Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fragile Bird

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

Recommended Posts

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?

Edited by larrytheimp
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

.

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by The Anti-Targ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

Quite the contrary, the point is to provide individuals with a number of fundamental rights: the right to healthcare (which we are discussing), the right to education, the right to justice... etc.
In less developed societies, one could include the right to some basic housing, the right to food and water... etc.
This was once seen in the US as "freedom from want."

You are correct on some level that such a perspective on human societies denies one individual right: the right to be selfish.
But the way I see it, it's very simple. For individual humans living in a human societies, solidarity should be mandatory. All able-bodied adults should help provide for those who cannot: the children, the disabled, the elderly, the sick... etc.
It's interesting that you would describe this as "authoritarianism." I think it's just basic human decency.
In fact, given your misuse of the word "authoritarianism," I think I am allowed to say that a society in which anyone is allowed to let children go without education, the sick without treatment, or the disabled and elderly without pensions... Well I think I can say that this is a fascist society.

However, I also think libertarians should be free to "opt out" of society and build a cabin in the woods to live the dream. They'll come back as soon as they get the flu anyway... They'll come to see that the "state of nature" is actually not that comfortable to be in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

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.

I guess you're right.

But, as I said earlier, my real specialty is goofing around. Guess I just can't help myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

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!

It's obscene. Luckily NY state has some good shit in place for diabetics in case the government explodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

It all makes sense once you understand what white economic anxiety is really about. Then Trump is clearly delivering for his voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Quite the contrary, the point is to provide individuals with a number of fundamental rights: the right to healthcare (which we are discussing), the right to education, the right to justice... etc.
In less developed societies, one could include the right to some basic housing, the right to food and water... etc.
This was once seen in the US as "freedom from want."

You are correct on some level that such a perspective on human societies denies one individual right: the right to be selfish.
But the way I see it, it's very simple. For individual humans living in a human societies, solidarity should be mandatory. All able-bodied adults should help provide for those who cannot: the children, the disabled, the elderly, the sick... etc.
It's interesting that you would describe this as "authoritarianism." I think it's just basic human decency.
In fact, given your misuse of the word "authoritarianism," I think I am allowed to say that a society in which anyone is allowed to let children go without education, the sick without treatment, or the disabled and elderly without pensions... Well I think I can say that this is a fascist society.

However, I also think libertarians should be free to "opt out" of society and build a cabin in the woods to live the dream. They'll come back as soon as they get the flu anyway... They'll come to see that the "state of nature" is actually not that comfortable to be in.

Squab is a well known troll, you're wasting your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

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?

What's wrong with you? This is part of Trumps make America great strategy . :D:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

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!

Not sure about that; I'm a type 1 diabetic and I have a fairly standard employer-sponsored health insurance plan; I'd say it's definitely better than average, but comparable to plans offered by many other employers across most of the country. I pay $30 each for my monthly prescriptions of both my long-lasting and short-acting insulins, which contain 5 vials/cartridges of insulin. Under the ACA about a year and a half ago, I paid roughly the same. 

However, if you do not have health insurance coverage, boxes of Insulin can literally cost in excessive of $1,000 each. Which is absurd. The cost of the prescription hardware, such as glucosemeter test strips and syringes/needles, are also insane uncovered. They're like, hundreds of dollars at the least for a month's supply. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IamMe90 said:

Not sure about that; I'm a type 1 diabetic and I have a fairly standard employer-sponsored health insurance plan; I'd say it's definitely better than average, but comparable to plans offered by many other employers across most of the country. I pay $30 each for my monthly prescriptions of both my long-lasting and short-acting insulins, which contain 5 vials/cartridges of insulin. Under the ACA about a year and a half ago, I paid roughly the same. 

However, if you do not have health insurance coverage, boxes of Insulin can literally cost in excessive of $1,000 each. Which is absurd. The cost of the prescription hardware, such as glucosemeter test strips and syringes/needles, are also insane uncovered. They're like, hundreds of dollars at the least for a month's supply. 

Yeah I think he meant how much people uninsured pay. And it's insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Do you know what I meant by the expression I wrote? I wasn't just writing gibberish for no reason. If China has higher consumption, it saves less, it exports less. And you can't get around that with whatever handwaving you were trying to do.
 

And yet, it seems China is trying to be a player in the international arena. That really doesn't jive with them having protectionist policies in the future, nor does rebalancing their economy to have more consumption and exporting less of their savings.

I don't disagree that the China trade had some negative effects. But, Trump hardly has any idea of the real mechanisms behind that. Nor does he have any idea how to fix them. His policies are horrible, make inequality worse, and don't take into account what will likely happened in the future. And of course on top of the horrible economic policy, you get all the white nationalist bullshit on top of that. And by the way, stirring that shit up, makes it harder to get better economic policy, besides being just ethically wrong, which by itself, is enough to not vote for his sorry ass.

Maybe you could get worse than Trump, but then you're really scrapping he bottom of the barrel.

By all means, keep rollin' the dice at the craps table. Anything could happen!  You might even get rich. But, I doubt it.

With a population of 1.8 billion.  How is that government going to pay for the healthcare for that many and given the demographic  consequences of their one child policy ( now discontinued ) , will there  be enough younger working people to support the  aging population ?  Im thinking  that in another 20 years or so, this going to become a serious problem for China .

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

The US will grow, but based on recent trends, it will not grow anywhere as quickly as China. Of course, it could be that Xi's attempts to consolidate power lead to a dictatorship and/or the whole thing falls apart (in which case this whole discussion will be quite amusing in retrospect), but it seems more likely that China will continue to outpace the US and the EU.

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

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?

These horrify the political establishment, but most of them are pretty irrelevant to the vast majority of the population. Yes, he routinely says things which range from unconventional to nonsensical, but this has very little effect beyond diversion of media attention. And yes, he has appointed people to positions for which they are neither qualified nor suited... but only to positions which do not matter. For ones that do matter (e.g. the Supreme Court seat or the Chair of the Federal Reserve), his choices have been conventional, impeccably qualified and sometimes even bipartisan (Powell was appointed to the Board of Governors by Obama).

He makes a show of doing things and the media amplifies some of them for their own purposes, but he has not fundamentally changed the system either for the better or for the worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 

As opposed to the Boxes  that both of you are living in ? 

***Watches a mackerel swim slowly by, a 5/0 circle hook jabbed through its nose.  Remains motionless***

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×