A thread for Democrats Only

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Time will tell...

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Bolton is already talking:

Former national security adviser John Bolton derided President Donald Trump’s daughter and son-in-law during a private speech last week and suggested his former boss’ approach to U.S. policy on Turkey is motivated by personal or financial interests, several people who were present for the remarks told NBC News.

According to six people who were there, Bolton also questioned the merits of Trump applying his business acumen to foreign policy, saying such issues can’t be approached like the win-or-lose edict that drives real estate deals: When one deal doesn’t work, you move on to the next.

The description was part of a broader portrait Bolton outlined of a president who lacks an understanding of the interconnected nature of relationships in foreign policy and the need for consistency, these people said.
www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/private-speech-bolton-suggests-s
ome-trump-s-foreign-policy-decisions-n1080651

Bolton used his appearance last Wednesday at Morgan Stanley’s global investment event in Miami to mock Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner and suggest Trump’s approach to Turkey is “motivated by personal or financial interests,” according to a number of people who were present for the remarks. While the details were scant, one assumes that Bolton has a low opinion of Trump’s son-in-law inserting himself in matters of foreign policy despite having literally no relevant experience whatsoever. When it comes to Ivanka, perhaps he shared his take on the first daughter’s endorsement of former national security council adviser turned felon Mike Flynn, or the manner in which she and her husband obtained their top security security clearances. As for Trump, who has property in Turkey, putting his own interests above those of national security, well, it’s not that hard to believe a guy whose only principle in life is “how does this benefit me?” would bring such an outlook to the Oval Office.
www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/john-bolton-gives-trump-a-taste-of-the
-impeachment-pain-to-come

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
Time already told. It's about the facts and only the facts. Bolton is about as Republican NEO-CON as it gets.

---

A billion flies eat shit.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Economists’ instinctive view on trade, that it should be good for everyone, is not correct

Economists, on the whole, favor open immigration and free trade policies, which they regard as catalysts for economic growth. But as polling shows, many people in the U.S. and Europe disagree. They are wary of losing jobs and earning power where there is immigration, and they believe free trade pushes industry abroad. So who’s right, the economists, or the people?

Well, according to MIT’s newest Nobel Prize laureates, economists Esther Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee, each side gets one count right and one wrong.

“If you look at the best evidence, it tells us that economists’ view of migration is more correct,” Duflo says. “It is not a big problem to let more migrants in.” Study after study shows that increased immigration does not affect wages, for instance. And the presence of migrants tends to let more women who are longtime residents enter the work force.

Okay, what about trade?

“On trade it is the opposite,” Duflo says. “The evidence shows that people’s instinctive view of trade, that it does hurt them, has a lot that is true about it, and economists’ instinctive view on trade, that it should be good for everyone, is not correct.”

Although free trade boosts overall growth, it also produces concentrated pockets of job losses. And while economic theory has long held that displaced workers will move to new job opportunities, this rarely happens. In countries that started trading with China during the last two decades, for example, the working-age population has not decreased in the areas most hard-hit by imports from China.

What the mistaken ideas about both immigration and trade ignore, Banerjee says, is the “stickiness” of real life. Most people do not want to uproot themselves.

“One thing that ties those two issues together is the idea of stickiness,” Banerjee says. “Ordinary people like to stay in place. Economists think trade should be fine because, yes, it could hurt some people, but people are going to move to other jobs in other places. But people are very reluctant to do that. They don’t want to go to a different sector and a different place and a different life.”

More at http://news.mit.edu/2019/good-economics-hard-times-1112

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Economists who view people as 'rational actors', who ONLY act in the economic sphere, are so quaint.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME