Re: Castro
 

I'm actually mildly surprised that is getting some traction. I figured it'd be yet another article that comes out about how fucked up this whole administration has been and it'd get swept away like all of the others.

Re: Castro
 

What?

Re: Castro
 

Who do you think fills white collar/regulatory/corp investigation practices in big firms that represent corporations?

Do you think being a prosecutor and being corporate are two different things? That's a revolving door like any other. Usually, however, it only turns once, when the prosecutor cashes out in the private sector, or when he or she runs for higher office and seeks corporate money to do so.

Harris has hoovered up a ton of Wall Street money. She claims she's going to put in a financial transaction tax, but that's up there with Trump's promise to bring back manufacturing jobs.

Re: Castro
 

Not her?

Yes. Yes I do. I could explain. How long do you have?

Maybe you are unfamiliar with revolving doors, and the difference between revolving doors and other kinds of doors.

I'm not saying that your reaction to Harris is wrong, but you haven't found the right words yet to explain what you're thinking.

Re: Castro
 

I only did a few years in white collar crime, but I found it to be filled with ex-prosecutors who seemed thrilled to be using past experience to do corporate bidding. YMMV.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term "usually." There are instances in which it turns a few times. In DC, for instance, it can turn many times.

I think it's early where you are and the coffee hasn't yet triggered the thesaurus portion of your brain.

Re: D'oh!
 

It's getting traction. Not the kind the Times wanted, but traction: https://www.mediaite.com/news/new-yo...fensive-tweet/

Re: Castro
 

OK. But the other thing you said does not follow from that.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Kamala Harris, who to my knowledge has worked for Alameda County, the City and County of San Francisco, the State of California, and as a U.S. Senator, but not in private practice. She hasn't left by any door, revolving or otherwise.

DC is full of revolving doors, but usually for political positions. Almost all prosecutors are career people. They tend to move between government service and private practice once, when they leave the former for the latter. That's a turnstile, not a revolving door. I was one of the few exceptions to that rule.

You are totally welcome to dislike her, and I'm sure you have many excellent reasons. But "corporate" is not the word you're looking for.

Re: Castro
 

This is what I wrote:

"Do you think being a prosecutor and being corporate are two different things? That's a revolving door like any other. Usually, however, it only turns once, when the prosecutor cashes out in the private sector, or when he or she runs for higher office and seeks corporate money to do so."

You're asserting that working for corporate interests as a Senator is not "corporate." OK. Technically, it's not. She remained and if elected President will remain a public official. But I'm comfortable characterizing someone who is soliciting corporate cash (she, Buttigieg, and Biden are top corporate fundraisers, despite her saying she would not accept corporate money), which involves telling corporate donators how your policies will be friendly toward them, as corporate.

In the past two years alone our TV stations have been inundated with stories about Barr and Mueller, two prosecutors who've been back and forth several times.

At state level, where Harris worked, the revolving door spins even more frequently. It's highly common for a local DA to jump into private practice, then get called to run some agency for a few years, then jump back into private practice again. It's an accepted form of resume building.

I think you're less unique than you think.

Yuck. I thought she was a bullshitter, an operator of sorts. I didn't think she was a nihilist/law 'n order psycho.

My adjectives stand adjusted. "Corporate" leanings are the least of her flaws. I think I'll focus on "authoritarian" and nihilistic in the future.

God, she seriously fucking sucks. That reads like something about a right wing Republican.

Re: Castro
 

No, I'm asserting that it's odd to describe her as "corporate" since AFAIK she has never spend a day working for a corporation. Sure, as a Senator she has taken money from people who work for corporations, but that doesn't really distinguish her from, say, any other Senator. She is my Senator, so you don't have to tell me what she's like. I'm not defending her -- I just think your choice of words is not right.

Yes, and they are both political appointees and in DC. If you care to peruse what I wrote again, you will find that I was not unaware of people like Barr and Mueller. I, too, own a TV. It is not common for federal prosecutors *without* political appointments to do that, both because DOJ tends to hire from law schools and because once people start making money and building a practice, they don't chuck both to go back into the government.

I don't doubt that it's common for a local DA, which is usually an elected office, to go back into politics. I think it's much less common for line prosecutors to go to private practice and then return to government employment. Not saying it never happens. It's just much less common.

At any rate, even if you have found in your personal journey that there are "corporate" lawyers who were formerly prosecutors, that's *not* what Kamala Harris did, so it's odd to call her "corporate." Most prom queens were in kindergarten once, but that does not mean you would describe anyone who was in kindergarten as a prom queen.

As Walter Sobchak says to Arthur Digby Sellers, and a good day to you, sir.

I'm happy we could spend this little time together and that I could help you get in touch with your true feelings.

Re: Castro
 

It's meaningless in the current Senate. Better to focus on Susan Collins.

Re: Castro
 

This is all really simple. Prosecutors are government employees, paid well less than they'd get working for corporate America, and when a corporation is involved in their cases it is usually on the other side of a "v" from their client.

If you are calling prosecutors "corporate" your words have no meaning.

Re: Castro
 

You don't understand, but you are a prom queen.

Re: Castro
 

She’s one of the top three recipients of Wall St cash why?

There are some prosecutors who are lifers. Then there are the politically or economically ambitious ones (not infrequently, they’re the same ones). These people may not have worked in a Corp, but they strategize in a manner indistinguishable from ambitious private sector corporate workers.

Hierarchies are hierarchies. Substitute “institutional operator and manipulator” for “corporate.” The point is, Harris thinks in a manner akin to the way a lot of folks in the C suite do. She betrays a mind skilled in working systems to her advantage. This is not a bad thing. We all manipulate systems in self interest to an extent. But it is also not considered consistent with an altruistic mind, or the behavior of one who cares about the country more than her own advancement. This is why “corporate” is a synonym for “bloodless.”

You’ll find ex-prosecutors to be quite willing to flip to defense of corporate behavior they previously excoriated. The mindset of the ambitious within hierarchies is always a bit bent. What word fits that? I’m not sure. But it’s hardly surprising to learn that, like her truly corporate analogues, Harris will happily employ power like a sledgehammer.

Re: Castro
 

How does one acquire the belief prosecutors work against corporations more than they work for them? Our crim codes are entirely focused on property rights. From the state DA nailing the Wal Mart shoplifters to the the feds nailing the Goldman worker for algorithm theft, it’s all the state acting on behalf of those with property. And who holds more property than corporations?

The idea prosecutors are on the other side of the V from corps more than on the same side, enforcing the interests of corps, is indefensible. I say indefensible instead of unsustainable because this argument could only be raised in a very desperate defense. It’s simply Wrong.

Re: Castro
 

Like I said, you are still groping for the right words to express what you think about Harris.

Re: Castro
 

I'm not really debating any of that with you. I mean, I will if you want me to, but I certainly think you have a point. Be that as it may, it doesn't mean that "corporate" is a good word to use to describe Kamala Harris. Get this: I actually have been a lawyer representing a corporation in a room with Kamala Harris. (The corporation was not in the room with her, except in the sense that a colleague and I were.) I mean, mind blown, right? Did I think she was sympathetic to my client? Well, sure, because she is, among other things, good at being a politician. Did I think she was so in the bag that we needed only to convey to her what we wished for her to do for us? Uh, that would be a "no."

Re: Castro
 

I only see her as getting less than $450K to date from the securities industry: https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-pre...s?id=N00036915 That's about 1.8% of her fundraising. I think it is fair to say that so far this election Wall Street is essentially sitting it out in public and doing their giving through dark money vehicles. There is just not a lot of wall street money flowing anywhere where the sun shines. The big dark money vehicles I'm aware of on the Dem side right now are all Senate or state house focused.

It seems what you really want to do is scream "establishment" at everyone and wag your finger around. Maybe Bernie is shallow enough for you, after all.

G (neoliberal globalist corporate shill progressive) 3

Re: Yes you did
 

Re: Castro
 

Well there is that old saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Neoliberal, globalist (your term, not mine... I prefer “free trade”), corporate policies aren’t truly compatible with progressive policies. Nor are nationalist policies.

In order:

Neoliberal free trade policies lead to labor arbitrage that costs Americans jobs. The two retorts to this are: (1) But, Americans get cheaper foreign made goods; and, (2) Over time, new jobs are created. One is frivolous, debunked with the fact that he who has no job cannot buy goods at any price. Two ignores the facts that the displaced are not skilled for these new jobs and that these new jobs will appear too far in the future to aid the displaced. (I’m not addressing the argument that this can all or to any significant extent be fixed by education and worker retraining, as that’s facially ludicrous and more a talking point than a serious argument [as the soon to be glut of STEM workers will be learning].)

“Corporate” middle and upper management workers, and professionals who service them, like us, are overpaid relative to value. To the extent we prop up hierarchies which should be leaner, providing more profits to be taxed, robbing recipients of tax transfers of such redistribution, and taking wages otherwise payable to those at the bottom end of the pay scale, one cannot be corporate and progressive. This person would be more of a limousine liberal.

Nationalism cannot be progressive economically because policies that stop labor arbitrage only accelerate domestic automation. It is generally not progressive because they intertwine the corporate and govt sectors in a manner that resembles fascism, which uses both to oppress the people.

Your list resembles more “upper middle class liberal” than progressive. You’re actually close to me. We both like the social elements of progressivism, but don’t like policies which would endanger the sources of our revenue. The only real difference between tax voters and limousine liberals is what they seek to protect. One seeks to save his dollars by giving a bit more at the margin in taxes to protect his free trade revenues. This is near indistinguishable from the noblesse oblige (or if you prefer, “buy off the pitchforks cheaply”) view of the now extinct “Liberal Republican” of old. The other focuses on avoiding the tax bill. Neither helps the suffering below him to find a wage paying for a dignified living. One just offers a greater safety net. Which is something. But it’s not truly progressive, at least economically speaking.

Re: Castro
 

I'm of the old school that believes labor missed out by going nationalist instead of internationalist. They should have listened to Trotsky.

Re: Castro
 

I think that’s been proven correct, as a concept. But was it ever operationally and politically possible?

Re: Castro
 

Feel free to believe this to be true as a matter of faith, but empirically, it has been studied and found not to be.

The one exception is China entering the WTO, which appears to have been a big enough shock to have had this effect. The evidence suggestion that the effect is fading, however, and there has not been a subsequent shift toward India (or wherever) to replace it.

Re: Castro
 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I think Sebby's point is that running the country without significant tariffs, in an era of global transportation and supply chains, encourages manufacturers to put less skilled jobs in other countries where wages are lower. Things that were once made in the United States are now made in other countries. This is obviously true, no? I think your point is that the open trade regime also fosters the development of new jobs here, which are often higher skilled and better paying, and that in the aggregate the country is at least as well enough.

Implicit in your response, too, is the observation that other countries are developing too, and are always catching up. Goods that were once cutting-edge are now commodities that can be made in all sorts of places (cars in Mexico, smartphones in China, nuclear weapons in Iran), and increasing tariffs won't change that. Increasing tariffs will protect less-skilled jobs here, but at the expense of US consumers, who will pay higher prices and have less to choose from, and US manufacturers, whose exports will be hurt when other countries do the same. In other words, what are you going to do?

To which Sebby says, maybe you guys in San Francisco and Minneapolis are living large from the cutting-edge jobs that this trade creates, but here in Pennsylvania the losers that I hang out with don't have the skills to get those jobs, and wouldn't want to leave this hellhole to move to those cities anyway. They are screwed, and so they vote for Trump. You've got to end free trade to make them happy, because I can't think of anything else and besides, it pisses off liberals so it must be good.

Needless to say, you don't find that a compelling line of thought. But it would be nice if you had something better to offer.

Re: Castro
 

Actually, I didn't intend to say any of what you wrote. My point was limited and it was this: The concept of a "Corporate Progressive" is an oxymoron.

The rest of what you've written here is an ornate strawman.

But oddly, it proves my point. I think you hold yourself out as a progressive. This would mean you care about people. But actually, you don't really care about people. You're a closeted libertarian. Like me, you don't see any solution for lower skilled workers with which you can live. As you said, "What can you do?" But like me, you don't want to see any policies implemented that possibly harm your revenue stream. So you are vehemently anti-protectionist. Like me. And like me, you don't mind paying a few extra dollars at tax time to protect the status quo that delivers money to you far in excess of what you're worth, at cost to lower level workers who are being paid far less than they should be paid. We just differ in the amount.

We are both enjoying an upward skewing of wages to those in upper middle and top tier management, and the types of professionals that service them.

Where we differ, but not much, is I'd also like to avoid taxes. I'm trying to skin it from the revenue angle (keeping more of the revenue for myself) and the tax angle.*

I can't be called a "progressive" economically because, well, I'm not. But neither can you. We're a pair of confused sorta-libertarians who differ on amount of taxes they're willing to pay.

A progressive, OTOH, would demand that we find a way to share the revenue with lower end workers. A progressive would never use the argument that keeping goods cheap for underpaid workers is more important than sharing the revenue with them to allow them to buy goods. A progressive would seek to fix the system that created the inequality rather than pay off the economic losers on the cheap via small enhancements in redistribution via taxes.

But we don't care. I mean, I'll carp about the issue here, but it's to demonstrate some abstract point, such as there is no such thing as a "corporate progressive," and that you're not much different from a tax voter in terms of impact and motive. But I don't think there's any real fix. As you said, and I agree, "What are you going to do?"

_______
* My household is directly exposed to possible minimum wage increases. I'm all for giving the worker more money, but my family's interests may squelch that altruism if the policy ever winds up on a ballot. And I'll use your rationalization when I vote against it: "These people should have moved. They stayed, so they deserve to be paid less so my family can have more."

Re: Castro
 

My offering: tariffs are the wrong tool here, the right tool is increased advocacy for unionization abroad, the development of higher pay structures in other countries, and a general increase in the integration of the world economy. We do this through trade agreements, though I'll be the first to admit we also do other things through trade agreements of which I am less fond.

There are also ways to spread the wealth from the Boston/SF markets into other parts of the country, and we can talk about that, too, but one big problem is it often involves things other parts of the country are resistant to, like investing in infrastructure and education to a greater degree and changing your state spending and taxing pattern to one that looks more like California and Massachusetts.

Re: Castro
 

I was responding to Adder's post, not yours.

Thank you for the "ornate" part. But why is it a straw man?

I'm not sure where you get your ideas about what I think. I am OK with policies that could possibly harm my revenue stream. For example, I think consumer protection laws in my industry are a great idea. I'm for them. And I don't mind paying in taxes, but I want to pay them to make things better for people who aren't fortunate and to create opportunity. I'm not paying taxes to protect the status quo.

I don't get why you think the status quo delivers money to me far in excess of what I'm worth, or why you think "lower level workers are being paid far less than they should be paid." Are you a Marxist? What magickal device are you using to determine what people are really worth?

???

You are more selfish and cynical than I am. I am much more willing to vote against my economic self-interest.

I take great offense to being called a sorta-libertarian, sir. In another day, I would challenge you to a duel, or some such thing, but sadly our modern mores and the great distance between us leave me no such option. I must take solace in telling you that you're wrong.

But that's not all that I said. I agree that it's foolish to eschew tariffs to keep things cheap for workers who don't have good jobs. But I also think that tariffs are extraordinarily disruptive because they shelter inefficient industries and harm good jobs. They limit possibilities.

My plan is to find something better to do that what you've suggested. One obstacle is people like you, who complain about how bad things are but find convenient reasons to shit on any suggestion to do things better. Another obstacle is people like Adder, who are content to point out that you're wrong.

Re: Castro
 

In days gone by, people would move from other places to places like California and Massachusetts, but the crazy zoning policies in coastal metropolises makes that more and more expensive. I blame Atticus, for never coming around any more.

Re: Castro
 

2. But this doesn't address automation's impact. This is what drives me nuts about tariffs. They accelerate domestic automation.

My state cannot have nice things. Period. I've tried to do infrastructure here and it's fucking painful. The people are just fucking stupid. For every smart person in a govt agency, there are 20 absolutely useless "human loaves" (often patronage hires). Dumb as fuck, concerned only with CYA and getting that pension, or getting re-elected. And the unions are possibly even dumber. They'll fight any and every delivery method that seems more efficient than traditional procurement. They'd rather no work than delivery of multiple projects at once that might mine efficiencies. Any threat to their ability to maximize every dollar for extras and change orders on a single project is viewed as an act of war.

Re: Castro
 

Dude, a low skilled worker in Arkansas displaced from his gig by a robot is not going to re-emerge in Palo Alto as a tech entrepreneur. This is a silly argument.

The problem we have is a glut of bodies and increasingly less for them to do.

There is no solution to this except for more open borders. Americans need to start moving abroad, the way Europeans moved here in the early 20th century. And we need to let immigrants move here more easily.

The problem with that is nobody wants to let outsiders in, including us. You think Norway is eager to share the oil riches with goofy American economic refugees? Does Australia want an influx of rust belt factory workers looking for a fresh start?

The Forgotten of Flyoverland are, I believe the term is, "legacy liabilities."

ETA: And we've not even gotten to the soon-to-be economic refugees. Shall Dubai open its arms for all the STEM degree holders when that glut hits? Maybe put them all on the country's man made archipelago. Call it Asperger's Island. And the big daddy of them all will be the financial workers displaced by algorithms in the coming years. Does any nation want America's newly-unemployed and most entitled asshats soiling its cafes, demanding bottle service and molesting the locals' daughters?

Re: Castro
 

I haven't suggested anything. I'm serious when I say I See No Fix.

I just wanted to say, "Hey, none of us have any business calling ourselves progressives." A true progressive would be doing things none of us would like economically.

Re: Castro
 

Dude, a low-skilled worker in Arkansas displaced from her gig could move to Palo Alto to be a low-skilled worker there for higher wages, if only she could afford to find a place to live here. Stanford Hospital hires lots of traveling nurses (not a low-skilled job) from poorer parts of the country. They talk about moving here, until they figure out that they'd have to live in Stockton or Gilroy to dream of owning a home. The lack of housing is a tax on everyone, one that pays off for people who currently own real estate.

That helps why?

That helps why?

You just said that the problem is a glut of bodies, but you want more? Attention span much?

Re: Castro
 

I believe you are. You can be cynical and serious and self-interested all at the same time.

And I wanted to say, get bent. So you're not a progressive. If you want to pretend that you have company, maybe you can fool yourself, but not the rest of us.

Re: Castro
 

It's true, though in part I blame myself, too, for the Atticus S&M posts.

Massachusetts actually has more net immigration today than it did 20 years ago, but I think we have more small urban communities with less onerous zoning than the bay area, for example.

Re: Castro
 

The immigrants who'd come here would create communities and help the economy.

The people who are being displaced here are, it is proven from their track record, not so good at doing that here. They just get angry and vote for tariffs.

It's an iffy trade, but I think a guy willing to come here from far abroad is going to be a hell of a lot more ambitious than what's here now.

ETA: And I'm assuming as people emigrate from here, others will immigrate here, and the numbers will stay somewhat the same. The idea is we'd just shed the dead weight.

Re: Castro
 

You believe I'm suggesting what? Please, for God's sake, if you know I've got The Answer to This Mess, but only you can explain what it is, my mind is yours. Read it and tell me what I'm suggesting.

You're not a progressive. Not at all.

Re: Castro
 

So the problem is not really robots, but the anger and lack of ambition of many Americans? Immigrants can grow the economy in the age of robots, but Americans can't? That's an interesting thesis, and puts your robot fears in a new light.

Re: Castro
 

There is so much that could be done, from just old fashioned infrastructure (fixing roads and bridges, building trains) to tech infrastructure (broadband) to a Green New Deal (massive investment in green energy and technology). A lot of those jobs are accessible to low skill workers.

We don't do those things because one party either actively campaigns against them as bad (trains) or refuses to pay the taxes needed to do them.

That a negligible number of people leave American, and none who are poor, leave American is kinda a big thing that undermines your vision of vasts suffering. People move the other direction for pretty solid reasons.

Who's nobody? I'd like to let more outsiders in to America.

Re: Castro
 

Why would the dead weight volunteer to move? Why would they not be dead weight after having done so?

Re: Castro
 

I suspect the best thing any community can do to help their economy is help build mosques, temples, synagogues and Christian churches that have services in Spanish, Chinese, and other languages.

Re: Castro
 

Like I said, I do not have a fix. But one thing we could do which would assuage some of the problems would be to globally relax immigration.

Low skill workers replaced by robots are done. Moderate to higher skilled workers replaced by robots can learn new skills.