Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Ready, Set, Announce! Bookering the Odds

Recommended Posts

This is a little bit meta and absolutely not aimed at anyone at all, but I hate the word ‘wonk’.  

Seems exclusively used in the context of a ‘policy wonk’ and if anyone ever described themselves to me as that, I would have to suppress an urge to punch that person in the face, even though they would have already figuratively punched themselves in the face by thinking that was a cool thing to say.  I would be successful against that urge, but it would be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, S John said:

This is a little bit meta and absolutely not aimed at anyone at all, but I hate the word ‘wonk’.  

Seems exclusively used in the context of a ‘policy wonk’ and if anyone ever described themselves to me as that, I would have to suppress an urge to punch that person in the face, even though they would have already figuratively punched themselves in the face by thinking that was a cool thing to say.  I would be successful against that urge, but it would be there.

On that tangent, the word in that context has always seemed wrong to me; I'm used to hearing "wonky" and have it mean "out of alignment" "off-center" "unbalanced" or "poorly constructed." So the connotation is almost opposite what I'd expect.  

Should probably just start calling them policy wooks instead.

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

On that tangent, the word in that context has always seemed wrong to me; I'm used to hearing "wonky" and have it mean "out of alignment" "off-center" "unbalanced" or "poorly constructed." So the connotation is almost opposite what I'd expect.  

Should probably just start calling them policy wooks instead.

It's only a short step from there to policy wookiees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Relic said:

Uh, yeah you were.

Yes, but that was clearly because Hillary Clinton would have been SO MUCH WORSE! She would have been more of the same policies that didn't separate families, put kids in cages, turn our country into an international joke, benefit Russia, surround herself with the morally bankrupt and corrupt, and increase the deficit while enriching her pockets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Yes, but that was clearly because Hillary Clinton would have been SO MUCH WORSE! She would have been more of the same policies that didn't separate families, put kids in cages, turn our country into an international joke, benefit Russia, surround herself with the morally bankrupt and corrupt, and increase the deficit while enriching her pockets. 

there are good people on both sides...

 

...

 

 

 

Edited by Relic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

"Died" was perhaps the wrong word. I meant that its underpinnings have been pulled out from under it (Keynesianism didn't die in 1973 either, but it was similarly compromised/mortally wounded, before Reagan and Thatcher came along). Certainly, neoliberalism retains its true believers, but the invincibility is gone - the "consensus" is over, and anyone celebrating the all-powerful market is not going to be taken seriously among the general public any more. The post-2009 era has been about figuring out what comes next - hence the comparison to the other intellectual interregnums of the 1970s and 1930s.  

Thanks, this is what I was alluding to.

The consensus may be over, but neo-liberalism is still haunting our lives. And yes, as I like to point out on a regular basis, contrary to what many on the right believe, right-wing populism and neo-liberalism are not mutually exclusive because neo-liberalism does not have to be globalist in nature.

And yes, there are some forces who will stop at nothing to prevent the actual alternatives to neo-liberalism (socialism, actual democracy, green new deal... etc) from being implemented. Can you imagine a world in which the common good would be crucial again? The horror!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A stroll down memory lane.

When "reasonable centrist" didn't ask too many questions about the technocratic competency of Trump or his advisers. Evidently that is for Democrats.

https://ritholtz.com/2016/06/no-cra-not-cause-financial-crisis/

Quote

Two of Donald Trump’s economic advisers, Lawrence Kudlow and Stephen Moore, have revived an idea about the source of the financial crisis that really should have been put to rest long ago.

In a column published and rebroadcast by many politically sympathetic sites, they lay the blame for the credit crisis and Great Recession on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 law designed in part to prevent banks from engaging in a racially discriminatory lending practice known as redlining. The reality is, of course, that the CRA wasn’t a factor in the crisis.

 

Quote

Yet none of these things happened. And they should have, if the CRA was at fault. It’s no surprise that in congressional testimony, various experts were asked about the CRA — from former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair to the Federal Reserve’sdirector of Consumer and Community Affairs — and none blamed the crisis on the CRA.

 

Quote

I have called the CRA blame meme “the big lie” — and with good reason. It’s an old trope, tinged with elements of dog-whistle politics, blaming low-income residents in the inner cities regardless of what the data show.

Now conservative sorts of people, theoretically how would the CRA even cause such a thing if you believe assets are always correctly priced according to a rational valuation / rational expectations framework? At best you might argue it misallocates capital, but would it cause asset mispricing? Uh, no.

So what's the story here?

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, it sounds like the "it was actually minorities that caused the Great Recession" argument.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Honestly, it sounds like the "it was actually minorities that caused the Great Recession" argument.  

The reason it sounds that way is because that was what it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Relic said:

Uh, yeah you were.

Fortunately, we don't have to rely on memory for this: all of the posts are still there. I called him a demagogue from the start to the end (here's a post from just before the election) and I started a long thread in the first post of which I point out that Trump (like most of his fellow populists) is a member of the ruling class who is only in this for power. It's true that after Sanders lost and the only choices were Clinton and Trump, I preferred the latter, but to refer to that as being all for him is a gross exaggeration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that Mark Penn has a column about Mueller's "abuses."  I resent Hillary Clinton for putting me in a position of having to cast a vote for a person who employed this creature.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Also, Gen Z is aligning fiscal cons/social lib and they're starting to vote.

Well so called "fiscal responsibility" might be the hottest new thing. 

It might be what all the cool kids are into.

That still doesn't relieve them of explaining their logic. Else one might say, "different day, same old conservative horseshit."

Quote

Ds are behind the game if the message is moving to criticize fiscal responsibility. 

It's more about criticizing much of the intellectual shenanigans that passes for or gets couch in terms of "fiscal responsibility".

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I see that Mark Penn has a column about Mueller's "abuses."  I resent Hillary Clinton for putting me in a position of having to cast a vote for a person who employed this creature.  

Anyone that followed the 2008 Dem primary should have known how loathsome a creature Penn was back then.  Her whole 2008 campaign was, ironically, full of deplorables - Howard Wolfson and Lanny Davis weren't much better.

23 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well so called "fiscal responsibility" might be the hottest new thing. 

It might be what all the cool are kids into.

Except I haven't seen one iota of evidence that it is.  Looking at the latest Morning Consult poll, the only pattern among "Gen Z" when you look at issue attitudes (see pages 65-109) is Gen Z respondents are much more likely to have no opinion on pretty much every issue.  All that suggests is 18-21 year olds are less politically interested and thus less likely to vote, which is pretty damn standard.

And, if you look at the "Reducing the federal budget deficit" item specifically (pg. 97), 46% of Gen Z respondents thing it's at least an important priority, 19% thing it's not important or shouldn't be done, and 35% don't know or don't have an opinion.  This is compared to 75% that think its important and 14% that don't among all registered voters.  So, yeah, this notion seems pretty well pulled out of someone's ass.

Edited by DMC
Link

Share this post


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

Anyone that followed the 2008 Dem primary should have known how loathsome a creature Penn was back then.  Her whole 2008 campaign was, ironically, full of deplorables - Howard Wolfson and Lanny Davis weren't much better.

Oh, no doubt.  Obama supporters talked a lot about Penn in this space back then.  The most fascinating question about Penn is whether he's more loathsome than Dick Morris who worked for Bill Clinton.  Both of these guys are out of central casting.

 

On the AOC marginal tax plan I saw David Brooks say something on PBS the other night which was, more or less, "no matter what we've done with tax rates, federal revenue has always been about 19%."  This set my BS meter off similar to that Bret Stephens column claiming that Venezuela's spending on social programs was some huge outlier, and google just led me to a concept I'd not heard of but maybe you guys have called Hauser's Law.   Brooks did not cite this "law" but I now suspect that this is where he got that figure.  And without too much further research, the early returns suggest that this law is no law at all and that revenue fluctuations are indeed larger than the law suggests and therefor Brooks is full of it.   He was of course making this argument as a way of saying we should not increase taxes on the top incomes.  

Share this post


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

Oh, no doubt.  Obama supporters talked a lot about Penn in this space back then.  The most fascinating question about Penn is whether he's more loathsome than Dick Morris who worked for Bill Clinton.  Both of these guys are out of central casting.

Well, I'd say Penn at this point, but that's just cuz Morris has basically disappeared from the public sphere after predicting a Romney landslide in 2012.

Share this post


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

Ok it's a bit lame but I didn't want to mention blackface,

You did though.

I'll throw this out and let ya'll sink your teeth in and rip and roar.

Who spent the time and money to research far back enough to find a photo in 1984 yearbook?

25 years ago. In 2044 you run the risk of being researched for social and political incorrectness.

Virginia is divided. Northern VA being in the hub of the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

Southern VA in 1970's and 1980's had social segregation.

Still does especially if church services are considered.

Not an excuse. Merely a truism.

I want to reiterate what you say today, the pictures you post today, the tweets you tweet today may verra well come back to haunt you 25 years from now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Clegane'sPup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

You did though.

 

I guess you don’t get it - in the TITLE!

Share this post


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

I guess you don’t get it - in the TITLE!

Yeah, since you did not chime in on what I typed I am marginally dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting into political pogroms over events from the early 1980's? Especially in a state where racism to some degree is the norm, not the exception?  Well, that's one surefire way for the Democratic Party to snatch (near certain) defeat from the (likely) jaws of victory. 

Share this post


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

×