Jump to content
lokisnow

U.S. Politics: It’s beginning to look a lot like Rescission

Recommended Posts

Did I miss something ? The Dow just dropped 500 points in twenty minutes, wiping out an otherwise positive day.

wierd December in the markets, usually the “animal spirits “ of the traders means December traditionally irrationally outperforms which results in end the year positively, to have a dour December in an up economy is bizarre. What happened to the traders’ positive holiday animal spirits this December?

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


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

Don't know about the "big money" part (each party relies on big money), but the rest of Krugman's quote you provided sounds like his articulation of Hopkins and Grossman's Asymmetric PoliticsHere's a review that succinctly quotes the thesis:

So the Dems' coalition of interest groups is traditional in a Downsian sense, seeking the median voter in a two-party system by behaving as a cartel party extracting and appropriating government benefits in order to maintain power.  Meanwhile, the GOP increasingly has become more akin to a "niche" party in a PR system, bent on ideological purity that is composed and behaves accordingly.

Sure but as Ty said those rules can be changed rather easily/conveniently.  And look it up yourself!  :)

I didn't know Ran had grown influential enough to get Senators to change their name and copy him.

Thanks for the response.

I've watched about two decades of horrid Republican policy making (or should I say even more horrid than what was historically the case), and as such I start to hyperventilate whenever I see any sort of "both-sidism".

If the two parties, have fundamentally different mechanics in how they operate, then it seems to me this is an important point in refuting the bothsidism.

Accordingly, I have a further question. Is Hopkins and Grossmans' theory about the two parties pretty well accepted or received within the political science community?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Did I miss something ? The Dow just dropped 500 points in twenty minutes, wiping out an otherwise positive day.

wierd December in the markets, usually the “animal spirits “ of the traders means December traditionally irrationally outperforms which results in end the year positively, to have a dour December in an up economy is bizarre. What happened to the traders’ positive holiday animal spirits this December?

The Fed hiked rates as expected, but dropped the number of anticipated rate hikes in 2019 from 3 to 2. This likely spooked both sides of investor prognosticators, one set who likely  interpreted it as the Fed expecting an economic contraction in 2019, hence the reduction in expected hikes, and the other set who were hoping that the Fed would ease off rate hikes even more during 2019 and view the rising rates as being too much, too soon for the equity markets to bear.

Both sides get spooked and you get a huge drop.

Share this post


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

The Fed hiked rates as expected, but dropped the number of anticipated rate hikes in 2019 from 3 to 2. This likely spooked both sides of investor prognosticators, one set who likely  interpreted it as the Fed expecting an economic contraction in 2019, hence the reduction in expected hikes, and the other set who were hoping that the Fed would ease off rate hikes even more during 2019 and view the rising rates as being too much, too soon for the equity markets to bear.

Both sides get spooked and you get a huge drop.

The economic consensus* seems to be that national growth will slow in 2019 and recession is very possible/likely in 2020. 

* Note that the economic consensus is wrong an awful lot of the time. 

Share this post


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

If the two parties, have fundamentally different mechanics in how they operate, then it seems to me this is an important point in refuting the bothsidism.

Indeed it is a very important point to emphasize.

8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Is Hopkins and Grossmans' theory about the two parties pretty well accepted or received within the political science community?

Yes, it's one of the most influential works on (American) political parties in the past decade, probably the most influential since Cox and McCubbins' (2004) Setting the Agenda (which is exclusively focused on party in government whereas H&G cover all three aspects - party government, organization, and in the electorate).  The title is responding to the ~40-year trend of "asymmetric polarization" - that the GOP is demonstratively becoming more extreme than the Dems - and striving to depict how the different structures and activities of the respective parties generates such asymmetry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all.”

-Joan Robinson

Make full employment, great again.

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/19/18146352/trump-federal-reserve-interest-rate

Quote

This is a striking, hypocritical, and opportunistic turnaround for both Trump and the Journal (which editorialized back in 2016 that Yellen had been far too slow to raise interest rates) — but their new position happens to be the right one.

Hope nobody really thinks the WSJ is actually, "a paper for the serious investor". What a bunch of sorry clowns.

Quote

The simple argument against the idea that the low unemployment rate means we have a super-strong economy is to look at the share of prime-age workers — people between the ages of 25 and 54 — who have jobs. By this measure, the economy is doing okay but by no means great, and there’s still plenty of room for the workforce to grow back to the level it reached in 2000.

 

Quote

If you look at younger people, the case that there are more workers available looks even stronger.

 

Quote

Further evidence of labor market weakness is that right now, wage growth — though certainly not terrible — is “meh” rather than “amazing,” as employers continue to find it not so hard to find workers to hire.

 

Share this post


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

Indeed it is a very important point to emphasize.

Yes, it's one of the most influential works on (American) political parties in the past decade, probably the most influential since Cox and McCubbins' (2004) Setting the Agenda (which is exclusively focused on party in government whereas H&G cover all three aspects - party government, organization, and in the electorate).  The title is responding to the ~40-year trend of "asymmetric polarization" - that the GOP is demonstratively becoming more extreme than the Dems - and striving to depict how the different structures and activities of the respective parties generates such asymmetry.

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

After consulting with the world’s top 2,000 gender-studies professors, I have determined that cookies are neither people nor men. You wouldn’t know that from watching Carlson’s show, which treated the Scottish dessert scenario as an urgent threat deserving of concerted right-wing resistance. Carlson’s guest, right-wing radio host Tammy Bruce, called gingerbread men a “target” of “the left’s culture bullies.” Carlson himself situated the gingerbread people within the greater “war on Christmas,” a “global struggle … being fought very fiercely here in America, but not just in America.”

Some Suggested Tweaks to Tucker Carlson’s Rant About “Gingerbread People”

https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/12/tucker-carlson-gingerbread-man-person.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precedent if the time comes?  Or long since superseded?  

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-news-can-president-arrested-20181217-story.html?fbclid=IwAR2c-SlDNA7bYnHtzGUkWX68SwKhDT-_f8zt1bs0WLsYe65hGs3wNFFMK-I

 

Ulysses S. Grant, the 18th U.S. president, was arrested for speeding his horse carriage through Washington D.C. in 1872.

Details of the story vary, but the president was stopped three separate times for speeding — and was arrested once during his presidency.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The remarkable thing about that story, as I found out on Twitter the other day, is that the man who arrested Grant was a freed slave. Imagine if a black policeman tried to arrest Trump. 

(I can't access the article so don't know if this point was covered in there.)

Share this post


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

The remarkable thing about that story, as I found out on Twitter the other day, is that the man who arrested Grant was a freed slave. Imagine if a black policeman tried to arrest Trump. 

(I can't access the article so don't know if this point was covered in there.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/us/police-officer-shoots-security-guard-chicago.html

Considering what happened to Jemel Roberson? We all know the answer.

 

For you who haven't heard about this, and won't read the link. Jemel Roberson, a black security guard, detained a shooting suspect. Upon arriving police officers immediately killed the security guard. Cause, you know, black man

 

hero

 with a gun.

Edited by A True Kaniggit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tucker Carlson, with his rants about immigration, nicely demonstrates everything that is wrong about the state of American Conservatism.
In Carlson's view or people that think like him, evidently, there has been a vast left wing conspiracy, to suppress the truth about immigration, leading to another crackpot conservative conspiracy theory, that I'm sure will be ate up like it's the best thing ever, in some quarters.
But, the real truth, is that, like the issue of globalization, the issue of immigration has often been a contentious issue on the left, with some on the left worrying that the capitalist owning class will play off immigrants against natives to lower wages. Even left wing icons like Cesar Chavez have showed some trepidation about immigration.
But, whether immigrants do or do not lower native wages depends on the relationship of immigrant labor to native born labor (whether it's complementary or substituable) and how capital interacts with labor (the degree of substitubility) or whether immigrant labor helps to reduce the cost of producing capital goods.
And overall the empirical evidence seems to be that immigrants don't have much of an effect on native born labor, except maybe for a small segment of the native born population, and perhaps the immigrants themselves.
As for its fiscal impacts, it seems that overall the long term fiscal impact isn't much or somewhat positive. Accordingly, an intelligent response would have the federal government give money to areas that are experiencing lots of immigration, to cover the fiscal impact experienced to certain localities. The Federal government will eventually recoup it money as the immigrants or their children earn more more money.

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/19/18147562/tucker-carlson-advertiser-boycott-immigration-wages

Quote

Tucker Carlson, currently facing some advertiser boycotts over a segment in which he accused immigrants of making America “poorer and dirtier and more divided,” resorted earlier this week to a favorite tactic of right-wing provocateurs — playing the victim and insisting on his right to speak his mind rather than engaging in an actual debate on the issue at hand.

On his Monday night show, he replayed his earlier controversial remarks, and then said that “precisely because it is so obviously true, saying it out loud is a threat. Our immigration policy exists for the profit and the comfort of a relatively tiny number of people. Everybody else gets shafted.”

He added: “Meanwhile, the people profiting from the policy don’t want the rest of us to think about it too much. They want us just to mouth the empty platitudes and move on. ‘Nothing to see here. Shut up and go away.’ Those who won’t shut up get silenced.”

None of this is true. For starters, nobody has been “silenced” for criticizing American immigration policy. Donald Trump is the president of the United States, for example, and Tucker Carlson is a multimillionaire television star with wealth and power that far outstrips that of his critics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FiveThirtyEight has an article called "Why Latinos Haven't Completely Abandoned the GOP".

Quote

A sizable bloc of Latino voters have remained aligned with Republicans in the Donald Trump era. This seems surprising, considering that he described Mexicans who sought to come to the United States as drug users and rapists during his 2016 campaign, his administration has adopted anti-immigration policies, and Democrats are taking increasingly liberal stances on immigration issues. Some journalists expected that Trump would severely damage the GOP’s standing with Latino voters. So why hasn’t that happened?

The article goes on to outline four reasons why Latino voters have stuck with the GOP:

1.  Partisanship.  Most voters have not changed allegiance in the Trump era, and Latino voters are no exception.  Presumably their reasons for supporting the GOP, be it abortion or tax cuts or whatever, are sufficient to keep them onboard.  This goes double for the growing number of evangelical Latinos.

2.  Immigration isn't that important to some Latino voters.  Particularly those who have been in the country a long time and don't worry as much about family members being deports.

3.  Some (not Trump) Republicans are still doing a lot to appeal to Latino voters.  Texas Gov Abbot and Florida Gov Rick Scott both did substantial outreach to Latino voters, and that outreach paid off. 

4.  Maybe polling is missing a shift in Latino voters after all?  This is possible, and different polling firms have different opinions on whether Trump is hurting the GOP brand or not.

 

I think that all of those seem reasonable, but I think that #1 is the biggest factor.  People don't switch political parties readily, and I think that a lot of GOP Latino voters are just sticking it out, not enthusiastic about everything Trump is doing, but nonetheless willing to support him because they see Democrats as being worse.

In addition, I would add a caveat to #4, which is that I think that among young voters and recently naturalized immigrants who can now vote, I am confident that Trump is hurting the Republican brand.  However, those are long term trends, not something that will show up in a single four year span.  I expect that Trump's support from Latino voters in 2020 will probably be down ~2 points from what he got in 2016, and that most of this is from changing voters, not from people changing their minds.  A 2 point shift in Latino voters isn't enough to cost him the election, but it won't help matters either, as Latino voters make up a larger portion of the electorate every cycle. 

Edited by Maithanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

FiveThirtyEight has an article called "Why Latinos Haven't Completely Abandoned the GOP".

The article goes on to outline four reasons why Latino voters have stuck with the GOP:

1.  Partisanship.  Most voters have not changed allegiance in the Trump era, and Latino voters are no exception.  Presumably their reasons for supporting the GOP, be it abortion or tax cuts or whatever, are sufficient to keep them onboard.  This goes double for the growing number of evangelical Latinos.

2.  Immigration isn't that important to some Latino voters.  Particularly those who have been in the country a long time and don't worry as much about family members being deports.

3.  Some (not Trump) Republicans are still doing a lot to appeal to Latino voters.  Texas Gov Abbot and Florida Gov Rick Scott both did substantial outreach to Latino voters, and that outreach paid off. 

4.  Maybe polling is missing a shift in Latino voters after all?  This is possible, and different polling firms have different opinions on whether Trump is hurting the GOP brand or not.

 

I think that all of those seem reasonable, but I think that #1 is the biggest factor.  People don't switch political parties readily, and I think that a lot of GOP Latino voters are just sticking it out, not enthusiastic about everything Trump is doing, but nonetheless willing to support him because they see Democrats as being worse.

In addition, I would add a caveat to #4, which is that I think that among young voters and recently naturalized immigrants who can now vote, I am confident that Trump is hurting the Republican brand.  However, those are long term trends, not something that will show up in a single four year span.  I expect that Trump's support from Latino voters in 2020 will probably be down ~2 points from what he got in 2016, and that most of this is from changing voters, not from people changing their minds.  A 2 point shift in Latino voters isn't enough to cost him the election, but it won't help matters either, as Latino voters make up a larger portion of the electorate every cycle. 

I didn’t read the article, but there’s a few other things at play. First, Latinos are not a monolithic group. Trump’s insults with regards to Mexicans might not mean anything to someone who considers themselves to be Columbian-American. In fact, it could even be a positive thing. I lived in Argentina and nearly everyone I met there hated Brazilians, so if Trump attacked Brazil, an American with Argentine ancestry might approve of it. Second, religion. Latinos tend to be pretty religious, and it’s quite possible that they will gravitate to the Republican party. I know it’s something Republican strategists always bring up. Third, a lot of immigrants who came here legally resent people who don’t do it the way they did. That doesn’t mean they’re Republicans, but it’s not uncommon to hear. And lastly, circling back to the first point, you have to take into account that there are different voting patterns for various sub-groups. Cuban-Americans, for example, vote for Republicans at higher levels than a lot of other Latinos.

Now, all that said, I would expect Latinos to trend Democratic more and more over the next couple of decades, but I think that will be true of all ethnic groups because Millennials hate Trump and the Republican party.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I am astonished that none of you are celebrating Victory over ISIS!

 

Ever since I learned of the US made great again victory over ISIS I've been a'lookin' for it everywhere, even under the bed and behind the refrigerator, and I still haven't found it!  Help me out here, guyz.

Share this post


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

×