US elections 2016 - "Go ahead, throw your vote away"

[Red Hermit]

5 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

In the short term.  I would argue that in the long term it's unsustainable and will cause greater violence and instability when it finally goes.

I don't see another way forward.  It's unlikely WWIII would end as well for us as WWII(or would end well for anyone really).  

[Kalbear]

Ultimately wealth distribution is probably not nearly as big a deal as resource distribution, at least in the next 20-50 years. Beyond that it's anyone's guess, but chances are good the concept of wealth after that is going to be somewhat antiquated. 

And as my lovely wife informs me, no matter who wins the presidential election we're going to likely be facing one hell of a calamitous, disruptive century, especially in my lifetime. Trump will almost certainly hasten that and potentially make it significantly worse, and similarly the US is well positioned to act as a bulwark against the worst of things and provide some solutions going forward - but the events will come. We're too far past in global warming at this point. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Ultimately wealth distribution is probably not nearly as big a deal as resource distribution, at least in the next 20-50 years. Beyond that it's anyone's guess, but chances are good the concept of wealth after that is going to be somewhat antiquated. 

And as my lovely wife informs me, no matter who wins the presidential election we're going to likely be facing one hell of a calamitous, disruptive century, especially in my lifetime. Trump will almost certainly hasten that and potentially make it significantly worse, and similarly the US is well positioned to act as a bulwark against the worst of things and provide some solutions going forward - but the events will come. We're too far past in global warming at this point. 

The fact that Trump is viable candidate bodes ill for our countries ability to handle the fact that we'll be a majority-minority nation pretty soon.

And whoever wins this election is unlikely to win a second term, though I disagree that he/she will be impeached and removed before his/her term is up.

[lokisnow]

The best way to reverse inequality would be higher inflation. Ten years of 8% inflation would make the rich poorer and the poor richer (they'd have a lot less debt having paid debt back with depreciated currency like how all the greatest generation paid off their mortgages with depreciated currency). this would also go a long way to deflating the student loan bubble the boomers forced on the millenials

[maarsen]

5 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Okay, but you know, you can claim that there were some underlying trends reducing the number of people employed, but the fact is a lot of the employment population ratio is demand determined.

Here is a chart of the employment poplulation ratio. The gray bars represent recessions. You can see that the employment/pop falls off about every recession and then recovers. The last recession doesn't look much different, except for its magnitude, which can be explained by the severity of the finacial crises.

And what were evidently seeing the same thing in Japan. Here.

But rather than acknowledging the nature of the employment/population ratios conservatives choose to tell  fanciful stories about "spontaneous vacations" and of course start blaming immigrants.

If conservatives want to sit there and talk about "structural reform", which is really just code word mostly for "tax cuts for the wealthy" anyway, then I'd submit it's much easier to do when you don't have lot of demand side slack.

And while technical automation is an issue, it doesn't explain the lower unemployment we've seen the last eight years or so.

And nobody is suggesting that we keep pushing the debt/GDP ratio forever or keep FED funds rate towards near zero forever either. Sounds like a figment of the conservative imagination. The real issue is how we get out of this low growth, low interest rate, and low inflation environment. We've been through this before. But, as I said, some people have decided to hash old ideological battles from 80 years ago.

One of my problems, with Trump besides just being nutty, is he hasn't disowned the Republican establishment's antics over the last 8 years. Oh, sure, he is disageed with them on a few things, but on these economic matters not really.

For instance, he hired the guy who wrote this. Pretty laughable.

And then, he goes on to say dumb things like, "well Yellen is a low interest rate person, just like me!" Well no, Donald she isn't doing what she is doing for sake because "she is a low interest rate person." And then he goes on to say Yellen's actions are "political". So okay Donald, she should just destroy the economy just so you can get elected? If Donald thinks we should raise rates, then he needs to articulate why he believes that and demonstrate he was some technical understanding of these things. Maybe he's become a Neo-Fisherian or something.

A big part of Trump's shtick is that a business person he really understands these things. And unfortunately, a lot of Americans seem to accept that. But, the more he talks, it becomes apparent he doesn't know what he is talking about or doesn't care.

It's just easier to blame immigrants I guess.

And that is why a four time bankruptee gets to talk about how well he can run things, if only he has his short little fingers on the reins of power.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, maarsen said:

And that is why a four time bankruptee gets to talk about how well he can run things, if only he has his short little fingers on the reins of power.

Or how a guy who has 5 kids from 3 wives can lecture minorities about the disintegration of the family unit.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'm hugely panicked. I'm starting to think about what I and my family need to do to prepare for a trump presidency.

Well don't jump the gun and start buying Heron Spears on Amazon.  Pretty sure what shows up at my front door is a garage door opener duct taped to a nerf gun.  

 

But seriously, agree on the resource inequality being the next big obstacle.  It's going to be about water, access to affordable transportation, and affordable energy, in a volatile world.  The oceans are going to be fucked, and Trump is just going to put his foot, the biggest foot, the greatest foot, on the pedal and floor it.

 

I think Clinton will be fine tonight if she can be half as composed and on point as she as she was on "Between Two Ferns".  But again I'm not sure how many votes are hanging from the debates to begin with.

[maarsen]

43 minutes ago, Red Hermit said:

I don't see another way forward.  It's unlikely WWIII would end as well for us as WWII(or would end well for anyone really).  

As mentioned earlier in this thread, my grandfather was a black marketeer during WWII in German occupied Holland. He, and his 12 kids, my mother included, lived on a farm and grew their own tobacco, which they then made into cigarettes, and also made soap, selling both on the black market. He was paid in scrip issued by the German occupiers, which when Holland was liberated by the Canadians, became worthless. Grandfather wisely had bought land with the scrip during the occupation and did well. There is a lesson here somewhere on how to land on your feet. Even if the short fingered doofus gets elected.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

The best way to reverse inequality would be higher inflation. Ten years of 8% inflation would make the rich poorer and the poor richer (they'd have a lot less debt having paid debt back with depreciated currency like how all the greatest generation paid off their mortgages with depreciated currency). this would also go a long way to deflating the student loan bubble the boomers forced on the millenials

What happens to the elderly living on fixed incomes and interesf on small nest eggs?  Will they not suffer under such a plan?

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What happens to the elderly living on fixed incomes and interesf on small nest eggs?  Will they not suffer under such a plan?

 

Cost of living adjustments built into social security?

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Well don't jump the gun and start buying Heron Spears on Amazon.  Pretty sure what shows up at my front door is a garage door opener duct taped to a nerf gun.  

Well, technically it is a gun that shoots light...

10 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 

But seriously, agree on the resource inequality being the next big obstacle.  It's going to be about water, access to affordable transportation, and affordable energy, in a volatile world.  The oceans are going to be fucked, and Trump is just going to put his foot, the biggest foot, the greatest foot, on the pedal and floor it.

There is something oddly horrifyingly correct in saying that withdrawing from the rest of the world as it gets more and more fucked is vaguely the right thing to do. But that is true only if you are a sociopath and hugely fatalistic. 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

I think the worst thing that could happen tonight is that Trump shows up and just tones his over the top shot down, and says anything even remotely answering the question with just a couple scraps of truth approaching policy or information.  

 

The contrast to what he's spouted off so far would be enough to convince a lot of Repubs that might just stay home that maybe he isn't so crazy, he's just been pandering to the uncaged tiger that is the GOPs base.  He doesn't even have to actually approach a decent presentation, he just has to not make this look like a reality show.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

18 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Cost of living adjustments built into social security?

Because Social Security is designed to give everyone a viable living wage after retirement?

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Because Social Security is designed to give everyone a viable living wage after retirement?

It's not - but it is designed to stay with cost of living based on inflation rates. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's not - but it is designed to stay with cost of living based on inflation rates. 

So, in the inflationary cycle Lokisnow is advocating we want seniors who's savings evaporate due high inflation to be dependent upon a system not designed to give them enough to live on?

I'm not saying that there aren't work arounds but this seems to me to be a serious problem with the proposed inflation that will need to be accounted for if such an inflationary plan is adopted.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, in the inflationary cycle Lokisnow is advocating we want seniors who's savings evaporate due high inflation to be dependent upon a system not designed to give them enough to live on?

I'm nat saying that there aren't work arounds but this seems to me to be a serious problem with the proposed inflation that will need to be accounted for if such an inflationary plan is adopted.

Said savings barely exist as it is, but it's possible that that might be a problem. That said, I suspect it's much less of a problem than you may believe, and much like the high inflation time that allowed lots of people to buy property cheaply and not worry about it because they had no savings, right now the amount of savings is at a very big low.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I'm afraid this is going to be like that Mexico thing. Trump went to a foreign country, read a speech that walked back on most of his rhetoric, didn't cause a diplomatic incident, and suddenly everyone's talking about how 'presidential' he is.

[The Anti-Targ]

So what are the metrics for the "winner" of the debate. Hillary Clinton needs to be absolutely perfect on all point (facts, emotion, policy knowledge etc), Donald Trump just needs to not make a fool of himself?

[Jaxom 1974]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'm hugely panicked. I'm starting to think about what I and my family need to do to prepare for a trump presidency.

I had to seriously take that into consideration before taking my promotion and uprooting my family and moving half way across the country.  I am actually truly frightened what could happen if he wins and I made the wrong choice...

I've always liked Lester Holt.  He was a Chicago guy for so long, and his son was also great.  I'm hoping he does the right thing tonight.

[Kalbear]

13 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So what are the metrics for the "winner" of the debate. Hillary Clinton needs to be absolutely perfect on all point (facts, emotion, policy knowledge etc), Donald Trump just needs to not make a fool of himself?

I think this: Clinton's goal is to goad Trump at every single turn. And either provoke him into saying something deeply flawed, or provoke him into making a bad image with respect to sexism. If Trump doesn't rise to that bait, he wins. Doesn't matter if he's otherwise a liar or a fraud or answers badly, he'll be called the winner so long as he doesn't do that big screw up.