LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 135
0 members and 135 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-04-2018, 12:34 PM   #2641
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: Pro-Tip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
If you're going to post long-ass post, don't say something utterly absurd and unsupportable at the beginning, it will just ensure no one gets any farther. Save your most absurd, unsupportable statements for the end.
Over the long term, protectionism is supposed to create more favorable trading terms. You are citing a short term impact as the intent of the policy over time.

Protectionism as practiced by Trump is intended to rebalance trade with China. The intent is not to harm export sector. But that is an impact of the policy.

Perhaps you should consider the difference between intent and collateral impacts before you author a response. (I don’t assume you or Adder fourth graders, but you demonstrate that level of reading capacity.) Protectionism, particularly trade war protectionism, is never a permanent policy. It’s an attempt to bluntly rebalance.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 09-04-2018, 12:40 PM   #2642
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: Ian Bremmer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob View Post
Using my Sebby-whispering skillz, I believe he was talking about the goals of protectionism as espoused by those who push it to the electorate. That message is certainly what my family in The Ancestral Homeland thinks protectionism is all about.
The better help you’d provide here is to ask these two twits these questions:

1. Has any Econ policy ever been touted as, or actually intended to, create long term damage to our export sector? (The concept alone is ludicrous. Of course the adverse impacts are collateral and intended to be eased over time.)
2. Do you fucking morons understand the difference between an intent and a collateral adverse impact?

Fuck this place. Seriously. It’s getting as fucking dumb as the right wing argument I’m currently having with GOP relatives.

Fuck politics. Fuck it all. Fucking retardland.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 09-04-2018, 01:30 PM   #2643
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
I’ll tell you what’s going to happen over the next 30 years... Tech is going to savage wages and replace many multiples of the jobs it creates. We all know that’s coming... Because it’s been fucking happening! What exactly do you think the “gig” economy is?

Do you know how many people work in the gig economy? 70 million, I believe. Ya think that’s by choice? All just soccer moms looking for extra grocery money?
The Wee Slothrops play soccer, and getting them to practice can be a challenge when both parents work. There is a company called HopSkipDrive that will let me schedule rides for them, like Uber for kids except that you have to schedule in advance. There is no question that I and Ms Slothrop are better off from being able to use their service. There also is no question that the HopSkipDrive drivers are better off than they would be if the service did not exist. The company is not savaging anything. No doubt it's not creating full-time jobs.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 09-04-2018, 01:37 PM   #2644
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
The Wee Slothrops play soccer, and getting them to practice can be a challenge when both parents work. There is a company called HopSkipDrive that will let me schedule rides for them, like Uber for kids except that you have to schedule in advance. There is no question that I and Ms Slothrop are better off from being able to use their service. There also is no question that the HopSkipDrive drivers are better off than they would be if the service did not exist. The company is not savaging anything. No doubt it's not creating full-time jobs.
Wait staff.

These aren’t careers, or even jobs. They’re ways to stay afloat.

But yes, I am better off when I’m served a g&t by a waiter at a casual party, rather than having to make it myself. I’d overpour for myself, and make the Uber driver wait while I said endless drunken goodbyes. She’d get home late and miss her first hour working as a home health aide the next morning.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 09-04-2018, 01:39 PM   #2645
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: Pro-Tip

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Over the long term, protectionism is supposed to create more favorable trading terms. You are citing a short term impact as the intent of the policy over time.

Protectionism as practiced by Trump is intended to rebalance trade with China. The intent is not to harm export sector. But that is an impact of the policy.

Perhaps you should consider the difference between intent and collateral impacts before you author a response. (I don’t assume you or Adder fourth graders, but you demonstrate that level of reading capacity.) Protectionism, particularly trade war protectionism, is never a permanent policy. It’s an attempt to bluntly rebalance.
If you have a fly on your ear, and I try to kill it by hitting it very hard with a bat, I don't fool anyone when I say my intent was not to hurt you -- that it was just a collateral impact. Why even talk about about the "intent" of trade policy?
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 09-04-2018, 01:42 PM   #2646
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Wait staff.

These aren’t careers, or even jobs. They’re ways to stay afloat.

But yes, I am better off when I’m served a g&t by a waiter at a casual party, rather than having to make it myself. I’d overpour for myself, and make the Uber driver wait while I said endless drunken goodbyes. She’d get home late and miss her first hour working as a home health aide the next morning.
I think what you are saying is, where are the good jobs going to come from?
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 09-04-2018, 01:43 PM   #2647
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: Pro-Tip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
If you have a fly on your ear, and I try to kill it by hitting it very hard with a bat, I don't fool anyone when I say my intent was not to hurt you -- that it was just a collateral impact. Why even talk about about the "intent" of trade policy?
I don’t know... Maybe because the intent of something is, like... always fucking centrally relevant? Maybe that’s a good reason? Maybe without that we don’t appreciate or understand what the thing is? Maybe without that information, that crap GGG offered would stand as the definition of protectionism, and be wrong?

Maybe intent’s an important concept? Just a little bit... a wee bit?

Srsly?
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 09-04-2018, 01:47 PM   #2648
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Over the longer term, protectionism is supposed to bring broader prosperity to all. But as with Adder’s moronic argument that tech will create more jobs than it displaces (which it will, 100 years from now), the temporary pain of tariffs on the export sector sucks during the interim. The theory is pain now for some, better terms for all over the long term. Do I agree? No. But that’s the theory.

Adder, stop citing that old argument re tech and jobs. Tell me what’s going to happen in the next 30 years. I don’t give a fuck, and no one else alive right now gives a fuck, about what happens over a multi-century timeline. I’ll tell you what’s going to happen over the next 30 years... Tech is going to savage wages and replace many multiples of the jobs it creates. We all know that’s coming... Because it’s been fucking happening! What exactly do you think the “gig” economy is?

Do you know how many people work in the gig economy? 70 million, I believe. Ya think that’s by choice? All just soccer moms looking for extra grocery money?

How dense are you?
Note in your response you are now distinguishing between "short term" and "long term" harm. If I may rephrase: "Sure, we knew it would do harm to HAVE A TARIFF ON SOYBEANS SO THEY WOULD SELL FOR LESS ON THE GLOBAL MARKET, and we know doing that harms the soybean farmers, BUT, in the long term, we think it will work magic that will benefit them because, um, uh, well, I don't know."

Or are you of the view that the tariff put on soybeans by the Chinese was never expected when we put a tariff on steel coming in, so we shouldn't think of it as the intent of the protectionism, because, we really expected protectionism just to go one way and it's not nice that someone else responds by doing what we just did?

Choose your brand of idiocy.

Note: if you want to say, sure, the people advocating tariffs are idiots, ignoring all the real world implications, applying a bizarre logic in which cause and effect are suspended, well, that's fine, but that is what it is.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 09-04-2018, 01:55 PM   #2649
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: Ian Bremmer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob View Post
Unless the farmers own breweries, factories, and police/fire departments, that (job loss) won’t happen right away.

Note that I am Not Defending their views on this; just noting (a) their views on protectionism, and (2) that because it won’t impact them as quickly as global free trade did, they prefer protectionism.
Yeah, I see these views not infrequently, and I also see a lot of people in my own neck of trumpville (upstate NY) for whom trade is the issue they're ready to take with Trump, who do feel that this has a real direct impact on their community. They may be hicks, but they aren't idiots. (Though remember, my mother was raised on a kidney-bean farm, so we are talking about people who farm, sell tractors, etc.) My understanding is construction costs have now increased by about 15% in some areas since the trade war began, and likewise we're seeing manufacturing costs increase because of the increase in steel costs.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 09-04-2018, 01:57 PM   #2650
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: Ian Bremmer

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
The better help you’d provide here is to ask these two twits these questions:

1. Has any Econ policy ever been touted as, or actually intended to, create long term damage to our export sector? (The concept alone is ludicrous. Of course the adverse impacts are collateral and intended to be eased over time.)
2. Do you fucking morons understand the difference between an intent and a collateral adverse impact?

Fuck this place. Seriously. It’s getting as fucking dumb as the right wing argument I’m currently having with GOP relatives.

Fuck politics. Fuck it all. Fucking retardland.
You don't get to say "I didn't intend the principal and obvious consequence of my actions". That's the "I shot the sheriff but I didn't mean to kill him" defense.

Making it worse, you rely on "intent" being something remote and off in the distance, when the other consequences are direct and immediate. "When I shot the sheriff I wasn't trying to kill him just to get prison reform which I thought his successor might favor."
__________________
A wee dram a day!

Last edited by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy; 09-04-2018 at 02:02 PM..
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 09-04-2018, 01:58 PM   #2651
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: Pro-Tip

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
I don’t know... Maybe because the intent of something is, like... always fucking centrally relevant? Maybe that’s a good reason? Maybe without that we don’t appreciate or understand what the thing is? Maybe without that information, that crap GGG offered would stand as the definition of protectionism, and be wrong?

Maybe intent’s an important concept? Just a little bit... a wee bit?

Srsly?
I don't see any value to discussing the intent of trade policy. What matters is the effects. Intent is a distraction, a way to avoid discussing predictable effects because they weren't intended.

When you're talking about the current crowd making policy, you can't ignore that they are corrupt. It's quite possible that they have proposed steel tariffs not because of the long term impacts, but to enrich the existing US steel industry, which gets a windfall until entrants can get up to seed. How do you decide that this was intended? Why does it matter?
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 09-04-2018, 02:14 PM   #2652
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 17,113
Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Tell me what’s going to happen in the next 30 years
I don't know. You don't know. The Luddite's didn't know. The world is way more complex than your little stories.
Adder is offline  
Old 09-04-2018, 02:17 PM   #2653
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 17,113
Re: Pro-Tip

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Over the long term, protectionism is supposed to create more favorable trading terms. You are citing a short term impact as the intent of the policy over time.
And you're crediting the (incoherent) story told by a lying, corrupt grifter and pretending it's in good faith.

Quote:
Protectionism as practiced by Trump is intended to rebalance trade with China.
It's intended to be profitable for his "friends" and/or punish his enemies.
Adder is offline  
Old 09-04-2018, 02:51 PM   #2654
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
I don't know. You don't know. The Luddite's didn't know. The world is way more complex than your little stories.
Actually, I think we can predict some of what is going to happen in the next 30 years because it is a continuation of what has happened in the last 100.

For example, in the next thirty years China will have a larger GDP than the US and we will likely see wages in much of China's core that are close to or on par with the US. That means trade between the two will no longer be based on leveraging lower wages but instead on leveraging expertise or resources that are native to each country.

Interestingly, current trade policy in the Trump administration goes in exactly the opposite direction, looking to protect industries where the US lacks any real advantage (autos) at the expense of those where it does (education, soybeans). If you really want to save, for example, the auto industry, we should be doing everything possible to help China increase its labor costs so their manufacturing is competitive with ours and their buying power grows, rather than creating an environment that will help them incubate a protected auto industry domestically.
__________________
A wee dram a day!

Last edited by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy; 09-04-2018 at 02:56 PM..
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 09-04-2018, 02:52 PM   #2655
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: We are all Slave now.

Sebby, are you familiar with Anand Giridharadas? A friend was telling me about him this weekend, and it sounds like you might dig his stuff.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:23 AM.