LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=883)

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 09-16-2019 03:52 PM

Re: Castro
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 524913)
Not her?



Yes. Yes I do. I could explain. How long do you have?



Maybe you are unfamiliar with revolving doors, and the difference between revolving doors and other kinds of doors.



I'm not saying that your reaction to Harris is wrong, but you haven't found the right words yet to explain what you're thinking.

This is all really simple. Prosecutors are government employees, paid well less than they'd get working for corporate America, and when a corporation is involved in their cases it is usually on the other side of a "v" from their client.

If you are calling prosecutors "corporate" your words have no meaning.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-16-2019 03:54 PM

Re: Castro
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 524920)
This is all really simple. Prosecutors are government employees, paid well less than they'd get working for corporate America, and when a corporation is involved in their cases it is usually on the other side of a "v" from their client.

If you are calling prosecutors "corporate" your words have no meaning.

You don't understand, but you are a prom queen.

sebastian_dangerfield 09-16-2019 05:58 PM

Re: Castro
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 524920)
This is all really simple. Prosecutors are government employees, paid well less than they'd get working for corporate America, and when a corporation is involved in their cases it is usually on the other side of a "v" from their client.

If you are calling prosecutors "corporate" your words have no meaning.

She’s one of the top three recipients of Wall St cash why?

There are some prosecutors who are lifers. Then there are the politically or economically ambitious ones (not infrequently, they’re the same ones). These people may not have worked in a Corp, but they strategize in a manner indistinguishable from ambitious private sector corporate workers.

Hierarchies are hierarchies. Substitute “institutional operator and manipulator” for “corporate.” The point is, Harris thinks in a manner akin to the way a lot of folks in the C suite do. She betrays a mind skilled in working systems to her advantage. This is not a bad thing. We all manipulate systems in self interest to an extent. But it is also not considered consistent with an altruistic mind, or the behavior of one who cares about the country more than her own advancement. This is why “corporate” is a synonym for “bloodless.”

You’ll find ex-prosecutors to be quite willing to flip to defense of corporate behavior they previously excoriated. The mindset of the ambitious within hierarchies is always a bit bent. What word fits that? I’m not sure. But it’s hardly surprising to learn that, like her truly corporate analogues, Harris will happily employ power like a sledgehammer.

sebastian_dangerfield 09-16-2019 06:07 PM

Re: Castro
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 524921)
You don't understand, but you are a prom queen.

How does one acquire the belief prosecutors work against corporations more than they work for them? Our crim codes are entirely focused on property rights. From the state DA nailing the Wal Mart shoplifters to the the feds nailing the Goldman worker for algorithm theft, it’s all the state acting on behalf of those with property. And who holds more property than corporations?

The idea prosecutors are on the other side of the V from corps more than on the same side, enforcing the interests of corps, is indefensible. I say indefensible instead of unsustainable because this argument could only be raised in a very desperate defense. It’s simply Wrong.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-16-2019 06:25 PM

Re: Castro
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 524922)
She’s one of the top three recipients of Wall St cash why?

There are some prosecutors who are lifers. Then there are the politically or economically ambitious ones (not infrequently, they’re the same ones). These people may not have worked in a Corp, but they strategize in a manner indistinguishable from ambitious private sector corporate workers.

Hierarchies are hierarchies. Substitute “institutional operator and manipulator” for “corporate.” The point is, Harris thinks in a manner akin to the way a lot of folks in the C suite do. She betrays a mind skilled in working systems to her advantage. This is not a bad thing. We all manipulate systems in self interest to an extent. But it is also not considered consistent with an altruistic mind, or the behavior of one who cares about the country more than her own advancement. This is why “corporate” is a synonym for “bloodless.”

You’ll find ex-prosecutors to be quite willing to flip to defense of corporate behavior they previously excoriated. The mindset of the ambitious within hierarchies is always a bit bent. What word fits that? I’m not sure. But it’s hardly surprising to learn that, like her truly corporate analogues, Harris will happily employ power like a sledgehammer.

Like I said, you are still groping for the right words to express what you think about Harris.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-16-2019 06:30 PM

Re: Castro
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 524923)
How does one acquire the belief prosecutors work against corporations more than they work for them? Our crim codes are entirely focused on property rights. From the state DA nailing the Wal Mart shoplifters to the the feds nailing the Goldman worker for algorithm theft, it’s all the state acting on behalf of those with property. And who holds more property than corporations?

The idea prosecutors are on the other side of the V from corps more than on the same side, enforcing the interests of corps, is indefensible. I say indefensible instead of unsustainable because this argument could only be raised in a very desperate defense. It’s simply Wrong.

I'm not really debating any of that with you. I mean, I will if you want me to, but I certainly think you have a point. Be that as it may, it doesn't mean that "corporate" is a good word to use to describe Kamala Harris. Get this: I actually have been a lawyer representing a corporation in a room with Kamala Harris. (The corporation was not in the room with her, except in the sense that a colleague and I were.) I mean, mind blown, right? Did I think she was sympathetic to my client? Well, sure, because she is, among other things, good at being a politician. Did I think she was so in the bag that we needed only to convey to her what we wished for her to do for us? Uh, that would be a "no."

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 09-17-2019 08:45 AM

Re: Castro
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 524922)
She’s one of the top three recipients of Wall St cash why?

There are some prosecutors who are lifers. Then there are the politically or economically ambitious ones (not infrequently, they’re the same ones). These people may not have worked in a Corp, but they strategize in a manner indistinguishable from ambitious private sector corporate workers.

Hierarchies are hierarchies. Substitute “institutional operator and manipulator” for “corporate.” The point is, Harris thinks in a manner akin to the way a lot of folks in the C suite do. She betrays a mind skilled in working systems to her advantage. This is not a bad thing. We all manipulate systems in self interest to an extent. But it is also not considered consistent with an altruistic mind, or the behavior of one who cares about the country more than her own advancement. This is why “corporate” is a synonym for “bloodless.”

You’ll find ex-prosecutors to be quite willing to flip to defense of corporate behavior they previously excoriated. The mindset of the ambitious within hierarchies is always a bit bent. What word fits that? I’m not sure. But it’s hardly surprising to learn that, like her truly corporate analogues, Harris will happily employ power like a sledgehammer.

I only see her as getting less than $450K to date from the securities industry: https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-pre...s?id=N00036915 That's about 1.8% of her fundraising. I think it is fair to say that so far this election Wall Street is essentially sitting it out in public and doing their giving through dark money vehicles. There is just not a lot of wall street money flowing anywhere where the sun shines. The big dark money vehicles I'm aware of on the Dem side right now are all Senate or state house focused.

It seems what you really want to do is scream "establishment" at everyone and wag your finger around. Maybe Bernie is shallow enough for you, after all.

G (neoliberal globalist corporate shill progressive) 3

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 09-17-2019 03:53 PM

Re: Yes you did
 
Just a reminder this exists.

sebastian_dangerfield 09-17-2019 04:35 PM

Re: Castro
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 524926)
I only see her as getting less than $450K to date from the securities industry: https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-pre...s?id=N00036915 That's about 1.8% of her fundraising. I think it is fair to say that so far this election Wall Street is essentially sitting it out in public and doing their giving through dark money vehicles. There is just not a lot of wall street money flowing anywhere where the sun shines. The big dark money vehicles I'm aware of on the Dem side right now are all Senate or state house focused.

It seems what you really want to do is scream "establishment" at everyone and wag your finger around. Maybe Bernie is shallow enough for you, after all.

G (neoliberal globalist corporate shill progressive) 3

Well there is that old saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Neoliberal, globalist (your term, not mine... I prefer “free trade”), corporate policies aren’t truly compatible with progressive policies. Nor are nationalist policies.

In order:

Neoliberal free trade policies lead to labor arbitrage that costs Americans jobs. The two retorts to this are: (1) But, Americans get cheaper foreign made goods; and, (2) Over time, new jobs are created. One is frivolous, debunked with the fact that he who has no job cannot buy goods at any price. Two ignores the facts that the displaced are not skilled for these new jobs and that these new jobs will appear too far in the future to aid the displaced. (I’m not addressing the argument that this can all or to any significant extent be fixed by education and worker retraining, as that’s facially ludicrous and more a talking point than a serious argument [as the soon to be glut of STEM workers will be learning].)

“Corporate” middle and upper management workers, and professionals who service them, like us, are overpaid relative to value. To the extent we prop up hierarchies which should be leaner, providing more profits to be taxed, robbing recipients of tax transfers of such redistribution, and taking wages otherwise payable to those at the bottom end of the pay scale, one cannot be corporate and progressive. This person would be more of a limousine liberal.

Nationalism cannot be progressive economically because policies that stop labor arbitrage only accelerate domestic automation. It is generally not progressive because they intertwine the corporate and govt sectors in a manner that resembles fascism, which uses both to oppress the people.

Your list resembles more “upper middle class liberal” than progressive. You’re actually close to me. We both like the social elements of progressivism, but don’t like policies which would endanger the sources of our revenue. The only real difference between tax voters and limousine liberals is what they seek to protect. One seeks to save his dollars by giving a bit more at the margin in taxes to protect his free trade revenues. This is near indistinguishable from the noblesse oblige (or if you prefer, “buy off the pitchforks cheaply”) view of the now extinct “Liberal Republican” of old. The other focuses on avoiding the tax bill. Neither helps the suffering below him to find a wage paying for a dignified living. One just offers a greater safety net. Which is something. But it’s not truly progressive, at least economically speaking.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 09-17-2019 04:53 PM

Re: Castro
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 524928)
Well there is that old saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Neoliberal, globalist (your term, not mine... I prefer “free trade”), corporate policies aren’t truly compatible with progressive policies. Nor are nationalist policies.

In order:

Neoliberal free trade policies lead to labor arbitrage that costs Americans jobs. The two retorts to this are: (1) But, Americans get cheaper foreign made goods; and, (2) Over time, new jobs are created. One is frivolous, debunked with the fact that he who has no job cannot goods at any price. Two ignores the facts that the displaced are not skilled for these new jobs and that these new jobs will appear too far in the future to aid the displaced. (I’m not addressing the argument that this can all or to any significant extent be fixed by education and worker retraining, as that’s facially ludicrous and more a talking point than a serious argument [as the soon to be glut of STEM workers will be learning].)

“Corporate” middle and upper management workers, and professionals who service them, like us, are overpaid relative to value. To the extent we prop up hierarchies which should be leaner, providing more profits to be taxed, robbing recipients of tax transfers of such redistribution, and taking wages otherwise payable to those at the bottom end of the pay scale, one cannot be corporate and progressive. This person would be more of a limousine liberal.

Nationalism cannot be progressive economically because policies that stop labor arbitrage only accelerate domestic automation. It is generally not progressive because they intertwine the corporate and govt sectors in a manner that resembles fascism, which uses both to oppress the people.

Your list resembles more “upper middle class liberal” than progressive. You’re actually close to me. We both like the social elements of progressivism, but don’t like policies which would endanger the sources of our revenue. The only real difference between GOP tax voters and limousine liberals is what they seek to protect. One seeks to save his dollars by giving a bit more at the margin in taxes to protect his free trade revenues. This is near indistinguishable from the noblesse oblige (or if you prefer, “buy off the pitchforks cheaply”) view of the now extinct “Liberal Republican” of old. The other focuses on avoiding the tax bill. Neither helps the suffering below him to find a wage paying for a dignified living. One just offers a greater safety net. Which is something. But it’s not truly progressive, at least economically speaking.

I'm of the old school that believes labor missed out by going nationalist instead of internationalist. They should have listened to Trotsky.

sebastian_dangerfield 09-17-2019 05:08 PM

Re: Castro
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 524929)
I'm of the old school that believes labor missed out by going nationalist instead of internationalist. They should have listened to Trotsky.

I think that’s been proven correct, as a concept. But was it ever operationally and politically possible?

Adder 09-18-2019 11:24 AM

Re: Castro
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 524928)
Neoliberal free trade policies lead to labor arbitrage that costs Americans jobs.

Feel free to believe this to be true as a matter of faith, but empirically, it has been studied and found not to be.

The one exception is China entering the WTO, which appears to have been a big enough shock to have had this effect. The evidence suggestion that the effect is fading, however, and there has not been a subsequent shift toward India (or wherever) to replace it.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-18-2019 12:00 PM

Re: Castro
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 524931)
Feel free to believe this to be true as a matter of faith, but empirically, it has been studied and found not to be.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I think Sebby's point is that running the country without significant tariffs, in an era of global transportation and supply chains, encourages manufacturers to put less skilled jobs in other countries where wages are lower. Things that were once made in the United States are now made in other countries. This is obviously true, no? I think your point is that the open trade regime also fosters the development of new jobs here, which are often higher skilled and better paying, and that in the aggregate the country is at least as well enough.

Implicit in your response, too, is the observation that other countries are developing too, and are always catching up. Goods that were once cutting-edge are now commodities that can be made in all sorts of places (cars in Mexico, smartphones in China, nuclear weapons in Iran), and increasing tariffs won't change that. Increasing tariffs will protect less-skilled jobs here, but at the expense of US consumers, who will pay higher prices and have less to choose from, and US manufacturers, whose exports will be hurt when other countries do the same. In other words, what are you going to do?

To which Sebby says, maybe you guys in San Francisco and Minneapolis are living large from the cutting-edge jobs that this trade creates, but here in Pennsylvania the losers that I hang out with don't have the skills to get those jobs, and wouldn't want to leave this hellhole to move to those cities anyway. They are screwed, and so they vote for Trump. You've got to end free trade to make them happy, because I can't think of anything else and besides, it pisses off liberals so it must be good.

Needless to say, you don't find that a compelling line of thought. But it would be nice if you had something better to offer.

sebastian_dangerfield 09-18-2019 12:40 PM

Re: Castro
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 524932)
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I think Sebby's point is that running the country without significant tariffs, in an era of global transportation and supply chains, encourages manufacturers to put less skilled jobs in other countries where wages are lower. Things that were once made in the United States are now made in other countries. This is obviously true, no? I think your point is that the open trade regime also fosters the development of new jobs here, which are often higher skilled and better paying, and that in the aggregate the country is at least as well enough.

Implicit in your response, too, is the observation that other countries are developing too, and are always catching up. Goods that were once cutting-edge are now commodities that can be made in all sorts of places (cars in Mexico, smartphones in China, nuclear weapons in Iran), and increasing tariffs won't change that. Increasing tariffs will protect less-skilled jobs here, but at the expense of US consumers, who will pay higher prices and have less to choose from, and US manufacturers, whose exports will be hurt when other countries do the same. In other words, what are you going to do?

To which Sebby says, maybe you guys in San Francisco and Minneapolis are living large from the cutting-edge jobs that this trade creates, but here in Pennsylvania the losers that I hang out with don't have the skills to get those jobs, and wouldn't want to leave this hellhole to move to those cities anyway. They are screwed, and so they vote for Trump. You've got to end free trade to make them happy, because I can't think of anything else and besides, it pisses off liberals so it must be good.

Needless to say, you don't find that a compelling line of thought. But it would be nice if you had something better to offer.

Actually, I didn't intend to say any of what you wrote. My point was limited and it was this: The concept of a "Corporate Progressive" is an oxymoron.

The rest of what you've written here is an ornate strawman.

But oddly, it proves my point. I think you hold yourself out as a progressive. This would mean you care about people. But actually, you don't really care about people. You're a closeted libertarian. Like me, you don't see any solution for lower skilled workers with which you can live. As you said, "What can you do?" But like me, you don't want to see any policies implemented that possibly harm your revenue stream. So you are vehemently anti-protectionist. Like me. And like me, you don't mind paying a few extra dollars at tax time to protect the status quo that delivers money to you far in excess of what you're worth, at cost to lower level workers who are being paid far less than they should be paid. We just differ in the amount.

We are both enjoying an upward skewing of wages to those in upper middle and top tier management, and the types of professionals that service them.

Where we differ, but not much, is I'd also like to avoid taxes. I'm trying to skin it from the revenue angle (keeping more of the revenue for myself) and the tax angle.*

I can't be called a "progressive" economically because, well, I'm not. But neither can you. We're a pair of confused sorta-libertarians who differ on amount of taxes they're willing to pay.

A progressive, OTOH, would demand that we find a way to share the revenue with lower end workers. A progressive would never use the argument that keeping goods cheap for underpaid workers is more important than sharing the revenue with them to allow them to buy goods. A progressive would seek to fix the system that created the inequality rather than pay off the economic losers on the cheap via small enhancements in redistribution via taxes.

But we don't care. I mean, I'll carp about the issue here, but it's to demonstrate some abstract point, such as there is no such thing as a "corporate progressive," and that you're not much different from a tax voter in terms of impact and motive. But I don't think there's any real fix. As you said, and I agree, "What are you going to do?"

_______
* My household is directly exposed to possible minimum wage increases. I'm all for giving the worker more money, but my family's interests may squelch that altruism if the policy ever winds up on a ballot. And I'll use your rationalization when I vote against it: "These people should have moved. They stayed, so they deserve to be paid less so my family can have more."

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 09-18-2019 12:48 PM

Re: Castro
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 524932)
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I think Sebby's point is that running the country without significant tariffs, in an era of global transportation and supply chains, encourages manufacturers to put less skilled jobs in other countries where wages are lower. Things that were once made in the United States are now made in other countries. This is obviously true, no? I think your point is that the open trade regime also fosters the development of new jobs here, which are often higher skilled and better paying, and that in the aggregate the country is at least as well enough.

Implicit in your response, too, is the observation that other countries are developing too, and are always catching up. Goods that were once cutting-edge are now commodities that can be made in all sorts of places (cars in Mexico, smartphones in China, nuclear weapons in Iran), and increasing tariffs won't change that. Increasing tariffs will protect less-skilled jobs here, but at the expense of US consumers, who will pay higher prices and have less to choose from, and US manufacturers, whose exports will be hurt when other countries do the same. In other words, what are you going to do?

To which Sebby says, maybe you guys in San Francisco and Minneapolis are living large from the cutting-edge jobs that this trade creates, but here in Pennsylvania the losers that I hang out with don't have the skills to get those jobs, and wouldn't want to leave this hellhole to move to those cities anyway. They are screwed, and so they vote for Trump. You've got to end free trade to make them happy, because I can't think of anything else and besides, it pisses off liberals so it must be good.

Needless to say, you don't find that a compelling line of thought. But it would be nice if you had something better to offer.


My offering: tariffs are the wrong tool here, the right tool is increased advocacy for unionization abroad, the development of higher pay structures in other countries, and a general increase in the integration of the world economy. We do this through trade agreements, though I'll be the first to admit we also do other things through trade agreements of which I am less fond.

There are also ways to spread the wealth from the Boston/SF markets into other parts of the country, and we can talk about that, too, but one big problem is it often involves things other parts of the country are resistant to, like investing in infrastructure and education to a greater degree and changing your state spending and taxing pattern to one that looks more like California and Massachusetts.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:36 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com