All that up there...

 

It's obvious that you and I will never agree on the issue of the EPA, or the overactive imaginations of those that worship at the altar of climate change... but since I live in the USA, and you live in Belgium, it's also obvious that basic geography makes all the difference. It's my country, it's my President, and it's my EPA. The score is 3-0 in my favor on what matters. I don't complain about anything the EU does. It's none of my business. You guys can pass all the laws you want on yourselves... I don't care. But as far as the EPA is concerned, you only have to read why it was created, it's purpose, and where power comes from. It's not under direction of the President... or is it an independent agency that makes up it's own agenda...

 

"The United States Environmental Protection Agency is an agency of the Federal Government of the United States which was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS"

 

The EPA was never given the power from Congress to create and enforce regulations based on the theory of climate change. It was brought up in Congress as the Cap and Trade Bill... and it died ugly. So in reality, until the American people see the sky is actually falling... nothing will be done about this.

Well as american I would mind some EU shenanigans if they suddenly decide to for example go full Russia and throw all your military out together with all the good-will. All depends on which is a follower of the other really, I as an inhabitant of small Belgium do look with interest what happens in large USA. Sort of the same as you inhabitant of small neighbourhood look at whats happening in Washington.

 

well shortsightedness isn't in short supply these days around the globe

 

As for the EPA colouring within its lines according to law, just know that leniency in ability of interpretation is a good thing. Complete overstepping within the law itself is offcourse only rectified by changing the laws that govern. (aka, if lawsuits don't help, get politicians to do it).

 

 

This is a fair point. I did note that this was about the best ratio observed since 2000, so during both of the previous periods of economic growth (before the 2001 recession, and before the 2009 recession). Of course, we have difficulty in determining how many of those long-term non-employed people really want to work. One often reads about morons who claim "93 million people out of work" but that assumes that everyone age 16 or greater not working is "out of work." The fact that that number includes kids in 10th grade who should not be working full time, and my 85 year old retired grandfather who doesn't need to work is why it is a stupid number to trot out. Not that this is a criticism of your comment specifically, but one needs to be very careful about not just assuming too many millions of people from nothingness.

People should have a healthy dose of skepticism of all sources. It's not like the government is incapable of shady things.

My opinion is most heavily influenced by my life experience in the lower class. I've been to a lot of areas with a lot of unemployed, working age, people. Competition can get rather fierce for crappy low-wage jobs. Some of the worst was from the recession, granted, but things are still not very good for the lower class. Employers still have a clear advantage over employees. Workers compete for jobs rather than jobs competing for workers. It's not even close.

 

 

 

Right, but purposely doing "something" for the sake of doing "something" is a silly way to go about making policy. Especially if one acknowledges the probability that the new policy will have negative outcomes. As I've pointed out, any attempt to force manufacturing back to the US will result in elevated investments in automation that will dissolve expected employment gains. Since the US doesn't have access to all the raw materials needed for manufacturing (China has 97% of all rare-earth element production) we'll still be importing things. Also, that capital for automation must be paid for, which raises the costs of things. An analysis by the Council of Economic Advisors found that "Middle-class consumers gain an estimated 29% of their purchasing power from trade." So there's why it is silly to do engage in change for change's sake: limited-to-no employment gains, limited effect on trade deficit, and a ~30% reduction in peoples' purchasing power, which will certainly make them feel a lot poorer. I don't want to be made poorer. I don't want other people to be made poorer. And I certainly don't want us to waste 5 or 10 years "trying" something new so we can re-confirm that protectionism and mercantilism are bad economic policies. Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" (1776), and subsequent history should have taught us that already. There's no reason to think re-trying these ideas will not "hurt too much."

China may produce 97% but they only have 30% of the world's rare-earth elements so they aren't necessarily the only option. Probably the cheapest option because they're a rather ruthless authoritarian government, which may make them the best option but that also makes such open trade with them morally questionable. It was cheaper to have slaves do things too. Should we bring back slavery?

But yeah, we're still going to import things. We're still going to do a ton of trading. Virtually no one is for full-scale and long-term protectionism. Because of all the reasons you've listed.

That doesn't mean absolutely no good can come from flirting with it. Even if the good is simply the current generation getting first-hand context on why free trade is better than protectionism. I know it's far from the ideal way to learn it but yeah, every few hundred years we might need a reminder. What is good without bad to compare it too?

 

This is an interesting idea. I'll posit that it is being applied incorrectly here: protectionism is antithetical to creative destruction. It protects that which already exists at the expense of what might be. One of the hallmarks of open and free trade is that industries must advance to maintain a lead over competitors worldwide. The fact that America has transformed from an industrial economy to one where intellectual outputs and ideas drive growth (see Silicon Valley as an example) has been demonstrative of Shiva's ideals.

You're isolating the idea too much and acting too much like you have a crystal ball. You spoke earlier of what history has taught us, well, one thing it's taught us is it can be very difficult to predict the future and what consequences may come from our actions.

 

 

I'll end with an example of protected markets resulting in decreased purchasing power as I mentioned earlier. Here is an advertisement for a desktop computer from 1990: before we started significant trade with East Asian economies that now produce a large amount of our consumer electronics (but not the software that runs them; American firms mostly provide that).

I'm sure that did help decrease the price some but it may have lowered some on it's own with increasing demand and increased mass manufacturing in response. Just saying, I'm not sure free trade deserves all the credit.
 

 

 

The EPA was never given the power from Congress to create and enforce regulations

 

EPA isn't the only group that does this.  ATF is another group that does their own thing with creating and enforcing regulations.

It's clearly coming into focus what Donald Trump means by "draining the swamp". It's obvious he doesn't trust politicians, and never has it been so strongly demonstrated as it has during this time of choosing his administration. Those under the most limitation are politicians. Those favored, are military and private sector business. He meets with Carly Fiorina today, and if Trump continues on this road, we may very well see Carly in this mix. The "swamp" are politicians.

 

We have a President that will hold all politicians at arms length throughout his tenure, as if they smell bad, or will turn on him at any second. I have never seen this before in a President, and I am curious, encouraged, and excited about it... all at the same time.

 

The EPA was never given the power from Congress to create and enforce regulations

 

EPA isn't the only group that does this.  ATF is another group that does their own thing with creating and enforcing regulations.

 

Some of the stuff ATF attempts to regulate should really be put through Congress. It would decrease the chance of ending up with stupid regulations like the Sig Sauer Stabilizing Brace. God forbid you choose to shoulder that brace because now your pistol is an illegal NFA weapon.

 

Heck the whole NFA should just be abolished. Reform the 1986 Machine Gun aspect by allowing an amnesty period, and then get rid of the short barreled and suppressor part. Good news is that the Hearing Protection Act (or another variation of it) stands good chance at passing once Trump is in office, so at least 1 part of the NFA will be going away.

It's clearly coming into focus what Donald Trump means by "draining the swamp". It's obvious he doesn't trust politicians, and never has it been so strongly demonstrated as it has during this time of choosing his administration. Those under the most limitation are politicians. Those favored, are military and private sector business. He meets with Carly Fiorina today, and if Trump continues on this road, we may very well see Carly in this mix. The "swamp" are politicians.

 

We have a President that will hold all politicians at arms length throughout his tenure, as if they smell bad, or will turn on him at any second. I have never seen this before in a President, and I am curious, encouraged, and excited about it... all at the same time.

This does seem to be true, and is as interesting experiment. We'll finally get and answer to the age old question whether businessmen would fare better in running a country than politicians.

Not really seeing a big distinction between politicians or businessmen, both hold dear their nation(/party) // company and use policies/deals to further their ambitions. Only real difference is the amount of people either side has to "please", politicians having a rather "large" board of directors

 

 

The EPA was never given the power from Congress to create and enforce regulations

 

EPA isn't the only group that does this.  ATF is another group that does their own thing with creating and enforcing regulations.

 

Some of the stuff ATF attempts to regulate should really be put through Congress. It would decrease the chance of ending up with stupid regulations like the Sig Sauer Stabilizing Brace. God forbid you choose to shoulder that brace because now your pistol is an illegal NFA weapon.

 

Heck the whole NFA should just be abolished. Reform the 1986 Machine Gun aspect by allowing an amnesty period, and then get rid of the short barreled and suppressor part. Good news is that the Hearing Protection Act (or another variation of it) stands good chance at passing once Trump is in office, so at least 1 part of the NFA will be going away.

 

 

Completely agree with you on the Congress thing.  I find it funny that they originally said that brace was fine, then came out with new interpretation making it an NFA item.

 

I actually read that there was something in the 86 machine gun act (may have the wrong act, but swear it was this one) about the president being able to create a new 90 day amnesty period with the stroke of a pen.  So, the author was advocating just starting to implement amnesty periods two times a year.

 

 

 

The EPA was never given the power from Congress to create and enforce regulations

 

EPA isn't the only group that does this.  ATF is another group that does their own thing with creating and enforcing regulations.

 

Some of the stuff ATF attempts to regulate should really be put through Congress. It would decrease the chance of ending up with stupid regulations like the Sig Sauer Stabilizing Brace. God forbid you choose to shoulder that brace because now your pistol is an illegal NFA weapon.

 

Heck the whole NFA should just be abolished. Reform the 1986 Machine Gun aspect by allowing an amnesty period, and then get rid of the short barreled and suppressor part. Good news is that the Hearing Protection Act (or another variation of it) stands good chance at passing once Trump is in office, so at least 1 part of the NFA will be going away.

 

 

Completely agree with you on the Congress thing.  I find it funny that they originally said that brace was fine, then came out with new interpretation making it an NFA item.

 

I actually read that there was something in the 86 machine gun act (may have the wrong act, but swear it was this one) about the president being able to create a new 90 day amnesty period with the stroke of a pen.  So, the author was advocating just starting to implement amnesty periods two times a year.

 

The President cannot open an Amnesty, but the Secretary of the Treasury can for up to a maximum of 90 days. And it wasn't the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (aka Machine Gun Act) which allowed for an Amnesty, it was the 1968 Gun Control Act. One Amnesty Period has already happened and it was in 1968 for I believe a total of 30 days. Doing a new Amnesty period would bring an insanely massive amount of new machine guns on the NFA record. It would allow Police departments to legally sell their stockpile of old Thompsons to Collectors/Dealers which would not only preserve history but would bring in a substantial amount of money for departments. Transferable examples fetch around $30,000-$38,000. You would also see a lot of people looking to make 'investments'. Buying a machine gun is indeed an investment as the civilian transferable stockpile (Post Dealer and Pre May Samples don't count as civilian transferable) is fixed (and slowly decreasing) and the demand keeps growing. As of February 24, 2016 the civilian transferable number sits at 175,977. 10 years ago that number was about 182,000. Some transferable weapons, depending on rarity can run beyond $100,000. Current prices for transferable full auto Colt M16/AR-15 are about $30,000-$40,000. Heckler and Koch rifles come in at close to $40,000. While Mac-11s come in at the cheapest at $8,000. If you had bought this prior to 1986 and had it registered. It is now worth about an insane amount more than what you paid for it. That is why so many people are trying to get into this limited market because the values keep increasing.

 

 

From PUBLIC LAW 90-619-OCT. 22, 1968, found on page 1236 of United States Statutes at Large Volume 82.djvu/1278:

(d) The Secretary of the Treasury, after publication in

the Federal Register of his intention to do so, is authorized to

establish such periods of amnesty, not to exceed ninety days in the case

of any single period, and immunity from liability during any such

period, as the Secretary determines will contribute to the purposes of

this title. TITLE III — AMENDMENTS TO TITLE VII O F THE OMNIB U S C R I M

E CONTROL A N D S A F E S T R E E T S ACT O F 1968

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/09/dean-weingarten/amnesty-administration-can-implement/

 

Here is another interesting piece of information. Take a guess how many homicides have been committed with a legal civilian transferable machine gun since 1934? Two. In 1988 Ohio, a cop murdered a police informant by using a Mac 11 chambered in .380. In 1992 a doctor killed another doctor who he had been stalking with a Mac 11, also chambered in .380. Everything else you hear on the news is an illegal unregistered machine gun. Either never registered in 1986 or an illegally converted semi to fire full auto.

 

There have been a couple times where machine actually have been used in self defense, although you can imagine the legal trouble they faced afterword. The 3 most famous cases of defensive machine gun use are twice by Harry Beckwith (1976 and 1990), and Gary Fadden (1984). Give them both a read as they are eye opening stories. The one part of the Gary Fadden incident always sticks out for me, in that drawing a weapon, and firing warning shots is no guarantee to make an attacker flee. If you draw a weapon, you must be mentally conditioned to use it.

 

Gary had never fired the Ruger. He knew how to disengage the safety, but was not sure which position the fire-control lever was set to, semi-automatic, three-shot burst, or fully automatic. He pointed the muzzle upward and fired a warning shot only to discover that the rifle was set on full auto. It ripped off nine shots before he could get his finger back off the trigger. Shockingly, this had no effect whatsoever. The bad guy kept closing. Fast. And he was carrying knives in both hands.

“F**k you and your high-powered rifle,” he yelled. “I’m gonna kill you motherf***er!”

 

Harry Beckwith

http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

 

Gary Fadden

https://ymaa.com/articles/level-6-lethal-force

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19840918&id=eeJLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=x4sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5238,2685423&hl=en

Think I figured out the HR policies of Trump for picking his Secretary's, he is going for a technocracy (something I approve) but with a twist:

 

- own several ten's of millions $

- nod in agreement when Trump speaks

Gov. Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy. Curious about this pick because 4 years ago he was calling for the DoE to be eliminated. I have seen politicians take over a department for the sole purpose of eliminating them before... I wonder what they have planned.

I like how Lys takes you all on the red herring chase when he cant counter 'data-based' points. 

I like how Lys takes you all on the red herring chase when he cant counter 'data-based' points. 

So nice to hear from you Shah! I miss you. Mathematics is a slippery thing. If you have a desired result, you can change any number of variances to achieve your desired result. The only graphs, polls, charts, theories, predictions, or "data based" points I'll believe anymore are those that I do myself... which is none. So, I really only have my own common sense to rely on.

 

I like how Lys takes you all on the red herring chase when he cant counter 'data-based' points. 

So nice to hear from you Shah! I miss you. Mathematics is a slippery thing. If you have a desired result, you can change any number of variances to achieve your desired result. The only graphs, polls, charts, theories, predictions, or "data based" points I'll believe anymore are those that I do myself... which is none. So, I really only have my own common sense to rely on.

 

What common sense?

Really, did he get the Department of Energy? HAHAHAHAHAHA, this is the fellow that wanted to abolish it (don't recall the specifics anymore, something about merging) but actually forgot about that policy idea of his in a Republican primary debate no?

 

 

 

I like how Lys takes you all on the red herring chase when he cant counter 'data-based' points. 

So nice to hear from you Shah! I miss you. Mathematics is a slippery thing. If you have a desired result, you can change any number of variances to achieve your desired result. The only graphs, polls, charts, theories, predictions, or "data based" points I'll believe anymore are those that I do myself... which is none. So, I really only have my own common sense to rely on.

 

so will you also stop believing anything Republican that comes out in terms of numbers/graphs/data?

 

 

I like how Lys takes you all on the red herring chase when he cant counter 'data-based' points. 

So nice to hear from you Shah! I miss you. Mathematics is a slippery thing. If you have a desired result, you can change any number of variances to achieve your desired result. The only graphs, polls, charts, theories, predictions, or "data based" points I'll believe anymore are those that I do myself... which is none. So, I really only have my own common sense to rely on.

 

What common sense?

 

 

Is that the best you can do?

 

Really, did he get the Department of Energy? HAHAHAHAHAHA, this is the fellow that wanted to abolish it (don't recall the specifics anymore, something about merging) but actually forgot about that policy idea of his in a Republican primary debate no?

 

 

 

I like how Lys takes you all on the red herring chase when he cant counter 'data-based' points. 

So nice to hear from you Shah! I miss you. Mathematics is a slippery thing. If you have a desired result, you can change any number of variances to achieve your desired result. The only graphs, polls, charts, theories, predictions, or "data based" points I'll believe anymore are those that I do myself... which is none. So, I really only have my own common sense to rely on.

 

so will you also stop believing anything Republican that comes out in terms of numbers/graphs/data?

Yeah that's the one. Rick Perry totally blanked in a debate on what 3 departments he would eliminate... and Energy was the one he forgot... ooops... a bit ironic for sure. I take all "data based" points with a grain of salt. The more that come out, the more it's obvious they are only designed to influence your support. Brexit and Trump are the two most recent examples. Even I was completely convinced that Donald Trump had no chance to win... because of media driven polling. There should be a law against lying so much.

Then alot of Trump supporters should be charged aswell I guess. Alot of Trump votes unaccounted by pollsters came from: 1) people not stating it cause of various reasons or he got alot of last-minute votes; and 2) people non responsive to pollsters (which is a double edged sword, fault also lies with pollsters).

 

Heck even all the pro-republican side of the media had him losing in the polls (don't start about the LA Times of whoever, they got it wrong aswell as they never did a electoral college breakdown).

I can't read this thread, but:

 

I can't read this thread, but:

 

 

That's as good as Trump picking El Chapo to head the DEA (seen that one a ton on Facebook).

The current Administrator for the FAA is Michael Huerta. He was confirmed by the US Senate on January 1, 2013, for a five year term. Donald Trump cannot nominate the Twilight Zone Airplane Gremlin to replace Huerta until 2018. More fake news.

The current Administrator for the FAA is Michael Huerta. He was confirmed by the US Senate on January 1, 2013, for a five year term. Donald Trump cannot nominate the Twilight Zone Airplane Gremlin to replace Huerta until 2018. More fake news.

Damn, I was looking forward to the Twilight Zone Airplane Gremlin.

 

I can't read this thread, but:

 

 

That's as good as Trump picking El Chapo to head the DEA (seen that one a ton on Facebook).

 

 

 

Have you seen this one?

 

 

I can't read this thread, but:

 

 

That's as good as Trump picking El Chapo to head the DEA (seen that one a ton on Facebook).

 

 

 

Have you seen this one?

I approve of Sauron for Secretary of Defense and Agent Smith for Head of FBI.

 

 

 

I can't read this thread, but:

 

 

That's as good as Trump picking El Chapo to head the DEA (seen that one a ton on Facebook).

 

 

 

Have you seen this one?

I approve of Sauron for Secretary of Defense and Agent Smith for Head of FBI.

 

 

I just don't know, I mean Voldemort for Treasury??? What's his experience with money? I think that Danny Ocean (from Ocean's 11) would do well as Treasury Secretary.

 

Also, Mugabe for Attorney General. Perfection. Couldn't find a better candidate.