Yeah, same.
I think Hillary is probably better. If it is Trump then the person who runs in 2020 and beats him is gonna make Bernie Sanders look like Milton Friedman.
If it was just a 4 year all on it's own and there was no fallout I'd probably rather see what Trump did just for the hell of it. Roll the dice.
I think Hillary is probably better. If it is Trump then the person who runs in 2020 and beats him is gonna make Bernie Sanders look like Milton Friedman.
If it was just a 4 year all on it's own and there was no fallout I'd probably rather see what Trump did just for the hell of it. Roll the dice.
Yea good point. If even half the shit Tiz thinks is gonna happen in this thread happens whoever wins this election the other party will be in power 4 years from now.
That would just leave the door wide fuxking open for a sanders clone to take over 4 years from now if trump wins.
Hillary it is I guess.
Tiz this is what I was talking about in regards to "a new billionaire every other day"
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-we-really-know-that-george-soros-is-bearish-2016-06-10
The media running with "Soros is bearish" has happened often during this bull run.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-we-really-know-that-george-soros-is-bearish-2016-06-10
The media running with "Soros is bearish" has happened often during this bull run.
libertarian obvious place to go if you hate both.. Will be interesting to see what % they get...
presidential shit just a circus anyway.. They just a figurehead and puppets .. See Obama and his hope and change nonsense and in reality he a bush/Clinton clone .. More of the same...
presidential shit just a circus anyway.. They just a figurehead and puppets .. See Obama and his hope and change nonsense and in reality he a bush/Clinton clone .. More of the same...
[h=1]Orlando Killer Worked For Company Transporting Illegal Immigrants Inside US; Was Interviewed By FBI 3 Times[/h]In a surprising discovery, the Palm Beach Post first reported that according to state records, Orlando shooter Omar Mateen - who as we reported earlier was licensed as a security guard and also holds a firearms license - was employed by the US subsidiary of G4S plc, a British multinational security services company, whose US-headquarters are located in Jupiter, Fla, and which also happens to be the world's largest security company by revenue.
Shortly thereafter, G4S confirmed that Omar Mateen has worked for the company since 2007. This is the statement released from G4S:
But where it gets more disturbing is that as Judicial Watch reported several days ago, in a post titled, "DHS Quietly Moving, Releasing Vanloads Of Illegal Aliens Away From Border", border patrol sources said that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was quietly transporting illegal immigrants from the Mexican border to Phoenix and releasing them without proper processing or issuing court appearance documents. As a reminder, the government classifies them as Other Than Mexican (OTM) and this week around 35 were transferred 116 miles north from Tucson to a Phoenix bus station where they went their separate way. Judicial Watch was present when one of the white vans carrying a group of OTMs arrived at the Phoenix Greyhound station on Buckeye Road.
And this is where the Mateen-G4S link emerges: as JW reported previously, a security company contracted by the U.S. government is driving the OTMs from the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector where they were in custody to Phoenix, sources said. The firm is the abovementioned G4S, the world’s leading security solutions group with operations in more than 100 countries and 610,000 employees. G4S has more than 50,000 employees in the U.S. and its domestic headquarters is in Jupiter, Florida.
Judicial Watch noted that it had filed a number of public records requests to get more information involving the arrangement between G4S and the government, specifically the transport of illegal immigrants from the Mexican border to other parts of the country. The photo below shows the uniformed G4S guard that transported the OTMs this week from Tucson to Phoenix.
Outraged Border Patrol agents and supervisors on the front lines say illegal immigrants are being released in droves because there’s no room to keep them in detention. “They’re telling us to put them on a bus and let them go,” said one law enforcement official in Arizona. “Just move those bodies across the country.” Officially, DHS denies this is occurring and in fact earlier this year U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske blasted Border Patrol union officials for denouncing this dangerous catch-and-release policy. Kerlikowske’s scolding came in response to the congressional testimony of Bandon Judd, chief of the National Border Patrol Council, the labor union that represents line agents. Judd told lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee that illegal immigrants without serious criminal convictions can be released immediately and disappear into the shadows. Kerlikowske shot back, telling a separate congressional committee: “I would not stand by if the Border Patrol was — releasing people without going through all of the formalities.
* * *
Meanwhile, the Hill reported that Mateen's employment, and gun licenses, were untouched even though the FBI confirmed it had interviewed the 29-year-old three times before the shooting took place early Sunday morning. An official said that the FBI first became aware of the suspect, Omar Mateen, 29, in 2013 when he made "inflammatory comments to coworkers alleging possible terrorist ties."
In the course of that investigation, Mateen was interviewed twice, but the FBI was unable to verify the substance of his comments.
Then, one year later, in 2014 the FBI conducted an investigation into possible ties between Mateen and an American suicide bomber. The FBI conducted another investigation, which included an interview with Mateen, but determined that the contact did not constitute a threat at that time. Which may be an overstatement: the FBI's 2014 probe allegedly found that the Orlando shooter had "minimal" contact with Florida al-Nusra fighter Moner Abusalha who blew himself up in Syria.
In 2015, after Moner Abusalha became the first American suicide bomber in Syria, the FBI investigated Omar Mateen’s connection to Abu-Salha.Abu-Salha went to the Middle East, trained, and returned to the Treasure Coast, specifically Vero and fort Pierce, to recruit. The FBI says he didn’t recruit anyone, but it’s possible he did have contact with Mateen.
The FBI said it is looking into any and all connections, both domestic and international to the shooting. It appears to have found nothing despite it all being laid out in front of its face.
The agent at Sunday afternoon’s press briefing also confirmed reports that the shooter called 911 before the massacre, and said his remarks had general connections to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terror group. The content of those calls is now federal evidence.
* * *
It gets even more bizarre: despite his chequered history and his numerous FBI encounters, the Orlando Police just reported that he had managed to purchase firearms in just this past week.
A Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spokesperson confirmed that Mateen legally purchased 2 firearms — a handgun and a long gun, “within the past few days.”
* * *
Armed with all this information, the big question, now that it has emerged that Mateen worked for the same company that has been tasked - under questionable circumstances - to transport illegals into the US, is whether or not this individual who swore allegiance to ISIS moments before the worst mass shooting and who was also employed by G4S for almost a decade, and who had been interviewed by the FBI three times and yet still managed to buy guns just last week, was also tasked in any way in facilitating the transport of illegal immigrants across the border, and if so, whether he helped other like-minded radical islamists enter the country.
We are confident all these questions will be addressed by the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the government, and that the media - liberal or otherwise - will promptly follow up on these key questions.
Shortly thereafter, G4S confirmed that Omar Mateen has worked for the company since 2007. This is the statement released from G4S:
“We are shocked and saddened by the tragic event that occurred at the Orlando nightclub. We can confirm that Omar Mateen had been employed with G4S since September 10, 2007. We are cooperating fully with all law enforcement authorities, including the FBI, as they conduct their investigation. Our thoughts and prayers are with all of the friends, families and people affected by this unspeakable tragedy.”
In other words, Mateen who according to preliminary reports, had been on a terrorist watchlist, and who still managed to obtain weapons thanks to his various licenses and permits just last week, was employed by one of the world's largest security companies, where he may have had extensive clearances well above his pay grade, not to mention access to sophisticated military weapons and equipment.
But where it gets more disturbing is that as Judicial Watch reported several days ago, in a post titled, "DHS Quietly Moving, Releasing Vanloads Of Illegal Aliens Away From Border", border patrol sources said that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was quietly transporting illegal immigrants from the Mexican border to Phoenix and releasing them without proper processing or issuing court appearance documents. As a reminder, the government classifies them as Other Than Mexican (OTM) and this week around 35 were transferred 116 miles north from Tucson to a Phoenix bus station where they went their separate way. Judicial Watch was present when one of the white vans carrying a group of OTMs arrived at the Phoenix Greyhound station on Buckeye Road.
And this is where the Mateen-G4S link emerges: as JW reported previously, a security company contracted by the U.S. government is driving the OTMs from the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector where they were in custody to Phoenix, sources said. The firm is the abovementioned G4S, the world’s leading security solutions group with operations in more than 100 countries and 610,000 employees. G4S has more than 50,000 employees in the U.S. and its domestic headquarters is in Jupiter, Florida.
Judicial Watch noted that it had filed a number of public records requests to get more information involving the arrangement between G4S and the government, specifically the transport of illegal immigrants from the Mexican border to other parts of the country. The photo below shows the uniformed G4S guard that transported the OTMs this week from Tucson to Phoenix.
* * *
Meanwhile, the Hill reported that Mateen's employment, and gun licenses, were untouched even though the FBI confirmed it had interviewed the 29-year-old three times before the shooting took place early Sunday morning. An official said that the FBI first became aware of the suspect, Omar Mateen, 29, in 2013 when he made "inflammatory comments to coworkers alleging possible terrorist ties."
In the course of that investigation, Mateen was interviewed twice, but the FBI was unable to verify the substance of his comments.
Then, one year later, in 2014 the FBI conducted an investigation into possible ties between Mateen and an American suicide bomber. The FBI conducted another investigation, which included an interview with Mateen, but determined that the contact did not constitute a threat at that time. Which may be an overstatement: the FBI's 2014 probe allegedly found that the Orlando shooter had "minimal" contact with Florida al-Nusra fighter Moner Abusalha who blew himself up in Syria.
In 2015, after Moner Abusalha became the first American suicide bomber in Syria, the FBI investigated Omar Mateen’s connection to Abu-Salha.Abu-Salha went to the Middle East, trained, and returned to the Treasure Coast, specifically Vero and fort Pierce, to recruit. The FBI says he didn’t recruit anyone, but it’s possible he did have contact with Mateen.
The FBI said it is looking into any and all connections, both domestic and international to the shooting. It appears to have found nothing despite it all being laid out in front of its face.
The agent at Sunday afternoon’s press briefing also confirmed reports that the shooter called 911 before the massacre, and said his remarks had general connections to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terror group. The content of those calls is now federal evidence.
* * *
It gets even more bizarre: despite his chequered history and his numerous FBI encounters, the Orlando Police just reported that he had managed to purchase firearms in just this past week.
A Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spokesperson confirmed that Mateen legally purchased 2 firearms — a handgun and a long gun, “within the past few days.”
* * *
Armed with all this information, the big question, now that it has emerged that Mateen worked for the same company that has been tasked - under questionable circumstances - to transport illegals into the US, is whether or not this individual who swore allegiance to ISIS moments before the worst mass shooting and who was also employed by G4S for almost a decade, and who had been interviewed by the FBI three times and yet still managed to buy guns just last week, was also tasked in any way in facilitating the transport of illegal immigrants across the border, and if so, whether he helped other like-minded radical islamists enter the country.
We are confident all these questions will be addressed by the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the government, and that the media - liberal or otherwise - will promptly follow up on these key questions.
The company is also no stranger to controversy. It has come under fire from rights advocates for providing services to Israeli prisons holding Palestinian detainees, and in 2014 the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation said it sold its stake in G4S.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0YY12G
g4s basically hired mercenaries .. All part of the grand military industrial complex..
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0YY12G
g4s basically hired mercenaries .. All part of the grand military industrial complex..
[h=1]Britain is at centre of global mercenary industry, says charity[/h]Britain is the “mercenary kingpin” of global private military industry, which has been booming ever since the “war on terror” began 15 years ago, according to a report seen exclusively by the Guardian.
The UK multinational G4S is now the world’s largest private security company, and no fewer than 14 companies are based in Hereford, close to the headquarters of the SAS, from whose ranks at least 46 companies hire recruits, says the report by British-based charity War on Want.
The huge increase in the number of private military and security companies, with contracts running into billions of pounds, signals the return of the “dogs of war” (mercenary) era that followed the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, said John Hilary, executive director of War on Want.
At the height of the occupation of Iraq, about 80 British companies operated in Iraq; there are now hundreds operating in areas of conflict around the world, bound only by a system of self-regulation.
In Libya, UK companies led the way after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the report stated. The Security Contracting Network, a recruitment forum for the industry, posted a message in the days following Gaddafi’s fall saying: “There will be an uptick of activity as foreign oil companies scramble to get back to Libya … follow the money, and find your next job.”
Leading UK private military company Aegis Defence Services (now part of GardaWorld), Control Risks, and Olive Group are also among the top recruiters. Their senior executives and board are dominated by former military officers, says War on Want. The chief executive of Aegis, for example, is former Gen Graham Binns, one-time commander of British troops in Basra.
G4S last year secured a contract of up to £188m to provide security for the Basrah Gas Company and signed a five-year, £100m contract with the British embassy in Afghanistan. Clients of G4S, whose annual turnover in Africa has reached £500m, include Royal Dutch Shell and AngloGold Ashanti, War on Want reports.
Foreign Office spending on contracts with private UK security companies rose from £12.6m in 2003 to £48.9m in 2012, according to official figures.
The use of private armies and “floating armouries” by shipping companies is also growing, according to War on Want. Floating armouries are ships harboured at sea, stacked with high-powered rifles, night-vision goggles.
More than half of the members of the Security Association for the Maritime Industry (SAMI) are British. Protection Vessels International Ltd, a UK company, describes itself as the “global leader in armed maritime security”. It was set up in 2008 by senior former military figures “with the express purpose of applying military standards of security”, with a team “drawn from the highest echelons of UK Royal Marines, UK government intelligence and commerce”, War on Want notes.
The Guardian has reported how private security companies protecting ships against Somali pirates store their weapons on floating armouries in international waters to avoid arms smuggling laws. In 2013 Whitehall issued 50 licences for floating armouries in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden.
Hilary of War on Want said: “Private military contractors ran amok in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving a trail of human rights abuses in their wake. Now we are seeing the alarming rise of mercenaries fighting on the frontline in conflict zones across the world: it is the return of the ‘dogs of war’.”
He added: “For too long this murky world of guns for hire has been allowed to grow unchecked. In letting the industry regulate itself, the government has failed: only binding regulation will do. The time has come to ban these companies from operating in conflict zones and end the privatisation of war.”
Britain has signed up to an international code of conduct for “private security service providers”, laying down principles covering accountability to the law and human rights. However, it is a voluntary code of conduct.
The UN is drawing up plans for an international convention that is legally binding on private security and military companies. Switzerland bans companies based in the country from operating in conflict zones.
The UK multinational G4S is now the world’s largest private security company, and no fewer than 14 companies are based in Hereford, close to the headquarters of the SAS, from whose ranks at least 46 companies hire recruits, says the report by British-based charity War on Want.
The huge increase in the number of private military and security companies, with contracts running into billions of pounds, signals the return of the “dogs of war” (mercenary) era that followed the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, said John Hilary, executive director of War on Want.
At the height of the occupation of Iraq, about 80 British companies operated in Iraq; there are now hundreds operating in areas of conflict around the world, bound only by a system of self-regulation.
In Libya, UK companies led the way after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the report stated. The Security Contracting Network, a recruitment forum for the industry, posted a message in the days following Gaddafi’s fall saying: “There will be an uptick of activity as foreign oil companies scramble to get back to Libya … follow the money, and find your next job.”
Leading UK private military company Aegis Defence Services (now part of GardaWorld), Control Risks, and Olive Group are also among the top recruiters. Their senior executives and board are dominated by former military officers, says War on Want. The chief executive of Aegis, for example, is former Gen Graham Binns, one-time commander of British troops in Basra.
G4S last year secured a contract of up to £188m to provide security for the Basrah Gas Company and signed a five-year, £100m contract with the British embassy in Afghanistan. Clients of G4S, whose annual turnover in Africa has reached £500m, include Royal Dutch Shell and AngloGold Ashanti, War on Want reports.
Foreign Office spending on contracts with private UK security companies rose from £12.6m in 2003 to £48.9m in 2012, according to official figures.
The use of private armies and “floating armouries” by shipping companies is also growing, according to War on Want. Floating armouries are ships harboured at sea, stacked with high-powered rifles, night-vision goggles.
More than half of the members of the Security Association for the Maritime Industry (SAMI) are British. Protection Vessels International Ltd, a UK company, describes itself as the “global leader in armed maritime security”. It was set up in 2008 by senior former military figures “with the express purpose of applying military standards of security”, with a team “drawn from the highest echelons of UK Royal Marines, UK government intelligence and commerce”, War on Want notes.
The Guardian has reported how private security companies protecting ships against Somali pirates store their weapons on floating armouries in international waters to avoid arms smuggling laws. In 2013 Whitehall issued 50 licences for floating armouries in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden.
Hilary of War on Want said: “Private military contractors ran amok in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving a trail of human rights abuses in their wake. Now we are seeing the alarming rise of mercenaries fighting on the frontline in conflict zones across the world: it is the return of the ‘dogs of war’.”
He added: “For too long this murky world of guns for hire has been allowed to grow unchecked. In letting the industry regulate itself, the government has failed: only binding regulation will do. The time has come to ban these companies from operating in conflict zones and end the privatisation of war.”
Britain has signed up to an international code of conduct for “private security service providers”, laying down principles covering accountability to the law and human rights. However, it is a voluntary code of conduct.
The UN is drawing up plans for an international convention that is legally binding on private security and military companies. Switzerland bans companies based in the country from operating in conflict zones.
Status quoers will be sweating the next few weeks..
--------
[h=1]Bracing for the Turmoil of a Potential Brexit[/h]The U.K. may be less than two weeks away from political, constitutional, diplomatic and economic chaos. At least that is the concern of officials charged with planning for the aftermath of the June 23 referendum, should British voters decide to quit the European Union. That is starting to look possible amid clear signs that the Leave campaign is gaining momentum. One poll published Friday even showed the Leave campaign with a six-percentage point lead—a margin that widened to 10 points when adjusted for a projected higher turnout among supporters of a British exit—although other polls continue to show a tight race. A vote for a so-called Brexit would pose profound challenges for the British state.
The first would be political. Although David Cameron has said he intends to stay as prime minister even if he lost, it is widely assumed he would quickly resign. Brexit campaigners, having savaged his record, would be unlikely to trust him to lead the exit negotiations, and Mr. Cameron would in any case have lost credibility. Until recently, it seemed Brexit leader Boris Johnson was poised for a quick succession. But Mr. Johnson has also been damaged by a divisive campaign, and senior colleagues have publicly questioned his fitness for office. Some senior Conservatives even believe the parliamentary party would caucus to keep him out of the final membership ballot. A contested election could leave the government rudderless all summer.
A vote to quit the EU would also raise constitutional challenges. A new government would have to decide what relationship a post-Brexit U.K. should have with the EU. This is essentially a binary choice. The first option would be for the U.K. to preserve as much as possible its existing relationship—the so-called Norway model—buying time to negotiate backward to a bilateral free-trade arrangement. The second choice would be to make a clean break of all EU entanglements—relying only on World Trade Organization rules—and then working forward toward a new deal.
Advertisement
The first is likely to be favored by most parliamentarians given that they are overwhelmingly opposed to Brexit and that this would minimize economic disruption. But this would require the U.K. to continue to accept unlimited EU migration, pay into the EU budget and accept EU rules, which many leading Brexit campaigners now explicitly oppose. That potentially sets the stage for a parliamentary clash that might only be resolved by an early election.
Officials fear that political and constitutional turmoil could be accompanied by diplomatic turmoil too, particularly if the U.K. tried to delay the start of formal divorce negotiations. The EU would want the U.K. to agree to exit terms by early 2018, when negotiations on a new EU budget are due to begin, one Brussels-based official says. That would require the U.K. to invoke Article 50 of the EU Treaties, formally declaring its intention to leave and starting the clock on a two-year negotiating period as early as a European leaders’ summit on June 26th.
Yet some Brexit campaigners argue the U.K. should delay invoking Article 50 until it has informally agreed upon a deal. This would avoid handing the advantage to the EU. Indeed, Brexit campaigner Michael Gove has even suggested the U.K. could use its existing membership rights to obstruct EU business as a way to pressure other governments into making concessions.
But diplomats in London and Brussels say this is naive. In reality, the EU would refuse to start any negotiation until the U.K. invoked Article 50. The U.K. would also continue to have to accept unlimited EU migration and pay into the EU budget until an exit deal was reached. If the U.K. acted unilaterally to stop either of these, the EU would have a clear basis to expel the U.K., which would create immediate problems for sections of the U.K. economy dependent on EU funding or EU single-market membership, including large areas of U.K. financial-market activity.
Such tactics would in any case hardly be conducive to harmonious relations with countries upon which the U.K. depends for nearly half of its trade. Faced with a U.K. that had decided to turn itself from a partner into a competitor, the EU’s priority would be to prevent a wider implosion. Under the circumstances, the bloc’s member-states could hardly offer the U.K. a better deal outside the EU than they currently allow themselves inside, which suggests Brexit campaigners have little chance of achieving their goal of open access to the EU’s single market without the obligation of accepting free movement.
What seems certain is that political, constitutional and diplomatic turmoil would create economic turmoil too, at least until the fog of uncertainty had lifted. The severity of the shock would also depend in part on how far turmoil spread across the EU. After all, the referendum isn’t taking place in a vacuum but against a backdrop of growing political instability across the continent.
Even some Brexit campaigners acknowledge that a U.K. vote to quit the EU would lead to contagion. Indeed, Mr. Gove has said that he hopes and believes that Brexit would lead to the “liberation” of Europe from the euro and EU. Many European policy makers, not just in the U.K., fear he might be right.
--------
[h=1]Bracing for the Turmoil of a Potential Brexit[/h]The U.K. may be less than two weeks away from political, constitutional, diplomatic and economic chaos. At least that is the concern of officials charged with planning for the aftermath of the June 23 referendum, should British voters decide to quit the European Union. That is starting to look possible amid clear signs that the Leave campaign is gaining momentum. One poll published Friday even showed the Leave campaign with a six-percentage point lead—a margin that widened to 10 points when adjusted for a projected higher turnout among supporters of a British exit—although other polls continue to show a tight race. A vote for a so-called Brexit would pose profound challenges for the British state.
The first would be political. Although David Cameron has said he intends to stay as prime minister even if he lost, it is widely assumed he would quickly resign. Brexit campaigners, having savaged his record, would be unlikely to trust him to lead the exit negotiations, and Mr. Cameron would in any case have lost credibility. Until recently, it seemed Brexit leader Boris Johnson was poised for a quick succession. But Mr. Johnson has also been damaged by a divisive campaign, and senior colleagues have publicly questioned his fitness for office. Some senior Conservatives even believe the parliamentary party would caucus to keep him out of the final membership ballot. A contested election could leave the government rudderless all summer.
A vote to quit the EU would also raise constitutional challenges. A new government would have to decide what relationship a post-Brexit U.K. should have with the EU. This is essentially a binary choice. The first option would be for the U.K. to preserve as much as possible its existing relationship—the so-called Norway model—buying time to negotiate backward to a bilateral free-trade arrangement. The second choice would be to make a clean break of all EU entanglements—relying only on World Trade Organization rules—and then working forward toward a new deal.
Advertisement
The first is likely to be favored by most parliamentarians given that they are overwhelmingly opposed to Brexit and that this would minimize economic disruption. But this would require the U.K. to continue to accept unlimited EU migration, pay into the EU budget and accept EU rules, which many leading Brexit campaigners now explicitly oppose. That potentially sets the stage for a parliamentary clash that might only be resolved by an early election.
Officials fear that political and constitutional turmoil could be accompanied by diplomatic turmoil too, particularly if the U.K. tried to delay the start of formal divorce negotiations. The EU would want the U.K. to agree to exit terms by early 2018, when negotiations on a new EU budget are due to begin, one Brussels-based official says. That would require the U.K. to invoke Article 50 of the EU Treaties, formally declaring its intention to leave and starting the clock on a two-year negotiating period as early as a European leaders’ summit on June 26th.
Yet some Brexit campaigners argue the U.K. should delay invoking Article 50 until it has informally agreed upon a deal. This would avoid handing the advantage to the EU. Indeed, Brexit campaigner Michael Gove has even suggested the U.K. could use its existing membership rights to obstruct EU business as a way to pressure other governments into making concessions.
But diplomats in London and Brussels say this is naive. In reality, the EU would refuse to start any negotiation until the U.K. invoked Article 50. The U.K. would also continue to have to accept unlimited EU migration and pay into the EU budget until an exit deal was reached. If the U.K. acted unilaterally to stop either of these, the EU would have a clear basis to expel the U.K., which would create immediate problems for sections of the U.K. economy dependent on EU funding or EU single-market membership, including large areas of U.K. financial-market activity.
Such tactics would in any case hardly be conducive to harmonious relations with countries upon which the U.K. depends for nearly half of its trade. Faced with a U.K. that had decided to turn itself from a partner into a competitor, the EU’s priority would be to prevent a wider implosion. Under the circumstances, the bloc’s member-states could hardly offer the U.K. a better deal outside the EU than they currently allow themselves inside, which suggests Brexit campaigners have little chance of achieving their goal of open access to the EU’s single market without the obligation of accepting free movement.
What seems certain is that political, constitutional and diplomatic turmoil would create economic turmoil too, at least until the fog of uncertainty had lifted. The severity of the shock would also depend in part on how far turmoil spread across the EU. After all, the referendum isn’t taking place in a vacuum but against a backdrop of growing political instability across the continent.
Even some Brexit campaigners acknowledge that a U.K. vote to quit the EU would lead to contagion. Indeed, Mr. Gove has said that he hopes and believes that Brexit would lead to the “liberation” of Europe from the euro and EU. Many European policy makers, not just in the U.K., fear he might be right.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rais...ilton-friedman-social-security-003220195.html
Seeing more and more UBI in the news.
I could see something like that 30-40 years from now if AI keeps accelerating and robots can do most of the jobs, then obviously a social policy might be needed but right now I really don't get how something like that could have any type of support.
I'd have to see the context in which Friedman said he supported it.
Seeing more and more UBI in the news.
I could see something like that 30-40 years from now if AI keeps accelerating and robots can do most of the jobs, then obviously a social policy might be needed but right now I really don't get how something like that could have any type of support.
I'd have to see the context in which Friedman said he supported it.
Thats an Alex Jones wet dream right there
Dont we already sorta do this via food stamps, welfare, disability etc? What's an extra thousand gonna do other than increase government's rate of indebtedness?
Technology not all bad for jobs.. Uber for instance is creating jobs overall ..
All this talk of handouts just coming out now as the liberal keynesians trying to end all recessions forever have run outta ideas after zirp failed miserably..
only creative destruction and pain will cure what ails us economically... For some reason they think they can avoid it why I have no idea.. They are just delaying it and creating more problems ...
EU and brexit also showing that the status quoers dreams of global government one world currency is gonna be a major uphill battle.. Economies are just way to dynamic and different to try to manage on a large scale...
I think the point of UBI is that if you replace the other programs with it then people are free to spend the money how they want and it won't distort the market so costs for services like healthcare will fall.
I know tech isn't bad for all jobs, but AI will probably continue to take many low wage or manual labor jobs. Will this free people up for other pursuits or will we just have to pay people? I dunno, probably not an issue worth asking for another 25 years anyway.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_...al-basic-income-wsj-for-ny-times-against.html
This a good UBI writeup on the pros of it. I don't agree with it but you can see what the goal is.
I know tech isn't bad for all jobs, but AI will probably continue to take many low wage or manual labor jobs. Will this free people up for other pursuits or will we just have to pay people? I dunno, probably not an issue worth asking for another 25 years anyway.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_...al-basic-income-wsj-for-ny-times-against.html
This a good UBI writeup on the pros of it. I don't agree with it but you can see what the goal is.
People are idiots can't blank check it.. Especially the poor.. Most of them poor for a reason...
they will just gamble drink smoke it away... I'm a fairly educated guy and I myself to my fair share of this
always blows my mind the garbage food/empty calrioes the food stampers allowed to buy.. And that in turn puts an added burden cost on our healthcare system..
they will just gamble drink smoke it away... I'm a fairly educated guy and I myself to my fair share of this
always blows my mind the garbage food/empty calrioes the food stampers allowed to buy.. And that in turn puts an added burden cost on our healthcare system..
In the old days being a fatass was a sign of wealth
nowadays the poorest tend to be the fattest.. Eat cheap unhealthy hoards of sugar empty calories galore...
obviously it's an uphill battle as high sugar empty calorie foods are addictive and cheaper than eating healthy expensive food...
nowadays the poorest tend to be the fattest.. Eat cheap unhealthy hoards of sugar empty calories galore...
obviously it's an uphill battle as high sugar empty calorie foods are addictive and cheaper than eating healthy expensive food...
The UBI would probably be fine at first, people just supplementing lifestyle and alleviating poverty. But over time the stigma from leaving workforce and doing nothing would erode. Then eventually everyone just lives in a 1BR apt and plays video games all day, or works part-time and you get less production/innovation from the disincentives.
Social security and medicare help lift people out of poverty but they also told an entire generation that younger workers would pay for their retirement so they didn't bother to save as much much.
Social security and medicare help lift people out of poverty but they also told an entire generation that younger workers would pay for their retirement so they didn't bother to save as much much.
