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

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Hillary was present at the meeting in which her Under Secretary (Kennedy) raised the issue of the civilian clothing for the Marines. She participated in the debate.

I am particularly troubled by the extent to which the attire debate and the State Department's clutching of pearls may have been influenced by the fact that if they went in uniform, the perception would be that it was a real military intervention that would indicate that the Middle East was not the sunshine and rainbows the administration wished to convey, given the proximity to the election. It wasn't an issue of the safety of the Marines.

Get over yourself. I'm sure there were a number of reasons why civilian clothing vs. fatigues was an issue, some of which rise to the level of how the country and the world classifies the incursion. And those are issues her department is responsible for addressing.

Secondly, from your answer, I'm not convinced Hillary was involved beyond (possibly) hearing the issue and you sure don't seem like you can assert that she was involved in a 4 hour debate about it and sending conflicting orders as if she was changing her mind over and over. And that's what you implied.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You're smoking crack.

Trump will probably win Texas,

I think you're smoking crack there. This waterhead's got nothing in the bank, and is now fully committed to an isolationist/anti-immigrant platform. Even if he gets all the xenophobes in TX, there's no way people in the tech and energy industries are buying onto his platform. Couple them with the anti-wall voters and Trump's got a tough road in TX.

My problem with Trump is he's a Democrat. Or at least he was that, or Reform Party, before deciding to run as an R last year, while still not even paying lip service to most Republican principles.

Of the 999 most people have, this isn't typically one. I like the fact that Trump was a moderate Democrat. Moderate Democrats and Republicans are the best kind. Pro-business, fiscally sensible, and socially liberal.

Yes, my Libertarian side would prefer a true free market proponent. But we're never going fix any of the problems in this country until we have a near armageddon collapse of some sort, or a pitchforks in the street revolution (and even then, there's a good chance we'll just degrade into a deeply class divide society like Brazil). So... During this somewhat calm period before the math finally, really catches up with us, why not have a moderate in office? Make the waning years of the Republic as we knew it - the American Dream we've all enjoyed - a little less volatile?

I fully realize I'm arguing Trump is a moderate here, which is a Bizarro Universe situation.

Even the Chamber of Commerce opposes Trump. We are writing checks to Senate Conservatives Fund-backed candidates only.

Good luck with that. What you and so many other GOP traditionalists seem unable to process is, Your Conservatism is Dead. That old game of servicing the rich with the votes of the rubes? Well, the Internet spoiled that for you. Joe Shit-For-Brains Middle Class GOP Rube now understands how bad he was getting fucked by "conservatives." He's not switching to the Democrats, because they're fucking him just as hard. Instead, he's picking up a pitchfork, and voting for populists.

It's over. Conservatism was a lie from the start (Reagan ballooned the debt, starting this whole mess), and it only survived because the public didn't have access to information. The rabble isn't so easily led around by the nose anymore. They don't believe the GOP, and they shouldn't. You "conservatives" have no message with which to compete with the Democrats, who are going to kick your asses for the indefinite future by holding onto their voting bloc with promises of a more expansive nanny state.

You had a chance with Trump. But the pricks who run your party would rather stay atop the collapsing scaffolding of "conservatism" than allow populists some power in the GOP. You fucked it up. You really fucked it up.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Brexit and Trumpism are about inequality first, a rigged economic system second, and then scapegoating of immigrants: [/url]

Damn the evidence and just keep saying it, huh?

Surely a person who believes, as traditional economists do, that all men are rational actors

You realize that there is a difference between an assumption that is built in to a model and a "belief" right? Because not even those most wedded to models believe that all men are rational actors. Freedman's famous "pool player analogy" is an argument for why it might not matter that "men" are not.

grasps that any policy which takes longer than a man's remaining lifetime to "improve" his life will be rejected by even the most gullible of voters.

That's not even it. It's not necessarily even a time lag. It's that there are domestic losers from trade, and unless we adopt policies to offset those losses, as we've decidedly failed to do, no amount of time will make thing better for them.

I may have already linked to this episode of Econ Talk (not a big Russ Roberts fan, but this one is good) with David Autor about his estimates of the effect of trade in China on US manufacturing, and a lot more, but it and the discussion it sparked are a good place to start.

My take away: we adopted free trade while expressly rejecting the kinds of support systems that are needed to offset its costs.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

anyone who reads this board with any objectivity knows you are brain damaged, so for all of us who do you think was let in and by which president? And who ever your feverish brain picks how is the San Bernadino wife different, other than the death toll?

Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

No offense, but the survivors' opinions are secondary. The woman is likely to be President.

Everything is spun. There is so little unbiased "news" that you and SEC arguing is just silly. T asks the main question- was Hillary part of the "wear suits- no wear uniforms" cluster fuck? She says Trump doesn't have the temperament to be Prez- I think everyone here agrees. But someone worrying about wardrobe ain't all that on point either.

No offense, but Have You No Shame?

Maybe one of the first five investigations, say, but after all these years, you're defending an "investigation" by a bunch of hacks timed to be released in the middle of a campaign? Just in time to be used in NRA ads on behalf of Donald Trump?

Really, American voters ought to be disgusted. And throw some of these jerks out. And you ought to have some shame.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

My take away: we adopted free trade why expressly rejecting the kinds of support systems that are needed to offset its costs.

I could fight with you on the rest, but with this I agree. However, it might be impossible to effectively do otherwise. I'm not sure there's a way to seriously offset the impacts of free trade on labor in advanced nations. Even if you give the displaced benefits commensurate to all that they've lost, people have a need to do something with themselves. They have to feel like they're productive, respected, etc. This is the hole I see in Friedman's "basic income."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Hillary was present at the meeting in which her Under Secretary (Kennedy) raised the issue of the civilian clothing for the Marines. She participated in the debate.

I am particularly troubled by the extent to which the attire debate and the State Department's clutching of pearls may have been influenced by the fact that if they went in uniform, the perception would be that it was a real military intervention that would indicate that the Middle East was not the sunshine and rainbows the administration wished to convey, given the proximity to the election. It wasn't an issue of the safety of the Marines.

Fucking Trumpster.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I could fight with you on the rest, but with this I agree. However, it might be impossible to effectively do otherwise. I'm not sure there's a way to seriously offset the impacts of free trade on labor in advanced nations. Even if you give the displaced benefits commensurate to all that they've lost, people have a need to do something with themselves. They have to feel like they're productive, respected, etc. This is the hole I see in Friedman's "basic income."

First you need the safety net, health care and UBI, then you need vocational training and job search and relocation assistance, and you need an ongoing investment in education to reduce the future portion of the work force that's vulnerable. We've been doing the opposite.

The good news is Autor et al's research suggests the problem is real, but not as big as I think you believe.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

SEC Chick will end up giving money to Trump and voting for him. You know this, I know this, everyone but SEC Chick knows this.

However, I do love the notion that it was critical to keep a dictator in power in Libya (except before Obama helped remove him, when it was critical to help remove him), and critical to get rid of a dictator in Syria.

Of course she will. It will tighten up, and be within 5 points, and she won't feel like she has the luxury of a protest vote, and figure the "lesser of two evils" means supporting a racist lunatic over a, god forbid, sensible, thoughtful woman.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I could fight with you on the rest, but with this I agree. However, it might be impossible to effectively do otherwise. I'm not sure there's a way to seriously offset the impacts of free trade on labor in advanced nations. Even if you give the displaced benefits commensurate to all that they've lost, people have a need to do something with themselves. They have to feel like they're productive, respected, etc. This is the hole I see in Friedman's "basic income."

Yeah, this is pretty much right. The folks who claim to be most aggrieved by globalization, other than the Bernie Sanders college students who are completely full of shit on the subject and enormous beneficiaries of globalization, have not done poorly on an absolute scale, they have done poorly relative to a lot of folks who have done better.

The best way to raise the standards for these people, however, is to raise them for their peers oversees. If wages in China can go up $5, wages here can go up by $2.50, and that's the kind of math that is realistic and would mean progress.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Of course she will. It will tighten up, and be within 5 points, and she won't feel like she has the luxury of a protest vote, and figure the "lesser of two evils" means supporting a racist lunatic over a, god forbid, sensible, thoughtful woman.

I'd lend more credence to this prediction if I thought it was going to tighten up. I think we've seen the closest this race will ever be and advantage for Hillary will only widen.

But then again I'd have predicted "remain" too, so, ya know.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is true. But big banks take the big pieces of the best loans. They don't syndicate that stuff to small banks. They sell the shittier stuff to smaller banks who have trouble understanding the credit as well as they do.

TM

That's why you need to have lenders with pull have the deal terms include a firm commitment to offer a larger piece overall of the deal in smaller chunks to smaller banks, on the same credit terms (quality, rate, etc.) If necessary, make it a regulated thing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

First you need the safety net, health care and UBI, then you need vocational training and job search and relocation assistance, and you need an ongoing investment in education to reduce the future portion of the work force that's vulnerable. We've been doing the opposite.

The good news is Autor et al's research suggests the problem is real, but not as big as I think you believe.

Job search, relocation, and vocational assistance aren't going to work for more but a tiny fraction of those in the workforce for over 15 or so years. Nor will these things work for people of limited intelligence. They are worth trying, of course, but don't expect much. The low intelligence/low skilled workers will, in large part, become wards of the state.

We should focus ourselves on helping the young, who can benefit from such programs. I think a good place to start would be to identify children's natural skills at an early age and try to give them pathways to productive careers in which their skill sets are valued. Too much of education now is teaching-for-the-test to put kids into jobs that are lucrative. Or, kids just floundering and figuring out what they want to do as they rudderlessly navigate the education system (70% of law students). A better course may be identifying where people will excel early and giving them a path to it.

But no matter how we slice it, with tech's impact, we are looking at a massive body glut for the medium to reasonably long term future which no basket of fixes easily addresses.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Job search, relocation, and vocational assistance aren't going to work for more but a tiny fraction of those in the workforce for over 15 or so years. Nor will these things work for people of limited intelligence. They are worth trying, of course, but don't expect much. The low intelligence/low skilled workers will, in large part, become wards of the state.

We should focus ourselves on helping the young, who can benefit from such programs. I think a good place to start would be to identify children's natural skills at an early age and try to give them pathways to productive careers in which their skill sets are valued. Too much of education now is teaching-for-the-test to put kids into jobs that are lucrative. Or, kids just floundering and figuring out what they want to do as they rudderlessly navigate the education system (70% of law students). A better course may be identifying where people will excel early and giving them a path to it.

But no matter how we slice it, with tech's impact, we are looking at a massive body glut for the medium to reasonably long term future which no basket of fixes easily addresses.

There's always cannibalism and class warfare.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

That's why you need to have lenders with pull have the deal terms include a firm commitment to offer a larger piece overall of the deal in smaller chunks to smaller banks, on the same credit terms (quality, rate, etc.) If necessary, make it a regulated thing.

Remember, what is a small bank today would have been a big bank in the 80s. The top US banks today are trillion-dollar banks, and you don't make the top twenty without being in the hundred billion range for assets. Back in the 80s, $10 billion landed you in the top twenty banks.

Somehow, back then, they still got the deals done. But in a post-bank-deregulation world, there have been structural advantages to big banks built in, because there has been a sense that the big banks are safer and better managed, which has not turned out to be the case.