are not, since their is no Federal law prohibiting the practice.
Not defending the WH, or anyone else, but the statement that Congress must take action is in fact entirely accurate. There just isn't any Federal law regarding this topic for there to be any action from any agency of the Executive.
Google Ireland Holdings, Google Ireland Limited, Google Bermuda Unlimited, and Google Bermuda Limited are wholly owned subsidiaries of Google Inc. IE, the shares in those offshore corporations are held by the US incorporation Google Inc.
Their relationship as customer/licensee is utterly irrelevant to ownership of the corporation. You *have* worked for a corporate subsidiary, no?
It is a legal way to avoid taxation with the current tax code, but offshore subsidiaries in any jurisdiction have always been held to account for local jurisdictional law in the case that there is a local incorporation.
That's because I am someone who wouldn't object to destroying.04% of the fragile arizona desert for the sake of a multi-gigaton reduction in emissions in the country. I suspect we'll just have to choose a site where any local flora and fauna are ok with the other 99.96% of the desert.
I wasn't particularly talking about the name. I was talking about the physical explanation for the astronomical object. It does appear that John Michell had the basic concept down before it was physically characterized, though.
No. Europe is causing europe to burn more coal. You've taken a concept about self-responsibility and made the people who actually do have clean energy instead take up the responsibility of the entire planet. Brilliant.
Ah, so I'm to be accountable for other areas wanting cheaper energy. It's like reverse NIMBY. That clean energy is great stuff, but I don't wanna hurt this states coal industry, so we'll just import it and try to get the exporters of it to lower their energy usage to solve our problem. Seems legit.
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer to measure it as .006 USCoalBurningEmissionsYears.
I don't believe that's an SI unit, though.
While I don't 100% agree with Keynesian explanation for the Great Depression, the events leading to the Depression, and the immediate monetary responses to it were anything but Keynesian.
You are talking straight out of your asshole.
Keynesian economics took off after the Great Depression precisely as a way of preventing it from happening again, and still largely holds today on several of its tenets. Did you see monetary *deflation* during the recent recession?
The Great Depression was a result of unregulated market speculation going batshit crazy over the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act, and government and monetary laissez-faire reactions to the sudden massive contraction of the money supply caused by the bank's responses to the crumbling market value. It's pretty goddamn hard to get *further* from Keynesian economics than that. The cascade of events was practically a fucking advertisement for a change to Keynesian economics, which isn't much of a surprise, since he formulated it *right in the middle of the Depression*
Private banks formed buying cartels in an attempt at keynesianesque bailouts of the failing stocks, but in the end, their pooled resources weren't enough to add confidence in the market and stop the collapse, but they did stave it off.
Is it any surprise to you that Keynesian economics are starting to come into favor again after 2008, after almost 30 years erosion to their mind-share?
Interesting how we forget, indeed.
And you're right- I just wanted to dispel the idea that representative democracy is somehow a sub-form of Democracy. It's not. What you're calling "full democracy" is direct democracy. Both forms are a full democracy.
There's been a lot of people yelling that we're not a democracy lately, and it makes me cringe, because it's usually done by people trying to justify laws that haven't been struck down yet that still favor oppression from when they were the majority. Sure we're not a direct democracy, but who the hell is? We have aspects of direct democracy incorporated into many of our state constitutions, though, and people should never be discouraged from thinking their votes matter. Otherwise, we get into situations like today, where people think they don't matter. And in the case of Democracy, if you think they don't matter, they don't.
All I see is DOJ advocacy of direct sales: http://www.justice.gov/atr/pub...
And the DOJ suing some dealerships under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act: http://www.justice.gov/atr/pub...
It sounds like they're doing what they can, which is nice... that is their job, after all.. But I'm still pretty sure they lack the power to do anything about this until they're authorized to intervene by some statute empowered by the Commerce Clause.
A superficially cool idea... However, it ultimately defeats the purpose of a representative democracy. That's more like a random sampled direct democracy. One could argue that may be a better system (I wouldn't), but it certainly wasn't how the country was framed... Though I suppose in all fairness, much of the government has changed just as radically over time.
Touché. Wish I had mod points.. Nobody thinks of unintended consequences that follow giving powerful corporations more power.
People forget that the United States is a Democracy (our people vote for government), and a Republic (we no king.)
Great Britain is also a Democracy, though a Monarchy instead of a Republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
It bugs the hell out of me when people say "The US is a republic, not a democracy!". It's non-sensical crazy babble.
"For fiscal year 2003, the Senate, under Democratic control in 2002, failed to pass a budget resolution of any kind. For fiscal years 1999, 2005 and 2007, the House and the Senate failed to reconcile their different bills and pass a compromise measure. In these latter three cases, the Republicans were in the majority in both chambers of Congress."
I guess the Dems finally caught up with the Republicans.
Also, the Democratic congress did pass a joint budget resolution for FY2010 (in 2009).
Is the budget really that big of a deal though? Whether it's implemented in one single continuing resolution, or 8 of them, does it really matter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Single budgets are kind of a joke starting in 2001, anyway, with the "war supplementals".
2 budget resolutions died while Reagan was in office, as well. I never thought to criticize him for his bad leadership at the time.
They've got a cave troll.
You mean to tell me a Bush fought a war in Iraq and didn't lower taxes to pay for it?
I jest. Mostly.
Would he? He seems pretty anti-imperialist. The USSR, regardless of what its propaganda told its citizens, was most definitely imperialist.
Not unless there is statute authorizing them to do so, which currently, there isn't... Which is why the response said Congress needs to pass one.
I'm torn on whether or not he should have someone introduce legislation though, since that could very well backfire into a highly partisan war the second the house critters heard of it.
That's funny though, because interstate commerce intrusion is one of the actual enumerated powers of the Federal government, unlike a lot of other shit that it does that are... interpreted powers.
They are.
On the contrary, actual Congressional declarations of war have ended Empires.
It's our little corporate military-backed expeditions that seem to work out in the favor of the targets... and the defense industry.
And when demonstrating how a democratically elected government can fall into dictatorship.
Ultimately, it's not inconceivable that with enough resources and power, some day a US executive could... dismiss Congress.
He didn't need them to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
There is a legitimate contention however regarding whether or not it's OK to have troops in the area not engaged in "military action" after the sunset of the non-authorized force allowance expires.
I also wouldn't try too hard to draw a lot of parallels between the Iraq War, and the super limited Libyan intervention, you'll sprain your brain.
The AG can't sue them unless the States are in violation of some Federal statute, which they are not, since their is no Federal law prohibiting the practice. Not defending the WH, or anyone else, but the statement that Congress must take action is in fact entirely accurate. There just isn't any Federal law regarding this topic for there to be any action from any agency of the Executive.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/ed...
A list of Google Inc's subsidiaries, in desperate hope of curing your ignorance.
You're talking out of your ass.
Google Ireland Holdings, Google Ireland Limited, Google Bermuda Unlimited, and Google Bermuda Limited are wholly owned subsidiaries of Google Inc. IE, the shares in those offshore corporations are held by the US incorporation Google Inc.
Their relationship as customer/licensee is utterly irrelevant to ownership of the corporation. You *have* worked for a corporate subsidiary, no?
It is a legal way to avoid taxation with the current tax code, but offshore subsidiaries in any jurisdiction have always been held to account for local jurisdictional law in the case that there is a local incorporation.
That's because I am someone who wouldn't object to destroying .04% of the fragile arizona desert for the sake of a multi-gigaton reduction in emissions in the country. I suspect we'll just have to choose a site where any local flora and fauna are ok with the other 99.96% of the desert.
I wasn't particularly talking about the name. I was talking about the physical explanation for the astronomical object. It does appear that John Michell had the basic concept down before it was physically characterized, though.
No. Europe is causing europe to burn more coal. You've taken a concept about self-responsibility and made the people who actually do have clean energy instead take up the responsibility of the entire planet. Brilliant.
Ah, so I'm to be accountable for other areas wanting cheaper energy. It's like reverse NIMBY. That clean energy is great stuff, but I don't wanna hurt this states coal industry, so we'll just import it and try to get the exporters of it to lower their energy usage to solve our problem. Seems legit.
The validity of the former does not lend itself to the latter. It's in fact patently false.