US Politics: Free Trade, Freer Trade, and Nuclear War

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Not everyone is  fan of mandated healthcare is necessarily a Libertarian as so conveniently  categorize them .

That maybe true. But, I'd be curious why some people don't like mandated healthcare.

1. Is it because they just don't feel free because of mandated healthcare.

2. Is it because they don't think most people won't need access to medical care at some point of their lives.

Now I'd suspect, some people like the idea of universal coverage, but don't like the mandate. And in a perfect world, a mandate wouldn't be necessary. But, without the mandate, universal coverage becomes more costly. And given the fact, most people will need to see a doctor at some point in their lives, a mandate seems like a small impingement on personal freedom. Certainly a lot less than other forms of government intrusion. I mean it seems to me that the people that thought the mandate was the end of freedom, had no problem with people like Arpaio blatantly violating the fourth amendment rights of people. And had little problem with Dubya's antics with regard to civil liberties.

[GAROVORKIN]

10 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

That maybe true. But, I'd be curious why some people don't like mandated healthcare.

1. Is it because they just don't feel free because of mandated healthcare.

2. Is it because they don't think most people won't need access to medical care at some point of their lives.

Now I'd suspect, some people like the idea of universal coverage, but don't like the mandate. And in a perfect world, a mandate wouldn't be necessary. But, without the mandate, universal coverage becomes more costly. And given the fact, most people will need to see a doctor at some point in their lives, a mandate seems like a small impingement on personal freedom. Certainly a lot less than other forms of government intrusion. I mean it seems to me that the people that thought the mandate was the end of freedom, had no problem with people like Arpaio blatantly violating the fourth amendment rights of people.

 Because some people,  view it as infringement on their  rights as individuals . Progressive politicians feel a need to impose their ideas on people whether they want them or not . Their thinking is " it's for their own good "   There are more then a few people who have a problem with that and oppose it. This doesn't by definition make them bad people.

[James Arryn]

34 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

I don't believe any of that.

There’s like almost nothing in the post you quoted that could be reduced to a matter of ‘believing’. A question is asked, then an interpretation if your statement is offered, and then another question is asked (or rather the same question is re-phrased).

Then comes the only point which might be a matter of true or not, ie what Obama eventually did, but if that’s the crux of your point it would seemingly be easy to refute with links or facts rather than just stating your lack of belief. And if the post was just that i’d think that ‘we’ll, the first point wasn’t linked/supported, so fair enough’, but the fact that you overtly included the entire post makes me kinda think you’re either dodging or engaging in discussion at such a low-effort level that you might as well not say anything. Now people, specifically me, do that all the time for jokes, but I don’t get the sense you’re joking around here, so...well, what are you doing?

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 Because some people,  view it as infringement on their  rights as individuals . Progressive politicians feel a need to impose their ideas on people whether they want them or not . Their thinking is " it's for their own good "   There are more then a few people who have a problem with that and oppose it. This doesn't by definition make them bad people.

So, their reason is basically "I just want to prove I don't have  do it cause of reasons. Nana nana Nana. (even if I know I will need to see a doctor eventually)". Well you certainly showed us a thing or two ol' freedommeister.

And I'd suspect, many of these people just love their government subsized employer sponsored healthcare and would scream bloody murder if it was pulled away. They don't realize the US has used the tax code to promote healthcare policy for a very long time.

And then there is probably another set that really like the idea of universal coverage, but don't realize the much higher cost of achieving that without mandates.

Perhaps they are not bad people. But, one wonders, if they have really thought the issue through.

And then there is another group, that screams about mandates being an impingement on freedom, but got nuthin' to say about blatant civil liberties violations or torture. These people are not very good people or they are being extremely stupid and just playin' team Republican.

[James Arryn]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

So, their reason is basically "I just want to prove I don't have  do it cause of reasons. Nana nana Nana. (even if I know I will need to see a doctor eventually)".

And I'd suspect, many of these people just love their government subsized employer sponsored healthcare and would scream bloody murder if it was pulled away. They don't realize the US has used the tax code to promote healthcare policy for a very long time.

And then there is probably another set that really like the idea of universal coverage, but don't realize the much higher cost of achieving that without mandates.

Perhaps they are not bad people. But, one wonders, if they have really thought the issue through.

And then their is another group, that screams about mandates being an impingement on freedom, but got nuthin' to say about blatant civil liberties violations. These people are bad people or they are being extremely stupid and just playin' team Republican.

Isn’t there like a 30 point gap in polled approval of ‘Omamacare’ vs. approval of the ACA, in spite of them being the same thing?

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Isn’t there like a 30 point gap in polled approval of ‘Omamacare’ vs. approval of the ACA, in spite of them being the same thing?

I don't know off the top of my head what the gap is or was. But, certainly, it would appear people's approval of the bill depended upon whether it was called the ACA or Obamacare.

[Fragile Bird]

3 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Yeah Obamacare lets me not have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for my INSULIN so..

What do you pay for your insulin? I did a post in the Small things too small for a thread about the cost of insulin in Canada. Like, 40 bucks s box, and you don’t need a prescription, you can go to any pharmacy. Costco and Walmart are cheap.

Many Americans come up here and have a holiday for at least a weekend on tha savings they make.

[Rippounet]

42 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 Because some people,  view it as infringement on their  rights as individuals . Progressive politicians feel a need to impose their ideas on people whether they want them or not . Their thinking is " it's for their own good "   There are more then a few people who have a problem with that and oppose it. This doesn't by definition make them bad people.

It makes them people who want a convenient "opt out" button for socially progressive programs they dislike.

The problem with that is twofold.
On a practical level, no progressive program could be implemented if those who don't want it could "opt out," meaning that such opposition effectively kills social progress.
On a philosophical level, society isn't an abstract construct whose benefits you can simply pick and choose ; all humans belong to a society that gives them rights and duties. The idea that some of society's rules might infringe on the "natural rights of individuals" that exist in a "state of nature" is nothing but a liebrtarian fairy tale that threatens the very fabric of all societies and benefits only their wealthiest members.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, Week said:

The sea-lion is evolving to new types of trolldom.

I think we've actually gotten a true Poe at this point, the posts have never broken character.  No sea lion could be so stalwart in its ability to consistently post with such willful ignorance.  

[Darth Richard II]

48 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

What do you pay for your insulin? I did a post in the Small things too small for a thread about the cost of insulin in Canada. Like, 40 bucks s box, and you fon’t Need a prescription, you can go to any pharmacy. Costco and Walmart are cheap.

Many Americansvomebup here and have a holiday for at least a weekend on tha savings they make.

I don't think I pay any for it at the moment, but I rmember when it looked like I might not get healthcare once and I saw how much my diabetic stuff costs...it's insane. 40 bucks a BOX? I think its something like 100 per BOTTLE.

[Darth Richard II]

19 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I think we've actually gotten a true Poe at this point, the posts have never broken character.  No sea lion could be so stalwart in its ability to consistently post with such willful ignorance.  

Bro this isn't even his final form!

[Altherion]

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Its GDP will grow, but it’s composition of consumption to savings will change. That is what matters.

No, what matters (at least to Americans) is the amount China exports to the US and the amount China imports from the US (and, on a finer level, the nature of those exports and imports). The composition of China's GDP in consumption and savings is not the only thing that affects this even in the simplified model.

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

The fact of the matter is that China pursued a high savings strategy, using exports to generate aggregate demand. But in so doing, it’s corporations built up high levels of internal debt, which are owed to the Chinese people. Those financial claims need to be paid off.

Only if the corporation somehow got on the wrong side of the party.

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Then why is China running around looking for free trade agreements? And besides China's economy really doesn't operate like the old Soviet Union, even if it's leaders pay occasional homage to Marx and all that.

Trade agreements are nice to have when you are big enough and coherent enough to disregard the spirit of the parts that you don't like. And yes, they're not truly communist or even like the USSR; they're a hybrid.

5 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

You rolled the dice on Trump and made a very bad bet. Socioeconomic conditions will not get better under him. They will just get worse. Rolling the dice and saying "anything could happen" is not very wise.

It don't think it was that bad a bet; if I had to characterize it in one word, I say... meh. Trump's most important function was to make it clear to our leaders that what is going on is not OK and that part he more or less did in November 2016. The rest could certainly have gone better, but I wasn't counting on it. Socioeconomic conditions will probably get worse, yes, but they would have gotten worse anyway. I don't see a way things get better from here without first getting worse so we might as well get it over with.

[Squab]

23 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It makes them people who want a convenient "opt out" button for socially progressive programs they dislike.

The problem with that is twofold.
On a practical level, no progressive program could be implemented if those who don't want it could "opt out," meaning that such opposition effectively kills social progress.
On a philosophical level, society isn't an abstract construct whose benefits you can simply pick and choose ; all humans belong to a society that gives them rights and duties. The idea that some of society's rules might infringe on the "natural rights of individuals" that exist in a "state of nature" is nothing but a liebrtarian fairy tale that threatens the very fabric of all societies and benefits only their wealthiest members.

This is a perfect example of left wing authoritarianism:

Practically we need your money. Philosophically, we don't let individuals have rights.

[LongRider]

9 minutes ago, Altherion said:

No, what matters (at least to Americans) is the amount China exports to the US and the amount China imports from the US (and, on a finer level, the nature of those exports and imports). 

Only Trump and his minions, like that ass clown Navarro, give a shit about that.  I can't think of anyone I know who cares.  Prices going up and the stock market going down because of Trump's imbecile policy is something they will care about as soon as it hits them in their wallets.  The rest is noise.  OGE can tell us what's up on the economic side it's true, but for most people that's just noise as well (keep up the good work here though OGE).  

As OGE said earlier, Trump is incoherent and trying to justify his bs is incoherent as well. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 minutes ago, Squab said:

This is a perfect example of left wing authoritarianism:

Practically we need your money. Philosophically, we don't let individuals have rights.

When we use your tax money to fix highways, is that taking away your right or freedom?

What the fuck kind of freedom is freedom not to buy healthcare?

Out of all the examples of 'right not to be forced to buy something' healthcare is the one you're choosing to take a stand on?

 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

23 minutes ago, Altherion said:

. Socioeconomic conditions will probably get worse, yes, but they would have gotten worse anyway. I don't see a way things get better from here without first getting worse so we might as well get it over with.

So in the meantime, why not double down on destroying the environment, redistributing wealth upwards to the people who need it least, stoke the flames of bigotry at every turn, poke North Korea with a sharp stick.  Put someone in the White House who constantly lies so much that it's now considered normal.  Are these all things that you consider inevitable regardless of what happened in 2016?

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

No, what matters (at least to Americans) is the amount China exports to the US and the amount China imports from the US (and, on a finer level, the nature of those exports and imports). The composition of China's GDP in consumption and savings is not the only thing that affects this even in the simplified model.

Right because the US economy won't grow . Nor will the rest of the world economy, to which China will export some of its national savings, and not only the US.

As I pointed out in one of my very first post in this topic, savings doesn't automatically become investment, because prices don't just automatically clear markets. And the first China shock was very large. Going forward it won't be as large. Sure in absolute terms it might be bigger. But the economies of the US and the world will be bigger too and will have an easier time adsorbing the savings China generates, assuming of course that it does in fact generate national savings to export. At some point, Chinese firms might realize they'd like to borrow on international capital markets and investors might realized they would like to hold financial assets from these firms. If that happens, the world might be exporting its savings to China.

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Trade agreements are nice to have when you are big enough and coherent enough to disregard the spirit of the parts that you don't like. And yes, they're not truly communist or even like the USSR; they're a hybrid.

They are also nice to have once you've built up your intensive capital industries and engineering know how and are ready to export their products and your firms would like to borrow on international capital markets and you'd like to keep your efficient firms and get rid of the not so efficient ones.

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

It don't think it was that bad a bet; if I had to characterize it in one word, I say... meh. Trump's most important function was to make it clear to our leaders that what is going on is not OK and that part he more or less did in November 2016. The rest could certainly have gone better, but I wasn't counting on it. Socioeconomic conditions will probably get worse, yes, but they would have gotten worse anyway. I don't see a way things get better from here without first getting worse so we might as well get it over with.

Let me see, here is a guy that went out and hired the whose who list of supply side clowns, like:

1. Dow 3600 man Kevin Hastett

2. That frickin idiot David Malpass

3. Larry Kudlow, who could fuck up a wetdream.

4. Steven Moore, the architech behind the Clownback Bust.

And then, Trump runs around, making very dumb statements about Dodd-Frank. And in case you didn’t notice, financial crises are very very costly to working class people. Many or most of these people will never recover financially.

Made some real idiotic comments about monetary policy, right in line with idiots like David Malpass.

And then he talked straight out of his ass about healthcare another issue important to many working class people.

And he wasn't a bad bet? Seriously?

[Fragile Bird]

29 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

I don't think I pay any for it at the moment, but I rmember when it looked like I might not get healthcare once and I saw how much my diabetic stuff costs...it's insane. 40 bucks a BOX? I think its something like 100 per BOTTLE.

Ya, take a look at my post if you haven't already. I could not believe the stuff I read on the internet about how much people pay in the US!

[Martell Spy]

Democrats Shouldn’t Give in to White Racism

The idea that the Democratic Party should back off its commitment to civil rights is as blind as it is ugly.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/democrats-shouldnt-give-in-to-white-racism.html

Quote

Too many observers treat American politics as a contest between rival groups of white people. It’s how you get dubious claims that Donald Trump broadly represents “working-class” voters, or the related narrative that pits a monolithic “coastal elite” against a so-called “heartland,” ideas that cannot survive contact with any consideration of black political behavior. The result is that black Americans and other groups—which represented nearly 27 percent of the electorate in 2016, more than 36 million voters—get erased from mainstream political discourse and are ignored as full citizens and political actors

.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Right because the US economy won't grow . Nor will the rest of the world economy, to which China will export some of its national savings, and not only the US.

As I pointed out in one of my very first post in this topic, savings doesn't automatically become investment, because prices don't just automatically clear markets. And the first China shock was very large. Going forward it won't be as large. Sure in absolute terms it might be bigger. But the economies of the US and the world will be bigger too and will have an easier time adsorbing the savings China generates, assuming of course that it does in fact generate national savings to export. At some point, Chinese firms might realize they'd like to borrow on international capital markets and investors might realized they would like to hold financial assets from these firms. If that happens, the world might be exporting its savings to China.

They are also nice to have once you've built up your intensive capital industries and engineering know how and are ready to export their products and your firms would like to borrow on international capital markets and you'd like to keep your efficient firms and get rid of the not so efficient ones.

Let me see, here is a guy that went out and hired the whose who list of supply side clowns, like:

1. Dow 3600 man Kevin Hastett

2. That frickin idiot David Malpass

3. Larry Kudlow, who could fuck up a wetdream.

4. Steven Moore, the architech behind the Clownback Bust.

And then, Trump runs around, making very dumb statements about Dodd-Frank. And in case you didn’t notice, financial crises are very very costly to working class people. Many or most of these people will never recover financially.

Made some real idiotic comments about monetary policy, right in line with idiots like David Malpass.

And then he talked straight out of his ass about healthcare another issue important to many working class people.

And he wasn't a bad bet? Seriously?

Is it worth the effort of compiling a comprehensive response to someone who goes into all sorts of contortions to justify a position merely to maintain the pretense that their preferred winner was still the best outcome despite evidence mostly or entirely being to the contrary? Probably best to mostly ignore and limit responses to substantive points that have some basis in interpretation of reality.

Not that I entirely disagree that the socioeconomic course on which the world is currently set is not good and getting worse. Things will get worse before they get better. The question is, while things are getting worse can voters do anything to mitigate how bad things will get. Can we do anything to make rock bottom less harsh? Arguably electing people who actually, genuinely care about the ordinary people (and who care about them equally, and not based on race, gender, sexual orientation or any other "otherising category") is more likely to knock off some of the sharp edges of the fall. Electing someone who doesn;t care about the ordinary people, and who, at best, turns a blind eye to attacks on "otherised" demographics is likely to add sharp edges to the fall, and spikes to the bottom. So while we're "getting the bad times over with" we can still try to not exacerbate the bad times.

Rip the band-aid off, but don't give the job to someone who will try to take some skin with it at the same time.