"They're eating the dogs. They're eating the cats."
That was the president lying on a nationally televised debate, the purpose of which was to lay the groundwork for exporting poor people who were here legally.
The term "create stories" in this context does not mean made up the story it means create a story out of the report the way journalists create a story out of a news event
The mayor of the town (a Republican) came out and straight up said Trump was lying about his town. The only people reporting it could barely point to the town on a map.
Even if Trump was just relaying local racist rumors (he wasn't, it was entirely fabricated), would he be justified in it? There was absolutely zero evidence of it, and there still isn't.
It's just a lie in service of fueling hatred toward the most poorest people in this country. Fascism 101.
There is no multiverse where Trump would knowingly allow someone to mock or criticize him. If Musk grovels enough Trump may let him back; he loves emasculating his rivals.
It's not ethics or morality, it's just "not being a child." A president not personally retaliating against a critic doesn't need to have anything to do with ethics, it's just requires a post-middle-school mentality of "I may not be happy with this person but I [my country] can still benefit from things they do."
Being an adult child has moral and ethical consequences.
Behaviours and emotions that are totally legit and tolerated in a child are no longer so in an adult.
An adult that has all the privileges and freedoms of adulthood over childhood, like the ability to vote, drink, drive and hold an office, also has to abide by the moral obligations of being an adult.
But if you're rich enough (or poor enough, hah) nobody's gonna hold you to "adult behavior" standards. Is there really a moral or ethical aspect to "don't get into a shouting match on Twitter"? Or is it simply childish?
> Didn’t the greatest advancements in science occur during a time when it was more of a personal hobby (19th and early 20th centuries)?
Is this true? I have far from an exhaustive knowledge of research but most of the advances I can think of were by academics: Maxwell, Bohr, the Curies, etc.
Einstein was one notable exception but he was trying to get hired by universities during his miracle year; antisemitism likely played a role. Soon after he was hired and forever after led the academic life.
I am very much an anti Trumper and went into the article with some trepidation but I thought it even-handed, if shallow, overview until the very end.
The article correctly points out the disaster of Smoot Hawley and the effectiveness of GATT. It attributes much of the world-wide reduction of poverty on free trade.
I think it's written from the view of traditional free-market conservatives unwilling to criticize trump directly.
They equate VAT with import tax. That is straight up lie. So, I would triple check any other claim they have. Someone lying that blatantly about something so easy to verify is going to lie a lot about stuff that is less known, potentially nuanced and harder to verify - like history.
The first 42 paragraphs read like something that could have been written by any libertarian free-market thinker at any point during the last 80 years. The final 3 paragraphs read like something written in the last few months to appease the current administration.
Unlike pennies, I use dimes enough that I would prefer they be kept around. Rounding prices to the nearest penny is OK. Rounding to the nearest quarter, less so.
This isn't correct. The gold standard caused a lot of problems with money shortages; in the 1800s they were called panics. The shortages powered William Jennings Bryan to the Democratic presidential nomination after his "Cross of Gold" speech. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech
Were those panics ultimately bad for growth? The US in the 1800s was one of the fastest growing economies we've ever seen in all of human history; growing from ~0% to ~20% of the world economy. It isn't often someone outpaces that. The gold standard clearly didn't limit growth in any concerning way if you are associating it with one of the top 10 all time growing economies. In fact, dropping the gold standard has been associated with the economic weakness that characterises the modern US as they mean regress and the Asian powers regain economic ascendancy.
Panics and crisises aren't automatically a bad thing. If people are doing something wildly stupid they need to stop and undertake alternative activities. Something has to make them do that; if it is a panic then that is better than persisting with stupidity. Besides, the US still has regular crisises. There is one every 10 years or so. They just don't see as much upside between them as they used to.
> The shortages powered William Jennings Bryan to the Democratic presidential nomination after his "Cross of Gold" speech.
If Trump says something does that automatically make it true in 100 years? No. Politicians aren't automatically right and neither are voters. People get stuff wrong in policy all the time. Popularity and truth are different.
And Wikipedia suggests that most people disagreed with him regardless, he lost the election and the US proceeded to adopt a gold standard. Which still doesn't tell us much about its policy merits I might add.
If you don't think panics are a bad thing I don't know what to tell you. Can you point to a panic that was good?
My point about Bryan is that the gold standard was causing so much pain that he rode his solution to the nomination. That his solution (bimetallism) was terrible helps explain his loss.
All panics are "good" in the sense that they represent the economy reorienting themselves to maximise returns. As you accidentally stumbled over, they are associated with the period of US history with the highest growth rate. The argument is basically that they are a necessary mechanism to purge inefficient actors from having capital. It isn't pleasant if the market tags a person as inefficient, but that is how to get to high growth.
It isn't like getting rid of the gold standard has helped the US grow, since then we've have seen them mean regress from being an unchallengeable global colossus to arguably the #2 economy. The government printing money at will and handing it out to asset owners who by rights should be going broke is a component of that.
If you'd like a computer metaphor, possibly think a program unexpectedly spitting out a stacktrace. The stacktrace is not, in and of itself, the problem. The problem is the thing causing the stacktrace and the stacktrace is actually helpful for diagnosing. In the case of economies, panics don't draw attention to the problem but actually fix it directly.
> ...that he rode his solution to the nomination
A lot of nominees around that time thought the gold standard was a good idea, which doesn't prove anything either. The opinions of nominees more than a century ago aren't really evidence. It is an appeal to authority except he wasn't an authority in any meaningful way. He didn't know much about economics and turned out not to represent the consensus of ordinary citizens either.
The US has not actually put leaving the gold standard to a vote as far as I know. In fact I don't think the current situation is a result of big deliberations, at Bretton Woods people thought they were agreeing to a gold standard and as the US's economy is eclipsed we might easily see a rethink of the global trade system where it comes back.
Sure, but modern cars are in fact much, much better at this.
New cars aren't necessarily a lot better than cars built 20 years ago, but compared to anything built before EFI they are vastly more reliable. And then you could also talk about radial tires if you are comparing to the 1940s.
While you are fiddling with your carb and fixing 2 flat tires, I'm cruising along with a misfiring cylinder and a nail causing a slow leak.
For much of Christian history the Bible was largely interpreted as being pro slavery and against interracial marriage. Most people now disagree with those interpretations. There is growing support for LGBT within the church. Here's one example https://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/introducin...
The Bible doesn't even have the concept of race as we understand it today, because that concept is a very recent invention (to my understanding). Anyone using it to support anti-interracial marriage positions would be doing so anachronistically, rendering their own claim invalid.
That was the president lying on a nationally televised debate, the purpose of which was to lay the groundwork for exporting poor people who were here legally.
reply