Jump to content

US Politics: Papers, Please


Martell Spy

Recommended Posts

Just found a couple of articles in which Joseph Stiglitz explains why Trump's protectionist policies (combined with the rest of his economic program) will fail and do more harm than anything else, even though he is correct in identifying the negative consequences of globalizaton.
Funnily enough, I can't seem to find the interviews in English (it seems Stiglitz is on a European tour these days) so I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it when I write that he is saying precisely the things a few of us were thinking about Trump's policies.

At some point he says (I'm slightly paraphrasing in my translation): "The consequences of Trump's policies go beyond his understanding of economics."

https://www.letemps.ch/economie/2017/01/13/joseph-stiglitz-politique-macroeconomique-trump-va-detruire-emplois

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2017/02/02/joseph-stiglitz-les-perdants-de-la-mondialisation-seront-les-premieres-victimes-de-trump_5073417_3234.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rippounet said:

Just found a couple of articles in which Joseph Stiglitz explains why Trump's protectionist policies (combined with the rest of his economic program) will fail and do more harm than anything else, even though he is correct in identifying the negative consequences of globalizaton.
Funnily enough, I can't seem to find the interviews in English (it seems Stiglitz is on a European tour these days) so I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it when I write that he is saying precisely the things a few of us were thinking about Trump's policies.

At some point he says (I'm slightly paraphrasing in my translation): "The consequences of Trump's policies go beyond his understanding of economics."

https://www.letemps.ch/economie/2017/01/13/joseph-stiglitz-politique-macroeconomique-trump-va-detruire-emplois

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2017/02/02/joseph-stiglitz-les-perdants-de-la-mondialisation-seront-les-premieres-victimes-de-trump_5073417_3234.html

Those would be interesting reads. Unfortunately, I fell asleep during my French classes. In my defense though, learning to speak English (my only language) was hard enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Those would be interesting reads. Unfortunately, I fell asleep during my French classes. In my defense though, learning to speak English (my only language) was hard enough.

Google translate isn't too bad when it comes to English, I think you shouldn't have a problem with this:
 

Quote

 

Joseph Stiglitz: "Trump's macroeconomic policy will destroy jobs"

The Nobel Prize for Economics warns against the risks of globalization and has defended its losers for years. He does not believe in the measures proposed by Donald Trump, which could even make the situation even more precarious for these populations

The Nobel Prize for Economics 2001 was in Switzerland on Thursday for the Finexus conference at the University of Zurich before going to the Davos Forum. The opportunity to explain the movement of rejection of globalization, one of the predilection themes of the professor at the University of Columbia. He also analyzes the risks posed by the measures promised by Donald Trump.

Time: You have spent years denouncing the dangers of globalization, talking about the increase in inequality and now the most affected populations have been heard by electing Donald Trump, a billionaire who has made In part thanks to globalization. How did we get there?

Joseph Stiglitz: Unfortunately, as economists have predicted, globalization affects some of the workers in developed countries. This could have been avoided through measures to protect them and redistribute profits. Ironically - and there is a lot of irony in the current situation - it was the Republican Party that opposed all the measures proposed by the Democrats to fight the damage of globalization. It is precisely this party that has seen its candidate win over an anti-globalization program. It is truly breathtaking.

- To what extent are Americans affected by globalization?

- The majority of Americans are losers of globalization. The 90% least well-off of the American population have seen their incomes stagnate over the past 25 years. The 30% least well off are even more precarious. The statistics are worrying: life expectancy is decreasing in the United States. Only the most privileged 1% saw their situation improve.

- Is globalization really responsible for everything?

- No, it explains only part of this evolution. Technological advances represent the other part of the explanation. But we're not going to stop them. On the other hand, politicians create the rules of globalization. But they did not stop saying that globalization and financial deregulation would lead to higher incomes. This, while the former exacerbated the slowdowns, the second created the 2008 financial crisis.

- Is protectionism really the solution?

- No. For the United States, it will not work. This is how the economy works: the trade deficit, by definition, is equal to capital inflows. All this is also equal to the difference between domestic savings and domestic investment. As Donald Trump wants to lower taxes and increase spending, the government deficit will increase, so national savings will decline. To make this possible, it will be necessary to borrow money abroad, so the trade deficit will have to increase.

- Why is this a problem?

- It is even the heart of the problem: the dollar will appreciate, which will make the United States less competitive and will directly affect the populations whose Donald Trump said to defend. It must be clear: its macroeconomic policies will have far more impact than its rhetoric on a few companies, such as Carrier or Ford, who have changed their plans. We are talking about a few hundred jobs, which will not change much. On the other hand, macroeconomic policy will destroy far more jobs. In addition, our automotive sector would not be competitive without Mexico. All this is dusty. If the government seriously decides to repatriate auto production in the United States, prices should increase, prices also, and not only with regard to China, also European cars. But that goes beyond his ability to understand the economy. And he has not, at least for the moment, appointed an economic adviser who can explain it to him. He has chosen people who are able to enter into agreements but do not have a complete picture of how the economy works. But these are two different things.

- The market has responded rather well to his appointment, why?

- I think it's a short-term reaction. The market has focused on tax cuts. He was perhaps worried that Hillary Clinton would raise taxes and make them more progressive to fight inequalities.

- Can Donald Trump really impose taxes on the imports he has announced?

- American law, in many cases, reserves special powers to the president. But in an emergency only. And no one can defend the idea that we are in an emergency today that would justify their use. If Donald Trump did it anyway, it would be pursued and it is likely that any instance will block its initiatives. In addition, there are bureaucratic procedures that are biased: in many cases they would allow for tariffs, but it could not simply impose 45% taxes on Chinese imports. It should do so on a product-by-product basis, justifying dumping or countervailing measures.

- What is the risk that this will lead to a trade war?

- That's almost certain. Nevertheless, we can hope that China will be smart enough not to react. Ironically, we would end up with China defending international law and the United States behaving like a rogue state. The international order after the Second World War worked reasonably well, with a minimum of mutual respect, and Donald Trump promises to destroy it all.

- The dissatisfaction of the voters is likely to manifest itself also in Europe where several elections will be held this year, in Germany and France, in particular, is it worrying you?

- Each of the elections in Europe has its own characteristics. However, the case of France, with Marine Le Pen, worries me the most. It appeals to a significant part of the population, whereas the traditional parties have not yet succeeded in presenting a candidate who can stand up to him. The one on the right proposes an economic program which corresponds to a reversal and is very conservative on social values. The left does not succeed in showing a united front. This is a year that could be politically explosive. The world would need a stronger Europe to defend the international order.

And since Stiglitz mentions Le Pen, I'll add my own two cents here: though she's ahead in the polls (reaching 26-27% now), ironically her chances of winning the election are actually slightly less than before because the best potential runner-up (who is now center-left Macron instead of conservative Fillon) is significantly more popular than she is. It's the magic of the two-round system: it's not enough to be ahead in the first round, you also need the right opponent to win the second one. Fingers crossed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A really long but really eye-opening HuffPo read about the ever-widening ripples of the alt-right white nationalist movement within the current political stream :  "My Journey to the Center of the Alt-Right"  http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/alt-right/

It was published a few days prior to the election so isn't diving too deeply into the Bannon connection; however, it does touch on Breitbart / Milo / Spencer along with the other darlings of the stormfront.   The level of even the pre-election influence is chilling, and I've no doubt that it's only grown since.   I mean, as a collective they considered Trump as "80% woke", and he wasn't even President Trump yet.   Saying that their sway and impact is minor due to small numbers organizationally is pretty disingenuous.

 

On a different note, there's this going on in Denver right now.   Damn those foreign-soil Muslim terrorists that we let cross our borders and kill our citizens!    Oh, wait....

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/man-shot-dead-near-union-station

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/02/rtd-shooter-homeland-security-report/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I thought this was a fairly interesting read about him:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/

 I got like halfway through this and had to bail. Anyone who's that self-important had better be really talented, and he's just not. The Dangerous Faggot Tour? Really? Are you dangerous, Milo? Lulz. A troll strategy he outlines about 6 paragraphs in is straight "Trolling for Dummies" material. It's the old "I was just joking, you can't take a joke" tact that is used by 10 year olds everywhere. He rebrands it as the "double down, don't back down" strategy and claims that he invented it. Delusional twit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Whoever claims to be in control of the region -- either the university or the municipality or, if they know they can't handle it, then the state. This is a crucial part of the social contract: the monopoly on violence must protect all lawful activity from violence. If it fails to do that, then sooner or later people will start protecting themselves. In this example, one of these conservative speakers will bring along some well-armed friends who, unlike the police, really want to escalate the situation. This has happened before in other countries and nobody wants to see it here.

Like at Donald Trump rallies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, mormont said:

Why would that matter?

 

Because we were specifically talking about people who self identified as alt right, maybe?

 

Quote

Have you been on social media lately? Everyone is doing it. Milo just has better media connections.

I have seen nothing on my facebook feed that even remotely resembles what he is saying and doing.

Comparing people posting on Facebook to being comparable to what he is doing is, in the favorite jargon of the left recently, a complete and total false equivalency.  I don't think joe dipshit you went to high school with has turned his facebook posting into a lucrative career and national name recognition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rippounet said:

Google translate isn't too bad when it comes to English, I think you shouldn't have a problem with this:
 

And since Stiglitz mentions Le Pen, I'll add my own two cents here: though she's ahead in the polls (reaching 26-27% now), ironically her chances of winning the election are actually slightly less than before because the best potential runner-up (who is now center-left Macron instead of conservative Fillon) is significantly more popular than she is. It's the magic of the two-round system: it's not enough to be ahead in the first round, you also need the right opponent to win the second one. Fingers crossed.

 

Thanks for the translation. On Le Pen. I think there is one thing she is right about. And that is the Euro. I think it's been a complete disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Week said:

Like at Donald Trump rallies.

Yes, like the one in Chicago. The stuff in the US has been civil so far in the sense that there is property damage and occasional light injuries, but nobody has been killed or even seriously injured yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

Has Bannon self identified as a member of the alt right?

 

"We're [i.e., Breitbart News is] the platform for the alt-right,' Bannon told me proudly when I interviewed him at the Republican National Convention". http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-alt-right-breitbart-news

 

I know that he doesn't explicitly say he's alt-right in that quote, but if you're proud of running the Alt-Right's main platform I don't see a need to look any further.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Because we were specifically talking about people who self identified as alt right, maybe?

Where was self-identification mentioned and why would or should it matter?

Besides, it's fairly well established that Breitbart became the mouth-piece of the alt-right under his direction ... so I don't think I understand your nitpick here. (see LoR above)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Samantha Stark said:

Perhaps instead it can be acknowledged instead that not everyone on the right is a racist? The left has made identify politics IT'S bread and butter.

No not everyone on the right is racist. But it's also true not everyone on the right is just "a principled conservative".

As far as "identity politics" goes: I think the right is truly the master player at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said:

Perhaps instead it can be acknowledged instead that not everyone on the right is a racist? The left has made identify politics IT'S bread and butter.

Sure, that's true. At this point though I think it's fair to say if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. So far the Bannon Administration has instituted a Muslim Ban, failed to mention Jews in a holocaust remembrance announcement, Made MLK's struggles akin to his own, removed white-supremacists as targets of a counter-terrorism program, etc, etc. 

 

 I think he's a duck.

 

/Duck = White Supremacist  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said:

Perhaps instead it can be acknowledged instead that not everyone on the right is a racist? The left has made identify politics IT'S bread and butter.

Right, because talking about how you really prefer having lovers of a particular skin color is a sign of how you're not a racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure, that's true. At this point though I think it's fair to say if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. So far the Bannon Administration has instituted a Muslim Ban, failed to mention Jews in a holocaust remembrance announcement, Made MLK's struggles akin to his own, removed white-supremacists as targets of a counter-terrorism program, etc, etc. 

 

 I think he's a duck.

 

/Duck = White Supremacist  

I did some googling and the definition of white supremacist that I've found involves believing white people are superior to other races, and should have political control over other races. Do you genuinely see no other explanation for Bannon's actions than a belief that white people are superior to other races and should rule them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said:

Perhaps instead it can be acknowledged instead that not everyone on the right is a racist?

We're not talking about everyone on the right, we're talking about Milo Yiannopoulos. He is racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I did some googling and the definition of white supremacist that I've found involves believing white people are superior to other races, and should have political control over other races. Do you genuinely see no other explanation for Bannon's actions than a belief that white people are superior to other races and should rule them?

Bannon doesn't want to rule "the others."  He wants them out.   Technically, he's more of a white nationalist than a supremacist, at least in terms of policy he's hoping to shape.   He advocates for a culturally "pure" nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Bannon doesn't want to rule "the others."  He wants them out.   Technically, he's more of a white nationalist than a supremacist, at least in terms of policy he's hoping to shape.   He advocates for a culturally "pure" nation.

Are the differences between a Nazi and a white supremacist, on the one hand, and someone who favours strong and ethnically/religious selective immigration, on the other, really only technical?

We know that Bannon subscribes to something like Huntingdon's clash of civilizations when it comes to the west and Islam. This is not necessarily anything to do with white nationalism. He is also against mass immigration of non-white people on grounds of national/social cohesion (based on comments to Trump about the Asian execs) so I won't quibble with the white nationalism charge but I'm not sure it is the most accurate way to categorize him. I don't think he is a guy who prizes 'racial purity' or anything like that. What do you think he means by culturally 'pure' nation, is this actually a phrase he used?

Anyway, it seems there is a lot of jumping to conclusions around here.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nancy-pelosi-steve-bannon-white-supremacist-muslim-travel-ban-donald-trump-islam-breitbart-a7560031.html

This article labels Bannon a white supremacist purely on the basis of the Muslim ban. The Muslim ban is in intent defensive, it is based on the idea that allowing Islamic enclaves to grow in your nation has all sorts of ill effects including the erosion of important freedoms, adoption of undesirable Islamic practices, home grown terrorism and a loss of identity. Or, at least I assume that is Bannon's reasoning, because it is not the official explanation. It is based on observation of what happens in Muslim majority countries and in European countries where the Muslim populations are larger (as a % of the pop) than is the case in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...