Nor does Trump comprehend the advantages (to non-Chinese) of a weakened (or if you prefer, manipulated) Yuan.
Why is it that smart people just can't absorb a simple principle that really is simple? Yes, sometimes the intent to deceive the public enters the picture. Short-term stimulation and a debt-payback method that won't be fully appreciated until the mountebank leaves office. I don't think of Trump as one of those people.
Hey Larry Kudlow! You have Trump's ear, don't you? Can you sell him on the merits of King Dollar?
What do Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and George Bush II have in common? They all presided over a declining and declined dollar. Is anyone nostalgic for those jerks?
From John Tamny, writing in Forbes:
Trump and his protectionist friends love labor-intensive industry, they in particular get frisky when the labor is based in the United States, but last this writer checked these workers earn dollars in return for their toil. And if Trump is to be believed, these dollar-earning everymen were his base of support in the most recent election. Do these average people realize that Trump wants to devalue the dollars they work for each day? Where’s the media coverage of this? Trump, the alleged populist, is out to devalue the dollars earned by common people who frequently lack the hedging knowledge to mitigate government’s theft of their earnings. Some would call it a scandal.
Read the entire Tamny article:
Also, read this warning from Tamny excerpted below.
With their Party having won control of all three branches of the federal government in the recent election, Republican tax experts are seemingly desperate to help the GOP give back its gains. Evidence supporting this claim is the growing support among Republican tax scholars (and apparently legislators too) in favor of what they describe as a “border adjustable tax system.” They don’t call the Republican Party the “stupid party” for nothing.
The new revenue stream popular among certain members of the Republican commentariat calls for reducing the corporate tax in favor of a tax placed on goods made outside the United States, but that are exported to the U.S. The argument is rooted in numerous falsehoods, fallacies, and plain bad economics.
Advocates lament the fact that almost all countries tax U.S. produced goods that are exported to foreign countries. The argument, if readers can stop laughing (or crying), is that since other countries injure their citizens by virtue of taxing imports, so should the U.S. injure its own.
Showing posts with label Forbes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Forbes. Show all posts
Thursday, January 19, 2017
Saturday, December 31, 2016
The Russians Hacked The Election (Insert Laugh Track Here)
I am starting to believe there might be something to that post-modernism after all. The purveyors of fake news create a fake news witch hunt while promoting a fake news bonanza stating that "the Russians hacked the election."
The silly ass meme could be halted with one question: "Specifically, what constitutes election hacking?"
Even if the worst accusations against (that are not all that grievous) were proven to be true, that the Russkies used advanced cyber technology to gain access to Podesta's emails and then handed them over to Julian Assange--Assange denies any Russian connection--does this mean that we should sanction or punish foreign nationals who have aided and abetted the Democrats?
Citizen of the World-At-Large, George Soros, has interfered in American elections for three decades. In 2016 he extended his scope to successfully influence local races. Do his actions constitute election hacking?
Carlos Slim, a Mexican national who at various times has been listed as the wealthiest man on Planet Earth, is rabidly anti-Trump. In 2015 he became the largest single investor in "The New York Times." Ironically (said with a hint of irony) it was this esteemed purveyor of fake news that illegally procured Donald Trump's tax records in the 2016 presidential election season. Does this illegality constitute election hacking?
Does the slanted reporting of foreign news entities, like BBC, Al Jazeera, Russia Times constitute election hacking? Regarding Russia Times, does anyone care to make the point that they have promoted a pro-Trump agenda? Good luck squaring that circle.
This from Ricochet.
The media is intentionally lying to the public because they want a better excuse for Election Day than the reality. They would rather focus on hacking, the popular vote, FBI Director James Comey, or the minuscule alt-right, instead of accepting that American voters slightly preferred Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton, at least in the states where it counted. People wanted change over the ineptness, cronyism, and stagnation of the Obama era. They didn’t trust the utterly untrustable Clinton and liked her even less.
The silly ass meme could be halted with one question: "Specifically, what constitutes election hacking?"
Even if the worst accusations against (that are not all that grievous) were proven to be true, that the Russkies used advanced cyber technology to gain access to Podesta's emails and then handed them over to Julian Assange--Assange denies any Russian connection--does this mean that we should sanction or punish foreign nationals who have aided and abetted the Democrats?
Citizen of the World-At-Large, George Soros, has interfered in American elections for three decades. In 2016 he extended his scope to successfully influence local races. Do his actions constitute election hacking?
Carlos Slim, a Mexican national who at various times has been listed as the wealthiest man on Planet Earth, is rabidly anti-Trump. In 2015 he became the largest single investor in "The New York Times." Ironically (said with a hint of irony) it was this esteemed purveyor of fake news that illegally procured Donald Trump's tax records in the 2016 presidential election season. Does this illegality constitute election hacking?
Does the slanted reporting of foreign news entities, like BBC, Al Jazeera, Russia Times constitute election hacking? Regarding Russia Times, does anyone care to make the point that they have promoted a pro-Trump agenda? Good luck squaring that circle.
This from Ricochet.
The media is intentionally lying to the public because they want a better excuse for Election Day than the reality. They would rather focus on hacking, the popular vote, FBI Director James Comey, or the minuscule alt-right, instead of accepting that American voters slightly preferred Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton, at least in the states where it counted. People wanted change over the ineptness, cronyism, and stagnation of the Obama era. They didn’t trust the utterly untrustable Clinton and liked her even less.
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Rethinking Website Advertising
Web monetization has proven to be elusive. Yes, there are success stories, like Facebook, for instance. Some of us believe that FB has jumped the shark but that is another story for another time. Let's talk about website advertising and its obvious shortcomings.
"American Thinker" was once my favorite website. I stopped going there because of the oppressive advertisements that make reading a challenge. It takes a long time to load the page and the simple actions of scrolling and reading become burdensome. Once the page is loaded, we don't just see pages on the right hand column, we also see ads that block the text.
"American Thinker" offers solutions. For $6.79/month we can get ad-free content. This reminds one of cable television and premium channels. Yes you have some good products but it is a big world with oodles of free content. I search dozens of sites every day and I cannot afford to pay for ad-free reading at every (or any) address.
Earlier today I got linked to "American Spectator." A brief article became impossible to read. In a different way, sites like "Forbes" are also a challenge to navigate. I discontinued a couple of email newsletters because the newsletter itself was bogged down with ads that made reading next to impossible.
On a slightly tangential note, why do all the second and third tier sites display the same crappy ads? "You won't believe what this forgotten starlet looks like forty years later!" Nor do we care to know. Maybe if she were not truly forgotten, we might muster some curiosity. I bet she looks older. What do you think?
We might click on a swimwear malfunction link but even then we are misdirected to a slideshow that takes forever to load. Anyone want to clue me in on the dark secret of Tiffany Trump because I do not care enough to wade through the spammage.
A variant of Gresham's Law might be at play where the bad readers chase out the good. Or chase out the many. I don't have a solution at hand. Let's put our thinking caps on. This status quo is not acceptable.
"American Thinker" was once my favorite website. I stopped going there because of the oppressive advertisements that make reading a challenge. It takes a long time to load the page and the simple actions of scrolling and reading become burdensome. Once the page is loaded, we don't just see pages on the right hand column, we also see ads that block the text.
"American Thinker" offers solutions. For $6.79/month we can get ad-free content. This reminds one of cable television and premium channels. Yes you have some good products but it is a big world with oodles of free content. I search dozens of sites every day and I cannot afford to pay for ad-free reading at every (or any) address.
Earlier today I got linked to "American Spectator." A brief article became impossible to read. In a different way, sites like "Forbes" are also a challenge to navigate. I discontinued a couple of email newsletters because the newsletter itself was bogged down with ads that made reading next to impossible.
On a slightly tangential note, why do all the second and third tier sites display the same crappy ads? "You won't believe what this forgotten starlet looks like forty years later!" Nor do we care to know. Maybe if she were not truly forgotten, we might muster some curiosity. I bet she looks older. What do you think?
We might click on a swimwear malfunction link but even then we are misdirected to a slideshow that takes forever to load. Anyone want to clue me in on the dark secret of Tiffany Trump because I do not care enough to wade through the spammage.
A variant of Gresham's Law might be at play where the bad readers chase out the good. Or chase out the many. I don't have a solution at hand. Let's put our thinking caps on. This status quo is not acceptable.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Trump And The PC Backlash
I am of the strong opinion the political correctness is much more insidious than it is made out to be. Now it seems that I am in good company. The Hyper-British intellectual, Paul Johnson, seems to agree with me.
Excerpted from Forbes:
PC has an enormous appeal to the semieducated, one reason that it’s struck roots among overseas students at minor colleges. But it also appeals to pseudo-intellectuals everywhere, since it evokes the strong streak of cowardice notable among those wielding academic authority nowadays.
...
For these reasons it’s good news that Donald Trump is doing so well in the American political primaries. He is vulgar, abusive, nasty, rude, boorish and outrageous. He is also saying what he thinks and, more important, teaching Americans how to think for themselves again.
No one could be a bigger contrast to the spineless, pusillanimous and underdeserving Barack Obama, who has never done a thing for himself and is entirely the creation of reverse discrimination.
Excerpted from Forbes:
PC has an enormous appeal to the semieducated, one reason that it’s struck roots among overseas students at minor colleges. But it also appeals to pseudo-intellectuals everywhere, since it evokes the strong streak of cowardice notable among those wielding academic authority nowadays.
...
For these reasons it’s good news that Donald Trump is doing so well in the American political primaries. He is vulgar, abusive, nasty, rude, boorish and outrageous. He is also saying what he thinks and, more important, teaching Americans how to think for themselves again.
No one could be a bigger contrast to the spineless, pusillanimous and underdeserving Barack Obama, who has never done a thing for himself and is entirely the creation of reverse discrimination.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Does The Obama DOJ Block Mergers By Non-Donors?
In 2011, AT&T T +0.06% announced it would seek permission from the government for a $39 billion merger with T-Mobile. Processing the application was expected to take at least twelve months. But within five months, the Department of Justice announced it had filed a lawsuit blocking the friendly merger.
Enter AT&T CEO Randall L. Stephenson, well known to be a free market Republican favoring pro-growth tax reform and opposing Obama-style redistributing income from the working class. Mr. Stephenson has a long history of Republican giving, and averaging the three election cycles between 2006–2010, AT&T employees supported Republican candidates by 60%.
Key government players during merger talks were Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski and Renata Hesse, now Deputy Attorney General for Anti Trust at DOJ, and of course, Attorney General Eric Holder, who runs the most blatantly politicized DOJ in history.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/04/14/how-obamas-justice-department-selectively-blocks-mergers-by-republican-ceos/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)