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 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
progressivepunch, which ranks congresspeople on their adherence to the ideals of progressivism by checking their voting history, ranks AOC as the 15th most radical leftist out of 435 members of the house
https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?...
so no, she is objectively radically to the left of most democrats in the house, not "normal" at all in politics
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
"I want a healthy, wealthy, sustainable society"
Luciom: Liberals only want one thing, and it's DISGUSTING.
Anyways, in spite of all your research, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what economics actually is that I doubt will be rectified here. I'll give you a clue, the word welfare is included in the definition.
You are the one that was claiming a consensus, not me....and then tried to shift the goal posts to the EU. You have deeply antisocial beliefs and a very limited understanding of the world and I doubt we can rectify that here.
Anyways, in spite of all your research, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what economics actually is that I doubt will be rectified here. I'll give you a clue, the word welfare is included in the definition.
You are the one that was claiming a consensus, not me....and then tried to shift the goal posts to the EU. You have deeply antisocial beliefs and a very limited understanding of the world and I doubt we can rectify that here.
i am claiming a consensus among macroeconomists on the effects on economic growth of tariffs (negative), deregulation (positive from currently levels).
and on the fact that if the same revenue is collected with other taxes rather than the corporate income tax rate, the economic pie is bigger (that's what it being an inefficient tax means).
I also said deregulation would increase growth more in the EU than in the USA because there are more and more destructive (for the economy) regulations in the EU. no shifting anything.
all of the above is utterly uncontroversial among macroeconomists. just ask around to anyone of them who isn't a partisan activist of either major American party.
this is the britannica definition of economics
economics
/ˌɛkəˈnɑːmɪks/
noun
1
[noncount] : a science concerned with the process or system by which goods and services are produced, sold, and bought
"welfare" isn't there.
That's weird, you said in reference to me saying the vast majority of economists disagree with Trump's current policies. Now you're scrambling to redirect it towards specific regulations in the EU? (and saying it sweepingly which is obviously not representative of their views because, yes, I do follow this stuff directly at the policy level).
A definition of the study of economics is more like the study of scarcity and its implications for the use of resources, production of goods and services, growth of production and welfare over time. Everyone that's not a fascist seems to be partisan in your mind so finding a reliable source by your measure is pretty hard.
i am claiming a consensus among macroeconomists on the effects on economic growth of tariffs (negative), deregulation (positive from currently levels).
and on the fact that if the same revenue is collected with other taxes rather than the corporate income tax rate, the economic pie is bigger (that's what it being an inefficient tax means).
And yet the U.S. has a humongous trade deficit….
Maybe you are overstating some deficiencies in the economy that isn’t there but you do because u believe in some notions of anti left .
That's weird, you said in reference to me saying the vast majority of economists disagree with Trump's current policies. Now you're scrambling to redirect it towards specific regulations in the EU? (and saying it sweepingly which is obviously not representative of their views because, yes, I do follow this stuff directly at the policy level).
A definition of the study of economics is more like the study of scarcity and its implications for the use of resources, production of goods and services,
This.
That's weird, you said in reference to me saying the vast majority of economists disagree with Trump's current policies. Now you're scrambling to redirect it towards specific regulations in the EU? (and saying it sweepingly which is obviously not representative of their views because, yes, I do follow this stuff directly at the policy level).
A definition of the study of economics is more like the study of scarcity and its implications for the use of resources, production of goods and services,
No there is no scrambling.
It is false that the vast majority of economists disagree with trump current economic policies. It is true they disagree with Trump tariffs shenanigans. It is completly false the vast majority disagree with his deregulation attempts, or with attempts to lower / eliminate the corporate income tax rate.
Now the britannica is fascist because it didn't include welfare in the definition of economics, i get it.
Ben & Jerry's says parent Unilever decided to oust ice cream maker's CEO
NEW YORK (Reuters) -Ben & Jerry's said its parent, Unilever, decided to oust the ice cream maker's chief executive, Dave Stever, escalating a battle over the subsidiary's independence on social policy issues.
In a Tuesday night filing in Manhattan federal court, Ben & Jerry's said Unilever advised on March 3 it was removing Stever without consulting directors because of his commitment to the ice cream maker's social mission and brand integrity, not because of concerns about his job performance.
Next up, Ben and Jerry's announces that they will only be making vanilla ice cream from here on out.
No there is no scrambling.
It is false that the vast majority of economists disagree with trump current economic policies. It is true they disagree with Trump tariffs shenanigans. It is completly false the vast majority disagree with his deregulation attempts, or with attempts to lower / eliminate the corporate income tax rate.
Now the britannica is fascist because it didn't include welfare in the definition of economics, i get it.
You did that whole degree and think 8 words from the encyclopedia is a comprehensive definition. You should probably ask for a refund. Facts don't care about your feelings luciom. You're in a hole now, keep lying your way deeper.
FWIW most economists strongly disagree with Trumps current approach including to deregulation and government cuts. There is lots of room for targeted deregulation that the consensus would definitely support but this ain't it. Don't make false sweeping statements. Sometimes (usually) you're wrong and its okay to walk it back.
FWIW most economists strongly disagree with Trumps current approach including to deregulation and government cuts. There is lots of room for targeted deregulation that the consensus would definitely support but this ain't it. Don't make false sweeping statements. Sometimes (usually) you're wrong and its okay to walk it back.
I never mentioned "government cuts" which btw aren't an economic policy. No, most economists don't strongly disagree with Trump deregulation approach in the sense of claiming it will reduce economic growth (which was my claim).
Economists can have personal preferences beyond the economy and express them *and that's doesn't make their preferences more relevant than those of anyone else*, for example an economist or 1000 could disagree with disregarding CO2 emissions but that *isn't an economic claim*, so their expertise doesn't matter in the slightest.
The claim is that deregulation would increase economic growth , doesn't matter if that's at the expense of non-economical variables you, some economists, or anyone else care about. And that's a truly uncontroversial claim for macroeconomists.
If the EPA ceases to exist tomorrow that increases economic growth. This is uncontroversial, objectively true.
NO MATTER the non-economical consequences of that, that is what economists have credentials to discuss, NOT the non-economical consequences.
You did that whole degree and think 8 words from the encyclopedia is a comprehensive definition. You should probably ask for a refund. Facts don't care about your feelings luciom. You're in a hole now, keep lying your way deeper.
You are arguing like your 12y old friend (leftists are all the same at the end).
You claimed the definition of a word is X. I posted a source which is among the most respected in the world for the specific task of defining words, and they don't agree with you. That's it, you were objectively wrong and i was as it's usually the case objectively right.
It would be easy for you to admit that yes, you went with a definition that isn't agreed upon by the most qualified people in the world at defining words, but not, leftists are semantic rapists and insist against objective evidence that the meaning of a word is always whay THEY LIKE it to be, not a shared specific set of elements that doesn't change with leftist opinion, but only when the masses change it in time.
The FACT is that the definition of economics doesn't need or use the word "welfare" anywhere, according to the most trusted sources at defining words.
And "comprehensive definition" doesn't mean anything. A good, proper, semantic definition is always and strictly the most condensed possible one, for obvious reasons, in linguistics.
Not a 300 pages treaty.
Being a lefists is truly mental poison.
Ahh there in lies the core of your misunderstanding. See things like CO2 are part of economics because all inputs and outputs have to be appropriately captured in a good equation. Now that's an uncontroversial consensus opinion among economists.
Ahh there in lies the core of your misunderstanding. See things like CO2 are part of economics because all inputs and outputs have to be appropriately captured in a good equation. Now that's an uncontroversial consensus opinion among economists.
Nto when you discuss national economic growth no. You do NOT care about externalities outside your borders, while for your own climate change effects you don't determine them by your own country emissions even if you are the USA.
The USA is less than 13% of worldwide emissions SO anything you might believe impacts the economy negatively in aggregate in the USA stemming from emissions doesn't depend on usa domestic emissions enough to internalize those costs in any meaningful way and you can disregard them.
Now if you are China that might not hold, and ofc if you are smaller than the USA that's even more obviously true.
The impacts on the climate of a reduction (or lack thereof) of american emissions in the next 10 or 20 years is so small (given, i repeat, the current contribution is under 13% of worldwide emissions already) it can be disregarded when discussing domestic economic growth.
You're arguing subjective opinion (and continuing to move the goal posts). Your views are radical and not representative of the consensus of economists. There are very few pure economic maximalists out there like you.
You're arguing subjective opinion (and continuing to move the goal posts). Your views are radical and not representative of the consensus of economists. There are very few pure economic maximalists out there like you.
It is uncontroversial to claim that if the USA reduces emissions by 25% in 2040 vs today, or it doesn't at all they stay the same, the economic impact for the USA is almost identical, because those emissions don't impact climate change enough to be relevant, we are talking perhaps 0.02C of difference between those 2 scenarios.
This is not an opinion, this is what consensus models tell you
Cool keep moving those goal posts! Where are you going to take us next to deflect from getting called out for lying.
Um its a fact that if the moon was 2 feet further from the earth then it wouldnt matter, checkmate commie! Thats just fact!!
Stop misrepresenting the opinions of experts that you A) don't believe are legit anyways and B) don't understand the basics of.
lol what a deranged leftist
It is uncontroversial to claim that if the USA reduces emissions by 25% in 2040 vs today, or it doesn't at all they stay the same, the economic impact for the USA is almost identical, because those emissions don't impact climate change enough to be relevant, we are talking perhaps 0.02C of difference between those 2 scenarios.
This is not an opinion, this is what consensus models tell you
INDIA has RAIDED the George Soros' Open Society Foundation Offices in Karnataka.
