Neonmoon

It literally doesn’t say that

I suggest you also read it, as it doesn't support your claim that QE wasn’t successful It literally states “while all of the central bank papers report a statistically significant QE effect on output, only half of the academic papers do.” Of course that there are only 54 studies, but 75% of studies found a statistically significant QE effect on output. The paper sole conclusion was that central banker papers were more favorable than academic papers. That does not equal “QE has a worse track record than Trickle down economics”

Correct And it’s still going on today.

I was writing a quick summary about redlining for work, and reading the history of it, and am still blown away. The US government made it systemically harder for minorities to get loans, and research has show these redlined families have achieved something like 42% less wealth through property because of it. When you realize most people achieve wealth through homeownership, it’s a big deal. (Same could be said for women that needed a man to get a loan for a loan time) I once was a ‘it’s not a race issue, it’s a class issue’ person for a long time, but the more you learn, the more you realize there’s a pretty big fucking reason a certain race is in a certain class.

Fuck it No, it doesn’t have an as bad or worse track record than trickle down economics. QE was used successfully to combat the GFC in 2008 and during Covid as it addressed the problem of the zero lower bound. We can argue about the degree of success or the timing of success, but to say QE didn’t work is incorrect. Trickle Down Economics has been proven repeatedly to be unsound. Tax Cuts for Corporations do not stimulate the economy and there is tons of data out there to prove it.

You are in finance, and you think quantitative easing wasn't successful? I would LOVE to hear this explanation. And if you bring up crypto or the gold standard, I am putting you on block. (edit: nevermind. don't want to threadshit)

I will let the 895 lawyers on this site refute the assertion that a deceased person needs to be awarded a judgment for their heir to file a claim I agree that the entire world is full of people doing bad shit to get land. I routinely argue against the absurdity of anyone that wants to argue for reclaiming land as a measure to right the wrongs of historical taking/stealing/conquering/whatever. However, it is incorrect to assert that people who have been wronged in the past were never compensated monetarily. A good example is Germany. (and Austria). They have paid over 80 billion dollars to holocaust survivors and spouses/heirs of the deceased victims.

I will address my opinion on why certain parties may not want to pay reparations. "I am not racist. I didn't do anything wrong. It's not my fault your ancestors were treated poorly two hundred years ago. It's not fair that I have to pay money out of my pocket for something I didn't do" That's a very logical and simple reasoning that many people have expressed, But it is a simplification, and it ignores many of the issues First off, you are right. You didn't do anything wrong. However, you were born in the United States, and are a citizen in the United States. It is a fact that the US government not only encouraged but facilitated a system of owning human beings based on race. It is not your fault they did that, but as a current citizen, you must share in the benefits and the liabilities of the United States government, whether you believe the benefits or liabilities are right or wrong. The US government never paid any compensation to the wronged party. The famous 40 acres and a mule never happened. It sucks you might somehow indirectly participate in paying for a wrong you never committed. However, this happens all the fucking time. It wasn't your fault that the police officer broke into an apartment and killed and innocent person, but you have to pay for it. It wasn't your fault that illegal immigrants are crossing the border, but you have to pay for it. It wasn't your fault that veterans were exposed to agent orange or burn pits, but you have to pay for it. I could keep going naming all the stupid shit the US government has done that we collectively have to pay for that wasn't any our faults, but we will have to pay for it. If I were so inclined, I could bring up why reparations seems to attract more outrage and posts from people than the thousand other instances

@DixonHur You are down with paying claims to former slaves, but you argue the debt shouldn't be paid because the debtor is deceased. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I presume there is a large mountain of case law where relatives and/or heirs of the deceased have been awarded based upon the previous errs of the wrongful party If one could not face any consequences for past wrongs if the opposing party is dead, that pretty much incentivizes the wronged party to kill the opposing party to avoid consequences

Ughhh. I’m hybrid but I don’t miss the quarterly office flu aka “it’s just allergies”

Correct. Apartheid Elmo still doesn’t understand who the customer is or the product he is selling with Xitter. Limiting eyeballs to Twitter is a choice, and a dumb one.

I’m not a lawyer but I pretend to be one in the bedroom Awarding a plaintiff monetary compensation doesn’t fix the broken back they suffered on the job due to unsafe work policy, but it alleviates some of the mental and hopefully physical pain. More importantly, an injustice was found and there were consequences. For someone to argue they shouldn’t get any money because it doesn’t fix the broken back seems a wee bit sophomoric. Of course it doesn’t fix the unsafe work policy. Fixing that is a given. Why would the company continue to have a policy that harms its workers? Leading to more lawsuits and monetary damages? That’s insane

I think the trans and BLM issues broke as many people as Covid did.

Passing laws is too far left

Interesting

You’ve done your own research?

I take offense to this

I do know that. Do you know it's not exactly difficult to meet the criteria below? https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/eligibility/requirements#ability-to-benefit

Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're a tremendous slouch

Actually, he went with a different direction. The language "Hold any office, civil or military" covers the President because the President holds an office. Therefore, they didn't need to specifically list it out, as opposed to "elector of President and Vice President" did need to be listed because an elector is not an officer nor does an elector hold an office. They are appointed. Similarly, the language "Senator or Representative in Congress" also had to be listed out because they don't hold an office either, according to the constitution they hold a seat.

So you're basically just saying That's fair.

From the perspective of people that can't afford tuition these days, there certainty is a difference. The projects you linked don't prove anything other you have access to google. But by all means, continue your condescension based upon your need to feel superior to other people.

I get the argument regarding bad actors, but at some point, doesn't it kind of defeat the purpose of the rule of law, if we interpret the word gun to mean teddy bear?