Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Daoist

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI
  • Brain Dominance


  • Homepage
  • Location
  • Occupation
  • Gender
  1. Would be? That's pretty much what they're doing. But most people still don't feel good about having killed a cockroach. One would rather it not be there in the first place.
  2. I agree with the OP on that much. The elite pay attention to what's going on in the world as much as anybody, because they're elite. You think they're not shitting themselves because of Trump, or whatever the equivalent is in their part of the world? The world’s most elite conference this year will discuss something called “the precariat”
  3. Well I guess if you wanted to call it that
  4. If I had a fiat dollar for every time people used "Keynesian" and "growth" in the same sentence...it's a theory of the business cycle, not growth.
  5. What if it was my fault but I still want someone qualified to be president?
  6. Sure it is, and they have been doing so since the beginning of newspapers. The job of the media is to find things that are wrong in society and write about it. There's no reason that those things might not also include elected officials. The only question is whether such endorsements get in the way of objective reporting (which, incidentally, isn't the same as "unbiased," a term that assumes that there are only two possible responses to every given topic.) Perhaps, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. When a certain group doesn't listen to facts regarding anything about public policy, the only way to 'prove' them wrong before it's too late is to let them also believe weird things about the polls. Maybe in the short term it would have been better for the country to have an 'establishment' politician run against Clinton, but exposing the hypocrisy of the entire conservative movement is better in the long term. In fact, it's what the MSM has been trying to do for a while - so why should they back down when they have a perfect character prop? And before anyone turns this into a culture war, many establishment Republicans are nice and good people, so this doesn't have to be personal. It's just that their ideas are wrong.
  7. Some of the don't. For instance, we don't need to build a few more feet of road upon the arrival of every new immigrant. There are economies of scale.
  8. Not necessarily. National debt only cares about how much GDP there is to tax, not how many people there are. If you can increase the population at the same rate as the interest rate, then you effectively don't have any debt.
  9. I disagree, and I think it's possible we'll even see some form of it in the next recession. The Fed has almost no other way to stimulate the economy besides talking about inflation, and implementing negative rates (a tax on cash - and raising nominal taxes in the middle of a recession is stupid for all sorts of reasons.) It should be politically possible if everybody ends up with more cash, and it increases real economic activity. Taxing people to pay for it, however, will be a different question.
  10. I should just point out that it's not just a problem of any specific class of worker. When someone loses their job, the entire market becomes depressed. Even if the trucker finds a new job, they could be simply replacing someone else in another field. At the very least, the trucking industry isn't going to be taking in any refugees from other fields. So this isn't a problem of the number of jobs lost, it's also about the bargaining power of those of us who still have jobs.
  11. This is actually an issue I've thought about a bit, especially with regards to Chinese state media. The problem is that we can't exactly treat them like they treat us. I don't know the exact situation in Russia (I think they're more subtle about it) but in China, they have been denying visas to reporters. It would be very satisfying to deny American visas to Chinese state-owned media, but that not only undermines our claims to a free press, it also shuts down the flow of information from us to them. I think the solution involves the private and non-governmental sectors. Regulators should treat them as a legal entity, but Twitter should shut down their account, as they do with terrorist accounts. "No platforming" is actually a good idea if it's applied towards preservation of free speech - and it's clear that their treatment abroad will depend on their country's treatment of journalists domestically.
  12. The implication of my mentioning Youtube was that I didn't want you to send me on a wild goose chase. And yet you've done exactly that, in a different way. All I was looking for was a few sentences, since Wikipedia was being unhelpful. I definitely don't see this as a game, as I'm just as sick of this election as anyone. Anyways, this is the best explainer I've found. The main charges seem to be allowing political input at too late a stage in the editorial process. Something to watch out for, but I don't think it rises to the status of wholesale corruption of the fourth estate. Also, the Washington Post held some sort of event in combination with a DNC fundraiser. I won't really claim to understand the ethics of this well enough to comment - in fact, I haven't heard about the existence of any particular code of ethics to cover such situations. It's easy to say that newspapers shouldn't do anything involved with raising money, but they have to pay their staff somehow in an era of declining subscriptions. Perhaps the leaks will be helpful in posing the question. Incidentally, the Daily Wire was created after Breitbart News threw their own staff under the bus in support of the Trump campaign. Now they, along with Fox, have pivotal roles on the Trump campaign. I await whatever Wikileaks has to say about the right-wing media...
  13. Well now you know how I feel about citing Youtube videos as a source...to be fair, it's not you in particular who has that habit, but a lot of this Wikileaks stuff seems to come in that form. Anyways, my impression is that whatever incestuous relationships there are between left-leaning media and the Democratic party are nothing compared to what's going on in the right. And Wikileaks itself certainly isn't unbiased either.
  14. for what... consent? This seems like one of the key lines. Sure, he might think that. But the subtext is that they will be intimidated into not making a fuss, not that they have actually given consent.
  15. Can you summarize (in your own words, not a link to an hour-long Youtube video) what was revealed in Wikileaks regarding inappropriate relationships with the media? Keeping in mind that it's the job of the media to be in close communication with political campaigns, and even to choose sides in certain circumstances. The (two-way) relationship between the Trump campaign and Breitbart news seems like a fairly low bar to clear.