Tuesday morning links

Trump is willing to militarize the Korean peninsula, in order to demilitarize it; and surround Persia with enough reasons to actually take its nose out of its neighbours’ affairs. To caricature the man as a warmonger or protectionist is to get him backwards. He is pushing “America First” and trying to communicate that if we, for instance, want to put Canada First, he’ll deal. But he isn’t going to deal with what he might characterize as a bunch of wankers.

Interesting piece on economies of India and China

Italy Turns Away Ship Carrying Over 600 Migrants

China's Long Game for the Singapore Summit - While Trump and Kim play checkers, Xi has the Go board out.

China puts China first, Making China Great Again

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:22 | Comments (33) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

What a clinton does to people against their will:

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey finds that Fifty-three percent (53%) describe the ex-president as a sexual predator instead. Another 24% are undecided. 24% (perhaps including our own Zachbot) consider Clinton a victim of his political opponents.

#1 jaybird on 2018-06-12 07:41 (Reply)

China's Long Game for the Singapore Summit - While Trump and Kim play checkers, Xi has the Go board out.

China puts China first

HOW DARE THEY!!!!!

#2 Confused Old Misfit on 2018-06-12 07:50 (Reply)

A sovereign state putting its own national interests first?

Who'da thunk it?!

#2.1 JJM on 2018-06-12 11:47 (Reply)

Clothing is one area where recycling works. When you donate old clothing to Goodwill et al, they sort it into four groups. Good quality stuff goes on their own racks. Wearable but worn stuff goes into the charity community and ends up just about anywhere, like Africa or Indonesian. Unwearable but clean stuff goes to fiber reclamation centers and ends up in all sorts of consumer goods, like carpet and washcloths. Dirty clothing goes to the landfill.

Other commodities that have a real recycling market are any metal, glass and paper, especially cardboard. Recycling markets are very price sensitive, and recycled materials often end up in the landfill if that day's price is too low to justify processing.

#3 bob sykes on 2018-06-12 08:12 (Reply)

Heartily agree on clothing but that's not considered recycling, just an extension of the family tradition of "hand-me-downs" or "hand-me-ups" (for us elderly).

But let's be entirely frank, recycled "trash" is mostly just that :TRASH!

On average, more than 90% of what you place in your oh-so-politically-correct "recycling bins" ends up in the landfill. Recycling is one of the best examples of and least-subtle outcomes of media-induced brain-washing!

#3.1 B48 (Link) on 2018-06-12 09:05 (Reply)

I like Goodwill and believe they are doing good things. However in the last 10-20 years they put a smaller percentage of their profits/income towards a charitable cause and that is a troublesome trend. They used to occupy old supermarket type buildings in old strip malls and now they build rather attractive upscale stand alone buildings for their stores. I prefer the old Goodwill to the new one

St. Vinnies does a better job of putting their profits into charitable spending. I wish Good will would try to emulate St. Vinnies model.

#3.2 OneGuy on 2018-06-12 10:13 (Reply)

Not just that but there has been more than one expose on the managers and higher ups in that company keeping the good stuff for themsellves.

#3.2.1 fjord on 2018-06-12 12:07 (Reply)

When You Have To Apologize For Eating At Chick-Fil-A

And when you just must talk about When You Have To Apologize For Eating At Chick-Fil-A

How Capitalism Could Save the World - A world of capitalism is a world of peaceful, voluntary, mutually agreed upon interactions where no person or group is politically privileged over another.

It already is doing so

Except not even remotely:

QUOTE:

Corporatocracy /ˌkɔːrpərəˈtɒkrəsi/, a portmanteau of corporate and -ocracy (form of government), short form corpocracy, is a recent term used to refer to an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests.[1] It is most often used today as a term to describe the current economic situation in a particular country, especially the United States.[2][3] This is different from corporatism, which is the organisation of society into groups with common interests. Corporatocracy as a term is often used by observers across the political spectrum.

-Wiki

QUOTE:

The US government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern Universities has concluded.

The report, entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, used extensive policy data collected from between the years of 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the US political system.

After sifting through nearly 1,800 US policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile) and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the United States is dominated by its economic elite.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html

#4 Meh on 2018-06-12 09:49 (Reply)

I dunno Meh, it's a little hard to take this at face value when at least 90% of our population today lives at a higher standard (food supply, health, common services, education, etc) than the wealthiest 10% from 100 years ago.

So... since it's Wikipedia, maybe this would help: What would be a good example of a country that is not ruled by the nation's rich and powerful, whose government does not work preferentially for the interests of the ruling class? To me, a person who rules a country is by definition, powerful.

#4.1 Aggie on 2018-06-12 14:20 (Reply)

More like .01% a hundred years back, but you're not wrong at all.

#4.1.1 JLawson on 2018-06-12 16:14 (Reply)

You're going to have to clarify your point: As I interpret it, either you're for about a quarter quadrillion in red ink - and living standards as a moral argument - or you're for oligarchic 'rule' as you call it, as a global de facto standard in-which-case-whatever.

Are either consistent with BD's reckless definition of liberty?

#4.1.2 Meh on 2018-06-12 16:37 (Reply)

Whoa dude, you're taking a page from Planet Z's book: Changing course on the subject. Neither you nor I said anything about the national debt - and what does that have to do with your assertion about the US being a corporatocracy?

My point was that it's absurd to imply that a country's socio-economic-political model is anathemic to its citizens when its people are arguably living under the highest standards in history and are mostly happy with their situation. And incidentally I don't believe we live in a corporatocracy although I do believe they exert too much political and social influence. (And incidentally, I've been badgering my congressmen to align to balanced budget lawmaking and a line item veto and will continue to.)

So, again I'll ask you (not trying to pick a fight): What would be a good example of a country that is not ruled by that nation's rich and powerful, whose government does not work preferentially for the interests of the ruling class?

For clarity, my position is: There aren't any, that's why they call them the "Ruling Class".

#4.1.2.1 Aggie on 2018-06-12 17:47 (Reply)

Standard of living, as I already implied, is based on debt and various insolvencies. This is a debt state in thrall to a monetary system that essentially hinges on debt - debt is how money is created and with it, this prosperity you're on about. I count very roughly $250T of it, national, personal, bank, derivative, pension, and unfunded future obligations all-in.

Now, that dispensed with - since you didn't somehow know it on a site that's been playing Margin Call clips for months - the expectation that as a term corporatocracy is invalidated because, you know, everything's a corporatocracy is fallacious in the extreme.

So, again I'll ask you - while not trying to pick a fight - what would be a good example of a country that is not 'ruled' (your word) by that nation's rich and powerful corporate oligarchy, whose government does not work preferentially for the interests of the ruling class I identified, given BD's dumb assertions about liberty and presumably, free markets?

Because, dude, this ain't one. And that's not me arguing like a gang of robots.

#4.1.2.1.1 Meh on 2018-06-12 18:37 (Reply)

Sounds so angry....

Let's try it a different way: ".. researchers concluded that the United States is dominated by its economic elite. "

I would like to know when was this ever not the case in the USA, before or after the revolution? Or anywhere else in the free world? I haven't read the Yale study but it seems to me they are stating the obvious in order to cast aspersions, which is why I ask, "who is doing it better?". I can't think of any country or socio-economic political system in particular. No, I'm not going to invest time to read the study.

My opinion is that we could (and should) take care of our debt without sacrificing our standard of living to any degree that would be significant to life expectancy or quality, it's simply a matter of political and social will. Looks like you disagree, and that's great!

#4.1.2.1.1.1 Aggie on 2018-06-12 20:04 (Reply)

Sounds so willfully ignorant...

Stop digging. Your point, such as it is, is that since this isn't a democracy it isn't a problem. And that whole liberty thing, who needs it.

(And they say rightism isn't as valid a descriptor as leftism.)

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1 Meh on 2018-06-13 09:07 (Reply)

"Professor explains that diversity of thought is racist"

These people are ignorant. They are blatantly racist and seem unaware. But what is the difference between these radical leftists and the KKK. Their goals seem to be the same and their methods seem to be the same. I think the only difference is that the KKK was honest.

#5 Anon on 2018-06-12 10:05 (Reply)

re China puts China first

Here is another example of China putting China first:

China eyes its next prize – the Mekong

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/china-eyes-its-next-prize-mekong

#6 feeblemind on 2018-06-12 11:00 (Reply)

China plays by China's rules.

#6.1 feeblemind on 2018-06-12 11:01 (Reply)

"One way you get rid of @realDonaldTrump is a crashing economy, so please bring on the recession. Sorry if that hurts people, but it's either root for a recession or lose your democracy."

I am sure Bill Maher will be quite happy to make the following magnanimous gesture in the event of any recession: divesting himself completely of his wealth and living on the income of a boring, ordinary unemployed person for its duration.

As if.

#7 JJM on 2018-06-12 11:44 (Reply)

When Marie Antoinette said of that peasants, "let them eat cake" she didn't include herself in that sentiment.

Neither does Maher. A mouthpiece of the elites who thinks he IS elite.

#7.1 fjord on 2018-06-12 12:09 (Reply)

Bill Maher: We Need a Recession to Save Us from Trump

Makes you wonder who the 'Us' is that he thinks needs saving.

The traditional politicians who's method of 'doing things' requires kicking the can down the road past the next election?

The traditional diplomatic method of avoiding doing anything as long as possible, and hoping the body count doesn't rise too high?

#8 JLawson on 2018-06-12 12:13 (Reply)

Re: Voxplaining monogamy

“Why would humans all around the world invent a rule that’s so difficult to follow, and treat breaking as such an enormous betrayal?”

Sounds like Chesterson's Fence - if you don't see the use of something it may be ignorance on your part rather than foolishness on the part of everybody else. I always mentally append to the "Question Authority" bumper stickers I see the admonition "and then listen to its answer, you might learn something". Maybe the Vox writers are a touch too arrogant for their own good, but that's true for most anybody willing to impose on others their opinions on how they should live their lives.

#9 Jerryskids on 2018-06-12 12:36 (Reply)

Refreshing...

QUOTE:

... Trump is rebuilding American power after an eight-year period of willful dissipation. “People criticize [Trump] for being opposed to everything Obama did, but we’re justified in canceling out his policies,” one friend of Trump’s told me. This friend described the Trump Doctrine in the simplest way possible. “There’s the Obama Doctrine, and the ‘Fuck Obama’ Doctrine,” he said. “We’re the ‘Fuck Obama’ Doctrine.”

We're America, Bitches

#10 drowningpuppies on 2018-06-12 12:43 (Reply)

I read recently that a lot of those old clothes wind up in Rwanda, and they don't want them.

Not this one, but see: https://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-fashion/east-africa-doesnt-want-your-used-clothes.html

#11 Sam L. on 2018-06-12 13:05 (Reply)

There can't be a SS trust fund except in the form it exists, as an accounting entry with an IOU in it.

The government absolutely must instantly put back into circulation every dollar it takes in, lest the money supply fall.
It can't put it in a mattress. That's the same as burning it.

Every mechanism that works gives you an account with an IOU in it.

#12 rhhardin (Link) on 2018-06-12 13:07 (Reply)

I haven't eaten at a Chick-Fil-A because there isn't one near me. If I do eat at one, I won't apologize to anyone (and the hamster it rode in on).

#13 Sam L. on 2018-06-12 13:09 (Reply)

U. Tenn. prof is assimilated into the Borg. There IS no diversity in the Borg!

#14 Sam L. on 2018-06-12 13:11 (Reply)

Medical insurance should only be for catastrophic events and major illnesses (like cancer, etc.). Regular old medical care - like going to see your doc about that strange bump or if you have the flu - should be a pay-as-you-go model with every individual given the right to put $$ into a tax-free medical savings account.

This would especially be helpful for those who develop chronic problems. You could build up a medical account during your healthy years and then use that medical account if you end up with larger problems. Maybe over a certain cost, your catastrophic plan would kick in.

For those who make below a certain amount of money, I'd be willing to give them a 'tax credit' into their medical savings accounts.

This is very similar to a plan that Ben Carson had. Hoping this is where we are headed in the future.

#15 MissT on 2018-06-12 14:45 (Reply)

I agree with what you are trying to say. But it should, of course, be lawful and acceptable that health insurance companies exist and sell a product and that individuals/families by that product. If the government and taxpayers don't subsidize it I simply see no problem with being able to buy an insurance that pays even regular visits to doctors and other health care providers. Even pay 100%, since of course it comes out of my (and other willing buyers) premiums.

#15.1 OneGuy on 2018-06-12 21:51 (Reply)

re The Farm Bill for Billionaires - Farm subsidies are a menace, especially when they line the pockets of the wealthy.

Farm subsidies all flow to the land owner.

Double or triple farm subsidies and watch farm land values and cash rents take a corresponding leap.

In agriculture, excess capital always flows to to the most fixed resource.

#16 feeblemind on 2018-06-12 16:34 (Reply)

Three interesting (i.e., disturbing) links today about higher education: University of Tennessee, University of Pennsylvania, and Hobart and William Smith Colleges. These remind me of a poster that I saw on the campus of Yale University this past weekend. It was for a talk titled "The Inherent Inequities of Choice" by Riche Barnes, dean of Pierson College at Yale. I don't know anything about him. From the poster:

QUOTE:

This lecture will explore how inequality inherently exists in what we refer to as our freedom to choose. We will explore work and family choice, school choice, and health care choice as modes that only affect certain members of our population. And, while these decisions are portrayed in social movements and social policy as beneficial to the least of these, they ultimately limit equitable access.

This talk is part of the Yale Summer Session Lecture Series. The talk is on Wed., June 20, at 5:00 PM in Sudler Hall, WLH 201, 100 Wall Street. The poster said it is open to the public. I am no longer in Connecticut. I was just visiting for the weekend. If any Connecticut Yankee readers of this blog go to this talk and care to email me with comments afterward, I would be interested. My email address is at the "Link". Is the speaker thinking that people will be happier with less choice? Seems odd to me. I worry about what we are teaching young people in our colleges and universities these days.

#17 The Switchel Blogger (Link) on 2018-06-12 17:10 (Reply)

The underlying agenda is socialism. But they can't "sell" socialism to most people so they must use wiggle words and opaque words to prevent scaring off anyone but the far left. Essentially the lecture(s) are yadda, yadda, yadda, we want more free stuff, yadda, yadda, yadda.

#17.1 Anon on 2018-06-12 21:57 (Reply)

"China puts China first, Making China Great Again"

-------------------------------------------------------------

China has a long memory of grievances against foreign nations, dating back to the Opium Wars of the 19th century. In our country we have never experienced a foreign country flooding us with drugs and then invading us. Oh, wait.

#18 Jim (Link) on 2018-06-12 20:42 (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

Tuesday, June 12. 2018

Tuesday morning links