Biden / Trump - Americki izbori 2020

[vememah]

Quote

 

On Wednesday, shortly before the president left the White House to deliver remarks to supporters, Mr. Pence told him that he lacked the constitutional authority to block certain electors from being counted, which the president had been pushing him to do, according to people familiar with the conversation. Mr. Pence said it would set a bad precedent if he veered off course, according to one of the people.

The president was furious, the people said. “I don’t want to be your friend,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Pence, according to one of the people. “I want you to be the vice president.”

Many of the president’s aides have been disturbed by his attacks on Mr. Pence, one of his most loyal allies. Some of the president’s advisers have praised Mr. Pence for following the constitution while under pressure from Mr. Trump to overturn the election results.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/under-pressure-trump-condemns-violence-at-capitol-and-acknowledges-election-loss-11610069019

 

Obrisani Trampov tvit o Pensu:

 

https://news.sky.com/story/us-election-donald-trump-turns-on-mike-pence-as-he-refuses-to-intervene-in-election-result-12180953

[vememah]

 

 

Quote

Mr. Trump initially resisted taping the video, agreeing to do it only after aides pressed him and he appeared to suddenly realize he could face legal risk for prodding the mob, coming shortly after the chief federal prosecutor for Washington left open the possibility of investigating the president for illegally inciting the attack by telling supporters to march on the Capitol and show strength.

Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel, had warned Mr. Trump of just that danger on Wednesday as aides frantically tried to get the president to intervene and publicly call off rioters, which he did only belatedly, reluctantly and halfheartedly.

“We are looking at all actors, not only the people who went into the building,” Michael R. Sherwin, the U.S. attorney in Washington, told reporters. Asked if that included Mr. Trump, he did not rule it out. “We’re looking at all actors,” he repeated. “If the evidence fits the elements of a crime, they’re going to be charged.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/politics/trump-leave-office-resignation.html

Edited January 8, 2021 by vememah

[vememah]

 

 

 

 

[dragance]

Gledaće prenos na tvu iz prdekane na Rajkersu.

[Tsai]

Kakva pickica 

[Weenie Pooh]

2 hours ago, 3opge said:

sada ni Krugman ne zna da to nisu bili fasisti, trebalo bi da konsultuje PPP mislioce

 

Moraćeš većim fontom: Paul Krugman, Fascism Recognizer. 

 

Zvučiš kao Premijerka Brnabić kad se poziva na mišljenje uglednog NYT kolumniste Toma Fridmena povodom privatizacije osnovnog obrazovanja  

[Krošek]

  

4 hours ago, Redoran said:

 

Малкице ми је незахвално да умањујем значај и импликације овога у САД, поготово јер је било петоро мртвих и јер се пуцало унутар скупштине.

 

Оно што мислим да овде прави разлику је изостанак институционалне подршке и логистике. Тешко да се пучем може назвати нешто у чему не учествују политичке и безбедносне екипе (или макар делових тих екипа ако су разједињене). Народ на улици даје легитимитет пучу али без активне подршке из система ствар се своди на испољавање револта и то је то. Говорим о активној подршци, дакле не о запаљивим твитовима и намерном држању федералаца на одстојању. То може да произведе свакојаке свињарије и једну велику играчку-плачку на крају, али не верујем да може да изгура пуч. Активна подршка подразумева преузимање институција, хапшења политичких противника, увођење принудне управе и још свашта нешто. Тога у овом случају није било. У Турској је то покушано и то са озбиљном логистиком. Није успело јер ем их је било мање од противничке екипе, ем нису имали било какав народ иза себе да их легитимизује на улици (а противничка екипа имала милионе који су одмах изашли да је бране).

 

Ако бих тражио неку паралелу са нама познатим дешавањима, мени се јавља оно контролисано насиље којем је Коштуница прибегао код америчке амбасаде 2008. године. Попалио масу, оставио специјалце на одстојању неколико сати како би маса порушила и попалила шта има, била и играчка-плачка са изгубљеним животом, на крају долазе шумари и све растерају. Чини ми се да је нешто слично урадио и овај наранџасти бабун. Попалио масу и оставио им простор у виду неприсуства специјалаца, ови утрчали унутра да си дају одушка, онда од играчке постала плачка јер тамо се оружје потеже као добар дан. На крају дошли специјалци и растерали "устанике" који ни у једном тренутку нису имали било какву шансу нити бројност да нешто иоле озбиљно постигну. Њихов ријалити гуру их је послао право у безизлазну ситуацију која је требало да произведе... нешто. Ни том кретену није јасно шта тачно.

 

Тако да, ја овде не видим "п" од пуча али видим нешто друго а то је огромно продубљивање већ постојећих подела и раздора у друштву. Демолирање скупштине има огромну тежину у томе, то је корак од седам миља ка неким много озбиљнијим инцидентима, осим уколико се најхитније не сакупи нека памет на обе стране и почне да ради на деескалацији. За сада не видим превише од те памети, свима је лакше да упиру прсте у страни фактор који им ради о глави користећи домаће плаћенике и издајнике као извођаче. То нигде није довело до било чега доброг, па неће ни у Америци.

 

potpis osim podvucenog dela - to bi bio slucaj da je bilo koji dan u kapitolu, ali to je bio dan kada je kongres brojao glasove elektora i kada su po ustavu izbori definitivno zavrseni. 

prema tome, izgleda da je cilj bilo da se to izjasnjavanje kongresa onemoguci i da bajden ne bude proglasen pobednikom... na neki period.

opet je glupo (do bola) ali je ipak prilicno konkretno.

 

pens je zato snazno podvukao u svom govoru po nastavku zasedanja da se kongres okupio momentalno cim su se za to stekli uslovi i da se ne moze tek tako poremetiti njegov rad. opsti utisak u time momentima dakle kod samih clanova kongresa je da se onemogucava njihovo izjasnjavanje. 

 

stoga je ono sto se desilo napad na ustavno uredjenje. ali ni p od puca.

[Baldrick S.]

Sad gledam Fox!, ne znam sta mi je i slusam objasnjenje republikanca iz kongresa, koji je napisao neki editorial u New york times-u gde kaze, manje vise parafrazirano da: je Trump i ljudi/organizacije bliski njemu danima pred protest obmanjivao odnosno pustao lazne informacije u etar da se 6. januara na zajednickom zasedanju broje glasovi. sto je bilo pominjano i na mitingu pred upad. Pretpostavljam da je vecina chanta u Kapitolu bila "stop the count" upravo navodjena ovim. Ljudi i da nisu bili navodnjeni na puc su bili direktno targetirani i nahuskani da "zaustave brojanje glasova" (Glasovi elektorata se ne broje u bukvalnom smislu - ajd da proverimo svaki glas posebno, nego potvrdjuju, sto je definisano amandmanima ustava). U stvari iz onog sto sam cuo, nisam siguran ni da klika oko Trumpa razume razliku i da su mu napunili glavu da nekako mora da se zaustavi brojanje glasova a sledeci korak bi bio, well niko ne zna.

[vememah]

Džim Burg je Rojtersov fotoreporter:

 

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by vememah

[Baldrick S.]

Doneli su i giljotinu malo dalje od ovog mesta, cini mi se sa druge strane parka ali me sad mrzi da je trazim da je linkujem

[Krošek]

14 minutes ago, Zlurad said:

Sad gledam Fox!, ne znam sta mi je i slusam objasnjenje republikanca iz kongresa, koji je napisao neki editorial u New york times-u gde kaze, manje vise parafrazirano da: je Trump i ljudi/organizacije bliski njemu danima pred protest obmanjivao odnosno pustao lazne informacije u etar da se 6. januara na zajednickom zasedanju broje glasovi. sto je bilo pominjano i na mitingu pred upad. Pretpostavljam da je vecina chanta u Kapitolu bila "stop the count" upravo navodjena ovim. Ljudi i da nisu bili navodnjeni na puc su bili direktno targetirani i nahuskani da "zaustave brojanje glasova" (Glasovi elektorata se ne broje u bukvalnom smislu - ajd da proverimo svaki glas posebno, nego potvrdjuju, sto je definisano amandmanima ustava). U stvari iz onog sto sam cuo, nisam siguran ni da klika oko Trumpa razume razliku i da su mu napunili glavu da nekako mora da se zaustavi brojanje glasova a sledeci korak bi bio, well niko ne zna.

 

zaista se broje, prvo se "sertifikuju" za svaku saveznu drzavu i onda se prebroji ko ima koliko i to je pravno gledano kraj izbora. 

[Budja]

2 hours ago, Moonwalker said:

Prakticno si mi ucitao da sam mislila da treba da budu balerine, finansijski savetnici ili programeri. Sto ja nisam mislila, ali sire objasnjenje je trolovanje teme o izborima.

 

Recimo da se radi o proizvodnji elektricne energije, ona moze da se proizvodi iz raznih izvora.

Sem bazicne tehnologije veliki deo tehnickih poslova (u proizvodnji opreme, projektovanju postrojenja, izvodjenju instalacija -commisioning, koriscenju i periodicnom odrzavanju ) prakticnih i inzenjerskih, pa cak i menadzerskih podrazumeva ako ne iste ono slicne stvari principijelno gledano.
 

To sto ce se tehnoloski postepeno prelaziti sa jedne proizvodnje na drugu, znaci da se sticu nova znanja i vestine u okviru postojeceg. 
 

Slicno mozes da primenis na bilo koju vrstu proizvodnje ili poslova. Automobila, vozova, cega god. I u pred IT svetu tehnologija je napredovala, pa su ljudi morali da se do-obuce. Sa ulaskom IT pogotovo u komunikacije unutar upravljanja slozenim postrojenjima i procesima to postaje permanentni zahtev. Suma sumarum znaci da ce nekadasnji blue collar poslovi izgledati drugacije nego nekad.
 

Kako pripremu ljudi da se ubace u savremeno doba glede posla, a ne samo zabave mogu da primene u SAD u praksi glede njihovog sistema ne bih znala reci.

 

Troll off

 

 

Nije ti dobar primer jer ne ukljucuje automatizaciju, robote i AI. To su problemi, a ne elektricna vozila i struja na vetar.

 

Problem je kada Wallmart zameni kasirke onim self-check out masinama.

Automatizacija da, tehnoloski revolucionarni napredak - ne.

 

Ako te ne mrzi malotehnickog ekonomskog vokabulara, procitaj clanak Asemogla koji sam postavio. Evo linka ponovo.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/ai-automation-labor-productivity-by-daron-acemoglu-and-pascual-restrepo-2019-03

 

Quote

The Revolution Need Not Be Automated

Mar 29, 2019 Daron Acemoglu , Pascual Restrepo

For centuries after the Industrial Revolution, automation did not hinder wage and employment growth, because it was accompanied by new technologies geared toward maintaining the role of human labor in value creation. But in the era of artificial intelligence, it will be up to policymakers to ensure that the pattern continues.

 

BOSTON – Artificial intelligence is transforming every aspect of our lives, not least the economy. As a general-purpose technology, AI’s applications are potentially endless. While it can be used to automate tasks previously performed by people, it can also make human labor more productive, thereby increasing labor demand.

Unfortunately, the current trend in commercial AI development is toward more and more automation, with potentially disastrous consequences for society. To be sure, automation has been an engine of productivity growth since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when, starting in the late eighteenth century, weaving and spinning were mechanized. But the tide of automation does not automatically lift all boats. By replacing labor with machines in production tasks, automation reduces labor’s share of value added (and national income), contributes to inequality, and may reduce employment and wages.

And yet most modern economies have experienced robust wage and employment growth since the Industrial Revolution. As automation has displaced workers in performing certain tasks, other technologies have emerged to restore labor’s central role in the production process by creating new tasks in which humans have a comparative advantage. These technologies have not only contributed to productivity growth, but have also increased employment and wages, generating a more equitable distribution of resources in the process.Consider agricultural mechanization, which started in the nineteenth century. At first, the substitution of machines for raw labor did reduce the share of labor in value added, displacing a huge share of the US workforce that had previously been employed in farming. But, at the same time, burgeoning new industries needed workers to perform novel tasks and pursue emerging occupations. Clerical positions expanded both in services and manufacturing, where a finer division of labor boosted productivity, employment, and wage growth.A similar pattern of technological change fueled employment and wage growth for high- and low-skilled workers alike in the decades following World War II. Yet, in the past three decades, the accompanying changes needed to offset the labor-displacement effects of automation have been notably absent. As a result, wage and employment growth has remained stagnant, and productivity growth anemic.Ominously, AI appears set to exacerbate this pattern, leading to even higher inequality and many more decades of slow wage growth and declining labor-market participation. But there is nothing about AI that requires this outcome. On the contrary, AI applications could be deployed to restructure tasks and create new activities where labor can be reinstated, ultimately generating far-reaching economic and social benefits.

In education, for example, real-time data collection and processing by AI systems can empower teachers to offer individualized instruction calibrated to each student’s needs, which likely vary from subject to subject. The same applies to health care, where AI can empower technicians and skilled nurses to offer personalized treatments. Moreover, AI’s potential benefits for labor are not confined to services. Thanks to advances in augmented and virtual reality, it can also be used to create new tasks for humans in high-precision manufacturing, which is currently dominated by industrial robots.It is tempting to think that the market will translate these promises into reality. New technologies generate benefits not just for the inventors and early adopters, but for other producers, workers, and consumers as well. And some technologies have the capacity to spur job creation and reduce inequality, with huge social benefits that the inventors and early adopters didn’t even consider.

The problem is that technology markets don’t work so well when there are competing paradigms in play. The more the automation paradigm pulls ahead, the more market incentives will favor investing in that area at the expense of other paradigms that could create new labor-intensive tasks.If that isn’t reason enough not to trust in the market, there are additional problems specific to AI technologies. To take one example, the field is dominated by a handful of large tech companies with business models closely linked to automation. These firms account for the bulk of investments in AI research, and they have created a business environment in which the removal of fallible humans from the production processes is regarded as a technological and business imperative. To top it off, governments are subsidizing corporations through accelerated amortization, tax breaks, and interest deductions – all while taxing labor.

No wonder adopting new automation technologies has become profitable even when the technologies themselves are not particularly productive. Such failures in the market for innovation and technology seem to be promoting precisely the wrong kind of AI. A single-minded focus on automating more and more tasks is translating into low productivity and wage growth and a declining labor share of value added.This doesn’t have to be the case. By recognizing an obvious market failure and redirecting AI development toward the creation of new productivity-enhancing tasks for people, we can achieve shared prosperity once again. We dare not hazard the alternatives.

 

I to desnicari prepoznaju jako dobro.

Kako se zove knjiga ovog Hawley-ija koji hoce da bude novi Tramp i ciji je ugovor za stampanje knjgie povucen?

- "The Tyranny of Big Tech"

 

Ovde je potrebna prilicna uloga drzave da kanalise "good automation".

 

U suprotnom, bice neki rat pa ce onda da dodje svima iz dupeta u glavu da je potreban novi drustveni ugovor.

 

Kako?

Mozda Macukato tu pomogne.

 

Quote

The Entrepreneurial State

The Entrepreneurial State: debunking public vs. private sector myths (Anthem 2013) is stirring up much-needed debate worldwide about the role of the state in fostering long-run innovation led economic growth.

The book comprehensively debunks the myth of a lumbering, bureaucratic state versus a dynamic, innovative private sector. In a series of case studies—from IT, biotech, nanotech to today’s emerging green tech—Professor Mazzucato shows that the opposite is true: the private sector only finds the courage to invest after an entrepreneurial state has made the high-risk investments. In an intensely researched chapter, she reveals that every technology that makes the iPhone so ‘smart’ was government funded: the Internet, GPS, its touch-screen display and the voice-activated Siri.

Mazzucato also controversially argues that in the history of modern capitalism the State has not only fixed market failures, but has also actively shaped and created markets. In doing so, it sometimes wins and sometimes fails. Yet by not admitting the State’s role in such active risk taking, and pretending that the state only cheers on the side-lines while the private sector roars, we have ended up creating an ‘innovation system’ whereby the public sector socializes risks, while rewards are privatized. The book considers how to change this dysfunctional dynamic so that economic growth can be not only ‘smart’ but also ‘inclusive’.

In 2014 Professor Mazzucato was awarded the New Statesman SPERI Prize in Political Economy for her work on smart growth and the entrepreneurial state. The book was shortlisted for the prestigious Wirtschaftsbuchpreis in Germany and featured on the 2013 books of the year lists of the Financial Times and Forbes. It has been translated into Italian, German, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, Greek and Polish, and is forthcoming in Chinese, Japanese and Korean.

 

Politicka ekonomija je tu problematicna, jer nema dovoljno artikulisanog pritiska iz baze na Sumera, Pelosi, Romnija, Micela i ostale status quo izvodjace da tu nesto menjaju, a pretis lonac jos nije sasvim eksplodirao.

[Baldrick S.]

"The Constitution and the Electoral Count Act of 1887 intended the Jan. 6 session to address a narrow question: Are the electoral votes received by Congress ones cast by electors the states appointed? This limited inquiry requires Congress simply to authenticate the documents. Remember, these rules were formulated in the 19th century, when there was a realistic risk of counterfeit papers pretending to be official. Thus, the 1887 act requires a state’s governor to affix “the seal of the State” to the certificate confirming the appointment of electors." (washington post, 29 decembar)

 

Rekoh ja da se broje ali ne kao konacni zbir nego je vise sertifikacija. U stvari je procedura da se glasovi izvade iz drvene kutije, pogleda da li je listic originalni, sa pecatom i onda predsedavajuci kaze, ne znam: Florida 29 electora votes for DT Jr"

 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Zlurad

[Budja]

2 hours ago, Moonwalker said:

Nadam se da to ne znaci da isti time gubi na svojoj «vrednosti» i postaje legitaman kao i sve ostale ideologije na koje si mislio.

 

Nisam razumeo. "Sedition" i "insurrection" nikada nisu legalni cinovi. Da li mogu biti legitimni? To zavisi od konteksta.

Pobuna protiv institucija je sasvim legitimna u Severnoj Koreji.

Ovde to svakako nije slucaj.

Kakav je slucaj Katalonije? Sedition ili pravo na samoopredeljenje?

Sivkast slucaj.

[3opge]

36 minutes ago, Weenie Pooh said:

 

Moraćeš većim fontom: Paul Krugman, Fascism Recognizer. 

 

Zvučiš kao Premijerka Brnabić kad se poziva na mišljenje uglednog NYT kolumniste Toma Fridmena povodom privatizacije osnovnog obrazovanja  

 

neka, neka, samo ti i tvoj sidekick-relativizator nastavite da guslate o sirotoj, neorganizovanoj masi proletera koja unezverna trazi posao u majicama sa "arbeit machts frei".