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

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Long, but worth it: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2...new-class-war/

Tedious, among other things for the incessant appeals to authority, but this is kinda funny:

the fact that almost all of the personnel of elite institutions of all kinds belong to the managerial-professional class

Yes, who would have thunk that when you define a group of people by their positions, "almost all" of the people in those positions belong to the group...

I also enjoyed citing Airbus and Boeing as evidence of global consolidation. As though otherwise there'd be national jumbo jet competitors in Canada and Brazil (oh, wait...)

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Those are percentages of voters. The important issue is how many total minority voters were there versus 2012, 2008, 04, and 00?

And even on a percentage basis, Trump bizarrely did better than expected among minorities.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politi...-white-voters/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/omriben.../#586d415064e4

http://www.phillytrib.com/news/black...d7639dc97.html

And contrary to GGG's silly post, of course I'm not blaming any one group. As your quote from my earlier post acknowledges, I cited lower minority voter turnout as one of many factors.

And I'm also not discounting voter suppression. Why there was lower minority voter turnout is a different discussion.

I also don't think you can call someone a fool for comparing her to Obama in 2012.

I agree with Sebastian. Hendrick's is good but so is Sapphire. If you have Tanqueray, set me up with that. Artisanal gins? Yup. Hank says he cannot imagine someone drinking both. Because they are so different. That's like saying you have to choose between John Coltrane and Cannonball Adderley. Very different styles and sounds. But I like them both. Even. On. The. Same. Song. I enjoy a nice gin martini (which is called a "martini") in the winter. And I tend to drink gin and tonic more in the summer. But if I am eating oysters on the halfshell, I will often order a martini regardless of the season. And sometimes I'll have a gin and tonic in mid-winter. Because I'm a fucking gin nihilist. Some say drinking gin gives you the volatile angers. I like the sound of that.

Here is Little Sister with "Stanga" for the Daily Dose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53AN...SPGBmb0QpEuoMq

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Would I have been voting against her if I just stayed home?

This is getting tiresome, but I could only have voted against her if I had an obligation to vote for her.

From where does this obligation stem? From you, or Hank? Are you suggesting I, or anyone else for that matter, has an obligation to vote for someone?

Are you really saying I had a duty to cast my vote for Hillary and I shirked it? That's some pretty crazy ass moral pedestal assumption you've engaged in there, old boy.

And I've not deflected, once. Deflection's for those seeking to offload responsibility. I own the fact that I did not vote for HRC. I'm not hiding from it. Nor am I hiding from the fact that if more people who voted as I did voted for her, she could have won. These are objective realities. It is also an objective reality, to people who read English as at least a third language, that I did not vote against her. I took nothing away from her which she otherwise had. Vis a vis HRC, I am a neutral actor. ...And you a man looking to gin up guilt in very much the wrong place.

If you would have simply said, "fuck you guys, I ain't voting for her," it would go easier, i think. But you kept saying you can vote 3rd party because she is soo far ahead, and Pa is always blue. And then I showed you the polls saying "uh-uhn" and you didn't rejigger your reasons. Of course you get to vote how you want, but I blame third party voters (all of whom have a right to their votes) who thought the thing was hers and the third party vote was safe, and you are the only actual person i know who admits to it. Sorry- we'll get past this.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Would I have been voting against her if I just stayed home?

This is getting tiresome, but I could only have voted against her if I had an obligation to vote for her.

From where does this obligation stem? From you, or Hank? Are you suggesting I, or anyone else for that matter, has an obligation to vote for someone?

Are you really saying I had a duty to cast my vote for Hillary and I shirked it? That's some pretty crazy ass moral pedestal assumption you've engaged in there, old boy.

And I've not deflected, once. Deflection's for those seeking to offload responsibility. I own the fact that I did not vote for HRC. I'm not hiding from it. Nor am I hiding from the fact that if more people who voted as I did voted for her, she could have won. These are objective realities. It is also an objective reality, to people who read English as at least a third language, that I did not vote against her. I took nothing away from her which she otherwise had. Vis a vis HRC, I am a neutral actor. ...And you a man looking to gin up guilt in very much the wrong place.

The level of guilt is clear every time I mention this. Accept the self-loathing, Sebby, work through it. Say a hundred Hail Marys, a hundred Pater Nosters, do something nice for your wife and kids, and give up the third party stuff for lent; you'll feel better.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Long, but worth it: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2...new-class-war/

I'm trying to read this, but I keep getting bogged down by the author's penchant for breathlessly describing the commonplace as if it is novel. What does this article explain that otherwise has gone unexplained?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm trying to read this, but I keep getting bogged down by the author's penchant for breathlessly describing the commonplace as if it is novel. What does this article explain that otherwise has gone unexplained?

I wound up doing lots of superficial skimming, but I took the ultimate argument to be that in order to have "countervailing power" that will check globally successful firms we need to undo international regulatory convergence and accept geopolitical conflict.

If there's any consideration about how inefficient that the former is, and what it will cost the world in aggregate wealth, or how inherently dangerous to actual people's lives that latter is, I didn't see it.

Also, I'm not sure the author really squares the former with his - correct - observation that an important driver of globalization is regulatory arbitrage.

tl;dr: We need more socialist states as a check on global elites.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

The prime-age employment-to-population ratio remains at levels that before 2010 we would have characterized as depressed and indicating substantial economic slack.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I agree with Sebastian. Hendrick's is good but so is Sapphire. If you have Tanqueray, set me up with that. Artisanal gins? Yup. Hank says he cannot imagine someone drinking both. Because they are so different. That's like saying you have to choose between John Coltrane and Cannonball Adderley. Very different styles and sounds. But I like them both. Even. On. The. Same. Song. I enjoy a nice gin martini (which is called a "martini") in the winter. And I tend to drink gin and tonic more in the summer. But if I am eating oysters on the halfshell, I will often order a martini regardless of the season. And sometimes I'll have a gin and tonic in mid-winter. Because I'm a fucking gin nihilist. Some say drinking gin gives you the volatile angers. I like the sound of that.

Here is Little Sister with "Stanga" for the Daily Dose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53AN...SPGBmb0QpEuoMq

Plymouth or Boodles. I'll drink Sapphire but it's gin for people who don't really like gin.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The prime-age employment-to-population ratio remains at levels that before 2010 we would have characterized as depressed and indicating substantial economic slack.

Right, but:

I remember back in mid-2014 when the prime-age employment-to-population ratio was 76.5%: I was then told that it was an unreliable indicator—that structural changes and hysteresis on the downside had made it next to impossible to get those missing prime-age workers back into employment. More than "I was told", in fact: I greatly feared it myself.]

Things have improved from where everyone feared they may not improve. The fact that they have coupled with the fact that we still have room to improve are both reasons for the Fed not to tighten now (along with below-target inflation).

Which it will do.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Plymouth or Boodles. I'll drink Sapphire but it's gin for people who don't really like gin.

Yes to the Plymouth - very good stuff (as Wonk noted a while ago, it was the gin of choice of Travis McGee) (although John D. MacDonald thought the quality went down, so in later books he had Travis bitch and moan about how mass production ruins everything, especially Plymouth gin). Also yes to Boodles.

Heck, when I'm in the mood for a Martini, G&T, or a Tom Collins, I like pretty much any gin other than bathtub gin. Won't make a Martini out of the well brands that come in plastic bottles, but even those are fine with a Collins made with freshly squeezed lemon juice.

It's Coltrane! Hope this isn't just a drive-by ...

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I wound up doing lots of superficial skimming, but I took the ultimate argument to be that in order to have "countervailing power" that will check globally successful firms we need to undo international regulatory convergence and accept geopolitical conflict.

If there's any consideration about how inefficient that the former is, and what it will cost the world in aggregate wealth, or how inherently dangerous to actual people's lives that latter is, I didn't see it.

Also, I'm not sure the author really squares the former with his - correct - observation that an important driver of globalization is regulatory arbitrage.

tl;dr: We need more socialist states as a check on global elites.

That is one way of taking it.

One could take it in the direction implied by its title: That we are moving toward something akin to a Global Brazil (not the movie).

Without the conflict you note, the arbitrage you cite will create extreme inequality in developed economies while simultaneously decreasing wealth inequality in developing and frontier markets. As developing and frontier markets become more developed, however, they will also become victims of the arbitrage.

At all times, the minute labor costs anywhere exceed the cost of offshoring or automating that labor, that labor will be immediately offshored or automated. Capitalism will accelerate, running around the globe and developing nascent middle classes, only to snuff them as soon as they become more expensive than the next available undeveloped labor pool (or robotics).

Only through conflict can regions retain autonomy enough to hedge against labor and regulatory arbitrage. And only through conflict can states retain autonomy adequate to hedge against the power of global corporations.

It means:

a. It's a really bad time to be in the labor force of a mature developed economy;
b. It'll be a bad thing to be in the labor force of a recently developed one in the near future;
c. It's a good time to be in the labor force of just emerging economy (except you're still probably getting paid like shit... but still-- it beats being utterly destitute);
d. Expect more Putins, Erdogans, Trumps, and Brexits as states realize their control has ebbed a lot further than they think and can only be reasserted by balkanization; and,
e. Expect an increasingly pitched battle between the ideology of linkage (EU, neoliberal economics) and balance of power stasis (Westphalianism).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm trying to read this, but I keep getting bogged down by the author's penchant for breathlessly describing the commonplace as if it is novel. What does this article explain that otherwise has gone unexplained?

I liked the way it brought in so much and tied it together. It was like an encapsulation of Kissinger's World Order in under 10 pages. The cost of tying things together so comprehensively is visiting subjects and ideas with which many readers are already well acquainted.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The level of guilt is clear every time I mention this. Accept the self-loathing, Sebby, work through it. Say a hundred Hail Marys, a hundred Pater Nosters, do something nice for your wife and kids, and give up the third party stuff for lent; you'll feel better.

I waste ink on this because I can't believe you believe this (if you're just fucking with me, touche...).

I know regrets, but they aren't many, and really -- what's the point of them?

There are a number of people I regret not having made a better effort to get into bed. These are true regrets... and they haunt me.

Trump is a giant joke -- the Bluth Family come to DC. We deserve him, and he deserves what he's getting. And I keep an open mind. He might just be be the catastrophe that compels the country to get its shit straight.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Without the conflict you note, the arbitrage you cite will create extreme inequality in developed economies

Actually, no, I cited regulatory arbitrage. The article also discusses labor cost arbitrage. And one serious challenge to its premise is while that type of arbitrage has very much taken place, the evidence that it has significantly reduced employment in developed countries is lacking to non-existent.
I'll grant that it could be a factor in suppressing median wages, though.

As developing and frontier markets become more developed, however, they will also become victims of the arbitrage.

"Victims." You mean that they get sufficiently wealthy that there's cheaper labor elsewhere. This is a "problem" that developing nations are aching to have.

At all times, the minute labor costs anywhere exceed the cost of offshoring or automating that labor, that labor will be immediately offshored or automated.

You have to get off this "immediate" idea. Literally everything is sticky.

And these decisions are more complicated than straight comparison, including things like political instability, transportation costs, consumer preferences and perception.

All kinds of things that could be produced more cheaply in China are still currently produced here. Eventually, they may all be produced in Liberia, but that's going to take a very long while.

Capitalism will accelerate, running around the globe and developing nascent middle classes, only to snuff them as soon as they become more expensive than the next available undeveloped labor pool (or robotics).

You know what has snuffed middle classes (I was going to say nothing, but that's not true)? Conflict, authoritarianism and totalitarian ideologies. Really, I'm not sure it would be unfair to say that the world works exactly opposite of who this author thinks.

Only through conflict can regions retain autonomy enough to hedge against labor and regulatory arbitrage.

All very Marxy, up to and including that those things are efficiency enhancing - they facilitate greater global consumption at lower cost. It takes a particularly weird world view to think that's bad.

And only through conflict can states retain autonomy adequate to hedge against the power of global corporations.

Which is great as long as you ignore the costs.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Right, but:


Things have improved from where everyone feared they may not improve. The fact that they have coupled with the fact that we still have room to improve are both reasons for the Fed not to tighten now (along with below-target inflation).

Which it will do.

Comes a time when we need a step change in political and policy response, rather than just letting the Fed do its thing. Or maybe you like the current Administration?