Just listened to Chelsea Clinton on BBC world service

[Dago_Joe]

true, she was awkward as a kid, but she grew up.  she's much easier on the eyes than most women that enter politics.  Hilary was no hottie, and was 1 state away from winning the nomination.  I think looks would help her.  Plus she looks like a Clinton, that's unbeatable for 50+% of the population.

Woahhh, hold on a minute.  Have you ever heard that women turn into their mothers when they get older?  Would you ever want to wake up to that cankle laden hag named Hilary  I'd rather shove razor blades up my urethra than touch that monster.  Oofaa

[Mr Nobody]

Looks like a Hoe.

[Dago_Joe]

Bill was a piece of shit, like Bush Sr, Bush Jr and Obama...he was just a better salesman that fell into the spot during one of the largest money printing debt bubbles in history.  Bill got to ride it and the tech boom for 5 years.  Bush Jr caught the tail end of that tech/debt bubble crash but used the next housing bubble, 9/11, and wars to keep collapse at bay for eight years.  Obama gets the housing bubble collapse, deleveraging of the Lehman, and no good wars to start to keep kicking the can.

Don't forget slashing defense spending, which directly led to the attacks on the Kenyan embassy, USS Cole, and ohh what was that one event...oh yeah 9/11!  I just read a book about the Clinton administration's policy during that time for security on naval vessels.  It was about the attack on the USS Cole.  Get this:  The ships would have 1 guard "armed" with an M-14 he was not ever trained to use and WAS NOT EVEN LOADED!!!!!!  An untrained twink sailor with an unloaded rifle "guarding" a vessel that cost 1 billion dollars of OUR TAX MONEY!!!  That was a sliver of the incompetency of the Clinton admin.  Although, when you are focused on getting your cock sucked by fat broads and setting up all your future business endeavors for when you get out of office (Bill and his hag wife "earned" upwards of 100 million soon after getting out of office) guess you don't have much time for little things like ohhh you know NATIONAL DEFENSE.  Bill was an utter disgrace as a human being let alone a President.  He and his hag are truly sociopaths.  And you know the apple does not fall far from the tree.  I despise that whole disgusting lot.  Other than Obummer and Carter, Clinton did more damage to this country than anyone. 

[JBGRAY]

Don't forget slashing defense spending, which directly led to the attacks on the Kenyan embassy, USS Cole, and ohh what was that one event...oh yeah 9/11!  I just read a book about the Clinton administration's policy during that time for security on naval vessels.  It was about the attack on the USS Cole.  Get this:  The ships would have 1 guard "armed" with an M-14 he was not ever trained to use and WAS NOT EVEN LOADED!!!!!!  An untrained twink sailor with an unloaded rifle "guarding" a vessel that cost 1 billion dollars of OUR TAX MONEY!!!  That was a sliver of the incompetency of the Clinton admin.  Although, when you are focused on getting your cock sucked by fat broads and setting up all your future business endeavors for when you get out of office (Bill and his hag wife "earned" upwards of 100 million soon after getting out of office) guess you don't have much time for little things like ohhh you know NATIONAL DEFENSE.  Bill was an utter disgrace as a human being let alone a President.  He and his hag are truly sociopaths.  And you know the apple does not fall far from the tree.  I despise that whole disgusting lot.  Other than Obummer and Carter, Clinton did more damage to this country than anyone. 

Unloaded firearms in the US Navy was a very common occurrence in the US Navy prior to 9-11. All the gate guards had unloaded weapons. It was unbelievable now that we look back on it.

[Roger Bacon]

Unloaded firearms in the US Navy was a very common occurrence in the US Navy prior to 9-11. All the gate guards had unloaded weapons. It was unbelievable now that we look back on it.

Don't forget the Navy Yard Shooting...  Maybe it's because I'm a civilian, but it just seems incredibly crazy that this could go down on a military base.

[The Showstoppa]

Don't forget the Navy Yard Shooting...  Maybe it's because I'm a civilian, but it just seems incredibly crazy that this could go down on a military base.

Vast majority of military personnel on base are not armed on any stateside facility. 

[The Abdominal Snoman]

Don't forget the Navy Yard Shooting...  Maybe it's because I'm a civilian, but it just seems incredibly crazy that this could go down on a military base.

I remember reading awhile back that the military didn't like giving minorities bullets in their guns unless it was a war scenario. Always thought it was just a bad joke but maybe there was some truth to it...

[Dago_Joe]

I remember reading awhile back that the military didn't like giving minorities bullets in their guns unless it was a war scenario. Always thought it was just a bad joke but maybe there was some truth to it...

It is 100% true.  I asked my buddy who was a Marine from 98-02 and he told me it was standard procedure.  WTF!?  No bullets in the weapons of the guards!!!  The Cole attack was a fucking travesty.  Two ragheads in a fucking rickety piece of shit boat cruise right up to a billion dollar ship and blow it the fuck up and killed dozens of sailors because the fucking guard couldn't even shoot them if he wanted to!  I know 911 was an epically bad moment but the Cole was attacked almost a year before and we should have gotten the message then.  Like I said good ol' Jefferson Clinton was too busy worrying about his impeachment for getting his cock sucked by a pig than defending this nation. 

[Shockwave]

Don't forget the Navy Yard Shooting...  Maybe it's because I'm a civilian, but it just seems incredibly crazy that this could go down on a military base.

weapons are held in armories bro.... not everyone is rolling around with their SAW on their hip.

id say youd be better off pulling that shit in a military base rather than a police station.

of course it depends on whay base and what unit is stationed there, you wouldnt want to try that shit around an infantry unit...

[Roger Bacon]

weapons are held in armories bro.... not everyone is rolling around with their SAW on their hip.

id say youd be better off pulling that shit in a military base rather than a police station.

of course it depends on whay base and what unit is stationed there, you wouldnt want to try that shit around an infantry unit...

I get that, but it seems like at least a few people could have a pistol on them?

I just don't get it? In my grandpas day they would have blown that chumps head off within the first five minutes?

[Shockwave]

I get that, but it seems like at least a few people could have a pistol on them?

I just don't get it? In my grandpas day they would have blown that chumps head off within the first five minutes?

the naval yard is mostly just administration shit and civilians now days.... i was there in 09 and it was a bunch of Officers and civilians walking around. I think there was an armed guard at the gate but that was all I can remember.

[Cleanest Natural]

Like mom and dad, she has been groomed since birth for a public role. Mind controlled to the nth degree, she is like a human computer with the best software for public speaking etc.. of course she will sound intelligent! These people are human robots with a fractured mind and no sense of self. They just do as they are programmed to do.

[Pray_4_War]

She should become a communist activist for a few yrs. 

Fixed it for you.

She's a fucking ugly bitch.  If she get elected President I'm moving.

[thebrink]

Like mom and dad, she has been groomed since birth for a public role. Mind controlled to the nth degree, she is like a human computer with the best software for public speaking etc.. of course she will sound intelligent! These people are human robots with a fractured mind and no sense of self. They just do as they are programmed to do.

well put.

totally uncultured drone with no personality but high IQ. hardly even a sentient being.

[Cleanest Natural]

well put.

totally uncultured drone with no personality but high IQ. hardly even a sentient being.

most highly programmed people are very intelligent

[phreak]

most highly programmed people are very intelligent

read about that too. Highly intelligent = higher capacity for self-rationalization.

[Cleanest Natural]

no self rationalisation .. quite the opposite. Their minds are fractured through trauma and each compartment or personality is programmed for a specific purpose.

[Mr. MB]

I can't find one thing her mother did as Senator or Secretary. Well...she did recognise Myanmar/Burma whatever. Her father (I know a lot of folks say Wes Hubbell is her real father...she does look like him and his daughters) was an OK President working well with GOP Congress. Together they grew the economy and got a few things done. Chelsea is well spoken and has as much acumen for politics as a Kardashian girl.

[syntaxmachine]

Sorry, I missed your remarks. Responses below.

I'm not sure what "public goods" refers to in this case, but let's say it's things like roads. In that case, then yes, the state plays a role. But that's a well defined role, that doesn't see the state as "involved" in the market as such (upto things like purchasing construction materials and equipment, etc.).

Yes, most of the functions I'm assigning to the state don't entail it being "involved" in a given market in the sense of participating as a buyer/seller; it seems that markets perform remarkably well without this.

Rather, the state performs certain minimal functions -- certain of which pertain to all markets, e.g., enforcing property rights, others of which pertain to specific markets -- that allow free markets to operate as they do. (The point of all this being that the state isn't an inherent enemy of markets, as neckbeardianism seems to construe it.)

One example of a minimal function of the state in a specific market is the establishment and enforcement of informational disclosure requirements in financial markets.

A commonly accepted (albeit increasingly maligned) precept of financial theory -- the efficient market hypothesis -- states that markets are remarkably adept at synthesizing information into prices; so adept, in fact, that they are more or less completely efficient (in the sense that an investor can't acquire above average returns without incurring above average risk). But such efficiency can only be achieved when the relevant information is publicly available -- something that tends not to occur in the absence of basic regulations pertaining to accounting standards, regular publication of company (for a stock) data and news, and the disclosure of fees and full product descriptions.

[syntaxmachine]

On the issue of currency, I'm indifferent: I see no reason why it's required or why business couldn't be transacted in private currencies, provided both parties to the transaction consent. Of course, you could easily argue that a state issued currency helps even then by acting as a bridge currency and functioning as not only a currency per se but as a lubricant between currency X and currency Y by allowing market makers to inject liquidity.

Well, one may be indifferent to, orgasmic about, resigned toward, or in any motivational state whatever toward the proposition that the state must be the arbiter of currency (call the claim "S"), but it seems fair to say that: (i) we ought to subject theoretical claims about economic arrangements to empirical testing whenever possible (even if backward-looking); (ii) the "Free Banking Era" of American banking from 1838-1860 provides an excellent natural experiment to do as such for the claim that currencies can be privately managed (call the claim "P"); (iii) the empirical evidence contained in said experiment indicates that such an arrangement tends to fail miserably.

I think that the above points necessitate that we assign a higher probability to P than S, especially in light of state successes in managing currency (e.g., the current monetary regime's success in taming inflation). I don't foresee this state of affairs changing until some definite examples of P's viability emerge, but that doesn't seem likely (anytime remotely soon, anyway).

[syntaxmachine]

What "negative externalities" did you have in mind? Can you provide some examples?

The notion of the negative externality can be used to justify all manner of government intervention, but I shall try to restrict myself to an example where the state involvement genuinely is necessary: the case of SIFI's -- systemically important financial institutions, or, banks whose failure would cause either an outright market failure, severe economic damage, or both.

The negative externality here is the tremendous amount of risk offloaded onto the public's back. I think that the government has a legitimate claim to either limiting the size of such entities or otherwise instituting policies that limit the damage when they fail, thereby reducing or eliminating the negative externality. Many such measures were incorporated into Dodd-Frank, including higher capital requirements, caps on leverage, more oversight, and a bit more regulation regarding derivatives (like putting them on exchanges).

I'm not aware of any purely free market method for providing essential banking services while maintaining or avoiding SIFI status without the aforementioned negative externality, nor any historical examples of such. Can you point to one?

That's fair. But let's hope that "minimum" continues to mean what we both think it means.

Our uses of the word are probably rather close, given that we are probably both of the opinion that the government ought to be less involved in just about every market, across the board.

I don't see them that way. I just see them as occupying two different domains.

How's this for neckbeardianism?

You appear to be well-shaven!

[Big Chiro Flex]

X2, what syntax said.

[avxo]

Well, one may be indifferent to, orgasmic about, resigned toward, or in any motivational state whatever toward the proposition that the state must be the arbiter of currency (call the claim "S"), but it seems fair to say that: (i) we ought to subject theoretical claims about economic arrangements to empirical testing whenever possible (even if backward-looking); (ii) the "Free Banking Era" of American banking from 1838-1860 provides an excellent natural experiment to do as such for the claim that currencies can be privately managed (call the claim "P"); (iii) the empirical evidence contained in said experiment indicates that such an arrangement tends to fail miserably.

I think that the above points necessitate that we assign a higher probability to P than S, especially in light of state successes in managing currency (e.g., the current monetary regime's success in taming inflation). I don't foresee this state of affairs changing until some definite examples of P's viability emerge, but that doesn't seem likely (anytime remotely soon, anyway).

I think that basing things on events that took place 150 years ago, during the wildcat banking years isn't a good idea. Does it give us a data point? Sure. Did the experiment fail? Sure, but I would add it many mistakes were made. In addition, I would submit that a lot of other issues arose that could not be effectively addressed back then that could be now. I think that the rise of private currencies (whether they are against specie is largely irrelevant) is inevitable.

The notion of the negative externality can be used to justify all manner of government intervention, but I shall try to restrict myself to an example where the state involvement genuinely is necessary: the case of SIFI's -- systemically important financial institutions, or, banks whose failure would cause either an outright market failure, severe economic damage, or both.

The negative externality here is the tremendous amount of risk offloaded onto the public's back. I think that the government has a legitimate claim to either limiting the size of such entities or otherwise instituting policies that limit the damage when they fail, thereby reducing or eliminating the negative externality. Many such measures were incorporated into Dodd-Frank, including higher capital requirements, caps on leverage, more oversight, and a bit more regulation regarding derivatives (like putting them on exchanges).

I am not convinced that such a bank or institution would arise in the absence of the existing framework and the regulations currently in place, which make it practically impossible to start a new bank and compete with the established ones.

Moreover, I think that the public would want to prevent such an institution from forming out of rational self-interest, and if it did, it could (and would) to swiftly reduce its size and importance (without resorting to legislative means) again out of rational self-interest.

I'm not aware of any purely free market method for providing essential banking services while maintaining or avoiding SIFI status without the aforementioned negative externality, nor any historical examples of such. Can you point to one?

I guess it would depend on what we define as "essential banking services" but I don't see any inherent "unworkable" issues in a system where currency is privately issued by all member banks as a consortium and each member bank accepts the note at face value is workable. Since banks have an interest in providing a stable and widely circulating currency (especially if the currency is issued against specie), so it's rational that they would try to ensure those properties.

I even think a multi-currency system could work (especially in this day and age - it was impractical back in the Free Banking Era) but it would be a bit trickier to coordinate and perhaps even slightly confusing. So the single currency system issued by a consortium of banks seems like a more practical setup to me.

[Roger Bacon]

X2, what avxo said.

[cephissus]

Look at Microsoft: it dominated the software market almost completely; and yet, Linux managed to stage a revolt, and Apple managed to establish its own nation state - albeit still relatively small.

Uh, what?