What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

It is just the bullshit of the day. Tomorrow the chattering classes will move on to something else.

[Syt]

Yes, but the key is to use the right language for the right audience. As we say in German, "the tone makes the music."

I would prefer that people stop pulling grievances out of their ass, but I think that era has passed.

Well, that would work if words didn't have connotations for people. I don't think the used term in this case is terribly bad, but I understand that it can rub people the wrong way. There are people out there who feel they are asked to risk their lives to ensure capitalist profits. And I assume if those (or other people who feel strongly about the power disparity between employer or employee) are labeled with a term generally used for inanimate objects (resource) or cattle (stock), they don't feel too good about that.

It's a qualitative difference if a CEO tells his employees, "You're our greatest resource!" (as clichéed a platitude as it is) or "You are a resource."

[The Minsky Moment]

Capital is a stock is an economic sense (profit or income is a flow). "Capital stock" is either an accounting/market concept referring to total issued shares or in a economic sense to connote the sense of all the capital that has been accumulated from the past to a present moment.  Eg company X has committed $Y of capital to an investment out of a total capital stock of $Z

"Human capital" is also inherently a stock concept in that it refers to an accumulated amount of skills, knowledge, learning, know how etc. "Human capital stock" I suppose could be used in the same sense of emphasis as capital stock although I can't immediately recall such a usage.  Human capital isn't exactly like capital capital in its divisibility and reducibility to money so the usage isn't quite the same.  Still I don't see a problem with the term "human capital stock" per se.

Hassett's usage, however, is just wrong under any definition and a bit weird.  "Human capital" or "human capital stock" refers to the store of human capabilities and knowledge but not to the actual human beings themselves that embody that human capital.  The econman term for that would be "labor force" or even just "Labor". 

[The Minsky Moment]

The Austrian education minister recently said thar it was important to me to open schools as soon as possible to prevent a significant loss of human capital. He had to apologize for using the term, because while an appropriate term in an economic discussion,  the majority of parents don't seem to like their kids being reduced to an economic resource on breakfast radio news.

Yet they would not object to worries about the loss of education or skills, which mean exactly the same thing.

Austrian ed minister's usage is more appropriate and logical, if perhaps politically tin eared.

[The Brain]

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/26/21270863/kevin-hassett-human-capital-stock-coronavirus

Vox takes AOC's side.

Vox wouldn't be the first publication I would expect to take the principled stand.  I did find out about a guy named Jonathan Chait through that article, who apparently is one such liberal I was looking for who tried to inject reason.  It did not go well for him...  Twitter does to critical thinking what nuclear weapons do to human capital stock. 

Help it live in safety?

[Sheilbh]

Were you unfamiliar with human capital and stocks before this?

Never heard the phrase "human capital" before and certainly wouldn't use the word "stock" to describe humans. It's a little bit Blade Runner, no?

Pivoting on the human capital stock a little, has anyone prominent on the left gone "Guys, hang on a minute, there is nothing wrong with what he said.  Human capital stock means..."  I tried googling for it but didn't find it, though I didn't look for long as I didn't want to expose myself to all the idiocy.

Yes. Twitter is ful of economist-splaining

Hassett's usage, however, is just wrong under any definition and a bit weird.  "Human capital" or "human capital stock" refers to the store of human capabilities and knowledge but not to the actual human beings themselves that embody that human capital.  The econman term for that would be "labor force" or even just "Labor". 

I'd also point out that "labour" or "workers" are also phrases that a normal person watching CNN would recognise, avoiding this whole nonsense.

[Tamas]

"human capital" "resource" are used for workers by those who want to sound professionally detached from the human aspect of working with humans. You can sugarcoat it, and yeah it's not that big a deal, but that's still why it is done.

[The Brain]

"human capital" "resource" are used for workers by those who want to sound professionally detached from the human aspect of working with humans. You can sugarcoat it, and yeah it's not that big a deal, but that's still why it is done.

That's not my experience at all. I'm sorry you've had bad experiences.

[Sheilbh]

"human capital" "resource" are used for workers by those who want to sound professionally detached from the human aspect of working with humans. You can sugarcoat it, and yeah it's not that big a deal, but that's still why it is done.

Yeah - I mean I find "human resources" a creepy name and also it feels of it's time. I think there'll probably be a shift on this from that sort of Office Space mentality. I know lots of big companies are doing re-branding exercises for their HR functions and I see the odd title like "Head of People and Culture" on LinkedIn now.

[The Larch]

About the social media executive order:

Trump draft order could expose Twitter and Facebook to more lawsuits
Review planned of law that protects social media firms from responsibility for users' content


Donald Trump is expected to order a review of a law that has long protected Twitter, Facebook and Google from being responsible for material posted by their users, according to a draft executive order seen by Reuters.

Trump has threatened to shut down websites he accuses of stifling conservative voices, after Twitter tagged two of Trump's tweets with a fact-check warning.

On Wednesday, officials said Trump would sign an executive order on social media companies on Thursday, but did not give details. The draft copy of the order seen by Reuters could be changed before the measure is finalised.

On Wednesday night Trump tweeted: "Big Tech is doing everything in their very considerable power to CENSOR in advance of the 2020 Election. If that happens, we no longer have our freedom. I will never let it happen!"

The executive order would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to propose and clarify regulations under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law largely exempting online platforms from legal liability for material their users post. Such changes could expose tech companies to more lawsuits.

The order asks the FCC to examine whether actions related to the editing of content by social media companies should potentially lead to the platform forfeiting its protections under section 230.

It requires the agency to look at whether a social media platform uses deceptive policies to moderate content and if its policies are inconsistent with its terms of service.

The draft order also states that the White House Office of Digital Strategy will re-establish a tool to help citizens report cases of online censorship.

The White House tech bias reporting tool will collect complaints of online censorship and submit them to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

The FTC will then be required to "consider taking action", examine whether complaints violate the law, draw up a report describing such complaints and make the report publicly available.

The draft order also requires the attorney general to establish a working group including state attorneys general that will examine the enforcement of state laws that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair and deceptive acts.

The working group will also monitor or create watchlists of users based on their interactions with content or other users.

Federal spending on online advertising will be reviewed by US government agencies to ensure there are no speech restrictions by the relevant platform.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[Sheilbh]

I may be stupid, but wouldn't that be more likely to harm the publishing of a lot of conservative/right-wing content at the minute?

I mean if you're also potentially liable for what Alex Johnes says about the Sandy Hook families, for example, you'd shut him down yesterday, no?

[grumbler]

"human capital" "resource" are used for workers by those who want to sound professionally detached from the human aspect of working with humans. You can sugarcoat it, and yeah it's not that big a deal, but that's still why it is done.

That's not my experience at all. I'm sorry you've had bad experiences.

Indeed, and while the analogy he was making (to the countries that experienced rapid economic growth after WW2 because they were the ones that had not had their material capital stock destroyed in the war) was while painfully advanced for his audience, pretty much required that he use "human capital stock" as the comparative term.

As I said before, this is just a guy who vastly over-estimated the intelligence or knowledge of his audience.  Outrage can be expected from those seeking to be outraged, and it really doesn't matter what he said under those circumstances.

[grumbler]

I may be stupid, but wouldn't that be more likely to harm the publishing of a lot of conservative/right-wing content at the minute?

I mean if you're also potentially liable for what Alex Johnes says about the Sandy Hook families, for example, you'd shut him down yesterday, no?

That would seem to follow, yes.  But I question whether this proposed EO is anything that will actually happen.  It wouldn't be Trump just stepping on his crank; it would be him dancing the Flamenco on his crank.

[The Minsky Moment]

I may be stupid, but wouldn't that be more likely to harm the publishing of a lot of conservative/right-wing content at the minute?

I mean if you're also potentially liable for what Alex Johnes says about the Sandy Hook families, for example, you'd shut him down yesterday, no?

Yes, the effect of the existing, protective version of the law is to allow the tech platforms to be more hands off in policing content.  Repeal it and the companies will have to be much more heavy handed regulating user content.  It's exactly backwards of the purported intent.

Of course, the real intent is simply to lash out blindly and harm those who insult his majesty.

[garbon]

Of course, the real intent is simply to lash out blindly and harm those who insult his majesty.

I thought it was to frighten them into giving up their policy of moderating his content.