Print

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

[Maximum Spin]

Ok this is veering into economics instead of Ameripol. I'm not disagreeing that inflation can't be a factor in increasing nominal profits.

I'm disagreeing that in the past two years profit increases were due to inflation.  I'm arguing that inflation is lagging profit increases (for some companies) so those companies are contributing to inflation.  Other companies have costs increase faster than inflation, so have to raise their prices to catch up.  These companies are responding to inflation.

The overall economy is a combination of both phenomena; anyone who tries to say it is only one or the other is playing the political game - and I agree with you on that.

Okay, so basically, my position on this is very specifically philosophical: I'd say that all parties you mention are contributing to inflation, because I disagree with the framing that "inflation is lagging", as if inflation is a separate number that you can compare price increases to. It's not. Inflation is the gestalt of the price increases. The first price increases are part of inflation. The later price increases are part of inflation. Nobody's leading or lagging, it's just inflation happening as one circular ratchet.

[McTraveller]

Ok we differ there; while mathematically yes, a single company increasing prices does technically increase the aggregate price level, nobody considers that inflation.  It's only inflation if "the average company" increases its prices.  This is why you can lead/lag, and it's measurable.

It's also why policy is important - changing the federal funds rate only changes the availability of money which takes a long time to filter through the economy to reduce demand, which is one way to put downward pressure on price levels.  The downside though is that reducing the availability of cash also tends to reduce supply (because it costs more to fund new projects with loans), which is an unwanted effect.

The Fed using the funds rate is such a coarse tool, it's no surprise it gets criticized.  It would be much nicer if there was an easy tool to increase supply of goods and services and decrease the supply of money; that would be pulling on the inflation strings from both sides in the desired direction, instead of pushing on one end and pulling on the other.

[Maximum™]

So lots of people pointing out that "this is a win for the orange turd" are missing this is also a loss for all the red states which would love to kick Biden/other dems off their ballots.

[Jerick]

You know if it ever comes to that they'll punt it back to the Supreme Court who'll vote the other way. It's very much one rule for you and another for me with these people. We're talking about the same folks who are arguing Biden should be impeached while also arguing that sitting presidents have total immunity.

[Maximum™]

If congress doesn't set up a law dictating how to remove a candidate then it's already settled, unlikely even his shitbags on the court would be eager to jump back in to reverse themselves.

[Folly]

I feel like the current Republican situation is honestly a pretty strong case against democratic governance. Polls show that almost any candidate they put forward would give them a guaranteed win against Biden, and yet the stupid voters insist upon going with the single candidate most likely to lose.

[da_nang]

* da_nang stares intently at Garland, waiting for 18 U.S.C. §2383 indictment to land.

Ahem.

Still miffed that SCOTUS used a handwavy implied narrow constitutional pre-emption rather than a more textually-robust (by original public meaning) Article VI conflict pre-emption, implied by existing legislation enforcing 14A§3 using concurrent 14A§5 power.

Naturally, MSM is going ballistic.

[Maximum Spin]

We're talking about the same folks who are arguing Biden should be impeached while also arguing that sitting presidents have total immunity.

There's no conflict between those positions, since immunity specifically doesn't apply to impeachment.

[Bumber]

So lots of people pointing out that "this is a win for the orange turd" are missing this is also a loss for all the red states which would love to kick Biden/other dems off their ballots.

An interesting way of spinning a failed attempt of blue states being the first one to do it. We've just dodged all the consequences that action was going bring. Not really a loss for red states, because dems don't really want Biden anyway, and polls aren't optimistic on Biden beating Trump.

This guy makes a pretty good point that the weakness of the dissents makes the case for his disqualification better than the actual arguments did: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/dont-read-the-colorado-ruling-read-the-dissents/676920/

P.S.: This aged like milk. 9-0.

Old stuff I didn't get to over the holidays:

If you’re a Libertarian you should be aghast that, from your perspective, both parties are infringing on electoral rights rather than whatabouting that the Dems “started it first” so it’s okay that the Republicans are doing it too.

You don’t get more free by making people less free, surprisingly.

Requiring driver's licenses to drive makes people less free. There's a world of difference in requiring somebody to show an ID to vote and just flat out preventing someone from voting for their preferred candidate.

Illinois court wasn't even hiding their language (p.38):

The Illinois State Board of Election shall remove Donald J. Trump from the ballot for the General Primary Election on March 19, 2024, or cause any votes cast for him to be suppressed, according to the procedures within their administrative authority.

There must be an avenue for legal recourse. If SCOTUS claims the sole authority to enforce 14A §3 lies at the federal level, it creates the obligation at the federal level for that authority to be exercised regarding the Colorado case. Colorado had the right to bring the case forward because the federal government did not.

I don't think that's how the Supremacy Clause works. If Congress specifically gives an authority to the federal government, that means it belongs to the fed and not the states.

Put your "proving innocence" and " reasonable doubt" aside and watch enough of the court proceedings to form an opinion based on what you see and not what the "news" repeats. I'll debate you about the videos, not about what the "news" said... I didn't see the defense bring up anything worthy to defend Trump and I didn't see partisan behavior by the court. Besides my uneducated opinion, plenty of esteemed conservative lawyers agreed with the court findings.

There was way too much for me to watch here, and it's moot now. Not sure who these "esteemed" conservatives were, but it seems they were wrong according to SCOTUS.

Particularly laughable in this whole saga was Maine's decision, where the Secretary of State took it upon herself to try to kick Trump off the ballot based solely on her own expert opinion that she saw Trump do an insurrection, without any ruling from a Maine court. Now she's saying it's up to voters to "save" democracy. (Yes, that's how it works, genius.)

[Strongpoint]

Is there any info on a potential vice-president candidate for Trump? I feel that Trump supporters will accept anyone endorsed by their orange messiah and this may be more dangerous than Trump will ever be.

[Maximum Spin]

There must be an avenue for legal recourse. If SCOTUS claims the sole authority to enforce 14A §3 lies at the federal level, it creates the obligation at the federal level for that authority to be exercised regarding the Colorado case. Colorado had the right to bring the case forward because the federal government did not.

I don't think that's how the Supremacy Clause works. If Congress specifically gives an authority to the federal government, that means it belongs to the fed and not the states.

While that's true, the supremacy clause isn't directly implicated here. It's more accurate to say that Congress has plenary power to define "insurrection" for 14th amendment purposes, so Trump simply hasn't engaged in insurrection for 14th amendment purposes, and Colorado has nothing to say about that. There doesn't have to be "an avenue for legal recourse" when the criteria of the law just plain haven't been met. Congress could technically issue a resolution simply asserting that Trump (or, technically, anyone) engaged in insurrection if they wanted, but they haven't, and the only law on the books that applies the 14§3 penalty requires a federal trial.

Is there any info on a potential vice-president candidate for Trump? I feel that Trump supporters will accept anyone endorsed by their orange messiah and this may be more dangerous than Trump will ever be.

There have been some short lists batted around.

[Bumber]

Is there any info on a potential vice-president candidate for Trump? I feel that Trump supporters will accept anyone endorsed by their orange messiah and this may be more dangerous than Trump will ever be.

Kristi Noem and Tim Scott were mentioned, IIRC. Sarah Huckabee Sanders may also have been mentioned at some point.

[Maximum™]

Oh no, my point which remains valid seems unfounded because the court ruled on another issue entirely, one which literally nobody knew they were even considering until they did it.

[Maximum Spin]

So Alabama just passed the strongest legal protection for IVF providers in the entire country. As of SB159, Alabama is now the safest place in the country to perform IVF.

[IncompetentFortressMaker]

Well, that's one way to try defusing the recent controversy about its IVF rulings.