Jump to content
Let's Get Kraken

U.S. Politics: For Whom the Bell Polls

Recommended Posts

Trump's unilateralism ending US monetary hegemony.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/dollar-could-lose-global-hegemony-by-barry-eichengreen-2018-10

Quote

Having unilaterally reimposed sanctions on Iran, US President Donald Trump's administration is threatening to penalize companies doing business with the Islamic Republic by denying them access to US banks. But that could hasten the dollar's demise as the main global currency.

 

Quote

Moreover, Trump is squandering US leverage. Working with the Europeans and the Chinese, he could have threatened Iran, and companies doing business there, with comprehensive and effective sanctions had there been evidence that the country was failing to live up to its denuclearization obligations. But working together to ensure Iran’s compliance was, of course, precisely what the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, renounced by the Trump administration earlier this year, was established to do.

Hmm. Not too sure this is what people had in mind when they said Make America Great Again!

.....................................................................................................................

I guess better late than never.

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17955400/max-boot-trump-conservatism-gop-goldwater

Quote

The American writer and self-described “lifelong conservative” Max Boot has experienced a radical change of heart about the Republican Party — half a century after many others were forced to do the same.

In his new book, The Corrosion of Conservatism: Why I Left the Right, an excerpt of which ran in the Washington Post on Tuesday, Boot argues that American conservatism and the Republican Party under Donald Trump have been irreparably degraded. And the overwhelming strength of Trumpism has made Boot reconsider conservatism itself; now he argues that the GOP must suffer “repeated and devastating defeats.”

Well, can't say I disagree.

Quote

Boot’s willingness to self-reflect should be commended. It’s just unfortunate that he’s arrived at his conclusion three generations behind the times. 

Better late than never, I suppose.

Quote

Since the early 1960s, black Republicans and black conservatives have seen the whitening of the Republican Party and the increasing racial extremism of the conservative movement. They protested outside the 1964 Republican National Convention and lobbied Republican leaders; eventually, many decided to stop voting for the GOP altogether, stating unequivocally that they were doing so because they felt they were no longer welcome in the Grand Old Party. One man wrote in a letter to the New York Amsterdam News, “Any Negro who helps the cause of Goldwater, should be declared anything but a Negro, because they will be a traitor to the Negro people.”

If I recall correctly, in 1960 Nixon got about 30% of the African American vote. Goldwater got about 6% in 1964.

Anyone ever had the occasion to accidentally walk into a conversation between a couple conservative knuckle heads wondering why African Americans don't generally vote Republican? If you have, you probably experienced brain damage due the excessive conservative numbskullery.

..............................................................................................

The cost of financial crises.

Or why Republican gold buggery, Swabian Housewife stories, and Jeb Hensarling's Financial Bomb Act are bad ideas.

https://www.ft.com/content/1373a72a-cb10-11e8-9fe5-24ad351828ab

Quote

The lesson is that big financial crises are — no surprise — very damaging. Once they have happened, it is too late. The analysis of regulation in the October Global Financial Stability Report suggests that we must ignore bankers’ bleating against regulation: above all we must keep capital requirements up. 

Basically tell the likes of Jamie Dimon to go jump into a lake.

..................................................................................................................

Supply Side Econ makes its last stand.

Or just because Bernie Marcus says so, doesn't make it true, even if he has super seekret bidnessman knowledge.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-10-10/trump-puts-supply-side-economics-to-its-final-test

Quote

Corporate tax cuts were basically the last hope for supply-side economics. This economic doctrine, which became popular in the 1980s, holds that taxes distort the economy a great deal, and that cutting taxes therefore produces big gains in growth. Those gains are assumed to eventually result in higher wages for workers, leading some to derisively label the idea as trickle-down economics.

 

Quote

Much of that optimism might still be well-placed. The U.S. economy is in a boom right now. Corporate investment is up a bit, though modest compared to earlier eras, which is a small encouraging sign. Unemployment is low. The corporate tax cuts pushed by President Donald Trump might have contributed to this boom — possibly through demand-side fiscal-stimulus effects, but also possibly through the supply-side effects of removing tax distortions.

But one piece hasn’t fallen into place: wages. Even if corporate taxes are raising economic growth and business investment, that new wealth hasn’t yet trickled down to the masses.

 

Quote

So what’s going on? Why isn’t the tax cut raising wages? Perhaps the impact of tax cuts will be felt only over a period of years rather than months. After all, it’s important not to read too much into short-term economic data.

But it also might be the case that the supply-siders are simply wrong. Perhaps those who believed that a substantial amount of the corporate tax cut would go to workers were doing their empirical studies incorrectly, or plugging the wrong numbers into their models. Or maybe U.S. corporations were simply so successful at avoiding taxes before the tax cut that the new lower rate hasn’t really done anything other than to allow them to save money on accountants and lawyers. Either way, if Trump’s corporate tax cuts end up having no observable effect on workers’ pay, it will be the final blow to the supply-side worldview.

The Chamely-Judd model which suggest that the optimal tax rate on capital is 0 doesn't seem like it matches the real world. It makes a few dubious assumptions like perfect foresight and continuous market clearing. If it were a remotely reasonable model of how the world works, then because of it's perfect foresight assumption, you'd see a big surge in investment. And there is no evidence that is happening.

Other pieces of evidence is that the bulk of evidence suggest that business investment responds more to expected sales growth than it does to the cost of capital.  Also monetary policy seeming works more through the consumption channel than it does through the business investment channel.

Also, I'd  note that Smith should have mentioned the issue of increased monopoly power. Theory suggest that taxes on monopoly rents should have no effect on investment.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You people absolutely sicken me. This is why progressives shouldn't ever get into power. I can't wait unil the midterm comes and your hopes of a blue wave turn to ashes in your mouths.

I had no idea Senator Lindsey Graham posts on this forum...

Share this post


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

Trump's unilateralism ending US monetary hegemony.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/dollar-could-lose-global-hegemony-by-barry-eichengreen-2018-10

 

Hmm. Not too sure this is what people had in mind when they said Make America Great Again!

.....................................................................................................................

I guess better late than never.

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17955400/max-boot-trump-conservatism-gop-goldwater

Well, can't say I disagree.

Better late than never, I suppose.

If I recall correctly, in 1960 Nixon got about 30% of the African American vote. Goldwater got about 6% in 1964.

Anyone ever had the occasion to accidentally walk into a conversation between a couple conservative knuckle heads wondering why African Americans don't generally vote Republican? If you have, you probably experienced brain damage due the excessive conservative numbskullery.

..............................................................................................

The cost of financial crises.

Or why Republican gold buggery, Swabian Housewife stories, and Jeb Hensarling's Financial Bomb Act are bad ideas.

https://www.ft.com/content/1373a72a-cb10-11e8-9fe5-24ad351828ab

Basically tell the likes of Jamie Dimon to go jump into a lake.

..................................................................................................................

Supply Side Econ makes its last stand.

Or just because Bernie Marcus says so, doesn't make it true, even if he has super seekret bidnessman knowledge.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-10-10/trump-puts-supply-side-economics-to-its-final-test

 

 

The Chamely-Judd model which suggest that the optimal tax rate on capital is 0 doesn't seem like it matches the real world. It makes a few dubious assumptions like perfect foresight and continuous market clearing. If it were a remotely reasonable model of how the world works, then because of it's perfect foresight assumption, you'd see a big surge in investment. And there is no evidence that is happening.

Other pieces of evidence is that the bulk of evidence suggest that business investment responds more to expected sales growth than it does to the cost of capital.  Also monetary policy seeming works more through the consumption channel than it does through the business investment channel.

Also, I'd  note that Smith should have mentioned the issue of increased monopoly power. Theory suggest that taxes on monopoly rents should have no effect on investment.

This is absurd! I won't stand for your denigration of trickle-down economics for another second ser!

Trickle-down economics is absolutely a true thing. It's when our corporate overlords get a huge tax cut, then piss on American workers' heads and tell them it's raining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Trickle-down economics is absolutely a true thing. It's when our corporate overlords get a huge tax cut, then piss on American workers' heads and tell them it's raining.

and now that umbrellas, which are imported from China and have a big price increase thanks to tariffs, we're really screwed.

 

Edited by LongRider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this morning that the new spin by the Saudis regarding the disappearance/murder of Khashoggi is 'a rogue group' is responsible, already picked up by Trump, or 'a mission gone wrong',

In the meantime the Saudi government is calling the murder story 'false news' and is reminding the population there are laws against spreading false news that could result in jail time and heavy fines.

Share this post


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

I see this morning that the new spin by the Saudis regarding the disappearance/murder of Khashoggi is 'a rogue group' is responsible, already picked up by Trump, or 'a mission gone wrong'

Clearly, Jack Bauer broke into their consulate and assassinated him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Elizabeth Warren took a DNA test and she is legitimately part Native American. (See Boston Globe.)

I'm not sure what this means to all of you, but it was my lone legitimate complaint about her -- I questioned her integrity and character.

It seems that not only was she telling the truth, but she endured years of abuse for no reason and persisted. This answered both of my questions. In a couple of weeks I'm going to vote for her for my Senator, and I really hope I get to vote for her again in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stego said:

So Elizabeth Warren took a DNA test and she is legitimately part Native American. (See Boston Globe.)

I'm not sure what this means to all of you, but it was my lone legitimate complaint about her -- I questioned her integrity and character.

It seems that not only was she telling the truth, but she endured years of abuse for no reason and persisted. This answered both of my questions. In a couple of weeks I'm going to vote for her for my Senator, and I really hope I get to vote for her again in 2020.

Her test showed she is 1/1024 Native American. thats an awfully small fraction to say she is legitimately part Native American

 

Edited by Frog Eater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

Her test showed she is 1/1024 Native American. thats an awfully small fraction to say she is legitimately part Native American

 

Skewing for the low end of the possibility there. 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/10/15/warren-addresses-native-american-issue/YEUaGzsefB0gPBe2AbmSVO/story.html

Quote

Bustamante calculated that Warren’s pure Native American ancestor appears in her family tree “in the range of 6-10 generations ago.” That timing fits Warren’s family lore, passed down during her Oklahoma upbringing, that her great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American.

...

If her great-great-great-grandmother was Native American, that puts her at 1/32nd American Indian. But the report includes the possibility that she’s just 1/1024th Native American if the ancestor is 10 generations back.

...

Warren has 12 times more Native American blood than a white person from Great Britain and 10 times more than a white person from Utah, the report found.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DMC said:

Clearly, Jack Bauer broke into their consulate and assassinated him.

Not Jack Bauer, Ethan Hunt. Wasn't he declared rogue in the last couple of MIs? And since Cruise doesn't age, I think it makes sense he made another victim to keep his youth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Stego said:

So Elizabeth Warren took a DNA test and she is legitimately part Native American. (See Boston Globe.)

I'm not sure what this means to all of you, but it was my lone legitimate complaint about her -- I questioned her integrity and character.

It seems that not only was she telling the truth, but she endured years of abuse for no reason and persisted. This answered both of my questions. In a couple of weeks I'm going to vote for her for my Senator, and I really hope I get to vote for her again in 2020.

 

27 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

Her test showed she is 1/1024 Native American. thats an awfully small fraction to say she is legitimately part Native American

 

 

7 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

Honestly, NONE of this matters.  Because of the way DNA works, you can have a 2nd great grandparent who was Native American, and you have none of it in your DNA.  A person gets 50% of each of their parents' DNA, but not necessarily 50% of each aspect of their DNA.  It is why siblings can have different amounts of regional/ethnic DNA from each other, why one has blue eyes and the other brown, one is tall, the other average.

Also, determining ethnic origins based on DNA is not an exact science 

I'll try and find a link to a video that really breaks down and explains how DNA is passed down in very simple terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

Not Jack Bauer, Ethan Hunt. Wasn't he declared rogue in the last couple of MIs? And since Cruise doesn't age, I think it makes sense he made another victim to keep his youth.

Yeah, Hunt has often been rogue - at least by the second act of many of the movies, but Bauer's, like, almost always rogue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

Her test showed she is 1/1024 Native American. thats an awfully small fraction to say she is legitimately part Native American

 

Umm...the report itself places her at approximately 8 generations removed, so (1/2)^8*100 ~ 0.39% which is twice what the average white American has. I dont know conservative clown math, so I may be wrong...but they must have taken the 10 generations number and got to 0.09%, which is disingenuous argle-bargle.

Anyway, I am guessing she got told she had NA ancestry through oral history, which she assumed to be true, and this is a way of confirming it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per CNN:

Quote

This all began back in Warren's 2012 Senate campaign, when the Boston Herald ran a piece noting that Harvard Law School listed Warren as a minority professor -- and used her status as such to boost their diversity numbers amid criticism. Within a week, Warren acknowledged that she had listed herself as a minority in a listing of law professors. When asked for documentation of that heritage, her campaign was unable to produce any. "I am very proud of my heritage," Warren said in 2012. "These are my family stories. This is what my brothers and I were told by my mom and my dad, my mammaw and my pappaw. This is our lives. And I'm very proud of it." Warren also changed her story on whether or not she had informed Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania of her Native American heritage; she initially said she had no idea how either school had received the information before later acknowledging that she had told the schools sometime after she was hired.

This is the problem I have with it.  Warren is not a 'minority' and it seems like she used a minuscule part of her DNA profile to create a false narrative about herself.

I've never done one of those DNA tests because I don't want some company selling my genetic information, but I know from historical documents that my family were some of the first settlers in Appalachia and some of them intermarried with Native Americans.  This was probably 8-10 generations ago, just like Warren's case, and while I might be inclined to say I am likely to have a Native American ancestor in casual conversation, there's no way I would claim that I'm a Native American or a minority on anything official, especially when doing so gives the appearance of benefiting my career or my employer.  I think that's where the line is for me.  Saying you are part Native American when you have a distant ancestor is totally fine, but allowing it to be used to the advantage of yourself or your institution when the experience of being a minority in the US is not your experience is a little sleazy, imo.    

Obviously if it comes down to Warren V. Trump I'm voting Warren.  But I don't think this episode is all that flattering either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

 

 

Honestly, NONE of this matters.  Because of the way DNA works, you can have a 2nd great grandparent who was Native American, and you have none of it in your DNA.  A person gets 50% of each of their parents' DNA, but not necessarily 50% of each aspect of their DNA.  It is why siblings can have different amounts of regional/ethnic DNA from each other, why one has blue eyes and the other brown, one is tall, the other average.

Also, determining ethnic origins based on DNA is not an exact science 

I'll try and find a link to a video that really breaks down and explains how DNA is passed down in very simple terms.

 

All of that is true, BUT Warren was demonstrably not lying. There is enough Native American DNA to prove she was not a liar. Spin it however you want, her name is cleared.

Edited by Stego

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

 

 

Honestly, NONE of this matters.  Because of the way DNA works, you can have a 2nd great grandparent who was Native American, and you have none of it in your DNA.  A person gets 50% of each of their parents' DNA, but not necessarily 50% of each aspect of their DNA.  It is why siblings can have different amounts of regional/ethnic DNA from each other, why one has blue eyes and the other brown, one is tall, the other average.

Also, determining ethnic origins based on DNA is not an exact science 

I'll try and find a link to a video that really breaks down and explains how DNA is passed down in very simple terms.

Thank you. Was going to rant about this but I have class. May still do so later today because the entire concept of determining your "% ancestry" on simple fractions of what your ancestors are is idiotic on several levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with Warren doing this is that it will be viewed as this is something Trump made her do. Even if the sceince is very accurate, it will not stop something like Trump calling her Pochantas.

I am sure Trump will bring this up at his next rally, ask the crowd if he should continue, get hus affirmative response, and keep on doing it.

Warren ancestry and Obama Birth Certificate are things the factual is very irrelevant. It is more what Trump can make somebody do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stego said:

 

All of that is true, BUT Warren was demonstrably not lying. There is enough DNA to prove she was not a liar. Spin it however you want, her name is cleared.

Man, see S. John's response above, she held herself out to be a minority, when she statistically has less or possibly around the same Native American DNA as any other white American, depending on when exactly that 8-10 generation back grandmother lived. But her Native American heritage is so minuscule, it doesnt count as being Native American. 

She would have been better off without releasing the report and just stuck with the family lore angle. I get the family lore angle, most white families have a great great great grandmother (or something similar) that was Native American. 

At the end of the day. all this does is get her name in the news for a news cycle, people like you, who are looking positive validation in the report will see it, people who want to see her as a fraud will see that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Anyway, I am guessing she got told she had NA ancestry through oral history, which she assumed to be true, and this is a way of confirming it.

I think that's the key point. She was born in Oklahoma in the 1940s and her parents were born in the 1910s, only a few years after the enabling act that merged the Oklahoma and Indian Territories into a single entity and in living memory of the various settler land rushes into Native American lands in the area. I'm sure the Warren family, just like a lot of families in Oklahoma, had a story of some grandparent or great-grandparent who married a Native American and had children. And whoever knew all the specific details probably died before Elizabeth Warren was even born.

She probably had no idea what specific percentage it was, or even for sure which relative it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Stego said:

 

All of that is true, BUT Warren was demonstrably not lying. There is enough Native American DNA to prove she was not a liar. Spin it however you want, her name is cleared.

I have never doubted that her family told her she was NA and that she believed it.  Even if she came back with no NA listed, she still would have been telling the truth.

But I am with S. John on the claiming of minority status on the basis of family legends.  Back before DNA I looked up what I would need to do to prove I was Native America and the answer was I had to show I was descended from someone who was listed on the rolls before they were closed in 1913.

Stating your ancestry as a fun fact is fine, claiming minority status is not.

All that said, I'd still vote for her.

Edited by Lany Freelove Cassandra

Share this post


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

×