Jump to content

blackmarketbaby

banned
  • Posts

    217
  • Joined

Posts posted by blackmarketbaby

  1. 1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

    This is part of what happens, absolutely. You act like "passing it on to the consumer" is just something all companies can do indefinitely. It's amazing how little capitalism apologists understand about how competitive markets work.

    Yes, they will pass along as many costs to customers as possible. Here's the thing: They already do this BEFORE minimum wage increases. They can only get away increasing costs if it doesn't hurt them competitively.

    I'm BurgerShopA, you're BurgerShop B. You and I already manage the efficiencies of our businesses to increase profits. Uh oh, the COMMUNISTS have raised the minimum wage. Now my personnel costs have increased. I "pass it on to my customers" and now my burger costs $7 when it used to cost $5. You raise your burger price to $6 and cut your spending in other areas (like the ones outlined above).

    Which one of us will succeed?

     

    You forgot the theater. Don't forget the drive in

  2. 28 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

    I've thought about the alternative - immortality, and man that sounds more terrifying when you consider the inevitables. Everyone you know dies, humanity dies out, the sun explodes and then you spend eternity just floating through an incomprehensible void with nothing but your thoughts. 

    Nope!

    That gloom went to far for David to comprehend because doom is on his mind and it must be instant 

  3. 10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    The leverage was that we had somethng they wanted - the legitimacy and image boost that meeting with our president would give them. That was the leverage,

    So on par with the Kardasians?

    • Like 1
  4. 21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    The biggest thing we had to offer was the meeting itself.  Giving Kim the opportunity to meet with an American President and shake his hand as an equal.  And we gave it away without getting anything concrete in return.  

    We don't have a whole lot more to offer them.  We have some bits and pieces (again, relaxing sanctions, maybe supporting them joining up with the IMF, etc.), but those are piecemeal things.  The prize was the meeting, and we could and should have gotten more from it (which we might have done, had we planned it in advance, and had pre-meeting negotiations).

    Where is the leverage though? 

  5. 5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    So, I spend a week every year with a cousin by marriage who is one of our country's go-to guys on North Korea.  He's met Kim more than once, has toured certain nuclear facilities, negotiated for hostage releases, the whole deal.  He has briefed folks in the current administration several times.  He just got back from a recent meeting with one of the other nations that took part in the six party talks back in the day.

    He had both positives and negatives to say about where we are.

    1 -- The DPRK is a nuclear power.  It is going to remain a nuclear power.   They are never going to give up their weapons, and why would they?  Truly, we're the only nation that seems to still have that as a goal.

    2 -- now that they have nukes, they're probably SAFER to deal with than they were before.  They're not scared.  Everyone in the room has a gun, now they do too.  That makes them feel much less nervous.

    So, what should our goals be?  Most importantly, limit the number of nukes that they have.  That means letting them keep the weapons they have, but having them surrender fissile material and plutonium.  IF you have a limited number of nukes, the games you can play are limited.  If you have 100, you can play much more dangerous games (survive a first strike, counterstrike selected targets, and still have more weapons for a second counterstrike).

    How do we get there?  Well, it's a slow game, like it always has been. We  could trade a relaxation of sanctions, but that cat's already out of the bag (at least by South Korea and China).  Honestly, we don't have a whole lot of leverage -- Trump gave it away.

    BUT,  he also gave credit for Trump.  Sure, he'd have much preferred that  he went into the summit prepared, having spent time negotiating a pre-packaged deal that ended the war, expressed a commitment to denuclearize the peninsula, and actually had the DPRK surrender some fissile material (and of course, formal relaxation of some sanctions).  But he did say that only a Republican could meet with Kim, and an outlier like Trump was the kind of guy who could  do it.  And, even if no concrete terms were agreed to, the relationship created and general  commitments made should mean no war in the near future (and that's, you know, a good thing).

    He also observed that Pompeo's recent visit was a disaster, mostly because the admin wasn't listening to the experts.  Pompeo went to North Korea thinking he was going to meet with Kim.  He didn't, and it was embarrassing.  And the DPRK has the upper hand right now.  They can slow-play all of their "commitments," and there's not much we can do about it.

    Good news: war unlikely.

    Bad news: negotiations with this new nuclear power will take strategy and finesse, and the admin has demonstrated neither.

    So, there you go.  I plied him with several good Ballast Point beers to get this info.  Enjoy.

    Good info.

    What leverage do you think the US lost? 

  6. 4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

    That stupid gumball video?

    The purpose of taking people in isn't the fix the world's problems. The purpose of taking people in is recognizing our shared humanity.

    If you truly want to keep people from wanting to come here, then you should be advocating for us to spend resources improving their nations of origin so they do not have to run away for safety or economic opportunity.

    This is dumb. Extremely fucking dumb. There are >220M more people in the US now than in 1920. Our nation is neither flooded nor ruined. We could very easily accommodate hundreds of millions more.

    Just say you don't want more brown people. Cut to the chase.

    That's not something to be proud of.

    Can you point out any leftist/lib/Dem movement pushing the government to criminalize speech? I'm not saying it doesn't exist: I'm genuinely curious as to what you are referring to.

    I would guess you're talking about the left protesting right-wing speech? Right?

    You! You dense motherfucker, you!

  7. 27 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    Draw what line? Where? You're inventing a bogeyman and then asking me why I'm being a bogeyman.

    I do not want the government interfering with speech and I don't know of any leftist movements to get the government to interfere with speech.

    I am curious what it is you think you're seeing from the left.

    Sending them back takes resources.

    Also, they're human beings worthy of dignity, freedom, rights, and a chance to succeed.

    I invented a boogie man? 

    Might be the best thing all day

     

×
×
  • Create New...