Friday morning links

"Trump vs. Bannon: Have you ever met a billionaire? Based on experience, here's what to make of the spat as well as some advice to all of us in the peanut gallery" Many will disagree with me but I hope that Trump and Bannon can come to some kind of truce. I like them both for their fight. Maybe Bannon did speak without thinking when he was angry as many of us do. But, we don't usually have some leftist spy standing near us listening for any words to take down the president or even secretly recording our burst of anger.

#1 JC on 2018-01-05 08:05 (Reply)

North Carolina is bad, too. They slap so many taxes and fees on liquor that it makes economic sense to drive to SC to buy your booze. It's legal as long as you don't transport more than 4 Liters. If a distillery sells a bottle to NC for $9 and, by the time it gets to the individual, the same bottle costs $22.

#2 snopercod on 2018-01-05 08:06 (Reply)

We have provincial liquor monopolies in Canada. It's illegal to buy booze in one province for consumption in another.

However, it's largely unenforceable because police can't arbitrarily stop motorists crossing provincial borders (any form of provincial "border control" would be unconstitutional in terms of mobility rights i.e., the inherent right of every Canadian to travel anywhere they want within their own country.

A case in New Brunswick, in which a resident hopped over the provincial border to buy beer in Québec - that mecca for discount suds - and was then nabbed by the police on his return is now making its way to our Supreme Court. If successful, it could have considerable ramifications for inter-provincial trade restrictions.

The joke in Canada has always been that free trade is a great idea and it would be nice if it applied to interprovincial trade as well.

#2.1 JJM on 2018-01-05 08:52 (Reply)

By in large we're looking at just one more bureaucracy to employ potential voters for the (fill in the blank party) and raise more money that can be spent frivolously by the government with little, if any, benefit to the citizens.

Close the spigot! Cut the bureaucracy and put sunset laws in place on all these ubiquitous state, local, country, municipal, township and federal efforts to smother the taxpayers.

#2.1.1 jma on 2018-01-05 17:32 (Reply)

Isn't it odd? I've always been gender-non-conforming in many ways, but it never occurred to me to doubt that I'm a heterosexual female. Why would I get confused just because foolish people thought I should like dollies and skirts? My conclusion is that they're wrong in assuming that a woman likes dollies and skirts, not that I'm wrong about who I am or what I want. Seems so obvious. Who knows best what I am, myself or some schmoe?

#2.1.2 Texan99 on 2018-01-06 09:47 (Reply)

I had no idea there were states where you weren't allowed to pump your own gas. Who comes up with these ideas? It's been optional in Texas since I was a kid, at least. The last stations to offer the full-service choice dropped it back in the 80s, as I recall. There wasn't enough demand for it to be able to get people to pay even a few cents extra per gallon.

But I have to admit, it never even occurred to me that anyone would think it was a good idea to let the government decide whether we'd have full-service or self-service. This is a choice we can't trust to consumers?

Ditto for state-controlled liquor business. I'm amazed at what my sister relates to me of the system in Pennsylvania: like the DMV in charge of booze. And people vote for this kind of thing why?

#3 Texan99 on 2018-01-05 09:22 (Reply)

Oregon has a socialist legislature who wanted to give voters the impression that they were protecting jobs by mandating that drivers could not pump their own gas. It is simply left wing politics and nothing more.

As for those who claimed they don't want to or cannot pump their own gas I can assure you that most Oregonians don't feel that way and this is just another example of the MSM going out of their way to shape the narrative.

#3.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2018-01-05 09:57 (Reply)

Texan99: But I have to admit, it never even occurred to me that anyone would think it was a good idea to let the government decide whether we'd have full-service or self-service.

The first method of filling car tanks was to first fill measured containers and then pour the gasoline into the car's tank. Later, pumps were used to fill the car tank directly, but lacked auto-shutoff valves, so requiring an attendant made some sense for safety reasons.

The shutoff value was invented in 1939, becoming ubiquitous in the 1950s, yet laws remain on the books six decades later requiring an attendant fill the tank, an excellent example of social inertia.

QWERTY

#3.2 Zachriel on 2018-01-05 11:18 (Reply)

Law was passed/became effective in '51, according to Wikipedia.

#3.3 Sam L. on 2018-01-05 11:41 (Reply)

Re: NY Times: It’s So Cold Because You Drove A Fossil Fueled Vehicle

It's interesting how the cold we're experiencing went from just "weather" to a result of AGW in just a couple of days!

#4 mudbug on 2018-01-05 09:23 (Reply)

It's going to be funny seeing the contrasting rhetoric when Trump comes out in favor of over-turning Citizens United and codifying the crime of lèse-majesté.

I'll bet Hillary Clinton has a world-class case of the smugs right now.

#5 Jerryskids on 2018-01-05 09:26 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Dow Hits 25,000 For First Time Ever as Employment Zooms ... Note it's private sector job gains leading the surge -- not government sector job gains, as frequently happened in Obama's few jobs-producing quarters.

You can really see the change right when the administration changed — in 2009.

Change in Total Non-Farm Private Employment

#6 Zachriel on 2018-01-05 11:24 (Reply)

Obama was lucky that the subprime chickens (set in motion by Bill Clinton) came home to roost just as he was running for President.

Obama made fun of Trump for his claims to be able to reinvigorate the job market (https://youtu.be/CKpso3vhZtw?t=180). Obama said it would take a magic wand. Wow! He's so smart! /sarc

#6.1 mudbug on 2018-01-05 12:26 (Reply)

mudbug: Obama made fun of Trump for his claims to be able to reinvigorate the job market

That's the point. Trump hasn't reinvigorated the job market. Rather, we are still in the Obama-era expansion. We've posted on this before. The stock market, the jobs markets, the GDP, are all on the same line of trajectory that started at the beginning of the recovery.

As for manufacturing and mining jobs, Obama was right. Some jobs "are just not going to come back". That doesn't mean there won't be jobs in manufacturing or mining or energy. It means the old jobs are gone and are being replaced with high-tech jobs. Gee whiz, your own link explains all that, but it's as if you don't have you listening ears on.

The tax cut should juice the economy, but as the U.S. is near full employment, and the tax cuts are from borrowed money, it will tend towards money chasing after money. The good news is that new technology and global markets continue to push prices down, meaning low inflation. The bad news is that the U.S. is entrenching, and ceding leadership in trade to other actors.

#6.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-01-05 14:08 (Reply)

I was going to waste some time and debunk the dishonest information you just wrote, but when you continue to write that " tax cuts are from borrowed money" you simply cannot be taken seriously.

Gee whiz indeed.

#6.1.1.1 Hank_M on 2018-01-05 14:27 (Reply)

Hank_M: but when you continue to write that " tax cuts are from borrowed money" you simply cannot be taken seriously.

Unless there are accompanying spending cuts, cutting taxes while already running deficits, means borrowing additional money.

#6.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-01-05 15:26 (Reply)

Imagine... You cut taxes, business owners have more income to build their business and hire employees, these two factors grow the economy by leaps and bounds and since the government takes a cut of that expanding economy their "take" increases.

But wait, but wait... It gets so much worse for the socialist Democrats because the increased economy AND the reduced taxes greatly benefits the individuals and THAT my comrade friends is bad for the socialist/communist/Democrats. Not only do they hate it that people are better off but they hate that it is the result of conservative/capitalist policies. This will not stand! Somehow, someway the Socialist Democrats must and will tank the economy. They must or they cannot seize back power so the hell with the Kulaks we must have a recession and blame it on Trump/Republicans.

Wait a second... Wasn't Chuckie Schumer trying to bring down the economy in 2003,04,05,06,07,08???

#6.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2018-01-05 19:17 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: Imagine... You cut taxes, business owners have more income to build their business and hire employees

The tax cut should juice the economy, but as the U.S. is near full employment, and the tax cuts are from borrowed money, it will tend towards money chasing after money. The money will go towards, increasing shareholder value, but that is not the same as investment. It will mean share buyback programs, for instance.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-01-06 09:32 (Reply)

Please Zach, look up gobbledygook. What you just wrote was pure left wing socialist gobbledygook. It isn't from "borrowed money" welfare is from "Borrowed money". The tax cut at thw very worst decreases the money the federal government can spend. Iy is their constitutional responsibility to live within that. The first step should be to cut/eliminate all unconstitutional spending. If we did that we would be rolling in money.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2018-01-06 10:45 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: It isn't from "borrowed money" welfare is from "Borrowed money".

If you cut taxes without cutting spending while already running deficits, then the money is borrowed.

GoneWithTheWind: The tax cut at thw very worst decreases the money the federal government can spend.

Hardly. There is no inherent limit to U.S. deficit spending.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-01-06 11:48 (Reply)

Z: That's the point. Trump hasn't reinvigorated the job market. Rather, we are still in the Obama-era expansion.

That's laughable! You might be able to make that argument if Hillary had won and largely kept Obama's policies in place, but Trump reversed almost all of his policies and the economy has taken off.

You might be able to make that argument w/respect to jobs if Obama didn't make his "magic wand" comment. He clearly thought we had been doing as well as could be expected.

The same with GDP. Obama and his minions have been arguing that the sub par economic growth was what we had to get used to. That would be true if we had continued with his policies but thankfully Trump is reversing them as fast as he can.

All your and Obama's blather about some jobs never coming back is just that - blather. The jobs the questioner was referring to were weren't going away because of advancements in technology. They were going to other countries for a number of reasons, among them is the higher tax and regulation environment that Obama instituted. Along with quickly growing regulatory environment is the fear of what new regulations were coming next.

#6.1.1.2 mudbug on 2018-01-05 15:38 (Reply)

mudbug: Trump reversed almost all of his policies and the economy has taken off.

Except your facts are in error. Here are the economic facts:

Average Monthly Job Gains, last 8 years

Change in Total Non-Farm Private Employment, last 15 years

Unemployment, last 10 years

GDP, last 10 years

Dow Jones, last 10 years

#6.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-01-05 16:15 (Reply)

Please note, there was a very dramatic change when a new administration took over — in 2009. The results over the last year have been a clear continuation of the trends dating back to the beginning of the economic recovery.

mudbug: The jobs the questioner was referring to were weren't going away because of advancements in technology.

Of course they are. Take coal mining, for instance. It used to take large teams of people working underground to mine coal. Nowadays, a few workers to take an entire mountain apart most of whom are rapidly industrializing. The good news is that the U.S. has a well-educated and motivated workforce, strong protection for property rights, and a tradition of markets. The bad news is that the U.S. has a dysfunctional political system, is retreating from global trade, and relies too much on bullying tactics against other nations rather than continuing to build long-standing relationships.

#6.1.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2018-01-05 16:23 (Reply)

Something go deleted:

Z: Of course they are. Take coal mining, for instance. It used to take large teams of people working underground to mine coal. Nowadays, a few workers can take an entire mountain apart. The U.S. can't compete on low-tech jobs in a world of eight billion people, most of whom live in societies that are rapidly industrializing.

#6.1.1.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-01-05 16:26 (Reply)

Watch the beginning of the video. The person who posed the question was a steel worker at Carrier, not a coal worker. His job didn't go to Mexico because of new technology.

The fact that some jobs go away and new types of jobs are created is not a question worthy of discussion since it is so obvious. It's a waste of time discussing it but Obama wanted to sound knowledgeable about something!

#6.1.1.2.2.1.1 mudbug on 2018-01-05 17:35 (Reply)

mudbug: The person who posed the question was a steel worker at Carrier, not a coal worker. His job didn't go to Mexico because of new technology.

It went to Mexico because of the dissemination of technology around the globe. As the CEO said “The assembly lines in Indiana– I mean, great people. Great, great people. But the skillset to do those jobs is very different than what it takes to assemble a jet engine.”

Even after being bribed by the local government with tax cuts, many of Carrier's assembly line workers are being laid off, meanwhile they expanded their facility in Connecticut, home for 1700 engineers, including over 350 with PhDs. Why Connecticut? Because that's where they can find the educated workforce that they need.

mudbug: The fact that some jobs go away and new types of jobs are created is not a question worthy of discussion since it is so obvious.

It's not just that jobs change, but that the new jobs being created require more education and technological facility.

#6.1.1.2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-01-06 09:43 (Reply)

Average Monthly #Job Gain — by year

#6.1.2 Zachriel on 2018-01-05 14:20 (Reply)

No, you can see the changes happening gradually after changes in Congress (which is about 2/3 of the political weight) and the presidency (about 1/3 of the influence). You can trace that back decades. The changeover is complete just about in time for the next elections two year's later. The 2008 crash was a direct result of the 2006 Congress, which refused to regulate complex derivatives and other financial transactions. some regulations are good, after all, but Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and notably, Senator Barack Obama apparently didn't think so.

#6.2 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2018-01-05 14:51 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: was a direct result of the 2006 Congress

You probably mean the 110th Congress, which took office in 2007. The problem with that hypothesis is that the bubble was already fully formed in 2006. Like all such bubbles, it was demand driven, primarily by the shadow market in securities.

#6.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-01-05 15:25 (Reply)

To take another view, they might have done equally well to decline to regulate complex derivatives (a topic clearly over their heads), as long as they also declined to bail out losers. You really, really can't bail out losers without getting stuck to that tar baby. Every change we've made since insuring bank deposits has stuck us tighter and tighter. Do you notice whether your bank has a good reputation for sound investments? No one bothers to look any more; they look for the highest interest rate or the most consumer-friendly policies, knowing their money is equally safe no matter where they put it. That means hiring an army of bank regulators to micro-manage the safety of the bank's reserves and investments. No surprise, they're not very good at it. Even most bankers aren't that good at it, but at least the bank's investors' fortunes depend on being good at it. They're the only ones left with any proper incentives.

#6.2.2 Texan99 on 2018-01-06 09:43 (Reply)

UCSC: "It’s heavily targeting community colleges across the state and Latinos, but that population is wary of coming to a campus accessible only via a winding mountain highway because of family obligations elsewhere in Northern California." HUH?????
Family obligations are the cause of that only one winding road to the campus??

New England: Victim of themselves.

#7 Sam L. on 2018-01-05 12:00 (Reply)

New England: Victim of themselves.
Yup. When a region needs lots of energy to keep warm and doesn't produce any of that energy itself, it shoots itself in the foot to restrict energy supplies to said region.

As New England native, I am not surprised, given New Englanders' attitudes after the 1973 oil shock. My father wrote a number of letters to the editor advocating nationalization of the oil companies. That would have worked out REALLY WELL.

Back in the 1970s, the feds regulated interstate energy prices. Old oil and new oil. Result: residents in Texas paid more for natural gas produced instate than residents in New England did for natural gas produced elsewhere. New Englanders wanted to continue that sweetheart deal. Reaction in Texas: let them freeze in the dark. I imagine today that there are a lot of New Englanders who want to have nothing to do with that horrible fracked oil. Fine.

#7.1 Gringo on 2018-01-05 13:59 (Reply)

Charles Cooke @ NRO writes column debunking Trump.

I tell ya Birddog, I'm shocked! Shocked , that anyone at NRO would write such a piece! Incredible! /s hahahahaaa They just can't stop tilting at windmills..

#8 Uncle Max on 2018-01-05 12:19 (Reply)

Was Peanut's Peppermint Patty non-gender conforming?

#9 another guy named Dan on 2018-01-05 13:51 (Reply)

Peppermint Patty had a crush on Charlie Brown, who she always called "Chuck". That's from the actual
official Peppermint Patty fan club site.

#9.1 LP on 2018-01-05 19:04 (Reply)

The thing I find most fascinating about the current debate on gender and sexual identity is the degree to which the advocates of trrans and non-conformity often use the crudest of sterotypical behavior in their arguments.

Peppermint Patty is a girl who used to be called a tomboy. So apparently liking or being good at sports and not wearing dresses is non-conformity to the female gender. If anybody else tried to make a positive claim like that, the screeching would be deafening but somehow the advocates of tolerance are exempt from a requirement to be consistent.

#9.2 Christopher B on 2018-01-06 06:06 (Reply)

re New England Was Warned ‘Pipeline Constraints’ Could Cause Problems This Winter. Now It’s Happening

heh.

However, I would speculate that demand outstripping pipeline capacity will be dismissed as a ruse. Energy providers will be accused of withholding supplies so that the population at large can be gouged on price.

It's always the fault of the eeeevil, greedy corporations. The environmental activists are never to blame.

#10 feeblemind on 2018-01-05 14:07 (Reply)

So 27% of California Adolescents are gender non-conforming? That makes no sense. What's so difficult about having a gender?

A few years ago, here in a small town (Gardiner) Maine, a friend who is the mom of teenagers mentioned to me that her daughter was the only!!! member of the girls soccer team who was not either "gay" or "questioning". To me that spoke volumes about how the school system has gone overboard to help kids who might be non-conforming and somehow made everyone think it's better to non-conform. We have to leave kids alone and let them be kids.

#11 LP on 2018-01-05 19:17 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, January 5. 2018

Friday morning links