US Politics: Vaguely above average Tuesday

[Kalbear]

New thread! With the economy crashing, the administration sucking and the US obviously needing medicare for everyone, right now - Biden is very comfortably ahead. In addition, if Biden gets the kind of values that they're projecting, it would mean Sanders would need 65% of the remaining delegates to get the majority. He's gotta get a big win, and a big win right away.

 

 

[Zorral]

Bloomb in a cabinet position to rebuild the agencies that have been gutted by cuts in budget and expert, experienced personnel wouldn't be the dumbest thing any new POTUS has done, in the circumstances in which, if they do, of course, of which there are great arguments against, the Dems come back.  Nobody -- even me -- will ever accuse bloomb of incapacity to organize and get things done, as long as he's already in charge, rather than soliciting votes from the heartland.  

[mcbigski]

Quote

The Saudis and the Russians got into a fist fight and there is a lot of blood on the floor. Oil, actually. And American oil company debt has a lot to do with it.

You know how Trump has been bragging endlessly about the US producing so much oil and exporting now? That’s been driven by the fact there’s so much debt in the oil industry. Production in the US keeps going up, which has pissed off the Saudis to no end. Ergo, their meeting on the weekend trying to cut production, which the Russians refused to do.

Occidental Petroleum, a company worth about $60 B a few years ago, took over Anadarko (not Marathon, sorry) oil last August, using $40 B in debt. (Edit from saying a couple of years ago, it sure feels like it) Purchase price was $57 B. Last week after the sharp drops, the combined company was worth $25 B. This morning the combined company is worth $15 B.

Trust me, there is going to be American blood on the floor now too. And Canadian blood, and British blood, and French and German blood and everybody else.

The Saudis destroyed the Venezuelan oil industry in the late 90s when they stepped out of line. The Saudi cost to produce oil is rumored to be $3 a barrel. The US cost is $27 a barrel. The last time around the oil war devastated the US and Canadian oil industries and it took $100 a barrel oil to fix it.

From the previous thread (Fragile Bird).

It was the Russians, not the Saudis who refused to cut production, as you say.  The Saudis were willing to pump less, and keep the price of oil higher by restricting supply, while Putin is looking to flood the market.  Over leverage may kill the companies that can't make their debt payments at $20 per barrel, but their competition with stronger balance sheets will buy them out at distressed prices.  

So what we have here is Putin attempting to interfere with the US economy and Presidential election.  Sanders and Biden are against fracking, so presumably are with Vlad on this one too.

That being said, assuming we do have a recession, lower energy costs are stimulative across pretty much every other sector but energy.  (I'll enjoy seeing gas under $2/gal again as well.)  So Putin is looking to tank the US economy by going after 5% of it and stimulating the rest.  I'm not a kleptocrat evil genius billionaire myself alas, but that seems somewhat half baked.  

It's one thing to devastate the economy of Venezuela where oil exports are one of the biggest sources of revenue, but the total energy sector is about 6% of the US economy. 

[Kalbear]

Thought this was a  good article on what the press consistently gets wrong about Biden and Sanders, and how it turned out the way it did on Super Tuesday. Especially the focus on strong rhetorical and speaking skills, which have not been a problem since Reagan. 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Especially the focus on strong rhetorical and speaking skills, which have not been a problem since Reagan. 

Eisenhower, or even LBJ & Nixon, weren't exactly Benjamin Disraeli either.

[Rippounet]

@Ser Scot A Ellison Let's rewind all the way back to the initial problem, shall we?

Quote

What organization will have, to use Mao’s words, “The barrel of a gun” to ensure a “global wealth tax” is paid?

Why should there be any new organization? The entire idea rests upon collaboration between existing states, increased transparency, and -perhaps eventually- common policies. But common policies would only mean that countries would agree on the tax rate each one levies on its citizens.

To quote an old article:

Quote

Piketty went on to say that there needs to be more global cooperation between countries about cross-border financial assets so that there is an equitable tax system that allows governments to invest in infrastructure and education.

And... like, that's it. The "global wealth tax" could be described as a form of global reciprocal FATCA. The entire digression about taxation and force was always a bizarre and rather ideological non-sequitur and I have no clue why you ever thought that was in any way pertinent to Piketty's proposal, which starts with Zucman's idea of a global financial registry.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

@Ser Scot A Ellison Let's rewind all the way back to the initial problem, shall we?

Why should there be any new organization? The entire idea rests upon collaboration between existing states, increased transparency, and -perhaps eventually- common policies. But common policies would only mean that countries would agree on the tax rate each one levies on its citizens.

To quote an old article:

And... like, that's it. The "global wealth tax" could be described as a form of global reciprocal FATCA. The entire digression about taxation and force was always a bizarre and rather ideological non-sequitur and I have no clue why you ever thought that was in any way pertinent to Piketty's proposal, which starts with Zucman's idea of a global financial registry.

I appreciate what you are saying.  Regardless, so long as States exist and derive financial benefit from allowing the wealthy to shelter assets and wealth in their sovereignties the regime you postulate will have holes that the wealthy can and will exploit to avoid the “global wealth tax”.  Hence, my position that some  new entity with global sovereignty will be necessary to prevent people from avoiding this tax.

[Fez]

With so many other public events being cancelled or postponed due to COVID-19, it feels like Biden and Sanders have got to stop doing rallies soon, right? (and Trump too, if he had a brain)

Seems like such an unnecessary risk, including for them personally. Seeing journalists tweeting the photos of Biden's rally tonight feels real disconcerting, considering everything else going on.

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 minutes ago, Fez said:

With so many other public events being cancelled or postponed due to COVID-19, it feels like Biden and Sanders have got to stop doing rallies soon, right? (and Trump too, if he had a brain)

Seems like such an unnecessary risk, including for them personally. Seeing journalists tweeting the photos of Biden's rally tonight feels real disconcerting, considering everything else going on.

Could they really afford to? 

Approaching the public is apart of campaigning

[Rippounet]

50 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I appreciate what you are saying.  Regardless, so long as States exist and derive financial benefit from allowing the wealthy to shelter assets and wealth in their sovereignties the regime you postulate will have holes that the wealthy can and will exploit to avoid the “global wealth tax”.  Hence, my position that some  new entity with global sovereignty will be necessary to prevent people from avoiding this tax. 

I genuinely struggle to follow your thoughts here.
1) It seems you're saying humanity is incapable of solving a global social dilemma. I'll have a more optimistic view of my species if you don't mind.
2) Even if I'm wrong, it's still worth trying ; right now we're not even trying. In other words, we could at least try to limit the number of holes instead of punching new ones.
3) A new entity might be necessary but it doesn't follow that it requires global sovereignty so long as most States (or at least, major economic powers) agree on possible penalties for violations. Such organizations already exist (though the US does have a tendency to keep out of them).
4) The idea that any kind of force or threat of force would be necessary to move toward greater global collaboration on an economic issue completely baffles me. I can understand you'd criticize the idea, or even that you'd find it unrealistic, but this insistznce on force is utterly bizarre to me.
To my eyes that's like saying you can only have a potluck if the host is ready to shoot whoever doesn't bring anything... It's a coherent reasoning, but it feels like it's coming from a complete psychopath.

[Martell Spy]

There. Clinton voter last time, voting for Bernie Sanders this time.

[Crazydog7]

Didn't I read somewhere that Trump has a massive germ phobia? 

[Proudfeet]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

I genuinely struggle to follow your thoughts here.
1) It seems you're saying humanity is incapable of solving a global social dilemma. I'll have a more optimistic view of my species if you don't mind.
2) Even if I'm wrong, it's still worth trying ; right now we're not even trying. In other words, we could at least try to limit the number of holes instead of punching new ones.

Not going into the gun point discussion, but I have a dimmer view of our species. You're asking everyone to act in good faith. Its not happening. There are going to be bad actors. I feel like it would just be giving bigger economies another avenue to exploit or blunt small economies. 

I think global taxation is fair, especially as economies go increasing digital, but how we are going to achieve it is a very big problem. I assume Scot's concern is enforcement. I'm sceptical on the fairness of how it will be achieved.

@Mlle. Zabzie I'm just bitter about it being a strong-arm agreement rather than a handshake agreement. I feel even worse reading Ran's comment that the US isn't even holding up their end of this lopsided bargain.

[Jeor]

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Could they really afford to? 

Approaching the public is apart of campaigning

Seems like Biden could afford to cancel his rallies. He barely campaigned and still won states on Super Tuesday. He has that magic name recognition that's free publicity wherever you go.

[Fragile Bird]

Will Rand Paul reveal the name of the CPAC coronavirus carrier. the way he revealed the name of the whistleblower?

[Larry of the Lawn]

Biden really on point here, can't imagine how this could work against him in the general:

I have zero confidence he wouldn't do something like this again.  M4a is too expensive, but starting baseless wars?  No problem!

 

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

It's kind of stunning that Democrats have now managed, since the Iraq War, to nominate three Presidential candidates who voted for the war, out of four nominees total (I'm getting ahead of myself, I guess, but Biden is the overwhelming favorite). The fact that supporting that war is not viewed as completely disqualifying shows how little Americans care about foreign lives. It's widely recognized as an enormous blunder, but even the people who recognize that don't seem to care too much that it's a blunder that destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings. 

[Ran]

41 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

The fact that supporting that war is not viewed as completely disqualifying shows how little Americans care about foreign lives. It's widely recognized as an enormous blunder,

A blunder most Americans supported and which is understood in large part to have been made because the White House massaged and misrepresented the evidence they used as causus belli in a fashion not seen since Vietnam. 

It's hard for people to hold a bad vote against people when they know that the majority of them were in support, and even more were on the fence. So it's not really a great surprise that the Iraq War vote isn't that significant in modern politics.

[Liffguard]

54 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

It's widely recognized as an enormous blunder,

This is a major part of the problem, that it's still seen as a blunder rather than an act of naked aggression from the very start. It's only a "blunder" if you buy into the idea that the aim was to create a functioning democratic state. If you view it as simply a demonstration of power, a flexing of imperial muscle for the purpose of maintaining American hegemony, and for funnelling even more money into the military sector, it can be mostly seen as a success. A horrifying success for extraordinarily cruel people, but still a success.

See also Vietnam, which is still frequently referred to as a failed defence of South Vietnam, rather than a successful invasion, in which the extraordinary destruction was the point.

I agree that in a just world, support for the invasion of Iraq should be disqualifying from ever holding any level of public office again.

[Darryk]

48 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

It's kind of stunning that Democrats have now managed, since the Iraq War, to nominate three Presidential candidates who voted for the war, out of four nominees total (I'm getting ahead of myself, I guess, but Biden is the overwhelming favorite). The fact that supporting that war is not viewed as completely disqualifying shows how little Americans care about foreign lives. It's widely recognized as an enormous blunder, but even the people who recognize that don't seem to care too much that it's a blunder that destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings. 

I'm sure it was a big factor in Hillary losing though, a lot of people thought Trump would get them out of wars and that Hillary would start a war with Russia.

Of course Trump has instead almost started several wars, so if he goes up against Biden, Trump's own instability may cancel out the fact that Biden voted for the Iraq War in the eyes of voters.