We are all Slave now.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You've reacted exactly as hysterically as I expected.

Yes, I'm being "hysterical." Meanwhile, you can't think about anything from a viewpoint that is not your own. Which is pretty obvious from your "why don't they just move if they aren't treated fairly" solution.

And you've ignored my suggestion that blue states embrace policies that allow people in red states to move.

There's a gotta be a term for when you make groups of people migrate to be secure in their person on the basis of their race, gender, religion or other characteristics...

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If California has 40 million people it will have 4 times the Senators Michigan has. i guess it does have 4 times the congressmen? This makes the breakdown even more important to me. NYC alone has about the same population as Michigan- how do we get my State's interest heard? Now extend that to Wyoming? With Montana and the Dakotas they have to share 1 Senator?

What of DC, with only slightly greater population than Wyoming??

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Actually, your own graph shows the economy slowing pre-Trump.

And given how fast you replied, you read 0% of what I sent.

I think it's pretty clear what happens in the first two years of Trump. First, he inherits a pretty strong economy, but also one tiring near the end of the cycle. He gets the benefit of some initial exuberance, especially from investors who are hopeful he's going to do what they want. Then he gets sugar highs into the economy from two sources: first, a tax cut that puts a couple trillion dollars in the hands of corporations and wealthy individuals, something that won't have a long term effect but does put some money out there, and second, a bunch of economic shifts that occur in anticipation of a trade war - things like the Chinese stocking up on soy just before the tariffs hit (and that series of purchases added nearly a full percent to GDP in a single quarter).

Unfortunately, besides these just being sugar highs, we're also seeing the slow gutting of the jobs created by the ACA, hitting on a state-by-state basis.

So, in the second two years, he has to move from sugar highs to coke highs or he has to deal with some of the inevitable retrenching, like post-Brownback Kansas. Guess which one he is going to go for?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

What of DC, with only slightly greater population than Wyoming??

Obviously, DC should be merged into Wyoming, and they should vote together.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you want to make a case for Trump, go nuts, but the obvious story is that he inherited a good economy from Obama and hasn't fucked it up.

I think he's fucked it up, but you don't yet see it because he's got some short term fixes in there.

Winter is coming.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Actually, your own graph shows the economy slowing pre-Trump.

And given how fast you replied, you read 0% of what I sent.

I skimmed what you sent. The Investors Business Daily said 45 had "reversed all of Obama's economics policies." Um. No.

All of them started with the silly premise the presidents drive economic growth, when they simply do not.

45 added a massive, debt-financed tax cut as fiscal stimulus to an already growing economy that has not yet led to the Fed to change its course (if it does, that may well be the trigger to the next recession). Contra the IVB editorial, I don't think Obama would ever have argued that a big fiscal stimulus would do nothing for growth. But I do think he would have argued that it was irresponsible, unfair, shortsighted and inappropriate in a growing economy.

But hey, if 45 is going to go all MMT and believe deficits don't matter at all, then fine. It isn't going to look that way when McConnell comes for Nana's Medicare in December.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I own 5x the percentage of my firm that some of these knuckleheads own- but we each get 1 vote? NWTAF? The problem though isn't to hate on the firm's constituting documents- my problem is that we voted "small potato" a partner when he was destined to not own so much- you're pissed that Wyoming has two Senators go get angry at the people that said it could be a state- with what i know now I'd say, "fuck Wyoming, you don't justify statehood." But it is too late{sad face}

Team Hank on this one.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Deleted because I don't give enough of a shit to discuss.

New board motto!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Team Hank on this one.

Yes, getting angry at the people who admitted Wyoming to the Union is obviously the most productive thing to do now.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes, getting angry at the people who admitted Wyoming to the Union is obviously the most productive thing to do now.

Is that what he meant? Huh. I thought he was saying that it’s probably not a good idea to change the rules re each state having two senators irregardless (I miss dtb) of population.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

What of DC, with only slightly greater population than Wyoming??

or like, PR? Ty says "no! Unless you got 40 million people FUCK YOU! .......No Senators for you!"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Is that what he meant? Huh. I thought he was saying that it’s probably not a good idea to change the rules re each state having two senators irregardless (I miss dtb) of population.

My point is I can leave my firm, or work with the partners that have also been voted in, under the rules that were set. No point regretting these votes to let the dead beats in- water under bridge- although if half these schmucks want to leave the firm I ain't starting no war to keep them, I'll promise you that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Is that what he meant? Huh. I thought he was saying that it’s probably not a good idea to change the rules re each state having two senators irregardless (I miss dtb) of population.

In that case, I agree. Not sure we would write the rules the same way now, but trying to change them is a fool's errand.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

My point is I can leave my firm, or work with the partners that have also been voted in, under the rules that were set. No point regretting these votes to let the dead beats in- water under bridge- although if half these schmucks want to leave the firm I ain't starting no war to keep them, I'll promise you that.

Come on, Hank. There are ways to squeeze them out. If you really need to, introduce a two-tiered partnership approach. Shrink comp for the bottom of the stack. Cut support. Charge-back associate time or other things.

After all, you're the Man.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In that case, I agree. Not sure we would write the rules the same way now, but trying to change them is a fool's errand.

it was an analogy, or wait, a whatsit, a simile?