HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Zalatix » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

Zalatix

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:30 PM
Number of posts: 8,994

About Me

I'm a liberal looking to make a difference in politics.

Journal Archives

A doctor who won't take any insurance or Medicare? Yank their license, plus imprisonment.

That's called endangering public safety.

What, that'll mean a shortage of doctors? That won't mean any difference to the working poor who have insurance but find doctors are refusing to take insurance and want them to pay THOUSANDS for medical care... money they don't even have. They won't be able to afford care anyway if more doctors start doing this.

Snatch a few licenses and put a few of these greedy fucks in prison and the rest will get the point. It'll be better than letting them face an angry mob of people (or bereaved relatives thereof) who needed care but couldn't afford it because the doctor wouldn't take their insurance.

Refusing insurance and demanding that the poor pay up thousands for care? That's bullshit. People will die if that problem spreads.

Competitive Devaluation: A vicious slap in the face of offshoring.

Free traders hate tariffs. Tariffs lead to trade wars - of course, only if the tariffs are raised by Americans. Tariffs raised by countries like China don't start trade wars because China is politically correct and the rules of criticism don't apply to them. They can do whatever they want. It's only wrong when America does it.

So what is America to do in order to stop the bleeding of jobs?

Why, lower the value of the US dollar, of course.

I've been saying this for years... import price inflation serves as the ultimate natural tariff. EVEN IF China bypasses American tariffs by selling to Canada and using them as a middle-man to sell to the American market, they cannot get imports past the natural barrier of import price inflation.

Worse yet for China and other nations, lowering the Dollar means America will export more non-oil goods. Think about how productive America's workers are, compared to just about everywhere else. Multiply that with an internationally weak dollar and you get a huge double advantage for American workers.

Of course, to really kill offshoring, we need a VERY weak dollar. As in, import price hyperinflation. But while I am a fanatical adherent to the idea of huge, revolutionary changes... timid steps forward still better than the steps we've been taking backward into the unemployment ditch.

Import prices will go up, but what's the use of cheap Chinese iPads if you're unemployed earning $0 an hour? At least with a job you can put Made in the USA iPads on layaway. And Made in the USA iPads won't cost $1000 a pop, either, like some doomsayers like to claim. American productivity still matters.

In short: devaluing the dollar is the most powerful weapon against offshoring. And the Fed, it appears, is resorting to this final weapon.

In closing: I really LOVED hearing someone besides me talking about import price inflation for once, in the context of it actually being a tool of Government policy. Take THAT, China, Mexico and India. Maybe the Fed will go far enough with this that you guys will be importing from us. Ah, one can dream, can't they?

http://blog.oppenheimerfunds.com/2012/09/25/fed-will-weaken-dollar-for-jobs/

Fed: Will Weaken Dollar for Jobs
September 25th, 2012

Alessio de Longis
Portfolio Manager

I have been saying for some time now that import price inflation is something investors should be mindful about. The general trend over time of a depreciating dollar could lead to rising prices of imported goods, a source of inflation that people might not necessarily think about, but that will definitely diminish their purchasing power. (See how The New 60/40 can help protect purchasing power). Last week’s QE3 announcement hinted that the Federal Reserve is focusing more on employment than on inflation. It could even be signaling that it is willing to allow a weaker dollar and inflation to rise if it meant job growth.

Because of this, I noted with great interest that within a period of just two days, two Federal Reserve Bank presidents, John C. Williams and Eric Rosengren, have discussed inflation in interviews and prepared remarks. Williams even went as far as to specifically mention import price inflation.

Williams, who is president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, noted in an interview with Market News on Sept. 21 that “Bernanke did not mention the exchange rate channel of monetary policy, in which lower interest rates lower the value of the currency and boost net exports.” But, Williams added, “the exchange rate channel is an important channel of how (monetary policy) affects employment and inflation through import prices.”

The day before, Rosengren, who is president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, said in a speech to the South Shore Chamber of Commerce, “I would point out that our efforts to lower long rates are focused on stimulating domestic demand, but at the same time lower long-term rates affect demand for U.S. assets, resulting in a modest change in the exchange rate—and this is likely to provide some support for export-oriented industries.”

What does this mean? The Fed is signaling not only that it is comfortable with trend U.S. dollar depreciation, but also that dollar depreciation is very much a key component of its monetary policy strategy. In other words, currency debasement is part of the recipe to create jobs. Beware, though: I believe part of this job creation will be paid for with loss of purchasing power for U.S. consumers.

Free traders will never answer this... if immigrants are needed here...

why aren't Americans needed for jobs elsewhere?

Why are American workers unwanted outside or even IN AMERICA, but yet we're so eager to import workers?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2012/10/04/immigrants-needed/

Immigrants Needed
Adam Ozimek, Contributor

I wanted to quickly draw attention to two good posts on our need for high-skilled immigrants. The first is a great article from Noah Smith on why we need a huge amount of Asian immigration. Noah is good at thinking about immigration more broadly than typical economists, and this article is no exception:
East Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia together have over half the world’s population, but Asians make up only 5% of the United States. If our ethnic makeup was a portfolio of stocks, we would be severely underweight Asia.

Asia is important not just because it is huge, but because it is growing rapidly. Trade with these countries will be incredibly important to the American economy this century. One way to facilitate trade and investment is ethnic ties — witness the way the Chinese diaspora has invested in China, or the way Indian-American entrepreneurs have forged links between Silicon Valley and India. We need much more of this….

Furthermore, I believe that the cultural benefits of Asian immigration will be just as big as the economic and political benefits. Adding diversity to our melting pot will speed up America’s inevitable and necessary transition from a “nation of all European races” to a “nation of all races.” The sooner that happens — the sooner people realize that America’s multi-racialization is a done deal — the quicker our political debate can shed its current ethnic overtones and go back to being about the issues.



Here's an idea... if you want to send immigrants and H1b non-immigrant visa hunters to America, you take an equal amount of American workers in your country, or no deal.

If you want America to outsource jobs to you, then you outsource an equal number of jobs to us. Or we skip tariffs and go right to an embargo. Then you can go cry to the WTO.

Enough bullshit. Free trade has nothing to offer American workers except more joblessness.

So the first Obama-Romney debates went the way it did because...

Obama was distracted by Syria and Turkey exchanging fire across the border... and because Rmoney was using a friggin' CHEAT SHEET?

If most people were actually awake in life, then this news would completely change the national opinion of the debates.

Police Union Defends Philadelphia Cop Who Punched Woman

Just. Like. Clockwork.

Police unions are not like other unions. Not at all.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-union-defends-philadelphia-cop-punched-woman/story?id=17395836#.UG3V11H2BOs

A police union is coming to the defense of the Philadelphia cop who has been targeted for dismissal after he was caught on video punching a woman in the face.

It was originally announced that Lt. Jonathan Josey would be suspended for a month pending an Internal Affairs investigation. But less than two days later, Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey said he was taking "Commissioner's Direct Action" against Josey and that the officer would be dismissed.

A video posted on YouTube shows Josey punching a woman in the face and knocking her to the ground before she is led off bloodied and handcuffed.

The Fraternal Order of Police in Philadelphia is angered with the decision and how quickly it was made.

Pres Obama needs to say but one sentence to end Romney's campaign. To kill it DEAD. ONE sentence.

"Mitt Romney will run America like Bain Capital did KB Toys."

Boom. Game ender. Say it in a campaign ad, say it in a debate, either way you can stick a fork in Romney because he will be DONE. Well done.

So let me get this straight, they gave it to Romney for style even though he FAILED on susbtance?

It looks to me like Rmoney failed utterly on substance. He lied like a rug. But he's being given the win on mere STYLE? Is that it???

Somehow I knew this would be a "There you go again" repeat...

What would the ramifications be if Capitalism were declared to be a religious belief?

Is it too amorphous for that to practically ever happen? What laws would be invalidated under the Separation/Establishment Clause?

I am convinced at this point that Capitalism is a collection of myths and legends on par with the most superstitious aspects of organized religion.

Edited to add: yeah, I'm sure there could be negative consequences, too. I'm not sure what they would be, though.

Meet Richard Hayes, Temo Fuentes and Joan Raymond. 3 POWERFUL videos.





Print this out, hold your nose, and sprinkle it on your farmland to fertilize.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/29/republican-women-feminine-gop-female_n_1924389.html?ref=topbar

Republican Women: Female GOP Politicians Look More Feminine, Congressional Physiognomy Study Suggests

Need I say more about this piece of shit study?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »