|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Nov 15, 2016 7:46:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Nov 15, 2016 7:51:45 GMT -6
It's really embarrassing. The thumb sucking is ridiculous
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 15, 2016 8:41:24 GMT -6
Telling people not to get upset and become childish about politics?
When Obama was elected there was quite a lot of gnashing of the teeth and high anxiety.If Hillary had won the electoral vote without a popular majority (or maybe with one), we'd see the alt-right in camo marching off to the woods to shoot and drink.
Anybody not anxious and uncertain in a transition should worry about their mental health, and law students needing therapy is no surprise anyway...
Coloring books instead of Scotch seems strange, I have to agree. Our legal education is not what it used to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Nov 15, 2016 9:03:34 GMT -6
I don't really have a problem with people acting childish. If those morons want to go play with play-doh I would still mock them, but I would not really care. It's the institutional acceptance and promotion of such nonsense that is disturbing.
In the words of Wilson Wilson Jr. "You see, Tim, I believe it was St. Paul who said, 'When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.'"
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Nov 15, 2016 9:11:57 GMT -6
There's childish and then there's being unable to deal with life.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 15, 2016 11:06:12 GMT -6
There's childish and then there's being unable to deal with life. This whole deal with "trigger" warnings in college being required for some things is an example. If there is somebody in class with severe PTSD from war or rape or some tragedy, I'd think a professor would want to know and would adjust content, perhaps, or give a warning. But, the way that works in some institutions is to assume that you always need warnings and having to edit behavior on possibility of it being true there is a need, without any idea how much a problem there is. Common sense is lost. I am with Jackson here, no particular objection to the activity, very suspicious if there is much in the way of official status or institutional financial support. Having counseling for some things available, say following a shocking event like a mass shooting makes some sense. This? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2016 8:30:56 GMT -6
Telling people not to get upset and become childish about politics? When Obama was elected there was quite a lot of gnashing of the teeth and high anxiety.If Hillary had won the electoral vote without a popular majority (or maybe with one), we'd see the alt-right in camo marching off to the woods to shoot and drink. Anybody not anxious and uncertain in a transition should worry about their mental health, and law students needing therapy is no surprise anyway... Coloring books instead of Scotch seems strange, I have to agree. Our legal education is not what it used to be. ."Anybody not anxious and uncertain in a transition should worry about their mental health" No anyone who believes their life will be significantly altered, either for the good or bad, by the election of any politician should worry about their mental health. I would like to know how many of the these pre- oppressed college students and protesters even bothered to vote. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 16, 2016 9:25:27 GMT -6
Telling people not to get upset and become childish about politics? When Obama was elected there was quite a lot of gnashing of the teeth and high anxiety.If Hillary had won the electoral vote without a popular majority (or maybe with one), we'd see the alt-right in camo marching off to the woods to shoot and drink. Anybody not anxious and uncertain in a transition should worry about their mental health, and law students needing therapy is no surprise anyway... Coloring books instead of Scotch seems strange, I have to agree. Our legal education is not what it used to be. ."Anybody not anxious and uncertain in a transition should worry about their mental health" No anyone who believes their life will be significantly altered, either for the good or bad, by the election of any politician should worry about their mental health. I would like to know is how many of the these pre- oppressed college students and protesters even bothered to vote. You may be right. Especially about the students and young people who probably didn't take the election all that seriously. Fortunately they can probably outlive a lot of the negatives if any change occurs that is significant. And if they have wasted their education and failed to learn how to live in the real world, at least they have time to make some changes they need to make. But, this election brings a lot of uncertainty. Uncertainty should create a little concern and anxiety. More to the older population, I suppose. I am not so sure it will be sweetness and light for a lot of the Trump voters, for example. True, the wealthy, who don't have many worries anyway, are good to go, I think. But. Uneducated rust belt workers who are out of job will find that investment capital from tax cuts goes into more profitable capital investment, not unprofitable relatively unskilled labor. Infrastructure will create some jobs short term, but it will be at the cost of deficits long term. Also, current retirees or those retiring soon are vulnerable, since some of the risks of the new administration are high inflation, Medicare costs being transferred to the retiree (if Ryan gets his way on Medicare) and of course those retirees are not in position to take advantage of new jobs, assuming the new policies actually produce new jobs. A little gnashing of teeth is warranted on economic front. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2016 9:35:57 GMT -6
"capital from tax cuts goes into more profitable capital investment, not unprofitable relatively unskilled labor"
Huh.................Capital Investment in the aggregate, always increases labor demand and I will remind you of the efficiencies involved when compared to handing that same capital to the Federal Government.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 16, 2016 11:01:39 GMT -6
"capital from tax cuts goes into more profitable capital investment, not unprofitable relatively unskilled labor" Huh.................Capital Investment in the aggregate, always increases labor demand and I will remind you of the efficiencies involved when compared to handing that same capital to the Federal Government. That is the bet. But we are not sure that the long term efficiency gained is worth the cost up front that is required. Capital investment need not increase labor demand, I don't see where that is guaranteed at all. For example, we have greater industrial output now, but many fewer industrial workers. Those workers who are working may often be better off, but not unskilled workers replaced by robots. A lot of those Trump voters thought "make America great" meant returning to a past where blue collar workers were relatively well off. That is not going to happen. While the poor or working class blue collar and rural voters might be the same or as well off, they probably are not getting what they think they are. It is likely overall for wealth to be distributed away from the middle class and lower income population. Of course there may be some gardener jobs opened up, to offset losing your factory job! And off the books no benefit factory jobs now held by immigrants! All kidding aside, I am not sure some of those voters realized they were voting for wealth distribution that might not favor them. Despite potential gains we have another concern. We cannot be sure when talking change whether the cost of making the change and doing things "better" in the long run is worth the cost which is immediate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2016 8:36:53 GMT -6
" replaced by robots."
Yes because the companies who design and sell efficient production methodology don't employ people. I also love how you claim those voters are "unskilled", when you portray that same demographic as "disadvantaged" and "under-served" when they vote for Democrats.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 17, 2016 10:30:43 GMT -6
" replaced by robots." Yes because the companies who design and sell efficient production methodology don't employ people. I also love how you claim those voters are "unskilled", when you portray that same demographic as "disadvantaged" and "under-served" when they vote for Democrats. I am not clear whether you are claiming the number of workers is the same or not. That is clearly not true. Highly educated and skilled workers, in relatively small numbers, get the new jobs and the less skilled factory labor in large numbers is replaced by fewer workers and overall less money spent on labor. That's how we are increasing production from factories with declining work force and labor costs. Many of those workers supporting Trump are unskilled in the new economy. I have no problem characterizing them as disadvantaged or under-served, although I have no idea what you mean by that and don't remember ever saying that. They have voted for Democrats in the past and are frustrated. I understand that part. What I don't understand is how they think the Trump platform is likely to help them. There may be no answer for many, sadly, but education, retraining and greater safety net in many areas will help, and as a society we should do more of that, I see very little help by stopping immigration and closing borders, reducing trade. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 17, 2016 10:38:52 GMT -6
"capital from tax cuts goes into more profitable capital investment, not unprofitable relatively unskilled labor" Huh.................Capital Investment in the aggregate, always increases labor demand and I will remind you of the efficiencies involved when compared to handing that same capital to the Federal Government. I don't see the Trump platform as adhering to real market efficiency though. He cuts taxes, sure, but thinks he can spend on infrastructure for free. And he clearly is calling for protectionism. While you can preserve inefficient labor and keep them employed at too high a wage by protectionism, it will have negative side effects, bigger in impact. Basic economic theory says it hurts the efficient labor which is now able to export to other countries, and will be unable to when there is retaliation to our closing our markets which will occur. It also automatically raises prices for consumers. Tax cuts? The low paid workers who get a small tax cut, if any, they will pay a price in the marketplace as prices for goods and services increase. The gains in tax cuts and higher investment income will not go the blue collar workers in the rust belt. Energy jobs in coal and oil are a mixed bag too. We will pay a price in harm to the environment over time by carbon pollution, fracking, and coal mining and there is no real reason to expect that even if we raise the capacity to produce domestic energy from carbon that there will be increased demand. Clean energy sources are getting more competitive and that will continue to occur. High demand for energy is limited by increased energy efficiency. Demand for energy is in the industrial sector will not increase if are unable to export goods. Those coal miners will not benefit as much as think, if at all. We'll see far more output from increased machinery than by returning miners underground. This is a global market even if we don't like it. There is no such thing as a free lunch if you claim to rely solely on market forces and then attempt to constrain trade by protectionism. Even if the deficit spending on infrastructure works to a degree, there is a limit to that, and drawbacks to the deficit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2016 13:15:14 GMT -6
" replaced by robots." Yes because the companies who design and sell efficient production methodology don't employ people. I also love how you claim those voters are "unskilled", when you portray that same demographic as "disadvantaged" and "under-served" when they vote for Democrats. I am not clear whether you are claiming the number of workers is the same or not. That is clearly not true. Highly educated and skilled workers, in relatively small numbers, get the new jobs and the less skilled factory labor in large numbers is replaced by fewer workers and overall less money spent on labor. That's how we are increasing production from factories with declining work force and labor costs. Many of those workers supporting Trump are unskilled in the new economy. I have no problem characterizing them as disadvantaged or under-served, although I have no idea what you mean by that and don't remember ever saying that. They have voted for Democrats in the past and are frustrated. I understand that part. What I don't understand is how they think the Trump platform is likely to help them. There may be no answer for many, sadly, but education, retraining and greater safety net in many areas will help, and as a society we should do more of that, I see very little help by stopping immigration and closing borders, reducing trade. Businesses don't exist in a vacuum and capital isn't a finite commodity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2016 13:17:15 GMT -6
"capital from tax cuts goes into more profitable capital investment, not unprofitable relatively unskilled labor" Huh.................Capital Investment in the aggregate, always increases labor demand and I will remind you of the efficiencies involved when compared to handing that same capital to the Federal Government. but thinks he can spend on infrastructure for free. I am sure he is aware infrastructure investment isn't free. Sheeesh............... |
|
