Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EveryZig]

When is the last time (not counting pre-Nixon stuff) that the Republicans as a party have had something good to ask to politics. That isn't a rhetorical question. It seems absurd to think that every single action a major party has done has been neutral to bad, but I can't think of any examples that say otherwise.

[kaijyuu]

Didn't Reagen's policies fix stagflation?

Also not a rhetorical question since I've never got a straight answer as to the cause of stagflation, nor the solution of it, other than "Reagen fixed it."

[Reelya]

Explaining the 1970s stagflation
Further information: Nixon Shock
Following Richard Nixon's imposition of wage and price controls on August 15, 1971, an initial wave of cost-push shocks in commodities was blamed for causing spiraling prices. Perhaps the most notorious factor cited at that time was the failure of the Peruvian anchovy fishery in 1972, a major source of livestock feed.[16] The second major shock was the 1973 oil crisis, when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) constrained the worldwide supply of oil.[17] Both events, combined with the overall energy shortage that characterized the 1970s, resulted in actual or relative scarcity of raw materials. The price controls resulted in shortages at the point of purchase, causing, for example, queues of consumers at fueling stations and increased production costs for industry.
Theoretical responses
Under this set of theories, the solution to stagflation is to restore the supply of materials. In the case of a physical scarcity, stagflation is mitigated either by finding a replacement for the missing resources or by developing ways to increase economic productivity and energy efficiency so that more output is produced with less input. For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the scarcity of oil was relieved by increases in both energy efficiency and global oil production. This factor, along with adjustments in monetary policies, helped end stagflation.

Carter [...] took office during a period of international stagflation, which persisted throughout his term.

But the most important element in the war against inflation was the Federal Reserve Board, which clamped down hard on the money supply beginning in 1979. By refusing to supply all the money an inflation-ravaged economy wanted, the Fed caused interest rates to rise. As a result, consumer spending and business borrowing slowed abruptly. The economy soon fell into a deep recession.

Yeah, that's how you combat runaway inflation, by crashing the money supply. Note that this started before Reagan.

The other fix was more drilling by OPEC nations, nothing to do with America.

EDITL Note the hypocrisy of the pro-Reaganites blaming Jimmy Carter for the 1982-1983 recession, but giving Reagan credit for the resultant drop in inflation. Both things were due to the fed. reserve actions of 1979.

[MonkeyHead]

Slightly nihilistic discussion on Human Rights - possibly accurate, if uncomfortable.

[Bauglir]

Hmm... My main objection is a conflation of what ought be with what is. It seems obvious to me that the concept of "rights" is an assertion of the former, so pointing out that we live in a world that doesn't agree with that definition doesn't seem to undermine the claim that it should be that way, barring an appeal to the naturalistic. Human rights can clearly be violated, as the existence of murder attests. Whether those violations can be effectively punished, I think, is a different question than whether the violations exist.

[EveryZig]

Hmm... My main objection is a conflation of what ought be with what is. It seems obvious to me that the concept of "rights" is an assertion of the former, so pointing out that we live in a world that doesn't agree with that definition doesn't seem to undermine the claim that it should be that way, barring an appeal to the naturalistic. Human rights can clearly be violated, as the existence of murder attests. Whether those violations can be effectively punished, I think, is a different question than whether the violations exist.

Basically this. It can be a valid point to ask who decides them, but the fact that rights are unenforced does not make them less valid as a philosophical ideal.

[ChairmanPoo]

EDITL Note the hypocrisy of the pro-Reaganites blaming Jimmy Carter for the 1982-1983 recession, but giving Reagan credit for the resultant drop in inflation. Both things were due to the fed. reserve actions of 1979.

I'm reminded of this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2589#comic

[Fenrir]

People seem to have no idea what rights are; they talk about them like they were physical things like toasters and unicorns, and then they wonder whether they exist. Rights are human indignation writ on paper. To declare something a right is to state our strong desire for it to be respected, and it is to affirm our resolve to kick the asses of anyone who disagrees.

[Darvi]

I always defined a right as being the opposite of a left.

[Shinotsa]

I always defined a right as being the opposite of a left.

No, no, and no. It is the state of being correct, opposite to wrong.

[Frumple]

People seem to have no idea what rights are; they talk about them like they were physical things like toasters and unicorns, and then they wonder whether they exist. Rights are human indignation writ on paper. To declare something a right is to state our strong desire for it to be respected, and it is to affirm our resolve to kick the asses of anyone who disagrees.

That'd largely be because we've (especially ethical and political theorists, natch) got a pretty impressive mileage over the years by presenting them as existent things. Yes, it's a convenient fiction, but it's a really damn convenient one that simplifies a whole hell of a lot of political and ethical systems -- ones which are pretty tremendously beneficial compared to the alternatives.

You can usually come to the same conclusions without the assumption of existent rights, but it takes a hell of a lot more time and effort -- and good luck getting that through to people outside of academia, who don't really have the time and energy to wrestle through it.

It's kinda' like telling existential skepticism to shove off. Yes, we have no way of justifying that we actually exist in any physical sense, but we get a lot more done when we tell that fact to go screw itself and agree on some axiomatic truths. Rights are a sort of equivalent to physical existence, basically, just for ethical systems.

[kaijyuu]

Rights are a specific type of indignation, though; namely, "don't tread on me."

Rights are always things you expect others to do/not do:
Don't run me over with a car. Don't stab me. Don't harass me. Don't deny me a job for silly reasons.
Give me voting rights. Give me road access. Give me speech freedom.

By giving "ownership" of them to individuals (rather than to the people actually obligated to do anything) we can easily take the obligation away for arbitrary reasons of convenience. That's why we call them existent "things." (also a holdover from enlightenment when they were trying to break everything down into objective truths)


Rights can be eloquently summarized by stating the golden rule of human interaction: Don't be a dick to other people.

[RedKing]

We have one of those "Defense of Marriage" amendments on the ballot here in NC next week. Support has been pretty split, but discussion has been mostly civil.

Mostly.

We have a sign similar to that in our yard. I'd like to see this piece of garbage try to fire a shotgun into my yard. If so, I hope he enjoys the taste of his own teeth. 

[sluissa]

If I had to guess, it looks as if he took the sign from where it was placed and brought it somewhere else to shoot it. Where it was when he shot it doesn't look like a place a political sign would normally be placed. If he actually took it from someone else's property, perhaps theft or trespass?

[Truean]

We have one of those "Defense of Marriage" amendments on the ballot here in NC next week. Support has been pretty split, but discussion has been mostly civil.

Mostly.

We have a sign similar to that in our yard. I'd like to see this piece of garbage try to fire a shotgun into my yard. If so, I hope he enjoys the taste of his own teeth. 

.... I object to numerous things, most certainly including this man's stupidity.

First and foremost, he via his bullet, and later himself when he walks on the property to steal the sign, is trespassing to land and chattels (property). At least they would be here in Ohio civilly. It probably isn't "assault" because he's not shooting at someone and causing "immediate" ... apprehension of harmful or offensive physical contact to a person. It is however, immensely stupid and could get him sued for a wide variety of things depending upon lots of surrounding circumstances. Having someone fire a god damn shotgun in the general direction of you/your yard will pass the smell test of most judges as something you can sue over, generally.

No one here cares about the specifics and they vary, but basically a trespass to land is a physical invasion or intrusion onto property without privilege. It can be done by bodily stepping onto someone else's land or by some other physical thing directly, indirectly or not at all under someone's control. (Flooding your neighbor's yard with lots of rainwater runoff can qualify).

Here, we have a bullet directly under the purpose and intention of the jerk. Said jerk, then in the words of Ace of Base "saw the sign." Unfortunately it did not open up his eyes. Very much not in the words of Ace of Base, he then god damn shot it. This is traditionally trespass to land via the physical intrusion of a bullet.

Then of course he's causing damage to the sign, or the yard, or wherever the shot lands. So that's the trespass to chattels.

If this isn't the first such bullshit thing he's done, then he might also have IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) tied on there too. It isn't a stretch at all to say someone firing a damn shotgun onto your yard/political signs/direction of your house is "extreme and outrageous conduct outside the bounds of civilized society." Damages might be difficult to prove, both inherently for IIED and specifically in this case, but I think a jury would totally buy some emotional damage from some asshole shooting at your house. Typically one has to see a therapist or something for this kind of thing to amount to money damages, but meh.

Then of course, there are possible criminal penalties, which in NC I know positively nothing about, but generally speaking reckless or intentional discharge of a firearm at someone's residence is frowned upon and the law takes a dim view of it. Plus, shit, he's on tape and he made the tape himself so.... The right to own a gun doesn't mean the right to shoot it at your neighbors/their stuff. Plus, I think he took the sign down/physically took it at the end... off of his neighbor's yard.... That sign doesn't belong to him....

This is why I avoid political things in real life. I don't care and just things to get done with an operationally workable procedure and hopefully to get paid for following said procedure.

So to review, don't shoot your neighbor's property, or steal it.