Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 511151)

Both parties are splitting. The extreme left on the D side and extreme right on the R side are unique parties, separate from their respective moderate wings.

Moderate Ds and moderate Rs (those being primarily focused on pocketbook issues) are closer to each other than they are to their respective extreme wings.

I see:

1. A right wing populist R party (socially conservative, anti-immigrant, isolationist, desirous of European safety net programs for "natives" [themselves] only, protectionist);
2. A moderate R party (socially moderate, against zealous regulation, free trade, emphasizing above all else neo-liberal economic policy);
3. A left wing populist D party (socially liberal, desirous of European safety net programs, protectionist); and,
4. A moderate D party (socially moderate, pro regulation, free trade, emphasizing above all else neo-liberal economic policy with enhancement of safety nets for those harmed by globalization/automation).

1 and 3 are actually quite close. They unite on the major economic issue of protectionism, and split on the major issue of who gets covered by enhanced safety nets (the right wants them limited to 'Muricans, the left wants them expanded broadly). If these two groups were smart, they'd come together. Thankfully, they're not.

2 and 4 are awfully close. They unite on the major economic issues of free trade and neo-liberal economic policy. They also aren't too far apart on social issues. Like the other two, they split over spending on safety nets. And they diverge on regulation, but not a ton (all moderates recognize there has to be some form of regulation).

Right now, one could say there are two parties: Extremists vs. Moderates. Or it could be 4 parties (Crazy Rs, Crazy Ds, mod Rs, Mod Ds). One could also see the Moderate Rs and Ds making peace with the extreme Left, creating a scenario in which its those three together versus the Extreme Right. Or it could be Moderate Rs and Ds together vs. the extreme Right, on one hand, and the Left on the other.

But I don't see the Warren/Bernie wing of the D party making peace with the Schumer wing. And I don't see the Bannon wing of the R party making peace with the McConnell wing.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 511151)

2. A moderate R party (socially moderate, against zealous regulation, free trade, emphasizing above all else neo-liberal economic policy);

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 511146)

So looking at the way votes are lining up, it looks entirely possible that they'll get some disaster of a tax bill through the House, and that there are Senators who can be bought on this one, unlike ACA.

It strikes me that leaves us with the traditional approach of the last four administrations: Republicans get in office, crash the economy by applying their ideological litmus tests, Dems get back in and fix it.

The difference here is that (1) we may not get a Democratic pragmatist in the form of Obama or Bill Clinton, and (2) that this particular Republican cycle is likely to see a massive outflow of working capital given the international provisions of the bill. (Nominal capital may remain here since people will use debt to formally repatriate profits while rates are low, while keeping the money at work elsewhere). Don't get me wrong, (1) may be a good thing, there are some fundamental changes I'd like to see in economic policy taking us well to the left of where Obama and Clinton were willing to go. But (2) may create work for me, but it's gonna suck for the country.

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 511156)

Word is (from a pretty good source) that Howard Schultz is considering it.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 511157)

The tendency toward political novice uber-rich running for office is frightening. We will, one day, look back fondly on the days when it was considered a negative to be a "career politician".

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 511158)

Sorry dude. Howard Schultz grew up in the projects. That's where I know him from.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 511159)

It's not the background, it's the idea of running for President without bothering to, say, be a governor or Senator first.

There is a craft to politics, to understanding how one accomplishes things by building bridges and consensus, by working with varied groups of people and elected officials with their own concerns, petty and profound, that one doesn't learn well from the outside.

If you look at those who have come to it without that training and background, people like Eisenhower and Hoover, you see administrations that simply struggle and accomplish little or nothing. The Rockefellers, Roosevelts, and Kennedys all started below President and worked up (granted, only two of those three made it, but none of them though it was below them to learn the trade).

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 511160)

So Old Money is better than New Money.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 511104)

It's almost as if the party was ignored by Obama and then run as a shell for Hillary's benefit. Like Sebby, I don't think it made a difference between Clinton and Sanders, but it doesn't seem like anyone involved was all that interested in trying to build a party or win back Congress. It would have been nice to have some real Democrats involved.

eta: Looks like the party functionaries were enriching themselves. If you're going to be a Republican, be a Republican -- they do this kind of thing better.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNoe0sCVQAENpdK.jpg

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 511163)

Clarifications re: Brazile: https://theintercept.com/2017/11/05/...hat-are-false/

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 511159)

It's not the background, it's the idea of running for President without bothering to, say, be a governor or Senator first.

There is a craft to politics, to understanding how one accomplishes things by building bridges and consensus, by working with varied groups of people and elected officials with their own concerns, petty and profound, that one doesn't learn well from the outside.

If you look at those who have come to it without that training and background, people like Eisenhower and Hoover, you see administrations that simply struggle and accomplish little or nothing. The Rockefellers, Roosevelts, and Kennedys all started below President and worked up (granted, only two of those three made it, but none of them though it was below them to learn the trade).

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 511160)

So Old Money is better than New Money.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 511164)

Having read all the stuff, the biggest surprise to me is that an officer of the Party never read the financial statements she was distributed and seemed to have a half-baked idea of the rules, each of which are disappointing. There's stuff I would have done differently, but none of what was done was unusual; none of what was done shows as much bias as the Bernie folks are trying to push now at the DNC, where they really, really, really want caucuses in states with a lot of minorities.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 511165)

But Schultz is a unique experiment I think is worth undertaking. Too many politicians at high levels are established-to-old money (Bushes, Rockefellers, Kennedys). These people don’t know anything about how the economy works except at the CEO or investor levels. I don’t think we’ve ever had anyone with the breadth of experience of a Schultz run for high office.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 511168)

One thing that's abundantly clear if you listen to business people talk about the economy: most haven't the first tiny shred of a clue about how the macroeconomy works. They know how their business works (sometimes). They don't know how the economy works.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 511169)

The same is true of most politicians, and most economists seem to shelve what they really think in order to support their side's political talking points.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 511171)

Who watches Joe Scarborough? Is he going to be able to keep an audience if he keeps departing from GOP orthodoxy?

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 511172)

Always thought his demo was GOP-leaning "moderates."

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 511167)

The takeaway here is the Brazile wants to sell books and is smart enough to know how to do that. And that apparently that matters more to her than Tuesday's elections.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 511171)

Who watches Joe Scarborough? Is he going to be able to keep an audience if he keeps departing from GOP orthodoxy?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 511174)

I think this is less about selling books and more about inside ball for Bernie '2020. Bernie has now received some warm fuzzy feelings and political points from a black woman who managed a national Presidential campaign and ran the DNC and who has been a leading gay rights activist. Can you imagine a bigger gift for a candidate who screwed the pooch by unnecessarily pissing off African Americans, Women, Gays, and Political Insiders?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 511175)

Liberals like to be able to have a few token rational conservatives to point to.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 511169)

The same is true of most politicians, and most economists seem to shelve what they really think in order to support their side's political talking points.

eta: I still haven't forgiven Obama for his pivot to austerity.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 511178)

This is 75% of what’s wrong with economic policy. People pick sides and arrange data to support the conclusion they desire. Neoliberal economics has huge downsides we’ve known about forever. But we don’t talk about them until now, when they’re at crisis levels. The economists are creatures of the institutions and schools, which are funded by people and corporations very much opposed to criticism of neoliberal policies under which they profit enormously. The result is herd thinking in the academies, and an exiling of all critics.

(I’ll put aside how this creates bubbles.)

The vexing issue of the moment - our need for increasingly less labor - is still not honestly addressed. It’s either brushed off with the argument, “New tech always creates even more jobs down the road” (never offering that this road is fifty years long), or addressed with candor: “well, it’s going to ugly for a lot of people... but there is no other option.”

I happen to agree with the latter. But it is a defeatist position. And on the bigger issues, like this, our economists might as well be parking lot attendants. All they will offer is some safe, useless bit of dogma that’ll satisfy the corporate interests that ultimately pay their salaries.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 511178)

Neoliberal economics has huge downsides we’ve known about forever. But we don’t talk about them until now

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 511180)

We simply do not have teeming masses of unused labor.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 511178)

This is 75% of what’s wrong with economic policy. People pick sides and arrange data to support the conclusion they desire. Neoliberal economics has huge downsides we’ve known about forever. But we don’t talk about them until now, when they’re at crisis levels. The economists are creatures of the institutions and schools, which are funded by people and corporations very much opposed to criticism of neoliberal policies under which they profit enormously. The result is herd thinking in the academies, and an exiling of all critics.

(I’ll put aside how this creates bubbles.)

The vexing issue of the moment - our need for increasingly less labor - is still not honestly addressed. It’s either brushed off with the argument, “New tech always creates even more jobs down the road” (never offering that this road is fifty years long), or addressed with candor: “well, it’s going to ugly for a lot of people... but there is no other option.”

I happen to agree with the latter. But it is a defeatist position. And on the bigger issues, like this, our economists might as well be parking lot attendants. All they will offer is some safe, useless bit of dogma that’ll satisfy the corporate interests that ultimately pay their salaries.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 511182)

We are towards the end of a long period of growth

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 511184)

Automation has been a factor in how things have changed, but probably less so than the 30+ years of upwardly redistributing government policy. It's funny how when you keep cutting the taxes of the rich and restricting government spending on programs that support the poor, everyone who isn't rich doesn't do as well.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 511183)

Can you tell me who you view as neoliberal economists?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 511185)

Consider what Sebby says as the techno-libertarian expression angst of real concern that economic growth is benefiting the rich, but not workers. Talking about robots is more fun than spending money on health care.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 511180)

That you haven't been talking about them does not mean that no one has.

Also, you're probably wrong about what they are.



That's because it's mostly mythical and/or a non-issue. We simply do not have teeming masses of unused labor.

Might we if automation happens at an ever increasing rate? Maybe, but probably not. Because (1) we don't now and automation isn't new, and (2) people are usually pretty good coming up with other stuff to do.

But I know, you want a neat little story that explains everything and it's not satisfying that a decade from now millions of people will be working in some industry that you and I have not thought up yet.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 511186)

Pretty much every mainstream economist. Piketty, Roubini, and Cowen note the downsides of neoliberal economic policies on labor in developed economies. But even they shrug and say, “It’s just how global expansion coupled with extreme tech advances work.”

As I said, my criticism isn’t that economists failed to find a cure. There are only palliative measures to be applied for now. It’s that they failed to get ahead of the problem, and they decried all concerns as Luddite behaviors, or as Adder has, Malthusian.

Economists are quite doctrinaire, binary in thought, and quick to herd and exclude critics. More so than other disciplines, I think, from insecurity that theirs is not a science.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 511189)

Name one please. Just give me a sense of who these nasty neoliberals are. Krugman? Friedman? Stiglitz? Hayek? Galbraith? I've found it to be a trite phrase, especially in economics, thrown at someone you don't like, without any real specificity. The folks who used it mid-century all backed away from it, no one seems to introduce themselves at a cocktail party, Hi, I'm a neoliberal economist.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 511188)

Wage stagnation has remained a persistent problem since 2008.

And labor participation is not explained by boomer retirements. That’s the herd talking. Consider how many retirees don’t have enough to quit, and remain in the workforce.

This isn’t a neat narrative. It’s immensely complex. Far too complex to be shrugged off with a historical analysis of “cycles” from a “science” about as accurate than one’s palm reader.

This tech thing’s been with us for a few decades now. If you were correct about new tech creating more and better jobs over a relevant timeline, new jobs would be outstripped able bodies to fill them 2:1.

ETA: Each recovery since 1990 has been categorized as jobless. Quite accurately, particularly if one looks at jobs paying living wages, rather than low end service jobs.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 511190)

If he's including Piketty and Cowen, he's excluding Marxists and Austrians. In other words, when he says neoliberal economists, he means economists.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 511184)

Maybe.



Arguably, they have recently started to. Regardless, issues with income distribution pre-date and are not explained by the most recent business cycle and existed in prior periods of higher labor force participation.



That's not really true, but we've been over that before.



I don't see Sebby saying any of what you said. And his techno-babble gloom and doom is repackaged Malthusianism.

Automation has been a factor in how things have changed, but probably less so than the 30+ years of upwardly redistributing government policy. It's funny how when you keep cutting the taxes of the rich and restricting government spending on programs that support the poor, everyone who isn't rich doesn't do as well.