U.S. Politics: Alabama Jones and the Template of Doom

[Martell Spy]

A battle rap, "Net Neutrality", by Dan Bull

https://genius.com/Dan-bull-net-neutrality-lyrics

[Morpheus]

People who take Ayn Rand seriously should be viewed the same as people who take L Ron Hubbard seriously.

[Rippounet]

9 minutes ago, S John said:

Honestly, the debates I have encountered on this elsewhere on the internet, I don't think many of the conservatives actually understand the issue.  Likely older folks, who discovered the issue and their stance on on it on a foxnews or breitbart perusal.  

I've seen a few that do and say that they "can afford to pay." Weird. But at least those ones stand by their principles (i.e. their belief in laissez-faire economics, even knowing what it entails).
Also, some people believe that they will pay less if they don't use streaming services. That's wishful thinking in my book.

Generally speaking, it's an issue that's interesting because I would have thought that even die-hard conservatives would have been able to see that the regulation in question helped them.
But as you say, there is an incredible hatred of liberals and Obama that blinds them to what is happening.
There's also an irrational faith in the market and laissez-faire. I've even seen some people say that government and progressive taxes are basically evil since the market correctly values each person's work and there is no need for wealth redistribution.
It's rather scary to realize how different the worlds we live in are. I have zero faith in the market, in corporations, or ISPs. I'd trust the Chinese or the Soviet government with my welbeing before I trust people whose main goal is to make profits.

And on that note, there was a recent article by Branko Milanovic explaining why economic inequality is incompatible with democracy. I found an older version in English here:
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/may/02/higher-inequality-move-away-from-democracy-branko-milanovic-big-data

What is painful in my eyes is that by the time ISPs actively profit from this (in other words, by the time they raise their prices for some services), Trump will probably be out of office and most of these people will find a way to blame the Democrats for it.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Rippounet said:

On the economic front, the Trump facebook feed is celebrating what they call the "Trump economic miracle."

Trump is gone through life being a bullshit artist. I mean he's the type of guy that believes if you hype something up enough people will believe it. While, that's probably not exactly wrong, because as they say, a sucker is born every minute, where he goes massively wrong is that he buys into his own bullshit. He actually believes his own crap because that is how stupid he is.

 

23 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Apparently the Schiller CAPE is very worrying right now. I'm not sure I really understand it ; I believe what it means is that the valuation of shares is artifically high right now, meaning that there is at least one bubble somewhere that is about to burst.

The CAPE is basically a P/E ratio. Theoretically, a equity should equal the discounted value of of its earnings. If P is too high, then that is some indication that equities are overvalued. While I respect Shiller a lot as he's done a lot of important empirical work to show that assets are often are not priced according to their rational expectations rational valuation equilibrium, I don't think the stock market is too overvalued right now. I mean it is somewhat, and were certainly headed for a correction, and I don't know when, if I did I'd get really rich. But, I think it will happen, but will be rather mild.

But anyway, the valuation of the stock market has a lot to do with the fact that the natural real rate is low and because corporate profits are high, likely due to their market or monopoly power. Trump had nothing to do with those two factors. But, I'm sure he will try to claim credit for the stock market. But, really in my view the high valuations of the stock market have to do with two factors that aren't particularly good, which is the low natural interest rate and the concentration of market power by corporations. 

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Sword of Doom said:

Republicans are okay with censorship, especially if they can outsource the job of censorship to the private sector and make a profit from it. 

 

Yeah, when it comes to this issue, they talk out of their asses a lot.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

As far as hiding one's true beliefs goes, the one I've always laughed at is Paul Ryan professing his religiosity while also saying that Ayn Rand is was his favorite political philosopher 

I’ve always had a fondness in my little ol’ heart for Ayn Rand Christians.

Quote

And I can confirm that he used to make his staffers read Atlas Shrugged. My buddy had to. He said it was one of the worst books he's ever read.  

Yeah, she was a horrible writer.

[Rippounet]

19 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

While I respect Shiller a lot as he's done a lot of important empirical work to show that assets are often are not priced according to their rational expectations rational valuation equilibrium, I don't think the stock market is too overvalued right now. I mean it is somewhat, and were certainly headed for a correction, and I don't know when, if I did I'd get really rich. But, I think it will happen, but will be rather mild.

Ok, thanks for the explanation.
I've read quite a few articles listing several worrying trends though:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/what-will-cause-the-next-financial-crisis-2017-9/#italys-unstable-political-and-economic-situation-1
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/10-year-anniversary-banking-crash-recession-where-will-next-one-come-from-a7886481.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-v-micallef/europes-next-financial-cr_b_10315364.html

There's no doubt a bit of fearmongering going on. But even with my limited knowledge of economic matters I can see some worries seem legitimate. Like this one:

Quote

Perhaps the most worrying risk is that governments around the world are now unable to cope with any downturn, meaning a recession could quickly snowball into a major crisis.

Because the thing is, the ECB doesn't exactly have a great record of dealing with crises. I can easily see a relatively minor crisis snowballing in Europe.

Quote

Trump had nothing to do with those two factors. But, I'm sure he will try to claim credit for the stock market.

He already is.
https://i62.servimg.com/u/f62/11/35/07/06/trump10.jpg

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Because the thing is, the ECB doesn't exactly have a great record of dealing with crises. I can easily see a relatively minor crisis snowballing in Europe.

What is worrying here is that in most countries the natural rate of interest is extremely low. So it doesn't take long before a Central Bank hits the Zero Lower Bound meaning it's extremely hard to push the interest rate any lower to deal with recessions. And since the austerity crowd has basically won the political debate (but not the economic one) there is a lot of talk of what to do about another ZLB situation, like doing negative interest rates, buying more long term assets, or doing some kind of price level targeting, since most serious people know they probably won't get much help from the political class.

Here in the US, I think there is some stuff we could do that might be a bit pro growth, but wouldn't be a complete hand out to the rich, and would raise the natural rate, like better anti-trust enforcement, strengthening labor's bargaining power, building infrastructure that would actually benefit most of the public and not a few plutocrats. But, right now the plutocrats and their lackey's are in charge, along with their alt right buddies.

And you are right, last time around the ECB screwed up. I mean it screwed a lot of countries, but I think for my money, the most appalling screw up was Spain. They should have bought Spanish bonds without question. There was no reason to force them into austerity. None. But anyway, the EURO has major structural problems that need to be fixed. ECB monetary policy was not good.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Rippounet said:

He already is.
https://i62.servimg.com/u/f62/11/35/07/06/trump10.jpg

I'm sure ditto heads, Trumpsters, and other assorted Republican Clowns will say, "we sure are the party of business!".

[Morpheus]

23 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Thinking about stuff like that makes me marvel even more that the US is about to blow up its deficit during a relatively good time making it harder to respond next time there's a crisis.  Smart.

On another note, I can't believe that Trump hasn't tried to fire Mueller yet.  What's he waiting for?  I do wonder if there's something to the notion that Trump doesn't realize how things actually are looking in part because of his delusional mindset as well as aids trying to shield him from troubling info.

I think people had stressed to Trump the importance of leaving Mueller alone. He has called Russian collusion a hoax and witch hunt, he even retweeted someone complaining about the anti-Trump emails, but he has never directly attacked Mueller yet. Republicans in congress are signaling loudly that they would let him terminate the special counsel, maybe he will be emboldened.

There was word that his lawyers, for some reason, told him the investigation would be over by the end of the year and he would be exonerated. In a few weeks, with Mueller still hard at work, I think Trump will start complaining a lot more.

[The Marquis de Leech]

34 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And you are right, last time around the ECB screwed up. I mean it screwed a lot of countries, but I think for my money, the most appalling screw up was Spain. They should have bought Spanish bonds without question. There was no reason to force them into austerity. None. But anyway, the EURO has major structural problems that need to be fixed. ECB monetary policy was not good.

That's because ECB monetary policy serves Germany, and only Germany.

[Martell Spy]

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/14/16756872/paul-krugman-economics-policy-ezra-klein\

“An orgy of serious policy discussion” with Paul Krugman
The Nobel Prize-winning economist on deficits, net neutrality, tax reform, single-payer, a UBI, and much more.

[Sivin]

This Gilibrand character could be less than terrible for a 2020 candidate, one would hope that she would be less... icky... than HRC. 

[Darth Richard II]

3 hours ago, Morpheus said:

People who take Ayn Rand seriously should be viewed the same as people who take L Ron Hubbard seriously.

I dunno, I think Hubbard was a better writer.

[ThinkerX]

Came across this:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-mccain-described-as-increasingly-frail-senate-sources-say/ar-BBGKEbt?ocid=msnclassic

 

To me, it has a 'whistling past the graveyard' type feel.

 

Morbid, ugly question....

Suppose McCain dies or slides into a coma in the next few days, rendering him unable to vote on the tax bill?  What does the GOP leadership do then?  Wait for a replacement?  Or proceed and take a chance? 

 

[Sivin]

That would, incidentally, put Arizona in play with 2 seats up for grabs in a state that went Trump by 2 points. 

[ThinkerX]

19 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Someone please correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe that if McCain is incapacitated in any way to the point of not being able to vote then there would simply be one fewer vote existing in the Senate until a replacement comes from a special election.  That's how I recall it being when Ted Kennedy died and then the special election had Scott Brown joining the Senate later.  What I can't quite remember is whether the governor had put anyone in there in the meantime.  ETA:  Looks like I misremembered and there was a replacement, Paul Kirk, for that period.

The question (sort of) remains:

 

Would the governor of Arizona be able to appoint McCain's temporary stand in quickly enough to save tax reform?  As in before Jones takes office? 

 

Hmmm...didn't I read somewhere about another deathly ill republican senator???

 

Additional note, should something happen to McCain or this other republican Senator (am I remembering this correctly?  curious) how long before the conservative media starts spewing tales of conspiracy and assassination?  (Ideally with photo's of Clinton near the scene clutching an appropriate weapon)

 

 

[Gorn]

8 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/14/16756872/paul-krugman-economics-policy-ezra-klein\

“An orgy of serious policy discussion” with Paul Krugman
The Nobel Prize-winning economist on deficits, net neutrality, tax reform, single-payer, a UBI, and much more.

An excellent interview. I particularly liked this quote:

Quote

Here’s a funny story. I have two employers, the New York Times and City University. I could have gotten health insurance through either one. New York Times offers our health insurance plan, and CUNY offers you a choice of 13 different plans. So I sat down, and I thought, “I can figure this out.” I could not make out which plan was better, which one made more sense, so I went to human resources and said, “Can you help me understand the differences between these plans,” and they said, “No.”

I did not feel advantaged by having this vast increase in choice; it was actually just a source of anxiety.

Free markets and choice sound wonderful in theory, but very few consumers are informed enough to make the optimal choice on anything more complex than "which candy bar should I buy".

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Triskele said:

Someone please correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe that if McCain is incapacitated in any way to the point of not being able to vote then there would simply be one fewer vote existing in the Senate until a replacement comes from a special election.  That's how I recall it being when Ted Kennedy died and then the special election had Scott Brown joining the Senate later.  What I can't quite remember is whether the governor had put anyone in there in the meantime.  ETA:  Looks like I misremembered and there was a replacement, Paul Kirk, for that period.

You're not wrong, and no matter how classless it is to think about this (in spite of what has been posted here), it is something to consider.  McCain's illness, along with Thad Cochran's, may be temporarily debilitating to the tax bill.  Which means they can't get a vote before Jones is seated.  Which means quite a bit for Collins and Rubio.  Which means this whole shebang could be quite interesting.  Probably not, but maybe Ryan doesn't want to call it a day just yet.

[Gorn]

9 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

What is worrying here is that in most countries the natural rate of interest is extremely low. So it doesn't take long before a Central Bank hits the Zero Lower Bound meaning it's extremely hard to push the interest rate any lower to deal with recessions. And since the austerity crowd has basically won the political debate (but not the economic one) there is a lot of talk of what to do about another ZLB situation, like doing negative interest rates, buying more long term assets, or doing some kind of price level targeting, since most serious people know they probably won't get much help from the political class.

Here in the US, I think there is some stuff we could do that might be a bit pro growth, but wouldn't be a complete hand out to the rich, and would raise the natural rate, like better anti-trust enforcement, strengthening labor's bargaining power, building infrastructure that would actually benefit most of the public and not a few plutocrats. But, right now the plutocrats and their lackey's are in charge, along with their alt right buddies.

And you are right, last time around the ECB screwed up. I mean it screwed a lot of countries, but I think for my money, the most appalling screw up was Spain. They should have bought Spanish bonds without question. There was no reason to force them into austerity. None. But anyway, the EURO has major structural problems that need to be fixed. ECB monetary policy was not good.

What is your opinion on negative interest rates? My own mortgage rate is tied to the Euribor, so I personally profit from the current negative rate, but I'm curious about its wider macroeconomic effects.