The News Thread

[Dak]

I don't get the comparison of the first one, unless maybe you are referring to the earning of the businessman? But the 2nd one implies consent..not sure where you are going with this?

Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain example pretty much hits it without me having to re-invent the wheel. You could summarize it with the single word consent if you wanted.

 

[rms]

I was asking you to expand on how the source is different than inequality and what did you mean by floor, if I was not clear.

Who is the source in the Chamberlain example? The company that provides an outlet for people to pay 25 cents to watch a basketball player or the Player who willfully acknowledges that he is "earning" from the poor?

 

[rms]

What's the "less than 50 people" number? Are you implying that only 50 people from southern california region have been released since prop 47?



I personally know more than at least 10 or so dope dealers that were released in the last year or so, and that's just in my area. A few of my hardcore prison baby friends were also released early, one of them was busted with about* an ounce of meth just a few months before he got out. Like i said, drug related crimes and murders have risen in just about every city around here since then. Im sure it's pretty easy for someone who lives in Boulder(i checked the numbers) or other cities where stuff like this is almost non existent to think otherwise. The people here in LA, San Bernardino/Riverside and the ghettos of Orange County see it and feel it, we dont need to read about it.

Obama's big "pardon" this year was ~50 people, was it not?

Well when you say "I discredit objective analysis because I can see the outcome" that makes you look really silly. No need to point out to me that Boulder is the whitest and most affluent place I have ever set foot in or lived. You are claiming that a pardon of ~50 people have increased the murder rate (drug related crimes are kind of irrelevant here since the point is to erode this kind of thing) in all of Southern California when A no idea how many are even released in that area and B if they are even involved.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

wow, you are so clueless.

Have you heard of prop 47, son?

Our prisons here in cali are jam fuckin' packed, which is the main reason they passed 47 and now we have a lot of old drug dealers back on the streets .. i dont need to explain to you how that results in a rise of crime in our neighborhoods, right?

 

[rms]

How are you attributing a state ballot to the execution order of Obama's pardons/commutations?

 

[AllShallFall]

TB where in So Cal do you live that it's gotten really bad?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

@rms:

Yeah, it's silly because i actually see and feel it, while you sit there and argue about things that are basically foreign to you. Lol give me a break There are countless numbers of articles, statsheets etc from LA Times and other sources that prove what im saying about drug related crimes and murders spiking in the southern california area ever since prop 47 passed, go look them up.

Also, please explain to me how obama releasing 50 minor drug offenders is going to help stop the war on drugs? are you really that disconnected from reality?

 

[rms]

How strange you decide to name call when you are clearly wrong and not even talking about the same thing I am talking of.

From what I understand, Obama found about 50 "criminals" who were in prison for minor offenses but subjugated to the harsh punishments of the drug war and thus will release them back into society and show that they are not that bad. Basically this point has been made for a long time and even more apparent in The Wire. By doing this, in theory and in the future, Police agencies will not spend vast resources meeting drug arrest quotas, not spend more money on prisons nor encourage the privatization of prisons and hopefully change the discussion on why drugs are so prominent in society and how to help addiction rather than punish.

 

[The Ozzman]

I edited the namecalling. It needs to stop.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Name calling? The @pms thing? lolll aww cmon man, really? Did that honestly offend him or anyone else here?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

This happened just last week a few houses down for my cousins pad ...

http://ktla.com/2015/09/14/man-found-dead-inside-refrigerator-at-sun-valley-home-identified/

a bunch of grow houses have been getting hit around here lately.

 

[AllShallFall]

Well I'm glad that shit happens out there and not here.

 

[Dak]

Well if there's plenty, please give me one evil of a market capitalist economic system that the Federal Reserve System of the United States of America prevents. Notice I said nothing about "regulation" in broad terms. I'm not talking about the SEC or the CFTC or the FIRA etc. Just the Federal Reserve.

Any luck Matt?

Far as news, here ya go germaphobes:

http://qz.com/509847/you-are-expelling-a-million-microbes-an-hour-and-they-could-be-used-to-identify-you/

researchers collected particles that flowed through the room and genetically sequenced those that were microbes. To be sure, they monitored a similar room with no person inside, as a control.
They found that each participant was expelling as many as a million microbes every hour. What was surprising was that they could tell the participants apart based on the microbes expelled, which mostly consisted of Streptococcus (found in the mouth), Propionibacterium and Corynebacterium (found on the skin), and for female participants even some common vaginal bacteria.

Howie Mandel is gonna go into shock.

 

[Matt]

Any luck Matt?

I mean I interpreted your comment as protesting any government involvement in the economy, not just the federal reserve. But if we just removed it tomorrow, the ramifications would be severe. A lack of a central bank would give even greater control to the largest private banks and they would basically be free to operate with full autonomy. There would also be no inflation or deflation controls or an entity to help keep the economy stable. Without the ability to increase or decrease the money supply or control interest rates, economic volatility would be unbelievably high. Put simply, the US government is too large and the US economy is too complex to function without oversight.

I did some research on other things that Fed does:

The Fed plays a major role in clearing checks, processing electronic payments, and distributing coin and paper money to the nation's banks, credit unions, savings and loan associations. Without a singular, reliable entity handling this, the financial system would have to rely on private companies and it would change how the banking system functions in a bad way.

The Fed also makes it easier for smaller banks to lend money by offering capital to at what's called a discount rate. Without the ability to borrow at a lower rate, small banks would cease to function, and lending to individuals would go down. Not good for the economy. Also, the government makes a lot of money from the fed's market operations. Roughly 100 billion in net income in 2014.

So sure, the Fed isn't great, but I would say it's extremely necessary. I'm certainly not in favor of allowing private banks to handle any of the functions listed above.

 

[Dak]

I mean I interpreted your comment as protesting any government involvement in the economy, not just the federal reserve. But if we just removed it tomorrow, the ramifications would be severe. A lack of a central bank would give even greater control to the largest private banks and they would basically be free to operate with full autonomy. There would also be no inflation or deflation controls or an entity to help keep the economy stable. Without the ability to increase or decrease the money supply or control interest rates, economic volatility would be unbelievably high. Put simply, the US government is too large and the US economy is too complex to function without oversight.

Well you couldn't just padlock the doors tomorrow without serious problems. The monetary/banking system are completely intertwined and based on having a "lender of last resort". It's a terribly unethical and fiscally irresponsible system which requires constant bailing out by the central bank in order to stave off ever imminent collapse. Closing the Fed would require an entire restructuring of the monetary/banking system.

Deflation is, overall, the natural state of things. Fractional reserve banking exists to fight deflation with inflation, and make a ton of money for the FIRE industry at the expense of everyone else within the monetary system in the process.

You are suggesting that the banking system is "TBTF", and this was the justification for the bailouts and QE. My question was what evil has been prevented or is actively prevented by such "control" and "oversight". The Fed has failed to reduce volatility: The Great Depression, Great Recession, Nixon Shock (failing to maintain the stability of the Bretton Woods agreement), S&L crisis, 70s stagflation, DotCom boom, etc. all came under the Fed's watch). The Fed exists to underwrite the malfeasance of the banking industry under the auspices of "maintaining liquidity".

I did some research on other things that Fed does:

The Fed plays a major role in clearing checks, processing electronic payments, and distributing coin and paper money to the nation's banks, credit unions, savings and loan associations. Without a singular, reliable entity handling this, the financial system would have to rely on private companies and it would change how the banking system functions in a bad way.

Performing clearing house functions is pretty minor, and is handled elsewhere as well without much of an issue.

The main function is to control the money supply and lend when no one else is. My question stands: What evil, by "rich people" (or big business), is being prevented? I know the standard line is "Well we can't let private banks do this without big problems", but how much bigger can the problems get than what has already occurred and continues to occur under the "watchful eye and guidance" of the Fed? If no one will lend to [you], maybe there's a reason.

Without getting into any details, it appears (just based on 07-onward), that the Fed's job is to allow the banking industry to ripoff the customer twice: Once as a customer and again as a taxpayer.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

I'll be damned, old water works is calling it quits.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... yup, just like i said.

 

[rms]

On why Muslims aren't fit for Presidency;

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424671/islam-ben-carson-krauthammer

That is why in virtually every Islamic society — i.e., wherever sharia is incorporated into law — the separation of spiritual and political life is rejected; it is why we find misogyny, anti-Semitism, homophobia, ruthless discrimination against religious minorities, hostility to freedom, suspicion of reason, and backwardness in economics and education.

It's amazing how the author cannot see the direct parallels to our "Christian" country.

(a) many Muslims living in our country adhere to supremacist Islam

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

So have they figured out what caused that hajj stampede from a few days ago yet?

------------
this has got to be one of my favorite NR covers from this year ...

 

[arg]

Trump 2016

http://citizensfortrump.com/2015/09/18/trumps-platform/