2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Tesla is getting money that would otherwise go to *foreign governments* or *state goverments of states controlled by democrats* which voluntarily chose to have Tesla get that money instead (presumably because they think Tesla existence has positive externalities for the world which deserve to be compensated), and getting it actually increases federal government revenue a bit as Tesla profit is taxed by the federal government, and also because it increases the value of Tesla stock on which some a
Incorrect. Pollution is a national issue, not state, so any state-subsidized reduction in pollution is what helps all Americans, not Tesla accepting that money. Pollution is not some theoretical construct - it has an actual cost to human life and health and that cost accrues to the Federal government through its existing health programs.
Well, I guess if religious belief is a protected class, then there kind of is. As in I can't not hire for being religious much the same as I can't not hire someone for being black.
A group being a protected class doesn't mean that a company has to hit some sort of quota. Also, not all protected classes enjoy the same level of constitutional (or statutory) protection.
Incorrect. Pollution is a national issue, not state, so any state-subsidized reduction in pollution is what helps all Americans, not Tesla accepting that money. Pollution is not some theoretical construct - it has an actual cost to human life and health and that cost accrues to the Federal government through its existing health programs.
CO2 doesn't kill human life but even if it did, the USA government *saves* money from early deaths because of social security (we already went for this more generally: a state that pays both pensions and healthcare for elders saves significantly with a reduction in life expectancy).
But the companies having to pay Tesla instead of the government doesn't change the amount of pollutants being released anyway lol: the disincentive to pollute is the same.
A group being a protected class doesn't mean that a company has to hit some sort of quota. Also, not all protected classes enjoy the same level of constitutional (or statutory) protection.
Oh so you think the concept of "statistical discrimination" is completly absurd and should never have a place in the law? i agree.
A group being a protected class doesn't mean that a company has to hit some sort of quota. Also, not all protected classes enjoy the same level of constitutional (or statutory) protection.
I don't know much about it. I was responding having taken Luciom's statement that you can't discriminate based on religion when hiring in most countries as a given.
Oh so you think the concept of "statistical discrimination" is completly absurd and should never have a place in the law? i agree.
I don't know what you are asking. Statistical information certainly could be circumstantial evidence of conduct.
If a prosecutor has done a hundred trials in a jurisdiction whether the jury pool is half black, and every peremptory strike he has ever used in all one hundred trials has been against a black juror, I think we could draw some conclusions about whether he is trying to exclude jurors based primarily on race.
I don't know much about it. I was responding having taken Luciom's statement that you can't discriminate based on religion when hiring in most countries as a given.
Oh i am against all anti-discrimination rules for private entities (it should always be legal to discriminate for private actors with no exception) so it wasn't a moral statement, it was a factual statement as you mentioned "the real world"
CO2 doesn't kill human life but even if it did, the USA government *saves* money from early deaths because of social security (we already went for this more generally: a state that pays both pensions and healthcare for elders saves significantly with a reduction in life expectancy).
But the companies having to pay Tesla instead of the government doesn't change the amount of pollutants being released anyway lol: the disincentive to pollute is the same.
There's much more than just CO2 coming out of cars and CO2 does impact human life so your claim is baseless.
You're wrong on the second point as well because a disincentive to pollute doesn't reduce pollutants unless it leads to the creation of low-pollution vehicle alternatives. The fact those other companies are net payers of their carbon credits is obvious evidence of that.
What do you mean? My point is that there is nothing logically discordant about saying (i) X is a protected class; (ii) you don't have to hit quotas of X in order to comply with the law.
You obviously could require both (i) and (ii) as a matter of law, but you also could have (i) but not (ii) without running into some sort of logical fallacy.
Oh i am against all anti-discrimination rules for private entities (it should always be legal to discriminate for private actors with no exception) so it wasn't a moral statement, it was a factual statement as you mentioned "the real world"
Right, I am saying I was taking your statement as factually correct and responding on that basis, without having researched it. That's what it means to "take as given". I wasn't implying that I was stipulating to any value judgement you were (or weren't) making, only the facts.
I don't know what you are asking. Statistical information certainly could be circumstantial evidence of conduct.
If a prosecutor has done a hundred trials in a jurisdiction whether the jury pool is half black, and every peremptory strike he has ever used in all one hundred trials has been against a black juror, I think we could draw some conclusions about whether he is trying to exclude jurors based primarily on race.
Ok you do think statistical discrimination should be part of the legal process, i disagree.
Well then de facto you are asking for quotas, because if a company can be sued exclusively on the basis of the fact that it has a lower % of blacks as employees than the % of blacks in the population in the area the company is located, that is so expensive to litigate most will have to hire enough blacks regardless of qualifications to avoid being sued.
Elections matter: this is coinbase stock price reaction to election outcomes (coinbase has troubles with the SEC, trump admin SEC is expected to make life very easy for crypto in general)
And ALL the regular buyers of child porn and hitmen rejoice!
Sadly, crypto has no positive and unique utility towards things like paying for groceries, paying taxes, or, in general, increasing the wealth and security of the poorest 80% of the country. But no, thanks for telling us "elections matter"; we were all sitting there in stunned disbelief that crypto was going up after Trump won...
There's much more than just CO2 coming out of cars and CO2 does impact human life so your claim is baseless.
You're wrong on the second point as well because a disincentive to pollute doesn't reduce pollutants unless it leads to the creation of low-pollution vehicle alternatives. The fact those other companies are net payers of their carbon credits is obvious evidence of that.
the cap and trade system Tesla gets paid for is CARBON CREDITS. CARBON. It's getting paid because of emission reduction. Not because of other pollutants.
AFAIK
*the creation of the no pollution alternatives is what Tesla does lol
What do you mean? My point is that there is nothing logically discordant about saying (i) X is a protected class; (ii) you don't have to hit quotas of X in order to comply with the law.
You obviously could require both (i) and (ii) as a matter of law, but you also could have (i) but not (ii) without running into some sort of logical fallacy.
Ok you do think statistical discrimination should be part of the legal process, i disagree.
Well then de facto you are asking for quotas, because if a company can be sued exclusively on the basis of the fact that it has a lower % of blacks as employees than the % of blacks in the population in the area the company is located, that is so expensive to litigate most will have to hire enough blacks regardless of qualifications to avoid being sued.
I think this is a red herring. I'm saying I should be able to openly state "I don't want to hire religious employees" or "I don't want to hire conservative employees" or whatever else (except the 3 classes I enumerated earlier). Nobody should need to infer anything based on what % of my employees are religious or conservative. My money, my choice.
I think it's great that big employers can't discriminate on the basis of any of those things. Also philosophical beliefs (odd name but whatever) are protected e.g
Anti-Zionist beliefs ‘worthy of respect’, UK tribunal finds
Judges say unfairly dismissed academic David Miller’s views on Israel should be protected by antidiscrimination laws
And ALL the regular buyers of child porn and hitmen rejoice!
Sadly, crypto has no positive and unique utility towards things like paying for groceries, paying taxes, or, in general, increasing the wealth and security of the poorest 80% of the country. But no, thanks for telling us "elections matter"; we were all sitting there in stunned disbelief that crypto was going up after Trump won...
Crypto has decent positives for badly managed countries residents. It isn't particularly useful in well governed first world countries but you never know if your country will collapse or not.
Having a secure private , not-government-assailable, ultramobile way to store wealth can come in handy to flee some place that implodes with minimal losses.
And in general whatever weakens state powers tends to be good in my book. Cripto adds to the list of ways to avoid gvmnt scrutiny and disregard goverment regulations and taxes.
Not coinbase though which is the opposite, a tool to make cripto mainstream and assailable by government lol. Coinbase is the kind of bridge the gvmnt needs to make cripto just another regular asset class.
I think this is a red herring. I'm saying I should be able to openly state "I don't want to hire religious employees" or "I don't want to hire conservative employees" or whatever else. Nobody should need to infer anything based on what % of my employees are religious or conservative. My money, my choice.
Yes i understand that, i agree and i would extend to everything including race.
Because even if discriminating for race is odious and for me deeply unethical, rules shouldn't have anything to do with morals in general. Private property rights are absolute, and you should be able to spend your money (hire & fire) in any way you want without ever justifying why to any third party.
That will include deeply odious and unethical ways to spend the money, and so be it. My moral preferences, and yours, shouldn't matter
What do you mean? My point is that there is nothing logically discordant about saying (i) X is a protected class; (ii) you don't have to hit quotas of X in order to comply with the law.
You obviously could require both (i) and (ii) as a matter of law, but you also could have (i) but not (ii) without running into some sort of logical fallacy.
Fact is de facto you do, and you aren't even sure beforehand which quota will guarantee you are safe from legal persecution
I blame anyone that didn't vote for Kamala Harris. I don't care what color you are.
Pretty sure those that didn't vote for Harris in states Harris carried anyway can't be blamed for anything
Ok you do think statistical discrimination should be part of the legal process, i disagree.
It isn't as simple as yes or no. Do I think you should be able to prevail in a sex discrimination case simply by pointing out that the percentage of female MDs at Morgan Stanley is lower than the percentage of women in the overall population? Of course not. Do I believe that you you should be able to use statistical evidence (if it is extreme enough) to argue for a rebuttable presumption in the prosecutor example I offered? I do.
Well then de facto you are asking for quotas, because if a company can be sued exclusively on the basis of the fact that it has a lower % of blacks as employees than the % of blacks in the population in the area the company is located, that is so expensive to litigate most will have to hire enough blacks regardless of qualifications to avoid being sued.
A company can be sued for absolutely nothing at all. That's the U.S. legal system. But you aren't going to win a lawsuit against Morgan Stanley merely by citing the statistic I mentioned above. You are just going to be wasting your time and money unless you have other evidence. And in case it isn't obvious, you (the plaintiff) are much more likely to be cowed by the prospect of legal expenses than Morgan Stanley is.
Yes i understand that, i agree and i would extend to everything including race.
Because even if discriminating for race is odious and for me deeply unethical, rules shouldn't have anything to do with morals in general. Private property rights are absolute, and you should be able to spend your money (hire & fire) in any way you want without ever justifying why to any third party.
That will include deeply odious and unethical ways to spend the money, and so be it. My moral preferences, and yours, sh
I should add that obviously my hypothetical would be a pretty dumb thing to do from a business point of view in most circumstances, since taking such a stance publicly would probably out you as a bigot and lose you most of your customers and/or investors, but the law is not there to protect people from making stupid business decisions.
If we circle back to where we all started, I was trying to explain to our conservative friend that free speech works both ways (has consequences, if you like), and when he (hypothetically) exercises his by bleating about election fraud, I can exercise mine and not hire (or fire) him.
Fact is de facto you do, and you aren't even sure beforehand which quota will guarantee you are safe from legal persecution
Walk down the halls of any major bank, law firm, or accounting firm. You will not see an employee population that closely mirrors local or national demographics, especially at the higher levels. By your logic, these firms much be getting sued into oblivion. In fact, they are not.
