Starts in about three and a half hours.
:zzz
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 28, 2014, 04:24:27 PM
:zzz
Getting an early nap so you can be fully alert during the speech? Good plan.
The state of our Union is strong, blah blah blah.
Send a letter <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 28, 2014, 04:53:48 PM
Send a letter <_<
Why don't they go back to that, I wonder? I guess the administrations just think the air time is too valuable a platform to pass up.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2014, 05:23:37 PM
Why don't they go back to that, I wonder? I guess the administrations just think the air time is too valuable a platform to pass up.
Also it's a chance for Republican pomp and circumstance. All Congress sat together; the President walking in shaking hands with the Speaker; a few Supreme Court Justices sat in the front row. I mean it's the most tedious ceremonial but that's still probably part of why it happens.
They should have a plot board based on the Congressional seating chart, so you can place bets on which GOP negro-hater is going to interrupt him.
All branches of the government in the same room? What if the Russians found out?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 28, 2014, 07:15:46 PM
All branches of the government in the same room? What if the Russians found out?
They'll see the big board!
Which cabinet member is sitting out? Which Justice?
Anybody know the over/under on the number of times Urkel says "workin' folks"?
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 07:36:53 PM
Urkel
What, out of code words already this week? Used up "thug" too early?
I'm going to say zero. That's not SOTU caliber language. More like a pep rally in front of union stooges.
Over/under on "hard working middle class Americans" (or some variant) is six.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 07:39:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 07:36:53 PM
Urkel
What, out of code words already this week? Used up "thug" too early?
Looks like you missed it on the other thread so I figured I'd repeat it here for your benefit :hug:
Anyway, from what I understand one of the main memes tonight will be economic inequality. So I'm sure that'll go over real big.
Speaking of irrelevant things...
I'm watching Law and Order. :smarty:
Quote from: garbon on January 28, 2014, 08:15:07 PM
Speaking of irrelevant things...
Yeah, that and minimum wage and long-term unemployment. Talk about chasing waterfalls.
So how many Republican rebuttals are there going to be this time? I've heard of three possibly four.
LOL, let the Tweets begin, courtesy of Congressman Randy Weber of Texas.
QuoteRandy Weber @TXRandy14 5m
SOTU = Sorry Our Time's Up. POTUS = Poor Obama Trashed U.S. We shouldn't be surprised. He promised to "fundamentally change US" Boy is he?!
Expand
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
Randy Weber @TXRandy14 15m
SOTU: I never said if you like your country you can keep it. He can't blame Bush anymore. Will it be his phone and pen next time he blames?
Expand
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
Randy Weber @TXRandy14 37m
On floor of house waitin on "Kommandant-In-Chef"... the Socialistic dictator who's been feeding US a line or is it "A-Lying?"
"A-Lying"?
Wow.
What the heck, I'll watch a little of it.
But I'm watching it on Fox :menace:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2014, 07:19:38 PM
Which cabinet member is sitting out?
Secretary of Energy. 12th in succession.
edit: not like it matters, though. Even in the event of a small nuclear detonation, Joe Biden would emerge from the ashes totally unscathed, protected from the blast by Justice Scalia. Because that's how life plays out for Joe Biden.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 08:54:36 PM
LOL, let the Tweets begin, courtesy of Congressman Randy Weber of Texas.
QuoteRandy Weber @TXRandy14 5m
SOTU = Sorry Our Time's Up. POTUS = Poor Obama Trashed U.S. We shouldn't be surprised. He promised to "fundamentally change US" Boy is he?!
Expand
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
Randy Weber @TXRandy14 15m
SOTU: I never said if you like your country you can keep it. He can't blame Bush anymore. Will it be his phone and pen next time he blames?
Expand
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
Randy Weber @TXRandy14 37m
On floor of house waitin on "Kommandant-In-Chef"... the Socialistic dictator who's been feeding US a line or is it "A-Lying?"
He's been working six months on those.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 09:05:45 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2014, 07:19:38 PM
Which cabinet member is sitting out?
Secretary of Energy. 12th in succession.
edit: not like it matters, though. Even in the event of a small nuclear detonation, Joe Biden would emerge from the ashes totally unscathed, protected from the blast by Justice Scalia. Because that's how life plays out for Joe Biden.
His teeth & hair would still be there, anyway.
Keeping a close eye right now for any GOP pols that need to be primaried.
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 09:15:27 PM
Keeping a close eye right now for any GOP pols that need to be primaried.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 09:15:27 PM
Keeping a close eye right now for any GOP pols that need to be primaried.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Ideologue on January 28, 2014, 09:16:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 09:15:27 PM
Keeping a close eye right now for any GOP pols that need to be primaried.
:lol:
We got rid of my very own congresswoman for that :contract:
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120307/NEWS0108/303070154/What-brought-Jean-Schmidt-down-
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 09:15:27 PM
Keeping a close eye right now for any GOP pols that need to be primaried.
OOOH OOOH THAT GUY JUST CLAPPED
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 09:15:27 PM
Keeping a close eye right now for any GOP pols that need to be primaried.
Please tell me you're joking.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 09:18:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 09:15:27 PM
Keeping a close eye right now for any GOP pols that need to be primaried.
OOOH OOOH THAT GUY JUST CLAPPED
YOU LIE!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 28, 2014, 09:19:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 09:15:27 PM
Keeping a close eye right now for any GOP pols that need to be primaried.
Please tell me you're joking.
:showoff:
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 09:18:36 PM
We got rid of my very own congresswoman for that :contract:
That, and she popped a Mentos in public once, and derspiess was convinced it was a whore pill. Result? UNEMPLOYMENT THE FRESHMAKER
I'm having a flashback to 1991.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F31.media.tumblr.com%2F9de30faf7b64a524d582791d94f38b76%2Ftumblr_mfhe0wHEn71qkk1x7o1_1280.jpg&hash=5df6668c9a70e4bdc6baec2c0790ad947cd5f55c)
I miss Phil Hartman
Yes. Natgas is the bridge fuel. Finally.
We produce more oil than we import. That's just super. Ravaging our environment and depleting our natural reserves while extending the world's, and still not a single improvement in our refining capability.
Suckers.
Biden just can't seem to find a good place to stow his copy of the address :D
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2014, 09:34:31 PM
Yes. Natgas is the bridge fuel. Finally.
Maybe this will lead to some of those green jobs I have heard so much about.
But yeah Natgas is the way to go while we continue to work on renewable tech.
LNG is overrated. We need more nukes. Bigger nukes. Better nukes. French nukes.
So does Boehner spend a day a week in a tanning bed?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2014, 09:42:48 PM
So does Boehner spend a day a week in a tanning bed?
It is just really sunny in DC in January.
Does "Natgas" mean "nationalized gasoline"? :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2014, 09:42:48 PM
So does Boehner spend a day a week in a tanning bed?
Leave that orange man alone! :angry:
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 09:43:34 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2014, 09:42:48 PM
So does Boehner spend a day a week in a tanning bed?
Leave that orange man alone! :angry:
He represents Ohio so I know it's not actual sunshine. :P
Look at the screen and tell me Obama is not lighter-skinned than he is. :lol:
Costco pays higher wages because the company is employee-owned. FYI
So your solution to solving wage stagnation is to ask employers to do it? Lulz. ADVANTAGE: YI
So... c... collectivize it? :unsure:
Another retirement plan? Don't we have like six of those already?
Edit:
Quote
MyRA guarantees a decent return with no risk of losing what you put in.
When my broker says "no risk" I punch him in the face...
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2014, 09:55:12 PM
Another retirement plan? Don't we have like six of those already?
Edit:
Quote
MyRA guarantees a decent return with no risk of losing what you put in.
When my broker says "no risk" I punch him in the face...
:lol: A crummy savings bond? Son of a bitch!!
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2014, 09:45:08 PM
Look at the screen and tell me Obama is not lighter-skinned than he is. :lol:
Derspeiss is watching it on Fox where they use computers to darken his skin and superimpose big red lips over his mouth.
OH SNAP, RAZ!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfHWGc1CUAAVx1A.png:large)
I don't get you kids and your references.
I get the Daft Punk, I don't understand the hat.
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 09:59:09 PM
:lol: A crummy savings bond? Son of a bitch!!
Seriously? :yeahright:
Quote from: Ideologue on January 28, 2014, 10:19:07 PM
I get the Daft Punk, I don't understand the hat.
Pharrel. (sp?)
Oh, I know him. I didn't know he wore a hat.
Oh Lord this GOP gal is killing me. Does nothing but talk about herself.
Maybe she's presidential material :hmm:
I'm waiting for her to take a drink.
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 10:41:40 PM
Oh Lord this GOP gal is killing me. Does nothing but talk about herself.
Maybe she's presidential material :hmm:
Chicks, man.
Two last names. That was painful in so many ways.
LOL, biblethumpin' ain't easy!
Wow. I'm pretty sure the Pope doesn't reference God that many times in one address.
Looks like she might have a nice rack, though.
edit: quick Google search says maybe not :(
I doubt it. She was a clip-haired kindergarten teacher type.
Ha. There is a Republican response and a Tea Party response.
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 10:25:29 PM
It's what the man said.
You can already put T bonds in an IRA.
What fruit loop came up with this idea?
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on January 28, 2014, 10:51:06 PM
Ha. There is a Republican response and a Tea Party response.
Sounds good. I'd be all for isolating the Tea Party out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 28, 2014, 10:51:55 PM
What fruit loop came up with this idea?
Somebody who thinks there can be such a thing as a decent return with no risk. :hmm:
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on January 28, 2014, 10:51:06 PM
Ha. There is a Republican response and a Tea Party response.
And a Rand Paul Wing of the Tea Party Response, which is separate from the Mike Lee Wing of the Tea Party Response.
Where do you stand, derfetus? Official GOP biblethumper wing, the SEC Tea Party or the PAC12 Tea Party?
Shhh... Rand is on FNC right now.
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 10:56:44 PM
Shhh... Rand is on FNC right now.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flivingthruglass.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2Fits-happening-ron-paul-gif.gif&hash=fdfe49d30ad379962edbb056d1f52f8bee263b2e)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2014, 10:54:29 PM
Somebody who thinks there can be such a thing as a decent return with no risk. :hmm:
Surely he didn't talk as if "MyRA" was going to offer higher than market returns, did he? :huh:
I also just realized that interest on government debt is already tax free. So it seems as if all they did was come up with a catchy new name. :(
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 28, 2014, 10:58:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 10:56:44 PM
Shhh... Rand is on FNC right now.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flivingthruglass.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2Fits-happening-ron-paul-gif.gif&hash=fdfe49d30ad379962edbb056d1f52f8bee263b2e)
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 10:56:44 PM
Shhh... Rand is on FNC right now.
And we're answered. :D
Quote from: garbon on January 28, 2014, 10:54:07 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on January 28, 2014, 10:51:06 PM
Ha. There is a Republican response and a Tea Party response.
Sounds good. I'd be all for isolating the Tea Party out.
The feeling is mutual.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 10:54:56 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on January 28, 2014, 10:51:06 PM
Ha. There is a Republican response and a Tea Party response.
And a Rand Paul Wing of the Tea Party Response, which is separate from the Mike Lee Wing of the Tea Party Response.
Where do you stand, derfetus? Official GOP biblethumper wing, the SEC Tea Party or the PAC12 Tea Party?
I haven't watched Mike Lee yet but pending anything earth-shattering I Stand With Rand.
Quote from: derspiess on January 28, 2014, 11:01:08 PM
I haven't watched Mike Lee yet but pending anything earth-shattering I Stand With Rand.
Up with pot, down with the UN. Gotcha.
US out of the UN!! UN out of the US!!
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 28, 2014, 10:58:49 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flivingthruglass.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2Fits-happening-ron-paul-gif.gif&hash=fdfe49d30ad379962edbb056d1f52f8bee263b2e)
Wow, that's an extra level of appropriate in this case. :lol:
I thought so. :cool:
Headlines from Austrian news sites:
ORF (state broadcaster): Obama increases minimum wage to more than $10
Die Presse (conservative): Obama caught up in details: president writes off blocked congress. With promises and tiny reforms he hopes to help the long term unemployed and minimum wage workers.
Der Standard (leftish): Obama wants to increase social justice all by himself: US president to act without congress if necessary. Cautious comments about Iran. Reply from Republicans: "Empty Promises"
Der Kurier (middle of the road): Obama: "America is not standing still." US president denounces social grievances and will act without congress, if necessary.
Kronen Zeitung (tabloid): nothing on front page. They're covering the closure of police stations in Austria, ski racing results and animal protection groups targeting the pope's doves. They're one of the most widely circulated papers.
OE24 (online portal of tabloid rag Österreich): More than $10: Obama increases minimum wage. President denounces social grievances in State of the Union Address.
heute (free newspaper - I'm using the term VERY loosely - that is distributed daily at the subway): Nothing. Last article on Obama is from the 27th, about Michelle being unhappy/jealous that actress Kerry Washington asked Obama to be the godfather of her kid.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 28, 2014, 10:59:34 PMSurely he didn't talk as if "MyRA" was going to offer higher than market returns, did he? :huh:
I also just realized that interest on government debt is already tax free. So it seems as if all they did was come up with a catchy new name. :(
My shallow and potentially incorrect understanding of the MyRA thing is not that it's a new kind of high-performing yet risk free bond or some such. Rather, it's to provide something similar to a 401K plan for people whose employers do not set up or otherwise provide such a plan.
Does that understanding make sense? And if it makes sense, is it a reasonable initiative?
Was there anything about dissolving the legislature? Fear keeping the local systems in line?
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2014, 12:55:49 AM
My shallow and potentially incorrect understanding of the MyRA thing is not that it's a new kind of high-performing yet risk free bond or some such. Rather, it's to provide something similar to a 401K plan for people whose employers do not set up or otherwise provide such a plan.
Does that understanding make sense? And if it makes sense, is it a reasonable initiative?
Yes, that would be a reasonable initiative. Right now people without a 401k have no way to make regular payments to an investment vehicle with a tax benefit (AFAIK).
Still doesn't explain the "decent return/no risk" part.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2014, 01:47:37 AMYes, that would be a reasonable initiative. Right now people without a 401k have no way to make regular payments to an investment vehicle with a tax benefit (AFAIK).
Still doesn't explain the "decent return/no risk" part.
I'm guessing - and this is purely guesswork at something that would make sense to me in explaining such a comment - that MyRA plans, or at least certain parts of them, will be underwritten by the government. I.e. something like there'll be a framework that the investments have to follow (to avoid high or even medium risk investments), and as long as that framework is followed if they fail to bring a certain minimal return, the government will make up the difference. So - if your MyRA investments make less than 4% return in any given year, the gov't will top it up until it does.
This, of course, subject to maximum contributions and whatever regulations. So essentially a variable giveaway, to encourage people to save for their pensions.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 01:11:40 AM
Was there anything about dissolving the legislature? Fear keeping the local systems in line?
No, but he had a good applause line paying tribute to Boehner, which was pretty funny.
I've never heard his name said aloud. Is it actually "Boner"? :)
Bay-ner is what I've heard.
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2014, 01:57:13 AM
I'm guessing - and this is purely guesswork at something that would make sense to me in explaining such a comment - that MyRA plans, or at least certain parts of them, will be underwritten by the government. I.e. something like there'll be a framework that the investments have to follow (to avoid high or even medium risk investments), and as long as that framework is followed if they fail to bring a certain minimal return, the government will make up the difference. So - if your MyRA investments make less than 4% return in any given year, the gov't will top it up until it does.
Ruh-roh.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 29, 2014, 02:11:09 AM
Bay-ner is what I've heard.
Ah. Maybe I have heard aloud and didn't realize it. :D
Full text for anyone who wants to go over it line by line.
Nerds! :angry:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-2014-state-of-the-union-address-full-text/
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 09:36:32 PM
We produce more oil than we import. That's just super. Ravaging our environment and depleting our natural reserves while extending the world's, and still not a single improvement in our refining capability.
Suckers.
That was my thought too since the US isn't likely building new refineries, but there was a news item last week or so that said refineries have been increasing capacity over the past few years, due to more domestic oil and also for the possibility of the Keystone pipeline coming in.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 09:05:45 PM
Secretary of Energy. 12th in succession.
And what a President he'd be, single-handedly bringing back the powdered wig look:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fd7%2FMoniz_official_portrait_standing.jpg%2F220px-Moniz_official_portrait_standing.jpg&hash=85814bc0c3044b60a7960e55749d7707d9529436)
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2014, 09:37:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 09:05:45 PM
Secretary of Energy. 12th in succession.
And what a President he'd be, single-handedly bringing back the powdered wig look:
It really should be in the law that one of the top 4 cabinet officials has to be chosen.
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of Energy is a pretty powerful position, Tim.
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2014, 09:54:26 AM
Secretary of Energy is a pretty powerful position, Tim.
He checks every lightbulb.
The Secretary of Energy controls the nukes.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 10:03:25 AM
The Secretary of Energy controls the nukes.
And all those delicious Energon cubes.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 29, 2014, 09:41:14 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2014, 09:37:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2014, 09:05:45 PM
Secretary of Energy. 12th in succession.
And what a President he'd be, single-handedly bringing back the powdered wig look:
It really should be in the law that one of the top 4 cabinet officials has to be chosen.
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
What?
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 29, 2014, 10:05:14 AM
And all those delicious Energon cubes.
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong, Mr. Secretary.
I love Joe Biden:
https://vine.co/v/MuUdtTaJAJj
My earliest and thus most impressive memory regarding minimum wage increases is the one which happened around 2001 or so in Hungary. There was an IBM hard disk factory in the city I worked at, which employed, like, most of the city. The government wanted to be re-elected so they raised the minimum wage.
Fast forward a month or two and the factory announced it would relocate to China, which it did.
Fast forward ten years. Tamas learns all the wrong lessons, pledges undying support to capital whatever its form.
Don't ever change, Ide :hug:
I'm probably more the same now than ever before. <_<
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:39:32 AM
My earliest and thus most impressive memory regarding minimum wage increases is the one which happened around 2001 or so in Hungary. There was an IBM hard disk factory in the city I worked at, which employed, like, most of the city. The government wanted to be re-elected so they raised the minimum wage.
Fast forward a month or two and the factory announced it would relocate to China, which it did.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that market forces play a role in wages? What kind of ridiculous idea is that?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 11:12:12 AM
Fast forward ten years. Tamas learns all the wrong lessons, pledges undying support to capital whatever its form.
It didn't take any years for you to learn all the wrong lessons, you have them ingrained as an article of faith, which requires no learning at all!
Your faith in the free market is far more distorted. My solutions may not work; you refuse to recognize that there is a problem at all. Who's using faith-based reasoning? His name is Berkut.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 11:50:28 AM
Your faith in the free market is far more distorted. My solutions may not work; you refuse to recognize that there is a problem at all. Who's using faith-based reasoning? His name is Berkut.
Where is this free market? Whatever has been left of it in the US is getting gradually chipped at, me thinks.
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2014, 11:40:43 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:39:32 AM
My earliest and thus most impressive memory regarding minimum wage increases is the one which happened around 2001 or so in Hungary. There was an IBM hard disk factory in the city I worked at, which employed, like, most of the city. The government wanted to be re-elected so they raised the minimum wage.
Fast forward a month or two and the factory announced it would relocate to China, which it did.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that market forces play a role in wages? What kind of ridiculous idea is that?
Next people will start claiming market forces play a role in the national economy in general.
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 11:54:30 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 11:50:28 AM
Your faith in the free market is far more distorted. My solutions may not work; you refuse to recognize that there is a problem at all. Who's using faith-based reasoning? His name is Berkut.
Where is this free market?
Evidently it's in the PRC, the country we should all emulate. That was the moral of your story, right?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 11:50:28 AM
Your faith in the free market is far more distorted. My solutions may not work; you refuse to recognize that there is a problem at all. Who's using faith-based reasoning? His name is Berkut.
Are you kidding? By his own admission Berkut is becoming a Left-Wing commie.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 12:08:17 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 11:54:30 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 11:50:28 AM
Your faith in the free market is far more distorted. My solutions may not work; you refuse to recognize that there is a problem at all. Who's using faith-based reasoning? His name is Berkut.
Where is this free market?
Evidently it's in the PRC, the country we should all emulate. That was the moral of your story, right?
What are your thoughts on Labor-Managed Market Socialism?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 12:08:17 PM
Evidently it's in the PRC, the country we should all emulate. That was the moral of your story, right?
I thought we wanted to reduce economic inequality, not exacerbate it.
China: We've got a million millionaires and a GDP per capita the same as Angola. Go us!
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 11:50:28 AM
Your faith in the free market is far more distorted. My solutions may not work; you refuse to recognize that there is a problem at all. Who's using faith-based reasoning? His name is Berkut.
My faith is a figment of your imagination. I have no particular faith in any market, free or otherwise. I am pretty sure I've expressed that numerous times.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 29, 2014, 01:05:33 PM
China: We've got a million millionaires and a GDP per capita the same as Angola. Go us!
Hey, if that's what it takes to get those IBM factories.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 29, 2014, 01:05:33 PM
China: We've got a million millionaires and a GDP per capita the same as Angola. Go us!
Hey, if that's what it takes to get those IBM factories.
What IBM factories? They're selling everything to Lenovo.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 11:50:28 AM
Your faith in the free market is far more distorted. My solutions may not work; you refuse to recognize that there is a problem at all. Who's using faith-based reasoning? His name is Berkut.
Seriously?
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:39:32 AM
My earliest and thus most impressive memory regarding minimum wage increases is the one which happened around 2001 or so in Hungary. There was an IBM hard disk factory in the city I worked at, which employed, like, most of the city. The government wanted to be re-elected so they raised the minimum wage.
Fast forward a month or two and the factory announced it would relocate to China, which it did.
Or IBM might have simply asked for too much subsidies and government officials said no. Market doesn't work when an employer has such leverage over government. Happens here all the time with Opel factory.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 11:33:40 AM
I'm probably more the same now than ever before. <_<
So you're more the same. Are you more equal yet?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2014, 03:20:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 11:50:28 AM
Your faith in the free market is far more distorted. My solutions may not work; you refuse to recognize that there is a problem at all. Who's using faith-based reasoning? His name is Berkut.
Seriously?
I'd actually forgotten that Berk did recognize some problems inherent in inequality, etc. So I would feel obligated to apologize, except Berk insulted my integrity and intellectual honesty first.
That's a strawman Ide. Who says the free market produces income equality?
On topic, I can't believe Barry repeated that old canard about women making 77 cents on the dollar. :bleeding:
Women working. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2014, 06:49:40 PM
That's a strawman Ide. Who says the free market produces income equality?
Empiricism.
wut?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question. Income inequality demonstrably exists in free market systems; and forgetting observed evidence, even the least sophisticated economic theory would predict it would too.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 07:17:30 PM
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question. Income inequality demonstrably exists in free market systems; and forgetting observed evidence, even the least sophisticated economic theory would predict it would too.
You seem to have suggested that since Throbby acknowledged the existence of income inequality, he does not "have faith" in free market economics. This suggests there are people out there, with true faith, who believe laissez faire economics will produce income equality.
Is this accurate, and if so, who the fuck thinks like that?
There are probably a few out there. But most of the "faithful" seem to buy into the notion that, while inequality exists, it is not an evil in itself, and in fact that in a less free market, while inequality may less pronounced, the absolute level of wealth held at every stratum of society will be significantly less.
They often point to the Soviet Union as empirical proof. They tend to ignore First World counterexamples like Germany, Scandinavia, or even the UK or Canada.
And who would these faithful be?
I am certain that you have argued in the past that virtually all legislative efforts to reduce inequality would reduce aggregate wealth. I am equally certain that Berkut, Tamas, Spice, dps, Beeb, and probably Valmy have also argued this at various points in our decade together.
Also I thought Ide had said problems with inequality not that people had claimed that capitalism didn't cause inequality. There certainly are people who don't see a problem with inequality.
I would use the poor to construct a monument to my glory, the Angerpolis. With three full levels of interactive orgy action.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 07:41:47 PM
I am certain that you have argued in the past that virtually all legislative efforts to reduce inequality would reduce aggregate wealth. I am equally certain that Berkut, Tamas, Spice, dps, Beeb, and probably Valmy have also argued this at various points in our decade together.
I beg your pardon. I misread your previous post and thought your examples were your argument.
That is in fact my position. This is what you call "faith based reasoning?"
I believe there are elements of faith and wishful thinking to all ideological systems. Principally I was angry at Berkut, like I said.
That's fairly tautological. And I object similarly to describing the claim that free markets produce higher aggregate income than command economies as an "ideology."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2014, 08:18:22 PM
That's fairly tautological. And I object similarly to describing the claim that free markets produce higher aggregate income than command economies as an "ideology."
Is your claim that along a spectrum with a completely free market on one end and purely command economy on the other, any step towards the free market end will always increase aggregate income?
And do you define any redistribution of wealth by means other than than trade to a command economy trait?
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2014, 08:31:40 PM
Is your claim that along a spectrum with a completely free market on one end and purely command economy on the other, any step towards the free market end will always increase aggregate income?
And do you define any redistribution of wealth by means other than than trade to a command economy trait?
Transfers are not a command economy trait. They do not interfere with market derived prices and quantities, which is the heart of market economics.
I'm hesitant to go so far as to say
every single relaxation of a command economy will generate increased income, though any examples of the contrary are not springing to mind. Lenin's "New Economy" increased agricultural production, Raul Castro's modest reforms seem to be increasing GDP, China's example is obvious, etc.
Which is not to say that there are no market failures that can't and shouldn't be corrected by government action: collusion, asymetric information, etc.
Note that I did not say "aggregate income." I said that there is a belief in the increase of absolute incomes at all strata of society.
I can accept the possibility that the purer the capitalism, all things being equal the higher the GDP. Ethically, I reject that this is all, or even what principally, matters. And I also believe there is an element of faith-based reasoning in the belief that increases in aggregate income means increased wealth for broad sectors of society, particularly since there is evidence that this is not the case as regulation, lower taxes, and reduced redistribution has coincided with stagnation and by some metrics reversal of the wealth in some sectors of American society.
(I also believe it's entirely possible that capitalism is not conducive to increased aggregate income, viz. socialism, in an increasingly unequal and automated economy, due to failure of aggregate demand.)
"There is a belief?" That's a pretty clunky formulation bro. :P
Excluding transfer recipients, do you think there is a stratum of society in any Warsaw Pact country or in China that is worse off in absolute terms than they were under a command economy?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2014, 09:56:07 PM
Excluding transfer recipients, do you think there is a stratum of society in any Warsaw Pact country or in China that is worse off in absolute terms than they were under a command economy?
Why are you excluding transfer recipients?
Anyhow, in China the uneducated rural poor are likely worse off after the free market reforms than they were before.
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2014, 11:04:41 PM
Why are you excluding transfer recipients?
Because it's exogenous. It's a choice, not a result of an economic policy.
QuoteAnyhow, in China the uneducated rural poor are likely worse off after the free market reforms than they were before.
The uneducated rural poor are all making a billion times their former income slapping together iPhones.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2014, 11:08:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2014, 11:04:41 PM
Why are you excluding transfer recipients?
Because it's exogenous. It's a choice, not a result of an economic policy.
Totally not true. Transfer policy is an integral part of economic policy, both because it costs money and because it sets the context for how the economy functions.
Secondly, if we are discussing whether people are better off after a transition from command to market economy, excluding transfer recipients skews the data. Giving up the iron rice bowl most definitely has impacted pensioners without family support, for example, as well as those who failed to take advantage (or were screwed out of their alleged share) of the transition from command housing to private. Getting a few thousand RMB and a beating in exchange for your apartment or house so a connected developer can build a mall or whatever is not an improvement compared to having guaranteed housing for life.
Thirdly, excluding transfer recipients makes any comparison impossible since pretty much all social strata - including those benefitting from the transition to a free market - received transfers one way or the other in the command economy.
QuoteQuoteAnyhow, in China the uneducated rural poor are likely worse off after the free market reforms than they were before.
The uneducated rural poor are all making a billion times their former income slapping together iPhones.
No, not at all. Those are migrant workers. Millions and millions still remain in the countryside in poverty, and if they don't have migrant worker relatives to support them they are not better off than they would have been a few decades ago.
Besides, having an entire generation of rural children being raised seeing their parents only a week or two every few years if that is not particularly "better off" even of they do receive a Mickey Mouse branded jacket (counterfeit) on that occasion.
I'm not arguing that in aggregate the Chinese people have not benefitted from the transition to the free market system; they have. Hundreds of millions are materially better off than they were and would have been. But not every strata, those poor who remain in countryside and are unable to to take advantage of the urban economic progress are not better off; and if they are worse off, it is partially because of the deterioration of the previous transfer system, and partially because the value and/or their share of of the product of their labour has significantly deteriorated under the free market.
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2014, 11:38:38 PM
I'm not arguing that in aggregate the Chinese people have not benefitted from the transition to the free market system; they have. Hundreds of millions are materially better off than they were and would have been. But not every strata, those poor who remain in countryside and are unable to to take advantage of the urban economic progress are not better off; and if they are worse off, it is partially because of the deterioration of the previous transfer system, and partially because the value and/or their share of of the product of their labour has significantly deteriorated under the free market.
The Chinese have forsaken the path of the Party that Chairman Mao had laid before them, and it is coming back to haunt them.
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2014, 11:38:38 PM
Totally not true. Transfer policy is an integral part of economic policy, both because it costs money and because it sets the context for how the economy functions.
You give the impression of someone who responded without reading my post. I said transfers are not a result of policy; you could have massive transfers in a market economy and zero transfers in a command economy. It's a choice that's not determined by the economic system.
QuoteThirdly, excluding transfer recipients makes any comparison impossible since pretty much all social strata - including those benefitting from the transition to a free market - received transfers one way or the other in the command economy.
How so? What kind of transfers did Ivan the soldier or Boris the miner get under communism?
QuoteNo, not at all. Those are migrant workers. Millions and millions still remain in the countryside in poverty, and if they don't have migrant worker relatives to support them they are not better off than they would have been a few decades ago.
Source?
QuoteBesides, having an entire generation of rural children being raised seeing their parents only a week or two every few years if that is not particularly "better off" even of they do receive a Mickey Mouse branded jacket (counterfeit) on that occasion.
Yet when given the choice between breaking their backs in a rice paddy their whole lives and spending quality time with their child, they chose to slap together iPhones for money. Do you know better than a billion Chinese what's best for them?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 30, 2014, 12:12:10 AM
Do you know better than a billion Chinese what's best for them?
I do.
I wasn't talking to you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 30, 2014, 12:04:32 AMThe Chinese have forsaken the path of the Party that Chairman Mao had laid before them, and it is coming back to haunt them.
Fuck Chairman Mao.
I wasn't talking to your wife.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 30, 2014, 12:12:10 AM
You give the impression of someone who responded without reading my post. I said transfers are not a result of policy; you could have massive transfers in a market economy and zero transfers in a command economy. It's a choice that's not determined by the economic system.
My mistake. It seemed to me that you were conflating the command economies with transfers, and using the flaws of the former to dismiss the latter. If you are not, then most of this tangent is rendered moot.
QuoteHow so? What kind of transfers did Ivan the soldier or Boris the miner get under communism?
I can't speak to the Soviet Union, but in China guaranteed housing and food allotments were part of the Communist system; as were guaranteed employment for graduates.
Quote from: YiQuote from: JacobNo, not at all. Those are migrant workers. Millions and millions still remain in the countryside in poverty, and if they don't have migrant worker relatives to support them they are not better off than they would have been a few decades ago.
Source?
For which bit? The existence of millions and millions of non-migrant worker rural poor? For the shittiness of their conditions? Or are you looking for statistically rigorous breakdown of changes in purchasing power and consumption of uneducated Chinese rural poor people in the last four decades?
QuoteYet when given the choice between breaking their backs in a rice paddy their whole lives and spending quality time with their child, they chose to slap together iPhones for money. Do you know better than a billion Chinese what's best for them?
I didn't claim that. I claimed that having millions of kids growing up without their parents is not a good thing by most definitions, even if economical pressure makes it the rational choice. If you do read some of the stories and sentiments of migrant workers separated from their kids, it certainly seems to cause significant anguish.
I'll also note that there are not a billion Chinese migrant workers.
Let me ask you a question - what is it about the assertion than the uneducated rural poor in China may be worse off under China's free market reforms than they were previously that you find so dubious?
Quote from: Jacob on January 30, 2014, 01:21:00 AM
Or are you looking for statistically rigorous breakdown of changes in purchasing power and consumption of uneducated Chinese rural poor people in the last four decades?
Or even an unrigorous one.
QuoteI didn't claim that. I claimed that having millions of kids growing up without their parents is not a good thing by most definitions, even if economical pressure makes it the rational choice. If you do read some of the stories and sentiments of migrant workers separated from their kids, it certainly seems to cause significant anguish.
Since you mentioned in the context of defending the claim that rural, uneducated Chinese are worse off, I figured the point about separation from children had, you know, something to do with the topic.
QuoteLet me ask you a question - what is it about the assertion than the uneducated rural poor in China may be worse off under China's free market reforms than they were previously that you find so dubious?
They have access to an entire array of consumer goods that they did not before. They're living in a country that has experienced gigantic income growth, and, as part of that growth, has seen increased demand for agricultural products. That would tend to drive up farm income. They're also living in a country that has spend vast sums modernizing its transportation infrastructure; that would tend to drive down the cost and time to get goods to market and also increase farm income.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 08:14:09 PM
I believe there are elements of faith and wishful thinking to all ideological systems. Principally I was angry at Berkut, like I said.
So you admit that your response is driven by your anger, and yet that anger comes from me pointing out that your responses have not really been based on rational thinking, but on faith and emotion?
Hmmm, interesting....
And Berkut knows anger. He's on his third keyboard this month, yet another victim to his Oven Mitts of Malice.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 30, 2014, 10:34:44 AM
And Berkut knows anger. He's on his third keyboard this month, yet another victim to his Oven Mitts of Malice.
I was hoping the Arizona Basketball team would have led to a gentler and happier Berkut.
Did you watch that game last night?
Nothing that is going to make me gentler or happier. I don't care how supremely talented Aaron Gordon might be, he has to figure out how to hit the fucking front end of a one and one! 48% free throw shooting. Fuck that noise.
Did I miss this getting posted? :D
Jimmy Kimmel Asked People How The State Of The Union Was Even Though It Hadn't Happened Yet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kWI58bgdVfw
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 08:14:09 PM
I believe there are elements of faith and wishful thinking to all ideological systems.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fuser5%2Fimageroot%2F2014%2F01-overflow%2FObama-Communist.jpg&hash=49c5341a8eaf07f49de83b4a1491251e4d7837f7)
Quote from: citizen k on January 31, 2014, 02:54:53 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fuser5%2Fimageroot%2F2014%2F01-overflow%2FObama-Communist.jpg&hash=49c5341a8eaf07f49de83b4a1491251e4d7837f7)
This picture is just crying out for me to edit Colonel Sanders into it. :D
I believe that's just the voices in your head. :P
I think the graphic is just a depiction of our growing disillusionment with facial hair.
I believe it's a very clever marketing campaign by Coca Cola.
Mao looks like he just pushed out one of those little burpie farts, the quick and quiet kind that sound like a party favor.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 30, 2014, 10:34:44 AM
And Berkut knows anger. He's on his third keyboard this month, yet another victim to his Oven Mitts of Malice.
Having Molotov cocktails thrown at his head surely didn't help his mood.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 30, 2014, 01:54:32 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 30, 2014, 01:21:00 AM
Or are you looking for statistically rigorous breakdown of changes in purchasing power and consumption of uneducated Chinese rural poor people in the last four decades?
Or even an unrigorous one.
Okay :)
So here's a site that discusses the economic achievement of lifting several hundred million Chinese out of absolute poverty, defined as living on $1.25 or less a day. This has been reduced, so there is only about a dozen million Chinese (about 6%) who remain below that poverty line: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/statistics-on-poverty/statistics-on-poverty-in-china/
I think it's fair to say that the 12 million or so (18 million according to other sites) living on less than $1.25 today have not seen an improvement in their standard of living compared to the (admittedly more numerous millions of) Chinese who lived on less than $1.25/day in 1984 just in purely economic terms.
QuoteQuoteI didn't claim that. I claimed that having millions of kids growing up without their parents is not a good thing by most definitions, even if economical pressure makes it the rational choice. If you do read some of the stories and sentiments of migrant workers separated from their kids, it certainly seems to cause significant anguish.
Since you mentioned in the context of defending the claim that rural, uneducated Chinese are worse off, I figured the point about separation from children had, you know, something to do with the topic.
It does. The claim you advanced - and which I did not make - was that I "know better than a billion Chinese". I don't claim to, but you seem comfortable speaking on behalf of them.
My point was relevant. Being "better off" or "worse off" is not purely an economic matter; being almost permanently separated from your parents as a young child is not "better off", it's "worse off". It may be a necessary choice to have imposed on you given economic realities, but if that leaves you at the same standard of living as someone comparable two decades ago, but when young families were not separated as a broad social phenomenon, then you are in fact worse off in comparison.
QuoteThey have access to an entire array of consumer goods that they did not before. They're living in a country that has experienced gigantic income growth, and, as part of that growth, has seen increased demand for agricultural products. That would tend to drive up farm income. They're also living in a country that has spend vast sums modernizing its transportation infrastructure; that would tend to drive down the cost and time to get goods to market and also increase farm income.
From Wikipedia on the rural-urban divide in China:
Quotein the period 1986-1992, investments to urban state-owned enterprises (SOE) accounted for more than 25% of the total government budget. On the other hand, less than 10% of the government budget was allocated to investments in the rural economy in the same period by the state despite the fact that about 73-76% of the total population lived in the rural areas. However, the burden of the inflation caused by the fiscal expansion, which at that time was at a level of approximately 8.5%, was shared by all including the rural population.
This report on rural poverty in China - http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/home/tags/china lists the following key causes and characteristics of rural poverty in China:
Quote- Increasingly frequent natural calamities, especially floods and droughts, caused by extreme weather conditions that are associated with climate change
- Remote locations with poor community infrastructure and services, such as paved roads, markets and safe drinking water
- Depleted natural resources and decreasing farm sizes
- Lack of skills and capacity, and a disproportionate incidence of illiteracy and poor skills among women
- Limited access to inputs, financial services, markets and value chains
- Reliance on traditional farming techniques.
So yeah, the rural poor - who still rely on traditional farming techniques, who do not have access to value added chains and do not see a benefit from the increase in agricultural producs, who deal with fewer natural resources and smaller farms, who live in the parts of the country that has not seen huge infrastructure spending (and most of that spending has been urban), and who face fairly rapid inflation especially compared to their incomes given the preceding factors may in fact not be better off then the Chinese rural poor of preceding decades.
Yes, China has seen gigantic income growth. It is, as I'm sure we're all aware, not evenly distributed. Some people - especially some of the worst off rural poor - have seen no growth in their income, but they have seen significant inflation and deteriorating environment in which to earn a living. On $1.25/day, the number of new and exciting consumer goods they can purchase does not necessarily outweigh the increase in food prices (and they're going up quite quickly).
I think you just made my case for me Jacob.
:face: