Muda69

https://reason.com/2019/12/19/the-rise-of-skywalker-shows-its-time-for-j-j-abrams-to-be-impeached-from-star-wars/ I been reading enough reviews along these lines that I'm not sure I want to pay $ at a movie theater to see this anymore. What is really disappointing is the pretty much complete retconning of the events from The Last Jedi. But who am I to kid, I'll schlep over to the theater sometime between Christmas and the New Year to see it. Although I think one of the comments from the above review rings true:

https://mises.org/wire/bernie-sanders-and-robert-reich-dont-just-want-tax-rich-they-want-abolish-billionaires Likewise, Bernie Sanders recently declared on Twitter: Again, note the change in rhetoric here. This isn’t simply about adjusting the tax code to make sure the rich pay their fair share — this is declaring an entire group of people to be off-limits. (Note: after some critics accused Bernie of advocating pogroms, his defenders — and perhaps Bernie himself, though I can’t find it now — clarified that he meant people shouldn’t be allowed to have that much wealth. He didn’t mean "Let’s murder all of today’s billionaires.") This is the context in which I am placing Robert Reich’s blog post. Reich is pushing back against the notion that billionaires are simply productive people who generated a lot of wealth in the market. Reich’s commentary is designed to bolster the calls from some quarters to get rid of billionaires altogether. Robert Reich: Five Ways to Become a Billionaire In the remainder of this post, I’ll quickly go through Reich’s putative “five ways” to become a billionaire. Way No. 1: Exploit a Monopoly Here’s Reich: In the above, Reich has conflated two very different things. If a retailer (such as Amazon) has nearly 50 percent of the sales in an industry, that isn’t a monopoly by any definition. But even if Amazon had 100 percent of the sales, that in itself wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. As Rothbard argued in Man, Economy, and State, just about every seller has a “monopoly” in the sense of “single seller” if we define the product or service narrowly enough. For example, I have a monopoly on economics lectures provided by the Austrian school economist Robert P. Murphy. Yet that’s not what people have in mind when they wring their hands over “monopoly power” in big business. So long as the transactions are all voluntary, then a seller can only “capture” an entire industry by providing a superior product and/or a lower price. For readers who’ve never heard the story, I strongly recommend you check out Burt Folsom’s Myth of the Robber Barons to see how genuine entrepreneurs cut costs and gained market share through serving consumers. (Here’s a short clip of Tom DiLorenzo on C-SPAN correcting the historical record.) So, returning to Reich’s passage above, he is right to complain about government privileges given to the big banks that were bailed out, and — since I have been persuaded by the work of Stephan Kinsella on “intellectual property” (IP) — I also agree that government patents and other forms of IP enforcement are also illegitimate. Yet the solution of course isn’t to enact large taxes on the wealthy. The solution, instead, is to get rid of the illegitimate privileges given to some of the wealthy. Way No. 2: Exploit a Monopoly Reich goes on to the second method: I always love it when progressives point to how awfully the government currently enforces existing laws in order to prove that we just need more government to achieve a just society. Even if we stipulate Reich’s narrative for the sake of argument, the feds let criminal masterminds walk even when they’re caught red-handed. So maybe the system is corrupt and we should try something other than trusting political officials to ensure honesty and integrity on Wall Street? But the deeper flaw here is that “insider trading,” generally speaking, should not be a crime at all. If individual firms have confidentiality agreements that key employees sign, then of course violation of such clauses would be a breach of contract and subject to penalty. But in general, we want people to trade on “inside” information, because it helps reduce the volatility in stock market prices. The average investor is actually helped when experts are maintaining vigilant watch on asset prices and minimizing the impact that a sudden announcement has on the markets. I go into more detail at this link, but suffice it to say that, if you actually think through a typical example of “insider trading,” you’ll see that the “victims” aren’t the general public — instead they are a small group of investors who otherwise would have benefited from dumb luck, but instead are having that “unearned” windfall accrue to someone else with superior knowledge of the asset. Way No. 3: Bribe Politicians to Change the Tax Code The next method is special because it is the goofiest of Reich’s five: Everyone get that? Here Reich is telling us that the way to get a billion dollars is to first, get $50 billion. Then, pay politicians to reduce your tax bill by a billion. Boom! You just made a billion dollars. It’s just that simple. Reich's approach here reminds me of the old Steve Martin routine, where he says (I’m condensing), “You wanna become a millionaire and never pay taxes? First, get a million dollars. Then, when the IRS says you owe them money, just say, ‘I forgot!’” According to Reich, the problem is politicians taking bribes to reform the tax code, and so you’d think the solution would be to punish those politicians for taking bribes. But that’s never what guys like Reich advocate. Instead, the private citizens offering the bribes are the ones who need to be punished, not the politicians for accepting those bribes. Way No. 4: Defraud Investors On this one, I have to be honest. I don’t even get how this works: On Reich’s telling, investors put “hundreds of millions” into a company that never produced a nickel of profit, and then were still willing to pay an additional billion dollars to get Neumann to walk away from the wreckage. If Reich’s narrative was the only relevant factor, these big investors are incredibly stupid, paying a billion dollars for something only worth a fraction of that, at most. Or, we can surmise that there’s more to the story than Reich is letting on. In any event, notice that one of the big investors was JP Morgan — which was the subject of Reich’s “first way” to become a billionaire — so at least these illegitimate billionaires seem to be canceling each other out. Way No. 5: Inheritance Finally we come to the last method: The fifth way to be a billionaire is to get the money from rich parents or relatives. I understand the fun in denigrating the idle rich born with silver spoons in their mouths, but if we’re trying to base government policy decisions on intuitive notions of fairness, then how in the world do we justify taking a huge chunk out of someone’s wealth just to make sure he can’t give it to his kids? To paraphrase a line I heard once from Arthur Laffer (referring to the estate or “death tax” in the late 2000s), “If you’re rich, once you’ve paid your taxes on your income, you’re free to spend it on booze and gambling in Vegas. But if you have the audacity to give it to your kids, that’s a threat to society and we’re going to tax the hell out of it.” The Billionaires No One Talks About What’s funny is that when Bernie Sanders or Robert Reich complain about billionaires per se, they never seem to list these ones: Oprah Winfrey ($2.7 billion), Michael Jordan ($1.9 billion), and J.K. Rowling ($1 billion by this estimate, though she had earlier been on and off the billionaire list because of Britain’s taxes and her large donations). Whatever you think of the merits of these individuals, it would be harder for Bernie to vilify the self-made Oprah, or to criticize the market for paying a boatload of money to the greatest basketball player of all time, and to the author of some of the most beloved books in a generation. More generally, as the global market continues to grow, we are going to see more billionaires. Quick: how many billionaires does the reader think there are, right now? The answer, according to Forbes, is 2,057. Conclusion There are plenty of billionaires who have benefited from special government privileges, or who have engaged in other forms of nefarious behavior. To the extent that we want the government to “do something” about this, the obvious answer is for government to stop giving such privileges to the super rich. However, to the extent that people accumulate wealth through voluntary means, then they should be able to retain it. Whipping up the public to hate billionaires is a very destructive turn in US politics. Progressive leftists always warn about the “harmful rhetoric” on the Right, and of course point to Nazi Germany to end all arguments. Well, we can look at the Reign of Terror in Revolutionary France to see what happens when the masses get fired up against the rich. Agreed. The jealous indignation from Mr. Reich and Mr. Sanders and their desire to use the state to punish the successful is insidious, and ultimately un-American.

Yep. I guess us old fogies are all lucky we didn't die. Looked like a good, clean, hard hit to me. You wear pads and a helmet for a reason, right?

The 'Afghanistan Papers' Confirm Critics' Worst Rears About America's Longest War: https://reason.com/2019/12/20/the-afghanistan-papers-confirm-critics-worst-rears-about-americas-longest-war/ Yep, a true and important travesty is being overshadowed by all Mr. Trump, all the time rhetoric. Shameful.

Yep, both sides of the uni-party are now fighting over whether or not certain witnesses should be called to testify in the Senate trial. That may take weeks of political wrangling to work out.

One can hope. It appears the Republican side of the uni-party in the Senate is going to stonewall their Democratic brethren over the witness issue during the Senate trial. Who knows when the actual articles of impeachment will officially be delivered to the Senate, triggering the trial phase.

Nice to know you support group think so much. Lemmings....................

A side story to the South Bend education discussion: https://www.jconline.com/story/news/2019/12/19/purdue-makes-case-its-third-high-school-despite-local-opposition-south-bend/2697321001/ Many of the school choice haters on this forum have to be seething about Purdue jumping into the mix.

And you and others can't seem to get through your thick skulls the money and resources that could be better allocated to different opportunities, athletic or not. Money doesn't grow on trees.

Herman Boone, Football Coach Of 'Remember The Titans' Fame, Dies: https://www.npr.org/2019/12/19/789784211/herman-boone-football-coach-of-remember-the-titans-fame-dies Truly an American Icon. He will be missed.

All Mr. Trump, all the time. Seems to be what the mostly liberal media wants. Guess it gets them ratings, and in turn advertisers.

Impeachment Overshadows Obamacare Ruling: https://reason.com/2019/12/19/impeachment-overshadows-obamacare-ruling/

As a 25% cut in federal spending for every department/bureau/office/etc. would help to do.

So you enjoyed Arena Football? Really?

But still government waste you are willing to turn a blind eye too. Perhaps some of the pork benefits you or a family member personally?

Not really. But the democrats sure do, and now they can use the "he was successfully impeached!" rhetoric in all their campaign advertising for the 2020 election. But the main issue is the the democrats simply do not yet have a POTUS candidate that can defeat Mr. Trump.

Tulsi Gabbard Votes 'Present' on Trump Impeachment, Slams 'Purely Partisan Process': https://reason.com/2019/12/18/tulsi-gabbard-impeachment-present-vote-trump/ Agreed.

Does the trial even really matter? The democratic side of the uni-party has had their partisan day in the sun by voting to impeach and now the republican side gets their during a show trial in the senate. The political damage has already been done regardless of the outcome, which is all the dems really ever wanted.

Trump Is Getting Impeached Today. Should His Complaints About the Process Be Taken Seriously?: https://reason.com/2019/12/18/trump-is-getting-impeached-today-should-his-complaints-about-the-process-be-taken-seriously/ This parsing of us vs. me proves nothing, since us is ambiguous. It could refer, as Trump says, to the United States, or it could refer to Trump and his allies. Trump illustrated that ambiguity during the call by asking Zelenskiy to work with Giuliani, his personal lawyer, as well as Attorney General William Barr. The essence of the allegation against Trump is precisely that he framed a "favor" for him—a Ukrainian investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading contender to oppose him in next year's election—as a favor for the U.S. government, which was at that very moment withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine by presidential fiat. Trump's request for that "favor" immediately followed Zelenskiy's expression of gratitude for U.S. aid and his mention of his government's plans to buy anti-tank missiles from the United States. The conjunction of those two issues gives rise to a fair inference that there was a connection between the investigation Trump sought and the assistance that Zelenskiy was counting on. As Turley noted, Trump's conversation with Zelenskiy "was anything but 'perfect' and his reference to the Bidens was highly inappropriate." That Trump still seems oblivious to that point is of a piece with his general lack of self-awareness, disregard for diplomatic norms, and inability to admit when he is wrong. Trump emphasizes that Zelenskiy has said he did not feel "pressure" to comply with Trump's request, which is both highly implausible and completely understandable given Ukraine's dependence on U.S. support. Since Zelenskiy will be dealing with Trump at least until January 2021 and quite possibly for another four years after that, it is perfectly rational for him to worry about the risks of reinforcing the case for impeachment, especially if he views Trump as a mercurial president driven by personal motives. And although Trump claims Zelenskiy "has repeatedly declared that I did nothing wrong," Zelenskiy actually criticized Trump's hold on the military aid, saying, "If you're our strategic partner, then you can't go blocking anything for us. I think that's just about fairness. It's not about a quid pro quo." While Trump may read that as confirmation that he "did nothing wrong," it seems more like a plea from a desperate ally who does not want his country's relationship with the United States to be tangled up in domestic American politics. In Trump's telling, Democrats latched onto his "totally appropriate" interaction with Zelenskiy as the latest excuse for doing something they had long wanted to do: While that history understandably reinforces the suspicion that Democrats are targeting Trump for purely partisan reasons, it is logically irrelevant to the merits of the allegations that actually led to his impeachment. There is a reason why Pelosi and other Democratic leaders resisted impeachment for so long but changed their minds after Trump's conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine came to light. If Trump did in fact abuse his presidential powers for personal gain by pressuring a foreign government to conduct an investigation aimed at discrediting a political rival (and there is compelling evidence that he did), that would be a clear betrayal of the public trust. In defending himself against that charge, Trump complains, "I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process," including "the right to present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses." But those guarantees for defendants in criminal trials do not apply in the context of impeachment, and Trump has in any case rejected opportunities to present his side of the story in the House while refusing, based on a sweeping claim of executive privilege, to provide documents or consent to testimony by current or former administration officials. During his trial in the Senate, Trump could avail himself of all the rights he says he has been denied, depending on the rules that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) settles on. But McConnell, who says his approach will be dictated by what Trump wants, apparently plans to conduct a minimal trial without witnesses, leading to a quick and predetermined acquittal along party lines. McConnell is right that he has no obligation to fill gaps in the case against Trump by calling witnesses, such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, whom the House decided not to subpoena in the hope of avoiding prolonged court battles over whether they could be compelled to testify. And Trump is right that charging him with obstruction of Congress seems premature, since the House did not bother to test his executive privilege claims in court, which could have resulted in orders requiring the testimony of Bolton et al. as well as the production of relevant documents. At the same time, the assumption that such highly placed sources would have incriminating things to say is rather telling. The upshot of a hasty impeachment in the House and a hasty acquittal in the Senate is that the question of whether Trump committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" will never be fully considered.

Oh, I am quite well armed friend. It is you who quite frequently has an empty holster.

No, gonzo. It was you. And your clumsy juggling of my previous statements prove it. Just admit it. It's ok.

By finally imposing a penalty for abusing the powers of the office, Congress might reassert some of its own surrendered authority that it has been giving away for decades, and put clearer boundaries around the behavior of chief executives to come. But again this is the uni-party we are talking about.....................

House marches toward Trump impeachment; he claims ‘assault’: https://apnews.com/d78192d45b176f73ad435ae9fb926ed3 Isn't this mostly a true statement?

I don't use Facebook; you do. And you were the first to forward the premise of equating "life" to the GID with these statements: