subreddit
stringclasses 11
values | text
stringlengths 246
28.5k
|
|---|---|
politics
|
> Its correlation with increasing stock market gains has to do with other sectors of the economy absolutely collapsing and no alternatives for capital to be invested.
No, it's correlation with increasing stock market gains is because the Fed had a policy of low interest rates and QE, both of which contributed to higher bond prices and lower yield. Fixed income assets became less attractive and the balance of investment shifted to equities.
|
politics
|
I think there are a lot of people who feel like when interest rates dropped to .25 QE was the quickest solution to the problem. People complain about inflation and how terrible it is, but if the dollar fell into deflation the results could have been far more disastrous.
But it’s hard to know for sure, going back and trying to pick apart what helped or how things could have been different is incredibly difficult.
|
politics
|
This analogy actually doesn't work as well on a macro level.
For one, the US Dollar is the world reserve currency. If you want to buy oil from the Saudis, for instance, you have to pay in US Dollars. This means that dozens of rich Nations around the world are forced to hold a US Dollar reserve fund.
The effect is that when the US prints money, that inflation is spread around the world. We can fuel spending with debt and print money to cover it, thereby forcing other nations to pay for a little bit of our spending.
It's not all bad. And the US is in a globally unique position due to their geopolitical strategy since WW2.
|
politics
|
>For one, the US Dollar is the world reserve currency. If you want to buy oil from the Saudis, for instance, you have to pay in US Dollars. This means that dozens of rich Nations around the world are forced to hold a US Dollar reserve fund.
I remember hearing that the reason the US invaded Iraq wasn't to secure Iraq's oil reserves for itself, it was because Saddam threatened to trade oil on the Euro instead of the USD, threatening everything you just said...
|
politics
|
The Middle East as I understand largely boils down to ensuring that the Saudis sell oil using the US dollar. Local cultural tensions is largely a result of decades of other countries making the large decisions: e.g. Britain drawing shitty borders.
This means the US is extremely economically incentivized to protect the Saudi government and appease them.
This primarily means opposing Iran, because Iran overthrew their authoritarian government in 1978. It also means backing the existing government in Syria. Whereas Russia is funding the rebels.
The more democracy grows in the middle East, the more likely that the Saudi government will succumb to a revolution and the existing trade relationships are at risk.
|
politics
|
we're talking like 8th and quarters of a point- its nothing substantial, and like you say above, the Fed recently started raising interest- they have been, and continue to be at historic lows. The assertion that over decades long QE has caused the Fed to ***recently*** raise interest rates faster just when its 8th and quarter points doesnt make a lot of sense (no offense)
I mean, of course they have to raise them- theyve been at historic lows are quite some time.
|
politics
|
Well, we've also got a lot of people who are currently in debt, paying off homes or education. It would be good for them. We also have a lot of people who own homes that they want to sell in the future. It's a toss up for them. And we have many people waiting for pensions and social security. It will be terrible for them.
You could "fix" the debt problem without "reducing" social security payments and pay pensions (based on 80% of highest wage earned while working) with a little inflationary-aroo time. Sure it will ruin a lot of people, but if we're at the all-ideas on the table stage...
|
politics
|
Sort of, except being able to teach is a skill in itself. Just knowing a thing does not make you able to teach it to someone else.
In terms of a (fundamentally flawed) analogy to goods, it's like I have a shiny rock, I hand it to you, and it transforms into a dull rock. If you try to give someone your dull rock, it transforms into rock shards, so no one wants it. But if you polish the dull rock back into a shiny rock, then you can hand it to someone else and then they'd have a dull rock. Alternatively, you could just keep your own dull rock, fasten it to a stick, and now you have a hammer.
|
politics
|
Nah not really. This is all it has. There's some comments from other students, but nothing concrete.
> Professor Kelley told me 100 times over three decades that “Donald Trump was the dumbest goddam student I ever had.” I remember his emphasis and inflection — it went like this — “Donald Trump was the **dumbest goddam** student I **ever** had.” Dr. Kelley told me this after Trump had become a celebrity but long before he was considered a political figure. Dr. Kelley often referred to Trump’s arrogance when he told of this — that Trump came to Wharton thinking he already knew everything.
|
politics
|
I think 95% of the problem with modern economic understanding is that crap like is this seen as remotely accurate. That it's possible to quote a one line summary of Economics 101 and think you understand the first thing about how the economy works.
There's nothing wrong with "printing money". Our economy requires that you do it. The trick is to ensure that you print the right amount.
As an example, between November 2010 and June 2011, the Federal Reserve effectively increased the money supply in the US by $600b. Yes, billion. In less than a year. That's about $2000 per person in the US.
Now, they didn't print $600b dollar bills and hand them out on the street and many will argue that quantative easing isn't the same as creating money and there is validity to these arguments but the fact is that banks had $600b more in their accounts than they did beforehand. There's little difference between what the Fed did and writing a $600b cheque and you don't get away from that with accounting tricks to make it acceptable.
Claiming that you can't print money because it will cause inflation is up there with "the country has maxed out its credit card" for stupid things people believe make sense of incredibly complicated systems.
A couple of graduate courses on economics taught me that but it also taught me that I don't really understand how any of it works at any real level. Anyone who says economics 101 teaches you anything more than some simplified meaningless nonsense is talking out of their ass.
|
politics
|
I have been trying to figure out what the appeal of Trump is to his supporters, and I think they still get behind him because he makes it okay to be stupid--maybe even virtuous. Knowledgeable people are intimidating, and the intimidation leads to resentment. They didn't like Obama because he was smarter than them (i.e, "elite"). They like Trump because he's not.
Edit: Some of you seem to be having a problems with this. I'll put it this way--someone isn't "arrogant" for telling an anti-vaxxer or a flat-earther that they are ignorant; supporting ignorant positions IS ignorant. Getting defensive and accusing someone of "arrogance" when they have a logical, correct assessment when yours is wrong is EXACTLY what I am talking about--Trump supporters feel more secure with their ignorance than admitting their ignorance, and Trump congratulates them for their ignorance. And this is how we've gotten ourselves into this position, demonizing valid information, calling it "elitism" or "arrogance," instead of standing up for the validity of that information and calling out the misinformation.
|
politics
|
When its news that is reported on with extreme bias leaving out key details: Fake news
When the story is fabricated then reported on as fact without having any basis by the media as is the case with the woodward book its very fake news.
When the FBI leaks fake news to the media who are paid to play along then the FBI uses those news stories as support for a FISA application to spy on an american citizen the media and FBI become the enemy of the people.
|
politics
|
> Ivy league educations are no better than any other. Math is Math. History is History. Economics is economics.
At the Ivies the professors are better, the TA's are some of the smartest graduate students in the world. Not to mention the fellow students who are, for the most part, incredibly talented. A lot of my friends from high school ended up getting into an Ivy - discussing homework with these guys made me feel smarter. Yes the Ivies don't have a monopoly on these characteristics but to say that the average student gets the same quality of education as at a typical public school or mid-tier private school is absurd.
They are a scam because they brand themselves as the only path to success. A student with the brains and ambition of *most* Ivy League students is going to succeed regardless of what university they go to. But a Harvard degree on your resume opens up way too many doors for the students who don't really deserve to be there.
|
politics
|
Depends on how you look at it, but no. New money only enters circulation through bank loans. Because only the federal reserve can print money, and the federal reserve only gives money out to other banks, and banks only give money out in the form of loans. But loans by definition have interest, meaning no matter how much the bank gives out it's expected that more than that amount will be returned to the bank which I suppose you could consider money being removed from circulation. But that money doesn't disappear, which is why inflation happens. That money paid back in interest is just then sent out again as new loans. The federal reserve has the right to destroy the money it controls in order to definitively remove money from circulation, and it does, but never at a rate that matches how much it sends out.
|
politics
|
>If you want to buy oil from the Saudis, for instance, you have to pay in US Dollars. This means that dozens of rich Nations around the world are forced to hold a US Dollar reserve fund.
Well no... Because you don't actually transfer physical money when ordering a oil tanker full of oil.
>We can fuel spending with debt and print money to cover it, thereby forcing other nations to pay for a little bit of our spending.
But... That inflation still hits home, and the devalued currency also increases consumer costs.
And then the Euro becomes the currency that oil is traded in, and the US starts to look like Venezuala right now.
Paying off the debt isn't a problem. The US should have taken on far more debt early in the Obama administration, when the costs of borrowing were so incredibly low, since GDP growth since then has been exceeding the interest rates the economy would rapidly just outgrow that debt.
Printing money to clear it... that's plain idiocy.
|
politics
|
That’s true, and it’s really not their fault, student athletes are just pawns. A lot of them just end up after 4 years with no prospects of playing sports professionally, probably a traumatic brain injury or two, and a useless degree. And they don’t get paid for sacrificing their time and long term health for the benefit of the university’s fundraising department.
But there also is a culture of covering up crimes (esp sexual assault) committed by college sports players with teams often improperly influencing university investigations into accusations. Because bad press is bad for fundraising.
|
politics
|
I agree, though (correct me if I'm wrong) I've only ever heard him say he went to Wharton, never explicitly stating that he went for an MBA. I think people are inferring that from his statements since most people dont know theres an undergrad program. I dont know If hes ever actually claimed that.
At least at Penn, people in the Wharton school like to say they're in Wharton - students dont make the distinction between undergrad and MBA either.
|
politics
|
If you want to think about it in more detail, you trade money for *allocation of resources*. Those resources can be time, effort, goods, services, whatever ("stuff" for short).
​
Under a strict barter economy, if you want stuff, you must provide a similar level of different stuff in return on the spot at that time. Money is theoretically just a convenient way to keep score, so you can provide stuff to one person now, then request stuff from another person later, and transfer money so that it all comes out appropriately - which is obviously way more convenient.
|
politics
|
Yea. Do you know what a complaint contains? Allegations. That’s all it is. Anyone can allege anything and file suit against anyone, and I do mean that literally. None of the allegations in any complaint should be taken as fact - in any suit, and this goes for civil as well as criminal complaints. At the complaint stage, nothing has been tested, let alone proven. Multiple attorneys have withdrawn as counsel for the woman making these claims (probably because they came to realize that she’s fuckin lying, and rather than state as much and violate their duty of confidentiality or continue to perpetuate a fraud upon the court by pressing forward - both of which subject them to bar discipline, they’ve withdrawn from the case) and the case has been dismissed at least once (maybe twice by now).
Trump has done enough awful shit for which there’s abundant evidence. There’s no need to run around flailing about allegations as if they’re proven facts - it only gives him a reason to claim everyone’s out to get him with some made-up story. It’s unnecessary and detrimental to those who seek accountability for the very real crimes he’s committed.
So enough with this. Stick to the facts.
|
politics
|
Sounds more like you're selection of those you hire is a problem more than their credentials. You don't hire them because of their degree, you hire them because they can do the job.
I value my degree, but it generally doesn't mean much and the value it provides me is it opens doors. I value the knowledge I gained and the life experience, but that doesn't mean all college grads are going to come out with the same skill set or capability.
|
politics
|
Yeah, that's the thing. The Laffer curve is a reality for an edge case in economics -- like quantum physics being applicable on the subatomic level. Yet here we are trying to shove billiard balls around with rules meant for particles too small to even have chemical properties. The introduction of this idea to American public policy is deeply objectionable, but some among the Chicago School were all too willing to give it the appearance of intellectual heft.
|
politics
|
I'm not a Trump supporter by any stretch, but I was a Republican before he got the nomination. And I have friends and family who are pro-Trump.
The appeal is not intelligence vs lack of intelligence. It's the *perceived arrogance* of liberals always claiming that they *are* more intelligent (which, ironically, is present in your comment).
They feel pushed around and belittled, and they feel like Trump is the first person to come along and actually push back. Other Republicans have talked about pushing back, but then didn't. Trump doesn't back down (even when he should).
So yeah, most of them don't care about the nitty gritty of policy except for hot button topics like abortion, gun control, and immigration. But that's one of the reasons I left the party. Also I can't stand for his abuses against women and his caricature of Christianity, but that's another post.
|
politics
|
> It's the perceived arrogance of liberals always claiming that they are more intelligent (which, ironically, is present in your comment).
Oh, fuck off. Knowledge, while extremely diverse, is still quantifiable. It's not "arrogant" to say someone is more intelligent than someone else in comparison--it's truth, not perception or bias. You're just another person who accuses people of "arrogance" if their vocabulary is broader than yours, or they talk about matters in which you are not well versed. You ARE the willfully ignorant, because you refuse to acknowledge the difference.
|
politics
|
I can’t tell if you’re joking so I’ll just answer directly, NO. If you’re making claims against someone, regardless of whether they’re true, filing a document in court does not automatically convert your claims into facts.
SHE herself literally writes the claims under the heading “Factual ALLEGATIONS” in the actual [complaint](https://www.scribd.com/doc/310835987/Donald-Trump-Lawsuit).
Here’s [Snopes](https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/) for good measure:
> As of now, all of the information about this lawsuit comes solely from the complaint filed by “Katie Johnson,” and no one has as yet located, identified, or interviewed her. She was scheduled to appear at a press conference on 2 November 2016 but didn’t show up, claiming that threats to her life kept her away. She reportedly dropped the lawsuit again on 4 November 2016 for the same reason.
> A status conference for the lawsuit was scheduled to be held on 16 December 2016.
As I recall, I think the case was again dismissed but I’ve already wasted too much time on this idiotic bullshit. Why don’t you google it and update me?
The biggest hint that the claims aren’t credible is that she can’t seem to keep an attorney on the case. Isn’t it curious that there are thousands of lawyers who would jump at the chance to nab to Trump on these salacious claims, free of charge, yet none of them are stepping up to represent Katie Johnson? And that the few who have then almost immediately moved to withdraw their representation?
|
politics
|
> I bet they don't want to give back the money that was needed to purchase it.
I wonder if paying the money back would be a better gesture. The univ could probably afford it and it would be good for their own publicity.
Also, as cheap as the Trumps are, I don't think they paid a whole lot. Maybe a few million in donations. Max. Probably lesser.
Or maybe the Trumps only made promises as usual... the money never changed hands.
|
politics
|
This is actually not strictly true.
The Federal reserve tries to keep inflation at a constant target. They do this by controlling interest rates. That in turns controls how easy it is for banks to make loans, and because of the reserve system banks have, they can loan out money they don't actually have, which is how the new money exists.
That's it in a nutshell.
So they are printing new money, just the right amount to maximize investments, while keeping the dollar where they want it.
|
politics
|
My hiring mentality is that the hiring process is predictive, not a guarantee. We track our data for good hires and college degrees (and especially master degrees) are a slight negative for <30 year old hires.
IE, for my company / projects a degree will never help you. We still have good contractors / employees with degrees.
I also have data that says I hire and retain at a significantly better clip than my competitors indicating my process is above average.
|
politics
|
Here's what's going on. Trump knows these things, either by experience of being told, that printing money is not the answer. However, he insists on this as an option because he will do anything to raise economic indicators not caring about long term consequences. This is because when the Mueller report is release, with a possibility of a Democratic house, he wants the base to think the report is a product of the deep state and in the meantime he has, with historical levels, improved the economy. This will cause the base to have even more of an emotional motivation to fight back, even violently, if he becomes close to being removed.
|
politics
|
It actually sounds like they are hiring for practical skills and folks who have been in the job market for about 5-7 years after going through formal training are less effective and more confident than kids who have been solving problems since their teens playing around with programming and building things in their spare time.
It's a particular problem in CS because what a university wants to teach is theory, and how to re-invent the wheel. Those are great skills to keep alive, but they generally don't comport with what the marketplace needs, which is the fastest person to copy a working solution into the existing problem set of a company.
I think the biggest problem is that we teach programming as a technical exercise and part of the CS in school, but in real life for most professional coders it's more like creative writing with very, VERY strict rules, and the science of it is used by maybe 5% or less of coders.
The only realistic way to fix it is to make basic programming literacy as common as basic math literacy (and then make both as common as just plain literacy, pls).
|
politics
|
Part of me wants to say “it’s really complicated”, but so are a lot of other things that we learn. I took several econ courses and only learned about money supply from an internet video.
A big part of any economics education is realizing that a lot of the teachers and professors have a specific political agenda they are pushing. It’s not that they teach things that are wrong, but they will avoid teaching anything that goes against their personal beliefs in the same way a christian biology teacher avoids teaching evolution.
|
politics
|
The Fed has a "Discount Window" from which banks can borrow new money that didn't exist before. This process can be accurately described as "creating new money"
The Fed does not print physical dollar bills, but physical currency is a small and shrinking portion of the total money supply.
late edit: The Fed can also engage in "Quantitative Easing" where it buys assets (mostly government debt) with newly created money, this can also be accurately described as "creating new money" .
|
politics
|
>they don’t actually believe in any of that fiscal stuff
The deficits are going to erode his support. There will always be a certain number who support him because of his racism, or because they saw *The Apprentice* and believed that they were watchin a genius at work, or because they like the way he bullies people, or because or abortion, or because they will always vote Republican, etc.
But there were some who voted for him because of his attacks on deficits that he blamed on Obama, and because he promised to reduce those deficits. And those people are going to realize in 2020 that they've been duped.
I see a lot of discouraged people saying things like, "nothing will ever turn Trump's supporters against him". Remember, though, that he won with virtually no margin for error, at the height of his popularity. He's done nothing to reach out to people who didn't support him. If he loses ANY support, he's toast in 2020.
One other thing: Trump won against a very divided Democratic party, and he's done everything imaginable to unify the opposition. He'll lose to any centrist Democrat who is willing to compromise and show a willingness to negotiate in good faith with the other side (perhaps by choosing someone like Sherrod Brown or Tammy Baldwin as a running mate, instead of someone like Tim Kaine), and he'll lose to any liberal Democrat who reaches out to the center.
|
politics
|
no, undergrad is quite distinguished, I don't know where this myth about the undergrad being so much less meaningful than the MBA came from. Yes, I did go there for undergrad, so I am biased. But I took several classes with MBAs, and I heard professor after professor tell us that the MBAs are curved separately and more leniently. Are you familiar with MBA programs in general? It's barely about academics.
It's a popular saying that wharton undergrads don't go back for MBAs because they don't need them. I don't know how true it is, but it's definitely a common sentiment in certain circles.
Trump could have gone anywhere if he wanted. That's the privilege of the ultra-rich. He could have bought a seat at harvard, or any ivy/ivy-level school. Do you honestly think (before all of this negative publicity, of course) he couldn't have bought an MBA if he had wanted one?
|
politics
|
If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
-William Jennings Bryan
|
politics
|
If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
|
politics
|
Men like Gary Cohn mock Trump for not understanding inflation while clawing as much money out of the hands of the middle class as possible. That's the context here. Republicans who scoff at this story and call Trump unwell and the lobbyists who will laugh about this behind closed doors tonight wrote the latest $1.5T tax giveaway.
So either these billionaires begging for more tax breaks *know* they're driving the economy to calamity and just don't care because they'd rather have more money today even if it means having nothing tomorrow, or they're so fucking dumb and greedy that they can't tell the difference between what they're doing and what Trump's proposing here.
|
politics
|
Also, some older members of my family still hold grudges against the Southerners that hung Italians in Louisiana in the 1800's. Along with the Union Organizers/Civil Rights activist that some were Italian that got Lynched in the south from the 40's to the 60's. [Also, one of the reasons Hoover had links to the mafia was to use them and their anger at Southerners during those lynchings to get information on the KKK and Southern Lost Cause groups](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/31/usa.international).
The gay rights movement was a little more complicated. In that you had a diverse set of opinions within the Italian community but, they loved the money the Gay Demographic gave them through their bars. You had some gay mafia guys, some with just a "This is America, why should I care who they're fucking" and, others with the old world Catholic mentality. I'm Bisexual and Italian, and would love to say that the Mafia saw the gay Community's struggle as similar to how they saw the Black struggle but, it was way more complicated.
|
politics
|
"G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author and filmmaker. Griffin's writings promote a number of false views and conspiracy theories regarding various of his political, defense and health care interests. In his book World Without Cancer, he argues that cancer is a nutritional deficiency that can be cured by consuming amygdalin, a view regarded as quackery by the medical community.[2][3][4] He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes false theories about the motives behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System.[2][5] He is an HIV/AIDS denialist, supports the 9/11 Truth movement, and supports a specific John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory.[2] He also believes that the biblical Noah's Ark is located at the Durupınar site in Turkey.[6]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin
Also:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-story-behind-the-creature-from-jekyll-island-the-anti-fed-conspiracy-theory-bible
Just because it is in a book doesn't make it true.
|
politics
|
You are very condescending.
QE is fundamentally different than “creating money” so don’t play coy and act like there is a controversy there. The Fed purposefully used QE and other measures to counteract deflation during the recession and shore up financial institutions to prevent a downward spiral. And it worked without resulting in a vast increase in circulating currency. Your breakdown to monetary amount per person is very misleading in that regard. Not to mention that QE wasn’t “free money” to the banks.
The thing that matters is money in circulation not money in total. Printing more money would not have been great to solve the problems at the time.
Again, spurring inflation in a very directed fashion was what was needed at the time. We don’t need that now which is why the Fed is tightening interest rates amongst other measures.
|
politics
|
I believe in his fiscal stuff. The thing about the US is we are in a unique position where we owe our debts in our own currency. Other countries tend to use USD for their debts as well. So if hypothetically France wants to borrow money from Spain, Spain will give them USD and be owed that in return. This means France can’t just print money to pay back the loan, they have to acquire USD at the going exchange rate in order to pay their debt. If they print money, exchange rate plummets, and it doesn’t help them at all in acquiring the USD they owe.
When the United States borrows money, we borrow USD as well like every other country, and we do it by selling treasury bonds. When they come to term, we pay back the bonds in USD. So in actuality, we could with the flick of a pen print all the money we owe and pay all of our debts easily.
This would have the effect of diluting the exchange value of our currency for our own citizens, and we’d end up with a smaller overall percent of USD that exists. Unless of course we print even more money and give it to our own citizen. So let’s say every dollar you have becomes a hundred dollars, and everything becomes 100 times more expensive. This would in effect dilute the USD that we just created to pay our debts back to a reasonable percentage of our entire money supply.
We are in a unique position to do this. It would most certainly have repercussions and nobody would ever trust the USD again, but it is in fact true that we can print money to pay our debts.
|
politics
|
>I have been trying to figure out what the appeal of Trump is to his supporters.
One reason you struggle is that you would likely disagree with any Republican President policies, he makes an easy target.
But don't be a stupid as some progressives and think stupidity is in play with most of the support he gets.
**Trump supporters and supporters of many of Trump's policies are two very different things. The % of the GOP that like Trump the person is very small. The percent that like his policies, huge**.
If Trump gets two or three SC appoints through that are remarkably different than H.Clinton would have appointed, then I can hold my nose, puke occasionally and say it was good.
If he can reduce the mass inflow of illegal immigrants that allows shortages in labor to drive up lower level incomes, then I can say, he is a buffoon, but with a Democrat, the illegal immigration and income gap would continue to grow.
If he is finally the President that forces China to open up their markets to the same degree ours are opened to them, I say it took a crazy person to make that happen. (I notice when we put a 15-25% tariff on some products, China responds with 40% tariffs, because they were already at 25% to begin, to get a 15% increase they have to move to 40%).That has to stop. Forced technology transfer has to stop. Hillary, nor Jeb Bush would have pushed this hard for fair trade. I and the GOP love free trade, it does not exist equally today.
The tax reform bill was very important, not perfect, it may need to be adjusted to get revenues higher, but I am happy with the bill. Trump did nothing but sign it, but Hillary would not have signed it,
I want the US military to stop being the world's police. If Clinton or a Republican was elected would ISIS still hold territory? Probably we would still be as deep in that as we were when Obama left. I want to stop being the guys that stand between Russia and Europe, We can be in Nato from bases in America. I want South Korea to figure out how to defend (conventionally) their self against their much smaller and poorer neighbor without American troops. (We can remain their Nuclear umbrella)That idea seems foreign to our traditional politicians.
Trump is a buffoon. An idiot. Morally bankrupt as a family guy. A liar. Thank God there are traditional Republicans on his staff to temper his stupidity.
I can't wait until he is no longer The President, but only because of his character and his divisive statements. I am a 30 year Republican but didn't vote for him or Hillary in 2016, but I am not disappointed in his policy direction.
|
politics
|
How then can I go through the entire lower division economics course without ever learning the basics of money supply?
The professor chooses the textbook, and the textbook can be written by anyone with any agenda. I think you underestimate just how tied in the American economics discipline is with conservative politics. We are finally reaching a point where economics is becoming a true science instead of a pseudoscience, but that is only at the highest levels. It hasn't filtered down to the college coursework yet.
|
politics
|
My degree lacked programming languages that a lot of jobs require and threw in ones no one seems to be hiring for. I’ve had to keep on top and fill the gaps in my knowledge in my own time since graduating.
I think it’s the people who graduate and think they can take on the world when in reality their degree is simply a foundation that they must continually build on as their career progresses. Especially with the speed that new technologies come these days.
|
politics
|
A few concepts are necessary to put it all together.
First, the basic concept of credit spreads. If I borrow money at a rate x and I lend it out at another rate y, then y must be greater than x if I am to make money. So for a simple case, let's say I run a savings and loan. People make deposits with me, and I pay them a rate of 3%. I then take a portion of that money and lend it out to people who need loans at 5%. The spread would be 2%, and that is how I as a bank would make money.
Now the concept of fractional reserves. What I just described above is the basics of how all banks work. Before banks were regulated by the government, the amount of money a bank could lend out was a matter of custom and tradition. The traditional fractional reserve ration was 1 to 5. So if I have $500,000 in deposits, I only need to keep $100,000 around for withdrawals, and I can lend the remaining $400,000 out.
Since the people who have their deposits with my bank technically "have" their money, and the people I am lending it out to also "have" their money, I have basically made $900,000 out of $500,000.
So the money supply extends far beyond the actual amount of dollars in circulation.
Now back to the credit spreads thing, basically if there is a central bank governing the way money is lent out, they can raise the lowest possible interest rate there is, which "squeezes" the availability of credit. If they raise it a small amount. that means a small amount of loans cannot be made, because the risk exceeds the return. This is how the fed controls the growth of money supply.
It's actually quite inaccurate to say that the Fed "prints" money, because non-intervention would be not controlling the interest rates at all, letting the money supply get out of control like it was in the late 70s and early 80s! Better to think of them turning the knob on the faucet to slow the flow of money through the economy.
|
politics
|
> I don't know where this myth about the undergrad being so much less meaningful than the MBA came from
From the fact that nearly all actual business teaching is done at the MBA level and a 4 year business degree is what frat boys who don't want to be in college get.
>Do you honestly think (before all of this negative publicity, of course) he couldn't have bought an MBA if he had wanted one?
I do, because he doesn't have one, but clearly wants one.
|
politics
|
That is true. You also don't want to make the dollar too rare, because it will start to appreciate in value over time which is bad for the economy. People will sit on their cash instead of investing it. That's why the Fed shoots for a 2-3% inflation rate. Printing money isn't necessarily a bad thing (we did that to recover from the recession), but right now printing money would be disastrous.
|
politics
|
That's very well said. We find it online too. Watch videos by gold bugs like Mike Maloney or Peter Schiff and you get a wayyyy different economic education (Austrian school) than someone who believes in Keynesian economics. Supply side vs. Demand side, all that stuff, depending what you believe drives the economy will greatly influence how you perceive money and its role in the economy. As with most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
|
politics
|
Nah dude, you’re correct. Kudos to you for beating out 85% or whatever it is of the other applicants. An MBA is great, but you always hear about people getting in. Every kid I know that went to an Ivy League straight out of high school had to have straight As, 2100-2400 on the SAT, do community service every weekend for all four years, be class president on top of 5 other extracurriculars.
|
politics
|
Well here's a list of sources for you (from the bottom of the wikipedia page):
Vinny Eastwood Show March 25, 2011
^ a b c d Easter, Sean (March 26, 2011). "Who is G. Edward Griffin, Beck's Expert on The Federal Reserve?". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 2015-03-10. On his Fox News show, Glenn Beck presented Griffin as an authority on the history of the Federal Reserve System. Griffin has a history of holding and promoting various conspiracy hypotheses, whether founded or unfounded, that include notions that question the very existence of HIV/AIDS, as well as the view that the origin of cancer has to do with a specific dietary deficiency, and correspondingly, that cancer can be effectively cured with an 'essential food compound'.
^ Herbert V (May 1979). "Laetrile: the cult of cyanide. Promoting poison for profit". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 32 (5): 1121–58. PMID 219680.
^ Lerner IJ (February 1984). "The whys of cancer quackery". Cancer. 53 (3 Suppl): 815–9. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19840201)53:3+<815::aid-cncr2820531334>3.0.co;2-u. PMID 6362828.
^ a b c d Suebsaeng, Asawin (26 November 2015). "The Story Behind 'The Creature From Jekyll Island,' the Anti-Fed Conspiracy Theory Bible". The Daily Beast.
^ a b "The Discovery of Noah's Ark". Reality Zone. Retrieved 2008-03-06. This program was written and narrated by G. Edward Griffin.
^ a b c Who's Who in America 1994 (48th ed.). Marquis Who's Who. December 1993.
^ "G. Edward Griffin". WorldCat. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
^ a b Giraud, Victoria (May 22, 1995). "T.O.'s Griffin All Booked Up With Writing, Film Projects". Daily News of Los Angeles. G. Edward Griffin, author and documentary film producer, calls himself 'a plain vanilla researcher and writer.' But the projects he has completed don't deal with 'vanilla' subjects. They concern the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court, cancer and even Noah's ark. Perhaps a better description of Griffin is one he also admits to - 'Crusader Rabbit.' ...
^ Aune, James Arnt (2001). Selling the Free Market: The Rhetoric of Economic Correctness. Guilford Press. pp. 140–1. ISBN 1-57230-757-9.
^ Steele, Karen Dorn; Morlin, Bill (2000-09-02). "Get-rich pitch 'bogus': Seven states have determined Global Prosperity is an illegal pyramid scheme". The Spokesman Review. At age 65, 90 percent of Americans are broke, author G. Edward Griffin writes. He's a contributing editor of The New American Magazine, published by the John Birch Society. The United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Bank are plotting a system of world military and financial control to destroy American sovereignty, he writes. The book warns about the dangers of the New World Order and preaches that the United States should get out of the United Nations....There's little that's accurate in Griffin's book, says journalist [David] Marchant.
^ Sayre, Nora (1996). Sixties Going on Seventies. Rutgers University Press. p. 98. ISBN 0-8135-2193-9. In a wonderful lecture by G. Edward Griffin, slides and diagrams of triangles and arrows and circles show how the Conspiracy learned its techniques from the 18th Century Freemasons of Europe. ...
^ Stone, Barbara S. (February 1974). "The John Birch Society: A Profile". The Journal of Politics. 36 (1): 184–197. doi:10.2307/2129115. JSTOR 2129115.
^ Bourgoin, Suzanne Michele; Byers, Paula K. (1998). Encyclopedia of World Biography. Gale. ISBN 0-7876-2556-6.
^ Thornton, James (1993-12-13). "Remembering Robert Welch". John Birch Society. Archived from the original on 2008-11-27. Retrieved 2008-03-06. We invite you to learn more about him by reading The Life and Words of Robert Welch by G. Edward Griffin. ...
^ a b c Heidi Beirich. "Midwifing the Militias: Jekyll Island Gathering Recalls Another"(Spring 2010, Issue 137). Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2015-03-11. G. Edward Griffin, who helped organize the Jekyll Island gathering, may have been more revealing. Griffin, who wrote a scathing 1994 attack on the Fed published by the anti-communist John Birch Society and also a sympathetic biography of the group's founder, was the first to speak at the meeting. He told conferees that merely putting 'large numbers of people in the street' was not enough. 'We must,' he said, 'achieve power'.
^ Monares, Freddy (June 24, 2017). "Activists: Convention in Bozeman is 'alt-right' recruitment effort". Bozeman Daily Chronicle.
^ Hammett, Yvette C. (7 May 2008). "'He Thought He Had To Do Some Hero Thing': Gunman Shot, Killed At St. Pete Courthouse". Tampa Bay Times.
^ Thomas, Kenn (2002). Popular Paranoia: A Steamshovel Press Anthology. Adventures Unlimited Press. p. 298. ISBN 1-931882-06-1.
^ Ryssdal, Kai; Bodnar, Bridget (October 20, 2015). "How a secret meeting on Jekyll Island led to the Fed". MarketPlace.
^ "Bestselling business books". Calgary Herald. 2006-07-04. p. F5.
^ "Best-selling business books, April 14". Rocky Mountain News. 2007-04-14. Archived from the original on 2008-09-27. Retrieved 2008-02-29. 10. The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve: G. Edward Griffin. American Media. $24.50. ...
^ Paul listed Griffin's book on his "Reading List for a Free and Prosperous America". See: Paul, Ron (2007-04-30). The Revolution: A Manifesto. New York City, NY: Grand Central Publishing. pp. 169–70. ISBN 0-446-53751-9.
^ Flaherty, Edward. "Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories: Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting". Somerville, Massachusetts: Political Research Associates. Retrieved 2008-05-10. G. Edward Griffin lays out this conspiratorial version of history in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. Mainstream-approved academics have viscerally criticized the very nature of his research as "highly suspect", his methods of research as "amateurish, and his controversial historical conclusions by referring to them as "utterly preposterous" however. ... ...
^ a b c Lagnado, Lucette (2000-03-22). "Laetrile Makes a Comeback Selling to Patients Online". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
^ "Controversial Cancer Drug Laetrile Enters Political Realms". Middlesboro Daily News. 1977-08-10. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
^ "New Library Books". Books. Grand Forks Herald. 2003-07-13. p. 4. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
^ Kenadjian, Berdj (2006). From Darkness to Light. Zakarian, Martin, illus. (2d ed.). Phenix & Phenix Literary Publicists. p. 94. ISBN 978-1-933538-24-2. Retrieved 2009-03-17.
^ Milazzo, Stefania; Horneber, Markus (2015-04-28). "Laetrile treatment for cancer". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (4): CD005476. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005476.pub4. ISSN 1469-493X. PMID 25918920.
^ Nightingale SL (1984). "Laetrile: the regulatory challenge of an unproven remedy". Public Health Rep. 99 (4): 333–8. PMC 1424606 . PMID 6431478.
^ Landau, Emanuel (July 1976). "World without Cancer; the Story of Vitamin B17" (PDF). American Journal of Public Health. 66 (7): 696. doi:10.2105/AJPH.66.7.696-a. ISSN 0090-0036. PMC 1653400 . Retrieved 2008-03-05. The author maintains that the missing food nutrient is part of the nitriloside family which is found particularly in the seeds of the fruit family containing bitter almond ...
^ Jones, Marianna (1976-10-11). "Cure or fraud?". Walla Walla Union-Bulletin. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
^ "The Cancer Cure Foundation". The Cancer Cure Foundation. Retrieved 2015-03-11. This website provides an unbiased analysis of the major alternative-cancer clinics, treatments and therapies. It explains the theories of how these treatments work and where to locate doctors, practitioners and natural-health clinics. It also provides case histories of patients who have benefited from these non-conventional approaches.
^ "Chemtrails - Conspiracy Theory?". Australian Science. December 28, 2012. Retrieved 2015-03-11. The filmmakers bring in advocate and conspiracist G. Edward Griffin to join this chemtrail crusade. He talks about how chemtrails don't dissipate; that a permanent grid hangs over cities like Los Angeles.
|
politics
|
Well in that light you're really just finding those who were motivated to learn before going to college. There are many who do this and continued during college to learn outside of class as well, just like there are many who never went to college and continued learning on their own.
There's in general a different level of expectations for hiring a college grad and someone who has a few years experience which is effectively what your comparison is. I agree there's a probl with a lack of skills coming out of college for software.
My company plans to invest in college students, convert them to full time employment and then retain them. They've got a great track record of doing so. There are places for degrees but I don't think that the only answer is a degree either.
|
politics
|
I understand what you mean, I think, however I'm not sure that's really an accurate description either.
The Fed controls how much money is in circulation. They have a bunch of it basically in a back room that the economy doesn't touch and they buy treasury bonds on the open market when they want to increase how much is in circulation. They then sell the treasuries bonds that they have when they want to reduce how much is in circulation.
If that's what you meant then I agree, but I think the word "create" is wrong but I guess if the meaning is the same it doesn't really matter.
|
politics
|
So I replied to a similar comment below in the same way but I'll leave the same response here as well.
&#x200B;
I understand what you mean, I think, however I'm not sure that's really an accurate description either.
&#x200B;
The Fed controls how much money is in circulation. They have a bunch of it basically in a back room that the economy doesn't touch and they buy treasury bonds on the open market when they want to increase how much is in circulation. They then sell the treasuries bonds that they have when they want to reduce how much is in circulation.
&#x200B;
If that's what you meant then I agree, but I think the word "create" is wrong but I guess if the meaning is the same it doesn't really matter.
|
politics
|
I think I agree with you then, but I'm curious what you would define as "creating money" that is different from 'increasing the amount of money in circulation'
It's not quite accurate to say the Fed has a bunch of money in a back room they can withdrawal from to put into the economy, or take out as they wish. It's largely not physical money. And there's no hard limit to the amount of money the Fed is capable of introducing into the economy if they decide to do so.
|
politics
|
Well this one is completely false.
A long time ago they were gifted a whole bunch of money. This money sits in their vault either physically or digitally now. It is not in circulation but it still exists.
They increase the money supply by buying treasury bonds with the money they have in their vault or "back room". They don't print the money at that point in time. That's where I think you're getting confused. The money does exist its just not in circulation and so its not in the money supply.
This is straight from my Macroeconomics Professor.
|
politics
|
Sure, I get that, but I asked what you would call it then.
&#x200B;
Point being that we need two different terms to discuss the two different actions. The terms themselves aren't really as important as the understanding of the two different actions. I prefer to describe what the Fed does as increasing or decreasing the Money Supply and what the Treasury does as creating or printing money.
&#x200B;
You don't necessarily have to agree but I do think you need to pose two new descriptions if you are to disagree with the ones that I have put forth. Otherwise we can't actually discuss anything real and will be stuck in this debate over terminology which isn't as productive as we might otherwise be.
|
politics
|
>A long time ago they were gifted a whole bunch of money. This money sits in their vault either physically or digitally now. It is not in circulation but it still exists.
Lol, no, that's complete nonsense. The Fed directly increases the selling bank's reserve account at the Federal Reserve Bank without any corresponding decrease in any account anywhere else.
>They increase the money supply by buying treasury bonds with the money they have in their vault or "back room". They don't print the money at that point in time. That's where I think you're getting confused. The money does exist its just not in circulation and so its not in the money supply.
No, there is no back room or vault. There's no account for them to run out of money to buy securities. You are correct that they don't physically print the money at that point. The new money only exists electronically in the Reserve Bank. In fact, physically printing money never actually adds money to the money supply because it's always done in exchange for electronic money.
>This is straight from my Macroeconomics Professor.
Either you misunderstood what your professor was saying, or they were wrong. It's probably the first possibility.
|
politics
|
First line 2nd paragraph in the Forbes article. "The Fed, of course, does not literally print money."
5th paragraph same article: "My conversations lead me to believe that most people equate printing money or creating money (the term I’ll use from here on) with creating it out of thin air. They equate creating money with creating wealth—albeit paper wealth or false wealth with no corresponding real wealth production involved. **I’ve been sloppy myself in referring to creating money “out of thin air,” but that is simply not the case.**" Emphasis mine.
First paragraph in The Balance article: "What does it mean when someone says the Federal Reserve is printing money? It doesn't mean the Fed has a printing press that cranks out dollars. **Only the Treasury Department does that.**" Emphasis mine.
Thanks for proving my point. If you also notice most times when they say the Fed Prints Money they put quotation marks around "Prints Money". Meaning that they don't actually print the money.
You're misunderstanding comes from the way these things are talked about in news articles and the like. But again, I'm going to go with my own understanding and what my Macro prof, who may be a fed governor some day and who works alongside current fed governors and past governors, over your understanding.
Thanks
|
politics
|
Wow, so now you're cherry picking quotes to be intentionally misleading?
First line of the third paragraph from the Forbes article that you somehow skipped over:
> Open-market purchases by the Fed always create (print if you insist) new money.
From the Balance article:
> The Fed’s other tool is open market operations. The Fed buys Treasurys and other securities from banks and replaces them with credit. All central banks have this unique ability to create credit out of thin air. That’s just like printing money.
From the PBS article:
> The two main forms of money created by the U.S. government are currency — about a trillion dollar’s worth out there at the moment — and “Federal Reserves:” electronic blips on the books of financial institutions — mainly banks. The Fed does indeed create these so-called reserves “out of thin air,” as you put it, when it buys securities to increase the money supply.
From the Investopedia article:
> Central banks have since become much more technologically creative. The Fed figured out that money doesn't have to be physically present to work in an exchange. Businesses and consumers could use checks, debit and credit cards, balance transfers and online transactions. Money creation doesn't have to be physical, either; the central bank can simply imagine up new dollar balances and credit them to other accounts.
|
politics
|
I need to read more about this, but even what you describe is fundamentally different from printing money as Trump and his voters understand it.
Trump wants the treasury to print money — create it out of nowhere — and use it to pay off the government’s debt.
That is fundamentally different than *borrowing* money from a central bank or any other bank and needing to pay it back at a later time.
|
politics
|
The fact that newly created money is owed does not entirely discount the fact that it's still newly created money, getting transferred around the economy, meaning more dollars chasing the same amount of goods.
The Fed is under no obligation to ever reduce its balance sheet and sell off assets it creates via quantitative easing. It can keep the new money in circulation forever. The discount window money does need to get paid back.
Whether either of these mechanisms for introducing new money into the economy results in hyperinflation depends on how much money is created.
|
politics
|
Really Trump has not changed much yet that was actually going to be implemented. (we were never going to be able to hit the 54.5 MPG fleet average mandate by 2025, it was never a possibility. Half of the vehicles would have to average 75 mpg)
We have obligated to the tenants spelled out by Paris accord until November 2020. We are still involved but may (or may not) miss our aggressive 2025 reduction targets by a few percents.
Obama other major accomplishment was regarding regulations of existing coal plants. It is fortunate that the free market is actually going to ensure carbon emissions from coal plants is actually going to drop below the Obama EPA anticipated amount if the Clean Power Plan was fully enacted. (this is due to voluntary natural gas and diesel conversions of existing coal plants.)
https://www.hollandsentinel.com/news/20180831/coals-fate-is-sealed-trump-cant-change-it
|
politics
|
First off I am not defending this idea or saying this is advisable or makes sense, only that it's within the Fed's legal power to do so. The Fed could buy all outstanding federal debt through quantitative easing. This would not require any laws to be passed or any action from Congress or the President, just a majority of the Federal Open Market Committee.
This would likely result in hyperinflation and lots of people would end up dead in the aftermath.
|
politics
|
No I mean legally, they are non-profits and therefore operate differently than private businesses. There is no bottom line or profit margin. If you have a billion dollars could you buy your way into Harvard? Sure, colleges are concerned about funding and their endowment but they bank on prestige in order to attact students who will go on to be high achieving, which means more donations from happy as well as successful alumni. If they deflate their prestige too much by letting in idiots then they will no longer attract the same caliber of student—remember they publish acceptance rates, average GPA, etc. So it’s much harder to buy your way in now because admissions are more competitive than they’ve ever been.
Personally, when I was at my elite undergraduate college, I had some very wealthy friends and some very poor friends. But almost everyone I met was brilliant. Didn’t meet any sons or daughters of billionaires though.
|
politics
|
That’s exactly what I described. Except you went to (most likely like I did) a private school. I’m talking about state universities who use tax money to build football stadiums when our team is literally always buttcheeks (MN). Even when their sports teams profit RIDICULOUS amounts of money and then cannot stop raising tuition prices by 2-5% every year.
Sincerely, just please take a second to either reread or just think about my statement. Nothing like that exists (besides churches) but it’s absurd.
It is absolutely true that professors couldn’t fail Trump in college, logic tells you so. There’s an example of taking tax money, and then one of them being money making institutions.
It’s not private, and it hurts every state, and therefore collectively the country.
|
politics
|
You would mean that monetizing debt is not equivalent to ending the debt (which is debatable.) Quantitative easing is definitely equivalent to printing/creating money. Look at M1 Money Supply around 2009-2010. The steep increase beginning then is money being rapidly created, primarily from Fed quantitative easing.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1
I am not 100 percent sure on this but I believe it is current policy that federal debt gets immediately reissued as it's paid off. The principal never really gets net paid down.
|
politics
|
I'll reiterate it again, this is literally the term my Graduate level Macroeconomics professor used. He described it as literally a "back room". Frankly they are limited by what they have in that they have to ask Treasury for more printed money if they run out of what they have on hand. Now we don't know how much they do have but its safe to say that this isn't an issue.
Besides that, the "back room" is just to signify that these bills exists, either physically or digitally, yet they are not actually in the economy.
If you would like to suggest that my Professor is wrong I suggest you start showing some credentials because I'm going to take his PHD, 20+ years of experience, and that he works with politicians and central bankers of the highest levels over some random peoples comments on Reddit.
|
politics
|
Forget about Obama, let's talk about what the US President should be doing in 2018, given everything we know about the existential threat to our species over the next 50-1000 years.
The President largely sets the scope of political discourse in the country... and you prefer the guy who calls global warming a "Chinese hoax." You want to wait 8 more years before we have a President willing to take environmental issues seriously.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/
|
politics
|
I’m not sure you use the term “equivalent” in the same way I do. Equivalent means the results are exactly the same. It’s not debatable, because we just had a debate, and the end result is that there is no way for the Fed to do anything equivalent to the treasury printing money.
Policy? I mean, we are running a deficit, so any bonds that come due *need* to be reissued. There is no other option.
You are arguing that QE increases the money supply and printing money increases the money supply, therefore they are equivalent. That is not a rigorous application of the term “equivalent”.
The principle of least action and Newton’s Laws are equivalent. QE and printing money have similarities.
So, I hope we can both agree after this discussion that the all too common myth that the Fed prints money and pays down sovereign debt is incorrect.
|
politics
|
Right but they’re still non-profit entities. And while sportsteams like football generate millions, most of that money actually goes to coaching salaries and subsidizing other sports teams that don’t generate money but still cost money to run. Again, schools don’t have shareholders, the board of trustees don’t pay themselves millions. So no they aren’t businesses but still need funds to keep operating. I went to Amherst College, and while you had to be relatively brilliant to get an A you also had to majorly fuck up to fail, and no amount of wealth would keep you from failing. I went to school with the grandson of a professor and even he got kicked out. Also UPenn is a private school, so this is first you’re mentioning state schools.
Edit: a word
|
politics
|
I’m also from NC and lived the vast majority of my life on the coast. As someone who has witnessed the devastation of what a strong hurricane can do through my window, I’m way more concerned with what’s brewing off the coast right now than what some shadowy Latino boogeyman might be doing.
I still remember Hugo, Emily and Fran... they were nasty. Even Matthew was pretty gross and it wasn’t even a hurricane anymore when it reached the Carolinas. FEMA may not be great, but at least they’re tasked with actually helping.
|
politics
|
Ill-prepared? I don’t mean to make assumptions, but I’m guessing you live inland and are also pretty ignorant as to the devastation a hurricane can leave in it’s path. I’ve been lucky, but nobody can prepare for their roof blowing off, a tree crushing their living room or even their house just being completely decimated. It doesn’t matter how much water you have, how good your generator is... or even if you evacuate.
Be sure to tell the people with no homes or homes that are unlivable that FEMA can’t help them, but at least they don’t have to worry about that nasty Latino boogeyman getting them because ICE has that all under control.
As an added factoid: we have had a net negative migration of Latinos for the past few years and ICE has had nothing to do with it.
|
politics
|
FEMA doesn’t stop your roof from flying off or your house from being decimated.
If you *must* live in an area that is prone to hurricanes (which I would advise against)... you better have insurance that covers hurricane damage.
Your town better charge extra taxes to cover for repairs after a Hurricane.
If you can’t afford all that, don’t live there.
Yes, I live inland... my folks live on the coast. They are coming to stay with me tonight. They have insurance, they do not have a need for FEMA.
But what is fun... look up Hurricane Sandy and the amount of fraud that came with that! There was likely a lot they didn’t catch as well.
No thanks.
|
politics
|
> What about the things insurance doesn't pay for? Like rebuilding infrastructure including roads, sewers, water treatment, etc.?
What if my uncle had tits?
> Also, would being charged extra taxes by the town for emergency necessities not be pretty much the same thing as FEMA?
Well.. no... that’s a local deal.
I live in an area that doesn’t get natural disasters... I did so intentionally.
Why should I pay extra because other people live in dangerous places? Let the people who are submitting themselves to the risk be responsible for it!
|
politics
|
Try to come off a bit more pompous, you're not quite there yet.
Not everyone can live in places with few natural disasters, and even if they did it doesn't mean that they'd be assured a natural disaster wouldn't happen.
Take yourself for example...
You have chosen to live in a place with few natural disasters, so you probably don't carry something like tornado insurance. You're going to sit there, and tell me that you'd be completely fine with your house being destroyed by a tornado? Just chalk it up to "eh, it's my fault. I should have lived in a different place." Yeah, right...
Part of living in a society means that you help take care of people in need. I would hate to live in the America you envision.
|
politics
|
Do you think it’s lost on anyone that only the “law and order” party is upset to see Republican criminals going to prison?
We understand why you guys want it wrapped up, it looks horrible for your party that so many criminals are being brought up on charges. You’d want this to drag on for a decade if Dems were saying “guilty your honor”.
Shouldn’t you guys blame Trump for hiring so many criminal thugs? Since Nixon, has a modern president ever surrounded himself with so many felons?
Keep crying “that’s not fair!” and “but Hillary!” if it helps, it’s not going to change Mueller’s course or any of the guilty charges.
|
politics
|
It only "looks horrible for our party" because the MSM is hellbent on exploding every "negative" detail that hurts the party and ignoring everything else (like the FISA investigation).
Look, I know this has clearly gotten you worked up.
All I want to know is if Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 Presidential Election. Why? Because the answer to that question will decide my vote in 2016. I live in a CD that swings. My vote is important.
If it turns out that the Democrats have been peddling evidence-less lies for 2 straight years, I will vote against them.
If it turns out Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 Presidential Election I'll be voting for people that will impeach him (Democrats).
But I don't know what I don't know and I'm not a government process or legal expert of any sort, so I have to twiddle my thumbs and wait for news. So yes, it's very frustrating that I'm about to base my vote off the more convincing of two rumors, when this has had an investigation on it for a year and a half.
|
politics
|
There’s already TONS of evidence that he did collude and absolutely iron clad proof that at the very, very least, multiple top ranking officials in his campaign colluded with Russia to help influence the election.
Donald Jr himself released the evidence. It 100% happened, they don’t even deny it themselves.
If you honestly think there’s even a chance that “the Democrats have been peddling evidence-less lies for 2 straight years,” you’ve already made up your mind and you’re not even close to being unbiased or open to trump being in the wrong.
|
politics
|
There has been no evidence or convictions for collusion.
Donald Trump colluding with Russia in 2016 is a much bigger issue to me than Paul Manafort laundering money in 2013.
I am happy to see Manafort caught. No one should get away with that. But why did Mueller have to prosecute? He couldve handed the findings and evidence off to another agency and kept his eye on the prize, the issue people care about
|
politics
|
As it became increasingly difficult to deny the reality that Trump is a terrible president who will probably be impeached, they invented an entirely new reality for themselves - that Trump isn't *really* being investigated by Mueller, and in fact Trump and Mueller were working together to prosecute a worldwide pedophilia ring operated by Obama, Bill & Hillary, George Soros, and all the other liberal bogeymen you can think of.
In other words, just a bunch of conspiracy nuts who can't handle real life.
|
politics
|
The best explanation I have read was written on the sidebar of r/Qult_Headquarters. It's kinda long but it explains why the subreddit was so harmful and dangerous. I have been seeing the Q_Twits on reddit for quite awhile on a few dedicated subreddits. Admin banned a couple awhile back but did not follow through and deal with GreatAwakening.
It was frustrating. The subscribers seemed very violent and delusional. It was getting harder and harder to credit why Admin would not do something about it. Let's hope from here on out they do better. This is certainly a step in the right direction.
|
politics
|
I don’t want this to sound like I’m defending the denizens of Donald’s favorite subreddit, because I’m 120% not defending them... but they do seem a little more self-aware. *Just* a little. They do believe quite a bit of nonsense, but a lot of them seem to be mostly in it for the memes and liberal bashing, and will even tell you as much.
But people who contributed to great awakening seemed fully committed to their conspiracy, to the point that they tried to paint it as biblical prophecy. Where you can laugh and dismiss the_dipshits because you know they’re just assholes, great awakening was full of people who you legitimately worry need medical attention.
|
politics
|
I imagine you’re about to get downvoted into oblivion for this comment, but thank you. I’m glad Booker is fighting this nomination but he has a problematic history with big pharma and corporate campaign donations.
He’s angling for 2020 and that’s fine, but corporate money is one of the reasons that our representative democracy has become so flawed.
Good on him for fighting, but Booker is far from the progressive hero that he’s been made out to be around these parts.
|
politics
|
The better option is don't wait for or even look for a savior. I don't want a politician to lead us out of this wilderness. I want us to lead ourselves out of it. If someone can lead us somewhere then someone can lead us out of it. But if we can actually formulate a movement that goes somewhere without a leader then it might actually result in real and persistent change. If you think think voting every 2 or 4 years will fix things you are wrong. We need a movement based not on a person but ideas that requires on going action on a local level by many people. A functional democracy isn't just voting in elections when they happen it requires a population that is engaged in society every day whether it is an election year or not.
|
politics
|
Seperating children permanently is new.
And this is absolutely how genocide starts. Your already fucking commiting genocide according to the geneva convention.
What do you think is cheaper: indefinite detainment, or a bullet and a body bag? Keep in mind, the original plan for the Jews was detainment and deportation, but apparently deporting 11 million people was too expensive. Oh wait, it was actually less then that they were planning on deporting, 11 million is the number of illegals in the USA. My bad.
|
politics
|
Well, the Nazis didn't start off by killing people either. They started by putting them into camps and the plan was to deport the Jewish people to Madagascar. But hey, shocking I know, they found out that their plan would be way too expensive, I mean, who would've thought that removing millions of people from your country (especially if you try to do it in even marginally humane conditions) is expensive? Right?
Well keeping them locked up indefinitely is also quite expensive, even in these sickening conditions. So what's the plan? You know, they could have deported these kids, **with** their family, the moment they got caught crossing the border. They **chose** not to. On purpose. So what's the plan really?
Nobody is saying kids are being killed (although IIRC there have been deaths among these kids). People are pointing out the similarities. If you don't think this is a legitimate comparison by now, I suggest you open a book about Nazis and start with the 1930's.
|
politics
|
No, they're not "literal" concentration camps.
"a place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution "
&#x200B;
>Large numbers of people
yes
>especially political prisoners
No, they're detained because they're doing something illegal.
> members of persecuted minorities
Nope, again, you can be a legal mexican immigrant.
> in a relatively small area
Arguably.
>with inadequate facilities
No, not really. Those facilities are way better than not only the human traffickers, but the country they came from provided before.
>sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution
Obviously not.
|
politics
|
Copying my comment because you're full of shit.
&#x200B;
No, they're not "literal" concentration camps.
"a place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution "
>Large numbers of people
yes
>especially political prisoners
No, they're detained because they're doing something illegal.
>members of persecuted minorities
Nope, again, you can be a legal mexican immigrant.
>in a relatively small area
Arguably.
>with inadequate facilities
No, not really. Those facilities are way better than not only the human traffickers, but the country they came from provided before.
>sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution
Obviously not.
|
politics
|
No, they're not concentration camps.
"a place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution "
>Large numbers of people
yes
>especially political prisoners
No, they're detained because they're doing something illegal.
>members of persecuted minorities
Nope, again, you can be a legal mexican immigrant.
>in a relatively small area
Arguably.
>with inadequate facilities
No, not really. Those facilities are way better than not only the human traffickers, but the country they came from provided before.
>sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution
Obviously not.
|
politics
|
I'm honestly astonished that people think this is true. I mean let's walk through this for a moment.
If you detain adults who have children, you have exactly two options:
1. Detain the children too.
2. Separate them from the adults.
So in order for it to be true that neither of these things happened before Trump, it must be the case that border agents *never* detained adults who crossed the border illegally so long as those adults had children with them. Which is obviously bullshit. It's like no one bothers to think through the implications of what they've been led to believe.
|
politics
|
> No, they're detained because they're doing something illegal.
Seeking asylum is not illegal.
> > members of persecuted minorities
>
> Nope, again, you can be a legal mexican immigrant.
Can, sure, but the very fact that you're calling everyone from South, Central, and a big part of North America "Mexicans" is awfully telling.
> > in a relatively small area
>
> Arguably.
So there we go.
> with inadequate facilities
>
> No, not really. Those facilities are way better than not only the human traffickers,
If that's the bar you've set for humane treatment, you've already conceded defeat.
> but the country they came from provided before.
That's an assumption on your part. Asylum seekers are not street urchins. Many had lives of privilege they saw evaporate due to unrest.
> > sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution
>
> Obviously not.
It said "sometimes".
|
politics
|
Then I'll copy from mine to call you out on *your* bullshit.
> No, they're detained because they're doing something illegal.
Seeking asylum is not illegal.
> > members of persecuted minorities
>
> Nope, again, you can be a legal mexican immigrant.
Can, sure, but the very fact that you're calling everyone from South, Central, and a big part of North America "Mexicans" is awfully telling.
> > in a relatively small area
>
> Arguably.
So there we go.
> with inadequate facilities
>
> No, not really. Those facilities are way better than not only the human traffickers,
If that's the bar you've set for humane treatment, you've already conceded defeat.
> but the country they came from provided before.
That's an assumption on your part. Asylum seekers are not street urchins. Many had lives of privilege they saw evaporate due to unrest.
> > sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution
>
> Obviously not.
It said "sometimes".
|
politics
|
Asylum seekers are not kept in these detention facilities! Damn it I don't know how many times I need to say this, but you people keep spouting lies.
If an asylum seeker goes to a designated entry point, they are kept with their families and housed while they are processed.
If they cross the boarder illegally and try to claim asylum once they are caught, they ARE NOT asylum seekers.
Stop spreading misinformation
|
politics
|
> Seeking asylum is not illegal.
Lmao, crossing the border illegally and when you're caught saying that you were seeking Asylum is NOT how you seek asylum.
> Can, sure, but the very fact that you're calling everyone from South, Central, and a big part of North America "Mexicans" is awfully telling.
When did I call everyone from South, Central and North America mexicans? I said, as an example, that you can be a legal mexican immigrant, and the problem is not whether or not you're mexican, it's whether or not you're illegal.
Also, pretty sure practically no Argentinians or chileans cross the border to U.S illegally lol.
> If that's the bar you've set for humane treatment, you've already conceded defeat.
Education, Healthcare, Entertainment, Care, are all provided. What exactly do you think is inadequate?
> That's an assumption on your part. Asylum seekers are not street urchins. Many had lives of privilege they saw evaporate due to unrest.
Again, someone who crosses the border illegally and then says they are seeking asylum does not automatically save them from detention centres.
> It said "sometimes".
So pretty much the only thing you think applies to this case is " a place in which large numbers of people live in
a relatively small area..." and you haven't quite provided the evidence of why they are inadequate..
|
politics
|
> Seeking asylum is not illegal.
Then I suggest they seek asylum, not jump the border.
> So there we go.
There we go, what? Relative to what?
> If that's the bar you've set for humane treatment, you've already conceded defeat.
What's your bar? Daily servings of Hennessy and caviar?
> That's an assumption on your part.
Claims based on assumptions, can be refuted with assumptions.
> It said "sometimes".
Really? And what is your source that the US Government "sometimes" commits "mass executions" of illegal immigrants?
Finally, if you are below the age of 25, I forgive your ignorance. Just ignore this post and move along.
|
politics
|
> Lmao, crossing the border illegally and when you're caught saying that you were seeking Asylum is NOT how you seek asylum.
Except it is. Federal code allows for declaration at a port of entry OR in person to a federal agent. Those who have declared at ports of entry are routinely denied entry (which is illegal) and even when they are accepted, they still face family separation and indefinite detention. Courts have ruled this is illegal, but the practice continues.
> Also, pretty sure practically no Argentinians or chileans cross the border to U.S illegally lol.
[You'd be mistaken](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/refugee-and-asylum-seeker-populations-country-origin-and-destination). Those countries have tiny populations and still produce refugees.
> Education, Healthcare, Entertainment, Care, are all provided. What exactly do you think is inadequate?
You don't know what the conditions are like, and neither do I. Trump carved out these concentration camps from the mandatory audits required of other facilities. You're making a very bold assumption that runs counter to a reasonable assessment. If they were up to standards, they would gladly allow someone to see. They won't even allow senators access.
> Again, someone who crosses the border illegally and then says they are seeking asylum does not automatically save them from detention centres.
The courts have ruled the practice illegal. If you actually care about the rule of law, why are you not outraged by this?
> So pretty much the only thing you think applies to this case is " a place in which large numbers of people live in
> a relatively small area..." and you haven't quite provided the evidence of why they are inadequate..
Man you're exhausting. You need to research the stuff you're stating as fact. [There IS forced labor in ICE camps](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/17/us-private-prisons-forced-labour-detainees-modern-slavery).
I'll await your apology. ;)
|
politics
|
> xcept it is. Federal code allows for declaration at a port of entry OR in person to a federal agent.
" **(1)In general**
Any [alien](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=380&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158) who is physically present in the [United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=313&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158) or who arrives in the [United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=314&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158) (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the [United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=315&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158) after having been interdicted in international or [United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=316&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158) waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, [section 1225(b) of this title](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1225#b)"
" **(B)Time limit**
Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an [alien](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=382&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158) unless the [alien](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=383&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158) demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the [alien](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=384&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158)’s arrival in the [United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=317&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158)"
You didn't even read what you sent me lmao
> Those who have declared at ports of entry are routinely denied entry (which is illegal) and even when they are accepted, they still face family separation and indefinite detention.
Do you have evidence of this being a pattern?
> [You'd be mistaken](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/refugee-and-asylum-seeker-populations-country-origin-and-destination). Those countries have tiny populations and still produce refugees.
Ah yeah, the tiny population of 44 million argentinians. Of those 44 million, 214 refugees, which is practically nothing. Now compare that to 70 thousand mexicans.
> You don't know what the conditions are like, and neither do I
You need to provide evidence that they are inadequate, not me that they aren't.
> If they were up to standards, they would gladly allow someone to see. They won't even allow senators access.
You mean they won't let adults go into detention centres full of kids? Disgraceful!! ^(/s)
> The courts have ruled the practice illegal. If you actually care about the rule of law, why are you not outraged by this?
Already explained this to you
> Man you're exhausting. You need to research the stuff you're stating as fact. [There IS forced labor in ICE camps](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/17/us-private-prisons-forced-labour-detainees-modern-slavery).
" Stewart is operated by the largest prison corporation in the US, CoreCivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America), under a contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) "
Do you even read what you link?
&#x200B;
|
politics
|
1) How about you address all of the other non-sense you keep babbling about?
2) I never said they were. But thank you for pointing to a federal law that proves my point: Illegal Aliens are not Asylum Seekers. They are still required by law to follow the proper channels and actually **seek asylum**. Just because you land with two feet on our soil, does not mean you get an automatic pass as you are implying.
Don't believe me? Then how about you actually read U.S. Code § 1158 from top to bottom for all the conditions required, instead of using talking points from CNN and this sub.
|
politics
|
I'm not being hyperbolic, you're just bought in. So, I'm not going to put a lot of work into this, because I doubt you're going to give it any thought -
He rose to power due to a fractured field, much like the NKVD did. He also consolodated his base by demonizing an "other". He's stripped passports at the border of legal citizens, like Hitler did to the jews. He's run on restoring the fatherland to a former glory.
Also, his policies only _aren't dumb_ if you're into fascism
|
politics
|
No they're wrong for other reasons. I get that conservatives feel like rules only matter if you get caught, but some of us actually respect the rules because we understand how they facilitate advancing the discussion.
Vote brigades are designed to silence opinions by pressuring users into deleting their posts, and when that fails, it at least has the effect of hiding them.
It's shitty and anyone who engages in it is a shitty person whose comments cannot stand on their own merit.
|
politics
|
Potentially worse (for Americans):
Russia spreads propaganda that gives Red and Blue the impression a win is very likely, so both sides think they'll win. People go to the polls and on election night there's a power outage on the East coast ([like the Northeast Blackout of 2003](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003)) , for just enough time to seed doubt in the process. The following day no one would believe the results, and Trump can suspend elections until we "figure out what the hell is going on".
Russia has been infiltrating US power grids. PAPER BALLOTS are the MOST IMPORTANT issue concerning the midterms. Sure, register, vote, but if the system is laughably hackable physically and psychologically then what does it matter? People need to push very hard for Paper Ballots, and it's been very troubling trying to illustrate this point while being called delusional etc. This is a serious issue.
Hopefully Lawrence Mass wasn't a test run.
["Election night will be very interesting indeed!" - Donald J. Trump](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1038602549971116032)
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.