|
|
Post by Lomelis on Nov 16, 2024 23:51:11 GMT
I'll provide some basic definitions that broadly describe what people mean when they refer to the following: The Establishment: The entrenched elite, people and organizations, who control and/or heavily influence our government and public institutions. The Deep State: Entrenched bureaucrats and the agencies they control or work for acting independently of political control in order to further their own agenda often counter or in opposition to the political agenda they are supposed to be enforcing or implementing. Woke: The progressive mindset that essentially blames everything that is wrong with society on racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, etc and believes those things are inherent to white people (primarily white heterosexual males) and white culture.
Nah, don't believe you.
By your definition Trump is the establishment placing the establishment in important positions. And everything people call woke isn't woke.
I mean you really broke yourself here.
Autreyu closes his eyes and yells, " I don't believe you!!@#@#@#" Reread my definitions and try again. The definitions I provided I just put together off the top of my head. Do a search for how people are using those terms and you will come up with similar information. Google is your friend. I can't help you if you choose to be lazy and ignorant. |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 18, 2024 2:55:33 GMT
"Queshank you've changed! You're such a right winger now."
Seems relevant to a thread about the concept of "establishment" so I'm poppin in for a quickie.
Queshank
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,562
|
Post by bama beau on Nov 18, 2024 3:08:56 GMT
Ok. I admit. This one was a bit of a trap.
The Obama administration set up the ICE contracts.
Queshank
Amazing! A one-man circle jerk! You beat me to it. |
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Nov 18, 2024 6:28:58 GMT
Uygur may hate it, but I don't think the left does.
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 19, 2024 17:26:54 GMT
Amazing! A one-man circle jerk! You beat me to it.
After 8 years of trying to get my tribe to show an interest in understanding how the "other side" thinks ... I'll concede you have a point.
But only because it helps me make a point I've been making since the election in places other than here.
You and my ex-tribe made it easy for the American people.
They had a choice between 1 narcissist, or ... *checks notes* ... 73,937,285 narcissists.
It really was a no brainer.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 19, 2024 17:35:54 GMT
And again, if you can't see based on Trump's constant rhetoric and what he literally says that don't get picked up by carefully curated and edited news reports ... is that his rhetoric on tariffs is a negotiating position ... I don't know what to tell you.
But I will ask you something cuz autreyu brought it up the other day.
You support the party that wants to raise corporate taxes.
What's the difference? If China doesn't pay tariffs (and they do eat the cost on some of it ... kind of like how oil companies eat the cost on some of the gas taxes as I used to show on the boards a looong time ago.) ... do corporations pay taxes? Now I'm blurring the two threads we're talking in but I wasn't kidding I"m gonna be away this weekend. I gotta go man but I appreciate the conversation. I'm open to more talk, less performative board theatre if you are.
But I have to say .. you just can't help yourself doubling down on the gilded age rhetoric, even after you tacitly acknowledge we're literally living in a gilded age can you?
Queshank
If Trump really has a plan to keep things as they are or to reduce tariffs, or to raise taxes on the wealthy, and his arguments suggesting the opposite are all just an act, then great, I'll support those policies if and when I see them. Re corporate taxes, I agree they will be passed on down the supply chain and will raise prices. I am okay with that because that's the price we pay for civilization. I'd rather pay more in taxes and enjoy a solvent system with generous transfers than have a low tax regime in a mad max world. I know, a little hyperbole, but I stand by the general idea. I do believe that the gilded age was created (in part) through a regressive tax system and that when we ended that system and replaced it with an income tax, things improved in terms of wealth inequality. I also think that this progressive tax system has been chipped away over the years, bit by bit, in order to move the needle toward regressive taxation but within the structure of a progressive tax system. I also agree we are living in a second gilded age. I believe some of the causation explaining that can be found in the tax code, and the way in which the Democrats have joined the GOP to favor capital. But I also think there can be other factors pushing us in that direction, whether in the financial regulations, or the lack of Sherman Act enforcement, or the decline in unionization, and no doubt an endless number of other factors. I am not trying to make a mono-causal argument but I also recognize that we aren't going to make this inequality situation any better by switching to a regressive tax structure. That would be pouring gas on the fire. I enjoyed the convo too. Enjoy yourself.
Basically my argument can be summed up thusly RP:
Carbon tax, tariffs, corporate taxes ...
These are all policy ideas that have multiple variables involved.
But the primary purpose of all 3 is the same. Addressing externalities in our system. The negatives to each is seen as acceptable, because of the externalities being addressed.
I do not think the economists releasing their "projections" are operating in good faith as they turn a blind eye to some and make themselves hypocrites to argue against others (just a coincidence the ones they argue against are the ones that hurt their clients the most.)
Like that abysmal video Freon tried to share of an advertising executive selling subscriptions for trading tips.
When it comes to carbon taxes, they have no problem building models that are hit and miss at best historically, to examine hits to the economy 100 years out.
When it comes to tariffs, suddenly it's all about the short term. The shyster in Freon's video even makes the argument that "it takes time to build up supply chains" etc for companies to develop in country manufacturing processes. (Which may explain why LEGOs are just now getting their new factories up and running in places like Virginia.)
There's a bias here that's on display. On everything else it's important to look downstream at long term consequences. On tariffs suddenly it's important we look RIGHT NOW AT THE IMPACT CUZ OMG!
And as you've seen me argue for something like 8 years now ... the reason our golden age is ending is because of so called experts eroding the quality and credibility of expertise by becoming activists.
That's definitely at play vis a vis economists on the tariffs discussion.
And frankly for the people who have seen their quality of life degrade since the post Soviet world order started as we normalized offshoring manufacturing jobs in exchange for phat ROIs for the wealthy ... so far the experts have had a negative impact on their life with their policy proscriptions. So why wouldn't they be open to trying something new, especially when those experts have demonstrated over and over again they do not understand, sympathize or give two shits about their situation?
Sorry I'm a bit out of sorts on our conversation cuz I was gone a few days. This may not be relevant to your most recent arguments. Just were points of discussion I was waiting til the right time to bring up.
I do think it's important that we push back on fools claiming the "post WW2 order" is under assault.
The post WW2 order was already destroyed. We're dealing with a post Cold War order that Western countries and companies have gone to great lengths to distort for their own advantage. Hence the backlash around the world against Western countries.
Queshank
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,562
|
Post by bama beau on Nov 19, 2024 18:41:14 GMT
After 8 years of trying to get my tribe to show an interest in understanding how the "other side" thinks ... I'll concede you have a point.
But only because it helps me make a point I've been making since the election in places other than here.
You and my ex-tribe made it easy for the American people.
They had a choice between 1 narcissist, or ... *checks notes* ... 73,937,285 narcissists.
It really was a no brainer.
Queshank
76,000,000 MAGATS can't be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 19, 2024 18:55:01 GMT
Meanwhile ... phase 2 of finding out if people think McKinsey is the establishment. As RP points out "duh. That's dumb. Of course they are."
If they're the establishment, who are they and what do they represent?
Well... let's check.
But:
Diversity, equity, and inclusion
McKinsey & Company published several reports on business benefits of Diversity, equity, and inclusion. The reports were criticized as insufficiently investigating the difference between correlation and causality, lacking robustness, and overgeneralizing to broad claims.
New research questions the methodology of a McKinsey study that helped create widespread belief that diversity is good for profits
At last year's World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the head of Goldman Sachs announced a new policy for the richest investment bank in the world: It would refuse to underwrite the stock offerings of any private company that did not have at least one woman on its board of directors — and that the minimum would move up to two in 2022.
“This decision is rooted first and foremost in our conviction that companies with diverse leadership perform better,” the Goldman CEO, David Solomon, declared. “Companies that have gone public with at least one female board director outperformed companies that do not.”
Solomon gave no source for this assertion, and Goldman did not reply to a request for comment. But much of the authority for claims like his rest on three studies done between 2015 and 2020 by the consulting company McKinsey, which were trumpeted as proof that large companies can boost their profits significantly by adding women and people of color to their boards of directors. “Companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams were 25 percent more likely to have above average profitability than companies in the fourth quartile,” the 2020 report says, while those in the top quartile for ethnic diversity are 36 percent more profitable than those in the bottom quartile.
Meanwhile based on those junk studies...
Organizations and conferences are abuzz with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)—and for good reason. For years, corporations and other large organizations diminished the importance of diversifying their employee populace, particularly regarding their executive teams and boards. However, times are changing for the better, leaving many companies with a lot of catching up to do.
On August 6, 2021, the SEC approved NASDAQ’s plans to require listed companies to meet specific race and gender targets in pursuit of improved DEI.
I'm not arguing there's a globalist LGBT plot to take over the world and force DEI policies.
I'm arguing the experts have surrendered to activism and destroyed both the quality and the credibility of expertise.
Also pointing out to the left that your causes have been coopted and perverted by the establishment and used as a tool to get you on board with an agenda that supports them and their clients ... YOU are the establishment. And you're carrying their water.
Insert photos of Defense agencies sponsoring pride parades.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 19, 2024 18:55:26 GMT
After 8 years of trying to get my tribe to show an interest in understanding how the "other side" thinks ... I'll concede you have a point.
But only because it helps me make a point I've been making since the election in places other than here.
You and my ex-tribe made it easy for the American people.
They had a choice between 1 narcissist, or ... *checks notes* ... 73,937,285 narcissists.
It really was a no brainer.
Queshank
76,000,000 MAGATS can't be wrong.
And growing.
By 2028 there'll be more of us.
Can't say I didn't warn you.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 19, 2024 19:14:18 GMT
I'm actually thinking of getting a Tshirt made..
"Weirdo MAGAT!"
Might send em out as gifts to my smarter friends and family.
Queshank
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,562
|
Post by bama beau on Nov 20, 2024 2:28:56 GMT
76,000,000 MAGATS can't be wrong.
And growing.
By 2028 there'll be more of us.
Can't say I didn't warn you.
Queshank
Good luck governing. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,562
|
Post by bama beau on Nov 20, 2024 2:29:31 GMT
I'm actually thinking of getting a Tshirt made..
"Weirdo MAGAT!"
Might send em out as gifts to my smarter friends and family.
Queshank
Does that mean I'd get two? |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 20, 2024 14:42:04 GMT
And growing.
By 2028 there'll be more of us.
Can't say I didn't warn you.
Queshank
Good luck governing.
And here we are proving my 8 year long now point that it is the left that is tearing apart America and that doesn't respect democracy.
Thanks.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Nov 20, 2024 14:43:26 GMT
I'm actually thinking of getting a Tshirt made..
"Weirdo MAGAT!"
Might send em out as gifts to my smarter friends and family.
Queshank
Does that mean I'd get two?
Nah.
Smart people wear them proudly. Because "MAGAT" is like "weird" and we know that even if you belong to a tribe too dumb to figure it out.
Hey remember when I said "weirdo" was a huge upgrade from "nazi" and the Dems were stupid for running with it?
Seems the American people agreed.
How ya like me now?
Queshank
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,562
|
Post by bama beau on Nov 20, 2024 16:56:11 GMT
Does that mean I'd get two?
Nah.
Smart people wear them proudly. Because "MAGAT" is like "weird" and we know that even if you belong to a tribe too dumb to figure it out.
Hey remember when I said "weirdo" was a huge upgrade from "nazi" and the Dems were stupid for running with it?
Seems the American people agreed.
How ya like me now?
Queshank
I'm an XL. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 21, 2024 0:06:21 GMT
If Trump really has a plan to keep things as they are or to reduce tariffs, or to raise taxes on the wealthy, and his arguments suggesting the opposite are all just an act, then great, I'll support those policies if and when I see them. Re corporate taxes, I agree they will be passed on down the supply chain and will raise prices. I am okay with that because that's the price we pay for civilization. I'd rather pay more in taxes and enjoy a solvent system with generous transfers than have a low tax regime in a mad max world. I know, a little hyperbole, but I stand by the general idea. I do believe that the gilded age was created (in part) through a regressive tax system and that when we ended that system and replaced it with an income tax, things improved in terms of wealth inequality. I also think that this progressive tax system has been chipped away over the years, bit by bit, in order to move the needle toward regressive taxation but within the structure of a progressive tax system. I also agree we are living in a second gilded age. I believe some of the causation explaining that can be found in the tax code, and the way in which the Democrats have joined the GOP to favor capital. But I also think there can be other factors pushing us in that direction, whether in the financial regulations, or the lack of Sherman Act enforcement, or the decline in unionization, and no doubt an endless number of other factors. I am not trying to make a mono-causal argument but I also recognize that we aren't going to make this inequality situation any better by switching to a regressive tax structure. That would be pouring gas on the fire. I enjoyed the convo too. Enjoy yourself.
Basically my argument can be summed up thusly RP:
Carbon tax, tariffs, corporate taxes ...
These are all policy ideas that have multiple variables involved.
But the primary purpose of all 3 is the same. Addressing externalities in our system. The negatives to each is seen as acceptable, because of the externalities being addressed.
I do not think the economists releasing their "projections" are operating in good faith as they turn a blind eye to some and make themselves hypocrites to argue against others (just a coincidence the ones they argue against are the ones that hurt their clients the most.)
Like that abysmal video Freon tried to share of an advertising executive selling subscriptions for trading tips.
When it comes to carbon taxes, they have no problem building models that are hit and miss at best historically, to examine hits to the economy 100 years out.
When it comes to tariffs, suddenly it's all about the short term. The shyster in Freon's video even makes the argument that "it takes time to build up supply chains" etc for companies to develop in country manufacturing processes. (Which may explain why LEGOs are just now getting their new factories up and running in places like Virginia.)
There's a bias here that's on display. On everything else it's important to look downstream at long term consequences. On tariffs suddenly it's important we look RIGHT NOW AT THE IMPACT CUZ OMG!
And as you've seen me argue for something like 8 years now ... the reason our golden age is ending is because of so called experts eroding the quality and credibility of expertise by becoming activists.
That's definitely at play vis a vis economists on the tariffs discussion.
And frankly for the people who have seen their quality of life degrade since the post Soviet world order started as we normalized offshoring manufacturing jobs in exchange for phat ROIs for the wealthy ... so far the experts have had a negative impact on their life with their policy proscriptions. So why wouldn't they be open to trying something new, especially when those experts have demonstrated over and over again they do not understand, sympathize or give two shits about their situation?
Sorry I'm a bit out of sorts on our conversation cuz I was gone a few days. This may not be relevant to your most recent arguments. Just were points of discussion I was waiting til the right time to bring up.
I do think it's important that we push back on fools claiming the "post WW2 order" is under assault.
The post WW2 order was already destroyed. We're dealing with a post Cold War order that Western countries and companies have gone to great lengths to distort for their own advantage. Hence the backlash around the world against Western countries.
Queshank
As long as we are open-eyed about the short & long term losses in terms of living standards, then fine. If there is a non-monetary goal we are maximizing, then okay. But this notion that we are going to have long term growth because of tariffs and shift manufacturing back to the US, is wrong, and we can be certain of that. The evidence to the contrary is non-existent, as far as I know. |
|
