Abu Yahya's definitions
(US LAW) a legal ruling that consists of a decision in which the two parties (the plaintiff and the defendant) consent to some action by the defendant in exchange for a suspended sentence. For example, a husband who is a defendant in a domestic violence case may agree to psychiatric counseling in exchange for not going to prison for assaulting his wife.
The agreement has to be reached beforehand by the parties and then the court may (or may not) approve of the agreement. When it does, that's a consent decree.
The agreement has to be reached beforehand by the parties and then the court may (or may not) approve of the agreement. When it does, that's a consent decree.
WASHINGTON, July 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Justice Department today announced a court-approved consent decree which resolves a lawsuit against the state of New York and its public university systems for their failure to provide voter registration services at offices serving students with disabilities at each public university and college campus in New York State.
{...}
Under the consent decree, by the start of the 2010-2011 school year, disability services offices at each public university and college campus in the state will provide voter registration services to students with disabilities.
{...}
Under the consent decree, by the start of the 2010-2011 school year, disability services offices at each public university and college campus in the state will provide voter registration services to students with disabilities.
by Abu Yahya July 15, 2010
Get the consent decreemug. (FINANCE) a type of bank that raises money for clients by issuing stock (see initial public offering and follow-on offering) or by issuing bonds.
Prior to the repeal (1999) of the Glass-Steagall Act, commercial banks and investment banks were required to be separate entities. Subsequently, the law was changed so that a bank holding company could own a commercial bank and an investment bank. Outside of the USA, commercial banks have always been allowed to engage in underwriting securities.
Investment banks usually sell shares of stock on a major exchange, such as the NYSE or NASDAQ. They give a fixed amount of money to the borrower, but also an agreed-upon number of shares, so if the shares soar in price after the public offering, then the investment bank makes an immense amount of money.
Investment banks also underwrite other kinds of securities, such as bonds.
Prior to the repeal (1999) of the Glass-Steagall Act, commercial banks and investment banks were required to be separate entities. Subsequently, the law was changed so that a bank holding company could own a commercial bank and an investment bank. Outside of the USA, commercial banks have always been allowed to engage in underwriting securities.
Investment banks usually sell shares of stock on a major exchange, such as the NYSE or NASDAQ. They give a fixed amount of money to the borrower, but also an agreed-upon number of shares, so if the shares soar in price after the public offering, then the investment bank makes an immense amount of money.
Investment banks also underwrite other kinds of securities, such as bonds.
Goldman Sachs is the largest and most successful investment bank in the USA. Prior to 1999 it was a limited partnership; now it is a publicly traded corporation and also a bank holding company.
by Abu Yahya September 25, 2010
Get the investment bankmug. (LOGIC) a logical fallacy in which a person defends against an allegation by accusing an adversary of doing the same thing. It's a classic douchebag move because it implies that the speaker has a RIGHT to be a douchebag, by virtue of the fact that someone ELSE is being a douchebag.
From Latin, for "you, too."
WHY IT'S BAD
Suppose A is accused of terrorism. He reacts by accusing B, his enemy, of terrorism. Now, it's possible (but unlikely) that A actually chose this argument knowing he was totally innocent. More likely he wants to claim that his terrorism is PROVOKED. In effect, he's saying, "I have to do this, or I'm entitled to do this, because B did it first."
First, as logic it's a red herring. But what makes it douchebaggery rather than just another wartime propaganda tactic, is that it's MORALLY irrelevant as well as LOGICALLY irrelevant. The victims of terrorism almost never have any material control over either perpetrator ever.
From Latin, for "you, too."
WHY IT'S BAD
Suppose A is accused of terrorism. He reacts by accusing B, his enemy, of terrorism. Now, it's possible (but unlikely) that A actually chose this argument knowing he was totally innocent. More likely he wants to claim that his terrorism is PROVOKED. In effect, he's saying, "I have to do this, or I'm entitled to do this, because B did it first."
First, as logic it's a red herring. But what makes it douchebaggery rather than just another wartime propaganda tactic, is that it's MORALLY irrelevant as well as LOGICALLY irrelevant. The victims of terrorism almost never have any material control over either perpetrator ever.
ANNA: Abu Yahya, I don't know if your definition of "tu quoque fallacy" belongs in the Urban Dictionary. This isn't Wikipedia, you know.
ABU YAHYA: The reason I did is that I see all the time people using the rationale that, because somebody else did something bad to me, therefore I get to do something similar to anybody. It's sort of like sloppy revenge.
ANNA: Like men punishing random women because their girlfriends allegedly did something shitty to them?
ABU YAHYA: Actually, that's a perfect example of a tu quoque!
ABU YAHYA: The reason I did is that I see all the time people using the rationale that, because somebody else did something bad to me, therefore I get to do something similar to anybody. It's sort of like sloppy revenge.
ANNA: Like men punishing random women because their girlfriends allegedly did something shitty to them?
ABU YAHYA: Actually, that's a perfect example of a tu quoque!
by Abu Yahya June 3, 2010
Get the tu quoque fallacymug. the gap between revenues and expenditures for a government (over a given period of time); often referred to as a public deficit or fiscal deficit. In many cases, a country has administrative subdivisions that also run significant fiscal deficits, e.g., India or Argentina. The sum of state, local, and federal deficits would constitute the internal deficit of those countries.
On very rare occasions the term is applied to the deficit run by private enterprise as well as by government; in such a case, the definition is understood to mean the total debt of a country that is held by its own citizens.
On very rare occasions the term is applied to the deficit run by private enterprise as well as by government; in such a case, the definition is understood to mean the total debt of a country that is held by its own citizens.
Some of the largest internal deficits in the world are experienced by countries with large external surpluses. Japan in the mid-'00's was a classic example.
(See external deficit)
(See external deficit)
by Abu Yahya February 14, 2009
Get the internal deficitmug. Organization founded in 1943 by Lewis H. Brown (the asbestos tycoon).
(Brown's company, Johns-Manville, was the largest asbestos manufacturer in the US during the 1930s, and was involved in a massive, 40-year cover-up of the severe health risks posed by asbestos.)
The American Enterprise Association (AEA) was created to design and promote policies that strengthen the political power of large corporations. In 1970, William Baroody, Sr. became its head and changed the name from "Association" to "Institute" (AEI); he had earlier learned how to (a) launder oversized campaign contributions from corporate boards, and (b) how to present the AEI as an earnest, high-minded, non-partisan research group (or "thinktank"). Baroody's sons, William Jr. and Michael, both became important Conservative Movement figures.
The AEI was, until the 1990's, mainly a very well-heeled devil's advocate against any progressive cause: it opposed regulating cigarettes, municipal water systems, environmental protections of all kinds, and the Endangered Species Act. Its budget grew enormously and it spawned subsidiary organizations such as NGOWatch, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and many more besides.
During the period 1997-present, the AEI became much more intensively focused on armed confrontation. In the name of "security," especially "energy security," the AEI appears to have spent an increased share of its already-burgeoning budget on promoting war or sanctions against many countries with a majority Muslim population. It argued against democratic review of US foreign policy, and in favor of criminalizing dissent. Position papers ceased to have any research content at all, and became pure polemics.
After the 2008 elections, which provided a clear repudiation of AEI policies *en masse*, the AEI focused on promoting itself as the guardian of national security; it did this by arguing that torture and extraordinary renditions were vital to keeping the USA safe from foreign terrorists. This made the organization valuable to former administration officials subject to prosecution for violations of Hague Conventions & Geneva Conventions
(Brown's company, Johns-Manville, was the largest asbestos manufacturer in the US during the 1930s, and was involved in a massive, 40-year cover-up of the severe health risks posed by asbestos.)
The American Enterprise Association (AEA) was created to design and promote policies that strengthen the political power of large corporations. In 1970, William Baroody, Sr. became its head and changed the name from "Association" to "Institute" (AEI); he had earlier learned how to (a) launder oversized campaign contributions from corporate boards, and (b) how to present the AEI as an earnest, high-minded, non-partisan research group (or "thinktank"). Baroody's sons, William Jr. and Michael, both became important Conservative Movement figures.
The AEI was, until the 1990's, mainly a very well-heeled devil's advocate against any progressive cause: it opposed regulating cigarettes, municipal water systems, environmental protections of all kinds, and the Endangered Species Act. Its budget grew enormously and it spawned subsidiary organizations such as NGOWatch, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and many more besides.
During the period 1997-present, the AEI became much more intensively focused on armed confrontation. In the name of "security," especially "energy security," the AEI appears to have spent an increased share of its already-burgeoning budget on promoting war or sanctions against many countries with a majority Muslim population. It argued against democratic review of US foreign policy, and in favor of criminalizing dissent. Position papers ceased to have any research content at all, and became pure polemics.
After the 2008 elections, which provided a clear repudiation of AEI policies *en masse*, the AEI focused on promoting itself as the guardian of national security; it did this by arguing that torture and extraordinary renditions were vital to keeping the USA safe from foreign terrorists. This made the organization valuable to former administration officials subject to prosecution for violations of Hague Conventions & Geneva Conventions
In February 2007, *The Guardian* (UK) reported that the American Enterprise Institute was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI asked for "articles that emphasise the shortcomings" of the IPCC report, which "is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science."
by Abu Yahya May 29, 2009
Get the American Enterprise Institutemug. (POLICY) an extreme form of capitalism created in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. In some cases, as in Chile (1973), the disaster is a coup d'etat with the express purpose of imposing disaster capitalism. In other cases, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, it is a genuine natural disaster that literally kills.
After some disasters, the authorities in some countries may well respond by imposing "reforms" that would have been impossible before. These include: (1) privatization of public property, making it unavailable to the indigenous people; (2) arbitrary elimination of laws ("deregulation"); and (3) slashing democratically chosen programs that help ordinary citizens ("austerity programs").
The concept was popularized in Naomi Klein's excellent 2007 book, *The Shock Doctrine*.
After some disasters, the authorities in some countries may well respond by imposing "reforms" that would have been impossible before. These include: (1) privatization of public property, making it unavailable to the indigenous people; (2) arbitrary elimination of laws ("deregulation"); and (3) slashing democratically chosen programs that help ordinary citizens ("austerity programs").
The concept was popularized in Naomi Klein's excellent 2007 book, *The Shock Doctrine*.
"Disaster capitalism" is neoliberalism imposed undemocratically. It exploits natural disasters, civil wars, foreign invasions, coups d'etat, terrorism, or explicit deception. It always seeks to make its changes irreversible.
Naomi Klein mostly blames the International Monetary Fund, but there are other culprits as well.
Naomi Klein mostly blames the International Monetary Fund, but there are other culprits as well.
by Abu Yahya July 10, 2010
Get the disaster capitalismmug. *noun*; in Keynesian economics, the rate at which aggregate consumption rises in response to a rise in national income.
For example, suppose the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is 0.95. If the national income is 100 billion dollars, and it rises 10%, then consumption will rise by 9.5 billion, and saving will rise by 0.5 billion.
If this theory is correct, then an expanding economy will suffer insufficient demand for its own output, and a recession will be inevitable.
This is why national governments respond to recessions with deficit spending: they are trying to counteract the MPC's effect on aggregate demand, and bring it in line with potential output.
For example, suppose the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is 0.95. If the national income is 100 billion dollars, and it rises 10%, then consumption will rise by 9.5 billion, and saving will rise by 0.5 billion.
If this theory is correct, then an expanding economy will suffer insufficient demand for its own output, and a recession will be inevitable.
This is why national governments respond to recessions with deficit spending: they are trying to counteract the MPC's effect on aggregate demand, and bring it in line with potential output.
Not only is the marginal propensity to consume weaker in a wealthy community, but, owing to its accumulation of capital being already larger, the opportunities for further investment are less attractive...
J.M. Keynes, *The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money* (1936), Ch.3
J.M. Keynes, *The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money* (1936), Ch.3
by Abu Yahya March 3, 2009
Get the marginal propensity to consume mug.