Now there’s a guy who tells it like it is.
The Fed can usually negotiate to handle the transfer of accounts. Occasionally it’s a clean shut-down but often they transfer them and most see little to no change. See WAMU to Chase.
They can also break the bank apart.
There are a lot of options the government can do to break apart a rotten bank more than just a slap on the wrist. 5 billion only seems like a lot, it’s really not with the these behemoth institutions, not enough to dissuade.
Steel workers have been hurt pretty bad by what’s gone down. Trump was threatening to impose steel tarriffs and stuff, but never did. The result was pretty much the worst case scenario for the steel manufacturers, as the threat of a tarriff in the future resulted in China dumping steel in the US, which crushed them… but the tarriffs never came, so there wasn’t even any eventual relief. It just had the result of depressing steel prices and demand.
The reality is, economic isolationism doesn’t work anyway… but Trump managed to go further and do the maximally stupid thing.
That was remarkably clearly put; thanks, Timex. I think I can relate that to a few Trump believer holdouts.
Who knew Trump wouldn’t keep all his ridiculous promises? Who knew?
Liar lies! News at 11!
I am not sure where to put this but I am going to put this here:
New rule, all slavery assignments should be reviewed by at least a dozen people at a school, hopefully people who are not racist.
Might be tough to find that many that aren’t.
This interview is great. Clearly Arpaio wasn’t aware that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.
Don’t fuss with the Melber, best pundit/lawyer/hip-hop-gangsta on TV
Arpaio doesn’t understand anything related to the law, there is no way he would understand that.
If you want to hurt a bit: Watch these men talk and compare them to the current president.
My Next Guest Needs No Introduction With David Letterman
Some worrisome research that seems to apply to our present moment.
Research from my PrejudiceLab at Goldsmiths, University of London shows that people who score high on the collective narcissism scale are particularly sensitive to even the smallest offences to their group’s image. As opposed to individuals with narcissistic personality, who maintain inflated views of themselves, collective narcissists exaggerate offences to their group’s image, and respond to them aggressively. Collective narcissists believe that their group’s importance and worth are not sufficiently recognised by others. They feel that their group merits special treatment, and insist that it gets the recognition and respect it deserves. In other words, collective narcissism amounts to a belief in the exaggerated greatness of one’s group, and demands external validation.
Collective narcissists are not simply content to be members of a valuable group. They don’t devote their energy to contributing to the group’s betterment and value. Rather, they engage in monitoring whether everybody around, particularly other groups, recognise and acknowledge the great value and special worth of their group. To be sure, collective narcissists demand privileged treatment, not equal rights. And the need for continuous external validation of the group’s inflated image (a negative attribute) is what differentiates collective narcissists from those who simply hold positive feelings about their group.
Yeah that stings.
This makes a lot of sense, but I find it odd that she can’t seem to find any left-wing examples of the phenomenon.
When their own group is involved, collective narcissists have no sense of humour. They are disproportionately punitive in responding to what they perceive as an insult to their group, even when the insult is debatable, not perceived by others, or not intended by the other group.
I hope this was written with some self-awareness, but it’s 2018 so I don’t have my hopes up.
If you’re up for something closely related to collective narcissism, you might also check out this study on political microagressions.
What is clear from the data presented here is that individuals infer malevolent intent
across the ideological spectrum when ‘victim groups’ associated with their ‘side’ are
perceived to be under attack. In short, ‘microaggressions’ may not represent a unique
contribution to the empirical literature on intergroup relations, and may simply reflect long
known underlying psychological tendencies to shun or discredit those with whom we are ideologically opposed (e.g., Appiah, Knobloch-Westerwick, & Alter, 2013; Branscombe &
Wann, 1994; van Prooijen, Krouwel, Boiten, & Eendebak, 2015).Investigating the potentially moderating role of collective narcissism, only partial and
weak support was found for Hypothesis 2. In relation to judgements of microaggressors
against right-wing targets, there was a significant moderating effect of collective narcissism
(Figure 4), with those who were more ideologically-invested making judgements more
aligned with their ideological ‘side’, though this was weak and only applicable to those with
high levels of collective narcissism. However, collective narcissism did not moderate the
relationship between participants’ ideological orientation and their judgements of alleged
microaggressors against left-wing targets. These data suggest a potentially asymmetric
influence of collective narcissism over the relationship between ideology and social
judgements. This could be a fruitful area of future research for scholars examining the
psychological motivations of ideological symmetry.When inspecting the differences in judgements of right-wing microaggressions, there
was no substantial variation in the mean judgement scores across all three ideological groups
(see Figure 2). With this in mind, it is understandable that punitive (or lenient) responses to
these scenarios might be driven by investment in an ideological position (as operationalized
here as collective narcissism) than its direction. In contrast, those scenarios in which left
wing-affiliated groups were the targets have much more established responses attached to
them. Instead of having broad ambivalence about the microaggressions, and modifying
responses according to ideological investment (as seems to have been the case when the
scenarios involved right-wing targets), these left-wing-targeted microaggressions may have
been responded to in an automatic manner in accordance with participants’ self-identified
ideological orientation. In essence, both approaches to decision-making in this study (the
moderating role of collective narcissism in judgements of right-wing-targeted microaggressions, and the automatic ideologically-driven judgements of left-wing-targeted microaggressions) represent a motivated approach, though the processes by which these motivations operate appear to be different.
Just reading the excerpt, it seems like a, well, ‘massively appropriate’ shall we say framework to apply to the left side of things.