US elections 2016 - "Go ahead, throw your vote away"

[Happy Ent]

1 hour ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

So board liberals and/or rational people, how panicked are you, on a scale from one to "I can feel the No-God has arisen," about the latest poll results?

I thought about setting my alarm clock to 3 AM to watch the debate (in what is here the middle of the night.) 

But I assume I will feel Him on the horizon, an orange carapace under a whirlwind of hair. No alarm clock needed.

[mormont]

8 minutes ago, Altherion said:

They have no choice. If the moderator is seen as challenging Trump significantly more often than he challenges Clinton, it will become much easier for Trump to hammer the point about the system being rigged (which is one of his best arguments). This debate will be seen live by a substantial fraction of the electorate so won't be as effective to spin it later via the media.

This has been a big part of the problem all along. If you call Trump out for every lie, misstep and dubious connection in the way that you do Clinton, you'll literally never be done and it will look 'unfair' - but if you don't, it actually is unfair and distorts the race. The media need to worry less about accusations and more about the truth.

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, sologdin said:

goodness, what issue is worth voting trump and thereby unveiling oneself irredeemably as hostis humani generis?

It certainly has exposed the rotten heart of the american right. There is, it appears, no candidate they wouldn't vote for.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Notone said:

What every reasonable GOP voter did when Obama won. Buy guns, gold, canned food, and stockpile it in a bunker in the woods. The end is nigh. 

I'm actually serious. I don't think any of the above is useful except in a zombie apocalypse scenario.

I'm really not sure what to do. While I live in a reasonably liberal state, I also live in a reasonably conservative area of that state. What happens when Trump encourages people to dox those who spoke out against him? What happens when Trump pardons anyone who gets back at those people? 

What happens when people start taking it on themselves to harass others that look like they might be undocumented immigrants? How do I help that? How do I prevent it? 

Does protesting work? Does civil disobedience? I'm honestly not sure what works, or if anything can. 

[OldGimletEye]

14 minutes ago, mormont said:

The media need to worry less about accusations and more about the truth.

Yep it does.

[BloodRider]

6 minutes ago, Shryke said:

It certainly has exposed the rotten heart of the american right. There is, it appears, no candidate they wouldn't vote for.

Ahem.

No Republican candidate

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

28 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

The chart pretty clearly shows the employment/ population ratio dropping during recessions and then recovering subsequently.

There may be some what of a trend, but then there are huge variations around that trend, which are due to demand side factors.

After the financial crises began, who in their right mind would think we were not headed for some huge demand side problems as people began hoarding cash and looking for safe stores of value. It's the excessive demand for these things that's caused the low inflation, low growth, and low interest rates we have seen.

Also, since 2008 the FED went out and expanded the monetary base about 4 times and yet has had difficult time meeting it's 2% inflation target. This is not suggestive that were running up against some kind of supply side constraints.

You seem to be suggesting that we are back at full employment because allegedly of "automation". If we were really up against supply side constraints here, then how do you explain the low inflation, low growth, and low interest rate environment we are in?

Here are the yields for Ten Year Treasuries Bonds. You know why they are so low? Because there is still an excessive demand for safe assets and cash. And demand for safe assets and cash is exactly how demand side problems develop.

1. Spend more. Either bond financed spending. Or even use money financed spending. And keep doing it until we are out of the zero lower bound. We really could use some extra spending on infrastructure right about now.

2. Ditch the 2% inflation target and go for a 3% or 4% inflation target. And spend until we hit it. And after we hit a 3% or 4% inflation target and are out of the ZLB or liquidity trap, then concentrate on the structural stuff, to include getting our debt/GDP ratio down.

The issue here is that the stimulus wasn't big enough or sustained enough. The fact is that there is plenty of empirical and theoretical support that the fiscal multipliers were well over 1 during the last crises. Both in the US and in Europe And the IMF has admitted that it probably made a mistake in estimating the size of the fiscal multiplier. To suggest that fiscal spending wouldn't have been as effective as it was 80 years ago is pretty much nonsense.

 

There will come a time, when we will have shrink our debt/GDP ratio. If Trump wins and gets his supply side tax cuts, it will be much harder to do, given the GOP's resistance to tax increases. And then plus there is the fact, despite all Trumps populist appeal, his tax cuts will be a key driver of inequality. And the inequality that we had was probably a cause of our economic troubles.

Also, Trump's tax cuts and the long term deficits they will cause will be used as a reason by conservatives to end the American welfare state. I'm not going to play that game.

In the short run, Trump's policies might very well give the US a boost. But for demand side reasons and not supply side reasons. Of course conservatives will claim it to be a supply side miracle.

Plus there is the fact, that I think Trump's long term trade plans are likely to be harmful.

And, well, you know, I just don't want to reward a guy who plays to white resentment.

Probably not, given GOP resistance. But, I am sure in the hell not going to reward the GOP for 8 years of stupidity and ignorance. And I sure in the hell am not going to give the supply side bunch the appearance of a victory. And sure am not going to help Trump lay the foundation for the destruction of the American welfare state and reward people for playing on white resentment.

 

And who is proposing an entire repeal of Dodd-Frank? It's not Clinton.

I'd say a good place to start is actually look at who his policy advisors are. That probably is a good indication of where he intends to go. On the economic front, he mostly has business guys and not many serious academics. The actual people that he has that call themselves economists are clowns. They include the whose whose list of supply side losers like David Malpass, Larry Kudlow, and Stehpen Moore.

Talk about a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem.  We don't need shovel ready infrastructure projects.  The only people who will benefit from that are the low paid illegal immigrants who will flood across the border for it.

You seem to be focusing on tax cuts, since that is what the GOP is known for and is the most likely scenario.  Fair enough.

But IF Trump follows through on his other policies and withdraws from free trade and globalism then you'll see something quite different.  Median wages will go up as factory jobs return.  The stock market will crash, going a long way towards restoring 'equality' between the classes, for whatever that's worth.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Talk about a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem.  We don't need shovel ready infrastructure projects.  The only people who will benefit from that are the low paid illegal immigrants who will flood across the border for it.

You seem to be focusing on tax cuts, since that is what the GOP is known for and is the most likely scenario.  Fair enough.

But IF Trump follows through on his other policies and withdraws from free trade and globalism then you'll see something quite different.  Median wages will go up as factory jobs return.  The stock market will crash, going a long way towards restoring 'equality' between the classes, for whatever that's worth.

There's no reason to think factory jobs will return. None at all. Factory jobs have been disappearing, period. As more work becomes automated and automatable, fewer factories are needed to make more things. That isn't going to change when you force people to make things in the US because costs are so high - all it does is make it more costly to buy that stuff. 

The stock market crashing doesn't improve income inequality because African Americans and the rest of the US. Or hispanics. Income inequality was highest in 2008 during the Great Recession. It has been getting better, not worse, since then. 

[OldGimletEye]

12 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Talk about a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem.  We don't need shovel ready infrastructure projects.  The only people who will benefit from that are the low paid illegal immigrants who will flood across the border for it..

What do you mean by "20th century solution to a 21st century problem". You might think that sounds good. But, its nonsense.

Do you really think there isn't an excessive demand for money and safe assets right now? If not, what is your explanation for the low interest rates and low inflation we're seeing.

And not itsn't true that the only people that would benefit would by "low paid immigrants". Better infastructure would raise the productivity of everyone. Plus there is the fact it would help us get out of the ZLB which is a problem.

But you know, if you don't want to do infanstructure spending, then there are other ways to issue more safe assets and boost demand, without doing a bunch of supply idiocy.

[Red Hermit]

3 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

But IF Trump follows through on his other policies and withdraws from free trade and globalism then you'll see something quite different.  Median wages will go up as factory jobs return.  

Despite all of Trump's railing against trade I just don't see it happening.  I think he is just cynically exploiting this issue to hammer the competition.  I think if we are lucky the worst that will happen from a Trump presidency are tax cuts that mostly benefit the rich combined with medicare/social security cuts that screw over post-Boomer generations.  

[Seli]

2 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

So board liberals and/or rational people, how panicked are you, on a scale from one to "I can feel the No-God has arisen," about the latest poll results?

Not from the US, so I the apocalypse will be a bit delayed over here. But not too worried just yet. The poll reporting seems to match a media need for a horserace rather than the fundamentals. And of course the current closer polls are as likely to have a positive effect (on eg voter turnout and 3rd party voting) as not.

[Shryke]

On the debate, Trump's big problem is gonna be controlling himself. No matter how much he preps and no matter how tilted the expectations are, the truth is that everyone who's worked with Trump, including leaks from his advisors like this week, is that he's undisciplined and flighty and can't concentrate. You know, kinda like a child.

Whatever plan he has going in, I'm generally expecting him to go off script fairly quickly. He can't help himself.

[Shryke]

18 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

Ahem.

No Republican candidate

Heh

The best commentary I heard on the whole opposition to Trump and why it collapsed was some journalist I think who said basically that the problem with #NeverTrump was they couldn't admit that it meant #SoThisOneTimeClinton.

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Whatever plan he has going in, I'm generally expecting him to go off script fairly quickly. He can't help himself.

Let us hope so.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

Just now, Kalbear said:

There's no reason to think factory jobs will return. None at all. Factory jobs have been disappearing, period. As more work becomes automated and automatable, fewer factories are needed to make more things. That isn't going to change when you force people to make things in the US because costs are so high - all it does is make it more costly to buy that stuff. 

The stock market crashing doesn't improve income inequality because African Americans and the rest of the US. Or hispanics. Income inequality was highest in 2008 during the Great Recession. It has been getting better, not worse, since then. 

The factory jobs would return because it would no longer be economical to outsource production overseas.  Automation might continue to reduce some factory jobs, but that would be offset by new jobs created from factories overseas no longer supplying the US.

Inequality would be reduced because much of the wealth concentrated at the top is in the stock market.  Lowering that value brings the top 1% closer to the bottom 99%. 

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

What do you mean by "20th century solution to a 21st century problem". Do you really think there isn't an excessive demand for money and safe assets right now? If not, what is your explanation for the low interest rates and low inflation were seeing.

And not itsn't true that the only people that would benefit would by "low paid immigrants". Better infastructure would raise the productivity of everyone. Plus there is the fact it would help us get out of the ZLB which is a problem.

The point isn't to increase productivity, it's to create long term sustainable jobs.  Making people more productive doesn't spread the wealth out.  As for low interest rates, the explanation is that the FED is artificially keeping the stock market inflated in the hopes that it will inspire confidence in the economy.  Unfortunately, it hasn't really been working and cash is still being hoarded in businesses.  And that tap dance is about to come to an end when the bubble bursts.

[all swedes are racist]

1 hour ago, Guy Kilmore said:

Which is cowardly and I truly fear for our nation that our media will not even be willing to challenge misinformation.  

You can watch their shit live streaming on their website

[OldGimletEye]

9 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

The point isn't to increase productivity, it's to create long term sustainable jobs.  

Its kind of hard to create jobs when there is a lot of demand side slack, that is persistent.

9 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

  As for low interest rates, the explanation is that the FED is artificially keeping the stock market inflated in the hopes that it will inspire confidence in the economy.  

What do you mean by "artifically keeping...". If the FED were to tighten what do you think would happen? Deflation maybe? That wouldn't be good. And no it isn't trying to inspire "artificial confidence". It's keep rates low to encourage nominal spending.

9 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Unfortunately, it hasn't really been working and cash is still being hoarded in businesses. 

Because at the zero lower bound cash and bonds become perfect substitutes. Monetary policy loses its traction at the ZLB. That is why fiscal spending becomes necessary. That or maybe you raise inflation expectations.

9 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Unfortunately, it hasn't really been working and cash is still being hoarded in businesses.  And that tap dance is about to come to an end when the bubble bursts.

Tell us about the bubble bursting after WW2. Tell us about the bubble bursting after Volcker eased up on the FED funds rate during the 1980s.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

3 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

The factory jobs would return because it would no longer be economical to outsource production overseas.  Automation might continue to reduce some factory jobs, but that would be offset by new jobs created from factories overseas no longer supplying the US.

Inequality would be reduced because much of the wealth concentrated at the top is in the stock market.  Lowering that value brings the top 1% closer to the bottom 99%. 

The point isn't to increase productivity, it's to create long term sustainable jobs.  Making people more productive doesn't spread the wealth out.  As for low interest rates, the explanation is that the FED is artificially keeping the stock market inflated in the hopes that it will inspire confidence in the economy.  Unfortunately, it hasn't really been working and cash is still being hoarded in businesses.  And that tap dance is about to come to an end when the bubble bursts.

There's already a lot of manufacturing in this country. Manufacturing outputs been going up for more than a decade (typing on my phone, but I'll try to find a cite if you want later), but manufacturing jobs haven't.

it just how things work now. Manufacturing jobs are good, but their mostly about programming CNC mills and process optimization than about riveting a bolt or running a lathe.

[mormont]

18 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

But IF Trump follows through on his other policies and withdraws from free trade and globalism then you'll see something quite different. 

You will.

You'll see a complete collapse of the economy.

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

The factory jobs would return because it would no longer be economical to outsource production overseas.  Automation might continue to reduce some factory jobs, but that would be offset by new jobs created from factories overseas no longer supplying the US.

Again, the issue is not that the production has been outsourced overseas. It is that the production has been outsourced to automation. People just aren't working on factory lines like they were in the 50s. Those jobs aren't coming back; they simply don't exist any more. 

10 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Inequality would be reduced because much of the wealth concentrated at the top is in the stock market.  Lowering that value brings the top 1% closer to the bottom 99%. 

This is both inaccurate and meaningless. Again, when the stock had its largest drop in 3 decades and markets  crashed all around, we had the biggest overall inequality in the US history. As stock market prices have recovered some, we're actually having more equality. There is simply no correlation here. 

Furthermore, you're assuming that inequality is expressed by how much money is concentrated at the 1%, which isn't the case. The magnitude of a few billionaires isn't going to matter. It's overall wealth. And when 99% of the populace loses far more than the billionaires do, overall inequality increases.