|
Post by Werebeaver on Aug 16, 2020 17:45:45 GMT -8
We Lloyd there are two sides. Seems people who want things open are Being insulted. The fear mongers talk loud like Antifa types. The crap going on is not helping. I am tired of living in a place where we have lost our freedoms. Enough. This makes me chuckle. Disagreement with your POV is "being insulted". And by the way those folks are "fear mongers" who "talk loud like Antifa types" and whose desire to take away your "freedoms" makes you tired. Self-parody at it's best.
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Aug 16, 2020 21:21:46 GMT -8
Princeton University. Here. And, anyone with any training in economics. Well it's no surprise, and certainly nothing new, that wealthy individuals and business interests have disproportionate influence in politics. When exactly was that not the case? And you don't exactly need "training in economics" to see it. But classifying economies does require training in economics. Socialism and Capitalism no longer exist. These were competing industrial age philosophies by which nations organized their economies. We are now in a technological-informational age and the defining economic organization is globalism.
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Aug 16, 2020 22:19:56 GMT -8
A-town Beaver said: "State agencies and public universities are subject to a myriad of state public disclosure rules, of which FOIA does not apply to at all." Just FYI, The FOIA does apply to public universities. Not state government.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 17, 2020 11:53:56 GMT -8
Well it's no surprise, and certainly nothing new, that wealthy individuals and business interests have disproportionate influence in politics. When exactly was that not the case? And you don't exactly need "training in economics" to see it. But classifying economies does require training in economics. Socialism and Capitalism no longer exist. These were competing industrial age philosophies by which nations organized their economies. We are now in a technological-informational age and the defining economic organization is globalism. The Hong Kong dissidents and I had a good laugh at your bolded sentence. The sentence before it is rank intellectual snobbery at its worst. Vox, of all places, has an article discussing why the study that you tout is bunk. RepresentUs is, by and large, a very hard left organization.
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Aug 17, 2020 12:00:02 GMT -8
But classifying economies does require training in economics. Socialism and Capitalism no longer exist. These were competing industrial age philosophies by which nations organized their economies. We are now in a technological-informational age and the defining economic organization is globalism. The Hong Kong dissidents and I had a good laugh at your bolded sentence. The sentence before it is rank intellectual snobbery at its worst. Vox, of all places, has an article discussing why the study that you tout is bunk. RepresentUs is, by and large, a very hard left organization. The "discussions" here on this illness seems to have nothing to do with the identification of what level of risk there is and the proper amount of risk mitigation, and everything to do with what side of the political isle you are on. But by and large, the people who feel most at risk are voting with their dollars, regardless of who is telling them what. A significant percentage of older segments of the population, who control the most money, aren't taking their cruises, their flights to see the grandkids, their casino trips, or dining regularly at restaurants. We can argue about who is right and wrong, but until these people feel safer, nothing we say matters. The economy is going to follow their lead.
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Aug 17, 2020 15:22:59 GMT -8
The Hong Kong dissidents and I had a good laugh at your bolded sentence. The sentence before it is rank intellectual snobbery at its worst. Vox, of all places, has an article discussing why the study that you tout is bunk. RepresentUs is, by and large, a very hard left organization. The "discussions" here on this illness seems to have nothing to do with the identification of what level of risk there is and the proper amount of risk mitigation, and everything to do with what side of the political isle you are on. But by and large, the people who feel most at risk are voting with their dollars, regardless of who is telling them what. A significant percentage of older segments of the population, who control the most money, aren't taking their cruises, their flights to see the grandkids, their casino trips, or dining regularly at restaurants. We can argue about who is right and wrong, but until these people feel safer, nothing we say matters. The economy is going to follow their lead. I'm voting with my hair. My last haircut was February. I think I'm going for the old guy in a pony tail look. It works for Willie Nelson. Related, Bill Walton said something like the world is improving, weed is legal and haircuts are illegal. I don't smoke weed, but I would give the sentiment a thumbs up if I could.
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Aug 17, 2020 15:32:03 GMT -8
But classifying economies does require training in economics. Socialism and Capitalism no longer exist. These were competing industrial age philosophies by which nations organized their economies. We are now in a technological-informational age and the defining economic organization is globalism. The Hong Kong dissidents and I had a good laugh at your bolded sentence. The sentence before it is rank intellectual snobbery at its worst. Vox, of all places, has an article discussing why the study that you tout is bunk. RepresentUs is, by and large, a very hard left organization. Show me a pure capitalist economy and a pure socialist economy. You can't. In fact, Marx was right -- partially -- when he said capitalism would usher in socialism. By utomation [computers and robots] will control and implement 80% of the global economy. What do we do about those no longer employable. Tax the pproductivity gains of removal of labor [the capitalist seeks to decrease costs and increase profits] and distribute it, in the form of a uniform basic income, to displaced workers. This is, essentially, a capitalist process leading to a socialist redistribution of capital [profits].
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 18, 2020 14:29:08 GMT -8
The Hong Kong dissidents and I had a good laugh at your bolded sentence. The sentence before it is rank intellectual snobbery at its worst. Vox, of all places, has an article discussing why the study that you tout is bunk. RepresentUs is, by and large, a very hard left organization. Show me a pure capitalist economy and a pure socialist economy. You can't. In fact, Marx was right -- partially -- when he said capitalism would usher in socialism. By utomation [computers and robots] will control and implement 80% of the global economy. What do we do about those no longer employable. Tax the pproductivity gains of removal of labor [the capitalist seeks to decrease costs and increase profits] and distribute it, in the form of a uniform basic income, to displaced workers. This is, essentially, a capitalist process leading to a socialist redistribution of capital [profits]. Marx was wrong about pretty much everything. When profits are removed, the economy ceases to function. Increased surveillance and oppression are necessary to keep the economy functioning in something approaching a meaningful way. A "worker-controlled" economy is invariably a facade that allows sociopaths the opportunity to bully and oppress minorities and the religious. Marx was a pie-in-the-sky, day-dreaming utopianist, who knew nothing about national economies and ignored the true nature of man. Marxism cannot function for prolonged periods of time, because it assumes that people are inherently good, as opposed to inherently bad. It stems from a foolhardy belief that absolute power does not corrupt. It also fails to account for the inherent generational problems with socialism, which leads to monstrous results, e.g., China's one-child policy. Saying Marx is partially right is nonsense. He had no idea what he was talking about. History has shown him to be wrong. Marxism always leads to oppression, deprivation and death. Always. His dopey proponents have killed tens of millions of people. There is no being partially correct. He was 100% wrong. 100%. The United States of America's Constitution starts from a belief that people are inherently bad. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thus, power must be divided up into several coequal branches of government. Similarly, power must be divided between the coequal branches of both Federal and state governments. This division of power allows us all personal and economic freedom. With these freedoms comes an equal opportunity to succeed. This almost invariably leads to unequal levels of success. However, that is a necessary byproduct of personal and economic liberty. Your first two sentences are an attempt to both move the goalposts and muddy the water. I never said anything about pure capitalism or pure socialism. You are missing the forest through the trees. The question is what should dominate. Does the market and freedom dominate the economy? Or does economic planning and oppression dominate the economy? China has stated that it is allowing its economy to become mixed to arrive at a better form of economic planning and purer socialism later. China is unapologetically socialist. And to the extent they are not, it is in the interests of becoming more socialist later. Your final paragraph is interesting, but it focuses too much on the global view IMO. There are flatly too many people on Earth already. The global average GDP/capita is $11,435.61/yr., about $952.97/mo. Can you live on $952.97/mo.? If you are part of the 80% of the World that is out of a job, because of automation, your appear to be championing a proposal, whereby everyone gets a check for $952.97/mo. It might work on a national scale. But I am still of the opinion that automation will lead to even great productivity and prosperity for most. My real concerns stem from increased food and water usage by an ever-increasing domestic population. It is exacerbated by the fact that increasing domestic population tends to lead to decreased food production. Eventually, you arrive at a point, where the United States of America is a net food importer. One natural disaster or one war from there, and we enter a very dark time.
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Aug 18, 2020 15:04:19 GMT -8
Show me a pure capitalist economy and a pure socialist economy. You can't. In fact, Marx was right -- partially -- when he said capitalism would usher in socialism. By utomation [computers and robots] will control and implement 80% of the global economy. What do we do about those no longer employable. Tax the pproductivity gains of removal of labor [the capitalist seeks to decrease costs and increase profits] and distribute it, in the form of a uniform basic income, to displaced workers. This is, essentially, a capitalist process leading to a socialist redistribution of capital [profits]. Marx was wrong about pretty much everything. When profits are removed, the economy ceases to function. Increased surveillance and oppression are necessary to keep the economy functioning in something approaching a meaningful way. A "worker-controlled" economy is invariably a facade that allows sociopaths the opportunity to bully and oppress minorities and the religious. Marx was a pie-in-the-sky, day-dreaming utopianist, who knew nothing about national economies and ignored the true nature of man. Marxism cannot function for prolonged periods of time, because it assumes that people are inherently good, as opposed to inherently bad. It stems from a foolhardy belief that absolute power does not corrupt. It also fails to account for the inherent generational problems with socialism, which leads to monstrous results, e.g., China's one-child policy. Saying Marx is partially right is nonsense. He had no idea what he was talking about. History has shown him to be wrong. Marxism always leads to oppression, deprivation and death. Always. His dopey proponents have killed tens of millions of people. There is no being partially correct. He was 100% wrong. 100%. The United States of America's Constitution starts from a belief that people are inherently bad. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thus, power must be divided up into several coequal branches of government. Similarly, power must be divided between the coequal branches of both Federal and state governments. This division of power allows us all personal and economic freedom. With these freedoms comes an equal opportunity to succeed. This almost invariably leads to unequal levels of success. However, that is a necessary byproduct of personal and economic liberty. Your first two sentences are an attempt to both move the goalposts and muddy the water. I never said anything about pure capitalism or pure socialism. You are missing the forest through the trees. The question is what should dominate. Does the market and freedom dominate the economy? Or does economic planning and oppression dominate the economy? China has stated that it is allowing its economy to become mixed to arrive at a better form of economic planning and purer socialism later. China is unapologetically socialist. And to the extent they are not, it is in the interests of becoming more socialist later. Your final paragraph is interesting, but it focuses too much on the global view IMO. There are flatly too many people on Earth already. The global average GDP/capita is $11,435.61/yr., about $952.97/mo. Can you live on $952.97/mo.? If you are part of the 80% of the World that is out of a job, because of automation, your appear to be championing a proposal, whereby everyone gets a check for $952.97/mo. It might work on a national scale. But I am still of the opinion that automation will lead to even great productivity and prosperity for most. My real concerns stem from increased food and water usage by an ever-increasing domestic population. It is exacerbated by the fact that increasing domestic population tends to lead to decreased food production. Eventually, you arrive at a point, where the United States of America is a net food importer. One natural disaster or one war from there, and we enter a very dark time. lol ... I said he was right about capitalism ushering in his view of socialism with respect to an economy that provides a life of leisure. His critique of capitalism was brilliant. His prescription was so very, very, wrong. "But I am still of the opinion that automation will lead to even great productivity and prosperity for most. My real concerns stem from increased food and water usage by an ever-increasing domestic population. It is exacerbated by the fact that increasing domestic population tends to lead to decreased food production." Oh, I agree. Except, the Chinese are investing heavily in Africa. Why? Africa has the land that a technologically-advanced country can exploit to grow food. Lots of food. When that happens -- with Africans working for peanuts -- the PRC gets those countries to file a complaint alleging against the USA for violating GATT by regulating African farmers out of our markets. This is likely to be successful resulting in the disappearance of all remaining family farms and bankruptcies of smaller corporate farms. That is, of course, if resource depletion doesn't result in World War III.
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Aug 18, 2020 15:28:37 GMT -8
The Hong Kong dissidents and I had a good laugh at your bolded sentence. The sentence before it is rank intellectual snobbery at its worst. Vox, of all places, has an article discussing why the study that you tout is bunk. RepresentUs is, by and large, a very hard left organization. Show me a pure capitalist economy and a pure socialist economy. You can't. In fact, Marx was right -- partially -- when he said capitalism would usher in socialism. By utomation [computers and robots] will control and implement 80% of the global economy. What do we do about those no longer employable. Tax the pproductivity gains of removal of labor [the capitalist seeks to decrease costs and increase profits] and distribute it, in the form of a uniform basic income, to displaced workers. This is, essentially, a capitalist process leading to a socialist redistribution of capital [profits]. Except that the amount of work to be done in this solar system is essentially infinite as far as our pea picking minds would understand. Displaced workers just find something else to do, the new entrants to the labor market won't even know they were displaced. I can't tell you what they will be doing, anymore then a hunter gatherer human could describe what we do, but they will be doing some kind of productive activity that someone else is willing to compensate them for. UBI talk is so premature now, our economy has been steaming along at essentially full employment since the great depression, most employers were complaining about a lack of employable people just a few months ago, and when the virus recedes they will be again be desperate for skilled workers.
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Aug 19, 2020 14:37:25 GMT -8
Show me a pure capitalist economy and a pure socialist economy. You can't. In fact, Marx was right -- partially -- when he said capitalism would usher in socialism. By utomation [computers and robots] will control and implement 80% of the global economy. What do we do about those no longer employable. Tax the pproductivity gains of removal of labor [the capitalist seeks to decrease costs and increase profits] and distribute it, in the form of a uniform basic income, to displaced workers. This is, essentially, a capitalist process leading to a socialist redistribution of capital [profits]. Except that the amount of work to be done in this solar system is essentially infinite as far as our pea picking minds would understand. Displaced workers just find something else to do, the new entrants to the labor market won't even know they were displaced. I can't tell you what they will be doing, anymore then a hunter gatherer human could describe what we do, but they will be doing some kind of productive activity that someone else is willing to compensate them for. UBI talk is so premature now, our economy has been steaming along at essentially full employment since the great depression, most employers were complaining about a lack of employable people just a few months ago, and when the virus recedes they will be again be desperate for skilled workers. lol
|
|
|
Post by OSUprof on Aug 19, 2020 17:02:22 GMT -8
Another perspective is that of Dr. Michael Ackerman, a recognized authority and cardiologist with specific expertise in myocarditis at the Mayo Clinic. From the article below: On Aug. 9, citing a Washington Post article on health experts’ fear that coronavirus could cause lasting heart complications for athletes, Ackerman tweeted, “I have heard some using this article 2 call 4 the cancellation of all university #sports this academic year. NONSENSE! The data cited can not compel that.’’ Ackerman said he thinks his tweet downplaying cardiac risks related to COVID-19 “caught the attention of the conferences that had not yet made their decision." USA TodayHere's a Q and A with Dr. Ackerman: Q and A with Dr. Ackerman
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Aug 19, 2020 17:26:35 GMT -8
Another perspective is that of Dr. Michael Ackerman, a recognized authority and cardiologist with specific expertise in myocarditis at the Mayo Clinic. From the article below: On Aug. 9, citing a Washington Post article on health experts’ fear that coronavirus could cause lasting heart complications for athletes, Ackerman tweeted, “I have heard some using this article 2 call 4 the cancellation of all university #sports this academic year. NONSENSE! The data cited can not compel that.’’ Ackerman said he thinks his tweet downplaying cardiac risks related to COVID-19 “caught the attention of the conferences that had not yet made their decision." USA TodayHere's a Q and A with Dr. Ackerman: Q and A with Dr. AckermanWell, you need to pick an actual doctor, one that is qualified in the area in question, not just some quack, like some posters here point out. They have science on the other side. And it’s better than your science! “Nothing "my way or the highway" about it. We are more convinced by science and we hold a greater conviction to the safety of the players, their families, and the public at large than perhaps you do.“ Here’s the best part after that first paragraph: “I keep an open mind. I'm still waiting for articles from doctors that say that playing football this year is a good idea...because it's easy to find articles of doctors saying don't do it.“ Open mind!
|
|