Titus Oates, late in the reign of Charles II, is famed for having ginned up a wild conspiracy of Catholics to assassinate the King and install a regime of "popery" on the nation. His accusations were beyond absurd, Charles himself questioned him and laughed at him as an idiot, but the fears and hysteria of the arch-protestants made them willing to believe anything, no matter how idiotic, due to their fears of Catholicism.
Sound familiar? Look at how the 'baggers today view Washington, with that same ultimate paranoia that makes them willing to believe anything they are fed by the modern day Titus Oates--whether they be the Limbaughs, the Becks, the Fox News, no matter how hysterical or outlandish the accusations get, the fanatics--whether 'baggers or archprotestants, are willing to believe them.
I think the psychology between the 'baggers and the archreligious is the same, the only difference really is the object of their hatred and fear.
That does certainly seem to be the case regarding the mainstream media, some of these folks and their accusations against the tea party movement. Thanks, Umair. I didn't think you had it in you to be rational. Well done. What you believe as a tea party person and what the national tea party lead by the Kock brothers is totally different than your view. They are not interested in making this country better for you and me. They don't give a shit about your freedoms. Their goal is to make more money for themselves and are more than willing to use the tea party to obtain their goal. Just as many politicians try and use the church for political gai Really? Is that why they donated, what was it? a hundred million to a hospital? And is that why they donated 25 million to the United Negro College fund? Because they don't care about anyone's freedoms? How do you think they made money on just those two donations? Do tell, please. |
|
|
|
I am skeptical of campaign finance reform because all of the proposals I have seen greatly favor incumbency, which tends to favor entrenched interests. Besides, most regulatory bodies are run by bureaucrats and executive appointments, not elected officials. We can agree about Krugman. He is a grave disservice to everyone but himself.
Institution building and reform is a process, the legislative branch is generally a good place to start given the pressures and influences that they can have elsewhere and in terms of being able to highlight issues for national discussion (to say nothing of their law making abilities). |
|
|
|
If we had an Bitcointalk book club I'd suggest "The Price of Inequality" by Joseph Stiglitz. Which deals with issues such as these. I've been meaning to read it ever since it came out, but haven't gotten to it yet.
While I have not read that book, I have read a lot by Stiglitz. I will read the book, but Stiglitz seems to get it wrong more than he gets it right. During the financial crisis he was bemoaning the system of privatized gains and socialized losses that the bailouts created. But, before the crisis, he was in favor of explicit government guarantees of institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I am not sure I can take him seriously. Weather you agree with him or not in everything, one thing that I like about Stiglitz is that he is very analytical and willing to elaborate on his opinions. No one is always going to be right, that's not how economics works, but I find Stiglitz pretty useful for his analysis and breakdown abilities. He is useful for sparking discussion and is much better to read than someone presenting an emotive argument on the subject. He's an infinitely better writer than Paul Krugman for example. |
|
|
|
|
If we had an Bitcointalk book club I'd suggest "The Price of Inequality" by Joseph Stiglitz. Which deals with issues such as these. I've been meaning to read it ever since it came out, but haven't gotten to it yet.
|
|
|
|
There is a lot I do not understand about the "inequality" crowd. For one, what equality are they concerned with? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? In my view, no form of government or economy has ever designed a way to provide for equality of outcomes, and those that have tried have failed miserably. And market capitalism, especially American market capitalism, has proven time and time again to provide the best equality of opportunity while at the same time increasing general prosperity.
The other thing I do not understand is what I will call the "Pinketty solution." Pinketty correctly identifies a problem: return on capital is higher than general growth (r>g), so the rich get richer while the laboring classes' wages do not increase as quickly. But his solution is perverse: a punitive tax (80%) on all income over $500,000. I think we can all agree that this will have the effect of reducing the number of capitalists in the world. How can this be a good thing? If returns on capital exceed general growth, shouldn't the goal be to create more capitalists, not less?
One thing that is inseparable from this subject and has a lot to do with inequality is the fact that financial power within our society tends to translate into political power and that can be a self reinforcing fact of life. So we are left with wealthy individuals who are better able to influence law making to best suit their desires over those of us in the middle and lower income classes. That is a very visible aspect of our society and I think it (rightfully) angers people when they feel like they have no voice or that their voice is getting drowned out by a wave of money coming from a 1%. That's another part I do not understand about this debate. It appears to me that most of the people clamoring for government to address "inequality" are also in favor of more expansive government. Won't that just lead to more regulatory capture? Doesn't more government just create more opportunities for manipulation and crony capitalism? Well big businesses already have a lot of regulatory capture. I imagine (I can't speak for them) that the desire is to use government to change the system in a way that would limit such capture and reduce current capturing abilities (like through campaign finance reform initiatives). |
|
|
|
I'm in LA right now. Happy to move up north. Don't let anyone fool you, Los Angeles is a total pit of a place....
Seriously? Why is that? I'm pretty sure that I'd move to Silicon Valley. Before you move to Silicon Valley, you should - assess your savings and see how long those will last - plan accordingly - be prepared to answer "equity only" offers, especially with nascent startups - build business contacts and/or get introductions in the area prior to arrival |
|
|
|
10.Seoul — Expects 8.63 million visitors in 2014.
9. Hong Kong — Expects 8.84 million visitors in 2014.
8. Kuala Lumpur — Expects 10.81 million visitors in 2014.
7. Istanbul — Expects 11.6 million visitors in 2014.
6. New York — Expects 11.81 million visitors in 2014.
5. Dubai — Expects 11.95 million visitors in 2014.
4. Singapore — Expects 12.47 million visitors in 2014.
3. Paris — Expects 15.57 million visitors in 2014.
2. Bangkok — Expects 16.42 million visitors in 2014.
1. London — Expects 18.7 million visitors in 2014.
Well considering the disappearing of Malaysian airplane from 4 months ago,and the tragedy from 2 days ago,Kuala Lumpur and Malaysia will loose a good number of tourist. |
|
|
|
There is a lot I do not understand about the "inequality" crowd. For one, what equality are they concerned with? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? In my view, no form of government or economy has ever designed a way to provide for equality of outcomes, and those that have tried have failed miserably. And market capitalism, especially American market capitalism, has proven time and time again to provide the best equality of opportunity while at the same time increasing general prosperity.
The other thing I do not understand is what I will call the "Pinketty solution." Pinketty correctly identifies a problem: return on capital is higher than general growth (r>g), so the rich get richer while the laboring classes' wages do not increase as quickly. But his solution is perverse: a punitive tax (80%) on all income over $500,000. I think we can all agree that this will have the effect of reducing the number of capitalists in the world. How can this be a good thing? If returns on capital exceed general growth, shouldn't the goal be to create more capitalists, not less?
One thing that is inseparable from this subject and has a lot to do with inequality is the fact that financial power within our society tends to translate into political power and that can be a self reinforcing fact of life. So we are left with wealthy individuals who are better able to influence law making to best suit their desires over those of us in the middle and lower income classes. That is a very visible aspect of our society and I think it (rightfully) angers people when they feel like they have no voice or that their voice is getting drowned out by a wave of money coming from a 1%. |
|
|
|
|
I don't either. I also think though, that the national dialogue is rather driven by such people who, as you mentioned, tend to rely on emotive one liners or reduced and distilled talking points which are easier to understand, but leave a lot out leading to misconceptions and bad information.
|
|
|
|
|
What do the people in Palestine and Israel want though? I've heard more than enough of what the leadership thinks. Where do the people stand, in relation to the struggle and their leaderships' inability to deal with it?
|
|
|
|
|
Another benefit that Reagan had that Obama does not have, is that he did not have an entire political movement eager to destroy him to the point where they trashed him instead of the Soviets for the incident. There is absolutely nothing that could happen in this world that would get the radical right to stand behind their President. A terrorist could detonate a suitcase nuke in Denver and the right would trash the President rather than back him in going after the perpetrators. The support the left gave to Reagan in his admonishment of the Soviets for the KAL shoot down, or even to Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks would NEVER be given from the right to President Obama. They just don't have it in them to put their country first ahead of their party power.
|
|
|
|
Just heard Juan Williams slap down Obama saying the optics look bad for him to be off fundraising..... 'It looks like it may be a terrible tragedy': Obama sparks anger with 40-second mention of Malaysian plane crash that killed '23 Americans' before giving transportation speech Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 crashed in eastern Ukraine on Thursday, killing all 295 passengers on board including 23 Americans, according to some reports President Obama said his national security team is working on identifying the U.S. citizens – and then launched into jokes and 16 minutes of prepared remarks Twitter erupted with digital eye-rolls at Obama's curt mention of the 'tragedy' that the Ukrainian government quickly called a 'criminal case' House Speaker John Boehner offered a solemn statement, saying 'many innocents were killed today. It is horrifying.' Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696366/It-looks-like-terrible-tragedy-Obama-briefly-addresses-Malaysian-plane-crash-emerges-23-U-S-passengers-board.html#ixzz37lmMQkgxI had the news on when they cut to his speech and I muted the tv because he started with a chuckle, I'm glad I hit mute, its bad enough to read his words let alone hear him make jokes about 23 Americans killed in an unprovoked attack. Anyone see the irony that on the night of the Benghazi attack on September 12 obama ignored the attack on Americans so he could prepare for a campaign speech? That's why the truth about that night was hidden and the lies about a protest came out, to protect obama so the world wouldn't know that this, the above, is what he calls leadership. And all those claims that he's disconnected from the job and from the crisis's going on all over, this proves they're very right. Every time anything happens around the world Obama goes to a fund raiser and proves our country inept and totally devoid of any leadership. I can remember when his mindless minions were telling us how much more peaceful the world would be when he was elected. He is a complete moron and that is exactly the reason I did not vote for him. The manifest said there were 23 Americans on board... number might be off by one or two, people miss flights, but there were definitely Americans on board. If the 23 Americans on board manifest is correct, besides more sanctions on Russia...what more can we do to that asshole Putin? I think that POS is just laughing at us and the rest of the world now. And he would laugh at more sanctions...and probably just limit fuel/energy delivery to western Europe in retaliation. And what is our fearless leader up to? Fundraising/partying in NYC. In your first paragraph, you acknowledge that there's really not much more we can do to Putin than to increase sanctions, which won't really accomplish anything. Then you turn around and toss off the standard kneejerk insult to President Obama that he's going about his normal daily business. "Good Lord" is right. But it's got nothing to do with anything the President is doing or not doing. |
|
|
|
Just heard Juan Williams slap down Obama saying the optics look bad for him to be off fundraising..... 'It looks like it may be a terrible tragedy': Obama sparks anger with 40-second mention of Malaysian plane crash that killed '23 Americans' before giving transportation speech Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 crashed in eastern Ukraine on Thursday, killing all 295 passengers on board including 23 Americans, according to some reports President Obama said his national security team is working on identifying the U.S. citizens – and then launched into jokes and 16 minutes of prepared remarks Twitter erupted with digital eye-rolls at Obama's curt mention of the 'tragedy' that the Ukrainian government quickly called a 'criminal case' House Speaker John Boehner offered a solemn statement, saying 'many innocents were killed today. It is horrifying.' Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696366/It-looks-like-terrible-tragedy-Obama-briefly-addresses-Malaysian-plane-crash-emerges-23-U-S-passengers-board.html#ixzz37lmMQkgxI had the news on when they cut to his speech and I muted the tv because he started with a chuckle, I'm glad I hit mute, its bad enough to read his words let alone hear him make jokes about 23 Americans killed in an unprovoked attack. Anyone see the irony that on the night of the Benghazi attack on September 12 obama ignored the attack on Americans so he could prepare for a campaign speech? That's why the truth about that night was hidden and the lies about a protest came out, to protect obama so the world wouldn't know that this, the above, is what he calls leadership. And all those claims that he's disconnected from the job and from the crisis's going on all over, this proves they're very right. Every time anything happens around the world Obama goes to a fund raiser and proves our country inept and totally devoid of any leadership. I can remember when his mindless minions were telling us how much more peaceful the world would be when he was elected. He is a complete moron and that is exactly the reason I did not vote for him. The manifest said there were 23 Americans on board... number might be off by one or two, people miss flights, but there were definitely Americans on board. |
|
|
|
Just heard Juan Williams slap down Obama saying the optics look bad for him to be off fundraising..... 'It looks like it may be a terrible tragedy': Obama sparks anger with 40-second mention of Malaysian plane crash that killed '23 Americans' before giving transportation speech Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 crashed in eastern Ukraine on Thursday, killing all 295 passengers on board including 23 Americans, according to some reports President Obama said his national security team is working on identifying the U.S. citizens – and then launched into jokes and 16 minutes of prepared remarks Twitter erupted with digital eye-rolls at Obama's curt mention of the 'tragedy' that the Ukrainian government quickly called a 'criminal case' House Speaker John Boehner offered a solemn statement, saying 'many innocents were killed today. It is horrifying.' Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696366/It-looks-like-terrible-tragedy-Obama-briefly-addresses-Malaysian-plane-crash-emerges-23-U-S-passengers-board.html#ixzz37lmMQkgxI had the news on when they cut to his speech and I muted the tv because he started with a chuckle, I'm glad I hit mute, its bad enough to read his words let alone hear him make jokes about 23 Americans killed in an unprovoked attack. Anyone see the irony that on the night of the Benghazi attack on September 12 obama ignored the attack on Americans so he could prepare for a campaign speech? That's why the truth about that night was hidden and the lies about a protest came out, to protect obama so the world wouldn't know that this, the above, is what he calls leadership. And all those claims that he's disconnected from the job and from the crisis's going on all over, this proves they're very right. |
|
|
|
What would you call the Allied campaigns of firebombing German and Japanese cities, or using nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki if not collective punishment? This war was remarkably successful precisely because the US showed a willingness to escalate violence to an unlimited level in order to win. Something which has not been done in any conflict since. Seems a bit disingenuous to compare a formal war with an insurgency and terrorist related violence. The two aren't fought in the same way. Nor are they fought with the same weapons. You're stuck on WWII but it isn't the 40's anymore. |
|
|
|
There's never been a good example of an occupying force succeeding with a population-centric counter insurgency strategy. The most successful examples of crushing insurgencies, like Sri Lanka, involved a willingness to use violence and force to achieve victory. Hasn't worked too well in over 50 years, seems like a new tactic should be called for. And your grand strategy for conflict has already been utilized over the course of decades in the Sudan, probably to the best that anyone could hope to realistically utilize it. Bashir literally got away with genocide and ethnic cleansing and has been since 1989. And it has completely failed him. Sure he has been able to stay in power, but he lost the southern half of his country, and is losing control of a half dozen other internal states as well. It simply doesn't work; and now when Bashir has tried to backtrack he's found the SPLM-N announce today that it is joining forced with the Janjaweed against Khartoum. He ended up losing control of his own monsters. You also mentioned Sri Lanka? That ended, but it took 26 years. Not really a big win, and even now the harshness of how it ended is causing domestic problems. In fact there were warnings of rising extremism just today within Sri Lanka over clashes which have threatened the country with renewed instability. |
|
|
|
It is largely Jihadi Salafi groups firing the rockets, groups that are actually opposed to Hamas, which is why it is easier to recognize the overzealous targeting of Hamas in the campaign. the same was true of their search for and accusations surrounding the missing students which third party groups claimed responsibility for, but which Netanyahu took the opportunity to blame on Hamas instead and used it as a justification to illegally harass and target Hamas affiliates. Easy. Because these Salafist groups are operating because of either the incompetence of Hamas, or their weakness, and because of the acquiescence or support of the civilian population. Collective responsibility merits collective punishment. Gaza's population supported Hamas, and acquiesces to, if not outright supports the Salafists. It makes absolute sense to hold them collectively responsible for allowing terrorists to operate amongst them. There's never been a good example of an occupying force succeeding with a population-centric counter insurgency strategy. The most successful examples of crushing insurgencies, like Sri Lanka, involved a willingness to use violence and force to achieve victory. You're contradicting yourself here, Salafists tend to hate the Muslim Brotherhood. Claiming that the Gazan population loves both the Salafists and Hamas doesn't make any sense. It's also dumb to assume that just because a group operates within a territory that 1.) the government likes them and 2.) that the population likes them. I'm pretty sure that the people who suffer from Mayi Mayi attacks in the DRC don't do so with smiles. Nor does it make sense to bomb government forces that are aligned against them if your goal is to see them destroyed. It's pretty dumb to bomb Kinshasa and kill their soldiers while asking them why they aren't able to kill off the M23 rebels. |
|
|
|
|
What I saw on TV is McCain jumping up and down in a Limbaugh fashion crying that the world will not think we are the most powerful nation on earth. He is a complete nut and that is exactly the reason I did not vote for him. Every time anything happens around the world he wants to go and prove our country is still the most powerful country on this earth by going to war. That shows weakness not strength.
|
|
|
|
It's such an emotional issue dependent on where you stand. You have people like the Hilton sisters who make people question whether they really deserve what they have for doing nothing. But these same people seem to have no issue with what Justin Beaver or LeBron James and others make. Nasty CEO's and their millions are just horrible people when so many of our citizens "deserve" a piece of their pie to make their lives so much easier.
Personally I'd rater see an increase in opportunity equality than simply focusing on income.
It isn't just about that though, it is also about tax inequality in terms of the rate at which we are effectively taxed. Ideally, it would be a bit progressive like our graduated income tax, in reality though the wealthy often have access to mechanisms that can effectively give them lower tax rates than some middle class households (the same goes for big businesses). I pay more in taxes than General Electric does for example (as a percentage). If we simply removed loopholes would that work for you? What about loopholes that government has put in place giving tax breaks for job creation, etc? GE gives back in the way of jobs and innovation. How many poor families can now afford refrigerators compared to the poor of the past? Same goes for cars, TV's, phones, etc. Sure, we can make them pay more but they have the capability of moving large portions of their infrastructure to other countries (global economy) which some say would hurt our poor (and hurt ever growing government coffers....and government keeps wanting more so who pays?) more than helping our economy. President Obama has suggested closing some loopholes, the problem of course is that Verizon for example has much stronger lobbying power in Congress than I do. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have to pay taxes, or that I should have to have a heavier tax burden than they do. In fact you were JUST referencing the concept of entitlement negatively in your previous post. But suddenly you are relying on it to justify tax inequalities against the middle to lower income class? |
|
|
|
It's such an emotional issue dependent on where you stand. You have people like the Hilton sisters who make people question whether they really deserve what they have for doing nothing. But these same people seem to have no issue with what Justin Beaver or LeBron James and others make. Nasty CEO's and their millions are just horrible people when so many of our citizens "deserve" a piece of their pie to make their lives so much easier.
Personally I'd rater see an increase in opportunity equality than simply focusing on income.
It isn't just about that though, it is also about tax inequality in terms of the rate at which we are effectively taxed. Ideally, it would be a bit progressive like our graduated income tax, in reality though the wealthy often have access to mechanisms that can effectively give them lower tax rates than some middle class households (the same goes for big businesses). I pay more in taxes than General Electric does for example (as a percentage). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
