U.S. Politics 2016: The Mayans Were Only Off By 1418 Days

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

Hey, how can I make this screwup worse? I know, I'll publicly remind everyone about all the weapons we sell to Taiwan! China will love that!

I don't know if I would characterize this as a screwup.  One of his only promises was to confront China and, well, this is certainly an unprecedented way to get their attention.  Even if I loathe the phone-call method and especially the fact our president elect is using fucking twitter to engage in sensitive "diplomacy," that's our brave new world.  Abandoning our pretense on Taiwan is refreshing in a way - now we get to watch when it blows up in his face as the opposition.

[mormont]

If it wasn't a screwup he wouldn't be trying to explain it away.

Someone called him to congratulate him and his ego took over. Simple as that.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

If it wasn't a screwup he wouldn't be trying to explain it away.

Someone called him to congratulate him and his ego took over. Simple as that.

Is it likely he didn't know WTF he was doing when he accepted the call?  Totally.  So, sure, in that way my response was cavalier.  But, I maintain the tweet you posted was not compounding the screwup but rather capitalizing on it in his own way.

[polishgenius]

36 minutes ago, mormont said:

If it wasn't a screwup he wouldn't be trying to explain it away.

Someone called him to congratulate him and his ego took over. Simple as that.

I have no doubt that he didn't do it entirely on purpose but I see no signs of him trying to explain it away here.

Anyway I'd rather it was done by someone competent and not a malicious goon who's simultaneously cosying up to other authoritarian regimes, but I have no problem, in principle, with the US fucking off China's demands on the recognition of Taiwan, and he's not wrong that it's ridiculous that America can trade arms and all sorts with them but not talk to their president. It's the kind of silly absurd game that is one of the things that make  people not trust politicians (see also: Obama's inability to refer to the Armenian genocide as a genocide while in office, despite it being perfectly clear that this is how he sees it). It's playground games at an international level.

[mormont]

57 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I have no doubt that he didn't do it entirely on purpose but I see no signs of him trying to explain it away here.

'Justify it', then, if you prefer.

The games we're talking about are the stuff of diplomacy. This isn't about policy but about how policy can most effectively be enacted. Trump isn't even in office but he's blundering around like, well, like an arrogant novice, which is what he is.

[OldGimletEye]

Greg Mankiw is an economist usually associated with the Republican Party. Interestingly enough, he didn't endorse Trump. Probably because he wants to retain his academic credibility.

His comments on trade:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/upshot/want-to-rev-up-the-economy-dont-worry-about-the-trade-deficit.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Quote

American imports have exceeded exports by about $500 billion a year. Mr. Navarro and Mr. Ross argue that if better policies eliminated this “trade deficit drag,” gross domestic product would be higher and more people would be employed.

That conclusion is correct, but only in a superficial sense. Gross domestic product is, by definition, the sum of consumption spending, investment spending, government purchases and the net exports of goods and services. If net exports rose from their current negative value to zero, and the other three components stayed the same, domestic production would increase and, consequently, so should employment.

I'd quibble with Mankiw in so far as: I don't think the US has all the high investment projects to absorb the excess savings from China and the other countries of Asia. Said excessive savings drives down the natural rate of interest too low, making the ability of monetary policy to fight future recessions more difficult.

We need China to become better Communist. They are not very good ones right now. If they end up providing better safety nets for their people, things like social security, that would drain away some of that excessive savings.

That said, I don't think getting into a pissing contest with China over trade, long term, is particularly wise. For one, I think the Chinese realize they need to have more consumption spending. Also, as China continues to grow wealthier, I wouldn't be surprised to see the people there demand better safety nets. Also, I'm pretty sure that consumption spending will rise there as they become better off.

Longer term, I don't see a trade war beneficial between the US and China as being beneficial to either country.

If Trump wants to build some infrastructure projects, that doesn't involve privatization of public assets, then fine. Borrow the money, while it's cheap largely because the large savings in China and other Asian countries. Once that is done, he should maybe to try to nudge China to do more consumption spending. But getting into a long term protectionist trade war with China probably isn't in either countries longer term interest.

[TrackerNeil]

8 hours ago, Castel said:

So, Ser Scot's nightmare may be coming true and Democrats -at least some party insiders- may planning to turn the One Ring on its master:

I mean, the Democrats are probably far weaker than the GOP at the time and can't pull off major shenanigans(and the elected officials have put the brakes on that), the story really is mainly interesting to me cause I thought "Ser Scot would hate this"

Yeah, I don't know if Democratic voters are going to relish this sort of skullduggery the way Republican voters do, but I agree that it's time for media to be less civil. To paraphrase Tess Rafferty, we no longer live in Polite America; we live in "Grab 'Em by the Pussy" America. 

[OldGimletEye]

Yes, Trump adviser David Malpass is a blithering idiot.

Malpass is obsessed with a strong dollar. Why? I have no frickin idea.

Probably, because, in his mind, that is the way Ronnie did it!!!

But, the strong dollar under Reagan was mostly likely because of the fiscal deficits caused by Reagan's  tax cuts and ramp upped military spending. In short, it was the result of Reagan's fiscal choices.

Quote

One of the big questions going into 2017 is how resilient the global economy will be to a further strengthening of the dollar. The Trump shock and the Fed's desire to raise interest rates almost guarantee a strengthening of the dollar next year. Unfortunately, this is not the best time for a surging dollar since the global economy is ripe with dollar-denominated debt and anemic growth. 

http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2016/12/can-global-economy-survive-stronger.html

David Malpass: Just another example of Trump not telling the truth when he said he'd get the "best people".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Castel,

Why would I hate that story?  After more than a year of vociferously denouncing Trump do you have the mistaken impression that I think his presidency will be anything less than an absolute disaster?

I'm polite but I'm not stupid.  The US has been moving to a place, politically, where I am extremely uncomfortable for quite some time.  I prefer politeness and civility.  I prefer calm reasoned engagement with people with whom I disagree.  Unfortunately, years of reality TV screaming matches and the elevation of emotion over reason seems to have inculcated themselves in the political classes.  As such I don't believe the appeals to emotion are going to disappear overnight and I can certainly understand Trump opponents co-opting his methodology to use against him.

It is simply something I will choose not to do.

[Ormond]

It's unclear to me whether or not what the Brock group is planning is "skullduggery" in any way.

However, this part of the quote:

Other left-leaning groups, including the Center for American Progress, are looking into ways of holding Trump accountable for his job-creating campaign promises — possibly by disseminating reports on the president’s record directly to voters and media into swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan that swung surprisingly to Trump.

...seems like a great idea to me. Why is disseminating reports to voters about things the President has done that your side disagrees with "skullduggery" or even necessarily "impolite"? 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm polite but I'm not stupid.  The US has been moving to a place, politically, where I am extremely uncomfortable for quite some time.  I prefer politeness and civility.  I prefer calm reasoned engagement with people with whom I disagree.  Unfortunately, years of reality TV screaming matches and the elevation of emotion over reason seems to have entrenched themselves in the political classes.  As such I don't believe the appeals to emotion are going to disappear overnight and I can certainly understand Trump opponents co-opting his methodology to use against him.

You know, I too would rather have reasoned discourse. I would rather have a civil discourse.

But, when one side. the Republican Party feels like it can just saying anything and continually does it, I just lose my patience.

I'm not wanting to hammer somebody just because I disagree with them. I do believe that reasonable minds can disagree.

But, for years, the Republican Party has been saying things that isn't even remotely ball park reasonable. Whether were talking about people's birth certificates, people's emails, or whoppers about the ACA.

I've lost my patience with them. And when, they go off in left field, I'm not inclined to be nice about it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Ormond said:

It's unclear to me whether or not what the Brock group is planning is "skullduggery" in any way.

However, this part of the quote:

Other left-leaning groups, including the Center for American Progress, are looking into ways of holding Trump accountable for his job-creating campaign promises — possibly by disseminating reports on the president’s record directly to voters and media into swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan that swung surprisingly to Trump.

...seems like a great idea to me. Why is disseminating reports to voters about things the President has done that your side disagrees with "skullduggery" or even necessarily "impolite"? 

Clearing quote.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

You know, I too would rather have reasoned discourse. I would rather have a civil discourse.

But, when one side. the Republican Party feels like it can just saying anything and continually does it, I just lose my patience.

I'm not wanting to hammer somebody just because I disagree with them. I do believe that reasonable minds can disagree.

But, for years, the Republican Party has been saying things that isn't even remotely ball park reasonable. Whether were talking about people's birth certificates, people's emails, or whoppers about the ACA.

I've lost my patience with them. And when, they go off in left field, I'm not inclined to be nice about it.

OGE,

I get where you are coming from.  I simply do not want to become what I oppose in the course of opposing it.

[Castel]

32 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Castel,

Why would I hate that story?  After more than a year of vociferously denouncing Trump do you have the mistaken impression that I think his presidency will be anything less than an absolute disaster?

I'm polite but I'm not stupid.  The US has been moving to a place, politically, where I am extremely uncomfortable for quite some time.  I prefer politeness and civility.  I prefer calm reasoned engagement with people with whom I disagree.  Unfortunately, years of reality TV screaming matches and the elevation of emotion over reason seems to have inculcated themselves in the political classes.  As such I don't believe the appeals to emotion are going to disappear overnight and I can certainly understand Trump opponents co-opting his methodology to use against him.

It is simply something I will choose not to do.

Cause we've had multiple discussions here where you've expressed the hope that the Democrats don't play this game? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Castel said:

Cause we've had multiple discussions here where you've expressed the hope that the Democrats don't play this game? 

Hope is one thing.  Reality is something else.  I don't like it but I understand it.  I and do argue against courses of action without "hating" what I'm arguing against.  

[Castel]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

Yeah, I don't know if Democratic voters are going to relish this sort of skullduggery the way Republican voters do, but I agree that it's time for media to be less civil. To paraphrase Tess Rafferty, we no longer live in Polite America; we live in "Grab 'Em by the Pussy" America. 

Democrats seem to have started losing patience with the media around the time of Matt Lauer and his forum. They may be gaining their own taste for blood.

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Hope is one thing.  Reality is something else.

Unfortunately, yes.

[Commodore]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I wonder if they realise that the govt bringing jobs back to America REQUIRES either crony capitalism OR socialism. Free market capitalism is the reason why jobs went overseas in the first place. How does one propose to use the same economic approach to do the exact opposite of what it has been doing for decades?

The argument is that government carrots (i.e. wealth transfers to corporations) are needed to bring jobs back, but why not start with removing government sticks?

Like the highest corporate tax rate in the first world for starters. 

Repeal Dodd-Frank

Audit the regulatory agencies and remove regs that create the highest barrier to entry for new job creation. 

Divest from federal land ownership and make more available for development. 

The Carrier deal is awful. Best spin that can be put on it is that it gives Trump a short term political win to make bigger changes like those I mentioned.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

13 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Not really. It has been very rare for a president to last a single term in the US. Especially in modern times. 

Including Obama, only fourteen Presidents have served two full terms.

[OldGimletEye]

51 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Like the highest corporate tax rate in the first world for starters. 

Highest statutory or effective tax rate?

Also, you know when you do free trade, some jobs are going to disappear. That's what trade models say. We ought not act shocked when that happens.

The issue here, in my view, is about the adjustment of labor markets and what we're going to do about it when those jobs disappear.

51 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Repeal Dodd-Frank

LOL. No. What a piece of conservative and libertarian bullshit.  

Haven't we learned that financial crises are extremely costly?

Like we haven't learned this lesson after 8 years?  

And their is little evidence that Dodd-Frank has lowered lending by banks. And even if it did, it might be worth doing so to prevent extremely costly financial crises.

Looks like "The Party of Business" strikes again.

[SerHaHa]

Ser Scott -
 

Quote

 

That's a perfect example of taking a few extremists and claiming their actions apply to the entire group.  If you support Trump is that really a method that should appeal to you?

 

Right, sort of like a couple dozen idiots doing the Nazi/Roman salute, which = the entire Alt Right movement is filled with Nazis.  How is it a "few extremist" when the specific examples I gave were leaders of the BLM movement, particularly their treatment of Sanders at HIS rally, which they tried to use threats of violence, and actual violent lunging/screaming/etc, to get what the wanted.  Hundreds and thousands chanting "we want dead cops".  That's not a "few extremist", but nice attempt at moving those goalposts, the hallmark of the left.

I don't support Trump, I support Ron Paul and any other libertarian which believes in actual liberty and freedom, not some social justice censorship BS propaganda house of lies.