womans fitness

[EI-GYRO]

John (All In),
I will concede this much. You can out-type me by a factor of 10+.

 

[WaspAir]

We have to compete with the other capitalistic countries if with the only thing a country has to compete with lower tax rates and less regulations or just keep watching China become the next country to keep most of your wealth and that is where those who wish to become wealthy will go.

Competing by reducing regulation is a dangerous path that must be tread very, very carefully.

What disturbs me about this topic as it usually arises is the unstated assumption that all regulation is inherently a bad thing, and that's simply not true. Many regulations have important and worthy purposes, and to blow them off in pursuit of profit can be a bad deal for us and our future generations, especially when we're talking about air and water pollution. This is not a climate change question on which the naysayers will never agree, or a question of fossil fuels against renewables and lower carbon footprint, but a more straight-forward question of the long term costs of direct pollution. It's easy to get into a short-term-profit-for-some-now vs. public-pays-for-it-with-polluted-resources-later situation.

Would you drink the water near coal mining operations in West Virginia? Is it unreasonable to expect regulation to protect human health, or are we willing to trade it for company profits and a few jobs that are likely to be supplanted by robotic machinery soon anyway? Is it a good decision to allow pollution in the vain hope that coal will ever regain competitive advantage over natural gas?

These are not questions that should be resolved with a blind adherence to the dogma that less-is-more when regulation is the topic. There is moral responsibility in our stewardship of the nation for our future generations that needs to be considered.

As to China's competitiveness, there have been plenty of tainted Chinese products, some shipped here, because they don't care about health in a way that matches our American consumer expectations.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703956904576286243116644826

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11656278

If that's what it takes to be competitive, I'd prefer to come in 2nd. Regulation that restricts what companies can do is frequently a very wise policy, because people will do all sorts of bad things to make a quick buck. There is no innate moral compass in laissez-faire capitalism. Regulation is an effective way to set boundaries, and to insure that the true societal cost of a product is really reflected in its price.

 

[WaspAir]

My wife, (who has an unhealthy interest in the doings of your

Commander-in-Tweet) tells me he was tweeting his displeasure with Nordstroms

during his security briefing.

All I keep hearing from the other room here is WTF? at frequent intervals.

My wife does not normally swear.

Yes, he has used the power and prestige of the oval office to moan because they dropped his daughter's clothing line, costing her some $$. Spicer says it's a political attack on Trump and his policies; Nordstrom's says the stuff wasn't selling and that they routinely shuffle their product lines to keep making money. Either way, it's disturbing from somebody who shouldn't have commercial interests now. The daughter is married to an inner circle member (senior advisor Jared Kushner). So much for blind trusts and the like. He either refuses or doesn't know how to cut his ties to the business world. It doesn't do much for my confidence that billionaires are working only for the public good and are immune to receiving (or using) influence for commercial ends.

P.S. The First Lady has just sued the the parent company of The Daily Mail (in New York) for defamation, claiming that their since-retracted insults weren't just hurtful, but have cost her millions of bucks in lost business opportunities. Sounds like she's still in the for-profit world, too.

 

[EI-GYRO]

Breaking News;

KellyAnne is at it again!

Probably thought no Demonocrats were watching Fox.

One thing about this administration; It's not short on entertainment.


I can't wait to here Puddy-Tats take on this. ( I tawt I taw a Puddy-tat a tweeting up on me....)

 

[j bird]

IMHO, I don't believe there's any one on this forum that's a "economist.
The determination of a economist is a practitioner in the social science discipline of economics. A economist is one who has attained a Ph.D in economics, teaches economic science, and has published literature in a field of economics.
IMHO, I think most of us know the rich are getting richer and the middle class are getting poorer. I'm not a Repub. but if the Donald can turn things around, go for it big guy, your going to need all the luck you can get.

 

[WaspAir]

Breaking News;

KellyAnne is at it again!

Probably thought no Demonocrats were watching Fox.

One thing about this administration; It's not short on entertainment.

Yes, the White House staff is now in the business of endorsing the products of the President's family. This is shameful.

Trump should have only one job, and it isn't promoting family profits.

He also needs to grow up a bit and stop firing back tweets every time he hears something critical. There are more important things that should be filling all his available time.

 

[All_In]

I think you have two distinct ideas intertwined here. First, each dollar spent will circulate through other hands, and can easily produce seven or eight bucks of GDP. That's true, but it has very little in the way of policy implications, and it's not what is generally meant when people say "trickle-down". In the political arena it is usually interpreted on all sides as "cut taxes for the top and all will benefit" (sometime re-cast as "be generous to the job creators", or "a rising tide will lift all boats"). That's what George H.W. Bush famously once called "voodoo economics", and since it was first pushed in the Reagan years for tax policy we have seen a steadily growing disparity in wealth distribution. The data certainly appears to indicate that the rich are getting richer while the less fortunate are swimming as hard as they can not to go backwards, while life is clearly worse for the lowest strata. Wealth has definitely not "trickled down" in the U.S. in the last 30 years, and that's what has people upset.

Hi Jon

When you change the definition of trickle down to mean it will create enough jobs to employ 120 million people so demand for employees will increase wages for the lower strata of course it failed!
As an example the Trickle down only add one new employee for every 100 new jobs created.
Even if you employed 120 million people it could only add about a million or so jobs so it cannot by itself create enough jobs to increase wages.

For the over 20 years we have watched business and job's leave and our REAL unemployment rate is about 49%. And what was the government done about it? They have changed the way they calculate the unemployment rate claiming that over 40% of our citizens have just given up every getting a job so it's only 4.9% that are looking for a job.

Instead of hating business and driving them out by increasing our tax rates we need to find a way to make it more profitable to be in the US than in China. It is that simple!!!

If they can keep more of they after tax dollars then they will have to come back just as they had to leave because they could keep more of there after tax dollars in China.

If they is another way to get them back that $$$$ then please share it with us.

I do not care what you do until we near full employment real prosperity will never return to the lower strata and increasing taxes on the rich is 100% guaranteed to drive the rich out of the USA just like it drove Solar, Convair, Huges, General Dynamic's just a few solely in the aerospace industry out of San Diego Ca right into the arms of other states like Arizona with lower taxes, worker compensation, and less regulations.
If lib's copy California and make the entire US more expensive to stay they have to leave to a country with a lower tax rate.

Want higher wagers for everyone then create more demand for jobs than employees available in that country.
Want more jobs then create a more profitable environment than China so business will create more jobs.

History has shown us that is the only way to create wealth by following simply economic laws and that the most competitive capitalistic country win all the business and jobs!

 

[EI-GYRO]

I can't believe it; From RTE News;

Twitter shares fall on Q4 results
09 Feb 2017 19:07
Twitter has reported its slowest quarterly revenue growth since going public as it struggles with competition from rivals.

If there was one company I thought would thrive under the current regime I thought it would be Twitter.

 

[All_In]

Competing by reducing regulation is a dangerous path that must be tread very, very carefully.

What disturbs me about this topic as it usually arises is the unstated assumption that all regulation is inherently a bad thing, and that's simply not true. Many regulations have important and worthy purposes, and to blow them off in pursuit of profit can be a bad deal for us and our future generations, especially when we're talking about air and water pollution. This is not a climate change question on which the naysayers will never agree, or a question of fossil fuels against renewables and lower carbon footprint, but a more straight-forward question of the long term costs of direct pollution. It's easy to get into a short-term-profit-for-some-now vs. public-pays-for-it-with-polluted-resources-later situation.

Would you drink the water near coal mining operations in West Virginia? Is it unreasonable to expect regulation to protect human health, or are we willing to trade it for company profits and a few jobs that are likely to be supplanted by robotic machinery soon anyway? Is it a good decision to allow pollution in the vain hope that coal will ever regain competitive advantage over natural gas?

These are not questions that should be resolved with a blind adherence to the dogma that less-is-more when regulation is the topic. There is moral responsibility in our stewardship of the nation for our future generations that needs to be considered.

As to China's competitiveness, there have been plenty of tainted Chinese products, some shipped here, because they don't care about health in a way that matches our American consumer expectations.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703956904576286243116644826

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11656278

If that's what it takes to be competitive, I'd prefer to come in 2nd. Regulation that restricts what companies can do is frequently a very wise policy, because people will do all sorts of bad things to make a quick buck. There is no innate moral compass in laissez-faire capitalism. Regulation is an effective way to set boundaries, and to insure that the true societal cost of a product is really reflected in its price.

Yaw Mon Jon!!!

Now you and I are probably so much closer than you think!!!
China has all ready discovered what we did back in the 50's that businesses will put workers and the environment at risk.
They will create regulations just has we NEEDED TO!

I hope but do not expect it from either side that they would only get rid of the really stupid stuff like labels showing you not to put your child in a washer or dryer. And combine all the similar regulation and put then on one form instead of 20 and have only one agency handle them.
We could be so much more efficient and look for ways to reduce the labor required to file all this non-productive crap!

 

[EI-GYRO]

History has shown us that is the only way to create wealth by following simply economic laws and that the most competitive capitalistic country win all the business and jobs!

Correct!

And the winner is..........China !!!! (For the moment, anyway)

And worse still, they did it without borrowing externally, and they still have an
enormous market to develop internally, whereas, in the U.S. and Europe, the
consumer economy has peaked and is declining.

(people can only use so much stuff)

 

[All_In]

IMHO, I don't believe there's any one on this forum that's a "economist.
The determination of a economist is a practitioner in the social science discipline of economics. A economist is one who has attained a Ph.D in economics, teaches economic science, and has published literature in a field of economics.
IMHO, I think most of us know the rich are getting richer and the middle class are getting poorer. I'm not a Repub. but if the Donald can turn things around, go for it big guy, your going to need all the luck you can get.

Thank you J I can always count on you!
And J's a friend of mine, I think, we see each other at fly-in and took training with Micheal Burton together. We talked about a few of these subjects until he challenged my facts and I wanted to right then look it up on the government site. But remember what you told me J. Very telling... "I do not want to know the facts I want to be on the right side" meaning the left side. We did not talk much after that about politics. Did we J?

Well I do not have a Ph. D. J but I do have a degree one of the few things I did not learn on my own and it's true I did not make my living as an economist as I was more of an accountant and a businessman.

But thank you for the support. Looking forward to discussing two things with you the next time I see you bro!!! HeheheheheHahahaha

 

[hillberg]

Yes, the White House staff is now in the business of endorsing the products of the President's family. This is shameful.

Trump should have only one job, and it isn't promoting family profits.

He also needs to grow up a bit and stop firing back tweets every time he hears something critical. There are more important things that should be filling all his available time.

Forget about that "BILLY BEER" ? --------/)O'o(\--------Oh no!

 

[Gman]

Fergus,
What kind of things are produced in Ireland? I don't know that's why I'm asking.

 

[EI-GYRO]

In inadequately commercial environments, individual companies, and sometimes whole sectors of industry, engage in practices which are highly profitable to themselves, but
disastrous for the overall economy, national or global.

e.g The Banking Sector up to 2008, operated under relaxed regulation due to Bill Clinton
IIRC failing to revalidate laws preventing high-street banks getting into highly speculative
investment banking. Result; Sub-Prime Mortgages. and you know the rest....

Yes, it imposes an overhead, but it is necessary. Try telling that to El Supremo....

 

[All_In]

John (All In),
I will concede this much. You can out-type me by a factor of 10+.

HahahahaHehehehe
Love ya Bro, and you often make me think and laugh at the same time!!!!
Well you finally hit the one subject where I've been studying this since 1969 when I saw China not be able to pay there farmers and have to 1st give them a percentage of the produce to sell in the market to pay themselves. Then they gave them some small amount of land to farm themselves IIRC 10 hectors that they could sell there produce in the local market for their income.

Funny thing happened, human nature showed up, and all of the private held land produced over 20 times the yield per hector compared to their communal farms. Seems people will work harder for themselves when they get to keep more of the money created by their labor.

I actually started writhing my theses that China would become a type of market economy super power in the early 70's but when I showed it to my professor who loved me as a student he said it would never happen and I do not have enough proof. He would pick another subject.

I was crushed and got discourage as I knew the Chinese were smart and would change there system eventually. It seemed common sense even back then to me but my Professor/God of economics did not see it and I had nothing else to write about that was new.

By that time I had 3 business and was making so much money I did not know why I needed my PH'D I wasn't even earning a living in economics.

As it turned out I never used my degrees to get a job as I was always self-employed, but I love to learn everything it's my real passion.

 

[WaspAir]

Forget about that "BILLY BEER" ? --------/)O'o(\--------Oh no!

Jimmy Carter never endorsed Billy Beer from the White House, never served it at the White House, never criticized any retailer for not carrying it, never brought it up when speaking to the press, didn't give Billy a White House job, didn't give Billy's spouse a White House job, and generally kept as much distance as possible from his embarrassing little brother the entire time he was in office. Jimmy had no financial connection to company who bought Billy's endorsement.

In contrast, Trump's spokesperson Conway endorsed Ivanka's clothing line on TV news speaking from the White House with the official White House logo and a U.S. flag behind her, his press secretary Spicer speaking from the White House press briefing room complained to the press about Nordstrom's actions as an attack on Trump's policies, Trump personally tweeted to complain about Nordstrom's action's impact on his daughter (first on his personal account, then re-tweeted from his POTUS incarnation), Trump made her husband Kushner a senior advisor, and at every turn Trump has clearly shown that he and his team are looking out for the financial well being of his daughter's company. Doesn't sound like draining the swamp to me -- sounds like promoting the family businesses from the White House using public federal resources, and that's an obvious stinky ethical violation.

 

[WaspAir]

Meanwhile, back on the breaking news front, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed with the "so-called judge" and rejected Trump's appeal of the temporary restraining order stopping implementation of Trump's travel ban from seven predominately Muslim countries.

If nothing else, Trump is getting a little schooling in how the three branches of government interact.

 

[All_In]

Meanwhile, back on the breaking news front, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed with the "so-called judge" and rejected Trump's appeal of the temporary restraining order stopping implementation of Trump's travel ban from seven predominately Muslim countries.

If nothing else, Trump is getting a little schooling in how the three branches of government interact.

First this is what we all expected from this court and the questions where they were asking as to the Presidents real intent. Now the courts will be mind reading all future presidents as to there intent. Seem sad to me.

2nd I like checks and balances. The only danger of waiting is if even one terrorist gets in from those countries and attacks us during this waiting period we all know who fault it is. Although they will be sorry they will not take the blame saying it would have happen anyway.

I cannot wait for the actual trial after reading the law and the past use by our presidents and as I said I'm willing to bet the Pres will win.

You all read it. You do not need the courts interpretation a 5th grader could understand it. Here is the Law U.S.C. 1182. You decide if the president has the power and how you would have ruled on this case.

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/II/1182#sthash.jdpJ9kcV.dpuf

PS:
I just looked it up and this court is overturned more often than any other court. You can see why once you real the law yourself.

 

[WaspAir]

You all read it. You do not need the courts interpretation a 5th grader could understand it. Here is the Law U.S.C. 1182. You decide if the president has the power and how you would have ruled on this case.

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

The law is never quite that simple (if it were, all us lawyers would need honest jobs). What you quoted looks like the 1952 act. Give your fifth grade analysis to this (8 U.S.C. 1152 (a), the 1965 act) and see what conclusion you draw::

(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

Now, put those together, plus a few other statutes and court rulings we haven't quoted here, recognizing that all such statutes are subject to the Constitutional limitations of due process, establishment of religion, equal protection, etc., and you might get a hint of what the appeals court had to grapple with. Those guys may not be your favorite people today, but they are not dummies, they are far more familiar with the scope and limitations of the law than the average Joe, and it is their profession to interpret the laws (p.s. each member of the bi-partisan three-judge panel was approved for appointment to the court by Congress).

 

[Mark E]

Sure, an open door policy is crazy. But, except for parts of Europe for a brief period, no-one does that.

There were already long processes in place. People who had taken years to get a visa suddenly found it snatched away.

People like this:

The two Iraqis who arrived at JFK challenged the order in a 20-page lawsuit in U.S. District Court in the eastern district of New York.

Hameed Khalid Darweesh, 53, had been granted a special immigrant visa on Jan. 20 after serving as an interpreter, engineer and contractor for the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division and other government agencies and contractors from 2003 through 2013, according the lawsuit.

He was directly targeted twice for his work and two of his colleagues were killed, the lawsuit says. He applied for his visa Oct. 1, 2014, and in granting it the U.S. government deemed him not a threat to the U.S., according to the lawsuit.

During review of his visa application, the embassy found Darweesh “provided faithful and valuable service to the United States” and “has experienced or is experiencing a serious threat” because of that service, the lawsuit said.

Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, 33, was granted a follow-on visa Jan. 11 to rejoin his wife and 7-year-old son, who were earlier granted refugee status and are legal permanent residents in Houston, according to the lawsuit.

Alshawi worked for Falcon Security Group, a U.S. contractor, in 2006 and 2007 as an accountant, according to the lawsuit. A car bomb in Alshawi’s sister-in-law’s car killed her husband and severely injured her and her daughter in 2010, according to the lawsuit. Alshawi applied for refugee status in January 2011. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-entry-challenge-trumps-visa-order/97183820/