Thought for the Day

My Thought For The Day is, I really enjoyed the statement Donald Trump issued regarding the Supreme Court's nod to release his tax returns. Here it is:

"This investigation is a continuation of the greatest political Witch Hunt in the history of our Country, whether it was the never ending $32 million Mueller hoax, which already investigated everything that could possible be investigation, "Russia Russia Russia," where there was a finding of "No Collusion," or two ridiculous "Crazy Nancy" inspired impeachment attempts where I was found NOT GUILTY. It just never ends!

"So now, for more than two years, New York City has been looking at almost every transaction I've ever done, including seeking tax returns which were done by among the biggest and most prestigious law and accounting firms in the U.S. The Tea Party was treated far better by the IRS than Donald Trump. The Supreme Court never should have let this "fishing expedition" happen, but they did. This is something which has never happened to a President before, it is all Democrat-inspired in a totally Democrat location, New York City and State, completely controlled and dominated by a heavily reported enemy of mine, Governor Andrew Cuomo. These are attacks by Democrats willing to do anything to stop the almost 75 million people (the most votes, by far, ever gotten by a sitting president) who voted for me in the election—an election which many people, and experts, feel that I won. I agree!"

Probably the main thing I like about Trump is that he doesn't even bother using an editor, as exampled by "...which already investigated everything that could possible be investigation."

I'd be curious what some of you Democrats think Trump's tax returns are going to show. I think they're going to show two things:

1. Trump is not as rich as he claims, but still pretty damn rich.
2. Trump is not a criminal.

Nothing more than that.

Attachment 1301711

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

"Jason Miller, said: “Trump effectively is the Republican party. The only chasm is between Beltway insiders and grass-roots Republicans around the country. When you attack President Trump, you’re attacking the Republican grass roots.”

---

And why do you think the Republican grass roots love him so much? It's not because orange is their favourite colour. Surely it's because Trump presents everything in terms of a fight between 'us' and 'them', which is the essence of populism?

You seem to be too focussed on one individual, rather than seeing him as a manifestation of deeper issues. If Trump dropped dead tomorrow the Republican party would not go back to normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

I'd be curious what some of you Democrats think Trump's tax returns are going to show. I think they're going to show two things:

1. Trump is not as rich as he claims, but still pretty damn rich.
2. Trump is not a criminal.

Nothing more than that.

---

You're telling us he went to such extraordinary lengths to keep them secret simply to boost his ego?

At a minimum I think they will show two things:
1. That he has used dubious devices to avoid paying tax. Whether this amounts to criminal fraud is yet to be determined.
2. That he has obtained financing from sources that he didn't want to be revealed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

You're telling us he went to such extraordinary lengths to keep them secret simply to boost his ego?

At a minimum I think they will show two things:
1. That he has used dubious devices to avoid paying tax. Whether this amounts to criminal fraud is yet to be determined.
2. That he has obtained financing from sources that he didn't want to be revealed.

---

Do you really believe it's out of the realm of possibility that Trump is driven by pure ego. I think he is. And actually I like that about him, I believe that if it hadn't been for the unfortunate circumstance of the pandemic hitting during his presidency he'd have followed through on every single thing he promised voters, simply because "I said I was going to do this so I'm going to do it." That's the path he was on, but then disaster struck.

So yes, I honestly think that the sole reason Trump didn't want his tax returns made public is because they are going to show that he exaggerated his wealth. It's just that simple, IMHO, but we will find out soon enough.

Far as "dubious devices to avoid paying tax," no American is going to hold that against him, we all do it. Paying as little tax as possible within the bounds of the law is the American way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

2. That he has obtained financing from sources that he didn't want to be revealed.

---

And as far as I am aware, there has been no conclusion to the allegation that the Trump campaign in 2016 had a direct link to the Alfa Bank, just as the identity of Trump's Russian girlfriend has never been revealed. The key point in all this, whether it it is Felix Sater, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn or Roger Stone, is that Trump and his campaign is on one side, 'the other' is always Russian.

Nobody is suggesting Trump or his campaigin have long-established ties to Nigeria, or Portugal, and even in the case of Israel, the Trump family ties to Netanyahu that go back years are not assumed to be merely financial even though they have interests in Israel and in the illegally-occupied Palestinian territories. But getting to the raw truth of the Russian connection is proving hard because certain people and institutions are 'protecting their assets'....

Trump and the Alfa Bank -from 2020
https://www.justsecurity.org/72262/t...ry-resurfaces/

Trump and the Alfa Bank- from 2016, an unusually detailed article for the DailyMail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sian-bank.html

Trump and his 'new woman' in 1996
https://theintercept.com/2020/09/03/...eport-mueller/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

So yes, I honestly think that the sole reason Trump didn't want his tax returns made public is because they are going to show that he exaggerated his wealth. It's just that simple, IMHO, but we will find out soon enough.

Far as "dubious devices to avoid paying tax," no American is going to hold that against him, we all do it. Paying as little tax as possible within the bounds of the law is the American way.

---

His tax returns might show that he is a poor investor but won't tell us his net worth, which would be difficult to calculate for a number of reasons anyway. He can claim huge losses because he makes large vanity investments and doesn't make great returns.

Special emphasis on within the bounds of the law. Everybody is entitled to make good faith arguments for why they should qualify for deductions or even better tax credits. They can make arguments for why they can defer recognition of some kinds of income. But the characterizations cannot be false. Yes everybody wants the maximum in deductions and the minimum in income or failing that, deferral of recognition. Do the characterizations he makes reflect economic reality?

Are they at all consistent with characterizations he makes when he applies for loans? If he consistently shows losses and is only able to service his debt by securing more debt isn't it close to a pyramid scheme? I take it he has enough equity in his properties that even if banks stop lending to him he can probably salvage a lot of value but I'm curious how he got these loans to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

2. That he has obtained financing from sources that he didn't want to be revealed.

---

This has to be the case. Banks do want to allocate a lot of money at a time if they can find a really credit-worthy businessman who carefully selects business ventures, the ventures consistently generate cash flow that is much greater than the mortgage payments and the collateral is worth much more than the loans. We know this isn't Trump.

First, a bank would be concerned about whether they can get a personal guarantee given that his businesses have declared bankruptcy. Wouldn't they want to know what that personal guarantee is worth? Wouldn't they be concerned about other lenders and the priority of creditors if Trump goes belly up? How is someone who declares enormous carry forward losses getting loans for buildings that would not be easy to sell in foreclosure and are not managed in a way that they generate good yields?

Banks make stupid decisions and banking regulation is important for this reason but there are millions of people they can lend to who provide a better risk-adjusted return.

But in the 1990s no US bank would lend Trump even a dime, so where did he get the money from to open Trump SoHo if it wasn't through Felix Sater's 'connections'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

His tax returns might show that he is a poor investor but won't tell us his net worth, which would be difficult to calculate for a number of reasons anyway. He can claim huge losses because he makes large vanity investments and doesn't make great returns.

Special emphasis on within the bounds of the law. Everybody is entitled to make good faith arguments for why they should qualify for deductions or even better tax credits. They can make arguments for why they can defer recognition of some kinds of income. But the characterizations cannot be false. Yes everybody wants the maximum in deductions and the minimum in income or failing that, deferral of recognition. Do the characterizations he makes reflect economic reality?

Are they at all consistent with characterizations he makes when he applies for loans? If he consistently shows losses and is only able to service his debt by securing more debt isn't it close to a pyramid scheme? I take it he has enough equity in his properties that even if banks stop lending to him he can probably salvage a lot of value but I'm curious how he got these loans to begin with.

---

I definitely remember Trump claiming a net worth of >$10 billion. It was around the time he was just threatening to throw his hat in the ring and making claims of being a genius and so forth, I mean he's always been a braggart. So that's been out there, for years, that $10 billion figure, and no one really talks about it. A lot of people questioned it but then all of a sudden he was running for president and talking about building a wall on the Mexican border and it was kinda forgotten.

I don't recall his net worth being brought up by him or the media at any point during his presidency, though I'm not a news freak or anything so I could have missed something. But as far as I know, the guy claims to be worth $10 billion, and as far as Trump's concerned, he made everyone believe he was worth $10 billion and that's the end of that.

Now, obviously, we're going to find out if he was telling the truth or not. Enough people are far enough up Trump's ass right now that, armed with his tax returns, they will have all the data necessary to put a precise figure on Trump's net worth.

My opinion is that Trump isn't stupid enough to do anything outright illegal. The guy is so cocky and so public that he's essentially had a target painted on his forehead his entire adult life. I think he's been very, very careful not to give anyone a legitimate reason to take him down, because if they could have, they would have. If my opinion is correct, there's only one reason I can think of that he wouldn't want those tax returns made public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

My opinion is that Trump isn't stupid enough to do anything outright illegal. The guy is so cocky and so public that he's essentially had a target painted on his forehead his entire adult life. I think he's been very, very careful not to give anyone a legitimate reason to take him down, because if they could have, they would have. If my opinion is correct, there's only one reason I can think of that he wouldn't want those tax returns made public.

---

That doesn't seem consistent with what you said previously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Well how 'bout this, Giovanni - I'm much more critical of Donald Trump than you'll ever be. I've been following his antics for decades, I know he's a near-pathological liar, a cheat, an egomaniac, a bully, and an insatiable pussy-hound. He's impulsive, it's an absolute miracle he hasn't been charged with a crime in his lifetime. And he's absolutely sociopathic when it comes to business, he once cheated a great uncle of mine out of tens of thousands of dollars on a plumbing contract - my uncle just couldn't afford to fight him in court, and my uncle was rich af. Trump is also mobbed up, you can't be in Manhattan real estate and not get a little mafia on you; also, to be totally forthcoming, if he did business with my great uncle, he's fucking mobbed up.

---

We are talking about a man who stupid enough to think that Mike Pence could overturn the election result for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

That doesn't seem consistent with what you said previously.

---

I love that you're a fan of mine, Flighty.

I admit that before his presidency I thought Trump was dirty, in a vulnerable way. I know for a fact he did business with the mob, but that in itself does not mean he's committed a crime. NYC is full of people who got rich off the efforts of mobsters who are now rotting in prison but that doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves did something illegal. Doing business with a criminal is not a crime of itself.

But after watching 4 years of the Democratic Party mustering the full strength of the American media against him, using all the resources at their disposal to bring him down, and failing...well, I have to assume at this point that there is no dirt. Or if there is, Trump has been very smart about it. Here's a good example of what I'm talking about: This is a picture of Donald Trump and well-known mob lawyer Roy Cohn. It carries some implications with it. Cohn represented both Carmine Galante and Anthony Salerno, both NYC family bosses.

Attachment 1301846

So you've got pictures of Trump with a lawyer. But you'll never find a picture of Trump with Galante or Salerno.

I'll tell you something else too, Flighty - I think you're going to have to get used to saying "President Trump" again in 2024.

Attachment 1301847

If he's prosecuted it is likely to be at the state level (specifically New York). Even if it's appropriate it would not look right to have Biden's Justice department pursue him.

I would not be surprised if he has committed multiple counts of fraud. We'll see. The tax documents are possibly being subpoenaed only to compare disclosures he's made elsewhere. This is a good article on the subject. I'm guessing fraud in his loan documents, but we'll see.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-yor...es-11613241198

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

It carries some implications with it. Cohn represented both Carmine Galante and Anthony Salerno, both NYC family bosses.

---

It carries no implications whatsoever even though Cohn was an awful person. You have someone who has had a half dozen business bankruptcies that ended up screwing creditors, who declares huge losses in his personal tax documents getting loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Even thinking about it from an underwriting standpoint is irritating. I don't put much value in the Trump personal brand but if a bank had to foreclose on a Trump building they own an overpriced, gaudy, illiquid piece of real estate that doesn't have the Trump brand.

Take this statement below. Do you think a bank would want to loan to Trump without a personal guarantee. This doesn't sound like someone who's careful, it sounds like someone who admits they use the corporate form and bankruptcy laws to defraud creditors. If a bank had gone after him a statement like this would almost be a justification to pierce the corporate veil.

"I've used the laws of this country to pare debt. ... We'll have the company. We'll throw it into a chapter. We'll negotiate with the banks. We'll make a fantastic deal. You know, it's like on The Apprentice. It's not personal. It's just business."

Gas price on 1/19/20 at my local station, 2 bucks a gallon, today the price is $2.73.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

It carries no implications whatsoever even though Cohn was an awful person. You have someone who has had a half dozen business bankruptcies that ended up screwing creditors, who declares huge losses in his personal tax documents getting loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Even thinking about it from an underwriting standpoint is irritating. I don't put much value in the Trump personal brand but if a bank had to foreclose on a Trump building they own an overpriced, gaudy, illiquid piece of real estate that doesn't have the Trump brand.

Take this statement below. Do you think a bank would want to loan to Trump without a personal guarantee. This doesn't sound like someone who's careful, it sounds like someone who admits they use the corporate form and bankruptcy laws to defraud creditors. If a bank had gone after him a statement like this would almost be a justification to pierce the corporate veil.

"I've used the laws of this country to pare debt. ... We'll have the company. We'll throw it into a chapter. We'll negotiate with the banks. We'll make a fantastic deal. You know, it's like on The Apprentice. It's not personal. It's just business."

---

You are really trashing Trump's credit-worthiness, Bronco. And hell, you might be right. YET, he has become wealthy - to whatever extent - doing business like he does it.

Not sure what you do for a living, Bronco, but if you're in business for yourself then you should know very well that it's strictly dog-eat-dog. It's a game, but it's a life-or-death game. Bankruptcy is a strategy. I've never filed but I've threatened it, and I've had people threaten me with it.

The conversation goes like this - "Nick, if I can't get that money by the end of the month I'm gonna have to take you to court."

"Well goddamn Bob, you know you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip, if you do that I'm gonna have to go Chapter 11. You're running me out of business here."

"Well, fuck, when CAN you pay me?"

And everybody eventually gets their money.

People who don't play the game don't understand that business is essentially an adult extension of schoolyard brinksmanship.

Laws and regulations are there for a reason. They're simply the rules of the game. The reason everyone hates lawyers is that their entire profession constitutes the effort to make those rules work for their clients.

If you play by the rules - even if you stretch the intention of those rules to your own benefit - you are still doing business. Step outside them and you've entered the realm of criminality. I think if Trump has stepped outside them, he's done so ever-so-gently and carefully.

I understand that when a business is nearly insolvent banks will negotiate with them so that they can get paid without foreclosing their assets. People probably do threaten to declare bankruptcy as a way of inducing flexibility. I am not used to hearing such naked statements about people throwing a company into chapter 11 to pare debt because it sounds like the business isn't really at risk of insolvency.

If you threaten financial institutions with declaring business bankruptcy in order to renegotiate debt you damage your credit-worthiness and would make them want to value all of your assets before lending to you. I am not so worried about his creditworthiness as what would induce a bank to lend to him. If he lied about the value of his assets to a bank that is fraud. That's the important point here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tslvr

Gas price on 1/19/20 at my local station, 2 bucks a gallon, today the price is $2.73.

---

This is ingenious. Biden made your gas prices go up in the month since his inauguration. BTW you mean 1/19/2021. But on that date my local cvs sold toothpaste for 3.59. Today it is selling for 3.29 because Biden negotiated with the fluoride wholesalers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I understand that when a business is nearly insolvent banks will negotiate with them so that they can get paid without foreclosing their assets. People probably do threaten to declare bankruptcy as a way of inducing flexibility. I am not used to hearing such naked statements about people throwing a company into chapter 11 to pare debt because it sounds like the business isn't really at risk of insolvency.

If you threaten financial institutions with declaring business bankruptcy in order to renegotiate debt you damage your credit-worthiness and would make them want to value all of your assets before lending to you. I am not so worried about his creditworthiness as what would induce a bank to lend to him. If he lied about the value of his assets to a bank that is fraud. That's the important point here.

---

Has nothing to do with solvency, Bronco, it's merely a question of cashflow. I'll provide an example with some over-simplified numbers.

I buy $1000 worth of aluminum from you. I get your bill and it's due on the 15th. But gold is at a low and I'd like to get a piece of that. Armed with the knowledge that I can probably talk you into waiting until next month to get paid, I use your $1000 to buy $1000 worth of gold. On the 16th we'll be talking, and that's when the game begins - maybe you put so much pressure on me that I'm forced to divest to get you paid, or maybe I convince you that it's in your best interest to wait til next month for your money. The same guy I'm pleading poverty to is probably simultaneously pleading poverty to his guy and may very well be doing so for the exact same reason I'm doing it. In the end, though, I come out ahead by doing a little negotiating instead of giving my creditor instant gratification.

I once had to find a new magnesium supplier because I put mine off one too many times. But simple solution, I DID find a new magnesium supplier. Meanwhile my old supplier has lost business because he decided the headache wasn't worth it. So, okay, move on.

Like I said, it's a game. Everyone plays it, some people play it a hell of a lot better than I do and I'm more often on the receiving end - a business bottom. But when I can get on top, I do.

I'm over on the Viper thread now! I'll respond to this over there but I only have ten minutes until later tonight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

I love that you're a fan of mine, Flighty.

---

I am a fan of the character Nick Danger, though more for entertainment than for educational purposes. How closely that character is related to the real person doing the typing I do not know - I'm sure there is some degree of deliberate exaggeration. If I didn't know already that the USA is full of crazy people I would have assumed you were just pulling our legs for fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I am a fan of the character Nick Danger, though more for entertainment than for educational purposes. How closely that character is related to the real person doing the typing I do not know - I'm sure there is some degree of deliberate exaggeration. If I didn't know already that the USA is full of crazy people I would have assumed you were just pulling our legs for fun.

---

And that's the extent to which you're brainwashed, Flighty. I've offered you nothing but common sense conservatism, and you view that as so nonsensical that it must be a joke.

I do exaggerate, we know this. But there's a grain of truth in everything I say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

And that's the extent to which you're brainwashed, Flighty. I've offered you nothing but common sense conservatism, and you view that as so nonsensical that it must be a joke.

I do exaggerate, we know this. But there's a grain of truth in everything I say.

---

Principled conservative ideas Nick. Your exaggerations are ways of saying anything goes when your guy does it. It is tearing this country apart. But where are the conservative ideas?

Surely the core of conservatism isn't
1. denying the consensus among epidemiologists about public health measures in a pandemic
2. stoking violent insurrection and then blaming antifa for it
3. making up claims of election fraud to threaten the peaceful transition of power
4. accusing the media of being biased when it reports these outrages

Your movement has descended into a pit of self-pity, self-delusion, and conspiracism. Come back to planet earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

This is ingenious. Biden made your gas prices go up in the month since his inauguration. BTW you mean 1/19/2021. But on that date my local cvs sold toothpaste for 3.59. Today it is selling for 3.29 because Biden negotiated with the fluoride wholesalers.

---

I did not say Biden made the gas prices go up, I was just posting my thought for the day which was gas has changed 73 cents in a month and I'm wondering why? My thought for today is, I wonder why 30 democratic members of congress are asking the president to give up total control of the nuclear football, which I believe is against the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Principled conservative ideas Nick. Your exaggerations are ways of saying anything goes when your guy does it. It is tearing this country apart. But where are the conservative ideas?

Surely the core of conservatism isn't
1. denying the consensus among epidemiologists about public health measures in a pandemic
2. stoking violent insurrection and then blaming antifa for it
3. making up claims of election fraud to threaten the peaceful transition of power
4. accusing the media of being biased when it reports these outrages

Your movement has descended into a pit of self-pity, self-delusion, and conspiracism. Come back to planet earth.

---

The core of conservatism, the core of conservatism... It's definitely not Trumpism, Trumpism is its own thing that's more about America First than anything else.

I'll tell you how I see conservatism. Others might see it differently but to me it's strictly economic in nature. However much I might disagree with some non-economic conservative policies, or agree with some liberal morality policies, liberal fiscal policy is so ridiculous to me that I only really have one option politically.

Here are, to me, the 3 over-simplified conservative fiscal principles:

1. No charity. Get a job, start a business, run for office, or jump off a cliff, those are the four true outcomes - people passing on the first 3 options but not taking the 4th is the reason we still have Democrats. Obviously some people become unable to work, or are born unable to work. Those are the exceptions, society has an obligation there. But if you're able-bodied, you ain't getting shit from the government. Ass, grass, or gas, no one rides for free.

2. The least possible government regulation of business. Let the market decide. If people feel so strongly about the environment, they should let their checkbook do the talking. Nobody is holding anyone at gunpoint and forcing them to buy gas from Exxon, or from anyone for that matter. You think we're killing the planet with emissions, fine. Walk. You believe in LGBTQ rights, don't patronize businesses that don't. You believe small business is important, keep your fat, flabby, wrinkled ass out of Walmart. Don't like the way Harvey Weinstein treats women? Don't go see his movies. If everyone simply let their purchasing power speak for them, all our human rights and environmental issues would automatically adjust themselves to the satisfaction of the majority.

3. Low taxes on the wealthy. Give the job creators and innovators a good reason to stay solidly right here in the USA.

That's it. It's not complicated, it's parenting. Conservatives are the ones who stop you from eating all the cookies and feeding the brussel sprouts to the dog. Conservatives are the ones who send you to bed even though Real Housewives of West Virginia is coming on. Conservatives are the ones who spank you for shitty grades.

You don't like it. But it's good for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

I've offered you nothing but common sense conservatism.

I do exaggerate, we know this.

---

Conspiracy theories and lurid Chicken Little predictions must be common sense conservatism then. Or was that another of your exaggerations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

2. The least possible government regulation of business. Let the market decide. If people feel so strongly about the environment, they should let their checkbook do the talking. Nobody is holding anyone at gunpoint and forcing them to buy gas from Exxon, or from anyone for that matter. You think we're killing the planet with emissions, fine. Walk. You believe in LGBTQ rights, don't patronize businesses that don't. You believe small business is important, keep your fat, flabby, wrinkled ass out of Walmart. Don't like the way Harvey Weinstein treats women? Don't go see his movies. If everyone simply let their purchasing power speak for them, all our human rights and environmental issues would automatically adjust themselves to the satisfaction of the majority.

---

Your next economics lesson. You're about 100 years out of date this time. Your economic ideas are just a simplistic parody of economics that bears no relationship to the real world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Your next economics lesson. You're about 100 years out of date this time. Your economic ideas are just a simplistic parody of economics that bears no relationship to the real world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

---

I knew it. You ARE Tipper Gore.

Also, make your damn argument, Flighty, IF you have one. I'm not gonna spend half my night reading your links. You don't see me saying, "My argument is this guy's essay, go read it and then argue back at me." For fuck's sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Also, make your damn argument, Flighty, IF you have one. I'm not gonna spend half my night reading your links. You don't see me saying, "My argument is this guy's essay, go read it and then argue back at me." For fuck's sake.

---

You can't be bothered reading links yet you post several long diatribes every day that I assume you expect somebody to read. Wordiness seems to be the one trait you have in common with Stavros.

To put it simply, people who don't give a shit about the environment, etc impose costs on the rest. That's like your neighbour throwing trash over the fence into your yard. They also get to free-ride because they get some of the benefit from the people who do care without paying any of the costs. That's called market failure. Leaving it to the market to fix market failure is a non sequitur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tslvr

I did not say Biden made the gas prices go up, I was just posting my thought for the day which was gas has changed 73 cents in a month and I'm wondering why?

---

Probably because the price of crude oil has been rising due to increased demand. It's not likely you will find a better answer on this forum than you would by just googling.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/oil...rs-51614254401

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

You can't be bothered reading links yet you post several long diatribes every day that I assume you expect somebody to read. Wordiness seems to be the one trait you have in common with Stavros.

---

You can see, right Flighty? I mean, when you see one of my posts, you can see how long it is before you even start reading it, yes? So it is certainly your choice whether to read a long post or not. What I've noticed about your posts is that they've gotten shorter and shorter over the past few days until we're now at the point where you're just posting links. I understand. Like Steve Martin once said, "Some people have a way with words, and other people just not have way."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

To put it simply, people who don't give a shit about the environment, etc impose costs on the rest. That's like your neighbour throwing trash over the fence into your yard. They also get to free-ride because they get some of the benefit from the people who do care without paying any of the costs. That's called market failure. Leaving it to the market to fix market failure is a non sequitur.

---

Yep, that's the classic argument for the Nanny State all right, Tipper.

The conservative solution to your garbage analogy there would be that the individual who was getting dumped on address the problem with the neighbor himself. But yeah, fixing your own problems is hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

To put it simply, people who don't give a shit about the environment, etc impose costs on the rest. That's like your neighbour throwing trash over the fence into your yard. They also get to free-ride because they get some of the benefit from the people who do care without paying any of the costs. That's called market failure. Leaving it to the market to fix market failure is a non sequitur.

---

As I was saying previously, if people just put their money where their mouth is, we wouldn't have these problems.

Let's look at this problem of the environment. Now I'm going to say that about half the people on the planet don't give a flying fuck about the environment. They all have their reasons, be it simple lack of knowledge about the issue, active unconcern for the fate of future generations, disbelief that we are the cause of the problem, or disbelief that there even is a problem.

The other half of the people are concerned, and outwardly, this half certainly give the appearance (i.e., "signal the virtue") that they are willing to take measures to correct the problem.

So that being the case, I can tell you, right now and right here in this post, how we can IMMEDIATELY cut environmental pollution in half, planet-wide. Have you already figured it out, Flighty? WRONG, it's not "Kill all the Republicans."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

The conservative solution to your garbage analogy there would be that the individual who was getting dumped on address the problem with the neighbor himself.

---

Is that what happened to Rand Paul? What about public drinking water that gets polluted? Or when a business operates for 20 years dispersing carcinogenic material in the air? How does the market solve that problem if the business owner is out of business by the time people develop cancer?

How about banks? They get insurance on deposits they collect. Should we stop doing that because it operates as a subsidy to the bank? I can tell you that I would not accept the paltry interest rate I get on my checking account if there was a chance the bank could lose my money. So shouldn't they have some restrictions on the investments they make as a trade-off for the subsidy they get?

And insurance companies? Should we not regulate them? They get to charge premiums, invest those premiums in all sorts of illiquid and risky investments and then when people make a claim they can just declare bankruptcy? Maybe it will be their way of paring debt:)

Read the externality link. It provides food for thought. It's only the beginning of you expanding your horizons;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Is that what happened to Rand Paul? What about public drinking water that gets polluted? Or when a business operates for 20 years dispersing carcinogenic material in the air? How does the market solve that problem if the business owner is out of business by the time people develop cancer?

How about banks? They get insurance on deposits they collect. Should we stop doing that because it operates as a subsidy to the bank? I can tell you that I would not accept the paltry interest rate I get on my checking account if there was a chance the bank could lose my money. So shouldn't they have some restrictions on the investments they make as a trade-off for the subsidy they get?

And insurance companies? Should we not regulate them? They get to charge premiums, invest those premiums in all sorts of illiquid and risky investments and then when people make a claim they can just declare bankruptcy? Maybe it will be their way of paring debt:)

Read the externality link. It provides food for thought. It's only the beginning of you expanding your horizons;

---

I did read the link, Bronco, I just want Flighty to be an adult and make his own argument.

Of course there are some problems that have to be addressed by the government. If I didn't believe that I'd be a Libertarian. Human weakness is a real thing. You can't rely on people to be altruistic with their money or their vote. What you can rely on is people hypocritically whining about problems that they themselves are helping to create.

But I said "minimum possible government regulation of business" and that's what I believe in.

Look at this problem of the Keystone pipeline project. It's canceled now because special interests got the attention of the American public via the liberal-owned media, and spun a picture of the situation that simply isn't true. There are problems with oil pipelines, true enough. But not nearly as many problems as the next best method of moving that oil, which is rail. Big environmental victory - the consensus is that a spill is now going to be 4.5 times more likely. It also cost the American economy 8000 jobs and $900 million in GDP, and that's aside from the 10,400 jobs that completing the project would have created. Not to mention the nearly incalculable cost of simply scrapping the pipeline that's already been laid.

That's liberal economics. Stupid. Counterproductive. Virtue-Signaling.

My Thought For The Day: Hypocrite much, Democrats?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/u...khashoggi.html

OH! There's a COST to holding Mohammed bin Salman accountable for Jamal Khashoggi's death! Biden must not have realized that when he was campaigning behind doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

For all my talk about Trump being above the law, he actually isn't. He'll never be able to pass a piece of legislation stating that all Americans must worship him as a god.

---

Looks like it's going to be compulsory in the Republican party though. They've made a golden statue just like in the Bible. Time for you to invest in a pair of knee pads.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...an-gold-statue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

As I was saying previously, if people just put their money where their mouth is, we wouldn't have these problems.

Let's look at this problem of the environment. Now I'm going to say that about half the people on the planet don't give a flying fuck about the environment. They all have their reasons, be it simple lack of knowledge about the issue, active unconcern for the fate of future generations, disbelief that we are the cause of the problem, or disbelief that there even is a problem.

The other half of the people are concerned, and outwardly, this half certainly give the appearance (i.e., "signal the virtue") that they are willing to take measures to correct the problem.

So that being the case, I can tell you, right now and right here in this post, how we can IMMEDIATELY cut environmental pollution in half, planet-wide. Have you already figured it out, Flighty? WRONG, it's not "Kill all the Republicans."

---

There are plenty of people who already do put their money where their mouth is: ie they choose more environmentally-friendly options even though they may be more expensive. The problem is that it doesn't go far enough for the reasons already explained. Leaving it to individuals to fix the environment is not an effective or efficient solution.

There is no puzzle about how to reduce environmental pollution - some mix of environmental taxes and regulation - so it's just a question of political will. Cleaner energy sources and technologies exist and their cost is falling. If fossil fuels are cheaper it is only because there is a hidden cost in pollution that the user does not currently pay.

The principled conservative approach would be to impose environmental taxes that reflect these costs and leave it to the market to find the most efficient way to reduce pollution. If you won't believe me, perhaps you should take notice of these people who have worked for Republican administrations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/o...te-action.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/07/p...nge/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Like Steve Martin once said, "Some people have a way with words, and other people just not have way."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

My Thought For The Day: Hypocrite much, Democrats?

---

It seems that some people have a way of using nouns for verbs (eg "learn to economy"). Did you learn to English at school?

Some thoughts on the CPAC in Florida, some of which I have watched.

1) A panel discussion on 'voter fraud' -I can't recall who took part, but what struck me about it was that, even when one panellist claimed there is aways voter fraud to some degree, and he suggested it was both deliberate and accidental, the primary discussion suggested in 2020 a) there was widespread voter fraud, and b) it was Democrats using fraudulent means to guarantee a victory by Joe Biden. But why? Why is voter fraud apparently exclusive to Democrats, or is it that they are better at fraud than the Republicans? It is an argument that has no substance and no logic. And if the Republicans are so bad at fixing elections, are they going to use fraudulent means in 2020?

2) I watched the speech by Senator Rafael Cruz, though part of it was blacked out for some reason. On the petty side, he needs a haircut, he needs to shave off the beard, and to lose weight. Whoever told him to hold the mike and walk around isn't aware that for public speakers, this suggests a man who walks from a to b because he is unsure of himself, or worse, is angry about something.

On the substance, insofar as there was any, he claimed 'the radical left and Socialists now control the Presidency, the Senate and the House' or words to that effect, and that their aim is to 'change the country'. He used that terrifying image to describe the proposed changes that would transform Americans into obedient robots who all think the same, claiming without a shred of ridiculous laughter in his voice for that reason the Republican Party is the party of diversity! On the protection of individual liberty, to protect it, the Republicans are going to 'fight' which has ominous echoes of January 6th.

3) On the matter of individual liberty and change, this I think is where the so-called Conservatives have run aground. The origins of the American Revolution are Liberal in politics. To be a Conservative in 1776 was to support British America as a colony of the Crown, King George its head of state. The politics that rebelled against Monarchy, which created a Republic, was Liberal in the sense that existed at the time, where a Liberal state is one that establishes Government and the Rule of Law as the framework of the state and allows the individual the right to be free from government, on the understanding that they will respect the rule of law and not harm others, and that the government will be of their choosing and not imposed upon them.

One can sense the way in which, as the United States evolved, 'to conserve' has meant to conserve the Constitution and its principles and values, thus placing the American Conservative in the paradoxical position of conserving a Liberal Constitution. This is where change comes in.

For change it seems, has meant that Liberal politics as it is now understood in the US, requires the very extension of Government into people's lives the 'Founding Fathers' opposed. It began with taxation, and has continued with various mechanisms, temporary or permanent -the draft in times of war is a temporary example, requiring individuals to have a social security no. is a more permanent one.

If a polarisation began with the New Deal Administration of FDR which, for exampe, sanctioned Federal expenditure on the Arts, and was extended by LB Johnson's Great Society Programme and the War on Poverty, particularly with extensions to welfare, then one can understand Conservatism as opposing this expansion of Government services funded by the tax payer, on the basis that if the USA is to be a country of laws and free markets, then individuals must look after themselves within the law, and not expect taxes and taxpayers to reward failure. Welfare at a basic level can exist to prevent hunger and destitution, as can happen if people lose their job, or through tornado, hurricane or fire, their home- thus welfare becomes a temporary bridge from crisis to restoration.

But as the USA changes organically -immigrants arrive, have children, who have children -the question of change can become a weapon on the basis it is not change Conservatives want. Immigrants A are fine, but Immigrants B are not -select a winner, or loser. But does this mean that in policy terms, Conservatives should oppose immigration, and not just illegal immigration, where, as Rafael Cruz claimed yesterday immigrants are sending their children unaccompanied across the southern border?

And shoud these Conservatives not be focused on the expansion of the State and thus be opposed to all welfare other than a most basic form of subsistence? Because neither in the last four years, nor so far at CPAC have I heard an extensive critique of welfare, but there has been a lot of waffle about voter fraud, 'cancel culture' and the threats to liberty posed by America's 'radical left' and 'Socialists'.

This incoherence I have noticed for some time (we have it in the UK too), made worse by the fact that Donald Trump is not a Conservative, and isn't a Liberal either. He and his family have lived on a form of welfare for the rich that is how bankruptcy law operates at the corporate level, just as the family apartment blocks and condos were built usng other people's money, and through State and Federal loans, including other tax-payer's money -where is the Conservative policy to end Government funding of such investments, to demand that entrepeneurs use their own money to take a risk in the market?

And that is without touching on the gerrymandered boundaries of Electoral Districts, the purging of Electoral Rolls, Voter ID and other forms of suppression which suggest the politics of the USSR and East Germany rather than a free country.

Conservative? Meaning what?

My thought of the day is a bit on the self-indulgent side. Lauren Boebert, the insurrection promoting congresswoman, looks a lot like a girl I knew and wanted to have sex with. The likeness is especially strong in her mugshot. What's worse is the girl was also kind of mean and kind of stupid. So in the interests of fairness I will recuse myself when she comes up. I know Nick Danger feels the same way about Nancy Pelosi so it wouldn't be a bad idea if he did the same there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

The conservative solution to your garbage analogy there would be that the individual who was getting dumped on address the problem with the neighbor himself. But yeah, fixing your own problems is hard.

---

Let's consider a concrete example. Suppose a big factory sets up near your house. There's no regulation so it's noisy and smelly and they can operate 24/7. How would you propose to go about fixing the problem yourself?