Interesting you seem to always get focused on dicks and foreign objects as sex toys and violence.
Especially you run around wanting to beat people up you don't agree with.

And in all the time you've been shitting on this forum you haven't offered a single constructive comment.

Abandone issues when you show up? You betcha. Discussions with you are no better than talking to a post.

Own shooters ass??

You are some special kind of asshole.

 

It has nothing to do with people I don’t agree with. It’s stupid people. Not the same demographic. As far as issues go, I have always owned you. Always. You’re so fucking stupid you don’t even realize it, I suppose.

 

You just showed up, got suspended and made an ass of yourself upon return, you said nothing of import, you behaved like a whiny bitch on a perpetual period, tissues or tampax, plug your leak and maybe you can be just a forum troll and not a monthly discharge

 

So coarse. Go away.

 

Say something relevant, I dare ya!

 

“Boo” is relevant compared to the utter nonsense you post.

 

Relevant to what?

 

Right now...you're batting a 1000 on irrelevent, so it shouldn't take much to be on the relevant angle.

However...me doubts that you'll ever partake in anything relevant.

 

And you just gotta love when biden/harris handlers start creating problems so they can, you know, offer up solutions.

July 9, 2021

By David Leonhardt
Good morning. The U.S. economy suffers from a lack of competition. President Biden wants to change that.

A $5,000 tax

The U.S. economy has been less dynamic in the 21st century, by many measures, than it was in the late 20th century.

Fewer new businesses are starting. Existing businesses have slowed the pace at which they hire new workers (as the chart here shows). Workers are less likely to switch jobs or move to a new city. Companies are investing in new buildings and equipment at a lower rate. And small businesses make up a shrinking share of the economy.



By The New York Times | Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Together, these trends suggest that the economy suffers from a lack of fair competition, many economists believe. Large corporations are often able to increase profits not by providing better products than their rivals but instead by being so big that they exercise power over workers and consumers. The government also plays a role, through policies that protect existing companies at the expense of start-ups and new entrants into an industry.


The technical term for excess profits from a lack of competition is “monopoly rents.” Just think about how frustrated you may have been by the customer service from an airline, cable-television provider or health insurer. And then imagine how frustrating it may be to work there. Despite the problems at these companies, consumers and workers don’t always have good alternatives.

The lack of competitive dynamism plays a role in many of the U.S. economy’s biggest problems: the disappointing economic growth of the past two decades; the declining share of output going to workers; and rising income inequality. It also helps explain the new concern — among both Republicans (like Josh Hawley and Ken Buck) and Democrats (like Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar) — about the power of big business.


Expensive hearing aids
Today, President Biden is issuing an executive order that tries to address the economy’s competition problem. It directs regulators to take specific steps to reduce monopoly rents in multiple industries. Among other things, the order would:

• Make it easier for generic-drug makers and Canadian providers to compete with U.S. pharmaceutical companies.

• Allow Americans to buy hearing aids without a prescription (a 2017 law — signed by Donald Trump — called for that, but it still has not happened).

• Require hospitals to be more transparent about billing (a problem that my colleague Sarah Kliff has documented).

• Force airlines to refund money when they lose bags or when the in-flight Wi-Fi doesn’t function.

• Make sure that farmers can repair their own equipment or choose who repairs it, rather than allowing manufacturers to dictate who can.

• Increase federal scrutiny of tech companies’ mergers and their use of consumer data, as David McCabe and Cecilia Kang of The Times explain.

• Restrict “noncompete clauses,” like the ones that restaurant chains and retailers use to keep workers from accepting a job at a rival.

“Having healthy competition is vital to an effective capitalist system,” Brian Deese, Biden’s top White House economic adviser, told me. “It is a driver of higher wages, lower prices, more innovation and more business creation.”


Can Biden change things?
Is the executive order sweeping enough to matter? Probably, although it’s not clear how much.


The problem of monopoly rents has grown so large that even a modest reduction in them could be significant. Thomas Philippon, an N.Y.U. economist, has estimated that the economy’s lack of fair competition costs the typical American household more than $5,000 a year, through both higher prices and lower wages.

The hearing-aid policy alone, for example, could save affected families a few thousand dollars a year. It could also lead to innovation in the industry and help many hearing-impaired Americans who can’t now afford help.


As word began spreading this week that Biden was planning to issue an executive order on competition, analysts across the ideological spectrum praised the idea. Gary Winslett of the conservative-leaning R Street Institute called the moves “terrific.” Zephyr Teachout, the progressive legal scholar, said they were “just huge.”

Jason Furman, a top economic adviser in the Obama administration, told my colleague Neil Irwin: “I don’t think addressing competition issues will miraculously transform inequality in this country, but it will help. The government should be on your side when it comes to wages.”


No doubt, the order will receive more specific criticism once its details are clear, especially from industries that it targets. (There is also no doubt that executives and lobbyists from those industries will claim that the order would actually hurt workers and consumers, but you don’t need to take those claims at face value.)

The more serious question may be how impactful an executive order — as opposed to new legislation — can be. Biden administration officials made sure to write this order narrowly, targeting specific industries, to reduce the chances that business-friendly judges would overturn any federal regulations that stem from the order.


Of course, that also means the order will have only a modest effect on the biggest causes of economic sclerosis and inequality, like corporate consolidation and workers’ lack of bargaining power.

Still, Biden’s advisers argue that the order is a first step toward getting the federal government to care about competition again. “A lot of this is getting back into the American antitrust tradition that was created by the Roosevelts — T.R. and F.D.R.,” Bharat Ramamurti, a Biden adviser who previously worked for Warren, told me. “Highly concentrated industries are fundamentally in tension with American capitalism.”​

So, lets see. All of a sudden US companies suffer from a lack of competition.
What happened to the unfair competition from China and all that?
Ah. Now we see. A tax.
A $5,000 tax.
To, you know, introduce more competition to US business so, you know, the Wifi works during our flight to see grandma.
Or maybe so we can order hearing aids without seeing a doctor.
Now there's a spiffy idea!

And lets start up with the regulations again.
Trump proved, less regulation, business improves.
Drastically.
But hey, what the fuck.
More regulation, business does less well, and we have a bigger, more invasive government.

Choose.

Nope, this is classic,
create a problem where none exists
Offer a solution that gathers more power and more money to government.
Fuck up what wasn't fucked up before.

Good job biden/harris!!

 

Just to prove your theory, just take a gander at big tech and the internet.

In essence it has zero federal fucking government over site and regulation...the mother fucker blew up.... economically speaking.

 

Taliban Claims to Control Most of Afghanistan a Day After Biden Denies 'Inevitable' Takeover
By Nick Arama | Jul 09, 2021 1:45 PM ET




Joe Biden on foreign policy is a bit like Paul Krugman on the economy — always wrong, as former Obama Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.


It’s one of those things like death and taxes that you know will always be there in some way.

So when Joe Biden says that it isn’t inevitable that the Taliban will be taking over in Afghanistan now that we are pulling out, you know there’s going to be a big problem.

From Washington Examiner:

“No, it is not,” Biden stated when asked about an “inevitable” Taliban takeover. “Because you have the Afghan troops, they’re 300,000 well-equipped, as well equipped as any army in the world, and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable.”

Later in the impromptu press conference, the president rejected reports claiming that U.S. intelligence assessments and top military officials in the country have determined the Taliban will take back power within a year — or sooner.

“That is not true,” Biden answered flatly to a question on the subject. “They did not reach that conclusion.”

So did he just deny the intelligence community’s assessment? Yes, he did. Where is the media to attack him over that, as they did President Donald Trump? And he got testy as he frequently does when he’s challenged (and wrong).

Sounds like U.S. intel might know a bit more than Biden.



The Taliban is claiming today that they are in control of 85% of the country after they seized key border crossings with Iran and Turkmenistan as part of their ongoing actions. While the 85% is likely an exaggeration, claiming “most” might not be wrong and the seizure of the border crossings is true.



You can see how much territory they’ve seized control of, just since April, which shows more than half — 204 of 398 districts.



Biden talks about the Afghan Air Force, an asset that the Taliban doesn’t have. But the Taliban is employing a method to equalize the forces — assassinating the U.S.-trained Afghan pilots. Afghan Air Force Major Dastagir Zamaray was concerned, so he went to meet with a realtor to move to a safer area of Kabul. The Taliban showed up and gunned him and the realtor down. He fell on top of his 14-year-old son who had come along to the realtor. The boy now barely speaks. Zamaray’s killing was just one example of this tactic to neutralize the Air Force advantage. Also, because of the U.S. pull-out, it’s not clear that the Air Force will be maintained as it had been before without U.S. help or contractors.

A U.N. report documented 229 civilian deaths caused by the Taliban in Afghanistan in the first three months of 2021, and 41 civilian deaths caused by the Afghan Air Force over the same period.

Afghanistan’s government has not publicly disclosed the number of pilots assassinated in targeted killings. The nation’s Defense Ministry did not respond to requests for comment. The Pentagon said it was aware of the deaths of several Afghan pilots in killings claimed by the Taliban, but declined comment on U.S. intelligence and investigations.

But this is where we are right now and Joe Biden doesn’t seem to have a clue. Meanwhile the Pentagon press secretary, John Kirby, just conceded there was a “deteriorating security situation.”