Peter Navarro:China Tariffs are "not hurting anybody" in the US. Politifact: Pants on Fire!

[GO-NAD!]

This part of the draft bill is just a derivation of a US law called Eminent Domain, which allows governments to confiscate land for the public good, for example to build power transmission lines. (As an aside, the amusing thing about Eminent Domain laws is that they work in a hierarchy. A state government can claim land from local governments, and the feds can claim land from the states. Of course, any government can claim land from an individual. I get an odd sense of satisfaction from the spectacle of watching the grabbers get grabbed.). But patents and other intellectual property aren't land, which is a unique and physically limited resource; intellectual property is the same as any other property, and is protected by the 5th amendment. What Sanders is saying is that when property rights are inconvenient, we'll just ignore the Constitution and seize the property anyway. And, to make matters worse, in the negotiation process the bill tries to divert the compensation claims to the Court of Federal Claims, rather than the US Circuit Courts, which is stacking the deck in favor of the government.
So everyone hates the drug companies for seemingly trying to profit from human misery, but let's turn this precedent around to get closer to home, literally. Once you let the government seize personal property for the public good you're on a very slippery slope. Let's say you're an empty nester and you have a big house with a few empty bedrooms. The government says there's a big problem with homeless people, and for the public good you're going to have to take in homeless people to live in those bedrooms, and the government will compensate you based on a formula they come up with. And you don't get to choose who the homeless people are either. And there's no requirement that the law gets applied evenly. You may have to take homeless people in, but your neighbor doesn't. Yes, I'm turning up the contrast, but legally there's no difference. Property is all the same to the laws. Private property is either protected or it isn't.

Interesting point. Had to look it up the text of the Fifth Amendment..."nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
So the right to private property isn't absolute. If the government expropriated intellectual property and the company isn't happy with the compensation offered, I assume they could take it to court and argue it out. As you say, it's a slippery slope, but I don't think it's unprecedented. And, the hypothetical situation you present strikes me as reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Interesting point. Had to look it up the text of the Fifth Amendment..."nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
So the right to private property isn't absolute. If the government expropriated intellectual property and the company isn't happy with the compensation offered, I assume they could take it to court and argue it out. As you say, it's a slippery slope, but I don't think it's unprecedented. And, the hypothetical situation you present strikes me as reductio ad absurdum.

The right to private property isn't absolute, but requires "due process", which involves the courts to determine if the taking is justified. This bill as written bypasses the courts in that process, and simply gives the government power to take as a secretary sees fit. I strongly suspect that's unconstitutional.

I should mention for those who haven't studied the US law-making processes (or don't have an expert on the topic at hand to advise you, like I do),this is a bill proposed by Sanders which has not even been reviewed in a congressional committee. When bills like this are reviewed they get deep scrutiny from many people, and in this case I would guess thousands of people. The bills are often edited or rewritten before they get approved by the committee, and many bills do not achieve approval at all. And even if they are approved by the committee for a vote, they are then reviewed by the full House and the Senate, where numerous other edits or amendments are made to get votes, and the House and the Senate have to agree on a combined version, which is damned difficult in a controversial bill like this when different parties control the House and the Senate. And then the President signs or vetos the bill. (A veto can be overridden, but that requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers, which is highly unlikely for any law. It can happen, as with the Clean Water Act of 1972, but few vetos get an override.). And then to top it all off, even if approved, the legislation can be challenged in the court system, up to the Supreme Court, and in this case as written it is likely to be ruled unconstitutional. Nonetheless, I'm discussing it because it is indicative of the true intentions of Sanders, who only likes free enterprise when it benefits him. And all of the Democratic candidate leaders, with the exception of Biden, support this nonsense, in my opinion because they're afraid not to, or they'll just say anything they need to to get elected.

Of course, if Trump keeps on with this tariff nonsense and his inexplicable behavior in foreign policy (like the Greenland escapade),and Biden becomes the Democratic candidate, I just may have to vote for him, and hope the Green Deal bullshit dies from choking on its own excrement.

 

[Irvrobinson]

A really excellent article on Medicare for All from an unlikely place: CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/what-does-medicare-for-all-mean/index.html

 

[GO-NAD!]

A really excellent article on Medicare for All from an unlikely place: CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/what-does-medicare-for-all-mean/index.html

A good read and looks like a thorough analysis. Why are you surprised that came from CNN?

Sanders' bill looks like a more comprehensive system than what we have in Canada. There are slight coverage variations from province to province, so I'll just compare coverage where I live:

>Basic dental care here is covered until the age of 14. Cosmetic stuff, like braces, aren't covered. If you need medically necessary dental care, requiring hospitalisation, that's generally covered.
>Vision care only covers optometrist exams, but not eyewear.
>Ambulance services are not covered (yes, that's strange, I know) at about C$150 per "ride".
> There's been much debate here lately about implementing a more comprehensive pharmacare (drug coverage) plan, but it hasn't happened yet. The existing system covers seniors and people with low income. Any drugs given in hospital are covered, but generally speaking, prescription drugs aren't covered.
>Although there are some private clinics, doctors working outside the public system is not really a "thing" here. Although they may have complaints, doctors in Canada are overwhelmingly in favour of universal publically-funded health care.

Regardless of what type of system you prefer, the best health care is looking after yourself - eat right, keep active, get enough sleep, etc.

 

[highfigh]

How so? Both yield people in positions they don't deserve. Met quite a few useless corporate guys in my career whose only saving grace was having been a fraternity brother, or related, or married into positions. Usually these guys made far more than any union guys with seniority, too.

I ran the car audio installation department and the corporate installation manager's sister was married to the VP of Service, under whose umbrella Install was placed because Service didn't make money and Install did. The guy was useless, clueless and I stuck a fork in my own job, IMO, when I mentioned the Peter Principle during a phone call where we were discussing the problems with the sales department at the location where I worked. I wasn't responsible for sales, but they weren't selling installation, accessories or the extended warranty, which was actually a good deal WRT car audio because it covered equipment removal & reinstallation if it had to go in for service or be replaced- one trip to service paid for the plan and I had no problem getting people to buy it, but the guys in sales always said the customers didn't have the money to pay for it- never bothered to tell them they had 30 days to add it, but the 30 days was somewhat discretionary, with a manager signing off.

During the comments about the sales guys, I mentioned the Peter Principle and he immediately asked if I was talking about him. I assured him that I wasn't, but I wasn't there very long after, even though my shop had been meeting/exceeding financial goals in most months and had the highest CSI (Customer Satisfaction Index) for 8 quarters in a row.

I have trained myself to not take that kind of bait.

 

[Trell]

I ran the car audio installation department and the corporate installation manager's sister was married to the VP of Service, under whose umbrella Install was placed because Service didn't make money and Install did. The guy was useless, clueless and I stuck a fork in my own job, IMO, when I mentioned the Peter Principle during a phone call where we were discussing the problems with the sales department at the location where I worked. I wasn't responsible for sales, but they weren't selling installation, accessories or the extended warranty, which was actually a good deal WRT car audio because it covered equipment removal & reinstallation if it had to go in for service or be replaced- one trip to service paid for the plan and I had no problem getting people to buy it, but the guys in sales always said the customers didn't have the money to pay for it- never bothered to tell them they had 30 days to add it, but the 30 days was somewhat discretionary, with a manager signing off.

During the comments about the sales guys, I mentioned the Peter Principle and he immediately asked if I was talking about him. I assured him that I wasn't, but I wasn't there very long after, even though my shop had been meeting/exceeding financial goals in most months and had the highest CSI (Customer Satisfaction Index) for 8 quarters in a row.

I have trained myself to not take that kind of bait.

You mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

There is also the Dunning-Kruger effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

I can assure you that this effect is very real, in my own experience.

Then, of course, there is the very old advantage to have the right parents, social status, etc, to offset poor skills. Case in point: Ivanka as a high level diplomat.

 

[Irvrobinson]

A good read and looks like a thorough analysis. Why are you surprised that came from CNN?

Lately CNN has been as biased and silly (okay, perhaps not quite as silly) as Fox News.

Regardless of what type of system you prefer, the best health care is looking after yourself - eat right, keep active, get enough sleep, etc.

The majority of Americans don't take very good care of themselves, unfortunately.

 

[highfigh]

Regardless of what type of system you prefer, the best health care is looking after yourself - eat right, keep active, get enough sleep, etc.

I the US health insurance industry had been smart, they would have embraced preventive measures long before they did, such as health club memberships WITH measured progress WRT weight, blood pressure, strength, general cardiac health, lipid levels, endurance, etc.

 

[highfigh]

You mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

There is also the Dunning-Kruger effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

I can assure you that this effect is very real, in my own experience.

Then, of course, there is the very old advantage to have the right parents, social status, etc, to offset poor skills. Case in point: Ivanka as a high level diplomat.

Yeah, that's the same Peter Principle. I can say with great certainty that he wouldn't have kept his job if I were his boss but since he was there first and nepotism is stronger than facts,.......I wouldn't have hired him if he applied at my shop- all applicants were required to take a test to measure their technical knowledge and he actually whistled and raised his eyebrows when he saw my score. I started at the shop run by a friend of mine whom I had known for years and he was the one who told me he had moved to this company and that it was a good setup. He, the third installer and I had the highest scores in company history and a few weren't happy with us because we had raised the bar. Boo hoo.

I worked with a guy who would strut around and say "They sell the dream, I make it happen". Not even close.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Lately CNN has been as biased and silly (okay, perhaps not quite as silly) as Fox News.

It was a serious question, as I haven't watched CNN since I cut cable a few years ago (not that I watched much of it before) and I rarely visit their website, which looks more infotaining, than informing.

 

[Kvn_Walker]

Lately CNN has been as biased and silly (okay, perhaps not quite as silly) as Fox News.

I was barely using CNN as a news source up until early 2017, when its sensationalism reached full retard after trump was inaugurated. I had to drop them altogether... I might be culturally liberal but I really prefer news to be as unbiased as possible. CNN has made itself into a joke; I get better news from the Onion.

 

[Ponzio]

More good news.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/23/fed-chair-jerome-powell-trump-trade-policies-new-challenge

I though I was being slick when I increased my bond portfolio by 15% back in February because I believed Trump was serious about the tariffs and a trade war with China and now their in the tank too, as of three weeks ago.

Can somebody please tell this man to SHUT THE 'EFF UP!!!

 

[Gmoney]

More good news.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/23/fed-chair-jerome-powell-trump-trade-policies-new-challenge

I though I was being slick when I increased my bond portfolio by 15% back in February because I believed Trump was serious about the tariffs and a trade war with China and now their in the tank too, as of three weeks ago.

Can somebody please tell this man to SHUT THE 'EFF UP!!!

Slow snatching away investors moneys. The wealthy been screwing over the rich always have always will.

 

[KEW]

Trump fails on all three, but he is not making clueless proposals that I feel will disrupt the US economic and social systems.

That was Wednesday!
How about now?

 

[highfigh]

Slow snatching away investors moneys. The wealthy been screwing over the rich always have always will.

Hypothetically, what if you learned to play the market really well and to invest in futures, as well as bonds, currency and other financial tools? Just imagine making money whether the market goes up or down.....

 

[Irvrobinson]

That was Wednesday!
How about now?

I was thinking the same thing. The man is insane. Biden suddenly looks a lot better.

 

[lovinthehd]

LOL.....NOW he looks insane?!

 

[Gmoney]

Hypothetically, what if you learned to play the market really well and to invest in futures, as well as bonds, currency and other financial tools? Just imagine making money whether the market goes up or down.....

1st, when one invest in the market mutual funds bonds whatever it may be. You must be willing to chance losing the money. #1, I'm not willing to chance it, I have enough bad habits. Don't need another, here's the thing, Betting that mutual fund money markets whatever it will go up? If it does than you just made money off of someone else's lost. I know what your going to say, I don't know what I'm talking about. You'd be wrong, I worked 10 years for a retail company that was #2 in the nation at the time. Now do you want to know what happened to that company? Bankrupt closed over 2300K stores, what's left to that company, the guy who has the most controlling interest, is sticking the Banks, and share holders. That guy for lack of a better word. Has all but gobbled up the real estate. He isn't going to pay any Bill's to the distributors that are holding invoices unpaid by the hundreds of millions! Now my friend who do you believe will end up paying the final tab? I'll give you two guesses and one doesn't count. They siphoned off the pension from all the employees, a class action lawsuit was filed guess what? Want to know what kind of check I got for 10 years of pension plus my 6% on top of that I was putting in per paycheck, a check for under two bucks. Now go play the markets. Best of luck, but someone and it's usually thousands always ends up taking it up the Yahoo so to speak.

 

[KEW]

Hypothetically, what if you learned to play the market really well and to invest in futures, as well as bonds, currency and other financial tools? Just imagine making money whether the market goes up or down.....

Your comment kind of reminded me of this interview with the author of Kochland.
Primarily it is a study of how the Koch brothers (it seems primarily Charles was the planner) used their financial clout to control their business environment so as to maximize profits and minimize risks. It is a pretty engaging discussion and includes a pretty good education on how to use money to influence politics in the US. The adage "information is power" really comes to light, and, as much as I despise what they have done and continue to do, I have to admit their method is ingenious!
Link below.

Note that this link is to a podcast (with transcript). You can click on the "play" arrow in the blue circle to listen to interview:
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750803289/kochland-how-the-koch-brothers-changed-u-s-corporate-and-political-power

One interesting aspect of this interview is the Koch brothers did not want Trump in office (like any planner, they want stability - stuff like the "tariff uncertainty" that has confronted businesses over the past year or two complicates any business plans involving Chinese products). On the other hand, Trump has been an on-going wet dream for them with the way Trump has put people in charge of environmental programs that are interesting in eliminating them (the Kochs are heavily involved in the fossil fuel industry).

 

[lovinthehd]

Your comment kind of reminded me of this interview with the author of Kochland.
Primarily it is a study of how the Koch brothers (it seems primarily Charles was the planner) used their financial clout to control their business environment so as to maximize profits and minimize risks. It is a pretty engaging discussion and includes a pretty good education on how to use money to influence politics in the US. The adage "information is power" really comes to light, and, as much as I despise what they have and continue to do, I have to admit their method is ingenious!
Link below.

Note that this link is to a podcast (with transcript). You can click on the "play" arrow in the blue circle to listen to interview:
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750803289/kochland-how-the-koch-brothers-changed-u-s-corporate-and-political-power

One interesting aspect of this interview is the Koch brothers did not want Trump in office (like any planner, they want stability - stuff like the "tariff uncertainty" that has confronted businesses over the past year or two complicates any business plans involving Chinese products). On the other hand, Trump has been an on-going wet dream for them with the way Trump has put people in charge of environmental programs that are interesting in eliminating them (the Kochs are heavily involved in the fossil fuel industry).

Well it's just brother now since David's passing....