Trump this!

[ObiW]

Bernie car. Jasno je zasto je mnogo privlacniji mladim glasacima (vidi grafik na prethodnoj strani) nego Hilari.

 

Hilari je izasla spremna, bila je mnogo bolja nego na debatama sa Obamom 2008. 

 

Ostali su bar naizgled normalni, za razliku od GOPera.

Edited October 14, 2015 by ObiW

[Eraserhead]

Boldovano:

1. Neki dokaz da nefinansijske kompanije koriste derivative za hedging a ne spekulisanje? Ako cemo po tome kako kompanije upotrebljavaju racunovodstvena pravila za hedging, koja  jesu restriktivna (IAS 39, ne novi IFRS 9), malo ko hedzuje. No, mrzi me da trazim, ima akademskih studija na tu temu.

 

Nemam sada vremena da mnogo pisem, ali evo nesto sto se secam da sam prosle godine nasao:

 

(1,000 public companies with annual revenues between $500 million and $20 billion)

 

Mislim da istorijski upotreba derivativa u ove svrhe nije velika ali da se povecava kako se dolazi do vise znanja o njihovoj mogucoj primeni.

Generalno derivatima treba pristupiti oprezno i ne treba unapred pretpostaviti da su derivativi losa stvar i ne treba obeshrabrivati upotrebu.

 

2. Rizik na nivou ekonomije je da, derivativi su zamisljeni za risk sharing, sto moze da dovede do smanjenja rizika na individualnom nivou ali ne na nivou ekonomije. Sad, posto je svet umrezen, rec "ekonomija" treba shvatiti globalno a ne nacionalno.

 

 

Da, vidim na sta mislis samo pokusavam da izmozgam da li to funkcionise kao zero-sum ili ne. Intuicija mi govori da ne. Mozda benefit dolazi iz smanjene volatility. Interesantna tema. Videcu sta ima da se procita. 

 

3. Dividende - koje su stope poreza na dobit i dividende (zbirno) u odnosu na stopu poreza na plate, recimo? Dvostruko oporezivanje ne znaci nuzno da su stope na sve dohotke jednake. Ne znam kakav je slucaj u SAD. 

 

 

Porez na dividende je "capital gain" 15% do primanja od $400K i 20% na preko toga.

[porucnik vasic]

Bernie car.

Није човек ратни злочинац.

Edited October 14, 2015 by porucnik vasic

[Eraserhead]

Није човек ратни злочинац.

 

 

Kako nije? Vidis da je glasao za to da se zaustavi "ethnic cleansing in Kosovo" kako rece danas.

[ObiW]

Није човек ратни злочинац.

 

Idi igraj se sa Irejzerom, nisi mi interesantan veceras.

[porucnik vasic]

Idi igraj se sa Irejzerom, nisi mi interesantan veceras.

Мудрац.

[mustang]

mene brine sto je vecina ljudi, amerikanaca, oko mene, za republikance i to su bas hard-core, cak i vecina gej prijatelja. i  mrze imigrante/meksikance tacnije i loze se na oruzje. ja kad krenem da im nabrajam da bi jeli qrc da nema meksikanaca da beru i ko im cisti kuce, cuva decu...ko da pricam oblacima.

 

nisam protiv republikanaca, idem za politikom osobe bez obzira da li je rep., dem., ili liberal .. u ovoj trci sada, za mene je jedini covek koji ima smisla da nesto uradi a nije bush/clinton klan, bernie s.

Edited October 14, 2015 by mustang

[Lezilebovich]

argument "ko bi ti čistio govna da nema meksikanaca" možda i nije baš najbolji :(

[dragance]

Ako tako uprosceno postavis, onda i nije najbolji argument. Samo, cinjenica je da komplet ekonomija i lifestyle zavise od jeftine radne snage u svim tim poljima. Da li je to dobro ili ne je totalno druga prica, oko koje se Sanders i najvise investirao (tj da podigne zaradu svim tim ljudima na living wage, sto bi samo po sebi dovelo do kraha sistema, ali i to je neka druga i duga prica), ali je vecina tih ljudi latinos. Mnogo su dobri ljudi, zasluzuju vise nego da se zadovoljavaju mrvicama, i njihove trece i cevrte generacije koje su sada dobro obrazovane i bolje stojeci nego mnogi wasp ce to i pokazati Trumpu kada bude ispusio na generalnim izborima (i.e. lako je kenjati na prajmariz, ali se to nece zaboraviti kada dodje ono glavno, ako uopste on i bude njihov kandidat).

[iDemo]

 

Scenario :

Pedro fails high school English.

1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.

2007 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state.

Newspaper articles appear nationally

explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist.

AFRE files class action lawsuit against state school system

and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum.

Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up

mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.

[Budja]

Nemam sada vremena da mnogo pisem, ali evo nesto sto se secam da sam prosle godine nasao:

 

(1,000 public companies with annual revenues between $500 million and $20 billion)

 

Mislim da istorijski upotreba derivativa u ove svrhe nije velika ali da se povecava kako se dolazi do vise znanja o njihovoj mogucoj primeni.

Generalno derivatima treba pristupiti oprezno i ne treba unapred pretpostaviti da su derivativi losa stvar i ne treba obeshrabrivati upotrebu.

 

 

Da, vidim na sta mislis samo pokusavam da izmozgam da li to funkcionise kao zero-sum ili ne. Intuicija mi govori da ne. Mozda benefit dolazi iz smanjene volatility. Interesantna tema. Videcu sta ima da se procita. 

 

 

Porez na dividende je "capital gain" 15% do primanja od $400K i 20% na preko toga.

 

Ne, nisu derivativi sami po sebi losi,daleko od toga.

 

Sto se tice rizika, da, volatilnost se smanjuje pravilnim risk menadzmentom, no neko drugi preuzima deo rizika i za to naplacuje premiju. To je slicno kao sa osiguranjem. Rizik od zemljotresa je rizik od zemljotresa - on postoji i nikakvim finansijskim aranzmanima taj bazicni rizik se ne moze smanjiti, ali moze da se podeli izmedju osiguravaca i osiguranika.

[Eraserhead]

 

The Atlantic:

 

Well, that wasn’t so bad, was it? Despite dire predictions that the first Democratic presidential debate would be a snoozefest, the Las Vegas summit actually offered a little bit of everything: substance, humor, tension, and one truly baffling Lincoln Chafee answer.

 

 

True, it wasn’t as exciting as the Republican debates so far, but what is? Yet even though the debate kicked off with a melodramatic voiceover promising that “This night in Vegas could change the odds ... yet again,” the debate didn’t obviously shake up the race. Hillary Clinton delivered a typically strong performance, much as expected; Bernie Sanders played to type, railing against corporations and inequality. Martin O’Malley kept to his strategy of hitting Clinton. And Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee remained, for the most part, marginal to what was going on.

 

In the years leading up to the election, some Democrats worried that Clinton would be hobbled by not facing challengers in the primary, and Tuesday night’s debate showed the truth of that point. She’s a polished, experienced debater, and she profited from standing on stage with the four men in the field. Chafee and Webb seemed nervous and uncomfortable, while Sanders was—as always—Sanders: fervent, grumpy, unfiltered, and righteously angry. The factors that have made him an idol to many Democratic voters and eroded Clinton’s polling numbers also make her look more presidential when they’re standing next to each other.

 

Clinton came with a quiver full of strong lines. Was she really a moderate or a liberal? “I’m a progressive, but I’m a progressive who likes to get things done.” When O’Malley assailed her, she smiled and said, “I was very pleased when Governor O’Malley endorsed me in 2008. I consider him a friend.” Did she want to respond to an attack from Chafee: Another smile. “No.” How would she represent something different than Barack Obama’s third term? Another smile, then a reminder that she’d be the first woman president.

 

But while Clinton’s experience may be her calling card, it’s also her greatest weakness. Her lengthy career offers her opponents many opportunities to show the ways that Democratic orthodoxy has changed since Bill Clinton was elected in 1992—and how she has tended to change with it. Her opponents assailed her repeatedly for her vote in favor of the Iraq War; in fact, Chafee and Webb both owe their national profiles in large part to their taking the opposite stance. They protested her vote for the Patriot Act. They criticized her handling of Russia and the Syrian Civil War while she was secretary of state.

 

Some of the strongest blows landed on Clinton came from Clinton herself. Discussing questions about her private email account, she avowed, “I have been as transparent as I know how to be”—a line that seems destined to be repeated in attack ads by opponents who will connect it to other lawyerly statements by both Hillary and Bill Clinton. Challenged on her refusal to take a stance on the Keystone XL pipeline, she said, “I never took a position on Keystone until I took a position on Keystone.” That’s true, but it only highlights how long she avoided taking any position at all.

 

 

Clinton landed a few good punches on her opponents, too, despite predictions that she might try to remain above the fray. In addition to reminding O’Malley of his past support for her, she went after Sanders twice in the early minutes, calling for reform of capitalism rather than revolution and assailing him for being too soft on guns.

 

Guns turned out to be one of the few areas of serious disagreement among the candidates. O’Malley and Clinton favor a stricter set of gun regulations, while Sanders—who represents the rural state of Vermont in the Senate—has long been more equivocal, voting against the Brady Bill in 1993, for example. A curious alliance emerged between Sanders, the most liberal candidate on stage, and Webb, the most conservative: In addition to being to the right of their party on firearms, the two men both have strong ties to rural areas, and they both have strong ties to white working-class voters, and strained relations with minorities.

 

Overall, the Democratic candidates simply don’t have the same divisions that the Republicans one do, and that showed through on Tuesday night. The candidates have differences about how to achieve their goals, but they agree on a broad set of principles: They want to raise taxes on the wealthy, expand the social-safety net, regulate guns, reduce mass incarceration, and, for the most part, avoid foreign entanglements. They all want to fight climate change and expand access to higher education. There are gradations, of course—Sanders and O’Malley have far more sweeping plans for Wall Street reform than Clinton—but the gulf is more over degree than type.

 

Clinton tried to remind viewers of this unity time and again. Whenever a gulf appeared between candidates on stage, she’d mention that all of the ideas they were raising were far more progressive than anything Republicans had to offer. And she got help from Bernie Sanders at her moment of greatest weakness—discussing her email scandal. The Vermont senator, who will take any opportunity to rail against the media for asking about “distractions,” cut in to defender her. “Let me say something that may not be great politics, but I think the secretary is right,” he said. “I think the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.” Clinton, looking relieved, turned and shook Sanders’s hand.

 

As for Sanders himself, it’s tough to rate his performance—Bernie is Bernie in all situations, sticking for the most part to his core issues of the economy and inequality. (In one of the more amusing moments of the night, Sanders railed against “casino capitalism”—while on the stage at an actual casino.)

 

The candidate who was commonly said to have the most to win or lose Tuesday was Martin O’Malley. It was hard to spot a breakout moment for him tonight, though he had several poised answers and managed to elicit big cheers from the audience. But he still struggled to break out—in part because Sanders has stolen his thunder as the progressive standard bearer.

 

Jim Webb was the night’s wonkiest candidate, with each answer involving a mini-seminar on policy. But Webb seemed nervous and got irritated about not being more deeply involved—a problem exacerbated by his struggle to get the point in the time allotted to him. The less said about Lincoln Chafee, the better. The former Rhode Island governor and senator tried to undermine Clinton’s credibility, but delivered by far the worst answer of the night when he defended his vote to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 by protesting that it was his first vote in the Senate, and he’d just taken his father’s seat.  It was an answer in which he both failed to take responsibility for his own actions and also reminded viewers that he owes his political career to his father’s success.

 

All of that leaves the Democratic field much as where it was when the night began: Clinton is still the clear frontrunner and most polished candidate in the field. Sanders has impressive star power, but it’s still not clear he can overcome Clinton. O’Malley is stuck behind them. And Webb and Chafee still won’t be president. —David Graham

 

 

Sto se mene tice Sanders je devinitivno delovao bolje nego kada sam ga gledao na solo nastupima i popravio sliku u mojim ocima. Zanimljiv politicar. I nekad je potrebno da se umesa grumpy old guy. Hillary mnogo bolja nego pre 8 godina i moze se reci da ce Sandersu biti tesko da je stigne. Daleko teze nego Obami sto je bilo.  U svakom slucaju bilo je mnogo zanimljivije za gledati nego onu grupu ludaka iz GOPa.

[אַף אֶחָד]

zasto se stalno potencira da je bernie "old guy"? on je samo 7 godina stariji od hilary, 5 od trumpa, npr. 

[Ariel]

punditi kažu jedno, pollovi drugo tra la la

 

http://usuncut.com/politics/6-reasons-bernie-sanders-actually-owned-the-debate-despite-what-pundits-claim/

[dragance]

@ chandra: Zato sto nije radio plasticnu hirurgiju i botoks.

Edited October 14, 2015 by dragance