U.S. Politics: Kraving for Kavanaugh

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

46 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

The cops are claiming they do this sort of strip club sting regularly, to combat human trafficking. One wonders what trafficking they thought they'd fight by entrapping a famous adult film actress.

Wow, this “fighting human trafficking” argument is being used to justify all sorts of stuff.  Is this really that great a problem?

https://www.google.com/amp/www.thecut.com/amp/2018/07/sylvia-acosta-customs-airport-daugther.html

 

[lokisnow]

57 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

The cops are claiming they do this sort of strip club sting regularly, to combat human trafficking. One wonders what trafficking they thought they'd fight by entrapping a famous adult film actress.

Oh yes that is certainly why cops are at strip clubs on the job. Yes indeed that is definitely the uh reason of course it is definitely.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

The cops are claiming they do this sort of strip club sting regularly, to combat human trafficking. One wonders what trafficking they thought they'd fight by entrapping a famous adult film actress.

Well, technically Stormy Daniels is being trafficked I guess. She is human [check], she is doing sex stuff [check], she is travelling (trafficking) around for the purpose of doing sex stuff [check]. Therefore Stormy Daniels is clearly a victim of human sex trafficking, which naturally means the police must contrive a reason to arrest said victim rather than the perpetrators of said trafficking.

One wonders why you'd target the night a famous person was doing a strip show for your human trafficking squad to go undercover at that venue. One would generally assume that at a high profile event where photos and video will be taken and distributed on the web, that human traffickers would tend to avoid putting their criminal activity on display at that time, and possibly they would display their trafficking wares at an alternative venue on that night where while the eyes of the world are looking elsewhere. Perhaps that's ascribing too much analytical capacity to the police of Ohio?

[Darth Richard II]

25 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Oh yes that is certainly why cops are at strip clubs on the job. Yes indeed that is definitely the uh reason of course it is definitely.

Oh dear God thank you sir. (Or lady). I needed that today. 

[Kalbear]

6 hours ago, DMC said:

That's not necessarily true.  The authority of presidents to unilaterally withdraw or terminate treaties is somewhat of a gray area, but there is precedent.  In terms of NATO I think the point is rather moot though.  Trump won't withdraw not because he can't, but because most of his party would be adamantly against it.

I've heard this story before with Trump, and sometimes it appears to work out the way you say (like firing Mueller) and most of the time it doesn't appear to at all (like tariffs, immigration, muslim bans, 'both sides' for Nazis, G7, etc). 

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Wow, this “fighting human trafficking” argument is being used to justify all sorts of stuff.  Is this really that great a problem?

https://www.google.com/amp/www.thecut.com/amp/2018/07/sylvia-acosta-customs-airport-daugther.html

 

No, its not. See this thread for a rundown on the history of this and what its really about. Spoiler: Vice cops looking to justify their positions is part of it.

https://twitter.com/TrancewithMe/status/1017466267094081538

 

[HoodedCrow]

Do you think Putin/Trump is softening up Europe so that Putin can annex the Baltic’s and Ukraine while they are weakened. Trump/Putin can put a hotl and golf course in each one.

[felice]

11 hours ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Would that be in place of private funding or in addition to?

In place of. If you've got privately-owned capital at all, it will keep growing like cancer. Nobody deserves to be paid for having money.

[Rippounet]

8 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

If free trade were the only driver of inequality in the US, current inequality would likely be a lot less. There is a lot more to this story than just free trade.

There's that, and then there's also the fact that the benefits of free trade are far from uncontroversial.

1. Is there such a thing as "free trade" ? Most of the time free trade agreements benefit the stronger country by opening the weaker country's market - and destroying or preventing the growth of its industries. Basically "free trade" is seldom fair. It's why the US has historically pushed for "free trade" since it was almost always the stronger partner. 
2. Protectionism is pretty good for developing countries when it is combined with a state-financed push to develop industries. Ironically, one might argue that some measure of "command economy" is necessary to jump-start an economy. That's the analysis that's been made about "economic miracles" in Asia I believe.

On both points, I'd recommend Ha-Joon Chang. For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPtm1KUu2Yk
Once we keep this in mind, other troubling questions may arise about "free trade":

3. Yeah, "free trade" has helped raise a lot of people out of poverty... It's also meant a lot of exploitation to do that. Thus, while the benefits are undoubtable, they can be heavily qualified. Did the benefits come from "free trade" or did they come from trade, full stop? While opening countries to the world no doubt has some advantages, it's not certain that doing it "freely" is the best for developing countries. In fact, there is a case to be made that it might be the worst, a form of economic colonialism that is almost as bad as colonialism once was.
4. Stiglitz made an interesting point about how political the decision to switch from GNP to GDP was. In some cases, a significant difference between the two may show that the developing country is really being pillaged more than helped. 
 

Then there's the fact that there are alternatives (or at least complementary measures) to help developing countries.

5. Erase their debts. Most of these are kinda illegitimate anyway (they were created by dictatorships for instance). 
6. Make sure giant transnational corporations are not exploiting or pillaging developing countries. And avoiding paying their taxes.

Finally I'd add that:
7. Outsourcing may be more of an empty threat now than it was thirty years ago. Sure, some industries can still consider and implement it. For many though, the cost is often high compared to the benefits. Another way to look at it is that corporations that could outsource their production have generally already done so. What they are now considering is automation, which is not dépendent on free trade or FTAs. 
8. While free trade has some undoubtable benefits, it still raises the question of what kind of development it creates. Is it sustainable development that benefits all members of a population equally? Of course not. Again, Stiglitz has warned against the use of economic indicators that obscure harsh realities on the ground. There's a real question about what kind of "lifting from poverty" free trade creates. It probably prevents people from starving, but does it really achieve that much more?

So yeah, I have my doubts about "free trade." Now, I'm no economist so I'm just throwing around what actual economists have said, I wouldn't be able to get into a deeper discussion on the subject. 
I found this meta-study on the topic that is interesting:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a0897740f0b649740000c4/REA_FreeTradeAgreements_publish.pdf
 

Quote

The high and moderate quality quantification that has been done suggests that an FTA will result in an increase in trade between partners compared to the counterfactual of what would have happened in its absence. And it may be a large increase for some partners. [...]
However, the operative words are ‘at an aggregate level’ – particularly, though not exclusively, as regards the potential for harm. Some of the best studies assess the effects of FTAs on trade at a disaggregated level. But the main impact may be on small socio-economic groups whose distinct features are homogenised in the aggregation that is inevitable when assessing the performance of complex agreements over many products for one or more decades. 
The studies reviewed do not, in the main, even address seriously some of the key concerns expressed in the pre-FTA literature. These include the distributional impact on specific socioeconomic groups and the revenue implications (which include the distributional effects of either a fall in government revenue or the replacement of taxes on trade at the border by other taxes). The issue of ‘policy space/locking in’ has been partly addressed in the sense that some governments have clearly avoided being ‘locked in’, but at the ‘price’ according to some studies of a reduced FTA impact (for good or ill). 

Now, does this mean that Trump is correct in opposing FTAs? Honestly I personally don't think he's correct or wrong. As I said before, FTAs are generally not very fair to the weaker party. Replacing them with mere "deals" is mainly a question of taking the pretense away. This is also why the US seems to be gunning for the WTO and its rules on fairness. Basically, Trump wants to use US economic power to enforce deals that are heavily in favor of the US. This is also why he wants to destroy the EU, since each individual member-state would be far weaker on its own. A nationalist/patriotic American could perfectly see this as a good thing.

So to answer your questions @Khaleesi did nothing wrong I think that FTAs are not that great in the first place, but that Trump-style economic nationalism is bad for everyone (in the long-run, it's probably not that great for the US either). And the reason I attack neo-liberalism is that I believe its benefits (which are real) obscures the fact that free and fair trade would have even greater ones. A different way to put it is that the alternative to neo-liberal free trade doesn't have to be Trump-style economic nationalism.

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Rippounet said:

There's that, and then there's also the fact that the benefits of free trade are far from uncontroversial.

1. Is there such a thing as "free trade" ? Most of the time free trade agreements benefit the stronger country by opening the weaker country's market - and destroying or preventing the growth of its industries. Basically "free trade" is seldom fair. It's why the US has historically pushed for "free trade" since it was almost always the stronger partner. 
2. Protectionism is pretty good for developing countries when it is combined with a state-financed push to develop industries. Ironically, one might argue that some measure of "command economy" is necessary to jump-start an economy. That's the analysis that's been made about "economic miracles" in Asia I believe.

Okay, I've written about this before. I think there is something to be said for the "infant industry" argument and many economist have short changed it.

I've used both the examples of China and Korea as recent examples that haven't followed the "traditional" path for economic development, which is to wit: they run trade defecits, because they spend more than their own investment and consumption would produce. Basically, I think Alexander Hamilton was right to reject Adam Smith's advice. And England followed the same path under Walpole before it embraced free trade.

I think developing countries should be given some time to develop their engineering know how before doing free trade. But once they have done that, then they should open up to free trade, as continuing with protectionist policies is likely to breed inefficiency and reduce welfare over all.

And sooner or later China will have to engage in greater consumption. They have a lot of internal debt to pay off. And China's leaders know it. Once China engages in greater consumption, much of the trade surpluses will reverse.

So I'm quite amenable to the idea that developing countries should deviate from the "standard" trade playbook and be given some time to do it.

Just now, Rippounet said:

3. Yeah, "free trade" has helped raise a lot of people out of poverty... It's also meant a lot of exploitation to do that. Thus, while the benefits are undoubtable, they can be heavily qualified. Did the benefits come from "free trade" or did they come from trade, full stop? While opening countries to the world no doubt has some advantages, it's not certain that doing it "freely" is the best for developing countries. In fact, there is a case to be made that it might be the worst, a form of economic colonialism that is almost as bad as colonialism once was.

I think I've already answered most of this with points above. Basically, I would be quite willing to let developing countries to run positive trade deficits for awhile. But, I think doing those policies forever is generally bad.

Just now, Rippounet said:

8. While free trade has some undoubtable benefits, it still raises the question of what kind of development it creates. Is it sustainable development that benefits all members of a population equally? Of course not. Again, Stiglitz has warned against the use of economic indicators that obscure harsh realities on the ground. There's a real question about what kind of "lifting from poverty" free trade creates. It probably prevents people from starving, but does it really achieve that much more?

Well I think free trade is just  about sustainable as a closed economy. But, the issue of sustainability is really not really relevant to the point I'll make here, which is to wit: Yes certain workers in advanced economies that work in import exposed industries can get whacked very, very hard. This happened in the United States as documented by Autor et al. It also happened to workers in England and in Europe. And these workers got extremely pissed off and generally drifted to right wing nationalist politics.It is extremely unfortunate that the welfare losses and concerns of these workers weren't taken into account and policies weren't implemented to counter act their losses. But you know, the Davos crowd is gonna Davos.

Also, I'll add that if the trade shock is extremely big, a countries monetary authority may have difficulty restoring aggregate demand by lowering the interest rate. And even if it can lower the interest rate to restore aggregate demand losses, too low interest rates probably aren't particularly desirable as they contribute to asset mispricing and put you nearer the ZLB. Now the remedy to this would be to possibly increase fiscal spending, but this may not be politically possible as stories about Swabian Housewives seem to have a lot of traction with the public.

Just now, Rippounet said:

So yeah, I have my doubts about "free trade." Now, I'm no economist so I'm just throwing around what actual economists have said, I wouldn't be able to get into a deeper discussion on the subject. 

Understandable. I'm against mindless free tradism. There can be some real problems with free trade that if not intelligently counter acted can lead to some real problems.

The problem with Trump with regard to free trade is that misidentifies the key issues. He thinks it's about America losing as a whole. That is not true. Certainly certain communities can get hit very hard by free trade (but this isn't so much the case if two relatively advanced economies trade with each other) and they should be helped as the economy adjust to a free trade regime. In addition, much of the damage caused by the "China Shock" simply can't be reversed by imposing tariffs. And what China did in the past, isn't likely to be what they will do in the future. Trump is fighting the last war so to speak. And also Trump's tariffs against the US's traditional allies is just likely to piss those allies off, with almost no economic gain for the US.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

@Rippounet and @OldGimletEye I might write longer responses later, but first of all it at least seems like global income inequality (as calculated by the GINI index) has decreased quite significantly since 1980, after continuously climbing up to that point. https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality 

If that website is credible, at least. 

So without getting too deep into the debate of how hands-off developing country governments should be regarding trade, it does seems like the last 40 years have been quite good for many of them. 

Edit: Seems like it is produced by researchers at Oxford, so it is probably legit. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, felice said:

In place of. If you've got privately-owned capital at all, it will keep growing like cancer. Nobody deserves to be paid for having money.

So, a command economy with the State in complete control of “Venture Capital”?  I don’t understand how that kind of centralization helps anyone?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

@Rippounet and @OldGimletEye I might write longer responses later, but first of all it at least seems like global income inequality (as calculated by the GINI index) has decreased quite significantly since 1980, after continuously climbing up to that point. https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality 

If that website is credible, at least. 

So without getting too deep into the debate of how hands-off developing country governments should be regarding trade, it does seems like the last 40 years have been quite good for many of them. 

II’m not denying that free trade can reduce global inequality.

But a few points:

If a developing economy trades with a more advanced economy, then some workers in the advanced economy can experience real welfare losses via the samuelson-stolper thereom.

There are ways to mitigate this and make the losers whole. But, this wasn’t done in the US, and likely not in Europe. And the fact it wasn’t done, in the US at least, had disastrous political consequences. Had this been handled better, then Trump might not be sitting in the White House today, as Autor et. al. have documented the rightward shift of areas exposed to the “China Shock”.  And this pattern seemingly didn’t just happen in the US, but also in Europe.

And secondly, my point was that I’m not against developing countries internally financing their own investment and then using an export strategy as a way to generate aggregate demand. This gives them time to develop their engineering know how and to develop capital intensive industries. But, this strategy shouldn’t be pursued forever. In the case of China, it can’t do on forever has they have a huge internal debt that needs to be paid off. They will need more consumption and less investment. And when they turn to more consumption, they are likely to import more. This fact seems to have been forgotten by Trump.

Also, again, a large amounts of imports coming in at once can reduce aggregate demand. Now a countries monetary authority can counteract this, but if interest rates go too low it is not real desirable because it puts you closer to the ZLB and creates asset mispricing. Fiscal policy would be a way to counteract this effect, but given the realities of political economy, it’s probably not a realistic option or at least it wasn't an option.

And another problem with mindless free tradism can be capital flow reversals, though this admittedly isn’t really an issue for the US since it essentially acts as the world’s banker and monetary hegemon.

Overall, I’m not against free trade. But, I do have a bit of a problem with mindless free tradism.

[Rippounet]

12 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

@Rippounet and @OldGimletEye I might write longer responses later, but first of all it at least seems like global income inequality (as calculated by the GINI index) has decreased quite significantly since 1980, after continuously climbing up to that point. https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality 

If that website is credible, at least. 

So without getting too deep into the debate of how hands-off developing country governments should be regarding trade, it does seems like the last 40 years have been quite good for many of them. 

Sorry for answering this fast, but I think the problem you have here is causality. As Chang points out in the video I posted earlier, it's common for people to attribute the benefits of trade to free trade.

Not that I think free trade doesn't have any benefits at all. I just think they are likely overblown for ideological reasons and as OGE said, more likely to take place after a country's economy has already developed substantially.
And since we are talking about neo-liberalism specifically, free trade is only one of its components (as was pointed out earlier by others). And I think if we were to discuss this seriously, we'd find out that I'm not actually opposed to free trade per se, but as to neo-liberal free trade specifically, which gives way too much power (and benefits) to a handful of corporations and individuals. I can easily imagine how free trade could be great with some appropriate régulations (especially avoiding dealing with legal issues through arbitration, which raises lots of issues).

I guess I'm trying to say my attack on neo-liberalism is not an attack on free trade (and vice-versa). You're the one who made that link initially, not me. Personally I tend to think as someone like Trump as promoting "nationalist neo-liberalism."

[Larry of the Lawn]

53 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

So, a command economy with the State in complete control of “Venture Capital”?  I don’t understand how that kind of centralization helps anyone?

Private capital invests in what it thinks is profitable.  Imagine the innovation that could occur if an idea was pursued on quality alone.  

Just an example - there's a Lyme disease vaccine out there for humans.  But it's not profitable so it's not being manufactured anymore.  In the mean time, instead of preventing the disease in the first place, it's being treated with antibiotics after the fact.  And we all know what's happening with antibiotics and superbugs.  

Just one example of private property preventing, and actively harming, public health.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Private capital invests in what it thinks is profitable.  Imagine the innovation that could occur if an idea was pursued on quality alone.  

Just an example - there's a Lyme disease vaccine out there for humans.  But it's not profitable so it's not being manufactured anymore.  In the mean time, instead of preventing the disease in the first place, it's being treated with antibiotics after the fact.  And we all know what's happening with antibiotics and superbugs.  

Just one example of private property preventing, and actively harming, public health.  

The State can do that without having to restrict private individuals and groups doing the same thing.  If you allow only one source for capital the bottleneck itself will be a huge problem and that alone will stifle innovation.

Using the State as a non-profit driven alternative to private venture capital sounds great.  Making it the only source, is nuts.

[Rippounet]

11 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Private capital invests in what it thinks is profitable.  Imagine the innovation that could occur if an idea was pursued on quality alone.  

Just an example - there's a Lyme disease vaccine out there for humans.  But it's not profitable so it's not being manufactured anymore.  In the mean time, instead of preventing the disease in the first place, it's being treated with antibiotics after the fact.  And we all know what's happening with antibiotics and superbugs.  

Just one example of private property preventing, and actively harming, public health.  

And think about the possibilities if carbon capture was profitable... Billions may not have to suffer from climate change.

But, hey, that would be "socialist" or something, and thus evil.

2 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

The State can do that without having to restrict private individuals and groups doing the same thing.  If you create only on source for capital the bottleneck itself will be a huge problem and that alone will stifle innovation.

Using the State as a non-profit driven alternative to private venture capital sounds great.  Making it the only source, is nuts.

Fair enough. Might as well take the best of both worlds. 

[Alarich II]

14 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Imagine the innovation that could occur if an idea was pursued on quality alone.

And you really think that Bureaucrat John Doe of the Central Agency for Idea Evaluation can and will objectively determine the quality of an idea? Oh dear, let's hope he follows the standard protocol for assessing out-of-the-box thinking. Otherwise Mr. Edison will never get get his idea government approved.

[Larry of the Lawn]

9 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

The State can do that without having to restrict private individuals and groups doing the same thing.  If you allow only one source for capital the bottleneck itself will be a huge problem and that alone will stifle innovation.

Using the State as a non-profit driven alternative to private venture capital sounds great.  Making it the only source, is nuts.

My point is simply that innovation and capitalism don't go hand in hand, and that people aren't motivated soley by the dollar, and a system where profit is the metric of 'good' is necessarily limiting.  

A lot of corporate innovation happens on the government's dime.  

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Scott de Montevideo! said:

The State can do that without having to restrict private individuals and groups doing the same thing.  If you allow only one source for capital the bottleneck itself will be a huge problem and that alone will stifle innovation.

Using the State as a non-profit driven alternative to private venture capital sounds great.  Making it the only source, is nuts.

In many cases, it may be possible to say that some products are objectively useful or more useful than others.

In other cases, not so much. People often want what they want. Are Vanilla Ice Albums more useful than Justin Bieber Records? I have no idea, though some might have strong opinions about this matter. But if people buy more Justin Bieber Records, then seemingly they find them more useful. We just don’t know until people buy them.

Perhaps, the easiest way, to resolve this matter is just have companies fork over a certain amount of their common stock to the government. This would partially bring about the socialization of capital (at least partially), while leaving market systems in place.