Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

The notion that many "America First" people are just good folks who think we should put the interests of our citizens above those of citizens of foreign countries is just fucking stupid nonsense. Can you name one fucking group in the entire country who advocates that we should put the interests of citizens of foreign countries over the interests of our own citizens? You are constantly desperate to defend the indefensible, to minimize the hatred and bigotry. Why? Because you see the greatest problem facing our country is that a bunch of hysterical, hyper-sensitive, hair-on-fire liberals have made it hard to be openly racist or sexist in our society, and focus all their energy on pushing forward their Tyrannical Feminazi Political Correctness Agenda instead of taking the very simple and straightforward steps you have previously outlined to solve all of our country's economic problems?

That does encapsulate a lot of my thinking. You're focusing on peripheral social issues while no one addresses the economic issues.

I'm quite passionate in support of LGBT rights, I think Trump's immigration policy is idiotic, and Sessions' "tough on crime" position deplorable. But I also happen to think these issues are detracting us from addressing the main issue that drives everything else: The disappearance of the middle class, and our bifurcation into a society of haves and have nots.

The political classes have no enlightened response to wealth inequality. The Right wants to simply let it persist. The Left thinks it can remedy it with redistribution. Nothing happens, the problems worsen, their impact frustrates efforts at growth, and we argue about... transgender military officers.

Ya think, just maybe, that politicians want us debating these issues? They want us fighting over minor items? Ya think maybe you are the sucker at the table -- taking the bait? Because I happen to think you are. You're an exceptionally bright guy, but you're triggered, in the most Pavlovian sense, by all the "soft issues" the political strategists use to divide and distract us.

It's the economy, stupid. It's only the economy. And that's all it'll ever be until we see real growth, spread more evenly. Then we can start worrying about everything else.

ETA: And have you ever noticed how much of these peripheral issues vanish when the economy is good for most people? Things like justice reform must be addressed regardless, but it's quite amazing how a lot of the social issues everybody's fighting bitterly about right now seem to fade when everyone's fat and happy.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Skepticism is a good thing. And avoiding generalizations even better.

We need a side eye emoji.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've never met a prosecution in which I didn't want to poke a hole. Nor have I met a belief or narrative, however hefted it might be, which wasn't worth destabilizing or criticizing.

Skepticism is a good thing. And avoiding generalizations even better. Particularly in a world where we're all being encouraged to see things in black and white.

It's all grey. It's all subjective. A sworn enemy in one area is an ally in another. The list of true heroes and true villains out there can be counted on a few hands.

Binary thinking is annoying.

Many people have said many things on the board, but you picked that into which to poke holes.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That does encapsulate a lot of my thinking. You're focusing on peripheral social issues while no one addresses the economic issues.

I'm quite passionate in support of LGBT rights, I think Trump's immigration policy is idiotic, and Sessions' "tough on crime" position deplorable. But I also happen to think these issues are detracting us from addressing the main issue that drives everything else: The disappearance of the middle class, and our bifurcation into a society of haves and have nots.

The political classes have no enlightened response to wealth inequality. The Right wants to simply let it persist. The Left thinks it can remedy it with redistribution. Nothing happens, the problems worsen, their impact frustrates efforts at growth, and we argue about... transgender military officers.

Ya think, just maybe, that politicians want us debating these issues? They want us fighting over minor items? Ya think maybe you are the sucker at the table -- taking the bait? Because I happen to think you are. You're an exceptionally bright guy, but you're triggered, in the most Pavlovian sense, by all the "soft issues" the political strategists use to divide and distract us.

It's the economy, stupid. It's only the economy. And that's all it'll ever be until we see real growth, spread more evenly. Then we can start worrying about everything else.

ETA: And have you ever noticed how much of these peripheral issues vanish when the economy is good for most people? Things like justice reform must be addressed regardless, but it's quite amazing how a lot of the social issues everybody's fighting bitterly about right now seem to fade when everyone's fat and happy.

But good news, you've turned the economy over to a bunch of billionaires who will take everyone else for suckers!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

More democratic controls may appear possible based on history. But where we are now? I don't see it possible anymore. I think Trump may prove the petri dish for the theory that multinational commerce is the ultimate government, states very much subordinate powers.

Sure, he may get a Foxconn factory in Michigan, start some trade wars, etc. But this is small ball. The globalization genie is so long out of the bottle, and so powerful, I just can't imagine how he can "MAGA" for his constituency of global economy losers.

Kind of reminds me Bill Clinton's comment about being elected President, only to learn the bond market actually ran the country.

Why is the globalization genie out of the bottle? A national government could decide to restrict cross-border capital flows again (and some do). It would take a financial hit, but the domestic politics might make it worth it. Why the fatalism?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think Trump may prove the petri dish for the theory that multinational commerce is the ultimate government, states very much subordinate powers.

Or the opposite as they flee his chaos (a thing they've done elsewhere but has thus far been pretty much unthinkable here).

The globalization genie is so long out of the bottle, and so powerful

Manufacturing of inexpensive items and assembly of relatively expensive ones have largely been globalized.

The entire rest of the economy - and it's a lot - has not and won't really. Either because it can't - e.g. personal services, stuff that's expensive to ship - or it's not worth it - relatively small product markets, consumer goods that reflect local preferences, etc.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm quite passionate in support of LGBT rights, I think Trump's immigration policy is idiotic, and Sessions' "tough on crime" position deplorable. But I also happen to think these issues are detracting us from addressing the main issue that drives everything else:

Of course you do, because those things don't affect you and you have no empathy. Meanwhile, those things are hurting actual people so maybe we have to walk and chew gum.

The disappearance of the middle class, and our bifurcation into a society of haves and have nots.

Funny how you're entirely in favor of the tax cuts, budget cuts and gutting of regulation that are main policy drivers this phenomenon.

The political classes have no enlightened response to wealth inequality.

We do. Progressive taxation and redistribution. You reject them out of ideology.

ETA: And have you ever noticed how much of these peripheral issues vanish when the economy is good for most people?

No. The late 1990s was as much of a boom time as there has ever been and yet gays in the military, abortion,"offensive" song lyrics and the president's sex life were very much front and center.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Many people have said many things on the board, but you picked that into which to poke holes.

I do tend to favor third rails. But I could do it with almost anything.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why is the globalization genie out of the bottle? A national government could decide to restrict cross-border capital flows again (and some do). It would take a financial hit, but the domestic politics might make it worth it. Why the fatalism?

The better question is why one would want to stop globalization? Its benefits outweigh its costs over the long term.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why is the globalization genie out of the bottle? A national government could decide to restrict cross-border capital flows again (and some do). It would take a financial hit, but the domestic politics might make it worth it. Why the fatalism?

But globalization isn't a big economic issue, it's just political cover.

Sure, in the 1980s manufacturing moving to low wage jurisdictions (as much Alabama as Mexico) hurt the Rustbelt. That was a long time ago. But wages in much of the world are way up compared to then, and have stayed flat in the US in manufacturing, meaning moving saves a lot less money, and more importantly automation means wages are also less critical, since the plant that used to take thousands of employees to run now takes hundreds. So you get a lot of political hay closing the borders but it doesn't actually help and probably hurts by killing foreign markets for stuff we do well.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The better question is why one would want to stop globalization? Its benefits outweigh its costs over the long term.

And you had an opportunity to vote for one of the few politicians who will say this out loud and didn't.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But good news, you've turned the economy over to a bunch of billionaires who will take everyone else for suckers!

From where I'm standing, these billionaires appear to be doing little more than tripping over their dicks.

They may have made the low information Trump Voter a sucker, as they'll do none of what that voter wants. But that voter deserved to be made a sucker, and they're so incompetent, they can't even pass legislation to help the plutocrats they seek to serve! Taibbi called the Trump Campaign a Clown Car. The analogy holds for the Trump Administration. I can't help but wonder when Trump, in his unfiltered idiocy, defends himself by saying, "We haven't harmed anyone with any alleged corruption because we've so far been unable to do anything!"

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

And you had an opportunity to vote for one of the few politicians who will say this out loud and didn't.

There were other economic reasons I did not vote for her.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The better question is why one would want to stop globalization? Its benefits outweigh its costs over the long term.

Not to those hit with the costs.

The textbook case for international trade is that it makes the country better off in the aggregate, and the gains can be redistributed so that no one is worse off. But when you have a political party in this country dedicated to opposing redistribution -- and, hey, you don't identify as a Republican but you just scorned Democrats for thinking that redistribution is a solution to anything -- and it can block it from happening, then you have to come to grips with the fact that international trade has winners and losers, and the losers pretty rationally will try to block it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But globalization isn't a big economic issue, it's just political cover.

Automation's the bigger issue. But global labor arbitrage has savaged the economic futures of a lot of developed economy workers for the past few decades.