September 10, 2024 Presidential Debate Thread. (Insert snarky subtitles here.)

#1,902
#1,902
Sgt_Nick_Fury said:
View attachment 677490

As to how smart I am? Well clearly smart enough to read page 3.

View attachment 677491
Click to expand...
How is this coming along? Has Fox News covered this "bombshell" story yet? I can't find anything .... It doesn't seem to have ever gotten off the ground for such a serious accusation. I guess Fox News is just covering for Kamala Harris and ABC News like everyone else?
 
#1,903
#1,903
LouderVol said:
objectively speaking a "federal abortion ban" reads just the same as "a national ban on all abortions".

"federal" would be "national". and with no qualifiers given to "abortion ban" that would mean "all abortions", especially with the context of "federal".

you are having to add qualifiers to "federal abortion ban" aka past 20 weeks, to explain Trump's stated position. which means it does not read as you want. I also think Trump's stance includes , or at least did at various points, more qualifiers which you further avoiding to try and fit his stance into "a national ban on all abortions". health of mom, incest/rape, and even some other qualifiers have been mentioned by Trump.
Click to expand...
Trump's stated position is an ever-changing one on abortion. In the past, he has also said that abortion should be resolved at the state-level. Abortion restrictions imposed by the federal government for pregnancies after 20 weeks isn't leaving the issue of abortion up to the states. Therefore, Kamala Harris is justified in describing it as being one form of a federal ban on abortion, even though it is a restriction. It would be one imposed by the federal government, nonetheless.
 
#1,904
#1,904
BowlBrother85 said:
Trump's stated position is an ever-changing one on abortion. In the past, he has also said that abortion should be resolved at the state-level. Abortion restrictions imposed by the federal government for pregnancies after 20 weeks isn't leaving the issue of abortion up to the states. Therefore, Kamala Harris is justified in describing it as being one form of a federal ban on abortion, even though it is a restriction. It would be one imposed by the federal government, nonetheless.
Click to expand...
they will all flip flop and define what their opponents do in whatever manner helps them.

Trump hasn't straight up stolen as much from Harris as she has from him, but its clear he won't hold a position if it hurts him even if it is the more "conversative" view.
 
#1,905
#1,905
Sgt_Nick_Fury said:
View attachment 677490

As to how smart I am? Well clearly smart enough to read page 3.

View attachment 677491
Click to expand...
Any new developments on the ABC News whistleblower front?

It's getting harder to find anything new being reported on this story. It's over a week old now. Funny how neither Fox News or House Republicans have picked it up and ran with it .... This story being such a game-changing, bombshell event and everything.

Did they suddenly find a soft spot for Kamala Harris and ABC? There couldn't possibly be any doubts concerning the veracity of these "ABC News whistleblower" allegations are there? I mean, an affidavit was signed and notarized. That means that the contents MUST be completely truthful, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#1,906
#1,906
Rifleman said:
This really is not my conclusion. I'm not nearly that smart as you well know. But here goes:

Many electronic currency models born out of supercomputing already show this is very doable. Still a theory, which is fine, but now I'm seeing more stuff about the practicalities of how the quirks in a hybrid cash/electronic system can be managed so it reminds me a lot of that moment where models about blockchain currencies suddenly became reality and how that moved very quickly from there. I don't expect this to move that fast, but it is something to watch.

How?

To far oversimplify a lot of very beautiful equations: "monetary" policy in an ideal electronic currency system would be freed to use its full quantitative forecasting power to right-size the amount of "money" in the system in real time. Need a small influx of "money" here or there, you don't rev up the actual money printers and flood the banks with trillions in currency (that's insane frankly) that then depreciates the money the bank already had and inflates the amount of that currency needed to buy real world stuff. You give the economy the money it needs, no more, no less. If the zero bound is broken, it is resolved in milliseconds in this system instead of having people lose their life savings and jump out of windows.
Click to expand...
Electronic currency is no different than paper money. Money is literally just paper that we say has value because people accept it in exchange for goods and services. Moving the new value from paper to some number in a computer screen or an electronic token of some kind is no different. We could make chickens the currency if you want, the result is the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#1,907
#1,907
hUTch2002 said:
Electronic currency is no different than paper money. Money is literally just paper that we say has value because people accept it in exchange for goods and services. Moving the new value from paper to some number in a computer screen or an electronic token of some kind is no different. We could make chickens the currency if you want, the result is the same.
Click to expand...

Hey friend. I will hesitantly offer a few points of context below then duck out as the tomatoes fly, but I doubt we are in disagreement about the current fundamentals. The future will be quite different, but it will "feel" not so different on the surface as we are already transitioning.

Context:

1. Paper money is manufactured from cotton, linen, and special synthetic fibers (to make counterfeiting difficult). Therefore, it costs the taxpayers 7.5 cents to manufacture 1 dollar bill in 2022. An unacceptable cost in my opinion.

2. The conventional wisdom is that printing money, as is necessary currently whenever you want to increase the money supply, causes inflationary pressure in any economy. This wisdom appears rock solid. In fact, economies have famously printed themselves into full destabilization many times, even with our current economic tools and quant power.

3. There is also the issue of the old axiom, with a lot of mathematical underpinning, that greater circulation of money in an economy leads to greater economic growth. That basic truth underlies Reaganomics (supply side), JFKs "a rising tide lifts all boats" (middle-out), and FDRs "a chicken in every pot" (bottom up).

Conclusions:

1) The first two facts are still true in 2024, with all our electronic systems, but will they be true by 2077 when you are taking shots at me in Night City while steering your hotrod with a robot arm? Probably not.

2) The third fact is going to remain true beyond paper money. When we argue about ways to boost the economy what we are really arguing about is how we circulate more money at a given moment. Partisans only believe in their way, but each has it's time. FDR, JFK, and Reagan are well-regarded economically because their particular growth ideology matched the time they came into office. People with the same economic ideals have failed miserably doing the same things as these three because that is not what the economy needed at their time: Hoover, Carter, etc. While I'd say the JFK route probably has been the most consistent on average post WWII, supply side has it's place, and bottom up New Dealism should only be for when things really fall apart (a break the glass moment if you will). Despite what partisans argue, each method risks destabilization equally, because money is finite and, again, printing more and more money creates inflationary pressure.

3) Without the risk of destabilization we could run a hybrid system. It is what I call Total Capitalism. We build a meritocracy where we invest in anyone willing to work with a low enough credit risk and a good enough plan and we build the economy across all economic levels. No paper money, just electrons with the same guardrails and backstops as paper money right-sized millisecond to millisecond based on the current demands of the actual economy instead of a loosely assembled board of bureaucrats who meet at distant intervals. No class warfare, no splitting up a finite pie based on what your daddy believes about economics. Just high GDPs as far as your eyes can see and incredibly low interest rates for borrowers.
 
#1,908
#1,908
Rifleman said:
Hey friend. I will hesitantly offer a few points of context below then duck out as the tomatoes fly, but I doubt we are in disagreement about the current fundamentals. The future will be quite different, but it will "feel" not so different on the surface as we are already transitioning.

Context:

1. Paper money is manufactured from cotton, linen, and special synthetic fibers (to make counterfeiting difficult). Therefore, it costs the taxpayers 7.5 cents to manufacture 1 dollar bill in 2022. An unacceptable cost in my opinion.

2. The conventional wisdom is that printing money, as is necessary currently whenever you want to increase the money supply, causes inflationary pressure in any economy. This wisdom appears rock solid. In fact, economies have famously printed themselves into full destabilization many times, even with our current economic tools and quant power.

3. There is also the issue of the old axiom, with a lot of mathematical underpinning, that greater circulation of money in an economy leads to greater economic growth. That basic truth underlies Reaganomics (supply side), JFKs "a rising tide lifts all boats" (middle-out), and FDRs "a chicken in every pot" (bottom up).

Conclusions:

1) The first two facts are still true in 2024, with all our electronic systems, but will they be true by 2077 when you are taking shots at me in Night City while steering your hotrod with a robot arm? Probably not.

2) The third fact is going to remain true beyond paper money. When we argue about ways to boost the economy what we are really arguing about is how we circulate more money at a given moment. Partisans only believe in their way, but each has it's time. FDR, JFK, and Reagan are well-regarded economically because their particular growth ideology matched the time they came into office. People with the same economic ideals have failed miserably doing the same things as these three because that is not what the economy needed at their time: Hoover, Carter, etc. While I'd say the JFK route probably has been the most consistent on average post WWII, supply side has it's place, and bottom up New Dealism should only be for when things really fall apart (a break the glass moment if you will). Despite what partisans argue, each method risks destabilization equally, because money is finite and, again, printing more and more money creates inflationary pressure.

3) Without the risk of destabilization we could run a hybrid system. It is what I call Total Capitalism. We build a meritocracy where we invest in anyone willing to work with a low enough credit risk and a good enough plan and we build the economy across all economic levels. No paper money, just electrons with the same guardrails and backstops as paper money right-sized millisecond to millisecond based on the current demands of the actual economy instead of a loosely assembled board of bureaucrats who meet at distant intervals. No class warfare, no splitting up a finite pie based on what your daddy believes about economics. Just high GDPs as far as your eyes can see and incredibly low interest rates for borrowers.
Click to expand...
You might be right on all of it but right now people and companies control the market. If your goods and we use are priced too high the market bears that out. What I fear with electronic currency is that power will ultimately end up in the hands of governments. Yes, governments control how much cash is in circulation now and they influence a lot of money movement now but they don’t control the movement. I could see that shifting with electronic currency. You’ve definitely put way more thought into it than I have though as I won’t be seeing 2077.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top