In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there are important, interesting or just plain weird things happening out there and a group of people can find these better than one.
I thought I would test with a thread for linking general news articles about "other news" and discussion. Perhaps it goes into the abyss that is page 2 and beyond, but it is worth a try.
Some guidelines:
- Try to find the "clean link", so that links to the news site directly and not a social media site. Avoid "amp-links" (google).
- Write some cliff notes on what it is about, especially if it is a video.
- It's not an excuse to make outlandish claims via proxy or link extremist content.
- If it's an editorial or opinion piece, it is polite to mark it as such.
- Note the language if it is not in English.
- There is no demand that such things be posted here, if you think a piece merits its own thread, then make one.
AOC is now an economist...
I take that back, a bar back waitress new money millionaire economist.
why do these idiots always seem to flock to the left side of the isle.
AOC is now an economist...
I take that back, a bar back waitress new money millionaire economist.
why do these idiots always seem to flock to the left side of the isle.
The Republicans are massive ******s who are in a cult.
Trump cultists introduce insane bill.
Yeah. But it seems everyone is pretty much in agreement that isn't sustainable anymore, or even desirable. Foreign countries (eg. Canada) are dumping their US treasuries and starting to move off the dollar. It seems the whole world is in agreement they dont want the US dollar to be the world reserve currency anymore, but they still want the US to continue going into massive debt being the world' defense supplier and have massive trade deficits in their favor.
I understand this was all the US
- true
- first off it’s not true , they just buy gold massively instead for obvious reason and don’t forget , there is far more debt in US dollar worldwide then the United States creates .
What does that mean ?
From a economic novice like myself to you :
U.S. interest rates is still very high , especially for foreign worlwide corporations with a weaker currency in their country .
When the U.S. dollar gets too strong , debt cost more , they need more dollars to do business .
which market you believe has the biggest pool of U.S. dollar that you can sell to get U.S. dollar without affecting the market prices too much ?
U.S. bonds market correct ?
It’s not necessarily the world hates US , it’s they have no choice to sell bonds when the U.S. dollars gets too expensive .
FWIW it’s when the U.S. dollars goes down in value that the world economy do much better .
ad hominem while the vast majority of economists deeply disagree with Trumpian policies. Yawn, do better.
Vast majority of economists deeply disagree with tariffs, not with deregulation.
And the corporate income tax is overwhelmingly considered the worst tax in the books, the one that creates most inefficiencies, and consensus is it should be fully eliminated.
Vast majority of economists deeply disagree with tariffs, not with deregulation.
And the corporate income tax is overwhelmingly considered the worst tax in the books, the one that creates most inefficiencies, and consensus is it should be fully eliminated.
What? Very few economists have these kind of broad sweeping views on deregulation. You seem stuck in the pre ww2 era of economics for some reason. There's plenty of room for debate on how regulation should be implemented and what policies are good but nothing you said reflects reality other than most economists say tariffs = bad (in a broad sense, many agree with appropriately targeted ones).
I think you may need some brushing up on economics.
Vast majority of economists deeply disagree with tariffs, not with deregulation.
And the corporate income tax is overwhelmingly considered the worst tax in the books, the one that creates most inefficiencies, and consensus is it should be fully eliminated.
follow-up on corporate income tax comment: what you said is not true but I do generally agree that there should be low corporate income tax rates. The burden should be shifted away from income taxes of all kinds and on to shareholder/wealth/dividend taxes.
follow-up on corporate income tax comment: what you said is not true but I do generally agree that there should be low corporate income tax rates. The burden should be shifted away from income taxes of all kinds and on to shareholder/wealth/dividend taxes.
no actually the most efficient taxes are on land, then on consumption.
with efficient economists mean taxes that won't change behavior in a way that reduces aggregate production to game the tax.
What? Very few economists have these kind of broad sweeping views on deregulation. You seem stuck in the pre ww2 era of economics for some reason. There's plenty of room for debate on how regulation should be implemented and what policies are good but nothing you said reflects reality other than most economists say tariffs = bad (in a broad sense, many agree with appropriately targeted ones).
I think you may need some brushing up on economics.
I think you should read surveys of economists to gauge what the consensus is about every specific economic claim, not mainstream media article on center left media written by non economists.
there is overwhelming consensus against tariffa economically (other considerations *do not apply* as the question is about the economy) , in favour of significantly reducing regulation from current levels in the USA (and even more in Europe) in all sectors (and changing a lot of it), and in favor of my claim that the corporate income tax is the most inefficient one (ie the tax that most reduce aggregate production because of second order effects)
again you're spouting economic theory of the 1800s that few people agree with today. Saying that all policies should be about maximizing aggregate production is moronic. There are obviously boundaries of public good, utility, and cost to consider. Healthy, sustainable, and wealthy societies are the end goal. There isn't a credible economist alive who wants complete deregulation like you espouse.
what do I know though, I only studied economics for 7 years and work in the field. Thank god you're here to explain everything to everybody all at once.
what do I know though, I only studied economics for 7 years and work in the field. Thank god you're here to explain everything to everybody all at once.
If there's one thing I know about Luciom it's that he firmly believes he's smart enough to overcome his lack of education in any particular area and will calmly tell you why you are wrong in an area he knows nothing about and you have decades of education and experience in.
Ask me how I know.
Most of my professors were neo-keynesians....gross! Basically marxists! Another profession ruined by the liberal mind virus.
His Cuepee-like insistence that his abilities are well beyond his education and experience is pretty hilarious.
again you're spouting economic theory of the 1800s that few people agree with today. Saying that all policies should be about maximizing aggregate production is moronic. There are obviously boundaries of public good, utility, and cost to consider. Healthy, sustainable, and wealthy societies are the end goal. There isn't a credible economist alive who wants complete deregulation like you espouse.
what do I know though, I only studied economics for 7 years and work in the field. Thank god you're h
no I am talking about surveys conducted very recently among macroeconomists.
you think consensus is different from what it objectively is.
the other subjective preferences you reference are politics, not economics, and it's horrific to even think a scientifical answer can be given to that.
if you want to lie as all leftists always do and claim a scientifical consensus can exist about purely subjective and thus arbitrary tradeoff preferences do so, you will find a lot of company.
but we were talking scientific consensus, causal measurable claims about measurable aggregates.
the end goal is dramatically different for people like you and me and no science will ever be able to even discuss the topic, as it is not a scientific one. preferences aren't a scientific topic.
I didn't say consensus is "complete deregulation". I said it is deregulation from current levels of regulations will increase economic growth (more in the eu than in the USA), that's the consensus.
btw economics is what I did graduated in magna cum laude (on a top100 in the world department , Bologna) then ofc not being a leftist I rapidly fled academia because 1) I like money 2) I hate leftism and even at my time leftists already had encroached too much in the field
Most of my professors were neo-keynesians....gross! Basically marxists! Another profession ruined by the liberal mind virus.
unironically yes, you guys are destroying everything you touch and you are corrupting western civilization possibly in irreversible ways.
you are the only actual real threat to humanity flourishing
If there's one thing I know about Luciom it's that he firmly believes he's smart enough to overcome his lack of education in any particular area and will calmly tell you why you are wrong in an area he knows nothing about and you have decades of education and experience in.
Ask me how I know.
you purport to be an healthcare professional in an undisclosed field that thinks being a healthcare professional makes you good at understanding the validity of medical papers even if you have no basic knowledge of statistics.
I did study macro economics in depth though in what you dumb credentialists think is the proper place to study, unlike medicine.
love the fascination from the right with AOC.
i get that the left loves to poke fun at horseface and the handi beetlejuice hooker, but them bitches say and do some really freaky and stupid ****.
AOC rallies for some far left **** but it's not like she's out there bring dick pics to the floor of congress.
you guys are truly weird
AOC is about as normal a person as there is in politics and that is threatening. A female minority in a position of power willing to speak up and speak out is threatening
Also:
1100 new jfk files
