Still Hating America.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Yes, indeed, there is that small issue that "Fascist" may not need "Christo" to amend it.

They killed Jews because they were Jews and Catholics because they were Catholic. They were the Master Race, as decreed not only by God, but by the gods. Just one more in a long line of Killers for Christ, heirs to the Killers for Hashem, progenitors to the Killer for Allah.

Get with the program, or God will tell me to kill you.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
FWIW, in case for some reason you think this is isolated, Michelle Malkin has received so many death threats from lefty crazies that she had to relocate her entire family.

They're Jewish, aren't they?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I would argue that since "Islamist" is a synonym for "bloodthirsty, misogynistic, irrational zealot" - the "fascist" part is rather unnecessary.

Hell, the fascists we're familiar with kept the trains running on time. These guys would loot the train for parts.

I'm afraid you're confused here. It's the Jews who are zealots.

• a member of a radical, warlike, ardently patriotic group of Jews in Judea, particularly prominent from a.d. 69 to 81, advocating the violent overthrow of Roman rule and vigorously resisting the efforts of the Romans and their supporters to heathenize the Jews.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
There were sizable Cossack states in much of what is now the Ukraine, and they won more battles than they lost. The Ottomans usually tried to ally with them rather than fight them, though would try to assert sovereignty over them when they were weak. It never lasted. And they periodically lost Azov to them, which was very valuable.

Where did they come from? Were they Turks left over from the Mongol invasion (the Golden Horde) or were they a later Turkish Sunni Muslim migration? Are these the same guys as the Tatars?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
FWIW, in case for some reason you think this is isolated, Michelle Malkin has received so many death threats from lefty crazies that she had to relocate her entire family.

Ty made a new thread and tried to make me go there

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Actually, I'm thinking of Paul Samuelson's 2004 article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives posing serious questions about whether the US will benefit from free trade with India and China.

I'm also thinking about the September 2006 world survey in The Economist (which is about as pro-free trade as you get) arguing that many developed world workers don't benefit from free trade. And arguing that this will cause a protectionist backlash against free trade unless politicians in the developed world provide money for re-training, social insurance, and more controversially, tax redistribution policies with heavily progressive taxation.

You can pretend free trade is always beneficial because that jives with your libertarian philosophy, and Adder can pretend free trade is always beneficial because it jives with his liberal philosophy of helping the poor in the third world, but serious economists have begun questioning these policies and thinking developed world workers won't support them without substantial redistribution of the benefits of free trade.

I can tell you for sure you never got the idea of one nation having an absolute advantage over another from the Economist. I read it every week religiously. Of course the Economist stated that some workers are hurt by free trade (there are winners and loser in every trail deal). No one argues with that. But the Economist and any legitimate economist always argues that all countries involved always benefit from free trade deals. To try and use the Economist to back up your idea of a nation have an "absolute advantage over another nation" is ridiculous

As for Samuelson, he talked about a nation having an absolute advantage in certain products, but not a nation having an absolute advantage overall. In fact here is something interesting from Samuelson when it comes to comparative advantage.

"Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson (1969) was once challenged by the mathematician Stanislaw Ulam to "name me one proposition in all of the social sciences which is both true and non-trivial." It was several years later than he thought of the correct response: comparative advantage. "That it is logically true need not be argued before a mathematician; that is not trivial is attested by the thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them."

What did David Ricardo mean when he coined the term comparative advantage? According to the principle of comparative advantage, the gains from trade follow from allowing an economy to specialize. If a country is relatively better at making wine than wool, it makes sense to put more resources into wine, and to export some of the wine to pay for imports of wool. This is even true if that country is the world's best wool producer, since the country will have more of both wool and wine than it would have without trade. A country does not have to be best at anything to gain from trade. The gains follow from specializing in those activities which, at world prices, the country is relatively better at, even though it may not have an absolute advantage in them. Because it is relative advantage that matters, it is meaningless to say a country has a comparative advantage in nothing. The term is one of the most misunderstood ideas in economics, and is often wrongly assumed to mean an absolute advantage compared with other countries.

The theory of comparative advantage (sometimes known as "Ricardo's Law") explains why it can be beneficial for two parties (countries, regions, individuals and so on) to trade without barriers if one is more efficient at producing goods or services needed by the other. What matters is not the absolute cost of production, but rather the ratio between how easily the two countries can produce different goods. The concept is highly important in modern international trade theory.

Under "absolute advantage", each state in an unregulated international economy would find a productive niche based on absolute advantage, i.e. it would benefit by specializing in those goods it produced most efficiently and by trading with other states. With comparative advantage, even if one country has no "absolute advantage" when it manufactures a product, it should specialize in and export those products with which it has a relative advantage (i.e. the least cost advantage). So even if a country does not have an absolute advantage in any one product, it can still benefit from free trade if it has a relative advantage in a product."

Free trade always benefits the countries involved. Again, I don't know where you are getting these fantasy treatises about one country having an overall absolute advantage over another, making free trade undesirable, but it did not come from the Economist or from Samuelson.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Where did they come from? Were they Turks left over from the Mongol invasion (the Golden Horde) or were they a later Turkish Sunni Muslim migration? Are these the same guys as the Tatars?

I'm gonna start recommending some reading for you.

Cossacks were crazy Turkish/Slavic Orthodox/Muslim/Buddhist horsemen who made the lives of the Kazan Jews, the ever-expanding haughty Rus Boyars, the Polish nobility and the Ottomans miserable. The were the remnants of everyone who ever crossed the Steppes, and everyone was afraid of them, everyone hired them as merceneries, and everyone had them lurking on their border.

This part of the world has a fascinating history that doesn't get told much because so many of the cultures have disappeared.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
Of course the Economist stated that some workers are hurt by free trade (there are winners and loser in every trail deal). No one argues with that.

If the price of free trade is heavily progressive taxation with marginal rates going up to 70 or 90% to fund social welfare payments or programs -- and this is permanent -- do you like free trade? That's what we're talking about.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
He may not have meant it as anti-Isreal, but to say that they are the biggest threat to world peace can definitely be taken that way. Either way I don't think the American Isreali lobby is going to take kindly to the comment.

Clearly, among the far left, Isreal bashing is in vogue. But the issue is just how acceptible it is in the main stream of the Democrat party is the big question.

I agree that the Israeli lobby will likely take it that way. But again, I am not sure that is a fair reading,l which is why I'm not sure it will be big deal to the maintream of the Democratic party.

But then again, I never really thought he had much of a chance at the nomination anyway.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
FWIW, in case for some reason you think this is isolated, Michelle Malkin has received so many death threats from lefty crazies that she had to relocate her entire family.

We are supposed to freak out about crazy-on-crazy threats now?

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I would argue that since "Islamist" is a synonym for "bloodthirsty, misogynistic, irrational zealot" - the "fascist" part is rather unnecessary.

Hell, the fascists we're familiar with kept the trains running on time. These guys would loot the train for parts.

The ironic part is that the American right wing (Bush and places right) sounds decidedly more like the fascists these days than their enemies (who instead just sound like backward, medieval lunatics).

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
And arguing that this will cause a protectionist backlash against free trade unless politicians in the developed world provide money for re-training, social insurance, and more controversially, tax redistribution policies with heavily progressive taxation.

Of course, I have no problem with any of this.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
If the price of free trade is heavily progressive taxation with marginal rates going up to 70 or 90% to fund social welfare payments or programs -- and this is permanent -- do you like free trade? That's what we're talking about.

According to whom?

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
They killed Jews because they were Jews and Catholics because they were Catholic. They were the Master Race, as decreed not only by God, but by the gods. Just one more in a long line of Killers for Christ, heirs to the Killers for Hashem, progenitors to the Killer for Allah.

Get with the program, or God will tell me to kill you.

The leaders of the Nazi party were mostly atheists.

[SlaveNoMore]

Adder
The ironic part is that the American right wing (Bush and places right) sounds decidedly more like the fascists these days than their enemies (who instead just sound like backward, medieval lunatics).

By enemy, I assume you mean the American left and the Democrat hierarchy

...and by calling them backward, medieval lunatics, I agree with you 110%