Recession 'Virtual Certainty' as Interest Rates Spike
Plus: Libertarian Party drama, how rent control hurts renters, and more...

Interest rates are now 1.5 percentage points higher than they were a few months ago. On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates by three-quarters of a percentage point, following a 0.5 percentage point increase in May and a 0.25 percentage point increase in April.
Yesterday's rate increase is the single biggest interest rate hike since 1994.
And this isn't even the ceiling, said Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell at a Wednesday press conference. Americans can expect "ongoing rate increases," Powell said, and "either a 50 or 75 basis point increase seems most likely at our next meeting."
The Fed didn't think it would come to this. Back in May, Powell said "seventy-five basis points is not something the committee is actively considering."
"By this point, we had actually been expecting to see clear signs of inflation flattening out and ideally beginning to decline," Powell admitted yesterday. "Contrary to expectations, inflation surprised to the upside. We thought that strong action was warranted at this meeting in the form of a 75 basis point rate hike."
The goal, of course, is to combat the rampant inflation we've been seeing.
"Inflation remains well above our longer-run goal of 2 percent," said Powell in his opening statements. "Over the 12 months ending in April, total [personal consumption expenditures, or PCE] prices rose 6.3 percent; excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core prices rose 4.9 percent. In May, the 12-month change in the Consumer Price Index came in above expectations at 8.6 percent, and the change in the core CPI was 6 percent."
"Aggregate demand is strong, supply constraints have been larger and longer lasting than
anticipated, and price pressures have spread to a broad range of goods and services," Powell said by way of an explanation. And, in response, the Federal Open Market Committee has "revised up" its inflation projections. "The median projection is 5.2 percent this year and falls to 2.6 percent next year and 2.2 percent in 2024," said Powell.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration still refuses to try and halt inflation through smart policy changes, like repealing tariffs on steel and aluminum (or any/everything else) and cutting federal spending. And, at the same time, it's pushing policy changes—like expanding antitrust action—that could make inflation worse. Instead, all hopes are pinned on interest rate changes—recession potential be damned.
"By raising rates from near zero at the start of the year, the central bank is making it more expensive for businesses and people to borrow money," writes Allison Morrow at CNN Business:
Which obviously sucks if you're a business owner looking to expand or if you're looking to buy a home, or take out any kind of loan for any kind of reason in the near term.
Life's already so expensive, and now you're going to jack up the interest rate on my credit cards, Jay? What, I'm supposed to just stop shopping now?
And the answer is yeah, pretty much.
So the powers that be hope higher interest rates mean less demand and, eventually, lower prices.
But this strategy comes with risks. Which is why one can find recession predictions all over the place right now.
"It's a virtual certainty that we're going to go into recession next quarter," Destination Wealth Management's Michael Yoshikami told CNBC, adding that he expects it will be a "shallower recession."
A June survey of 49 U.S. macroeconomics experts found two-thirds expect an economic contraction to happen within the next year.
The Fed insists that there's "no sign" of a wider downturn and Powell yesterday noted some economic upsides:
"The labor market has remained extremely tight, with the unemployment rate near a 50-year low, job vacancies at historical highs, and wage growth elevated," he pointed out. "Over the past three months, employment rose by an average of 408,000 jobs per month, down from the average pace seen earlier in the year but still robust."
Nonetheless, there's a lot of doom and gloom coming from financial experts and investors at the moment.
"The economy is going to collapse," Michael Novogratz, CEO of of the cryptocurrency-focused Galaxy Investment Partners, told MarketWatch. "We are going to go into a really fast recession, and you can see that in lots of ways. Housing is starting to roll over. Inventories have exploded. There are layoffs in multiple industries, and the Fed is stuck," having to "hike [interest rates] until inflation rolls over."
"They are hiking into the popping of a bubble," Novogratz said.
"Wells Fargo & Co. now forecasts a 'mild recession' starting in mid-2023," notes Bloomberg. "Meanwhile, Moody's Analytics said that chances of a soft landing are lower."
A "growing number of economists have recently said a contraction next year would be difficult to avoid," it adds. "Wells Fargo's Jay Bryson said he was expecting a soft landing just a week or so ago -- but now his base scenario is for a mild recession."
"The Federal Reserve is going to hike interest rates until policymakers break inflation," Ryan Sweet of Moody's Analytics said in a research note, "but the risk is that they also break the economy."
FREE MINDS
What's going on in the Libertarian Party (L.P.)? A new mini-doc from Reason TV looks at L.P. drama, dreams, and divisions, from the vantage point of the party's recent national convention in Reno:
What happened in Reno?
A new Reason documentary explores the recent @LPMisesCaucus takeover of @LPNational, featuring @comicdavesmith @scotthortonshow @justinamash @angela4lncchair @nsarwark and more. pic.twitter.com/QR1bzDY2NI
— reason (@reason) June 15, 2022
FREE MARKETS
How rent control hurts renters:
QUICK HITS
• It's been a bad year for criminal justice reform at the Supreme Court.
• Porn star Cherie DeVille writes about "how anti-porn evangelicals hoodwinked The New Yorker."
• Gun control advocates say they want "reform" but they're really pushing criminalization, notes J.D. Tuccille.
• Emily Bazelon wades into the "gender-affirming care" debate.
• More evidence that trust in news is declining (and not just in the U.S.).
• An argument for more pluralistic public education.
• Stanford University has declared "war on social life," writes Ginevra Davis.
• Fact checking Oxfam:
Oxfam, which promoted an "extremely fishy" claim that 198 million persons were going to fall into poverty in 2022, "is a serial repeat offender of dodgy statistics." [@Noahpinion] https://t.co/xrQoyscno9
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) June 15, 2022
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Recession 'Virtual Certainty' as Interest Rates Spike
Goddammit Putin.
He owns a time machine you know.
What's his carbon footprint?
He's white, apparently cis-heteronomal, and can be tied to orangemanbad. He's guilty even if he rides a fixie and has a man-bun.
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (res-32) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career & can gain more dollars on-line going
this article. Thanks .. https://easycashoffer.blogspot.com
No worries, the recession will be “transitory “.
Right. When you die, your troubles will end. Maybe.
That's the transitory part- where your troubles transition to your kids. And their kids....etc.
How many quarters w/ 0 or low decimal point positive percentages GDP will it take for the powers that falsify headlines to admit this is 1. a recession 2. due to BBB and it's accompanying clusterfuck? This includes here at reasonmag.
They always are, if they last too long they become depressions.
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (fhg-07) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career &
can gain more dollars online going this article.......... http://payout11.tk
We can just call it 'trans' inflation and it will be family friendly, even if it drags out for awhile longer.
Quit rainbow washing.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration still refuses to try and halt inflation through smart policy changes...
Slowly and steadily sticking to ideological fantasies and special interest demandss is how they're going to win the race.
Of course. The race is not about what is good for the people, it is about maintaining power.
That, and truly, truly stupid people still sure they are right.
I’m looking forward to the 2024 “Who Are We Voting For?” article here.
"The libertarian case for Amy Klobuchar"
And Pete Buttigieg?
Can't wait to read "the libertarian philosophy of Kamala Harris" by ENB simply because DeSantis is running.
Not sure who expected Biden to be associated with smart in the first place. He is still claiming not spending another 5 T caused the inflation.
But, but, but...."Hunter Biden is the smartest guy I know!"
Do you think he believes that? It doesn't surprise me if he does.
Considering the people he knows, it may even be true.
He apparently thinks 'dr jill' is smart. From reading through her doctoral thesis and the rest of the associated writing, that is not a word I would select. Emotive and aggressively striving for mediocre is a better description.
He is medicated. The question is, which medications does Joe take, and what drug interactions exist? Cardiac, metabolic, usual chronic meds do not interest me. Psych, neuro, dopamine, norepinephrine, brain neurotransmitter stabilizers, any neuroregulators....those are the money shot. More pressing, what are the directives given to Jill as to handling Joe? She is an enabler. She is getting something in return for her efforts. All and all, their marriage makes Bill and Hillary's look dreamy.
Aren't these the kinds of questions that get answered (or spun) after the President's annual physical checkup at Walter Reed? Oh, wait, a year and a half into his presidency, where questions about his health have swirled from Day One, Brandon has yet (to the nation's knowledge) to have such a physical.
Per Hunter Joe thinks he is a god among men.
What's pretty entertaining, from an outsider standpoint, is the fact that the 'left' is still going apeshit over trump's personality -the same personality traits that biden has. Biden has been documented being a creepy sexual harasser, and has a potentially credible cllaim of rape that the same left-leaning asshats ignored, because it's not in their interest to pay attention to women outside of their in-group.
"But, but, but...."Hunter Biden is the smartest guy I know!""
It might be true. His cabinet certainly is not blessed with excessive intellect.
I think more than most presidents, it's Biden's handlers running the show. I can picture a backroom freakshow of ideologues whose names aren't really on the line for the failures of this administration.
Rhymes with yo mama.
Public Choice Theory. It's not about what's good for us, it's about what's good for Biden.
"Recession 'Virtual Certainty'"
The Biden economy is fantastic. Even better than the Obama economy which I spent 8 years describing as the strongest in US history. Liberal capitalists like me and Warren Buffett are doing great. It's not my fault you Peanuts think HAPERINFLATION is real just because your spittin' tobaccy is 10 cents more expensive.
#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug
Biden is just giving shrike more dips to buy to further is millions in investments.
For the last time, tariffs don't drive inflation, you insipid morons. Tariffs are a flat price hike, a tax on consumption. They don't compound upward to keep driving prices higher like inflation dose.
Repealing tariffs could bring down prices but it wouldn't stop inflation. When many governors suspended the state gasoline tax, that also didn't stop the price from going up, it just cut the price of gas by a certain amount for a few weeks. It didn't actually help inflation since they didn't cut spending on highways, they just stopped funding that spending.
"Repealing tariffs could bring down prices but it wouldn't stop inflation. "
Repealing tariffs would bring down prices, which would have the effect of temporarily slowing inflation (rising prices of goods).
It would bring down prices minimally. Please learn what the fuck supplier shifts are.
I should expand since you really don't know.
China does not make enough to supply 100% of any single supply. Removing tariffs on them would only effect a sub percentage if any market. On top of that increasing supply to the US would decrease supply to other consumers of Chinese goods that would then cause the baseline costs of supplies to increase as more customers are provided for the same supply.
So claims of the tarrifs would offer costs by the full estimate on tariffs is bad economics. It would have a minimal cost impact overall.
On top of that many of the tariffs that currently are in place are due to anti market actions that increase costs of domestic goods from loss and increased security costs to prevent theft. So in reality the full removal increases consumer costs by not attacking theft costs. Currently estimated corporate thefts and espionage dwarf tariffs. Trading one bad for another.
Tariffs are not imposed on China or any other country. They are taxes imposed upon Americans who buy stuff against the wishes of people with too much hubris.
Tariffs suck, but Jesse is right that they have almost no impact on inflation. Plus, they have been baked into the cost well before the last two years of stupidity. Tariffs for the sake of tariffing shouldn't exist, but there is some value in combatting bad behavior with them. Regardless, the intended effect is very rarely reached.
Tariffs suck, but Jesse is right that they have almost no impact on inflation.
In many cases we're talking about tariffs as high as 25%. Would you call a 25% tax minimal?
Tell me you didn't read the post above. Because I explained this.
Spoiler: Of course not.
Working US citizens are paying approximately 32%... Pretty sure corporate taxes are even worse. That's just straight income taxes.. Never-mind taxes compound on products like the farmer pays taxes, the wheat grinder pays taxes, the baker pays taxes, the buyer pays taxes.....
So yeah; in the scheme of things 25% is STILL fairly minimal.
Did you have some excuse why importers should be paying 0% tax while everyone working in America should be paying 32%++???? Or are you using the 'less tax is good' ONLY for those people game?
What I don't understand is conservative hostility towards anyone who suggests that tariffs should be lowered. The party of economic freedom and low taxes seems to really dislike economic freedom and low taxes. Actually I lied. I do understand why. It's because they abandoned their principles around six years ago.
It’s a waste to spend time and effort on something that won’t improve the situation.
They are still hostile toward cutting tariffs? I thought they were OK with it since they are now the other team’s tariffs.
Caw caw!
Conservative Republicans have gone full protectionist. The only problem with tariffs is that there aren't enough of them.
Can you admit that product loss and increased security costs increase costs to consumers?
Until you admit this discussing anything beyond bumper stickers with you is not worthwhile.
Sigh.
That’s because you’re a partisan fucktard, Mikey and you project that onto anyone you disagree with.
Because enough are ignoring every other issue built around global trade.
Very simply put, changing one variable while assuming all others remain static in economics is idiotic and wrong.
Simply put, you're claiming that basic principles of economics don't matter. Just like leftists claim that well intentioned legislation can repeal the law of supply and demand.
"Simply put, you're claiming that basic principles of economics don't matter."
Sigh, no. He didn't. Stop trolling, sarcasmic.
Hey ML, you never gave an explanation as to why the TEA Party fizzled out. You just said I was wrong because I repeated what Democrats said (I didn't even know they'd said that, I was going by my own observations), and then claimed that you weren't making an ad hominem argument.
So... why did they fizzle? And can you explain why what I said is wrong other than by associating it with the DNC (as in textbook ad hominem)?
Or are you going to triple-down on your ridiculously false claim that attacking an argument based upon who it is associated with, as opposed to saying why the argument is wrong, is not an ad hominem?
C'mon troll. This should be entertaining.
Again. You are showing nothing but ignorance in regards to economics. Basic rules get blown up once second and third order effects are analyzed.
Simple question before we continue.
Is IP theft, theft, increased security costs, etc a cost to consumers from higher cost of products. Yes or no?
Until you admit that yes it is a cost we can't talk about the efficacy of tariffs against anti market actors.
Youre denying reality.
"Hey ML, you never gave an explanation as to why the TEA Party fizzled out."
You never asked, you dishonest piece of shit.
It fizzled out because your Democratic Party corporate media smear machine had the entirety of its force sliming it as the incarnation of the Nazis 24/7. Subsequent movements are now more adept at fighting your Party's dirty tricks.
"associating (libel of the Tea Party) with the DNC (is) textbook ad hominem"
I'm tired of sorting this retard out on what ad hominem actually is, and he won't listen to Jesse.
So can some of you others clear it up for this stupid shit? Maybe Overt, Paul, Zeb or soldiermedic?
Lol.
So can some of you others clear it up
Sarc, You never asked. You didn't continue the debate nor engage in gathering further information you did not have. You inferred his position and adopted it as THE position, then used it to prop up your own stance of ad hominem.
You just said I was wrong because I repeated what Democrats said (I didn't even know they'd said that, I was going by my own observations)
From what I observed ML responded by saying that was the Democratic narrative. He didn't say you were wrong because you repeated the narrative. I'm assuming he assumed you were arguing from a position of knowing what both sides had said. There can be no ad hominem if you don't know what the positions are.
Is that clear?
So is there really anyone here who is "The party of economic freedom and low taxes" who thinks LOW TAXES is bad???
Or perhaps they're saying 'foreigners' getting 0-Tax while citizens are getting a good (truly more like) 75% tax isn't Just and has cheated American Production while letting foreign entities get a free-ride...
Yes. Simpleton bumper sticker statements exist. Thanks for letting us know.
Are you saying that my statement is false, or just making a typical personal attack?
I'm saying you're a simpleton and ignoring 99% of the economy pretending it remains static to discuss another.
https://www.aier.org/article/do-allegations-of-intellectual-property-theft-justify-protective-tariffs/
Try an actual libertarian point of view for a change.
Lol. I have already previously linked you to many other economic papers on retaliatory tariffs and theft and costs to markets.
Citing a single economics take that agrees with your simpleton understanding of markets doesn't mean you were right. It means you are rejecting every other view through cognitive bias.
You linked an opinion paper dummy.
I'm glad you're so much more intelligent than a professor of Economic at GMU.
Here's something you'll never read.
https://cafehayek.com/
A blog from an actual libertarian economist.
You will never look at it because it won't confirm your Trumpian biases.
You remember yesterday when you called something "textbook ad hominem" that clearly fucking wasn't, and then got mad for being corrected?
Your post now is definitely ad hominem. Review it and learn.
You mean when I substituted what you said into an example of an ad hominem argument, and it fit perfectly?
It's embarrassing that you deny the obvious. I'll bold your stuff to make it more entertaining.
The most common form of ad hominem is "A me makes a claim x "TEA Party was coopted by talk radio and police reform was coopted by BLM" , B you asserts that A me holds a property that is unwelcome agreement with the DNC , and hence B you concludes that argument x "TEA Party was coopted by talk radio and police reform was coopted by BLM" is wrong".
There you go. Textbook ad hominem.
Keep denying it though. It's really funny to watch.
fuck, missed a tag between "DNC" and ","
where's my edit button?!?
Seek help.
"There you go. Textbook ad hominem."
Sure when you reword it into something that I didn't actually say, you monumentally dishonest retard.
Maybe everyone else can judge for us.
Hey folks! Here's what sarcasmic just claimed that I wrote, and he also says was ad hominem:
"A me makes a claim x "TEA Party was coopted by talk radio and police reform was coopted by BLM" , B you asserts that A me holds a property that is unwelcome agreement with the DNC , and hence B you concludes that argument x "TEA Party was coopted by talk radio and police reform was coopted by BLM" is wrong".
Here's what I actually wrote... In full. Unedited, in-context and unabridged. Sarcasmic claims that this is "textbook ad hominem" (see link):
"That's the DNC narrative, but no."
https://reason.com/2022/06/15/trade-associations-chamber-of-commerce-warn-of-danger-in-data-privacy-bill/?comments=true#comment-9545499
So I ask you all, did I imply sarcasmic's 60 word paragraph above in my original 6 word reply and commit "textbook ad hominem"?
Or is sarcasmic a retard?
Please enlighten us.
Reading the link, ML doesn’t say your argument is wrong because you’re a Democrat. Which of course would be an ad hominem.
He says that what you posted was a DNC narrative. Thats an assertion, not an ad hominem.
Seriously sarc, take a break. Attend a meeting. Call your sponsor. Whatever it takes.
Mother's Lament is right. If he would have said what you say is wrong because you're a Democrat", then that would have been ad hominem.
But he actually made a claim regarding the origin of your statement sarcasmic. Not about you.
If this was what was said, "That's the DNC narrative, but no", then no. It definitely wasn't ad hominem.
Poor sarc.
You're wrong on both counts. As usual.
Next youre going to tell me Krugman is never wrong because he has a nobel prize.
Here is a real fallacy you should learn. Appeal to authority.
When reviewing ad hominem, also review the appeal to authority fallacy, which your reference to a blog post from a GMU professor pretty blatantly is. Talk about textbook.
This "They stole our IP" argument is extremely weak gruel to me.
I don't own any IP stolen by China. Neither, generally, does the united states. If you are a company that enters China and gets your IP stolen, then that is your fucking fault. This has been known for 30 fucking years. Tom Clancy was bitching about it in his 2000s-era Jack Ryan books.
Instead of forcing american companies to live with the consequences of their terrible decisions, those companies want the US to transfer the wealth of consumers to those companies so that they can continue to manufacture cheaply abroad and charge higher markup domestically.
All that said, Inflation is a huge problem that tariff policy won't fix. Tariffs should be lowered because they are immoral and wrong-headed, not because of inflation.
The "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" chick had a joke about her family, that they felt every problem could be fixed with windex. Spill something on the couch? WIndex. Fall off your bike? Spray the cut with windex! Advocates of a policy need to make sure they aren't getting into this mode where their pet policy isn't claimed to be the answer for everything. Just as CIS has never seen a problem that closing the borders wouldn't fix, sometimes reason gives too much credit to tariff reform.
This "They stole our IP" argument is extremely weak gruel to me.
Tell that to your buddy JesseAz.
Can you have one informed comment. ?
"Tell that to your buddy JesseAz."
I...just...did?
Fucking classic.
Lmao.
That's hilarious.
So police shouldn't give a shit about home and auto thefts because "that's your fucking fault". What else can we apply this to, don't want to get raped, don't be out in public or it's your fault for any consequences?
When did police start giving a shit about home and auto thefts? If you're lucky they'll fill out a report for your insurance. If you're unlucky they'll tell you deserved it and laugh at you.
"So police shouldn't give a shit about home and auto thefts because "that's your fucking fault"."
This is a poor analogy.
If you go to mexico and cut a deal with drug dealers, and get ripped off? No. I don't want the police here in the states to force me to compensate you for your stupid business decisions. Sorry.
I see you don't respond, just dismiss and then change the terms. You want some chosen risks to be protected, others not based solely on your personal biases.
If you are a company that enters China and gets your IP stolen, then that is your fucking fault.
This is not the majority of IP theft.
Yes it is. The majority of IP "theft" comes from from two areas:
1) A company outsources manufacturing to a factory in China. The technology behind these goods and services is taken.
2) A company that wants to do business in China is forced to create a chinese operating concern, or to partner with an existing Chinese concern. Chinese law allows those technology partners to continue using the IP even after the expiration of an agreement.
In both these cases, companies know and have known for years that losing exclusive control of your IP is the price you pay if you want to engage in these relationships.
This does not ignore the fact that, periodically, a Chinese concern steals IP by corporate espionage of a non-chinese entity. For example, hacking, reverse engineering, or hiring away key staff. The important point *in these cases* is that the United States has a remedy in the WTO. By bringing in the WTO, the US can get permission to demand remediation from China, or is given approval to perform one of many potential retaliations (which might include Tariffs). It is important to note that none of Trump or Bidens' tariffs were created through this framework.
It is noteworthy that the US *did* file a dispute with the WTO in 2019 specifically about case #2 above. That case was dropped when China changed their legislation to make it illegal as of 1/2020.
Funny that your all fine with coercion and theft.
And you conveniently leave out the third option, you sell something in China and the IP is stolen from there.
Aside from the above overt you are ignoring the secondary effect of theft in costs for security. The billions spent on infrastructure to prevent theft are far costlier than the tariffs on various industries. Companies increase their own operational costs in response to theft and it raises their overall costs which effect price of goods sold.
I truly don't understand why you are ignoring this basic fact.
"Aside from the above overt you are ignoring the secondary effect of theft in costs for security. "
I'm not ignoring it. If a company puts our country's security in jeopardy by recklessly risking IP that is vital to our country, then we should sanction that company- not bail it out by forcing its customers to pay more.
"Companies increase their own operational costs in response to theft and it raises their overall costs which effect price of goods sold."
These companies need to do that anyways. Sure, china has hackers. So does russia. And Poland. And Ukraine. They are all stealing our shit all the time. You seem to be ignoring that fact.
So rather than obviate the need to develop "security infrastructure", that need persists *and* you have made the goods and services more expensive for the consumers of the products.
I'd argue that, in many cases, IP holders GIVE their IP to Chinese entities for market entry.
Which, to me, means we should not expend any effort to protect it since they, themselves, do not seem anxious to do so.
Inflation is a macro-monetary phenomenon that is reflected in the rising prices of goods, but is not itself the rising prices of goods, which is an effect of inflation - but can also be caused by many other things.
Inflation is the general rising of prices. What you are describing is technically Monetary Inflation.
Inflation isn’t just the rising price of goods though?
And totally not happening. Much. For long.
Repealing or reducing tariffs also frees up the supply chain from government interference, making products from other sources cheaper and more readily available (preventing which was the main goal of the tariffs.) So it would help to reduce inflation, by increasing supply.
Where are the diehard anti-tariff crowd, convinced that tariffs automatically lead to increases in prices? They were certainly around not so long ago. Tariffs suck, but that argument is asinine. Once one claims that something 'always' happens, the argument fails, but they don't accept their failure.
If the Tariff isn't increasing prices, then it isn't working. The whole purpose of a tariff is to prevent a foreign competitor from selling a good or service at a lower price than the domestic producer can sell.
That’s not strictly true. Tariffs can cause a supplier to shift their operations to a more friendly, less killy environment (like from China to Taiwan) with prices possibly staying the same.
We are going to go into a really fast recession...
I'm beginning to wonder if maybe shutting down the global economy to win an election might have possibly been a little bit of a mistake.
Just the messaging. If they were able to convince us that this was caused by the nasty old orange man, it would be a winning strategy. Obviously crushing their constituency while trying to ruin the country is a side effect, but well worth it in the eyes of the left.
It's always the messaging that's the problem for Democrats. Not that their policies are terrible and destroying society, or that the overwhelming majority of Americans reject them. It's just that we're no propagandizing the right way.
That, and the inconvenient fact that 2/3 of Americans just don't blindly submit to the Master Plan.
They're getting desperate at this point. They are lying and propagandizing to an extent that would make the USSSR blush. When they repeat stone cold lies, everything is thrown out the window, not just the horseshit.
"It's always the messaging that's the problem for Democrats"
True stuff. I recall hearing the "defund the police" thing during the BLM stuff and when asked about it, I had to endure multiple paragraphs of "Well actually, it's not really defunding, we just want to ..."
Also, BLM itself was terrible messaging. When people asked if other lives mattered, they became racists. Not a great way to go about things and encourage support for a movement.
Well, that was their movement. They don't care about anyone else unless you pay to be an ally.
And they would have gotten away with it if wasn’t for those meddling laws.
And if they weren't incompetent dumbasses.
Shutting down Congress for 9 months out of 12 is even more appealing like many State Legislatures do. Then legislators return home to work their real jobs since their legislative jobs pay peanuts.
How about a one-month session every two years? Just a quick review of which outdated laws should be sunset.
Sunsets should be automatic.
Seconded. Unless voted to extend, sunsets should be automatic.
Even better would be a cap on the number of laws. We can work out how to count them later.
The only way to find out is do it again and see what happens.
Shutting down the global economy to win an election? Can you explain?
Not to you.
Great answer
Sigh. I unmuted him because I though maybe he had really given a great answer.
Instead, more juvenile, ankle-biting. It just confirms that right wingers cannot hold their own in a civil discussion, so they always result to insult and personal attack.
You get what you deserve bird.
That discussion has an expiration date. It has been reached.
Maybe you can explain how the global economy was shut down to win an election.
You can't remember two years ago?
Funny how Mike sees anyone who challenges him as a right-winger. What does that make him?
He swears he's not a Democrat. No sir-ee, not White Mike. Sure he sounds like a Journo-list or ActBlue talking points memo, but that's pure coincidence.
So, you’ve got nuthin.
Good answer, actually.
Shutting down the global economy to win an election? Can you explain?
Your stance has been firmly established. There is no reason to argue it further.
How can an honest question about what someone by something they wrote be a “stance”?
“someone meant by”
Nobody buys your squawking.
Probably because it was nothing like an "honest question"'.
He doesn't need to sea lion.
Caw caw!
But what if the purpose of those who shut down the economy to win the election was to use the power of office to shut down the economy?
https://twitter.com/MoonaKitty/status/1536848494828195840
That is awesome.
That's some impressive art. Should be hanging in the National Gallery.
I thought the bitcoin logo on his shirt was a nice touch.
And the artist is wearing a Bitcoin shirt, for punctuation.
If he were a republican that would be considered a call for a violent attack. insurrectionist
I am sure the FBI is on their way to "investigate" this planning of burning down a federal building.
Give it time.
Fuck Joe Biden
Fuck Joe Biden
I thought about adding Nancy Pelosi but the imagery made me nauseous.
Just steel Nancy's $5k commercial ice cream fridge with the $12k in specialty ice cream in it.
Then she'll be nauseous, and we'll have ice cream.
Things are bad enough as it is, no need to go to such a dark place.
When I want to induce impotence, I just think of AOC.
Especially when she laughs like a braying jackass.
Rest easy. There's no way to physically fuck a skeletor.
"An argument for more pluralistic public education"
If "more pluralistic" means "every public school student must swear to uphold the teachings of Dr. Kendi," then I'm all for it.
#LibertariansForCRTInPublicSchools
#RadicalIndividualistsForRacialCollectivism
Academic reparations?
What's going on in the Libertarian Party (L.P.)?
If you don't want to know how your delicious sausage is made, imagine the interest in the manufacture of the sausage no one wants to eat.
The LP is indeed a sausage party.
I thought it was more like an autistic play group.
No, thank you. Been to one Libertarian Party convention. Never again.
Nobody cares.
I assumed it was a lie.
That to.
He probably went to one of those exurban fringe mega-swap meets, and got confused.
"By this point, we had actually been expecting to see clear signs of inflation flattening out and ideally beginning to decline," Powell admitted yesterday.
Based on what, exactly? The fact that there's a ton of free sent out, that production dropped way off but there's a ton of money flooding the market? You're clearly delusional about what the causes are.
adding that he expects it will be a "shallower recession."
Let me just say that I'm not too convinced right now by optimistic projections from experts, based on everything I've seen from experts over the last three years.
They were still doing their quantitative easing bullshit as recently as MARCH of this year, and the interest rate was 0%.
As recently as August 2021, they were predicting inflation rates 'as high as' 2.5% by the end of 2022.
They're incapable morons.
Incapable morons or useful idiots, either way, it's bad for us. It's amazing how easy it is to find Nobel winning economists that agree with every single policy proposal, no matter how bad.
Leftist koolade is powerful stuff.
Paul Krugman would take offense to that if he wasn't laughing all the way to the bank on his way to the next Establishment cocktail party.
It's almost like the Nobel committee is made up entirely of wef davos global marxist
Yeah this is the hilarious part. But then again, I was just forwarded a paper from the Boston Fed, titled "Root Causes of Racial Economic Disparities". That's right. The Marxists have invaded the Fed.
Root Causes is another term I take some umbrage with these days.
What was their argument though? The title isn't inherently Marxist or Woke or whatever, but I would not be surprised if the content is.
At this point, if the word "disparities" appears in the title, it's pretty safe to assume the article is woke AF until proven otherwise.
If your first guess was "Systematic Racism" you were right.
Yeah, given that they've been completely wrong on all of their rosy optimism for the past two years, I don't think they are entitled to much credibility on their "shallower recession" projections.
Get woke! Believing something makes it true.
Hell, Yellen was just telling us last FUCKING week that there wasn't going to be a recession!!!
Go ahead and assume it’s going to be at least 10x worse than whatever the rosy predictions of our “TOP MEN” say.
that and violent crime come midnight after the November election.
It's been a bad year for criminal justice reform at the Supreme Court.
A year of unchecked rioting might have had a hand.
They stopped that one riot and are going at those people with every exaggerated claim they can pump into the media, so they got that going for them.
Gun control advocates say they want "reform" but they're really pushing criminalization...
Sending armed state agents after those who had nothing to do with gun violence is where so-called reformers should lose everyone.
SHUN THIS TERF
More evidence that trust in news is declining (and not just in the U.S.).
They just have to bias harder until the news consumers fall back into line.
And eliminate any contrarian voices.
The Ministry of Truth will restore our trust in the news.
Oddly, no word from the sophists here about the fact that it did/does not simply have and advisory role, but had ties to twitter in relation to limiting what could be said about covid.
was looking forward, as a nonTwitter user, to seeing the Twits lose their Twats when Elon Musk swatted their existence away.
Who here actually seriously believes we're not already in a recession right now? We won't know the official answer for a few more weeks, but I find it pretty hard to believe GDP is actually going to be up this quarter, given what an absolute beating fake billionaire day trader Dipshit Dave Weigel has been taking in the markets.
Oh, and something the so-called "mainstream" media has been deliberately avoiding reporting on is that the layoffs have already started at many major companies. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
We've been in a recession for a couple of months.
I'd say about 4.5. Here on mainstreet, things seem to be getting worse quickly. The "experts" don't have any remote idea how hard consumers are getting crushed right now. A lot of them don't care, but there is a long ways down for markets to go. That may sting for them.
Mr. Buttplug hasn't been around much lately precisely because the economy is so great. He's busy test-driving Ferraris. Gotta spend that #BidenBoom money as fast as he makes it!
#BestEconomyEver
What kind of peasant test drives a Ferrari? I have on good authority that ButtPlug bought 4 different models last week, and gave away the 3 he didn't like.
turd showed up with a new handle for several posts some days back; presume the new handle was a result of getting banned again.
Haven't seen more of his lies since then; perhaps Reason will ban his sorry ass regardless of new handles.
It doesn't matter if it's a recession or not. People try to co-opt the technical language which exists for a more narrow technical conversation about the economy.
What matters is prices increasing and people are not feeling good about that fact. Using the plain language is more useful and captures it better then worrying over whether a technical term that people misuse frequently fits.
I can do both.
I think, in most cases, the adoption of jargon is bad for debate. This is a issue everywhere in current discussion, on all sorts of topics, not just politics.
In particular, the adoption of specialized medical language to describe everything (look at how people talk about mental state nowadays, it's rife with medical terminology) is not good. I think it's done to lend a false authority to many conversations and it hurts communication of basic facts. Using "recession" is a mild case of it, but I think it's a bad trend in general.
Jargon has a purpose, but it is narrow.
I hear ya.
An argument for more pluralistic public education.
The last thing we can risk is to churn out more members of society who may think differently.
charge of arson against a man who attempted to ignite a New York Police Department vehicle on fire during the George Floyd riots in 2020.
Because sir, he didnt put feet on the queens desk.
/sourced from just the news. Reason is eating their links again.
Bah. Full quote.
Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) is demanding to know why the Justice Department dropped a charge of arson against a man who attempted to ignite a New York Police Department vehicle on fire during the George Floyd riots in 2020.
He was justified in attempting to stop a government function.
Skin color? (The Most Important Thing! TM)
Stanford University has declared "war on social life," writes Ginevra Davis.
Party school no more.
Not even a one party school?
What happened at Stanford is a cultural revolution on the scale of a two-mile college campus. In less than a decade, Stanford’s administration eviscerated a hundred years of undergraduate culture and social groups. They ended decades-old traditions. They drove student groups out of their houses. They scraped names off buildings. They went after long-established hubs of student life, like fraternities and cultural theme houses. In place of it all, Stanford erected a homogenous housing system that sorts new students into perfectly equitable groups named with letters and numbers. All social distinction is gone.
Whenever Stanford empties out a fraternity or theme house, the administration renames the organization’s former house after its street number. Now, Stanford’s iconic campus Row, once home to dozens of vibrant student organizations, is lined with generic, unmarked houses with names like “550,” “680,” and “675” in arbitrary groupings with names like “S” and “D”.
Stanford’s motto is Die Luft der Freiheit weht—“the winds of freedom blow.” But Stanford has become a case study of how overzealous bureaucrats can crush natural social expression, and how the urge to excise danger can quickly devolve into a campaign to whitewash away anything remotely interesting. In the aftermath, all that is left is the generic: empty walls, names scrubbed off buildings, and kids safely, or not so safely, alone in their rooms.
This is exactly what people who complained about PC culture were warning people of back in the 80s and 90s. Everything that might potentially offend someone is scrubbed clean. Humanity is being suppressed because it's important not to be offensive, not to take any undue risk.
You fall into a bureacratic, top-down society that doesn't tolerate difference, that doesn't actually preach acceptance because it removes the possibility to describe unacceptable ideas. You don't just wake up in Orwell's 1984, you slide into it, a little bit at a time. And it happens because you didn't have moral convictions. Even when you thought it was wrong, you said, "Well I see their point, but...." No, their point is to sanitize everything, to sanitize history so that we don't remember how complicated everything is, how much work it took to get certain ideas and institutions in place.
Celebrate difference. Not superficial difference like physical appearances or the strange pronouns someone prefers, but different ideas. Disagreements. Disagreements are the core of a functioning society, our ability to share our existence and even our purpose with people who have drastically different ideas.
And whatever happens in universities now, is common in the broader culture twenty years later.
Hold on to your hats, libertarians, the future's gong to get ugly.
And whatever happens in universities now, is common in the broader culture twenty years later.
Less time than that. I remember talking with people about the impending wave of Wokeism back in 2012-2014, pointing out that while it was largely confined to colleges then, that it would be unleased on the general public in a few years, especially since the college administrations were completely kowtowing to their demands.
Lo and behold, here we are. And it's only going to get worse.
Is it though? The real thing is I don't see much wokeism in my real life. If I got to the University area, I do. If I drive around town, I don't. I see it in schools, I see it less in homes.
I still think this is an example of institutional capture by a small amount of people. Which is good to keep in mind, because that makes things more hopeful long term, and short term. We are seeing grassroots pushback to this as well, and so I have hope.
My wife was just informed today she has to start preparing her black employee for a promotion to management because the next person in management needs to be a minority. He doesn’t interact with anyone in the company and has no management skills.
I had a funny anecdote from a coworker of mine. An American whose family came over from Asia at some point in the late 1800s. His family had been in California for generations, longer than most of my own family had been in the country. Foreign surname though, non-European genetics. So, forever a foreigner to a certain awful group of people.
He once went on a little rant to me about how DEI people at our company keep coming to him and asking him how to solve issues with minorities and how to find more minorities to hire. "I don't fucking know, I'm just an engineer" was his eventual response.
Just a funny story to me. I feel bad for the guy. He's a good guy.
Asian guys are funny.
Dilbert esque
The Black Peter Principle
Some things never change...
"The real thing is I don't see much wokeism in my real life."
I was forced into Equity training when I worked at Verizon a year or so ago. Straight up, "You are privileged, and equity- not equality- is our goal."
My new company- one of the Too Big to Fail Banks- is asking me to sign a "Manager Pledge to combat systemic Racism".
This woke shit is all over my life.
Haha, I think it's interesting you say that. It shines a big light on my own mindset in that when I said "in my real life" I just straight up don't count work anymore. That is probably confusing to most people, and really says more about my reasoning there.
Yes, I work at a FAANG company and it is indeed everywhere within it.
I also note that my kids are bringing this shit home from school every day too.
Celebrate difference. Not superficial difference like physical appearances or the strange pronouns someone prefers, but different ideas. Disagreements. Disagreements are the core of a functioning society, our ability to share our existence and even our purpose with people who have drastically different ideas.
That's the exact opposite of the leftist credo, which is to celebrate diversity in everything except ideas. Thought must be homogeneous. All other differences are to be celebrated.
Yep, Wokeness is a totalitarian movement in a classic sense of total control to the ends of creating a new man. It is Utopian, and Utopian does not arise from division.
That said, I don't see any value in celebrating different ideas either. That can lead to appreciating novelty too much. It's really the difficult middle path of willingness to reconcile with different beliefs non-violently.
Not really any real response to your comment I guess. I just used you as a jumping off point for a short form ramble because I'm bored a lot at work.
Liberals don't care what you do, so long as it's mandatory.
In place of it all, Stanford erected a homogenous housing system that sorts new students into perfectly equitable groups named with letters and numbers. All social distinction is gone.
Sounds like a
worker'sstudent's paradise.I can see no downside to this, and it's clear to me that student's won't form social distinctions and cliques within 10 minutes of being in a room with one another.
Did they issue the grey uniforms and the little red books yet?
Let's hope the national uniform looks good on emaciated bodies, as well as porky elite party members.
"Stanford’s motto is Die Luft der Freiheit weht"
That's some Nazi hate speech, and must be cleansed, right?
In a sane world, that school would be a wasteland because everyone would have pulled their kids the second they started this shit.
Democrats keep claiming democracy is in danger if people vote for Republicans.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/midterm-memo-democrats-juggle-democracy-imperatives
The irony.
Unless you vote for us, your ability to vote is in danger.
Not intentionally ironic, for many on the left. Another expression of their moral Dunning-Kruger.
Porn star Cherie DeVille writes about "how anti-porn evangelicals hoodwinked The New Yorker."
Yes, because the recent PornHub purge, Iceland's porn ban, the UK's partial ban, etc. were all caused by the Moral Majority and not Woke jou... oh wait...
So many Reasonistas and Hank-type libertarians are still battling long extinct 90s dinosaurs while pretending the circling Woke wolves are friendly doggies.
I'm a little confused as to why anyone cares what Cherie DeVille, pornstar-turned-politician who even kept her stage name, "thinks" about anything. Like, imagine Kamala Harris after a couple decades of getting paid to suck people off on camera. I've got no problem if you want to suck people off as a profession, but let's not pretend you know what's any more morally correct than the average journolist, politician, or bricklayer who pays for your films and whistles at hot chicks on the street. That doesn't make Evangelicals right in everything they do but the Evangelicals and even bricklayers don't generally wear the "I get paid either way." badge on their sleeves like a source of pride.
Kamala Harris DID suck people off to get into politics which is frankly, worse than a whore.
"I whored myself out so I could get into politics." vs. "I whored myself out until I couldn't do that successfully anymore, so I went into politics." is a distinction without a difference to me.
The second instance does not involve people who think themselves your betters spending taxpayer money on ridiculous bullshit, abusing the public trust, or nay of the other typical hypocrisy until after the getting payed to fuck on camera. The first, no camera, but getting fucked to get to the shitty typical politician behaviors.
I can't see Cherie DeVille going after backpage the way Kamala did.
I can accept an honest story and overlook things in a way I cannot a dishonest story. One person I know what I get, agree or not, while the other is only as bought as the last or maybe biggest payday.
She would be an expert on the practice within the field, and if her work is on pornhub, and/or she has worked with pornhub, that gives her credibility. She may be biased, but certainly no more, and likely less so than two zealot antiporn, 'antitrafficking' 'journalists. The fact that Kolhatkar is writing at the daily beast indicates that her work is not of the highest quality, and her ethics are suspect.
Reading the article is more complicated, but not super convincing. It's a rebuttal, but not a slam-dunk or anything.
Basically, the article states that more child porn incidents are reported on other websites than pornhub, and that the evangelical activists real goal is anti-porn in general. There's a mix of a few points, some unconvincing to me, some reasonable.
They mention that Facebook has more reported incidents of child abuse content each year and that the activist should focus on that first. I always find these kinds of arguments boring. "You're pursuing this problem, when you should be pursuing this other problem I think is bigger."
Deville writes that the evangelical person
Went to look up the evangelical woman's name, Kolhatkar, and accidentally posted early.
Deville writes that Kolhatkar gives bad stats about PornHub usage. Entirely reasonable criticism. The numbers Deville named did seem ridiculous, 150 billion users a day seems high. Though I guess it could be video views which actually might be more possible since a lot of people sort of porn surf. I don't know though. Fair point.
Deville also comments that Kolhatkar used interviews with many porn stars and sex workers out of context to represent her anti-porn stance. That's a reasonable charge too, though also I don't know if it's true.
The core argument of DeVille is that Kolhatkar is actually just anti-porn in general. That's not really a rebuttal though, I think it's stated and may be accepted as a damning charge, but it's not that meaningful for me when discussing dealing with child abuse content online to say a major activist is also anti-porn in general. This is a philosophical debate that didn't really happen. Though I hope we see more of it.
I'm pretty convinced at this point of the negative impact of just how widely available porn is nowadays and I think it's worth pushing back against certain assumption about sexuality that came out of the 60s.
Though, I also think that the legal response to that should be basically nothing.
'So many Reasonistas and Hank-type libertarians are still battling long extinct 90s dinosaurs while pretending the circling Woke wolves are friendly doggies.' You could change that to 1940s. There's a large swath of progressivism and feminism apparently convinced that conservatism and masculinity are functioning somewhere around the middle of last century. And like any extremist views, this dogma cannot be challenged, as facts will not replace the narrative.
Hank is a trip. I’ve never seen someone so adamantly fight ghosts before.
Bet he was a blast in the 60’s.
If Anthony Comstock hadn't died 107 years ago I'm sure he'd be feeling the sting of Hank's wrath.
Another soros da on the chopping block. Reason hardest hit.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/pennsylvania-legislators-move-to-impeach-soros-funded-philadelphia-district-attorney
We're still waiting for the hammer to fall on our local one here in St. Louis:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/top-st-louis-city-prosecutor-faces-discipline-over-probe-ex-governor-2022-05-11/
Do you think Soros has a security detail? Asking for a friend. And I am totally not affiliated with the FBI.
My guess is he has his own small army.
Think this was the end of the ministry of truth? Kamala sets her sights on online harassment.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/kamala-harris-taskforce-online-harassment-abuse
Dee’s already filling complaints.
First target, Truth Social. SOOO Harasssing
This is the hill dems have chosen to die on. A drag queen for every classroom!
https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-drag-queen-for-every-school-michigan-ag-makes-startling-statements-on-drag-queens-later-claims-she-was-just-joking
Ah, the classic "Oh, I was only joking!" technique, used primarily after you say some stupid shit to try and earn brownie points.
Sarcasmic uses that all the time here.
It's weird to think about how we got to this point? Like, "A Drag Queen For Every Classroom" is probably a unique sentence in world history. This wasn't even a topic 5 years ago. It's so bizarre how quickly things started to get pushed in this regard.
Don't worry, I have been assured that it is everyone BUT the people on the left running full speed into their given side. They haven't changed, everyone else did!
That whole article was one big Pounce!
"By this point, we had actually been expecting to see clear signs of inflation flattening out and ideally beginning to decline," Powell admitted yesterday.
Economics is the science of explaining why your predictions were wrong.
Then what is pandemic policy?
Pretending your predictions were never wrong in the first place.
Emily Bazelon wades into the "gender-affirming care" debate.
*** meekly raises hand ***
Can we have the "intelligence-affirming care" debate?
What do you think the entire progressive movement is about if not affirming the intellectual superiority of anyone stupid enough to buy that nonsense.
Very true. Most proggies I know are very, very smart. If you don't see it, just ask them. I don't know how the superiority arises from voting for bad policies, but voting d gets those brain cells flowing apparently.
How about "you really are a super hero that can jump off a roof and live-afermation" care
So, everything will cost more, including borrowing money to pay for the things that cost more. As long as you have a job.
Comrades, on to the glorious future!
"Internal strife roils business at S.F. crypto firm Kraken"
[...]
"Powell accused activist employees of being myopic, saying "You want to be 'inclusive' by asking an ESL Suadi candidate his pronouns/gender in a job interview?"
https://www.pressreader.com/
Heavens! He went so far as to call them "woke"!
I like the cut of this guy's jib.
Probably not going to be a "S.F." firm too much longer.
his twitter thread on this is fantastic. I wanna go work there!
https://twitter.com/jespow/status/1536978821345292288
I wonder their reaction if the ESL Saudi candidate was confused or insulted by the question. Would they have viewed that as a negative? If so, would that be by definition exclusionary?
Eh, this is a dumb point. I can do better.
The lp voted 70% to get rid of the woke davos retards that reason writers love. It's only drama because you aren't a libritarian and think they should cave to the ds on every issue
The Mises Caucus deserves every chance to show how they can
make the LP more relevant to <1% of the voters.
But what about Democrats who like to tout a select Libertarian view to look edgy at cocktail parties?
lol don't be such an optimist.
+1
"Life's already so expensive, and now you're going to jack up the interest rate on my credit cards, Jay? What, I'm supposed to just stop shopping now?"
Nobody needs 23 kinds of stuff. Or even 23 pieces of stuff. Which is good, since stores will have less than 23 things to sell.
Only idiots pay credit card interest.
Poor sarc.
"A new mini-doc from Reason TV looks at L.P. drama,"
That mini doc seems pretty clean cut and dry. Only ENB, Soave and Sullum seem to feel like there's drama. Because 70% of the party doesn't agree with them.
OBL hardest hit.
Drama = changes we don't understand or like.
iMore evidence that trust in news is declining (and not just in the U.S.).
As with declining trust in most other institutions, this is well deserved, as it is no longer trustworthy.
So who do you trust for your news?
Nobody.
I seriously doubt that. No one has the time or the ability to do primary research on every single story. There must be someone that you trust reasonably well to give a summary of an event or issue that you can't or won't research yourself.
It’s just not that important.
CNN, the NYT, the WaPo, the Atlantic, MSNBCCBSABCNBCFOX, Buzzfeed, Vox... Any establishment Democrat organ really. Just because they've been caught lying and gaslighting us every chance they get, doesn't mean that they're untrustworthy.
Honestly the best approach is to understand that we're in a period of yellow journalism and take from multiple sources. This may be a market niche for someone to step into; CNN seems like they intend to pivot in a more just-the-facts direction and I hope it works out for them.
As far as the majors go, the one I trust the most is the Wall St Journal. Business news has more competitive pressure to be less fast-and-loose than the outrage farms that other newspapers have turned into, and the contrasting politics of the owners, Op/Ed page, and Newsroom seems to serve as a professionalizing influence on each.
Honestly the best approach is to understand that we're in a period of yellow journalism and take from multiple sources.
^
I've been getting a lot of mileage out of this site lately.
It lists the hill as a center publication. This sight is heavily skewed to the left
This is a solid approach.
Your mom
Well, there is some news institution that you *do* trust, because as I mentioned above, no one has the time or ability to do primary research on every single issue or every single story. Why not share what it is?
Trust nobody. Be skeptical. Think for yourself.
Why continue to trust the places you blindly trust when they won't even give awards back for false stories?
Or, and hear me out, don’t trust any of them and recognize that none of them are giving you just the straight facts and they are all selling their bias.
Lying Jeffy doesn’t fall for any biases, he’s above all that.
Define "news".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/news
How about an answer that is not autistically obvious?
I mostly just take a break from news cycle stuff and read opinion journalism and then long form works at this point. Daily news is rarely worth it and is, even in its best form, often lacking due to the short-time frames it operates in.
I don't know how we get back to a better place. The biggest issue has just been the overall collapse of the industry into relatively few major players. Local news has all but collapsed as well. This is all bad.
People talk about bias all the time, and it's pretty obviously there, but a lot of the time I don't think it's biased on purpose, as in someone in power making an explicit decision to bias a certain way, and instead is just everyone operating in cultural vacuums. The NYT has no real competitor in its space, and has sorted to the point where they honestly don't know a lot of positions that oppose beliefs they hold. Things like that.
In the case of the NYT, it was bias on purpose, and by explicit decision. Dean Baquet is a piece of shit, period. This isn't to say that he also has no clue how people live their lives outside of the bubble in which he lives, he doesn't, nor, I suspect, does he care in the slightest. This doesn't take from your point that the major 'trusted' sources are now in the too big to fail category, but, thankfully, they are doing just that due to their own malfeasance and gross mismanagement.
I think news is in the process of being deprofessionalized. Career journalists are for the most part grifters and ideologues crafting favorable narratives. What has disrupted their narratives with greater and greater effectiveness is that people are able to fact check them through smart devices and social media, and often this means random people, not professional, paid journalists, are actually doing a better job of informing the public about current events, albeit in an ad hoc fashion, than the supposed news media.
Who are your Top Men! Lying Jeffy?
"The Supreme Court partially blocked a California worker-protection law."
[...]
" The Supreme Court on Wednesday barred workers in California from using a unique state law to join one another and sue an employer over labor law violations, ruling that the law, as currently written, violates an employer’s right to arbitration under federal law..."
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/The-Supreme-Court-partially-blocked-a-California-17244238.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result
You signed a contract and now you don't like that contract and expect to be able to unilaterally void that contract? That's the "rights" being "limited".
Meh.
What you have to understand is that anything that pushes communism closer is a "worker right" and anything that happens to delay the onset of communism is undoing or damaging "workers rights"
Man, I was reading the article to get some context on things. Especially because arbitration has been under fire recently. It led me to this paragraph though:
Enacted in 2004, the Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA, lets employees sue their employers, individually or collectively, in the name of the state for violating laws such as those regulating minimum wages, overtime, and meal and rest breaks. If these suits succeed, the employees collect 25% of the penalties provided by labor law, with the rest going to the state.
What the fuck at those penalty ratios? 75% percent of damages goes to the state?
""The economy is going to collapse," Michael Novogratz, CEO of of the cryptocurrency-focused Galaxy Investment Partners, told MarketWatch."
Why would you interview a grifter?
And perhaps we should've been raising rates back in the mid 2010s instead of overheating the economy then. Not to mention pulling back the QE.
We're paying for the mistakes of that shitty admin that wanted nothing more than to placate the morons with joy today and a hangover tomorrow.
Yeah, glad you agree the Biden administration sucks.
I think shitlunches is talking about Obama.
How dare you immune the Obama administration you fucking racist.
Why would you interview a grifter?
Cue Joe Biden. "Will there be ice cream?"
https://twitter.com/TullipR/status/1536422533230206976
Gender affirming "care", previously known as a sex change, is a fucking nightmare for these people.
Also known as genital mutilation .
The good kind.
That made me so angry to read. That's what chemjeff, Sqrlsy and White Mike want done to young kids.
A lifetime of pain, suicidal thoughts and misery because surgically constructed genitalia don't actually work.
and even if you just do the hormone blockers (chem castration) you end up with withered non functional genitalia. Ovaries that will likely not be able to support a pregnancy if the kid changes their mind, or a shriveled little micropenis that shoots blanks.
Pushing this stuff is evil
This guy's story is just heartbreaking to read and trans maniacs are trying to silence him.
An argument for more pluralistic public education.
Eliminate public schools entirely. It's the only way to be sure.
Saw a clip from the Anderson Cooper show in my feed where some guest was absolutely ripping into how awful Biden's popularity was, and how low Americans' confidence in the economy is... the lowest since MIT had been keeping track in 1954 or something like that. What was funny about the clip was how uncomfortable Cooper looked. Someone ripping into the president should be called "wednesday", but it's fascinating to me as to how deeply the press is embedded with the Biden administration after running his 2020 campaign.
The Bazelon article on transgender adolescents is very good. Long but well worth the read.
Here is the article from the Archive if you don't want to bother with subscription paywalls:
https://archive.ph/U2feL
What I get from this article is that there is an empirically-supported medically sound procedure to support youth who may believe they are transgender, and it starts with both counseling and letting the individual explore different gender roles without drugs or surgery. Only when the individual has demonstrated a sustained commitment to a different gender identity than the one assigned by virtue of biological sex, and if the counseling hasn't turned up other red flags such as sexual assault or trauma that might be the origin of the gender confusion, then the drugs and/or surgery may be considered. And that approach was developed largely in the Netherlands starting in the 1980s or so.
But in the US, there is a tendency to be very brief with the counseling and get started with the drugs/surgery as soon as possible, for three reasons: fear of being labeled as a 'transphobic bigot' for not immediately believing the allegedly trans youth; concerns that the recommended counseling sounds too much like 'gay conversion therapy', where the goal is to direct people towards a specific outcome rather than understand who the person really is; and finally just a general lack of training or professionalism in the matter.
So 'gender-affirming care', when done right, really is gender-affirming in that it takes the needed time to understand who the individual is and to understand if drugs or surgery is truly warranted. The real problem here isn't the care itself, it's getting the professionals to do it correctly. Professional medical societies ought to hold their members accountable for not following recommended standards of care, and parents ought to be choosy in the counselors and doctors that they consult in trying to find the best care for their kids.
Only when the individual has demonstrated a sustained commitment to a different gender identity than the one assigned by virtue of biological sex, and if the counseling hasn't turned up other red flags such as sexual assault or trauma that might be the origin of the gender confusion, then the drugs and/or surgery may be considered. And that approach was developed largely in the Netherlands starting in the 1980s or so.
People with gender dysphoria is nothing new. For quite a long time there have been systems to counsel people and transition them. I have been told that before the trans mania happened a couple of years ago, this was a very slow, grinding, thoughtful process. But something happened and there is now a move to transition anyone and everyone that not only asks questions about their identity, but might have questions about their sexuality. Ie, we're erasing gay people. "You're not gay, you're in the wrong body!"
The problem is a strong activist component has taken the entire movement over and there's an incredibly dangerous rush to "transition" younger and younger people.
It is my opinion that NO ONE should be transitioned before they're 18, regardless of how hard their parents demand it. You're not just protecting the child from himself, you're also protecting the child from Munchhausen-by-proxy parents who are pushing their child into transitioning. Like that transgender activist woman who JUST HAPPENED to have two children who were transitioning. What are the chances?!! Or that woman that NPR breathlessly followed who was helping her toddler transition.
"you're also protecting the child from Munchhausen-by-proxy parents who are pushing their child into transitioning. Like that transgender activist woman who JUST HAPPENED to have two children who were transitioning. What are the chances?!!"
Signed in to say pretty much this. The signs of social contagion are ever increasing, esp where we have a substantial increase year-to-year never before seen in the populace where it was extremely rare before, states that openly push the stuff and include it more in school curriculum have many fold more kids identifying as trans compared to states that dont push it, and this is all happening in the context of PRIDE month focusing heavily on the gender dysphoria folks (where before it was very heavy on gay men), and corporations/media/streaming fully buying into the gender nonsense and calling anyone not open to it transphobic.
Add to that the very clear cases of moms that are riddled with anxiety and spend all their time trying to out-ally and out-virtue the other AWFL moms, these folks just happen to find themselves with MULTIPLE trans kids, the odds of which are so unlikely there is almost no doubt social pressure/contagion is responsible for this massive uptick.
I think I mentioned before a wokester we know making the comment about a family "well they had 4 kids, odds are that one of them is going to be trans".
Well if karma continues to be a bitch, proportionately more of these hyper-woke moms will be killed by their unhappy offspring later on.
It is my opinion that NO ONE should be transitioned before they're 18, regardless of how hard their parents demand it.
Meaning, that the government should ban the practice? Or that it should be legal but you would heavily discourage the practice?
I think it should be strongly discouraged, and the AMA should take a strong stance against it.
FYI, in the UK and Australia, cosmetic surgery for children under 18 is banned outright.
Also, in some states and cities (mine) conversion therapy is banned... and banned for adults and not just children. However, that is conversion therapy to move someone from gay to straight. (The don't say straight bill as it's colloquially known). This was considered forward-thinking, enlightened and progressive policy.
So on that note I would say that there is in fact an appetite in the country to have the government intervene.
"I think it should be strongly discouraged, and the AMA should take a strong stance against it."
While I agree, I just cant see a case for us being OK with the govt saying you cant knowingly provide a minor with booze, drugs, or even steroids that actually match their genetics (not allowed to dope up a 15 year old so they can look like Arnold, even if it would cause them distress not to be stacked), but its fine to give a body altering hormone-blocker + opposite hormones which has a massive detrimental effect on the body...we are cool with that because there is maybe a slim chance they go from a high suicide rate to a pretty high suicide rate...maybe.
Kids shouldnt have access to certain things. Certainly not the tools of self mutilation.
I think it should be strongly discouraged,
Fair.
and the AMA should take a strong stance against it.
Well, please read the article. There is an actual standard of care that more or less works, that weeds out those teens who are merely confused, or suffering from trauma, rather than those who are genuinely suffering from gender dysphoria and for whom drugs and surgery would be a reasonable course of action.
So on that note I would say that there is in fact an appetite in the country to have the government intervene.
Well sure. There is a reason why the Libertarian Party isn't a major party.
Heavily discouraged and unsubsidized (i.e. banned from Medicaid, etc) at least. Largely banned with a stringent appeals process seems to me the appropriate treatment as a policy matter.
What does "largely banned" look like? Parents have to get permission from someone in the government before being permitted to have their kids consider drugs or surgery?
Functionally, yes. I don't like it, but until the current mania passes then I don't see a hands-off solution that we won't regret in a decade.
Upthread you circle back to a functional treatment protocol (the outlines of which I'm guessing most here would support), so the question isn't "what's the best treatment path?" but instead how do you get doctors to actually follow it instead of the current green light to shoehorn any potential case into invasive solutions. And getting there is going to involve making the most aggressive doctors unhappy.
Mind you this sort of thing happens all the time: insurers and health networks spend a lot of time figuring out over/underutilizers, and gauging quality outcomes associated with different treatment options and by different physicians. And there are plenty of rules and restrictions already in place which regulate the whos, whats, wheres and whys of treatment, often imposed by federal diktat. There's no reason why this should be treated any differently.
Should the government ban people fucking their children, Jeffy?
Should government ban surgeries and chemical treatments to make minors look more like ponies and dolphins? Elves?
20 Years ago, this was generally the view of pretty much every Trans advocate.
I worked at one of the most gay-friendly companies in the 90s. Its co-founder, was one of the largest gay advocates in Colorado, and helped spearhead workplace innovations such as "Domestic Partner" benefits. Two of my colleagues were transgendered. One of them was going through transition.
The important part of all this was that they both recognized that transition surgery was a huge commitment and they were completely bought into the notion that they needed to be really sure that this was what they needed to live life happily.
Activists have fundamentally changed that narrative. I was visiting google, and their LGBTQ resource group had a flier up all over, talking about gender dysphoria. And rather than the more nuanced, case-by-case viewpoint noted above, this flier just flatly asserted that Transition was the ONLY foolproof way to treat Gender Dysphoria. These aren't experts, they are just wealthy, vocal activists who are picking and choosing the Truth and propagating it out to the world.
I have shared numerous times the materials that are being spread by these activist organizations that persist these flagrant distortions of the truth. And they are pushing this stuff in schools.
Activists have fundamentally changed that narrative.
Be that as it may, it's not activists who prescribe the drugs or perform the surgery. It's the medical professionals who ought to be held to an established standard of care for deciding if a particular youth ought to be recommended for drugs and/or surgery.
Be that as it may, it's not activists who prescribe the drugs or perform the surgery.
That's not true. There are angry, activist medical professionals who are pushing this hard. Check out Abigail Shrier's book "Irreversible damage".
Or just listen to some of the harrowing accounts by people who have de-transitioned about how hard they were pushed by both counselors and medical professionals to transition.
If you’re a dr. and you’re willing to cut off a kids penis you’re an activist.
also take a quick look at any of these docs that push this, and listen to them talk about it
then tell me they aren't activists. indistinguishable, IMO
three reasons: fear of being labeled as a 'transphobic bigot' for not immediately believing the allegedly trans youth; concerns that the recommended counseling sounds too much like 'gay conversion therapy', where the goal is to direct people towards a specific outcome rather than understand who the person really is; and finally just a general lack of training or professionalism in the matter.
A big one, that's understated, is that it also began to get covered by insurance in the US about 10 years ago. So, hospitals can charge for it, and so they have some incentive to push for it.
This will probably go on until some big malpractice suit occurs and hospitals and insurance start factoring in that cost.
The language of the article already makes a huge amount of philosophical assumptions about gender though that are idealistic moreso than empirical though.
The language of the article already makes a huge amount of philosophical assumptions about gender though that are idealistic moreso than empirical though.
Absolutely. "It is known"... No, it is not "known".
Sounds about right:
Here is the Republican message on everything of importance:
1. They can tell people what to do.
2. You cannot tell them what to do.
https://twitter.com/_EthanGrey/status/1534024357957230594
You misspelled "Democratic".
the most both sides thing you've ever posted.
It's like he wrote down everything he saw in the mirror and shouted "Those RePuBLicaNS!!!"
was this in reference to all those elites who insisted we lock down and wear masks but then they schmoozed it up with lobbyists, not locked down, not wearing masks, while being served by masked poors?
I think the "rules for thee, not for me" crowd has clearly delineated themselves as team blue bud
That one gala/party where all the politicians and celebrities were unmasked, but the waiters/waitresses handing out canapés were masked, should stand out in everyone's mind.
Or when the mask mandates were in full force and no groups above a certain number were allowed to meet, but everyone attending RBG's funeral didn't need to bother.
or when any gathering of the opposing political part was called a "superspreader" event and openly chastised while unmasked racial justice riots were deemed OK because the political cause was just.
" unmasked racial justice riots were deemed OK "
Not just OK, but some even pushed the idea that covid cases went DOWN thanks to the BLM protests.
That's some woke virus.
That would be pretty much every met gala after 2020. and every (D) schmoozefest.
Hey, look--everyone knows the lower classes are unclean.
Chemjeff, isn't your entire "Radical Individualist" ethos that you should be able to tell people to do the right thing and they do it voluntarily? How is that different from this?
Reading the thread, he's just doing that thing where you state certain policy goals of a large coalition and then use that to paint individuals of hypocritical without discussion of their underlying reasoning.
So, you get his first example. Republicans were against COVID lockdowns because they didn't like people telling them what to do. That is a pretty dramatic strawman of people who were against lockdowns. Even within conservative circles, which is a large coalition of differing thought, it does not name the moral or practical arguments that were actually made in regards to lockdowns. It strawmans resistance as childishness.
His pro-life comment is the generic attempt to wipe away decades of argumentation about abortion that very often grapple with the cost of freedom that it can impose.
Border one is similarly not an argument. What the stance on the border is is not stated, and where that sits within the population at large is not examined. Let's just presume he's saying Republicans have a general "no immigrants allowed" stance though, he does not look at the arguments for that, instead painting it as mere control.
Not going to read further, but he boiled down a large group of people to a binary and applied it without examining any reasoning about it. It would be as useless as applying his system to Democrats, another large coalition of millions of people.
Twitter doesn't matter, and its shortform nature basically allows for quips only, which is not useful in politics except in its basest form.
So what Lefty Jeffy thinks “sounds about right” is completely disingenuous? Well look at my shocked face!
The problem is there's not really any argument. It's an assertion given broadly, and then the assertion is applied to specific cases.
That's what a lot of Twitter is, even when it's things you like.
The only counter-example on Twitter is Iowa Hawk.
It's likely typical division/composition fallacy, and intellectual -though it pains me to use the term here, laziness. Attributes of subcomponents, in this case, some GOP pols, cannot be applied to all GOP members, unless one is a partisan jackass. The same can be said for trying to paint all democrats as X if a small number of democrats are X. We all tend to use conversational shorthand that is intellectually lazy. CRI is a sophist.
Careful Jeff, your bigotry is showing.
Well that went well Jeffy.
Is that being ratioed? I'm an older guy, not up on the lingo
In general ratioed would have been plain likes/dislikes
However, the wokesters took away dislikes (or at least revealing what the number is) because of evil alt right "brigaders" who are purposely skewing things, what with their "opinions"
Nowadays you have to look at the ratio of likes (shown) to comments or retweets dunking on a thing (also shown).
On the reason commentariat, a solitary comment that gets dunked on by everyone without any logical defense by the OP is as close to ratioed you can get on this platform. Usually reserved for Tony, Struzle, and buttplug.
So, yes, he got the commentariat version of ratioed.
Close enough.
https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1537103786086391809?t=qdLVre8L24M4AetwweCJUA&s=19
Gov. Ron DeSantis reacts to Elon Musk saying he would vote for him if he ran for president:
"I welcome support from African Americans. What can I say?"
[Video]
Nice.
DeSantis-Musk 2024?
I hope not. Musk is one of those rare Edison, Ford, Jobs type guys that pushes technology forward by leaps. He's too valuable to waste on politics.
Starship will be space's Model T if successful.
Yes this!
He's not qualified to be VP anyway, since he isn't native born.
If we can just move on and run Desantis he absolutely smokes Biden or Kamala in 24. Wont even be close
Black Death came from central Asia:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/15/health/black-death-plague-source-identified-scn/index.html
Marco! Polo!
I highly recommend reading the book Gengis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. It talks about how the Mongul empire was uniquely suited to destroy the world with Bubonic Plague.
The fleas carrying the plague generally ended up in the grains and other trade goods that the Mongul caravans were carrying from China. The funny thing is that these fleas HATED horses. So the Monguls, who lived on and smelled of horses were pretty much immune to the plague. They traveled from city to city, never getting sick, and dropping off infected shipments which would then infect the city and destroy it.
We don't learn a lot about the Mongol empire because in the 1700 - 1800s the British historians tended to recast them as savages in order to help justify their Imperialism. But it is amazing how they connected the world, and when the plague destroyed their empire, how it truly thrust the world back into darkness. In 1492 when Columbus was trying to get to China, he was explicitly trying to reach the Khanate empire in China, which had failed nearly 100 years earlier...Europe just didn't know, because it was the Mongol empire that had been responsible for getting them information about Asia.
Also fun fact: The Forbidden City in China was created by the Khans to hide the fact that they were Monguls. They had cultivated this image of being high class Chinese aristocrats. But behind the walls of the city, they had yurts erected in which they lived, because living in buildings violated their cultural values.
Looks interesting, just ordered it.
Yeah another interesting thing: The fucking mongols have their own "Secret History" which was an oral history passed down from the time of Gengis Kahn. It was only discovered and translated over the last decade or so, and that is what formulated this book. It is amazing how their nomadic culture worked, and how absolutely genius this dude was.
That sounds interesting as heck.
I think that's been known for a while.
It's been the main hypothesis, but there were others.
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1537459475841425409?t=OTPxK6OEmU8_S-y88qbVUQ&s=19
“A leading transgender health association has lowered its recommended minimum age for starting gender transition treatment, including sex hormones and surgeries.”
[Link]
So?
— Lefty Jeffy
This is pure evil. I'm not religious, I don't believe in god, i don't believe there is a core "truth" to human existence or any thing, and a grown man with mental illness still has the right and freedom to chop himself up as far as I'm concerned,
but doing this to impressionable children is absolutely fucking evil.
First of all, wtf is a "transgender health association"?
Perhaps this could be combined with late term abortion.
(And just wondering how most liberals can reconcile their support for transitioning a pre-teen, based on "a girl/boy just wants to get out of the wrong body", with support for unrestricted abortion, where girls, boys, and even super-cool trans kids just want to be born.)
https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1537463193597091842?t=8ZVfFl3_KIHfod2ZEcXP4A&s=19
From @DailyMail: 'Florida woman who found Ashley Biden diary in 'halfway house' is under FBI investigation for SELLING the journal in which president's daughter recalled 'showers w/ my dad (probably not appropriate)' and details of drug and sex addiction.'
[Link]
But Trump was an incestuous pervert for bragging about how attractive his kids are.
The DOJ has become completely politicized by The Party and Reason couldn’t give a shit.
Didn’t she give it to a journalist who promptly tried to turn it in to the authorities?
Here is a little secret about credit cards.
When they are paid in full, the interest rate for the next statement5 period is effectively 0%.
there is a substantial part of the population that does not understand this or so much that is considered basic finance
Yes, many people don't know about basic household finance. It's actually a big deal.
I think you guys are being just a bit elitist. Plenty of American families know that quite well, but live paycheck to paycheck. Any minor disruption in cash flow means living on credit for a while.
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (res-32) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career & can gain more dollars on-line going
this article. Thanks.. https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Here's Gundam's positive take on the state of everything.
"When was the country founded?"
Girl with "Have the Courage to Exist tee-shirt: Umm, 1965?
Im sure she nails the "they/them" pronouns though!
Here's Gundam's positive take on the state of everything.
As positive as a colony drop, I hope.
FDR - The Great Depression
Obama - The Great Recession
Biden - The Great Inflation
And ever single one of them during majority Democratic control of the government..... Why are the Nazi's doing economics anyways??? Oh yeah; because that's what Nazi's do!!!! National Socialism!!!
Funny how leftards keep insisting government ran economies are always successful as everyone has ended in shambles... Venezuela ring a bell???
leftists have shown themselves to be completely incompetent with economics.
but when you have a party that is intent on removing incentives for work, while simultaneously blowing up the budget massively with govt spending programs, you can see from a mile away that their vision for the country will always result in economic disaster.
There is a reason people flee socialist countries in droves to have the privilege of setting foot on American soil