LawTalkers
Page 89 of 126 « First 39798788 89 909199 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

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)

Tyrone Slothrop 01-23-2017 05:19 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Wait, I thought we had an election to sort this out?

HTTPS://pbs.twimg.com/media/C24gb_OXcAANJ6E.jpg

sebastian_dangerfield 01-23-2017 05:21 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 505312)
Am I the only one who finds Mike Pence scarier than Trump who owes Russia?
Never deal with people who are seriously invested in the idea of an afterlife. It sounds counterintuitive, but there are no more dangerous men alive. Same continuum as suicide bombers.

Pence is a serious believer. For reals. I got that from someone who's spent the day with him, at home.

He scares me to piss shivers. Trump's just a con man.

Sleazy deals with Russia vs. Jesus freak govt? No brainer.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-23-2017 05:25 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 505311)
British friend made these observations after attending an energy conference in Abu Dhabi:

Russian connection....1) Trump owes Blackstone/ Bayrock group $560 million dollars (one of his largest debtors and the primary reason he won't reveal his tax returns)
2) Blackstone is owned wholly by Russian billionaires, who owe their position to Putin and have made billions from their work with the Russian government.
3) Other companies that have borrowed from Blackstone have claimed that owing money to them is like owing to the Russian mob and while you owe them, they own you for many favors.
4) The Russian economy is badly faltering under the weight of its over-dependence on raw materials which as you know have plummeted in the last 2 years leaving the Russian economy scrambling to pay its debts.
5) Russia has an impetus to influence our election to ensure the per barrel oil prices are above $65 ( they are currently hovering around $50)
6) Russia can't affordably get at 80% of its oil reserves and reduce its per barrel cost to compete with America at $45 or Saudi Arabia at $39. With Iranian sanctions being lifted Russia will find another inexpensive competitor increasing production and pushing Russia further down the list of suppliers.
As for Iranian sanctions, the 6 countries lifting them allowing Iran to collect on the billions it is owed for pumping oil but not being paid for it. These billions Iran can only get if the Iranian nuclear deal is signed. Trump spoke of ending the deals which would cause oil sales sanctions to be reimposed, which would make Russian oil more competitive.
7) Rex Tillerson (Trump's pick for Secretary of State) is the head of ExxonMobil, which is in possession of patented technology that could help Putin extract 45% more oil at a significant cost savings to Russia, helping Putin put money in the Russian coffers to help reconstitute its military and finally afford to mass produce the new and improved systems that it had invented before the Russian economy had slowed so much.
8) Putin cannot get access to these new cost saving technologies OR outside oil field development money, due to US sanctions on Russia, because of its involvement in Ukrainian civil war.
9) Look for Trump to end sanctions on Russia and to back out of the Iranian nuclear deal, to help Russia rebuild its economy, strengthen Putin and make Tillerson and Trump even richer, thus allowing Trump to satisfy his creditors at Blackstone.
10) With Trump's fabricated hatred of NATO and the U.N., the Russian military reconstituted, the threat to the Baltic states is real. Russia retaking their access to the Baltic Sea from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and threatening the shipping of millions of cubic feet of natural gas to lower Europe from Scandinavia, allowing Russia to make a good case for its oil and gas being piped into eastern Europe.
I like this. It's conspiracy stuff, but it connects well.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-23-2017 05:29 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller (Post 505310)
I'm no more thin skinned than most people here, I just follow the rule that when there isn't a point to be made, I won't bother. My views on music engender blather; the discussion doesn't advance.

To the merits of "The trial was in November,": Nuts. In no particular order:

1. If those tax return had been released, I doubt that the 100,000 votes in three swing states that gave Trump his electoral college victory would have gone his way.

2. The facts remain unclear NOW. I assert he has irreconcilable and disqualifying ties with foreign governments NOW. This is an ongoing issue not settled by his election. The adverse inference applies NOW.

3. The elections of 2008 and 2012 did not prevent Trump from fraudulently attacking the legitimacy of Obama's qualification to be President. So the fact that Trump won in November does not, by his prior conduct, settle such an issue.

4. Trump states that only the dishonest media cares about his tax returns...citing his electoral college victory. Trump had not cited any data in support for this statement. There is no such data. It is a fabrication that is is completely and demonstrably wrong. Seventy four per cent of the public disagree:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...se-tax-returns

5. Before you whine that The Hill is part of an anti-Trump conspiracy,
two recent polls by Pew Research Center and ABC come to the same conclusion. The polls, both released within the last two weeks, show that 60% and 74% of Americans, respectively, want the returns to be released. According to the ABC data, 49% of Trump’s own supporters say he should release his tax returns, as well as 94% of Clinton supporters and 83% of those who stated they had either another (or no) preference for US president.


6. The most popular petition on the new White House website also shows major interest in the returns, garnering more than 200,000 signatures since it was posted Friday—twice the amount needed for an official response.

6. When these tax returns are made public (anyone care to bet if they are made public before the 2016 presidential election?) all of the people like the guys in my Army platoon who voted for Trump will be pissed about paying more taxes than a draft dodging slob who inherited more money than they will make in the collective lifetimes. And the line that "I used the laws of the United States brilliantly" won't have the same appeal.

Those tax returns are coming out. He would have lost the election had they been out in November and he knows it.
Of course. That was the game. He won.

But you can force another game... and yes -- those returns will be exposed.

Careful what you wish for, however. Trump's removal before he has a chance to fail his base on his own will rip this country apart in ways we've yet to imagine. Which might be Putin's ultimate, or alternative, endgame.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-23-2017 05:37 PM
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.
Putin has his taxes already. A pack of profs looking for headlines aren't getting shit.

The minute Trump becomes less useful to Putin, Putin will dox him -- just to throw us into turmoil.

Pretty Little Flower 01-23-2017 05:40 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller (Post 505310)
I'm no more thin skinned than most people here,
Wrong! Sebastian is way less thin-skinned. That guy gives zero fucks. Just ask him.

Quote:
It is a fabrication that is is completely and demonstrably wrong.
Conway begs to differ. Nothing is demonstrably wrong any more. In fact, trying to demonstrate that something is wrong is backwards and foolish. These days, you make pronouncements of wrongness, loudly. See above.

ThurgreedMarshall 01-23-2017 05:53 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 505311)
British friend made these observations after attending an energy conference in Abu Dhabi:

Russian connection....1) Trump owes Blackstone/ Bayrock group $560 million dollars (one of his largest debtors and the primary reason he won't reveal his tax returns)
2) Blackstone is owned wholly by Russian billionaires, who owe their position to Putin and have made billions from their work with the Russian government.
3) Other companies that have borrowed from Blackstone have claimed that owing money to them is like owing to the Russian mob and while you owe them, they own you for many favors.
4) The Russian economy is badly faltering under the weight of its over-dependence on raw materials which as you know have plummeted in the last 2 years leaving the Russian economy scrambling to pay its debts.
5) Russia has an impetus to influence our election to ensure the per barrel oil prices are above $65 ( they are currently hovering around $50)
6) Russia can't affordably get at 80% of its oil reserves and reduce its per barrel cost to compete with America at $45 or Saudi Arabia at $39. With Iranian sanctions being lifted Russia will find another inexpensive competitor increasing production and pushing Russia further down the list of suppliers.
As for Iranian sanctions, the 6 countries lifting them allowing Iran to collect on the billions it is owed for pumping oil but not being paid for it. These billions Iran can only get if the Iranian nuclear deal is signed. Trump spoke of ending the deals which would cause oil sales sanctions to be reimposed, which would make Russian oil more competitive.
7) Rex Tillerson (Trump's pick for Secretary of State) is the head of ExxonMobil, which is in possession of patented technology that could help Putin extract 45% more oil at a significant cost savings to Russia, helping Putin put money in the Russian coffers to help reconstitute its military and finally afford to mass produce the new and improved systems that it had invented before the Russian economy had slowed so much.
8) Putin cannot get access to these new cost saving technologies OR outside oil field development money, due to US sanctions on Russia, because of its involvement in Ukrainian civil war.
9) Look for Trump to end sanctions on Russia and to back out of the Iranian nuclear deal, to help Russia rebuild its economy, strengthen Putin and make Tillerson and Trump even richer, thus allowing Trump to satisfy his creditors at Blackstone.
10) With Trump's fabricated hatred of NATO and the U.N., the Russian military reconstituted, the threat to the Baltic states is real. Russia retaking their access to the Baltic Sea from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and threatening the shipping of millions of cubic feet of natural gas to lower Europe from Scandinavia, allowing Russia to make a good case for its oil and gas being piped into eastern Europe.
This is fucking terrifying.

TM

ThurgreedMarshall 01-23-2017 05:56 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505316)
Wait, I thought we had an election to sort this out?

[Image of huge, margin-destroying quotation]
Can we fix this?

TM

Tyrone Slothrop 01-23-2017 06:27 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 505332)
Can we fix this?

TM
I'm not sure how to resize it, but the additional posts gave us a new page. Which is to say, the remedy to speech you don't like is more speech.

Not Bob 01-23-2017 06:27 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 505332)
Can we fix this?

TM
Done.

Pretty Little Flower 01-23-2017 06:28 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505333)
I'm not sure how to resize it, but the additional posts gave us a new page. Which is to say, the remedy to speech you don't like is more speech.
Whoa. I've heard about this concept but have never seen it work in practice.

Not Bob 01-23-2017 06:32 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505333)
I'm not sure how to resize it, but the additional posts gave us a new page. Which is to say, the remedy to speech you don't like is more speech.
Trying to think of a funny way to say that I already edited it to a link because fucked up margins are Not Good, even on the Not Current page. I mean, think of poor Wonk coming across that ugly page a few days from now, for Christ's sake.

Pretty Little Flower 01-23-2017 07:01 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 505336)
Trying to think of a funny way to say that I already edited it to a link because fucked up margins are Not Good, even on the Not Current page. I mean, think of poor Wonk coming across that ugly page a few days from now, for Christ's sake.
Keep working at it.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-23-2017 07:47 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 505337)
Keep working at it.
Please tone down the contempt, derision and condescension embedded in this response. Not Bob is sensitive to these types of sentiments.

Meanwhile, here are Gillian Welch and Dave Rawlings performing "One More Dollar" for a radio show for us effete, cosmopolitan non-Trump voters.

Not Bob 01-23-2017 07:49 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 505337)
Keep working at it.
Enh. We all know* that my humor schtick here is more in sharing wry, semi-avancular anecdotes than it is in uttering amusing quips. But I appreciate the constructive advice.

*I started to type "everyone will mostly agree that I am mainly correct," but I figured that I overuse that trope. And that it only amuses me - not that that is a major defect, but I guess I'm feeling a little low in Trumplandia today.

Not Bob 01-23-2017 07:55 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505338)
Please tone down the contempt, derision and condescension embedded in this response. Not Bob is sensitive to these types of sentiments.

Meanwhile, here are Gillian Welch and Dave Rawlings performing "One More Dollar" for a radio show for us effete, cosmopolitan non-Trump voters.
I miss Snidely Condescending. But Gillian Welch is nice, too. Thanks.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-23-2017 08:34 PM
Just like Sister Trump says...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 505326)
Wrong! Sebastian is way less thin-skinned. That guy gives zero fucks. Just ask him.
Oh, you shouldn't do that
Now don't you know you'll ruin the Republic
You'll go and ruin the Republic
And by the way, have you got a dollar?
Oh, no, man, all I've got is Bitcoin...

It needs work, but it could be made into a new national anthem. It'd fit.

Hank Chinaski 01-23-2017 10:11 PM
Mots qui disent la verité Mots maudits, Mots mentis
 
Much like President Obama harnessed the fact of social media connectivity to turn campaigning on its head, is Team-Trump the first to learn we can no longer verify much?

Months ago, when DJt first started getting intel briefing I made the point, with his loose cannon self, it can't be long before he blows cover on something. T made the thoughtful counterpoint, that since he will likely not listen, he can't learn stuff to divulge.

But within a week, a Facebook (flower and NB, get your asses there) blow up. Trump had said the Saudis will be required to payoff our bases there. And poster (some other forum's Ty?) said that we officially have no bases there so dJt must have just outed some intel. But I read the comments which included people who sounded smart (some other forum's anti GGG?) saying we certainly do publicly run bases there.

So i thought: I'm smart, I can handle things, not dumb like they say, smart.And i went to google to get the truth. Except an hour later I had no idea what the truth was. Some sites said King something or other AF base is Us and others said it was Saudi. One site listed several US bases, but maybe it was old.Truth is hard.

If only Case citations would move to wiki level, this job would be easier?

sebastian_dangerfield 01-23-2017 11:10 PM
Russia/Blackstone/Trump
 
There's a famous tech chatboard discussing the exact same story a few weeks back. Can provide link if requested.

ETA: Upon additional research, most likely fake news.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-24-2017 12:26 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Matt Levine (whose daily email is excellent):

Quote:
A theory of regulation.

I am working on a tentative theory of regulation. It goes like this:
  1. There are two kinds of regulations: custom regulations and bulk regulations.
  2. A custom regulation is designed to accomplish a particular goal. You want people to do something, so you write a rule mandating that they do it and punishing them if they don't. For instance, if you want U.S. companies to keep jobs in the U.S., you might write a rule to mandate that, and to "impose a 'very major' border tax on companies that move jobs outside the U.S." That is an example of a custom regulation, and it is good because it keeps jobs in the U.S.
  3. Bulk regulations are the kind that you buy by the yard, ones that you measure by quantity rather than purpose. They don't have a purpose, really; they are just generic "red tape." These are the regulations that presidents frequently announce they will cut in half, or freeze with an executive order. They're the regulations that come not from a reasoned desire to achieve a particular goal, but from a pure impulse to regulate. Bulk regulations are bad because they prevent businesses from doing business-y things without accomplishing anything good.
  4. All regulations are custom regulations.
  5. All discussion of "regulation" is about bulk regulations, which do not exist.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-24-2017 03:21 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Another day, another outrage.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-24-2017 03:43 PM
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.

Replaced_Texan 01-24-2017 04:52 PM
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.

taxwonk 01-24-2017 06:30 PM
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!!

taxwonk 01-24-2017 06:31 PM
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.

taxwonk 01-24-2017 07:04 PM
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.

taxwonk 01-24-2017 07:14 PM
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.

SEC_Chick 01-24-2017 08:53 PM
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.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-24-2017 10:51 PM
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.

ferrets_bueller 01-25-2017 08:34 AM
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."

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-25-2017 09:10 AM
Re: Ball so Hard.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 505362)
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.
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.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-25-2017 10:05 AM
Re: Ball so Hard.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 505364)
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.
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.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-25-2017 12:00 PM
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.

Adder 01-25-2017 12:10 PM
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.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-25-2017 12:58 PM
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.

Hank Chinaski 01-25-2017 01:29 PM
Re: Ball so Hard.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505368)
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.)



FT

Not a ton of emphasis on the second-order political effects, but they will be enormous.
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/...or-first-time/
if the guy is so clearly heading us at a brick wall why does the market not react?

sebastian_dangerfield 01-25-2017 01:41 PM
Re: Ball so Hard.
 
Quote:
The Republicans gave us this country.
No. You and I gave us this country. Because we supported a system in which the underclasses could only survive via redistribution, which is an unsound system on every conceivable level.

People do not want redistribution. They want work. They want to feel like they can fend for themselves. Sure, some are handout junkies ("Hands off my Medicare!" sorts). But most don't want a handout from our table. They want a chance to have a seat at it.

Are they deluded? Sure. But they have the vote. So you and I would have been better served to have placated them a bit in the past, with some protectionism. I didn't want to, so I'll take blame for it. You're ducking your own by saying you'd have happily given them some crumbs from your growing wealth. We all like a system where we who are doing alright succeed and the masses can be kept happy via redistribution. But it's impossible. Your argument is as selfish and realistic as the GOP's, "Fuck it. Globalization's inevitable. Take your medicine and shut up, little guy" position.

Quote:
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.
See above.

Quote:
Republicans are philosophically opposed to spreading the benefits and easing the pain -- they will not vote to tax people with money, or to redistribute.
Irrelevant. See above.

Quote:
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.
We're already there. The infrastructure plan is a New New Deal. The GOP Congress, however, is too fucking stupid and tied to its austerity religion to understand the economics behind it. And Trump isn't smart enough to explain that a lot of it can be done with private money in public/private partnerships, with a fantastic multiplier effect and limited govt debt. And let's not forget the fools on the Democratic side who hear "public/private" and immediately flip into fits of hysteria about privatization (which these projects are not).

WE could do a New New Deal and really help this country. But I don't see the warring factions of imbeciles in both parties and the administration getting it done. It takes way too much forward thinking and actual business acumen. Trump's people could figure it out, but they'll never sell it to the politicians.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-25-2017 01:55 PM
Re: Ball so Hard.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505369)
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/...or-first-time/
if the guy is so clearly heading us at a brick wall why does the market not react?
It's a good question. Financial stocks have been doing very well, out of an expectation that Congress is going to deregulate. More generally, I think a lot of people in the business world don't quite take Trump at his word, and take the benefits of the current system for granted.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-25-2017 01:56 PM
Re: Ball so Hard.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505369)
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/...or-first-time/
if the guy is so clearly heading us at a brick wall why does the market not react?
We are war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

The market has climbed a wall of worry and sustained itself on buybacks, consumer cannibalizing labor cost-cutting, and financial alchemy since 2008. The market will always climb a wall of worry and sustain itself on buybacks, consumer cannibalizing labor cost-cutting, and financial alchemy.

If it ever actually does start crashing, they're going to have to halt trading for a week. "Everybody knows," as Mr. Cohen sang. They "stand hand in hand," as Melville wrote, in the realization of our fragility, and once it can no longer be stifled or pretended away, that "shock of recognition will run the whole circle round." Like lightning.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-25-2017 02:08 PM
Re: Ball so Hard.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 505367)
It's a good thing that only one of those numbers is at all accurate.

:rolleyes: You don't want discussion. You just want to repeat your nonsense.
You want to read to me from econ 101 textbooks from 1978. You still think it's an empirical science.

I'm not wasting my time advising you of the stats on what percentage of our labor force will likely be automated in the next two decades, how many US households are one job loss from insolvency, how many live paycheck to paycheck, why retraining and education are feel good bullshit fixes, how wage stagnation has persisted since the 80s, why U3 unemployment is as relevant as the comics section of the paper, or why my 85/15 split is actually generous to those holding your views.

But I will talk about a guaranteed wage if you'd like.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:27 PM.
Page 89 of 126 « First 39798788 89 909199 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com