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

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=879)

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

Another day, another outrage.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505345)

Another day, another outrage.

What I don't like is the way they're watering down the #alternativefacts and #spicerfacts hashtags with this newfangled "#anythingispossible" one.

We should stick to #alternativefacts. Period.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505345)

Another day, another outrage.

I knew it was going to be bad. I knew it was going to be bad very quickly. I had no idea it would be machine gun repeatedly fired at pretty much everything I hold dear bad.

This is exhausting.

And it's going to kill people.

Re: Looking for answers to questions that bothered him so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 505255)

Yes. But the entire hip hop community consists of pretty much everyone who isn't into country AND western under the age of 50.

TM

Hey!!

Re: Who's the prez? That's easy, man. He used to be on Death Valley Days, John Wayne

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 505260)

There's a difference. You can be freaky and non-burnt freaky. But if you're making trips to Tijuana to see just how dirty it gets, you're definitely getting burnt.

TM

Or N'Awlins. But it'll cost you $40.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller (Post 505305)

Since any declaration by me concerning music would be met by contempt, derision and condescension, I'll switch to law and politics.

One of my favorite cases to cite is The Chimney Sweeper's Jewel, Armorie v. Delamarie, 1 Strange 505 (1722). Whenever the opportunity arises, I cite this for the proposition that an adverse inference arises when a party in exclusive possession of something refuses to produce it. In that case, a chimney sweep found a ring, gave it to a jeweler, and asked for an appraisal. The jeweler lowballed the value, and refused to return the stone, returning only the setting to the chimney sweep.

At trial the jeweler refused to produce the jewel. The court held the chimney sweep had superior title, and that damages would be the maximum value of a stone that would fit in the setting. There was an adverse inference against the jeweler who hadn't produced the stone.

We are the Chimney Sweeps. Trump is the Jeweler. The stone is his tax return(s). By adverse inference, his tax returns contain information which would disqualify him from the Presidency. This has both logic and law on the side of the Chimney Sweeps, unlike, just to pick an example out of thin air, the fabrication of Trump's nonsense about Obama's Kenyan birth.

Let the trial begin! Trump has the proof. Let him produce it or resign.

Thank you. That will fit perfectly into a brief I am writing, and it is the perfect smackdown for a very arrogant sumbitch I am opposed by.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505345)

Another day, another outrage.

Fuck it. I'm just buying a Glock and a shotgun and waiting for the uprising.

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

I am surprisingly somewhat happy with some of the things that have come out of the Trump administration. But far more frequently, my reaction is one of: For the love of God, quit bitching and making up lies about the election *that you won*, the crowd size, and the mistake about the bust of MLK, Jr.

How can they possibly get pissed when reporters are incredulous about millions of illegal votes? Heck, I believe voter fraud is an actual thing, that does sometimes influence elections, and I cannot even tolerate the manure that his surrogates keep shoveling out.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 505360)

Fuck it. I'm just buying a Glock and a shotgun and waiting for the uprising.

Um, this... is the uprising.

There've been numerous articles recently about hand-wringing at Davos. I find them persuasive. Davos man, and those of us who supported neoliberal economics, thought we could ignore nationalist sentiment, and ignore the losers in our giant game of financialization and labor arbitrage. Yours truly said in the Bush days, globslization's inevitable... take your medicine. That was arrogance. And that brought us Trump, Brexit, the vote in Italy, and the EU mess.

What you await is a counter-revolution, or the Empire striking back.

ETA: Also, fuck Germany. They loaned money to known deadbeats to buy their shit to prop their numbers. They're the GE Capital Circa 2008 of Europe. Or perhaps Europe's-IOU-accepting-smack-peddler. And now they push austerity on their customers? May they go down like a stone with what they enabled.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 505359)

Thank you. That will fit perfectly into a brief I am writing, and it is the perfect smackdown for a very arrogant sumbitch I am opposed by.

You're welcome. If you get an avuncular, scholarly judge, citing ancient precedent can be helpful. So go with Ward v. Apprice, 6 Mod. 264 (1705), since "if very slender evidence be given against him, then, if he will not produce his books, it brings a great slur upon his cause."

Re: Ball so Hard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 505362)

I just finished our annual budgetary crystal balling exercise. I've made my much of my living off in-bound work the last decade, some but by no means all of it from China. In the coming year, it looks like outbound work will be a majority of it, with a ton involving China. It's not just Trump, of course, there are many causes, and its one small window on the world. But if it actually plays out like this, it is a massive change.

Re: Ball so Hard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 505364)

We chose domestic appeasement (likely illusory) over trade liberalization. What you cite is the inevitable result.

But trade can go on in a Balkanized world.

And the problem is unsolvable. You can't have a country of 85% struggling, 14% doing well, and 1% running away with all the gains.* That just will not persist. Something was going to break. Populism is just a step before riots, civil unrest, etc.

Adder, do not say something stupid here like, Education would fix everything, or Technology ultimately creates more and better jobs. Don't degrade the discussion. (If you want to discuss a guaranteed wage, that's fine.)

Wait until automation ramps up domestically to counter Trumpism. That's going to be right out of Vonnegut's Player Piano.

-----
* Struggling includes those who couldn't survive for a couple years without a job at their current income. And by the way -- a few of us are going to be casualties of cost-cutting in the coming decades. This is a real consideration.

Re: Ball so Hard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 505365)

And the problem is unsolvable. You can't have a country of 85% struggling, 14% doing well, and 1% running away with all the gains.* That just will not persist. Something was going to break. Populism is just a step before riots, civil unrest, etc.

The Republicans gave us this country. The case for free trade is that the country benefits as a whole, and the government can do x, y and z to spread the benefits and ease the pain. Republicans are philosophically opposed to spreading the benefits and easing the pain -- they will not vote to tax people with money, or to redistribute. So the benefits of free trade are captured by your 15%. Populism is just a step before a return to government that tries to improve the lives of most people, just as Calvin Coolidge gave way to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Re: Ball so Hard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 505365)

You can't have a country of 85% struggling, 14% doing well, and 1% running away with all the gains.

It's a good thing that only one of those numbers is at all accurate.

Quote:

Don't degrade the discussion.

:rolleyes: You don't want discussion. You just want to repeat your nonsense.

Re: Ball so Hard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 505365)

But trade can go on in a Balkanized world.

Not sure what you meant by this, but worth reading Martin Wolf about the huge damage Trump and Republicans are about to do. (Later Republicans will blame Trump for not being conservative or Republican enough, but it's on them.)

Quote:

Xi Jinping, president of China, made a speech last week on globalisation at the World Economic Forum that one would have expected to come from a US president. At his inauguration, Donald Trump made remarks on trade that one would never have expected to come from a US president. The contrast is astounding.

Mr Xi recognised that globalisation was not without difficulties. But, he argued, “blaming economic globalisation for the world’s problems is inconsistent with reality”. Instead, “globalisation has powered global growth and facilitated movement of goods and capital, advances in science, technology and civilisation, and interactions among people”. His vision matches that of the last US president to address the World Economic Forum. In 2000, President Bill Clinton argued that “we have got to reaffirm unambiguously that open markets and rules-based trade are the best engine we know of to lift living standards, reduce environmental destruction and build shared prosperity”.

Mr Trump rejects this vision: “We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.” Moreover: “We will follow two simple rules: buy American and hire American.”

This is not chatter. Mr Trump has already cancelled US participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiated under his predecessor. He has announced his intention to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. Furthermore, he has made highly punitive threats against Mexico (imposition of a 35 per cent tariff) and China (imposition of a 45 per cent tariff). Behind this is what Peter Navarro, Mr Trump’s trade policy adviser, and Wilbur Ross, his proposed commerce secretary, call the “Trump Trade Doctrine”, the view that “any deal must increase the growth rate [of the economy], decrease the trade deficit and strengthen the US manufacturing base”.

For a British reader, this brings back memories of the “alternative economic strategy” advanced by the leftwing of the Labour party in the 1970s. Just like Mr Navarro, Mr Ross and, apparently, Mr Trump, those leftwingers argued that trade deficits constrain demand. Controls on imports were their solution. Deals aimed at decreasing the US trade deficit seem to be Mr Trump’s. Who would have imagined that primitive mercantilism would seize the policymaking machinery of the world’s most powerful market economy and issuer of the world’s principal reserve currency?

The frightening fact is that the people who seem closest to Mr Trump believe things that are almost entirely false.

They believe, for example, that a value added tax not levied on exports is a subsidy to exports. It is not: US goods sold in the EU pay VAT, just as European goods do; and European goods sold in the US pay sales taxes (where levied), just as US goods do. In both cases, no distortion between domestic and imported goods is created. Tariffs are levied only on imported goods. So they do distort relative prices.

Again, these people believe trade policy determines the trade deficit. To a first approximation, this is not so, because the trade (and current account) balances reflect differences between income and spending. Assume imposition of an across-the-board-tariff. Purchases of foreign exchange will fall and the exchange rate will appreciate, until exports fall and imports rise enough to return the deficit to where it started. Protection then just helps some businesses at the expense of others. The Trump proposals seem to aim at resurrection of the economically dead. True, protection might lower the external deficit by making the US a less attractive destination for foreign investment. But that hardly seems a sane strategy.

Yet another mistake is belief in the merit of bilateral deals. Trade deals are not like deals between companies. They set the terms on which all businesses transact. Bilateralism fragments world markets. It is extremely difficult for firms to create long-term arrangements if new bilateral deals might destabilise competitive conditions at any moment.

Unfortunately, as Martin Sandbu argues, unwise policies might do huge damage. The US president possesses the legal authority to do virtually whatever he wants. But reneging on past deals is sure to make the US seem an unreliable partner. Its victims, particularly China, are also likely to retaliate. According to analysis by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, China and Mexico together account for a quarter of US trade. In a full trade war, US employment might fall by 4.8m private sector jobs. The disruption of supply chains is likely to be especially serious.

Beyond this are huge geopolitical consequences. Beating up Mexico will overturn three decades of reform, probably delivering power there to a leftwing populist. Beating up China may poison an essential relationship for decades. Abandoning TPP may hand a number of the Asian allies of the US over to China. Ignoring World Trade Organisation rules might destroy the institution that provides stability to the real side of the world economy.

The rhetoric of “America First” reads like a declaration of economic warfare. The US is immensely powerful. But it cannot even be confident it will get its own way. Instead, it may merely declare itself to be a rogue state.

Once the hegemon attacks a system it created, only two outcomes seem at all likely — its collapse or recreation of the system around a new hegemon. Mr Xi’s China cannot replace the US: that would take co-operation with Europeans and other Asian powers. The more likely outcome is collapse into a trade policy free-for-all. Mr Xi’s vision is the right one. But, without Mr Trump’s support, it may now be unworkable. That would benefit nobody, including the US.

FT

Not a ton of emphasis on the second-order political effects, but they will be enormous.