The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
No bio...
User ID: 174
But the safety doors don't really matter for pilot suicides, they happened just as much before and logically you don't need a long time to crash a plane.
Empirically they do matter, since they did matter.
The simple temptation here is just...to not do that. Let them fend for themselves and protect your own trade.
The interesting thing is, based on that leaked chat, the Trump administration doesn't want to do that. They want the Europeans to pay more, but they don't want to stop protecting trade.
The Somalis are extremely low tech. The Houthis are not; they are getting sophisticated radars, missiles, and drones drones from Iran. Very different opponent.
This isn't creative Trump Administration executive action. An alien is excludable if they committed a crime of moral turpitude (and larceny counts) if the crime they committed either carries a sentence of more than a year or if they were sentenced to more than 6 months ("regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed"). Petty larceny in Virginia carries a sentence of 12 months, so if he was sentenced to more than 6 months (even if he didn't serve that much), he's excludable ("who shall be excluded from admission into the United States"). Note he was not deported; he left for vacation in El Salvador and was detained upon return. This is statute law.
The cockpit security doors are less obviously insane than most of the anti-Twin-Towers measures.
As far as I know they are the only such security measures to have resulted in the loss of an aircraft Germanwings 9525 with all aboard. Pilot suicides might be less bad than ramming attacks... but it's an open question about whether they are less common, or if the security doors enable more suicides-with-all-aboard than they do mitigate ramming attacks.
For example, no one is voting on a Federal abortion ban these days.
That's not really insulating members from their own votes. Those who would vote for it would gain by voting for it. Those who would vote against it would probably gain by voting against it -- but they would lose by the issue being brought up at all.
Also note that the current ascendant faction of the Republicans is on record as being against a Federal abortion ban.
This seems like a pretty standard-issue TRO intended to prevent the issue from being made moot while it's litigated. Note that it only applies to the one detention center, so if the administration wants to make more trouble they could do deportations (of other people) from other such centers.
On this basis any taxation which is not very broad-based is a non-tariff barrier.
Taxation which hit imports much harder than domestic products is indeed a non-tariff barrier. For example, if a country which does not have a domestic car industry puts a VAT specifically on cars, it is effectively a tariff.
Well, the plot existed, even if it was developed at the Hoover building.
I'm guessing leak; it fits in with Trump's usual MO on these things.
Elon is calling other members of the inner circle retards for their trade policy (proxy shot at Trump).
Well, if Elon wins and gets Peter Navarro fired, that would be great, but it ain't going to happen. The problem is that Trump likes tariffs. Without Navarro, maybe he'd have less-stupid tariffs (still damaging but not Great Depression damaging), but he's going to be inclined to go with his tariff-friendly advisors over Musk on this.
Most realistic scenario is that congress just votes to take tariffs away and overrides the veto.
The non-MAGA members of the GOP don't have the cojones. They never did, that's one of the reasons MAGA won in the first place.
If it gets really bad, like Great Depression bad, I would bet my life savings he gets JFKed or has a mysterious heart attack/plane crash/take your pick.
The Deep State will like the Great Depression; the last one is what created them, after all.
Who is going to do it? The Republicans either agree with him or don't have the cojones. The Robed 9 won't save us (they could, with the major questions doctrine, but Roberts is going to enjoy whispering "no")
An Amazon warehouse is more likely to be transformed into an arms factory than a shoe factory is. Unless your arms are slings and such.
Full on communism European style socialism once the democrats take over. And they don't eliminate the tariffs either.
I am happy to accept a net reduction in wealth, even a significant net reduction, as long as we get something in return. A weakened China, a more self-sufficient US, manufacturing jobs for the working class. Something.
We might get a weakened China, in as much as we'll weaken the entire world. I'm not sure why you want manufacturing jobs for the working class -- what difference does it make if they bust their butt in a shoe factory rather than an Amazon warehouse? But you won't get it. Nor self-sufficiency.
Part of that is understandable- the way you generally try and end a trade war is to sap political willingness from the pursuer, and convince them it's worse for them than pursuing.
The problem is the tariff boosters don't care. They believe in some unicorns-and-rainbows benefit from tariffs that's never going to happen, and they'll continue to believe in it even as it doesn't happen.
People gonna eat and put gas in cars. Demand for these is relatively inelastic.
Unfortunately not. People can eat less and put less gas in cars, because prices have gone way up and/or availability has gone way down. This is called "poverty".
Please, let's stop at ONE mega-stupid thing from this administration.
Trump can't drive us into the sweet spot, but possibly there isn't a sweet spot -- a stable equilibrium -- to drive us into. If we have moved too far into accommodating Europe in paying for things they want (like freedom of navigation) while they just spit on the US in return, then Trump can at least drive us the right direction, though if he has the ability to overcorrect he certainly will.
The best way for the US to not get into a war with China is for China not to try to invade Taiwan. That's more likely with a strong US Navy, not a weak one.
Manufacturing jobs stagnants in the 80s (despite population growth) and begins to decline in 90s onwards.
Increased productivity is not decline.
Yes, output has stagnated since the GFC according to my chart. But at a far higher level than it was before NAFTA came into effect. It grew like mad until 2000. Then after a recession it grew at a lower pace until it hit an all time high right before the GFC. This does not support a claim that trade killed manufacturing. Manufacturing isn't dead and manufacturing growth wasn't killed by trade.
Every regulation has a corpse behind it.
This is a fully general argument against repealing any regulation. The idea that we need a fourth unaccountable branch of the Federal Government to prevent assassinations by jilted wannabee civil servants is ludicrous.
This applies to the Venezuelan prisoners. Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen and is being imprisoned indefinitely in El Salvador without a trial on the word of one US confidential informant (who may or may not exist) that he's in MS-13.
Manufacturing remains healthy. Using balance of trade is assuming the conclusion.
The 80s/90s clearly were not the critical turning point. The point of noting the term "Rust Belt" came from the '80s is to show that it was understood at the time that it had already largely happened.
- Prev
- Next
And the thread is full of people saying the decision is perfectly reasonable and that "bin men" are overpaid, e.g. "Mollie"
And yet women weren't signing up in droves for the job when it paid so much better. I can't see why?
More options
Context Copy link