[RedSpawn]

awm, on 2017-March-04, 11:30, said:

Seems to me that Trump talks a lot about other countries doing more and the US having less military involvement abroad. He also talks a lot about how we need to make better deals and how he can (or did) save the US money on some of these expensive planes and other military hardware.

So... Why does he want a 50 billion dollar INCREASE in the military budget?

rmnka447, on 2017-March-05, 00:44, said:

If you believe assessments about our military, it's in about the same shape as some of our infrastructure -- workable, but crumbling. There have been plenty of stories recently about how the Air Force has to cannibalize parts from some planes to keep barely sufficient number of planes operational for current commitments, that there aren't enough Army units that are combat ready, that troops currently deployed to hot spots are giving their weapons and equipment to their replacements troops so they can be fully equipped for the mission, etc. Part of that undoubtedly is from being engaged in conflicts in the Middle East for so long and having equipment wear out or be destroyed. Part of it is from equipment becoming obsolete.

So what? Our military strength and preparedness is a big part of our ability to execute our foreign policy and impinge on World affairs. If you have a reasonably strong and capable military, and, if necessary, are willing to use it, then it adds credence to what you are saying diplomatically. Or, as Theodore Roosevelt used to say, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick." If you don't have that strength, then all your tough talk is hollow, useless, and will be ignored by your potential adversaries.

As President Trump says, there are a lot of bad dudes out there. Iran, Russia, North Korea, China, etc. They are presently acting aggressively to test and push the US and lessen its influence around the world in favor of increasing their own. At some point, if those aggressive actions continued unchecked, it means we'll have to accept the hegemony of these bad dudes rather than our own, hopefully, benign influence around the world.

Let's take Russia. If you take a look at Russia's history through the 20th century, you understand one thing. Russians are tough. Any country that has undergone the ordeals they did is going to be left with people who are really tough and hard. (In WWII, they lost something like 10MM-20MM people I think) As a result, they only respect and respond to strength. If you are going to deal with them, you have to be strong and resolute. And likely, they are going to test how strong and resolute you are. If they sense weakness, they will take advantage of it. That's exactly what Putin did with his adventurism in the Ukraine when he figured out how weak President Obama was and that there'd be no consequences other than some burdensome sanctions for acting as he did.

It appears that President Trump is pursuing a two track approach to strengthening our military.

On one track, he wants to make sure the money we spend on the military is well spent, so we get maximum utility out of every dollar we spend. That means negotiating fair prices for military hardware we purchase and not overspending on the development of new military equipment. That's a similar approach to that President John F. Kennedy used when he appointed Robert McNamara, who was President of Ford, to be his Defense Secretary.

On the other track, if current spending can't supply the things needed to even maintain our current capabilities and preparedness, then additional funds are necessary for that. In addition, as we move forward, some military equipment and systems become dated and obsolete, and you need to replace them with newer, up-to-date equipment and systems. But those new systems don't just magically appear when needed. So you have to provide some funds for development of these new systems because of the lead time to have them ready to be procured when needed. But for these new systems to be ready "on time", you can't just rely on potential savings elsewhere. They require some up front spending.

These two tracks are not mutually exclusive, but can be quite complementary. If done right, developing efficiencies and savings in military spending will offset some of the additional funding for development and keep military spending under control as possible over time.

Very well said.

Currently we spend $600 billion annually on military expenditures.

Before we increase the military budget by $50 billion, Uncle Sam must require the Department of Defense (DoD) to do two things:

1) Fix that damn year-end $6.0 trillion+ accounting entry problem it has had for the last 17 years so we can get some reliable financial statements to justify larger budget appropriations. Uncle Sam and the public at large deserves some reliable financial statements from the DoD that contain "clean" audit opinions from the DoD Inspector General. It is 2017, not 2005. The only thing standing in DoD's way is DoD and its recalcitrance. Transparency hasn't been ingrained in its management culture yet.

2) Once the accounting problem is fixed, the DoD must identify cost savings opportunities. That is what normal managers do when they finally have financial statements they can rely on. The DoD wants an 8.3% increase ($50 billion) over its current budget, no problem! Come up with at least $5 billion in cost savings opportunities. . .that is 1% of its current budget and 10% of what is currently asking for as an increase. This is called giving to get. Our military deserves to come to the table with some pork reduction opportunities because no one believes the entire $600 billion is being spent responsibly.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asking the same thing in 2001:
https://www.hsdl.org.../?view&did=2423
http://archive.defen...anscriptID=1890

Quote

Rumsfeld: On the other hand, as you pointed out in your opening statement, if we can save 5 percent by improved efficiencies and better management --
Hume: How much would that be?
Rumsfeld: It's about $15-18 billion.
Hume: On top of anything else you're asking for.
Rumsfeld: Exactly. And that's why we simply have to go after this bureaucracy and see that this institution adapts to the new circumstances that exist.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-June-21, 22:37, said:

Wings don't argue over the size and duties of the bird.

True, and the left and right wing must work together to help the bird overcome gravitational forces and take flight.

Our political parties are becoming so divisive and absolutist that political inertia is becoming the norm rather than the exception. Can't they agree to disagree but still create legislation that compromises and "satisfices" instead of passing no legislation at all?

[ldrews]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-25, 12:22, said:

True, and the left and right wing must work together to help the bird overcome gravitational forces and take flight.

Our political parties are becoming so divisive and absolutist that political inertia is becoming the norm rather than the exception. Can't they agree to disagree but still create legislation that compromises and "satisfices" instead of passing no legislation at all?

In the US the two sides of the political spectrum don't just disagree, they think the other side is evil. It is difficult to compromise with evil.

[RedSpawn]

barmar, on 2017-June-16, 08:34, said:

Every time there's a noteworthy shooting it "reopens the debate". They talk about it for a few days, then something else catches their attention and it gets forgotten. I think the only time one of these shooting actually resulted in significant legislation was the Brady Bill, almost 25 years ago. But nothing much happened after Columbine, Virginia Tech, Gabrielle Giffords, Sandy Hook, Pulse Nightclub, etc.

But maybe the comparison with Brady is reason for optimism. He was on the staff of a Republican administration, and Scalese is a Republican Congressman, so maybe conservatives might take some action when the gun violence happens to them.

The problem is there are too many fallacies with the gun control argument:

The fallacy of gun control is that by controlling legal guns, you stop illegal activity.

Quote

More than a third of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a gun. There are by various estimates anywhere from 270 million to 310 million guns in the United States — close to one firearm for every man, woman and child.

Filtering new people from owning guns will do very little to control the 270 million guns already circulating in the populace.

Quote

Here are a few common gun control fallacies (naturally, this answer is going to be biased toward my own beliefs):

• Gun control reduces gun deaths (or violence). This is a strawman. Whether gun related deaths are reduced is completely irrelevant and makes little sense to consider. The argument usually at hand is whether overall deaths are reduced.
  
• Gun control reduces deaths. Another fallacy related to this argument involves analysis of the benefits of gun control but not the costs. In this case, proponents often consider crimes that could be prevented by gun control but not instances of self-defense. "Even if this policy saves only one life..." ...you are now at a net loss of nine if ten people will be left defenseless.
  
• Any argument that uses the word "assault weapon." If you know what an assault weapon is, I shouldn't even have to explain this one.
  
• Gun control opponents are not willing to compromise. This argument completely ignores all current gun control legislation which signifies what, were they to be enacted today, gun control advocates are referring to as compromising. See the episode of South Park involving the homeless where, after receiving change, the homeless asked for more with no recollection of having been given the original change.
  
• School shooting, therefore gun control. These are very effective appeals to emotion. In reality, school shootings make up a very small portion of gun related homicides. A rule of thumb that I like to use is that problems so frequent that they rarely appear on the news are the ones that effort ought to be focused on.
  
• Australia. In this argument, proponents usually cite Australia as having less gun violence despite higher gun control than the U.S. Aside from utilizing the first bullet point, these arguments rely on comparison of two groups riddled with variables aside from the one under consideration (gun control).
  
• Everybody else is doing it. This is your typical bandwagon fallacy or, as I like to call it, appeal to Europe. It usually goes something like "Every country in Europe has stricter gun control than the U.S., we're the only civilized country still clinging to our guns."
  
• The 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets. Well, in that case, the first amendment only applies to unamplified speaking and text written with quill pens. Most other arguments related to the 2nd Amendment, even if incorrect, I would consider to be worth debating.

https://www.quora.co...ntrol-arguments

[RedSpawn]

ldrews, on 2017-June-25, 13:02, said:

In the US the two sides of the political spectrum don't just disagree, they think the other side is evil. It is difficult to compromise with evil.

Agreed.

We must demand our politicians be pensive, intellectually curious statesmen instead of obstinate, demonizing party zealots.

The other side is NOT DUMB or EVIL. That is an ad hominem attack.

Quote

Sharing links that mock a caricature of the Other Side isn’t signaling that we’re somehow more informed. It signals that we’d rather be smug a$$holes than consider alternative views. It signals that we’d much rather show our friends that we’re like them, than try to understand those who are not.

https://medium.com/@...mb-2670c1294063

This goes back to the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. When it comes to communication, "Seek 1st to understand, then to be understood!"

[RedSpawn]

BBO Forum, what say you about the power of US Corporations over politics?

Are we experiencing neofeudalism?

Quote

The basic contract in the feudal state is the majority of the population will be content to remain relatively uneducated, unsophisticated, and unambitious. They will demand little more than a job through which they can feed, clothe and house their families. They will expect a basic level of fairness within their class, guarantees of protection by their lords, and perhaps some government entitlements, e.g.; healthcare, free education, and the ability to retire before death (although these last three are mostly represented in a modern feudal state, they are not historically traditional one). In return, the holders of capital are allowed to be wealthy, comfortable and separated from the majority, so long as they provide the basic measures of subsistence to the landless… Although to most people’s psyche this social contract may appear grossly unfair and extremely repressive, it has, nonetheless, proven unequivocally to be the most successful in history, in terms of pure longevity…

[mike777]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-25, 14:29, said:

BBO Forum, what say you about the power of US Corporations over politics?

Are we experiencing neofeudalism?
The basic contract in the feudal state is the majority of the population will be content to remain relatively uneducated, unsophisticated, and unambitious. They will demand little more than a job through which they can feed, clothe and house their families. They will expect a basic level of fairness within their class, guarantees of protection by their lords, and perhaps some government entitlements, e.g.; healthcare, free education, and the ability to retire before death (although these last three are mostly represented in a modern feudal state, they are not historically traditional one). In return, the holders of capital are allowed to be wealthy, comfortable and separated from the majority, so long as they provide the basic measures of subsistence to the landless… Although to most people’s psyche this social contract may appear grossly unfair and extremely repressive, it has, nonetheless, proven unequivocally to be the most successful in history, in terms of pure longevity…

landless?

At least in America a majority own land.
https://ycharts.com/..._ownership_rate

As for the rest, sounds reasonable

[rmnka447]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-25, 14:29, said:

BBO Forum, what say you about the power of US Corporations over politics?

Are we experiencing neofeudalism?

I've thought for years that governance rules for corporations has made them very much akin to feudal fiefdoms. The large international corporations usually have one or two executives who have virtual autocratic rule over their organizations. Boards of directors are stocked with members picked by these leaders. These board members are either completely benign or whose loyalties are to the leaders. As a result, it downgrades/abrogates the key oversight role that these boards should play in the running of these corporations. This is especially true when talking about the largest corporations where there's no way for shareholders to effectively aggregate and insure the election of boards that are populated with individuals who are looking after their interests.

I'm not sure there's any better way to organize this governance without fundamentally crippling these firms from doing business effectively, but at least it ought to be looked at and discussed.


On a separate note, I recall a couple progressives talking on MSNBC about the struggles of unskilled workers to get good jobs and only finding minimum wage jobs mainly in the fast food industry. One said that with the advance of technology, a lot of those workers would be replaced with automation soon. The other averred that technology experts were saying that in the future progress in automation and technology would make it so only about 20% of the potential workforce would have permanent jobs while the remaining 80% would have no permanent job and struggle to survive. They went on to other topics without further discussion.

Three thoughts ran through my mind hearing that conversation. First, that doesn't sound like a sustainable society to me. Second, that it sounded like a return to a feudalistic society. Third, is that really progress?

[mike777]

rmnka447, on 2017-June-26, 05:39, said:

I've thought for years that governance rules for corporations has made them very much akin to feudal fiefdoms. The large international corporations usually have one or two executives who have virtual autocratic rule over their organizations. Boards of directors are stocked with members picked by these leaders. These board members are either completely benign or whose loyalties are to the leaders. As a result, it downgrades/abrogates the key oversight role that these boards should play in the running of these corporations. This is especially true when talking about the largest corporations where there's no way for shareholders to effectively aggregate and insure the election of boards that are populated with individuals who are looking after their interests.

I'm not sure there's any better way to organize this governance without fundamentally crippling these firms from doing business effectively, but at least it ought to be looked at and discussed.


On a separate note, I recall a couple progressives talking on MSNBC about the struggles of unskilled workers to get good jobs and only finding minimum wage jobs mainly in the fast food industry. One said that with the advance of technology, a lot of those workers would be replaced with automation soon. The other averred that technology experts were saying that in the future progress in automation and technology would make it so only about 20% of the potential workforce would have permanent jobs while the remaining 80% would have no permanent job and struggle to survive. They went on to other topics without further discussion.

Three thoughts ran through my mind hearing that conversation. First, that doesn't sound like a sustainable society to me. Second, that it sounded like a return to a feudalistic society. Third, is that really progress?

2 quick points

1) When people talk about large corporations they forget an important fact. Large corporations can and do die, they do get destroyed. Posters often talk about corporations as if they are immune and immortal, they are not. It is very difficult for large corporations to evolve. It is common for those that cannot or do not evolve to die.

2) When it comes to automation, lets call them robots in one form or another, what we need are more robots many more robots, not fewer. Think in terms of a melding of man and machine. However there is a counter argument. Look at chess. Its history started out as man...then a melding of man and machine. Today Machines perform at higher levels on their own. I mean can a chess champion even draw a game against the top rated robots?


To your final thought. Societies change, societies evolve and yes the current society is likely not sustainable in its current form and will change, will evolve.

[RedSpawn]

rmnka447, on 2017-June-26, 05:39, said:

I've thought for years that governance rules for corporations has made them very much akin to feudal fiefdoms. The large international corporations usually have one or two executives who have virtual autocratic rule over their organizations. Boards of directors are stocked with members picked by these leaders. These board members are either completely benign or whose loyalties are to the leaders. As a result, it downgrades/abrogates the key oversight role that these boards should play in the running of these corporations. This is especially true when talking about the largest corporations where there's no way for shareholders to effectively aggregate and insure the election of boards that are populated with individuals who are looking after their interests.

On a separate note, I recall a couple progressives talking on MSNBC about the struggles of unskilled workers to get good jobs and only finding minimum wage jobs mainly in the fast food industry. One said that with the advance of technology, a lot of those workers would be replaced with automation soon. The other averred that technology experts were saying that in the future progress in automation and technology would make it so only about 20% of the potential workforce would have permanent jobs while the remaining 80% would have no permanent job and struggle to survive. They went on to other topics without further discussion.

Three thoughts ran through my mind hearing that conversation. First, that doesn't sound like a sustainable society to me. Second, that it sounded like a return to a feudalistic society. Third, is that really progress?

The fallacy is corporations don't necessarily serve the best interest of the communities in which they operate. That's incidental to their primary motive. Corporations don't have a fiduciary duty to create a sustainable society.

Their motive is strictly profit-driven. Historically, public companies have exclusively served the interests of their board of directors and shareholders to the detriment of all other affected parties.

A corporation looks for ways to eliminate human labor as a costly economic input for its finished product. Its cold, clinical view of manufacturing asserts that automation of human labor is an efficient means to justify the ends of controlling cost and thereby increasing profit. Society and its safety net will deal with "the disposable container" the machine replaces.

Machines don't need labor rights, smoke breaks, health care benefits, sick days or salary increases. The fact that said automation may create an unsustainable society, destabilize or destroy a local economy, and potentially cannibalize the corporation's existing customer base are incidental concerns to the short-term goal of profit maximization.

https://www.bing.com...535&FORM=VRDGAR

It's not a good idea to expect a legal fiction (corporation) to understand and appreciate the human condition or demonstrate compassion for the common man. Profit is strictly mathematical, but should include adjustments for ethical and moral considerations to temper the vice of greed from wrecking havoc in the community and broader economy.

[barmar]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-26, 08:30, said:

The fallacy is corporations don't necessarily serve the best interest of the communities in which they operate. That's incidental to their primary motive. Corporations don't have a fiduciary duty to create a sustainable society.

While that's true, it doesn't have to be. There have been corporations that tried to be both profit-creators and good citizens. Henry Ford realized that he could make more money by ensuring that there are enough consumers who could afford his products. So he kept his prices low and paid his employees well. Thinking like this is what created the American middle class and the economic boom of the 20th century.

But it takes long-term and big-picture thinking, and these days investors and corporate executives just look at the near-term bottom line.

[RedSpawn]

barmar, on 2017-June-26, 09:18, said:

While that's true, it doesn't have to be. There have been corporations that tried to be both profit-creators and good citizens. Henry Ford realized that he could make more money by ensuring that there are enough consumers who could afford his products. So he kept his prices low and paid his employees well. Thinking like this is what created the American middle class and the economic boom of the 20th century.

But it takes long-term and big-picture thinking, and these days investors and corporate executives just look at the near-term bottom line.

Agreed. Our fluid corporate tax policy and automated capital markets have created short-term, fly-by-night institutional investors who focus intently on quarterly results and ignore the long-term implications of such shortsighted time horizons. These sophisticated investors are frequently making premature investment decisions based on quarterly results that do not accurately reflect the fruits of the long-term seeds the business has planted. Sometimes seeds take 3-5 quarters to bear tasty fruit.

We have created an investor class who doesn't respect or appreciate the importance of macroeconomic principles in business management or corporate governance. This has led to irrational exuberance and trigger happy speculation in our capital markets where the assets prices of stocks are no longer supported by the underlying business fundamentals. Unwarranted short-term earnings pressure has led corporations to curtail research and development (R&D) expenses to satisfy institutional investors--even though R&D investment is key for new product development and long-term business profitability.

You made me think of the proper terms and language....

Do corporations have a responsibility to honor the tacit social contract between employer and employee and the community at large? Or should corporations assert that the business of business is business and social issues they create/affect are outside their purview?

http://www.economist.com/node/4008642

[rmnka447]

mike777, on 2017-June-26, 07:22, said:

2 quick points

1) When people talk about large corporations they forget an important fact. Large corporations can and do die, they do get destroyed. Posters often talk about corporations as if they are immune and immortal, they are not. It is very difficult for large corporations to evolve. It is common for those that cannot or do not evolve to die.

2) When it comes to automation, lets call them robots in one form or another, what we need are more robots many more robots, not fewer. Think in terms of a melding of man and machine. However there is a counter argument. Look at chess. Its history started out as man...then a melding of man and machine. Today Machines perform at higher levels on their own. I mean can a chess champion even draw a game against the top rated robots?


To your final thought. Societies change, societies evolve and yes the current society is likely not sustainable in its current form and will change, will evolve.

But if it's likely society will move toward an unsustainable state, shouldn't there be some serious discussion about where we are headed to try to find a better solution else you could end up with some Orwellian nightmare future.

[RedSpawn]

mike777, on 2017-June-26, 07:22, said:

2 quick points

1) When people talk about large corporations they forget an important fact. Large corporations can and do die, they do get destroyed. Posters often talk about corporations as if they are immune and immortal, they are not. It is very difficult for large corporations to evolve. It is common for those that cannot or do not evolve to die.

2) When it comes to automation, lets call them robots in one form or another, what we need are more robots many more robots, not fewer. Think in terms of a melding of man and machine. However there is a counter argument. Look at chess. Its history started out as man...then a melding of man and machine. Today Machines perform at higher levels on their own. I mean can a chess champion even draw a game against the top rated robots?


To your final thought. Societies change, societies evolve and yes the current society is likely not sustainable in its current form and will change, will evolve.

Please note that Item#1 does not apply to the banking sector as demonstrated in the 2008 housing crash. The government protected "old money" banking and investment institutions that it knowingly allowed to get to big to fail. And of course these corporate welfare recipients will gladly continue to contribute to lobbyists and political campaigns to influence federal banking laws and policy. Its a vicious cycle since most of the extreme risk takers were given a taxpayer-funded bailout instead of a VIP seat in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

Large corporations don't die when Uncle Sam becomes Neo in the Matrix and breathes new life and fresh capital into failing corporations "for the greater good" of Main Street and the broader economy. These corporations, exclusive of American Insurance Group (AIG), are supposed to be bought by mid-sized banks for pennies on the dollar in a fire sale in bankruptcy court. That's the smaller banks' reward for not drinking the spiked Kool-Aid at the irrational exuberance party. That is what unforgiving capitalism looks like since it rewards principled conservatism with banking deposits and penalizes speculative casino gambling with untested derivatives.

Old Money should have lost the banking battle in 2008, but instead Uncle Sam rewarded Old Money by allowing them to buy their failing counterparts in a fire sale. We saved Old Money and the economy but is that really a bonus when we have the same bad actors at the top of the banking pyramid?

[mike777]

rmnka447, on 2017-June-26, 11:56, said:

But if it's likely society will move toward an unsustainable state, shouldn't there be some serious discussion about where we are headed to try to find a better solution else you could end up with some Orwellian nightmare future.

Serious Discussion? sure but the discussion right now is too busy with Putin taking over America...

As far as Orwell and big brother watching....I thought that is the society of today...not the future.

Also see CRSPR

[mike777]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-26, 12:03, said:

Please note that Item#1 does not apply to the banking sector as demonstrated in the 2008 housing crash. The government protected "old money" banking and investment institutions that it knowingly allowed to get to big to fail. And of course these corporate welfare recipients will gladly continue to contribute to lobbyists and political campaigns to influence federal banking laws and policy. Its a vicious cycle since most of the extreme risk takers were given a taxpayer-funded bailout instead of a VIP seat in Bankruptcy Court.

Large corporations don't die when Uncle Sam becomes Neo in the Matrix and breathes new life and fresh capital into failing corporations "for the greater good" of Main Street and the broader economy. These corporations, exclusive of American Insurance Group (AIG), are supposed to be bought by mid-sized banks for pennies on the dollar in a fire sale in bankruptcy court. That's the smaller banks' reward for not drinking the spiked Kool-Aid at the irrational exuberance party. That is what unforgiving capitalism looks like since it rewards principled conservatism with banking deposits and penalizes speculative casino gambling with untested derivatives.

Old Money should have lost the banking battle in 2008, but instead Uncle Sam rewarded Old Money by allowing them to buy their failing counterparts in a fire sale. We saved Old Money and the economy but is that really a bonus when we have the same bad actors at the top of the banking pyramid?

Actually many corporations, banking/investment corporations have died and been destroyed....granted some were saved by Uncle Sam creating a moral hazard issue...
It is a fallacy to say that banks/finance companies are immortal../ are immune to destruction .many have died and been destroyed over the years including 2008

https://en.wikipedia...ki/Moral_hazard

In economics, moral hazard occurs when one person takes more risks because someone else bears the cost of those risks. A moral hazard may occur where the actions of ...

[awm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-25, 13:18, said:

The problem is there are too many fallacies with the gun control argument:

The fallacy of gun control is that by controlling legal guns, you stop illegal activity. Filtering new people from owning guns will do very little to control the 270 million guns already circulating in the populace.


[/list]
https://www.quora.co...ntrol-arguments

Seems to me it's the pro-gun lobby which is being unreasonable. Some examples:

1. Almost no one thinks mentally ill people ought to be able to buy weapons. In fact we have laws preventing them from doing so already! But these laws have a few loopholes (gun shows for example) and the pro-gun folks have refused to close them. And recently the Republican government has made it easier for mentally ill people to get guns.

2. There is new technology using finger prints to make sure only a guns owner can fire the weapon. We anti-gun folks would like such technology to be available in stores. Note that we are perfectly willing to compromise by not REQUIRING such tech on new weapons, we just want it to be available so responsible gun owners can choose to get it. Nope, pro-gun lobby fearing a "slippery slope" will not allow this tech in US.

3. Okay, we all have different data we like to cite about other countries. I personally think Australia is a good example because it used to have permissive gun laws and high rate of gun ownership and killings (like USA) and they changed the laws and the stats changed! But okay, the other side finds flaws there. So how about we start to simply COLLECT data on gun deaths in USA? Nope, pro-gun lobby has zeroed out all government funding for such research.

BTW, my new home in Switzerland has an interesting model and a high rate of gun ownership. But you have to be trained and you have to be licensed (like how we treat autos). So no untrained idiots, everyone knows how to secure their weapons without toddler getting them, how to clean their guns without shooting self in leg, how to shoot their guns with at least some degree of accuracy. Seems like a sensible "middle ground" policy and nothing like a gun ban. Total no-go with the NRA in the states, not even negotiable.

[y66]

Sounds good but do the Swiss let their 9 year olds fire Uzi's at the firing range in order to "improve their hand-eye coordination" and "learn what to do if they stumble upon an Uzi on the playground"?

[RedSpawn]

mike777, on 2017-June-26, 12:13, said:

Actually many corporations, banking/investment corporations have died and been destroyed....granted some were saved by Uncle Sam creating a moral hazard issue...
It is a fallacy to say that banks/finance companies are immortal../ are immune to destruction .many have died and been destroyed over the years including 2008

Citibank, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, (JP Morgan) Chase, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs were saved from peril even though they collaterized mortgages (or facilitated it) like other banks did but in larger dollar volumes.

Please note that Goldman Sachs was not even a retail financial bank covered by the FDIC at the time of ithe collapse so the Federal Reserve Bank had to grant Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley bank holding company status so they could qualify for the $700 billion taxpayer-funded bailout!

See https://dealbook.nyt...ding-companies/

And we get a heartfelt apology from one of the major masterminds of the debacle (a full year later):

http://www.cbsnews.c...-credit-crisis/

But they want a billion dollar reward for their irrational exuberance in 2008 and 2009:

http://www.rawstory....000-to-harvard/

I am not seeing how we rescue Goldman Sachs in this fiasco. We protect them because they help us prop up our fiat currency and capital markets. We keep the devil we know instead of letting a new devil come onto the investment banking scene--THAT'S the real moral hazard for Uncle Sam. Goldman Sachs and Uncle Sam (including the Federal Reserve) are partners in crime which is why Sachs received special treatment despite its grossly negligent, potentially fraudulent behavior. Investment houses have a fiduciary duty to their clients when they sell investment vehicles to them, yet Sachs sold such instruments to their unsophisticated clients and then bet against them in the derivative markets--conflict-of-interest be damned.

I contend there were no serious buyers for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley because their business practices as investment banks were unsavory and atrocious circa 2008; no sophisticated investor knew how deep the rabbit hole was at their trading desks, so the Federal Reserve had to recapitalize them and allow them to "invest" their way out of the huge crater they created.

Nothing has changed on Wall Street except the names of a few players. Old Money still runs the banking sector and the musical chairs the Federal Reserve Bank rearranged during the housing crash illustrated it. Old Money Banking corporations are not immortal; however, they are politically connected slick cats with nine lives.

https://www.csmonito...03s05-usec.html

[RedSpawn]

https://www.ft.com/c...4e-c069b30b35b2
http://www.nola.com/...he_bank_lo.html

So I guess we are trying to lower the noose on Jared to get to Trump. Hmmmm