I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

We're in pretty desperate need of that infrastructure investment anyway (do not spend any time thinking about the age of the gas and water pipes in your city, for example), so we better do it.

Like fossil fuel use temperance, this will only meaningfully occur when an immediate catastrophe stares us in the face. In the case of warming, it'll be massive refugee influxes from areas no longer habitable. Or perhaps the heat index in Manhattan reaching 130 on average for an entire summer. In the case of infrastructure, it'll be more Flints, perhaps a Johnstown Flood-like event at some huge dam, and electric grids going down regularly.

This would be far more compelling if there was any indication they knew they were blowing it up.

They don't care. Behind Door Number 1, they're fucked. Behind Door Number 2, they might still be fucked. But there's a slim chance things could improve. It's only rational if you're, say, a coal miner in WV.

Why people who are doing well are voting for Trump is a more complex question.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm simply noting that Clinton and GOP Congress, however dysfunctional their relationship might have been, presided over a period of economic growth,

What makes you think they deserve any credit for that?

with a balanced budget

Which was a function of growth (mostly luck) plus not adopting the GOP strategy of cutting taxes at every opportunity.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Like fossil fuel use temperance, this will only meaningfully occur when an immediate catastrophe stares us in the face. In the case of warming, it'll be massive refugee influxes from areas no longer habitable. Or perhaps the heat index in Manhattan reaching 130 on average for an entire summer. In the case of infrastructure, it'll be more Flints, perhaps a Johnstown Flood-like event at some huge dam, and electric grids going down regularly.

It won't happen until there is a crisis in a red state that requires federal intervention that will force the GOP to actually do something.

Meanwhile, blue states will be doing what they can to try to avert that type of crisis.

It's only rational if you're, say, a coal miner in WV.

There's nothing rational about a coal miner in WV believing that Trump, who just hired a slew more foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago, is going to do anything to help you. But I'll grant you that there's lots of irrational belief that he might.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

What makes you think they deserve any credit for that?

There was war, but there was also compromise. Unlike today.

Which was a function of growth (mostly luck) plus not adopting the GOP strategy of cutting taxes at every opportunity.

Clinton could've sought to use the economic gains occasioned by the tech boom to do something more ambitious (like the ACA). Instead, he was hands-off. And again, there was compromise. He and Gingrich couldn't kill each other, so they instead acted rationally. Does Gingrich deserve credit? Certainly not for trying to politically destroy Clinton. But for working with Clinton when it became clear he couldn't kill him? Yes. I see none of that from McConnell today.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There was war, but there was also compromise. Unlike today.

While I agree with that sentiment, I just don't think that fiscal policy played a particularly meaningful part in growth of the 1990s. Times were "normal," the Fed was the primary actor in managing the macroeconomy, and growth was mostly the business cycle doing its thing.

Clinton could've sought to use the economic gains occasioned by the tech boom to do something more ambitious (like the ACA).

You mean like he did?

I see none of that from McConnell today.

100% agree that things have changed for the worse on the GOP side.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You mean like he did?

He tried to do HC reform, realized it was a political disaster, and quickly jettisoned it (and threw Hillary under the bus).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

There's nothing rational about a coal miner in WV believing that Trump, who just hired a slew more foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago, is going to do anything to help you. But I'll grant you that there's lots of irrational belief that he might.

He's climate change denier. They're coal miners.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Like fossil fuel use temperance, this will only meaningfully occur when an immediate catastrophe stares us in the face. In the case of warming, it'll be massive refugee influxes from areas no longer habitable. Or perhaps the heat index in Manhattan reaching 130 on average for an entire summer. In the case of infrastructure, it'll be more Flints, perhaps a Johnstown Flood-like event at some huge dam, and electric grids going down regularly.

Maybe hundreds of thousands of people flooding into Europe?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The solution, for far too long, to problems has been, "let's pass a rule..." "Embrace Complexity," Obama finger wagged a few years ago. Right. Perhaps instead, require any person ascending political office first have some private sector experience -- to at least minimally understand the impact of his or her policies.

Antitrust law is an area where the government generally deals with problems not by passing rules, but by bringing enforcement actions to block business conduct that goes too far. The political appointees who get jobs in the DOJ and FTC generally have significant private-sector experience. I personally think this works pretty well, but you don't usually see people holding antitrust up as a model of good government. I suspect that this is because the people who complain about process are really interested in the substance, and will never be satisfied. The people who complain that regulation is onerous mostly have strong interests against government regulation, and vice versa ideologically on the other side (although there are fewer of them and they are much less like to have a financial interest).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Asking the fed govt to engage in nimble, smart regulation is, I agree, quite difficult. It's not that it's necessarily too big to do so. But there are too many automated processes and policies. People in it are rarely allowed to think, or to change policies quickly or subjectively enough to provide good regulation.

No one ever talks about the federal regulation that works well. All you hear are complaints. This colors views.

That's cheap. The impeachment was appalling. I'm simply noting that Clinton and GOP Congress, however dysfunctional their relationship might have been, presided over a period of economic growth, with a balanced budget.

That is certainly true. Oddly, for many people it's the disfunction of the relationship that stands out in retrospect. I mean, Newt Gingrich.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Maybe hundreds of thousands of people flooding into Europe?

Point, Set, Match.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Antitrust law is an area where the government generally deals with problems not by passing rules, but by bringing enforcement actions to block business conduct that goes too far. The political appointees who get jobs in the DOJ and FTC generally have significant private-sector experience. I personally think this works pretty well, but you don't usually see people holding antitrust up as a model of good government. I suspect that this is because the people who complain about process are really interested in the substance, and will never be satisfied. The people who complain that regulation is onerous mostly have strong interests against government regulation, and vice versa ideologically on the other side (although there are fewer of them and they are much less like to have a financial interest).

I think this is an excellent example. I'll also say I have worked with both very conservative and very liberal anti-trust counsel over the years, people with experience under Bush and experience under Clinton, and found they all work well together.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think this is an excellent example. I'll also say I have worked with both very conservative and very liberal anti-trust counsel over the years, people with experience under Bush and experience under Clinton, and found they all work well together.

Um, rookie mistake.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Um, rookie mistake.

That's why I farm the shit out.

I will say, I have rarely found antiTrust counsel who wasn't overly persnickety about matters of form rather than substance; this seems to be an occupational hazard, whether they are of the right-, left- or center- wing variety.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

That's why I farm the shit out.

I will say, I have rarely found antiTrust counsel who wasn't overly persnickety about matters of form rather than substance; this seems to be an occupational hazard, whether they are of the right-, left- or center- wing variety.

Knowing the car part names saves you from getting ripped off at the mechanic.