TPP

[Blaidd Drwg]

No. Air pollution (the issue everyone agrees is a problem) and 3rd world development are connected and nobody has a good solution. The climate change crowd ignores this.

Turd, the "climate change crowd" you're talking about is a bunch fucking asshats who wouldn't know the periodic table from the star trek stickers on the back of their Prius. the "Climate Change Crowd" I find compelling are the 10 or 12 legit scientists who I turn to for help me make sense of the sound versus the noise. The real physicists, chemists, and meteorologists who can parse this data give zero fucks about politics.

And what is their knowledge base about the relationship between development and pollution? I'm guessing about where yours is. Maybe you're not the expert you think you are.
http://breakingenergy.com/2014/09/23/en ... countries/

How extensive is their knowledge base on the proportional impact of different regional producers? I have no idea, likley not much better than the emerging science still being debated. Not that it matters from a rational point of view. Politically it might....but those arguments are a shade unripe given that around 2/3rds of the population doesn't believe it poses any sort of real threat. Typical Turd..Most of the argument on this board devolve into trying to convince some fucker there is a such a things as the existence of gravity and y'all want to argue about whether want to argue about whether Obama;s birth certificate falls as fast as an apple in a vacuum....and more importantly..was it a Dyson Vacuum????

I don't believe for a second that I understand on a deep scientific level the full nuances of a subject like climate change or the internal workings of trade politics..those are matters of ongoing science, law and vigorous debate...but when someone points out the obvious, the "nothing to see here" responses are utterly tiresome and predicable.

[Pinky]

No Shit Sherlock. Fact remains, most people worth listening to agree, NAFTA was a fucking failure based on a number of factors, not the least of which include the time of other concurrent events.

This is the most buffoonishly ignorant statement you have ever made.

Here's a survey of economists who are all more worth listening to than any of the tinfoil-hat populists you've been listening to.

[Pinky]

By the way, Warren's argument about sovereignty is also silly. Despite her claims, ISDS rulings often come down on the side of the government. She uses the Methanex case, in which a Canadian firm sued in response to state environmental regulations, as an example without mentioning the fact that the tribunal sided with the US and ordered Methanex to pay court costs.

The real LOL moment in her article is when she suggests that a Vietnamese firm might sue in response to the US raising its minimum wage. The idea is absurd on multiple levels, but it is effective. It effectively illustrates that she'll say anything in an attempt to play to the crowd.

[Blaidd Drwg]

One note social "scientists" are probably second to last in the list of hacks I would defer to on the policy direction of our country.

[Turdacious]

One note social "scientists" are probably second to last in the list of hacks I would defer to on the policy direction of our country.

I take it you consider economists to be social scientists?

[Blaidd Drwg]

It's funny how few one note chemists there are or how many physicists are inexorably strung to a political doctrine.

[Turdacious]

It's funny how few one note chemists there are or how many physicists are inexorably strung to a political doctrine.

You didn't answer the question.

[bennyonesix]

Fuck I consider economists social scientists.

Who doesn't?

[bennyonesix]

It's funny how few one note chemists there are or how many physicists are inexorably strung to a political doctrine.

Physicists are some whacky fux dude. They can get political obsessions going.

Now your chemists and geneticists and math maniacs are usually apolitical in my experience.

[dead man walking]

One note social "scientists" are probably second to last in the list of hacks I would defer to on the policy direction of our country.

I take it you consider economists to be social scientists?

the canadian writer robertson davies's view bears repeating. regarding economics he said, 'i prefer my astrology without water."

[bennyonesix]

Robertson Davies!

YES.

Rebel Angels was my favorite.

Criminally underrated and terminally canadian.

[dead man walking]

the entire cornish trilogy is great. so too is the deptford trilogy.

underrated? most have never heard of him, so can't rate him at all. sad.

[bennyonesix]

[bennyonesix]

Thinking about it, Fifth Business was my favorite.

Why have there been no BBC series?

You ever read the book Lucky Jim or the author David Lodge?

[dead man walking]

yes and yes.

my wife reads lucky jim almost annually. every time she does, she laughs out loud.

david lodge is a funny man. i haven't read his stuff in awhile.

it has been some time since i've come upon anyone i enjoy as much as davies or lodge.

[bennyonesix]

Wodehouse?

Totally different but Clark Ashton Smith? Hard Core Pulp and So great.

http://www.eldritchdark.com/writings/short-stories/26

[dead man walking]

i've not read wodehouse.

i'll try your pulp fiction guy. thanx

[Turdacious]

Fuck I consider economists social scientists.

Who doesn't?

BD knows what the follow-up question will be.

[bennyonesix]

Drat!

I've been CHACKMATED!

Economists aren't social scientists!

[Turdacious]

As the Senate votes on the Trans-Pacific Partnership today, the paradox of the trade debate is that President Obama is facing the most resistance from congressional Democrats, even though polls now show more support for free trade among rank-and-file Democrats than Republicans—and new economic data show that exports are generating the most jobs in blue urban strongholds like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Seattle.

A Next America analysis has found that Democrats hold a clear majority of House seats in the 20 metropolitan areas that derive the most jobs from exports. Moreover, the Democrats from those export-dependent areas now represent a preponderant majority of all House Democrats. Yet even Democratic supporters of the expedited legislative authority Obama is seeking to complete the Asian trade deal say he faces an uphill climb to win support from as many as one-quarter of House Democrats.

This disconnect underscores the influence among Democratic legislators of liberal groups and unions deeply skeptical of free trade as well as the disappointment in the party about the economic payoff from the North American Free Trade Agreement Bill Clinton completed during the 1990s. But it also captures how many Democrats may be operating with obsolete assumptions about the preferences and interests of their supporters as the party's demographic and geographic base of support evolves.

Democrats now control the mayor's office in 18 of the 20 cities that anchor the metro areas that Brookings found derive the most jobs from exports. (The only exceptions are Republicans Kevin Faulconer in San Diego and Tomas Regalado in Miami.) More relevant to Obama's immediate challenge, a Next America analysis found, Democrats control 121 of the 203 House seats mostly situated in those 20 metropolitan areas. That means Democrats now control about three-fifths of all the House seats in the metro areas producing the most jobs from exports. Put another way, representatives from just these 20 high-export metro areas account for almost two-thirds of all 188 House Democrats.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-ame ... kingheader
Interdasting.

[bennyonesix]

The history of democracy is the extension of the franchise to ever more degenerate members of society by those who prioritize mere power over the nobility of the society.

GOOD MORNING EVERYONE!

[Blaidd Drwg]

Fuck I consider economists social scientists.

Who doesn't?

BD knows what the follow-up question will be.

U mmmm.. Your usual? red herrings and political baiting?

Of course they are social scientists...heavy on social, very light on Science.

That said, they do cling to the basic rules of scientific discovery which is that reasonable minds can differ and theories get tested. Hell, they even have models that can be tested and run...it's almost like a real science...except there are far too many emergent properties and they go about trying to quantify things that are not easily quantifiable.

As for the "current thinking" there is far from unanimity on NAFTA or TPP etc. even among political economists etc..I'll allow many "good" things come out of bad situations. But reaping some spare fruit is not a defense of a engineering bad ideas in secret and foisting them on Congress with a ticking clock.

Of course they will get a chance to read it, that's not the point. The point is you keep it secret long enough to establish a sense of inevitability and buy in on the tangential issue so that the main pill goes down easier. These ROE are well understood by even the most passive "fans" of lobbyists.

What I'm saying is...that's bullshit. Stop doing it. Open the measures up for scrutineering including the corporate backers. If it can't stand the light of day, 9/10 it's not an idea that should be made law.

[Sangoma]

One note social "scientists" are probably second to last in the list of hacks I would defer to on the policy direction of our country.

I take it you consider economists to be social scientists?

Economics is a social pseudoscience.

[Turdacious]

Economics is a social pseudoscience.

Waiting for BD's response before asking the follow-up...

[Blaidd Drwg]

Economics is a social pseudoscience.

Waiting for BD's response before asking the follow-up...

Elevate your game, son.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics