We are all Slave now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If you conclude, wrongly, that Trump will get you a job, you are acting rationally in voting for him. A person can make a rational decision based on incomplete or incorrect information. People do it all the time.

Fair point, but what you said before and what I was reacting to was something different. Xenophobia, to use your example, is not rational.

No. A "slice" of Trump voters are solely economic. After stating that, I wrote, "And many others have, as Krugman notes in the excellent article you cited in another post, allowed anger about the economy to transform into anger at "others." This is a common psychological behavior. People need to personalize, to find a human target to blame. It allows for easier cathartic release."

I think we are now agreeing that it is something psychological induces people to support for Trump, in most cases, rather than just their economic conditions. Even people who initially supported Trump for solely economic reasons have continued to support him, even as he has done fuck all besides cut taxes for rich people and start a trade war.

I think you'll find a lot of what Krugman described: People who had economic gripes, and allowed those economic gripes to anger them to the point that they started scapegoating out of need to find someone to blame.

Let's just be clear: Everyone -- *everyone* -- has economic gripes. So having a gripe doesn't explain anything.

No. The only have a problem with inequality as narrowly defined by you. As I noted earlier, if you're making $72k and you are stuck, and others are making many multiples of what you are, you are unequal. For whatever reason, they are getting what you are not.

Yes. That is literally unequal. But every human society everywhere since the dawn of recorded history has had that kind of inequality, and what we know about prehistorical burial sites suggests that the same was true in prehistory as well. So that flavor of inequality is a background fact for the human condition, not a factor that can explain anything.

If you're stuck, you're stuck now. You're stuck in relation to the future, but you're stuck now, too. (To borrow from the structure of a favorite Mitch Hedberg joke).

Yes, but it's not a function of where you are, but how fast you're moving.

Alexis de Tocqueville argued that the French Revolution came when it did not because things in France got too miserable, but because they had started to improve, raising expectations, and then those expectations were not met. You are saying something like that, I think, except that you haven't figure out why expectations would be higher in 2016 than, say, in 2008.

As to minorities, well, they'd be crazy to vote for Trump.

Of course. Because there's an awful lot going on that is not about economics.

There are endless reasons to not vote for Trump if you're poor. Most notably, you're smart enough to have discerned he was full of shit about helping you out.

I think it's a serious mistake to believe that Trump voters are any dumber than the rest of us. Better to assume they are getting what they paid for, especially since so many of them seem to stick by him.

Obama did what he had to do by hooking up the banks. He'd have caused a worldwide depression if he took radical action against them.

Hank, look away while I criticize Obama for a bit.

The mistake was not that he saved the banks. And thank God he did, because the history I just read of the Great Depression shows how poorly that could have gone. The mistake was that he wasn't willing to go farther, to bail out homeowners as well as the banks that loaned them money, to err on the side of caution and doing less, and then to pivot to a self-defeating austerity. These were policy errors and also political errors.

Trump railed against a "system rigged for fat cats." His voters viewed him as a hand grenade aimed at "the swamp," which I don't think is just DC to them, but also includes the corporate world.

It is hard to imagine you saying this with a straight face after all that has happened since. No one has left him over this.

Agreed. But I think it's shifting, and quite quickly.

No. It is not shifting. The richer you are, the more likely you are to vote R.

I have no explanation for why Trump voters punch down except sheer stupidity and cheap, cruel catharsis.

Well, I will take a stab at an explanation. I think Trump voters are more comfortable with traditional hierarchies, and believe that people who have less status than them should be put in their place. They like Trump partly because he is a fat, rich, white guy with a sense of entitlement who picks fights with people who aren't like them.

If the center holds much longer, it will be because people in the middle will have become exhausted with extreme politics after Trump is done. But I don't see any reason for this. Newton's Third Law won't be satisfied by the mere Trump impeachment or loss in 2020. I see the Left gaining strength and demanding a return to more progressive D politics rather than Clintonian centrism.

I hope the Left realizes that the problem is not Trump. It's Trump voters. He only has political power because they support him. We all have to live with them after he's gone.

Then we agree. But you understand that to do so often precludes one from taking a side. I can't side with the people who decry the banks exclusively for 2008. Nor can I side with the people who blame profligate borrowers, or the Fed, or the govt, exclusively. The only "side" I can be on is to attack all four of those entities, and that sentiment is not politically popular.

If you only have two settings, BLAME EVERYONE EQUALLY and PICK ONE PERSON TO BLAME FOR EVERYTHING, I can understand why this is hard for you.

My current preference is to read things that cause me to feel like I know very little. Giridharadas' work did that most recently. Turned a lot of my libertarian views on their ears. I know TM advises I should not read it now, but that's caused me to look forward to DiAngelo's book on racism more.

I still haven't read that. I also need to read the Carreyou book about Theranos.

I think I went up the river some time ago and haven't yet returned... or know the way back. Whatever it is, there's no way to reply except to hope in some small way, there's flattery there.

You used one of my favorite Apocalypse Now references a few weeks back. I don't think I applauded, for which I am regretful. It just struck me recently, when I watched the movie with the family. ...Now if I could only get the child to read the source text.

I have tried to read Heart of Darkness twice, and each time I have come down with the flu and haven't finished. Yes, I know it's a short book.

I think the line was about Kurtz's methods. I love that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm not sure why we have to limit the definition of "national parks" to those that only rich people drive across country to visit. There are like 60 national parks, many of them near people who do not make tons of money. Many people camp out in national parks who absolutely do not have much money at all.

Nevermind. This discussion in stupid.

TM

I'm not sure how Hank twisted "road trips" to "rich people driving across the country." Since most people do not live next to a national park, going to one involves a trip, on a road. And they are free, which is nice for people of average means.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure how Hank twisted "road trips" to "rich people driving across the country." Since most people do not live next to a national park, going to one involves a trip, on a road. And they are free, which is nice for people of average means.

I think I was using someone else’s definition, and as with so much here someone tried to hoist me on someone else’s petard.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hank, look away while I criticize Obama for a bit.

The mistake was not that he saved the banks. And thank God he did, because the history I just read of the Great Depression shows how poorly that could have gone. The mistake was that he wasn't willing to go farther, to bail out homeowners as well as the banks that loaned them money, to err on the side of caution and doing less, and then to pivot to a self-defeating austerity. These were policy errors and also political errors.

hmmm. I can’t imagine how much it would cost to do all that, but given how tight it was to get ACA through, I wonder if saving all those homeowners wouldn’t have killed ACA?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

hmmm. I can’t imagine how much it would cost to do all that, but given how tight it was to get ACA through, I wonder if saving all those homeowners wouldn’t have killed ACA?

Geithner had the authority to do it, and chose not to.

Maybe saving all those homeowners would have brought things back faster and ACA would have been an easy sell.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Geithner had the authority to do it, and chose not to.

Maybe saving all those homeowners would have brought things back faster and ACA would have been an easy sell.

If you think ACA was a good thing you can’t think that way. I think it was bad, but getting it through was impressive as all hell. They were trying to do it for like 50 years, can’t risk that on a “maybe.”

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

What are urban national parks? I just looked at a map and I don’t see any. Do you mean to include National Monuments? You can’t pack up the kids and go to the Stonewall. Got be 21 to get in I bet.

The Arches in St. Louis were just named a National Park in the last year or two. I assume this was in the works well before this administration started.

There are 60 National Parks* managed by the Parks Service in the Department of the Interior. MOST of the National Parks are west of the Mississippi with California, Utah and Alaska getting a disproportionate number of them.

But there are also 130 National Monuments and managed by a variety of agencies in varying departments. (Mostly Park Service, but some others too even outside department of Interior). There are 154 National Forests which are run by the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture.

ETA: List of other National Recreation Areas, Battlefields, Historical Parks, etc.

And the states have their own things going too.

*I've been to nine, and my sister and I have plans to attempt to hit all of them before we hit 75 or some other arbitrary number that is pre-death. We got our parents a park pass for Christmas this year.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Honest question to all, do any of us actually know poor people to the extent of knowing their spending habits? Any middle class? Not talking about the secretary you talk to 15 minutes, actual familiarity with their lives. Curious not being argumentative.

Yes, artists and members of the Burner community. My spouse also has a) been one of them at various points in his life, and b) tends to work in industries that don't pay very well. Some family members.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Dude I grew up in Macomb County. You won’t win “whose family has the poorest people.” I actually have cousins who raised their kids on ADC. But I don’t know what their lives actually are. I don’t know choices they make and what they pass on. From my kid’s basketball days I am good friends with 3 single parent families and I know pretty much what they do/don’t do. But I’m wondering more about the cred of people here going on about the financial lives and choices of poor folk. And w/o judging anyone’s shit, just curious.

Well, I may be closer to some of my family than you.

Seriously, though, I don't have great insight into how the poors make their decisions on an individual level because they are a more diverse group than us richies are - after all, there are more of them.

But I do interact near daily with several people whose annual income would be a really bad month for me. As an example, was dealing yesterday with some issues arising from my half-brother, who does near minimum wage landscaping three seasons a year for a living, having mold in his apartment.

But you should call your cousins more often, it would make nana (may her memory be blessed) happy.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

hmmm. I can’t imagine how much it would cost to do all that, but given how tight it was to get ACA through, I wonder if saving all those homeowners wouldn’t have killed ACA?

This was indeed a part of the calculus going on.

It's nice to see you defending Obama on this. Gives me the warm fuzzies.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

The Arches in St. Louis were just named a National Park in the last year or two. I assume this was in the works well before this administration started.

There are 60 National Parks* managed by the Parks Service in the Department of the Interior. MOST of the National Parks are west of the Mississippi with California, Utah and Alaska getting a disproportionate number of them.

But there are also 130 National Monuments and managed by a variety of agencies in varying departments. (Mostly Park Service, but some others too even outside department of Interior). There are 154 National Forests which are run by the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture.

ETA: List of other National Recreation Areas, Battlefields, Historical Parks, etc.

And the states have their own things going too.

*I've been to nine, and my sister and I have plans to attempt to hit all of them before we hit 75 or some other arbitrary number that is pre-death. We got our parents a park pass for Christmas this year.

People ain’t packing the car and driving to St Louis to see the arch, might go to see the city including the Arch but the arch was there year ago. What did it being a Bational whatever add?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If you think ACA was a good thing you can’t think that way. I think it was bad, but getting it through was impressive as all hell. They were trying to do it for like 50 years, can’t risk that on a “maybe.”

They did a great job to get it passed, and I don't think it takes away from that at all to say the politics of the Obama years would have been easier for him to navigate if he had done more for homeowners caught in the financial crisis.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Good for Tottenham and Liverpool for deciding not to Brexit today.

[LessinSF]

i hope no one is posting about their cases here - http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...sson_for_othe/

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

i hope no one is posting about their cases here - http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...sson_for_othe/

Or is, at least, working at Susman Godfrey - https://abovethelaw.com/2018/12/liti...-mega-bonuses/