Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Sure, Democrats regulate more aggressively, but that just serves corporations by creating compliance requirements that act as barriers to entry for smaller competitors.

No it doesn't "just" do that and if it did "just" do that, companies, trade groups and morons on the internet wouldn't lobby so hard for deregulation or view candidate Trump as being good for deregulation.

[The CFPB was a solid effort, but it was never gifted much power and was ultimately more symbolic, more placation of the angry, than anything else.]).

Tell that to the personal finance sector. The CFPB had teeth until the GOP removed them.

The only difference between them is the Ds want to provide safety nets and the Rs simply don't give a fuck about people without capital.

Yes, one side wants to get the gains of trade and innovation while mitigating the harms. The other doesn't care about mitigating the harms. Totes the same.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

True. True capitalism would say “Fuck your trademark. Fake Nike’s all the way”.

True capitalism allows the biggest holders of capital to suffer losses. We do not allow that anymore. (Unless you're the unfortunate Lehman of a crisis, sacrificed to sustain the fiction we have real capitalism.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

No it doesn't "just" do that and if it did "just" do that, companies, trade groups and morons on the internet wouldn't lobby so hard for deregulation or view candidate Trump as being good for deregulation.

True, it doesn't "just" do that. But that's a huge impact of over-regulation.

Tell that to the personal finance sector. The CFPB had teeth until the GOP removed them.

It made a mess of home lending and wound up harming many consumers. Where it was needed, in unsecured consumer loans, it was weak.

Yes, one side wants to get the gains of trade and innovation while mitigating the harms. The other doesn't care about mitigating the harms. Totes the same.

That's an overly sunny take. Let's try it differently:

One side wants the gains of trade and innovation - the economic gains from which accrue most to educated, upper middle class to affluent people and multinational corporations - while mitigating, minimally, the harms to the working and middle class, which are enormous.

or

One side is willing to provide safety nets which pay X per worker to mitigate the losses to displaced workers which average XXXXX per worker.

or

One side is willing to arbitrage the futures of its lower skilled workers for enhancements to the futures of its higher skilled workers... and mitigate the losses to those on the bad end of the bargain with safety nets that provide for bare subsistence living.

As to Republicans, no need for adjustment of your statement of their position. They just don't give a fuck.

Let's be honest -- when you value globalization over domestic labor, you are making a choice. You are saying you are willing to allow fellow Americans in one part of the economy to suffer, badly, in order to reap gains from global trade that aren't going to trickle down to these suffering people to any extent approaching the measure of what they'll be losing.

When you say you're interested in mitigating the adverse impacts to domestic labor impacted by globalization, you're avoiding an uncomfortable fact: That mitigation will not replace - will not even come close to replacing - what these people will lose. It's more than what the GOP would give these "losers" in the global economy. But it's still just throwing tokens to people losing dollars, and dignity. And you're making the same calculation the GOP is making: Innovations that I want, and that primarily and initially benefit capital and multinational corporations are more important than the lives of working and middle class people who will be savaged as a result of this policy decision.

I think that's a defensible position. It's also much more honest. Why can't we just admit we are picking sides?

(Please don't reply with, "But globalization makes products much cheaper for these forgotten people." Telling a guy with no job future his TV is $40 cheaper than if it were built here isn't an argument. And regarding China, with the exception of the iPhone, their products fall apart at 1/2 to 2/3 of the lifespan of similar products made elsewhere, and their generic drugs are... well, god only knows what's in that shit.)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Where it was needed, in unsecured consumer loans, it was weak.

I suggest you ask the people who make those loans if they thought that before the GOP gutted it.

[One side wants the gains of trade and innovation - the economic gains from which accrue most to educated, upper middle class to affluent people and multinational corporations

Sure, if you think the people buying cheap products from China aren't getting any benefit. Paying less for stuff is, indeed, an economic benefit.

while mitigating, minimally, the harms to the working and middle class, which are enormous.

Sure, as long as you argue from your gut and ignore actual evidence.

Let's be honest -- when you value globalization over domestic labor, you are making a choice.

Except no one made that choice. Nearly everyone making policy believed there was no direct trade off, because every trade deal and all available evidence said there wasn't one.

Then China joined the WTO and we learned that if there's a big enough change in trade terms, you can't get the effects that you're focused on. But the thing is that was a one time event (and appears to be over) and not nearly as big of scale as you want to make it out to be.

The Dems could be advocating for a lot more help. Some of them are. That is very much a point of the Green New Deal. It's the other side that's for doing nothing.

And regarding China, with the exception of the iPhone, their products fall apart at 1/2 to 2/3 of the lifespan of similar products made elsewhere, and their generic drugs are... well, god only knows what's in that shit.)

You don't even try to not sound like you're full of shit.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Is fucking bullshit.

Switzerland is expensive as fuck. Only good thing to come out of here was Deep Purple Machine Head.

At least it's not Norway. In Switzerland, if you have to pay $25 for a slice of pizza and a beer at least the pizza won't have the bad cheese/sweet sauce kind of Papa John flavor.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

At least it's not Norway. In Switzerland, if you have to pay $25 for a slice of pizza and a beer at least the pizza won't have the bad cheese/sweet sauce kind of Papa John flavor.

Depends. Oslo, yes. Kristiansand, Stavanger, not so expensive.

Quality of fish (fjord trout and salmon, quite similar to each other) makes pizza seem a strange order save by necessity. Reindeer sausage might be better quick eat.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You're generalizing a bit. I do not think the parties are the same in all or even most regards. I think they are the same in one enormous regard: Protecting the interests of capital and corporations above everything else.

Sure, Democrats regulate more aggressively, but that just serves corporations by creating compliance requirements that act as barriers to entry for smaller competitors. And Democrats talk a lot about the financial sector becoming too big and too powerful to the detriment of many other sectors. But do they really do anything about it? No. Their reaction to 2008 was near identical to that of Republicans: Protect the holders of capital at all costs. Labor? Main Street? You're on your own. (Some outliers like Warren and Bernie tried to rein in big finance, but Schumer and Co. blocked that. [The CFPB was a solid effort, but it was never gifted much power and was ultimately more symbolic, more placation of the angry, than anything else.]).

How have the Democrats been on globalization and automation? Crickets. Or they offer that old salve, education. TPP was intended to slow China's growing influence, but not do anything that would offend the capital holders here who profit from trade with China. On the adverse impacts of globalization, the Ds and Rs run roughly the same playbook: Shrug, say globalization is inevitable and with it many working and middle class Americans who don't have significant capital will be ruined, and mumble about "job retraining." The only difference between them is the Ds want to provide safety nets and the Rs simply don't give a fuck about people without capital. That's a huge difference, of course. But both positions are effectively distilled to:

We have decided to place the value of global trade above the interests of the workers displaced by it.

Both the Rs and the Ds don't really care much about the "forgotten people" (growth of whose ranks is going to accelerate even more in a Moore's Law fashion with AI advances).

You might say, "No party can cure the pain of job destruction occasioned by enhanced global trade and automation." And you might be right about that. But it is the most important issue in the world right now, and it will remain so for the duration of our lives. So when you ask me why I cite the similarities between the GOP and Democrats rather than the many areas in which they diverge, it's because on the most important issue - the one that eats all others - they aren't much different. They both serve corporate interests and capital first, at cost to all others.

ETA: I was with a friend in finance a while back and this issue came up. I always ask the question, "Where will all the unneeded people work?" The answer: "Wal Mart." (Democrat, by the way.) I've heard from other Democrats in that sector, "Well, look... inevitably, all societies wind up rigidly class based, like England was. That's what's happening to us." It'd probably be more productive for me to stop worrying about this stuff and just wallow in the luck of birth that put me in a safer position than these forgotten and soon to be forgotten people. But there's something deeply concerning about such attitudes. They sound a lot like this old "axiom": "Housing prices never fall." If there's Irrational Exuberance, there's certainly Irrational Complacency. I don't see Ds or Rs applying structural fixes. They're applying band aids to keep the market going and prop asset prices to ease the baby boomers to their graves -- to avoid a retirement crisis among our arguably Worst Generation. I don't know how long this can last. Trump's election should have been a warning that the problems we face are way more than political and cultural. The next recession could be cataclysmic. If we're lucky. If we're not lucky, it'll just accelerate the slow series of soft landings at lower qualities of life for more and more Americans we've been enduring since 2000. Both parties are hell bent on insuring the latter occurs.

You didn't have to type so much to ignore what I was saying to you.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You didn't have to type so much to ignore what I was saying to you.

You asserted my citing similarities between the parties was ill advised and counterproductive. I explained why I disagree. My response could not have been more on the nose. What you are actually having an issue with here, I suspect, is my refusal to accept the predicate that the parties are indeed materially different (in impact most notably) on the big economic issues.

They aren’t. And I since don’t accept that threshold argument, I certainly can’t agree that noting this huge similarity I did is cynical or counterproductive. I’d call it candor.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You asserted my citing similarities between the parties was ill advised and counterproductive. I explained why I disagree. My response could not have been more on the nose. What you are actually having an issue with here, I suspect, is my refusal to accept the predicate that the parties are indeed materially different (in impact most notably) on the big economic issues.

They aren’t. And I since don’t accept that threshold argument, I certainly can’t agree that noting this huge similarity I did is cynical or counterproductive. I’d call it candor.

It’s crazy that Ty calls people a troll. Then in the next post he says trump is trying to deflect. Trump is trying to deflect, but ty is the troll. Sad ih8edjfkjr gave a troll the keys.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

It’s crazy that Ty calls people a troll. Then in the next post he says trump is trying to deflect. Trump is trying to deflect, but ty is the troll. Sad ih8edjfkjr gave a troll the keys.

When did you become against trolls?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

It’s crazy that Ty calls people a troll. Then in the next post he says trump is trying to deflect. Trump is trying to deflect, but ty is the troll. Sad ih8edjfkjr gave a troll the keys.

I’ve had it. Williamson 2020!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

When did you become against trolls?

I’m just trying to protect my territory.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

At least it's not Norway. In Switzerland, if you have to pay $25 for a slice of pizza and a beer at least the pizza won't have the bad cheese/sweet sauce kind of Papa John flavor.

In Zurich, the pizza was good but the beer was very meh. On to Italy where me thinks it should be better.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’ve had it. Williamson 2020!

What about the woman who “has to go” on Nat Guard duty? What if she gets called up when there is a crisis? Actually she will?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

In Zurich, the pizza was good but the beer was very meh. On to Italy where me thinks it should be better.

Where you going?