I can't deny that Silly Love Songs is a treacly pop song, or that Let Em In is just inane.

But most of the Wings albums tracks are actually much better than the singles.  Band on the Run is solid classic rock all the way through, and London Town is a real gem.

But if you strip away all the context, what is there in the quote that implies judgement?  The quote is of a messenger telling a man that wind destroyed his house and killed his children.  The quote doesn't even mention God, let alone say that God caused the wind, let alone suggest that God did it in order to punish him.

Out of context, all the quote really tells you is that there's a story about a tornado in the Bible.

If that were the case I'd find it easier to understand, but she said Paul "responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness."

If the slave girl actually had a "gift of spiritual awareness" doesn't that imply the existence of spirits?  Can one have "spiritual awareness" if there are no spirits to be aware of?

Further she seems to believe Paul did something to deprive her of this gift.  How would a "public display of bigotry" rob her of spiritual awareness?

But isn't that the same game the Fed has been playing for decades?

I thought the suggestion was that with the various QE and QE2 policies the Fed was entering uncharted waters that could lead lead to true hyperinflation, i.e. the kind where people start using dollar bills for kindling and carry $1000 bills to the store to buy groceries.

If inflation kicks up to, say, 8% for a few years, that would be unpleasant but hardly into "hyperinflation" territory as I understand it.

Sigh... I should have left with Foxfier and Western Chauvinist.

I'm beginning to suspect Pope Francis hit a nerve, that many of you have in fact made the almighty and all-knowing Market your idol.  Market is never wrong, Market feeds and clothes us, all bow down before mighty Market!

Certainly the mechanisms of the market offer secure advantages: they help to utilize resources better; they promote the exchange of products; above all they give central place to the person's desires and preferences, which, in a contract, meet the desires and preferences of another person. Nevertheless, these mechanisms carry the risk of an "idolatry" of the market, an idolatry which ignores the existence of goods which by their nature are not and cannot be mere commodities.

43. The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another.⁸⁴ For such a task the Church offers her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation, a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good.

Is that really so different than what Pope Francis said?

40. It is the task of the State to provide for the defence and preservation of common goods such as the natural and human environments, which cannot be safeguarded simply by market forces. Just as in the time of primitive capitalism the State had the duty of defending the basic rights of workers, so now, with the new capitalism, the State and all of society have the duty of defending those collective goods which, among others, constitute the essential framework for the legitimate pursuit of personal goals on the part of each individual.

Here we find a new limit on the market: there are collective and qualitative needs which cannot be satisfied by market mechanisms. There are important human needs which escape its logic. There are goods which by their very nature cannot and must not be bought or sold.

What do you suggest we do about it?

If you were on the next GOP platform committee, what would you suggest we include to rectify the situation?

Great song, great movie, great scene!

But not as good as the deleted Stairway to Heaven scene.

Really?  I mean I'm sure lobbyists admit that in private, but in public?  I wouldn't think many people would go for it.

I had in mind debates over NAFTA, MFN status for China, and the like.  That is, tariffs targeting specific nations rather than specific industries.

I'm in favor of free trade with advanced Western democracies that are our allies.  I'm less sold on the idea that we should trade freely with our enemies, with totalitarian regimes, or with nations that have no environmental or worker health and safety regulations in place.

Not necessarily.  Sales taxes in California exempt groceries, for example.  There are special taxes on the sale of things like gasoline and cigarettes.  Last fall there was a ballot measure in nearby Richmond CA to tax sugary drinks.  It failed, but I doubt it will be the last of its kind.

And tariffs need not discriminate, you could have a 5% tariff on all imported goods.

Seems like a more general conclusion would be that flat taxes distort less than targeted taxes, whether applied to tariffs, sales, or income taxes.

But only on imported goods subject to the tariff.

And don't sales taxes also raise revenue to the same extent they raise consumer prices?

Yes, I view them as different.  For starters, tariffs raise revenue while cash subsidies are expenditures.  

We need to raise revenue to finance the legitimate functions of government, so we need taxes.  We should weigh the pros and cons of tariffs vs. other forms of taxation.  Tariffs, income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and corporate taxes each hurt the economy in different ways.

I don't necessarily favor tariffs, I've honestly never given the matter much thought, but neither would I automatically rule them out.  I can see a case for them in some circumstances.

Doesn't closing down a factory that is the main employer in a town to replace it with one overseas have collateral effects as well?  Nearby businesses lose most of their customers, tax revenues decrease, more people go on welfare and unemployment, etc.

The flip side of that: why not create an unlimited guest worker program?  Instead of building factories in China to take advantage of cheap labor, why not import as many laborers as we need here?  Same end result of lower costs for goods for all of us, plus the laborers will pay taxes to the IRS instead of China and spend some of their paycheck for local services like rent, food, etc.

It's win-win-win according to Austrian economics, right?

I Can't Get No Satisfaction.

I like the Stones, but they have dozens of other songs that are better, yet this one gets played over and over and over...