US Elections 2016: Why we can't have nice things

[IheartIheartTesla]

Compared to the last poll, there was a 5 point ish shift in the NBC/WSJ poll, but also about half the LVs (from about 900 to 450). Its also a single poll, so we'll have to be a bit patient to see movement. 

Also, what's all this I hear on the internet about Trump saying far, far worse during The Apprentice? There are some rumors he used the N-word but its going to be $5 million to obtain the tapes. Probably just something put out there by surrogates, like the "hate whitey" stuff that Michelle Obama allegedly was supposed to have said. Its just that we have been primed to think the worst of Trump that my first instinct was, "he must have said that stuff"

[OldGimletEye]

Quote

As the world’s finance ministers and central bank governors came together in Washington last week for their annual global financial convocation, the mood was sombre. The spectre of secular stagnation and inadequate economic growth on the one hand and ascendant populism and global disintegration on the other led to widespread apprehension. Unlike in 2008 when the post-Lehman crisis was a preoccupation or 2011 and 2012 when the possibility of the collapse of the euro system concentrated minds, there was no imminent crisis.

http://larrysummers.com/2016/10/09/voters-sour-on-traditional-economic-policy/

I think looking back on this, the US had significant economies of scale in the production of financial assets. Places like China sold us shoes, and we sold them financial assets. We sold them financial assets because were better at producing them.

That's what drove our current account deficits in large part.

The demand for safe financial assets likely contributed to the financial crash because Wall Street represented to foreign investors that MBS were safe stores of value, which we know they weren't.

It also accounts for some distributional issues that come along with free trade. In other words, because of economies of scale, free trade was good for people on Wall Street and probably Silicon Valley, but bad for the guy working in a apparel factory in North Carolina. That there would be some distributional issues resulting from free trade shouldn't have been a surprise. Pretty much that is what standard models predict. But, I don't think there was much discussion about that issue when these deals went into effect. And certainly, I think we underestimated the time and ease of labor market adjustments. See Autor for example.

In my view, the appropriate way to deal with free trade is to let the pie grow bigger and then redistribute the pie and not give a flyin fuck if somebody says, "golly that sounds like socialism!!!!".

Trump's plans are to basically make the pie grow smaller and then pretend he isn't redistributing income. That way many Americans can feel all libertarianish about themselves. But, the fact of the matter is that his proposed tariffs will distribute income. That's what tariffs do.

But, I can understand why people are pissed about the way things are going, like the guy who used to work in a North Carolina factory making shoes. And, we ought not be to surprised about the rise of Trump. I think we have seen this before.

Like the Great Depression, this current problem has a strong international component. In the Great Depression, the culprit was likely a malfunctioning international gold standard. For the US, FDR solved it, in part, by taking the US off the gold standard. Once FDR took the US off the gold standard, there wasn't any good reason to go back on it, though I'm sure people like Paul Ryan who get their monetary policy ideas from Ayn Rand will disagree.

Unlike the gold standard, I think turning our backs on free trade is not a good idea in the long run.  But, again, there is no doubt that much of the current problems are happening on an international level caused by 1) ageing populations that desire to save more, 2) differences in national financial systems, which are causing savers to buy financial assets in countries that are perceived to produce them more safely and efficiently, and 3) wealth inequality which is constraining worldwide consumption, caused in large part by simplistic neoliberalism that started in the 1980s.. All of these things have helped to drive down interest rates, making monetary policy ineffective.

Rather than facing up to the reality of the situation, the Republican Party decided to sell this story that "well, Obama didn't do it like Ronny did it!!!" and then proceeded to rely on white nationalism and sexism to sell their crap. 

Trump isn't a disease that was randomly inflicted on the Republican Party. He was a symptom of the intellectual dumpster fire that is known as "conservatism". 

[Dr. Pepper]

In case someone wants to feign ignorance again or pretend like what was said wasn't said, I'll remind what the actual quote was re: Trump tossing Clinton in jail:

Hillary: ...It's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.

Trump: Because you would be in jail.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Wow. Just watched the highlights from last night. Starting with Trumps warm up press conference with his cheerleaders. 

I have to ask, was this rockbottom now? 

I mean, it can't get much lower. The next logical step for this election cycle would be, that the last presidential debate contains a swim suit competition, and a mud wrestling match. Or a cannibal cook-off. 

Maybe Howard Stern and Jerry Springer are available to moderate it.

[briantw]

1 minute ago, Notone said:

Wow. Just watched the highlights from last night. Starting with Trumps warm up press conference with his cheerleaders. 

I have to ask, was this rockbottom now? 

I mean, it can't get much lower. The next logical step for this election cycle would be, that the last presidential debate contains a swim suit competition, and a mud wrestling match. Or a cannibal cook-off. 

Maybe Howard Stern and Jerry Springer are available to moderate it.

If what the internet is saying about these Apprentice tapes is true, it sounds like rock bottom for Trump might be significantly lower.

[Tempra]

1 hour ago, Nolendil said:

Well, the polarization of the American voters is what it is. Truth doesn't matter much.

The anger-based tribalism of this election is really fascinating to watch, I doubt there's been anything like it in American history. And while it's unprecedented in the US until now, this kind of tribalistic politics is actually the norm for humanity in most times and places. Is Donald Trump the quiff'd harbinger of doom for the American experiment? Not saying he is, but not saying he isn't.

 

I think the appointment of a special prosecutor is to avoid the appearance of impropriety of one political party prosecuting the other.  Trump could have said that his AG would reopen the investigation and prosecute Clinton.  He didn't say that though.  He said (per the Salon article above):

 

"I’m going to instruct the attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there’s never been so many lies, so much deception.” He continued: “[W]e’re going to get a special prosecutor because people have been, their lives have been destroyed for doing one fifth of what you’ve done.” 

 

Notice that he does not dictate the outcome (i.e. she gets charged).  True, he did say that she would be in jail if he was president.  I am sure he believes she is guilty as large swathes of America do also, but that's also explains why he would appoint a special prosecutor to handle the investigation.

 

As it stands, the Hillary investigation was overseen by a democratic appointee (Comey) and blessed by another (Lynch).  The fact Hillary was part of the Obama administration and the presumptive nominee (at the time) causes many people to question the legitimacy of the investigation.

 

Whether Trump or another president should reopen the investigation is a fair question to ask.  However, insinuating that Trump plans to sidestep the judicial system for the purpose of locking up Hillary is based on the speaker's own bias and not anything Trump said.

 

[butterbumps!]

11 minutes ago, Tempra said:

Whether Trump or another president should reopen the investigation is a fair question to ask.  However, insinuating that Trump plans to sidestep the judicial system for the purpose of locking up Hillary is based on the speaker's own bias and not anything Trump said.

You conveniently cropped out the damaging part of Trump's statements that directly sidestep the judicial system.  Further, Trump's words have been quoted already several times in this thread.  Since it seems you missed it:

Quote

 

(hillary):....."it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” she said.

“Because you would be in jail,” Trump said to Clinton.

 

That is how that exchange about hiring a special prosecutor ended, which you acknowledge, but brush off in your assessment above.  He has already decided she is guilty and will be sent to jail, which is precisely a threat by Trump to abuse his power to sidestep the judicial process.   Unless you would like to maintain that accurately hearing/ reading Trump's own statement is somehow a "speaker's bias?" 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 hours ago, Guess who's back said:

wat

 WHAR?

[Fez]

14 minutes ago, briantw said:

If what the internet is saying about these Apprentice tapes is true, it sounds like rock bottom for Trump might be significantly lower.

If there's anything to be learned from 2016, its that there is no such thing as rock bottom. It can always get deeper, darker, and more unpleasant. And just when you think it can't get any worse, just remember, there could also be a hailstorm.

[DunderMifflin]

I'd just like to say based on what the public knows I don't think either of them should be going to jail.

[Tempra]

12 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

You conveniently cropped out the damaging part of Trump's statements that directly sidestep the judicial system.  Further, Trump's words have been quoted already several times in this thread.  Since it seems you missed it:

That is how that exchange about hiring a special prosecutor ended, which you acknowledge, but brush off in your assessment above.  He has already decided she is guilty and will be sent to jail, which is precisely a threat by Trump to abuse his power to sidestep the judicial process.   Unless you would like to maintain that accurately hearing/ reading Trump's own statement is somehow a "speaker's bias?" 

I didn't conveniently crop anything out, as you concede, because I specifically discuss the jail statement.  I think you (and others) are grossly over reading the import of that statement.

 

Trump could only throw Hillary in jail without due process if overthrows the democracy and installs some form of authoritarian government.  Possible? Sure.  Lots of things are possible.  Can you infer his intent based on those six words: "Because you would be in jail"?  No.  Just no.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 This is gold...

 

He's reached Shia labeouf levels of trolly plagiarism.

[mormont]

Mod note: we will not be discussing the physical appearance of audience members.

2 minutes ago, Tempra said:

I didn't conveniently crop anything out, as you concede, because I specifically discuss the jail statement.  I think you (and others) are grossly over reading the import of that statement.

 

Trump could only throw Hillary in jail without due process if overthrows the democracy and installs some form of authoritarian government.  Possible? Sure.  Lots of things are possible.  Can you infer his intent based on those six words: "Because you would be in jail"?  No.  Just no.

Except that nobody's suggesting the jail statement means he would simply throw her in jail: as I already pointed out, the importance of it is that it hopelessly prejudices any possible legal action. No special prosecutor could be ignorant of the fact that the President who ordered his appointment has publicly stated his belief that the subject of the investigation should be jailed, and it isn't reasonable to expect any special prosecutor in that position not to be influenced by that.

Anyway, in another excellent intervention that nobody voting for Trump will read, Warren Buffet has torn holes in Trump.

 

 

[butterbumps!]

9 minutes ago, Tempra said:

I didn't conveniently crop anything out, as you concede, because I specifically discuss the jail statement.  I think you (and others) are grossly over reading the import of that statement.

 

Trump could only throw Hillary in jail without due process if overthrows the democracy and installs some form of authoritarian government.  Possible? Sure.  Lots of things are possible.  Can you infer his intent based on those six words: "Because you would be in jail"?  No.  Just no.

I'm not "conceding" anything.  I'm saying that you are presenting the exchange in a disingenuous manner, cropping the damning conclusion of the exchange out of the quote you put forward, as though it was somehow not a direct part of the discussion when it so clearly is.

Despite the fact that you acknowledge that Trump says that if he was in charge of the law, Hillary would be in jail, you seem to believe that we are "over-reading" his literal words.  That when he literally threatens to abuse his power by sending her to jail, we're supposed to infer that it's what......just for lulz?   more locker room talk?

And way to move the goal posts.  The issue at hand in this thread discussion wasn't about whether he could actually overthrow the law and indiscriminately jail his political opponents.  It's the fact that he thinks this way-- that he aspires to this is more than problematic enough.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

OK, so let's be clear about what Trump said, then.

He said he'd instruct his AG to appoint a special prosecutor, during a Presidential debate. This would then be a politically motivated and directed prosecution. I don't see that anyone could deny that.

He wants to do this on vague, ill-defined charges, which seem to include a potentially criminal issue that has already been investigated (to no avail) but he also suggested it will be much broader than that. This suggests that he's looking for stuff to charge her with, rather than dealing with a due process of law.

And he publicly stated that it would end with her in jail, completely compromising and literally prejudicing the outcome.

Now, if you're not concerned with that lot and don't consider it to be pretty out there and scary, fine, but lots of us do.

Nor should we be forgetting those terrifying chants at the Rncon of Chris Christie leading the room in howling for HRC's arrest.  They've been on this punishment of rivals since the beginning.

Don't say we're making this stuff up -- we SAW it on television that went out to the entire world.

The whole world is watching.

 

[Kalbear]

Quote

Trump could only throw Hillary in jail without due process if overthrows the democracy and installs some form of authoritarian government.  Possible? Sure.  Lots of things are possible.  Can you infer his intent based on those six words: "Because you would be in jail"?  No.  Just no.

Of course you can infer it. The statement was if Trump were in charge of the law, Clinton would be in jail. This isn't an unclear statement. This isn't a difficult statement to parse. 

If Trump were in charge of the law, Clinton would be in jail. This goes directly to his base, who wants to lock Clinton up. This isn't even coded. 

If Trump were in charge of the law, Clinton would be in jail.

This is much like saying that you can't infer what Trump meant when he said 'you can just grab them in the pussy'. This isn't rocket science here.

Now you're right in that it's possible Trump couldn't effectively do that because of due process laws. That's true. It's also the case that this was going to be one of the charges against Nixon for impeachment, by the way, so it's hugely illegal to do what he even threatened to do. But it's not remotely the case that we can't figure out what his intent was. 

If Trump were in charge of the law, Clinton would be in jail. 

[Tempra]

25 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

I'm not "conceding" anything.  I'm saying that you are presenting the exchange in a disingenuous manner, cropping the damning conclusion of the exchange out of the quote you put forward, as though it was somehow not a direct part of the discussion when it so clearly is.

Despite the fact that you acknowledge that Trump says that if he was in charge of the law, Hillary would be in jail, you seem to believe that we are "over-reading" his literal words.  That when he literally threatens to abuse his power by sending her to jail, we're supposed to infer that it's what......just for lulz?   more locker room talk?

And way to move the goal posts.  The issue at hand in this thread discussion wasn't about whether he could actually overthrow the law and indiscriminately jail his political opponents.  It's the fact that he thinks this way-- that he aspires to this is more than problematic enough.

I didn't move any goal posts.  Trump never said or inferred that he would sidestep the judicial process to jail Clinton.

 

The fact that he believes she would be in jail if he were president (and he appointed a special prosecutor), just reaffirms his belief that she is guilty and the FBI investigation is illegitimate, not that he desires to overthrow the government.

Of course, you're free to believe whatever you want, even if it's batshit crazy.  We don't live a dictatorship afterall.  Not yet, anyways...

 

[OldGimletEye]

27 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Despite the fact that you acknowledge that Trump says that if he was in charge of the law, Hillary would be in jail, you seem to believe that we are "over-reading" his literal words.  That when he literally threatens to abuse his power by sending her to jail, we're supposed to infer that it's what......just for lulz?   more locker room talk?

I love the fact that the crowd that goes running around saying how people "hate their freedom" are willing to elect a guy that thinks he can throw somebody into prison once he gets elected.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

25 minutes ago, mormont said:

Mod note: we will not be discussing the physical appearance of audience members.

Except that nobody's suggesting the jail statement means he would simply throw her in jail: as I already pointed out, the importance of it is that it hopelessly prejudices any possible legal action. No special prosecutor could be ignorant of the fact that the President who ordered his appointment has publicly stated his belief that the subject of the investigation should be jailed, and it isn't reasonable to expect any special prosecutor in that position not to be influenced by that.

Anyway, in another excellent intervention that nobody voting for Trump will read, Warren Buffet has torn holes in Trump.

Wow. Kind of reminds me of GRRM respectfully and politely destroying the Sad Puppies' discourse.

(Although so far it looked as if Donald's campaign was completely impervious to facts, at least from the point of view of a dude observing from ten thousand kilometers away. Trying to hurt Trump with facts was just as ineffective as trying to hurt a dragon with fire).

[butterbumps!]

13 minutes ago, Tempra said:

I didn't move any goal posts.  Trump never said or inferred that he would sidestep the judicial process to jail Clinton.

 

The fact that he believes she would be in jail if he were president (and he appointed a special prosecutor), just reaffirms his belief that she is guilty and the FBI investigation is illegitimate, not that he desires to overthrow the government.

Of course, you're free to believe whatever you want, even if it's batshit crazy.  We don't live a dictatorship afterall.  Not yet, anyways...

 

Well, you did move them.  You started a line of argument about whether it would be possible for Trump to accomplish the goal of jailing political opponents indiscriminately, and made his ability and desire to overthrow the whole democracy a necessary clause.  This is nonsensical and shifting the goal.

but, ok.  So the only way you would acknowledge that Trump threatened to sidestep the law to jail Clinton is if he literally said "I am sidestepping the law to jail Clinton?"   Trump wouldn't believe that any part of this threat is unlawful or undemocratic.  In fact, I'd bet on it, as he's consistently shown a prodigious lack of understanding of due process and law in general.   I think Trump genuinely believes that it is a leader's inalienable right to jail political opposition, in this case, through a kind of legal farce-- that is, tasking a crony to "investigate" Clinton, find her guilty and "lock her up" is exactly something this guy will attempt to do, and wouldn't think he's overthrowing any democracy or laws to do it.