Tariffs. How are you affected?

Jung was the primary psychologist to talk about individuation and it is the cornerstone of his psychology. Others that followed him such as Erich Neumann wrote about it as well. I think that Jungian psychology goes the farthest at explaining social dynamics and how people fit into them. Individuation is a process of differentiating one's psyche from the collective and thereby building one's own distinct, authentic, and whole self, and the drive, often unconscious, to do so.

There are many philosophers that wrote of this subject, even before Jung coined the term. Examples would include Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, and many others. Nietzsche's will to power, for example, which was perverted by the Nazis, was really just about individuation.

When my son refused to get circumsized, I disowned him, and hired thugs to kidnap him and drop him off in a distant foreign land.

(JUST KIDDING!)

The traditional cultural reasons behind male and female mutilation are typically different, and the impact as well is different. Female genital mutilation is more destructive, as I understand, and is more harmful to sexual satisfaction. It has been argued that circumcision can take away some sexual pleasure, but all I know is that as a circumsized male, I certainly enjoy sex. I also know that every female I have been with enjoys clitoral stimulation, and ever since my first experience at 13 or 14, I have always been able to find it (thanx to Penthouse Forums and other Penthouse columns). I can only imagine what they would be missing if it was chopped off.

Female genital mutilation was always about male domination, ownership, and subserviance.

So I am definitely against female genital mutilation. As far as circumcision, I don't have a strong feeling one or another. In the Philippines, for example, there is the belief that it is part of becoming a man, and helps one grow taller and more masculine. It is therefore done later in life, than in the West, for example at 12 or 13. Not having strong feelings one way or another, I guess I would leave it up to family values unless there is definitive data against it.

 

There are few, if any, benefits from FGM.

Source: Female genital mutilation

I believe widespread/default circumcision of boys or men is of little benefit and so, I would consider that to be wrong.
However, that said and differently from FGM, there can be medical benefits directly gained from circumcision. I was nearly circumcised at around 4 or 5 because the opening was apparently too small which caused ballooning of my foreskin and sheath. I recall a nurse being very pleased when one time just before surgery, I was able to pee.

Then at 10yrs, it was done. Apparently, and I was reminded of the issue at 4 or 5, the doc said now it was time. I recall no pain or difficulties when peeing at 10. I don't even recall consultations with the surgeon or any relevant professional. I do recall being told by my mother that it was happening in a few days and back then I was obedient and fully trusting of my parents. So, it was done. My girlfriends have liked my cock many times, a few saying they like how the glans is always visible. It's less sensitive than it should have been because it's now external skin but, at least, it means I last longer during sex. Well, I assume so but wasn't experienced in sex at 10. I can last as little as 4 mins when required or close to an hour of continual thrusting. Circumcision isn't the main issue at that time but, instead, my back or knees! Lol

I wish I could meet that nurse from when I was 4 or 5. I'd like to know what she knew of my situation because, it was only when that one third party saw I could pee that surgery was cancelled. No third party when I was 10 just; it's to be done now. No religious or other cultural/traditional matters involved.

Anyway, with no recollection of any urinary issues, I do wonder if it were a control or sadistic thing by my mother. MGM, if you like.

 

Fair comment. It went off on a tangent and without realising that clearly, I responded.

 

Big increase in gasoline prices of 35 cents per gallon. This is not from tariffs, but collusion and price fixing. A domestic product. Not all price gouging is from tariffs.

 

No. This is not collusion and price fixing. Nor is it because of tariffs. In case you haven't heard, there are two idiots on the global stage that attacked Iran. This has effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz, through which a sizeable percentage of the world's oil supply has to flow through. Oil has jumped up sharply on the international oil market.

One of the idiots, who goes by the name, Netanyahu, is a genocidal war monger, and by himself, it would not have been such a big deal, nor would it have been unexpected. The second idiot is someone you might know. He went against the advice of his military advisors and generals who told him that we were not prepared to go to war with Iran, and furthermore, we did not have the munitions to fight such a war. But this idiot, being that he has fired many of the professionals that would have been needed to do such a thing, only to replace them with yes-men, decided to approach it as unprepared, unplanned, and amateurish as he has done most things throughout his life, and recently, as he has done with our government and resources. So no one knows how long this is going to last, how far it will escalate, or even what his objectives are (and his stated objectives change by the hour!).

On top of that, he has largely angered and alienated our friends with his stupid tariffs. So... There is that...

It is funny that you would turn to that argument----price fixing and collusion. Because there was only one candidate in the last race that actually had a plan to fight price fixing and collusion, especially since Trump was encouraging it, especially to the oil executives, in order to get him elected. He had no plan to fight it, because he enjoyed the fruits of it. So while Harris talked about, and set up a plan, to fight price gouging, price fixing, and collusion, Trump said he would fix everything by "drill baby drill!" (Though such an argument would only make sense to the truly stupid people who have no comprehension of how the oil industry works, and what it takes to turn a barrel of oil into gasoline, let alone get it from the ground.)

 

Really? Kamala had a plan? Crap, why wasn’t that more widely disseminated? All of the mainstream media must have been colluding against her campaign or something. Dang, that really sucks too ‘cause experience tells us that every time a leftist comes up with a plan to fix prices, or markets in general, that always works out really well for the consumer!

 

Way cool. When I’m elected, I also plan on repealing the law of supply and demand, as well as Newtonian motion, thermo-dynamics, ant electro-magnetism!

 

Why the gall…sounds like she doesn’t believe in exploitive, let the rich eat the poor, gilded age pseudo capitalism!!!

 

Uhhhhh... Where were you during the last election? She talked about this multiple times.

Oh, wait... You guys are always talking about her word salad----I think I'm beginning to understand----did you guys just not understand the words she was using?

While factcheck.org, explained that many economists were not sure about how effective it would be, and were still under the impression that inflation was largely due to the pandemic, part of the problem was that not many details of her plan were known yet, and it was largely viewed as price controls. But as a former analyst, I can tell you that many companies were very clearly exploiting the economic situation (and the stupidity of American consumers) to unfairly raise prices. Why can I say this? Because prices did not reflect a rise in corporate costs. They were raising prices without suffering from higher expenses. I.e. they were gouging customers while pretending it was due to inflation, when it wasn't-----this is why companies were making so much money from 2021 - 2025! I looked at all kinds of large companies, and it was so obvious that they were not experiencing inflation in their expenses, but were simply raising prices to increase their profits! (And guess who pays the wages of many of these economists?)

If you are such an expert in economics, you too should be able to read simple income statements and see this for yourself. Obviously too many economists were focusing on the overall data, while ignoring what companies themselves were actually experiencing!

But here is the thing, while economists were unsure of how effective Harris' plan would be at lowering prices, they were pretty unanimous in their beliefs that Trump's plan would not only, not lower prices, but would in fact, raise prices.

In other words----Harris actually had an understanding of what was happening with prices. Trump was just an idiot.

But maybe you have a point here---can you give us an example of an American Leftist coming up with a plan to fix prices? You said that as if it was common knowledge. SO maybe you could share it with us, and we could see how relevant it is. And, you are implying that Harris was going to repeal the law of supply and demand------Maybe explain that as well. That seems very nonsensical----kind of like saying she is a Marxist, but maybe you see something I don't.

 

Whilst I agree with that post, I wonder why gas stations (here in UK, at least), had existing stock and before the barrel price increased, their forecourt prices went up by >10p a litre.
It went from 1.23 to 1.36 per litre overnight, over a week ago on existing stock. Seems like gouging, to me.

 

.......................................................................................
I recon that it a factor of where one is located. Peoples living in Asia will face expensive constraints on their Oil supplies. In New Jersey there is a wealth of refining capacity right here; its part of our reputation. Crude supplies from Texas, The Gulf States, Venezuela and Alberta are not affected by the closing of The Strait of Hormuz.
This is not to gloat. But suspect that troubles in the Middle East are boosting costs for everyone, not just those affected by the blockade.

And Yes: Bazz. That oil in the holding tank was one price. When we all awakened the next morning the price had suddenly jumped up by ten percent or more. Wondering about our friends in Oklahoma and Texas: They can walk, or drive to see an oil well with thier own eyes. Have prices jumped there?
Oil is pumped right on the beach in Huntington Beach California. Yet prices were sky high there even before Trump's war.
It's not always about Tariffs.

 

How about this then: people WILL charge what the market will bear. Pass all the laws you want. Create infinite opportunities for arbitrage if you wish. Hell, create a black market for plywood and generators during times of panic in the aftermath of hurricanes. Fill yer boots with all your dreams of how selfless you think corporations SHOULD behave when demands for their products far exceed any available supply.

 

LMAO! Yes--corporations do not act selflessly. They have no implied social contract. That is the problem with libertarian ideology.

This is exactly what was so inflationary after the pandemic. Companies brazenly took advantage of the situation. This is what made Trump's response to inflation so idiotic.

In a normal healthy economy this is why competition works. This is how capitalism at its best works. But we do not have a healthy economy. We have an economy where the wealthy and powerful has stamped out competition and consolidated their holdings. Consider the meat packing industry---a few decades ago there were many meat packing firms around the nation. Today there are only a couple. Farmers were screwed during the pandemic while they paid way too low for beef to boost their profits, today they charge way too much to sell beef, and again are boosting their profits. This is happening in all kinds of industries, and private equity has added top fuel to the mix.

There is a difference between charging what the people will pay in a normal economy, and charging what the people have to pay in an economy where the powerful have colluded to effectively create monopolies. We are living in a second gilded age, and people overall do not realize this. And Trump is the Great Leader who, incompetent as he is, is able to grift his way to riches by raising the flag of the modern day capitalist--all to the ruin of the everyday citizen.

Price controls are not the solution. But the current situation cannot be sustained. And we would be far better off by someone that actually understands a bit of the problem, than someone who literally represents the problem!

The funny thing is, Piney talked about price controls and collusion. And he is not entirely wrong. Just completely off on where he is looking.

 

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said in this post. The point of mine was that attempts to regulate or prohibit anyone (individuals or corporations) from seizing the opportunity to maximize profit during times when there is a huge spike in demand, is as pointless as pissing into the wind.

Further, regarding the previously mentioned issue of Kamala having a plan to address the issue; maybe she was much more of an intellectual and academic powerhouse, and not the vacant sock-puppet in a pants-suit, than she appeared to be. But on the issue of controlling prices of goods at all, let alone during extreme panics or other spikes in demand, “there are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

 

I would agree that price controls are very problematic.

 

Yeah, we don't need price controls, we need wage controls....Like Jerry Ford, trying to Whip Inflation Now....

 

We’ve had at least a quarter century of wage controls/suppression via mass legal and illegal immigration. Both political parties have allowed and even encouraged it for their own reasons. Both parties actively worked against the interests of their native born citizens in this way as well as many other ways. We don’t need price controls on wages anymore than we need them anywhere else.