-
We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
-
Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.
News The Big Holes In Trump's Policies.
- Post starter Anarchy
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 28740
Facebook to sponsor GOP convention despite Zuckerberg's veiled dig at Trump
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ook-sponsor-republican-democratic-conventions
Facebook will sponsor the Republican and Democratic national conventions this summer providing “financial and other support” – despite pressure from progressive organizations and CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s own veiled criticisms of presumptive Republican candidate Donald Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric.
“This support allows Facebook to facilitate an open dialogue among voters, candidates and elected officials during the conventions, just as it has during other critical moments in the US elections and in elections around the world,” Erin Egan, Facebook’s vice president of public policy, said in a statement.
Facebook maintains that its sponsorship of the GOP convention, which willreportedly include a “lounge”, does not constitute an endorsement,
In 2013, Zuckerberg’s political lobbying group Fwd.us paid for political advertisements supporting the Keystone XL pipeline, in a convoluted (and unsuccessful) play to win Republican votes for immigration reform.
Recently, Facebook has been under pressure from groups such as Color of Change to improve the diversity of its staff and to crack down on harassment and hate speech on its platform.
“When you put together those two things and add on the fact that they’re choosing to sponsor a convention that is a coronation ball for a white nationalist who has said vile things about Latino people, Black people, Muslim people and women, it’s troubling that Facebook would make a decision to host a lounge,” said Arisha Hatch, managing director of campaigns for Color of Change.
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ook-sponsor-republican-democratic-conventions
Facebook will sponsor the Republican and Democratic national conventions this summer providing “financial and other support” – despite pressure from progressive organizations and CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s own veiled criticisms of presumptive Republican candidate Donald Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric.
“This support allows Facebook to facilitate an open dialogue among voters, candidates and elected officials during the conventions, just as it has during other critical moments in the US elections and in elections around the world,” Erin Egan, Facebook’s vice president of public policy, said in a statement.
Facebook maintains that its sponsorship of the GOP convention, which willreportedly include a “lounge”, does not constitute an endorsement,
In 2013, Zuckerberg’s political lobbying group Fwd.us paid for political advertisements supporting the Keystone XL pipeline, in a convoluted (and unsuccessful) play to win Republican votes for immigration reform.
Recently, Facebook has been under pressure from groups such as Color of Change to improve the diversity of its staff and to crack down on harassment and hate speech on its platform.
“When you put together those two things and add on the fact that they’re choosing to sponsor a convention that is a coronation ball for a white nationalist who has said vile things about Latino people, Black people, Muslim people and women, it’s troubling that Facebook would make a decision to host a lounge,” said Arisha Hatch, managing director of campaigns for Color of Change.
EveHarrington
VIP Member
Warning-----tangent.
Crack down on hate speech on its platform?
I'm so all over the place on this one.
One------hate speech isn't good. I abhor it actually. If hate speech would die a painful death is be all for it.
Two-----I also enjoy the first amendment. Allowing hate speech can actually be a good thing because it allows us to publicly see the enemy rather than pushing the enemy underground to fester and grow unchecked. If we can see it, we can fight it. Making it "disappear" isn't going to make it go away. This is actually quite archaic-----"I don't see it so it must not exist". Sorry you (critics) haven't graduated to "object permanence." Imho the oppressed fight back 100x harder than those who are given a chance to speak.
Three-----who would decide what is hate speech? In America today I can pretty much guarantee that certain types of hatred would be condemned (outright racism, homophobic stuff, etc) BUT we're a people who are pretty much in bed with the French when it comes to our defensiveness over our "right" to be hateful toward Muslims by outright disrespecting their beliefs/customs because we can.
I'm not surprised in the least that Facebook is doing this. Not one bit. Facebook is a business and it's all about the bottom dollar. And you know what? Maybe it actually makes me a little angry that this group wants to shut down dialogue that could actually allow people to converse with one another and open up their eyes as to how wretched Trump really is.
Bottom line------simply shutting down what you don't like is incredibly short sighted. Sad that for a progressive organization they don't have better plans of attack for battling this stuff.
Crack down on hate speech on its platform?
I'm so all over the place on this one.
One------hate speech isn't good. I abhor it actually. If hate speech would die a painful death is be all for it.
Two-----I also enjoy the first amendment. Allowing hate speech can actually be a good thing because it allows us to publicly see the enemy rather than pushing the enemy underground to fester and grow unchecked. If we can see it, we can fight it. Making it "disappear" isn't going to make it go away. This is actually quite archaic-----"I don't see it so it must not exist". Sorry you (critics) haven't graduated to "object permanence." Imho the oppressed fight back 100x harder than those who are given a chance to speak.
Three-----who would decide what is hate speech? In America today I can pretty much guarantee that certain types of hatred would be condemned (outright racism, homophobic stuff, etc) BUT we're a people who are pretty much in bed with the French when it comes to our defensiveness over our "right" to be hateful toward Muslims by outright disrespecting their beliefs/customs because we can.
I'm not surprised in the least that Facebook is doing this. Not one bit. Facebook is a business and it's all about the bottom dollar. And you know what? Maybe it actually makes me a little angry that this group wants to shut down dialogue that could actually allow people to converse with one another and open up their eyes as to how wretched Trump really is.
Bottom line------simply shutting down what you don't like is incredibly short sighted. Sad that for a progressive organization they don't have better plans of attack for battling this stuff.
- Post starter
- #40
Well put
the definition of "hate speech" can be drawn so wide that any questioning or criticism of dear leader - or their policies or minions becomes verboten.
That said, the forbidden subjects can be communicated quite well enough in a cant, by using language that is too praising - and pretty obviously means exactly the opposite of what is being said or written.
the definition of "hate speech" can be drawn so wide that any questioning or criticism of dear leader - or their policies or minions becomes verboten.
That said, the forbidden subjects can be communicated quite well enough in a cant, by using language that is too praising - and pretty obviously means exactly the opposite of what is being said or written.
- Post starter
- #41
@Justmehere
Thanks for the link to the CNBC piece.
There are some interesting falsehoods in the piece, regarding the entirely paper US dollar, debt and the business cycles. That comes back to the point about it generally being Republican administrations which increase the level of debt - because the previous administration had let rip with low interest rates and inflated an un sustainable economic bubble, which had duly popped.
edit; and of course the republicans tend to have far bigger military spending too.
The lamestream schools of economics are extremely weak in the area of monetary theory. I'd argue that the various neo and post keynesians are weak all around on economics.
The MMT (modern monetary theorists) might be ok as foreign exchange speculators, but they're wholly fallacious on understanding what's going on.
The Chicago school moneterists are so so, they get a little bit of the picture.
For decent monetary theory, the Austrian school is really the only show in town. Their business cycle theory flows from that understanding of monetary theory.
In practical terms, Ludwig von Mises (father of Austrian School monetary theory) was pretty much singlehandedly responsible for halting the Austrian hyper inflation in the early 1930s.
Ideas are the things that change the world
I can highly recommend any of the introductions to Austrian school economics by people like Hoppe, Hulsmann, Salerno, Rothbard - of course, Murphy, Block...
__________________________________________
ok, what were the holes in the article;
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/06/donald-trump-on-us-debt.html
The assumed lack of risk is based on the assumption that the us .gov can print the money or type the digits into a computer, and that they will be acceptable on the market in exchange for a a simillar ammount of goods as they were the day before.
un backed paper money (which is what the us dollar is) is more of a con than magic beans could ever be. Beans, whether magic or not, have an underlying value - you can eat them or plant them - paper money isn't even good for lighting the fire or wiping your arse with.
us .gov bonds are promises to paper dollars in the future and pay interest in paper dollars.
On an un hampered market, money arises out of the most readily accepted good on that market. If i want new shoes and all that I have to exchange for them is a dairy cow, and the cobbler doesn't want a dairy cow - I have a problem.
But If I find that the cobbler would accept some silver, and I can exchange the cow with someone who does want the cow - for silver. I czn then use some of that silver to pay the cobbler for the new shoes.
It doesn't take much from that to realise that i can accept and hold silver for exchanging with, even if i have no other use for silver.
Prior to FDR's confiscating American's private holdings of gold, dollars exchanged for gold at a fixed rate (iirc $24/oz - gold is currently at around $1300 / oz)
Nixon officially broke the link between dollars and gold in 1971, however Linden Johnson had ceased allowing central banks to redeem paper dollars for gold in the late 1960s - as more paper dollars had been printed than there was gold to exchange for them at the official rate of $32/oz, and the French government's demand to redeem paper dollars which came into its possession would have revealed that over printing,
So since 1971 - instead of a commodity like gold or silver being used as a money, we've had paper which can be printed at will and digits which can be entered into a computer
it is only because of the post WWii Bretton Woods agreement (which tricky Dicky reneged on in 1971) that there is significant overseas demand for dollars - so large scale printing of paper dollars has only seen their value against gold change from $32/oz to $1300/oz (if gold were to again be accepted as money - the exchange rate with paper dollars would approach infinity)
as soon as there is a decline in the demand overseas to hold otherwise worthless paper dollars and bonds that are promises to paper dollars in the future, the purchasing power of the dollar will collapse
Faith in those bonds is a confidence game - as soon as confidence goes, they're just pieces of paper (incidentally the "assets" in government run pension schemes are usually government bonds).
The line - all other financial assets will become riskier is true only if they're based on paper dollars and dollar denominated bonds
holdings of things like gold and silver (or lead and brass) will retain or even increase their exchange value.
On an un hampered market - the interest rate is a market price, arrived at by the interactions between savers and borrowers
It's actually a very important price, because it is a guide to whether society as a whole wants to consume now, or save to be able to consume more later.
Printing of paper money, and the further expansion of claims to that money by fractional reserve banking, artificially lowers the interest rate below where the market participants would have reached agreements with each other.
that results in both more borrowing than the market would have had, and also less saving
those two are incompatible and that is one of the factors that leads to periodic crashes - as people's preferences re-assert themselves over the preferences of the central bankers and politicians
the crash is caused by the bad investment choices made under artificially low interest rates - so it will come - and it is better that the crash comes sooner rather than later, when it has had time to become bigger.
The "illiquidity" is caused by the banks only having fractional reserves
basically fractional reserving is a fraud - there are probably less than 10c of coins and bank notes in american banks for every $100 that appears on people's bank statements.
_____________________________________________
There is very serious shit here, and it will happen sooner or later
whichever politician is at the top when it does happen - will likely get blamed - but the coming crisis has been in the making for a very long time.
People like David Stockman and Paul Volker have expressed dismay that they patched the broken system up and allowed it to continue to the present day, rather than let it crash and destroy itself at the end of the 1970s.
Thanks for the link to the CNBC piece.
There are some interesting falsehoods in the piece, regarding the entirely paper US dollar, debt and the business cycles. That comes back to the point about it generally being Republican administrations which increase the level of debt - because the previous administration had let rip with low interest rates and inflated an un sustainable economic bubble, which had duly popped.
edit; and of course the republicans tend to have far bigger military spending too.
The lamestream schools of economics are extremely weak in the area of monetary theory. I'd argue that the various neo and post keynesians are weak all around on economics.
The MMT (modern monetary theorists) might be ok as foreign exchange speculators, but they're wholly fallacious on understanding what's going on.
The Chicago school moneterists are so so, they get a little bit of the picture.
For decent monetary theory, the Austrian school is really the only show in town. Their business cycle theory flows from that understanding of monetary theory.
In practical terms, Ludwig von Mises (father of Austrian School monetary theory) was pretty much singlehandedly responsible for halting the Austrian hyper inflation in the early 1930s.
Ideas are the things that change the world
I can highly recommend any of the introductions to Austrian school economics by people like Hoppe, Hulsmann, Salerno, Rothbard - of course, Murphy, Block...
__________________________________________
ok, what were the holes in the article;
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/06/donald-trump-on-us-debt.html
Bold Added
The assumed lack of risk is based on the assumption that the us .gov can print the money or type the digits into a computer, and that they will be acceptable on the market in exchange for a a simillar ammount of goods as they were the day before.
un backed paper money (which is what the us dollar is) is more of a con than magic beans could ever be. Beans, whether magic or not, have an underlying value - you can eat them or plant them - paper money isn't even good for lighting the fire or wiping your arse with.
us .gov bonds are promises to paper dollars in the future and pay interest in paper dollars.
On an un hampered market, money arises out of the most readily accepted good on that market. If i want new shoes and all that I have to exchange for them is a dairy cow, and the cobbler doesn't want a dairy cow - I have a problem.
But If I find that the cobbler would accept some silver, and I can exchange the cow with someone who does want the cow - for silver. I czn then use some of that silver to pay the cobbler for the new shoes.
It doesn't take much from that to realise that i can accept and hold silver for exchanging with, even if i have no other use for silver.
Prior to FDR's confiscating American's private holdings of gold, dollars exchanged for gold at a fixed rate (iirc $24/oz - gold is currently at around $1300 / oz)
Nixon officially broke the link between dollars and gold in 1971, however Linden Johnson had ceased allowing central banks to redeem paper dollars for gold in the late 1960s - as more paper dollars had been printed than there was gold to exchange for them at the official rate of $32/oz, and the French government's demand to redeem paper dollars which came into its possession would have revealed that over printing,
So since 1971 - instead of a commodity like gold or silver being used as a money, we've had paper which can be printed at will and digits which can be entered into a computer
it is only because of the post WWii Bretton Woods agreement (which tricky Dicky reneged on in 1971) that there is significant overseas demand for dollars - so large scale printing of paper dollars has only seen their value against gold change from $32/oz to $1300/oz (if gold were to again be accepted as money - the exchange rate with paper dollars would approach infinity)
as soon as there is a decline in the demand overseas to hold otherwise worthless paper dollars and bonds that are promises to paper dollars in the future, the purchasing power of the dollar will collapse
Faith in those bonds is a confidence game - as soon as confidence goes, they're just pieces of paper (incidentally the "assets" in government run pension schemes are usually government bonds).
The line - all other financial assets will become riskier is true only if they're based on paper dollars and dollar denominated bonds
holdings of things like gold and silver (or lead and brass) will retain or even increase their exchange value.
On an un hampered market - the interest rate is a market price, arrived at by the interactions between savers and borrowers
It's actually a very important price, because it is a guide to whether society as a whole wants to consume now, or save to be able to consume more later.
Printing of paper money, and the further expansion of claims to that money by fractional reserve banking, artificially lowers the interest rate below where the market participants would have reached agreements with each other.
that results in both more borrowing than the market would have had, and also less saving
those two are incompatible and that is one of the factors that leads to periodic crashes - as people's preferences re-assert themselves over the preferences of the central bankers and politicians
the crash is caused by the bad investment choices made under artificially low interest rates - so it will come - and it is better that the crash comes sooner rather than later, when it has had time to become bigger.
The "illiquidity" is caused by the banks only having fractional reserves
basically fractional reserving is a fraud - there are probably less than 10c of coins and bank notes in american banks for every $100 that appears on people's bank statements.
_____________________________________________
There is very serious shit here, and it will happen sooner or later
whichever politician is at the top when it does happen - will likely get blamed - but the coming crisis has been in the making for a very long time.
People like David Stockman and Paul Volker have expressed dismay that they patched the broken system up and allowed it to continue to the present day, rather than let it crash and destroy itself at the end of the 1970s.
Last edited:
The Albatross
VIP Member
Apparently Trump already reversed course on his "tax plan" (among other things).
In other news, Anonymous and WikiLeaks have been busy outing Hillary... and Sanders, for all his many years in office is just as benign politically as Hillary was as Sec of State and her senatorial term... no significant legislation, no significant contributions. What a trifecta of posers.
In other news, Anonymous and WikiLeaks have been busy outing Hillary... and Sanders, for all his many years in office is just as benign politically as Hillary was as Sec of State and her senatorial term... no significant legislation, no significant contributions. What a trifecta of posers.
- Post starter
- #43
a good intro to Austrian School economics by Hulsmann and Hoppe
there is no maths!
Start on video 2 (vid 1 is a mish mash of clips from the other vids)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDFA82051066933E9
______________________________________________
edit:
The reason that there is no maths in Austrian school economics is because there are no constant numerical relations.
All values are subjective, and all numbers are order rankings of individual personal preferences; first, second, third etc (ordinal rather than cardinal numbers) and hence cannot be used in equations.
The place where numbers does come in, is in economic history, not economic theory - so for example the average price of a coffee in Seattle in May 2016 was $x and the average wage there at that time was $y.
There are no constant relationships between those two, or between any other values, so mathematics and equations are not relevant - they are only a game (mathsturbation - from Mathematics and Turbation - to make cloudy or unclear - it's a dirty little habit, completely divorced from reality - mathsturbate too often and you'll probably go blind).
there is no maths!
Start on video 2 (vid 1 is a mish mash of clips from the other vids)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDFA82051066933E9
______________________________________________
edit:
The reason that there is no maths in Austrian school economics is because there are no constant numerical relations.
All values are subjective, and all numbers are order rankings of individual personal preferences; first, second, third etc (ordinal rather than cardinal numbers) and hence cannot be used in equations.
The place where numbers does come in, is in economic history, not economic theory - so for example the average price of a coffee in Seattle in May 2016 was $x and the average wage there at that time was $y.
There are no constant relationships between those two, or between any other values, so mathematics and equations are not relevant - they are only a game (mathsturbation - from Mathematics and Turbation - to make cloudy or unclear - it's a dirty little habit, completely divorced from reality - mathsturbate too often and you'll probably go blind).
Last edited:
- Post starter
- #44
- Post starter
- #47
Oh dear...
One of the more vicious HL Mencken quotes says;
http://www.humor12.com/data/media/16/la_rana_rene.jpg
One of the more vicious HL Mencken quotes says;
It looks like kermit just voted
http://www.humor12.com/data/media/16/la_rana_rene.jpg
EveHarrington
VIP Member
Drove by a parked car with a Trump bumper sticker.
I flicked it off. (No people nearby.)
An (unfortunate) automatic reaction.
LOL.
This election is taking me to a bad place!
I flicked it off. (No people nearby.)
An (unfortunate) automatic reaction.
LOL.
This election is taking me to a bad place!
- Status
Similar posts
- Locked
- Deleted member 44394
- News, Studies & Research
Donation drives
Trending content
-
-
What Are You Feeling Today? Not Thinking, Rather Feeling! Can You Identify Yours?
- goingonhope
Comments: 34K -
-
-
-
