World Politics

[redtreviso]

This is really quite simple. 54.5 MPG is likely an absurd standard, but even if it's not, if 54.5 is good then why not make it 60?

It reminds me of the stupidity of minimum wage laws. In California minimum wage is around $9/hr. So, what has happened? Teen unemployment in this state is around 40% and much higher if you happen to be a black teen. Minimum wage laws have essentially killed the entry level jobs in this state. But the argument from the left of course is how unfair it is to try and feed a family of four on an entry level wage (as if an entry level job was meant to provide for a family).

So, if $9 per hour is the absolute minimum, then wouldn't it be even more fair if the wage was set at $10... Or $15 even?

Perhaps I do a lousy job of illustrating absurdity by being absurd.... so I will make a concerted attempt to go along with the group-think from now on.

poutrage much?

 

[Anonymous]

poutrage much?

Only if you think so.

 

[redtreviso]

speaking of impaired coherence--7 feet tall?

""“Under Obamacare illegal aliens don’t have to pay for Obamacare. Only American citizens pay for Obamacare. <...> Illegal aliens have the possibility of getting the care, but they have no requirement to pay for the care. Only the citizens do.”

– “One man stood up, he was over 7-feet tall. He was a physician in the community. And he said, ‘I had a little lady in my office and because of Obamacare, I had to call the IRS and I had to get a number to put on a form before I could see her.’”

– “When I was a little girl…There were people who could not pay . I mean they just did not have any money at all. And so the doctor would just write it off. <...> It’s very different today. Now, doctors don’t feel like they can do that…they worry about liability.” "" Michelle Bachmann

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/11/17/370181/two-minutes-of-crazy-michele-bachmann-unleashes-outrageous-new-attacks-against-health-reform-law/

 

[frenchfry]

So we are back to conservatives are looking to foul the air and water. As if we neither breathe or are thirsty.

If Obama had his way, fewer people would drive, less co2 would be emitted, less oil consumed, etc.

"Energy prices will necessarily have to rise" (I'm paraphrasing) from candidate Obama's mouth. Cap and trade 101.

I think it is more like conservatives feel they can buy all the clean air and water they need. Like somehow despite how much we destroy our essential natural resources, there will always be enough for those who have enough cash.

Is the right to drive excessively huge vehicules written in the US constitution as well? I would have thought measures to reduce massive pollution would be considered forward thinking and for the common good, but maybe I am just an ignorant tree hugger.

And we can be sure of one thing - as unbridled natural resource consumption continues and even increases you will be paying the price in the not too distant future, no matter what your political affiliation.

 

[gregod]

This is really quite simple. 54.5 MPG is likely an absurd standard, but even if it's not, if 54.5 is good then why not make it 60?

It reminds me of the stupidity of minimum wage laws. In California minimum wage is around $9/hr. So, what has happened? Teen unemployment in this state is around 40% and much higher if you happen to be a black teen. Minimum wage laws have essentially killed the entry level jobs in this state. But the argument from the left of course is how unfair it is to try and feed a family of four on an entry level wage (as if an entry level job was meant to provide for a family).

So, if $9 per hour is the absolute minimum, then wouldn't it be even more fair if the wage was set at $10... Or $15 even?

Perhaps I do a lousy job of illustrating absurdity by being absurd.... so I will make a concerted attempt to go along with the group-think from now on.

i fail to see what your outrage is about. in 1970, fuel efficiency averaged around 10 MPG. today's prius can get up to 50 MPG and engineers foresee full-powered cars getting 80 MPG. most of the advances in mileage are done overseas. the way the market works in the US the auto companies want government regulation to force them to keep up with the foreign companies who are more engaged in long term planning as opposed to short term profits. the MPG number that you think is strange was not thrust upon them, but one that the US automakers thought they could achieve as well as keep them competitive. for this they will get government assistance.

as for minimum wage, all studies show it has no negative effect on employment at the current wage levels. unemployment is high for youth but that logically is the result of high unemployment in adults. the bolded statement, if you think about it, is absurd. there is no shortage of fast food, cleaning, agriculture, and many other low wage jobs in california or anywhere else. last i looked in LA there was an in-n-out, taco bell, or some other joint on every corner.

these may seem counterintuitive, but they are true. instead of getting angry at things that don't make sense, it would serve you better to say, "why is that?" not "that is wrong!"

 

[gregod]

i just listened to a jack abramoff interview on the PBS news hour and the november 13th episode of 60 minutes. is there anyone in the congress past or present who isn't absolutely corrupt? unfortunately, their behavior is legal, so it technically isn't corruption. newt and nancy deserve to be behind bars and in most any other country they would be.

 

[gregod]

and now there is the solyndra scandal which just won't go away. scott and others have brought it up and it really looks bad. not the fact that the government chose to invest in solar, but that they let politics decide who was chosen in the case of this company. no how matter how much the right fulminates against this blatant corruption i am certain nothing will come of it, though. not that obama and his minions did nothing wrong, but in light of the 60 minutes report on congress, if obama were to go down for this, the whole congress would have to go down for all of the legal bribes that they take.

 

[Bala Verde]

This is really quite simple. 54.5 MPG is likely an absurd standard, but even if it's not, if 54.5 is good then why not make it 60?

It reminds me of the stupidity of minimum wage laws. In California minimum wage is around $9/hr. So, what has happened? Teen unemployment in this state is around 40% and much higher if you happen to be a black teen. Minimum wage laws have essentially killed the entry level jobs in this state. But the argument from the left of course is how unfair it is to try and feed a family of four on an entry level wage (as if an entry level job was meant to provide for a family).

So, if $9 per hour is the absolute minimum, then wouldn't it be even more fair if the wage was set at $10... Or $15 even?

Perhaps I do a lousy job of illustrating absurdity by being absurd.... so I will make a concerted attempt to go along with the group-think from now on.

You are exploiting a philosophical conundrum (the sorites paradox) and apply a logical fallacy. As a general result, if you follow it your flawed logic, no one would ever be able to make any decision at all.

Yes, you are being absurd, but not at demonstrating absurdness... What you call absurd, is reality, the reality of setting boundaries, which are not at all absurd. Heck, with your 'logic', linguistic concepts could not even exist.

Why tax at 15%? If you can get away with 15%, you can also get away with 14.999999999%, if you can do that, you can also tax at 14.99999998%, and reason all the way down to 0%. Or it wouldn't matter if we taxed at 100% either, because 15% is basically 15.0000001% and up we go.

Here is another one for you. How many sand kernels make a mound/hill. Surely not 1. 2, don't think so. 3, nope. 4? Not yet, and we keep on going. What if we hit 15000, or perhaps 15001, what about 15002. But if 15002 sand kernels make a mound, why, then clearly 15001 and 15000 also make a mound, and back we go...

If you can take an image every nano-seccond of a developing frog egg, all the way to a tadpole and then eventually into a frog, can you point at the definitive image that shows you were the tadpole turns into a frog? You can't and yet we have a frog and a tadpole. (Also try it for the development of a human being, from an inseminated egg to an embryo)

What a about a plant, let's say a tree. When does a seed become a tree? Now, it's a seed, but at one point we call it a tree. Is it now a tree? Or now? Or now? What about in a minute, and hour, days, months, years?

Here, read it also on wikipedia, how absurd your proposition is:

The continuum fallacy (also called the fallacy of the beard[1], line drawing fallacy, bald man fallacy, fallacy of the heap, and the sorites fallacy) is an informal logical fallacy closely related to the sorites paradox, or paradox of the heap. The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.

The fallacy appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity.

There are clearly reasonable and clearly unreasonable cases in which objects either belong or do not belong to a particular group of objects based on their properties. We are able to take them case by case and designate them as such even in the case of properties which may be vaguely defined. The existence of hard or controversial cases does not preclude our ability to designate members of particular kinds of groups.

Examples
Fred can never be called bald. Fred isn't bald now, however if he loses one hair, that won't make him go from not bald to bald either. If he loses one more hair after that, then this one loss, also does not make him go from not bald to bald. Therefore, no matter how much hair he loses, he can never be called bald.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

The word "sorites" derives from the Greek word for heap. The paradox is so named because of its original characterization, attributed to Eubulides of Miletus.[1] The paradox goes as follows: consider a heap of sand from which grains are individually removed. One might construct the argument, using premises, as follows:

1,000,000 grains of sand is a heap of sand (Premise 1)
A heap of sand minus one grain is still a heap. (Premise 2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

Just "play along with the 'group think'".... It's called reality.

 

[blutto]

You are exploiting a philosophical conundrum (the sorites paradox) and apply a logical fallacy. As a general result, if you follow it your flawed logic, no one would ever be able to make any decision at all.

Yes, you are being absurd, but not at demonstrating absurdness... What you call absurd, is reality, the reality of setting boundaries, which are not at all absurd. Heck, with your 'logic', linguistic concepts could not even exist.

Why tax at 15%? If you can get away with 15%, you can also get away with 14.999999999%, if you can do that, you can also tax at 14.99999998%, and reason all the way down to 0%. Or it wouldn't matter if we taxed at 100% either, because 15% is basically 15.0000001% and up we go.

Here is another one for you. How many sand kernels make a mound/hill. Surely not 1. 2, don't think so. 3, nope. 4? Not yet, and we keep on going. What if we hit 15000, or perhaps 15001, what about 15002. But if 15002 sand kernels make a mound, why, then clearly 15001 and 15000 also make a mound, and back we go...

If you can take an image every nano-seccond of a developing frog egg, all the way to a tadpole and then eventually into a frog, can you point at the definitive image that shows you were the tadpole turns into a frog? You can't and yet we have a frog and a tadpole. (Also try it for the development of a human being, from an inseminated egg to an embryo)

What a about a plant, let's say a tree. When does a seed become a tree? Now, it's a seed, but at one point we call it a tree. Is it now a tree? Or now? Or now? What about in a minute, and hour, days, months, years?

Here, read it also on wikipedia, how absurd your proposition is:

Just "play along with the 'group think'".... It's called reality.

...oh come on, that there is just high falutin talk used by librrlllls all the time to make tings all messed up...its got nutin to do with reality, too many words, reality is simple, drink beer, and b&tch about those guys 24/7...sounds like it done been cooked up by some prufesur type living in an ivory tower somewhere...like what does that have to do with what real men do, like say, run a business, and watch red-neck roundee round ....

...which actually brings me to an interesting question...we have seen the mighty SoCal debating style in action...we also know that one of the things that he regularly throws up here to prove the legitimacy of his script is his status as an active member of the business community, as in, he owns and runs a business ( as well as spending a good chunk of his day dispensing his special brand of insight on this forum ????)...

...so I guess the question is...could anyone see themselves getting involved with this guy in a business arrangement?....would it be a wonderful productive relationship where everyone involved would be happy as clams...or would it be some weasel word driven train wreck nightmare scenario that would never end...me, I'm voting for the latter....

...or.... should SoCal just drop the business thing and run for a high political office???...he certainly has shown his has the required skill set...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Ferminal]

This is really quite simple. 54.5 MPG is likely an absurd standard, but even if it's not, if 54.5 is good then why not make it 60?

It reminds me of the stupidity of minimum wage laws. In California minimum wage is around $9/hr. So, what has happened? Teen unemployment in this state is around 40% and much higher if you happen to be a black teen. Minimum wage laws have essentially killed the entry level jobs in this state. But the argument from the left of course is how unfair it is to try and feed a family of four on an entry level wage (as if an entry level job was meant to provide for a family).

So, if $9 per hour is the absolute minimum, then wouldn't it be even more fair if the wage was set at $10... Or $15 even?

Perhaps I do a lousy job of illustrating absurdity by being absurd.... so I will make a concerted attempt to go along with the group-think from now on.

Yes, naughty minimum wage! Our models are infallible, it's intervention which causes income inequality.

 

[Anonymous]

i fail to see what your outrage is about. in 1970, fuel efficiency averaged around 10 MPG. today's prius can get up to 50 MPG and engineers foresee full-powered cars getting 80 MPG. most of the advances in mileage are done overseas. the way the market works in the US the auto companies want government regulation to force them to keep up with the foreign companies who are more engaged in long term planning as opposed to short term profits. the MPG number that you think is strange was not thrust upon them, but one that the US automakers thought they could achieve as well as keep them competitive. for this they will get government assistance.

as for minimum wage, all studies show it has no negative effect on employment at the current wage levels. unemployment is high for youth but that logically is the result of high unemployment in adults. the bolded statement, if you think about it, is absurd. there is no shortage of fast food, cleaning, agriculture, and many other low wage jobs in california or anywhere else. last i looked in LA there was an in-n-out, taco bell, or some other joint on every corner.

these may seem counterintuitive, but they are true. instead of getting angry at things that don't make sense, it would serve you better to say, "why is that?" not "that is wrong!"

No outrage at all. I am just wondering why we are going to wait until 2025 (whatever the date is) to demand 54.5 average MPG.

Mass chain stores have some ability to absorb upward movement in cost of labor. Mom and Pop stores don't. Why is that? And is that what we want? Just Starbucks with zero competition from the local mom and pop coffee house. Why is it many liberals rail against big corporatism and then champion policies that hurt small to very small business?

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, naughty minimum wage! Our models are infallible, it's intervention which causes income inequality.

Why is it that income inequality is higher than ever with established minimum wages?

 

[Anonymous]

You are exploiting a philosophical conundrum (the sorites paradox) and apply a logical fallacy. As a general result, if you follow it your flawed logic, no one would ever be able to make any decision at all.

Yes, you are being absurd, but not at demonstrating absurdness... What you call absurd, is reality, the reality of setting boundaries, which are not at all absurd. Heck, with your 'logic', linguistic concepts could not even exist.

Why tax at 15%? If you can get away with 15%, you can also get away with 14.999999999%, if you can do that, you can also tax at 14.99999998%, and reason all the way down to 0%. Or it wouldn't matter if we taxed at 100% either, because 15% is basically 15.0000001% and up we go.

Here is another one for you. How many sand kernels make a mound/hill. Surely not 1. 2, don't think so. 3, nope. 4? Not yet, and we keep on going. What if we hit 15000, or perhaps 15001, what about 15002. But if 15002 sand kernels make a mound, why, then clearly 15001 and 15000 also make a mound, and back we go...

If you can take an image every nano-seccond of a developing frog egg, all the way to a tadpole and then eventually into a frog, can you point at the definitive image that shows you were the tadpole turns into a frog? You can't and yet we have a frog and a tadpole. (Also try it for the development of a human being, from an inseminated egg to an embryo)

What a about a plant, let's say a tree. When does a seed become a tree? Now, it's a seed, but at one point we call it a tree. Is it now a tree? Or now? Or now? What about in a minute, and hour, days, months, years?

Here, read it also on wikipedia, how absurd your proposition is:




Just "play along with the 'group think'".... It's called reality.

I see. So what you are saying is I'm better at illustrating absurdity than I give myself credit for (with a whole wiki page and all).

Thanks (I think).

 

[blutto]

Why is it that income inequality is higher than ever with established minimum wages?

...are you implying that just because they happen to exist in the same universe that there is a direct causal link between the two...pretty weak even for you...

...of course you could also consider mapping out an explicit connection that would answer your question and then we would all be happy and so would I...and as an extra added bonus you would effectivelly replace an implication based on absolutely no data with a proof and bonus, bonus, be right for a change...


Cheers

blutto

 

[ramjambunath]

Aung San Suu Kyi's NLD to stand in by-elections for Parliament in Myanmar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15787605


Extremely easy guide for foreign debt of major nations
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15748696
recommended for the uninformed like myself.

General Sarath Fonseka for three years for implicating the government in war crimes.

 

[gregod]

You are exploiting a philosophical conundrum (the sorites paradox) and apply a logical fallacy. As a general result, if you follow it your flawed logic, no one would ever be able to make any decision at all.

Yes, you are being absurd, but not at demonstrating absurdness... What you call absurd, is reality, the reality of setting boundaries, which are not at all absurd. Heck, with your 'logic', linguistic concepts could not even exist.

Why tax at 15%? If you can get away with 15%, you can also get away with 14.999999999%, if you can do that, you can also tax at 14.99999998%, and reason all the way down to 0%. Or it wouldn't matter if we taxed at 100% either, because 15% is basically 15.0000001% and up we go.
Here is another one for you. How many sand kernels make a mound/hill. Surely not 1. 2, don't think so. 3, nope. 4? Not yet, and we keep on going. What if we hit 15000, or perhaps 15001, what about 15002. But if 15002 sand kernels make a mound, why, then clearly 15001 and 15000 also make a mound, and back we go...

If you can take an image every nano-seccond of a developing frog egg, all the way to a tadpole and then eventually into a frog, can you point at the definitive image that shows you were the tadpole turns into a frog? You can't and yet we have a frog and a tadpole. (Also try it for the development of a human being, from an inseminated egg to an embryo)

What a about a plant, let's say a tree. When does a seed become a tree? Now, it's a seed, but at one point we call it a tree. Is it now a tree? Or now? Or now? What about in a minute, and hour, days, months, years?

Here, read it also on wikipedia, how absurd your proposition is:

The continuum fallacy (also called the fallacy of the beard[1], line drawing fallacy, bald man fallacy, fallacy of the heap, and the sorites fallacy) is an informal logical fallacy closely related to the sorites paradox, or paradox of the heap. The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.

The fallacy appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity.

There are clearly reasonable and clearly unreasonable cases in which objects either belong or do not belong to a particular group of objects based on their properties. We are able to take them case by case and designate them as such even in the case of properties which may be vaguely defined. The existence of hard or controversial cases does not preclude our ability to designate members of particular kinds of groups.

Examples
Fred can never be called bald. Fred isn't bald now, however if he loses one hair, that won't make him go from not bald to bald either. If he loses one more hair after that, then this one loss, also does not make him go from not bald to bald. Therefore, no matter how much hair he loses, he can never be called bald.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

The word "sorites" derives from the Greek word for heap. The paradox is so named because of its original characterization, attributed to Eubulides of Miletus.[1] The paradox goes as follows: consider a heap of sand from which grains are individually removed. One might construct the argument, using premises, as follows:

1,000,000 grains of sand is a heap of sand (Premise 1)
A heap of sand minus one grain is still a heap. (Premise 2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

Just "play along with the 'group think'".... It's called reality.

well done. i wish i had written that.

 

[gregod]

No outrage at all. I am just wondering why we are going to wait until 2025 (whatever the date is) to demand 54.5 average MPG.

Mass chain stores have some ability to absorb upward movement in cost of labor. Mom and Pop stores don't. Why is that? And is that what we want? Just Starbucks with zero competition from the local mom and pop coffee house. Why is it many liberals rail against big corporatism and then champion policies that hurt small to very small business?

as i said in my previous reply, numerous studies have shown that even mom and pop businesses are not hurt by rises in minimum wages. in fact, recent studies have even shown that small businesses receive a boost when the minimum wage rises. it makes sense, really. generally, low wage workers more frequently are the customers of businesses that employ low wage workers. it is the henry ford principle. he paid his workers enough to ensure that they would be able to afford one of his cars.

 

[Anonymous]

...are you implying that just because they happen to exist in the same universe that there is a direct causal link between the two...pretty weak even for you...

...of course you could also consider mapping out an explicit connection that would answer your question and then we would all be happy and so would I...and as an extra added bonus you would effectivelly replace an implication based on absolutely no data with a proof and bonus, bonus, be right for a change...


Cheers

blutto

...are you implying that just because they happen to exist in the same universe that there is a direct causal link between the two...pretty weak even for you...

Why is it you would think that I'm implying this? Why did you not read the post I was responding to?

Why all the hate?

 

[Anonymous]

as i said in my previous reply, numerous studies have shown that even mom and pop businesses are not hurt by rises in minimum wages. in fact, recent studies have even shown that small businesses receive a boost when the minimum wage rises. it makes sense, really. generally, low wage workers more frequently are the customers of businesses that employ low wage workers. it is the henry ford principle. he paid his workers enough to ensure that they would be able to afford one of his cars.

Then why not raise the minimum wage even higher? Is there a point where labor costs actually hurt a business relative to what people will pay for goods and services?

 

[Tank Engine]

Singapore has news , the stock exchange followed by a leaking roof.

On the topic of responsible media, India's press council chairman Justice Katju wants media regulation and states that self regulation has failed

Indian Newspaper society's response. How unpredictable.

The UK press is going through the mill and deservedly so. Here's some links on the Leveson inquiry

Phone hacking grieving parents (it's sadly ironic that the family are back in the news again)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/16/leveson-inquiry-dowlers-phone-hacking?intcmp=239

Information about the hearing

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/nov/16/leveson-inquiry-live-phone-hacking

 

[ramjambunath]

The UK press is going through the mill and deservedly so. Here's some links on the Leveson inquiry

Phone hacking grieving parents (it's sadly ironic that the family are back in the news again)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/16/leveson-inquiry-dowlers-phone-hacking?intcmp=239

Information about the hearing

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/nov/16/leveson-inquiry-live-phone-hacking

The allegations are just as serious here. One of the issues is paid news, one article (about a politician, Vilasrao Deshmukh) appeared in 3-4 different newspapers in the space of a couple of days. It was later found to be paid by the politician (who's now a Union Cabinet Minister).

Another, much more serious, allegation is that of the Radia Tapes. In this scandal Radia (an HR woman for two of the largest companies in India) has spoken to various persons including editors of major news agencies, politicians and others about pushing her favourite for a major Union ministry (telecom) portfolio. Shockingly, from the released tapes (by the Income Tax dept which was investigating her for tax fraud), it seemed that the media appeared to act as brokers for the deal. The IT dept released the tapes, ironically to the media. It's a very serious allegation and shows that in many cases the media is 'in bed with' the bent politicians.

Edit: It was pretty sickening that a media with such allegations was covering the NOTW hacking scandal with a holier than thou attitude.

Some pretty serious allegations against News International there, especially by Mosley.

 

[blutto]

Why is it you would think that I'm implying this? Why did you not read the post I was responding to?

Why all the hate?

...all the hate???...could you please point out the hatey part...I seemed to have missed that part and I was actually there when I wrote it....

Cheers

blutto

 

[rhubroma]

Then why not raise the minimum wage even higher? Is there a point where labor costs actually hurt a business relative to what people will pay for goods and services?

Maybe it just hurts the business owners, who have had a "boss friendly" set-up for decades now, in other words when all the power is given to ownership in the interests of exploitation for profit and at the expense of workers dignity and salaries.

But I know these are foreign concepts to you.

 

[Anonymous]

Maybe it just hurts the business owners, who have had a "boss friendly" set-up for decades now, in other words when all the power is given to ownership in the interests of exploitation for profit and at the expense of workers dignity and salaries.

But I know these are foreign concepts to you.

If all the power is given to the ownership then why don't the workers just start their own enterprise?

Why would someone be a worker when they could be an owner (if it's skewed the way you suggest)?

 

[Anonymous]

...all the hate???...could you please point out the hatey part...I seemed to have missed that part and I was actually there when I wrote it....

Cheers

blutto

pretty weak even for you

be right for a change

...so I guess the question is...could anyone see themselves getting involved with this guy in a business arrangement?....would it be a wonderful productive relationship where everyone involved would be happy as clams...or would it be some weasel word driven train wreck nightmare scenario that would never end...me, I'm voting for the latter....

.and for the full monty we could all put you on ignore...and then we could all be happy...

...and in a related matter I would be more impressed with you if you actually put your considerable grey matter into doing some real critical thinking instead of regurgitating lightweight political pablum from the most braindead of sources.

because right now you are just a sad waste of resources

Perhaps it's not hate. Perhaps you are merely looking for some validation from like minded folks on an interwebz forum.

Congratulations.