Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

[Caribbean Hen]

Multiple Memphis police officers shot, and one killed, in a shootout over the weekend with 2 suspects, both of whom were shot, and one killed. Acoordung to the Memphis police chief:

Davis revealed that the 18-year-old who died had been arrested inside a stolen vehicle last month where he was armed with a modified semi-automatic weapon with a Glock switch attached.

"The Glock switch converted the weapon to a fully automatic machine gun," David said.

He was also charged at that time with two stolen vehicles and having a programming device commonly used to steal cars, Davis said, and was released without bond.

In 2023, the city recorded a record-breaking 398 homicides.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/memphis-poli ... y-released

So the question is why was this guy not sitting in jail, and how in the heck with THREE FELONY charges was he released WITHOUT bond . Well, it turns out the Memphis (Shelby County) DA is a Soros PAC funded liberal democrat. Shocker. And Memphis is an absolute cesspool. For comparison:
NYC, population 8.8 million, 2023 386 homicides.
Memphis, population 611,000, 2023 398 homicides.
The muder rate in Memphis, highest in the nation 2023, is almost 15 times that of NYC.

And notice Joe Bozo never mentions crime

not once
never

Why?

[UNI88]

The Grand Strategy Behind J.D. Vance’s Latest Push To Kill Ukraine Aid

Yet that opposition also emerged as one small part of Vance’s much broader — and more sweeping — theory of international affairs. If Vance gets his way, cutting off U.S. funding to Ukraine will be only the first step in a much broader reorientation of the U.S.’s role in the global order.

Vance is deeply skeptical of the so-called rules-based international order — the system of laws, norms and multilateral institutions established in the years following the Second World War to mitigate global conflict and facilitate international economic activity. As Vance sees it, this system has enriched economic elites while harming working-class people who are rooted in older industrial economies — all while failing to deliver on the ultimate goal of liberalizing non-democratic countries like China and Russia.

From this perspective, Vance does not see the United States’ decision to defend “the principles at the heart of the international rules-based order” in Ukraine as part of some high-minded and honorable policy. Instead, Vance sees it as a self-interested effort by economic elites to preserve a global order that advanced their interests while screwing over the type of people he represents in post-industrial Ohio.
...
In place of the rules-based international order, Vance thinks the U.S. needs to chart a new, more nationalistic system where individual nations are solely responsible for their own security and economic well-being, and more insulated from global economic and military entanglements. According to Vance, the first step toward nudging the world in that direction is ending U.S. aid to Ukraine — which, as became clear this week, depends on convincing his Republican colleagues in the House to kill Johnson’s foreign aid package.
...
Yet Vance’s efforts this week to persuade his Republican colleagues in the House of these specific objections are, in many respects, secondary to his broader goal of shifting the Republican paradigm on foreign policy. As Vance explained to me during our conversations, this larger project goes beyond injecting some “realism” — or, as his critics would call it, “isolationism” — into the foreign policy debates on the right. In a more expansive sense, Vance sees the debate over Ukraine aid as a proxy for the debate over the direction of what he openly calls “the American empire” — and, by extension, of America as a whole.

“The really interesting debate that is happening between the establishment right and the populist right is [about] challenging the premise … that things are going really well,” Vance told me. On the one side, establishment Republicans believe that the American empire is trending in the right direction; populist Republicans believe that the American empire is on the verge of collapse. The establishment points to falling poverty rates around the world; the populist right points to falling birth and life expectancies at home.

I could have put this in the Ukraine thread but I thought Vance's desire to reorient the U.S.’s role in the global order was more interesting and more important in the long-term.

Vance maybe right that the rules-based international order has not delivered on the ultimate goal of liberalizing non-democratic countries like China and Russia and has enriched economic elites but I think he's underestimating its impact on peace & prosperity.

• I think the rules-based international order has led to more economic interconnectivity and trade, reduced conflict and because of those, improved the lives of working-class people more than they would have been without it. It's difficult to prove but I also think that we've lost fewer lives to conflict then we would have without it.
• Is he ignoring or undervaluing the role of the "rules-based international order" in the fall of the Berlin Wall/liberalization of eastern Europe and the myriad countries around the world that have become more Democratic since WWII? Would those things have happened in a more nationalistic system where individual nations are solely responsible for their own security and economic well-being?
• The poor in the USA and 1st world nations are living large compared to the rest of the world and to where they were 100+ years ago.
• Would we have the prosperity (and major technological advancements) that we have without the "rules-based international order" that Vance and others want to tear down?

Its an interesting debate and I'd love to hear Ganny and CID's thoughts on this as well as anyone else's.

[UNI88]

The Grand Strategy Behind J.D. Vance’s Latest Push To Kill Ukraine Aid

Yet that opposition also emerged as one small part of Vance’s much broader — and more sweeping — theory of international affairs. If Vance gets his way, cutting off U.S. funding to Ukraine will be only the first step in a much broader reorientation of the U.S.’s role in the global order.

Vance is deeply skeptical of the so-called rules-based international order — the system of laws, norms and multilateral institutions established in the years following the Second World War to mitigate global conflict and facilitate international economic activity. As Vance sees it, this system has enriched economic elites while harming working-class people who are rooted in older industrial economies — all while failing to deliver on the ultimate goal of liberalizing non-democratic countries like China and Russia.

From this perspective, Vance does not see the United States’ decision to defend “the principles at the heart of the international rules-based order” in Ukraine as part of some high-minded and honorable policy. Instead, Vance sees it as a self-interested effort by economic elites to preserve a global order that advanced their interests while screwing over the type of people he represents in post-industrial Ohio.
...
In place of the rules-based international order, Vance thinks the U.S. needs to chart a new, more nationalistic system where individual nations are solely responsible for their own security and economic well-being, and more insulated from global economic and military entanglements. According to Vance, the first step toward nudging the world in that direction is ending U.S. aid to Ukraine — which, as became clear this week, depends on convincing his Republican colleagues in the House to kill Johnson’s foreign aid package.
...
Yet Vance’s efforts this week to persuade his Republican colleagues in the House of these specific objections are, in many respects, secondary to his broader goal of shifting the Republican paradigm on foreign policy. As Vance explained to me during our conversations, this larger project goes beyond injecting some “realism” — or, as his critics would call it, “isolationism” — into the foreign policy debates on the right. In a more expansive sense, Vance sees the debate over Ukraine aid as a proxy for the debate over the direction of what he openly calls “the American empire” — and, by extension, of America as a whole.

“The really interesting debate that is happening between the establishment right and the populist right is [about] challenging the premise … that things are going really well,” Vance told me. On the one side, establishment Republicans believe that the American empire is trending in the right direction; populist Republicans believe that the American empire is on the verge of collapse. The establishment points to falling poverty rates around the world; the populist right points to falling birth and life expectancies at home.

I could have put this in the Ukraine thread but I thought Vance's desire to reorient the U.S.’s role in the global order was more interesting and more important in the long-term.

Vance maybe right that the rules-based international order has not delivered on the ultimate goal of liberalizing non-democratic countries like China and Russia and has enriched economic elites but I think he's underestimating its impact on peace & prosperity.

• I think the rules-based international order has led to more economic interconnectivity and trade, reduced conflict and because of those, improved the lives of working-class people more than they would have been without it. It's difficult to prove but I also think that we've lost fewer lives to conflict then we would have without it.
• Is he ignoring or undervaluing the role of the "rules-based international order" in the fall of the Berlin Wall/liberalization of eastern Europe and the myriad countries around the world that have become more Democratic since WWII? Would those things have happened in a more nationalistic system where individual nations are solely responsible for their own security and economic well-being?
• The poor in the USA and 1st world nations are living large compared to the rest of the world and to where they were 100+ years ago.
• Would we have the prosperity (and major technological advancements) that we have without the "rules-based international order" that Vance and others want to tear down?

Its an interesting debate and I'd love to hear Ganny and CID's thoughts on this as well as anyone else's.

No one?

Vance's beliefs would appear to be the logic behind the MAQA yahoo America First approach. Are there no MAQA yahoos on here who want to defend it?

[kalm]

The Grand Strategy Behind J.D. Vance’s Latest Push To Kill Ukraine Aid



I could have put this in the Ukraine thread but I thought Vance's desire to reorient the U.S.’s role in the global order was more interesting and more important in the long-term.

Vance maybe right that the rules-based international order has not delivered on the ultimate goal of liberalizing non-democratic countries like China and Russia and has enriched economic elites but I think he's underestimating its impact on peace & prosperity.

• I think the rules-based international order has led to more economic interconnectivity and trade, reduced conflict and because of those, improved the lives of working-class people more than they would have been without it. It's difficult to prove but I also think that we've lost fewer lives to conflict then we would have without it.
• Is he ignoring or undervaluing the role of the "rules-based international order" in the fall of the Berlin Wall/liberalization of eastern Europe and the myriad countries around the world that have become more Democratic since WWII? Would those things have happened in a more nationalistic system where individual nations are solely responsible for their own security and economic well-being?
• The poor in the USA and 1st world nations are living large compared to the rest of the world and to where they were 100+ years ago.
• Would we have the prosperity (and major technological advancements) that we have without the "rules-based international order" that Vance and others want to tear down?

Its an interesting debate and I'd love to hear Ganny and CID's thoughts on this as well as anyone else's.

No one?

Vance's beliefs would appear to be the logic behind the MAQA yahoo America First approach. Are there no MAQA yahoos on here who want to defend it?

I was invited.

(I pretty much agree with you. It’s unrealistic at this point. There are things that still go bump in the night and we’re still the go-to although Europe is certainly upping its military strength thanks to Putin.)

[UNI88]

No one?

Vance's beliefs would appear to be the logic behind the MAQA yahoo America First approach. Are there no MAQA yahoos on here who want to defend it?

I was invited.

(I pretty much agree with you. It’s unrealistic at this point. There are things that still go bump in the night and we’re still the go-to although Europe is certainly upping its military strength thanks to Putin.)

"Its an interesting debate and I'd love to hear Ganny and CID's thoughts on this as well as anyone else's."

I wanted Ganny's thoughts because he is well read and logical. I learn something even when I disagree with him. CID is well read and logical as well but IMO his professional knowledge and experience lends even more weight to his opinions on this topic.

[kalm]

I was invited.

(I pretty much agree with you. It’s unrealistic at this point. There are things that still go bump in the night and we’re still the go-to although Europe is certainly upping its military strength thanks to Putin.)

"Its an interesting debate and I'd love to hear Ganny and CID's thoughts on this as well as anyone else's."

I wanted Ganny's thoughts because he is well read and logical. I learn something even when I disagree with him. CID is well read and logical as well but IMO his professional knowledge and experience lends even more weight to his opinions on this topic.

I was just kidding. I agree about both of them.

[GannonFan]

I was invited.

(I pretty much agree with you. It’s unrealistic at this point. There are things that still go bump in the night and we’re still the go-to although Europe is certainly upping its military strength thanks to Putin.)

"Its an interesting debate and I'd love to hear Ganny and CID's thoughts on this as well as anyone else's."

I wanted Ganny's thoughts because he is well read and logical. I learn something even when I disagree with him. CID is well read and logical as well but IMO his professional knowledge and experience lends even more weight to his opinions on this topic.

Sorry - work and life were/are busy, not posting as much.

As for Vance, I don't dislike the viewpoint, at least it actually shows some thought which is hard to come by these days.

I have been and always will be more of a globalist. I don't think long-term we can succeed or will like a world where we don't participate or where we only participate with us dictating the conditions where the conditions always favor us. The world is a nicer place when we engage with the world. So it's the political impact and the economic impact. Politically, I don't think there's any doubt that us pushing out into the world is a better thing. Unfortunately, there are bad actors out there - the Russia's, the China's, and folks like Iran. They are out for themselves, they either want to push a religious hegemony or they look down ethnically on other's not them or they just want to dominate the power structure of the world. Granted, a rules-based international system has and will benefit the US, no doubt, but it's also because that type of a system rewards competition and hard work and ingenuity and we generally do well in things like that. But with us in the world, it's also a far safer and peaceful world, at least compared to what it would be without us. There's always going to be conflict going on somewhere, humanity is what it is, but the bigger stuff gets snuffed out because we are on the scene. I don't see the MAGA or Vance viewpoint that by closing our doors to the world that it's a better thing.

Economically, Vance has more of a point, and probably has the likes of kalmie and Trump in his corner since they both also advocate American-interests dominating all trade. We do need to protect jobs and the economy in our country, no doubt. And there needs to be a better balance of that versus the 1990's-2000's pursuit of pure free trade. But the rest of the world isn't going away, the planet isn't getting bigger, and there are more and more people in the world everyday. We have no growth if we don't engage with the rest of the world, and here we can structure the system to help us and favor us. It clearly has worked for us since we've had this system in place since the end of WWII and our standard of living has never been higher. Being poor sucks, but you certainly rather be poor in America than anywhere else. But we need to be careful saying things like "we need more manufacturing here" and other tropes like that. We make more now per-capita than ever in our history - we're a manufacturing powerhouse. The thing is, we just are so incredibly efficient at it that we do all that with less and less labor to do it. That's not a bad thing, just a reality of our productivity and ingenuity and something we need to deal with. What do the displaced workers do to earn a living? I don't have all the answers, but I know Vance doesn't either. An America First idea he pushes, and Trump and kalmie and even houndy (with his nationalize everything bent) is not a long term sustainable approach. The rest of the world is out there, and the majority of consumers are outside of this country. Turning our backs on that market doesn't work long term.

[kalm]

"Its an interesting debate and I'd love to hear Ganny and CID's thoughts on this as well as anyone else's."

I wanted Ganny's thoughts because he is well read and logical. I learn something even when I disagree with him. CID is well read and logical as well but IMO his professional knowledge and experience lends even more weight to his opinions on this topic.

Sorry - work and life were/are busy, not posting as much.

As for Vance, I don't dislike the viewpoint, at least it actually shows some thought which is hard to come by these days.

I have been and always will be more of a globalist. I don't think long-term we can succeed or will like a world where we don't participate or where we only participate with us dictating the conditions where the conditions always favor us. The world is a nicer place when we engage with the world. So it's the political impact and the economic impact. Politically, I don't think there's any doubt that us pushing out into the world is a better thing. Unfortunately, there are bad actors out there - the Russia's, the China's, and folks like Iran. They are out for themselves, they either want to push a religious hegemony or they look down ethnically on other's not them or they just want to dominate the power structure of the world. Granted, a rules-based international system has and will benefit the US, no doubt, but it's also because that type of a system rewards competition and hard work and ingenuity and we generally do well in things like that. But with us in the world, it's also a far safer and peaceful world, at least compared to what it would be without us. There's always going to be conflict going on somewhere, humanity is what it is, but the bigger stuff gets snuffed out because we are on the scene. I don't see the MAGA or Vance viewpoint that by closing our doors to the world that it's a better thing.

Economically, Vance has more of a point, and probably has the likes of kalmie and Trump in his corner since they both also advocate American-interests dominating all trade. We do need to protect jobs and the economy in our country, no doubt. And there needs to be a better balance of that versus the 1990's-2000's pursuit of pure free trade. But the rest of the world isn't going away, the planet isn't getting bigger, and there are more and more people in the world everyday. We have no growth if we don't engage with the rest of the world, and here we can structure the system to help us and favor us. It clearly has worked for us since we've had this system in place since the end of WWII and our standard of living has never been higher. Being poor sucks, but you certainly rather be poor in America than anywhere else. But we need to be careful saying things like "we need more manufacturing here" and other tropes like that. We make more now per-capita than ever in our history - we're a manufacturing powerhouse. The thing is, we just are so incredibly efficient at it that we do all that with less and less labor to do it. That's not a bad thing, just a reality of our productivity and ingenuity and something we need to deal with. What do the displaced workers do to earn a living? I don't have all the answers, but I know Vance doesn't either. An America First idea he pushes, and Trump and kalmie and even houndy (with his nationalize everything bent) is not a long term sustainable approach. The rest of the world is out there, and the majority of consumers are outside of this country. Turning our backs on that market doesn't work long term.

I’m an Adam Smith guy when it comes to trade. Nations should take advantage of their inherent strengths and resources that benefit THEIR people. The world is still coming out of colonialism while under-appreciating the competence of democracy for ALL nations.

As I’ve said before, cutting down a tree in North Idaho, shipping it across the ocean to leverage cheap wages and lax environmental regulations and ship it all the way back burning fossil fuels to be sold as a cheap, fall apart end table at the Sand Point Walmart don’t make no lick of sense.

[GannonFan]

Sorry - work and life were/are busy, not posting as much.

As for Vance, I don't dislike the viewpoint, at least it actually shows some thought which is hard to come by these days.

I have been and always will be more of a globalist. I don't think long-term we can succeed or will like a world where we don't participate or where we only participate with us dictating the conditions where the conditions always favor us. The world is a nicer place when we engage with the world. So it's the political impact and the economic impact. Politically, I don't think there's any doubt that us pushing out into the world is a better thing. Unfortunately, there are bad actors out there - the Russia's, the China's, and folks like Iran. They are out for themselves, they either want to push a religious hegemony or they look down ethnically on other's not them or they just want to dominate the power structure of the world. Granted, a rules-based international system has and will benefit the US, no doubt, but it's also because that type of a system rewards competition and hard work and ingenuity and we generally do well in things like that. But with us in the world, it's also a far safer and peaceful world, at least compared to what it would be without us. There's always going to be conflict going on somewhere, humanity is what it is, but the bigger stuff gets snuffed out because we are on the scene. I don't see the MAGA or Vance viewpoint that by closing our doors to the world that it's a better thing.

Economically, Vance has more of a point, and probably has the likes of kalmie and Trump in his corner since they both also advocate American-interests dominating all trade. We do need to protect jobs and the economy in our country, no doubt. And there needs to be a better balance of that versus the 1990's-2000's pursuit of pure free trade. But the rest of the world isn't going away, the planet isn't getting bigger, and there are more and more people in the world everyday. We have no growth if we don't engage with the rest of the world, and here we can structure the system to help us and favor us. It clearly has worked for us since we've had this system in place since the end of WWII and our standard of living has never been higher. Being poor sucks, but you certainly rather be poor in America than anywhere else. But we need to be careful saying things like "we need more manufacturing here" and other tropes like that. We make more now per-capita than ever in our history - we're a manufacturing powerhouse. The thing is, we just are so incredibly efficient at it that we do all that with less and less labor to do it. That's not a bad thing, just a reality of our productivity and ingenuity and something we need to deal with. What do the displaced workers do to earn a living? I don't have all the answers, but I know Vance doesn't either. An America First idea he pushes, and Trump and kalmie and even houndy (with his nationalize everything bent) is not a long term sustainable approach. The rest of the world is out there, and the majority of consumers are outside of this country. Turning our backs on that market doesn't work long term.

I’m an Adam Smith guy when it comes to trade. Nations should take advantage of their inherent strengths and resources that benefit THEIR people. The world is still coming out of colonialism while under-appreciating the competence of democracy for ALL nations.

As I’ve said before, cutting down a tree in North Idaho, shipping it across the ocean to leverage cheap wages and lax environmental regulations and ship it all the way back burning fossil fuels to be sold as a cheap, fall apart end table at the Sand Point Walmart don’t make no lick of sense.

Well, if we (Americans) want that cheap, fall apart end table, and someone(s) are able to profit through the supply chain, who are you to tell us we can't have it because you can't figure out how it makes sense? It benefits us as a country because we want it at the price we pay for it. It benefits us as a country because we pay the most efficient price for it, allowing the saved money to be invested in other money-making endeavors. Adam Smith would be all for the invisible hand guiding this series of transactions.

[kalm]

I’m an Adam Smith guy when it comes to trade. Nations should take advantage of their inherent strengths and resources that benefit THEIR people. The world is still coming out of colonialism while under-appreciating the competence of democracy for ALL nations.

As I’ve said before, cutting down a tree in North Idaho, shipping it across the ocean to leverage cheap wages and lax environmental regulations and ship it all the way back burning fossil fuels to be sold as a cheap, fall apart end table at the Sand Point Walmart don’t make no lick of sense.

Well, if we (Americans) want that cheap, fall apart end table, and someone(s) are able to profit through the supply chain, who are you to tell us we can't have it because you can't figure out how it makes sense? It benefits us as a country because we want it at the price we pay for it. It benefits us as a country because we pay the most efficient price for it, allowing the saved money to be invested in other money-making endeavors. Adam Smith would be all for the invisible hand guiding this series of transactions.

Efficient for price and investment.

The world is larger than the U.S.

Short term gain doesn’t always mean efficiency in the long term.

[GannonFan]

Well, if we (Americans) want that cheap, fall apart end table, and someone(s) are able to profit through the supply chain, who are you to tell us we can't have it because you can't figure out how it makes sense? It benefits us as a country because we want it at the price we pay for it. It benefits us as a country because we pay the most efficient price for it, allowing the saved money to be invested in other money-making endeavors. Adam Smith would be all for the invisible hand guiding this series of transactions.

Efficient for price and investment.

The world is larger than the U.S.

Short term gain doesn’t always mean efficiency in the long term.

Efficient is also in the eye of the beholder, well, the consumer really. If I don't care that the end table falls apart quickly am I really being inefficient? It serves my need. You may have a different opinion on how long an end table should last, but you make that decision known with your purchase of a sturdier end table. In the end, different needs of efficiency in the market have been met.

[kalm]

Efficient for price and investment.

The world is larger than the U.S.

Short term gain doesn’t always mean efficiency in the long term.

Efficient is also in the eye of the beholder, well, the consumer really. If I don't care that the end table falls apart quickly am I really being inefficient? It serves my need. You may have a different opinion on how long an end table should last, but you make that decision known with your purchase of a sturdier end table. In the end, different needs of efficiency in the market have been met.

My point exactly. And in the broader picture, end tables that fall apart aren’t as cost efficient as ones that hold up for decades. Not to mention the environmental, labor rights, and global trade ramifications.

At some point you’re efficiently encouraging non-sustainability and rewarding bad buying decisions.

It’s been the American way for a few decades now. How has it helped society?

[GannonFan]

Efficient is also in the eye of the beholder, well, the consumer really. If I don't care that the end table falls apart quickly am I really being inefficient? It serves my need. You may have a different opinion on how long an end table should last, but you make that decision known with your purchase of a sturdier end table. In the end, different needs of efficiency in the market have been met.

My point exactly. And in the broader picture, end tables that fall apart aren’t as cost efficient as ones that hold up for decades. Not to mention the environmental, labor rights, and global trade ramifications.

At some point you’re efficiently encouraging non-sustainability and rewarding bad buying decisions.

It’s been the American way for a few decades now. How has it helped society?

Well, for starters, we have a far better standard of living across the board now than we did decades ago. That's one area where it's helped.

The question comes down to who gets to declare something is bad and removes that choice from what people can pick from? You? Me? Marjorie Green?

[kalm]

My point exactly. And in the broader picture, end tables that fall apart aren’t as cost efficient as ones that hold up for decades. Not to mention the environmental, labor rights, and global trade ramifications.

At some point you’re efficiently encouraging non-sustainability and rewarding bad buying decisions.

It’s been the American way for a few decades now. How has it helped society?

Well, for starters, we have a far better standard of living across the board now than we did decades ago. That's one area where it's helped.

The question comes down to who gets to declare something is bad and removes that choice from what people can pick from? You? Me? Marjorie Green?

Keep back peddling.

[UNI88]

Efficient is also in the eye of the beholder, well, the consumer really. If I don't care that the end table falls apart quickly am I really being inefficient? It serves my need. You may have a different opinion on how long an end table should last, but you make that decision known with your purchase of a sturdier end table. In the end, different needs of efficiency in the market have been met.

My point exactly. And in the broader picture, end tables that fall apart aren’t as cost efficient as ones that hold up for decades. Not to mention the environmental, labor rights, and global trade ramifications.

At some point you’re efficiently encouraging non-sustainability and rewarding bad buying decisions.

It’s been the American way for a few decades now. How has it helped society?

You literally said:

I’m an Adam Smith guy when it comes to trade.

Do you need to add "except when I'm not"?

The hidden hand of the market is behind "encouraging non-sustainability".

[GannonFan]

My point exactly. And in the broader picture, end tables that fall apart aren’t as cost efficient as ones that hold up for decades. Not to mention the environmental, labor rights, and global trade ramifications.

At some point you’re efficiently encouraging non-sustainability and rewarding bad buying decisions.

It’s been the American way for a few decades now. How has it helped society?

You literally said:

I’m an Adam Smith guy when it comes to trade.

Do you need to add "except when I'm not"?

The hidden hand of the market is behind "encouraging non-sustainability".

Ha!! Kalmie's funny that way, he really comes off as a mercantilist who tries to hide that by saying he's really an Adam Smith guy. He's still trying to rationalize how Trump stole the same economic plan he's touted on these boards for years.

[kalm]

My point exactly. And in the broader picture, end tables that fall apart aren’t as cost efficient as ones that hold up for decades. Not to mention the environmental, labor rights, and global trade ramifications.

At some point you’re efficiently encouraging non-sustainability and rewarding bad buying decisions.

It’s been the American way for a few decades now. How has it helped society?

You literally said:

I’m an Adam Smith guy when it comes to trade.

Do you need to add "except when I'm not"?

The hidden hand of the market is behind "encouraging non-sustainability".

Nope! Adam Smith fits quite well into kalmunism (a well regulated market economy that encourages FAIR competition and economic freedom for all from owners to workers).

[GannonFan]

You literally said:


Do you need to add "except when I'm not"?

The hidden hand of the market is behind "encouraging non-sustainability".

Nope! Adam Smith fits quite well into kalmunism (a well regulated market economy that encourages FAIR competition and economic freedom for all from owners to workers).

Except when I want a crappy end-table made in China that's cheap but will fall apart in a couple of years, earlier than when kalm deems an end table should fall apart.

[UNI88]

Nope! Adam Smith fits quite well into kalmunism (a well regulated market economy that encourages FAIR competition and economic freedom for all from owners to workers).

Except when I want a crappy end-table made in China that's cheap but will fall apart in a couple of years, earlier than when kalm deems an end table should fall apart.

I don't think kalm understands the invisible hand.

Or maybe he can explain how the invisible hand is compatible with an economy that is so "well regulated" that companies wouldn't be allowed to ship raw lumber from the US to China to be turned into end tables that are shipped back to the US.

Sounds more like a centrally planned economy than a market economy.

[Caribbean Hen]

Oh my Lord, it’s just a freaking table

you nerds can post the day away about a stinkin table….

C’mon man

Now i have to go look at myself in the mirror and ask why am I reading this drivel

[GannonFan]

Oh my Lord, it’s just a freaking table

you nerds can post the day away about a stinkin table….

C’mon man

Now i have to go look at myself in the mirror and ask why am I reading this drivel

That whooshing sound you heard was the point flying right over your head. Pay no attention to it.

[GannonFan]

Oh my Lord, it’s just a freaking table

you nerds can post the day away about a stinkin table….

C’mon man

Now i have to go look at myself in the mirror and ask why am I reading this drivel

That whooshing sound you heard was the point flying right over your head. Pay no attention to it.

[kalm]

Except when I want a crappy end-table made in China that's cheap but will fall apart in a couple of years, earlier than when kalm deems an end table should fall apart.

I don't think kalm understands the invisible hand.

Or maybe he can explain how the invisible hand is compatible with an economy that is so "well regulated" that companies wouldn't be allowed to ship raw lumber from the US to China to be turned into end tables that are shipped back to the US.

Sounds more like a centrally planned economy than a market economy.

The invisible hand would be stifled by too much regulation. Similar to if there’s not enough competition. Or race to the bottom wages.

The invisible hand can also be destructive.

Adam Smith would be adjusting his theories to modern times. I’ll let you and Ganny wallow in neo-feudalism.

[UNI88]

pontius paxton and mullah abbott are at it again ...

Why does Texas want to kill guaranteed income, but fund school vouchers?

Paxton’s lawsuit to axe Uplift Harris, which he describes as a “welfare scheme” and "socialist experiment," comes while Texas pushes for a controversial education savings account program, also known as school vouchers. These accounts use taxpayer money to help parents pay for their children's private school tuition.
So, what's the difference between these two publicly funded state programs?

According to Southern Methodist University political science professor Calvin Jillson, Paxton’s lawsuit is “clearly political."
...
Paxton’s lawsuit argues Harris County’s program violates the Texas Constitution's equal rights protections. Moreover, it states that Texas law prohibits public funds payments to private people without any return on investment.

“The program’s purpose is not to accomplish a legitimate public purpose but rather to personally benefit a select few through unrestricted monthly cash payments to a random selection of Harris County residents,” the 16-page lawsuit states.

[kalm]

pontius paxton and mullah abbott are at it again ...

Why does Texas want to kill guaranteed income, but fund school vouchers?

Paxton’s lawsuit to axe Uplift Harris, which he describes as a “welfare scheme” and "socialist experiment," comes while Texas pushes for a controversial education savings account program, also known as school vouchers. These accounts use taxpayer money to help parents pay for their children's private school tuition.
So, what's the difference between these two publicly funded state programs?

According to Southern Methodist University political science professor Calvin Jillson, Paxton’s lawsuit is “clearly political."
...
Paxton’s lawsuit argues Harris County’s program violates the Texas Constitution's equal rights protections. Moreover, it states that Texas law prohibits public funds payments to private people without any return on investment.

“The program’s purpose is not to accomplish a legitimate public purpose but rather to personally benefit a select few through unrestricted monthly cash payments to a random selection of Harris County residents,” the 16-page lawsuit states.

See? I told you guys there’s an ROI for public spending!