An Open Letter to Republicans
Dear Republicans:
I need to have a word with you, and this time it doesn’t concern Donald Trump. Of course, it’s easy to get distracted by the antics of a bizarre con-artist who might have conspired with Russia to throw the 2016 election. Maybe distraction is part of the plan. But Trump is only one man — an aging blowhard at that — while your numbers are legion. At least for now, I’m more concerned about you.
For example, I noticed the other day that your Republican-dominated Congress voted in favor of removing restrictions on killing Alaskan wolves and bears… including cubs and their mamas… including hibernating individuals sound asleep in their dens… using planes and traps if necessary… in NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES, of all places. I used to assume that a wildlife refuge was a place of refuge for wildlife. How obtuse of me.
I’m sure you have your reasons for wanting to murder these furry critters. I’d like to think you don’t really salivate at the prospect of blowing wolves and sleeping bears (and their cubs) to kingdom come, although I could be wrong. I know they’re predators (or potential predators, if you take the cubs into consideration). They prey on caribou, moose and other game animals that Alaskans like to kill for themselves. And I know you resent the federal government for protecting land and wildlife from private interests (all that beautiful timber, just sitting there, when it could be so much more useful in a sawmill!).
But something tells me you were especially eager to repeal the no-kill rule because it went into effect during the final months of the Obama administration. (Yes? Am I getting warm?)
Like an upstart lion that has just taken over a pride, you’ve wasted no time trying to kill the cubs sired by the deposed alpha male. It doesn’t seem to matter to you whether some of Obama’s cubs were worthy of survival — out they go, all of them! You’re relishing your power and asserting your dominance. I understand that. But maybe you should think twice about throwing out the good with the bad. Did it really steam your noodles to make health insurance available to people with pre-existing conditions (i.e., the people who need it most)? Did it grate against your Republican instincts to protect the wildlife in those wildlife refuges?
You seem to be in love with guns. You declared that even crazy people should own them, all the better to mow down mass quantities of unsuspecting citizens (preferably Democrats). You’re in love with money, of course, and you seem hellbent on transferring more of it from the beleaguered middle class to the flourishing business elite. You’ve cooperated with drug companies that cruelly price their life-saving products in the upper stratosphere. You stand steadfastly in opposition to science — especially climate change and evolution, because you’re a bit defensive about fossil fuels and the inerrant nature of the Bible. You’ve eliminated funding for Meals on Wheels and Big Bird, not to mention the arts. (How else are we going to build The Wall?)
You don’t quite know what to do with blacks, Hispanics, gays, feminists and Muslims. It makes you sad that we’re no longer living in Beaver Cleaver’s world, and I can understand the tinge of regret for the lost idyll of mid-20th century America: the innocence, the near-universal moral standards, the tight family and neighborly bonds, the patriotism, the sense of unity as clean-cut fellow Americans. We’re a fractured and often discordant culture, no doubt about it. And the cultural left keeps ramming more changes down your already-sore throats.
I suppose you enjoy thumbing your noses at those smug, sandal-wearing chardonnay-sippers, those coastal progressive snobs who ridicule your values and your spelling at every opportunity. I can’t entirely blame you; I know they can irritate the bejeezus out of you (and occasionally me).
But by destroying institutions and regulations that the elite left holds dear, you’re also hurting the loyal, unadorned folks who once represented the heart and soul of America. They’ve served in the military, labored hard for their wages, suffered financial breakdowns and still salute the flag. You’re letting them down.
Sometimes I have to wonder if your team has gone over to the dark side, deliberately enacting legislation that would appeal to Lucifer or at least Ebenezer Scrooge — the ornery, misanthropic, tightfisted Scrooge, not the Scrooge who gained enlightenment from the three spirits of Christmas. I know you’re tired of paying from your pocket to help people who can’t seem to help themselves — but try to remember that millions of those people actually voted for you. Even those who didn’t still deserve a chance to feed themselves and fight life-threatening illnesses without going broke. (If you haven’t noticed, serious medical treatment today looms beyond the financial reach of all but celebrities, CEOs and investment bankers.)
Are you willing to just let those uninsurable proletarians die and “decrease the surplus population,” in Scrooge’s memorable words? Can you observe their suffering from inside the walls of your gated communities — and are you enjoying it? Have you been reading too much Ayn Rand?
If you’re as Christian as I’d like to think you are, you won’t begrudge them a government-guaranteed helping hand instead of leaving them to the whims of the free market. (The free market isn’t free, and survival can’t depend on whims.)
I know that Democrats can be shrill and supercilious in their opposition to your policies. I can understand why you might want to put your hands over your ears and go “Na-na-na!” while they bleat about patriarchy, privilege and transgender locker room rights. But please be wise enough to separate the bogus from the beneficial. Be big enough to listen to their legitimate grievances. You don’t have to agree — just listen. They’re not the enemy. They’re your fellow Americans.
Eisenhower, model Republican that he was, would have understood. He embodied both strength of character and ordinary human decency. He possessed a generous spirit moderated by classic American pragmatism. He was president of all the people, not just the Republicans.
My final word of advice to you: be more like Ike.
Thank you,
The New Moderate
Coming soon: “An Open Letter to Democrats.”
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate and the author of the recently published e-book, Lifestyles of the Doomed.
THE NEW MODERATE 
Oh my. You have stepped in it this time!
Why did the Obama climate change policies have to be wiped out at a stroke of a pen? My Theory, that occurred right after the health care debacle that saw trumps popularity sink to a new set of lows, which at this point can only happen when conservative leave him, because there is almost no approval coming from the dem/lib side. So, trump was hoping to throw something to the conservative to make them love him again and climate change seemed like a good move.
I see stories on my news feed such as Why did the GOP just vote to remove protections on selling your personal information?
Well, why? I’m sure there is some good reason why America will be greater when my personal information can more easily be sold. Oh, I know that under closer inspection this can be somehow blamed on Obama, or it didn’t really happen, or the dog ate their homework, or something.
And, lest anyone believe that I have it in only for the GOP, a facebook post appeared yesterday from a friend of a relative that listed Bernies wonderful 11 point plan to fix America and I nearly threw up. I could support 1 point. The other ten were a fantasy and a recipe for A) a civil war, B) a 4 trillion dollar deficit, and C), a recipe for a depression. So, the primary voters of both parties as a group are completely nuts. The trump presidency has been completely nuts and it will either continue for the full 8 years and/or be followed by a dem presidency that is completely nuts from the other direction. We have cancer, either it will continue or go into remission only to be followed by a heart attack. The patient will require a miracle to survive.
I guess the chances that anyone from either party will sit down and figure out something practical, like how to make medicare continue to work for the 65+ population is just a lost cause.
Roby, I’m convinced we need a third party now, if only to subvert the perpetual “us vs. them” factionalism of the current partisans — and their insistence on ideological purity.
I’m all too aware of the follies on the left, of course, and they’ll have their turn. Right now, I’m waiting for Dave’s assault, and I have a feeling Priscilla won’t be pleased, either — although she’s too good a friend to hold a grudge. I wonder if I’ll actually persuade anyone on the Republican side.
What assault ?
I think you are hypersensitive to the right.
I also think you confuse the “deconstruction of government” which I see as a tremendous good, as somehow evil.
Yes I want to see business and all of us more free. But contra the left.
That is NOT what big business wants.
Yes, I think that free people sometimes make mistakes.
Still we are better off more free than less free and government makes plenty of mistakes – with worse consequences than free individuals.
Regardless, I am far more worried by the right when they are trying to make new laws, than dismembering the old ones.
As to shredding all of Obama’s “legacy”.
Average US growth for the 19th century was 7%, for the 20th 3.5%, for the 21st 2%, For Obama about 1.8%.
The last time the economy was this weak and anemic for this long was the last time a progressive republican tanked the economy and was followed by a progressive democrat who kept it their.
I liked Obama as a person – mostly.
But his policies were disasterous. The sooner gone the better.
Regardless, Obama and the left had their 8 year shot to fix things.
Instead they made things worse.
Trump has been elected and he will be judged in 2018 and 2020 based on the economy.
If the things he is doing right now are truly bad for the country – we will know that and Republicans will pay in 2018 and 2020.
If on the other hand the Obama regulations and policies being gutted were holding us back. We will also know that and it will be democrats in trouble.
Personally I am mostly concerned about republicans at the moment.
Democrats are increasingly irrelevant, and clueless.
They are preparing to follow Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders off a cliff.
Those marching to that cliff like lemmings are loud and numerous – but neither loud enough nor numerous enough to effect anything.
I am watching carefully what Republicans do. that is what matters right now.
I am not under the delusion they can not screw things up.
I fully expect them to screw much up.
I am just hoping they get enough right to improve the rate of increase in standard of living. Without stupidly demanding too much of our freedom to do so.
I am not in agreement with your specific attacks on Republicans.
In fact thus far outside of Sessions I have been very impressed by Trump.
But I am watching cautiously.
With very few exceptions I want Trump to keep his campaign promises – in the form he has tried thus far.
Not because I agree with everything he is looking to do.
But because the way he keeps his campaign promises reflects how much I can trust him on other things.
I am an open boarders person. I am opposed to the immigration EO.
But I am impressed that he has tried to keep his promise, and that he has done so in what despite the super hype of the left has been an extremely reasonable way.
Trump also promissed he would oblitaerate ISIS and then stay out of conflicts in the mideast where our Interests were not involved.
I would prefer that he left ISIS to the mideasten nations.
But I do care to see is most out of the rest of the mideast.
Bushes ventures into the mideast have been an economic and political disaster.
Obama promised changed and if anything was worse than Bush – if it is even possible to distinguish them.
I think we should cut a couple of hundred billion from defense spending – not increase it but 54B.
I do nto think it is much of a secret how I feel about govenrment spending.
But I can live – for the moment with republican crap on defense spending.
If we quit F’ing up throughout the mideast.
We have had two big wars with the mideast in the past two decades.
GWII, and OPEC vs. Permian Basin Frackers.
The first was a disaster. The second a triumph.
The first was bloody all around.
In the 2nd the US is far better off, far less dependent on unstable countries in the rest of the world and actually exporting oil.
The second was fought and won – decisively, with the active interferance of the US government.
And Trumps evisceration of the Obama Climate Nazi’s will ensure that remains the case in the future.
A higher standard of living means producing greater value at lower human cost. $40/bbl oil means a higher standard of living.
Obama could have delivered that.
He failed.
Good ridance.
Dave: Thank you for not assaulting me, although the sheer number of words makes it difficult for me to respond without taking notes. (I don’t have time to take notes, so I’ll just write you a general reply here.)
I didn’t vote for Trump, but I actually favored several of his campaign promises. It seemed, for a while, that he was a populist who would try to break the influence of big money on politics, rebuild our tattered middle class and focus on our internal problems rather than try to police the world. So much for promises.
So far, he’s staffed his cabinet with moneyed insiders poised to wreck their respective departments, proposed tax cuts for the rich (while cutting programs that help the less well-off) and called for a huge increase in military spending. Then, of course, there’s The Wall — Trump’s Folly. (Illegal immigrants will be using boats and planes in the future.)
But my message was directed primarily at Republican politicians who, like those male lions, seemed to take positive delight in destroying anything sired by Obama. Granted, Obamacare is a strange and probably unsustainable program, but at least it extended coverage to people who would have been considered uninsurable. Ryan’s healthcare plan would have been disastrous.
As for the environmental protections, I still can’t believe any observant person can be a climate change denialist when 16 of the past 17 years have been the hottest on record. Glaciers are melting, the warming sea is killing massive coral reefs, and the cherry trees are blooming nearly a month in advance. The only question is how much of the change is caused by human activity, not whether it’s actually changing.
And why cling to fossil fuels instead of investing in clean energy that will provide far more jobs while it helps retard global warming? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that Republicans instinctively loathe smarmy environmentalists like Al Gore. Let’s divorce the issue from personalities and politics; we need to stop ravaging this planet, because we’re not ready to be colonizing other worlds just yet.
I do not organize my comments – why would I expect you to organize your replies.
My assessment of Trump’s campaign is much as yours.
My assessment of his presidency is that he is doing what he promised.
He has put into his administration people who have real world experience successfully running lean and successful operations. Those people tend to have done well for themselves. They are not to my knowledge large political contributors. Trump does nto appear to be running a patronage government.
I vascillate between beleiving Trump is brilliant on a level the rest of us do not comprehend, and just incredibly lucky. Regardless, many of what appears to be his “mistakes” turn into opportunities.
I have ZERO problems with his eviscerating government. Aside from my own ideological views – every single past successful effort at rolling back government has produced rewards for decades after.
Past that Trump is fixated on getting the economy going. slashing regulation will help, tax cuts will help, slashing spending will help.
I and anyone who is numerate would gladly trade all of our social safetynet programs for a 1% year over year improvement in standard of living.
This is where you and I part company. Like it or not, the impact of specific types of taxes is relatively well understood. The impact of specific types of spending are also relatively well understood. The impacts of regulation are relatively well understood.
Starting with Carter we had Three presidents who prioritized the economy over government – Carter, Reagan, Clinton. While each made some mistakes in other areas – the benfit to the entire country was enormous.
We subsequently had two presidents who had other agenda’s that trumped the economy – and things went to hell.
We had over 3.5% Growth from 1980-200, we averaged 2% since 2000.
What does it take before YOU – whatever you want to label yourself grasp that big government is the problem, not the solution ?
That regulation makes us poorer.
That “taxing the rich” – if that is how you have to label it – makes us poorer,
That government spending – even “safetynet spending” makes us poorer.
My “ideology” was not all that different from yours a couple of decades ago.
But I have watched what worked and what did not – and then searched for the information about it.
We actually know what works – with a fairly high degree of certainty.
I found it amazing that despite the heavy left shift of academia, and the fairly heavy left shift of government that the overwhelming majority of economists regardless of what they call themselves, are dubious of high taxes – particularly on investment, are dubious of regulations, and are dubious of govenrment spending.
Aside from concensus, there is also facts and data.
We live in the real world – as noted above the incentive for politicians is to do something – even when nothing needs done.
Absolutely politicians can always find some prominent guru to offer a plan that allows then to do what they want to do anyway.
Absolutley if you shop hard enough you can find someone with credentials to argue for whatever you want to do – right left, center.
But everything is NOT a matter of opinion. Everyone is entitled to have and express their opinion – but all opinions are NOT equal.
Frankly I think the ideology of the left is far LESS plausible today.
When Reagan was elected we did nto have the internet as today.
It was not possible for ordinary people to easily get information from primary sources.
Today, it is far less excusable to buy into crap that does not work.
Looking at our economy as Trump inherited it.
The post 2008 recovery was very unusual in the normally small business significantly leads every economic recovery and big business lags.
But since 2009 Big Business has done fine – small business by nearly every measure is in the dumps. As a result we have very low labor force participation, low growth and a fragile economy.
That big business is doing well should not be a surprise – you and I are absolutely agreed that there is an incestuous relationship between big business and government.
What we do not agree on is the solution.
You think more regulation is needed – yet big business benefits from regulation.
Has Dodd Frank or Sarb-Ox harmed big business ?
Regulatory compliance is a relatively cheap price for a big business to pay in return for barriers to entry that make it essentially a regulated public monopoly.
I can tell you that what big business fears most is competition – particularly from the bottom. I can tell you that big business excercises sufficient control over regulation to assure that it will never really harm them, or that the price for ignoring regulation will be low.
But in the end the facts speak for themselves. Post 2008 the left regulated the crap out of us – and big business is doing fine – small business is not, and as a result our prospects are dim. We are surely and unhappy.
The cure for what ails us is NOT a deeper and broader social safety net, more regulation, bigger government, more spending and more taxes on the rich.
That did not work in the 30’s and it did not work in 2009.
It did not work for Cuba, or Venezuela.
Why cling to fossil fuels ?
Who is doing that ? That is not even the question.
The question is “why is government deciding what fuels we should use ?”
We have switched fuels myriads of times in the past – we have done so even when that switch increased our energy costs – we have done it on our own – when the benefits to us were sufficient and our standard of living was sufficient to afford it.
That is part of why this ludicrous concept of positive rights is so evil.
We are not entitled to clean air or water – we have those things as a result of our own effort – because our standard of living is high enough that we can afford those.
They are not a right. They are something we earned by being highly productive.
I have zero doubt we will shift to different energy in the future – I doubt that is soon.
Because the facts are that alternative sources are not close to ready – and massive govenrment regulation is not going to make them ready sooner.
Another stupid fallacy of the left – that spending lots of money is the same as “investment”.
As to “global warming” – I am sorry here, but frankly, I think at this time anyone who still beleives in that hoax should be wearing a dunce cap.
Yes, those on the right “instinctively” loath environmentalists – not because they loath the environment – but because environmentalism has been taken over by lunatics from the left who continually seek to use it as a vehicle to advance left wing ideology not actual environmental concerns.
I knew before you wrote your post that north american forests are growing – and that most of that growth is in private commercial forests – not federal or state forests.
I also knew that our forest conservation policy since the begining of the 20th century has been disasterous. That most forest fires are natural not man made and that they form an important natural function. That imposing our ideas of what was needed to protect the forests had actually made them more fragile – BTW exactly the same thing is true of desertification, it has taken us 70 years to learn that the very things we have sought to prevent – the burning, trampling and over grazing of grasslands are exactly what they need to thrive.
I did not know that as we have scaled back logging the increased destruction of forests – in both alaska and the lower 48 by fires has been 4 times larger than the decrease from logging.
The bottom line is that nature does nto work at all like left wing nuts – even highly educated and credentialed left wing nuts think .
Not a single malthusian left wing nut prediction has ever occurred.
There is no “silent spring”, the population bomb was a dud,
peak oil I, II, III, …. have all been fizzels gas costs less today adjusted for inflation than in 1970, and the global proven oil reserves at current rates of consumption will last longer than ever.
It is self evident that the planet has barely warmed in 20 years – if it has warmed at all.
It is also increasingly obvious over time that the impact of warming – in the unlikely event we were to get it would be NET positive.
So no I am not interested in this left wing nut nonsense about “ravaging the planet”.
Those who have been repeatedly wrong about everything have absolutely zero credibility.
John D. Rockefeller did more good for the world – for the poor though his success with Standard Oil than Mother Theresa.
Those people who rant about robber barons and evil exploiters – are the ones who are actually evil.
I do not care what you “feel” about the planet ot the poor or the most vulnerable among us.
I care what you have done. The consequences of the actions of those who purportedly care have universally been bad. While the consequences of the actions of those who you berate the most have been near universally good.
Jesus did not say – when did you feel for me while in prison ? or when did you steal from others to feed me. He did judge us for our virtue signaling. He said we will be judged by our actions.
By that critieria, those on the left and environmentalists are a disaster, and the people they accuse of raping pillaging and burning are often hero’s.
Regardless, until you open your eyes and see the world as it truly is, your judgement has little value.
Rick;
I would strongly recomend reading Julian Simons “The Ultimate Resource II”
Unfortunately it only goes to 1998.
But nothing of consequnce has not conformed with the data Simon collected then.
The book is a massive compendium of the actual data in the various subject of the assorted malthusian prognoistications of the prior 3 decades.
It is essentially the data based refutation of the assertion that we are “raping our planet”.
The only think controvesial about the book is the arguments,
No one actually disagrees with Simon’s data.
One of the things Simon points out is that periodically assorted end of the world claims gain media attention.
Subsequently – often over years, they are explored and the data demonstrates they are false. There are no big media retractions. Often all but a few scientists in the narrow part of the field that determined that the meme was false continue to beleive the nonsensical claim that has long been refuted.
You could likely poll scientists today and go through a long list of high profile claims of impending disaster that have all subsequently been disproven – and not merely does the public, and politicians, but even most scientists continue to beleive them.
Obama’s climate change policies needed wiped out with a stroke of a pen because the are fraud.
Trump campaigned against the hoax of climate change.
The process of reigning in EPA and NASA on climate change began as Trump took office and had nothing to do with PPACA.
We have spent more than 100B on this hoax. It is well past time to end this nonsense.
Why do you presume that every law or regulation with a pleasant sounding name is inherently good ?
Why do you presume that when government steps in an says it is doing X that it is actually doing X or that there are actually good consequences of it doing X ?
If you wish to protect your personal data – don’t git it out willy nilly – that is up to you.
This is just about the only place in the world I post under my own ID, and even here I am using an email that is exclusively for Blog posts.
Regardless, I am far more concerned about what the government is colecting about me than what Amazon is.
Amazon wants to figure what I am going to want int he future and make sure that it is ready even before I know what I want.
There is only one way I can conceive the information Amazon is collecting on me can be harmful to me – and that is in the hands of government.
I do not care what amazon collects or how Amazon uses it.
If Amazon uses what it knows in a way that is troubling – it will get punished by the market and it knows it.
What I care about is that government can get at the information Amazon is colecting easily – without a warrant.
You worry about the wrong thing.
When was the last time any business killed someone ?
Our government likely killed someone today.
Lordy, off your meds today?
Paranoia is really a psychiatric condition.
Moogie
No meds, no paranoia.
Just noting, it makes far more sense to be concerned about what people who actually have the power to take away your liberty and life might do with your private information, that what those who provide you with bread or flats screens might do.
Agreed, Dave. And, it’s funny….what happened to all of the left-leaning libertarians? Other than Glen Greenwald and Matt Taibbi, I never read anything by left-wing writers about government intrusion on privacy rights.
I am a big fan of Glenn Grenwald – though I sometimes disagree,
One rare occasions Matt Yeglasias gets things right.
As to where are the “left” libertarians – try here.
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/
At the same time I would note that libertarians are inherently “left”
They are for individual liberty
I would also note that just because I do not beleive government should step into something does not mean I am giving my impramateur to whatever conduct free people might pursue.
As an example – government is barred from discriminating.
Individuals and businesses are not.
Government can not have different laws for blacks and whites, gays and straights or transgendered or …
A business can (and must be able to ) discriminate as it pleases.
And if I do not like how they choose – I can boycott them.
Gay, straight, black white, transgendered, catholic, jew, athiest
You have exactly the same rights, and government must protect them the same.
I care how you conduct your life – but I have no actual say, except where your actions reduce the liberties of others.
I think that is very liberal.
I love this post, so I guess the Righties will hate it. 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
I tried to be a little sympathetic, but yeah — our conservative friends will probably heap infamy upon me.
Turnabout is fair play. You owe us righties now. 😉
Stay tuned for my next column, Priscilla. I’ll probably lose a few liberal friends over that one (assuming they read it).
BTW, if that is your handwriting above, an online analysis revealed that you are indecisive, literary, a natural born balancer, too liberal, and in deep shit with conservatives on this site at the moment. (that’s just a little joke, I did not actually go to an online handwriting analysis site and paste in your signature and thus invade your privacy by throwing your personal information around online. I’m not a free market conservative so I would not do such a thing! But, be careful what you display online, they are out there and they are hunting, with the aid and sympathy of the GOP apparently)
It’s my handwriting, so I’m fair game for prying robocams (or whatever they use). My attitude is “let ’em snoop.”
So Rick posts his signature – and you think that taking something rick has made public, feeding it to a handwriting analysis site is an invasion of his privacy ?
Are voodoo dolls and ouija boards invasions of privacy ?
Or is there something I do not understand in your post ?
Humor.
Finally. ’bout time you took the gloves off with the Republicans. They don’t deserve sanctuary, these days. The words “cruel” and “mean-spirited” fly to my lips with every unfolding story of their assholery, these days.
“Sometimes I have to wonder if your team has gone over to the dark side…” THIS. These days, I don’t wonder it “sometimes.” I wonder it just about every day.
I hope we are all paying close attention to Republicans.
I am atleast as worried as the rest of you.
I voted for Johnson. I am happy the “lessor evil” won.
I did not say truth and light triumphed.
At the same time if the left is whigged out over what Trump has actually done those far since the election – then the left is in a bubble – but then that is self evident.
“Deconstructing the administrative state” is going to result in some results that make good sound bites for the left.
I do not get the appeal of hunting bears in helicopters. I think you you are trying to prove your “hand size” by hunting bears – that you should have to do it alone in the woods at night with a slingshot. That would impress me.
But I am not getting bent out of shape over the first real serious effort we have seen to reign in the federal government in decades.
Frankly I hope it is contageous and spreads to the states.
If Rick or the actual left wants to piss over Republicans – be my guest.
I beleive in free speech.
And republicans with real power is only slightly less scary than democrats with real power.
Mostly I would prefer gridlock- decades of it would be nice.
that is far less dnageorous than legislators doing something.
As Franklin noted
No mans life or liberty is safe while the legislature is in session.
Cougrrl: Today’s Republicans are probably motivated more by a desire to strike back against the Democrats than by an actual desire to be evil. It’s factionalism — a fight to the death. The GOP folks know they’ll give the liberals a collective stroke by sticking it to poor people, cutting taxes on the rich, and ending environmental protections, and that makes them happy.
Honestly Rick, though I have less trust of politicians to do the right thing – by far than you.
I also have less beleif that their primary motives are to screw the other guy.
Republicans did oppose Obama’s policies – because they beleived they were wrong.
Democrats are opposing Trumps – because they beleive they are wrong.
In my view the fundimental distinction ties to the distinctions between the core essentially “instincts” of the right and left.
Again I would refer you to Prof, Haidt’s moral foundations.
The left is driven by the desire to feel virtuous.
Those on the left beleive that if they do what feels like it should help others – that it will help others. They truly beleive that, and they beleive it without regard to evidence to the contrary.
The right is driven by disgust and order. During my lifetime disgust has diminished as a driver for the right – hence tolerance if not support for gays. But order is still an important appeal to the right.
Further the influence of libertarians on the right has increased over time.
Hence the right is more fiscal conservative, limited government,
We have tended to oscillate between left and right – because the left has more powerful appeals. Emotions are very strong. And because immediate benfits and delayed or hidden costs are appealing.
But over the long run these fail.
Obama and democrats swept the political landscape in 2008 – because government had clearly failed – catastrophically, and republicans had the misfortune of being in power when that failure occurred. Arguably many were also complicit.
Subsequently the left failed. We did not get recovery, PPACA is still not strongly supported. All the Obama legacy that Trump is brushing away to the great anger of the left, is so easily discarded because it does NOT have broad public and strong support.
While there is an element of war. The objective of each party is less to harm the other. but to succeed. And each beleives success is accomplished in a radically different way.
Do you really think Trump is ending environmental (non)protections – because that makes him happy ?
I do get very tired of this presumption that spending money and enacting regulations labeled “environmental protection” constitutes actually protecting the environment.
Regardless, I beleive that Trump wants to be remembered as a great man.
As a private citizen he was about Branding. His name was on everything.
Now his objective is to be remembered as a great president.
I do not think Trump or Bannon or any of his people take their pleasure primarily in screwing the environment.
I do not think they get it primarily from screwing the left (though I do think they take some pleasure in that).
They (like democrats) are actually doing what they beleive is best for the country.
Like democrats they are on occasion wrong.
Regardless, I think Trump has absolutely taken heed of Carville’s assertion – its the economy stupid.
“The GOP folks know they’ll give the liberals a collective stroke by sticking it to poor people, cutting taxes on the rich, and ending environmental protections, and that makes them happy.”
…and that makes them happy.
If accurate, then Yes, they’ve gone over to the Dark Side. Only someone holding such a seat would find happiness in hurting the poor–so many are working poor; and harming the environment, upon which we all depend for life itself. Yes, mean-spirited. Abominable. Absolutely nothing worth defending anymore. Cruel and mean and ugly and contemptible. And certainly *not* Christian…most especially *not* that.
Except that it is horribly inaccurate.
Rick, you have been watching too much MSNBC. Not only , as Moogie said, the righties will hate it, so too do some of the more moderate of your readers, like me.
So a elitist in Washington D.C. that has never set foot in Alaska knows better than the people that live in Alaska what is good for the Alaskans. Alaska Gov. Bill Walker, a political independent, filed suit on this bill because many Alaskan people are indigenous to the land and have lived off the land for centuries. To have someone in Washington D.C. pass laws that control what they do with their land is bull crap. How many people from the lower 48 have ever seen Alaska personally? And what right do they have to tell Alaskans how to handle their land?
I agree with you on healthcare and the joke the republicans proposed. After 7 years, one would think they would have had a consensus plan on the table from day one. They did not expect Donald Trump to win, so why work on a replacement plan once they found him to be the nominee. and what they proposed was not healthcare reimbursement reform, it was corporate and rich tax relief.
Timber harvest in Alaska, If one does their homework one will find that in many of the national forests in Alaska, tree regeneration is so fast that unlike those in the lower 48, they HAVE TO BE thinned. For example, natural regeneration is so abundant in the Tongass National Forest that many new trees quickly replace the harvested forests. Many areas require thinning for healthy regrowth after the first 15 years and after about 50 years, the second growth area will have more timber volume than the original old growth acreage.Native to that area, as well as the indigenous population in the lower 48 have known for centuries how to manage forest. Just look at the indian lands that were next to the national forest in Colorado years ago when fires swept through the “protected” forest, but were easily contained once they reached Indian lands.Clearly and thinning are part of forest management where some species of trees need to be cut before the die of natural causes.
So I will stop with one last request. In your next research for an article, how about leaning right, going after the waste in government. I know your the big picture guy, but there must be ways you can find information on how much we waste every year and on what and then maybe people like myself would not be so anti-spending on government programs. Damn, even Bill Clinton supported work requirements for Medicaid though support of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 which he supported when he said he would end medicaid as we knew it in 1992. Maybe an article on how we waste for example 1billion this year, budget a 3-4% increase next year and we waste 1.03 – 1.04 Billion next year. And how about finding out how many duplicate programs we waste money on.
Maybe we could support all those elitist programs with the money we waste.
I would like sources as to the tree regeneration in Alaska. Since it is so much colder there, I would think the opposite.
Found a graph with alaska
Moogie. Hope this helps. Please read the complete information concerning trees dying, insect infestations, etc. I am not in favor of areas like the Red Woods being harvested nor clear cutting of the rain forests, but I am also not a tree hugger that thinks every living tree should be left standing.
Red Wood harvesting in the US today is almost entirely private. What occurs on public lands is not sufficient for proper forest management.
I do not know exactly what the US redwood losses to fire on public lands are each year – but I would bet they dwarf – not just harvests on public lands – but total redwood harvests.
Over the past 50 years due to the massive opposition of environmentalists to logging several things have happened – logging in the US has shifted HEAVILY to automated logging (fewer jobs) on private lands. These commercial forests are being sustainably managed – in fact US lumber output is rising AND our forest land is increasing concurrently.
Further manaufacturers that use wood in their products have either shifted from wood or shifted to being able to utilize younger woods.
Private managed forests are also producing higher quality lumber faster
This is how free markets work.
Dave I have no idea what the redwood harvesting is either today. I was using it as an example based on many years ago from my experience with my family taking a vacation ins the “redwood section” of California that was not national forest. Driving down the “scenic” highway that was advertised as scenic, there was about ten rows of trees (not really rows because it was nature planting it, and then hills upon hills of clear cut land, not a tree to be seen. I have no idea what this land looks like today, it could be covered with houses for all I know. But one thing, I bet there are no redwoods on that land and if there are, they most likely are still small. I always wondered why they had to clear cut and could not selectively leave some trees, but then we go to the private corporations desire to maximize profit and leaving trees for future people to enjoy is not part of that strategy.
(And don’t giver me a 5 page dissertation of corporate profits, private enterprise and freedom to do what they need for stockholder returns. I know where you stand and you know where I stand and we will never agree).
But when forest can be harvested and they grow back in a few years better than what they were, then I am not the tree hugger that we have in Washington D.C. that never set foot in Alaska.
There are various sources of data on Forests.
The US forest service produces a yearly report that roughly corresponds to what I wrote – though as typical of government agencies they try to take credit for anything good that has occured, and there is a fair amount of pressure to tilt the report to strongly suggest they need more power – either to prevent some evil or to encourage some good.
If you are looking for broad compendiums of data in a single source I would strongly recomend Bjorne Lamborg’s “the skeptical environmentalist” and Julian Simon’s “The Ultimate Resource II”.
While I mostly agree with the thesis of both books, there most significant value is a single source for accurate data on a wide variety of subjects that come up often.
Once you have atleast scanned either – and grasped that much of the malthusian crap you hear one these subjects may be nonsense. You are sufficiently intellectually armed to go out and try to verify.
You do not have to accept Simon or Lomborg unquestioned.
Once you grasp what to look for google is your friend and will give you what you need to determine where the truth is.
I do not pretend to know exactly why someone else did something that I do not like.
I also do not pretend to be allowed to dictate what others do.
If my neighbors paint their house chartreuse that will likely annoy the crap out of me and make my visual environment unpleasant.
It is still their right to do so.
There are a bazillion reasons – both bad and good that some redwoods somewhere may have been cut down. Those are not mine to know.
Overall when I actually look deeply into the worst things man has ever done – whether to the environment or some other area, I inevitably find government inextricably involved.
But government is not the sole source of bad decisions in the world.
I will also note that destruction is an important part of how we learn and evolve.
We learn from mistakes. Mistakes are particularly important to markets.
Red woods are replaceable. Not easily – particularly really old ones. But still replaceable.
And that is a part of what the logging industry learned from the environmental wars of the 80’s and 90’s. Rather than continuing to fight and slowly die trying to log in federal lands – which time has now told us they should have been allowed to do, they have shifted to developing sustainable supplies of redwood – and other woods on private lands where it is far harder for government and “environmentalists” to interfere.
It is also easier to establish your own rules for how to manage redwood forests that you own. There is less thrid party oversight telling you exactly how you have to do your job.
As a consequence redwood has been getting ever cheaper since 2000
Look at the above graphs and then read Julian Simon and you will note that even though Julian Simon died in 1998 and the Ultimate Resource II was published in 1998 the price graphs for redwood and douglas fir match the patterns Simon claims are universal.
Price spikes CAUSE price drops and supply increases.
And personally I am very happy about this development.
Among the many hats I wear – I am an architect, and I love woods.
Much of the furniture in my home is teak and rosewood and walnut and cherry,
and the building materials are pines, and cedars and redwoods.
I am happy that the free markets have worked arround government and nutcase left wing nut environmentalists to assure that we have sustainable abundant supplies of materials I love.
Dr. Suess’s the Lorax is a wonderful story – but it is not reality.
Humans do stupid and destructive things – and sometimes those stupid and destructive things permanently deprive us of something we will never get.
But most often they help us to learn what we truly care about and assure ourselves that we will never run out of redwoods – not natural vistas of majestic trees, and not abundant redwood siding to create beautiful homes.
Ron;
There are an infinite variety of arguments to support the proposition that individual liberty ultimately produces the best results.
I am going to simply address “corporate profits” only because you raised it.
The left is right (and wrong) about Citzen’s United. Corporations do not have rights (or profits). Their owners do. those owners are people. Some of those people are the Buffets and Gates and aparently now Bezos.
But an awful lot of them are you and I.
I have significant whole life insurance – that is all invested in corporations. I do not know exactly how, but I know that one of the wise choices I have made was to buy that insurance decades ago. And I know that insurance represents my ownership of little peices of Apple and Microsoft and Amazon, and that screwing them over is screwing me over. Because corporations are not people, there are fictions created to represent the rights and interests of groups of real people.
I also have IRA’s and other investments – if I had been wiser when younger I would have more. But still I have some – and they too represent my ownership of those “evil corporations”.
So yes, I care alot about “corporate profits” – because I have worked hard all my life and because some of my big investments have proven catastrophic failures, but some of the lessor investments I have made are what will ensure that as I am growing older I will not have to live purely on Social Security – which I have very low trust of, and that I may have something to leave to my children so that they are still better off than I.
So that is what “corporate profits” mean to me.
Moogie Forgot the attachment. Sorry
http://www.akforest.org/facts.htm
Ron: No, I don’t watch MSNBC. Even CNN is getting to be too liberal for me. What struck me about the Alaska ruling is that wildlife refuges are supposed to be just that: places of refuge (protection), free from human aggression. If Alaskans really want to kill bears and wolves (and their cubs), they have access to thousands of square miles of land outside these refuges.
As for the trees, what you’re saying is that forests can’t manage themselves without human intervention. (How did they survive before we arrived on the scene?) I understand that a certain amount of management might make for more optimal conditions, but that doesn’t mean we should be turning over public forest land to loggers and other private interests.
I never got around to discussing welfare, Medicaid and other entitlements for the poor. I supported Clinton’s scaling back of our welfare system, which (since the 1960s) had been creating a permanent underclass dependent on government handouts. I’ve wondered, for example, why we need free school lunches if we also offer food stamps; I agree that duplicate programs are a waste. Maybe the assumption is that poor parents don’t know enough about nutrition to offer their kids healthy lunches; that could be true.
I’m all for “workfare” for able-bodied poor people; we have to strike at the root of chronic poverty instead of just throwing money at the victims. That means finding new teaching methods to reach ghetto kids and keep them in school, ridding the streets of gangs and drugs, ending incarceration for petty offenses, and ensuring that inner-city people have access to decent jobs, food and healthcare.
Who own’s alaska ?
The claim is not that forests can not manage themselves – we are several centuries away from that as having any bearing in reality.
We do not have – not in Alaska, not in the west, not in the north east the pristine forests of precolonial times – and even the indians were know to start forest fires to create open areas for farming and other purposes.
“Conservationists” have had demonstrably wrong concepts of environmental management for over a century.
We have learned this both with respect to forests in the US and with respect to grasslands in Africa and elsewhere.
In everything – periodic destruction is a part of the natural cycle – it is a key part of free markets, it is also critical to ecosystems.
If a forest is not periodically cleared by man – it will be cleared by fire. we can prevent both for some time – but not forever, and when some form of natural clearing comes – it will be larger and more disasterous the longer we prevented it.
This is also true of the economy. We do not want govenrment pushing things in the same direction. We do not want government preventing the natural failures that are a critical part of a thriving economy.
The great depression was a consequence of government errors in monetary policy that made the boom of the twenties too large and too long without correction.
The great recession was a permutation of exactly the same problem.
In a proper free market – absent government economic controls of any kind – we would have a near constant low level of failures. These are imporant. they are how we learn and how we create space and resources for new things.
What we do not want is boom bust cycles, we do not want systemic uniform success – and failure.
The same is true of forests and grasslands and nature.
Finally, you need to decide what is the planet for, what is the economy for ?
It is heresey for the left, but ultimately it is about HUMAN values.
Most of us could care less about bears and wolves – except the extent they are beneficial to humans.
The significance of another species thriving or extinction – is how that benefits humans.
Intrinsically most of us grasp this – a substantial amount of life on this planet exists only at our pleasure. Cows, Horses, Dogs, Turkeys, Chickens, Pigs, ….
would not exist as they do, in the forms they are in, and the numbers but for their benefit to humans.
We need to get honest with ourselves about that.
We preserve nature for ourselves and for our children – because we place a value on it.
Not for any other reason.
And that value – must compete with the other values that we have.
It is not scaremental, or absolute.
With respect to “those at the bottom”
“Maybe the poor do not know how to feed their kids. ”
And why do you think government does ?
Again – if you leave people to make free choices – a small portion will make bad choices.
If you do not – the NET is (pretty much by definition) worse. We do not make better overall choices for people from the top – than we do indiidually.
Among other reasons because one size does not fit all.
I have noted before that my kids were cyber chartered.
That proved to be incredibly good for them – though more for one, than the other.
but it was also obvious that it was NOT the best education for everyone.
It was close to exactly what my daughter needed – particularly at first.
There are alot of minorities in their cyber charter – and it is not as good a choice for most of them. HOWEVER it is a far better choice than the ones they do have available to them.
When we decide from the top -we go for one size fits all. Or maybe a very small number of sizes.
When we leave people free they have many many choices. most good, some very good, and a few bad.
Some poor parents will make bad choices with respect to their kids food.
Most will make better choices on their own than government would make for them.
You keep deciding what needs to be done, and then how to do it and your choices always presume the use of force.
Do you know how to teach students better than what is done today ? Do you know someone who does know the better way ? Is there one better way ?
Is there any solution that we have sufficient confidence in to impose by force ?
I know what educationally worked for my kids.
I do not know what will work for someone else’s kids and I do not beleive there is some expert who know a single best way for all kids.
We fought alcohol and it gave is organized crime.
The war on drugs has been a far worse unmitigated disaster.
But we do not have some perfect answer.
We do not have some magical cure to drug use – and we are not going to stop drug dealing or even put more than speed bumps in its way.
Again one of the errors of the left – you presume that because you know something is bad – that you can ban it and the world will be better -that does not work.
As bad as somethings are – prohibited in them is worse.
You want to rid the streets of gangs and drugs AND you want to stop incarcerating the crap out of the poor.
You can not have both
You can not have a regulatory state that discourages risk and supresses profits and expect to have jobs.
Jobs are not created by government – they are created by people who demand and expect to be better off as a result of hiring you. If you interfere in that – you get no jobs.
Tax the rich – less jobs. Raise minimum wages – less jobs. More regulation – less jobs.
More rules – less jobs.
Food and healthcare are things we earn by being productive.
Even attempting to give them away – assures that we will be even less productive.
By the sweat of your brow you will earn your daily bread
That is not some religious mumbo jumbo.
It is a law of nature.
Trying to govern at odds with nature tends to lead to failure.
More simply – the root to the things you want is not through govenrment.
Rick please see attachment I sent moogie concerning forest logging.
As for the indigenous population and their right to hunt and fish on their lands, are you saying you support those in the lower 48 telling those that have lived for thousands of years what they can do with their land. Sounds to me like the same thing that happened with the Indians in the 1700’s and 1800’s when the white man decided they would steal the Indians land and gave them crap in the southwest that no one else wanted, and still many would not live there.
Now in the 1900’s and 2000’s we are still taking indigenous peoples land (and calling it land preservation). I call BS on that. It is one thing to set aside the land to restrict development, it is something else to restrict the use of the land that people have used it for for eons.
If you wish to see what life is like when government controls everything – look at that of “native americans”.
“which (since the 1960s) had been creating a permanent underclass dependent on government handouts”
No. What is creating the permanent underclass is underpaying workers! It is absurd that wages have kept sinking and sinking and sinking and yet conservatives are surprised that more people than ever have to ask for government benefits.
I have a college degree. I’ve had as many as FOUR part time jobs and yet still can’t get 40 hours a week. I live in rural Appalachia which was among the first areas of the country to feel the pain of jobs being shipped overseas and the lowering of wages. We have been suffering here since the 1970s, each decade has gotten worse. I did not realize how bad until I moved here in ’99. Two people can no longer run a household with 2 working class jobs.
If you send all the jobs overseas, or you replace everyone with robots, just how do you expect the economy to be healthy??? No one has money to buy anything. This is why the world economy sucks – working class people are not being paid middle class wages. I can make you a long list of what I’ve been unable to buy anymore for 15 years.
You should have just been reading that many stores that catered to the middle class are shutting down. Saying that everyone is buying online is bunk. Too few people have money to shop department stores any more.
I bring this up again & again…but it seems people prefer answers that fit with conservative ideology. ..which is created by the rich to keep themselves rich. SMDH
Moogie, I will tackle your last comment first.
“You should have just been reading that many stores that catered to the middle class are shutting down. Saying that everyone is buying online is bunk. Too few people have money to shop department stores any more.”
Please note the attached annual report for Amazon. Please note that in 2012 Amazons revenue was $61 billion. Note that in 2016 that had more than doubled to $136 billion. In 2015, Amazons revenue was $107 billion, so they increased $29 billion, more than Sears total revenue for the same period. During 2015, Sears revenue was $31.2 billion and in 2016 it was 25.1 billion. That is a 20% drop in revenues in one year. People still are buying and they are buying online. People still have money!! So I can not agree with your comment that “few people have money to shop department stores any more.” They have money, it is just easier to sit down at your computer, order something and have it delivered. I have not been in a big box store for many years, and only go to Costco and Sam’s occasionally like many of my friends.
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/amzn/financials
I agree with you that jobs moving overseas has been a disaster for American manufacturing. Asinine trade agreements like NAFTA that was supported and signed by Clinton in the 90’s was one that really caused many jobs to move to Mexico. Today most small Fords are produced in Mexico, many GM cars are produced in Mexico and Canada. Go on-line and google “what is the most manufactured car in America” and you will get Toyota. In fact three of the top five cars with the most American input are foreign owned. You might remember Ross Perot and his comment about the sucking sounds of jobs going to Mexico under NAFTA. They called him a kook. He was right. And then add into the equation the currency manipulation by China to make their products cheap, while putting high tariffs on American products going into China and that causes more jobs to go overseas. Try finding any electric hand tool at Home Depot or Lowes that is built in America. You can’t find one.
But now that this has happened, there is not going to be many jobs returning even with Trumps commerce department working to correct deficiencies in trade agreements. And paying $15.00 to flip burgers at McDonalds WILL cause a decrease in those jobs. Go into a Chili’s and you will find they have many fewer wait staff. They have table kiosk to order and pay. The few people working are the host and a few bringing orders to the tables and those people also clean the tables.
And in your part of the country, don;t forget also the executive orders making coal powered plants shift to natural gas. Yes natural gas is cheaper now, but would they have changed over without that EO. And taking all that income out of the hands of people in coal country took probably 5 times that amount out of the economy given the multiplier effect. And you sure as hell can not blame that on a conservative!!!!
So, please tell me what your degree is in as you have mentioned this many times, but I don’t remember you saying if it is education, business, etc. The option you may have to choose is moving to someplace where a job is located, as in your part of the country, I suspect few jobs are available in any field.
Moogie, Ron P;
Why doe it matter precisely what Amazon’s or Sear’s sales are ?
AGAIN
Increasing standard of living requires producing greater value for less human cost.
Does it matter whether that is done by Sears or Amazon ?
I can understand that you might care if you chose to buy Sears stock – but that was your choice, and probably you should have bought Amazon.
I can understand if you work for Sears – but that was your choice, and probably you should have considered working for Amazon.
The objective is NOT to provide good high paying jobs to everyone.
It is to increase the net, median or average standard of living.
Too many – particularly on the left seem to think that things can get better – with absolutely no losers of any kind.
Do we have to protect the buggy whip industry ?
Over the past 40 years – Standard of living in nearly every quintile has doubled.
That is the goal.
The bad news is that since 2000 the rate of improvement has slowed, and since 2008 it has slowed further.
That is the real problem we need to address.
Contra Moggie and the left – extremely productive and profitable businesses like Amazon are what we need more of.
Do you think Amazon is eating companies like Sears for breakfast by selling crappier products at higher prices ?
They way you profit in a free market – is by delivering more value at lower cost – do you think it is accidental that that sounds very much like the way we impove standard of living ?
Is there something wrong with NAFTA – absolutely. The US should just unilateraly drop all trade barriers. There is no need nor any benefit to any deal.
The US has lost alot of crappy low paying jobs – absolutely. There is no way to increase standard of living if large numbers of us work at crappy low paying jobs.
Even now those in a variety of areas should see the writing on the wall.
Is there anyone here who thinks that the Fast Food industry is going to be a big source of low end jobs in a decade ? If you are an MW burger flipper or clerk at McD’s you should expect to lose your job to an ipad or a robot as soon as McD’s can make that happen.
If you want to make that transition occur faster ? Raise the minimum wage.
If you want to stall it for a little – get rid of the Minimum wage.
What you can not do is force paying people more than the job they are doing is worth – it is just not going to happen for more than short periods of time.
Manufacturing is coming back to the US in a big way. The standard of living in China has risen dramatically and the result is they are not so competitive anymore.
Further While the chinese are very good at making 100M of something, they are incredibly bad at short runs customization.
Which raises another common stupid left wing nut economic error enshrined in our anti-trust laws, and examplified by Bernie Sanders stupid deoderant remarks.
The economies of scale are a relatively small part of the efficiency and profitability of a free market.
Again back to how we raise standard of living.
We do not do so by delivering massive amounts of corn flakes at the absolute lowest possible cost. We do so by providing each person with the breakfast of their choice.
Value is no Tons of cornflakes cheap. Value is what each and every one of us wants as cheaply as possible – and we are not the same – we do not want exactly the same things.
China is slowly shedding manafactuing jobs two ways.
First other really poor countries like Bangeledesch are taking the truly low skill low wage jobs from China – just as China did from us.
And the result is that we continue to be able to buy very a huge variety of nice cloths in abundance dirt cheap.
Second they are not skilled enough nor automated enough to produce short custom rund quickly – the US is and as a result US manufacturing – as it has continuously since the birth of this nation is growing. And really good manufacturing jobs are growing.
But you better be able to operate a CNC machine – or better still support and maintain a half dozen CNC machines.
And I beleive Moogie was bitching about all those auto jobs leaving for Japan. ….
Oh, So 70’s and 80’s. Where have you been ? Honda opened its first plant in Marysville Ohio in 1982, subsequently nearly every autmanufacturer in the world is producing cars in the US.
What they are NOT doing is producing them in Detroit where we have made doing so cost effectively nearly impossible.
Why are foreign automakes building cars in the US ?
The left will tell you it is US content rules.
BUNK !
It is for many reasons:
The US is the worlds largest market – particularly at the lucrative high end.
It costs money to build cars (or anything else) overseas and ship them to the US.
To do so there must be a large competitive advantage.
The US has the most reliable energy in the world.
The US has the cheapest energy in the world.
The US has the best transportation infrastructure in the world.
The US has an abundance of affordable raw materials.
The US has the worlds largest well educated highly skilled labor pool.
The US has a completely different work ethic than most of the world.
These are just SOME of the advantages to the US.
But again note – these factories are highly autmoted.
They produce great value with small numbers of high skilled highly paid workers.
Not with thousands of low wage low skill workers.
Next, I think the opportunities of Uber and Lyft and the rest of the sharing economy are fanstatic. I think breaking down traditional employment is great. The more we get people to think of themselves as their own boss – the more productive we shall be.
But if you are driving for Uber (or lyft, or a cab or truck or any other kind of driver) and do not see the writing on the wall – these jobs are all going to be gone in a decade or two.
We have a nasty mess coming briefly – as automated vehicles and human driven vehicles compete for dominance of the road – but in the end human drivers are losing.
If you are paid to drive – start looking for another job now.
If you are farm labor – get a clue – your job is not long for this world.
It has been harder to automate some aspects of farming – but the driving forces are strong.
The public really hates stories about poor migrant farm workers.
Replace those workers with machines – and there are no more boycotts and protests.
And food is cheaper.
There should be an obvious common theme above – creating ever greater value with ever less human resources.
The very things that the left – and occasionally the right excoriate, are exactly what makes us better off.
BTW post NAFTA the standard of living in BOTH the US and Mexico rose noticably.
But absolutely ANYTHING that we do to raise standard of living means ever less people doing the jobs we currently have.
And that is what drives our stupid government policy.
This is natural. It is normal. It is what we want. In fact the more we get of that the better.
Why ? Because it is ALWAYS possible to make use of more labor.
If we produce more value at less human effort – we have both more to spend on something else – and the labor available to produce it.
If you think that you can do the same job the same way with the same productivity from the time you graduate from High School until you retire and hove your standard of living continuously rise – think again, that is just not possible.
That less human effort part of raising standard of living is absolutley critical.
We must free people from unproductive or low value tasks to move them to higher value tasks or standard of living does not increase.
That means you had better be prepared to learn, adapt and develop new skills through your entire life.
BTW Clinton’s rhetoric on Coal was stupid. Obama’s Clean power plan was even more stupid – these problems will solve themselves. Goernment just messes things up.
Is there anyone who thinks that the destruction of coal mining jobs is reverseable or primarily a consequence of government (despite the fact that Government has handled it badly).
Like everything else Coal Mining has become highly automated.
If we were not in the process of shifting from coal to Natural Gas for power – because it is NET cheaper and far more flexible,
We would still have terminated most apalachian coal mining jobs from automation.
Coal Mining today takes increasing smaller numbers of increasingly skilled people.
And likely will require ever fewer very soon.
That is not to say there is no future for coal mining.
For the short term probably not – but US coal energy reserves are somewhere between 3-10 times as large as oil and natural gas.
And burning coal in a power plant is not the only way to make use of coal for energy.
At the moment the politics and economics weigh against a return to coal – in different uses. But that will inevitably change in the future.
But the jobs are not coming back.
If you used to be a coal miner – find some other valueable job to perform.
Dave I thought I wrote comments too long for people to read, but yours makes mine look like like the Cliff Notes, so I read about the first 1/4 and stopped.
I will answer the following.
“Why doe it matter precisely what Amazon’s or Sear’s sales are ?”
I posted what I posted because Moogie said people were not buying in big box stores anymore because they did not have the money to buy, not because they were buying online. I posted the facts about Sears and Amazon to prove to her that people were still buying high quality products at a comparable price because they did not have to fight the crowds, spend time driving to the shopping centers and all the other inconveniences that go with shopping inside a store.
I will also say that Amazon took Sears (and Montgomery Wards) model for “online selling” and perfected it for todays public. I can remember my parents and grandparents calling a telephone number in a catalog, placing an order and having that either delivered to the local Sears (or Monkey Wards) or having it delivered to their home at an additional charge. How interesting how societies wants and needs change and now those that developed the “catalog” sales are either close to bankruptcy or have one out of business and another company is racking up sales using an online catalog for sales.
“Why doe it matter precisely what Amazon’s or Sear’s sales are ?”
While I agree with much or all of your answer, and your response to moogie.
The question itself had very important point to it.
What does it matter to you what business provides you with what you want and need affordably ?
As a consumer – what matters is overall value, and the cost to get that value.
Not who the seller is. Aside from whether my IRA is invested in Sears, and possibly a tiny bit of nostalgia, I do not care if Sears grows or dies. I do care if my standard of living rises or falls.
In free markets, producers compete, and they either continually improve or they fail.
Sears may recover, or not. So what ?
Moggie makes the mistake of fixating on jobs.
If we have to prop up every failed producer because their failure reduces jobs – then our standard of living is stagnant or declines.
Because AGAIN
Standard of living increases when we produce more value at lower human cost.
That second term (required) ALWAYS means ever less people to do the same thing.
It is a requirement – otherwise we do not have free human resources to do something new.
If all Sears employees lose their jobs tomorow – they are free to do something else.
If Amazon etc. are providing us with everything we want and need at lower human cost.
We are better off. We do not need (or want ) sears.
and those resources need directed to something we do want and need – possibly something we do not know we want and need.
The destruction of inefficient or low value producers is inherent in free markets.
It is not a failure. It is an asset.
It is the only way to higher standard of living.
And that is my big point. Moogie is actually complaining about something that is very GOOD. Not bad.
Because damn it, she made an incorrect assumption and I posted info to show she was incorrect, just like you do with hundreds of comments you make. If you don’t want others correcting incorrect statements, then stop doing it yourself!
I appologize.
Your argument is correct.
I was just seeking to make a different point.
Are you going to pay for me to move somewhere else? Otherwise I have to stay put. Like most other people, I can no longer afford to move.
If more people had more money, Amazon’s revenues would be far higher than they are. I buy from Amazon maybe 2x a year because I can find a few things really cheap & easier. (especially because I live out in the sticks)
You people must miss all those articles about how many people, especially younger ones are graduating with degrees and can’t find work in their field. What difference does it make what my degree is in??? It is in a science subject. You have already decided people without degrees are not deserving of a living wage, now you are trying to make us believe that only certain degrees are worth more than a living wage. SMDH.
It is positively stupid to keep saying that working people in any area or any job of 40 hours a week does not have to be paid a living wage. Replace them with robots? Who in the hell are you going to sell anything to when half the nation isn’t working or doesn’t make enough money to buy anything? have you not read the reports that over the half the nation no longer has savings?
Some people on this thread need to step out of the gated communities and get to know real Americans – especially those of us born after 1960. Its not pretty. What little I have in retirement savings is not growing much at all. I bought a double wide trailer because that was all I could afford on a teaching salary. My clothes are all from Goodwill, my furniture mostly hand-me-downs. When my dishwasher broke (I had bought a damaged one for $75) I had to ask mom for money to buy another one (actually it was a birthday present).
I have said before, I have more options than many people I know because my mother is one of those retirees of the richest generation on record. IT doesn’t do much for my pride, but I won’t be homeless or hungry.
And why are your choices someone else’s problem ?
I suspect all of us are somewhat sorry for you – but I am not sorry enough to think you are entitled to something from the rest of us.
I pointed out to you that a family with two people employed full time earning minimum wage makes about 32K/year
That is below the median – but it is not much.
All work is noble; the only ignoble thing is to live without working.
Maria Montessori
I just received an email offering me a project writing a report – for $1700.
It is about 3 days work. Anyone with a college degree can do these. They require internet access, a spreadsheet, and a word processor. They require learning about how buildings are constructed – but anyone can learn.
They are boring and take a while and I do not enjoy them.
But I like paying my mortgage and I take projects like this when I do not have the consulting work I love.
If you are claiming I can not keep myself busy 100% of the time with high paying work that I love – you are right.
If you are claiming there is no work out there for people willing to do it – you are full of it.
If I had to I would flip burgers at McD’s to make ends meet.
Apparently you never read the Grapes of Wrath. The Joad’s lost everything – but they were still able to travel to California to look for work.
Moogie, I read your first response and then you posted this one. So you did answer some of my questions.
So here is my response and I would hope you will respond and comment as to why I may be wrong.
As for college students and jobs, why is it that companies say they need high tech immigrants to fill hard to fill jobs.
http://blog.indeed.com/2016/10/18/high-skill-immigration/
In 2016, there were 1.9 million graduates with bachelors degrees. 358,000 in business, 199,000 in health,173,000 in social sciences and history, 117,000 in psychology, 105,000 in biological sciences and 99,000 in teaching. All of these will allow most students to get a job except for Psychology and history. One web site offers the following jobs that are available for psy majors.
Advertising Agents. …
Career Counselor. …
Case Manager. …
Child Care Worker. …
Laboratory Assistant. …
Market Researcher. …
Psychiatric Technician. …
Probation and Parole Officer.
Looking at his list, one has to wonder if many psy graduates would accept a job in many of these fields. Could those with these degrees be the ones sitting at home, or could it be the ones without a job are those that just barely passed and graduated in the bottom 10% of their class. Maybe they need to get a degree in a STEM area and not in liberal arts.
And again, you did not respond when I offered information concerning the economy of your area and how it has changed due to the drying up of coal sales. I can understand that you may be unable to move for some personal reasons. I also understand that teachers are a profession that are over worked and grossly underpaid. But in some areas this is not true, while in areas like yours it is fact. And the fact is in areas of economic difficulties, teachers are the first public servant to not get a raise. I also note that West Virginia average teacher salary is $41,200, not great, but well above what people say is a living wage.
As for living wage, we would have higher wages if we did not have the large number of untrained workers taking jobs in the hospitality businesses driving down wages. If an illegal immigrant walks into a hotel and agrees to work for $8.00 an hour, why should that hotel operator pay someone $15.00. But if that unskilled individual was not available, then maybe they would have to pay $15.00. We also need to eliminate unfair trade. I support trade when it is fair to both parties. But our government has not provided fair trade agreements and that has provided incentives to American companies to move overseas. Along with that, high taxes in America compared to foreign countries is also an incentive to move overseas.
And as I said earlier and you did not respond. When one supports NAFTA and TPP and ship jobs overseas, then you are going to decrease the wages paid to workers in America. And who was instrumental in getting NAFTA passed?
“Moogie: If more people had more money, Amazon’s revenues would be far higher than they are.”
http://fortune.com/2017/03/31/amazon-stock-trillion-dollar-company-apple-tesla-google/
Apple, Amazon and a few other companies are racing to become the first Trillion Dollar company.
Amazon’s 2016 Revenues rose 27%. That is $136B in things Amazon sold last year.
So it sounds line Amazon;s revenues are FAR HIGHER.
And they continue to grow at that rate.
Apples revenues increased last year by more than the entire net worth of Pfizer – pfizer is #55 on the fortune 500.
And the revenues of these companies can only grow ONE WAY – if people are buying ever more form them.
Buy from Amazon – don’t – your choice.
Nor do I care why you buy (or don’t) from them.
The fact is alot of people buy alot of things from Amazon, and they are buying more and more all the time. In fact Amazon’s increase in sales is greater than Sears entire sales.
And 25 times greater than Sears entire value.
25 Sears’s could disappear without swallowing the net positive impact of Amazon on the economy.
Amazon managed to get the USPS to deliver on Sunday – the only similar demonstration of real power I have ever seen was when Cheney got the guy he shot in the face with a shotgun to apologize to him.
For a while I thought Amazon was sort of joking about Drone mail delivery.
Amazon spent 17B last year on Shipping – that is more than Sears is worth by a long shot.
The total revenue of the US postal service was only 70B.
Who said you were entitled to work in your field ?
I graduated from College with a degree is architecture.
I am a registered architect – even today.
I support my family doing embedded software and have for the past 20 years.
My daughter is a licensed EMT, she has 3 jobs right now – she works part time for Halmark, gets weekend work as an EMT, and takes pictures of buildings for inspection reports.
She wants to be a psychologist.
If you graduated from college with a degree in underwater basket weaving – I would not be surprised if you can not get a job in your field.
STEM unemployment from 2007 through the present has never been much higher than 2.5%.
We are each free to chase after whatever job we want and love.
There is no guarantee we will get it.
You do not have a right to a job in your field.
You do not have a right to any job – beyond whatever you can do yourself.
I do not live in a gated community.
I had a great job that I loved in a key position in a family business for 22 years.
When the economy went south in 2001 my father decided that he liked the business smaller – he was older and did not need to make as much and could manage a business 1/3 the size easier. But a business 1/3 the size did not have the ability to continue to support me and my family, so I went after work elsewhere. I completely changed my career.
Since then I have had some really good years – and some really bad ones.
I have never really been “unemployed” because all that really means is I am working for myself and not getting paid very well.
I am doing well enough – but I work hard to do so – and I often have to do jobs I do not like much.
SO no I don’t have alot of sympathy for people who could do some of the jobs I do – but don’t.
and bitch and moan because no jobs in their field have arisen.
Even in my “field”
I have written business software and database software and graphics software and web software and defense software and stuff for lots of agencies with three letter names.
I have done electronic locks and centrefuges, and software for drones, and for busses, and tractors and wood chippers and trains and boats …..
I know alot about alot of things because I have never stopped learning.
Because I do new things all the time.
But like you I choose to live somewhere where my skills and talents are not very well paid.
It is not so bad as Apalachia – but it is not a booming tech center.
And I could double what I make each year easily buy moving – if I chose to do so.
I do not have problems with people making choices.
I do have problems with people bitching and moaning because they can not have everything they want.
If your retirement has not grown you have it very badly invested.
My 401K more than doubled from 2007 to the bigging of 2016 – I have not looked at it since.
It is conservatively invested and I would prefer it was larger – and it should be, but I did not invest when I should have been.
I also bought (with a really big mortgage) an apartment building in 2008.
My investment in that has more than doubled in that time.
If you have not invested well – I have sympathy for you. I had my IRA abysmally invested for over two decades because I was stupid and not paying attention.
But my bad choices are MY bad choices.
I am not looking to blame them on someone else.
I buy my cloths at goodwill too – there is lots of good stuff there and it is cheap.
I am almost 59 and I am not a fashion model.
I do not think I have bought new furniture since I got married – 35 years ago, nearly everything I have is “hand me downs”.
When my dishwasher broke – I bought another for $10 at an auction. It worked fine.
My parents are from the same generation as yours – and they did very well.
but I will leave my children more than they left me – despite the fact that they were more successful than I have been. Why ?
Because we are better off today than 50 years ago. Which you still do not grasp.
John D. Rockefeller was the richest man in the world in his time.
Yet he could not afford penicillin, or vaccinate his nephew against scarlet fever.
He could not own a dishwasher, washing machine, radio, tv or a cell phone.
My tenants who are in the bottom quintile have many many things that John D. Rockefeller did not anc could not have.
It is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you do that is the secret of happiness. ~James Barrie
I have not been in a sears in years. Nor Kmart or JC Penny.
I buy quality goods cheap at Costco, or less quality even cheaper at Walmart.
Or I buy cheaper and usually better still from eBay, Amazon, AliExpress, etsy, ….
Or I go to tiny mom and pop stores selling very upscale goods
We have had a serious problem with small business starts since 2009 – due pretty much entirely to the economic hostility of government to small business and their favorable disposition to big business.
That said look arround you.
I do not know about appalachia – though I will next week.
But everywhere I travel there are more stores, more malls, more strip malls more blocks full of artsy chops, more, more more.
Actual studies of the impact of Walmart on a community – not the crap sold by the left, have shown that it increases small businesses and jobs.
You do not seem to grasp our GDP is rising – that means we are producing MORE all the time, and what we produce we must sell.
I am sure you do bring this up again and again and you are WRONG – again and again.
Please show me any data that credibly demonstrates that we are not better off than 30 40 years ago.
I do not want stupid nonsense about income inequality and wages.
I want real hard data that people’s wealth has declined. That they are less able to afford cars, TV’s refriderators, Cell phones, laptops, … that they are moving into ever smaller homes and apartments
Because in the real world exactly the opposite has happened.
The rate of improvement has been declining – it was worse under Bush and worse still under Obama. And we certainly can and should do better.
But we are not declining.
If we were all as well of as we were 40 years ago , there would not be so many angry people out there stupid enough to vote for Trump.
I don’t know what dream world full of liars you inhabit, but I am not going to dignify your BS with any further response.
Moogie, why are you even here? You make a statement, I respond with documentation to refute your position, I asked you questions and there is never any response. One can not understand another’s position when they will not hold a conversation and try to support their positions other than just spouting off liberal/conservative talking points. I can watch MSNBC or Fox News to get that same information.
I suggest you may want to visit “The New Moderate” as they seem to be ones that will agree with your positions and not challenge anything you say.
Like university students today, liberals do not want to defend their positions or listen to any opposing views. That web site offers that type of environment that you may enjoy.
The real world not a dream world.
Why do we have so many Angry people ?
Because we are used to improvements in standard of living of 3.5%/year, and since 2000 we have been lucky to see improvements of 2%/year.
Because things are never improving for 100% of us, but the slower the rate of improvement the greater the proportion of losers – though it si still small.
Because ObamaCare which was supposed to decrease our insurance costs by $2500/year
and allow us to keep our insurance and doctor, and cost the country nothing, has instead cost the country $1T, required a large tax increase, increased insurance costs by more than 2500/year and left many people with worse insurance, worse coverage and without the docotr of their choice.
Because the left promised recovery from a recession they participated in causing – but blamed on the banks, and failed to deliver on that recovery.
Because though all of us are improving slightly – the politically well connected – particularly those well connected to democrats are doing extremely well.
Because look at all of our problems – name one that is not CAUSED by government ?
So why would we NOT be angry with government ?
Because the left has amped up identity politics such that they are calling more than 50% of the country hateful hating haters.
I can go on – and on – and on.
What is not true is that we are worse off – or even the same as 40 years ago.
Please pick ANYTHING that is not heavily regulated and show me that it is less affordable today than 40 years ago ?
I can not help it that you – like most of us are incapable of seeing the past clearly.
We tend to look back on the past with nostalgia.
Respond – don’t your choice.
But arguments are not made with invective and ad hominem.
I have given you lots of facts.
I have also made big broad easy to refute claims – if they are false.
That you don’t even try – speaks for itself.
Dear Rick;
Had the great spirit or big bigger given us opposable thumbs and bigger brains – so that we could create and use helicopters and high powered rifles, you can trust us that we would not be using them to hunt hairless hominids.
Yours truly
Timber Wolves and Grizzly Bears.
PS:
That three little pigs thing – just miscommunication.
PPS:
Regards to Red Riding Hood and grandma.
LOL. Yes, nature is thoroughly amoral — it’s a dog-eat-dog (or wolf-eat-human) world out there.
I knew I didn’t want to read this, Rick, lol.
But, I did, and I find it stunningly immoderate, especially for someone I know to be a moderate. Your attack on Republicans is worthy of MSNBC.
I would join Ron in encouraging you to try and dig a little deeper into the actual reasons why Republicans want to roll back many of the restrictive laws and regulations that have been passed over the last two decades or so. It’s not because they have gone over to the dark side. It’s because the science and/or economics behind the laws are junk ~ and often dangerous junk, at that ~ promoted by left-wing activist groups, and eagerly enacted by the Democrats, in order to continue to cash in on support from these groups.
Off the top of my head, and because Ron and Dave already put forward some good facts on the Alaska thing, I think about the deadly wildfires that have been increasingly ravaging the Western states during the 21st century. These wildfires kill many, many big and little furry creatures (not to mention feathered and even icky reptilian – not republican – ones), destroy their habitats, destroy homes, take human lives and endanger many more, and cost billions and billions of dollars ~ mostly taxpayer dollars. Oh, and when it comes to deforestation, you can’t do much better than these fires.
What we hear in the media is that the increase in the number and intensity of these blazes are due to…..climate change, of course. But no, actually, there have always been seasonal wildfires, even before Republicans sought to destroy the earth.
The reason that the fires have increased is largely due to policies imposed by politicians and bureaucrats bowing to the will of radical environmentalists: the banning of insecticides and fungicides which can have allowed trees to die, along with the lack of timely removal of these dead, dry trees; the refusal to build roads through national forests, impeding the ability of firefighting equipment and personnel to get to the fires; bans on clearing dry brush, in the name of “protecting” wildlife habitats; and ironically, “controlled burns” that get, ummm, out of control. Many more, and none of these things supported by the eeevil bunny and birdy hating Republicans.
When it comes to environmental politics, there are too many Big Lies to count.
Well, some day he will most likely write a balancing column of equal immoderation about democrats. You’ll Love It, every word, and most likely wish it were much stronger! Why, he could hire you to write it!
When it comes to environmental politics I’ve seen the hyperbole and hysteria of the left activists up close and personal when I worked for the state as an environmental engineer. Still, what many in the GOP have done in the way of deception on global warming easily takes the top ranking for the Big Lie, Al Gore’s big house notwithstanding. Some problems actually Are problems.
No Dave, I am not challenging you to a debate on this. I know your point of view quite well already. Evil environmentalists as you once said and then doubled down on.
I will say, Roby, that politicians in general are fond of the Big Lies. And Republicans have their Big Lies as well. I may be a partisan, but I’m not a blind partisan.
I would dearly love to see an open letter to Democrats, especially those who voted for Neil Gorsuch, when he was appointed to the Federal Appeals Court (they all did, at least all the ones that were in the Senate back then), but now rip him as a cold-hearted, corporation-loving, working-man hating, S.O.B. and plan to filibuster him.
Or maybe the ones who railed against GOP obstruction, and now insist that everything that Trump does be obstructed. I would love that. You are right
❤
Not because the Democrats are the "bad guys." But because they get away with way more blatant hypocrisy.
After Garland was squashed you really can’t complain about hypocrisy on the Supreme court politics from the GOP booster side. Both are totally qualified and should have had a non political confirmation. Perhaps if the GOP did not have its sights set on Planned Parenthood And Garland had not been torpedoed, Dems would be acting differently. Yes, I know I am arguing that two wrongs plus a third wrong make a right.
Gorsuch is quite intellectually worthy of being on the SCOTUS and if I were in congress I’d vote for his confirmation. But I’d have voted for Garland if I were a republican, so I guess I am pretending that I am a nearly fictitious character, a straight shooting politician.
So far nothing trump has done that I know of other than appointing Mattis is deserving of the support of any democrat (or any republican with a conscience).
Now, if and when the dems vote down a worthy infrastructure bill, that will be a case of true obstruction for the sake of obstruction.
Not really looking for a CAGW debate.
I think that debate is pretty well over.
Whatever the impact of humans on global temperatures – it is very small.
I would also note that Human CO2 may not be the most significant human impact, but that CO2 is the only human impact that meets the political criteria of the left of being potentially runaway.
Anyway despite the recent frauds at NASA claiming otherwise, The “hiatus” continues.
Either you accept that there has been no significant warming since 1998, or we can construct a trend line from 1970 to the present, regardless – the overall rate of warming is back consistent with or BELOW prior natural warming.
The CAGW thesis has been falsified.
It is time to purge the religious zealots from places of power and move on.
I have no clue what the left is going to do – given that the sky is no longer falling.
But I think that you, Rick and all those – left or moderate, who have been name calling as anti-science or neanderthal those who were skeptical about CAGW owe us an apology.
At the barest minimum it is clear this was not ever a debate over real science – the science is not and never has been certain enough to bear the weight you put on it.
Those who use science to advance ideology – harm science.
There are a number of other recent scientific scandals that have not helped.
But CAGW has significantly damaged the credibility of science.
But that is what happens when scientism replaces real science.
Garland may be a good judge but 1) Scalia died unexpectedly in the middle of an election year ~ there is ample precedent for not confirming a SCOTUS pick under a lame duck president. Of course Obama was going to nominate someone, but it was a political move to motivate Democrat voters. 2) Garland is definitely a left leaning justice in the mold of Obama’s other 2 picks ~ not AS left-leaning, because Obama is smart enough to know that the only shot he had was by nominating a moderate liberal, instead of a lockstep leftist 3) I think Garland should have had a hearing, if for no other reason than to show that his confirmation would have tilted the court permanently left. But he would have never been confirmed. His nomination was purely political, and it remains a talking point, not a real issue.
There is no right to be a supreme court justive.
Garland and Gorsuch are likely both decent people and judges,
But neither has some right to be a supreme court justice.
To become a supreme court justice you must be nominated by a president and approved by the senate.
The president can nominate whoever they please.
The senate can approve reject or do nothing.
I oppose democrats filibustering Gorsuch for two reasons.
First I think he will be an excelelent addition to the court – probably better than Scalia.
Gorsuch has a natural rights understanding of law, and is likely to give some weight to the Declaration of Independence as well as constitution.
I am not sure I share exactly his understanding of natural rights, regardless it is a better foundation than the democratic textualism of Scalia.
The second is that a fillibuster of Gorsuch will fail.
If Trump subsequently nominates a bad candidate the left will have no arrows left in their quiver.
An attempt to fillibuster has a slightly better chance at succeeding if the candidate is weaker. With Gorsuch it just looks like stupid sour grapes politics.
You will note – nothing I have said denies or deprives democrats the right to oppose or obstruct Gorsuch to whatever extent they wish.
I think it is a poor choice for them – not one they are not permitted.
BTW George Will had an excellent article on the fillibuster.
He sugested completely eliminating all the changes to fillibusters since 1970 or possibly since 1917.
No cloture votes, no 3/5ths requirment.
Just standard speaking fillibusters.
A single Senator can fillibuster anything – if they can hold out.
Further when a filibuster is taking place the Senate is effective unable to conduct other business.
Priscilla;
I have no problems with democrats attempting to block Gorsuch.
Just as I have no problems with Republicans succeeding in blocking Garland.
Gorsuch is well qualified – Garland was too.
But there is no right to a seat on the supreme court.
In the past the senate has provided its consent to qualified candidates – regardless of ideology.
They were free to. Now ideology is more important.
If that change is unacceptable – we correct it at the ballot box.
Regardless, the senate can confirm or not, executive appointments however it pleases.
Moderates should favor things such as the filibuster – as it pushes us towards more moderate candidates.
Normally I think provisions that empower the minority are incredibly important – but that ship has already sailed (and sunk).
I have only one significant concern regarding Gorsuch and that is that somehow his natural rights foundation – which I strongly agree with, has lead him to oppose peoples rights to terminate their own lives.
I do not understand the feat of logical gymnastics that got him there.
That also bodes badly for Rowe – which is likely what concerns democrats.
In my view Rowe was badly decided – you do not use science as the basis for making decisions about rights.
But Rowe was not “wrongly” decided – though the same results with a better foundation in rights would have different consequences in terms of the rights efforts to bridge arround Rowe.
Anyway, back to my point.
I have no problems with democrats doing whatever is in their power to stop Gorsuch.
I hope they fail. I beleive they will fail. I beleive that it is a mistake for them to oppose Gorsuch.
But the arguments are political, not for the most part constitutional.
I wish all judges and justices ruled on the law and constitution as written, and left the “living” part of the law and constitution to the legislature and people.
As an example Roberts should have killed PPACA, if as he did, he was going to decide government could not mandate the consumption as a commerce clause power. Rewriting the law in a judicial oppinion is not the purview of the court.
PPACA should also have failed on the later King v. Burwell challenge.
The burden of drafting the law clearly rests with the legislature.
PPACA was a rushed abomination, and we do not want mamouth laws rushed and then fixed by executive or judicial interpretation.
“I think Garland should have had a hearing, if for no other reason than to show that his confirmation would have tilted the court permanently left. But he would have never been confirmed. His nomination was purely political, and it remains a talking point, not a real issue.”
Yep, I knew it. Anything, and I do mean anything, can be rationalized. Works for you, for me its just empty words, that cover the universal partisan principle “anything is fair, as long as we win.” Your hope, of course, is to turn the court permanently to the right. If its wrong to turn it left, then its wrong to turn it right. So, sadly being intellectually qualified is not enough, one must be politically qualified as well, as you just made clear.
But, what Rick wrote, that’s how people outside the GOP who don’t have that GOP narrative buying tendency see the GOP, Rick nailed it. You can quibble about the details and somehow substitute the issue of Alaskan trees when Rick wrote not about Alaskan trees but about hunting regulations. Anyhow, what Rick wrote, its probably how you saw the GOP yourself before your inversion.
As for me, I will buy a good bashing for both loony ^&%$#@ parties, some of such a diatribe may be caricature or subject to debate about some details, but both parties are captives of their extremes and they are both a menace. Right now, one party has all the levers of power, and a crazy despicable POTUS to boot, so the immediate threat is from your side. But the dems are lurking in the wings waiting for their chance to be a menace, which will surely come. And, the worse the GOP does, the worse the Dems will do, I believe that is a law.
I have no problem with what happened to Garland – and if democrats manage to stop Gorsuch – I have no problem with that.
I do not however think that Gorsuch “leans right”.
I think that adjudicating the law and the constitution as actually written is NEUTRAL,
It is “:moderate”.
It leaves control of the constitution and the law with the people and the legislature – not the courts. And that is where it belongs.
If you had 5 Gorsuch’s on the court and you wanted Gun control – nothing would prevent you from amenfing the constitution to get it.
If you had 5 Garlands on the court and wanted end gun control – there is nothing you could do to accomplish that.
That is what is wrong with the left’s idea of the role of Judges.
Off the top of my head I can not think of a good reason to hunt bears and wolves from helicopters.
Nor can I think of a good reason for a law against it.
Just because I do not like something does not mean I think it should be illegal.
I am straight and men having sex with men thoroughly revolts me.
But just because something revolts me does not mean I am entitle to make it illegal.
Neither revulsion which according to Prof. Haidt who I refered to earlier, is a strong force underpinning the rights values, nor emotion which is the strong basis underpinning the values of the left are acceptable basises for law.
So long as Trump is working to “deconstruct government” he has my support – atleast in that.
I would have given Obama support for improved transparency – but the government that promised to be the most transparent ever turned out to be the least.
Presuming that:
Trump is never actually connected to Russia in “rigging the election”
He does not do something like start a Trade war or a serious hot war
He manages 3% economic growth
Republicans are going to do well, and so will Trump.
To the extent any of the rest of what we are fighting over is releivant – it is relevant only as it applies to those things.
I hope the Republicans nuke the filibuster. Back in the days when it was a REAL filibuster, and these guys had to talk round the clock, it was a way to prevent further debate on a bill or nomination. But, since it’s become an easy way for Democrats to block the right of a Republican president to get judicial nominees confirmed (when Republicans tried it against Obama, the Dems nuked it entirely for lower court justices) it has become an easy obstructionist move.
If they want to preserve it, they should require that it go back to being a talking filibuster. But most of our Senators, other than a few, are too lazy for that. (A lot of them are too old to stand for that long).
Unfair, Roby. It WAS a political move. Do you think that Obama actually thought that Republicans would confirm his third SCOTUS pick in an election season, when his own VP had codified the precendent of NOT doing that?
I do think that the GOP erred in not giving the guy a hearing. And, if you recall, many, if not most, people though they were foolish not to take Garland over the more left-wing justice that Hillary would likely nominate. So, it was a risky move by the Republicans, and it paid off.
I think that you sometimes think that politics is ideology. I view politics as strategy, and I don’t evaluate it on the basis of right and wrong, but on whether it accomplishes the strategic goal. So, Obama was smart to nominate Garland, but the strategy didn’t work.
“I view politics as strategy, and I don’t evaluate it on the basis of right and wrong, but on whether it accomplishes the strategic goal. ”
Then why raise the issue of democratic hypocrisy? That’s just to work yourself up it certainly is not going to resonate with anyone who is not a fan of the GOP What you said above was just a paraphrase of “anything is fair as long as I win.” And, of course, the strategic goal is ideological.
So, I am not buying. Both teams suck, they are both full of hypocrisy; on any question you can name the “they did it first” routine goes back to the Pharaohs.
Once upon a time you loved team A and loathed team B. A switch flipped and now you love team B and loath team A. All the explanations of why team B is now in the right in every conflict go back to your change in teams. Someday you may completely tire of team B and move to the not very partial middle and make few defences for either team. Until then you have to twist yourself in knots to justify your lens, which is ideological. It works for you, great, but its empty for me.
But I will leave you in peace about it further in this topic.
In keeping with Priscilla’s theme:
The democrats are being hypocritical about the filibuster – they are the ones that gutted it.
If reid had left it alone – republicans would have been more successful in stalling Obama nominess – particularly judges.
But most of Trumps cabinet would not have been confirmed.
And neither Gorsuch nor Garland would get to be on the Supreme court.
I do not think that OConnel could have invoked the nuclear option had Reid not done so first.
But it will be trivial for him to extend it a bit.
Regardless, much of this is strategy and tactics.
While I strongly favor rules that empower minorities – such as the filibuster,
I do not see it coming back.
In the meantime
Democrats are wrong to oppose Gorsuch because exactly what they do not like about him is exactly what all 9 justices of the supreme court should be like.
But as to the rest of the strategy and tactics.
I think filibustering now is a tactical mistake.
It is not immoral or improper, it just will not work, and will have no actual benefit to democrats.
But they are free to persue it.
Well, for one thing, you misunderstood, or misread, what I said, which was “But because they get away with way more blatant hypocrisy.” The operative phrase there being “get away with.”
Now, you can argue that the mainstream news media is very balanced and treats Democrats and Republicans the same. But, that would be a very flawed argument.
I have said over and over, that politicians are, for the most part hypocritical. Politicians from both sides. I have called politics a blood sport, and it always has been (“Et tu, Brute?”).
I am of the opinion, easily backed, I think, that Democrats get away with their hypocrisy to a far greater degree than Republicans, because the media is much more likely to ignore the hypocrisy of the politicians that they support and like. That’s all. You are free to disagree, but I wish that we would stay on the same page.
“Well, for one thing, you misunderstood, or misread, what I said, which was “But because they get away with way more blatant hypocrisy.” The operative phrase there being “get away with.””
Its a fair point. One for you.
Priscilla: I know environmentalists can be dweebish, obnoxious and clueless; they probably alienate millions of Republicans who, left alone, might actually favor environmental protections.
As for forest management, see my reply to Ron above. Yes, smart management would create better conditions in the forests, but I’m pretty adamant about keeping private interests out of public lands.
Rick, I see it as more than public vs. private, or even smart management, although management is certainly an issue with any government bureaucracy. My issue is legislation and regulation based on non-scientific and non-proven concerns, coupled with a complete disregard for unintended consequences. The harm that has been caused by the EPA, both environmental and economic, likely equals or surpasses the good that it has done.
But when Republicans point that out, they are vilified. That’s all.
I agree – private interests should be out of public lands.
But 65% of alaska should not belong to the federal government, and another 35 to the state. With truly private lands less than 1%.
The state and federal government should own a few percent of the land in the country – and that should be preserved without change over time.
The remainder should be privatley owned and its use determined by the free market.
Thanks, Rick, loved it.
Let’s alot of Reps read it, they are almost as bad as Dem are
Hear, hear! Or here, here! I never know which one it is……
Here, here. It was me that praised Rick, above. It should of read: Let’s hope a lot of Reps read it, they are almost as bad as the Dems are. And, I would add, now that I am on actual keyboard, that the Reps are worse because they are in bed or in the s—-pile with Trump.
“What a revoltin’ development this is.”
I knew it was you dd12! Are you calling for revolution, you violent leftist??
Thanks, dduck. Yes, our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle will get their roasting in my next column. But notice that even in this piece, I tried to understand the Republican mind and even sympathized (a little).
I have a theory, which is based on the mechanism of reversible chemical equilibrium, that if half of the righties died at once from a righty virus, half of the lefties would change sides and the same proportion of left and right would result.
Example, the Vermont legislature was purged of any meaningful conservative power already 6 years back or so. And yet, the result was not anywhere near as left wing as you might have expected. Lots of lefties in the legislature had to abandon left wing positions once the Dem party had total power and started to think and act like moderate conservatives to balance the lefties.
Here on TNM, Poster A from the left of center can be in an intense battle of words with two posters, B and C, from the right who unite forces to attack him. Poster A leaves altogether for several months and returns to find the B and C have fallen out of love And even like and are hitting each other over the head with rhetorical tongs. One of them turned out to be much further right than the other and they separated with one being relatively liberal compared to the other. Given time and the actual power to legislate you would be back to a liberal and a conservative in a short time. Oh yes I have seen it happen, I was poster A!
A Chinese proverb: A man’s face, a woman’s face and yet the same exact skeleton lies underneath. What two different act of theater!
Priscilla: Me a leftist? Even if you are joking, I take that as a compliment. Roby, above, partially explains the shift in attitudes in political leanings in a sort of “nature abhors a vacuum” way. I have always been a bet of a contrarian when one side’s choir hurts my ears. It is easy because both sides are so full of s____ and themselves I hate political parties except for Groucho’s which he probably would not join- me too. I am also not too keen on folks that have been a member of one party all their lives and never admit that it has flaws.
In other words you are a very pithy version of Rick! TNM is just the place for you.
Of course I was joking dd12!!
Aw shucks, ya got me, Priscilla.
Yes, Roby, I am a frequent user of rest rooms, but I keep my visits short, a trait at least one commenter on TNM wouldn’t understand. 🙂
For me left means – if there is a problem – government is the answer,
If you see the government as the answer to most problems then I would label you on the left.
I do nto think it matters much precisely how you plan to use government to impose some solution by force. on the rest of us.
Rick, I am disappointed to see you digress from your only slightly left position to an anti conservative position. Conservatives are not fully represented by the egotistical Trump.
And canceling federal laws means the states can can save wolves and bears if they want to.
You disappoint me …
Good point, Ron.
By the way, this is a different Ron. Not Ron P. Maybe “Ron” will add the initial so it is clear which Ron is posting.
I thought the tone sounded different.
Yep. “Ron” sure doesn’t want to be confused with me!
I knew it wasn’t you, Ron P.
It could be RP, or a new Ron.
Never knew there were so many of you! 😉
I think both the Republicans and the Democrats have gone off the rails during the past few years, so naturally I’m going to be critical of the GOP in my “Dear Republicans” letter. Don’t worry… the Democrats will have their turn, although most of my barbs will probably be aimed at the maniacs who have taken over our colleges.
If you want to address the college situation – I would strongly recommend watching many of Prof. Haidt’s youtube video’s on the subject.
Some things he noted:
The campus changes happened suddenly and surprised even left academia.
Despite ideological similarities – this was not actually driven by academia – though academic diversity is a separate problem and since 1998 academia which has always been predominantly left has gone well past a tipping point – but that is actually an independent issue.
Haidt is crediting changes in parenting and laws driven by changes in the media in the late 70’s
For these students it is not about free speech. It is about preaching heresey in the temple.
Haidt noted that at the Murray event – the protestors did not care if the lecture continued – off campus. What they opposed was bringing satan (Murray) to speak in their temple – the college.
That this is about an assault on their religion.
And the portion of the student population engaged in this violent illiberal activism is actually small.
This is where the left tilt of academia kicks in.
The majority left on campus is not intellectually equiped to deal with this extremist attack originating from a small portion of the student body.
This is not actually left on right warfare. It is left on left.
The mainstream left is being attacked as racist, homophobic and bigotted.
Because that has been their rhetoric, they do not know how to respond.
The average college professor or dean or college president is going to capitulate when labeled as a racist, specifically because they do not think of themselves as racist, and because they have been trained to see subliminal racism in others and are unsure that they are not racists when they are attacked as racists.
Essentilly a small faction of the left withing colleges has effectively started using the tactics and strategy of the left against the left.
Thought everyone would like to read a good article concerning bipartisanship. When you have MSNBC saying good things about a Republican, I might have to check to see if global warming has come to and end and the cooling has impacted hell. Looks like it has frozen over.
http://www.journalnow.com/opinion/columnists/john_railey/railey-can-sen-richard-burr-become-the-hero-the-russian/article_4cd27896-d7db-5711-a986-ed13c0f826ef.html
I have been following Andrew Mccarthy on the Russia stuff.
If the left ever manages to connect the dots and demonstrate real collusion with Russia regarding the election – Trump is dead.
That said they have an incredible distance to go.
Thus far crediting everything that has been leaked as true – there is less connection between Trump and Putin than was openly reported between Clinton and Putin prior to the election.
Clintons interactions with Russians prove nothing more than Trumps do – that people involved in international enterprises sometimes talk with foreign businessmen and diplomats.
What is becoming increasingly evident is that The obama administration was involved in more that spying on Russia but was venturing into political espionage – establish that and it is WORSE than watergate.
Nixon had to create a private group – “The plumbers” because he could not get FBI, CIA, … to do his dirty work for him.
The leaks with respect to Trump are things we do not know whether are true or false.
BUT we do know that they are leaks from the Intelligence community and that they do reflect that the IC was paying alot of attention to Trump.
We now have Evelyn Farkas – a clinton campaign operative and former high ranking Obama appointee on national television admitting that after the election she was still inside the intelligence loop AND that she was encouraging Obama administration staff to get whatever they had on Trump out there.
There is just not an innocent way of interpreting that.
“When you strike at a king, you must kill him.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
As this continues it is increasingly likely that someone is going down extremely big time.
Technically even if the left demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump’s campaign collaborated with the Russians, we could still see both Trump and Obama or atleast alot of former Obama staff fall – because much of what has happened has been a crime – even if they were right.
But that outcome is highly unlikely,
If actual collusion with the Trump campaign is demonstrated – that will be “yuge”.
But thus far this is a very weak circumstantial case with highly plausible explanations.
And Emerson’s Aphorism is correct.
Either The left gets Trump’s scalp or Trump is going to be collecting alot of scalp’s of his own.
And frankly this has gone sufficiently far that I do not think there is anyway of backing down now.
The democrats could care less about the outcome. It is the process that they are interested in. They are taking the GOP Benghazi playbook and perfecting it. They do not want an outcome until after 2020 as this is their Benghazi and if they keep creating smoke, people will believe their is a fire somewhere and that will impact the outcome of the 2018 and 2020 elections.
But the reason I shared the article was to show that bipartisan cooperation still exist in Washington. But it takes a senator from the majority party that is not running next election to team with a minority party senator to make this happen. I suspect this bipartisanship would be somewhat different if Burr was going to run again in 2020.
Maybe this is Benghazi, maybe not.
I may be wrong – I have seen scandals drawn out infinitely and then fizzle that I thought were fatal.
But I think this has a relatively short life.
Either someone finds more than a few puffs of smoke in the Russia Trump meme or this story turns and destroys those pushing it.
the assorted past congressional investigations – republican or democrat, started with the legitimate oversight power of congress.
This is rooted in a political inquest by the executive of the opposite party. That is quite different.
I would also note that this builds on Fast & Furious – which the right beleives was a deliberate DOJ effort to sell guns illegally to produce the impetus to drive new gun laws.
And The IRS scandal which is a serious criminal action within the administration, and only fizzled because it does nto appear to rise higher than Lehrner.
As more comes out – and it must, about who was investigating who and who was leaking what these prior scandals come into play too.
Those of you on the left are probably incapable of grasping that for people who voted for Trump Fast & Furious and the IRS scandal were egregious, evil, illegal and deeply offensive.
The left likes to play the race card – I think if Obama was not black – the IRS scandal might have taken down the govenrment. If it reached into the whitehouse, it was worse than watergate. Regardless, the failure of DOJ to prosecute is very disturbing.
Finally, Trump has a reputation for being vindictive.
If he survives the Russia Scandal he is taking a scythe to the intelligence community, and he is likely getting out the long knives.
Like Emerson said – “if you strike the king, kill the king”.
I have to agree with you on all counts you listed as possible activities that could have taken down Obama.
But my thinking is many on the right believed what they heard from Hannity or read on social media concerning Bengahzi, even though I don’t remember seeing anything final that would have sent Clinton to trial or prevented her from running for President. I think the same thing is happening with the Russian issue, but multiplied by up to 10 because Fox and a few insignificant web sites kept the Benghazi issue alive, where this issue is being driven by NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, most print media (ie NY Times, Washington Post and local papers), many local TV stations and a host of social media sites (ie Huffington Post). AAnd the more times a lie is told, more people begin to believe the lie as being true.
And in a way, this is the same thing Russia is doing in spreading fake news across Europe trying to influence their elections. Russia’s ability to control anything militarily is not possible now due to their economic issues and the decline of their military, but they sure can influence things cheaply by spreading fake news.
The fundimental issue regarding Benghazi was that the administration lied to the public about a terrorist attack immediately before an election.
There is the separate issue of whether Benghazi was handled competently.
I think not, but that causes administrations to lose credibility and elections not go to jail.
Republicans have made mistakes before – we investigate those too.
And what was the final outcome of the House investigation into Benghazi????
There are multiple reports – they are available.
I am pretty sure the referal to the FBI regarding the Clinton private server came from the Benghazi committee.
Regardless, congress can recomend to the administration, it can refer for DOJ investigation, and it can convert hearings into legislative action.
The first two occured.
Clinton lied under oath regarding her emails – I beleive that was in the Benghazi hearings.
She also lied subject to perjury in some of the pleadings regarding the Judicial Watch FOIA case. And she inarguably violated 18cfr793(f) and possibly 18cfr793(e).
Those are the serious issues.
FBI wanted to investigate Clinton Foundation – and there is far more likely something there than Trump-Russia.
There are also myriads of more minor records keeping violations that are not crimes but are illegal.
And what bothers me the most is that Clinton vigorously went after the producer of “The Innocence of the muslims” and had him jailed.
High government officials should not use their power to crush little guys for political purposes.
Again, what came of this investigation?
What became of the Benghazi investigation ?
Or what became of the referal to DOJ that resulted ?
At a minimum – Clinton lost the 2016 election.
That is a pretty big outcome.
At the moment New York Times is all to often “fake news”.
I mean honestly NYT ran a front page story that Trump was wiretapped and is not lambasting Trump for tweeting what they ran fist on the front page ?
I could care less what propoganda Russia is selling.
People who want to buy a particular ideological narrative – are going to do so.
But today we have the greatest ability to find the truth that we have ever had as ordinary people. But you have to sort it out of the weeds.
the media is biased. Got that,.
I am not a big fan of Fox either.
They may reflect a different pespective than CNN – but they do not reflect MY perspective.
All that said – the media is biased – so what.
I do not care – that is their right to be.
The last thing I want is government imposing some balance standard on the media.
Markets will do that – or not.
Dave are you living under a rock? You may not care if the media is biased or not. That is your right and that is a good position to take when no one can do anything about biased reporting anyway. They are private companies and can report the news anyway they want.
But there are millions of voters that vote based on biased media reports. There and thousands that votes based on fake news stories. That should concern many people today because fake news and biased reporting in the past did not influence the percentage of voters that it influences today. Where people did not read the paper or listen to news on TV in the past, they are bombarded with this stuff on social media hourly. When the average american checks their phone almost twice an hour for each waking hour, they have much greater chance of seeing a fake/biased news story than previous generation.
There is no right to an unbiased media.
If you do not like one or many media outlets – find others you do.
People vote for lots of reasons – my grandmother always voted for the most handsome candidate.
Possibly elections would be different absent biased media.
So what ?
What remedy do you want ?
Government meddling in political speach in the 60’s and 70’s was disasterous.
We do not want to go back.
The media is like the rest of the free market. It is selling a product.
I do not want any more regulation on the media than my hot dog – that would be none.
I get to decide what I think is fake news – you get to decide for yourself. Rachel Maddow is allowed her opinion.
We fix this kind of bad conduct in a free market by changing our purchasing behavior.
When you say that “fake news” changed voting – you are saying – others are too stupid to know what is true or false, but you are not, and some expert should be appointed to save stupid people from beliving fake news.
I am not all that happy with the overall intelligence of the average american.
But I do not presume to know enough to know how to fix things for them.
We already have myriads of political fact check organizations.
That make it abundantly clear that specicially charging an intelligent person with an obligation to examine things without bias provides pretty close to zero protection from bias.
Do we have a greater chance of seeing “fake news” today ?
No. I do not think so. The Three network when I was young were more sophisticated in their bias and error. Absolutely today the wild wild west internet exposes us to more extreme “fake news”, but we are also far more likely to see the actual truth.
Discerning which is which is a personal problem.
I am not sure that what you see as the optics matters that much.
If Burr does not produce the results the left wants – he will be villified.
He has more room with the right.
I would note historically Republicans are far better at being willing to hold republicans accountable, than democrats.
I do not know much about Burr, but I do not presume things because someone is republican.
I have noted that I have a great deal of respect for McCain.
But he is in a blood feud with Trump – one that Trump started.
Regardless, I have zero doubt that McCain would sacrifice party and country for personal revenge.
“If Burr does not produce the results the left wants – he will be villified.
He has more room with the right.”
True if it becomes a “Burr” investigation. Right now it is a “Burr/Warner” investigation and if it stays that way, the left will have a harder time discounting the findings if they don’t support their desired outcome.
Burr, Burr/Warner – does not matter.
Absent a smoking gun – wherever they are right now – Burr and warner will get polarized if they do not find something compelling.
Ron, it is all about the process. And James Comey, as possibly the most powerful man in Washington now, is playing the process game as well.
If the FBI has been investigating Trump’s ties to Russia since July 2016, and is not able to make a report of any kind, I have to assume that the agency has gotten mixed up in the Watergate-style political spying that we’re beginning to see evidence of. All of the “Trump associates” named by the NYT and the Washington Post have offered to testify publicly, none have thus far been permitted to do so.
As long as Comey keeps Trump under investigation, Trump can’t fire him. Well, technically I suppose he can, but the political fallout would be radioactive. And as long as Comey stonewalls Congress, which is what he is currently doing, the cloud of the investigation will continue to hang over the administration, despite the total lack of evidence.
It’s obvious that our intelligence community has become dangerously politicized, and that there are many embedded leakers, as well as whistleblowers, both ready to deal in classified info that helps their side . I’m afraid that we will never know the truth of what has been going on.
But Rachel Maddow will continue to get high ratings, peddling her Russia conspiracy theories. If they can keep this thing going until 2018, it might help the Democrats win back some seats. And if James Comey continues to stonewall Congress and keep his “investigation” going, he’ll outlast Trump.
Comey ultmately has no more power than the facts.
Worse still the FBI has had its credibility shredded for both the right and left.
There are indications at the moment that the FBI was involved in negotiations to fund continued investigations by the British Spy that the Clinton’s hired to do opposition research. While it is good they said no. It is still going to be hard to get out of that without looking bad – compromised.
I do not think Comey is particularly partisan, or evil. But I think he sacrificed principles for expedience. I think that he did a versiion of the Roberts PPACA decision – and decided what the result had to be, and then bent the law to fit the results he beleive was politically necescary.
I do not mean he bent the law to the republican or democrat desired result – but the one he thought was best for the nation.
That is still a mistake. Confidence in the integrity of the FBI is pretty much shot.
what does “know the truth” mean ?
In arguably some of Trumps people had contact with russians.
As did Clinton’s.
Both Trump and Clinton were engaged in activities that would have required legitimate contacts with russians.
Maybe real collusion occured – I honestly doubt it.
I still do not beleive that Putin thought Trump was in his best interests.
The most I am likely to beleive is that like everyone else Putin though Clinton was going to win, and wanted her to weaken her.
Frankly, I do not think that Russia was effective.
Prior to the election even Obama spoke about Russian activities in the election suggesting they were both real and not unusual.
Most all the allegations regarding Russia were known prior to the election.
Thus far nothing has come to light might have impacted the election that voters did not know prior to the election.
What has occurred is that after the election – the left failed to grasp that
The fault was in themselves and not their stars.
and has grasped at the russian straw.
Both because they need an explanation for the impossible.
and because the left absolutely totally loaths trump in the way the right was accused of hating Obama. Only much of the left does not even pretend that is not so.
I think this is going to end very badly. Exactly how I do not know.
I do not beleive there was collusion – among other reasons because if Trump somehow bought russian help – he got a bad deal. Russia did nto decide this election.
And because I do not think despite his one way bromance with Putin Trump is that stupid.
But even if there was collusion – absent a “john dean” coming forward you are never going to prove it.
At the same time you can not disprove a negative and the left is going to forever beleive that somehow putin got Trump elected and they colluded.
But what can be known is what was going on inside the US IC.
And heads are going to roll over that.
Maddow is playing to the faithful.
How many Trump voters tune into Maddow ?
If you want this to have an effect in 2018 and 2020, you need to change Trump voters.
I have seen nothing thus far that suggests that happening.
Frankly. I think the left is imploding.
The giant question for 2018 and 2020 is the economy.
Not Russia, not PPACA, not Tax Reform, not Immigration, not ….
To the extent any of those matter at all – it is their effect on the economy.
My gazing into the crystal ball suggests a better recovery by 2018 and Republican gains not losses.
But I am watching lots of economic signs – and there are both good ones and bad ones.
we have been pushing forward a minor recession for several years.
I expected it before the election.
If Clinton had been elected I think it would have happened immediatley.
I do not know if Trumps actions thus far have been sufficient to forestall it
there are lots of clues that say the economy is starting to strengthen.
But there are some warnign signs too.
Andrew McCarthy is excellent, Dave. I’ve been following him, as well as Victor Davis Hanson, both of the National Review. I’ve also been reading Eli Lake of Bloomberg News and Glenn Greenwald.
I am not familiar with Lake.
I already mentioned my respect for Greenwald.
He is one of those on the left who has been willing to stick to his ideals and positions even thought it meant challenging those of his own ideology.
I greatly respect that.
And, Ron, I’ve been impressed with Burr and Warner. Although, Nunes and Schiff started out a lot more cooperative than they are now… I hope the Senate committee can hang in there and find out what’s happened/happening. The Senate Judiciary Committee has been doing some good work too, despite their being much more partisan.
I hope they can too. An independent counsel is too premature and there is plenty of smoke, Tom Keane said today on Zakaria’s show, it would take five months plus and disrupt the nation. A bipartisan, bicameral committee of congress should do it first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DXl5yEAurY
dduck, right on about an IC being premature, and everyone calling for it knows that to be a fact. But when they call for one and it doesn’t happen, that strengthens their position that something illegal took place and the Attorney General is trying to cover something up.
From my understanding, the law specifies the AG naming an IC when there is substantial and credible information available concerning a government official in some level of government. Right now that has not been made available to anyone, but the Democrats will continue calling for it regardless.
I do not beleive there is an IC law on the books at the moment.
There is no legal requirement to name an IC.
At this point in time political corruption is investigated by DOJ.
This is why Clinton was not prosecuted, not was Lehner, nor the IRS commissioner, not Clapper, nor Brennan, nor ….
Because things like lying under oath were acceptable to the Obama DOJ.
Good god you are picky with peoples words. NO DAVE THERE IS NO CURRENT IC LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!. I typed an “s” instead of a “d” in “specifie “. They are right next to each other on the keyboard. But the original law stated their had to be substantial and credible information before an IC could be called for and I would think that would be a requirement if their is a law or no law.
The demos are pulling out all their plays on this to crucify Trump, regardless if there is something there or not.
I do not put much effort into typing, grammar or spelling.
I have zero grounds to complain about that of others.
You meant something different – got it.
So long as I do not have to defend responding to what was written, rather than what was intended.
I see nothing here that should take very long.
It is pretty self evident that a great deal of spying on the Trump Campaign occurred prior to the election.
Apparently starting long before Trump was nominated.
With the exception of specific testimony from Trumps people,
the rest of the evidence already exists or is never going to be uncovered.
What it is not – is publicly available.
Absent a John Dean the only way you are getting Trump is by exposing in a very big way that the Obama administration was very agressively spying on Trump.
The left has got to hope that “the ends justify the means” – and that will only fly if Trump is actually caught in something.
If not, alot of Obama political appointess are likely to be exposed and possibly jailed and this could potentially significantly tarnish Obama.
Frankly, I think this was a very very stupid political gambit on the lefts part.
Absent some stunning revelation – this will play fine with the extreme left.
But it is not ruffling the feathers of Trump voters.
The most dangerous thing I think Trump may be doing, is going after the Freedom Caucus.
Trump won. He won on his own. He is not beholden to the republican establishment at all.
But republican representatives and senators also won. And they won absent Trump coattails.
To the extent there is any political synegry. Trump voters are more likely aligned with the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus.
Trump ran against the very people he is starting to try to make nice with.
That is politically incredibly dangerous.
But then if my political savy was better than Trumps, he would have lost.
Schiff has been an idiot for as long as I have been following this.
I am not sure that Nunes is not in over his head.
I see know real substance in the attacks on him.
But they appear to be working anyway.
I have no more faith in the senate committee – than the house.
If anything less.
Senators are for more impressed with their own importance than representatives.
and are more likely to have larger political aspirations.
“Senators are for more impressed with their own importance than representatives.
and are more likely to have larger political aspirations.”
What makes this one different is Burr is retiring after this term in office. In 2022 he will be packing up his 1973 VW Thing and heading back to North Carolina. He has been in Washington since 1995, which mens he will have served in the House or Senate for 27 years. I doubt he will be one that stays in DC as a lobbyist. So he has no larger political aspirations. He was once mentioned as a running mate with McCain and said locally he would not do that.
You have confidence in Burr – I get that.
Personally I think the Trump side of this is trivial:
If the FBI, NSA, CIA had a smoking gun regarding Trump we would have seen it by now.
Further investigating is NOT going to find a smoking gun.
Put the assorted named actors under oath in public and see if anything falls out.
Absent a John Dean, the Trump side dies.
Then the question is what you do about the Inteligence leaks and the near certainty that the administration was using the federal govenrment to investigate a political opponent for political purposes.
I think the leaks we already have a re highly likely to be fully traceable.
Prosecute – and then see where that leads.
That is a longer term issue and so long as Trump is not implicated by the house/senate investigation, can be persued by DOJ.
Priscilla, I think the divide between Schiff and Nunez is much greater than the divide between Warner and Burr. When I see Nunez and Schiff, it seems very apparent to me these two guys don’t like each other personally, let alone their differences in political positions. Right now Warner and Burr seem to like each other and would be one of the few you might see having a drink after work together. But I think that it might also be Burrs ability to support more moderate legislation and since he doesn’t have to worry about reelection, he can tell McConnell to go jump in the lake if he does something that jerk doesn’t like.
What has legislation got to do with this ?
This is an investigation.
I want whoever is doing it to follow the facts where they lead.
If they actually lead to Trump – we will have a constitutional crisis.
I can live with that.
But I do not expect that.
The bigger problem there is it is impossible to disprove.
The other side is easier. There is already plenty fo evidence that misconduct occured the only question si who and how much.
Find out, and prosecute.
Dave, I posted a reply and it did not show up when I look at comments. So this might be a duplicate.
You need to read the complete comment in the context it was written and not specific words picked out of context. Burr can get more cooperation on INVESTIGATION because he has crossed the line and supported left of center LEGISLATION. It is much easier to get cooperation from Warner when he has worked on other issues that Warner supported in the past. And if McConnell does not like what he is doing, Burr can tell him to go …….. becasue he is not worried about his position in the senate, especially after this term.
This is not a hill I have any interest in debating much less dying on.
I think your confidence in Burr is misplaced. Nor do I think it is broadly shared.
Rachel Maddow does not give a Flying F, that Burr is a lame duck and in theory not easily influenced.
I do not see much to “investigate” regarding Trump. There are records that already exist regarding whatever conduct there has been between anyone vaguely associated with Trump and Russia. Anything we do nto already have is not going to be magically concocted (I hope) in the next couple of weeks.
Get what records exist – apparently alot.
Bring these people in under oath and question them – preferably publicly.
Again unless there is a “john Dean” among them – this is going to die.
As to “russian hacking” – I think that has already been beaten to death.
Absent collusion with Trump it is not a matter of serious public import.
I am not sure it is really even congresses purview.
The last issue is the extent to which the prior administration went outside of what is proper and legal.
We already have the prima facia case there – we would not be discussing any of this absent criminal mishandling of classifed information – and interestingly the rumours once again connect this to Clinton and her staff. Who maintained security clearances and access after the left government – that is nearly certainly improper. You must either be in or work for government to hold a security clearance. and even with a clearance you must have a demonstrated need to know to have access. Neither of which are plausible.
There are political issues trying to prosecute former Obama Administration people.
Which hints that this should be handled by congress or a special prosecutor.
Of course there was no problem with the DOJ and FBI handling those investigation prior to the election ? If we trusted the FBI to investigate Clinton – I think we can trust it to investigate, her and aparently Susan Rice and … now.
That leaves the investigation of Trump and his contacts with Russia for congress.
And that does not seem like it should be a tedious job.
“Get’r’Done”.
Partison, non-partison, it does nto matter.
Unless there is a smoking gun and Trump is impeached the results are going to be partisan fighting regardless.
I have not seen any serious problems with Nunes work thus far except that he may not have the political chops to swim in shark infested waters.
Regardless, if you are expecting some happy non-partisan outcome – I want some of what you are smoking.
This is going to be bitter, contentious, partisan, drawn out and at best end up with house cleaning in the intelligence community.
It is not going to give closure to anyone.
Most importantly it is not going to inspire the left to do some well needed soul searching and figure out why they lost.
We have all the signs that democrats are moving further left.
I do not care that they act in opposition to Trump – I expect that. It is their job.
What I care about is the future of the democratic party.
Because republicans and Trump need strong opposition.
Not weak marginalised socialist opposition.
Here is a video interview of Prof. Johnathan Haidt.
I should think Haidt’s insights might have significant appeal to “moderates”.
While I do not 100% aggree with Haidt, he has incredible insights into how our ideologies work. He is incredible on the psychology of political values.
Why each of us beleives what we beleive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5SaY8tcNCo
Anyway there are alot more clips of Haidt on youtube and you can find many of his papers.
I highly recommend him.
Very good clip Dave! I read The Righteous Mind a while back, and he hits most of the important points of it here.
I particularly like his description of his time at Yale: “There were probably 3 or 4 conservatives there, but they were icky and yucky” lol.
Also, his explanation of why libertarians are overwhelmingly male is also very interesting.
And that more and more people vote against the people they hate, rather than for the the people they like…..that was pretty obvious during this past election. I think that the neverending “Russia hacked the election” theme of Democrats is basically an electoral strategy to get more voters to hate and fear Trump and the Republicans, and to drive turnout in the midterms and beyond.
I am not in 100% agreement with Haidt on everything – but I greatly respect him.
He is absolutely brilliant, and he brings to discussion facets of political identity and ideology that most of us are completely unaware of.
I have been following him for sometime – before he “discovered” libertarians.
I directly corresponded with him on libertarians and empathy, and I would like think that he adjusted his definition of empathy in response to my criticism’s.
Libertarians have emotions just like everyone else – and with as much individual variation.
We are not distinguished because we feel less, but because we weigh our feelings – no matter how strong low in much of our decision making
Though even there – there is absolutely nothing wrong with making a choice based entirely on emotion. I do so quite often. What you may not do is make a choice that involves restrictions to the liberty of another.
Anyway there are many other clips of Haidt.
In the past I have characterized him as a liberal that understands libertarians.
Watching he newer clips, he has done everything short of come out as a libertarian.
He has completely flipped his views on economics – he has grasped that the advent of free markets has done more to improve conditions for the worst off than all charity ever.
He is now calling the left “illiberal” and “progressive”, and he is calling himself a centrist.
The most important thing about him and his work is he is very good at something most of us are very bad at – understanding the the principles and values of identity groups – often better than those groups members do themselves.
I think I am better than most – at understanding the ideology of others.
Partly because at one time or another I have traveled through most ideologies.
But Haidt is far better than I am.
Most of us – particularly those on the left are absolutely abysmal at understanding the views of others.
I am not sure whether it was Haidt – but someone similar on Youtube noted that the Left is pushing the Russia hacked the election meme, because they must explain their loss.
If the cause of the loss is not something external – Russian hacking, then it requires questioning their own beleifs and ideology and they are not prepared to go there.
This is particularly noteworthy as even in the highly unlikely event that some collusion with Trump is ultimately demonstrated. Clinton did not lose because of Russian hacking.
Democrats lost connection with a significant portion of their base – particularly blue collar whites.
Elsewhere I am reading post election analysts that are saying that minorities are increasingly enamoured with the left.
It is highly unlikely that any republican is getting a majority of any part of the minority vote.
But very small gains in minority votes would make the GOP impregnable.
The left likes to claim that Republicans can not consistently receive the ever higher number of white votes needed to win elections – as minorities expand.
But democratic victories require even higher percentages among minorities – and that too is not sustainable.
Hey moderates (cough) here at TNM, there are two new books on you reviewed today in WSJ: They’ll Meet You Halfway
Faces of Moderation
By Aurelian Craiutu
(University of Pennsylvania Press, 295 pages, $49.95)
Moderates
By David S. Brown
(University of North Carolina Press, 335 pages, $34.95)
“Mr. Craiutu acknowledges that a moderate is a thing hard to define but helps us infer the creature’s outlines from its markings in the wild. Moderates, in his view, see the world as complex, unpredictable and dangerous but also as hopelessly imperfect. They are skeptical of revolutionary change or the idea that history is guided by progress; their overriding concerns are avoiding violence and preserving liberal institutions.”
“Mr. Craiutu argues. A true moderate, he says, rather than seeking “safe spaces,” welcomes opposing views. Moderates know that nobody has a monopoly on the truth and are willing to appear inconsistent in order to follow the facts, moving (deliberately) first to one side and then the other like human ballast in the interests of keeping the ship of state on an even keel.”
Would be nice to know what he defines as ” liberal institutions.”
I have to agree with his description of a true moderate.” Moderates know that nobody has a monopoly on the truth and are willing to appear inconsistent in order to follow the facts, moving (deliberately) first to one side and then the other like human ballast in the interests of keeping the ship of state on an even keel.” This is why you see few moderates in congress today. Every Liberal and Conservative thinks they own the truth and are unwilling to budge from their positions.
And I love appearing inconsistent in many cases. It drives Liberals and Conservative nuts. I can keep a conversation going for eons just by tweaking my positions. I can annoy or irritate someone intensely. And sometimes I change my positions when new information comes out that I was unaware of, unlike so many today.
The left – particularly the modern left mas distorted the meaning of the term “liberal” beyond meaning.
I linked to some videos by Prof. Haidt, he used to call himself liberal, now he is calling himself centrist and quoting John Stuart Mills. He has started using the word “illiberal” to describe the modern left – particularly the violent censoring crowd on campus.
I like that use as illiberal is an accurate description, and makes an effort at restoring liberal to its actual meaning.
Through to the 40’s and possibly the 50’s in the US liberal was pretty close to libertarian.
This makes it very confusing for moderns trying to read Locke, Adam Smith, our founders, Hume, Mills, most of the leading intellectual lights from the 17th to the mid 20th century – as they use the term “liberal” constantly – and what they mean most closely resembles modern libertarianism
Regardless I have no problem with the term “liberal institutions”.
I have no idea what moderates mean by it.
I am disturbed by the expression “a monopoly on the truth”.
The root of real “liberalism” is that to the greatest extent possible choices should be made by individuals.
That inherently means we are free to determine truth for ourselves.
There are not too many conservatives on TNM at the moment.
US conservatism has always had strong libertarian elements.
Regardless, my primary disagreements with all over anything are less about is their truth in your view, but can you impose your truth on the rest of us by force.
We all should have the greatest possible freedom short of constraining the freedom of others to follow our own truth in our own lives.
The world is incredibly complex, and constantly getting more so.
Easy answers are rare if they exist at all. Answers that work for all of us are close to non-existant. Perfection is unattainable – but improvement is acheiveable.
We are constantly seeing those who think their truth provides easy answers trying to impose it on all of us by force.
Dave, I might agree with you, if I thought that the minority party is using the filibuster for anything but purely partisan obstruction, i.e. to paraphrase new DNC chair Tom Perez, Democrats don’t give a sh*t what they’re voting for, it’s going to go down.
A loyal opposition does not obstruct everything. Unless they consider themselves part of an undemocratic resistance, not loyal to any constitutionally elected representatives.
I don’t think that, in the long run, gridlock does the nation any good. It simply reinforces the notion that the legislature is useless and that we’re better off with a” benevolent” dictator. You know, someone like Obama (and yes, I’m being ruefully sarcastic there.
The Constitution provided for majority rule by legislature, except in certain narrowly defined situations, such as veto overrides, where it specified a 2/3 majpority.
I think we should do something radical, and use the Constitution as the blueprint for governing.
If the use of the filibuster by democrats is purely partisan destruction the electorate will address that.
I think your assessment of that is correct. I think this is a big tactical and strategic mistake for democrats.
There is a difference between the so called republican obstruction from 2009 forward and that of democrats.
Republicans are – to the extent either party is, the party of limited government.
Saying “NO” was fully consistent with their values and was what that portion of the electorate that supported them wanted of them.
In the midst of the shutdown polling was showing something like 75% of people not wanting to see the debt ceiling raised.
Democratic obstruction does not send the same message. While it is playing well with the extreme left of the democratic party – it is not playing well overall.
Regardless, democrats as individuals and as a party are free to make their own choices.
And voters will make theirs in two years.
My crystal ball says this is a mistake.
I think Democrats would have been better to save this fight for the next nominee.
They would have been in a stronger position then.
They probably still would have lost – but Republicans would have looked worse.
Regardless, democrats are free to do as they choose.
There is nothing “morally” wrong with filibustering.
There is nothing morally wrong with nuking the filibuster.
What matters is how the voters respond.
Well my crystal ball has another take on it. It says the GOP once again has screwed up royally with the way they present things to the people. They keep talking “nuclear”. How many people know what the hell “nuclear” means. Now the Democrats will go out and talk about how McConnell (McConnell rule) has changed the Senate and how bad that is going to be, when the GOP should have been talking about the “Reid Rule” at every turn they could to stick Harry Reid with the fact they changed procedures to get judges confirmed.And now when they change everything to a simple majority vote with no filibuster, it will be McConnell Rule that cause the change. And they will do one fine job making that change a negative in the thoughts of the majority of voters.
I have no idea how or what the democrats will be saying, but I am very sure they will frame this as the GOP destroying tradition and then a large percent of the “swing” voters will buy into that crap.
Just like when the GOP “shut down” government when they really did not “shut down” government. Vacation spots were closed, non essential government workers were given a handful of paid days off and all you heard or saw was how children were locked out of national monuments on school trips or people on vacation could not get into see the national parks. Not a word about the 90% of government workers still on the job or the fact the 10% sent home still got paid.
And again this morning the GOP held a news conference to announce NOTHING about a possible plan that may or may not be acceptable to both wings of the party that may or may not be voted on once they get back from their two week vacation. They have worked so hard the past 90 days, they need 14-15 days to recuperate.
Are republicans bad at messaging ? Absolutely.
Are Democrats going to try to spin this as strongly as possible in their favor ? Absolutely.
Do I know how people and voters are going to respond ? Only time will tell that.
My abilty to look into the crystal ball has no special meaning.
It has no connection to what is right or wrong, or ideology.
If I am wrong about how people will respond – well I am just wrong about it then.
It has no impact on my credibility on anything – except my ability to guess how others respond. While that might be a useful skill, it does not answer any of the questions I think are important.
Everything is going to simple majorities.
The only hope we have is a return to the pre-1917 rule – which was ANYONE could filibuster. That they had to hold the floor or yeild to someone sympathetic, and that debate could not be shutdown or suspended and that no other business could be conducted until the filibuster was over.
No voting involved at all. You still passed everything with a simple majority.
But even one person could atleast try to throw sand in the gears and bring everything to a halt.
There were actually LESS filibusters – by far under that rule.
Every single thing we have done to weaken the filibuster has made them more frequent.
I beleive I read that Gorsuch is now the only supreme court justice EVER that has been filibustered. Bork was voted down – not filibustered.
Several other nominees had less than 60 votes – with the majority of the other party opposed, but were appointed anyway – no filibuster.
We shall she what happens. But most people do not understand this.
Just to be clear, I do not think that Democrats filibustering Gorsuch was something evil.
I think it was a tactical mistake.
If Trump gets another nominee they are likely to be MORE controversial.
Because frankly Gorsuch was probably the least offensive to democrats on Trumps list.
And because absent something unexpected, the next seat is going to swing the court.
The best Democrats can hope for is that Kennedy retires – that will convert the court to close to a reliable 5:4 – Roberts is not reliable, but he is more so than Kennedy.
If it is Ginsberg or Breyer – then it becomes a 6-3 court with 2 unreliable conservatives.
We will have to see who Gorsuch actually is. History suggests that Judges often change when they are elevated to the supreme court.
But if he sticks to his judicial philosophy – I would toss the rest of the court for 8 more of him. His judicial philosophy is the only legitimate one.
If the constitution and laws are applied exactly as written – if we do not like that – we can change the constitution and law and be assured that a Judge Gorsuch will decide subsequent cases based on the new law or new amendment.
If the constitution and our laws mean anything different from the common understanding of the words at the time they were written – then we have the rule of man not law, and we can not fix it.
The argument that republicans are destroying tradition – only flies with conservatives – because progressive practically by definition do not care about tradition.
Placing a high value on tradition is very nearly the definition of conservative.
Yes, one of the things on the Republicans agenda should be two laws:
1). The orderly “shutdown” of the government in the event of a failure to approve further spending. There is absolutely no reason that precisely what gets done and what does not can not be specified by law. Democrats have deliberately chosen to impliment shutdowns to put the most pressure on republicans.
What government needs to do when shutdown, needs to be outside of the broad discretion of the president.
2) The orderly continuation of the government in the event of a failure to approve further borrowing. Again we can dictate by law, how that is handled. The absolute responsibility to approve borrowing constitutionally rests with congress alone.
It used to be every single instance of borrowing had to be approved.
The debt limit was just a convenient way to keep from having to continuously approve new borrowing. The debt limit is not in the constitution it is just a law.
Congress can specify the priority by which things get paid when their is no borrowing authority. And/Or is can specify that some borrowing for very specific purposes can be done automatically.
I think these could be extremely important.
I beleive that both the debt limit and shutdowns can be effective political tools.
They are more normally tools of fiscal conservatives – but even democrats are threatening shutdowns right now – there is a debt limit fight coming up.
Republicans tend to lose these fights because they are poor at messaging, and because republican presidents tend to try to minimize public pain in a shutdown. While democrats try to maximize it. And finally because uncertainty is the most scarry force in these conflicts.
Pass a law that says SS and Medicare get paid no matter what, and that a couple of other high profile items frequently used to stir up emotions are off the table, and we can have government shutdowns continue half of forever.
The oppositions gets to choose when, where and what they oppose.
Whether opposing everything is acceptable depends on the specific things and then ultimately the electorate.
I do not think republicans were wrong opposing nearly everything.
I do think democrats are.
Not because either choices is inherently right or wrong.
But because specifically for democrats at the moment total obstruction is coming at the expense of narrowing the party.
It did not do so for republicans.
To presume gridlock is inherently wrong is to presume that government must constantly be doing more. Why ?
The requirements of government are minimal.
Obama strove to be a benevolent dictator. It was the responsibility of the courts to reign that in.
Grid lock means grid lock. It does nto mean that because congress does not act the president can.
It means when we can not come to an overwhelming concensus – we can not further infringe on others liberty.
A decade of real gridlock would likely balance the budget, and result in doubling economic growth.
I am in the process of (re)reading John Stuart Mills “on Liberty” right now.
He is amazingly prescient. He noted that representative government arose to disempower autocrats and to restore power to individuals – but that it was certain to evolve to disempowering individuals and empowering government,
He noted that at a time when the TOTAL governments of majority of the developed world spent less than 5% of GDP.
No the constitution did not provide for majority rule.
There is no majority rule provision in the constitution.
There are only a few specific instances were the constitution proscribes how congress shall make its choices – and those require supermajories.
Equally important all legislation must be approved by the house, by the senate, by the president, and a majority of the supreme court should it be challenged.
That means all legislation required the unanimous consent of 4 different institutions.
That is not majority rule.
There are actually very good reasons for this.
AGAIN government is force – legislation requires force.
Each new law not only burdens the individual liberty a bit more – but increases the resources needed to sustain the government that enforces it.
Every law is a tiny step closer to a police state.
Therefore we should think very long and hard about exactly how necescary any law is.
Because every law will have a cost.
I agree that we should follow the constitution.
I do not agree that it is majoritarian.
The constitution specifically enumerates the powers of the federal government.
Everything else belongs to the states or the people.
That is a big place to start.
If most of us – left, right or other feel that the some necescary power was not granted the federal government – then we can ammend the constitution to provide it.
Much of what republicans used gridlock to thwart – is not a power given to the federal government in the constitution.
Interfering in private contracts – such as health insurance is explicitly barred in the constitution – not merely to the federal government, but also to states.
I agree that welcoming opposing views is a hallmark of being a moderate. It’s also a hallmark of debate, which is becoming a lost art, as it is largely replaced these days with partisan ranting and accusations.
I don’t think that a moderate has to be a centrist, and there are really very few here who are genuine centrists. Keeping an open mind doesn’t necessarily mean that you don’t have strong opinions or admitted biases ~ it means that you listen to opposing arguments, with the presumption that your own opinion and biases are not objective truth, and that, in fact, there may be no objective truth to be found in most debates..
Ron, to your point, I believe that the author is likely using “liberal institutions” in the older, more traditional sense, as opposed to today’s left-wing liberal sense. An old-fashioned liberal is a believer in constitutional freedoms and civil rights, fiscal responsibility and strong foreign policy. Today’s left-wing progressives are not liberals in that sense, nor are many conservatives, who may preach those things, but, once in power, support whatever is likely to get them re-elected and/or accrue more power.
The problem is that getting elected, or re-elected, is a necessary prerequisites for effecting any kind of policy….and moderation is increasingly unlikely to get you elected. As our society becomes more diverse and complex, it’s less and less likely that moderate positions will appeal to a majority.
“and moderation is increasingly unlikely to get you elected. ”
And each step the Senate takes to changes years of traditional rules only speeds the process to less moderate politicians. The Reid Rule started to process by removing the super majority for appointments of lower positions in government. Now McConnell will get SCOTUS appointments approved by using the Reid Rule. That makes all future SCOTUS appointments political, which is far from what we need in the highest court of the country, but it also reduces moderation at the highest level.
Once the Reid Rule is placed on SCOTUS appointments, it is just a matter of time before some special legislation that the dems or GOP wants passed that is opposed vigorously by the opposing party gets passed using the Reid Rule and then the senate becomes as polarized as the House. No longer will anything like the gang of eight occur and no longer will the minority party have any influence in the country until after they become the majority party.
George Will had an excellent column on the filibuster.
Fillibisters almost never happened prior to 1917.
At that time the senate change the rules the first time to accomidate “must pass” legislation for the war, and the frequency of filibusters increased.
In the 1970’s we changed the rules again and filibusters increased dramatically.
Pre 1917 there was no 2/3 or 60 vote requirement – legislation passed solely on majority votes in the senate. But a single senator could filibuster anything. When the floor was open to debate, there was no means to end debate until debate actually ended.
Further the senate could do no other business – until the filibuster ended.
The senate was essentially shut down
Wills recomendation is to return to the filibuster of the first 150 years of our history.
The old fashion definition of liberalism meant openness to the expression of other views.
It meant not merely leaving people free to express their own views – but to follow them in their own lives.
That is what old fashioned classical liberalism and modern libertarianism are.
To be maximize the freedom to say and do as you please in your own life you must minimise government. government power comes at the expense of individual liberty.
We want to assure that governments efforts are directed at securing our liberty because anything else is at the expense of our liberty.
The absence of objective truth does not preclude establishing that one subjective truth is more probably correct than another. Or that some claims to truth are just false.
AGAIN we severely limit what truth government pursues – because when government defines truth in a domain – we are no longer free to find our own truth in that domain.
All of the above should be readily accepted by all of us.
To the extent there is any debate it should only be precisely what the limits of govenrment are. At what point does government power shift from securing our freedom to restricting it.
We do not have to accept other perspectives. We can dogmatically denounce competing truths. We can assert that all viewpoints beyond our own are complete and total crap.
What we can not do is use government to supress other views or to impose ours.
Ron, you predicted this turn of events when the Reid Rule happened. You were correct in every word you said, and I remember what you said pretty well.
Bleh. Downhill we are going.
I am not sure that the older definition of liberal includes strong foreign policy.
The definiton of liberal has varied over time. But it is not until the mid 20th century that it started to empower government
I have not adopted the meme that politics is getting more contentious.
Our founders were incredibly nasty to each other.
Even the concept of a neutral press is a mid 20th century concept.
That said if the people are polarizing – then that is how it is.
I would note that the concept that the majority of people can impose their will on the rest – though more commonly expressed by the left today is present in the right too.
Even moderates here seem perfectly happy to impose some compromise on us all by force.
There is only one ideology which severely restricts the power of a majority to impose its will on the rest of us by force. Moderation as defined at TNM requires compromise – but that compromise is still going to be imposed on all by force.
The polarization of the electorate just means that instead of imposing usually bad compromises we are increasingly likely to impose either what the left or the right wants.
While my preference would be to impose nothing.
One of the advantages of one ideology or another winning an argument is we get to test a proposition of that ideology in the form that ideology beleives will succeed.
We can fight over whether PPACA is an abject failure or a success.
But whatever it is, it is owned exclusively by democrats.
It is a measure of democratic policy that we can use to determine whether we want to give democrats more power.
We are currently seeing Trump stomping through government “like a bull in a china shop”.
While we should reserve final judgement until the results are measureable,
we should still expect to have a metric to measure Trump’s policies.
We have had 8 years of sub 2% average growth. Democrats have been blamed for that.
If Trump can not correct that – then those on the left claiming this is the new normal, will have been proven likely correct.
Conversely if Trump succeeds (or fails) at inducing growth, we will have a reference to determine to some extent what works and what does not
The polarization of our politics is not inherently bad.
The fundimental issue is that while failure is an important source of knowledge in a free market, failure is a highly undesirable event in government. The consequences of even small government failures dwarf market failures.
But if we can learn no other way – then we can learn through government failure.
As I’ve said, I think that, once the filibuster stopped being a talking filibuster and became an obstructionist tool of the minority, it was doomed. And, at this point, I’m happy to see it go. The idea that the Senate is an elite legislative body, made up of dignified public servants who play by a mutually agreed upon set of rules, and venerate the Constitution, has gone the way of the dodo bird. Business in the Senate has become a partisan slugfest, maybe more like a partisan UFC match.
This whole Gorsuch thing makes it clear that the filibuster has become a joke. Chuck Schumer has been denying that the Democrats are filibustering, claiming instead that there is a “60 vote expectation” for any SCOTUS nominee. Both of Obama’s nominees got that number because there were GOP Senators who, despite reservations, voted for Sotomayor and Kagan because they were accomplished judges. If that were used as the standard for Gorsuch, he would easily get or surpass 60 votes. But, the actual constitutional standard is 51.
51 should be the legislative standard going forward as well. If it isn’t, Congress will be gridlocked for the foreseeable future.
The filibuster has always been an obstructionist tool.
That is its purpose.
That is the purpose of all the checks and balances.
I do not see the SCOTUS fillibuster surviving the week.
I beleive that Gorsuch should be confirmed.
But I also beleive that the filibuster in the broadest form possible should be restored.
I would do as George Will recomended
Because 51 or 100 votes is NOT enough.
The constitution does nto specify – except in rare instances – such as impeachment or overriding a veto the number of each chamber that must vote to approve any legislation.
I would be fine with requiring 60 affirmative votes in the senate to approve anything.
And/Or 60% of the house.
I have no problem with gridlock.
I only wish it had started a century ago.
We have alot of majoritarian crap to get rid of before we can revert to supermajoritarian rule.
The constitution does not specify the number of votes a SCOTUS nominee must get.
One of the big problems at the moment is that Reid destroyed trust by going nuclear in the first place – though republicans did threaten during Bush.
I think the filibuster is dead. Because even though I think alot of republicans would sacrifice Gorsuch to get it back. They do not trust democrats enough to beleive that when they have power again they will not nuke it again.
A filibuster that only applies when republicans are in power is not appealing.
Right now there is no means short of a constitutional amendment to create that trust.
I wrote to my Senators (Leahy and Sanders) of my (delusional) idea to expand Medicare one year at a time.
Yesterday I heard back from Leahy, he thanked me for my concerns about trump and gave me a rant about trump care. I did not mention trump in my letter.
Today I fired of the following, only for the purpose of spleen venting, since it will do no earthly good. But It may amuse someone here:
Dear Sen Leahy,
I did NOT contact you about donald trump. I loath trump and believe that the GOP has lost many of its principles, its a wretched state of affairs. However, sad to say, I am not at all impressed with your party either, most especially the Vermont wing of it, which is far too far to the left. One large reason we have the POTUS we do is Bernie Sanders fantasy campaign to turn the US into Scandinavia. Bernie Sanders would not be any more fit to govern our country than trump is, because, like trump, he has ideas that are naive and extreme, if very good-hearted.
One of two things will happen in the next election, either trump will be re-elected because the base of the democratic party has succumbed to fairy tales about Scandinavian style government, or a very left leaning democrat will win and be unable to govern. Why? If you were to make a map of the US showing every county in which a majority of voters really believe that the US should try to become much more like Sweden, it would show that no more than 5% of the land mass of the USA belongs to the democratic socialist camp. Delusional promises are being made.
Obama care had good intentions, but its actual result is that millions of people are supposed to buy nearly useless insurance plans at a considerable cost. This leaves such people with LESS money to spend on things like seeing a doctor. I’m sorry, the GOP base lacks common decency but the Democratic base lacks common sense.
Where is the party of Truman and Kennedy? Where is even the party of Carter and Clinton? Its been hijacked by people who believe the transgender bathrooms are a giant political issue, who believe that college students should have a complete loss of control in the presence of ideas that are not to their liking. These people believe that there is a way to make “the rich” (which ain’t me!) pay for free everything. I HATE that democratic party.
Sen. Leahy, you are a McGovern style liberal. I’m sure you are terribly sincere, but outside of the Vermont bubble you represent ideas that will be put over on the red counties of the US, which means nearly all of the landmass of the US, over their dead bodies. Your ideas, the ideas that are popular with the increasingly delusional base of the Democratic party, cannot govern the US. Perhaps you could come up with a plan to fill the country with Swedes.
As bad as he is, and I consider him to be atrocious, trump will be re-elected if the battle is between trumps delusional plans and Bernie Sanders’ delusional plans. If he isn’t, the pendulum will swing to the other extreme and we lose again. After several more such swings between extremes there will be nothing left for us but civil war.
I see a sour future, no matter what.
Please do not send me any more propaganda. Health insurance is NOT health CARE, and at times, it means NOT having health care, since the forced insurance premiums remove a great deal of money from many people without providing any access to anything other than catastrophic care
Sincerely,
Amazing – we are almost in perfect agreement.
Three Nits.
You misrepresent McGovern. The current democratic party is more statist than McGovern.
You misrepresent Scandanavia. Despite having a broader social safety net than we do, it is generally otherwise more free market than the US.
For all their flaws, the Bernista’s did not lose this election. The Clinton’s did.
Bernie is waaaaaaay too far to the left.
Clinton is politically whatever is convenient for the moment.
She was by far the strongest “neocon” among any of the major candidates.
She chose to run slightly to the right of Sanders.
But her big flaw was being too corrupt.
The Bernista’s are threatening to lose elections into the future.
I am more likely to be at odds with democrats – because most of the democrats today have a stronger streak of statism.
But this country needs a strong opposition party (regardless of which party is in power).
Democrats are threatening to self immolate.
We have listened for years to claims republicans were about to fracture.
That has not even come close to happening.
The gloves may come off between Trump and the Freedom Caucus.
But the GOP will survive.
Democrats are threatening to self marginalize into irrelevance.
I am becoming skeptical that the democratic party is even capable of self recovery.
Where are the voices that will reverse its shift its leftward death spiral ?
The two basic impulses behind liberal and conservative will last forever, here and abroad. They can fall on hard times but they cannot be exterminated. They will always reinvent themselves and spring back.
This election was won by an inch on the last play. The party that lost was going to be in a crisis for sure. And the party that won. So it has come to pass.
The bigger picture is the growing left-right chasm that results most of all from the latest technology.
There may be some sort of quiet but powerful centering moderating force that will pull us back from flying apart in the left and right directions. If so, the sooner it starts to assert itself, the better.
The US has had relatively stable – though shifting like boxers political parties for two centuries.
It is a mistake though to wed those parties to ideologies.
Republicans are made of numerous very different factions today.
Past republicans have been radically different than today.
Progressivism arguably started with republicans.
I am not talking about right-left.
I am talking democrats/republicans.
historically the two parties have NOT been near equal most of the time.
long term political control by one party has generally been bad for the country.
democrats are in danger of becoming marginalized. They seem to be deliberately chosing to do so.
This election was won narrowly. Though I do not think on the last play.
Win or lose there are 10’s of millions of voters in this country who are VERY angry with the left.
That is an extremely dangerous situation. They are either going to win elections and take and excercise power – that is the “safe” solution or keep this up long enough and they are going to revolt in some fashion. Regardless, if they do not get what they want through the political process, they will get it another way. Further while there will be some ebb and flow in that group – the probability is they are growing.
Everytime the left infringes on our rights it creates a few more opponents.
You do not grasp that even having majority support on every issue (which you do not have),
is not the same as having a majority overall.
PPACA made some enemies. Keystone XL made some enemies, Clean Coal made some enemies, Department of educations weakening of due process on campuses made some enemies, DoE strong arming schools on transgendered bathrooms made some enemies,
…..
It is not necescary for people – all now opposed to democrats for individually different reasons, to agree on everything else.
I think that is a major part of what we saw in this election.
Well that combined with the left has been calling everyone who disagrees on anything “hatefull, hating haters” for so long that they have ultimately applied that label to more than 50% fo the country. And you are not getting people you have called hateful to vote for you.
Next, Trump was the big unknown in this election – and he won.
When people choose the unknown over the known – that means they are VERY unhappy with the status quo.
I keep repeating that If trump manages 3% growth he will be re-elected in a landslide.
In the next election Trump (and republicans) will be the “status quo”.
An improving economy means a large body of people who know they are better off.
Those blue collar whites that voted for Trump – are going to increase.
Trump made inroads into blue collar democrats. He did not win them all.
He did not win most of them. They will be far less affraid of him next time.
The biggest thing Republicans have to do right now is not screw up.
Unfortunately that is not in their nature.
Trump is taking an axe to government, That plays badly – with people who will never vote for him. It plays very well with his base AND with people who MIGHT vote for him.
Even his immigration EO’s which have generated a holy war – have something like 80% public support.
The death of RyanCare may have been good for republicans.
It is what they do that can get them in the most trouble – not what they undo.
I personally think tax reform is really really important.
But unless done right – it should not be done at all.
I am also hearing hints that Blue Collar whites are only the first domino to fall.
That minorities – particularly blacks are starting to rethink democrats.
Do not get me wrong Republicans are decades away from any hope of winning a majority of minorities.
But democrats must win something like 75% of minorities to win elections. They are used to winning 87% of blacks. With Obama they won something like 95% of blacks.
If Trump gains 2-3% in minorities democrats will be unable to win elections in probably 80% of the country.
Schools are a really really big issue for minorities – particularly blacks.
3/4 of a century of supporting the left on education has brought blacks worse schools.
Minority parents know that if they send the best of their community to college – nearly all of them need massive remedial help just to get through freshman year.
This is not a flaw of blacks. It is a flaw in their education.
Blacks are increasing ready to try the alternatives republicans are offering.
I have told you – my kids were cyber chartered.
Almost 1/2 the students in their cyber charters were black.
Why – because in many instances a cyber charter is the only hope a single black parent has of the education that will save their child from the same life they have.
Cyber charters do nto have to be great. They just have to be better than the worst.
Finally, democrats have not grasped the significance of this election.
It was a repudiation of the past 8 years. It is also the most recent way point in a trend.
This was not 2008 – an election that reversed in the last few months.
I would also note – for every negative Clinton had Trump had one.
Trump’s negatives on election day were worse than Clinton’s – and yet he won.
yes, tactically the breaks could have gone differently and resulted in a clinton victory.
But still republicans DECISIVELY won the ideological battle.
If you strip Trump of all his negatives and Clinton of all hers – Trump was still going to win.
Everyone who fixates on the closeness of the election is hoping that next time Republicans will run an equally bad candidate AND democrats will not.
that could happen. but it is not likely.
Democrats MUST move towards the center – or hope that Trump gets caught in bed with Putin. Because otherwise they are in very deep trouble.
They would have been in deep trouble even had they won.
Because inarguably they have lost the center – and they do not even seem to understand that.
Pulling the democrats back to the center – has to come from within the democratic party.
I have not only seen no signs of that – but everything has been the opposite.
The left is doubling down on stupid.
The sense the left projects is that if only Bernie had been nominated Trump would have lost. Only those truly in a bubble think that.
“The left is doubling down on stupid.”
One can fix ignorance through education
You can’t fix “stupid”
I think that nominating Joe Biden would have been the only way for the Democrats to win this election. His appeal to blue collar white workers would likely have won the states that Trump was able to take out of the Democrat column. But, just as no one predicted Scalia’s death, and the effect that it would have on the election, so too did Beau Biden’s death affect the course of our political history. Funny how two untimely deaths had more impact on the election than the Russians……..
Good letter. His staff will send you there preprinted form letter tanking you for your dislike of Trump and then go into their talking points.
Excellent Roby.
Good letter, Roby. Not that Leahy will be swayed by it. I wonder if any of them read any of their mail…..
Are you kidding. They are to busy making nice to the lobbyist to worry about theor constituents at this time. About 12 months before their next election they will read a handful of letter to get the pulse for the election propaganda.
Or they’ll get their interns to do it, and write a summary paper on the issues.
I want to complement you guy/gals on TNM. I simultaneously posted the review article about moderates here and on the other “moderate” site. Over there except from one commenter, it went down like a lead balloon. Here, in contrast, it engendered intelligent discourse.
As my one commenter pointed out, many people think they are moderates.
Roby, I enjoyed your letter to your Senators. I like that you wrote your opinion (a call for realistic policies rather than fantasy campaigns, et cetera, etc.) and sent it. More Americans should write their legislators. Even if many such letters “fall on deaf ears,” it is real and good that such letters come into existence. I will do it too. The gist of my letter will be a plea to reach across the aisle, to appeal to the elephant not just the rider (ala Jonathan Haidt), with reminders of some of the important reasons for doing so.
Thanks Pat, and everybody. I think I will modify it and send it to the DNC for a lark and see how they respond. I can pretty much imagine their rhetoric but perhaps they will surprise me.
Great idea Pat!
I enjoyed his letter to.
I do not however value reaching accross the aisles.
Our representatives were elected to do what is best for the people they represent.
Not to go along with their party or get along with the other.
I am content to see gridlock.
If a problem actually is large and important enough that we need to cooperate – we will.
In the meantime – we should do nothing.
It is doing things we should not that has created all our problems.
Sometimes we need to lighten up, so here is information concerning the healthcare debate as to how the medical community sees it today sent to me from a friend also from healthcare system employment.
The medical community was unable to reach consensus on what to do with America’s health insurance situation during their recent annual meeting.
The Allergists were in favor of scratching it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
Meanwhile, Obstetricians felt certain everyone was laboring under a misconception, while the Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.
Pathologists yelled, “Over my dead body!” while the Pediatricians said, “Oh, grow up!”
The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.
Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing and the Internists claimed it would indeed be a bitter pill to swallow.
The Plastic Surgeons opined that this proposal would “put a whole new face on the matter.”
The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off.
Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and those lofty Cardiologists didn’t have the heart to say no.
In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the Assholes in Washington.
The punchline is the best part!
Oh, that was really good, Ron. LOL!!!!
That was good medicine!
Meanwhile, I’m trying to picture what a win could possibly look like in a proxy war with putin in Syria.
I’ve been saying for months that as ugly as the putin-trump romance was, the inevitable falling out of love phase is far more disturbing. I’ve also been saying that a competent administration picks a few winnable battles wisely, while this one picks losing battles incontinently. (something may be seriously wrong with the chief asshole in Washington.)
But maybe some magic will occur and that will turn out to be a great idea in the end.
Why do you think that the airstrike was a bad idea?
Describe for me what a win looks like in Syria.
We are going to upend the situation and give putin a sharp lesson when all is said and done? Or we are going to fail and give putin-assad a victory? Which seems more likely?
Fight winnable wars.
What is a win in Syria ?
Take out ISIS.
Go home.
I beleive the strikes against Asad were justified by his use of WMD’s.
But I do not beleive we have any other significant interest in Syria beyond taking out ISIS.
I also beleive we should have taken out the Taliban in Afghanistan,
and gone home.
What is a winable war ?
One that you win.
Hopefully we have learned from Vietnam that there is no substitute for victory.
But having destroyed whoever attacked us and/or our allies, it is time to leave.
We are not responsible to rebuild other nations, or to repair the damage we cause retaliating for their violence against others.
The message we need to send is “mess with us, and we will destroy you, learn from that or we will be back”.
We do not get to choose the governments for other nations.
I don’t think that the strategic goal here is a winnable war. I think it is an appropriate response to Syria’s use of sarin gas bombs and a long-overdue assertion of American power.
Trump has been being tested on the world stage since before he was inaugurated. Obama’s lack of response to Syrian provocation has been almost unanimously declared a disaster, and any new president would have had to deal with this. Ironically, Hillary claimed that she would have done exactly the same thing, right before the strike happened.
It’s clearly not without risk, But as many foreign policy experts have been saying for the past 8 years, weakness is provocation in itself, and the message that the US is no longer leading from behind had to be the message here.
Syria may a problem without a solution. But Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have signaled approval of this move. So has Turkey, for what it’s worth. And they are all Middle Eastern nations that are nominally our allies, and have stood by why we negotiated a deal that has strengthened Iran and Syria, and allowed Russia establish its influence with them.
It’s a slippery slope. But if there is a clear strategic goal here, and that goal is to establish America’s refusal to tolerate the use chemical weapons, as well as to indicate that there are consequences for violating international law, then I think that it’s the best course of action that we have, from a list of bad choices.
“hen I think that it’s the best course of action that we have, from a list of bad choices.”
Well, I agree about the bad choices (that sounds like my usual rhetoric) its all we have ever had in Syria, and in general in the middle east. I’d like to be bigger about admitting that than the GOP has been about Obama’s actions. When Obama came into power we were war weary the blood, the dollars, the lack of winnable situations. BTW More members of the Vermont National Guard died per capita under W than those of any other state, including the members of the infantry mountain unit that I once was a member of. Staying out of losing conflicts was the wish of the voters in 2008. Not that the GOP propagandists are going to note that fact or remember that it was a GOP administration that destabilized Iraq and set the stage for ISIS with over the top aggresivness . Obama was elected to NOT be W Bush. I think he did the best he could with the hand he was dealt.
I’d like to respect the difficulty of the choices that any president, even trump, faces, that picking the best of the bad choices. It does not make it easy when the GOP was one giant political partisan attack on Obama from every angle, too aggressive in Libya, not aggressive enough in Syria, too mild in Ukraine (which is utter bullshit!). I regard 90% of the GOP critique of Obama’s foreign policy as being pure unhelpful partisan politics, which set a bad stage for their GOP president.
Nevertheless I will try to respect the POTUS, as the commander in chief, if not in any way as a person. Foreign policy is ^&%$# difficult and should be nonpartisan, as republicans are about to suddenly conveniently remember.
I have no problem Critiquing the GOP.
Afghanistan was justified.
But we should have gone in, destroyed the Taliban and left.
We had/have no further obligations.
If the Afghans choose to replace the Taliban with Taliban II that is their choice – it is not our business until they attack us again.
The ONLY message we have a right to send is attack us or others – and you will be destroyed. The mess you make of your own country is your own business.
We were not justified in going into Iraq.
I did not support that at the time, but I was less outspoken than I should have been.
That is the extent of the mess Bush created.
We are still in Afghanistan and Iraq – that is on Obama – and will be on Trump if we remain for long.
We got into Libya, Yemen, Syria all under Obama – Not Bush.
Sorry Robby, Obama is well past “I inherited a Mess”.
He did, but he chose to make it much bigger.
Even The Mess in Ukraine and Crimea are of his making – Clinton goaded Ikraine into a coup, and the Russians respond.
Do not poke the bear unless you are prepared to directly confront the bear.
Ukraine is in a war of our making.
I think that is immoral.
And that is not a Republican or Bush deal.
So fine – excoriate Bush – I will join you.
But pretending Obama was sucked into a mess Bush created is utter nonsense.
With respect to GOP criticism of Obama.
Get a clue. If you want the job of President – it comes with criticism.
We had no interest at stake in Libya.
The only interest we have in Syria and Iraq is the defeat of ISIS.
One significant difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump acts unilaterally.
That has advantages and problems.
In this instance it means our intention of destroying ISIS does nto make us Asad’s friend.
I think right now Trump has made that clear.
Something Obama was never able to do.
I will also note we have Susan Rice and Obama lying to us once again.
We were told that 100% of all of Asad’s chemical weapons had been destroyed or removed.
I think there are good reason to criticise Bush, and excellent reasons to criticise Obama.
So far I will have to wait and see regarding Trump.
Of course Obama’s handling of Ukraine was abysmal.
We – the US, Clinton encouraged the Coupe.
Unless you are prepared to stand behind that, you have no business pushing a coup.
First we encouraged something that was not our business, then we abandoned them when things got tough.
Yes it is appropriate for the GOP or anyone else to criticise Obama over that.
Frankly I find the “you can’t criticise Obama” meme racist and offensive.
I am glad that this nation elected a black man to the highest office in the land.
I am not happy they elected a bumbling Chicago poll and light weight socialist – regardless of his skin color.
I think Obama was a decent person. But he was an abysmal president.
His handling of foreign affairs was horrible – much worse than Bush and that is bad.
His handing of the economy was poor.
His signature legislation – PPACA is a failure.
On many issues where he could have done some good – he either did not, or actually made things worse.
We needed to address policing – instead of demilitarizing our police, Obama turned it into a civil rights issue – now all of that is being rolled back and we are going to get worse not better – Obama atleast gets the blame for a missed opportunity.
There was an opportunity for federal sentencing reform. Republicans were cooperating.
That died.
I beleive there was a real opportunity for immigration reform. But Obama blew it, acted entirely unilaterally and all of that is being rolled back.
There was an opportunity for drug reform. Prominent Republicans were supporting it.
Obama actually increased federal drug law enforcement.
Gay and Transgender rights issues should have been addressed in congress – not the courts.
Obama was elected as a consequence of an economic failure.
His mandate was to address that.
Not regulate the crap out of the economy,
Dodd-Frank does nothing to address the causes of the financial crisis – there is no one claiming it will avoid another.
ARRA was a large waste of money.
PPACA is an expensive disaster and had nothing to do with economic recovery.
Our air and water have been improving steadily for over a century.
There was no need for the clean power plan or the waters of america regulation.
Most everyone grasps that coal jobs are not coming back and coal is on the decline naturally. There is zero reason for the left to step in and get themselves blamed for the inevitable
Fast & Furious was criminal and the DOJ stonewalled investigating.
The IRS scandal should have sent several people to jail and should have been thoroughly investigated – instead DOJ stonewalled.
The most fundimental issue about Benghazi was that Clinton Susan Rice and the President lied about it on the eve of an election.
Ancillary to that is that it uncovered Clinton’s egregious attempts to make private and personal government records, and in the process to treat our national security negligently.
As well as running what appeared to be a pay for play scheme from the state department.
And Finally Hillary made sure that some peon was scape goated and Jailed over her failure in BenGhazi.
Respect is not something anyone is entitled to – not POTUS not Trump, Not Obama.
It is earned.
This is a problem with the left – you are way to big on beleiving that things that each of us must earn:
our daily bread
healthcare
credit
respect
are something we are entitled to.
We are free to speak – we are not entitled to be listened to.
I equate claims that something should be “non-partisan” as claims that they are beyond criticism.
Sorry, no. Nothing government does is beyond criticism.
I am overall more likely to criticise Democrats that republcians.
But primarily because democrats more frequently expand government power than republicans.
I am not “partisan”. My criticisms are driven by my values not some political identification.
Regardless, criticise away – we need MORE criticism of government – whether republican or democrat – not less. If the only way we get that is partisan – so be it.
I fully support the democrats choice to filibuster. I think it was a strategic and tactical mistake, but I am 100% behind their right to criticise – even if I do not agree with the criticism, and to oppose, even if I do not agree with their opposition.
My concern is you only get one “last fillibuster” Gorsuch was nto the best candidate to use it on.
I think that Trump and McConnell rope-a-doped the democrats.
There is not a broad national anti-republican backlash against nuking the fillibuster and confirming Gorsuch.
I think that Rump deliberately Chose a candidate that would satisfy his base AND was sufficiently inoffensive that most americans could accept him.
He had several far more controversial candidates he could have picked.
There is a strong likelyhood Trump is going to get to put atleast 1 more Justice on the court. The next will likely swing the court.
I would like to see the next be another Gorsuch.
But there are alot of non-gorsuch like choices in Trump’s list.
Without the threat of a filibuster – those could get appointed.
Roby, your point about Obama being elected to NOT be Bush is so true, just as Trump was elected to NOT be Obama – or Hillary, since, foreign policy-wise, they ended up pretty much as the same person.
And there are no good choices. Trust me, the far right Trumpists are in agony today, as are many isolationist libertarians. The specter of escalation and unintended consequences looms large, not to mention that the sight of people like McCain, Rubio, Bill Kristol, and other hated establishmentarian-hawkish types praising the decision fills them with dread.
But these are people who saw the election of Trump as an F-you to the Democrats. Trump actually has to BE the president, and I think that the term “it’s lonely at the top” has never been more real for him.
But one of the reasons I voted for him is because he’s got a skin like a rhinoceros (an orange rhinoceros), and he’s not afraid to piss off anyone (with the possible exception of Ivanka and Jared, which worries me a bit) if he thinks that he’s making the right call.
Too many Republicans have backed off, when they feared that they would be attacked by the press, apparently unaware that it would happen whether they backed off or not (Neil ~ now Justice ~ Gorsuch a case in point).
We need more fearlessness in Washington.
And yet in oh, so many ways Obama was Bush III.
We are still in Afghanistan.
We are still in Iraq.
Quantanamo is still open.
We are still in the war against Terror.
We are still droning the crap out of people.
What changed between Bush II and Obama ?
I agree with alot of your assessment of Trump.
And I mostly felt that before the election – though I was not prepared to vote for him.
I am MOSTLY thus far happy with him.
I would also note that I think that alot of what he is attacked for – works for him.
While he has the highest negatives of any first year president – those of congress, democrats, and the press are much lower.
And in one form or another he wins most of the confrontations he sets up.
And while the left fights over stupid tweets – other changes occur more quietly.
His Immigration EO’s have made the left, the media and the worst of the judiciary rapid.
While I support very close to open immigration – I do not have a problem with his immigration EO’s.
We should take nearly all comers. We should not take criminals, and terrorists.
Further while I beleive that immigration is a massive win win. It is not a right.
Most people are looking at the left, washington, the media and the attacks on trum and going “where’s the beef” ?
If the left does not come up with something stronger on Russia and soon, the political cost of the Russia matter will fall on the left not Trump.
Absent substance it is Obama, Rice, Democrats, and the intelligence community that will be the big losers.
Roby, I agree more times than not with you, but in this instance I have to disagree. I think this is a win for America and a win for Trump. Why?
Because it sends a message that America is once again supporting human rights. It sends a message that using illegal substances on citizens, even in your own country will not be acceptable. It sends a message that we now have a president that could care less about what others (Putin) thinks of him) and cares more for American standing in the world and being the America that was missing from 2008 to 2016.
It also sends a message to the Chinese that they might want to do something about that midget that lives next door that is trying to change the power in the far east. One has to wonder how the president (or prime minister) of China felt once he returned to his room to find out we bombed Syria and it was happening at the same time Trump and he were sharing a dinner. And it sends a message to North Korea that they might be next if they keep messing around like they have been. He wants attention like a little bratty kid, well he might get the attention he does not want.
So now we have Russian ship steaming to the Med. Sea as a show of power since that is where the missiles originated from American war ships. I doubt that does much good in the relationship between Putin and Trump. One has to wonder if the Sec of States visit next week in Russia will be cancelled or go on. If it does go on, it seems like that is going to be a very interesting discussion.
But what it does for the most part is sends a message that when Trump makes a comment about something being unacceptable, he means it, unlike Obama’s line in the sand.
A, its news to me that you agree with me more often than not! I’m not completely lacking in any ego whatsoever, so I will admit that I enjoy hearing that.
B. I understand your point about standing up for human rights and showing putin resolve.
C. I hope that this all somehow works out as optimistically as being a win for us. But… this could get messy, Very messy, and very unpredictable.
D. Even if it IS trump, if putin winds up being the clear loser in this I will be overjoyed and give full praise, even if that thought is painful.
When you post something going forward I agree with, I’ll let you know. Just don’t let your head get too big. Don’t want anyone thinking your on steriods
I agree with your points.
I would ask what is the ultimate objective ?
I think nearly all of us oppose Asad’s use of WMD’s.
Though there are differences in what should be done about it.
I think we have a justifiable case for destroying ISIS,
and I think that will happen.
The key issue is “then what’ ?
My hope is Trump will get the hell out of the mideast (militarily).
I think there is more reason to hope for an Arab-Israeli settlement than ever before – which means there is little hope where there was none before.
Obama actually gets credit for that. He has so pissed of most of the Arab power in the mideast over his Iran deal that Trump is incredibly appealing to them, and Israel is no longer at the top of their enemies list.
There are two US carrier groups in the mid east and have been for two decades atleast
One Russian ship is not much of an issue.
Russia poses two serious threats to the US.
They are still a very serious nuclear power, and a nuclear war is a near end of the world lose-lose.
We do not want to take on the Russian military in any parts of the former USSR.
It is probable that we would prevail but it would be very costly.
But Russia’s ability to project power – other than nuclear much beyond their local environs is poor. They could not as an example participate in Syria against our opposition.
And I absolutely agree that the response to Asad was supposed to be noticed. by North Korea and China.
North Korea is a huge problem. They have been teetering on the verge of starvation and failure for decades. The North Korean Regime is certian to fail and collapse in the future.
The question is what will that collapse look like.
Its a good post Priscilla, But… Fearlessness would be best if attached to some kind of competence in the arena in which decisions are being made. Bush 41 actually knew WTF he was talking about on foreign policy. I long for his days. I trust Mattis to provide military competence, as Colin Powell did for Bush 41, but he does not make the Political decisions, that is trump’s domain. I strongly doubt trump’s abilities there. He may very well be reacting on the most petty and uninformed levels.
Lets all pray for a miracle of surviving this era somehow.
I am more than fine with pissing off putin, but its a long road ahead and trump is in a weak political position, he is rather isolated, whereas putin has a free hand. I like their cards better than ours in the middle east. I have great fear of how this plays out. Military actions always start with optimism, even parades. Its a sad sequence that usually follows the initial feel good striking out.
Its all so complex that anything may happen, including a drastic comeuppance for putin and his ideas. Or a drastic increase in his position
What are Putin’s cards ?
Trump’s most fundimental problem in the Mideast is that americans really do nto want to hear any more about the mideast ever again.
Our military capability is completely unparalleled.
Our fundimental military problems are:
We can not figure out how to not lose the peace after we have won the war.
We can not allow any conflict with Russia or China to escalate to nuclear.
We can not will a land war NEAR either China or Russia.
That is pretty much it. DOD war gamed all out war with Iran – it was over in 90 days with US casualities about triple those in Iraq – the problem was what to do after winning.
Syria is nothing.
The threat of the Russian frigate is that somebody will make a mistake and start a hot conflict. Nothing more. A russian surface ship is not likely to survive a few minutes in a conflict with even a few US destroyers.
The Russian Frigate – thought the most advanced in Russia is less than half the displacement of the US Burke class destroyers it is “threatening”.
Burke’s are considered superior to the Ticonderoga Aegis Cruisers that are being phased out.
Further the US navy is the most experienced in the world – completely unequaled – both in equipment and in experience. That is a very very big deal.
Russia and China and India have been trying to build navies for decades.
Sometimes they produce some capable ships.
They do not have the multi-generation naval traditions necescary to successfully fight a navy.
There are only three consequential global naval powers – the US, the UK and Japan.
The UK is waning as a power – even a naval one, but it is still formidable.
Japan had the navy scrapped post WWII, but has rebuilt and they have a very long naval tradition.
The only naval area that Russia is truly formidable is their submarine fleet – and that has lots of problems but is still scary.
India and China have decades to go before they have the skills to fight the navies that they have built.
There are a couple of capable regional navies – such as South Korea and Taiwan, but these are incapable of projecting power.
Put simply though Russia itself is closer to the mid east that we are.
Russias actual ability to project power outside its own region is extremely poor.
Well, I don’t know that Trump is in such a weak political position vis-a-vis Putin. But, I agree with you that what looks like military success, can quickly turn into defeat, quagmire, or public scorn.
Here is one thing that I find somewhat encouraging. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have lined up with Israel in opposing Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, which threatens the ruling party of each of those nations. Despite the fact that they are Muslim nations, they are, at least by ME standards, relatively stable and secular. I certainly don’t mean to suggest that they aren’t anti-Semitic or that they are friendly towards Israel, but they have begun to recognize that they share a common enemy in radical Islam, which they fear more than they fear the Jewish state. With US leadership, the desire to defeat Islamism may lead to a successful coalition.
Jordan has indicated for some years that this is a alliance of “frenemies” that needs to come together. Maybe, with assistance from the US, it might.
It will need to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran sooner rather than later.
Agreed!
Trump looks like a bull in a china shop.
On that we are likely agreed.
Ultimately what matters is substance, not style.
Obama had style – in spades.
But that accomplished nothing.
I may be wrong, but I think Trump’s “recklessness” is an act of sorts – like Bush II’s language mangling – practiced and deliberate.
I think for the most part Trump is careful to provoke fights that he can win – atleast win in the terms that matter to him.
He is unlikely to ever to win over the left.
He is unlikely to ever win over the press.
His attacks on those cost him nothing – unless they alienate others.
and they do not.
I think the immigration EO was a provoked fight – and ultimately a big win for Trump.
Winning is not always getting what you ask for. It is getting what you want.
I have a great deal of problems with politicians – because I am blunt and straight forward.
I ask for what I want. I do not engage in sophisticated strategies.
But Trump does.
Like it or not he has sent a strong message to his supporters, to his enemies, to the world, to those who are not sure that he keeps his promises – maybe not literally – but seriously.
If you were North Korea what would you be thinking right now ?
And as I have said before – if growth is 3% by 2018 the GOP will do well.
If growth is over 3% in 2020 Trump will be re-elected in a landslide.
And if Democrats do not get their act together and shift SERIOUSLY towards the center
they are in danger of being permanently irrelevant.
Worse still there are few if any rising stars in the democratic party.
While Republicans have a very deep and varied bench.
An a few successess in a few areas besides growth could give republicans significant inroads even into minorities.
Syria is complex.
Obama handled it horribly.
We have a real legitimate interest in defeating ISIS – they are a terrorist organization and they continue to foment attack against us and others.
I am deeply disturbed that Asad has used WMD’s.
I would love to see him gone.
At the same time we have no business in someone else’s civil war.
There is a big difference between destroying ISIS and picking winners and losers in Syria.
Though the effect may be the same.
Yes, Attacking Asad is facing off against Russia. But I am not overall that worried about that.
We can not and are not taking on Russia in Ukraine – which is why Clinton cheerleading for the Ukrainian coupe was utter stupidity.
But outside their immediate surrounds Russia is no threat.
At the same time we should take out ISIS in Iraq and Syria and get out.
The rest of the Syrian and Iraq issues are for Syrians and Iraqi’s to decide – not us.
When we get past this nonsense that it is our job to build nations this becomes much easier.
Our military is their to serve our interests – to destroy those who attack us or our friends.
It is not our job to rebuild nations. It is not our job to choose the form of government for others.
This is also what we should have done in Afghanastan – gone in taken out the Taliban and left.
The world needs to know – F with us and we will take you out
“Americans
Willing to cross a frozen river,
at night
on christmas
to take you out in your sleep
Not kidding, we have done it.”
We get in trouble when we decide that we have the right to decide how other countries should be governed.
So, our missile strike seems to have changed precisely nothing about the military situation in Syria. Haley, presumably speaking for the president says our goal is regime change. So, we are planning to pry Syria out of putin’s cold dead fingers?
Lose-lose. trump has declared that he will play chicken with putin in Syria. either he backs down, leaving putin stronger, or he commits to an actual bloody war with putin over Syria.
Like any good American I despise tyranny. I despise Assad, putin, the N. Korean midget, the Iranian religious fanatics.
We cannot launch a war with Russia, N. Korea, or Iran. We can patiently contain them. We can try to have a solid west that isolates them economically. It N.Korea invades S. Korea, we can act. If we act first we will cause a catastrophic war that will destroy S. Korea. We aren’t going to do that. So, its an empty threat, which weakens us. The same in Iran. The same in Syria.
Be patient, calm, stable, build a strong western alliance and let our enemies make the mistakes that slowly degrade them. That would be the one and only actual plan we have since we are not going to attack any of our enemies first. Unfortunately they have the advantage of time and patience as dictatorships and we have haste and chaos, because we have a perpetual election.
trump wishes to scratch every American itch at once. He is just as bad at foreign policy as I expected him to be. He will leave the next president in a much weaker position.
I tried to believe in your comments Ron and Priscilla, I tried to give some credit to the idea that trump might be on to something. That lasted about a day.
Roby, I think that the best way to view this strike is by using the simplest possible explanation ~ Occam’s Razor, as it were. That explanation, to me, is that Bashir Al Assad has been conducting a holocaust within his own country, using conventional as well as chemical killing agents to slaughter civilians, and that the US, under the Obama administration, repeatedly warned that, if he were to continue, there would be some sort of military consequence. The “red line’ that, ultimately, Obama failed to enforce, after claiming that Congress would not allow him to do so, has remained out there, tempting Assad to cross it, which he has, repeatedly. As, a result, it has remained as an obvious sign of American weakness and lack of resolve, and the civilian carnage has continued.
Trump, advised by Mattis and McMaster, decided that the time had come to stop dithering and hiding behind the UN, as Syria continued to violate international law. Nikki Haley was a powerful advocate for the need to condemn Assad, and made it clear that Russia deserved equal condemnation for its support of his actions.
That red line, combined with the repeated, apparently incorrect, assertion by Kerry and Susan Rice, that all of Syria’s chemical weapons had been removed, via Russia, was left for Trump to enforce. And he did.
What exactly did he “enforce”? He enforced precisely nothing. He only made it perfectly 100% clear that the only way he can change what is going on in Syria is to fight putin for Syria. Americans won’t support that. He is playing an empty hand and everyone knows it. If you don’t have any way to change things, don’t promise it.
Meanwhile he is also sending our forces to sit near Korea. What will they do there? Send the message that “here we sit doing absolutely nothing”? Just makes the midget’s position more secure. Lose-Lose.
Apparently the alt right believes that we should not be the world cop at all, the neo cons believe that we should be a superman world cop and can take on all the dictators in the world all at once. The middle path would be to be a world cop that chooses winnable military battles and uses economic means when there are no winnable military battles.
One group of conservatives is isolationist, another has delusions about what military options we actually have. Liberals aren’t in the equation or I’d bash them too, but they are out of power and influence. They do at least realize that putin is bad news. I guess trump and many conservatives are going back to that realization by now.
Roby;
I think it is a given that the US has the justification necescary to destroy ISIS.
They have attacked us and others. Whether it is Obama seeking to crush ISIS or Trump the questions are merely about how to do that, not whether.
The response to the use of WMD’s is a new issue – though I guess there are stories that it was occuring under Obama.
So is Asad’s use WMD’s against his own people a justification for war ? yes/no ?
It is certainly morally reprehensible.
But we are not obligated to go to war over every morally reprehnsible thing any other nation does.
Regardless, either you beleive it is not sufficient, or you beleive it is.
If you beleive it is, then we are merely arguing about tactics.
Would you support “regime change” if Putin were not backing Asad ?
I also think there is a huge subtext here – North Korea.
They are a far greater danger – to us and to others than Asad.
The NK ambassador to the UK just defected. He has stated repeatedly and unequivocally that if threatened – even by internal instability NK will use nukes.
And NK is as unstable right now as ever. It is deeply impoverish and may be facing starvation again.
I do not care very much whether the US ends up in a confrontation with Putin in Syria.
I do care whether that conflict remains confined to Syria.
But at some point you have to decide what level of threat you can live with.
If Putin gave the US an ultimatum tomorow – surrender or Russia will launch an nuclear first strike – are you surrendering?
If the answer is not yes, then you already have decided that there are some confrontations with Putin – however undesireable that you are not backing down.
Do you and the rest of the left still think Trump is Putin’s sock puppet ?
BTW all Putin needs to do to thoroughly F up Trump is to release(or leak) proof there was some kinds of deal of dealing between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
That is far less dangerous to Putin than Missle Frigates or nukes.
I would suggest to you that if you do not see that soon – it is because ti does not exist.
Trump enforced a red line that had been drawn, and brightly, by Obama. I’m sure that you saw Obama, on TV, repeatedly warn Assad that the use of chemical weapons would have a consequence. It never did.
I don’t think that it will go farther. It was a pinprick strike, and, if it accomplishes anything, it will force Assad to slaughter his people using more conventional means. But the enforcement of Obama’s red line has occurred, and Trump has put the world on notice that the era of empty threats, and false assurances (as in, all of Assad’s chemical weapons have been removed, through our “agreement” with Putin) is over.
You can disagree with this method of reasserting American leadership, and many do, but I believe that that is what it is.
I’m sorry Priscilla, you seem to have woken up in a world in which assad has been crippled (or even affected at all) by the airstrike. Meanwhile I woke up in a world where the Syrians are continuing to do what they were doing. Any decent person will condemn assad. It affects assad not one whit. Nothing is as exhilarating as being shot at without effect, as Churchill said.
Perhaps I will wake up in a world sometime in the near future where Americans pilots went head to head with Russian pilots over Syria and won and putin just accepted the loss and went away defeated. That would be great, I’d be ecstatic. It sounds like a fantasy to me. But I’m just one of those wimpy moderates who worry too much.
Just describe to me a plausible path by which we defeat putin and assad in Syria. If you can’t then you should not be feeling too good about this. Not to mention those other guys who used to be priority 1, what were they called, IS something or other.
Roby;
Every single one of us understands the dangers of conflict with nations that have nuclear weapons – particularly russia with LOTS of nuclear weapons.
That and the question of whether responding is justifiable are the ONLY questions or relevance.
I completely understand your fear of Russia. But this is far bigger than Russia.
If you are unwilling to stand up to Russia because of they have Nukes – what of China ? Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel ?
If you are unwilling to stand up because of the threat of nuclear weapons – then you inspire
other nations to want them.
This is where that leads
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO725Hbzfls
If you do not want war – you can not avoid it by appeasement.
So what is the use of force in response to the use of WMDs justifiable ?
If so, do you back down because there is a small threat of broader use of WMDs ?
I am not trying to say – I do not understand where you are coming from.
Personally I think Obama’s red line over the use of WMD’s against his own people was a mistake.
I think we destroy ISIS and leave.
But what is beyond that is not simple.
There is a risk in confronting Asad.
And there is a risk in not confronting Asad.
And the risk either way is much the same.
We must have a completely different idea of what the word enforcement means. When we assert American leadership it damn well better be something that actually works, wins.
When we fight a war in Syria and clearly win it then you can talk about enforcement, real enforcement. This is fantasy enforcement.
Syria is unwinnable. Making a feeble symbolic effort and then stopping is a loss. Its a win for putin and assad and lil Kim and the Iranian theocracy.
When trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met what was likely going on in Xi’s mind was not that trump is a formidable opponent to be feared and respected but rather that trump is shallow, in a weak position in his own country, does not know how to play the game of international chess, and will likely not last long. Something to be endured, perhaps taken advantage of.
I’ll be ecstatic to be completely wrong and will happily eat humble pie when trump’s new neo con military policy actually improves things in the world, but from where I sit it looks like the neo con version of trump is not going to affect the Korean, or Syrian or Iranian or Russian situation for the better, he is making things worse. I’d LOVE to believe otherwise.
Reagan, as a relevant tangent, built up American forces, but rarely actually used them, and when he did use them it was on mighty Grenada, one reason he left office beloved, the lack of American blood that was shed. Implied force is a far better tool than real force.
Enforcement means – the use of force.
That is all.
If you make a law, a regulation, a rule, a line in the sand and you do not enforce it – it is worse than if you did not make it in the first place.
Whether we are dealing with Syria – or selling lose cigarettes.
Force means potentially killing people – maybe even alot of people – and even being killed.
It always means that.
There are only two complexsities of consequence in syria:
The threat of significantly broadening conflict with Putin – even to going nuclear.
What do we do after we win. Something we are incredibly bad at.
As to the diplomacy of this – Putin needs a face saving means to back down.
His stance in Russia rests on his image as a strong man.
But the US needs to send a very strong message on WMD’s – to North Korea and Iran.
We can not appear to back down – or the world is not safe.
So tell us all how you manage both of those objectives ?
“Do you and the rest of the left still think Trump is Putin’s sock puppet ?”
If you should happen to ever wish to ask me an actually intelligent question, then I may happen to see it and choose to give it a thoughtful answer.
But your silly question does give a hint at who the actual intended target of the message sent by blowing up some pieces of desert was: American critics of trump. trump’s team certainly could not have been in contact with putin’s guys during the election if trump is now willing to pulverize some desert sand into quartz glass at the cost of a few million dollars. Right. Fail. Try again.
Because the target of that message certainly wasn’t lil kim. Lil Kim, “Oh No! If I continue my present policies American missiles will make a terrible mess in the Syrian desert. I must stop now! I feel suddenly like having a democratic election and giving up my nuclear program. I want to make Hyundais too! The people’s revolution is getting to be a real drag.”
Robby – it is a very serious question.
It is so serious that it is arguable that Trump was motivated in this conflict atleast partly in demonstrating that he was NOT in Putin’s pocket.
And there are already those on the left arguing exactly that.
It does not matter who the target of the message is.
What should be clear is that Trump is not in Putin’s pocket.
That does not destroy – but it radically weakens the argument that he ever was.
I share with you the concenrs about this.
Though Unlike you I am also concerned about the consequences of doing nothing.
I am less affraid of some sabre rattling with Russia than North Korea getting the idea that they could threaten us or others with nukes to get their way.
Puttin is dangerous Kim Jong-un is thoroughly unpredictable and nuts.
Regardless ignoring the fears of confrontation with Russia,
for Trump this is a huge political win.
Kerry is discredited,
Rice is discredited
Obama is discredited.
claims of his links to Putin are dramatically weakened.
A clear message is sent to NK and Iran.
The question is not at all silly – it is quite serious.
You may not change your mind – but millions will.
Absolutely there is an issue with Kim Jong-un.
He is between a rock and a hard place.
He is the leader of a failing country.
The intelligence during the Clinton administration was that absent a deal – which they got, North Korea was collapsing. Millions were starving.
They had no IRBM’s and ICBM’s at the time. The danger was that pilots would carry nuclear weapons to SK or Japan.
Clinton caved – I understand why. But I think he was wrong.
NK is going to collapse at some point.
I think conditions there now are close to during Clinton – again.
Except now they have IRBM’s and ICBM’s and they are approaching submarine launched missles.
So please tell me what the “safe” way out is ?
Do we wait until Kim Jong-un has a nuclear missle sub of the coast of California ?
I would also not that there are other factors.
Lets say NK collapses and does nto use nukes going down.
The US and China are rushing in concurrently.
We will both be looking to secure a dangerous nuclear arsenal.
We will both be looking to address a humanitarian disaster on an incredible scale.
And we might be doing so while concurrently fighting against one of the largest armies in the world
I can pretty much guarantee that no matter what happens – someone will be saying – there was a better way.
“Enforcement means – the use of force.
That is all.”
Ahhh, now I see. I had previously believed that it meant something like:
“the act of compelling observance of or compliance with a law, rule, or obligation.”
“the act of compelling observance of or compliance with a law, rule, or obligation.”
compel: force
synonyms: force
bring about (something) by the use of force
Or are you planning on using a tongue lashing ?
Get a clue – do not threaten the use of force – unless you are prepared to deliver.
And
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
When we are discussing government – we are discussing force.
This is an area that the left can not get a grip on.
Amazon succeeding and Sears failing – the left sees as “force”.
Getting fired from a job is “force”.
But passing a law saying you can not buy 64oz soda’s or sell loose cigarettes – that is not force ?
Get a clue – having choices different from those you like – is not force.
Losing something that never was yours in the first place – is not force.
Being given a choice between obediance and loss of life or freedom – that is force.
Anyone who believes that trump is in putin’s pocket has the intelligence of a packet of gravel.
trump and putin were companions of convenience during the election, they had a common purpose. How far it went and whether anyone on trump’s team went too far, only various intelligence sources can say. trump heaped praise on putin and visa versa, the russian media, which is fully a putin owned concern, fell loudly in love with trump, the russian spy people did their best to help trump. All objective facts. But no, trump is not in putin’s pocket now that he is POTUS. He is his own free lunatic.
BTW, trump also praised the leadership of our darling lil Kim. That was stupid. Wanna argue about that?
So are you saying that Clinton – who would have continued to bar DAPL and Keystone, blocked coal and oil exploration
Was a worse choice for Putin than Trump ?
You say they were companions of convenience ?
What did Russia get from it ?
In what way is Russia not predictably WORSE off with Trump ?
The entire Trump Putin argument has from the begining rested on the premise that Putin is so stupid he does nto have a clue what is in his own best interests.
I do not recall Putin praising Trump prior to the election.
And actually no the things you claim are objective facts – aren’t.
The fake media I see is the New York Times – that repeatedly gets stories completely wrong or from thin air – and then complains when Trump repeats an NYT headline – like “Trump wiretapped”.
Prior to the election Obama said there was nothing unusual about Russian election activity.
Wikileaks continues to deny that Russia was the source of the DNC emails and the evidence suggests they were an inside job.
If you have all these objective facts of russian spies and the russian media – praising trump
provide links ?
Or did the russian media “secretly” help Trump – and how is it that secret news stories are helpful ?
And how many US blue collar workers read RT ?
I looked at enormous amounts of media coverage prior to the election.
It ran about 75% anti-Trump.
Even republicans were to a large extent attacking Trump.
Absolutely there was some anti-clinton news – even NYT and Wapo had to occasionally notice that the FBI was investigating her.
Regardless – please give me the new outlet and stories that changed millions of voters minds ?
Nearly all the Anti-Clinto stuff I read was in the normal places you would expect it
Washington Times, NRO, places like that.
Are you saying Andrew McCarthy is a Russian Spy ?
I was as surprised as anyone that Trump won. And I did not vote for him.
But I am sorry most of us do not buy this “russia hacked our election” nonsense.
Honestly I do nto care how you define fake news.
The huge Clinton problems are:
She is a crook – something we have known since the 90’s
The continuous fall out from her lying about benghazi and about her mishandling of classified documents, and her pay for play scheme at State.
that plus her collapse during the campaign.
I know many people thought she won the debates. But I recall one moment were she gave trump a prolonged look of pure malevolent evil. Not a word was said but that froze my heart.
The DNC emails pissing all over sanders.
The other issue was her strategic mistake of ignoring the rust belt.
Of all those things – only the DNC email leak has ever been claimed to have anything to do with Russia. And that was trivially preventable – do not say stupid things in emails.
Then you do not have to worry about being hacked.
And just to be clear – the media was relentlessly negative about Trump – far far more than Clinton.
So how is it that the Russian “hacked the election” ?
Trump says lots of stupid things.
I think his bromance with Putin was incredibly stupid.
But it was also one-way.
And clearly he is not in Putin’s pocket.
A clear message is sent to NK and Iran.
What is that?
The US military hates desert rocks, better watch out?
Since we are not about to actually launch a first offensive attack on any of our serious enemies, our willingness to lob a few million dollars of missiles into Syria without doing any serious damage is merely a propaganda point trump can use at home. None of the regimes we hate are so weak that they were frightened by that. Internal US propaganda is the best use of the strike, those who wish to misuse the word enforce can now feel better than Obama. Those who approved of Obama previously still will, those who disapproved still will. But conservatives now have an (absurd) talking point to add to their collection.
Enough waste of a beautiful day. Outta here.
From what I understand about a dozen hangers and 20 aircraft were destroyed,
along with fuel storage and runway damage.
Numerous non-US sources such as humanitarian organization has reported the damage as extensive.
But it is claimed that atleast one syrian aircraft managed to take off from Shayrat air base the next day.
Syria has a total of 470 aircraft in their airforce. So this is a small but noticable amount of damage.
Syria does nto have easy ability to replace anything – their airforce has declined by 1/3 during the civil war.
The US military seriously discussed invading Iran during the Bush administration.
A decapitation mission in NK is fully conceivable – particularly with Chinese support and that might be possible.
Lets see the US took our Afghanistan in weeks initially with 29 Green Berets with air support and the assistance of the northern aliance.
Russia took years and failed.
It took approximatly 45 days to take out Iraq. With a military between 4 and 8 times larger than Syria.
The North Korean Militaria is about as large as Sadam’s.
Get a clue there is no clue that we can take out most regimes on this planet – short of China and Russia relatively easily if we wanted.
The fundimental problem is not the capability to do so conventionally – it is that NK and Iran are nuclear powers, either we completely take out their nuclear capability in a first strike,
decapate or pray that they do not launch nukes while they lose.
Trump did not draw the red line in the sand – Obama did.
Trump did not lie about whether Asad had WMD’s left – Obama did.
I do not expect any of this will change your mind. that does not mean it will not effect anyone.
Regardless, this makes the Trump and Putin were in bed together meme a much harder sell.
No Obama loyalists are unlikely to change their minds.
There is about 20% of the country that is in the bubble and will never see the light.
I do not question that this still could go badly for Trump.
But for now the immediate after effects are good for Trump nearly all arround.
It has barely been hours since the strikes.
It is way way too soon to decide where this is all going.
I think the US first priority has to be the destruction of ISIS.
I am not sure I agree with regime change accomplished by US force of arms.
Sabre rattling with Putin is dangerous – because Russia has lots of nukes – not because they sent a Frigate to the Med.
Crushing Asad has risks – because Russia has nukes, and because we will feel compelled to nation build afterwards.
Crushing Asad is easy.
North Korea is unbeleiveably tricky.
I think that Clinton should have let NK fail in the 90’s.
But that was a very dangerous play
They had nukes then – but no nuclear capable ICBM’s or IRBM’s.
Now they have both and are close to submarine launched nukes.
NK is failing at some point in the future.
There was never a time when a north korean failure was not dangerous.
But the danger will worsen with time, not improve.
Strong alliances are nearly meaningless.
The US defense budget is 1/3 of the world total.
It is more than the top 15 other countries combined.
The entire EU defense budget is not 1/4 of the US.
I would also note that Bush as a multilateralist – but willing to go alone.
Obama was a big multilateralist.
Trump is a unilateralist.
Under Trump the US is going to lead – and the world can follow or not.
While I often worry about his judgement and where he will lead us.
The multilateralists have failed.
Personally I think our response to Asad was sufficient.
I think we turn and crush ISIS and then leave.
I do not think regime change is our business.
But that does nto mean I can not see the argument for regime change.
What I am most affraid of is that whatever we do militarily, we will feel obligated to remain and engage in nation building.
We suck at that. We need to quit.
“Crushing Asad is easy.”
Well, go get ’em Tiger!
Just to be clear.
I think the missle strike was fully justified.
I think the talk about regime change is a mistake – not because we can not do it.
But because we suck at nation building,
and because we do have a justification to take out ISIS.
We do not have sufficient justification to take out Asad.
My view is take out ISIS and leave.
“I think the talk about regime change is a mistake – not because we can not do it.”
Well, splain how.
How we get regime change – or why talk of it is stupid ?
According to wikipedia Syria has a combined military fo 173,000
Sadam had somewhat less than a million in his military in 2001.
That is presuming we are engaging in a full scale Invasion.
The other alternative is a predator and one hellfire missle.
The jury is out as to whether Trump is any good at foreign policy.
But thus far he is better than the past 3 predecessors who were all bad at it.
Roby, this may have been a mistake or it may not have been. It depends on the ability of the Trump administration to build a coalition that will act to further degrade Assad through direct and indirect actions. During the Obama administration, he was so adverse to getting into any foreign hassle that he would make comments thinking Assad and others would take his word for it and then when they ignored him and he did nothing which degraded America’s “influence through strength”. When that happened, allies began to wonder just what would happen if they joined the USA in any actions, so they backed off. Take for instance Ukraine. If Obama had backed the government in Ukraine with weapons and technical assistance, would Germany have stepped in to assist in anyway? We will never know, but because the United States was in a very weak position in foreign affairs, few countries seemed interested in reaching out to help other than taking refugees fleeing their country.
So now Trump has lobbed some missiles into Syria, like Clinton did in Afghanistan . Maybe they did nothing to harm anything. And if he does nothing going forward or he commits a larger amount of military assistance into Syria without western allies help, that will be a problem. But if his administration can get the allies to ban together, along with the middle eastern countries that came out in support of his actions and come down on Russia and Syria with some meaningful economic sanctions, then maybe his actions were the right move. They showed the rest of the world that the USA was back (for a few minutes anyway) in the position of “influence through strength”.
Now if that last, it depends on what they do going forward and how it is carried out. We should know in a short period of time.
“If Obama had backed the government in Ukraine with weapons and technical assistance, would Germany have stepped in to assist in anyway?”
In my opinion, that was not a real option. It would have been far too aggressive. Russia and Ukraine are separate countries yes, but they were the same political unit only half my lifetime ago. They are far too tightly historically and culturally connected for the US to meddle militarily in. If we had supported Ukraine with actual weapons I believe that putin would have been standing in Kiev in a month, as its ruler.
We are going to have to disagree about Ukraine.
I really hope that the trump plan has strengths and advantages that I am not seeing. We will, as you say, see pretty soon.
The mistake was in sending messages that we would back a coup in the first place.
And that is on Clinton.
Most everything after that was predictable.
Neither the US nor the EU have the ability to take on Russia on her turf – atleast not without horrible risk and potential consequences.
We shall all see what Trump does.
It appears that the Arab world is splitting Shiite/Sunni With the Sunni’s siding with Trump.
That appears to be another Trump/Obama difference.
Obama pissed off the Sunni’s – Particularly Saudi’s.
I do not think Trump is particularly fixated on or needs a coalition.
He merely needs to mean what he says and follow through.
My big concern is the “exit strategy”.
Just leaving when Asad is removed and ISIS destroyed seems perfectly fine to me.
This nation building crap just makes us enemies, and gets us in trouble.
It is likely there will be sanctions.
Personally I think that is wrong.
Economics is not the business of government. And historically government is bad at it – including sanctions. It often takes years to make sanctions have an effect.
Often they inspire nationalist and anti-american sentiments in the countries being sanctioned.
I would strongly recommend “The Ugly American” to you. It is an excellent book and a quick read and the story is a bit different than most people think.
The point is the US government is abysmal at foreign policy. That most often whatever we do in foreign policy backfires on us. Our aide goes to the corrupt leaders of government and alienates the people.
What works for the US – is our example, our people.
Freedom is contagious. The US can transform the world – simply by getting out of the way of the informal diplomacy of our own people.
I noted earlier that I had been reading “the guns of august”.
That will not leave you with a good view of the ability of diplomats.
And just reinforces the message I keep trying to reiterate to Roby and the rest of the left.
If you think Trump is a Klutz – and he is. Do not presume that our “professionals” are better.
That our spy’s no what they are doing, that our diplomats no what they are doing, that our regulators no what they are doing.
What was most noteworthy about the start of WWII – is absolutely nobody knew what they were doing. Not the British, Not the French, Not the germans, Austrians, Belgians or Russians.
If Roby want to claim Trump does nto know what he is doing – I could easily agree.
But I do not presume other world leaders or Career diplomats do either.
And I would suggest that much of the protocol that Trump disdains is just layers of nonsense put in place by career diplomats to maintain power and make it appear they are doing something when they are not.
Trump and most of his people are from business. They are used to removing or going arround obstacles. Including the inertia of their own staff.
Trump and his people have a reputation for doing big things with small numbers of people.
Because that is how things actually get done.
“I’m sorry Priscilla, you seem to have woken up in a world in which assad has been crippled (or even affected at all) by the airstrike. Meanwhile I woke up in a world where the Syrians are continuing to do what they were doing. Any decent person will condemn assad. ”
And you wrote this in response to a comment in which I said: ” It was a pinprick strike, and, if it accomplishes anything, it will force Assad to slaughter his people using more conventional means.”
Regardless of the world in which you think I awoke, I don’t think I said anything to indicate that I believed that Assad had been crippled or affected at all, other than to back off of killing via chemical attacks.
The point I tried to make was that the missile attack was meant to send a message ~ nothing more, nothing less. What strategy follows, I don’t know. But it seems clear that it will differ from the previous administration.
Priscilla I said that because of our difference of opinion on what the word enforcement means. You think something got enforced, I don’t see it.
I hope as a freedom loving tyranny-hating American that the trump plan improves the world. Tillerson is saying today that China understands the need for action on N. Korea. We’ll see what that really means in the end. Probably something quite subtle.
I have my own hot little temper and believe me there is a not small part of me that wants America to go around the world toppling tyrants. I loved seeing Hussein toppled and hanged, and his sons, the evil bastards. A hot war in the air with Russia vs. American pilots appeals to a big part of me. But, invading Iraq appealed to that same part of me. How did that go? Having at Russia is an event of another scale entirely. Perhaps the world needs it, another Cuban missile crisis like confrontation between the US and Russia. But, perhaps the world will not survive it as we know it. Who wants to roll the dice and see? We are all northeasterners here. We won’t do well if it really turns serious. Economic pressure appeals much more to me. I see no way to win in Syria. Let Putin have it, its just another expense he has taken on while ordinary Russians, believe me have less and less and for example a health care system for the elderly that would make you weep. I’m rambling.
I’m just one little guy with a very very very partial knowledge of these things. I can easily have everything wrong. Perhaps in the end we will look at trump like Reagan. I can only hope.
Again – enforcement means force – 59 Cruise missiles wreaking havoc on Shayrat air base – is force. Whether it was effective is a different question – regardless it was still force.
I have no doubt China sees the need to do something about North Korea.
I think that understanding has been around for some time.
The question is what can be done – either by us or by china or by both of us ?
I do not pretend to know the answer.
My Opinion was the best oportunity was missed by Clinton.
Regardless, North Korea is dangerous.
NK is unlikely to get less dangerous in the future.
I like to see tyrants toppled to – and was glad to see Sadam fall.
But that does not make it our job.
The issue with Kim-un is not that he is a tyrant – there are plenty of those int he world.
It is that he is a beligerant tyrant with nuclear weapons who is constantly threatening even killing those who get in his way.
I think the odds of a hot war with Russia – even merely a small air war are small.
More likely are lots of hot headed sabre rattling and mistakes that kill people.
I would like to think that US pilots are superior. But they are all human.
With respect to rolling the dice – every disagreement with Russia has the potential to escalate to Nuclear war. Putin gains power by rattling Sabres.
but that causes problems – I do not honestly think he wants a real war with the US.
But he also can not appear to back down.
I do not actually have a problem with leaving Syria to Russia – but ISIS must go.
I do beleive that we can not make threats, draw red lines in the sand – unless we are going to stand by them.
Obama drew the line – then lied.
Trump is enforcing that line.
BTW I do not honestly think the guys who are making the decisions and purportedly know – know that much better than you or I.
Their track record does nto suggest great skill or knowledge.
Roby, I do wish that we could just leave Assad to Putin, and the hell with both. Of course, about a year ago, Assad was on his heels, about to be overthrown by his own people, in a brutal civil war that has seen both Iran and Russia leap to the salvation of Assad, while we continued to claim that we would leap to the salvation of the rebels, except that we could never figure out exactly who the good rebels were, if there were any good rebels at all, and how we would benefit from saving them. So, I agree with you 100% that there may be no good solution.
But, unfortunately, “no good solution” doesn’t mean that we can safely ignore the continued success of Iran and Russia, as they extend their influence and power in the Mideast, via their support of the Assad regime and their increasing threat to the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians and, as always, Israel.
Refusal to support our allies in the region is not going to make the Iranian threat go away. Speaking softly, and refusing to pick up a stick won’t deter Putin from his increasingly profitable alliance with the mullahs. It’s only going to create increasing chaos as those allies will feel it necessary to take matters into their own hands, almost certainly with disastrous results.
To the extent that I pray, I pray that Trump has the guidance to make the right calls here. Threading the needle probably doesn’t begin to describe the task.
When we do not involve our military in a conflict – we are not obligated to take sides.
We can condem the vile actions of each side.
We need not figure out who the “good” rebels are.
That is the position of George Washington from his farewell address.
And mine.
When we use force it is AGAINST something – not inherently FOR the alternative.
When we grasp that it is NOT our job to solve the world’s problems – it is not our job to figureout what Syria should be or who should govern their – but solely to address conduct that justifies the use of force – our choices become much simpler.
ISIS has engaged in an provided support for acts of terrorism against us and others.
We may legitimately destroy them.
Assad has used WMD’s against his own people.
That is absolutely morally reprehensible – but more complex.
We are not inherently justified in using FORCE to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations – that does not mean we can not use our voices.
There are complications because Assad agreed to turn over his WMD’s to the russians,
and because Obama and Rice assurred us that had occured, and because Obama gave Assad an ultimatum on the use of WMD’s.
The left may not like this – but they have actually committed the US – and Trump to “regime change”
Personally, I am with you – Leave Syria to Assad, Putin and Iran – they all deserve each other.
But that is not what is going to happen.
Yes, we can ignore the continued “success” or Iran and Russia.
If Russia wants to pump money and weapons that it can not afford into propping up Assad – why should we stop them ?
Everyone seems to presume that foreign entanglements come at no cost.
While the left has overestimated the cost of US military involvement in the mideeast – there is still no doubt that atleast 1/4 of our national debt is tied up in our mishandling of the mideast.
Why should we presume that Russia and Iran are somehow able to dump resources into propping up failed regimes to their benefit and at no cost – just because we do not see the bill.
The USSR bankrupted itself through among other mistakes military overreach.
Do not presume Putin is more able that the USSR.
His economy is weak. He is propping up myriads of puppet regimes such as in Crimea and now dabbling in the mideast again. Oil which in something like 90% of Russia exports is low.
and for myriads of reasons is unlikely to rise significantly any time soon.
The US has recently fought and won WWIII – it was fought in west texas and north dakota.
It was fought without the support of our government.
The dramatic shift in US energy independence has wreaked havoc on represive regimes throughout the world dependent on oil money to prop them up. Russia, Venezuela, Iran,
The rest of the mideast are all less powerful and less important – particularly to the US today.
Again I would encourage you to read or reread “The Ugly American” Most of us now older people will recognize the story. Regardless, it is a good picture of what has worked for the US and what has not.
Our government has NOT served us well in foreign relations.
I am going to recomend another book.
Walter Block’s “Defending the undefendable”.
While I think it is a good book – though Block is past even me, I am recomending it for a different reason.
Because Block deliberately confronts the “unthinkable”.
A habit we should engage in more often.
You have suggested “we can not allow” certain things to happen in the mideast.
Why not ? Quite often the ‘unthinkable”, the thing we are willing to use force over, or go to war over – is more a threat to our ego – than our national interests.
You said Putin’s involvements in the mideast were profitable.
I agree they enhance his image and prestige.
I think they are temporarily useful for him at home.
But ultimately they are a large cost – not a profit.
We seem to have little problem grasping the mistakes the US makes.
But we seem to presume that other nations act without error.
I think quite often the best thing that the US can do in foreign affairs – is nothing.
Let others engage in their intrigues.
Russians can not eat national self esteem.
By the way, that was an epic run-on sentence I wrote in the 1st paragraph of that comment 😉
dhlii—you are the perfect mouthpiece for conservative “thinking”.
Funny I can google “wages not risen with GDP” and come across many articles which all say the American worker has been f****d for the last 4 decades, except for an article by the Heritage Foundation that claims the data has just been “misinterpreted”. Yes, GDP has grown tremendously – I never said it didn’t – but workers were screwed out of the wealth.
Google “Walmart destroys small businesses” – which I saw in my own town when they came 10 years ago – and plenty of articles to confirm it. In fact, I did not find any articles saying small businesses grew when Walmart came to town.
Google “Americans have no savings” and you will find article after article on how bad it is. BTW, I am speaking of articles from reliable sources – not the “Heritage foundation” or “Mother Jones” but good solid middle of the road sites – but you probably consider them MSM therefore full of fake news. That is your problem, you obviously read sites I consider a joke.
The only thing in the way of new building around here is one older mall has been replaced by a strip center, with mostly cheapo stores, not department type stores. As I have said, the majority of people cannot afford department stores or the little boutiques you refer to. And dollar stores are popping up – you know the ones that cater to the lower class, not the middle class.
My money is in Edward Jones and Vanguard, 2 well-known, well regarded companies. The only way you make lots of money is to have lots of money, and I don’t.
I suspect the little fuel economy is getting is from “the richest retiree generation ever” those born in the 30s & 40s and some 50s. As they die off and we burn what money they have and wages are not increased, the situation will be getting worse and worse. Now Trump is defunding so much government that unemployment is going to go up tremendously. There won’t be any job growth from new jobs because most people still won’t have any money – except those at the top. What I notice is more and more ads for the upper class, that is what entrepreneurs are fighting over.
I told you my degree is a Bachelor of SCIENCE. You know, a STEM subject. I have met and read many, many stories of people with “real” degrees who are not making livable wages.
Your daughter has 3 jobs??? and you think this is a good thing?? Well, I want better for me and mine. I want the people at the top hogging all the money to pay good wages, regardless of what they think of the “skills” needed. This is the problem world-wide, not just the US – if you don’t pay most people well, you cannot have a robust economy. Henry Ford had figured this out, I don’t know why corporate American has forgotten. You think Income Inequality is not the problem because your conservative sources tell you so. It is the MAIN problem. During those “terrible” years after WWII when we were more “socialist” we had the strongest middle class ever seen. But rich people don’t like it when they can’t control everything, so starting in 1980 with “Reaganomics” they started putting things back to the way they had always been – a few rich at the top and everyone else miserably poor. Please don’t insult me by telling I should be happy that I have indoor plumbing because most of the rest of the world does not. I have higher standards because my grandparents and parents did.
You also misunderstood what I am saying about jobs. I never said in the least I am crying about Amazon replacing Sears, or bringing back coal jobs, or manufacturing jobs. I am saying WHATEVER a job is, regardless of skill, the lowest skilled people still must make some sort of livable wage. Then you price up from there. Notice I am not saying doctors and janitors will be making the same. What has happened is all the money is staying in the hands of a few. What happened to the “trickle down”??? It ain’t happening. That is why our economy is stagnant.
Most of the people I know – this is over 50 years, 4 states, diversity galore – cannot afford to buy an apartment building. You are NOT working class, have never been working class, and that is why you don’t get it. You have always had enough money to buy yourself out of any situation and to invest for the future. One bit of bad luck does not devastate you, as with so many people I know, because I make sure I know real, average people. The fact that you can’t grasp I CANNOT AFFORD TO MOVE shows you have no true understanding of poverty.
I never ask for any dam pity from anyone. I’m lucky, I won’t ever be homeless or hungry. I’m a mouthpiece for people who are too busy working multiple jobs to be on here to speak for themselves. I want better for them. They are NOT lazy, just grossly underpaid.
I am not a conservative. I am libertarian.
Regardless, I do not represent some one. I speak MY mind.
I have thought very seriously about what I think.
It does not come from emotion but facts, logic and reason.
I can google “bigfoot sitings” and come up with millions of hits.
Regardless, you did not read what I wrote.
Though I dispute the wage claim – and I provided the moving GIF graphing the changes in income since 1971 that refutes any claims that wages have not risen.
And there are so many statistical fallacies with the Income Inequality and stagnant wages claim – is there a single study supporting your claim that wages have not risen that is tracking the wages of fixed groups of people ?
You do as an example understand that the people who were earning minimum wage in 1979 are not the same actual people as are earning MW today ? And that if you are not tracking people as their wages move up and down all the IE data represents is that the job of flipping burgers (or any other entry level job) has no more value today than in the past.
In fact any specific job that has not changed over the past 40 years has no more value.
Standard of living rises ONLY is more value is produced with less human effort.
It is not possible for the standard of living of a person flipping burgers in 1979 to be higher than a person flipping burgers today – UNLESS one of the following is true:
They are more productive
They are receiving charity at the expense of someone else.
Regardless absent increases in productivity standard of living can not decline.
Overall productivity has increased since 1979.
About 70% of the increase in productivity has been due to capital improvements – not improved labor productivity. As an example if a builder buys a backhoe fewer men can dig more ditch in an hour – because of the backhoe – not because the men are better at digging ditches.
HOWEVER about 60% of the gains in productivity have gone to wages.
Therefore investors have been giving charity to labor.
But lets get back to reality. Wages are NOT the measure of standard of living.
Wages are measured in money and long term monetary measures are very inaccurate because of inflation. And contra vast amounts of charts and papers and … you can not accurately adjust the price of narrow goods for inflation – because inflation adjustmets – to the extent they are accurate at all, are for the market overall, and inflation is not uniform over products, or time.
If you want an accurate picture of the changes in your income – your ability to consume, not the dollars you are paid, over time, then compare the amount of effort it took you to earn something in 1979 to today.
The most accurate reflection would be to compare what YOU and each other specific individual could purchase in 19789 with what YOU and the same specific people can purchase with the same labor today.
That would accurately reflect the fact that you have gained skills and are more productive today than then. It would also accurately reflect that on average people who were in the bottom quintile in 1979 have risen two quintiles by today.
But if you insist on looking inaccurately at what someone in the bottom quintile in 1979 could consume vs. what someone in the bottom quintile in 2017 can consume – which is NOT a measure of how wages have changed, it is a measure of how what low skill labor just entering the market can consume – these would NOT be the same people. They would be different people similarly situated.
One should expect that a starting burger flipper today creates the same amount of value as in 1979. Unless as I noted before they are somehow able to flip more burgers.
In fact for EVERY Quintile US Census data shows that we have double the wealth we had in 1979.
That means even starting burger flippers are twice as well off as in 1979.
Think about it – while you can refer to census data, this is also something you should personally know from your own observations.
The average lower quintile family has about twice the living space as in 1979,
They are more than twice as likely to have a TV, in fact multiple TV’s, they are many many times more likely to have a phone and phone service, they are more likely to own a car – sometimes two. They are many times more likely to have airconditioning,
They can afford to eat out more often.
By every measure of actual WEALTH and abiity to consume they are better off.
Further most everything they might want to buy is CHEAPER.
In 1979 I was making MW, and a top of the line refrigerator costs $1200 – it would have taken me 10 weeks of labor to earn enough to buy that refridgerator.
Today a far better Fridge costs about 900. If I were still making MW – it would take me 3 weeks today to earn that fridge. But I am not still making MW and it does nto take more than a few days to earn a fridge.
You can do that for all goods. Almost nothing is more expensive today than in 1979 – those few things that are not much cheaper are those like education and healthcare that are heavily government regulated.
This should not surprise you at all. It is how the economy works.
To raise standard of living we MUST
produce greater value with less human effort.
If we do that absent inflation – prices decline over time – including the price of labor.
BUT the price of labor drops more slowly than all other prices so we are always able to afford more with less.
That BTW has been universally true in the US for the past 400 years.
And through 1913 mild deflation was the norm.
Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena.
Milton Friedman.
Today inflation is deliberately introduced by central banks, because their ability to attempt to manage the economy requires introducing inflation.
That is what all the rot that has been discussed over the past decade about central banks trying to figure out how to operate close to the “zero bound”
Monetary policies do not work without inflation.
Regardless, unless you are brain dead you graps that if over 40 years you are pad 1/2 as much as you were at the start, but everything you wish to buy only costs 1/4 as much as it did you are twice as well off.
If you understand that, and you grasp that inflation is not uniform over either time or goods,
Then you understand that the claims of stagnant wages rest on data that is meaningless.
I have no idea what the Heritage foundation might have written – though I can guess.
But I do know that the US census has been tracking what families own for more than a century. And it has found that wealth has doubled in every quintile in the past 40 years.
Further you should be able to personally verify that from your own observations.
I recall driving through the worst neighborhoods in my city in the 70’s
The cars were crap and few and rusting and many were up on blocks.
They were old and cheap cars. There was garbage in the front yards, and the buildings were in disrepair.
Today I can travel down the same streets.
In fact today I would be willing to walk down them. This is still the poorest part of my city,
but there are more cars, the cars are better – often used BMW’s and Mercedes’s and SUV’s rather than rusty Datsun B210’s of Chevettes and Gremlins.
There are no cars on blocks, no trash in the yards, many gardens, the building are well maintained.
So the poor in my city are much better off today than in the 70’s and I can personally tell that with my eyeballs.
But if your memory is poor – try watching 60’s and 70’s movies or TV programs.
Look at the streets in those movies. Look at the apartments people live in, look at the things they had then compared to today ?
The inarguable fact is that we – and particularly the poor are far better off today than 40 years ago.
Therefore YES anyone making claims otherwise – has made some kind of error.
Get a clue, it is always possible using statistics to prove anything you want.
It is always possible to misrepresent what something means.
As Mark Twain said
Lies, Damn Lies, and statistics.
A classic example is this entire immigration/outsourcing nonsense.
If shirts can be produce for half the cost – that makes us BETTER off, not worse.
ALWAYS.
That is precisely what we WANT to occur.
I beleive Ron claimed that immigrants were driving hospitality job wages down.
Great – that makes us all better off. Not worse.
The immigrants are better off then they were in the country they came from – or they would go back.
The people who used to do those jobs had better have moved to jobs that are actually worth the higher wages they want paid.
The rest of us pay less for travel and accomodations.
More value for less human effort.
That is the DEFINITION of an increase in standard of living.
Yet people like you are ranting about it as if what actually makes us better off is making us worse.
As if there is some way besides producing more value for less human effort to end up better off.
So is data routinely “misinterpretted” – absolutely and obviously.
If McD’s replaces clerks with ipads – will we be better off or worse ?
Better off means – more value from less human effort – so clearly we would be better off.
Yet, already we hear ludditte moans and laments.
If uber and lyft and yellow freight replace their drivers with computers – are we better or worse off ?
Again geter value for less human effort – so we are better off.
So long as you are listening to talking heads that are telling you that immigration is bad, that outsourcing is bad. That robots and automation are bad.
that producing more value with less human effort is bad, then you are being lied to and deceived.
Because the ONLY way to raise standard of living is to provide more value for less human effort.
And anyone claiming otherwise is lying.
The “walmart destroys small businesses meme is crap. It is the result of a few very very badly done “studies” – they were not really studies, but when someone scribbles nonsense on a napkin and reports it in public and it gets repeated enough times – it becomes godspell to those who want to beleive.
People still report this nonsense.
But the fact is Walmart creates jobs – not just jobs in the stores – but jobs in the surrounding community.
The walmart destroys jobs meme is trivial disprovable.
There are states with small enough populations where adding two Walmarts would show a noticeable negative effect on that states employment and wage statistics if the so called walmarts destroy jobs meme was true – yet everywhere that Walmart has opened stores were it is possible to measure macro job figures and note any Walmart effect – have found RISING employment post walmart.
Walmart’s act much like Amazon. The introduction of a Walmart does result in some job closures – and lost jobs – those businesses that are competing head to head with walmart, and have nothing more to offer, tend to fail.
Just as Amazon is destroying Sears.
At the same time – just as there is an entire infrastructure arround Amazon – jobs at amazon, and jobs with amazon providers, and jobs with amazon affiliates, the same is true of walmart.
Within 5 years of a walmart opening in a community new business starts INCREASE.
Again to anyone with a brain this should make sense.
If you can buy more value for less at walmart, then you have more of you income available to spend on other things.
And that is what is found. When a Walmart moves in new businesses are created with people spending the additional money they have that they would not have had but for walmart. And they are spending it on higher end things – the goods and services that walmart does NOT produce.
Regardless, you are once again taking an obvious net positive – producing more value with less human effort and deluding yourself into beleiving it somehow makes us worse off.
You are on the wrong side of Bastiat’s “Broken Windows Fallacy”
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
Get a clue.
Absolutely anything that increases the value produced and decreases the human effort required. RAISES our standard of living.
Anything that does that is VERY GOOD, and HIGHLY DESIREABLE, regardless of any real of misperceived side effects.
Rising standards of living REQUIRE destruction. Get over it.
Do not be confused by the fact that producing more value with less human effort MUST mean some displaced labor ALWAYS into deluding yourself into beleiving it is NET bad.
Anyone telling you otherwise is deceived or lying.
Off course Dollar Stores and Walmarts are popping up.
These are places that allow those at the bottom (and often the rest of us) to buy more for less.
And again these RAISE standard of living.
I shop at Dollar Stores all the time.
I have 5 apartments I rent. I need cleaning supplies and all kinds of things I can get at Dollar Stores all the time. I pick up brooms and dust pans, and buckets and air freshner and cleaners and …
I leave with a cart full of stuff for $10. Even at Walmart I would have paid 3 times as much.
Sometimes the stuff does nto last long.
But if I buy an expensive dust pan for my apartments it will disapear in a week anyway.
Or if I buy an expansive bucket to spread tar on my roof – it will be destroyed when I am done.
Regardless, if the people in your community are buying for less at places like Dollar General – then they are doing something with what they have left as a result.
And there is nothing they can be doing that is not overall good.
I do not care whether a source is left, right middle of the right.
I care whether it is spouting total gobbledy gook.
Anyone claiming that producing more value for less human effort is BAD,
is either deceived of lying.
Regardless of their political lean.
You know what Dave, you have been labeling me a far lefty for the last forever and refusing to process a word I actually say about my actual ideology.
So, turn about is fair play. You are an ultraconservative trump lover and I can’t hear a word you say to the contrary, its all a smoke screen. Your economic ideas are to the right of right and you have been eagerly willing to forgive trump for violating every libertarian principle I once thought you really had on immigration and trade. After years of listening to you stick the lefty label on me despite all evidence to the contrary, I am happy to see you get yours back. Ultra-conservative trump-loving liberal-hating, climate-change-denying Dave. Moogie nailed you.
I do not have any problem with turn about.
You are free to say what you want – just as I am.
And you get judged by what you say.
I think it is pretty clear to most everyone here – that I am no “trump lover”.
At best he was the lessor evil.
I am happy that he has not been as Bad as I had expected.
I honestly do not care if the left wishes to trash him – justifiably or not.
I am attacking the left on Trump related issues – not because I like Trump.
But because the frothing at the mouth on the left demonstrates why they lost and why they will continue to lose. It demonstrates what is wrong with the left.
Most of us know what is wrong with Trump.
My economic “ideas” have three characteristics:
They are rooted in individual freedom.
They are the “ideas” of almost 300 years of the greatest economists that have ever lived.
In the real world they work.
You want to call them – right of right, call them whatever you want.
I do not personally think much of economics is “left” or “right”.
What works works. What doesn’t doesn’t.
I wish that the individual freedom was a principle that conservatives held dear.
If they did – I would call myself conservative.
But they do not, so I can not.
FA Hayek explains that pretty well.
https://www.cato.org/articles/why-i-am-not-conservative
As to forgiving Trump ?
I am at odds with both the right and left over immigration.
We can not have nearly open borders and a scheme of positive rights.
They are completely incompatible.
I value the freedom of people to come here as they wish highly – asking nothing of the US but freedom, and demanding nothing of them except that they respect the equal freedom of others. Which is more than those on the left do today.
Many here sing the praises of compromise.
I have made it clear that is a tool not a value.
I value open borders. But the only entitlement freedom can come with is freedom.
So long as the left demands positive rights – the freedom to cross our borders uninhibited is not possible.
I disagree with WHY trump is doing much of what he is regarding immigrantion – but I agree with atleast some of WHAT he is doing.
Even in the nearly pure open boarders arrangement – the argument as to whether we allow criminals in or vet for terrorists is a completely independent argument.
I personally beleive in minimal vetting. But that is a pragmatic, not principled view.
I graps that letting nearly anyone in will mean acts of terrorism and deaths of citizens.
But I still beleive on net we will be better off.
That is pragmatic, not ideological.
There is nothing ideologically wrong with barring those who will not respect the equal freedom of others.
So far with respect to immigration Trump is:
temporarily freezing immigration for nations Pres. Obama identified as terrorists threats, until DHS is able to better vet people from those countries.
What part of that should anyone disagree with ?
He has suspended immigration of refugees until DHS can better vet them.
I oppose that – but not strongly.
He is separately moving to quickly deport those illegal immigrants who are charged with a crime.
I oppose that – but not strongly.
He is adding border patrol agents and building a wall.
Again I oppose these, I oppose all wasteful government spending.
But the high estimate of the cost of the wall is about 12B.
That is something like the cost of half a dozen F35’s
You can count me as opposed to the vast majority of wasteful government spending.
You also seem confused.
Opposing something does nto require me to throw molotov cocktails and bricks through windows.
Not going to war over some issue is not the same as supporting it.
Regardless it is very hard to go to war on immigration, when the left has staked out a farcical position I do not want to have anything to do with as the hill they want to die on.
Apparently quite litterally.
Am I ultra-conservative – no.
Do I love Trump – no.
Do I like some of what he has done – such as take a machette to the federal government – yes.
Do I buy this Russia nonsense ? no.
Am I really bothered because it is increasingly obvious that the Obama administration was doing what even nixon did not, and using the govenrment to spy on political enemies.
Do I loath the left – yes.
Liberals are people who prize liberty. Those on the modern left are not liberal – but I do loath them
I would likely loath those conservatives that would use govenrment to restrict our actual liberty.
So far that is not Trump – atleast not much. But yes I worry about that.
BTW I do not consider nothing that something like 80% of people support Trump on immigration to be anything more than demonstrating how batshit crazy the left is.
I KNOW my views are not broadly supported. You actually think yours are.
Nor do I consider noting that Republicans are going to do very well in 2018 and 2020 if the economy improves to make me conservative.
It is just my read of the crystal ball.
If we had elected Hitler and he produced 3.5% growth we would re-elect him.
Regardless, I point these things out because It is my view that the left must change – for the good of the country. If it does nto we could quickly become single party government, and I do not want that.
Sanders and Warren are not the future of democrats – whatever else you may feel.
What I do not see is any real future emerging from democrats.
Am I opposed to the GAGW hoax – absolutely.
Long before Trump.
Am I happy that Trump is slashing EPA – absolutely.
Though he can get rid od every government agency created since the start of the 20th century and a few from the 19th and I would be happy.
And the federal laws that go with them.
The law we need is relatively simple – particularly at a federal level.
Thank you Roby.
Moogie is doing an excellent job of making you look like a centrist.
Dave, hopefully Roby will not take that as an insult as being a centrist is where most of the logical thinking takes place.
I am finding Robby’s posts quite interesting today.
Except that he is less blunt he is practically channeling me.
The “center” moves all over the place. Logic does not.
I have noted before I am reading J. S. Mills right now.
In 1838 he was on the extreme left. He was a “liberal”
Today he is slightly to the right of me.
Mills was mostly correct in 1838, and still correct today.
But the center as far from him in one direction in 1838 as it is in the other today.
What is correct, what is logical, has not changed at all.
Dave, you are correct that the center moves all over the place, as does the left and the right. Today just look at the issue with the middle east. The far right basically wants us to stay out of that mess. The left finds it better if we intervene and help those that are being tortured, killed or refugees. Just a few short years ago one might find a handful of leftist that thought being in the middle east was good, while just a few on the right thought we should have hands off.
The constitution is a document that the right wants interpreted for its words and not a living document. How ironic that they would support this when that same document was a series of compromises. The makeup of the house was a compromise set forward by Connecticut, The Senate was a compromise after the House was set up the way it was to satisfy the states that had other ideas. The elections, as they were originally created was a compromise with the House being elected by any white man living in the state, while the Senate was elected by their legislatures and the president by the electoral college. And one could go on through the rest of the document and find where one group of founding fathers wanted one thing and another group something else.
So given the current environment, do you think we could ever create a document like that and have it last for over 200 years, still controlling our government? I suspect nothing would never get passed today and if one did, it sure would not last 200+ years.
But everyone changes. Look at Kennedy. Would he be a leading Democrat today if he held the same positions he held in 1960? The left would go mad with his position on taxes. Would Reagan be a leader in the Republican party, especially the Freedom Caucus. They would go mad with his ability to compromise to get 60% of what he wanted. They want 100% or nothing. Both Reagan and Kennedy would be considered much more centrist today than their party’s are today and they would never even be considered for president. Just look at the candidates in both parties that had any sizable support and Kennedy and Reagan would not even create a ripple on the popularity meter.
The argument over the constitution is stupidly muddled.
The left’s “living constitution” is no constitution at all. It is the rule of man not law. It is lawlessness. It is our worst problem today and I am not sure how it can be repaired absent tremendous upheaveal and disruption.
I think the names “originalism” and “textualism” tend to diminish something that is incredibly important.
I would also note there are multiple forms of originalism and textualism and only one that is valid and moral.
The rule of law – not man. REQUIRES that the law we must each obey be understandable and well known to each of us. Anything less ultimately is the rule of man, not law, it is lawlessness. This is not a principle of constitutional or statutory interpretation – it is just how things are.
The law – whether int he form of the constitution or statutory law, MUST mean what ordinary people understand it to mean.
That has two really important facets:
No matter how we arrive at law – we can not impose law that does nto have incredibly broad public support AND understanding.
Disobediance to the law comes at a cost – not merely to the law breaker – but to society.
Prohibition and the war on drugs should make that clear to all of us.
Both with prohibition and the war on Drugs we have sufficient data to know several things:
The behavior we criminalized will continue even though illegal.
Criminalizing it over long periods of time does not change that.
There is little difference in the public harm of that conduct between its being legal and its being illegal.
There is incredibly public cost to making that conduct illegal.
I am using Drugs and prohibition as examples – primarily because the factors above are well understood for those.
If I had a magic wand that I could waive to make drug abuse go away – I would readily do so.
But that wand does not exist. a century of ever more draconian law has changed nothing.
A majority of us today are ready to see marijuana legalized – that is close to a no brainer, it is arguably less dangerous than alcohol. but few of us are ready to legalize crack, or heroin.
But laws against them have had no consequential positive benefit and enormous cost.
Now take what I hope you understand from the failure of the war on drugs and apply it more broadly.
Any law that you pass will have some who will not obey, and enforcement against those will impose a public cost (as well as result in a loss of freedom for all).
That is not an argument against laws – but it is an argument to restrict laws to only those few things that we are nearly unanimous on.
There is tremendous overlap in enforcement cost for some laws.
There is not substantially greater cost to enforce laws against murder, than against assault.
But there is little overlap between laws against murder and laws against speeding.
Regardless, the point is – no matter what the purpose of the laws we pass is, the more laws we pass the ever greater the scale and burden of government – because enforcement must grow with every new law.
The cost to enforce a law increases with the number of laws. It increases with the lack of overlap with existing laws, it increases both as the law diverges from the shared values of the people and as it has support from smaller portions of the people.
We can pretend that we are just arguing about money – but in this instance we are talking about the cost of ever increasing tyranny.
Law is a both critical and tryanical process.
The rule of law means – rule by laws with supermajoritarian support, that are well understood by those they apply to, and where the meaning of the law does not rapidly change.
Anything else is tyranny.
We can call that “originalism” or “textualism” or we can call it “living law”.
But it still becomes:
The meaning of law must come from the people – not the courts or the legislature.
It may be our courts job to “interpret” our laws – but the scope of “interpretation” must be narrow. It is not the “intent” of the legislators that matters. It is the understanding of the people. We choose to scope that understanding to that of the people at the time the law or constitution was enacted – for two reasons: Because we need the meaning of the law to be constant, because every changing law is lawless, and because it is always in our power to change the law or constitution when our understanding diverges too far from that of those who ratified it.
This is the only method of understanding law and constitutions that is sustainable, that is not ultimately lawless. It is not conservative or progressive.
It is absolutley living – as it must be, we the people are always free to change the law or constitution. Our elected representatives may not do so without our support, our unelected judiciary may not do so at all. We do not elect our federal judiciary – BECAUSE they do not need to be answerable to the public. Their job is gramatical, syntactic, and historical – it is not ideological, it is not rooted in values.
I would not that nowhere in the above is there are place for “legislative history” or “legislative intent” – because despite the fact that the legislature drafts laws – it is the understanding of common people that establishes their meaning.
From the perspective of the more recent debates on constitutional interpretation.
This is NOT the “originalism” of Bork – who suborned the constitution and law to the legislature and democratic whims.
It is NOT the “originalism” of Scalia – who is a more moderated form of that of Bork.
It appears to be the “originalism” of Gorsuch – who despite the shared name “originalism” is neither Bork nor Scalia.
But we shall have to see how he actually rules.
I will again note – the above argument is NOT “conservative” or “libertarian”.
It is logic and reason. It is pragmatic. It is based on what we know works and what we know fails.
I would challenge anyone supporting the lefts “living constitution” to explain how it provides stable answers to any legal or constitutional questions. How it allows ordinary people to understand the law and constitution they are obligate to obey, how it enables them to repair the damage – should the courts get it wrong, or to change the constitution – should changing values dictate that. I would also ask those on the left – how they reconcile their “living constitution” with the fact that most of the controversial decisons of the left wing of the court were not consistent with the values of most people at the time. That seems to me to the be anti-thesis of a “living constitution”. In fact I can not see that as anything but a few men imposing their personal beleif about what is right and wrong on all of the rest of us.
In many – maybe most instances I share their beleif as to what was constitutes right and wrong. and I can reach a justification for the same decisions rooted in natural rights and limited government. ButI can not reach it based on the lefts claim of a “living constitution”
Reagan was an Alcolyte of Barry Goldwater.
I would suggest reading Goldwaters conscience of a conservative, as well as Reagains campaign speeches.
Yes, I think today Reagan would be a member of the Freedom Caucus.
To a limited extent you are correct about Reagan.
He knew he could not transform the federal government 100%.
So he picked his battles – what was winable and what was not.
On election I think he came to the realization that the USSR was economically fragile, and he grasped the tremendous benefits to the entire world that would accrue from its collapse.
In prioritizing that, he had to give up or weaken other objectives.
But Reagan did not compromise on everything. Nor did he inherently beleive compromise what the universal answer. It was a tool to get as much of what he wanted as was possible.
To an extent the same was true of Clinton.
Trump is currently running into his own version of the same problem.
The president does not unilaterally have the power to deliver everything he promised in his campaign – we should be thankful in that.
In 2018 we will measure republicans by what they have accomplished.
We are most likely to fixate on the state of the economy – not whether the wall was built or not.
Both Trump and Republicans detailed campaign promises are only important to the extent they contribute to a stronger better country.
Just glanced over what dhlii wrote, what I read was same old same old – I never saw anything to refute that his kids (adopted or not) are starting far far far ahead of mine for one reason: MONEY.
In his world, it is NEVER acknowledged that some (I would say most) people have far more hurdles to overcome than his kids. His standard (conservative) response is “Sucks to be you”.
I do not consider myself liberal, for that is not balanced. I am a centrist. I don’t believe we need to pay for college for everyone – everyone does not need to go!! But I have enough sense to see when we have a completely free market working people get screwed as they have for 40 years now. Some regulation is necessary. Try to remember it was evil people called “liberals” that got us a 8/40 hour day/week, safety regulation, elimination of child labor, womens votes, civil rights for non-whites, social security, medicare/medicaid. And these laws were absolutely necessary because wealthy business owners would not treat workers morally!! This is the same age old battle of worker vs. owner. Can we go too far to the left? I’m sure we could. But it has never happened in this country.
I am giving up now. As long as dhlii continues to only read lies that protect business owners, and to spread those lies on this forum, I have no use to talk to him. It is sad that working people in my neighborhood continue to listen to the likes of him and vote against their own economic interests. I will continue to write my local newspaper to give them something new to think about. I have already heard from a few younger voters (under 30) that they had never thought of things the way I present them. There’s hope.
No refutation is necescary.
You say my kids had far far greater advantages ?
I am not going to debate our relative incomes – though I am not rolling in dough, and like most everyone else have to figure out how to make ends meet when the mortgages come due, and dental bills come pouring in – My daughters teeth suck – as does every other child I know who came from the same orphanage. Or the transmission or tires int he car needs replaced or the roof leaks or …..
But I would ask you what is it that mythical money you think I or others have has done to create this create advantage for my kids ?
What is it that I gave my kids that you or anyone else can not give theirs ?
Most of the things you think are “advantages” I was not able to afford to give to my kids.
But even if I could have afforded them – I would not have, because I do not think they are advantages.
My kids went to public schools. My wife and I worked to get our kids the best public school education we could – which is why they were cyber chartered – most of their classes were poor inner city kids – getting the same education for the same reasons.
My kids likely benefited from the fact that both my wife and I are knowledgeable and well educated. We know as an example that long term success correlates strongly to the number of words a kid learns before school, and that correlates to the education levels of their parents. Of course my daughter spent her first two years in really crappy orphange.
You say this mythical money created some great advantage – well what is it ?
The obligation of proof is yours not mine.
To the extent I think it “sucks to be you” is primarily the consequence of your own attitudes.
Shit happens to all of us. I do not like to compare piles of shit – it is meaningless.
We are all obligated to deal with the shit that happens to us.
Because in the end it is our life and no one else is obligated to make us happy.
What I see in you is someone who is choosing to be unhappy.
I doubt your ciricumstances are nearly as horrible as those of 3/4 of the world – many of whom are quite happy. further you have far more control of your circumstances that you are willing to admit to yourself.
It is easy to blame others.
Get a clue it is your life.
How am I protecting business owners ?
I expect them to have to compete in the free market, where success requires that they deliver ever greater value at ever lower cost.
I want them stripped of any protections from competition that they have rented from government.
I want government to quit picking winners and losers – in business and elsewhere.
I want government to quit taking your freedom and mine.
I beleive you are entitled to do however well you chose on your own or in voluntary cooperation with others.
You are entitled to demand whatever you want.
No one is morally or otherwise obligated to give you anything.
You seem to think that the fact that businesses will not pay you what you desire makes them immoral – how so ?
You are free – you can take the job they offer or not. As you please.
You are no more free to dictate to others what they must offer you than they are to dictate to you what you must accept.
You have a very bizarre concept of morality.
Aparently anyone that does nto give you what you want is immoral ?
Regarldless – if you are going to toss out claims that others are immoral or lying,
then you stake your own credibility and reputation on those assetions.
It would be in your interests to prove your claims.
Specifically how have I lied to you ?
Specifically how is some institution immoral.
I still can not manage to understand this bizarre football coaching claim of yours ?
If an employer in this case a school comes to you and says your job is to teach 7th grade and mow the side lot, and that job pays $X – you are free to accept or decline. You are also free to counter. What you are not free to do is force them to offer exactly what you want at exactly what you want paid. Sometimes we are lucky and that is what we get.
But not getting what we want from a free exchange does not make the other party immoral.
Hillary was not in anyone’s economic interests. You are back selling the typical left crap that there is somehow a free ride.
The left is losing elections because the majority of us grasp that the piper must be paid, that the ride is coming to an end and that more stupid programs defering costs to future are not going to help.
Your idea of economic self interests – is immoral – it is stealing from others or from yourself in the future or your kids.
Hopefully you wrote something more cogent and innovative in the newspapers.
What you have posted here is dull boring, crap that was refuted two centuries ago.
That the left keeps selling. It is not in anyway new or inovative, but far more importantly it is “the road to serfdom” you are free to take yourself down it, draggings others by force is immoral.
“I am finding Robby’s posts quite interesting today.
Except that he is less blunt he is practically channeling me.”
I am saying nothing today I have not said many many times before. And yet you have been lambasting me as a member of the “left” forever. I have my different sides, I believe I am a moderate liberal. I’m not altogether allergic to government involvement to provide what people of higher income are able to do for their own kids. I am allergic to taking it to extremes. There is a balance point, a middle ground and for me it is the most sensible ground.
Note that below I said that I was greatly helped to get my life in gear by the CETA program of the Carter years, a Federal public program that paid me to be trained as a mechanic. I believe that there should be a constant CETA program especially aimed at the locations of persistent rural and inner city poverty. Job training greatly encouraged and facilitated by the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Employment_and_Training_Act
All my beliefs are perfectly self consistent as far as I am concerned. Responsibility for ones self is a sort of conservative ideal. Its a very wise philosophy. But the children of parents who can afford their education have an advantage of the children of the poor. The kids of the poor did not choose their parents, why do they not deserve a decent chance to learn a trade and become self sufficient?
Roby, I will take your question concerning job training one step further back in time. You got trained through a government program. Back until maybe the late 60’s or early 70’s, or it might be a little later than that, high schools had classes to train kids that were not going to college to be able to get a job working with their hands. Metal shop, auto mechanics, wood shop all provided basic training for a kid to go out and find an apprentice job in a field they had training in from high school.
Now who control the school systems and who screwed up the programs where kids that are not going to college have NOTHING to fall back on to make a decent living?
If you want schools to be responsive to the needs of the students and parents – you must make them answerable to students and parents.
The best means of doing so – is through free markets.
Just about the worst is what we are doing.
Well for the past 40+ years, schools have answered to the bureaucrats that are bought and paid for by various parties. The last thing schools answer to is their students and parents.
Hoe long do parents and students need to continue their decline until something changes?
I do not percieve what you wrote to Moggie as less “extreme” than what I wrote.
I do grasp that it is less blunt.
I also think that it is not consistent with other things you have written.
But I have said the modern left is not consistent.
The federal government spends $4T/year. It is awfully hard for anyone – even the federal govenrment to spend $4T and get absolutley zero or worse negative value out.
At the same time few of us would disagree that the federal govenrment does not come close to producing $4T in value – so it is NET negative. When pew aand Gallup survey people the common perception of ordinary people is that the federal government “wastes” about $.50 for every $ it spends – this is remarkably consistent with the results of Robert Barro – the economist who has gathered by far the largest publicly accessible database on this.
He has found that the multiplier for government spending varies between .25 and .8. With .8 typically being acheived for military spending in times of war. His norm is between .35 and .45 – very close to what people tell polsters.
This brings me back to your CETA program – and myriads of other government programs.
While there are some programs that are absolute fails.
I do not know much about CETA – but decades of studies on federal jobs training programs have found them to have nor merely ZERO value, but actually negative value.
i.e. the Trainees from govenrment training programs are LESS qualified and able to get jobs than they were before training.
If that was not true for you personally – great. No government program fails absolutely everyone.
Regardless, job training should be a total no brainer – and the evidence is that is so.
If a free market needs skilled labor that does not exist, those who need that skilled labor will do whatever it takes to get it. They will subsidize training programs, they will provide training themselves – whatever is necescary to meet their need for specific skills.
And in the real world we see this all the time. When we need truck drivers – the airwaves get filled with advetisements for driver training cheap or on the job training – whatever trucking firms need to do to get enough drivers.
When there is an overabundance in some skill area – the cost of that training rises and no one subsidizes it, and the wage goes down.
ARRA had horribly distortive effects on labor – part of the reason for the enormous costs per job.
Much of ARRA was road construction – and not only aren’t road construction projects shovel ready, but they are mostly skilled labor jobs.
Designing roads – drew highly skilled labor (engineers) from other commercial construction – and moved it to roads. This increased the cost and decreased the highly skilled labor available for projects other than roads. Substantial increases to the engineering labor pool do not happen in months – they take many years – often decades.
Once those projects were designed, road construction labor is also skilled labor.
While there is some overlap between the labor needed to build homes – which had record levels of unemployment, and that needed to build roads – the overlap is relatively small.
You can not just take labor that used to build homes, and have thiem building highways and bridges overnight. In fact road construction is more automated and more high skilled than home construction.
Anyway there are studies out there on ARRA. I am sure you can find a few that say good things, but the majority of the good studies show ARRA as a tremendous waste of money.
No we did not spend $500K and get nothing for it. But we did not get anywhere close to $500B of value.
And that is the fundimental problem.
I will have no problem agreeing with you that we can pick most any government program and find someone who is better off as a result of it.
I do not think we can find any government aide program where all of us as a whole – or even the narrow community that program was designed to serve are actually better of – on the WHOLE.
We can argue about that – but that is precisely what Barro’s data shows (there are many others that have come up with similar results). When any government program comes up with a multiplier less than 1 than MEANS that the value that program delivers is less than its cost.
You could try arguing that well sometimes we should waste some money to help people.
Sounds good. While I would still claim that is the role of charity, not government,
there is still a better argument:
When a government spending multiplier is below 1, that not only means the government wasted money, but it also means that the government did not do as well for people as would have occured had that money remained in the free market.
While we can not predict exactly how that money would have been spent in the free market – we can know that it would have gone towards creating more of the things that we – the people, want and need. That where it was necescary to create jobs to create what we want and need – it would have done so. It would have created the jobs producing what WE want and need.
Not what some elites in washington think we want and need.
When you let those in Washington decide – maybe you get some value for what they spend – but you do NOT – pretty much by definition, get the results you would have if we chose how to spend our own money.
The left likes to vilify the super rich. But even Adam Smith grasped 250 years ago, that once someone’s money exceeds their ability to consume it, they are ultimately serving others.
What is the difference between Warren Buffet investing his Billions and the government “investing” ?
How is the government building roads different from Buffet building railroads, or factories or stores or …..
Whether it is the government or Buffet – both are seeking to increase value produced – Buffet is just better able to understand what constitutes actual value – partly because of his own skills, but partly because the market will punish him if he fails to direct his investment towards thing WE value.
That last part is really critical. The 0.01% did not get their by delivering to other uber rich people what uber rich people want and need. It is not an accident that Walmart is one of the biggest businesses in the world.
People like Buffet and the Walton’s get incredibly rich by delivering to most of us – including the poor – what we want and need.
If I had a choice between Letting Warren Buffet decide how to spend a Trillion dollars and letting the US government decide – I would pick Buffet.
The argument above is entirely pragmatic. I do not think there is a single ideological component to it. Further in the real world – the data we have tells us that is how things actually work.
The important questions are NOT has government actually helped people by spending incredibly large amounts of money. Of course it has.
But FIRST – has government spending been NET helpful.
The SECOND – has government spending created a greater NET benefit than leaving the same money in the economy where you and I and others would have spent it on what we want and need.
The evidence is that government sometimes does good. That is rarely is good on NET, and that it never does better for us than what we would have done had we decided for ourselves.
If CETA helped you – great. Having helped, one, or two or even thousands of people, does not make it a good program – even if you personally benefited.
All of us would have been better without it. Probably you would have been better without it.
Regardless, you do not get to presume that when government acts, it does so in a vaccum. That government benefits do not have to be paid for.
What I find amazing about the liberal left that cries out for higher taxes on the rich, I don’t see Buffet, Bezo’s or Bill Gates offering money to the government to make them feel beter about not paying enough. I don’t see them leaving their billions where the government can take most of it in inheritance taxes. They all have some charitable trust they are leaving it to.
Buffet is a brilliant investor. If I had massive amounts of money to invest – I would be highly inclinded to allow him to invest it.
I also have a very good auto mechanic that repairs my cars.
I do not hire that mechanic to do web design.
Buffets skills as an investor seem to be very narrowly limited to investing.
I am not sure I would select him as CEO for an ordinary business, and certainly do not take his advice on politics.
Buffet has of late been compelled to make political pronouncements and in that arena he has proven to be an idiot.
Regardless, more directly addressing your argument if our objective is raising overall standard of living, then the tax rate on investors such as Buffet and Gates should be 0.
Inarguably the money they invest results in the greatest overall improvement to standard of living.
Far behind in second would be charity. Charity suffers from most of the problems of government spending. But charity is still voluntary, and charities need to persuade to receive donations and that means either providing credible evidence or beleivable promises that they will make beneficial use of the money that they are given.
Far behind charities in last place is government. Money taken from the economy by government is not taken voluntarily and even when spent to benefit others is on the whole spent badly. On net significantly more harm than good is typically done.
Mao Tse Tung died in 1976. After his death China cautiously – at the margins and often starting with peasants acting in secret experimented with capitalism.
Even when done openly, these experiments were always at the fringes. Disrupting those parts of the chinese political economy that were deemed critical or functional or intrinsically linked to socialism or the party was and remains prohibited.
In 1976 the average standard of living of a chinese was about $60/year – about the same as it was at the end of the Qing dynasty. Today as a result of those capitalist experiments the standard of living of 1.6B people has been raised to about 11K/yr.
Nothing anywhere ever before has lifted so many people so far so rapidly
All charity in the entire history of the world has not had a fraction of that beneficial impact.
The 2nd total greatest improvement in standard of living took place in india from 1980 to the present with the slow strangulation of the “permit raj” and similar moves from quasi socialism to quasi capitalism. The improvement change in India would be the worlds largest total improvement – greater than all other improvements ever combined – except that the one in china at almost the same time was even greater.
With all respect to Jesus, or Buddha, or Mohammed, Adam Smith and Free Markets have done more good for “the least among us” than all charity, and all religions ever combined.
Bill Gates has helped far more people – not through his charity, but through his business accumen than Mother Theresa.
Gates did not intend the good he created, and in fact some of his efforts were arguably notorious and evil – and still the net result was dramatically for the good.
Nobel Prize winner Ronald Coase touched on the fact that those engaged in free exchange – even when deliberately trying to cheat and game the system – so long as they are barred from using force and fraud ultimately will act beneficially for the rest of us.
I beleive it was Acemoglu who took that beyond a tangential observation into an actual proof.
In a free market – without using force or fraud, you can not in the long run succeed in doing more harm than good – even if you deliberately try.
No Moggie, Roby, Ron(s), Priscilla, ….
I am not naive. I grasp that some in business are evil sociopaths. I expect that government will bar them from using force and fraud against others.
But overall the evil effects of business are very close to a non problem. They are so enormously dwarfed by the good.
Neither China nor India are countries that we should idealize.
Nor am I ignorant of some of the bad things that have occured in China at the same time.
But I am not so blind that I do not see that the good of raising 1.6B people from the bottom of the 3rd world to the bottom of the first is an unbeleivable net good.
China is now one of the primary nations providing aide to Africa while a generation ago it was more destitute than africa.
Our public education system is paid for through taxes.
In my community that is through property taxes.
But that does not matter all taxes are ultimately levied on consumption – one of the reasons we should shift to a pure consumption tax.
Put differently – there is no such thing as a free public education. The parents and children being educated, pay for it one way or another.
Absolutely – ordinary people could not afford the something like 17K/yr that is paid on average for a US high schools student – interestingly a local top tier girls boarding schools only costs about 20K/yr, the local private high school is about 11K/yr. a well respected local menonite high school is about 7K/.yt and the local catholic high school is 5K/yr with discounts for those with need.
Our public education – like everything the government provides for us is incredibly expensive because government provides it “free”.
Catholics have been providing cost effective quality education to students (even non-catholics) for longer than there has been public education. Minorities provided schools for their own kids – long before government funded education.
The fundimental requirements of education have not changed in almost two centuries.
Yes, much else has changed – but we are doing no better tat educating our children than we have done in the past. While I do beleive we can do better, our failure to improve education is not a failure of technology, it is the inherent failure of “public” education. Government is not equiped to develop, measure and apply improvements focused – not in anything.
In 100 years we have gone from phones being a bulky non-portable luxury of the afluent to their being incredibly powerful critical communications facilities ubiquitous even among the poor.
Immagine if the same had happened to education ?
The left fails to grasp that the key target of the majority of the free market is to deliver quality at low cost to everyone.
Again Walmart is near the top of the fortune 500. Harry Winston is not.
If you want innovative, and inexpensive education tailored to each students needs to be readily available you must remove education from government.
About 1/3 of the cost of every apartment I rent is taxes, and more than 50% of that is school taxes, and everyone must pay – whether they have children or not.
For a cheap apartment that the “school taxes” are nearly what a catholic elementary school education averages.
I have absolutely zero doubt that if we completely eliminated “public education”,
that even the poor would be able to afford to pay for the education of their children at lower cost than they pay today.
What would be different is that paying for education directly, without government in control, would empower parents to demand that schools deliver in return for the tuition they demand.
“we should shift to a pure consumption tax.”
We agree on this!!!!! 🙂
“we should shift to a pure consumption tax.”
We agree on this!!!!! 🙂
WHAAATTT?????????
Man am I confused. You support a consumption tax?????
That is the most regressive tax available. It taxes what is consumed and the lower class income group spends more of their income percentage wise than the rich.
don’t know where the comment on consumption tax is now…
Consumption Tax to me would be on things like yachts, fine jewelry, art pieces, 2nd homes, luxury cars, alcohol, tobacco, clothing from Neiman Marcus, trips abroad, fine hotels, …things that would not affect the lower classes.
I’m tired of the Non-Job-Creating upper classes keeping all the money. Even though some people are claiming Income Inequality does not exist…it most certainly does, and is the cause of all our woes.
Moogie, the items you mentioned would be included in a consumption tax, along with the trillions spent on all other consumer purchases. The consumption tax in its purist form is a sales tax applied to the purchase price of all items purchased. Consumption taxes do not tax savings. It taxes money spent. In some places it is a value added tax based on the amount of value added at each point in manufacturing an item.
So if you make $35,000 a year and the government takes $3,500 in various taxes (social security and state income tax, no federal tax), that leaves $31,500. Then lets say you pay $1000 a month for rent (mortgage) and utilities (I exclude those from CT) that leaves $19,500 a year for food, clothing, car repairs etc. All of that is considered “consumables” and that is taxed at some rate.
Then take the dude at Goldman who makes 200 million a year. He no longer has federal taxes on this 200 million. So he has maybe 30 million in SS tax and state tax (@15%) leaving him 170 million. He buys three 250,000 cars a year, one house at 10 million a year and 250,000 in jewelry per year. Thats 11 million, plus say another 55 million on misc stuff. He is saving in the range of 100 million.
So who is paying a higher percentage. The one that is paying tax on 66 million in spending based on 200 million income, or the one paying tax on 19.5T based on 35T income.
I know these numbers may not be completely correct, but there are no studies that indicate that the one saving money will end up paying a higher tax rate than those spending all of their income. The only way that could ever happen is if everyone making over 75.000 a year gets a check for a certain percentage of their income in the form of a tax rebate.
At one time I thought the consumption tax was a good thing. Now I do not.
What I think is best is a flat tax where anyone with taxable income over a specific amount, say $40,000 pays a specific amount, say 20%. Total income, absolutely no deductions what-so-ever. I don’t know the income level or the tax rate needed to balance the budget, but someone could come up with those specific amounts. Could be $30,000 and 15%.However, that will never happen as too many special interests (home mortgage companies, charitable organizations, corporations getting corporate welfare in the form of deductions) have their elected officials bought off to support their interest, not those of the voters.
Ron.
Pure consumption tax – no other taxes, no SS taxes.
current federal taxes are about 18% of GDP.
That means a consumption tax of 20% with some mechanized for excluding taxes towards the bottom, will generate the same revenue as all other taxes today.
There is no need for an SS tax.
Regardless, you do not want to impliment any form of federal consumption tax without constitutionally barring income taxes.
Otherwise you are headed for the same problems Europe is trying to get themselves out of.
The other reason for taxing consumption is it dispells this nonsense about wealth.
Wealth is what we CONSUME, not our income, the purpose of labor, investment, …. is not to produce income, it is to produce WEALTH.
It does not matter who has the most money. We are all being taxed an equal portion of what we CONSUME.
It also means government is motivated to work towards increasing our ability to consume rather than decrease it.
Dave thanks for the input on consumption tax, but I don’t think the feds would ever do away with FICA. And states would never give up their income tax even with their own “consumption tax” in the form of a sales tax. Just won’t happen. How could you ever get 50 different states to agree on revenue sharing?
You state: “Pure consumption tax – no other taxes, no SS taxes.”
I can just see Texas giving up revenue to California or what the thought was unfair distribution of tax revenues. Maybe the end of SS would happen, but never state taxes. That would put the states to far under the control of the federal government on where and how they spent money.
I think getting the states to shift to consumption taxes would be trivial.
Though I am specifically talking about a federal consumption tax, not revenue sharing or a state tax. The overall tax rate would have to be higher to accomidate state and local governments.
Regardless, individual states can continue to have whatever tax system they wish.
Eliminating FICA is simple and we are increasingly close to that anyway.
Social Security, medicare and medicaid are increasingly paid from general revenues – not FICA taxes,
With respect to states – if there is a federal consumption tax – with revenues going to the fed.
It is trivial for states to add their own tax collected at the same time with much the same rules but paid directly to the state. Most states are already ahead of the game and have a sales tax infrastructure.
What would happen is we would get rid of the mail order problem. Though that is not a huge problem.
Regardless states would still be soverign and independnet, there woudl be no revenue sharing.
A state could choose to continue property and income taxes.
I doubt many would.
States would still derive their revenue on what occured within the state.
Eliminating FICA tax would be interpreted by the moderate left to far left as “cutting entitlements” (Yes, we both know that (1) social security IS NOT an entitlement if funds were actuarially handled correctly and (2) other entitlements could stay like they are and the media would still report CUTS).
States will never give up sales tax. And I would not expect them to. Right now they collect 100% sales tax in their state and they keep 100%. If this were a 100% consumption tax at the federal level, they would have 100% collected by Washington and they would get 65% to 80% back depending on the allocations some ass in Washington would develop.
SS and Medicare are completely disconnected from their taxes.
There are myriads of laws and court cases to that effect.
They are not “entitlements” in the sense that any of us have any claim to them.
They are in the sense that that is how they are budgeted.
The actuarial and investment argument is meaningless as that is not hbow government handles them.
I do not think we are getting a national consumption tax – because conservatives will not impose a consumption tax without a constitutional barrier to income taxes.
I agree with that. Which is the primary reason it will never happen.
I am sorry the states are not a problem.
The federal govenrment can not dictate what the states do.
Nor am I trying to.
I am NOT proposing that the federal government collect state tax revenue and return it to the states.
My proposal is ONLY for the federal government.
But I would expect the states to follow with their OWN pure consumption tax – because it would be to their advantage.
Nope, the consumption tax is going to be on EVERYTHING, it is likely to be about 20% – because that is what opperating the federal government costs us – a bit over 20% of everything we consume.
You are talking about luxury taxes. They are just plain stupidity.
Congress taxed luxury Yachts during the 90’s that proved profoundly stupid.
The rich quit buying yachts and the thousands of people making yachts were the only ones who suffered.
That alone should give you a clue who left wing nut policies always have unintended consequences – usually hurting people completely different than targeted.
It also should give you some understanding that politicians and left wing nuts are remarkably stupid, and unable to see the obvious indirect results of the stupid things they think are good ideas.
I would suggest reading this – written long ago and true today.
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
Regardless, if you impose it as a “luxury tax” people will quit buying what you defined as luxuries – they will buy something else. You will never cover everything that someone could conceivably consider a luxury without nailing everyone else too.
If you want it to work you must tax EVERYTHING, and you must tax it equally.
Otherwise you will do great harm.
The “non job creating upper class” does nto exist.
If you have anything invested, you are creating jobs. More important you are creating wealth for others.
Of course “income inequality” exists – it always has and always will.
That said the distribution of income in the US today is overall better in my view and frankly if you were to look at it honestly I would bet in your view that ever.
What is your objective ? To make everyone poor and miserable or to have the highest overall standard of living ?
I keep telling you that standard of living has doubled in the past 40 years.
That is absolutely true just as “income in equality exists”.
By defintion zero income inequality is called communism.
That does not work – are you going to try to argue for it ?
Absolutely I support a pure consumption tax.
With absolutely no other form of taxation at all.
The regressive aspects can be dealt with – relatively easily.
Prior to 1916 the federal government was almost entirely supported by Tarrifs and other consumption taxes.
Though I would insist on a broad (covering everything) consuption tax.
Broad consumption taxes are relatively modern as they were nearly impossible to impliment in the past.
Now they are probably simpler than income taxes.
If you have a consumption tax, then when the government debates some benefit that requires more taxes – absolutely everyone has a stake.
The left is flouting recent polls that claim broad support for many aspects of PPACA.
But when people are asked would they be willing to pay a little more for pre-existing condition coverage or …. the popularity of those same polices tanks.
We have a situation today where ever government benefit has a lobby, but since we are sufficiently divorce from the costs of those benefits we can impliment programs that would not have support if people knew they were paying for them.
Dace you need to take a breath and read what is in the messages before you jump to conclusions. If you did you would see in the e-mail notification you received on this message that my reply was to Moogie. You commented on the consumption tax and she relied with a 4-5 word statement, “we agree on this”.
No need for a dissertation on why you agree with yourself.
How to make a less regressive consumption tax:
Lets set the rate at about 20% – that is probably very close to where it needs to be.
It is going to be collected at the final sale of any good or service – nothing gets taxed twice.
Next you decide the low income cuttoff. Lets use 21432 – that is the top of the bottom quintile in 2014. If we presume people in that quintile spend 100% of what they make, that would be 1786/month. At 20% tax that is $357/month.
These figures are by household and I would prefer to do it by individual.
Regardless, we now send EVERY household (or individual) that amount as a consumption tax rebate every month. Rich, poor, does nto matter, we all get back what we spent in taxes on the first 21432 of our spending. Everything else ends up being taxed.
The specific rates, and numbers are not critical.
You adjust to accomplish several things:
atleast 80% of us pay taxes directly proportionate to what we consume.
The actual rate is the percent necescary for government to operate.
There is now a huge political incentive to control government spending.
There is absolutely zero impact on investment.
Economists have always prefered consumption taxes to income taxes.
The fundimental problem is that until the modern era broad based ones were difficult to collect.
There are likely many other things we agree on.
What we are unlikely to agree on is government.
Where you can not get a super majority of people to agree,
then you may not do that by force. therefore you may not do it with government.
The concept of a college degree has been cheapened by saying that everyone should have one. Its the same thing as saying the people should all go to school until they are 22 rather than 18. So now a college degree is the new high school degree, surprise.
Baltimore needs people who can rebuild the falling apart row houses. There is a demand for that skill there and application of that skill would turn a degraded catastrophe into a place again. They don’t need very many people with degrees in poly sci or philosophy or sociology. Who will hire such graduates? They need people who can build things. I’ve built things, it is satisfying, at the end of the day you can see what you did, what you built.
Europe is too complicated a thing to overgeneralize but I believe that in Europe as a generality people get sorted out into the academic or trade route pretty quickly and both sets of people have a decent living available to them.
The 22 year old guy who installed my carpet last year had his own business and made so much money he had just bought a house, Outright, no mortgage. That is living (much) better than the post docs I knew! let alone polysci majors. Have you ever met a political scientist? I haven’t!
What matters is not “degrees”
It is teaching people skills that it is inside their ability and motivation to learn.
We are not all equal.
It is teaching people the skills that are going to be needed.
It is providing proof to those who need those skills that they have been attained.
I work as an embedded software developer today. I am well respected in that field.
I am one of only about 2500 people with my name inside the Linux Kernel Source.
Most of the other 2500 are likely more deserving – but it is still a meaningful measure of accomplishment – it gets me jobs.
I have some education in the work I do, but my college degree is in Building Sciences – Architecture. Oddly I am starting to get more architectural work all of a sudden.
But for the past decade plus I have made my living in software.
No one looks at my college degree – because I have decades of experience and references that will confirm that I am good at what I do. I even have some products out in the field.
Whether one is being hired as an employee or a consultant – those hiring are looking for evidence that the person or company they are hiring knows what they are doing.
degrees are the lowest form of acceptable proof. That is all they are.
They are a ticket to get the opportunity to prove that you can actually deliver.
It is still possible, though less common for people to succeed – even in high skilled fields without a degree. To do so you must prove competence another way.
Despite Moogies claims it is still possible – in fact easier than ever to succeed.
I gave her a few specific examples.
I have written articles for technical journals – primarily as a means of building my credentials.
Though it is really nice to see your name in print.
Regardless, it is both possible and many people make a good living writing in myriads of forms.
More recently I got back into architecture – sort of.
I have found several companies that pay fixed fees to do assessments of drawings, specs and budgets – nor do you have to be an architect to do so. I am training my daughter to help with these. She is doing the majority of the hard work. I am reviewing them. She is getting about 1/4 the fee and doing much better than she was at Target and Halmark. Further in 6 months or so she will be qualified to do them on her own. If she was able to do one a week, she would make enough to pay for an ivy league education out of pocket.
Moogie has a college education – this is inside her ability to learn to do. It is boring but lucrative work. It requires attention to boring details, and some learning about building construction.
The same company also offers projects doing building evaluations. These are much like “home inspections” except that they pay more and are of commercial buildings.
Mostly it involves driving to a building photographing absolutely everything – including and especially all the mechanical equipement in the building, asking the building managers alot of questions, and going home and filling out a report which is mostly prewritten and requires filling in details and selecting options based on your observations and photos.
The whole process takes about a day. It requires less skill than the prior project.
It takes about 1 full day to do a report – including the site visit. One of these a week would very nearly pay everything at an ivy league school. Most of the people doing these – do not have a college degree.
And these are just the choices that come to the top of my head.
If Moogie or anyone else really wants to get ahead the opportunity is there.
That does not mean it does not require effort.
Regardless, I have respect for people who work their ass off to get ahead – regardless of where they start.
I have no respect for people who whine that it is impossible. that life is too hard.
The math is trivial – a family with two minimum wage earners is near the bottom of MIDDLE CLASS.
According to US census data upper class families of 4 have on average 2.54 full time jobs.
Lower class families have on average .25 full time jobs.
If lower class families had jobs – even minimum wage jobs at the same rate as upper class families – they would be middle class.
There is no shortage of jobs – just of people willing to do them.
That is a load of BS.
Rick, you should ban this liar.
You have accused me of lying.
That means that one of us is.
Which of the following is false:
the minimum wage is 7.25.
The work week is 40 hours.
There are 52 weeks in a year.
A full time minum wage employee earns $15950/yr.
two full time MW people – earn $31900.
According to the IRS the top of the 2nd quintile in 2016 was almost exactly 30,000
“Middle Class is therefore more than 30K/year”.
32K is more than 30K/year
Apparently you think that math and statistics you do not like are “lies”.
Get a clue.
Absolutely – silence those who way things you do not wish to hear.
Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.
Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).
But banning people is so much easier than confronting the truth.
Moogie;
Cut the crap. Unless you are actually disabled, there is absolutely no reason you can not save and invest – and buying an apartment building is just one way.
Go to the library of bookstore – there is a self improvement section with hundreds of “get rich quick” books.
The bad news is you can not really get rich quick.
But the good news is that they all tell the same basic story – and one that works.
Get out of the couch, get off your ass. slash your expenses to the bone – get another job, do whatever it takes to cut expenses and increase revenue and SAVE.
This will also build credit – or fix bad credit.
Depending on how bad your circumstances are – it will take more or less time.
But it will take time.
When you get your credit score back over 650 – you can get a mortgage.
If you are going to live in the place you buy – you can get a 98% VA/FHA mortgage.
For a 50K property that means you need to save about 2-3K to close.
Then you have to live in the place for 9-18months. During which time you SAVE even more.
At that time you REPEAT, go out and buy a NEW 50K property with a VA/FHA loan.
Now you rent the first one. A 50K house in the poor parts of my city rents for about 800/month. The tenant pays utilities. Your mortgage will be about 400/month and that will include taxes. Counting water/sewer, maintanace, and the fact that you will not have 100% occupancy – you will likely do just slightly better than break even.
EXCEPT that every single month a tiny part of the houses you are renting becomes your not the banks.
Further if you have non-W2 income you will save about 1000/year in taxes on that income.
Unfortunately you can not deduct rental costs from your W2 income.
Every 9-18 months you buy a new property.
A family of two can do this on minimum wage.
If you are able to buy a new 50K property every year for 20 years.
You will own about 1M in property – with about 500K in mortgages on it.
And that is without taking into account inflation or appreciation.
This is not the only way to do this. You do not need to do this through real estate.
And if you do not like “social work” or know how to do routine building maintanace – then you should do something else.
You can go out and buy a franchise store – there are myriads of ranchises and you shoudl do your research – alot of them fail, and you lose much of your investment.
But most do not. You will have to save longer to buy a franchise – these can cost anywhere from 15k to 250K or more for something like McD’s
But they are out there.
Look at all the van’s on the road with ‘Brand” logo’s. Most of these are franchises.
You can get a lawn care franchise, a lock smith franchise, a dog fence franchise, a pool cleaning franchise, …. myriads of opportunites – and you are mostly your won boss.
But you have to do some things first.
1). get off your ass.
2). Slash your expenses.
3). SAVE, SAVE, SAVE.
BTW if you can do 1,2,3 – and NOTHING else. then put what you save into a quality sound investment and you will still do incredibly well.
My son is in HS, he also has a part time job at Target.
He works very hard at Cyber Charter School. Gets nearly all A’s, is pretty smart, games in most of his free time. We can not get him to do his chores without fighting.
And he has enough saved to buy a 50K house on a 20% down commercial mortgage – i.e. he would not need an FHA/VA 98% mortgage, and he would not have to live int he place for 9-18 months.
Aside from hard work, slashing your expenses and saving – what is the “secret” here ?
What you are doing is betting against – all the things you say in your posts too me.
When you do this – when you save and invest – whether you are Warren Buffet or some bottom Quintile guy with two MW jobs, what you are doing is betting HEAVILY that the future will be better than today.
You are defering spending in the hope that you will be able to buy far more with saved and invested money in the future.
And guess what you will be right.
Because not only is have things improved in the past 40 years – they will in the next.
My only mistake has been making the wrong investments at the start.
There are myriads of other ways to do this than those I have suggested.
How about you just cut the crap and admit you were born into wealth and privilege, and if you had started out the way many of my students or foster teens did, you wouldn’t be so arrogant.
With over half of America living paycheck to paycheck, most of us think it is obvious that working people are not being paid enough. Actually it has crept up into the degreed also, not making enough.
I don’t know if you are are just blind or stupid.
Ah, yes – the “wealth and priviledge I was born to”.
When I was born my parents lived a tiny apartment in a podunk town – they lived there until I was five. Both my parents worked. My father commuted an hour each way to work everyday.
They left me with my Grandmother (who was nuts). They had saved enough by the time I was 5 to get a mortgage on a home slightly nicer than their apartment that had a basement in it that Dad converted into his office. Mom kept working and Dad started his own business in the basement. In 40 years they grew that “mom & pop” business into something that provided jobs for 50 people. They both worked until they died. Most of the time they worked 16 hour days. I worked from the time I was 5 on. My parents never had a vacation until they were in their 60’s. I am 58. I have had two “vacations” in my life – I spent a two week honeymoon in Ireland 35 years ago.
My parents gave me the most important thing – the understanding that I could get whatever I wanted through hard work.
I paid my own way through college – they did not.
I bought my first home. I bought my first car. I paid for my own wedding and honeymoon.
My parents expected me to make my own way in the world.
that is the “wealth and priviledge I was born to”
BTW you can follow much the same story back through either side of my family for atleast 3 generations.
If you think “paycheck to paycheck” is bad.
you should try running a business.
I have been unable to pay myself at all for 6 months at a time – and if you work for yourself you pay but can never collect unemployment.
I have managed to beg borrow and steal enough to keep the business doors open – to pay employees through very tough times.
I have watched as my savings – that stuff you are too stupid to do, disappeared, and then debt piled up trying to keep the business running until things improved.
I have had clients take over a year to pay, I have had many not pay at all.
I have had employees steal.
Paycheck to paycheck is easy – atleast you mostly know that the paycheck is coming and how much it will be and when it will arrive.
You continue to be completely clueless.
Of course people have no savings.
That is a choice, not a function of the economy or growth or standard of living.
It is also a function of government – the more uncertainty government creates about the future – the less we save, the less we invest and the less we take risks with future payoffs.
That does not make saving hard.
People save because of who they are, and their sense of the future – not because of how much income they make.
In fact you will find that people who save tend to rise from one quintile to another – because of who they are.
All your article is pointing out is that different people are different. We have different values.
“Of course people have no savings.
That is a choice, ” – that is the stupidest, most upper class thing you have said yet. THEY DON’T HAVE SAVINGS BECAUSE THERE IS NO MONEY LEFT FROM PAYING THE BILLS – IF THERE WAS ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY BILLS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I know this all too well personally. I was raised by 2 of the most anal parents ever when it came to money, just like their parents before them. I can get more out of $1 than most can out of $10. But we just cannot make enough money to pay our bills, much less save. THAT IS A FACT, not some kind of character flaw on my part as you so desperately wish.
Again, you take too much of your good fortune for granted. I can’t help but wish God takes you down a peg or two.
Then reduce your bills.
I do not complain about the choices other people make.
But you do not get to use your own choices as excuses.
My tenants – working class or below,
Universally have multiple large screen LCD TV’s, smart phones, laptops. There are a forest of directTV antenas on my building.
Often they end up with outstanding bench warrants for parking tickets they failed to pay and now owe $500.
There is no right to Netflix. to a smart phone, to ESPN and Showtime and HBO.
If you do not want to spend the night in jail and owe $500 for a parking ticket – pay it while it is only $5. If you can not afford the ticket – watch where you park.
I have zero doubt that there is not a single one of my tenants that could not pair unnecescary items from their budgets and save $5000/yr.
It there is not enough money left after paying your bills – then do not buy smartphones, and …..
Most of my tenants have much more high priced electronics and more premium entertainment services than I do.
That is fine. That is their choice. But if that does not leave enough to save – that is the result of their choices. Not some inability.
I have an apartment that costs $550/month to rent – and another $50 for utilities.
USDA claims that an adult male eating wisely should spend about 187/month on food.
That is a total of a bit over 9000/year for food and shelter.
You claimed to be making $14/hr – that leaves you 20K/yr. above your basic needs.
And you say you can not save anything ?
No, you do not want to.
Thats fine, your choice. But don’t expect sympathy.
If you are making $14/hr and can not make ends meet – either you have very high expectations of what you are entitled to, or you are very bad at budgeting and spending money.
Sorry, you do not get to just make things up.
I have no doubt that there are things you have now that you are not prepared to give up to save. Nor do I have a problem with that.
What I have a problem with is your pretending that your choices are actually entitlements.
That you have the slightest clue about either poverty or what it takes to get ahead.
I am well aware of both the good fortune I have had – and the bad.
I am aware that tomorow could bring some event that takes everything away.
What you are not aware of is that if you have learned – as your student has, how to succeed and get ahead.
If something came and took everything away tomorow.
It is likely he would be back where he is now in a year or two.
Now you are wishing ill on others.
I do not pretend to know more about your life than you have shared.
You would be wise not to pretend mine was somehow easier than yours.
I have had plenty of gut punches from the school of hard knocks.
Ones I would never wish on anyone else.
The mere fact that you are prepared to wish ill on others, means it is highly unlikely that you have ever expereinced any real troubles or you would not say anything so stupid.
Moogie, very well said in your last post. I didn’t read your recent debate with dhlii, but I can imagine it. There are more than a couple “tips of icebergs” in your last post that I’d like to jump in on, but I have to leave for work.
It can be humorous (or infuriating, depending) how people in one socio-economic “class” sometimes just don’t get it when it comes to realities in the other socio-economic classes (and I’m NOT aiming that at dhlii; that’s just a general statement from me from witnessing it, sometimes in startling ways. )
There are parallels/similarities between how socio-economic classes are inhabiting different worlds, so to speak, and how the Left and Right are speaking with very different value systems and worldviews, etc. I wish I had time to explore that more.
“It can be humorous (or infuriating, depending) how people in one socio-economic “class” sometimes just don’t get it when it comes to realities in the other socio-economic classes”
Pithy and right on Pat. Add the misunderstandings between the cultures of different regions of the country and different religious ideas and you have our alienated mess.
This is eternally relevant:
‘Are there no prisons?”
‘Plenty of prisons,’ said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.’And the Union workhouses.’ demanded Scrooge. ‘Are they still in operation?’
‘Both very busy, sir.’
‘Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,’ said Scrooge. ‘I’m very glad to hear it.’
‘Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,’ returned the gentleman, ‘a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?’
‘Nothing!’ Scrooge replied.
‘You wish to be anonymous?’
‘I wish to be left alone,’ said Scrooge. ‘Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.’
‘Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.’
‘If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
I think Roby gets it 🙂
Of course he does. You have defined “gets it” to be agrees with you.
Not actually understands anything about others.
Yes, it is humorous how people from one socio-economic class do not get it.
I have learned from myself, from my own experiences, and from watching others.
That the people who “get it” are going to do fine, and their “socio-economic status” is going to rise.
In fact you do nto even have to “get it” very well – just barely enough.
You get often (not always) get to make lots of mistakes, if you get it just enough – you will do fine.
If you do not, there is little hope.
If you are not looking to improve your life – it is not going to improve – atleast not much.
To the extent it does, you are free riding off those who do “get it”
If you are not looking to do better – you won’t.
That attitude is probably the most important thing.
Being a landlord dealing with bottom quintile people is very enlightening.
It does nto take long before you know which of your tenants are headed up the ladder and which are not, or even headed down.
And even before that there are applications – I get about 10 applications every time I have to rent an apartment. Again these tell you alot about people.
One of the things I find incredibly useful – since my tenants rarely have a credit card much less a credit score that is not in the basement. Is checking for parking tickets.
Most everyone who lives in the city gets tickets – it is a city run racket. An extra tax on residents.
But how people pay their tickets tells alot about them.
If you pay your tickets before they get kicked to the District Magistrate – you are likely a good prospect. You are fiscally responsible. If you wait until a parking ticket turns into a bench warrant – then there is no way I am renting to you.
I am completely shocked because probably half of the people who apply to me for an appartment have outstanding bench warrants – and most of those are for unpaid parking tickets.
Do I understand that ? Sort of. We are all prone to stick our head in the sands and hope problems go away. But often that is not going to happen.
And I think it is reasonable to presume that the person who rants and raves and spits and froths and then quietly goes down to the police station and pays their $5 parking tick – on time, is likely to not only make a good tenant, but probably save, and will likely move out on me to buy a small home. While the person who has 3 outstanding $500 benchwarrants for unpaid parking tickets – is probably never going to get their life together, and is a bad idea as a tenant.
Do people get down on their luck some times ? Get kicked in the teeth – sure. It has happened to me – and pretty bad. I have sympathy when it happens to others.
It does not take too long to tell the people who ALWAYS have an excuse, from those who had a bit of bad luck. Nor is it that hard to tell the people who are climbing up the ladder from those who are climbing down.
And BTW all of that is an excellent reason that government should stay entirely out of it.
The people who are climbing down – or treading water, are doing that no matter how much help you give them. They are never making their lives better but temporarily.
The people who are climbing up – but get dealt a setback:
Will manage without help.
Will get help from the people arround them who have a good basis to bet on them.
Government can not tell them apart.
Equally important government is not allowed to try to tell them apart.
Equality before the law – means the government can not and should not try to decide who will benefit from help and who will not.
Government must afford the same benefit to everyone, even if they will blow it.
Which brings me to the last most critical point.
You think you understand those in a different socio-economic class better than I, better than others,
GREAT. You are absolutely free to help those you think ought to be helped.
You are free to not help.
What you are not free to do is force others to help based on your choices as to who should and should not get help.
And that is what involving government is – it is forcing others to do as you would prefer.
Worse as you do not actually do yourself.
I make choices like that all the time.
I am pondering right now. I have a good tenant – who had a falling out with her room mate and is now in an apartment she can not afford. She fell behind on the rent. But she kept me informed, she periodically gets caught up, and pays her late fees,
but she really can not afford the apartment.
I can reduce the rent but probably not enough to make things work. But maybe.
If my tenant leaves – I will lose atleast one months rent – that is pretty typical.
Last time this unit was available to rent, it took me 3 months to rent it.
If I cut the rent ands she manages to stay atleast another year – and keep up,
I am probably ahead – and she is better off.
But if I cut it and she continues to fall behind – we are all worse off.
Further my rent is already below market on this unit.
So this is sort of money coming from my pocket.
And I have mortgages to pay and taxes and water bills and repairs and ….
It is nice to help someone – and watch them pull through and succeed.
It is not so nice when they fail anyway.
Further you do something – and the person you are helping is often appreciative for a while,
but often that fades and they start to feel they are entitled to whatever breaks you give them.
Anyway, I am not so interested in the opinions of people regarding people in other socio-economic classes, when you do not have skin in the game.
Gamble with your own resources. Let me decide what risks I will choose with my own.
Pat Riot – I have written about my history from time to time, I’ve lived in 4 states and among an incredibly diverse number of people. The school in the “Dead Poets Society”? My Dad was a teacher there. Graduated from the high school in Houston the NASA brats go to Taught in inner city Dallas. Now living in rural Appalachia and kept foster kids here.
I am thankful I had 2 married parents, who came from working class parents who taught them all the good things kids should be taught. Grandparents started poor but due to good wages after WWII became solidly middle class and sent their kids to college. Dad was able to equal them but not surpass them financially. The grandkids, not so great.
I have found over and over and over among those who lean right…that they take their upbringing and good fortune for granted. I do not any more.
I find among those on the left that they take their failure to reach their own expectations as proof that the “system” has conspired against them.
I find the history you relate not particularly impressive.
You seem to think that the people you consider to be “priviledged” who do not “get it” regarding social class must all have been born with silver spoons.
The average life of a fortune 500 company is 25 years. That of an average business is shorter. 95% of those on the Forbes 400 richest people in the world inherited little or nothing.
Three of the billionaires on that list were actually homeless at one time during their lives.
One of the reasons that you find that particularly those who have started their own businesses and succeeded are not particularly sympathetic to your whining is because that nearly all of them came from circumstances worse than yours.
It is you that does not understand. It is you that thinks that you are rigidly locked in by circumstances beyond your control.
Worse still you are selling that nonsense to others. Trapping them, as you have trapped yourself. Selling self victimization as a virtue.
I can lay out my family history that with each generation would make your history look elitest.
But you would inevitably find some way to discount it.
And this is not supposed to be a contest over who has overcome the worst adversity.
Nothing in your story has suggested to me that you have endured real hardship in your life.
Nothing in your story provides me with any basis for your claim that you can not improve your life – if that is what you want.
If you are happy with your life as it is – that is fine with me. That is your free choice.
I have personally made choices that restrict my fiscal success.
I am not whining because I can not have the income that I could easily get working in seattle, or much of California. I have chosen to work in a highly technical field AND I have chosen to work from home AND I have chosen to live in a part of the country that is not a tech center.
My choices and I am happy with them. I am not looking to change them. I am not pretending that I could not have made those choices differently, or that it is someone else’s fault that I can not have both the other things I want and the income I could have if I made those choices differently.
Nothing you say about your story strikes me as different – except that you seem to beleive you were entitled to more.
I figure most of you will dismiss the source as just a ranting liberal rag, the problem is these stories are all too true. Once you are poverty stricken, for whatever reasons, it is exceptionally difficult to get out. Because you have money, did you know that your car insurance is cheaper? Because I now have to pay mine monthly, I pay $60 a year more for it. People who don’t have checking accounts or credit cards are going to have to pay at least a dollar per transaction more for paying for things like phones and electricity. When you can buy the larger boxes of items, you generally save money. Those ratty apartments you see in the city are just as expensive as the nicer ones in other areas. I have learned many small problems like this since becoming working class 15 years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/07/evicted-poverty-and-profit-in-the-american-city-matthew-desmond-review?CMP=fb_us
Wow, discounts for paying up front – who would have guessed.
Yet, somehow you consider that criminal.
I guess you think it is also vile to charge people who have historicial paid their bills on time less interest than those who do not ?
I guess that would put you with Sen. Warren – we should eliminate payday loans for the poor, instead forcing them to go to loan sharks.
Such is the generosity of the left.
Yes, people without credit cards and checking accounts pay more for some transactions.
I opened a checking account at 11, my kids opened theirs at 14.
My 18 year old son has saved almost 10,000 in a year working part time for Target.
What have I told you in my posts ? reign in your finances, figure out how to save.
get a checking account, get a credit card, use them wisely.
Yes, you will spend less – twice over. Once because you have become more frugal, and once because we reward people who behave fiscally responsibly.
Is that hard to get started ? Absolutely. Is it imposssible ? Not a chance.
Are some apartments more expensive than others – absolutely.
Laws of supply and demand are immutable.
If you can not afford a car and must live near work.
Or more commonly, if you have lost your license repeatedly and will never get it back and have to live near work – you can expect to have to pay more for a worse apartment.
Those are the apartments I own.
Of course I had to pay more for the building – for the same reasons.
And the city forces me to constantly pay for stupid things – rather than do the maintenance I need, the result being higher rents and less nice apartments.
Moogie;
With respect to Mr. Desmond’s book – “evicted”, I suggest reading it.
In the end he came out far more favorably to landlords than the article suggests.
We had a debate here a few years ago about the NYC landlord renting crappy rooms for $100/month who got shot.
He is gone and the city threw his tenants on the streets – they are now homeless.
The apartments they lived in were bad,
but living on the streets is worse.
Further his tenants were mostly drug addicts.
Even if they could afford a better apartment they would rather live in a hell hole and have more to spend on drugs.
You do not seem to understand that people often choose things the rest of us think are poor choices. They are free to do so. But those choices must come with the natural consequences – or everyone will make poor choices.
You said you were a teacher. If so you are not working class.
Most of my tenants would die for half a teachers salary.
If you are not why not ?
How have you lost a job that it pretty much impossible to get fired at.
Honestly I do nto want to know.
I just do not want to keep hearing that all your problems are someone else’s fault.
I lost not one but TWO teaching jobs because I was not a football coach. I live in the South. Football is more important than teaching. I told them they could kiss my a** after the 2nd time. I’ve been working class since 2002. I’ve not made better than $14/hr…consider a “good” wage in this area.
I’ve mentioned before…quit telling me how lucky I am just because I have indoor plumbing and most of the world doesn’t. I want higher standards for all…not just for you rich whiners.
“I just do not want to keep hearing that all your problems are someone else’s fault.” – truth hurts your ears, don’t it???
I do not beleive that the public should be paying for private individuals education.
All that has done is dumb down our education and vastly increase its cost.
I certainly do not believe that the public should be paying for football.
That said if we ignore the public funding aspect of this.
If the expectation of the school and parents was teaching AND football – well those are the conditions of the job. Get with the program or get out.
You are perfectly entitled to decide that you will not take a job that involves teaching and football. You are not free to demand that someone else change the job they have to suit your wishes.
You do not get to decide what others should think is important.
If you are unwilling to do the job that is available – you do not get to bitch because the job you want is not available.
$14/hr is 30K/yr. That is middle class.
Regardless, if you bother to look, there are plenty of ways to make more if you actually want.
I have written articles for magazines – in my case technical journals.
These paid about $600 for a 2500 word article. That is about a days work.
Many many technical and trade magazines – in just about every trade there is are dying for content.
There are plenty of online sites that pay.
One article a week is 31K/year
I currently do commercial building inspections on the side. These are much like the home inspections that people get for mortgages, except for commercial buildings.
I get about $800 for one of these and it is 1-2 days work.
Though the companies hiring for that prefer experience in building construction,
they are short staffed and most anyone with a college degree can do the work.
One building a week is 42K/year.
There is a booming tutoring business – you can’t move – fine do it over the web, use skype or something like that. Craigslist is advertising tutors from $25/hr through $100/hr.
Cyber charters are looking for qualified teachers – you get to work from home.
And no football. And they pay better than regular schools.
There are web sites like upworker and freelance that you can get work from.
Web development is easy and there are entry level jobs at 50-60K/year.
The local Gas and Go chain is looking for managers – 47K/yr with benefits.
They will take trainee’s at $15/hr with benefits.
There are myriads of other choices.
You are free to choose as you please – including saying no to all of the above.
You are not free to pretend you have no chioces – merely because you do not have the one you want.
Frankly your pretence at being “working class” is repugnant.
Many of those people do not have a college education, some do not have a high school education. Though they too have far more opportunities than they admit, they have far less than you.
I do not think the majority of the poor and working class are “lazy”.
You on the other hand seem to have myriads of opportunities and no interest.
Everything is someone else’s fault.
And you wonder why whiny left wing nuts irritate people.
The student you berate for succeeding and expecting the same from his peers – I admire.
He certainly “gets it” better than you do.
Your honestly admitting that you beleive all your problems are someone else’s fault ?
By your own admission you pissed away a career as a teacher – a job that presumably you spent 4 years working to acheive and many years practicing – because you refused to participate in the football program.
When you tell your boss to “kiss your ass”, you should not be surprised not merely to lose your job, but to have difficulty finding one.
You are entitled to be as picky as you wish about your own life and what job you will take.
You are not entitled to blame the world for not giving you the choice you want.
Something you should have learned teaching english
Cassius:
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves.”
Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)
You want rents to go down ?
Get government out of housing.
I am facing a likely significant rent increase. Why ?
Because the Obama administration started imposing pressure on cities where lead was testing too high.
My city is one of those. Of course the primary reason poor kids are testing high for lead is because of the lead in city water. But god forbid the city would admit it has a problem with its very expensive water system.
So we are looking at new ordinaces, every city apartment built before 1979 has to be tested for lead yearly. And if any lead is found it must be abated.
Who do you think is paying for the lead testing ? Landlords ?
Of course you think that you are a left wing nut.
Get a clue. Every time the city raises a cost to me – rents rise.
Not just mine but every other landlord in the city.
Tax hike – rents rise, water bill increase rents rise.
For 4 years I fought the city over mice.
I have no mouse problems. Once in a while I get a tenant that leaves food out – they get mice. It is in the city. I live in the country – my kids leave food out – and we get mice.
That is how it works. When that tenant cleans up or moves out, the problem goes away.
The city property code grasps that mice are a tenant problem – not a landlord problem.
The law is actually on my side for once.
My tenants BTW do not complain about mice. The city comes in to inspect and demands that everytime an apartment goes vacant I must exterminate.
Which is of course nuts as mice do not live in empty apartments, there is no food.
I only see mice or evidence rarely and only in apartments where tenants leave food out.
Anyway, I fought this to the District Court. Eventually I gave up.
I hired terminex. It was cheaper than fighting.
Rents went up 25/mn and everyone has pest control.
WE have no less mice than before.
But the city leaves me alone, and terminex gets some money every month – that my tenants are paying.
I used to have private trash service. They would go back behind the building every week and drag all the cans and junk to the truck and haul it away.
But the city forced me to go to the city trash service.
That costs more, requires tenants to take their trash to the curb and I get fined if they don’t.
Again the law is actually on my side – by law tenants are responsible for their own trash, not building owners. but again I took this to the district magistrate. Who happens to be a friend.
He did nto care. So now I pay someone to come buy on trash day and take all the trash out, becuase the tenants will not do so themselves. And again rents go up.
I have a roof that is near end of life. I keep patching leaks but I really need to replace it.
I had saved up enough to do so. Then the city came by and decided that all the apartment buildings on my side of the street needed repainted. I have little that needs painted – the building is brick, but what does is hard to get at and expensive.
So no new roof this year, and I did a crappy paint job to get the inspector to go away.
And the rents went up.
The prior owner switched the building from a steam boiler to electric heat.
But the old steam boiler was still in the basement.
Last year the city made me rip out the boiler – somebody had to pay for that, so the rents went up.
Taxes go up – rents go up.
I pay about 4 times as much in city taxes as I do out in the country.
You would think that government would cost less in the city.
What is not cheaper with people closer together ?
Regardless, there should be another theme obvious here. The city makes the life of landlords difficult. Landlords are most everyone’s favorite boogey man.
Passing more laws that “punish us” always sounds good.
But all it does is punish my tenants – not me.
Because rents just go up.
But it does have another effect.
The more difficult dealing with the city is – the less people rent apartments.
So the rents go up.
My rents have increased 50% since 2008, and I am lagging behind other landlords.
I could easily cut my rents 50% – if the city would get out of the way.
Poppycock.
You would just let people die of lead poisoning, wouldn’t you? O, boo hoo I have to pay for lead testing. And I would bet you don’t lobby to get the water problem fixed, just whine about “regulations” Regulations that save lives and protect poor people from landlords like YOU. The city is not in the way, your lack of morals is.
SMDH.
Apparently you can not read.
The primary source of lead poisoning today is NOT from lead paint.
I am not sure that it ever was.
Regardless, today the primary source of lead poisoning today is municipal water systems.
I will be happy to allow you to test my aparments for lead – on your own dime.
It has been 40 years since lead paint was available for sale.
There is no flaking lead paint in my apartments – or likely anywhere else in the city.
And BTW no one dies today of lead poisoning. Lead is primarily a danger to children as there is evidence that it reduces intelligence.
Yes, in your topsy turvey world I am immoral – because the city it trying to cast the blame for THEIR failure on others.
Regulations that do absolutely nothing to address the actual source of the problem – those “save lives”.
Your entire ideology is based on emotion not fact, reason, logic.
You are free to screw yourself up.
Not the rest of us.
And someone who thinks they can impose their will on others by force should not by talking about morality.
Some comments on your article:
The law strictly divorces building maintanance from rent and eviction.
If you are a tenant – you must pay you rent whether I keep up the building or not.
CONVERSELY, I must maintain the building – whether you pay your rent or not.
I can evict you for failure to pay rent. If I even whisper that you should not report a problem to the city or you will get evicted – I could be in deep shit – possibly go to jail.
I beg my tenants to tell ME their problems FIRST – even when they are behind on their rent.
It is far easier to fix whatever a tenant is unhappy about – than to make a city building inspector happy.
What actually happens is that tenants who are behind on their rent think that calling the city and complaining about the building will justify witholding rent – since the do not have the rent they pretend they are witholding it.
But as I said that is not how the law works.
I can not evict you because you complain about the building.
I can if you do not pay your rent – regardless of the condititon of the building.
That is one of few areas my friend the district magistrate gets right.
If I file for eviction and a tenant starts complaining about the building he tells them to talk to the city – not him, and asks if the city set up a rent escrow account for them and how much they put into it. When the answer is no and nothing that argument is over.
In your article – Mr Charney makes $400K/year on 131 trailers.
That is about 3000/trailer/year. If the trailers are fully paid off – that is about right.
If each trailer cost about 50K (including land etc) that is about 6.5M worth of assets,
a 400K return on 6.5M is about right.
If you had a 6.5M IRA would you think that 20K a year was an acceptable return ?
Your rent should not be more than 35-45% of your income – that is what banks use for mortgages.
But does that mean because you are low income – some landlord should rent to you for less than his apartment is worth ?
My cheapest apartment is $550/m. If it becomes available – it will be rented in two weeks.
The demand for cheap apartments is enormous.
My nicests apartment is 850/month – it is 4 times as large and much nicer.
But it usually takes me 4 months to rent whenever it is free.
Everyone wants it. No one wants to pay for it.
No one wants the cheap apartment – but they all want to pay 550.
The market decides these things not me.
I need about 2600/m in rents to pay my mortgage, taxes, water, sewer, pest, trash, electric, gas and cover vacancies.
I pretty close to break even over the long run.
But in another 10 years I will make about 1000/m because I will not longer owe a mortgage.
If I had 131 units instead of 4 and they were all paid off – I would be making 393K/year.
That is of course after 20 years of making nothing and repairing them al the while.
The tenants in your article are
Heroine Susie
Lamar who lost his legs to frostbite when he passed out in an abandoned building doing crack.
Scott a nurse who stole opiods from his patients.
If you want people to help those who are unable to help themselves – you have two choices.
Pay them to do so, or do so through a church or charity.
While most landlords I know will give tenants who are trying some slack. No landlord is a charity.
Landlords provide housing as a business, just like grocery stores sell breakfast cereal.
You do not ask the grocer to give away cornflakes because some of the people buying them are on a fixed income. You do not expect people to shop for people who can not do so themselves for free.
Worse still we could get rid of the privates services and landlords that do these things.
For much of US history we institutionalized the disabled. Government run homes, where they were essentially tortured and deprived of dignity.
So Do you think these private actors you are so upset about are more evil than when government did this directly ?
Worse still when government provided services directly – they are far far far more expensive.
Government housing projects – often have less expensive apartments – that are incredibly highly subsidized.
Cabrini Greene was a government housing project.
There are still plenty arround and they are abysmal places.
People could do far worse than spend 70% of their income on an apartment.
They could get an apartment from government.
Anyway, you should probably read Mr. Desmond’s book “Evicted” before pontificating.
Roby: LOLOLOLOL
dhlii: you and Trump must go to the same “fact” manufacturer
If I have cited a fact in error – demonstrate that.
Naked claims of vague error are fallacy and ad hominem.
They are not refutation,
they are not even valid argument.
“I care whether it is spouting total gobbledy gook.” — that is awfully humorous coming from you dhlii.
You reek of the same privilege as the people I went to high school with. My Dad got a job at NASA with one of the subcontractors outside of Houston, Clear Lake is the high school NASA brats go to. I know my parents thought is was wonderful and they were doing the right thing, but I hope to God I never find myself in a similar neighborhood ever again. Snob does not even begin to describe them. And I am sure today everyone of them is a good conservative “Christian” Republican, downing the poor people they have never met, blissfully unaware of how easy they had it growing up. My friend down the street said “well I was the child of a single parent”. Yeah Steve, a single parent with a college degree and a good job living in an upper middle class neighborhood…as if that equates to growing up poor in an urban setting the child of a teen mom. Sheesh. Yes I do look at my classmates FB pages and see this kind of thing. Even I did not think about how truly fortunate I was until I went to work in inner city Dallas. Moving to Appalachia made me even more thankful. I suggest you stop BS people about how you “earned” all you have and start being more thankful.
JFYI…I didn’t bother to read most of what you wrote this time. Its a waste of my time. Everything you write is simply a justification for keeping the majority of people poor. The more words you need to justify…the more you must have to hide. “Libertarian” or “conservative” is just shorthand for “I got mine, screw everyone else”.
Moogie, my wife has survived a whole lifetime of things that go far, far past my own (and probably your) ideas of what is bearable or survivable, first in collapsing dysfunctional USSR, then in newly “independent,” Ukraine and later even in America. Bad luck and bad treatment from many (but not all) in her life were never lacking. She just never gave in to any kind of self pity and kept driving forward. Pure will power, positive thinking, and determination. And, gratitude for any and every good thing that she had or experienced. That is one hell of a recipe for having a good life. I recommend it to anyone who is not satisfied and feels badly used.
Then she is exceptional. But most people aren’t.
That is the main problem…we expect everyone to be exceptional. Won’t happen.
And on top of the bad things that happen to her, maybe she had some extraordinary things happen that gave her hope. Maybe you were one of them.
A former student of mine from the “ghetto” is now degreed, makes great money…and sometimes it starting to sound conservative, putting down his fellow black people. He had 2 things going for him that most don’t; he was an excellent basketball player and super smart. Got scholarships to college. Did he work hard and make good choices? sure. But without those 2 items he might be in the same boat with many of his classmates.
I expect people to take responsibility for their own lives.
I expect that idiots like you are not going to spray this nonsense that everyone who was manage to do better than them did so as a consequence of having a silver spoon and is clueless as to the circumstances of others.
If you are unable or unwilling to rise about your circumstances – that is your choice.
Whatever you choose for your life, that is fine with me.
I do not believe as you that some magic gene or whatever miraculously endows some of us the ability to endure adversity and not only thrive but succeed.
But even if that is so – that creates no entitlement in others.
Whether you have that “magic gene” or whatever it is you think is the secret sauce the fact is lots of people have started from worse circumstance than you are in now, and substantially improved their lives.
I do not care if you choose not to. I can understand that completely.
What I care about is your whining that you are both entitled to make the choices that give you the life you have, and entitled to the life that would have required you to make different choices.
I do not care so much for you, as that you are sending the message to others that they too, are entitled to better without having to do what is necessary to achieve it.
Seventy plus years of left policies have created an enormous trap for “the most vulnerable among us” – that is your fault, and you will not take responsibility for it.
You want to pretend that the fictitious masses of silver spooned successful are responsible for the mess you created.
I do not think the poor are lazy. I think they are victims of the lies of the left.
I think they are often making wise and rational choices based on the circumstances that confront them. Circumstances that your ideology has created.
Absolutely the student from the “ghetto” that you taught, who succeeded had a couple of advantages.
Guess what, Pretty much all of us have “a couple of advantages”.
I hired a person as a CAD operator 3 decades ago. He was not well educated, he not very smart, but he was very ambitious. Today I see trucks all over the place with his name on them. He owns a very large landscaping business.
If being smart is a criteria for success – he should be a complete failure.
If coming from a good background counts – he should be a failure.
If having money matters – he should be a failure.
….
Like it or not your successful student is right.
If your circumstances are not to your liking – that is YOUR problem.
No each of us can not use exceptional intelligence or skill at basketball to acheive success.
Each person has a different route.
But the primary requirement is the desire for a better life and the willingness to work hard for it.
If you do not have those – that is perfectly fine – but then you failure to acheive what you want is not someone else’s fault.
Well, her father was an alcoholic who beat her mom at times. In other words, a very common type of soviet man. Her first husband was a good guy, but he got blown up in a munitions explosion during his military service at 19 leaving her a widow with a baby. Second husband married her for her apartment then tried to steal it, then divorced her when that failed, also rather a common story in the USSR. Third husband was a good guy in some ways but Very alcoholic. Died of it. Meanwhile she had a growing son and the USSR collapsed and wiped out everyone’s life savings in Ukraine, which had exceptionally corrupt leaders. She got hired to teach, wound up setting up an entire cultural program that is still going today, school needed money for repairs, government had none to give so she shook down the local business men for money to fix the heating system, ha, pretended to be govt. official. I’m not going to go into the details of all the crap she has been through in America, where, among other things she learned english on the fly while working, it was a LOT. I met her at JC Penney she did alterations (expert seamstress).
When she was 4 (if I remember correctly, perhaps it was 5) she decided to go visit her mother at work for lunch, mom was a nurse practitioner for pilots at the local airport. So, she walked for about a mile by herself on roads and through a field to get to the airport. Mom was a bit surprised so see her. Yeah, she may be exceptional…. but, I’m telling you, optimism, determination and gratitude for all the things that are good (and everyone has something to be grateful for) do not hurt and can only help.
By the way, her sister had a crippled leg and came down with leukemia she was not supposed to survive but did, held down like 4 different jobs teaching art. Bought her daughter an apartment from her savings. Had a stroke, barely survived. Learned to paint left handed. She is likewise (to my wife) leading a happy life in spite of all the crap that surrounds her. Just keeps going. We talk nearly every day on Skype. Wonderful woman, cheerful, wise, kind Strong!
Optimism, determination, and gratitude, the more the better. They improve life for anybody who will use them.
Kudos to your wife.
Moogie.
I stand behind whatever I write.
If you have a problem with a factual claim I have made – raise it. I do not make facts up.
I understand that you do not like the facts I provide. I understand they are inconvenient. I understand that you do not agree with them.
But they are still facts.
I would further note that in the internet era there is little excuse for making a significant factual error in a posting. You can check anything you are not sure about before posting it.
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
Oh, the irony.
If I have a fact in error – that is trivial to demonstrate.
I offer all kinds of facts all the time.
I have yet to have anyone demonstrate rather than merely assert error.
Opinions are difficult to refute.
But facts are pretty simple.
Moogie;
You smell privilege because your nose is broken and you smell privilege everywhere.
In public school I was the smartest person in my class, the nerd – the top 1/4 of one percent in all standardized tests, I was not particularly physically attractive, I had very curly hair and that resulted in slurs about my racial background. I was not very good at sports, I was the 98lb whimp.
I was teased mercilessly by other kids. And Bullied and beaten. I had no friends until high school, when A guidance counselor took pity on me and forced me into the fall play and to be the statistician for the football team.
My family was catholic and I attended a very evangelically religious public school.
Most of my classmates thought catholic sacrificed babies and there was a chute in the basement to send them straight to hell. And I made the mistake of identifying my religion in 4th grade and no one in school ever forgot it.
And I have had worse experiences since.
I am not unhappy with my life. But pretending I am “priviledged” is idiocy.
I have had many advantages that some other people do not.
I have also had many disadvantages that I would not wish on the rest of you.
But I am not whining, nor should you or anyone else.
Given your posts, I am frankly dubious that you have ever met actual poor people either.
Do you know people who have been victims of violent crimes ?
Do you know people who did not finish high school ?
Have you had to work with people who had criminal records – sometimes violent ?
Have you ever hired any of them ?
Have you every helped anyone to get social security disability ?
To get rental assistance ?
To immigrate to this country ?
To get an apartment ?
Have you ever volunteered to help someone who was institutionalized ?
Have you ever been inside a prison or jail ?
I get that your life isn;t what you hoped.
I do not get that you really have a clue about “priviledge”.
I do not get that you really understand the people at the bottom.
Among other things you seem to think that those towards the bottom need a handout – and everything will be better.
Get a clue. They may need help but they have to get it under circumstances where they feel like they earned it – otherwise whatever help they get will have no value and will be squandered.
Most of the people in the bottom quintile manage to get out during their life time.
Those like you telling them they can not, that they are unable to, broke, defective, entitled to our sympathy and handouts, disserve them. You give them an excuse for not trying.
Which is way to easy for many of them. I understand that. I have been there.
I have been where life was so hard I wanted to just give up. To where I did give up – atleast trying. And I have been there more than once.
There is only one way out. Help is great, it might even be essential. But the only way out comes from inside YOU. You have to take ownership of your own life.
You want to help the “most vulnerable” – give them opportunaties, not handouts, and then EXPECT them to live up to their own potential. Do not give them excuses to fail – if you do they will fail.
You sound like someone who has given up.
I am sorry for whatever has kicked you in the nuts.
but I have no sympathy for your giving up.
That you are encouraging others to beleive they can not succeed is worse still.
I do nto beleive the poor are lazy. I beleive they are responding to the choices offered them.
And that if they were not offered so many bad choices by the left, they would be more likely to make good ones.
Many years ago shortly after I was married. Our best friend at that time as a black woman, and she had an older daughter that we grow close to. They lived in real poverty – not like the poor today. This was about 35 years ago. Clara died in her 50’s of heart disease and her daughter had 3 kids, and 3 abortions to something like 5 men. Those kids lived in poverty. My wife and I were the closest thing to sanity for them. the oldest was smart, she did well in crappy schools. With our encouragement and help she applied to an ivy league school – and got in, and struggled through, and now lives in SF making 6 figures. The 2nd daughter graduated from College – but not an ivy. and is doing very well.
Her last child is my sons age and best friends with him. Clara’s daughter eventually married a white man – a Navy Chief. They own a home in the suburbs. She has her own business – she does personal care for elderly people, and is very very good at it.
I do not know what they went through – not from the inside, and I do not pretend.
I know it involved lots fo falling down and getting back up. It involved mistakes, and consequences and learning, and lots of bad stuff.
I know that we were there.
From your posts – I do not think you really understand any of this.
I think you are a clueless down and out white guy who thinks because he is moping in his own life that he understands the trials of others.
I think you have a giant chip on your shoulder. I think you resent all those white purportedly christian uppity people who succeeded when you have not and do not understand why they are not where you are and visa versa.
You think you understand because you moved to Apalachia – yet your posts show you as completely clueless. You are likely the worst thing that could happen to the people you think you want to help.
Of course you did not read what I wrote. You are sure you know what I said so you do not have to bother to find out.
You think you are the first smug left wing nut I have ever bumped into ?
No write I write is not some justification for keeping people poor.
Reading comprehension – strike that comprehension is not your forte.
We all do better when EACH of us does better.
We each do better when we are driven by our own self interests.
Your way holds the very people you claim to want to help DOWN.
Regardless, you claim to know me – when obviously you don’t.
you have no interest in finding out what I think by your own admission.
It is just easier to make it up and tell me what I think.
I have little doubt you treat the poor the same.
You do not really bother to listen to them either.
you are sure you know what they need and not interested in learning otherwise.
You are more interested in forcing control on them to demostrate your own virtue than do anything that might actually help.
“I think you are a clueless down and out white guy”…
You are hilarious, and clueless. I am a white FEMALE.
“Given your posts, I am frankly dubious that you have ever met actual poor people either.
Do you know people who have been victims of violent crimes ?
Do you know people who did not finish high school ?
Have you had to work with people who had criminal records – sometimes violent ?
Have you ever hired any of them ?
Have you every helped anyone to get social security disability ?
To get rental assistance ?
To immigrate to this country ?
To get an apartment ?
Have you ever volunteered to help someone who was institutionalized ?
Have you ever been inside a prison or jail ?”
“I do not get that you really have a clue about “priviledge”.
I do not get that you really understand the people at the bottom.” —-BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
You obviously don’t read what I write, for I have answered all but 2 of them. Since you accuse me of being a liar, I figure you must be projecting. Its a psychological term for people like you. Google it.
Good day sir, you have wasted enough of my time.
“You are hilarious, and clueless. I am a white FEMALE.”
And that changes what ?
I am sorry that I presumed that a teacher that would not coach football was male.
my bad.
What part of my arguments does that change ?
I have not accused you of being a liar.
I have accused you of being clueless.
You have accused me of being a liar – quite openly.
As to the rest – maybe somewhere in some post on the internet aspects of your life story have been sprayed to answer some of what I asked.
But I have not read every post on the internet.
You did not answer my questions.
Thus far I have no reasons to beleive you have really suffered much adversity.
You have parents that do not sound all that upper class to me, that seem to continue to atleast partly support you long past any time you should have become responsible for yourself.
You say you have anxiety and depression. No I do not consider those character flaws.
They are just obstacles. We all have obstacles. I have had both anxiety and depression.
I can not compare mine to yours. But I can to someone close to me who have had far worse.
It is not an impediment to getting what you want from life. Just another problem to be overcome.
Or you can let it own you. Your choice.
somehow my comments don’t end up where they should
Roby, your wife is amazing, and still exceptional.
I suffer from crippling depression, as my mother and grandmother before me…and I think there was some on Dad’s side of the family. He suffered from anxiety also. That makes the “positive attitude” thing a bit more challenging. You know why I have survived and become a productive adult (despite dhlii insistence that I am a sorry loser)? Because my family has money. I’ve been able to pay for counseling & anti-depressants even when I’ve had no insurance. It costs me at least $50 a month in meds, more when I need counseling. That’s money many people don’t have. Many many people I have met here in Appalachia suffer from depression – but they cannot afford to treat it. So they drink, drug, sex, fight and believe what the Baptists tell them.
Of course I am sure dhlii will tell me that depression is not an illness just a character flaw. Been told that by numerous conservatives around here…all of them claiming to be “Christians”.
You know dhlii was bragging about his son…who could be around the same age as my kids (foster). One of my girls is 22 now, trying to get thru college. She’s basically never known her father, her mother died of breast cancer 3 years ago. It was a long illness. Her mom’s dad spent some years in the pen for meth cooking. His dad was a bootlegger. The family has always been poor.
And dhlii will probably tell me his son is no luckier, and has had no more blessings than she has had. SMDH.
I’ve had 3 very deep bouts of depression in my life, each of about a year long, not a thing I would wish on anyone. They did pass and leave me able to be happy and productive. I do not mean to in any way insult you, simply yes, you do and have always sounded depressed. My son suffers from depression as well, its a genetic thing. For some reason, in my experience, depression often seems to push people to the left of the political spectrum, where they become very exposed to all the social injustices and that only makes it worse. My son for example.
Honestly, and I seriously hope you take this in the manner that I intend it, medically depressed people would be much better off NOT thinking about politics and society, its a hard enough subject to take when one Isn’t depressed. There has always been greed and cruelty in the world along with kindness and decency and generosity. They are not increasing or decreasing, they are just attributes of the human brain. Nature and nurture set some people up to be more generous or more greedy. The news is, of course, the bad news and now we have a million different news networks beaming the the bad news at us all day long. There is lots of good news too. Good news is as inexorable as the ocean tide. In the mid 1800s the average lifespan was 38. Doctors were lethal, no better than witch doctors, they cut your veins open if you were weak and ill, or made you vomit or blistered you. In all of the millions of years of the human race we live in the one tiny sliver of history when medicine and science and education actually work and are real things. But Huffpost and Fox won’t tell you that, all political information as spread by ideological news sources is basically supposed to make you sad and angry. Which for a depressed person is all too easy. My advice is, avoid it like the plague, its deadly stuff for a depressed person.
Let the world run its own course without your taking it too much to heart, Moogie, you have your own life to make as good as you can. Optimism may not come easily (or at all) to a clinically depressed person, but gratitude is still possible. I find gratitude to be the strongest possible medicine. Determination is hard but still possible as well.
Dave is just nuts anyhow, most of the time. He is not actually lacking in all kindness, he is just completely owned by his ideology to the point of obsessive blindness. If the details of his life that he describes are true, there is plenty of generosity in him at times, although his way of expressing himself and his ideological fanaticism hides it beautifully. No one, not you or me, here is every going to change Dhlii the slightest bit. Its his problem, not ours.
I wish you the best possible success in overcoming this.
What Roby said.
Thank you both, Roby & Dduck12.
Unfortunately his problem is our problem. Too many people out here where I live, and obviously plenty of others believe their destitution is entirely their own fault, which is just plain a lie. With the current level of piss-poor pay, half of America is going to remain destitute. They also spread the BS that everyone should be completely independent and never ask for any help.
My “daughter” that I just described above? She is a victim of this extreme independent thinking. People like Dhlii keep saying this bull about how they “earned” everything they have all by themselves…but we know his kid has started with far far far more advantages than Kristen. But she feels guilty about any help I give her. I had a 15yo car that I got running for her but it needed a new transmission. I set up a “go fund me” to get it fixed, and someone locally wrote to tell me how I shouldn’t be helping her, she should have to do it all by herself!! (I later found out what a hypocrite this one was being, they had plenty of help) A kid who’s an orphan…you’d think I was buying her a brand new luxury car or something. It embarrassed her so I stopped trying to do it that way and got the money otherwise. But finally after being ignored and never thanked, and finally disrespected for 2 1/2 years, I took it back. No, she has not finished college. And now the odds are against it. Whereas she had my small, gas-efficient (that is how my parents taught me to save money), free car to drive she’s gone and bought a huge gas sucking SUV (because that is what people around here think is cool to drive). When she doesn’t finish college she won’t attribute it to all the expenses she runs up with that SUV. But it is out of my hands. I know I did the right thing.
I have found it interesting that middle class people help each other and their kids and will ask for help most of the time. Poor people don’t and I think that is a key difference. People like Dhlii feed on that and keep the poor working against themselves.
Yes, you life, as well as anyone else’s is their responsibility.
It can not be any other way.
Your use of “fault” is deceptive – it presumes that there is some perfect and failure to acheive it requires blaming someone.
I do not BTW have any problem with you or anyone else being happy as they are – regardless of where they are.
I do have a problem with you or anyone else blaming others for where they are.
Humans are entitled to nothing – not even life.
Rights, liberty, freedom, do not guarantee life or much of anything else.
The right to free speech does not grant a right to be listened too.
The right to do with your own life and body as you please does not make you able to do as you please, it just requires that others do not interfere.
We are not equal. As you noted with your basketball player,
We are not equally smart.
we are not equally ambitious
we are not equally talented
we are not equally handsome
we are not equally able.
We will not and in most instance can not be made equal.
We have o right to any equality – except equality before the law.
To the extent our differences are anyone’s fault that would be nature or god.
You can blame those all you wish, you will not get anywhere.
Neither you nor anyone else is or can possibly be entitled to be paid whatever you wish.
You are entitled only to receive back the same value you have given in free exchange.
You can not compel someone else to exchange with you, nor compel them to pay you what you wish. Just as they can not compel you to work for them or pay you what they wish.
Half of america is not destitute.
The poorest people in this country today with few exceptions live better than John D. Rockefeller – the richest man in the world a century ago.
Please tell me what he had in 1900 that you do not have better today ?
While there are a few things – they are very few.
Yet, you want to blame other and claim you are destitute ?
Of course all of us “earn” nearly all of what we have.
No we did not “build that” – we exchanged what we did build that someone else wanted for what someone else built that we wanted.
Again we are not all equal – and never will be.
Nor are we all equally able to succeed.
But we are not entitled to more from those who are smarter, more ambitious, more handsome, more whatever.
Each of us is free to use whatever we were given to acheive as much of what we want as we can. The absence of perfect equality in that does not create any obligation in others.
With respect to your daughter – how is it that my children started with far far far more advantages than yours ?
My daughter was left at the side of a road in China when she was 6 days old.
She sent the next two years in an orphanage so bad that they tore it down before I ever got to see it. The new and improved version is not so hot.
My son was given up by an unwed pregnant korean woman.
That is your idea of starting with all the advantages ?
My wife and I are both articulate, and we have pushed our kids. We have taught them self reliance – those are advantages. But you are equally free to teach those to your kids.
We pushed them to get jobs as soon as they were able – again nothing you are not free to do.
We encourage them. And at the moment we provide them with some help. We will always provide them a place to stay and food to eat.
They are both headed to college – and they are expected to pay for that themselves.
My daughter bought her own car and is paying her own insurance.
We will expect the same from my son shortly.
We love them – but we are doing for them much of what my parents did for me and their parents did for them. As they become adults, they are responsible for their own lives.
That is very important. Not that I would not give them anything.
But that what I do not want to give them is dependence.
Regardless, as is typical you are spouting nonsense.
With respect to your daughter and her choices – I beleive you said she was 20.
She gets to make her own choices with her life, and you get to make yours with respect to her.
What you do not get to do is force your will on her.
Your diatribe on the best car is just nonsense.
The best car is the one each of us thinks is best for us.
If your daugther chose a car that gets 15mpg instead of one that gets 30mpg and she drives 20,000 miles a year – which is very high, than she will be spending about 1300 extra per year for the gas guzzler. More likely she drives less than half that.
There is a reason lots of suburban women drive SUV’s – it is because they are safer (and more convenient) and because they value that more than the gas savings.
If your daughter is killed in an accident she would have survived in an SUV where would your values be ?
Get a clue, life is complex – every question does not have a single right answer, or one that is right for everyone. Which is why you do not get to impose your will on others.
Help your daughter, or don’t.
Put strings on your assistance, or don’t
your choice.
But she is an adult and you do not control her life anymore.
You say you did the “right thing”, from what I can tell you antagonized your daughter, made it so that she is unlikely to take the help you do offer, and unlikely to ask your advice in the future. That is your idea of the right thing ?
I guess my children do have advantages yours do not.
My children do not have controlling idiots as parents.
Ah, now I am in some great plot to keep the poor in their place.
How would that be – by providing them with a decent place to live ?
“People like Dhlii feed on that and keep the poor working against themselves.”
It should be obvious that Dave has his own cross to bear, his own unusual cognitive situation. Forget about him. Who are you gonna change, yourself, your kid, or some guy with a cognitive syndrome online? Online one can find someone to agree with, someone to disagree with, someone to love, someone to hate. It all depends on what you are looking for.
Forgetting Dave and Davism, Having kids is a huge emotional risk, for everyone. They can struggle, it hurts to watch.
I had a lot of help from family and some important help from society, (e.g., the CETA program helped me get an associates degree in Automotive Gas and Diesel Technology from an excellent trade school. which was my first education success that unlocked the student in me) otherwise my strong ADD would have left me in the mud all my life. I am very grateful for all that. Still, none of it was going to help me until I discovered my own motivation, determination, and developed confidence and discipline, which in my case came later than most people. No matter how much support there is from family and society the world is competitive and will always sort itself out into people with high, average, and low levels of motivation, determination, and discipline. A person has to bring that themself. Being bitter with some aspect of society is a pure waste of time. Which is why gratitude is so powerful, it defeats bitter thinking and blaming outside forces. Those last two are complete poison.
Until a person has motivation, determination and some discipline college is an expensive drinking and sex party. Your daughter may be lucky she did not graduate, it means she can still get grants and loans and finish if and when she finds herself, her real goal. In America, and almost Only in America, one can complete their higher education at any age. Dumping people into college at 18 when they are not ready helps no one.
I agree with nearly everything you have said.
Kudos, Much good advice
Have you read Burns ?
I particularly found your digression regarding the past fascinating.
It applies to everything. Not just depression.
We look at the past through rose colored glasses.
When we look at the distant past we are oblivious to such things as that sanitation was pretty much nonexistant until the 17th century and poor until the 20th.
The left bemoans polution – as if the past was pristine clean.
Yet today life – in the US and the world is cleaner in most every way than ever in human existance.
Moogie raised the idiotic income inequality argument.
Again an argument that only works when you look at statisitcs sideways with a presumpitive bias.
I find it very disturbing that those of us who have been alive 20, 30, 40 years can delude ourselves into beleiving that it was somehow better than today.
But our memories are all rosy and gauzy.
When we remember the past clearly it was not so hot.
A part of what often confuses us is that we tend to remember the happy memories and not the bad. Most of us were happy in the past.
We did not know how much better off we would be in 30 years and the changes happened slowly so we do not grasp today how much better off we are then we were.
Regardless, our misperception of the past is at the root of our inability to grasp economics and politics. Properly perceive the past – and most of the nonsense politicians try to sell us vapirizes.
What will change me is facts, logic, reason, argument.
What will change you ?
BTW I have changed plenty over my life.
Q.E.D. I am changeable.
I am sorry about your mental difficulties.
I have had much experience with mental health issues – some of my own, and alot with both my immediate and extended family.
I have never claimed that the things I have suggested are “easy”
Simple and easy are not the same.
Very simple things are often very hard.
I have dug myself out of moderate depression on occasion – and that is hard.
I have had to help people very close to me struggle to recover from severe depression and anxiety. It is extremely hard.
It also can be done.
The gist of the entirety of everything /i have said to you is that:
It is your life.
No one else’s.
What you make of it is up to you.
If you have been kicked in the teeth, robbed, beaten, raped, cheated,
all that is bad. Those who have harmed you deserve to be punished.
But your life is still your own.
No one else can fix it.
The means to fix it are for the most part simple.
They are not easy.
Regardless of what might have happened to you,
no one else – aside from possibly whoever may have harmed you,
owes you anything.
And in the event your problems are the result of some actual harm someone else has done to you – something real rather than this nonsense about requiring you to coach football in return for a teaching job, the odds are slim to none that whoever actually harmed you will or even can give you what they might owe you.
In the end your life is still your own.
The fact that the words are simple, that the solution is simple – does not mean I do not know that accomplishing them is hard.
I am not looking to win the fight over who is the biggest victim.
I beleive I related one of the darkest times in my life here once before.
I am not going to repeat it.
If you have really experienced worse – you have my sympathy.
But your life is still your own, no one else’s.
If whatever triggered your mental health issues is less – you still have my sympathy.
But your life is still your own, no one else’s.
It is not the role of government to rectify all the wrongs in the world.
It is far beyond its ability anyway.
I respect those who engage in charity and do so myself.
But all the churches and charities in the world do not change
the fact that your life is your own, no one else’s.
You keep saying I am somehow priviledged – yet you are the one dependent on some rich family.
My parents did well – it took decades and lots of hard work.
What the gave me was the understanding of how to work hard. And their example.
They did not pay for my education,
they did not pay for anything else.
It would also be nice if you would quit presuming you know what I think and will say – because you clearly do not.
I do not care any more what so called “Christians” have told you – than I do about the nonsense you tell others here.
Crap is crap – whether from the religious right or the lunatic left.
Moogie;
My children are both adopted.
My son has a tiny bit of information and might be able to find his mother.
My daughter knows nothing except that she was abandoned at the side of a road in china – and even that is likely false, and the truth much worse.
If you are a foster parent – then there is atleast one thing about you I can respect.
I am proud of my children. Are you saying I should not be ? Aren’t you proud of yours ?
I think people should be free to cook and use meth if they want.
But the choices people make affect their lives.
I want people free to make their own choices.
If they make bad ones – then the consequences of those choices fall on them.
You are only free if you can make choices other people do not like.
As best as I can tell the only fundimental difference between my children and yours – is that mine have me as a parent and yours have you.
My son is nearly the same age as yours,
My daughter is a little younger than yours.
Yours are foster children. Mine are adopted.
My children are asian, I do not know about yours.
Mine stand little to no chance of ever knowing their biological parents.
My kids have had a variety of problems – ones I hope yours did not.
But hopefully this is not a contest over who is the bigger victim.
I am proud of what my kids have accomplished.
Hopefully you are proud of what yours have.
Though aparently you think the problems of ordinary life are unusal – when they involve you.
dhlii: YAWN.
Got no time for your verbosity today.
Moogie, you claim that Dave considers you to be a “sorry loser,” because you’ve struggled with economic hardship and emotional depression, yet he’s never said anything of the sort. He’s only claimed that everyone is free to help themselves, and that expecting government to take responsibility for ones’ personal struggles is not only foolish, but, ultimately, harmful to everyone (sorry, Dave, if I’ve mischaracterized your position). I think that Roby has said the same thing.
When progressives hear anyone say that people are “free to help themselves,” they generally hear it as “Hey, you’re on your own, buddy ~ good luck with that.” They assume that those on the right have no emotional connection to those who need help, no empathy or concern for those who are struggling. What conservatives generally mean is that, without personal responsibility, there can’t be any self-reliance,and that self-reliance is the source self-discipline, which, in turn, is the source of strength. Nurturing may be fine for children, but adults need strength. And, endless nurturing will not help anyone to develop strength.
The role of government in helping those who need a hand is where we logically disagree, i.e. does any government assistance constitute too much “nurturing?” Accusing the other side of immorality, insensitivity or stupidity is where we go wrong.
“people are “free to help themselves,” they generally hear it as “Hey, you’re on your own, buddy ~ good luck with that.” They assume that those on the right have no emotional connection to those who need help, no empathy or concern for those who are struggling. ”
That is pretty much how I see those on the far right.
With good reason.
The ones I know personally, like those I went to high school with, have never spent one minute of time in the shoes of poor people. They have absolutely NO clue how fortunate they are, how many fewer hurdles they had to jump than the kids I have worked with. I was at the poor end of the neighborhood I lived in, but after working in the inner city and living in rural Appalachia I realized how incredibly fortunate I was. Conservatives go to far in the area of “personal responsibility” and fail to see the whole picture of how the poor have the deck stacked against them so badly, and it has worsened in the past 40 years. In what I glanced over in dhlii reply to me, there was NO mention of how much easier his kids have it than mine.
My one goal in all my political writings is one; A LIVABLE WAGE FOR ALL FULL TIME EMPLOYEES. As I said earlier, you start at the bottom with the least skilled and give them the lowest wage, and work up from there.
The economy cannot be robust when most of us are not making a middle class wage. (and I did not say the lowest wage would be a middle class wage.) True news sources have been writing about the disappearance of the middle class for at least 25 years, because that is how long I have watched it. IMHO since 1980 conservatives have worked to put us back to where we had been for centuries before the New Deal; a small number of “hugely” wealthy people that control everything and vast numbers of poor. They like it that way.
Sadly dhlii believes all the drivel in conservative news sources that are bent on keeping all the wealth at the top. I hope you are wiser.
Several years ago I debated Prof. Haidt who I have repeatedly recommended her in person on exactly this issue.
And as a consequence Haidt has actually reformulated his definition of Empathy as a moral foundation. I still think he has it sort of wrong. But he has improved it.
This arose because there are three factors that uniquely identify libertarians completely distinct from conservatives and progressives.
The first is the extremely high value they place on liberty.
Progressives and conservatives value liberty two – but neither to the extent that libertarians do.
The second is the importance of logic and reason in making choices.
Libertarains are 20 points better than those on the left in the use of reason and logic in decision making and 25 more than those on the right.
This difference is so large that when libertarians are grouped with conservatives – despite the fact that they are the smallest ideological group – libertarians and conservatives combined still outperform progressives.
This is why you will find an assortment of studies that demonstrate that either the left has IQ’s 5 points higher than the right or two points lower – depends on whether the study treated libertarains as part of the right.
The final distinguishing characteristic of libertarians is with respect to empathy.
Haidt’s original conclusion was that libertarians have by far less empathy that wither progressives or conservatives – high empathy is the distinguishing characteristic of progressives – but control the left it is strongly present in conservatives.
My argument with Haidt was that libertarains are not inherently less empathetic than others.
They just do not allow empathy to drive decisions. i.e. they do not ACT based on empathy.
They act based on logic and reason. Particularly outside of their personal lives.
Being free means you can make logically poor choices driven by emotion in your own life
But not with those of others.
I have known people who are truly heartless. I have not seen any evidence that they are particular to one ideology or another. I think there are plenty of progressive sociopaths.
I think actual empathy does not divide strongly by political identity.
Only the willingness to place emotion over reason in making decisions is ideological.
I am emotionally distraught by many things I see and experience.
The fact that my daughter is adopted from China made it impossible for me to watch late night TV for a long time. The “save the children” comericals still tear me apart.
That there are other children in the world living in conditions like my daughters orphanage is heart rending. I do not have enough nickels and dimes and dollars to save them all.
Though I would further note that my concern for those children harms rather than helps any connection to the left.
Several people – including Haidt have noted that humans are tribal.
For most of us our families come first.
and out bonds and empathy weaken in rings as we move to membership in more and more remote groups.
There are two points here, that the left misses.
The first is that as I said the greater the distance – the more differences between us and others, the weaker our empathy and ties.
What the left sees as racism and discrimination is natural and innate.
It is not “hate” is it merely a weaker connection the more ‘other” someone else is.
The swedes are discovering this as they incorporate millions of outsides into one of the most homogenous countries in the world.
those left social safetynet programs only marginally work in the “nordic social democracies” because the people are literally all from the same tribe.
Even Moogie cares far more about her neighbors in Apalachia. They are “closer” both physically and biologically, they are likely the same race, they are the same nationality.
They are less “other” than somali’s.
Therefore it is more important for her to help appalachian families – who as far as the world goes are in the top %1
By virtue of adopting my daughter from a decrepit orphanage in china, all those kids on “Save the children” are not “closer” to me emotionally. For me families in appalachia are more “other” than starving children in africa or ecuador.
There is no difference between what Moogie and I feel.
If there is then I think my emotions are stronger.
What is different is that she wishes to use force to compel me to help people in Appalachia, while I want to use persuasion to get her to help people elsewhere in the world.
There is no right or wrong answer to who should be helped.
But the use of force is wrong regardless.
And I would hope you would understand that this also ultimately means we can not make choices for others based on OUR emotions.
You keep asserting this nonsense and demanding that others prove you wrong.
Things are worse in the past 40 years ? Crap! – certain not according to the mark I eyeball or any other credible data source. Start with the US census. Families in every single quintile have MORE or everything than they did 40 years ago.
Cars, AC, TV’s, Washers, Dryers, Dishwashers, Microwaves, living space, food, healthcare.
That is ten specific items. Every single one of those was readily available to the middle class and rare in the lower class 40 years ago. Each of them is more common in the lower class today the middle class 40 years ago.
Now it is your turn. Can you name ten specific ways in which the lower class is demonstrably worse off today ? I do not think you can you name ONE ?
You say my kids are better off than yours – How ? You keep claiming this. The responsibility to support a claim rests with the person who makes it.
I have already demonstrated that todays minimum wage is more than a liveable wage.
It provides a higher standard of living than the richest person in the world in 1900 – John D. Rockefeller.
Rockefeller had not air conditioning. He had no antibiotics, few drugs many of which were vodoo, no vaccines, in 1900 he had no car. by 1900 it is possible that Rockefeller had a phone. He certainly did not have a TV, Dishwasher, microwave, dryer.
those few things that most of the poor have today that rockefeller had in 1900 – almost no one else did. Not the poor, not most of the rich.
You definiton of a “living wage” would be incredible luxury for most of the world today – or most people ever born.
Regardless, a person is entitled to the value they produce. That is all.
The moment that you presume that you are free to decide what wages who should be paid, one of two things must occur.
Either you must not also decide at what and how hard each person must work
or you will end up with ever fewer people working ever less hard and producing ever less.
When you set wages rather than allow the exchange of value for value, you errode rather than increase standard of living – particularly for those you seek to help.
Finally, you are thoroughly deluded about the nature of money.
It is clear that you not only think money is wealth (bzzt wrong), but that only money is wealth.
From that error flow myraids of bad consequences.
I have not addressed as an example the fact that if you jack up wages at the bottom you will either get inflation into things return to the same levels as before – or you will destroy jobs – in one way or another,.
Finally. how is it that you think that you or anyone else is capable of deciding the correct value of anything ?
If you set the minimum wage to some purported “living wage” That inherenty means you are also controlling the prices of all other goods – otherwise there is no such thing as a “living wage”. Soi you appear to beleive that individual humans, or computers or government or some institution has the knowledge to be able to set the price of everything.
I would recommend doing some reading on “the economic calculation problem”.
This is an economic debate that occured in the 40’s and 50’s that demonstrated that socialism must fail because it has no workable system for setting prices.
Free markets set prices – they do so without government, and without cost. They do so dynamically adjusting continuously to all changes in everything throughout the world.
It is outside the ability of any government – or all the super computers in the world to replicate that. And you can not set a “living wage” pretty much by your won definition without doing the impossible
A middle class wage is by definition the wage that the middle 20% of us make.
The middle class is always making a middle class wage.
The other 80% of us by definition always are not.
Here is a graphic of changes in income distribution over time from the pew research group.
Are you telling me that the changes depicted since 1971 are bad ? that you would prefer the income distribution in 1971 to the present ?
I get very very tired of this extremely stupid rising income inequality meme.
Anyone arguing it brands themselves as statisically inept and worse blind to their own life experience.
The New Deal was a colossal failure.
The US caused the great depression, entered the great depression before any other nation, had the strongest economy going in and should have endured it more easily than other nations. BTW every single fact above is also true about the great recession. Our responses were different.
First Hoover and then FDR engaged in these ruinous socialist programs that protracted the depression. Even the UK which entered the depression weak exited fairly quickly.
In the nordic countries – which at that time were far more capitolistic than today, the great depression was barely a blip. Those countries that did little, or cut government spending and taxes exited the great depression first and fastest.
The US is the ONLY nation ever to have a recession in the midst of a depression.
But for the War in europe it is unlikely that FDR would have won the 1940 election.
Polls 9 months before the election had Wilke way ahead. Those on the even of the election showed that voters prefered Wilke but for the war in Europe.
If you actually want to learn something about the great depression – I would strongly suggest Amity Shlaes book “the forgotten man”.
Adam Smith is a “conservative news source” ?
Or JS Mills ? Or Thoreaux ? Or John Locke ? Or FA Hayek or Ronald Coase ? Or Robert Barro ? or James Buchanon (the nobel prize winning economist, not the failed president) ?
Or Milton Friedman ? Thomas Paine ?
I have never been a regular Fox viewer, I do not think they are any more credible than the New York Times – ie. they are pretty bad. I have listen to more NPR than fox by far.
Regardless my arguments are not routes in “news”, they are rooted in facts, logic, reason, economics, and the writings of some of the smartest people of the past 250 years.
Like Roby you are expressing my views less harshly than I have myself.
To borrow from Prof. Haidt, you are appealing to the elephant and I am appealing to the rider.
I do not know anything of Moogies life besides what she writes.
And mostly what I know of that is that she is very unhappy with her circumstances.
I beleive that people are free to choose homelessness, and some do.
Some do not chose homelessness, but they value some aspects of it sufficiently they will not sacrifice them for other things they say they want.
Most people do not choose homelessness – and therefore usually get out of it.
I have started at the bottom – presumably Moogie is not homeless, to make a bunch of points.
The only thing “wrong” with being homeless, is if it is imposed upon you by force.
I do not judge those who are homeless.
I am finding Moogie lacking – not because of her circumstances – which I have no real idea of. But because she is unhappy with those circumstances and blaming others and demanding that others fix them for her.
Whatever her circumstances – she is not obligated to change them. She is not “lazy” if she choses not to change them.
I doubt her circumstances and mine are all that different.
My children’s biggest advantage is having my wife and I as their parents.
Not this mythical vast wealth that Moogie seems to think I have, that she can not explain how my kids benefited from. I hope that she too has been a good parent to her kids.
I have no way of knowing.
Even my own view of my own parenting is hope and aspiration.
My kids will become what they become. I have little ability left to change that.
There are lots of things I wish were different about my life.
Bill Gates is only 2 years older than I am. I have met him in person several times. Including when Microsoft was very small.
It is easy to ask – why am I not him ? But though I would like to magically have the wealth he has. Honestly I am not him and do not want to be him.
I would love to win the lottery – but I am happy.
I am still looking to improve my life and expect to do so. But I am not looking for others to make that happen or blaming others because it has not.
And that is alot of what bothers me about Moogie and the left.
She claims that people who did not vote for Hillary voted against their economic self interests.
Please explain that to me as anything more than a beleif that someone else should give you whatever it is you want – that you are entitled.
Moogie is unhappy with her life. I am sorry about that. But she owns her life, no one else does.
I pointed out ways she could make more money – but there are thousands beyond that, the point was only that if that is really what she wants it is inside her abilty.
My guess is that is not what she wants – or she would do it.
Not chasing after more is OK with me.
It is OK if you are homeless, working class, middle class, ….
What is not OK is forcing others to give you more, when you will not do so yourself.
My problem with Moogie is not with her class – I doubt we are so far apart as she thinks.
But in her unwillingness to own her own life.
Either be happy as you are or change it. You not only have no right to force someone else to fix it, but doing so is immoral.
“You are on your own buddy”
Yes, actually we are “on our own”. It can not be any other way. The entire concept of collectivism and social justice is a myth that defies reality. No one else can fix whatever is wrong with your life. No one else can make you happy.
HOWEVER, there is nothing about “being on our own” that precludes us from helping others.
The vast majority of what we do in life is for others – we voluntarily give others what they want in return for what we want.
That is completely on our own, and very much not.
What is most important though is that it is free. Otherwise it is not moral.
I have noted before that my family regularly provides meals for the “homeless” (most of them are not homeless, most are just poor or elderly or elderly poor getting a free meal)
Part of the reason for that is there are just not all that many truly homeless people anymore.
Please note I did not say NONE.
Regardless, I do it because I enjoy it.
I think that is one of the things those on the left do nto understand.
Our self interest is whatever we value to the extent we value it.
If it makes you feel good to provide meals to others, or anything else that you do that is “charity” – then you have been rewarded for what you have done.
I certainly would not expect you to do something for the less fortunate if it made you miserable.
We are responsible for ourselves as individuals, but we are to varying degrees social animals.
Involvement with others often makes us INDIVIDUALLY happy
One of the things I do nto understand about the left, is that they seem to actually hate helping others. They hate it so much most will not do it themselves – they convert it into a job and through government force it on someone else.
I have never met a government social worker who really felt they were doing any good.
Most of them do not like their clients very much.
Moogie was bitching about some of the conditions that came with some teaching job.
I have done work I loved, and work I hated. I few things I have done were so miserable that unless I am too poor to do otherwise, I will find a way to pay someone else if I have to do them again.
But I presume that most of us like what we do most of the time – isn’t that our goal ?
I absolutely have to do work I do not like. but I am constantly working to do more of what I like and less of what I do not.
The entire reason for striving to be more wealthy is to do more of what I like and less of what I do not.
I though my father would die at a drafting table – like Frank Lloyd Wright.
Moogie is sort of right – he started with next to nothing, and made a success of himself.
At the same time in later life he made myriads of poor decisions,
Those decisions took away from me what I had thought was my future.
In the end they slowly destroyed what he had built, and two decades before he died he mostly gave up and costed to death. He costed with a fair amount of wealth – nearly all of which was gone by the time he died. My mother who died 7 years before he did – her last words to me were “just you wait, he dies penniless” and she was nearly right – and as mean as that sounds, it was mostly delivered to push me into protecting him, because my fathers success had depended on my mother protecting him from his own mistakes.
Regardless, I do not ever want to stop working. I love what I do. Not just specifically what I do – but most (not all) work. I can imagine not working as hard as today. I can not imagine not working at all.
I certainly can not imagine saying no to a job that I love, because there were a few things that came with it that I did not.
I am left with the impression that Moogie does not get joy from doing anything – atleast not anything that involves “work”
And that I do not understand at all.
And in the end I suspect that is Moogies real problem.
I think that if she got whatever is that she is hoping for that she would still be unhappy.
I think that the problem is not lack of opportunities, or miserable circumstances, but inability to be happy.
That is a quite common problem – but I find it more on the left.
I do not know what “conservatives” mean.
But you can divorce emotion completely.
We are each on our own, is fact, whether we like it or not.
Even our relations with others – our social activity is a choice, that we can not impose by force.
It is immoral to use force to take what belongs to one person to help another.
That is why government has no role in helping those in need.
But I try not to bludgeon people with the moral facet – until those on the left try to assert the moral superiority of their position.
The good samaritan was a person – not a government.
I think we have moral obligations to help those in need.
But those are individual obligations, not societal ones.
Among other reasons because we can individually – or through voluntary groups help people without using force and without any moral conflict.
We can not do so through government.
Governments failure in aiding others is purely a pragmatic argument.
While I think that failure is intrinsic to the nature of government.
We are not all equal – that is just how it is. But we are all entitled to equality before government.
Nuturing people requires recognizing that people are not equal.
Government can not meet both its equal protection requirements and help people who are not equal and have different needs.
Further when government does something it creates the appearance of a right.
Rights to assistance from others are not sustainable and infact create significant negative incentives.
The studies I quote that demonstrate that government spending has a negative impact on growth in standard of living, also not that social safety net spending as an ADDITIONAL .3% negative impact.
Creating moral hazard and negative incentives privately – through charity is extremely difficult.
In government it is trivial.
Additional note: If people were well paid and we once again had a solid middle class…would their be any need for so much charity/government assistance? I think not.
Its a great ideal. All we lack in an actual mechanism that will actually work to ensure a livable wage. Which is where it becomes an unresolvable ideological argument.
I think it is literally getting to be close to 10 years that I have been at TNM arguing. I’ll admit that when I first started I thought that government could make an impact on the wage issue. But, I was wrong. For every regulation there is a way around it, hiring overseas and mechanization are the most obvious ways out. Pass a law that say that full time employees must have X,Y, and Z and companies simply make sure they have very few full time employees.
Now, if there was some all powerful entity regulating the economy it would be obvious that the economy is healthier when everyone makes good money and that killing off the middle class is harmful to the economy and if taken to its furthest extreme would lead to failure of the economic system. Who will buy anything?
In reality individual companies and corporations make their own individual decisions with the only criterion being profit and stockholder satisfaction. There is no government regulation that can change that reality. It is a very vast impersonal force that sets wages.
I worked for a very left wing guy one summer, an actual communist in the flesh, for his house painting business. Guess what, he was a cut throat capitalist in the flesh when it came to his own business and workers, ruthless. I asked him if he saw the irony. He just looked at me like I was nuts. Its seems so logical and easy to pay good wages until you have a business yourself.
That’s a great story, Roby, an example of how politics and reality consistently collide.
I have a friend who owns a church. She and her husband are both ex-addicts, who found salvation through God, and realized, at some point, that they were both charismatic and persuasive spokespeople for their brand of evangelical Christianity. Over time, and with extraordinary success, they acquired a huge following, and made a ton of money, enough to build a big church and to raise their 5 children in a large and luxurious home.
This is not to say that they are fake or greedy. On the contrary, they are very genuine, and they have legitimately “saved” many people, who otherwise would likely have spiraled downward into hopelessness.
Their brand of salvation is both conservative and empathetic. They are both rich and charitable. They are both sophisticated and religious. I often find my friend’s love for expensive shoes to be at odds with her missionary zeal. Her children have worked in some of the most poverty-stricken areas of the world.
I have no idea who she voted for. And I don’t care.
My father in-law was a member of an extremely fringe evangelical christian church. Not very far to the left of Westboro Baptist church.
These are people that I loath – possibly more than those on the left.
The minister whose values I can not stand, whose vile sermons I have on occasion been forced to listen to, and this church were there repeatedly, when my father-in-law needed them.
They were there when he moved from his house – and was to old to do it himself. They were there when he moved again later. They were there when he developed cancer. they were there when he was dying. They were even there for my wife and I despite the fact that they knew we share almost nothing with them in terms of faith.
I still can not stand to listen to anything those from this church say.
I am not sure whether I consider myself christian. But I do have faith in a god.
We are expected to feed the hungry give drink to the thirsty, invite in strangers (and immigrants – even muslims) cloth those without care for the sick and visit those in prison
Whatever my father-in-laws church preached, they lived Matthew 25:31-46.
One of the problems I have with the left, is that they do not.
They preach concern for others. But their religion does not demand that from themselves.
Their god, government is supposed to steal from others in their name, in the hope of helping people, while they do nothing.
I sometimes encounter people from the left who are feeding the hungry or helping immigrants. I respect those who act according to their beleifs.
One of the huge problems with the left is that its fixation on emotion confuses intention with action. Who is the better person ? The one who talks about helping others, and demands that everyone else should do so, but does nothing themselves, of the person who preaches hate but is there when people are in need ?
“Supply and demand!!!!!!!! If there is a large supply (labor) and low demand (job openings) the price goes down. ”
I have a somewhat different take on supply and demand…if people have no money to buy your product, there is no demand so you need no supply. Therefore you are not hiring workers at any price. But I doubt you will read that in any economics book. They are written by business owners, and the ones I’ve looked in make little or no mention of workers. They don’t want us to know we might be more important than we think we are. Which actually is killing this nation economically right now.
I have become really really big on BALANCE. (isn’t that what we should be striving for as centrists???) IMHO, our economy is out of whack because most of the money is stuck at the top. When we had the strongest middle class, it was more fairly distributed. Not evenly distributed…that is too far left. The middle is somewhere between the conservative “everyone is 100% responsible for their own destiny” and a “nanny” state. Neither extreme is good.
The law of supply and demand is immutable it is not subject to your “Take”.
Adam Smith wrote the most important economics book ever, he was not a business person.
He was a teacher like you, but primarily of social and moral philosophy.
“if people have no money to buy your product, there is no demand so you need no supply. Therefore you are not hiring workers at any price.”
What you offer is a correct application of the law of supply and demand.
Given that we have about 95% employment at the moment that means, BY YOUR OWN ASSERTION – that people do have the money to buy products.
BTW the people running business are extremely aware of precisely what you have asserted – and more.
McD’s knows the exact effect on the profit margin and sales of every penny change in price of any burger they sell.
They know quite well that selling a million burgers at $0.05 profit each is better than selling 700,000 at $0.06 profit each.
Walmart as an example only make on average 1.5% profit on each sale.
They know that they will sell far more goods if they keep prices low.
They also know that if they can sell everything in the store 4 times a year that a 1.5% profit per sale is a 6% overall profit on the money the have invested.
Put simply businessmen already understand far better than you the thing you are trying to argue – that often you can do better by selling something for less.
Ah, yes, everything is a conspiracy, businesses are deliberately trying to keep you stupid.
Get a clue – what you know and do not know is your responsibility.
IF you think there is something you might want to know – go learn it.
While there is no conspiracy of businesses to keep you stupid.
Even if there were it would be ineffective as you are free to find out whatever you want.
No you are not big on “balance”.
Free markets self balance. It is a requirement. The law of supply and demand is just one example.
What you are big on is CONTROL.
You are opposed to having markets work things out on their own.
You are opposed to businesses trying to figure out what you want and need and how they need to produce it so that you will buy more (which means figuring out how to sell it for less).
What you want is to have government impose your idea of how the economy ought to work on all of us by force.
That is CONTROL not balance.
Still confused about money.
The way that those at the top accumulate money is by providing the rest of us with the wealth we want and need.
There is no other way.
If as you say money was statically clogged at the top the market would seize and growth would stop.
As to your claim that at some time in the past money was distributed better.
I provided you a link to a moving graph of the distribution of income over time starting in 1971.
Please identify what time period since 1971 you think that income was “better” distributed that today. What the data shows is that the middle class has been “hollowed out” because they have become more wealthy. That in 1970 we had something close to a tall bell curve with a tail for the rich and an relatively low peak. Today the curve is flatter and most of us have much higher income than in 1971 and the tail is taller.
Too me that is a much better income distribution. Nearly all of us are much better off.
“he was a cut throat capitalist in the flesh when it came to his own business and workers” hypocrisy does not respect political class…in my neighborhood those that speak the loudest about Jesus are the greediest.
You are correct that whatever regulation is imposed will either be co-opted or circumvented.
You can attribute that to malevolence if you wish. Regardless it is outside your ability to alter.
I would suggest that you think of it more as the normal workings of economics.
It is like newtons laws of motion – for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Whatever laws you pass to push the economy will automatically generate pushback.
It is completely unavoidable.
It is inherent in the way that economies work. It is not changeable.
It is even inherent in how we want them to work.
The objective both of business and of society is to create more value at lower human cost.
When government increases cost the natural operation of the market will be to find some way to circumvent that increased cost.
The businessmen you think are acting “evil” are doing exactly what they would do if the price of steel rose or of grain or …
They would be finding the way to get ahead – to produce more value at lower cost regardless of whatever is increased.
Anything short of an infinitely powerful entity will inevitably result in the same results.
The fact is – though the economy is dynamic – everything is always in dynamic equalibrium – or close to it. You can not push water up hill. When you try to force the economy all you do is end up with a different – less efficient equilibrium.
Less efficient means – lower overall standard of living.
The effort of government to make things better – do make some things better for some people – though only rarely the people intended in the way intended. But the net is still a lower standard of living for all.
Yes, corporations work to create value for shareholders, and that is exactly what we want them to do – so long as they are prohibited from using force or fraud.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Adam Smith
Small business is no different from big business here.
Wages are set by the same forces that set every single price – the laws of supply and demand.
The same forces that continuously try to drive the price computers, TVs, and gas down – drive the price of labor down. The same forces that drive those same prices up – drive the price of labor up.
Over the long run the only change in the relationship between the price of labor and the price of everything is our ability to produce more with less effort.
That increases the value of labor relative to the price of everything else.
And it is only the ratio that matters – absolute prices are irrelevant – only the changes in relative prices.
And by that measure – we have ever increasing ability to purchase more of what we want and need.
My Nephew is at Stanford studying for a doctorate in philosophy.
He is almost as far left as you can go. His diatribes against capitalism are vile and frothing.
When he is home, he helps his mother (my sister) with a rental property she has.
Suddenly her tenants are lazy good for nothing bums – not “the most vulnerable among us”.
I can not grasp haw someone who is smart can cope with the cognative disonance.
It is still not and never was sustainably possible to pay people more than they produce – period.
Standard of living rises BY DEFINITION when we produce greater value with less human effort.
If you dick arround with wages as you wish at best you accomplish nothing beyond devalunig currency – and who really cares if you are paid $15/hr if that will only buy what 7.25 does today. More likely you increase low skilled unemployment and decrease medium skilled unemployment.
If I own a McD’s and must pay my workers $15/hr – then I am going to fire those not worth $15 and hire more people who are.
You do not seem to grasp that the fast food industry employment model is based on hiring an excess of low wage low skill labor at low prices. They can make a fast food resturant work just as well with much fewer higher skilled higher wage people.
They deliberately choose otherwise – because there is a large surplus of low skill labor.
If you do as you wish you will increase that surplus screwing the very people you wish to help.
This is a real and growing problem in the US – though the same problem exists and is worse in most of europe.
Because of minimum wage laws, entry level employment is reduced dramatically and low skill low wage workers have by far the highest unemployment.
BTW this was not always true. It was not true at all before MW laws.
Not only that but MW has increase minority and your unemployment.
It does not matter what you think.
The real world data demonstrates that you are wrong.
I find the comments that have recently been posted very interesting in that everyone seems to agree (without actually saying it) that we have a problem with income in America and especially for the poor. But no one can agree on the casue.
Roby made the comment that Europe has done a much better job at identifying at an earlier time those that go to college and those that get trade training.
Dave has said many times your life is in your own hands and you make of it what you put into it.
Priscilla has talked about personal responsibility.
And Moogie has mentioned government mandated living wage numerous times.
And I am going to go off on my tangent again and say government is the problem, not the solution. We are all born with an innate ability. Some have very artistic abilities, while others are lucky to draw a straight line. Some are very good at figures, while others are lucky to add 2+2. Some good with science and then some able to do things with wood, metal, plastics and other natural resources that the artist, scientist and mathematician could only dream of doing.
We had an educational system until sometime in the 70’s that nurtured all of these innate abilities. There were a number of college prep course tracks that prepared students that were going to college. Then there was the tracks that provided students with a basic education along with training with metals, wood, engines, auto body repair, etc. Every student that graduated had something they could use to prepare for the future. College prep students went to college. The others came out and had basic training to become apprentices in a field of their choice. A handful of students compared to the thousands of graduates did not graduate and they were the ones that ended up working at a restaurant, hotel cleaning rooms or other menial jobs requiring no education. They either made that choice themselves as they had some useful training for all in high school or they had some mental deficiency making learning difficult.
Fast forward to today and for the past 40+ years and EVERYONE is going to college. In NC everyone has to take the SAT exams regardless. Many other states require this also. So here are the hundreds of kids that are sitting in algebra, biology, and whatever other college prep class that have no desire to go to college and they are bored to death. They have no outlet to voice their frustration with a system that is letting them down. They see how their friends turned out, jobless, selling drugs, etc because they had no hope for the future, all because the educational system was not answering their needs.Preparing them for a job that paid good money when they graduated from high school.
Now Dave is going to say this individual makes his own way. It is up to him to find the training. It is up to him/her to get the motivation to move out of the ghetto and find work that pays a good wage. Moogie is going to say that these individuals working at McDonalds or at the Hilton cleaning rooms need to make twice what they are making and government needs to dictate that living wage.
And the cycle continues because we are not training the kids with innate abilities working with their hands. What we hear today is more technical training for computer programming, website development, etc. THAT IS BS. We need to reach all kids with all abilities and provide an education for all of them, not just those the elite have designed education to reach.
You will get no argument from me about education. I was a teacher in urban, suburban and rural high schools. I have 2 college educated parents and went to a high school where everyone not only went to college but graduated from college & I wonder how many got advanced degrees. I never thought much about NOT going…even tho in looking back I would have done better at a technical trade. I love to take things apart and put them back together. Now I can’t find any handymen to fix stuff, and the youngest one I know is 43.
But here’s the rub; wages are down so much that those people are not making a middle class living anymore. The low bottom is pulling everyone else down. I know plenty of mechanics, electricians, plumbers, construction workers, welders, I’d say even police, firemen and definitely teachers are barely getting by. I also taught GED for awhile to older adults…but the jobs they can get are still low wage.
I’m sorry but conservatives whole premise – is that the USA is just filled with huge numbers of lazy people living off the government. This is the huge lie perpetuated by the right. And they mostly mean POC, although that is never said outloud. This is how they keep working people divided and voting against their best economic interest. There are huge numbers of discouraged people like me that cannot make a basic living, much less a middle class living, because wages are so low. But there are absolutely NO huge numbers of lazy people out there. Never has been. Because conservatives live, work, read and breathe nothing but privilege, they stay misinformed. They don’t mingle among people like my neighbors.
When people stay so misinformed as to the condition of most of this nation, we cannot have an intelligent conversation about fixing the problems. Conservatives deny there is wealth inequality, deny that more than half the population is not making enough to live on, deny that many people are not given even a fighting chance to be successful in this world. He keeps going back to the “personal responsibility” BS that is always used to justify cheating people. The only single way to get back to prosperity is to force corporate American to go back to being moral – that is paying a living wage. The reason we saw the strongest middle class ever after WWII was they partially were more moral and partially because we had laws to distribute the wealth more fairly. It always makes me laugh that when working people want more pay that conservatives cry that its wealth “re-distribution”. But unfortunately many suckers fall for that explanation.
If the people at the top were not hogging all the money, we wouldn’t have so many problems. Pay well and people can afford all their own food, all their own medical care, all their own housing. Government handouts don’t cause a “permanent underclass” lack of good pay does.
Moogie you are stuck on government intervention and bad moral positions of corporations.
“The reason we saw the strongest middle class ever after WWII was they partially were more moral and partially because we had laws to distribute the wealth more fairly. ”
I offer a different perspective which is documented in many articles. During the depression people could not afford to buy much other than to keep themselves alive. During WW2 people could not buy much because everything was going to the war effort. My dad was “frozen” in his job at an appliance manufacturer (GE) during WW2. That plant had made small appliances and during the war was shifted to producing weapons. There were no cars built in America from about late 1941 to late 45 or early 46. The government not only controlled prices, what could be produced, they also controlled where millions of Americans worked.
When WW2 ended, all the plants that had been shifted to the military effort shifted back to producing consumer goods. Demand was at an all time high since people had not been able to buy much for over 15 years due to the depression and the war. The need for labor was at a high due to the demand that was created and that began to drive up wages, along with the unions demand for better wages and better benefits. The unions were strong since so much of the products sold in America where made in America and labor was hard to get in many cases. Government had a very small role in that economic increase. The demand for houses did increase due to the VA backing loans for the solders that had returned and the small tract homes became a fixture in Americas suburban neighborhoods. Nice 2 bedroom, one bath homes with an attached garage for one car on small lots with fenced in yards. What could be better than that. Try selling that to the current generation!
Now we have the government sign trade agreements where China can tack on high tariffs on American goods and we have open borders with no tariffs. Harley Davidson motorcycles face a 30% tariff. Electronic devices 30% and even Raisins 35%. Cadillacs face a 22% tariff and Jeeps a 18% tariff. Even diapers have a 2% tariff added. So is that fair to the American worker? I don’t think so and that is why there is so many people in lower paid jobs because the good jobs have left!!!!!!!!
It’s simple!!!!!!!! Supply and demand!!!!!!!! If there is a large supply (labor) and low demand (job openings) the price goes down. And when corporations are producing revenues at an all time high and their overseas cost are at an all time low, then they will be making all time profits. So how do we fairly distribute income when the income comes from overseas employment and production????
So you keep talking about how unfair corporations are to the American manufacturing worker (what few there are left compared to many years ago) and I will keep harping on the piss poor government policies that so many are enamored with that have been a significant contributor to the economic decline of the middle class worker.
And the plumbers, electricians, welders, teachers and others you mention about low wages. Are they employed by the mutli-national corporations that are making billions in profits? I suspect most of them are working for small mom and pop businesses that are barely making a profit themselves due to high regulations and taxes on their businesses.
profits have been relatively high since 2009 because there is very very little reinvestment.
Adjust for that and profits are actually at an all time low – not high.
In fact we have been in the midst of a capital strike for nearly a decade.
Government policies have made investment unattractive. This has funneled money towards government bonds – lowering interest rates – making investment even less attractive.
We are actually in a very dangerous trap of governments making.
Should the economy actually get started – investment will increase – profits will decrease – because more money will be invested for the future, and interest rates will rise.
And that will rapidly put government in an incredible bind, a few percent increase in the rates for government bonds would double our deficit.
BTW profits as percent of revenues or as a percent of GDP are not high.
That BTW should not be that surprising.
As I have said before, any business making a profit beyond what is justified by risk will draw competition and investment like flies until the balance is restored.
The laws of supply and demand are immutable, they apply to profits and investment just lake wages and all other prices.
If you beleive that the people who run business are either inherently evil or atleast prone to evil – why would those in government be inherently better ?
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
To whatever extent each of us beleives that businesses are motivated by evil. that same problem must be true to the same of greater extent in government.
I am concerned about what an evil business person might do.
I am terrified by what evil can and is done through government.
I am also shocked that when government is caught doing vile things those on the left either dismiss it. blame it on the right, or push the idiocy that all would be fine if we just had better leaders.
Whether it is flipping burgers at McD’s, Managing a multinational company or governing, we must make do with people as they are.
McD’s must make its franchises work with the people that it can actually hire – not mythically perfect people who are high skilled, punctual, polite, and low wage.
Whatever the skills necessary to get elected to office or hired as a bureaucrat in this country – competence and trustworthyness are not among those.
The profits of mom and pop organizations are far higher as a percentage than multinationals.
The risk of mom and pops is far higher and as I keep saying the rate of return on an investment must be proportional to risk.
Ron, your comment makes me think of the sacrifices that our parents made, and how the concept of sacrifice has been degraded.
“Having it all” is the greater value in Western society today.
“I suspect most of them are working for small mom and pop businesses that are barely making a profit themselves due to high regulations and taxes on their businesses.” Poppycock. They are not making the money they would because over half the population does not have enough money to spend. When more is spent, more can be made.
“Having it all” is the greater value in Western society today. – Working class people would like enough money just to pay the basic bills at this point. I know I would. That too is nonsense.
Do government regulation need to change? They sure as hell do. But they will never change under conservatives. Conservatives WANT high unemployment, which leads to low pay. They are quite content with the economy the way it is. They want the money to stay at the top, where they can control things.
There are comments all the time in this thread about the laziness of today’s younger people, and how they are not sacrificing enough. What rot. Those of us born in the 60s are among the “older” of the young people you are talking about. I made sacrifices, along with my parents for a degree that hasn’t paid off. I’ve worked hard and stayed broke. And not for the stupid reasons conservatives always give – I’ve never owned a fancy car, never taken a vacation abroad (or anywhere fancy – limited to going where I know people already to save on hotel rooms.) The last 6 years I’ve been limited to overnight camping for the most part. I’ve had cable tv for 4 years of my adult life. I just got a smartphone this year, more for work than because I wanted one. I’ve only collected retirement during the years I taught full time (and one other job) so a total of about 13 years. The interest paid has never been what my parents & grandparents got.
And you have to remember our children are the Millennials you love to disparage. They have been watching what happened to their parents. What reason have we given them to work hard? The only people it pays off for are those at the top.
And because working class people keep listening to conservative “media” and their constant BS, I’m afraid we are stuck for many years to come. “Left” ideas that help the working class simply cannot afford the media that would reach enough people. The country has been gerrymander so badly that we may never get to vote in people who would fight for us again in my life time. Those under 30 that listen to me are always surprised that my ideas are sensible…because out here they hear only lock step conservative extremism. “Abortion must be outlawed!” instead of “Prevention!” “Millennials are lazy!” instead of “wages have gone down for 40 years”. Sadly, they talk about their own generation as badly as adults do.
It is one thing to work hard and get ahead. It is quite another to work hard and still have a bare minimum existence. I’ve been doing it for 15 years now.
You have really bizarre ideas. I am not a conservative.
But I do not see any evidence that conservatives want what you claim.
Unemployment was nearly 11% at the end of Carters presidency.
It was below 6 at the end of Reagan’s
Black unemployment was above 20%, and ended below 10%.
If Reagan and conservatives wanted high unemployment – he failed
At the start of Reagan’s presidency Labor force participation was 64% at the end it was 66.5%
The economy we have now is the economy the left wants.
Trump – if you are identifying him as conservative – clearly wants and promised a different one.
We will see whether he can deliver.
If he does not – maybe you have a point.
But if he does, then you need to explain why Trump was able to do what Obama was not.
I think you are completely wrong regarding the economy.
It is progressives that want the economy we have now.
The left wants the rich to have less – even if that means all of us are poorer.
The left wants all of us to be equal in our misery.
I do not care much if some of us are way more prosperous than others – so long as nearly all of us prosper.
I do not recall claiming anyone was lazy – not kids, not the poor.
Frankly I do not care whether people work to get ahead or not.
Freedom means the freedom to be what others might call “lazy”.
I do think and have argued that people get – byt whatever measure you wish, what they pursue. If what you value is money and you chase after money doggedly, you will get it.
That BTW does not mean those who do not have as much money as you are lazy.
It means they valued other things and did not work so hard specifically for money.
What I have a problem with is people whining that they or others are entitled to something they will not bother to make an effort to get.
You are free to choose whatever values you want. Getting them is your job.
Whining is not an answer.
You have already said you threw away two teaching jobs over football.
That is a choice you are free to make – but you are not free to have a world where your choices have no consequences.
If money is what you value – there are plenty fo ways to do better than you have.
I have shown you some – but there are many more.
But I do not think that money is actually what you value.
I think that is self evident from the fact that you do not take the opportunities to get it.
That does not make you lazy. But it does make the fact that you do not have much money a natural consequence of your relatively low value of it compared to other things.
What I see you as whining about is that you have freely made your own choices form those that were available to you, and you wish there had been a different result.
Where you could magically have more money without having to strive for it.
Regardless, please note who here has called any others lazy ?
Conservative media !? – right. And the moon is made of green cheese.
Oh, god not the stupid gerrymandering argument.
Here is a map of US counties and how they voted.
Absent a forced relocation program moving democrats to suburban and rural communities how exactly is it that you play on creating political districts that do not result in republicans controlling things.
There are 52 republican senators and 48 democrats. Any Senate “gerrymandering” was done by our founders two centuries ago.
According to Gallop 11 states are solid democrat, 3 lean democrat. 8 lean GOP and 12 are solid GOP for a GOP net of +6 – that should result in 44 democratic senators and 56 republicans.
States have elected 34 republican governors, and 1 independent and 15 democrats.
Again any gerrymandering was done two centuries ago.
Republicans control 31 state senates and 1 unicameral legislature. There is 1 tie, and 3 coalition senates. with 14 democratic Senates.
There are 31 GOP state houses. and 17 Democratic.
There is only one state where democrats control most of the rest of the state offices but republics control the House of representatives for that state. That would be colorado were republicans have a one seat advantage.
Wisconsin is the only state where republicans control much of the state and federal government positions, but the population leans (very very slightly) democratic.
For generations each generation is getting slightly more narcissistic than the previous generation.
I think it was true of my parents compared to their parents, it was true of mine compared to my parents – even if I hope it was not true of myself, it is true of my own children in comparison to their parents – and it is much worse in their peers.
Social scientists have observed the same trend.
I beleive it has been ongoing even further back than I have described.
I beleive it is a consequence of the fact that each generation is better off than the last.
That each generation sees things the prior generation had to fight for as rights.
Moogie, what do you think will happen when left wing politicians that you favor, and who use the rhetoric that you prefer, are back in power? We don’t have to go too far back to see what it might be like, since the last time there was a progressive president with a progressive Congress was 2009-2010. And what did they do?
Did they enact the “living wage” so favored by Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren (both very rich, by the way, and not through “working hard”)?
Nope. They spent an entire year and a half enacting a government takeover of the healthcare system ( which largely benefited big insurance and big pharma and raised taxes) that is now imploding, and an economic “stimulus” that was, in reality, a bailout for big unions. Did they help people like you? Did they
We go back and forth between GOP and Dems and still nothing important gets solved. It’s time to look at the two parties as fundamentally the same, only with different rhetoric. Did Bernie run third party, after he was cheated out of the Democrat nomination? No, he was bought off with a $600,000 new vacation home (his 3rd home, btw) and we haven’t heard a peep from him.
Has Trump drained the swamp? Hardly. I’m giving him more time, but, increasingly, it seems as if he’s being “moderated” by more establishment voices in his administration, and that means that his populist economic agenda will likely be sidelined.
Government doesn’t care about you. It doesn’t care about me. The more government tries to “help” the more it mucks things up. Reagan was right when he said that “the most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
alot to agree with.
“And because working class people keep listening to conservative “media” and their constant BS, I’m afraid we are stuck for many years to come. “Left” ideas that help the working class simply cannot afford the media that would reach enough people.”
Ah the media, now its too conservative, there is another big group of people who think its liberal.
Moogie you are Dave’s mirror image. Dave bitterly rants about liberals and the left and you bitterly rant about conservatives.
I don’t see that either of you have any realistic answers and you both have highly distorted views of the problems, their causes and their solutions. Listening to you and Dave debate is remarkable. You are both so passionately wrong.
There is no 50% of the population that can’t buy anything. If so, Walmart would close. THey are doing bang up business. Armed with a badly described problem you will find only bad solutions.
Now if you wanted to say that there is a part of the population that can’t buy a house and is trapped all life renting and never accumulates any wealth (savings, etc.) you would have something worth talking about, thinking about.
You and Dave both give me an enormous headache.
I rant about the left at the moment because they are the most dangerous threat to the country.
I would not call Trump “conservative” though alot of people do.
I think I have been clear that several of his policies are stupid and offend me deeply.
Frankly, I am not sure exactly what conservative means anymore.
The culture wars appear to be over – and though the left was wrong on the solutions, they are right on the problem, while the right was just wrong.
Should things turn and issues like actual equal rights for various minorities become a real serious problem again – you will find me attacking the right.
I am deeply opposed to Sessions and what he is doing in DOJ regarding policing.
Though I am disppointed in Obama and the left because there was a real opportunity for reform and Obama wasted it on temporary racial nonsense rather than striving for real and permanent change.
Now Sessions is undoing what Obama did, which fixated on intent rather than action.
Roby If you think I am wrong about something I would be happy to debate it – with facts, logic and reason.
Home ownership in the US has historically been about 64%.
It spiked to 65% in the 70’s before interest rates drove it back down.
Starting in the 90’s both parties conspired and drove it up to 69% in 2006
that would be the “housing bubble”
That bursting lead to the great recession.
I am not opposed to seeing higher rates of home ownership in the US – particularly for the working class. I think little makes us more responsible that figuring out how to hold onto a home.
But I am vigorously opposed to government trying to foster home ownership.
As I am opposed to government trying to nudge us into changing our minds about anything we might want.
If the free market – without outside tinkering figures out how to persuade more people to own homes – that will be a sustainable change.
If it is done from the outside it is dangerous and fragile and ultimately destructive.
Regardless at the moment home ownership is about 65% – that is above the historical average.
Boy, you two think you have it rough. Try being a moderate. All the political energy in the country is found in the warring right and left fanatics selling their distorted problems and dumb answers, throwing dung at each other. That’s what a moderate has to listen to, day in and day out. I could be very bitter too, but its a waste of my life. Its a beautiful day, I’m going out and enjoy it and leave Moogie and Dave, two broken records, to expound their ideological war to each other!
If handymen are in actual demand – then there wages will be high – unless supply is also very high.
Anything there is a shortage of that we actually value will comand a high price – until there is no longer a shortage.
That is the law of supply and demand. It is immutable.
contra your claims, it has not failed, but it does punish the stupidity of the left when it arrogantly thinks it can circumvent it.
BTW I have very little trouble finding “handymen”.
I have trouble affording them.
If you know mechanics, plumbers etc – barely getting by – you have not hired a plumber recently.
Police and firemen are unbeleivably well paid for a job that does nto require a college education.
Teachers are well paid for a job that does not come close to requiring the 2200 hours per year that most of us work and the almost 3000 that most actual professionals work.
The average welder makes 40K/year The top 10% of welders make 61K/year that is again pretty good for a job that requires no college.
You keep trying to tell everyone else what they think.
While I am not conservative – you still think that the right media is my source for everything.
You also seem to think that I think anyone who is not middle class is lazy.
I would suggest rereading my remarks.
There is an enormous difference between people tend to get what they choose and they are lazy.
I do not as an example know whether you are “lazy” or not – and I do not really care.
I do know that if your objective is more money – you have lots of options.
But I have zero problem with your choosing not to pursue them
But I have big problems with your whining that you are not better off when if that is what you want that choice is available to you.
What I really beleive specifically related to you, is that you are unhappy – and that you choose to be unhappy. I grasp that can be an appealing rut to be in. I have been there myself.
But you do not get to blame everyone else for it.
You still do not understand money.
I would sugest another book to you.
Hernado De Soto’s “The mystery of Capitalism:Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere else”
A clue. I keep saying again and again,
standard of living rises when we produce more value with less human effort.
Is the word “money” in that sentence anywhere ?
Not only doesn’t it matter how much “money’ the super rich accumulate, in general the rest of us are better off the more money the super rich have.
Money is acquire by exchanging actual wealth for it.
There is no means for the uber rich to accumulate silo’s of money – without creating far greater value for the rest of us.
The more money the uber rich have – the more actual wealth the rest of us have.
I would also refer you to Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations.
250 years ago Smith figured the same thing out.
In that era “gold” was the penultimate money.
Over the course of 3 centuries Spain accumulated vast amounts of gold and silver.
And while doing so went from the worlds only super power to a minor eurpoean nation.
The more gold and silver they accumulated the WORSE off they got.
One of the premises of WON is that the accumulation of gold and silver was the CAUSE of spains decline. Why ? Because money is not wealth. It has value because it can be converted to wealth – but the objective is still wealth, not money.
Adn again the means of accumulating gobs and gobs of money is to create actual wealth for others.
For every $ that Warren Buffett or Bill Gates possesses someone else has atleast a $ worth of actual wealth.
This is also why government fails. Because it is NOT true that for every $ that govenrment has someone else must have atleast a $ of actual wealth.
Government confiscates money. It does not have to produce value to acquire it.
here is how peoples ability to afford things has changed over the past 50, 100 years.
Again please tell me why this is not exactly what we would want to happen over time ?
Please tell me why this does not mean that we are better off rather than worse.
Or would you rather go back to spending nearly 50% of what you earn for housing that is far crappier than today.
To be clear the only problem I see that we have with income regarding the poor – is that stupid laws like minimum wage laws decrease the employment of the least skilled.
That is it. The free market – left actually free, will always seek to make the best use – and that means the best paid use of whatever labor is available.
All available labor will always be free to work to increase its skill level – and therefore the price it can command.
Freedom does NOT mean that everyone will get the maximum wages they possibly can.
People will always be free to choose less than their highest paid use.
And that is a GOOD thing not a bad.
I choose to make less by living where and how I do.
I am conscious of that. but it is a choice not something forced on me.
While individuals are responsible for their own lives – the free market is not made solely of individuals seeking employment.
Those who need labor are the other side of the market.
Contra what you claimed I would say – much training is done by or through employers – not employees.
There are myriads of companies like Catepilar that are short on welders, or milling machine operators or ….
These fund programs to produce people with the skills they need.
Businesses do not depend on magic to assure that people will choose to pursue the skills they need. They rely on incentives – higher wages or subsidizing training programs.
I have said people are free to make their own choices – and others are free to offer them incentives to choose in the way they would prefer.
I am doing more architectural work today than I was in the past decade.
I do not enjoy it as much. It does not pay quite as well, but it is easier for me to get the contract work that I want in that area than in embedded software.
So I am responding to incentives.
Because among other things I like going to dinner and theater with my wife, or being able to fix my car when it breaks down, or being able to pay my mortgage.
So I sometimes do things that I would prefer less because they get me other things I prefer more.
That works both ways. Unless I am bankrupt – the next time a tenant leaves me an apartment full of bags full of used baby diapers – I will pay someone else to dispose of them.
Further there are lots of tasks around my home that I do not like, if I can get enough work – and if someone else will do them at a price I will choose to afford – I will pay them rather than do those myself.
And that is what we want. Each of us should be seeking to do as much o what we love the most, and pays the most as possible, and hiring others to do what we dislike.
We can not always acheive that. Government interference makes that worse not better.
We here more technical training because that is what business needs.
I have no problems with people wanting to work with their hands.
But the jobs we will have are those producing the things people want and need.
If you want more jobs for people making custom furniture – you need to change what people want.
The changes over time are quite interesting. I deliberately chose embedded software over web development about 10 years ago – I am very good at software of anykind – just as there are other things – like human languages that I suck at.
But I found myself competing with web developers from the Ukraine and India for work at a couple of dollars a day. I figured that embedded software developement would be harder,. better paying and less competive. Mostly that has proved true.
But over the same time period – web development has shifted back to the US.
Starting salaried for people who are not very good are in the upper 5 figures.
People with talent are very commonly in six figures.
While there are far fewer people who can do embedded development, there is actually far more jobs for web developers – as a result pay is high for work I consider relatively easy.
Regardless – left alone the market will strive to find the highest use for ALL labor – regardless of what its skills are.
That does not means everyone will get the job they want. It does not even mean they will get the one they are personally best at.
The big problem with government interference in the job market is that it makes it harder for no skill and low skill workers to get started so that they can build their value and skill.
“Government doesn’t care about you. It doesn’t care about me. The more government tries to “help” the more it mucks things up.”
And you too Priscilla. Not moderate. That just Dave’s basic views stated less fanatically. I protest. The CETA program Helped me and many others! Lots of government does work no matter what you and Dave believe. Take away foods stamps, the quintessential government trying to help and you will soon learn that it makes life possible for both many elderly and many military families. Being able to say that Nobody starves in America is worth feeding some moochers as well.
Fair enough. I’m not advocating the end of government, and I absolutely believe in safety nets for those who are in dire straits (not the rock group, though).
What I am against is the continued growth of government. And the interference of government into the private sector, not to mention the dangerous intrusion into the private lives of private citizens. (This is a whole other topic, but I’ll say, for the record, that I have nothing to hide, and I am not against the collection of meta data for national security purposes, provided that a warrant is obtained).
Prior to the passage of Obamacare, studies showed that about 85% of Americans were generally satisfied with the healthcare system. But rather than address the concerns of the 15% for whom it was not working, the government chose a massive overhaul of the entire system, and that decision has caused havoc, not only in the healthcare sector, but throughout the political world. That’s what I’m talking about.
The Constitution was written specifically to restrict and limit the power of the federal government. In certain areas, the President and Congress have broad powers. Controlling access to healthcare is not one of them. Nor is mandating living wages.
And, government does not care about individuals. It’s not meant to care ~ individuals have to care for themselves. And try their damndest to make sure that they care for their fellow citizens in the best way that they can ~ even if that just means driving safely, being charitable, etc. That’s what I meant in my response to Moogie.
Voting for Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders may change some things. But it won’t change the essential truth that more government will generally muck things up. If that makes me immoderate, well, I guess the whole definition of moderate has changed……..
I am hard pressed to say I beleive in government safetynets at all.
The evidence – despite Robbies assertion is that the do not work.
That the losers significantly outnumber the winners.
And by losers I do not mean rich people with less money.
Regardless, the body of people in “dire straites” in the US today is tiny to the point of non-existance.
Finally, I have no problem with helping people.
I am opposed to GOVERNMENT helping people.
It is not its job. It is not something it is good at.
I do nto think private charity does it well – though private charity is perfectly fine with me.
But government does charity abysmally.
Roby, I do not doubt that CETA helped you. Nor that it helped some others.
As I have noted before if you spend $4T some good must come of it.
But an awful lot of bad comes too.
Must we continue to fund every single govenrment program that has ever benefited a handful of people regardless of the cost ?
There have been myriads of studies of job training programs over the years – even the Danes studied their programs.
I do not beleive a single study has ever found a net benefit.
The Danes as an example discovered that increased spending on training in one region resulted in people in that region getting more jobs – but it found that there were losses in the other regions exactly equal to the gains.
All that really changed was who got the jobs. Not how many jobs there were.
The US studies have nearly unequivocally found that govenrment job training programs on the WHOLE make those participating in the LESS able to get a job.
Clearly there are individual exceptions.
We had something similar with Section 8.
The original section 8 Experiment was carried out at Cabrini Green.
The federal govenrment brought in the best administrators, the best social workers, the best psychologists and they studied applicants and picked those they thought would benefit the most.
And the pilot program was an unbeleivable success.
Then they applied it nationwide.
Now ordinary administrators, and ordinary social workers were working with ordinary poor people and what we are finding is Section 8 is destroying the communities of the working poor.
It is litterally relocating drug dealers and gangs from housing projects into successful working class minority neighborhoods and destroying them.
“Moogie is unhappy with her life.”
Typical conservative hogwash. Because I fight to right the wrongs of society/government, I am unhappy with my life. What baloney.
I am angry at what has been done to the working class since 1980 when Reagan took over and insisted on the “trickle down theory” which has failed to trickle down … destroying the working/middle class. That is what has happened – the working class is no longer middle class. And conservative policies of “cheap labor” are what got us here. There can be no such thing as cheap labor – for you cannot have a robust economy with most people not earning good wages. Again, that is why we had such a huge middle class after WWII. Yes, everyone was ready to buy goods…but they had money to buy them!!! If they hadn’t, the economy wouldn’t have flourished!
The lies that you tell in this thread are ungodly, and I just thank GOD you don’t claim to be a “Christian” like so many conservatives. You deny Income Inequality. You deny that some people come from more fortunate circumstances than others. You deny some are more talented/gifted than others. You quote news sources that perpetuate these lies. I’m sure you deny that racism, sexism, classism have anything to do with a person’s status in life. And although we have not discussed it, I’m sure you would claim there is no such thing as “luck”.
You are one of those hypocritical people that no matter what happens, it is the individuals fault that they don’t “succeed”. No matter how many advantages you have other others, it is always you amazing character that got you where you are. I’ve lost count of the number of arrogant conservatives like you I have met, and it still never ceases to flabbergast me that you can be so oblivious to the real world. Clueless, not matter how hard it beats at your door.
My appraisal of your happiness is based on your own posts.
Regardless, how would you interpret “I worked hard all my life and have nothing to show” ?
Since 1980 the wealth of every quintile has doubled – your angry about that ?
Technically you can not destroy a quintile – 20% of us will always be in the bottom quintile.
20% in the next, …
What has happened is that all the quintiles have gotten wider.
That means the range from the bottom income to the top income is greater in each quintile.
Which means the average income for each quintile is higher.
The curve is also overall flatter and longer.
I can not conceive that there is something different you would want had you deliberately chosen.
Regardless you continue to fixate on money.
It is not the wage you are paid that matters, but what you can buy for that wage.
Someone earning the minimum wage can buy more than double what they could in 1980.
Therefore if the MW was liveable in 1980 it is even more liveable today.
Raising the MW will not accomplish what you want.
But it will result in a long chain of economic adjustments that will likely leave the very people you are trying to help worse off than before.
If you are going to call someone a liar you had better be prepared to back it up.
When you call someone else a liar – you commit to “one” of the two of you being of low moral character.
You are making the accusation. The burden of proof is on you.
Please identify any fact I have asserted that is false.
I will be happy to prove otherwise.
I go to a great deal of effort to get my facts right.
If those on the left would only do the same there would be no argument.
I do not “deny income inequality” I reject the stupid claims the left makes regarding income that they call “income inequality”.
I do nto deny that we are not equal.
I have quite strongly asserted it repeatedly.
Our society would not work if we were.
Regardless, it is what it is and we must accept it.
I do not deny that some get a better start than others.
I do deny that I or my children have any consequential advantage as a consequence of our parents.
I do not deny that they are not “equal”. No one is equal.
I doubt your daughter as as good at all things medical as mine,
or your son is as good at all things musical.
I could be wrong, but I would be surprised.
I have constantly asserted that some people are smarter, some people are more handsome, some people are more talented, some people are more ambitious.
But that is mostly genetics.
Are you trying to claim I gave my adopted kids better genes than you gave your foster kids ?
Isn’t that a kind of lunatic claim ?
I do not recall citing “news sources”, most of what I link to are economic papers, or charts and graphs usually of govenrment data.
Myriads of factors effect status.
I did a long post on how we divide the world into our tribe and others.
We do so by race, by nationality, by income, by religion.
It is a human trait as old as homosapiens.
Of course there is such a thing as luck.
How is that relevant ?
“I am a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it.”
Attributed to Thomas Jefferson.
Regardless, lightening strikes.
It is not governments role to fix our relative luck, that is not a possible task.
At the end this all seems to be about your unhappiness.
The only one seeking to lay blame is you.
I have said over and over. I have no problem with people making whatever choices they wish.
But those choices come with consequences.
I absolutely know that choices I have made mean that my income is much lower.
I am not whining that I should be as well paid out in the country on the east coast, as I would be in SF or Seattle.
I have a house that I did not pay much for. I would have had to pay 3 times as much for a hovel in SF.
I have a fantastic view of the woods from my office.
I would not have that in a cubicle in Seattle.
But I would have more income.
That is life. I made my choices. Sure having everything – whatever that is would be nice.
But I am happy.
You do not seem to be in a much different position – except you are not happy.
I am sorry, but no one but you can fix that.
I have two criticisms of you:
You immorally wish to use force to impose your will on the rest of us.
That thread runs through most all your ideology.
I likely share most of your values, just not your willingness to impose them by force.
The other is that you keep saying that you want to make more, but you can’t,
and I have pointed out that you can.
You are not obligated to do so.
But I am not interested in whining about something in your life you can change.
Accept things as they are or change them. Those are your choices.
I guess you can whine and blame others.
But I am not taking the blame for what you are free to change.
Priscilla: No need to waste a lot of pixels on what a “moderate” is, we have hashed it out many times, with nice short and concise comments, BTW (sigh).
and on numerous other TNM threads. It is still like nailing Jello to the wall.
Roby, I think there are more splits than lefties, righties and we sanctimonious “moderates”. Things (politics, economy, foreign policy, environment, and more) are too complicated (and FU) to have three simple philosophies; we are dealing with three dimensional chess, at least I feel that way (age).
I agree with you that Moogie vs dhlii are mirror images of each other, but do these debates start out with softer positions and then the verbal trenches get dug and gas attacks begin, so they talk right past each other (just like in politics).
I find it humorous that ya’ll seem to think I’m communist (or actually today its socialist). It shows how far right this country leans. I read somewhere that compared to European countries, even our lefties are righties. Seems true to me. Maybe I should explain why my positions are moderate.
Minimum wage: When you are bidding on something, you don’t start with what you want – you start higher. So start at $15, we’ll be lucky to get $10. I will be very surprised if we even get $9. This is the second longest period in the history of the minimum wage to go without being raised, and prices of everything else has risen dramatically in the last 8 years. The longest period was from 1981-1990 another time of great conservative rule when it sucked to be a working person.
https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
It is true what Roby says, every time we write laws the rich come up with a way to circumvent them. That is how greedy they are. There should be punishment for circumventing the intent of the law. Or laws to encourage moral behavior. Remember the list of working condition changes I wrote about, brought on by “liberals”? Business owners have fought every single one of them. They worked adults & children 12 hours a day, 6-7 days a week. They paid worse starvation wages than today. We have been pounded by the conservative (business owner) mantras since 1980, because they wanted to return to those earlier times of Robber Barons. This is exactly what they have done to the US; returned us to those days. But I give them credit they smartly brought in abortion, racism, gays – anything to keep working class people voting against their own economic interests. This was deliberate, no doubt about it.
Poor Republicans around here are so brainwashed you even mention raising the minimum wage they start crying that prices will go up, as they have been conditioned to do. Nevermind prices have already been going up drastically since ’07, without a corresponding rise in the minimum wage. If conservatives hear that you’ve said there should be a raise in the MW, they start shouting “you want money redistribution” which they equate to not working/ or not working hard, and the suckers fall for it. Nevermind that the US production has more than doubled in the last 40 years, without wages doubling. Nevermind that CEO are paid obscenely. These crazy folks keep right on saying they are “conservatives” and voting likewise. Nevermind economic books are written by the wealthy for the wealthy and don’t even mention working class people.
Face it, the far right has had us over a barrel since 1986 when they repealed the Fairness Doctrine. Far right “media”, which will always have more money than left media because it is owned by wealthy business interests has been brain washing working class folks for 30 years. If the election of Trump does nothing more than finally get these people to see how badly they have been screwed by far right policies…then it will be worth it.
Good grief people, I’ve never said people should all be paid the same, or that I don’t require people to work (you should have heard my students & foster kids complain), or that the state should run everything, or we should send everyone to live in a kibbutz. But the big lies on the right about everyone being lazy, or anything that helps working people is “socialism” and therefore evil, and that income is just fine – must stop. These lies are swallowed by the people they are hurting the most and have killed our economy.
“ya’ll seem to think I’m communist (or actually today its socialist.”
Only no one said that. You seem to live in a world of exaggerations.
“It is true what Roby says, every time we write laws the rich come up with a way to circumvent them. That is how greedy they are. There should be punishment for circumventing the intent of the law. Or laws to encourage moral behavior.”
Only no such laws are possible. That is not how law works. In writing law you have an intention. You try to put it into words so that your intention is carried out. For anything more than very simple intentions its very difficult. You wind up affecting many people you weren’t trying to affect and not affecting many people you were trying to effect. You cannot write into the law that people can’t do perfectly legal things to evade it or they will be punished. That is a fantasy. Just wasting your words venting your anger with the rich.
What you are invoking is fairy dust, that an ideal law can be written to exactly and only capture the greedy rich and they will have no escape, no going overseas, no robots, no closing the business. Of course these laws will capture just business owners period, whether they are the “greedy rich” or not. Not everyone by a long shot who owns a business is rich. Not all are ungenerous. If you actually owned a business you’d have an entirely different perspective. Business can actually fail in the real world.
Raise the Minimum wage to 9, fine, it may help some people, but its not going to carry out the idea of the left that every job will pay a person enough to live comfortably. Raise it to 12 and the problem won’t be prices rising, it will be millions of jobs lost. My wife’s job, which she actually loves, providing “life enrichment” in a nursing home, might well be among those lost jobs.
I am sure that you will be sure that all those jobs are perfectly safe and I have simply been brainwashed by conservative propaganda. And I think that really don’t understand economics.
If gave you a practical task that you did not have the knowledge to carry out you would know that you could not do it. Here is a car, the engine needs a camshaft, replace it. You’d know that you don’t know how. But give you ( and tens of millions of other people on the right and left) a gigantic economic problem whose solution has eluded the world in hundreds of different societies forever, how to have an egalitarian society with as few rich as possible and no truly poor, and you guys are sure you know the simple answer, just defeat the evil conservative (liberals) and society will be wonderfully improved.
Its naive. You (and tens of millions) are putting tremendous energy into pursuing the philosophers stone, which does not exist.
Personally I have more moderate goals, stopping conservatives from dismantling my world, and stopping liberals from putting their elaborate fantasies that would bankrupt us far more quickly than they would save us, into being.
trump has not been able to do what he said he was going to do so easily as his followers imagined, and if Bernie or Liz or someone similar gets elected, the same would occur.
Our political life revolves around the fantasies of naive activists.
All I know for sure is 2 things – 1) in this country when working people were paid well, the economy worked far far far better, even for the rich. They were still rich, just not AS rich.
2) Other countries who do not have the Income Inequality we do have a healthier economy, they are not severely divided as we are, the have better healthcare than we do and many other indicators that show the USA is no longer number one in many areas. When you stop listening to the conservative “media” that lies to you to keep the power in the hands of conservatives.
“Cheap Labor” the mantra of conservatives, was the death of the middle class. We must give up that idea.
MOOGIEMOOGIE>>>HELLO MOOGIE.
Can you let me know what your thoughts are on the diatribe I have been posting about unfair trade and tax policy.
You stated:
” Other countries who do not have the Income Inequality we do have a healthier economy, ”
DAMN RIGHT they don’t have the income inequality we have. A couple reasons. CHECK OUT THE TARIFFS GERMANS apply to import goods!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Somewhere around 15%. Somewhere on average for most countries. I already posted info on China’s tariffs.
HOW ABOUT THE Corporate tax rates.
Canada 15% to 26%
Denmark 22%
Finland 20%
Germany 29%
Ireland 12.5%
United Kingdom 19.5%
I know you will not respond, but maybe you are reading some of what I post and not just Dave’s arguments he post.
Or is it you don’t have a response for F’ed up government trade agreements and tax policies that have resulted in most of the economic difficulties we face. Is that because both the democrats you support and the conservatives in congress, as well as presidents, have supported the trade agreements and tax policies that have made it so clear that to maximize corporate income you are so against, they’ve been moved overseas.
Do you think for just one moment if we lowered that tax rate and put tariffs on imported goods that just maybe other “friendly” countries would decide that tariffs on American goods was bad and then we could remove them from their imports to America? Would that not help increase production in America again?
What is our corporate tax rate…as if any of them pay it…
Dave writes more than all the rest of us put together…and yes I have gotten so I don’t read much of what he writes. So I probably do overlook other posts when I don’t mean too. Believe it or not I am not around all the time because I do WORK, and May 15 I start back to college to renew my teaching certificate. I have one husband, 5 cats, 3 dogs, one elderly mother, adult kids and grandkids, and friends all over the US, and they all drive me crazy, lol.
I am all for raising tariffs, taxes, whatever if it will bring jobs back. But looking at the big picture, I believe it is immoral to pay anyone that works a 40 week a wage they can’t live on. As long as we allow corporations to screw working people in any country, corporations will just pack up and move to the next piss-poor country that is desperate. My understanding is they are moving from China to Vietnam now.
I’m just throwing numbers out here – but I suspect during the years the middle class was at its best corporations only kept 50% of the profits. The rest was wisely spent on good wages, benefits, training, taxes for infrastructure ect. We were a much healthier and smarter and richer country then.
The key to world wide prosperity is good wages. Henry Ford proved that. We proved that in this country after WWII. Yes, were starving to buy goods, but we had the money to buy them!! As long as you keep listening to the the conservative mantras working people will continue to suffer, and so will the economy. I did not say to go to the other extreme…which seems so natural in this country. Is this a human problem or an American problem? (going to extremes that is)
Our effective tax rate is 35%, but like you say, none of them pay that much.
I tried to find any web site that showed what percent of total revenues after direct expenses corporations generate are actually taxed. I could not find one.
One of the main reasons is so much of the revenues generated by US corporations are generated by their foreign subsidiaries where they are taxed at that countries tax rate. Those funds are reported on the parent corporations income statement, but they never come back into the USA. For instance, Microsoft has $108 billion off shore from foreign revenues and Apple has $91.5 billion. In total there is an estimated 2.5 to 3 trillion dollars held by US corporations overseas due to the tax rates in the US.
And again, these are there due in large part because taxes are lower and trade agreements make if very profitable to move to a foreign country. Even moving an auto manufacturer a few miles north from Michigan into Ontario Canada where wages are comparable to the US, their corporate tax rate is 26.5% (as reported by Tradingeconomics.com) compared to our 35%. So that saves almost 10% in taxes.
I’ve read that in the past when our middle class was the strongest, tax rates were far far higher, esp when we needed to pay for WWII expenses. But if no one pays it anyway, what difference does it make?
Change the law – you can’t sell your good here until your taxes are paid. Or your business is based here. Whatever.
Why can other countries find a way to get companies to pay most people enough for living a fruitful, productive life, without living in fear of bankruptcy caused by healthcare, and we can’t?? The greed at the top is just unfathomable. There are no mass numbers of lazy people out there. Just horridly underpaid ones. There is no way Trump would have won without many many many desperate people out there. And I am luckier than most. Until people like Dave see that, we are up a creek. Of course since they were dumb enough to elect so many Republicans based on racist fear, we are screwed for a long time now. This country is so badly gerrymandered, the voters rights so screwed, we are stuck.
More of this rot about the past.
What is your definition of “strongest” middle class ?
The size of each class is fixed by definition at 20%.
During the period you think the middle class was “strongest”
They were inarguably better than they had been under FDR.
But they were inarguably much worse off than today.
Also true was that the income curve was very bell shaped. It had a big hump in the middle.
Today it is MUCH flatter.
Unless you are a complete idiot you want the latter not the former.
Yes there was a correlation between high income tax rates and the BADLY shaped income distribution of the time period you idolize.
In the period that you seem to think was utopia – few of us had health insurance.
Those that did had “major medical” i.e. insurance that would pay if something really really bad happened to them.
Healthcare was affordable. US life expectance was 70
The US bankruptcy rate is inextricably linked to consumer credit – the more easy it has been to get credit, the higher the personal bankruptcy rate has been
When you say the bankruptcy rate was lower in the past – all that means is that credit was harder to get therefore it was impossible for people to get in over their heads.
No one would lend them money.
Actually other companies do not do all that much better than the US at wages.
The middle class in Europe is 20-30% POORER than in the US. Only one or two small european countries have higher standards of living.
If the “greed at the top” is the problem – why is it that those other countries you keep idolizing are worse off ?
You are right Trump would not have won had there not been a large mass of blue collar democrats who beleive that over the past decade they have been screwed by the LEFT.
What I see Moogie is facts – over and over throughtout the world we have tried your nonsense.
Class warriors of various forms have tried all kinds of permutations of your approach.
UNIVERSALLY they have failed.
Did the USSR bury us ? Is it still arround ?
Cuba ? North Korea ?
China has gone capitalist, and as a consequence its standard of living skyrocketed
Socialists in Venezeula have trashed the richest country in south america.
I know you do not wish to admit that the Nazi’s were socialists.
But regardless of what you wish to call them they were a WORKERS party.
All forms of fascism are just another permutation of your nonsense.
Get a clue – your rot does not work. It makes people worse off not better.
Another reading (or viewing) recomendation for you
This is a BBC/PBS special
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoWbm8zUG6Y
You keep pushing this lazy rant.
Who is calling you or anyone else lazy ?
I have called you whiny. I have said that you seem to feel entitled to things that you are unwilling to go after.
Those are not the same as lazy.
Ah, yes, the racist nonsense.
I am almost 59. I remember MLK, the race riots. I remember George Wallace.
I went to college in Georgia in the 70’s .
No this nation is not perfect on race.
But we have come a long long way.
And accusing everyone who does nto share your extremely stupid and destructive ideas of racsism is vile.
You keep trying to sell MW increases – that is REAL racism.
Absolutely this country is “up a creek”
We have a regulatory state doing atleast $1T in economic harm each year – compound that and you can double standard of living very quickly.
We have an entitlement system that is going to bankrupt the country.
The most serious problems we face are entirely failures of government, and no one on either side is prepared to confront them, and they will only get worse with time.
We have as a nation – and particularly those on the left lied to people.
We are not “entitled” to anything.
We are not “entitled” to a “living wage” or “healthcare” or any of myriads of other promises the left makes.
Whatever we want we must produce ourselves. If we do not do so ultimately we will not have it. There is no magic that turns a wish into a right.
When we tell people otherwise – we lie.
Moogie – you read that and apparently hear “lazy, lazy, lazy”.
What I wrote is “the left and government lie, lie, lie, and people are seriously harmed by relying on that lie”.
When a private party makes a promise – particularly a promise to do something in exchange for something else, they can be forced to live up to that promise.
What do we do when government lies in our name ?
We have promised people social security that inarguably they can not get.
We have promised them medicare that inarguably will be impossible to provide.
PPACA is a similarly failing promise. Fortunately it has died before the scale of the problem it could cause gets to large.
Regardless, I am not far from receiving benefits I have paid taxes for my entire life.
I am smart enough to know that had government actually invested what it took from me – it would have no trouble living up to its obligations. I also know that is not going to happen.
So what is the answer – do I get screwed because people like you have lied ?
Or do my children get burdened with keeping a promise that never should have been made ?
Ron the entire concept of corporate taxes is nonsense.
One of the reasons I argue for a consumption tax is that ultimately all taxation is a tax on consumption – it is merely a question of how a tax levied elsewhere trickles down to consumption.
Fundimentally there are only two sane ways to tax:
Production and consumption.
They are very very nearly identical.
Taxes on profit are just plain idiocy.
You tax things you want less of. In the real world there is little we should want less of, but top among those is profits.
Profits are what drives the entire economy, that is what assures us that we will forever have more value for less human effort.
Dave I agree with you concerning our tax system. I am in full agreement with a consumption tax on everything and that would eliminate every last stinking exemption, deduction and any other loophole that people and corporations use to get out of paying taxes.
It should be one anything and everything and that would mean anyone with or without a job (using savings to buy stuff) would pay something. People working for cash in the underground economy would pay. And if you had a W-2 from an employer and you made below some set amount by the government, then they would have a predefined schedule on how much refund you would get at the end of each year. I won’t even go into numbers as that is so far from reality there is no reason to debate numbers.
A pure consumption tax system would entirely eliminate underground employment.
There would be no W2’s. There would be no reporting of income.
All there would be was the equivalent of a national sales tax collection system.
States would still be free to do as they pleased.
There would be only one significant vehicle for tax evasion – that is “underground sales”.
We would have to decide how we were going to handle things like craigslist, or direct sales between individuals. there would be a tiny bit of mud, but it would NOT for the most part be something that big companies and the rich could easily take advantage of.
We tax only the final sale. Though if we wanted we could tax intermediate sales, and then credit that tax back when they were resold – that is the most common way of eliminate the fraud of claiming something is not a final sale. But usually that is a very minor issue, and again not usually the type of tax avoidance the wealthy and big business get into.
In fact that is one of the big benefits to this type of scheme.
All or nearly all the tax evasion occurs at the BOTTOM.
If you sell your lawn mower on craigslist you might be able to avoid taxes.
First – arguably you paid taxes on it when you bought it and the rule is still supposed to be everything produced is taxed ONCE – that would mean that we do not tax used goods.
That would eliminate alot of complications and potential tax fraud.
Further if we are going to have tax fraud – we want it to be individuals at the bottom – who might get away with it, but who do not have the resources to spend thousands to find the loopholes or get the laws changed.
I suggest dealing with the bottom by exempting the first $X of consumption for each family from taxes.
That is equivalent to having a zero first tax bracket for the first say $15K of income.
You impliment this by deciding what the yearly sales tax exemption is.
If as an example you decide it is 20K/year/family that means you send every family in the country a check from the government of about 300 as their sales tax rebate for the month.
Everybody gets it – rich, poor, just like the first $x of income is tax exempt.
Or if you want since FICA is the most regressive tax we have – you provide no rebate – or a smaller rebate and you say the entirety of that sales tax on the first 20K is to fund SS/HI.
I am going further here, but that means we can change SS.
We can slowly turn it into a fixed benefit. Everyone gets the same amount – rich/poor whatever. Regardless, you need to destroy the presumption that it is an ordinary retirement plan. That is a significant part of what makes it unsustainable. Because we beleive that we “earned” SS, resistance to adjusting SS is enormous. Further because we beleive SS is a real retirement plan rather than a safetynet – we do not save as much for our own retirement.
SS is really so wrong in so many ways. It is a horribly economically destructive scheme.
And there would be no IRS as we know it today. Never happen, too many people out of a job. Then more people could complain about the shrinking middle class some more.
There would be no IRS.
But we could shrink the IRS trivially.
50% of taxpayers pay about 2% of government revenue – we could completely eliminate taxes on those and shrink the IRS 50%.
Never happen. Same reason. No one ever loses a government job, not ever for incompetence (VA). IRS is here to stay!
Sorry, “not even for incompetence (VA)
I think that unemploying much of the IRS would not cause any political uproar.
Very very few people look at the IRS positively. Regardless of income or ideology.
I beleive the US is the only country in the world that actually taxes the foreign profits of domestic companies.
Why don’t other countries – because it is an incredibly stupid thing to do.
You pay taxes where you produce and sell goods.
Taxing foreign profits encourages countries to “invert”,
it also encourages them to keep their money outside the US,
their is about 2.6T in corporate profits outside the US that is waiting to come back.
That would be a tremendous economic boost – right now it is a subsidy our country is stupidly giving the rest of the world.
Sorry Ron this has nothing to do with trade agreements, nor does it have anything to do with off shoring.
These are profits made by US companies in foreign countries – that is the OPPOSITE of offshoring. That is US companies selling goods and services to other countries.
There are some small movements to shift some manufacturing to Canada and Mexico.
But the big movements are back the the US.
Just about every major car manufacturer in the world has plants in the US.
I have addressed this before – we are the largest market. We have the best transportation system, the lowest energy costs, the largest pool of skilled labor …..
What we are NOT doing is building autoplants in the rust belt.
US manufacturing is booming in places that are more favorable to it.
Particularly in the south today.
Boeing is livid – they were foreclosed by the US government from opening plants in the south – but AirBus is free to build new plants there.
All things like that demonstrate is that it is NEVER possible to “manage” the economy the way the left wants. There will always be something you forgot to take account for.
Boeing built their plant in SC. Was there another that the government stopped?
As I recall not until AFTER Airbus moved to LA.
After that the politics were untenable.
Further I beleive Boeing had to scale back its SC plans.
Regardless, the Federal government interfered – and that should not happen.
The federal government has no business deciding where a business chooses to locate or grow.
Much of what we are discussing regarding taxes is practical not ideological.
There is no “conservative” “progressive” or libertarian position on income vs consumption taxes.
Consumption taxes are less economically disruptive and less prone to government stupidity – but they are not perfect.
Raising taxes is a STUPID idea. Read Obama’s cheif economis Christine Romer.
Since you do not want to listen to me.
She has done work that comes fairly close to demonstrating that US income and corporate taxes are just past the “revenue optimizing maximum” i.e. there is absolutely no way that increasing taxes at this time will increase government revenue.
But they will harm the economy.
Again that is not conservative or progressive – though more progressives seem to beleive economic stupidity.
Further though tax rates are close to the revenue optimizing maximum they are far above the economy optimizing maximum.
BTW Ford did not “prove” that. The Ford claim is nonsense that is trivially disprovable.
Ford paid high wages because assembly line work was demanding and turnover was high.
He paid the rate he had to to keep production up. It has nothing to do with whether his employees could afford his cars.
No business can survive on sales to its own employees. Only an idiot would propose such nonsense.
Ford strove to lower the price of his cars – for the same reason the JD Rockefeller who the left hates constantly strove to lower the price of keroscene and the same reason that Walmart sells goods at a 1.5% margin – because higher sales on lower profit margins is higher total profits.
The key to prosperity has absolutely nothing to do with wages.
Ultimately we may eliminate human labor entirely – though that is a long way off.
The ONLY way to prosperity is to produce more value with less human effort.
That is a tautology.
You should not be listening to conservatives or progressives.
You should be getting a clue economically.
The economy just does not work as you claim.
And we actually know that.
Something you might find interesting.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/profit-anti-poverty-15120.html
Countries with low income inequality (GINI indexes).
Ukraine
Slovenia
Belarus
Czeck Republic.
Slovakia
Khazakstan
Romania
Kyrgistan
Afghanistan
Moldova
Albaina
Iraq
Pakistan
Serbia.
Each of these has lower GINI numbers than Germany – or nearly the entirety of europe.
GINI index’s are complete and total nonsense.
You can not meaningfully represent income distribution in a country with a single number.
I would also note that if you examined graphically the income distribution in the US and compared it to other nations – you would near universally prefer that of the US.
Moogie might want to take from the top 1%, but she would not want to transform our income curve into that of other nations while doing so – and they come together.
What is terrifying to me is that Trump represents the GOP coopting the idiotic trade ideas of the left on steriods. He is a throw back to the very stupid trade concepts of Pat Buchanon
There is near universal agreement among economists that Trade is good.
That is ultimately a major thesis of Adam Smith’s the Wealth of Nations 250 years ago.
Trade is good even when it is bad. Free trade is such a tremndously good economic idea that it is in any nations interests to drop its trade barriers UNILATERALLY.
What is wrong with most of our “free trade agreements” is that they are not free trade – they are managed trade. They are usually better than what preceded them but they are never as good as actual free trade.
I honestly do not know why Trade is so hard for people to get.
California produces movies and computer software – Nebraska produces grain.
Should we have tarrifs between the two – do we even look at the “trade surplus or defficits” between states ?
A trade deficit is ALWAYS balanced by a capital accounts surplus – that is an immutable economic equality. What that means is that nations we have a trade deficit with must invest in our nation. They must buy our bonds, or stocks, or factories.
The Chinese finance minister was recently asked why they buy US bonds, and why they do not use those as a threat. His answer was that he absolutely hates buying US bonds with China’s trade surplus. But he really has little choice. There is no better investment and regardless our economies are so intrinsically tied that any effort to use our debt to harm the US will harm china exponentially more.
Even if China did NOT invest its US trade surplus as investment in the US – if it invested in in Europe instead, ultimately the excess US money that flows to China MUST return to the US as investment. It is completely unavoidable. The alternative is that China is giving the US a gift equal to our trade deficit.
These same things hold true with other trade nonsense such as “dumping”
If China sells steel to the US below cost – it is giving the citizens of the US a gift equal to the difference between the selling price of the steel and the actual price.
There is absolutely no reason for anti-dumping laws – unfair trade practices harm the nation with the highest barriers or the greatest subsidies.
There is no reason for international laws or organizations like WTO to stop stupid nations from harming themselves.
The same goes for offshoring, or immigration.
There are only small economic differences between making a product with cheaper foriegn labor or doing so with cheaper immigrant labor. Generally the latter is better for the country as a whole but both are good.
What people keep missing is that we WANT to shed low value jobs. They hold our standard of living down.
The ONLY route to a higher standard of living is
producing greater value with less human effort.
Anything that does that is largely NET positive.
Why am I having such a hard time getting my point across??????????????
I never said trade was bad. I said unfair trade agreements are bad!!!!!!!!!!!!
You say “California produces movies and computer software – Nebraska produces grain.
Should we have tarrifs between the two – do we even look at the “trade surplus or defficits” between states ?”
So it is fine that the Chinese can tack on a 30% import fee on Harley Davidson Motorcycles and electronic movies and software, but we allow their cheap ass piss poor quality products sold at Walmart free of any import fees?
That to me is NOT free trade! I don’t care what the “expert economist” say. Free trade is you send something here free of tariffs, I send something to you free of tariffs. That increases production in both countries. Limiting what we can send to China does not increase to our full potential what we can produce.
The fundimental problem with “bad trade aggrements” is that OUR trade negotiators use US trade agreements as the means to circumvent our normal legislative process.
Trade agreements are considered treaties and do not need house approval.
Further “fast track” authority means they get an up-down vote – i.e. they can not be ammended or modified by the senate.
Further the supreme court treats treaty infringements on rights and on other constitutional provisions more liberally than ordinary legislation.
This is how we ended up with nearly infinite copyrights.
Our founders had a very dim view of intellectual property – they thought it a necescary evil. They understood it was NOT real property.
Trade agreements have turned IP into real property – which it is not.
Making a disasterous mess.
Outside of bypassing our normal legislative process – a bad trade agreement is better than no trade agreement.
But the best trade agreement is to UNILATERALLY drop all trade barriers.
So you keep thinking sending cheap Chinese Sh^1 without tariffs that last 1/2 as long as American made lasted is OK when we can not get our stuff into China under the same rules.
I will never accept the fact that we are not playing by the same rules. If they want to send their crap over here free from fees, then our cars, motorcycles, makeup and other products should be accepted into their country without fees.
Buick is shipping the Chinese made Envision SUV and Cadillac is shipping the CT6 back to the USA without duties attached all while china puts such high tariffs on imported cars we can not sell them there.
http://www.breitbart.com/economics/2016/04/06/bailout-outrage-new-chinese-built-cadillac-coming-gm-showroom-near/
If Moogie needs a better example of why we are losing high paying jobs and income inequality is growing (from her standpoint) there is no better example than the above article. We bail out an auto company with taxpayer money and then Government Motors sends the jobs to China.
If you do not wish to buy some product for whatever reason – because it is a cheap chinese peice of shit or just because you do not like the store.
You are free to do so.
You are not free to decide that others may not buy it.
You are not free to decide that others must pay more for it because of your assessment of its value.
The fact that the chinese or others might be stupid enough to harm their own people, does not mean we should reciprocate.
If your neighbor steals from you the correct response is not to steal from him.
If you are outraged over buick and Cadillac – don’t buy Buick’s or Cadillac’s or encourage others not to.
As to you and moogie and examples. I have no interest in a Chinese made cadillac or Buick – or an american made one either.
But I buy lots of things from china all the time. Often something similar is available from the US, usually for 4-20 times as much. Rarely is the chinese product superior. But it is always a better value – or I would not buy it.
As an example I work in embedded software. One device I work with frequently is Orange Pi One’s – these are made in China. They are more powerful than the Raspbery Pi – made in the UK, most everything is inferior to the BeagleBone Black or Hummingboard – made in the US. But the oPi1 costs about 11 including shipping. the rPi about 40, the BBB 60 and the HB 120. I can buy 10 opi1’s for the cost of a HB.
The opi1 had a serious flaw – its documentation is very very poor. It is a very capable product, but without good documentation. Over the past several years the linux community has remedied that, so that orange pi boards now have as good a linux support and pretty much anything else.
The ability to develop products arround a $11 device that runs linux – and runs it fast and well,
makes it possible to do things – that I could not do it I had to pay $120 for the device.
At $11 each I can contemplate having a dozen opi1’s in a house working together to control it. At $120 each for the HB – that is not happening.
The $11 price also means I can be “wasteful” as a software developer. I do nto have to program as efficiently, I can work faster and less carefully. I do not have to put multiple functions on a single device – that means my clients pay less for my work – and get more value at the same time.
Regardless, I am not trying to sell you chinese SBC’s – you have to make your own purchasing decisions on your own.
But I would remind you that we increase standard of living by
producing more value for lower human effort.
That sometimes means a cheap product from china.
So why is it that you seek to deprive people of a higher standard of living ?
An article I linked to recently noted that Walmart saves the average US family about 2300/year. Walmart makes all of us about $250B better off each year – because we get the same value for less.
China is now being priced out of the textiles market – several years ago the media was ranting about fires in clothing factories in bangladesh – where they have moved because chinese labor costs are too high. Americans are not saving even more on their jeans and clothing, because china has become too expensive to manufacture them and production moved elsewhere.
But the consequence of this is US standard of living rising AND chinese standard of living rising AND that in Bangladesh rising.
Why are you ranting about something good ?
The US workers who lost there present jobs are available to do something else.
Or economy continues to grow – that means we continue to produce more value with less human effort.
If we keep those jobs producing low value goods – the economy does not grow – and we do not get better off.
One of the reasons for the stagnation in Japan is their standard of living and cost of production rose very near to that of the US. When that happened Japanese car companies found it wise to move production to the US.
While we passed stupid laws trying to force that. The primary factor was:
The US is the worlds largest market. All other things being equal – and most of them are not equal, mostly the advantage is to US manufacturing – then it makes sense to build things here.
Honda and Toyota may continue to build cars in the US even after they almost entirely eliminate humans from their production.
Because it makes more sense to build in the US even if you completely eliminate politics and jobs.
OK Dave I am going to say this one time again and that will be it as if you do not understand what I say this time, you never will.
You say “If you do not wish to buy some product for whatever reason – because it is a cheap chinese piece of shit or just because you do not like the store.
You are free to do so.
You are not free to decide that others may not buy it.
You are not free to decide that others must pay more for it because of your assessment of its value.”
First, I do try to find something that is made in some part of the world other than China. At least, as an example, electric tools from Mexico last much longer and replacement parts can be purchased.
With that point made, it is not a matter of peoples choice of purchasing a product made in China or any other country. Everyone can make that decision themselves, just as you have said. So concentrate on this statement!!!!
If we produce an automobile in this country and want to send it to China and if China imposes a 20% import fee on that car, then FAIR TRADE is one where the car that is produced in China has a 20% import fee tacked on it coming into this country. And if it makes the Chinese made CT6 or Envision too expensive, then Government Motors can produce it here. The issue is they can produce it in China, have a 20% import fee tacked onto the manufacturing cost and probably make the same profit on a car that is made here.
With the current trade, they are making much more profit on the cars sent to the US than they would if they made them here, and it is costing jobs because we can not send our models to China.
Fair Trade, open commerce, whatever you call it is equal in the rules of trade. One country with protectionist tariffs dealing with a country with open commerce like we have is not FAIR TRADE.
Is that clear enough to understand my position on FAIR TRADE????
Ron, I understand you completely.
I do not agree. nor do I think you understand facts.
First, you can assume that any argument that involves the word “fair” I am going to shred.
Fair does not exist. No one agree’s on what it means. Fair is a myth, it is rooted in the same egalitarian nonsense that resulted in blood in the french revolution and every egalitarian effort since.
Egalitarianism is the enemy of liberty.
Do I care if china imposes a tariff on imports ? Sure – it is a stupid move on their part, and harms the chinese people depriving them of products that they would likely buy at lower cost.
Do I think there is some need for a government remedy ? NO!!!
Regardless, of what China does, our government should not interfere in the price of imports (or our own exports). We do so at cost to our own people.
If china wishes to be stupid – that should not cause us to match them in stupidity.
The economics of trade are very well understood and have changed little since Adam Smith.
As I noted even Paul Krugman was a free trader – and got his Nobel on that, when he was a real economist.
As to the actual relative merits of producing in China – right now the NET competitive manufaturing advantage that china has is running below 15% – not anywhere near 20.
Now that is an agregate measure so maybe it is not true of cars, but I doubt that.
BTW that 15% figure is the lowest it has been – and a part of why manufacturing is shifting back to the US.
First the 15% advantage – is at the factory loading dock – and the loading docks in china are 10,000 miles from the US market.
Next, that does nto include supply chain issues. The chinese supply chain is horrible, they have a very poor record for ontime delivery and overall poor quality control level.
The US is getting extremely good at lowering costs through “just in time” manufacturing and delivery. That is much much harder to do with chinese sourced products.
Finally the chinese are very bad at custom orders.
If you wish to understand the importance of that check out the cereal aisle of your grocery store. Why do we have litterally hundreds of breakfast cereals.
Bernie demonstrated his own economic stupidity by asking the same relative to deoderant during the election.
But that should not surprise – commisars think that everyone should want exactly the same thing and that we are better off if we force people to buy what we produce, instead of producing what people want.
Anyway I have pointed out reasons to expect US manufacturing to increase – and it is.
But it is not a reason to expect a return of US blue collar jobs.
As manufaturing returns to the US – it will be very high skill and highly automated manufacturing, producing few very well paid jobs.
But that is exactly what we want.
And if we can not do that – they what leaves china will go to bangeledesch instead.
Regardless Moogie and the left keep constantly claiming man is a social animal.
That is FALSE and the root of the problem.
We are a species of individuals that values social interactions.
If you kill the queen in a colony of ants – the remaining ants die.
If Trump is killed – the US will go on.
Humans CHOOSE to socialize, WHEN it is in their interests.
Human social arrangements are abstractions. Individuals are real.
Justice is individual, rights are individual.
There are not real social gains, no real social harms. All gains and harms occur to individuals.
Because china has been stupid enough to try to punish its own citizens by thwarting they individual choices for some fallacious public good, does not mean we should trump them in stupidity.
So to be clear, I do not beleive there is such a thing as “FAIR TRADE”.
We are free as individuals to decide our own purchasing choices.
We are not free to force people to buy – not even the chinese.
There is not right to buy, nor a right to sell. There is at most a right to not have your own government interfere in your buying and selling. Countering foreign countries tarrifs is interferance.
The implicity presumption in your argument is that our government can attempt to counter the chinese harming us (and their own people) as individual buyers and sellors, but compounding the error and harming us more.
“Sure – it is a stupid move on their part, and harms the chinese people depriving them of products that they would likely buy at lower cost.”
NO DAVE it did not deprive them. GM built the damn plants in China. Now they are sending those models back to the USA.
NO IMPORT FEE!!!!! JOB LOST TO CHINA!!!!! Those models are NOT made in America!!! If we don’t produce them, there are no jobs making that product!!!!!
“Finally the Chinese are very bad at custom orders”
When was the last f’in time most people bought a custom ordered Envision or CT6 Caddi. Cars are not made like that. Dealers buy preplaned cars and trucks, put them on their lot and people buy what is available. So the Chinese inability to custom order anything does not impact a car 1 iota.
Last comment. Fair can be defined in the trade agreement on anything. You make a car and it is sent to this country without tariffs, fees or any other cost added on, sold using the MSIP = we make a car and send it to your country without tariffs, fees or any other cost added on, sold using the MSIP. (MSIP= Manufacturers suggested invoice price).
Total Mental Deficiency is when we allow theirs to come here free of duties and fees and ours go there with 20% top 30% added on.
There is not issue with americans buying chinese made GM cars – if they choose.
The only issue where force – and therefore a possible moral issue is involved, is the chinese preventing their own people from buying US products – like motorcylces without tarrif.
And my response STILL is just because the government of china is punishing its own people we should retaliate by punishing our people too ?
I do nto take “jobs lost” arguments even slightly seriously. They are poor arguments.
You can not improve standard of living without producing more value with less human effort – that means “job losses” – except what it really means is people losing one job and most of them moving to a better one.
It does not matter where produce X is made.
It only matters that those people in this country produce something of ever greater value.
Precisely what they produce does not matter.
Further no there are NOT job losses if the chinese make cars that are bought by americans.
Even if americans can not sell motorcycles to the chinese.
Any money the US spends in china MUST return to the US ultimately.
And it must return in a form that involves increasing the wealth in the US.
Either the Chinese invest in the US – which is good for us.
Or they buy products from the US which is what you want.
What they do not do is burn all of our money.
There is still nothing that the chinese can do with the money americans pay for chinese goods, that does not ultimately have the same or better effect in the US as buying US products.
There are very few economists who ever care about balance of Trade. It is a purely political issue only raised by people with little understanding of economics.
Certainly not by anyone who has read and understood Adam Smith.
And if you are an economist and have not read and understood smith – then you should be laughed out of the profession.
With respect to custom made cars – I am not in detail familiar with the auto production market – but it is my understanding that a significant portion of cars are essentially made to order, or very close to it. Some of that US supply chain management means dealers order what they think their customers will buy and then replace what is sold based on their new understanding of what customers are buying. Regardless, we do not sell identical cars or anything even close. And US manufacturing – including auto manufacturing can rapidly adpat to changes in demand.
Amazon as an example is extremely good at guessing what you are going to buy in the future from what you have bought in the past and they have what they think you are going to buy in a warehouse near you, and they have it there very close to the time you are going to choose to buy it – something even you do not know.
American manufacturers can do this, and when they guess wrong they can adapt extremely rapidly. All you need to do is add a cross ocean boat trip and you have already F’d that up.
The longer a product sits anywhere before being sold the greater the delivered cost of that product. US manfacturers are trying to come as close as possible to eliminating inventory.
They are trying to get to knowing that you are going to want a dishwasher and order it 9 months before you know you do and have it arrive at costco or home depot on the very day you decide to buy it. Do they get this prefect ? No. But we have gotten extremely good ar turning goods fast. They do not sit in stores, they do not sit in warehouses – because all of those increase the cost of the product.
Doing that means being able to make alterations to production in real time.
No other nation in the world can do that as we can.
Nor is this the only advantage we have, it is merely one of many.
As I noted the chinese have a 15% price advantage at the loading dock of the factory today.
That advantage gets quickly erroded by every other disadvantage they have.
Such as inflexible supply lines and shiping and unreliable energy, transportation and raw materials.
I am not looking to piss all over the chinese – they have come a long way in a short time.
and they are improving – but so are we.
I would note that Japan has been in a long funk – why ? Atleast in part because they bet that their advantage over US manufacturers would be infinite.
Japan did well when their standard of living was lower than ours. They stretched that advantage out because even when their standard of living nearly caught up, their quality was higher. But eventually their standard of living was the same, and our quality caught up, and then their products had to be transported accross the ocean to the US.
So they moved their factories.
Japan has not gone to hell, but it can not raise its standard of living above the US,
China is in the same boat. The higher their standard of living rises the less competitive they are. And US manufacturers got taught by the Japanese to bring their quality up.
You and I will just have to agree to disagree and move on. Just like politicians in Washington, we are both so set in our ways that we can not comes to some position of understanding the other thinking.
You see nothing wrong with the way things are. You see the Chinese punishing their population with tariffs on American goods.
I see it the exact opposite. I see jobs being lost in America since the Chinese can not afford our products due to their protectionist policies while we allow anything to come in from Chinese made labor without penalty.
The is no right to sell something or a right to buy something.
But there is a right not to have government interfere in free exchange.
In the instance of Cars being made in china and sold int he US – there is little government interferance.
And that is the end of that matter.
We can not and should not be so stupid as to screw ourselves in that, because of something else we do not like.
We agree that the chinese should not tarrif their imports.
But that primarily harms them.
And again the remedy is not to do something stupid our self.
Any word can be defined to mean anything “fair” can be defined as “peanut”
I can say the arrangment between China and the US that you do nto like is “fair”.
But if you expect to have moral authority behind your trade agreement rather than brute force bullying, then you better be able to define “fair” in a way that justifies the use of force.
I can not think of a moral justification for the use of force that is not a response to an infringement on freedom.
Our understanding of fair is connected to egalitarian ideas, and equality is NOT a justification for the use of force.
Efforts to acheive equality are not merely not moral, they are actually immoral.
They always require the use of force to infringe on liberty.
Once again tarriffs on US goods sold in china punish the chinese not the US.
It is the chinese who are losing something that was theirs – the ability to purchase a good they choose at the price offered – not a higher one.
It is the chinese who are either depreived of the good or must pay a higher price for it.
It is the chinese standard of living that is LOWERED by this.
There is no sane reason for us to punish our people, because the chbinese were stupid and punished theirs.
Standard of living rises when more value is produced at lower human cost.
Tarrifs make the country imposing them POORER.
Please read what I wrote.
“Sure – it is a stupid move on their part, and harms the chinese people depriving them of products that they would likely buy at lower cost.”
First that sentence applied tot he chinese people who were blocked by their government from buying motorcycles at a lower cost in your example.
There are no jobs involved.
And infact Jobs are not a particularly important part of economics.
If we produced everything using robots and there were no jobs at all – we would still have a very high standard of living. While that is a reductio ad absurdem that is not going to happen – it is also not one that fails. Reducing jobs infinitely will increasing value produced infinitely still continuously raises standard of living.
But back to the scenario you were improperly connecting to the motor cycle sales.
PRESUMING that the cars made in China are of equal value and lower cost, then buying them is a net positive for US consumers PERIOD. End of story.
If they are not of equal value – then consumers will adjust their purchases accordingly.
But so long as they are of equal value and lower cost, whatever is displaced in the US economy – such as the jobs you are fixated on, will be more than made up by the increased investment or consumption that must result because those purchasing chinese cars will consume or invest more because they saved on the car purchase.
Total Mental deficiency is when we decide something that obviously raises standard of living – by providing greater value for less human effort is somehow bad.
The side effects of EVERYTHING that increases standard of living ALWAYS include idled resources – ALWAYS. that is not a harm. It is part of the net gain.
The scenario you are concocting – which is not reality, is we buy a car from china for less money, idling some US labor and then burn the savings.
“So it is fine that the Chinese can tack on a 30% import fee on Harley Davidson Motorcycles and electronic movies and software, but we allow their cheap ass piss poor quality products sold at Walmart free of any import fees?”
Yes, if china wished to make its own people poorer – twice, by making them have to pay too much for motorcycles, and by subsidizing US consumers, that is fine with me.
Though Paul Krugman has gone full bull moose loon in the past decade, once uppon a time he was a nobel proze winning economist – I used to read his column, his nobel was in trade and even he understood The tremendous benefits of free trade.
In the scenerio you present – no, that deal is not fair. But what you miss is that it is the chinese people who are the losers and the american people who are the winners.
You fixate on employment.
AGAIN
Standard of living increases when we produce more value for less human effort.
Where in that is there something about jobs ?
Jobs are a means, and not that important a one, not an end.
At one of our dinners, Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”
Any economist that does nto say the winner of any trade arrangement is the nation with the lowest trade barriers – REGARDLESS of the barriers of the other nation, should not be called an expert.
The basic economics of Trade date to Adam Smith. They have not fundimentally changed since.
I am not saying that china should have trade barriers.
I am saying that those barriers harm china.
AGAIN, any trade imbalance MUST be exactly matched by an equal and oposite capital accounts balance.
If China refuses to buy matching US goods to the value they sell to us, one of two things MUST occur.
They can take their surplus US green slips of paper called dollars and burn them.
Harming themselves and helping us.
Or they can do any of myriads of things that ALL result in their being spent in the US in one way or another.
One way or another things must balance.
Smith figured that out 250 years ago.
No “expert” economist since has dared defy Smith on that.
Frankly, there is very very little of Smith that has not held up to the test of time.
Freud published 100 years later and has held up for worse.
There is no definition for “paid well”. therefore your entire premise and argument is crap.
Like most on the left you wish to constantly elevate nebulous values as principles.
There is no principle of “fairness” as 10 people and you will get 11 definitions.
When you engage in free exchange – you are ALWAYS by definition “paid well”.
If you were not you would not have completed the exchange.
What you appear to be arguing/demanding – is some third party (government) to step in and tip the scales in your favor so that you get more. And you are presuming miraculously that when that happens – the other party to the exchange – now getting a worse deal will still complete the trade – or you are demanding they be forced to.
It is not your business to decide how well two OTHER people should fare in their exchange.
It is not your right to determine who should win and who should not.
It is not your right to decide that someone should get less for what the offer and another should get more – except when you are one of the parties to the exchange.
There is no principle that establishes that your choice on that is superior to those participating in the exchange themselves.
It should be obvious why those on the left see the world as populated by children.
Because free adults do not need the intervention of people who think they are their betters to manage their ordinary lives.
When you through government interfere in free exchange by tiliting the playing field.
by limiting one parties freedom – you are also telling one party that they are weak and unable to manage their own life, and that they must ceed their rights and liberty to you, and you will care for them.
Still on this income inequality nonsense.
The standard of living in europe as a whole is about 30% LOWER than that of the US.
There is no country with a population over 30M people with a higher standard of living than the US – there is none within 20% of the US.
The few countries in the world with higher standards of living that the US are either:
Tiny nations with long term commitments to economic freedom – Hong Kong and Singapore.
Tiny nations with vast oil wealth – Norway which despite massive oil wealth barely exceeds the US, and tiny banking nations – luxemborg.
Most of these BTW have higher income inequality – whatever that means, than the US.
And that is the other point “what does income inequality even mean”
I keep asking you and you refuse to answer.
You keep saying that sometime in the past was better – but I have provided you with actual data, that shows that over time we have flattened and elongated the bell curve that used to be income. The result is the median income in each quintile is HIGHER than ever.
You keep saying you want to go back to the past – but anyone not an idiot looking at the current income distribution relative to that of the past – would prefer today.
It is better for all, and better for each class.
So you are arguing that we should revert to something bad because some idiotic single number coefficient that is supposed to tell us something about the shape of income distribution, But of course can not, because you can not mathenmatically represent any curve with a single number.
Trumps entire compaign is based on your assertion that the US is no longer #1 in many areas and that we should get back to that.
At best he only differs in how.
Further your presumption that we should lead the world in everything – implicitly accepts free markets and competition and pretty much all the things you reject and the last administration stood against/
Absolutely we have slipped relative to the rest of the world – though there really is no large nation anywhere that is close to comparable, but yes some small nations have managed to eak ahead of us in a few areas.
Of course this all occurred during a time when the US absorbed 45M dirt poor immigrants.
Please identify a single nation that has increased its population by 15% – almost all dirt poor, AND raised standard of living significantly at the same time.
Can I presume by you “cheap labor” rant that you are opposed to immigration ?
Roby,
I do not think Moogie has a clue what communism, or socialism actually are.
Her positions eclectically vacillate between them and occasional remarks that could come from Rush Limbaugh.
I have repeatedly told you that the left is internally inconsistent.
Moogie demonstrates that very effectively.
Yes, she has actually made arguments that are communist,
as well as ones that are socialist,
and then as I noted drifted into ones that Rush Limbaugh would have no problem with.
Her ideology is whatever she feels at the moment. There is no effort at consistency.
And yet somehow I purportedly am lying ?
Amazing, you are practically channeling me.
I might have to retract my assertion that you are progressive.
My comments are intended to amplify – not disagree with yours.
The MW is just a number. There is no such thing as the correct number of the MW.
It is supposed to be a floor for wages, it is actually a ceiling.
It defines the minimum level of skill or value necescary to get a job.
If you can not produce value greater than the current MW – you will not be employed.
We have decades of data on the effects of MW. That data demonstrates that MW increases do not always have exactly the same effects. Card and Krueger found that very small changes in the MW did not effect unemployment rates. That does NOT mean they do not effect employment.
The one absolutely universal effect of MW increases are increases in the unemployment rate for teens and minorities – and those effects are large and take 18months to 5 years to recover.
But one should not that large increases in the unemployment rate for teens and minorities need not significantly increase overall unemployment rates.
Typically employed low skill labor gets replaced by slightly smaller numbers of unemployed higher skilled labor.
You correctly note that a high enough MW will threaten your Wife’s job.
But EVERY level of MW costs some jobs.
A 7.25 MW means no one will get hired to do jobs that are not worth 7.25/hr.
I can think of many many tasks I would pay someone to do, but for two things:
The job is not worth 7.25/hr and actually employing someone usually is far more costly than their wages. I have been an employer in the past.
I hate payroll, I hate quarterly reports, I hate yearly reports.
I hate the entire mess that government puts people through to employ someone.
So what does this mean ?
It means that there is a huge step for me to move from a small business with only me, to employing other people.
The higher the MW, and the higher the burden that government places on people for hiring people the bigger the hurdle you have to get over to go from a single person to a job creator.
I think every person should be forced to do a years worth of payroll so they understand what a huge step it is for a small business to become a job creator.
There is a reason many many mom & pops remain mom & pop – or mom & pop and family – usually all the rules about employment are waived for family.
I hate everything associated with payroll so much I have only two choices to grow.
Hire a bookkeeper to do the payroll FIRST – and that means I have to generate more business FIRST without having more people to do it.
Or hire people as “consultants” – basically uber style. That has been going on forever – but government hates it and it is risky. It is so risky that the people who hire me – I have a real business, and I have been in business since 1981 worry that the IRS or Department of labor will come in an call me an employee and they will get fined out the whazzo.
This was actually made worse in 1989 when a stupid rule was passed at the behest of staffing companies that defaults the treatment of professional consultants – particularly in software to employee. The result has been an explosion in staffing companies. and the destruction of small software houses.
It also harms my prefered way of working. I work like a real consultant – because I am.
I have my own office – in my home. That is where I do my work.
I will travel to clients to meet with them. But I do my work from my own office.
That makes it damn near impossible to get work.
Staffing companies are completely uninterested in that model,
and companies that need software consultants are terrified by the IRS.
As a result most of my work comes from other small companies that would never hire a staffing company and do not know what the law is.
“how to have an egalitarian society with as few rich as possible and no truly poor”
Why is that the objective ?
What is wrong with the highest standard of living for the greatest number of people ?
Or better still what is wrong with NOT deciding that we must have these enormous societal goals that require the use to impose on all of us ?
What is wrong with Roby persuing in his own life what he thinks is important – whatever that might be.
Moogie doing the same in hers.
I doing the same in mine.
With all of us agreeing to use persuasion rather than force as the means of accomplishing our goal.
What is “extreme” about that ?
Why isn’t anyone with any view that is seeking to impose it on all of us by force “extreme” ?
What constitutes “stopping conservatives from dismantling my world” ?
As a rule of thumb I pretty much support Trump’s draining the swamp, deconstructing the federal government, dismantling idiocy that was imposed on us by force and is not the business of the government.
I do not support everything Trump is doing or has promised to do.
But I can find little common ground with the left on Trump as they seem to oppose anything if it can be connected to Trump.
I am primarily concerned about Trump’s authoritarian streak. But thus far it has primarily manifest itself in efforts to reduce government. That is ANTI-Authoritarian.
I have no problem with criticism of Trump. Whether I agree, disagree, or do not know.
I would specifically note the last option.
I beleive it is Scott Adam’s that has argued that when we see something Trump says or does as stupid – we are missing the bigger picture. That Trump’s aparent stupidity is actually quite smart.
I do not know. What I do know, is that if he is actually as stupid as his detractor’s claim then he is unbeleivably lucky.
I am more inclined to beleive he is very successfully playing a permutation of rope-a-dope with the left.
Great post, Roby.
I’m constantly struck these days with the different contexts in which words are used by liberals and conservatives in political discourse. Words like “choice,” “freedom,” “inequality,” “rights,” “responsibility,” etc. Even words like “corrupt” and “environment,” which should have less political context, have become politicized. You~ correctly~ often refer to some of our differences as being the result of living in different political universes. I must say, though, that our two universes have ~ for the most part, anyway ~ a common language.
Increasingly, I think, the problem of left and right has become one of language, and how it shapes worldview, often without our even noticing it. This is why I think that PC culture is so dangerous. Words may “never hurt you,” but they can be used in a context of morality that hardens political discourse in a way that makes it impossible for the two sides to debate at all.
I’ve drifted pretty far afield from your point, but you got me thinking….
Happy Easter.
Then lets use words – outside of poetry and fiction, and particularly in the context of politics and law, according to their most ordinary plain meaning.
The meaning of words is incredibly important.
Words are not only how we communicate and mangling word meaning F’s up communication, but for most of us they are how we think. And twisting the meaning of words alters how we think.
The left in particular is engaged in pushing a 1984 form of Newspeak. With the same effect.
Control the meaning of words and you control speach and thought.
One should always be deeply suspicious when powerful words with important implications are being used in smaller contexts.
Aggression as an example means something – aggression is the use of force.
And force is the legitimate domain of government.
A micro-aggression would be a small use of force, and the legitimate domain of govenrment.
But apparently a micro-aggression is offensive speach. That would NOT be force and not the domain of government.
The intent of those concocting “micro-aggression” was to justify society constraining it.
Which if it is not force government may not do.
Regardless, if you are careful about your use of words – the ideologies of the left and right, tend to fail and become self contradictory.
You make an excellent point of your own.
Moogie: The right says the left is lazy. The left says the right is greedy. Although there are plenty of greedy people on the left, even “poor” people, and plenty of lazy people, even “rich” people, on the right. And then there are moderates that look down from Mt. Olympus and think they are all lazy and greedy. Oh, and bloggers, they just love to talk about it. Cool- me too.
Happy Easter and Passover to all.
You seem to falsely think I am on the right. I do not characterize others as lazy.
There is a difference between saying people are and ought to be free to make their own choices, but are not entitled to protection from the consequences of those choices, and saying they are lazy.
The left constantly claims people are greedy. Which is both irrelevant and stupid.
We are barred from using force and fraud against each other, we are obligated to keep our commitments, and obligated to make whole those we harm. That is it.
Any other duties we might have are individually imposed, spiritual, religious, personal.
They are not governmental.
I have repeatedly gone after Moogie because she laments that she is not better off.
Here we have this greedy/lazy nonsense all in a single ball.
Moogie is free to strive to be as well off as she chooses. Contra her assertions there are lots of opportunities for her to be better off. There is nothing wrong with wanting more. There is also nothing wrong with being unwilling to do what it takes to have more.
Moogie’s problem is not laziness. And the only distinction between her and those she would call “greedy” is that she is unwilling to do what it takes to get what she desires.
Her real problem appears to be envy – blaming others for having more than you and being prepared to take from them for you.
Regardless, “lazy” and “greedy” are both pejorative terms for people whose choices you do not like.
I am for free choice. The freedom to chase after mamon with all your energy if you want so long as you do not violate the three principles I keep hammering on. And the freedom to be satisfied with whatever you have. Even the freedom to make choices that others think are stupid and result in harm to yourself.
My determination of political your political leanings are based on your comments.
The ideology where income inequality is to be eradicated is communism.
Read Marx.
I do not think you know what you are. You think that communism and socialism are just labels, that you can describe your personal values and then deny that you are whatever ideology that matches because you do not like the label.
Or because the label has bad connotations.
Socialism is the ideology where government excercises significant control of the economy.
That varies from the highly regulated economic socialism of FDR to the Maoist Chinese government ownership of the means of production.
Communism is the ideology of perfect equality.
In marxist theory socialism is a bridge to communism.
In a nutshell communism is
From each according to their ability to each according their need.
Progressivism is to socialism what socialism is to communism – the road to socialism.
All are forms of statism, which would include fascism, and peronism.
When you start bidding – you bid.
Government does not bid for you.
The minimum wage is the government putting its thumb on the scales in a negotiation.
It is by definition an unlevel playing field.
Worse it actually harms the people it is intended to benefit.
When you put a floor under wages – and that is what the minimum wages is
then anyone whos skill level is not worth that floor – can not work.
Worse still you make it very difficult for them to get over that floor.
I do not care what number you pick for the MW.
The problem is still the same.
If a $15MW is a bad idea, then a $10 one is to for the same reason, and a 7.25 one.
At best lower ones are less damaging.
Further if a $7.25 one is actually a good idea, then a $10 one is too for the same reason, and then a $15 and a $100 and a $1000.
This is not some bidding game.
Either you must demonstrate why $15 or $10 or any number is the correct number – and you must do so with data and logic or you are just playing darts.
Even Card and Krueger – the lefts darlings for purportedly demonstrating that tiny changes in the MW do not negatively impact employment have come out and said – but that does nto mean that large ones do not.
Frankly the MW runs afoul of the law of supply and demand, and ever economist including Card and Krueger knows it.
Regardless, I am not fighting a $15 MW.
I am fighting any value for the MW.
It is a very bad idea.
Dave….all that gobbledygook about the minimum wage? Just stuff you hope fools the illiterate masses. We have to have a minimum wage to keep working people from getting screwed. For thousands of years we had no minimum wage and most people lived in poverty.
I’m not a stooge for the wealthy.
More nonsense.
The rise of prosperity started with the emergence of actual free markets. starting slowly in the west about 5 centuries ago.
By the time of Adam Smith this was already in full swing.
The earliest Minimum wage was in the 30’s and was passed by racist progressives and southern democrats for the purpose of protecting good white jobs from cheap black labor.
It worked and continues to do so today.
That 40’s 50’s hallycon era you celebrate is an era of incredible racism (and sexism).
We came back from war – put blacks and women back in their place.
that was the mayberry and leave it to beaver world.
Is that really what you want to go back to ?
Is that your ideal ?
The MW first enacted in 1939 was .25/hr. In 2016 dollars that would be 3.51 so the current MW is more than double that of FDR.
If .25/3.51 was a “living wage” in 1939 and good enough for your hero FDR why not today ?
Less than 2% of workers are paid the minimum wage.
That pretty much trashes the “race to the bottom” argument.
Clearly 98% of us do not need a minimum wage to assure that we are paid what we are worth. Rather than raise the MW we should eliminate it entirely – that would give the many unemployed low skill young minorities an opportunity to get a job. Raising the MW insures they remain permanently unemployed.
Of those 2% o all workers earning the MW, nearly half are under 24.
Of the remainder – half are under 34.
By far the largest employers of MW workers are fast food. Fast Food employs something like 70% of those earning under 8.50/hr.
This is not “gobbledygook” it is facts – my source for the about is pew.
Frankly, on almost any topic – if you had an actual grasp of real world facts you could not hold the views you do. That would be “gobbledegook”
Of course every time we write laws the rich find a way to circumvent them. So do big corporations. Same with regulations.
It has always been this way and always will.
In the unlikely event you managed to block the influence of the rich and big business, some other interest group will replace them.
Whatever power government has – someone will try to bend it to their interests.
There is only one solution to this. Limit the power of government.
Big business and the rich have little interest in manipulating our criminal laws.
They have great interest in manipulating our economic laws – and area that government should just stay out of.
This should also give you a big clue – what is it that business and the rich seek from government ? Inevitably they seek protection from the free market.
That should tell you that free markets DO NOT favor the rich or big business and they know it.
Only left wing nuts think that free markets empower the rich and big business.
And only because they are blind.
God, no. Not the ‘fairness doctrine”
The Good Guys, the Bad Guys and the First Amendment: Free Speech vs. Fairness in Broadcasting, Fred W. Friendly
BTW Friendly was a president of CBS news and creator of Murrow’s “See It Now”
The fairness doctrine was almost as stupid as the original alien & sedition act of 1792.
Oh, yes the right wing media has far more money than the left ?
What complete nonsense.
First media outlets tend to NOT reflect the political views of their owners.
Jeff Bezos is fairly libertarian. BTW I beleive he is also now the 3rd most wealthy person in the world. So alone he pretty much destroys your the right wing media owners have more money nonsense. The Washington post is fairly left wing.
In fact I can not think of a single news magazine of national newspaper that leans right.
The most right wing print media I can think of is WSJ – and they are far from conservative. Mostly they are just pro-business – often badly.
Sure their are some tiny conservative papers but no national print media.
Within TV News there is Fox, which is more republican than conservative. It is probably to the right of WSJ – but not all that much. Pretty much the rest of TV News is somewhere between far left and falling off the edge of the planet left.
The only area that the right holds any significant advantage is in Radio.
Where they definitely dominate, with only NPR playing the role Fox gets in TV.
The good news for me – is I do not listen to either radio news or TV News.
The internet is the closest thing we have to balance.
While there is more left wing net internet media than right wing nut, there is plenty of both.
Regardless, you are completely clueless if you think there is anything close to ideological parity in the media. The left owns the media.
Aside from you I do not think anyone debates that.
Just seven percent of journalists of any form identify as Republican (of any form) and few of those identify as conservative.
Gallup has 26% of us identifying as republican, 30% identifying as democrats.
Do you really want to keep pushing this the media leans right nonsense any further ?
All that demonstrates is that you are completely unable to perceive the world as it is.
Again, Who here has called people lazy ?
Even going into the broader world, and all that right wing media.
While I am sure if you try you can find some pundit that called some people lazy,
contra your nonsense that is not a common right wing meme.
There is a big difference between anger at stupid government rules which encourage bad choices, and labeling people who make the choices government incentivizes lazy.
Do you understand you just lost an election with this kind of stupid mischaracterization ?
The left called everyone who did not go with their program, a racist, homophobic, mysoginist transphobic, hateful hating hater.
You lost the blue collar vote because they got it. You meant them.
Now you want to do the same with this lazy meme ?
When government ventures outside the narrow scope of legitimate justifiable government – that is statism.
When government interferes in the economy – beyond prohibiting the use of force or fraud that is one form or another of socialism. It may be socialism lite – but it is still socialism.
Because sociliasm is government control of the economy.
Equally important whatever you call it, it is both immoral, impractical and a failure.
I do not need to label your ideology some kind of “ism” to identify it as stupid.
Government is force.
The moral uses of force are very limited.
Whatever you wish govenrment to do you must morally justify the use of force.
You must do that – whether you are on the right or the left.
The right has an attrocious record with respect to trying to impose its will on the rest of us by force. But the left has been as bad or worse. And today at this moment it is the greater threat.
Though I will cede that Trump’s election has diminished the threat of the left and increased that of the right.
You are entitled to the income that you earn. Whatever you are able to get in exchange for whatever you provide.
Every single other person is entitled to exactly the same.
You are no more nor less entitled to every penny you are paid than Bill Gates is.
There is no argument that those who have more own what they have any less than you.
You have no legitimate claim to what belongs to someone else.
We call that stealing. It is theft when you do it yourself. It is theft when you and 60M of your co-religionists try to take from someone else.
No there absolutely should not EVER be punishment for violating the “intent” of the law.
The “intent” of the law is NEVER. EVER the business of law enforcement or the courts.
It is the job of legislators and regulators to craft the law such that it clearly defines what is acceptable conduct and what is unacceptable.
Laws are about conduct – acts, not intentions.
Apparently you were not paying any attention to the Gorsuch debate.
It is not EVER the role of those in law enforcement to figure out the intent of the law. The meaning of the law (or constitution) is NOT what the legislature “intended”. It is the plain meaning of the words written as understood by the PEOPLE at the time the law was enacted.
There is no other means of understanding law that does nto degenerate to lawlessness.
When law enforcement and courts start searching for “intent” in the law – we are lawless. We have the rule of man, not law. We have law that swings with the whim of whoever controls the courts.
When law is understood by the the plain language of the words – and to the extent that the language of law is not timeless – to that meaning at the time the law was enacted, then and only then do we have the rule of law.
Then and only then do we have a clear means of fixing it when the law is wrong, or outdated.
“Amazing, you are practically channeling me.
I might have to retract my assertion that you are progressive.”
I’m just channeling Econ 101 and 102 along with a little bit of life experience.
You and I use the word progressive differently, it has no one precise fixed meaning, because it has had a whole series of meanings throughout history. My view of progressives is that they are the leftmost part of the spectrum that is trying to realistically have a chance at getting elected. There is a left that is so far left it really isn’t seriously trying to get elected, I’d call some of those people, Nadar and Jill Stein, progressives. Bernie Sanders is my idea of a progressive.
I never, never, never was a fan of Bernie Sanders, I have thought that he is a hot air populist who does not begin to understand Econ 101 for the entire 40 years I have known him. He offers hope, false hope, which I think is cruel, although he is not trying to be cruel. I’d love to believe in his crusade, I like its core intentions, but he has little or nothing to offer his followers in the way of believable mechanisms. The solutions he offers are, in my understanding, destructive to working people if they were to get out of the fantasy stage and be made into law, which has no chance of happening at the federal level unless someone finds a way to remove 80% of the Americans who live here now and replace them with Scandinavians.
Don’t worry Dave, we are in strong disagreement on many things, but we both understand and accept Econ 101 and 102. The same happened with Bastiat when he was arguing with Moogie, I had to agree with most of what he said, because its just Econ 101 and 102 and a bit of common sense mixed in. That material has no ideology, its just stuff that just is.
What percentage of the American population understands Chemistry? Physics? Calculus? Molecular Genetics? Economics? Low percentages, which is OK and natural, these are technical subjects that most people only really learn if they need to use them in their actual life, only, people who don’t understand Chemistry KNOW that they don’t understand Chemistry, while people who didn’t learn Economics in any formal organized way still believe they understand economics because economics is tightly connected to politics and politicians preach their economic sermons, usually wildly distorted ones, to create anger and get votes.
Priscilla, if you happen to read this, how do you like That run on sentence?
I hope everyone had a great Easter holiday.
“Channeling econ 101” – absolutely.
“He offers hope, false hope, which I think is cruel, although he is not trying to be cruel. I’d love to believe in his crusade, I like its core intentions, but he has little or nothing to offer his followers in the way of believable mechanisms. The solutions he offers are, in my understanding, destructive to working people if they were to get out of the fantasy stage and be made into law, which has no chance of happening at the federal level unless someone finds a way to remove 80% of the Americans who live here now and replace them with Scandinavians.”
Again we are in agreement.
But I would ask – if Sanders version of leftism, if destructive and cruel, are half way versions of Sanders – half destructive and half cruel.
I have already posted a diatribe on intentions.
Good intentions DO NOT forgive bad actions.
They especially do not forgive forseable bad results.
The basics of economics are not that difficult to understand, most of us really do grasp atleast the basics.
That is part of why we have anecdotes here of the communist who was an evil capitalist in his own business.
Because we really do know what is required to get ahead.
We really do understand the fundimentals of economics.
The problem is not what we do not know, it is that we want the laws of econmics to be mutable. We want them to be maleable to our command, and we have politicians who will constantly tell us that is so, and so against our own better judgement we beleive.
What Sanders says is appealing – if you turn off your brain.
When Obama was elected I prayed that everything I knew about economics would prove to be false – that Obama would be right and I would be wrong.
That pray was not answered.
Sorry, but moogie and I are not close to mirror images.
We are antagonists on the issues that have come up here.
It is increasingly obvious that we are more alike than I had originally thought.
But she does not wish to see that.
anyone want to explain why 2 of my comments are “awaiting moderation” ?
Did you include more than one link? More than one will send it to moderation instantly and someone has to release it. Sometimes it gets released and sometimes it does not.
I have had comments just disappear completely, but not reported in moderation. That’s just WordPress
Hope this answers your question.
Thanks Ron.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2014/03/25/the-67-people-as-wealthy-as-the-worlds-poorest-3-5-billion/#6477125411ad
Not a good example unless you want to redistribute money in America to other countries.
Africa represents 1/3 of those 3.5 billion people.
And then you are presenting information on ultra liberal individuals that preach liberal positions, but do not practice the same.
Forbes err’s.
Those people are not as “wealthy”, but they do have as much money.
Money and wealth are not the same. Otherwise Spain would still be the worlds sole superpower.
Update:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/15/news/economy/oxfam-income-inequality-men/
How ironic that you are using as an example to support your income inequality some of the most liberal assholes in the country.
Thought it was going to be ones like the Koch brothers.
At least you are being fair in your assessments.
Now maybe you need to look at how they use foreign manufacturing to pad their income along with shareholders at the expense of American workers that could produce that same product.
If you want to solve the perceived problem you keep talking about, maybe increasing American jobs would do just that. More American jobs at a high wage than foreign workers increases income in America and decreases profits that these guys end up getting significant returns from.
You keep harping on income inequality and I will keep harping on unfair trade and companies leaving the USA due to tax and cost issues.
What we want is americans producing greater value with less human effort.
That means moving low value production elsewhere is GOOD for us – and good for those countries where their productivity is low.
We do not want to stupidly try to hold onto the production of low value goods.
We are better off if those are produced elsewhere.
This is no different from automation.
The spinning jennies that only required one worker to produce the goods of 6 before,
made us MORE wealthy – raised our standard of living.
But we do not like loosing 6 low wage jobs and replacing them with 1 medium wage job.
We are not able to trust that the economy will ultimately find a use for those 5 workers who were displaced.
One of the corollaries of the law of supply and demand is that supply creates its own demand.
That pretty much anything that we have enough of we will find a way to turn into value.
That is why contra left wing nuts big businesses do not need laws and regulations to stop them from polluting. Waste in all forms is a cost to business, businesses constantly try to figure out how to turn waste into other products. If you convert some waste output from production into another product, even if you sell it at a loss – you still on the whole profit – because you do not have to pay to dispose of it.
99% of everything that goes into a Tyson plant comes out as a product.
Not because of laws and regulations, but because it is good business.
It is also as a rule why big businesses actually pollute less than smaller ones.
Because it is not until there is a large enough quantity of some waste than it becomes worthwhile to convert it to a product.
As I said supply creates demand – that is one aspect of the laws of supply and demand.
A use for available labor will always be found in time – without government programs.
The fast food industry as an example has deliberately targeted low skill workers – because they are readily available and cheap. and they have designed their operations to make use of that pool of available labor. If you raise the cost of that labor – they will more likely change their business model than pay low skill workers higher wages. They will automate, or shift to fewer higher skill employees, or some combination.
This is also why high skilled unemployment is always very low and low skill is high.
There is always a need for STEM professionals – actually there is always a use for any type of labor, but STEM labor has no meaningful floor to wages. An unemployed engineer can reduce his starting salary 20% in a recession and likely get a job easily.
And unemployed mcdonalds worker can not.
Rates of unemployment usually correlate STRONGLY inverse to wages, and skill.
Because the closer your wages are to the floor MW places under wages, the more likely it is that you can not move from unemployment to employment by adjusting your wage.
Since Moogie will likely imediatley start ranting about races to the bottom.
Pre the great depression unemployment spikes were typically brief.
in response to an economic downturn prices were cut, wages were cut and everyone was back to work quickly, and wages and prices typically recovered fully in 9-18 months.
Well atleast the headline is correct on the CNN story.
Richer != Wealthier.
The Walton family is very rich – but to continue to receive those riches
they are saving every single american family about as much as those families on food stamps receive in food stamps in a year.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/profit-anti-poverty-15120.html
The point is you do not understand the difference between wealth and money.
I doubt very many US families have more money as a result of Walmart.
At the same time they are inarguably more wealthy.
So after you have redistributed the money of those however many people you seem to think you are entitled to steal from, are you going to start taking money from the average american poor person, and giving it to the billions in the rest of the world who are worse off ?
A completely “free” market enslaves working people.
Only rich people and and the uneducated believe in a completely free market. Working people will be slaves if their is no regulation, especially where wages, hours, and safety are concerned. Only right wing idiots believe otherwise, and since they have most of the money they buffalo the less knowledgeable.
“A completely “free” market enslaves working people.”
Fortunately there is no such thing as a completely free market, not even nearly, at least in the developed world. Oh, I am sure some exception can be found, like prostitution, but it will be the exception that proves the rule.
Seems I am destined to disagree with nearly every word you utter on economic topics and I consider myself to be liberal at heart and certainly am not a conservative, let alone a right wing nut or idiot. But I did take quite a few courses in economics and understand them. The things I learned there are not conservative things and not liberal or even moderate things. They are just the logic of how money follows goods and services with no ideology at all. Which does not mean that right and left ideologues can’t try to use them and distort them to make their points. It does not change the basic issues that one learns in econ 101 and 102. If you understood that material your economic views would not remain at all as they are now.
I can agree with this:
“Working people will be slaves if their is no regulation, especially where wages, hours, and safety are concerned.”
but not this:
“Only right wing idiots believe otherwise, and since they have most of the money they buffalo the less knowledgeable.”
I don’t believe you can produce solid support for the idea that the people who have most of the money are all right wing idiots who believe in deregulating everything. Its just more wild hyperbole. If you actually had to prove all these wild exaggerations you make that form the basis of your political views on wages to yourself rigorously and were really honest about it, you would quickly have much less black and white views. There are plenty of moderates and liberals in the middle and upper classes. And… plenty of poor among the conservatives. The most conservative states are the poorest states. Good luck changing their opinions.
Prostitution is an example of what happens when government tries stupidly to control the market.
Though I am not sure how it is that prostitution is the exception that proves the rule.
Prostitution exists – despite the efforts of the state to destroy it.
It is free market in the sense that it is entirely unregulated.
But it is not free market in that because government has precluded it, it operates outside out prohibitions against force or fraud, or our requirements that committments be kept and harm be compensated.
At the same time the existance of prostitution demonstrates that there really is very little that government is necescary for.
BTW prostitution is not alone, pretty much all illegal economic activity occurs in markets devoid of regulation, and devoid of government protections against force and fraud.
And still these work – not as well as we might like, but still they work.
I would also note that the silk road is another example of a free market.
eBay. etsy, Amazon and myriads of other online markets are examples of very lightly regulated markets that work extremely well.
And that increasingly circumvent regulations.
With a tiny bit of knowledge it is pretty trivially to purchase online products that government bars us from purchasing.
We must either buy something for a legal alternative purpose, and use it in secret for the purpose that government bars, or buy it in an international market sufficiently large that government does nto notice that we have bought something we are not allowed to.
Often these things are not – heroin or cocaine, but antibiotics or tooth whiteners or other things that the US government prohibits us from buying. But can not really control.
“Prostitution exists – despite the efforts of the state to destroy it.” (Its called escort services)
Yep and if the state governments could find a way to get their hands on it like they did with the numbers game (lottery) they would be providing that service also.
The state should not run lotteries any more than escort services or construction companies.
The evidence on prostitution is that there are the least problems the less government is involved. Even countries that have tried to decriminalize and regulate it – still have a thriving underground prostitution market.
When it is regulated – that becomes a cost that some of those engaged in it can not or will not pay – so they go underground.
“Working people will be slaves if their is no regulation, especially where wages, hours, and safety are concerned.”
For 150,000 years of human history, 99.9% of us were essentially slaves.
Regulation – no regulation, it did not matter.
We were capable of producing food, shelter, clothing and very little more – and only if nothing went wrong.
Over the first 150.000 years of human progress, we raised life expectance from 20 to near 30.
We did not even double the standard of living of an ordinary person.
There were myriads of advances in science and technology over that period – though they came about slowly, still they came. When in the 15th century standard of living in western europe started to precipitously rise – there was little in the way of technology that had not existed in some form in the world – often for milenia.
What changed ? The begininings of the philosophy of individual rights and freedom.
The core requirement for free markets.
Since that point in time the improvement in the human condition has risen at a near vertical rate. Nothing anywhere and at any time has matched it.
This started in the midst of relatively authoritarian governments – though mostly sufficiently small in power to stay out of the way.
These gains have continued unabated for going into 6 centuries now.
The gains have occured regardless of the government.
But they have proceeded fastest where government took seriously the rule of law – securing our rights and liberty and not interfering in those.
So NO we do not and never have needed government to improve our wages, create workplace safety, or prevent us from being enslaved.
The great danger ot our liberty – is govenrment, not free markets.
In fact name anywhere in all history an actual corporatacracy.
Where ever have markets – free or otherwise resulted in tryany and slavery ?
The only threat to human liberty and wealfare has been government not markets.
Those states with the highest standards of living have been republican and more importantly free market for centuries. They have only recently flipped democrat.
Those states that are the poorest have been democrat and totalitarian for centuries and only recently flipped republican.
Those formerly blue and now red states have incredible growth considering the poverty they have started from.
“A completely “free” market enslaves working people.”
Because you say so ?
We have already been through the MW rot.
It is clear that 98% of workers do not receive MW, so an actual free market would not drive down wages – but it would increase employment.
That is your idea of enslaving people ?
Do you have any actual facts to support any claim you make ?
Since Mao died slight increases in economic freedom in China have driven average incomes from $60/yr to $11,000/yr – that is clearly a “race to the bottom”.
Absent MW laws, and workplace safety laws the chinese have been thoroughly screwed ?
Are you brain dead ?
The things you claim would happen in a free market – have never happened in a free market.
You are fighting about unicorns.
BTW since 1960 life expectance in china has increased by 32 years.
Clearly those unsafe working conditions are killing off the clearly poorer chinese by the millions.
Get a clue – poverty, death, enslavement, are the natural consequences of UNFREE markets.
Of the nonsense you sell.
“some exception can be found, like prostitution” — LOL
“The most conservative states are the poorest states. Good luck changing their opinions.” — all too aware of that!!!
But some conservatives out there insist we shouldn’t even have a minimum wage…which is the only thing keeping most of us from starving.
IMHO, this is the typical attitude of the rich:
https://thinkprogress.org/worlds-richest-woman-says-people-are-poor-because-they-re-lazy-drunks-d7dfeeade06c
They have always paid extremely little in the past, which is why we didn’t have much of a middle class till after WWII.
Pay is not based on the all the economic mumbo-jumbo preached. It is based mainly on how many yachts the owner wants. He can have 49 cars, 12 yachts, 30 vacation homes and buy $100 underwear while his workers have no health insurance and live in shacks…this is the conservative idea of “freedom”. They claim workers can just go down the street and get a better paying job. What rot. You can’t around here, they are all low paying jobs….thanks to the minimum wage not being raised in so long.
You can either have complete “freedom” or you can do what is morally right and ensure workers are paid a livable wage. Because centuries of the wealthy cheating workers pretty much proves they never do what is morally right, and have to be forced by the government. With out some regulation, working folks always get cheated. That is not the kind of society I want, but that is what has been re-created by conservative “ideals” since 1980.
“Cheap Labor” the overarching conservative ideal is BS. They refuse to admit when you raise pay, people start buying more!!!! Again, the rich will stay rich, they just won’t be quite as rich. Doesn’t your heart bleed?
I long ago posted some articles on that wretched woman. She got quite a nasty response from many people in Australia and elsewhere to her incredible comments. Yeah, she is the worst case scenario of the oblivious greedy rich. And fatter than anything just to make it worse.
Read the the The Three Fat Men by Yuri Olesha, a revolutionary fairy tale type story about three men similar to that Aussie mining heiress pig who controlled everything in a mythical land and then got overthrown. You’ll enjoy it. You can get it at amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Fat-Hesperus-Modern-Voices/dp/184391452
But by and large its a caricature of the rich and caricatures just dehumanize people so that they can be demonized. I don’t believe that the rich as a group are all demons, just often isolated from reality and oblivious. Eating a few of the worst ones now and then might be a good thing though.
“But some conservatives out there insist we shouldn’t even have a minimum wage…which is the only thing keeping most of us from starving.”
WE did not have a minimum wage in the US prior to 1939.
And yet real wages and standard of living rose FASTER before the MW than they have after.
The MW does nto keep anyone from starving, less that two percent of those employed are paid the MW – that alone refutes that idiocy.
On the other had, unemployment among minorities has more than doubled since MW laws were enacted.
Why would anyone in their right mind go to think progress to find out what conservatives think ?
That is like trying to get an athiest to explain transubstantiation
“Why would anyone in their right mind go to think progress to find out what conservatives think ?
That is like trying to get an athiest to explain transubstantiation”
This, I have to admit, is actually pretty funny. Good one.
The top 1% in the US have an average income of 380K/yr accoring to the NYT in 2012.
About 1/3 of them own a vehicle besides a car – that means 2/3’rds can not possibly own yachts. Only 1 in 5 own a boat of a plane.
The total combined wealth of the entire forbes 400 is 2.3T – that is a bit more than 1/2 the federal budget for ONE YEAR, and 1/8 the national debt.
“Cheap Labor” the overarching conservative ideal is BS. They refuse to admit when you raise pay, people start buying more!!!!
Actually no, it does not work that way.
That is pseudo keynesian bunk (even keynes did not actually beleive that)
if you pay people more without FIRST creating more value, you make us all POORER, not richer.
That is not a matter of ideology, it is not even really economics.
It is just simple math.
You can not buy what has not been produced.
If you increase money without increasing what is produced first – you devalue money.
If your nonsense actually worked The wiemar republic would have been a great success.
You can not raise standards of living by playing games with money.
How many times do I have to tell you
Money is not wealth.
It is something that you can exchange for wealth – but that presumes the wealth actually exists already.
If you have lots of money – you have money not wealth. Someone else has the wealth.
By the way Dave…I don’t know what the tax was on the yachts, but since we do everything in extremes in this country it wouldn’t surprise me if they went overboard. They did this with vanity license plates in Texas back in the 80s. They went from $25? to $75? in one year and people quit buying them. Instead of just going up maybe $5 a year every year for 5 years maybe. There are smarter ways to do things.
As I noted before, the rich didn’t keep (and didn’t expect to keep) 95% of the profits when we had a strong middle class. A robust economy requires more people with more money. The rich even admit they can’t buy but so much, the rest just gets invested. Again, if there is not much being sold, why hire more workers or have to raise wages?
Is a 10% tax on yachts worth over 100,000 going overboard ?
The effects were absolutely devastating.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-06-09/business/1991160128_1_luxury-tax-yachts-harrison
No congress did not “go overboard”.
They made one mistake that they rarely make.
They passed a law that had effects that were contained and therefore obvious.
We had the same thing happen when congress tried to raise american samoa and the marianas islands up the the US minimum wage.
In the marianas, trying to increase the MW caused a 36% decline in GDP, industries just left the island. It caused a 45% increase in unemployment,
The effects in the american Samoas were worse.
How is this different from the effects of similar laws in the US as a whole ?
The only difference is that the harm is NORMALLY much more diffuse – it is harder to see, but it is still there are still large.
Or do you think that someone luxury boats or the marianas and samoas are different ?
The the laws of economics only work in some parts of the world.
So you think if you do something incredibly stupid incrementally, that it will work out alright – that people will be fooled ?
Get a clue. If you increase the price do vanity licenses $5/year, you will reduce the number of people who purchase them each year.
When you reach $75 you will have virtually the same results as if you had increased them to 75 in one year.
there is no means to ease your way around the laws of supply and demand.
Stupid is stupid – even incrementally.
Maybe it hurts less to ease your way into a pot of boiling oil
But you are going to be badly burned either way.
You keep trying to sell me this “When we had a strong middle class.”
I have already demonstrated that the middle class is stronger today.
I have also demonstrated that your idilic time was an incredibly racist mysoginist period.
But I guess you think you are allowed to airbrush that away.
What is it that you think investment is ?
Sticking money under your bed ?
Investing means taking money and using it to produce things that you are gambling that people will want in the future.
It means building factories and hiring people.
You can not produce more without investing.
When you have less investment you have less growth.
That is extremely well understood.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/JFK-on-the-Economy-and-Taxes.aspx
“plenty of poor among the conservatives. The most conservative states are the poorest states. Good luck changing their opinions.”
Very true, and in particular among the white working class, of which Moogie appears to consider herself a member.
There is a very good political analyst on CNN, who also writes for The Washington Examiner and The Atlantic, named Salena Zito. She saw the Trump phenomenon very early and predicted his win, in spite of the polls, by talking to working class people in Pennsylvania ~ people who live in that vast expanse of land between Philly or Pittsburgh. She was amazed by the deep support and enthusiasm for Trump.
It wasn’t economic policy that energized these people, nor policy of any kind, really. It was the message that the America that they knew had changed too much, and in the wrong direction. That there are forces that are destroying American culture, American values and American families, and that these forces needed to be stopped. Trump’s populist rhetoric centered around this theme ~ restore American sovereignty, restore the rule of law, restore America’s economy, restore America’s place as leader of the free world. In short, MAGA ~ “make America great again.”
Before anyone jumps in with arguments about why Trump can’t make America great again, or
that these people are motivated by a racist white-nationalist worldview, or why a global economy, not the left, is what has taken away American jobs, or that open borders and sanctuary for illegal immigrants is a good thing, or anything else (**run-on sentence alert),I am not saying that I agree, or that I ever agreed with all of Donald Trump’s policy positions. That’s not my point here.
I am saying this ~ and it’s a phrase that Salena Zito first came up with to explain why Trump’s core supporters have such a strong connection to him: “the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/
Moogie, you clearly have a very “locked-in” view of politics. I don’t consider you a communist, but I do think that you have a flawed understanding of economics and a reflexive tendency to blame the right/conservatives for all of the economic woes of the working class poor. It’s too simplistic. You take left-wing rhetoric literally and seriously.
I read her too.
And I agree with your assessment.
Though the quote is significant and the left and media do not understand it.
Equally important is that left wing nut politicians make promises they can nto keep all the time and people vote for them.
The argument that Trump might not be able to do what he promised, presumes that his voters are mentally superior to progressives.
One of the things that has impressed me about Trump is that he has striven to “keep his promises” not necescarily literally. But the left has whigged out over Trump’s presidency specifically because he is trying to do what he said he would.
When he does something I would prefer he did not – such as building the wall or obstructing immigration, that leads me to beleive that when he promised to “drain the swamp” that I can beleive him.
The left bitches that he has brought all these business leaders to washington.
What would you expect ?
You do not bring the swamp creatures to “drain the swamp”.
He has brought alot of people with a “can do” attitude and experience accomplishing more with less.
Finally, I follow economic news closely. there are very mixed signals.
But my sense is that 2017 will be the best year since 2009.
And that 2018 will be better still.
If that is so – republicans are going to have a filibuster proof senate.
And if it continues – Trump will be re-elected in 2020.
There is an enormous difference in the attitude of people in the country – between a 2% growth economy and a 3% growth economy.
It is highly unlikely that Trump can deliver on his promises in detail.
But it is entirely possible that in 2020 people will feel that Pres. Trump has made america greater again.
Just to be clear before I get beaten as a Trump supporter.
I approach Trump with skepticism, but hope too.
I wish he were not the pushy blowhard that he is.
But I will measure him by what he accomplishes, not what he says.
And I think that those working class people will too.
That is another really big factor in this election.
One that is not so much about Trump as about the future.
We have heard so much of this demographics is destiny rot.
Yet it is the democratic party that is in great danger of being irrelevant.
And I understand the DNC is now taking Bernie Sanders on a democrats shift left national tour.
If I wanted to wish evil on the democratic party – they are destroying themselves.
That is NOT what I want.
Democrats need to move to the center. For their own sake and that of the country.
“It is highly unlikely that Trump can deliver on his promises in detail.”
You got that right!!!!!!!!!!!
Health care. No way they will repeal and replace the way people thought that to happen. GOP too divided and to get something other than tweaks will be a miracle.
Border Wall..Even if they get funding, which is questionable, this will be held up in courts for years. Remember, there is some asinine treaty with mexico that prohibits any obstructions on the Rio Grande and requires these to be a certain distance from the river. Ranchers that have homes on the river will fight the wall as their homes will be on the Mexican side of the wall even if they are technically in the USA. One older lady now has a home somewhere on the border and her home is on the Mexican side and they had to leave an opening so she could come and go as she wanted. So who uses that passage along with her????
Taxes…”W” had a tax bill done by May. Trump can’t get congress off the pot (or off vacation). They have to get it done this year or nothing will get done. next year is election and everyone that has done nothing this year will be fighting to keep their jobs next go around. And remember, sometime in June or July they take their summer recess because they work so had in the spring they need a rest.
Immigration…..No way anything will get done as they will be fighting about healthcare and taxes.
2018…Pelosi set to become speaker of the house, Chuck Shumer majority leader and Elizabeth Warren prepares for a presidential exploratory committee to begin her run for the White House.
We are debating our read of tea leaves here not ideology or facts,
so this is not a hill I have any interest in dying one.
My read of the tea leaves on your points:
Healthcare: There is alot of blame headed Ryan’s way for making this too complicated.
One of the big problems with PPACA – and with any PPACA replacement is that there is a big difference between disliking even hating what we have and liking any replacement.
PPACA never had anywhere near the popular support needed to impose.
Nor will any Republican replacement.
The GOP has two options – let PPACA fail,
or straight repeal and THEN negotiate with EVERYONE a replacement.
There have never really been any other credible choices – except possible repealing other stupid healthcare constraints that are already law.
Border Wall: Does not matter. Trump does not have to get the entire thing built.
All he has to do is make small progress and be able to blame congress particularly democrats – or activists.
I think the wall is stupid. But it is stupid with a small ‘s’. In the stupid things government does it barely rates.
Taxes: Too much of the tax stuff is tied to PPACA.
That is why they should go with a straight repeal.
Immigration: Trump has already done everything he needs to. The courts, and the left getting in his way does not cost him or republicans anything. The left completely whigging out over the EO makes them look bad.
I am personally for near open borders – but you can not have that with the entitlement state.
But even with Open borders, the question of vetting for terrorists and criminals still exists.
I would argue to just let all comers in and risk getting terrorists – I think we are on net better off. But there would still be high profile stories of people dying from terrorism.
That is also an argument I am going to lose – and it is only partially ideological.
There is no right for those who would harm others to be unrestricted in doing so.
Regardless, there is a difference between Trump winning – by getting what he wants, and winning by having struggled valiantly and lost to the courts.
All the latter does is make the courts an issue for the 2018 election.
And make re-electing trump important to his beleivers.
2018: I know that it is normal for the party in power to lose rather than gain.
But my crystal ball says 2018 could be a really big GOP year.
What remains to be seen is what flavor GOP.
Is 2018 going to be a big year for the freedom caucus and the tea party.
Or is it going to be the revenge of establishment republicans.
One of Trumps current political problems is that he ran a fairly Tea Party campaign.
A form of TP populism got him elected.
But the TP and similar groups in congress are very powerful – but only in their ability to obstruct. Trump has found he needs the GOP establishment to get anything done that requires congress – and that tends to put him at odds with the TP.
“Cheap Labor” the overarching conservative ideal is BS.
I believe that Freedom is the overarching conservative ideal. Not that there is not a world of hyposcrisy involved in that ideal but that is the ideal. Since most conservatives (that is, non-college educated whites) are either lower class or lower middle class I hardly think they go around wanting to be paid as little as possible and thinking that is there mantra. I’ve never heard of a low wage plank in the GOP platform.
“They refuse to admit when you raise pay, people start buying more!!!! Again, the rich will stay rich, they just won’t be quite as rich.”
Find me any case of anyone anywhere not admitting that when you raise pay, people start buying more. One case. Just one.
How many rich do you think there are anyhow? Like what, 1% of us? And how many of that 1% are actual conservative idiot right-wing nuts? Half (I doubt its even that many? You believe that 0.5% of America is in total control of wages and politics? That thinking is how you get people believing that you are quite far out on the left. You have built your whole argument as if it is an argument with all of America that isn’t in the Bernie Sander left itself when its really a tiny part of the population who really fit the description of your target. And they are not nearly as powerful as you imagine. Wages are controlled by Econ 101 stuff, not Rich Greedy Conservative Right wing nuts. You have made a caricature of most of the non-Bernie left voters. Your whole view of this is built on caricatures, hyperbole and exaggeration. Which keeps you from actually looking in the places where the income disparity originates because there is no boogy man to blame in the vast impersonal forces of supply and demand and international economics.
And your questions above about those wonderful other countries where everything is so much better. Name them. Then, look them up and see what they traded off to have less income disparity. In the case of the vaunted Scandinavians its a very high tax rate, like 50% of pay and a lower standard of living. Its a different country, a different culture, a different history, a different demographics.
Look at the map of the US ideologically by county. Its about 80% Red. If you think that you can sell all those red counties on a 50% tax burden and a much lower standard of living, all just to make Moogie and Co. happier (or so Moggie and Co. Believe before they start paying 50% of their wages to the govt.) than go ahead and try to convince the Red world that they want that.
Instead of trying to move American culture to a place it has never been, I’d recommend doing everything possible to make your own situation different and forgetting about what other people are doing, thinking believing, choosing. Cause you ain’t gonna change that.
And, just to be clear, I believe (with a majority of Americans it seems) that income disparity IS growing and IS a real problem, no matter that even the poorest among us have access to many wonderful things that Kings of France never had. I believe that its an explosive problem that is disrupting America.
Most economist believe in income redistribution, according to data I saw once on the ideologies of economists. Economist Do believe that income and wealth disparity are harmful things. How to fight it is the 20 million dollar question. Earned income credit is one example of a solution that actually does something. Even the Ryan led GOP was talking about a plan to increase it during the election, unless I am have a senior moment.
I am NOT against things that actually work to fight income and wealth disparity. Most of the country is so sidetracked by various populist fairy tales that they don’t even think about stuff like Earned Income credit or technical vocational training that actually DOES something.
Exactly, Roby.
I think it’s safe to say that conservatives as well as liberals recognize that there has been a serious and growing income gap that has seen middle class and working class Americans suffer decline in real income and buying power.
Any economic growth over the past decade or so has been extremely weak, and the loss of full-time jobs has steadily increased. The Federal Reserve has repeatedly tried to counter this weak growth by “quantitative easing,” or basically, artificially pumping money into the economy, hoping to stimulate growth. That policy has reduced interest rates to nearly zero, but it has greatly benefited the stock market. And that growth in the stock market has benefited those who work in the financial sector, bankers, Wall Street types,big investors etc. So, the rich have been getting richer, while wages have stagnated or declined for everyone else.
The left’s answer to all of this is to tax more of the money that those rich people make, and channel it into entitlement benefits for the non-rich. The right’s answer is to cut taxes on the non-rich, so that they have more real income, and reduce regulation on employers to spur job growth and opportunity. Obviously, it’s quite a bit more complicated than that, but in general, those are the talkng points.
“A robust economy requires more people with more money.”
Yes, we all agree on that, Moogie. The difference between the right and left is how best to accomplish that.
Mostly I agree.
I would prefer that we did not have a central bank.
But given that we do the Fed initial response to the recession – “printing money”
was actually correct – as best as I have been able to determine.
But continuing it for a decades was not.
It is the Fed’s easy money policies from 1998 forward that caused the housing bubble.
It is likely that the “capital strike” the failure of businesses etc to “reinvest” profits is the primary reason for soaring profits/stock prices. rather than QE.
While there is massive amounts of money sloshing arround in the market – it is primarily in very low risk low return – hence very little economic growth.
It is not however just the rich benefiting from high stock values.
The majority of stock in US companies is held by IRA, and pensions.
That is ordinary people.
My IRA was very small in 2003 it had doubled by 2008, and then it got kicked back to where it started. Now it is nearly 4 times what it originally was, and not so tiny anymore.
Though I should have done more with it long ago.
Still given that I expect my SS and medicare to be trashed I am glad it is there.
BTW, it is extremely well understood by economists that reducing taxes on ordinary people has no consequential economic benefits, and just reduces government revenue.
I personally wish it were otherwise – I would like to see my taxes Drop.
As I recall 3/4 of the Bush 2003 tax cut was for ordinary people and the rest for the “rich”
That is BTW why it took so long for government revenue to recover and for the economy to recover. As noted above there is little benefit to tax cuts for ordinary people.
Contra political keynesians the economy is NOT driven by demand side incentives.
If people quickly spend their tax cuts – it has tiny economic benefit, and the gain is not sustained.
The tax cuts that create the strongest economic benefits are those that increase investment not those that increase spending.
Even Christine Romer’s (Obama’s CEA) work found that increasesed capital gains, corporate and upper margin taxes did twice as much economic harm as any revenue they brought in – if they brought in revenue at all.
Even the poorly structured Bush cuts did actually increase federal revenues – entirely based on the 1/4 of the tax cut that was on upper margin taxes.
Repealing that in 2009 was incredible economic stupidity.
And another factor in the current weak economy.
Regardless, the economy has been weak for almost two decades.
Even ignoring the great recession Bush was only slightly better than Obama,
and far worse than Clinton and Reagan economically.
No Priscilla – Moogie and the rest of you are wrong.
Money is merely the grease that helps the economy work.
It is a means not an end.
A more robust economy requires that we produce more value with less human effort.
It is the value produced that we are able to consume.
I know that some of you might think that is saying nearly the same thing – but it is not.
Thinking about economics primarily in terms of money complicates it and creates huge misperceptions.
Money is as an example a means – the primary means of acquiring wealth.
For about 60% of us that is its entire purpose.
But people slow and nearly cease acquiring actual wealth as that get richer and just acquire, and invest ever more money.
Adam Smith noted this 250 years ago and realized that as people became richer, as they shifted from consumption to investment the benefit of their actions shifted from themselves to others.
I keep trying to get through that Warren Buffett’s investments are entirely to the benefit of others. Not himself. I note that he is a brilliant investor, but otherwise economically stupid because even he does nto grasp that.
Gates and Buffets charity does far LESS good than keeping the same wealth invested.
The world would be better off if the two of them focussed their skills on what they are best at, creating businesses and investing. That is what they do that most greatly benefits the rest of us.
I think that Buffet finds it easy to say that his taxes should be higher – because you could tax him at 90% of his income – and he would not really notice.
He can’t spend even 1% of his yearly income. It makes no difference at all to him where his income goes – charity, taxes, investment.
But it makes a huge difference the the rest of us. ‘
We benefit most if Buffet continues to invest and least if his income goes to taxes.
Global income inequality over more than a century
Changes in US income over the past 60 years.
1). Absolutely those in the top quintile have gained more than those in the bottom.
2). Everybody has gained.
3). Everybody has more than doubled.
Rotate this chart 180 degrees and tell me that would be better ?
Look at this chart and tell me that moogies golden era was so golden.
4). The chart shows exactly what I have been repeating over and over.
EVERYONE has been doing better.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg
Look at the chart I provided and tell me why you would ever want to fight income and wealth disparity.
What is your goal ? For everyone to do better ? Or for everyone to be equal ?
We have had near perfect income equality for 150,000 years.
Al the wealth was held by the top 1% who themselves were dirt poor.
The rest were barely surviving.
That is not what I want.
I would love for you to explain to me how it is that we are going to have a society that produces more wealth – without income growing faster for the more productive ?
That is back to your econ 101.
The economic school that beleives that income disparity is a bad thing has a name – communism.
Literally that is pretty much the definition of communism.
Absolutely there are smart well educated people who say things that are totally inconsistent with their knowledge education and facts.
That does not make those things we should rely on.
“Since most conservatives (that is, non-college educated whites) are either lower class or lower middle class”
Ideology and income by state
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/political-ideology/by/state/among/income-distribution/50000-99999/
politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/2797/PesonalityIncomeIdeology.pdf
Since the upper middle class and the rich are a minority my statement would have been safe if I had said, liberals, libertarians or Eskimo-Americans. I certainly did NOT say that “conservatives are all poor whites,” reread.
As far as my saying that few voters in the red counties are going to join Bernie’s Scandinavian Democratic Socialists and the other similar things I said in my reply to Moogie, that is not libertarian, its not even ideological at all, its just living in reality. Trust me, I’m still safely liberal regarding my fears and wishes, if rather moderate or perhaps even just not ideological at all in my economics.
Graphs are always good. But, your graph answers a different issue than what I was talking about. If 59% of the people in Alabama making 50 000-100 000 are conservatives, it still says just about nothing about the median income of conservatives in Alabama or America. Given that there is a spectacular correlation between low income by state and party affiliation I would be very surprised if the median income of conservatives was a number that put them in the rich or upper middle class. Conservative or GOP voting non college educated whites are NOT an upper middle class or rich group statistically. Which is what Moogie is not getting when she goes on about the greedy rich right wing nuts pushing the ideal of low wages on everyone. There are a shit load of the members of the GOP base working at Walmart and such, they don’t have an ideal of low wages, that’s nonsense.
i do not care if most conservatives are actually one toed sloths – if that were true.
The fact is that to the extent that conservatism varies with income at all – it slightly increases with income.
To the extent it varies with education at all – it slightly increases with education.
most conservatives != non-college educated whites
That is what I am taking issue with.
Did I disagree that The Bernie tour is not going to change red districts blue – or even purple ones ?
Sometimes when someone raises an issue here I express my own view on that issue.
That does nto always mean I disagree.
Demographics are not inherently ideological.
Nor is the stupidty of the Bernie tour.
One of the problems with ideology is that there are correlations between some forms of knowledge and ideology.
Knowledge of economics correlates strongly with libertarianism.
As does skills in logic, and reason.
As does IQ.
An awful lot of the “extremist” positions I argue – are just basic economics.
What is disturbing is that we have an ideology that is strongly anti-science, anti-reason, anti-logic, that thinks oppinions trump facts and data – and this ideology is progresive not conservative.
You are correct I do not have a graph that shows the ideology by state by income.
But the chart I did provide shows that with very few exceptions the income group from 50-100K is more conservative that progressive, in most cases is pluralty conservative and in many cases – mostly those states you are fixated on is majority conservative.
It is in theory still possible that there are such huge numbers of poor white conservatives that that chart does not falsify your claim.
Except that the pew data on nationwide political identity by income show no huge bubble of poor white conservatives.
I have no doubt there are poor white conservatives.
Absolutely as evidenced by nearly all elections in my lifetime – whites are predominantly republican and minorities are predominantly not.
Ideology tracks race – but it does not strongly track income – and to the extent it does conservitism MILDLY increases with income.
The premise I am rejecting that is there is some unusually large block of non-college educated poor white conservatives.
Of the three qualifiers the only one that has a strong conservative bias is “white”.
The other two qualifiers imply incorrectly that poor or non-college educated strongly corelates to conservative.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No wonder Washington does not understand the problems in the rest of the country.
More ideology by income detailed.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/2014-party-identification-detailed-tables/
Except the idea that conservatives are all poor whites, you seem to be channeling a kinder gentler libertarian.
“The economic school that beleives that income disparity is a bad thing has a name – communism.”
Communism trying to eliminate ALL income disparity. Every developed nation on earth has programs to try to keep income and wealth disparity to a dull roar.
I get your message Dave, actually its an important one that I long ago understood, about everyone coming up. If Moogie would look at your charts with an open mind and digest that it would certainly lead her in a different direction, a better one.
All the same, the poor are still too poor, even in the richest country in a America, and that is actually a real problem. I don’t dream of eliminating these disparities, that is naive. Sensible people believe in trying to bring the rather ghastly level of the disparity down, including, as of last election, the GOP base and the GOP leadership.
“Communism trying to eliminate ALL income disparity.”
Moogie has carefully worded every single comment to NOT support that idea. This is how conservatives work – jumping to extremist views to stir up fear. Anything that helps working people is labeled “socialism” to scare them away from it, since the term “communism” is now obsolete. The bottom is too low in this country, we have far too many poor -working poor- and it is NOT because we have so many lazy people – another big conservative lie.
Dave and those like him say there is No Income Inequality. They spread the lie that those “other” poor people (meaning minorities) are the cause of low wages, and are lazy & sponge off the government. This is why we now have a moron for President…too many broke people listening to 30+ years of conservative media that has stoked these untruths.
When moderates buy into these lies, we cannot solve problems. I am not extreme left – I am quite center. But the far right has dominated our thinking for so long, and insisted that anyone who does not agree with their extremist agenda is a “libtard” or “librul” or an “elite” or an “atheist” or “socialist” or I still hear “communist” every once in a while. I read all kinds of supposedly middle of the road sites and the right is positively hostile to anything that dares to disagree with right wing behaviors. And this has now gone on for 30 years. People who live outside the inner cities (look at the red/blue on the maps you talk about) are TERRIFIED for the most part of saying outloud they don’t agree with the far right – I have people write or tell me that from time to time. I don’t give much of a dam anymore what people think, but most people won’t rock the boat; they especially fear losing jobs. I am the ONLY person in this county publicly verbalizing any view that is remotely outside the far right (I write opinions in the weekly newspaper) …and I suspect I pay for in not being able to get a job nearby as well as feeling rather isolated. Conservatives are the school yard bullies, and most people out here in the country are just going to fall in line. Why do you think so much of the country is red on those maps?
“Communism trying to eliminate ALL income disparity.”
Moogie has carefully worded every single comment to NOT support that idea. This is how conservatives work – jumping to extremist views to stir up fear. ”
My comment was addressed to Dave, because his comment that I quoted was absurd and rather than stirring up fear, it just made me hurt my face rolling my eyes.
Moogie, you sound pretty left to me, and I live in Vermont and I think I know what pretty left sounds like. THe idea you have that the media are very conservative in itself is big clue to your ideology.
Conservatives living in Vermont are about as miserable as liberals living in Appalachia, nothing in their state feels right to them, the world seems a misguided place. The same is happening to you, your location is a wild mismatch to your politics and it gives you a whole series of wildly exaggerated opinions on American politics.
So, Find a miserable conservative living in Vermont and do a house switch, you’ll both get instant relief.
There is a limit to how much I can go round and round with Dave and to how much I can go around and around with you. There is a vast ideological space between you and Dave, and I am in that space somewhere. If you wanted to know how I feel about conservative politics and ideas you would only have to go back through TNM over the years and see how little love I have for the right ideology as a whole. But you out-do me by an order of magnitude. Remember old JB? He seemed to spend every waking minute of the Obama years fuming about Obama and liberals. Must have hurt. You seem to be doing the same about conservatives, they have taken over your entire attention. It must hurt. I’d advise some perspective. Not every single thing that conservatives believe is automatically wrong. Not every thing that Dave says is automatically wrong, there are actually some good ideas mixed in with his laissez faire (he is strongly pro immigrant, and opposed to anti muslim hysteria just for a start). As well, there is plenty that IS wrong on the left, even if their intentions mostly seem nicer.
Good luck with the minimum wage campaign, perhaps we will get another big swing in 2020 and a lefty president and congress and try the experiment of a sizable minimum wage hike. In my opinion, it won’t work and if it gets enacted somehow it will be a giant painful lesson on Econ 101 and then liberals will have to either learn some basic economics or give up.
Rachel Maddow – uber conservative !!
My argument is not extremist, nor conservative.
It is logic, it is a simple logical technique call reductio ad absurdem.
And I use it alot.
It rest on the concept that if something works if done alittle, then it should also work it done alot, that it should work best if done with full commitment.
If reducing income equality is good, then eliminating it is logically best.
The above logic is true EXCEPT in one instance – where you can establish a clear limiting principle.
As an example more freedom is best
But we know absolute freedom is anarchy and bad – so there must be a limiting principle on freedom – or more freedom is not best.
There are three limiting principles for freedom.
You may not use force or fraud against others
You must keep your commitments.
You must make whole those you harm.
With those limiting principles – there is no reductio ad absurdem argument against greater freedom.
So what is the limiting principle to reducing income inequality ?
If you can not find one then your argument that income inequality is bad is disproven by reductio ad absurdem.
Framed differently if you can not provide a basis rooted in principle why you are not advocating communist approach to IE, then you are, or you are being logiially dishonest with yourself.
Regardless, my argument is neither dishonest, nor conservative.
It is simple logic. It knows no idoelogy.
“If reducing income equality is good, then eliminating it is logically best.”
Nope…fine example of extremist thinking.
““If reducing income equality is good, then eliminating it is logically best.”
Nope…fine example of extremist thinking.”
Nope, that is an example of simple logic. It is not right or left or on any extreme.
If you beleive that reducing it is good, but eliminating it is not – then YOU are obligated to demonstrate some limiting principle that informs us as to why X amount of IE is bad, but X-1 of IE is good, and yet X-2 of IE is bad.
Reduction ad absurdem is a valid form or argument and proof that dates atleast to the Greeks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
So Aristotle and the greek philosophers were extremists ?
So we have to write off an entire facet of logical proofs because you call them extremist ?
“Anything that helps working people is labeled “socialism” ”
More logical errors.
1). Anything that increases government control of the economy IS by definition socialism.
2). You have to prove your premise that your premise helps people.
2a). Many many things that help some people are still NET harmful, so it is never enough to prove that something helps some people.
3). How is calling communism communism or socialism socialism invoking fear in others – unless communism and socialism are something to fear ?
If what you are proposing is neither (it is actually both) then demonstrating that falsifies my argument
if what you are proposing is either then you are obligated to demonstrate why socialism and communism are good things.
What you are not free to do is sell socialism and communism and then accuse those who correctly identify that is disreputable when they are accurately respresenting your arguments.
You keep repeating this “lazy” claim over and over – as if this board is rife with assertions that others are lazy.
I think that you need to prove accusations you make against the rest of us.
The bottom quintile in the country will ALWAYS be the bottom 20%.
That is NEVER changing.
There can never be too many or two few people in the bottom quintile.
There is always 20%.
I have not said there is no income inequality.
I have said two things repeatedly:
First that GINI indexes the numbers that the left bandies about as meaningful measure of what they call income inequality – are meaningless numbers.
It is mathemtaically impossible to represent the distribution of income (or any other general curve) with a single number. This is why nations with high standards of living and those with low ones – both have high GINI coefficients.
Because the number has no useful meaning.
As to the actual concept of income inequality.
Absolutely it exists, it has always existed and it will always exist.
There is however no evidence that greater income inequality is somehow harmful.
And infact income inequality MUST increase if standard of living increases
That is actually a tautology.
I have show you the comparative income distributions since 1971.
Absolutely “income inequality” – both as measured by GINI indexes, and by the distribution of incomes has increased.
At the same time standard of living for all has doubled.
I would not – and I do nto think anyone sane would go back to the past.
I refer you again to the militon friedman anecdote I quoted earlier.
You are fighting over the wrong things. The objective is not to decrease income inequaltiy.
It is to increase standard of living.
The entire IE argument is a stupid effort to distract us from that.
Moogie;
I am getting very seriously offended by your mendacious misrepresentations of me.
I have never said anything close to minorities are responsible for low wages.
I have not said lazyness is responsible for low wages.
I have not even said that low wages is a problem, because it is not.
I have not accused people of sponging off the government.
If government offers you a benefit – I have zero problem with you taking it.
My problem is with government offering it.
Regardless of where you claim to be on the left right axis of the political spectrum you are inarguably in favor of using government power to impose your will on all.
That is statist and totalitarian.
If you claim to be moderate – and you think that all problems require government solutions.
Moderate, left, right – you are an authoritarian.
I find that incredibly humerous as Trump is accused of being authoritarian – and I beleive he is. But he is less authoritarian thus far than most of his accusers. Certainly less than Moogie.
Government is the answer only for those problems that require the use of force.
and only where the use of force can be justified.
Every other problem is a problem for individuals and voluntary groups.
I have heard no one use most of the labels you claim are being used against you.
I will call you an elitist – you are open about that. You beleive you are entitled to impose your ideas on other by force. I can not think of anything more elitist.
I have also called you a socialist. I do not think you are have a good understanding of what socialism actually is. You would likely do an abysmal job defending it.
But you beleive that government should have significant and broad control over the economy and our lives – that is socialism.
You also dance on the edge of communism – again I do not think you have much of an understanding of what it is. Regardless, if you advocate for reducing income inequality by force, without any limiting principle – then you are communist, regardless of what you label yourself.
You are not a liberal or whatever permutations you wish of that.
Liberals are people who prize individual liberty – you clearly do not.
What you are is someone who has coopted a term that does not apply to you, mangled its meaning and turned it into an insult.
I have not been in appalachia recently.
But in my extremely conservative community – myriads of viewpoints are vigorously expressed.
The church I go to has every flavor in the rainbow, and the only person there who would be uncomfortable expressing their views would be me.
That is generally true in left communities – even tiny ones like progressive churches in conservative communities.
Regardless though conservatives (and some pretty bad ones) dominate the government and make up the overwhelming majority of the community – I hear all viewpoints all the time.
I would also note that the typical republican congressional district is about +4 republican.
While the typical democratic district is closer to +40.
In most cities 70% of the population is democratic.
Outside the cities on average 52% of us are republican.
The intolerance problem is on the left.
No one firebombed Angela Davis when she toured colleges.
No one beat up Bill Ayres when he spoke.
No college I know of has rescinded a commencement invitation to John Lewis.
I can name dozens of libertarians and conservatives who are heckled badgered and banned from colleges.
A major factor in this election was a huge push back from people tired of being called hateful hating haters by the likes of you.
I have never heard anyone outside the left claim some idea could not even be allowed to be heard.
Intolerance today is primarily a problem on the left.
There is not even a debate about this.
You are just completely off base.
Even left wing professors are finding themselves censored for insufficiently leftist speach.
Given that you can not accurately represent your own position why should anyone rely on your description of others ?
How carefully you work things does nto matter all that much.
You can put lipstick on a pig – it is still a pig.
You can not change a failed arrangement into something that works merely by being careful about your words.
Regardless of what you wish to call what you are selling – where has it worked ?
I have not ever said there is “no income inequality” – that is ludicrously stupid.
I have said that the income inequality meme is a stupid misrepresentation intended to make good look bad.,
Regardless, I do not care about “income inequality” nor is it something anyone else ought to.
If you are twice as well off as you were, being upset that someone else it three times as well off as you is called envy.
I presume you have heard of “reductio ad absurdem”.
When something fails at the extreme, then those advocating some middle ground have the burden of demonstrating what limiting factor exists that would cause it to succeed done more tepidly.
I prefer to avoid the term income inequality – because the “data” on that mostly comes from GINI coeficients – which are a ludicrously stupid measure of pretty much nothing.
You can not meaningfully represent a general curve with a single number.
In the real world two types of nations have High GINI coefficients – Those with the highest standard of living and those with the lowest
That alone should tell you how stupid GINI is.
I have posted a graphic showing the changing distribution of income from 1971 through the present.
I can nto see how the change int he distribution of income in the US over that time frame could not be preceived of as net highly positive. Yet the GINI coefficient grew.
Which just demonstrates that the GINI coefficient is a useless number.
But more broadly the entire concept of income inequality is complete nonsense.
It has so many stupid presumptions.
No matter how you measure it, income distribution is the consequence of so many factors, that any effort on the part of government is going to be economically disasterous.
Further that also means that IE can be used as a justification to do any stupid thing that politicians want to do.
Next, the presumption that it is bad – is just that a presumption, with no base.
We accept that some of us are better at sports than others.
We do not presume there is any reason to force the equalization of sports ability.
The same with myriads of other ways in which we are not equal.
IE is a stupid meme that appeals to our egalitarian sentiments – not logic, or reason or facts.
While I have zero problem with valuing elevating the standard of living of those at the bottom.
That is still not governments role.
But it is something that I do value.
That said why should I value lowering the difference between the rich and the poor ?
If I can make the poor twice as well off, but that results in the rich being ten times as well off – should I reject that – because it increased IE ?
Reducing IE is not a meaningful goal.
It essentially is the conversion of envy into public policy.
History tells us that is disasterous.
Communist and strongly socialist regimes are responsible for the worst bloodshed in human history – whether it is the French Revolution or Mao.
Our egalitarian sentiments have consistently resulted in the most vile evil in the name of punishing those who for whatever reason have done better.
That is not at all what we want incorporated into government policies
It is not an accident that communists have shed the most blood.
It is not an accident that the most egalitarian societies are positively dripping with envy and with violent consequences for any who deviate from the norm.
So no government even thinking about IE is evil, not good.
“Surely you’re not saying we have the resources
To save the poor from their lot?
There will be poor always, pathetically struggling
Look at the good things you’ve got!”
The bottom quintile in the US is the bottom 20%.
There will ALWAYS be a bottom 20%.
I nearly choked when a female british MP complained that 15% of Brits remained in poverty and that had been true without change for decades.
Poverty in Britian is defined as the bottom 15%. So of course there are always 15% in the bottom 15%.
Poverty is defined differently in the US – though the references are constantly changing – to the same effect. Graphs of poverty in the US are absolute stupidity.
All they show is the fact that the definition of poverty int he US shifts over time.
If we use any fixed reference standard of living to define poverty, then poverty throughout the world has reduced by 1/2 in the past 40 years.
Regardless, fixating on disparity is just a complex way of making envy acceptable.
The only thing we have any business caring about – even at the level of individual charity, is increasing the standard of living at the bottom.
It is perfectly moral for one person to be a million times more talented, or wealthy or … than another.
It is not acceptable for people to suffer if that is not their choice.
“A more robust economy requires that we produce more value with less human effort.”
Funny, we produce far more now than we did after WWII, when the middle class was its strongest. But wages did not keep up, because of greed, so the economy went, and stays in the toilet.
There are simply not enough people with enough money to power a great economy any more.
Dave…your conservative arguments will just keep the wealthy wealthy and the rest of us poor.
I know one thing for sure…raising the minimum wage is probably the easiest fix we can try. Why not do it? Good God, prices of many things have increased by 30% in the past 8-9 years since the last minimum wage increase. Its just stupid to not have some increase. Then kick back and watch the spending increase. Conservatives make the same stupid argument that prices will increase every time against Minimum Wage increases and its never proven true yet.
We do produce far more now than ever before.
And the middle class is STILL the middle 20%.
But they are far better off than in the period you say they were the ‘strongest’.
So I have no clue what you think ‘strongest’ means,
as best as I can tell it means poorer.
If you wish to say that growth over the past two decades has been weak – I will agree.
The 21st century in the US was a retrenchment from the last two decades of the 20th.
Bush and Obama were poor presidents, and interfered with the economy to all of our loss.
Regardless, I will be happy to agree to raise the minimum wage.
I think the GOP should have agreed to allow democrats to raise it when this stupidity started.
I think it is an idea even more stupid that PPACA and so long as the blame for the consequences falls completely on democrats I say go for it.
But here are my terms:
You want to raise it to 15 – then raise it to 15 – immediately.
We establish ahead of time criteria to measure success and failure.
When those criteria are not met – the minimum wage self repeals.
If you honestly beleive this stupidity is a good think – then put up or shutup.
Criteria that I would propose as indications of failure.
Significant increases in unemployment in any of the following groups.
Teens, minorities, those without a high school education.
There are other bad things I would expect – but most will utlimately manifest themselves in unemployment.
So are you prepared to bet that this thing you wish to do will actually produce the good you think it will ?
I do not think you are. I do not think you actually beleive in this. I think you are more fixated on feelings than in rational thought. I think that when the outcome is bad you will blame the bad effects on others. Unwilling to own responsibility yourself.
In august of 2008 the price of gas peaked at 4.11.
Currently it is 2.39 that would be a near 100% DECREASE.
Yes some prices of have increased – and some have decreased.
Housing prices have tanked nearly 30% in much of the country since 2006.
Here is the overall CPI change in the recent past. Nothing to be concerned about.
It is essentially the same as the rate of inflation.
Getting rid of inflation is trivial – get rid of the federal reserve.
There was no significant long term inflation in the US from the revolution through 1916 with the creation of the federal reserve.
overall Price increases are a consequence of monetary policy.
The free market is inherently mildly DEFLATIONARY.
If Moogie isn’t trolling us, she’s doing a damn good imitation of someone who is.
ummm…so because I don’t agree with the majority opinions here, I must be a troll.
I have been given no reason to believe that anyone else in this thread spent any time being truly poor, or living among the truly poor, or if any of you are not degreed. My grandparents were all working class. My parents fought desperately to shed their working class roots as if they were embarrassed by them. But I myself often find the well-to-do, or elites, or whatever you call people with more money than most to be insufferably snobbish. Working class people have problems that need to be overcome, but most people seem to start believing they are better than most once they start being able to afford more than half the population. and they certainly fail to appreciate the advantages most
I am the closest thing to a voice for the working class I have seen in this thread. It should not surprise you that I see things differently. Teaching in inner city Dallas. Living in what can definitely be called Trump country (rural Appalachia Virginia) for 18 years, and making a working class wage for 15 of them has certainly given me a new perspective. Keeping foster teens. Driving past empty factories and other signs of what was once the prosperous city of Martinsville, home to Bassett, Stanley, Vaughn furniture, home to Fieldcrest and other textiles in better days will make you see the damage that not paying middle class wages can do. Make no mistake, jobs shipped over seas do not pay a middle class wage – the whole reason for moving the jobs.
If people world wide were paid middle class wages, there would be no reason to move jobs. Cheap Labor is Bull Sh**. Once again I NEVER have said we should all be paid the same. But the bottom most certainly needs to come up.
I do not think you are a troll.
I think you are an idiot.
While I highly doubt you get the prize for enduring the worst deprivation, ssince when is that a goal ?
Why would anyone take pride in doing worse than everyone else ?
Since when is that an honor.
From you own posts you are a capable teacher.
From what I gather you do not teach by choice.
That is fine with me. What is not fine is whining about the choices you have made.
If as a consequence of your choices you are actually worse off than the rest of us – I am fine with that. That does not make you “lazy” – nor does it make you a saint.
It certainly does not make you the same as those who can not do better.
From your own posts you are someone who has chosen not to do better.
And is seeking to be sainted for it.
So some people are insufferably snobbish. I really do not care. I chose who I associate with. You choose who you do. Associate with drug dealers if that is what you wish.
All of us have problems to overcome.
For each of us those are our PERSONAL responsibility.
It is not societies responsibility to give you or me or anyone else what we need, much less what we want.
Your beleifs are your won business. You are free to beleive you are better, worse or purpler than everyone else.
You are NOT a voice for others – you are only a voice for yourself.
Everyone else has their own voice and you do not speak for them.
I do not care whether you see things differently.
What is important is that you are constantly wrong in your remedies and you seek to impose them by force.
in 1900 the average family spent almost 15% of income on cloths.
In 1950 that was 11%. in 2003 that was 4%.
If you want to return to 1900 we can continue to make clothes and other textiles in the US.
We will all be far poorer – but those factories that you are so worried about will reopen.
Absolutely if laborers throughout the world were as skilled and well educated and wealthy and had the same standard of living and energy and resources – then it is likely their wages for the same task would be identical.
But they are not. Increasingly texttile jobs are leaving china as they did the US.
Because it is too expensive to make cloths in china now that china’s standard of living has reach 1/4 that of the us.
Well, if she is trolling us then Dave has been trolling us for a decade. I would not call either of them trolls, just fanatics.
Time for me to tune both out, while I might agree with some part of what they each say and even believe that they say things that are interesting at times. Just too hard headed and one track minded. Similar types, never admit an error, even an obvious one. Therefore hardly any point in engaging. But its irresistible anyhow because both are so passionately wrong in so many ways.
There is much worse out there on the internet.
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
If you beleive I have made an error I expect you to point that out and vigorously defend your claim.
that is a part of how we seperate error from truth – by vigorous scrutiny.
You will find I have no problem admitting and correcting actual mistakes.
Consistent logical positions are not an attribute of those on the left.
“That is why contra left wing nuts big businesses do not need laws and regulations to stop them from polluting. ”
BWHAAHAHAHAAHAHAA. Yes, that is why Lake Erie caught fire in the 70s. Because companies cared so much about waste they weren’t polluting. That is why we have so many Superfund sites that desperately need cleaning – because the private sector is so concerned with our environment. That is why the passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction – because private owners were concerned. The buffalo nearly so. Dave, you are so wrong on that its criminal. I guess you are going to tell me those are all liberal lies.
I guess you will also say workers do not need safety regulations, since you have already said we need no minimum wage. Are you also in favor of repealing the 8/40 hour day/week? There are no federal regulations about lunches or breaks, although people mistakenly believe there are. I live in a state without any, and have been forced to work 10-11 hr shifts with no lunch or break. And yes forced – because there are no other jobs.
In 1969 the Cuyahoga River caught fire – it was on of the last instances of such river fires due to pollution in the US – that fire predated the EPA by 3 years.
Though pollution has been a problem so long as humans have congregated – and if you think nature is clean – you should try living in it.
The fundimental causes of the unusual spike in pollution that ended in the late 60’s, was WWII.
The war effort was so important that people ignored the effects of pollution.
Hooker chemical and love canal are another example of WWII related polution.
Even today two of the top 3 sources of water pollution are GOVERNMENT.
I would also note that the USSR polluted at about 4 times the rate of the US.
Why ? because absent a profit motive there is no incentive to reduce waste.
All or nearly all the “superfund sites” are either government sites or are either government or government contractors who are indemnified for polluting by the government,.
The buffalo nearly went extinct because the government paid hunters to kill buffalo to deprive indians of food.
We do nto know forcertain the exact causes of the passenger pigeon extinction.
Humans certainly had no role in the extincion of dinosaurs.
Species cease and new ones occur all the time. It is a part of nature.
Worker safety does nto require government.
You seem to think that if government does nto do something it will not occur.
I have been in myriads of factories. As the skill level of the workforce increases workplace safety becomes increasingly important.
Shutting down a production line – even for an hour, or the loss of a trained person dwarfs the costs of safety measures.
I have never worked so little as 8/40 in my life. So no I see no basis for government rules on hours.
BTW those “rules” typically interfere in the freedom of workers.
At one time was business manager for a firm that employed 50 people – most salaried.
The expectations of a salaried worker are 50-55 hours a week.
Regardless for hourly workers for many many years we had something called “comp time”.
Employees could voluntarily choose to work extra hours and bank them, taking them off when they wanted or needed.
That ended – to the furry of most employees when a DOL rule barred the practice.
Things like that happen alot. Though I still see places where you can carry vacation, sick and personal time over to the next year – that violates DOL guidlines, which dictate that such benefits must be “use it or lose it”.
You really do not uderstand – government is not an never was the workers friend.
Is Cuba a workers paradise ? Was the USSR ?
You are gullible you obvious buy lies, and can not learn from history.
Giving you a choice – work 11hours or lose the job, is not “force”.
It is being given a choice you do not like.
Missuse of words is called lying, deceipt, fraud.
This is why it is so hard to talk to those on the far right as we are discovering with Trump – they admit to no facts, and change all the facts at their whim. Good grief.
What actual facts do we dispute ?
We can address questions over actual facts easily.
Google “signs of middle class disappearing” and you will find accurate information…unlike the Heritage Foundation, Faux News, Rush, Hannity ect. who are paid to mislead you, which you obviously spend too much time reading.
http://www.businessinsider.com/25-signs-that-middle-class-families-are-being-wiped-out-2012-4
You can google anything – and get hits. You can google anything left wing nut and get millions of hits. You can even google obvious left wing nut frauds and find millions of hits claiming they are not frauds.
Google is your friend – but its use still requires discernment.
As to “middle class disappearing” that is a self refuting claim. Anyone offering such a claim is just an idiot. There will ALWAYS be a middle 20%.
What is happening is that the middle class is changing, they are more educated, more skilled and better paid than in the past.
I have always stated I do not watch fox. Though frankly they are not really that conservative.
I presume Rachel Maddow is paid ?
Are you saying that Limbaugh does not beleive what he says ?
“And there would be no IRS as we know it today. Never happen, too many people out of a job. Then more people could complain about the shrinking middle class some more.”
Sadly, by defunding so many government agencies, Trump is doing exactly that – shrinking the middle class. Of course, according to conservatives this is a great thing and suddenly there will be less regulation and suddenly more jobs will appear!!! Except that now even fewer people have money to buy stuff!! There’s logic for ya!!!
Q.E.D. we should employ the entire country in the IRS – that would expand the IRS and make us all prosperous.
“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. ”
While the quote is from Rand the concept is from Aristotle and it is a principle of logic.
“If you do not wish to buy some product for whatever reason”
Fine in theory Dave…but really all of us don’t have that “choice”. First of all…how many products are there that we could find an American made equivalent to? Not many, I have researched. Snuggle dryer sheets, Brawny paper towels, Noxema skin cleaner, Mary Kay Cosmetics, Sensodyne toothpaste…but I only buy Noxema. Because wages are so bad I cannot afford the others. I buy whatever is on clearance, have coupons for or from a local 5&10 shop that re-sells stuff he buys by the truckload. I can’t even buy that much from Walmart because they are not always the cheapest – many times things on sale at the local grocery store are cheaper.
And sadly, the quality is so bad that I often must buy things over and over. Phones? I bet our grandparents had the same phone for 25 years. I have to buy one every 3-5 years. Sheets & towels? same thing. I had one set pill so badly I had to throw them out after a couple of months. Don’t tell me to go buy “quality” stuff because I can’t afford it…something that better off people don’t get. If you pay cash you can’t get it because you don’t have it, if you charge it you eventually max out the credit cards and will die from high interest rates! There is a reason low income people don’t have credit cards.
During hurricane Katrina I heard/read many comments by people surprised by that so many folks did not leave. That is because for you and me, it is hard to grasp the concept of not having enough cash and not having any credit cards…and not being able to borrow because everyone is as broke as you are. Those people really did not have a choice,…although I am sure Dave will tell me how they did…
Money is everything…without it you don’t have many “choices”.
Not just in theory.
You are free to buy, or not.
You are not entitled to the choice of an exact replacement from another source.
The absence of the choices you want is not the absence of choice, nor the absence of freedom, nor evidence of force.
I am not providing you advice on buying or selling.
Only telling you that with any offer made you are free to buy or not.
In your “heyday of the middle class” not only were there no equivalents, but the products you reference did not exist.
Absolutley the phone made by Ma Bell lasted longer than iphones – though in real dollars they cost much more, and you could not put them in your pocket, or take them with you wherever you want.
I use tools for work. I was raised to value tools, to buy good ones and care for them.
But modern tools tend to be far cheaper, not last long – but do things that old ones do not.
On many occasions I find it more efficient to buy the tool I need on the way to the job – rather than to find it among my existing tools.
Regardless, the point is that quality, durability many other factors are things we value.
They are not however absolute values.
The highest quality product is NOT inherently the best – regardless of cost.
I can not afford an Austin Martin DB10
I can afford a 1994 Mercedes E320 or a 2009 Honda Fit.
I might be able to afford a 2017 Audi Quatro – but I do not choose to – because the extra quality is not worth the price to me. You likely choose differently.
We are not equal. We are all unique and different.
We are not going to make the same choices.
The “right choice” for me is not likely the “right choice” for you.
You are constantly presuming there is a single best one size fits all choice that can be imposed by force.
People always have choices.
They just do not always have the choices they want.
In fact none of us ever have the choices we want.
Freedom does not mean having what you want.
Freedom is not having your choices restricted by human force.
I cry out against money, just because everybody confounds it, as you did just now, with riches, and that this confusion is the cause of errors and calamities without number. I cry out against it because its function in society is not understood, and very difficult to explain. I cry out against it because it jumbles all ideas, causes the means to be taken for the end, the obstacle for the cause, the alpha for the omega; because its presence in the world, though in itself beneficial, has nevertheless introduced a fatal notion, a perversion of principles, a contradictory theory which in a multitude of forms, has impoverished mankind and deluged the earth with blood. I cry out against it, because I feel that I am incapable of contending against the error to which it has given birth, otherwise than by a long and fastidious dissertation to which no one would listen. Oh! if I could only find a patient and right-thinking listener!
Frederic Bastiat.
“Money is like gasoline during a road trip. You don’t want to run out of gas on your trip, but you’re not doing a tour of gas stations.”
Tim O’Reilly
“All money is a matter of belief.”
Adam Smith
Ha, Day starts with good news! Aaron Hernandez saved us a million!
Just remember, Roby, Tom Brady still lives!!
“At $11 each I can contemplate having a dozen opi1’s”
That would be fine…except that the workers who put them together are most likely little more than slaves, which is why corporations want to use them. None of those pesky minimum wages, benefits, safety rules etc that keep them from pocketing more profits.
That is why the world economy does not improve. Not enough people have money to buy all these goods. Right now we are still living off the money of the Greatest Generation and their kids. As that money runs out, the situation will get worse. At least there are too many people my age and younger living that way among the working class, and now it has crept into the lesser white collar world.
You keep claiming that the standard of living world wide is higher and everyone is better off. But celebrating because 3rd world countries have gone from peeing in the grass to peeing in outhouses seems a bit premature. The standard of living for people in the US born in the 60s or later has been steadily going downhill. We didn’t raise the bottom, we lowered the middle. That is how you got those twisted figures that everything is so great.
As I have said, I’ve been living as working class for 15 years – and they are no longer paid middle class wages. And they are suffering enough to elect a moron like Trump (although that was pure luck). Keep telling yourself that bottom line pay doesn’t matter, that a middle class living is still possible for most people if you just “work hard enough”. That is bull. MOST jobs are no longer paying a middle class wage!
I think it is laughable that it is believed I am a left wing “nut” because I speak for people who are too busy working multiple jobs to not even make ends meet. I am all too aware of the difference between communism, socialism, and “freedom” such as it is here in the USA. “Freedom” is this country is now only had by people who can buy it.
“That would be fine…except that the workers who put them together are most likely little more than slaves”
In 1974 the MEDIAN income in china was $60/yr the same as it was in 1900.
In 2015 it was 11,000. If that constitutes slavery then I want more.
Recently in Bangladesh fires in factories killed over one hundred factory workers.
In the 60’s in catholic school the nuns had us collect pennies and nickels to put into milk cartons for the starving millions in bangladesh.
That 100 die in factory fires is bad, but do not forget that it is those factories that have ended the starvation that took the lives of millions.
And yet without those regulations and mimimum wage laws the standard of living of those chinese “slave” workers has risen almost 200 fold.
If that is slavery – “please sir I want some more”
“The standard of living for people in the US born in the 60s or later has been steadily going downhill. ”
Bzzt wrong.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-america-spends-money-100-years-in-the-life-of-the-family-budget/255475/
The 100-year story of how a nation that feels poor got rich
Standard of living since 1820 in 1990 dollars
1820 1,257
1870 2,445
1913 5,301
1950 9,561
1973 16,689
1990 23,214
1998 27,331
“As I have said, I’ve been living as working class for 15 years – and they are no longer paid middle class wages. And they are suffering enough to elect a moron like Trump (although that was pure luck).”
Trumps election was not “luck”. Whether you like it or not something like 65M people are not at all happy with Democrats.
You might want to consider that had the GOP offered a more paletable choice than Trump they would have been elected in a landslide.
Think of how well Trump would have down if he was not a mysoginist ?
There is alot I do not like about Trump, but he beat a Crowded GOP field and he beat Hillary.
He is not a moron. And thus far he is playing democrats beautifully.
What happens as this “russia hacked the election” rot falls apart.
Increasingly it is apparent that that entire meme was the result of malfeasance of the Obama administration now dating back to 2012.
We now have credible services coming forward asserting that Obama was using numerous foreign intelligence services to spy on US politicians – even some democrats atleast as early as before the 2012 election. And that he used the foreign intelligence products to provoke the same investigations by US intelligence services inside the US.
There is a quote from Emerson,
if you strike the king, you must kill the king.
If the left fails to demonstrate collusion between Trump and the Rusians – and so far it has not gotten close to demonstrating that, then there is going to be a house cleaning, and alot of heads will fall, and some may go to jail.
Immediately after the election I argued that Obama should have pardoned Clinton, and if he did not that Trump should. I still beleive that.
But anyone involved in using US or foreign intelligence services for US political purposes should go to jail.
Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Pol Pot – are all people who claimed to speak for the workers.
You get to speak for yourself – no one else. Yes, you are a nut when you presume you are entitled to speak for others – particularly people you call stupid.
“I am all too aware of the difference between communism, socialism, and “freedom” ”
Then perhaps you could demonstrate that – you have not done so thus far.
To the extent I do not think you are a communist or socialist, that would be because you are not consistent enough to have any clear ideology beyond – I know what I think is right and I can impose it on all by force. That is little different from Hitler
What is everyone’s take on Trump’s EO that will begin a review of the H1B visa program?
What I think is interesting about it, is that it is exactly the kind of thing that Democrats used to fight for ~ looking for ways to help American workers, in this case highly skilled American workers, displaced by foreign-born ones.
Most H1B visas go to people in the IT or medical fields, and I think the employees have to be offered jobs paying at least $60,000 (or in that range). There has been much outrage over the program, as companies like Disney have outsourced technology to foreign companies who pay their employees considerably less than their American counterparts. In Disney’s case, I think much of the outrage came when the American workers being laid off were made to train their foreign replacements.
On the other hand, I don’t think we want to say that companies CAN’T hire foreign workers, if they possess skills that American applicants don’t have.
Have not read everything about this EO but alot of that law is legislative. I think anything significant would have to go through congress.
I know it will never happen, but I would like to see a requirement where employers bringing in foreign workers would have to show they are unable to find workers in America, That would eliminate things like the State of California laying off IT workers at the university hospitals and replacing them with lower paid foreign workers. And to keep their jobs and get severance, they had to train their replacements alos, just like Disney.
Agreed,Ron. I think that the idea behind the visa program was not to save employers money, but to make sure that they were able to pick from the most qualified applicants, even if those applicants were not Americans. And, if the laid-off American workers are training their lower paid replacements, it’s unlikely that those replacements are coming in with greater skills.
The other thing is that, at least in Disney’s case, and I presume many others, the foreign workers are coming in as part of an outsourcing process that is specifically designed to save costs rather than to hire the top people from around the globe. So, requiring some sort of evidence that people coming in on these visas actually have superior skill-sets to the American workers that they replace seems to make sense.
Priscilla, thought you might be interested in this article. Fits nicely into your comment about qualifications.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-uc-visas-20170108-story.html
Some would say this is a good thing because it saves the tax payer in California money.Others will counter that the multiplier effect of the salaries lost will far exceed the money saved, so the economic impact will be negative even if the workers are present in California and spending money. I am just wondering if the tech jobs leave the country and we have fewer manufacturing jobs, where are people going to get work. There are limited numbers of healthcare, financial services and service oriented jobs.
I have read about things like this many times.
I very rarely works well.
Regardless I have zero problem with outsourcing IT to india.
But If I was UC or Disney I would not do so because both personal experience and the data shows it does not work very well.
Despite the fact that both countries speak english the cultures are radically different.
I have worked frequently with outsourced software development in india or the former USSR.
Working with those from the former USSR works best – because they are more ambitious.
Bringing Indian’s and Pakistani’s to the US works well – because the people willing to come are more ambitious and because we change them here.
We can move Call Centers to the US because these do not involve long term goals and deliverables.
That said if it can be made to work – great. I have no problem with it.
There is no limit to the productive uses that humans can be put to.
If you are “training” your lower paid replacement – that problem is simple to resolve:
1) find a better paying job elsewhere.
2) Offer to work for the H1B recipients pay and take HIS job. After all you are already trained and H1B employees require alot of additional paperwork.
The reality is this very very rarely happens.
Dave you are totally out of touch with reality.
All I am is not fixated on emotion.
Lets assume the following ways you could in theory buy exactly the same car – in all instance the price is the same – except where noted.
1). It could be manufactured in the US from US parts and labor and cost you $3000 more.
2). It could be manufactured in the US by robots.
3). It could be manufactured in the US by illegal immigrants.
4). It could be assembled in the US from foreign made parts.
5). It could be manufactured in a foreign country.
There are probably other choices, but this will do.
Of these which is the best for you and which is best for the country ?
1). is the WORST choice. Anything that increases the price by definition decreases your standard of living AND the countries overall standard of living.
All the other choices are equally good for your – assuming the car you get is otherwise identical.
2). is probably the BEST overall choice – it increases standard of living the most and uses the least human labor.
I would note that the objective is NEVER to increase the human effort needed to produce something. Creating jobs is never an economic goal. Jobs are a means, not an end.
Reducing the human effort needed to produce something makes that human effort available to produce something else. That always makes us better off.
It makes us better off EVEN where that labor is used badly and paid poorly.
But it makes us the most better off when that labor is used in a higher value way than before.
Anyone making arguments about “jobs” is economically deluded.
EVERYTHING that raises standard of living is going to appear to cost jobs – when examined in a vacuum. Should we then never raise standard of living ?
Should we have stuck with the luddites and still be making textiles using spinning wheels rather than machines that reduce the amount of labor needed to spin thread by a factor of 6 ?
Labor that is freed by whatever means – automation, outsourcing, ….
is available for a new purpose and with extremely rare exceptions will find a new use.
Any new use is an improvement – even a bad use. But the norm is that labor shifts to a BETTER use.
The very logic that you are using to attack cars made in china makes ALL improvements in standard of living a BAD thing. The problem is with your argument.
Further businesses are not “evil” when they seek to produce greater value with less human effort – they are increasing our standard of living not decreasing. it.
Everything that produces greater value with less human effort involves “creative destruction”.
Whether it releases some labor for possible other purposes, or it results in the failure of companies or even entire industries. There is no means to increase standard of living that do not release resources.
At the same time everything tht increases standard of living ultimately means we are able to consume more and therefore must produce more.
An article I linked to recently noted that Walmart is saving the average family in the US about $2000/year or approx. $300B.
That is $300B that will either be invested (unlikely for walmart shoppers) or result in increased consumption elsewhere.
And this is the part I can not get through to you.
However it is that you were able to decrease the cost of something to you – that decrease is either going to result in YOU consuming more of something else, or investing.
If Walmart put a million people in this country out of work by buying goods from china,
at the same time for each of those workers there is $300000 of either new consumption or investment that is occuring. Do you think that $300B of new consumption or investment is not going to produce more than 1M replacement jobs ?
I keep refering to Basiats “that which is seen and that which is not seen”
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
You can not stop an economic analysis at the immediate and obvious effects.
If you buy a car from china and save $3000 on the car and as a result there are fewer people in the US employed making cars – that analysis made be true – but it is incomplete.
There is also $3000 of either additional investment or consumption.
We might be able to put a face to the labor displaced by your purchase of a car from china, but just as sure as you idled some US labor by buying from china, you also employed otherwise idle labor by the 3000 of new consumption you were able to do.
Regardless, if we look at the economic impact of something we have to follow it until all inputs and outputs are accounted for.
When government spends money – we can not presume that money came from thin air.
One way or another anything government spends STARTS by reducing what we can spend.
Even if it has a later positive benefit.
When we buy something at reduced cost – not only must we account for the displaced labor (if that is a part of the reduced cost), but also the increases that result from our increased consumption.
Trash the entire H1B program.
Why in the world would you want to stop high skilled productive people from other countries from coming to the US ?
All of you still seem to buy this nonsense that everything is zero sum.
The only thing that is zero sum is we can not consume what we do not first produce.
You all seem to beleive that if you just keep foreigners out that:
The work will stay in the US.
That it will get done.
that foreign countries will buy from us
but we will not buy from them
You are trying to game the market.
That just plane does nto work.
This is no less stupid that Minimum wages.
And to be clear – the biggest area of H1B visa’s is the tech sector.
Specifically computer software.
To the extent these immigrants are interfering with jobs they are interfering with MY job.
I am not concerned about that – the more the merrier.
My biggest problem getting work is not immigrants,
it is stupid government rules. that compell businesses to treat everyone they deal with who is not a corporation as a W2 employee.
Is there a shortage of tech workers – absolutely.
There are far more ideas out there than there are people to impliment them.
One of the driving factors behind improvements in low end hardware – is the lack of high skilled people to program them.
The ordinary cell phone as an example could run on hardware 1/10 the capability and resources that most have and still be better and faster.
That does not happen because there are far too few people capable of writing highly efficient software.
I recently had a client impliment a monitoring system for a fuel cell on a boat – using an embedded linux system, running a web server, an sql server, and a ruby on rails application.
This was a very easy way to impliment this. But it required hardware more powerful than corporate servers 10 years ago.
The point is not that we should not be writing software that way.
But it is that there is a shortage of skilled people.
We have more that needs to be done than people who can do it.
BTW while that is nearly ALWAYS true in STEM,
It is also true in everything else too.
Dave I will never agree with your totally off the wall positions.
1. Fine that other countries lock out our products with high tariffs, but send billions to the US without penalty, thus costing American jobs.
2. Fine that highly trained individuals are replaced by lessor qualified foreign individuals after they train them, thus costing American jobs.
Just who is going to have a job in America once all your hair brained ideas are in place?
Ron,
You can argue all you want but you are just making significant something that is not artificial lines”
If all these issues with China are important – then why don’t we go ballistic over unfair trade between California and Ohio ?
Or between LA and San Jose ?
Why ? Because ultimately we are not stupid and we realize that the gains from lower cost goods exceeds that purported losses in jobs.
There really is no such thing as a lost job, just a displaced one.
Whatever skills you have once you are honest with yourself about their value – there is a job that will make use of them.
If nothing else – create one yourself. but even absent that – if there is a body of skilled people, then someone will thing of a way to productively employ them.
I have already said repeatedly – get rid of minimum wage laws and the massive amount of tax work that employing someone entails, and I will regularly hire people.
I have lots of tasks I would be willing to pay someone to do rather than do myself.
And that raises MY standard of living.
Yes, I am as hair brained as Adam Smith and as Paul Krugman once was.
Dave, I get what you’re saying, yet I know that you and I differ on immigration in general, and it sounds to me that you’re saying that we should trash the H1B program, because we should trash immigration restrictions in general.
If that is what you’re saying, I disagree. There was a time, not so long ago…probably during the 90’s, that Computer Science was one of the most popular college majors, because companies were hiring like crazy. I think that one of the reasons that it’s less popular now is that so many companies have outsourced their IT jobs to foreign companies.
I have no data ~ and you may have ~ to that effect, but I do know that many kids who may have an aptitude and an interest in CS are steered away from it these days.
Now, where we might agree, is on the fact that many American colleges have done a crappy job of keeping up with technology trends, and end up producing a lot of graduates with useless and outdated skills, who have $50- $100K loans to pay back, and no good job prospects.
Well I might get bombarded with comments that say my thinking on this issue is totally off, but in an area like CS, I don’t think anyone needs a 4 year degree to get a good paying job, even with all the foreign workers being sent here. Anyone think they have a four year degree has their head in the sand.
IT is like automotive maintenance was up until computers took over car operations. Many a kid learned to be a mechanic by working on their own cars or their buddies car. The best mechanics were the ones that learned this way and then added to skills through additional work training.
I bet most of the hackers that most any government or company would love having them working for themselves never went to college. They are part of the generation that , by Carnegie Melon studies indicate, have spent over 10,000 hours on a computer by the time they graduate HS, easily exceeding any hours spent on educational studies.
Now once that individual gets a job, is earning good money and wants to get into management, then that is when the 4 year degree might be needed to open those doors and that is when that person can return to school to complete their education.
This not only goes for IT, it also goes for many other jobs that our society has decided people need that degree on their walls or they are not qualified.
IT and computer software are radically different – small areas of overlap.
The comparison between IT and auto-mechanics is excellent.
Like mechanics – you do not need an education.
But sometimes it is useful, and there are vast differences in skills.
Computer software is somewhere between art and engineering.
I have noted that my college degree is in architecture.
There is a tremendous simliarity between the two.
Both combine engineering and art.
People do not usually see the beauty of software – though it is present and you can pretty much bet software that works badly is also ugly.
Hacking is also a complex term.
To the media hackers are the computer equivalent of thieves.
To software people a hacker is a virtuso someone who can site down and quickly write beautiful code that works incredibly well.
Sometimes that is in the security context – other protecting (white hats) or breaking in (black? hats). BTW most of the people in the security community are kind of grey hats.
Regardless, we have more jobs that we have people.
Further we are constantly looking for ways to use less capable people for more difficult tasks.
In 2003 when I left the family business. I had three choices:
Business management – locally those jobs are hard to get and do not pay well – unles syou are family.
Computer Software development – something I am very good at, but there was pretty much no jobs in my community, and pretty much still are not, this is not a tech center.
IT – something else I am very good at – I am expert at Linux and a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer. It is also something I hate. Which is why I do embedded software.
Anyway, I do actually know something about IT, and know lots of people who make a living at it – both as employees and consultants.
You do not need a computer science degree to get a job in IT. and probably it will not help alot. A 2 year degree or better yet just certification you can get on your own – like my MSCE – which I paid next to nothing for, will get you a 60K+ a year job.
There are some IT functions you can “outsource” but there are alot of things that someone must put hands on hardware for.
Frankly over the phone customer support is a really difficult skill. That is quite hard to do – because you do not see what the person on the other end of the phone sees, and you do not know how good their powers of observation are or their ability to communicate accurately are.
Anyway IT wages have been steadily rising – they have atleast doubled since 2003.
So are software wages.
We have far more need for IT and software skills than resources to meet those needs.
I will piss all over our colleges. Though I will note that the colleges can do no better than the students.
I have a nephew who is pretty smart, who has chosen to be a philosophy major, who can read Plato in greek, but does not grasp that Socrates voluntarily drinking hemlock because of his ideals, pretty much demonstrates why the Socratic ideal society can not work.
And Like Moogie he can not grasp that during his lifetime the world has improved dramatically
Which refutes most everything he thinks is true.
The point being there is a reason people study underwater basket weaving rather than computer organization and logic design. Colleges can not fix that. And if you took UBW rather than COLD you should not be surprised if you have 100K in loans and no job.
Unemployment in STEM is very low – even at the depth of the recession, and wages are good and improving.
Also Dave, I’d be interested in your take on the article that Ron linked to.
Would that be the Disney/UC outsourcing article ?
My response is:
So ? I do not think what either did is evil.
I suspect for many reasons that it is stupid.
But stupid is self punishing.
IF Disney and UC do not reverse in the future then they have made it work – and that is fine with me.
I totally agree with you Ron. I think I’ve mentioned before that one of my careers was in corporate wellness (I know, that sounds like a bs career, lol. But it was fun). One of the things that my fitness center supervisors needed to do was to hire exercise class instructors and personal trainers. Because of company policy, these instructors and trainers had to have 4 year degrees! How ridiculous is that?
The US has a dramatic shortage of people in the medical profession, and that is likely to continue for a long time.
In the unlikely event that PPACA had worked it would have greatly made that problem worse.
AS it has not that is one of the clear proofs it did not.
Absent either the creativity and entrepeneurship that only comes from free markets, the only way to deliver more healthcare to more people is with more doctors and nurses.
If you can not get them elsewhere – you bring them in from Pakistan and India.
There are an enormous number of H1B doctors from those countries because they have a good medical education there, a high proficiency in english but with an otherwise much lower standard of living.
I do not care if they possess skills that american workers do have.
If I have to compete with an Indian Software developer – in the short run that might negatively impact me. In the long run more value gets produced and all of us are better off, standard of living RISES.
Anyone who comes to the U.S. other than on foot and has a visa of some kind should be held accountable not to overstay or take jobs from U.S citizens initially or by subsequent training, unless that job is not fill-able for whatever reason.
The workers that pick our food and clean up in restaurant kitchens are far more valuable no matter how they got here. Very few of us would want those jobs.
That is why we need a complete rewrite of our immigration laws. What worked years ago is not going to work today. Ronald Reagan tried reducing the bracero program in the late 60’s thinking it would give Americans jobs picking strawberries, lettuce and all the other veggies and fruits. The farmers lost a lot of crop due to the lack of labor. That lasted one year.Can’t find much documentation on this on the internet, but my cousin went out to pick strawberries before her senior year in high school in the the coastal region of California just south of Frisco where the weather is not hot. She and most of her friends lasted one day and quit.
I am not with Dave on open borders for everyone and letting anyone and everyone in, but the current law is all screwed up and needs revision. If we fixed the immigration law, maybe the Latinos would come here to work, work for a certain period of time and return to their family after making the money they need to live. When they wanted to work again, they could return. As it is now, they pay many pesos to smugglers and once here, they sure are not going back and have to pay again to get back in.
Why will what worked a century or more ago not work today ?
Whether it is the right or the left. We do not get to just make thinks up.
The period of most rapid immigration in the US in the past was also the period where our standard of living rose the fastest.
Even in the modern era – we have taken 45M mostly illegal dirt poor immigrants in the past 40 years – and doubled our standard of living at the same time.
BTW EITHER of those facts should completely refute most left wing bunk – but we did BOTH.
Had we taken in 45M immigrants at the bottom and just maintained our standard of living that would require almost the entire existing population to slide up the ladder about 15% in income otherwise standard of living would have dropped by simple mathematics.
The most fundimental problem with the existing laws are that immigrants legal or otherwise have a vast collection of positive rights, the moment they get here.
Positive rights are unsustainable. But they are worse when applied to an open ended group such as immigrants.
I have no problem with anyone coming here.
I have no problem with charities helping them in times of need – and I have worked with those charities and given my own time and sometimes money.
I have major problems with presuming that they are entitled to anything for free merely by virtue of being here – from our government – beyond the equal protection of the law.
But I have the same problem with those who have been here for 5 generations.
Why do we want them to come here, work and then go back, and them come again ?
The fact that they come here and someone employs them means they are productive – they are not only creating value for themselves – but also for whoever hired them, or they would not be employed. Why to we want them to stop producing wealth here for us ?
There was plenty of overlap between Sanders and trump populism. They both used bankers as a punching bag, both favored a minimum wage increase. trump slammed the hedge fund guys as getting away with murder, had at the wealthy donors. He was going to pull the fangs of the pernicious wealthy exactly Because he is rich and knows where they live. Sorry, the essence of populism is rich vs. poor. Not to mention things I heard his supporters say on wages and the rich. They believed that trump was their blue collar billionaire, on their side.
Fighting wage inequality would be the delusional communist idea. Of course there is wage inequality. I’m fine with wage inequality like any sane person. Its only a distantly related animal to the issue that a very small number of people have more and more of the wealth because they have more and more of the income and that difference is getting larger over time.
If you would like to go out into a gathering of trump supporters in an economically depressed area and personally tell them that its just fine and even Great! that wages are low (efficiency, its wonderful!) and that the rich Should be buying, closing, and selling factories right and left because everyone is better off as a result and our standard of living is going up up up, well, you are either brave or foolish, cause I think that speech would go over very badly.
Populism, its populism. It ain’t on the side of the wealthy.
Sitting Bull says you have overstayed your visa and wants to know when you are leaving ?
You do not “own” a job, you are not free to prevent another person living here from offering your employer a better deal. You are not free to prevent a person born elsewhere from doing so.
You are entitled to trade the value you create for what someone else will trade for it.
Nothing changes merely because someone already here likes and wants a job.
You are creating a bunch of rules or laws. What are the foundations in morality or principle for those laws ?
If you wish to use force against others – such as prohibiting them from crossing some invisible line, then you must justify that use of force.
Moogie, on the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the wages paid to timber workers is from around $55,000 to $90,000 per year.
If you want to know why the middle class is shrinking and corporations are making much more profit, take a look at this. Just one small section of employment, but an example of what is happening in all business.
How many loggers has this one machine put out of work and how much more timber can this machine cut in a day with one man operating the machine?
I would suspect this machine spits out almost 20 times the amount of logs that 5-10 men can cut in the same period of time. Look at the speed it cuts the log and then sections it in less than a minute or two.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuuPI2hyt6M
So what is the argument ?
Is autmating logging acceptable ? Our is is evil ?
If it is acceptable – then so is buying logs cheaper from China.
Some criticism of this stupid nonsense masquerading as patriotism from the right.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446896/hire-american-buy-american-program-protectionism-redistribution
Dave, read my post. Moogie has bitched about the shrinking middle class. This was merely an example as to why this is happening.
It goes nicely with your positions that mechanization of any operation to increase production and decrease human effort is good.
Thanks,
I thought the video was great. One of the companies I worked for once made computer systems for John Deere logging equipment in Sweden (I did not work on that), so I found the video interesting.
It is not just automation though – allthough that is the most effective.
Even merely shifting a task to lower wage lower skill labor RAISES standard of living – both for them and for the rest of us.
Using high value labor on a task that can be done by low value labor is at the expense of standard of living.
It does not matter whether that labor is immigrant or offshore or whatever.
I was led to this today and thought immediately of the laugh Ron would get.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/dont-buy-stuff/n12020?snl=1
Roby. LMAO!!!! Thank you sir, I needed that!
My pleasure, I knew you would open ready for its message!
My wife and I have pledged to watch it once a day in the morning until we are new people. I doubt her resolve, she doubts mine. Odd world.
Excellent.
Dave keeps repeating over & over how if we produce more with less human effort that this is a good thing always. Which it would be if there had been a corresponding rise is wages. The figures I read are that the US produces 2x or more what it used to, but our standard of living continues to decline because wages did not increase.(Don’t argue Dave, all those Trump supporters are proof.)
Since I have been working class since 2002 – here’s a list of things I am no longer buying: vacations, magazines, newspapers, new clothes, food at restaurants, steak, shrimp or other fancier food at the grocery, jewelry, massages, preventive health care, new cars, nothing but rabies shots for pets.decorating in my house… I can go into more detail if you like. And remember I am one of the lucky ones…when there’s an absolute emergency like something breaks in the house i can ask for help. I had to ask for help for a sick pet, or watch it die.
Most people in my situation if they had credit cards burned them out long ago buying groceries or other necessities, and couldn’t pay them off and now have no credit.
My husband has had several health problems that required operations that we never paid for because we didn’t have it. It ruined our credit but eventually they disappeared – tax dollars had to have pay for them.
Yet you think you are so clever telling people not to buy things they can’t afford. I expect about 60% of the people in the US are in my situation. The reason the economy is not worse is because of parents helping us out.
You don’t advocate paying full time working people a living wage. Tell me…how much longer can the US keep going like this? Eventually the money from the older generations will give out. The world economy is not taking off because working people are making anything.
Maybe you think the “raise in living standards” for all those people in India and China…which as I keep telling you is pretty nominal…you think is something to be celebrated. Working 12 hour shifts that is just enough to keep from starving is pretty shi**y.
Keeping all the money at the top is just plain stupid as well as immoral.
I am wondering what it would take for you righties to see how wrong the “totally” free market is when it comes to working people. I guess not until your own families are negatively affected through no fault of their own. You think it won’t happen, but eventually it will catch up to you too. There are many people out there who used to be just as smug as you are.
“Dave keeps repeating over & over how if we produce more with less human effort that this is a good thing always. Which it would be if there had been a corresponding rise is wages”
Bzzt, wrong. Most everyone gets confused by money. It is merely an intermediary. It is not wealth. If you cut wages in half AND reduce the price of everything you buy by 400% you are better off.
If you produce more value for less human effort standard of living rises.
There are no other qualifiers. Money never appears in that relationship – deliberately.
If we have produced more than 2x as much then we also consume 2x as much – we are therefore twice as wealthy, and have double the standard of living.
Again there is no need to go further the remainder of your attempted analysis is both superfluous and wrong.
What Trump supporters are “proof” of is that the improvement in standard of living in the past 8 (actually 16) years did not live up to their expcetations – and that I will agree with.
Nearly all that doubling of standard of living that occured in the last 40 years occurred from 1980-2000 very little of it occured from 2000-today.
At sub 2% growth rate barely keeps up with population. The growth rate for the 20th century was 3.5%, that of the 19th century was about 7.5%.
Moogie, You have managed to literally understand nothing at all about my opinions. You keep repeating the same wild BS, you’ve got one thing you want to say and nothing is going to deflect you. Your head is as hard a Dave’s. Two impervious minds on their own crusades not letting any bit of reality interfere. You’ve actually managed to lose all of my sympathy. Dave lost it already long ago.
There has never been one word from you here about your own choices and actions affecting the course of your life. Evil smug conservatives created your life, not you. I don’t believe people leave teaching, let alone two times, because they are not football coaches. I left teaching by the way, I was no good at it. No patience, insufficient planning abilities. It was a depressing moment and I was depressed. It wasn’t someone else’s fault.
There is a big story behind your issues and most of it has to do with the person you see in the mirror. Something I wanted to say for quite a long time, but I held my tongue. The smallest act of humor is taken by you as an attack of the evil conservatives. I believe that the ideology behind Saturday night live was New York City Liberal.
Roby;
I have never asked for your sympathy.
What I demand is your respect for my freedom.
That is all.
I am not attacking Moggies choices.
She is free to chose as she wishes.
What she is not free to do is blame those choices on others.
I think some of what she says lacks credibility – such as the teaching/football thing.
But if true – my problem is not that she was rejected as a teacher because she would not coach football. But that public money was being used to prop up football.
If the school was private, then the administration is answerable to the parents, and if they want to pay for football fine.
I left teaching, as well. It was after 12 years, and I quite liked the profession and was good at it. I left for 2 reasons: 1) the teachers union was still new, its leadership had not started playing hardball on contracts yet, and I believed that I could make much more money in the private sector. I was right. (Also, I didn’t have any kids yet, so I did not not have an appreciation for the school calendar and its generous vacations!) 2) I didn’t like the fact that I was stuck in the same building day after day..
When my 3 kids were growing up, there were more than a few times that I regretted my decision to leave teaching, as I would have had all of those snow days, and summers off, etc. But, on balance, quitting was a good decision.
I’ve made some other decisions that, on balance, did not turn out so well. Fortunately, I’m here to say that. The point that I think all of us are making to Moogie is that, as the old saying goes, everyone has their ups and downs. Or as my grandfather used to say “You pay your money and you take your chances.”
For whatever reason, it seems as if there are more and more people who refuse to accept that there are “downs” in everyone’s life, or that freedom to choose carries with it a greater or lesser degree of risk ~ always. For example, “pro-choice” people very often do not accept that a woman might choose to NOT abort her baby, even after finding out that the baby is likely to have a birth defect, or if the baby is the result of rape, etc. I remember hearing on TV, back when anti-Bush war protesters were protesting somewhere, a woman claiming that her son, who was in the army, should not have to go to war, because he only joined the service so that he would have his education paid for.
Politicians who claim to that the government will be able to “fix” the economy for every single person are, of course, lying. And people who believe that it can be “fixed” so that there is equality of outcomes are deluded.
Here, here.
“So it is more useful to watch a man in times of peril, and in adversity to discern what kind of man he is; for then at last words of truth are drawn from the depths of his heart, and the mask is torn off, reality remains.”
“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”
― Abraham Lincoln
“it seems as if there are more and more people who refuse to accept that there are “downs” in everyone’s life”
What malarkey.
That sounds like some old person talking. “kids today are so much worse than we were”…heard it when I was growing up. Have heard it from my students (now in their 30s&40s). Heard it from one of my kids who just turned 18!!!!
The election of an idiot proves there are far far too many people who are suffering from a rotten economy. From an Income Inequality some members of this group claim does not exist. Facts are facts – most people in this country do not make enough money to live by middle class standards. NOT because they are lazy, but because they don’t’ earn enough.
What I’m getting from conservative claims is that only people who own their own business or have a college degree (and now only certain degrees) should make a living wage. This is poppycock. We cannot all have degrees or own a business!! Someone has to do the grunt work!
MOST jobs being created are considered “low wage” jobs – so how much good does it do to train? The problem is low wage should still be livable wages – at least lower middle class! You will never have a robust economy with 60% of the people barely making ends meet.
As I have noted before…I seriously doubt anyone else in this thread comes closer to the working class…the same people who voted for Trump…the ones that it is claimed no one is listening too – which no one ever has listened to the working class until they got ugly. Hope that doesn’t have to happen this time around. The only solution is to pay even the lowest some kind of livable wage, and scale up from there.
That is why what I say carries no weight with you…people tend to see things from their own station in life. What you don’t see must not really exist, despite news to the contrary.
I really do not understand your logic.
“The election of an idiot proves ….”
Trump’s election proves that democrats failed voters – maybe republicans will too.
It proves – that YOU are not even close to having your finger on the pulse of the people – particularly the people you claim to know and speak for.
You constantly engage in this nonsense pretense logic.
Banana
Q.E.D. tomato
Your arguments are all non-sequiturs.
Do you have to continue the idiotic misrepresentations.
No one claims “income inequality does not exist”.
You are the one claiming it is meaningful in some way – the burden is on you to prove that it justifies anything.
The moon orbits the earth – that does not justify theft or murder.
Separately you have made false claims purportedly based on IE nonsense.
That the middle class is shrinking.
that standards of living are declining.
I felt bad poking her, but I really shouldn’t, she is her to poke me without having any interest in understanding what I actually think. She is a bigot, in the non racial sense:
“Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.”
I find her to be a bigot (of the left). I find dave to be a bigot (of the economic right for the most part) as well.
But perhaps I am a bigot of the middle.
There is about 20% that Moogie says (and about the same with Dave) that I am right there with her on. You won’t find any sensible person who believes that there isn’t a serious issue with income/wealth inequality here and in the world or that the economy will be unhealthy if the bottom quintiles have no disposable income (which however is NOT the case in the US, as anyone with a brain and google access or even just common sense can find out!). But outside of the 20% I agree with, everything else both of them say is so absurdly far off the wall and takes so much prejudice and blindness to sustain that I can’t take either of them seriously; there is a short circuit somewhere in the brains of such ideologically blinded people. Their grains of truth are swallowed by their deserts of nonsense. Bleh! (Yes, I’m being a moderate bigot, I know).
Anyhow, I think spring finally actually came to my part of the world for real and I’m loving it. Happy Spring to all!
“In the world of dogma, you become free the day you decide to go to hell.”
― Aniekee Tochukwu Ezekiel
There are two tests to determine whether I, you, Moogie or anyone else is a “bigot” by your definition.
The first is do their views, positions, principles, “dogma” hold up to the facts.
The 2nd is how they deal with being wrong.
I am not “on the economic right”. My core value the maximum of individual liberty consistent with respect for the freedom and liberty of others.
This meme of libertarian being “on the right” is nonsense.
We most frequently debate economic issues – because that is where most here tend to be the most wrong.
Ron says he is libertarianish – I am not trying to define Ron as not libertarian just accurately portray how he labels himself.
Regardless, Ran and I do not agree on some areas of economics.
My economic positions come from two places – more than three hundred years of economics.
The high value I place on individual liberty.
I am fortunate in that what I believe is right also appears to be what works.
I can actually understand that people can believe fervently in “to each according to their needs from each according to their abilities”
There are two things wrong with beleiving that:
It has never come even close to being made to work.
It requires us to forcibly surrender our freedom.
People have beleived that they were allowed to F’over others from the begining of time.
We have beleived there was a serious problem with blacks, with asians, with the french or germans, with mulsims or christians – any group that we deem as the “other”.
No there is no “income inequality” problem.
And infact ANYTIME anyone fixates on “equality” – aside from equality before the law, they are preparing to do evil. All you need to grasp that is the smallest bit of history.
You are NOT entitled to what is not yours. You may not use force to take from others. You may not do so as an individual, you may not do so as a group, you may not do so through govenrment.
When you even raise the issue you are immoral – or perhaps I should say unethical.
Where is it that any here get the right to even decide what is the appropriate “income” for others ?
And let us just say that somehow you start down this incredibly stupid and dangerous path.
After you are done hating the uber rich and you have pillaged them or more likely worse, and you have made the world we live in much worse rather than better – then who are you going after next ?
When you say that
“You won’t find any sensible person who believes that there isn’t a serious issue with income/wealth inequality here ”
What you are saying is that you are prepared to burn down the world over envy.
That you are entitled to take what is others from them by force.
I care about the “uber rich” for only two reasons – destroying them destroys ourselves – both literally and morally.
Because envy has no end. Because we have seen over and over again throughout history what has happened whenever some group has been able to demonize others.
Whether it is the hutu and tutsi, or the jews, or the myriads of other times we have decided that some group we beleived excercised disproportionate power should be punished, it has universally always ended badly. And pretty much always in bloodshed.
I speak for freedom – not equality in any form.
It is only in freedom that we have any equality.
Freedom is a noble aspiration, the human history of fighting for freedom is not marked by gratuitous violence, that of those fighting some hated other always leads to blood.
If you want low GINI indexes – go to North Korea, or Cuba, or Venezeula – where nearly everyone is equally poor, and even the “rich and powerful” are poor by western standards.
What you can find if you google – is that there are myriads of stupid people who have bought into the lie that “income inequality” is something of importance.
I have repeated this OVER AND OVER again.
In the US, and in the WORLD, over the past 50 years – MEDIAN standard of living has doubled. In the US in every quintile it has atleast doubled.
In the world – very few places have not doubled or more – those would be, much of africa, those few remaining socialist or communist countries, those places with the most powerful governments. Those are the places where people are not better off.
The rate of Improvement in standard of living corresponds everywhere perfectly to economic freedom.
All of the above are big bold close to absolute statements.
You say you are capable of using google – then prove them wrong.
But just to be clear – I am not interested in whining about purported changes in income inequality – that is completely unrelated to anything I have said.
I am not interested in claims about “income” at all – because those are far too easy to play ideological statistical games with and misrepresent. Find me evidence of significant declines in standard of living over long periods of time in nations with high economic freedom.
Data, and evidence is the test, not the popularity of stupid ideas.
We have been marched into war and bloodshed repeatedly by the popularity of stupid ideas.
The bottom quintile in the US has doubled its standard of living over the past 40 years – according to myriads of sources – including the US census.
While that is not possible without increasing disposible income – I do not need to prove to you that they have more disposable income – nor do I care much what you think you can prove about income.
As I keep repeating AGAIN and AGAIN,
The desired end is increased standard of living – not jobs, not income.
Those are means not ends. If the desired ends are being acheived without the use of force, then we should be seeking to understand the means – certainly not change them.
What is it that I am blind to ? Or prejudiced about ?
I am not even the slightest ignorant of the fact that a relatively minor economist – picketies, has published a bad version of “das capital” with poor data that does not support his proposition and the left throughout the world has once again taken up the red flag and is fostering class warfare.
I am not the slightest blind to it. I know error and evil when I see them.
I also know history and know this stupid meme ends badly.
I have challenged you – and anyone else repeatedly to test there ideology, their values against the facts, as I constantly do mine.
What I get back are “feelings”.
Yes, you are right a large body of people “feel” there is an income inequality problem.
You seem to think that proving that something “feels” wrong to you exists, is the same as proving that it is wrong.
Roby, defeating me in an argument is trivially simple, getting me to reconsider my position on anything is far easier than anyone else here. It only requires reason, logic, and facts.
That is all. Through out my life I have had to change my views on many things many times – because those views resulted in contradiction.
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Dave, your economic views are to the right of the center of gravity of the GOP by a large distance. Which is why I said you are on the “economic right”. Now I could have just been lazy, as you habitually are when you label me a leftist, but instead I went to the bother of not just simply calling you a right winger. Your views on the environment are in keeping with the most conservative of the GOP spectrum. Many other views you have described are not conservative and are even more liberal than liberal, in the present day sense of the word.
So, as a person who tries to be “fair and balanced” I call your collision with Moogie what it is, right and left economics. Although she seems to be left in every way, you guys are colliding on economic issues, and, not to put too fine a point on it, neither of you lives in the real world most of the time according to my concept of economic reality.
Roby;
You see the entire world through the lens of “left-right”.
Truth and science know nothing of left and right – or atleast are not supposed to.
Nor is the political spectrum one dimensional.
You are correct that TODAY many (not all) republicans argue the same basic principles of economics that I do.
Regardless, while I would hope that atleast one of our political parties was not completely economically inept, The fact that some republicans are not idiots and accept basic economics does not discredit basic economics.
Further, though I make some economic arguments and some purely practical arguments most everything I argue derives from a single foundation – the criticality of free will – individual liberty. That principle is owned by neither party. At this particular moment in time it is more respected by Republicans than Democrats.
I would note that modern progressivism was born in the 19th century in the Republican party.
Apparently you seem to think that if you can label a view “right” or republican – that you are no longer obligated to demonstrate error.
I have label many of your views “left” – I believe accurately, and I have on occasion done the same to Rick – mostly to discredit this notion that either of you are “moderate”.
More important than “right” vs. “left”, they are demonstrably wrong.
Both philosophically, economically where appropriate and pragmatically.
I have yet to hear you, or Moogie are really anyone else willing to argue the facts, the data, logic or reason.
Everyone’s entire counter argument has been “Dave’s positions are extreme”
You just correctly bemoaned the nonsense at Middlebury – but aside from a lower level of viriole how are you so different from the students there ?
They are willing to take pitchforks to those whose views they do not like. You merely label than as “extreme” and therefore you can ignore them.
And NO you have not made any argument beyond labeling and then ignoring my arguments.
You have been absolutely constant in ducking the facts and sticking to fallacious arguments about labels. Nor are you anywhere close to alone in that.
In fact the only time I have seen you argue facts and logic have been those occasions in which you have confronted Moogie. In those instances you have surprised me.
Leaving me to wonder how you reconcile the total contradiction between what you argue against her with what you otherwise claim to believe.
You are correct my views span the entire political spectrum.
That would be because neither the left nor right are capable of logicial consistency.
The core to every argument I make is free will and individual liberty – without which morality and ethics do not exist, without which left and right do not exist.
I read some of what you have written more recently and think – I do not need to argue with you. I do not need to convince you of the merits of my positions, all that I need to do is get you to recognize the contradictions in your own.
You grasp the stupidity of what is going on at Middlebury – but not how pervasive that is, nor how it is the natural consequence of:
The leftward trajectory of academia,
The increasing narcisim of successive generations – that started long before our own, that is a consequence of our rising standard of living,
Our increasingly protective parenting that leaves our children unable to confront people with different views without appeals to authority and resorting to childish tactics and force.
You seem to have a pretty good grasp of economics, and logic, but you are blind to the contradictions between different arguments that you make.
“So, as a person who tries to be “fair and balanced” I call your collision with Moogie what it is, right and left economics. Although she seems to be left in every way, you guys are colliding on economic issues, and, not to put too fine a point on it, neither of you lives in the real world most of the time according to my concept of economic reality.”
Is there anyone who has more forcefully or consistently argued that both in the US and the world standard of living has doubled in the past 40 years ?
If I am correct on that, then of everyone here I am the most grounded in “the real world”.
I do not care much about your “concept of economic reality”.
Without getting incredibly philosophical reality is not a concept.
There is only one reality, though there are many perceptions of it.
Those of us whose perception most closely resembles than one reality, are the ones who “live in the real world”.
I picked rising standards of living as one means of measuring the quality of our different “perceptions of reality”. It is the most significant as what is more important than rising standard of living ?
But I am prepared to compare the quality of my “perception of reality”, I am prepared to test which of us “lives in the real world” by most any measure you wish that can be compared to incontrovertible data.
“most people in this country do not make enough money to live by middle class standards. NOT because they are lazy, but because they don’t’ earn enough.”
The middle class is by definition actually the middle class, quintiles 2,3,4. By definition most people DO make enough money to be middle class. The people you describe are the poor and the lower middle class. In America even the lower middle class have standards of living that are Still far higher than those of many billions of people in the world today and pretty much 99.99% of the people who have ever lived. At the same time, standards of living are declining in many parts of America, and no one can feel good about having a declining standard of living.
I looked up the town you mentioned in Virginia, apparently where you live. Its the real deal, a truly economically depressed area, 20% unemployment, low wages, median income according to wiki of $18,000, which translates to $9/hour. Wiki further states that the economy went south there in the 90s due to globalization. So your story is quite true for your area. The standard of living is declining there, it has to be depressing and infuriating, no matter what Dave says But American politics and economics are not the politics and economics of Appalachia, they are the combined economics of the country as a whole. The country as a whole does not nearly match your area or your ideas about how Americans as a group are doing.
No offence intended, but as you have noted you suffer from chronic depression, which you inherited. You live in an economically depressed area, surrounded by people you have mostly derogatory words for here. So, that is your view of the country.
I agree and a majority agree, even many or most conservatives! that there is income/wealth disparity, that its growing, that it is a problem and that something needs to be done.
What is your mechanism to turn all of that around? Lacking that you have nothing but the observations of a depressed person living in a depressed area feeling angry. As well, any mechanism to reverse income disparity has to be capable of negotiating politics. I don’t believe there is any simple mechanism, any law or regulation that is going to turn this increasing disparity around. If it turns around it will be due to very long term complicated cultural events.
Taking Dave as a representative of TNM is like taking a campus radical as a representative of academia. He is in his own theoretical ideological world and his wide set of extreme positions and has limited overlap with anyone else here. You seem to be much more interested in his opinions than anyone else’s here, because they are your perfect example of what you are against. He is an outlier. If you read the discussions here carefully you will find everyone disputing most of what he says that is not simply Econ 101 material.
As to the idea that only you here have picture of the working class, I’ve explained my background enough times that you must have seen it. Ever work in a chemical factory Moogie? Ever work construction? Ever join the Nat Guard to have money for college? Work as an auto mechanic? I didn’t think so.
I started out as a laborer and got educated. You started out educated and wound up as a laborer. If you think that I am going feel ashamed or embarrassed about having achieved a life that satisfies me, you are gonna wait a looooong time. I had family help, jeez, like you have help, but I also built my own houses, got an education, then a higher education, found a completely unexpected career from learning a foreign language, etc. The guilt trip thing wears out in its effectiveness pretty quickly. I am sorry about your chronic depression, that is a hard hand to play, but your hardest cards were not dealt by the evil conservative redneck racists who you spend so much time dwelling on.
Quite a few things about many conservatives make my teeth itch, but they are not a monolithic group, not all racists rednecks etc. and there are many, many shades of grey, including some who even I can respect and admire. Defending conservatives or their ideas is hardly my great passion in life, but they do not control my life, or yours.
Forgetting the existence of groups with opinions you dislike you have to personally do something very different or the outcome will be the one you don’t seem to enjoy now. Society is a very large flywheel, its not going to turn politically the way you wish any time soon. And, if it somehow does, I think you will be disappointed in the results.
At the time of Galleleo most people agreed that the sun revolved arround the earth.
That did not make it so.
Incomes are not equal – that is practically a tautology.
Income inequality is neither a legitimate goal or objective.
Even using the greatest good for the greatest numbers as standard I do not personally accept – a rising standard of living at the bottom is the objective, not increased parity with the top.
Further as I keep noting and you keep ignoring – income is still just a means. It is not an ends, and it is a horrible measure – as are nearly all monetary measures.
I find it most interesting that the left which constantly rails about the fixation of others on money is atleast as fixated on money as it claims those it rails at are.
Finally – where do you get the idea that “income inequality” is something that you are entitled to “solve” ?
Is the fact that we are not all equally talented in sports a problem that govenrment must address ?
Or that we are not equally handsome, musically talented, personable, ?
The fact that you identify something as something you would like to see different does not make it something you can justifiably use force to change to your liking.
The median household income for martinsville VA is 27,471, for the city nearest me it is 29,770,
So I do not think Moogie can claim to live in a region significantly more depressed than I do.
My community is noted for building construction, and that tanked in 2006.
I have little doubt my community went very heavily for Trump – as likely did Moogies.
My fundimental issues with the local community are the political corruption, not any of the nonsense that Moogies fixates on. Maybe Martinville is a shining example incorruptible government – I suspect it is little different from my own.
Now I am starting to get it – you beleive that reality is defined by the consensus of what people beleive – rather than the world as it actually is.
In that sense – I am absolutely outside of your conception of reality.
I am interested in the world as it is – as accurately as I am able to understand it.
I am far less interested in what people beleive , that what is .
I would also note that you and moogie continually ignore the possiblility that people are approximately where they are because that is the choice they have made.
All of us would like to magically have better choices that we do. But few of us are prepared to do what is necessary to give ourselves different choices.
Few of us would describe reaching the point where we are unwilling to do more to advance as being satisfied or happy, But essentially that is what it means.
Roby, Moogie is consistently complaining about the income levels where she lives. She also comments how the voters in her state voted for the worst candidate ever. You pointed out how globalization has impacted her community. I have consistently told her past actions by both democrats and republicans have created much of these issues. She has refused to accept this fact aand continues to blame the rich. However, since her state voted for Trump, they believe the actions on trade by past administrations is more responsible than the rich. She is out of touch with her community also.
Excellent observation.
I have another concern for the moment.
This is not the first period in history of rapidly rising standard of living as a consequence of globalization. The first great period of globalization was the latter part of the 19th and early 20th century.
That was also the last period of the rise of progressivism – and 19th/early 20th century progressivism strongly resembles that of today.
The rhetoric then like now was intended to inflame class warfare – and in parts of the world it did.
We were seeing the same rhetoric at that time on the extreme left about revolution and violence, and the sins of the bourgeoisie.
That past era brought us WWI and the rise of communism and ultimately Hitler.
I recently finished the guns of august and I was shocked by the fact that pretty much everyone beleived that trade made war impossible, and that even if it did occur it could not last long – the same things we hear today.
“No one claims “income inequality does not exist”.
You are the one claiming it is meaningful in some way – the burden is on you to prove that it justifies anything.”
Dave, trump’s voters believe it exists and that its meaningful, its a great deal of how he got elected. The populist revolution, both the left and right variants, share a boiling anger at those with wealth and power. Its a powerful force, its escaped the realm of left wing professors, hippies and left activists, where it was pretty harmless.
You are in your own world of denial about the bad consequences of the growing income/wealth disparity.
Nothing has to be proven, least of all proven to Dave, the grandmaster of denial himself. The majority of the voters, Including the GOP base! believe it and want something done about it, they just don’t know what exactly, (because no one knows what exactly) will combat it.
Now why are exiting the world of facts and entering that of mind reading and opinions.
I do not pretend to perfectly comprehend the thoughts of Trump voters – but I am not inclinded to beleive that either you or moogie have a superior understanding of them.
Moogie appears to live in what is likely a sanctuary of Trump voters – as do I,
yet seems entirely clueless about them.
But answering you directly – no I do nto think Trump voters fixated on “income inequality”.
If they had Sanders would have been elected.
Maybe I missed something but I do not think that Trump ever uttered the worlds income inequality while campaigning.
Trump did promise an absolute improvement in the standard of living of the working class.
He promised to accomplish that many ways but atleast one of those was tax reform that would near certainly increase IE. To the extent that Trump voters voted on IE at all – they voted on the promise of higher IE AND higher standard of living.
Trump absolutely tied into populist anger – as did Sanders.
Sander’s populist anger was targeted at the rich.
Trumps was targeted at Washington, at illegal immigrants and unfair trade – NOT the rich.
I think you are the one living in the bubble.
I am not the one who seems to think the populist anger of a failed socialist candidate running as a democrat is someone the same as the populist anger of the winning republican candidate.
Public trust in government peaked at 77% during the Eisenhower administration,
Today it is below 19%.
While public trust in business is over 50%.
Here is Trumps platform – I can not find Income inequality anywhere on it.
Almost 150 planks and the closest think I can see is that he said he would reduce taxes on the rich while closing tax loopholes.
https://www.politiplatform.com/trump
What idiocy – IE. is trivial to fix.
The problem is that absolutely everything that reduces IE also reduces investment and our median standard of living.
And with a few exceptions(Bernie Sanders) most politicians are not stupid enough to act to completely destroy our standard of living in order to sate the stupid envy of left wing nuts.
Absolutely Trump voters are angry populists – and they believe alot of things that are economic nonsense. And to some extent they believe the rich and powerful have done well at their expense.
But not because of this nonsensical left wingnut fixation on income inequality, but because they have been able to buy favors from government.
That is quite different from the left wing nut conception.
For the most part Trump voters (though beleiving in lots of nonsense about immigration and trade) have little problem with the rich getting richer – so long as they get richer at the same time.
They do not care all that much if the rich get alot richer – so long as they do not remain trapped in the stagnant economy of the past two decades.
Absolutely we are both engaged in “mind reading”. and I hate to make arguments about what other people think. That said – the best evidence is what the candidate they voted for said he would do.
Trump may have been lying, or maybe they really did vote as they did because they were hateful, hating haters,. But we have no credible way of knowing that. But it is highly unlikely that they voted as they did because Trump was going to fight IE as conceived by the left wing – something Trump never said he was going to do.
“Finally – where do you get the idea that “income inequality” is something to solve”
I have no interest whatsoever in income inequality. I do have a pretty normal interest in growing income disparity and so did trumps voters. Does income disparity, even growing automatically have to be a bad thing? No, But in this case it is a painful political phenomenon because of the change in the place of America in the world, which was abnormally good when I was born and has now come back to earth. People in regions who’s fortunes are declining are pissed off and the growth of a super rich class who buy and sell factories etc. while the lower middle and poor classes go backwards is a political issue.
If you are interested in reality then you might want to interest yourself in the reality that now large numbers of people on both the right and left are really pissed off at the rich and that feeling is only getting stronger.
Personally, I am not a populist, far from it! But they are upset about something real even if they have no good plan how to fix it, whether its the left plan, the right plan, or the trump plan.
Why don’t you take it as a given that everyone here knows that you are against government using force, we have your position memorized. You just sound loopy repeating it ten million times.
You really want to argue semantics ?
The very first synonym for inquality on power thesarus.com – the 3rd google link (and the first I checked) for inequality synonym was “disparity”
I guess we are going to have to just disagree on what is in the heads of Trump voters,
I did not vote for him so I can not speak for myself, and I would be shocked to find you had.
So I have little faith in your insight.
My view is that this entire income inequality nonsense is the same lunacy it was whenever it has been raised – whether at the french revolution or the late 19th early 20th century rise of marxism. That outside of the left it has decreasing power to attract peoples interests – atleast I certainly hope so, because a popular uprising inflamed by income inequality has historical been bloody and vile, and rarely stops with the rich.
Regardless, It was not on Trumps platform – not one of nearly 150 planks.
Large numbers of people are really pissed at the moment.
We disagree regarding why. The results of the election strongly suggest that the left – not even the moderate left understands that anger.
So yes, I will agree that there is alot of anger.
At the same time you should be hoping I am right about that anger – as if you are we are in for blood.
I would quit repeating myself on things like force if you would quit misrepresenting my position and thereby making it clear you do NOT understand it.
I am not “against” government using force. Government IS force.
If you do not need force, you do not need government.
If a problem does not require the use of force – send the mennonite Central committee, or the Sierra Club, or the odd fellows.
I fully and completely support the use of force by government to do those tasks that only government can do AND that must be done.
In otherwords those uses of force that are justifiable.
I am against ANYONE using force unjustifiably.
Dave, my reply on trumps populism went god knows where. I’ll make attempt 2 to make it go where it ought.
There was plenty of overlap between Sanders and trump populism. They both used bankers as a punching bag, both favored a minimum wage increase. trump slammed the hedge fund guys as getting away with murder, had at the wealthy donors. He was going to pull the fangs of the pernicious wealthy exactly Because he is rich and knows where they live. Sorry, the essence of populism is rich vs. poor. Not to mention things I heard his supporters say on wages and the rich. They believed that trump was their blue collar billionaire, on their side.
Fighting wage inequality would be the delusional communist idea. Of course there is wage inequality. I’m fine with wage inequality like any sane person. Its only a distantly related animal to the issue that a very small number of people have more and more of the wealth because they have more and more of the income and that difference is getting larger over time.
If you would like to go out into a gathering of trump supporters in an economically depressed area and personally tell them that its just fine and even Great! that wages are low (efficiency, its wonderful!) and that the rich Should be buying, closing, and selling factories right and left because everyone is better off as a result and our standard of living is going up up up, well, you are either brave or foolish, cause I think that speech would go over very badly.
Populism, its populism. It ain’t on the side of the wealthy.
First, we are arguing about what is going on in the heads of other people.
While I disagree with you, this is far outside the realm of logic or ideology or reality or facts.
Even if each of us have some evidence to support our arguments – we are still arguing about what is in other peoples heads and that is just not proveable.
Next, absolutely there is some overlap between Trump and Sanders.
In point of fact when I compared candidates to my own views using I side With as I recall I came far closer to Sanders than Clinton – though not especially close to either.
Most of the points of comparision you make between Trump and Sanders are valid.
But not all.
Populism BTW is defined as an appeal to the concerns of ordinary people.
Absolutely Both Trump and Sanders did that.
It is not inherently Rich vs. Poor.
Sanders #1 boogey man, then and now remains the rich.
Did Trump say some of the things you claim – absolutely.
And absolutely he particularly targeted hedgefunds and Wall Street.
But Wall Street is NOT synonymous with “rich”.
But beyond splitting hairs over subsets of the rich, by Far Trumps biggest target was NOT the rich, but washington. Politicians and bureaucrats.
On that he is the polar opposite of Sanders. More importantly
Sanders was rabid about the Rich.
Trump was rabid about washington.
As I noted in his platform – the rich do not get mentioned.
No disagreement that Trump was a populist.
If you want to argue that some small portion of Trump voters are heavily out to get the rich – probably.
There also was some clear migration back and forth between Sanders voters and Trump voters.
Sanders also upset Clinton in SOME of the rust belt states that Trump beat Clinton in.
But not all of them.
We also have a fundimental problem because neither Trumps not Sanders platforms are logically consistent. I know many sanders voters who just hated Clinton and would have voted for anyone else. In the primaries they voted for Sanders, in the general they voted for Trump.
Further, alot of this election boiled down to which candidate did you hate the most.
I think a very large portion of voters did nto want either Clinton or Trump – nor Sanders either.
Which again means running a populist campaign does not mean that is why you were elected.
Voters in Michigan almost certainly voted for Trump for substantially different reasons than those in Georgia.
The monday morning quarterbacks are absolutely correct that very small changes on clintons part could have shifted the outcome.
But one must be very careful with that logic. Both sides made huge mistakes and got many things right. The fact that one change would have changed the outcome is near meaningless,
Because if one thing changes – something else likely would have also.
But the one Message that Trump was absolutely consistent with respect from the begining was his attack on Washington. And he continued that theme through the election and inauguration to the present.
The only thing he was nearly so consistent about – was his attack on the press.
Absolutely many Trump voters beleived he was their Blue Colar Billionaire fighting on their side.
AGAINST WASHINGTON!!!!
I am not a populist or a politician. I am not running for election and I am not prepared to tell people what they want to hear to get elected.
As I said at the begining, we are now arguing about what is in other peoples heads – not facts or reason or logic.
I think you are wrong in your assessment of most Trump voters – anyone pretending Trump voters are monolithic is nuts.
But I am not going to pretend that the rules of logic apply to assessing the motivations of voters.
If I think that I am somehow better at understanding Trump voters than you that would be because I think your ideology is clouding your head – you can not conceive of anti-government populism.
But still I am at best claiming to be a better guesser or maybe more intuiitve
There is little possibility of knowing whether one is right or wrong.
Amoung other reasons because the election is over and that changes all kinds of things – including what is in the heads of Trump voters.
“Amoung other reasons because the election is over and that changes all kinds of things – including what is in the heads of Trump voters.”
Naw, it was vanilla pudding before the election and its Still vanilla pudding. (just a little joke.)
But, I give you credit for actually admitting that I was correct about some points in our argument, that’s a first in our long history I believe. Gotta check the temperature in Hades.
I have noted and even complimented your arguments before.
I just do not grasp how you can reconcile in your head those things you are right about with those that contradict that you are wrong about.
Regardless, I try not to write indecisively – I belive that is one of Orwell’s rules.
Do not say “I think something” because if you are writing it. it is obviously your thoughts.
Logic, reason and facts do not apply (atleast not well) to debates about what other people are thinking. It may be enjoyable to argue about what voters think or how they will vote or why,
but you can not be logically right, or right before the fact. And I am wrong about peoples thoughs and future votes plenty of times before. Though the “experts” have not done much better.
BTW that is not to claim I am an expert. It is more of a jab at experts.
If you have not grasped that yet, I do not respect experts merely because they are experts, I respect those that have withstood the test of time.
In the catagory of – anything can be argued about:
According to Dante the 9th circle of Hell is frozen.
“I am no longer buying: vacations, magazines, newspapers, new clothes, food at restaurants, steak, shrimp or other fancier food at the grocery, jewelry, massages, preventive health care, new cars, ”
You think that makes you “working class” ? Or that makes you life horrible ?
If have had two “vacations” in my life. In 1983 I spent two weeks in Ireland for my honeymoon. In 1998 I sent 3 weeks in China adopting my daughter – though I spent every night in the business center of the hotel I was staying at doing work over the internet.
I subscribe to two technical journals for my work. My wife might subscribe to one.
We have not subscribed to a magazine or newspaper for other than work purposes in more than a decade.
Sometimes I have gotten “new” clothes for christmas. Otherwise I buy clothes at consignment shops and good will. While I do this to save money. I also do it because it is fun. I will buy a pair of pants or a shirt for $3 that I would never buy for $30 and sometimes I discover I like it.
Until very recently when we decided it was important for our relationship, my wife and I had not eaten out for years. We buy most of our food at Costco, in bulk at low cost.
My wife loves to cook so we do sometimes have “fancier food” – but she makes it in very large quanitities to save money and we freeze it. Jewelry ? Are you serious ?
Massages ? Neither of us have had a massage – except ones we gave each other, in our lives, and I have not given my wife jewelry since we got married. We did get our wedding rings resized a couple of years ago.
I have no idea what you call “preventive health care” – most studies show it is a large waste of money anyway. Presumably you know how to “live healthy” – that does not cost money.
“new cars” – again what are those ?
Why do you think the things you are talking about somehow constitute poverty ?
Oh have not bought new furniture in atleast 2 decades – what else would you call “decorating the house” ?
If I have an “absolute emergency” I have no one else to go to for help. My parents and in-laws are dead. I am the one other people – like my kid or siblings come to when they need help.
If I have a “sick pet” I must pay for it or watch it die – or sometimes both.
My credit card balance is zero or near zero. Because credit cards are there for those emergencies or for those purchases that can not be made any other way.
As a result I have excellent credit as does my wife. I do not consider being poor an excuse for bad credit, and I know people who are better off than I am with bad credit.
All “credit” is, is your reputation for fiscal responsibility. If yours is bad – that speaks for itself.
Regardless it has little or nothing to do with your “class”. It has to do with your abilty to make wise choices.
To reference the SNL skit that Ron linked – “don’t buy stuff that you can not afford”.
My wife and I have had some health problems over the years. Some have been covered by insurance, some we have had to pay for. Since we actually value our credit, we found the we to pay for them.
Regardless, health problems did not ruin your credit. Your unwillingness to pay for them did.
That is a choice you had the opportunity to make.
I do not want to claim that figuring out how to pay for all the extraodinary and unforeseable expenses is easy. It is not. But it starts by assuming that such things are going to happen, and one way or another making the allowances to be able to cover them.
If you structure your life such that you will be fine if nothing goes wrong – then you are near certain to end up with bad credit – because things do go wrong.
The car breaks down, your daughter has bad teeth because she spent 2 years in an orphanage in china. Your son has a car accident, you lose a job, …..
Something will always happen. You can not know what, but you can know for certainty that something will happen.
If as you say you are “working class” then by definition 40% of less of the people in the US are in your situation. You seem to fail to grasp this simple concept.
by 2016 household income
First quintile less than 22,000 generally called “poor” – though poverty is the bottom 15%
2nd quintile 22,000-42,000 “working class”
3rd quintile 42,000-68,000 “middle class”
4th quintile 68,000-110,000 “upper middle class”
5th quintile 110,000- “upper class”
I expect that families will “help each other out”.
That works differently in different families.
My parents are all dead. They have not “helped me out” in more than a decade.
Before they died, I “helped them out”. My wife parents were actually poor. I “helped them out” for years.
My parents never “helped me out of difficulty” – if I got into a financial bind it was my job to get out. They did however “help me out” with oportunities. My mother gave me a fair amount of money after we adopted our kids. We paid for it ourselves, and I never asked for help, but she appreciated our grandkids and showed it.
My father pushed my into buying my rental property and helped me with the down payment to make it happen. In return I helped him with his own rentals.
My parents helped us in the same kinds of ways, Dave.
The kind of consumerism that exists today, and conflates wants and needs, didn’t really exist for people born before WWII, and credit cards really exist until the 50’s. Revolving credit, with a carried balance probably not until the 60’s. Now, having a credit card is considered necessary.
It’s become harder and harder to teach kids the value of saving, when competing forces all seem to be pushing the value of spending.
Your observations are correct, and I think they carry alot of meaning.
Each generations converts to “needs” what was merely a “want” for the prior generation.
That is because we are climbing Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
It is because WE ARE MORE PROSPEROUS with each generation.
Each generation complains of the previous – in much the same way, and those complaints are mostly true. We are increasingly better off, and as a consequence we are increasingly narcisist with each new generation.
This is a paradox I do not have the answer to.
Schumpeter posited that capitalism would fail because of its own success.
I am not sure this is quite what he meant, regardless, we do have a problem – the more we prosper the less we appreciate the freedom that was necessary to prosper,
The more we prosper the more we confuse what we want with what we have a right to.
That is what I fear the most.
If Moogie and Robby want to waste their energies in envy of others – that is their problem.
But as we expand positive rights, as we have an increased sense of entitlement – all of which seem to grow as our standard of living rises, then we act ever more to destroy “the engine of the world”, the very thing that has improved our standard of living.
Moogie and Robby want to claim to champion the poor or the working class.
We have had generations of that kind of champion, who have delivered to the poor and working class nothing – the standard of living of the poor and working class have improved, but thanks to the very things those claiming to be their champions have reviled.
The path they are selling leads to destruction.
I have repeated over and over that standard of living has doubled in the past 40 years.
And that is absolutely true. What is also trues is that most of that improvement was in the first two decades, not the last – particularly in the US. The rate of improvement has slowed exactly as the ideas that Moogie and Robby advocate have started to gain traction.
Just about every “get rich quick” book in existance pushes two things:
Work your ass off
Figure out how to save and invest every penny that you can.
Robbie and Moogie what to rail about the rich.
Particularly in the US the rich do not typically stay rich long.
If you are born into the bottom quintile, you have about an 80% chance of reaching atleast middle class.
If you are born int he top quintile you have about the same 80% chance of ending up middle class.
The good news is that what constitutes middle class is ever better.
There is very very little “old wealth” in this country.
I believe that the data I have seen is that less than 1.5% of the wealth of the richest 1% was inherited.
Absolutely class is a factor in our ability to improve our circumstances – though the vocabulary of your parents is a better predictor of your future success than their wealth.
I very rare instances people go from the bottom to the top in a single generation.
More commonly those at the top are 2-3 generations from roots in poverty.
I do not “advocate” anything with respect to pay.
Just as I do not “advocate” anything with respect to the price of tomatoes.
If you are looking for work – you ask for the most you think you can get paid.
If you are looking to hire someone you look for the best value you can get.
In the end either an agreement is reached, or it is not.
What I get “paid” varries all over the place – depending on how bad I need the work, and how bad the client needs my assistance.
If you think the rise in living standards in china was “nominal” you are blind.
In 1974 the standard of living in china was about the same as in Africa
Today it is just above most of central and south america and about 1/3 of europe.
That is not a small change.
The improvement in India did not start until the late 80’s and is less than half that of China
India is still better today off than nearly all of africa and on par with much of south and central america.
In both of these countries those changes happened as a direct consequence of expanding economic freedom.
Both countries had nearly a century of the kind of social programs you advocate that had done NOTHING for standard of living, or worse actually lowered it.
Both india and china have serious other problems. They are not examples of perfection.
Or ideals. They are examples of what changes work, and what ones do not.
Yours do not.
I am not aware of a single moral philosophy that addresses money or its distribution.
Conversely you can not have morality without freedom.
You fixate on the wrong things.
No one has advocated for a “totally free market”.
Nor frankly, is it about markets.
It is about individual freedom.
Free markets are a subset of that.
I have repeatedly identified those freedoms we surrender as a part of the social contract.
Those are the ONLY freedoms we give up, and we do so in return for government protection of our other freedoms.
If government is infringing rather than protecting our other freedoms it is illegitimate, unjustified and immoral.
I am not interested in the distribution of money.
I am interested in the distribution of wealth.
That would be what we produce and consume.
Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production;
Adam Smith
Moogie tell us exactly what you want, not the liberal BS that anyone spouts off on cable talk shows that the middle class is shrinking, the 1% are unfair, conservative don’t care about the poor,etc, etc..
Whose income do you want decreased?
How do you want that done?
Income earners over 100K and above pay out 79.4% of federal income taxes. How much more should they pay.
Income earners just in the $250K and above pay out 51.6% of federal income taxes. How much more should they pay?
Whose income do you want raised?
To what amount?
How do you propose to get the excessive corporate income moved from foreign countries back to the USA so the redistribution can occur?
How do you propose to maintain a stable workforce when unskilled jobs a taken over by machines?
Stop complaining and give us some specifics to debate.
Good questions.
But we need to know more than what she wants, but also how she plans on acheiving that.
I tried to address this with you regarding china, sort of.
Like it or not businesses are going to look after their self interests.
That is actually extremely important and something we want, even though the left constantly calls it evil and greedy.
But whether you agree with me or not, it is what businesses will do.
The 2.5T of funds of US busineses invested overseas are a rational response to bad US laws.
Only the US in all the world taxes money earned elsewhere in the world.
Otherwise that money would have already returned.
So If moogie wants that money returned she has to tell us how she will make that occur.
And why businesses will not actively thwart her intentions – there is a huge amount of money involved here.
We like to complain about corporate inversions – well if the tax provisions of another nation are more favorable to a company – whey shouldn’t it relocate itself to the other country ?
It is trivial to come up with ways to use the power of government to claim to acheive the purposes that Moogie wishes to see.
It is nearly impossible to actually make them work.
People – not CEO’s not the homeless, not the rich, not businesses, not tax payers, not the poor, not the working class, not … do not respond to the dictates of government in precisely the way government wants them to.
A perfect example – nearly all of the “poor” we eligable for free healthcare pre PPACA.
Few signed up. Free without paperwork is cheaper than free with.
PPACA was supposed to magically change that – it did nothing.
The poor still do not sign up, even though it would cost them nothing, and they still use ER’s for healthcare.
But there are myriads of other examples. The left likes to call it things like “gaming the system”. There is absolutely nothing wrong or immoral about playing by the rules – in the fashion that benefits you personaly the most.
Dave I think if you will look back on some of my comments about issues Moogie has brought up you will find I have addressed what I believe are the causes and some of the solutions.
I agree with you 100% that business will react to any economic stimulus that improves their bottomline. I have said many times that tax reform needs to occur to make our tax liability for corporations much closer to the taxes paid in foreign countries. If I were a CEO of a drug or tech company and and Irish drug or tech company offered my company a deal where the corporate rate paid in taxes decreased for the mid 30% range to less than 15%, I would have to be an idiot not to make that deal if there were no other deal breakers.
And then people like Moogie would see that my company was making millions more, I was rewarded as the CEO financially, through salary and stock options, and we would be added to her list of immoral companies taking away income for Americans while padding our own bank account.
And the real culprit, as I have so many times tried to point out and my comments go unanswered, is the government policies creating the environment to move and not the companies greed.
While I agree with you I think the problem is even bigger than you paint it.
With rare exceptions – and those are covered by laws inside the legitimate scope of government, businesses are NOT going to act “immorally” – so long as immoral is not defined as at odds with policies I think are good. But the left litterally defines immoral as different from what they would prefer.
That said business will respond to absolutely any change in their environment in order to maximize profits – without resorting to the use of force.
BTW Business is not unique there – humans will respond to changes in laws in the manner they see as in their best interests – NOT in the way government intended.
This is not just true of tax laws, it is true of all law and regulation.
Of course far too many of us presume that “in their best interests” is always the worst way.
I have already noted that businesses have been reducing polution in various formes for centuries – because it is in their best interests. There are minor positive things businesses (and people) do at of altruism – but mostly we act out of self interests, and mostly that improves the world.
I agree.
Greed is something I have never heard a definiton that I can distinguish from envy on the part of the person offering it.
Businesses and individuals may not initiate force. Must keep their commitments and must make whole those they harm.
That is it.
There is no obligation to profit – only to the degree acceptable to some others.
There is no moral failure in doing so. Profits outside of the norms for the risk involved are rare and short lived, but they are not immoral.
I would also note that what most of us refer to as “morality” is really more like ethics.
What I seek to define and obligate us all to is a very narrow set of principles that applies to ALL off us equally, and that government is permitted to enforce. That is typically called ethics, not morals.
There is no ethical duty to help those less well off.
However I may personally impose on myself voluntarily a moral duty to do so.
Ethics are the rules we impose on all, while morals are the rules we impose on ourselves.
The distinction (regardless of what labels we use) is important.
The social contract that justifies government is limited to only those human principles ans rules that are universal or near universal.
Within our own lives we are free to impose additional duties on ourselves.
Further we can accept other duties and obligations that we receive through voluntary free association with others. We can as christians or muslims agree to moral principles associated with those beliefs.
Just as we can voluntarily ascribe to additional principles and values as a part of joining rotary or the AFLCIO or GreenPeace.
But we can not impose those moral duties societally by force.
“the middle class is shrinking, the 1% are unfair, conservative don’t care about the poor”
Apparently in this group these 3 facts are not accepted as FACTS, so there is not much use in talking to you. You don’t read reliable sources, therefore see no problems. You live in neighborhoods that you cannot see the lack of the middle class standards, therefore it does not exist.
No need to solve problems that don’t exist.
1). The middle class is shrinking.
The fact that it is not is a tautology.
The middle class is the class made up of the middle 20% of us as measured by income or wealth. It will always be exactly 1/5 of the population. It can neither grow nor shrink.
That said it has been changing – again almost a tautology.
In the past 70 years, the standard of living of those at the bottom edge of the middle class has risen dramatically, and that of the top edge has risen even more dramatically.
In other words BOTH the range of standards of living that constitute the middle class and the absolute start have increased.
I see that as incredibly good – are you arguing that it is not ?
Or are you disputing that those two things have occurred ?
I would note that your claim to increasing income inequality practically requires those to be true.
2). The 1% are “unfair”
That is a horribly unclear statement.
As I have noted “fair” is a meaningless term. Most parents with toddlers grasp that quickly.
Why haven’t you.
Life is not fair.
We have no measure of “fair”.
Regardless, before you can claim something is a fact, you have to state a claim that can be measured.
Fairness is at best an oppinion it can never be a fact.
So what are you even trying to say ?
3). Conservatives do not care about the poor.
Well I am not a conservative, so that really does not concern me all that much.
Further were it true as a fact – how would it be meaningful ?
I do not care very much about the sands on the beach.
My lack of caring does not change anything.
But with respect to the actual assertion, myriads of studies demonstrate that “conservatives” give more of their wealth and more of their time to those with less than those on the left.
Fundimentally you are continuing to confuse our public duties – those obligations to others that government can impose on us by force, and our private duties.
We are publicly obligated to refrain from initiating force or fraud against others.
We are publicly obligated to keep our commitments.
We are publicly obligated to repair the actual harm we do to others.
Our obligations beyond that are private not public.
You are free to care about the poor, you are free to do as much as you wish, you are free to choose to help those in Appalachia, or in Batswana,
None of us are able to help them all.
Nor can you impose an obligation to help your personally prefered group of poor on anyone else by force.
So you are correct – not a single one of your “facts” are facts.
Any source that claims such obviously fallacious things as facts is not reliable.
What constitutes a fact is not determined by a left wing nut popularity contest.
As to what I read – I have little doubt I read far more than you.
Have you read E.F. Schumaker ? John Rawls ? Marx ? Keynes ? Ghandi ? Tolstoy ?
Kant ? Kierkegaard ? Dworkin ? ….
I doubt you have read the intellectual foundations of your own ideology.
You presume to know where, I live and where I have lived. What I see and what I have seen.
I would be surprised if now or ever you have spent half as much time with people in actual poverty as I have.
Get a clue – just because people do not share your views does not make them blind.
You are blinded by emotion and immune to facts, logic and reason.
After the Charles Murray at Middlebury debacle (the students were roundly condemned in every piece of Vermont Journalism I came across afterwards) I vowed I was gonna keep looking in on the Middlebury campus via its school newspaper. I sort of forgot to do that.
Today, buoyed by the news that Bernie Sanders actually did something great that I can admire a day ago, calling out the wrongness of campus PC at Berkeley and saying it was a stupid losing way of behaving, I decided to look back in at the Middlebury school paper.
I wish I hadn’t. Those have got to be the snowflakest snowflakes in the country. Professors too. Pieces I read seemed like caricatures of PC but they were serious. They are getting worse, and faster than I imagined. These people never &^%$#@& learn. I can only hope they are the worst case. This kind of thing got actually very little traction at UVM when I was there, mostly it got rightfully mocked and ignored. A middlebury degree, nearly worthless?
Bernie needs to go out there and set them straight.
Here is just one example that is not Nearly as far out as some of the student pieces:
An Apology from PoliSci Chair to the Community
Bert Johnson
April 20, 2017
Filed under Opinions
Earlier this year I, as chair of the political science department, offered a symbolic departmental co-sponsorship to the Charles Murray event in the same way that I had done with other events in the past: on my own, without wider consultation. This was a mistake.
Last week, I apologized to my departmental colleagues for this closed decisionmaking process, and I apologize now to the broader Middlebury community. The short amount of time between when the event became public and when it occurred gave all of us scant opportunity to listen to and understand alternative points of view. Most importantly, and to my deep regret, it contributed to a feeling of voicelessness that many already experience on this campus, and it contributed to the very real pain that many people – particularly people of color – have felt as a result of this event.
As we debate what to do next, I look forward to hearing from the college-wide committee on invited speakers that is currently taking shape, as well as from my departmental colleagues and our department’s student advisory committee. I thank all of the members of the college community who have shared their views with me, with the department, and with the college administration over the past few months. I will continue to listen.
Bertram Johnson is an associate professor of political science and chair of the department.
Roby;
This nonsense is not limited to Middleburry. It is common on campuses today.
Nor is it just “PC”, it is the deliberate silencing of viewpoints that contradict the memes of the extreme left.
It has only turned violent suddenly – but it has been going on for a long long time.
I was in college in the late 70’s and early 80’s, and I attempted top tier engineering schools – some of the most conservative institutions of higher education and the faculty in those at that time already leaned heavily left.
FIRE – the foundation for individual rights in education a LEFT free speach on campus group was founded in 1999 to fight a problem that was already pervasive.
Silencing dissent has been a tactic of the left since atleast the Russian revolution.
There is nothing these snowflakes are doing on campus that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and myriads of other socialist tyrants have not done before.
Student bodies have sought to bar, ban, boycott, those who did not hew to some dogmatic viewpoint since atleast the time I was in college.
Only two things are new. That these efforts have turned violent, and that they have reached the point where professors are feel compelled to engage in maoist self criticism’s in order to survive.
Charles Murray is decried – because 30 years ago he published a book with one chapter noting that IQ correlated strongly with Race in the US and inquiring as to what this means and suggesting further inquiry.
For that he is vilified as a racist and eugenicist. Which is ludicrous given that Murray’s own family is bi-racial.
People like Ann Coulter and Milo Yanopolis are clearly provocateur’s and we should expect rational protest but not violence or efforts to silence them when they speak.
But we are silencing people like Heather McDonald – whose “crime” is thorough statistical analysis the racial aspect of crime from reports through investigations, detentions, arrests, shootings and convictions that demonstrates that the meme that our criminal justice system is a racist cesspool is fallacious. Black families report crimes at twice the frequency of whites.
All other disparities flow from that.
Therefore she must be silenced.
And why would any campus in this country not be proud to host Condoleezza Rice ?
I am glad that you grasp the problem with what is occuring in places like middlebury today.
But this is the culmination of decades of an increasingly strident left vigorously censoring points of view other than their own.
You argue that 80% of what I am saying is fallacious. Yet, the vast majority of what I argue has been accepted for over two centuries.
Are people like Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mills or Henry Thoreau unstable ideologues ?
Each of these where the champions of liberalism more than a century ago. Their words are more extreme than mine.
What of Adam Smith, Ricardo, JB Say, Hayek, Friedman, Coase, Hume, Mills, ….
Again among the economists who long before me demonstrated the same things that I do.
To the extent that what I argue has been considered “extreme” in the past – it was “extremely liberal”.
While you are right to condemn the snowflakes at Middlebury, they are nothing more than the natural consequence of a left that has with each decade drifted further left, and with each generation is less interested in hearing any voice besides their own.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
There are some good and bad parts of this but on balance its pretty good. By Allison Stanger, the victim of the Middlebury mob.
“Nor is it just “PC”, it is the deliberate silencing of viewpoints that contradict the memes of the extreme left.”
The extreme left at UVM where I was for nearly 15 years consisted of about 30 hippie wannabe students and 3 or 4 Marxist professors, one of whom had been treated like the plague by the school administration for about literally 40 years.
It was actually easy to battle them, they tried to really get things going after 911 and they got squashed instead, ridiculed. They tried to make themselves look like they were everyone and everywhere, but they were 30 out of nearly 10000, so it did not work.
Its easy to say that the far left has taken over higher ed, just like its easy to say that Appalachia or the South are just a bunch of racist rednecks.
But, the truth is not that simple.
Middlebury and Berkeley are extreme examples, there are others too. Conservatives may feel like Middlebury etc are higher ed itself.
Mostly higher ed is actually professors doing the publish or perish dance and students partying and studying and transferring their parents money to local retailers.
People need to get a grip on all the generalizing.
Even Allison Stanger contradicts your narrative by holding up the same principles you do, even if they are clothed in Middlebury speak.
Shades of grey.
Roby;
Few even on the left debate that the left has taken over academia.
If you really want me to produce facts to support that I will be happy to do so.
I can not tell you much about UVM after 9/11.
I can tell you about Franklin & Marshall in 1977
GA Tech from 1977-1979.
RPI from 1979-1981.
My divorce from the left started at GA Tech, in the midst of the “oil crisis”
I do not think any of my professors were “marxists”.
But very very few of them would be considered to be right of center.
Those causing problems at Berkeley. MiddleBury and elsewhere are a minority,
But they are a minority that the remainder of students and the faculty are unwilling and unable to confront.
That inability stems from the fact that the nonsense this new left minority is spouting is just the logical extension of what the professors and administration are peddling.
It is more extreme, but the administration and professors are not intellectually up to demonstrating its error.
Stanger is the exposition of the old adage that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.
There is a slowly growing body of academics who are starting to grasp that the current threat to free expression existentially threatens academia.
Regardless, I have not claimed that the majority of students or academics are the bomb throwers that are the face of the current mess.
But they are the enablers.
I can list a growing handful of academics – mostly from the left, or increasingly because of their heresey formerly from the left who like Stanger are speaking out
I think that you and I are likely both agreed that there is a problem.
I suspect we agree that the visible part of that problem is not a majority of students.
I would separately NOT divorce what is going on on colleges with what is going on nationally. Even though they are not exactly the same nor have exactly the same causes.
The extreme left is turning violent. It is my beleif and hope that this is the last gasp of progressivism. That ultimately it will fail and discredit large portions of the left.
But that does not have to be what occurs.
Trumps election was right out of the road to serfdom.
There is no requirement that the authoriarian promising to fix everything is going to come from either the right or the left – it does not matter much.
The left seems to think that Hitler was on the right – while false, that does not matter.
Hitler/Stalin – are either choices good ?
What makes you believe that Stanger is formerly of the left? I doubt she has changed her ideology one bit. She was up there on stage with Murray and protected him. She had the same principle before she got attacked. GIver her credit, there is such a thing as liberals who understand the importance of free speech. The Middlebury president also has reasonable principles that came out during this fiasco.
Even the repulsive bullshit that I have pulled off the Middlebury campus newspaper is not a statistically unbiased sample and far from it. Its activist crap.
I can agree, strongly, with one word you used: Enablers. Yes! Far too many enablers are allowing a left wing nutty minority to hijack college campuses and basically blackmail everyone. One must not deal honestly with extremists if they have root causes, such as fighting racism, that are real.
People need to fight back. John Cleese does it, Bernie Sanders is doing it. It needs to grow.
There is a high level of PC on campus, of unwillingness to confront BS if its left wing BS. And, sure, I will agree with campus conservative, they have a tough life on campus, they can say very little, they are stifled, which is decidedly wrong, as Bernie Sanders just pleasantly surprised me by saying.
Now, what effect does this have on society? Is everyone going to college and coming out brainwashed into Maoism or Marxism or even just transgender bathroomism? I’d say an awfully large number of people are coming out of school resenting the hell out of PC and even more, the percentage of people leaving college who are actually going to be highly productive and effective people who buy the PC crap is very low. PC is the home turf of people who are going to work their way down, not up, for the most part.
PC gives conservatives a cause. And conservatives very often give PC a cause. This nonsense is going to continue. Trump is most likely making the future of this situation worse.
Stanger has self identified as a democrat, a liberal and at odds with much of Murray’s remarks.
She is part of an older left that still values debate.
I am not claiming that Stander has become a conservative.
Only that she and many like her are fortunately rethinking some aspects of their ideology as a consequence of the wanton violence and intolerance of a minority of the millenial left that has risen to sufficient power to disrupt campuses.
Atleast I can hope for that – otherwise this continues to get worse.
I am not claiming that the extremist position at Middlebury is representative – even of students at middlebury.
But it is representative or a large enough body of students that they have power, and are uncontrolled.
The apologies of assorted professors reflect that power.
The fact that while some professors have condemned the violence, even those still think Murray should have been barred from appearing.
That should make it perfectly clear that with few exceptions even the administrations do not get it.
I also find Prof. Haidt’s observations incredibly astute.
He notes that one of the things humans are incredibly good it it is creating religions and sanctifying things.
He noted that the protestors at Middlebury were not protesting Murray speaking.
They were protesting his speaking on campus.
That they calmed down when they thought that the event was moving off campus and that violence errupted when they learned it was moving elsewhere ON CAMPUS.
That the problem was not Murray’s views or that he was speaking.
But that he was being allowed to speak heresy in their church.
In an actual war there is justification for dishonesty,
In a free society there is no justification for public dishonesty.
If you can not honestly fight racism or whatever evil you are so afraid of – then you are part of the problem, not the solution.
Sander’s is unlikely to get my admiration for anything.
Given much of what he has already said – I would be dubious of anything “nice” that he now says – and as you have just noted – the left does nto beleive that public honesty is a requirement – so why should I beleive either Sanders or you ?
You have made it clear that on some issues you are prepared to lie if necescary to misrepresent yourself to gain political advantage.
That makes anything you say less credible.
Honesty is important. It is how people determine if they can trust you.
As to Sanders – this is not someone I trust.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/19/15359498/democratic-party-sanders-perez
Roby, we are well past PC, something you do not get. A majority of those on college campuses are PC. What is NEW, is that it has advanced to the suppression – violently if necessary of those who are courageous enough to speak – even though they will be slandered, libeled and defamed and get little opportunity to clear their name.
Murray in particular is a turning point because he is not a provocateur like coulter or Yanopolis.
I am glad that people like Coulter and Yanopolis are speaking on campuses.
Just as we needed Nazi’s to march through Skokie.
But when those who are not provocateurs are attacked and supressed, then the ONLY perspective you are going to get on one side is that of the Coulters and Yanopolis.
The left is ultimately going to lose the war of ideas – because they are wrong.
Who would you prefer winning it – those like Murray or McDonald ?
Or the Coulter’s and Yanopolis’s ?
Trump rode a wave of oppostion to this nonsense to election – not because he was the most rational advocate, but because he was the loudest and most forceful.
As I have said before – the left elected Donald Trump, and you continue to empower him.
Are people coming out of college Marxists ?
No. But why does that matter. They are coming out of college without knowing the difference befween their own deeply held views and marxism.
I doubt that either you or Moggie can intelligently distinguish yourself from marxists.
You do not know marxism, you barely know that it has failed repeatedly, you do not have a clue why, you do not know what distinguishes your own views from marxism, or why given that marxism has failed your own views will not.
http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/09/professors-moved-left-but-country-did-not/
I make an obviously true argument that recognizes that the violence on campus is coming from a small but powerful minority – and your response is “shades of gray” ?
I am not arguing for a homogenous violent left.
Only that they are enabled by a much larger left that no longer has the moral foundations to reign in its extreme flank.
You provided the apology by Prof. Johnson – which makes the point for me.
Johnson is ashamed because he beleives he inadvertantly violated progressive values.
I doubt Johnson condones violence – but in his ideological hall of mirrors he is somehow responsible – because some victim class was harmed
This is all remarkably similar to the self-criticism that Maoists imposed
Regardless, what is most important is that though Johnson is NOT a part of those that responded with violence, he completely fails to grasp that the problem is with those seeking to censor Murray – violently or otherwise.
That it does not matter who was hurt or offended by Murray’s mere presence, that their is no right to silence speach you think you might not like,
that in fact the test of both your views and those of Murray’s is to allow them to be challenged in the open.
That even if Murray was an actual hate spewing racist homophobe that bad speach discredits itself and that our own views are weaker if they are not subject to challenge.
Regardless, Johnson aptly demonstrates that the problem on campus goes far beyond those engaged in violent censorship, Even Stanger at moments has unwarranted sympathy for those who harmed her.
Middlebury and other places seem to have grasped that things went wrong.
But they do not understand that their elevating the fake rights of those claiming victim status above the real rights and freedoms of others is the root cause.
The left does not understand that not only isn’t Murray some vile racist, but that even if he was it is only by allowing him to speak that you can test your own arguments.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
“You provided the apology by Prof. Johnson – which makes the point for me.”
Yes, it does. I provided it because it disgusted me. And, I agree with you completely about the enablers of which he is a sad example of lost dignity.
Sanders and Stanger are positive signs, but Johnson is a very negative one. Barf.
Where I see the lack of recognition of shades of grey is in the exaggerated viewpoint that the worst cases are the average cases. At UVM I watched something quite different than happened at Middlebury.
You’ll get no argument from me that PC should not exist, period, Especially on campus. In the end I think that the students who invest their student years in PC activism will have lost ground against students who studied their math and chemistry etc. As well, institutions that become notorious for this will see the values of their degrees decrease.
I wonder how many students at Middlebury even are quietly disgusted by the PC antics of the left. They have long lives ahead of them once they leave campus.
I do not understand the logic behind your shades of gray remarks.
If one position is black and another white – why would you chose gray ?
If we have an argument – and it fails at the extreme – reductio ad absurdem.
Then to claim that it works at all – in the grays we have to find a limiting principle that identifies why it works to some point and fails beyond that.
We do not just get to presume because something fails at the extremes that it actually works in between.
In fact absent some limiting principle a failure at the extreme is proof that the argument fails entirely.
“In fact absent some limiting principle a failure at the extreme is proof that the argument fails entirely.”
Yes, so you say over and over. Its the so-called logic you have built your belief system on.
Its idiotic. Using that I can just as easily show that you can’t cut government as you can show that you can’t grow government.
You completely misunderstand the principle behind reduction to absurdity.
But no, I won’t prove it to you, that would involve your honest participation, which ain’t gonna happen. You’ll go to your grave believing you have it correctly. Its OK by me.
It is ordinary logic, not something particular to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
No actually you can not show that you can not cut government infinitely
Because I can and provided limiting principles
You do not agree with mine, or more accurately I think you agree but think you can justify more government than I have – you are welcome to try.
No it is not idiotic, and no I do not completely misunderstand.
It is a perfectly legitimate logic technique.
Roby, I can not force you to do anything.
I want to say that you are the only one refusing to justify your arguments,
but even that is not correct. You are not making arguments.
You are making naked assertions, which is less than an argument.
You seem to think that honest participation means agreement.
Frankly, even if I agreed with you and was merely playing the devil’s advocate, your arguments should hold up to more rigorous challenges than I have provided.
Honest participation does not mean unquestioned acceptance.
it means rigorously challenging.
You seek to accept the necessity of free speech – even controversial speech.
Why ?
The most fundamental reason for allowing the expression of contrary points of view is to test what you believe to be true.
Are your likely to change my mind ? No.
But the sole reason for that is that you are unlikely to come up with a good argument for your position or a good argument against mine.
Succeed in either and you will change my mind – I am virtually certain the converse is not true.
One of the advantages of my argument – and disadvantages of yours is that I do not have to prove or be right about everything.
My argument is extremely limited.
I am not proposing the right answer to all the problems of the universe.
I answer only one question – what is the scope of government.
That is it.
I can speculate on the answers to things outside the scope of government, I can attempt to impliment my own answers for myself, or those who agree. If I am right or right for me, I will benefit, if I am wrong, the consequences will be mine alone.
You argue that government is the answer to far far more problems than I do.
In doing so you take personal responsibility for the consequences of those solutions not merely for yourself but for everyone else you seek to impose them on.
I will go to my grave knowing I have not screwed up any lives other than my own.
You can not say the same.
Dave, yes there is a logic form called reductsio ad absurdum, it simply isn’t that “a failure at the extreme is proof that the argument fails entirely.”
That is an absurd argument, not logical at all. You cannot find your phrase anywhere in the wiki article you linked. I googled your phrase and did not find it anywhere. Its your own invention apparently. To use one of your favorite phrases, did you even read your link?
You are just wrong.
Yes, that is pretty much what Reductio ad absurdum means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
an argument that inevitably leads to an absurd or impractical conclusion is one that does not continue to work as you advance it further and further towards one of the other of its farthest extensions.
A good example – one very similar to what we are dealing with here would be tax rates.
There is a presumption by many that higher tax rates will bring in linearly more revenue.
That a tax rate for 80% will bring in for times as much revenue as a tax rate of 20%.
So will a tax rate of 100% bring in 5 times the revenue of one of 20% ?
or is the argument that revenue will increase linearly with tax rate clearly false ?
or is there some limiting principle – such as increasing taxes will bring in linearly more revenue until point X and then revenue will drop off ? And if so where is X and why is X the point of inflection ?
Or is what is correct that there is a curve defining the relationship between tax revenue and tax rates ?
Regardless the original premise is clearly false – reductio ad absurdem. It fails at the extremes.
And therefore either the argument is false or there is some additional limiting factor or principle at work and in that case the burden is on the person making the original argument to demonstrate that.
And yes I read my own links, and I am not deluded into thinking that words like inequality and disparity are inherently different – rather than synonyms.
If it helps you
absurd: Not sensible or reasonable:unreasonable, wrong, extreme…
In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for “reduction to absurdity”; or argumentum ad absurdum, “argument to absurdity”) is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion,
The only requirement for reduction ad absurdem is to confine the extrapolation to the actual parameters of the argument, otherwise it turns into a straw man or an appeal to extremes.
Which is the point – if you make an argument that can be carried through the extremes without violating the parameters of the argument and it fails at the extremes – the argument is invalid.
Or improperly qualified.
It does not matter to me which you pick, because the burden to better qualify it rests with you – or it remains invalid.
None of this is rocket science.
If you delve into this further you will find that reduction ad absurdem is true so long as the law of the excluded middle holds true – i.e. that a proposition is either true or false – that there is no “third” alternative. Or as I have stated it a limiting principle or parameter.
Regardless, if you assert something as true without qualifying it, the burden to demonstrate that it is actually true within conditions still rests with you.
Naked assertions are not arguments.
I am not wrong.
I am very rarely wrong with respect to logic.
Aside from being something I am proficient at, it has been a critical part of my job for nearly 50 years. I have alot of experience at logic.
Find me any reference that says that “a failure at the extreme is proof that the argument fails entirely.” I don’t think you can.
That is not even nearly what it says in the Wiki article. And its flat out absurd. If drinking 1000 gallons of water will kill me I should not drink water.
If a 100% tax rate is bad there should be no tax.
Just nonsense.
You are still just wrong.
“Find me any reference that says that “a failure at the extreme is proof that the argument fails entirely.” I don’t think you can.”
I already did extreme is a synonym for absurd.
“That is not even nearly what it says in the Wiki article. And its flat out absurd. If drinking 1000 gallons of water will kill me I should not drink water.”
I told you you can not deal with logic.
Are you claiming that Aristotle and socrates are idiots ?
If not then all that remains is that your assorted “counter examples” aren’t,
And then the only question is whether mine is.
With respect to your water example – drinking water is not something that is either good or bad – and no one has argued that it is. And that is precisely the point I am trying to get you to with respect to government.
If your argument is “water is good for your” – just as one of your common arguments is “government is good” then reductio ad absurdem 1000 gallons of water should also be good for you. As it is clearly not it is false that “water is good for you”
But if the proposition is “some water is good for you” – or “some government is good for you”,
reduction ad absurdem does not work – there is no middle to water is good for you, there is for some water is good for you.
The entire point of this exercise – which I have been completely open about from the begining is that there is a limiting principle. The proposition government is good for you – or whatever your personal favorite equivalent is inherently and trivially provably false.
The proposition “some government is good” is not inherently false.
But that proposition posits LIMITED government.
Which is the place I have been trying to get you to, by what should have been trivial logic that you have made like pulling teeth. ‘
Once BOTH of us have accepted the proposition that “limited government is good”,
the question remaining for debate is what is the limit that determines when more government goes from being good to being bad. I have already repeated ad naseum my argument for that – though as we have already seen I can repeat something nearly identically many times such that you note with annoyance that it has been repeated over and over – and still can not accurately repeated – meaning you were not paying attention.
You are not obligated to do so, but claiming annoyance that you got something that has been repeated many times, when you clearly have not is disingenuous.
And back to your examples. Reductio ad absudem works on BOTH water is good for you AND water is bad for you – because both are FALSE.
The same is true of every one of your other counter examples.
The law of the excluded middle states that either a proposition or its converse is true.
Your purported rebuttles effectively demonstrate that BOTH of the propositions are false – that we are dealing with propositions that are NOT binary.
Which again is exactly where I have been trying to get you – a simple logical step that you have made incredibly tedious.
So hopefully we have established that the propositions I have used Reductio ad absurdem on are also false – because they are binary assertions of something that is NOT binary.
That means you need to frame a proposition that is NOT binary.
To you last counter:
“If a 100% tax rate is bad there should be no tax.
Just nonsense.”
Again by pulling teeth hopefully you recognize that taxation is neither binary not linear.
Again my point. You have just logically proven Laffers curve.
That much maligned by the left proposition of the right, all that is left is to establish its appogee – but Christine Romer Obama’s CEA fairly well established that at about 33% (for taxes on investment)
You have also pretty much conncurently established the Rahn curve and again the only question is its appogee.
“I told you you can not deal with logic.”
Now, is that nice?
“Are you claiming that Aristotle and socrates are idiots ?”
Show me a place where either of them ever said that “a failure at the extreme is proof that the argument fails entirely.” You are implying that this idea is attributed to them. Just lead me to any link that shows them saying this as you have said it.
You are appealing to authority, which as is well known, is a logical fallacy. In any case they lived 2500 years ago more or less and among other indications that they were not infallible, Aristotle explained the existence of fossil fish by stating that it was proof that a great many fish live in the earth, underground. Which, given the state of knowledge of plate tectonics at that time (none) is not as stupid an explanation as it sounds today. In any case, an appeal to authority is a logic error.
The entire premise that “a failure at the extreme is proof that the argument fails entirely” is utterly silly and I find no reference to this interpretation of R ad A anywhere. Its your own idea as far as I can tell. The limiting principle you attach to this idea is doing all the actual work. And even that limiting principle is going to just be a new subject of debate.
It should be perfectly simple to find a link to the statement that “a failure at the extreme is proof that the argument fails entirely” if it exists anywhere but in your mind. Just one link.
Dave, I believe that I have opinions on government. You believe that you know the one and only possible logical truth and that anyone disagreeing with you is in error. I disagree, there is no one perfect and logical way to understand the size and scope of government. That is why our conversation is tedious to you (and me).
Plato and Aristotle wrote in Greek. I am pretty sure they did not use the “exact words” I have.
It is unlikely that I am going to find anyone who says the same thing as I do in exactly the same way.
Regardless I have demonstrated that absurd and extreme are synonyms and one of the definitions of absurd is extreme. You are now arguing over semantics not logic.
Further I can deal with your semandtic nonsense by transforming my argument – rather than using reductio ad absudem to take YOUR proposition to its “extremes” – I can just take it to the absurd.
It is the same thing.
I am not “implying” anything. The historical evidence to date is that the earliest instances of reductio ad absurdem is in greek plays. Regardless Plato and Aristotle used the method.
To a limited extent I am using an appeal to authority – but I would note a fallacy is not a FALSE argument, it is an invalid one. They are not the same.
Regardless reductio ad absurdem is a common technique in both logic and math, dating atleast as far back as the greeks. It is not my invention. Nor are Plato and Aristotle the only prominents to use it.
Wittgenstein has used the form of argument – I am sure he is not infallible either.
Wow, Aristotle got some things wrong. I am sure Pythagoras did too – do we reject the pythagorean theorem ?
Your entire analysis of Reductio Ad Absurdem is completely inverted.
Adding a limiting principle is an attempt to FIX an argument that fails reductio ad absurdem.
It is not in anyway a part of the reductio ad absurdem.
And in all likelyhood a premise with a limiting principle is probably NOT subject to reductio ad absurdem as i runs afoul of the law of the excluded middle.
Of course the limiting principle is going to the the subject of another debate.
That is the entire purpose of my argument – not the reductio ad absurdem,
to drive you away from an absurd premise that you keep trying to treat as binary or black and white – when it clearly is not. Reduction ad absurdem is a technique that only works on binary or linear arguments.
This would be trivial with anyone who did not feel compelled to debate 2500 years of the rules of logic. And yes, that is an appeal to authority.
“The great French free-market economist Frederic Bastiat (pictured above) was considered by many to be the master of the reductio ad absurdum approach that he used quite effectively to expose the logical fallacies of his opponents’ positions by taking unsound arguments to their extreme and often ridiculous conclusions. ”
https://www.aei.org/publication/bastiat-reductio-ad-absurdum-and-the-minimum-wage/
And here is litterally your tax argument in a different form
“Consider the following: Increasing taxes to allow all Americans to have health care will benefit the economy in the long run. However, let’s take this to a logical extreme: Raising taxes to 100 percent of income should then bring about the best health care and a stronger economy. But devoting all of one’s income to pay taxes would result in a failure to meet other obligations and purchase other goods, thereby bringing doom to the national economy and the health care system.
Increasing taxes beyond a certain point contradicts the initial premise of better health care and a stronger economy result from raising taxes. The policy trick is to figure out what that certain point is and achieve a balance between necessary taxation and economic benefit.”
Note the conclusion – that is what I am trying to get you to.
No government is bad, some government is good, infinite government is bad.
Government (or taxation) is NOT a linear proposition.
If it were it would fail through reductio ad absurdem.
You seem to think that opinions are immune to the laws of logic.
I do not beleive there is such a thing as absolute Truth – so your premise there is false.
But I also understand that the absence of absolute truth does NOT make all “opinons” equally correct or valid.
In mathematics there is no number that is larger than all other numbers – the rough equivalent of an absolute truth.
But 3 is still absolutely greater than 2.
In many things we can not say that X is absolutely more true that Y.
But we actually can say that X is highly probably more true than Y.
The absence of absolute truth does not preclude absolute falsity.
The absence of absolute truth does not make all opinions equal.
Frankly I am surprised I even have to argue this.
Do I have to prove an absolute truth to you to get you to accept that Nazism is absolutely false ?
“I disagree, there is no one perfect and logical way to understand the size and scope of government.”
That may or may not be true. But I can not even get you to that question.
I can not get you to grasp that the way you are framing the argument
Your premise is that there is ONE and only ONE logical way to understand the size and scope of government – and that is infinite.
Though I am going to go one step further.
You may be right – that there is not one perfect and logical size and scope for government.
But you STILL do not understand that does not mean ALL proposed sizes and scope of government are equal, and that many are demonstrably false.
You are arguing the scientific equivalent of that the heisenberg uncertainty principle means we can know nothing about subatomic particles.
The inability to know everything, or even some things with absolute certainty is not the same as the inability to know anything.
What is tedious is having to walk you baby step by baby step through some very basics of logic that you want to debate – that are not only long ago established, but that the implications of your counter argument would destroy everything that even you believe.
IF everything is just opinions – if the absence of absolute truth precludes any concept of truth of any kind – then David Dukes, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, …. are as moral and valid as anything else.
Then slavery is not inherently wrong, nor is murder or torture or genocide or anything else.
Is my conception of government the only logically correct size and scope – maybe, maybe not.
I am free to try to prove that – and your disagreement does not preclude the possibility that I may succeed. But even if I am wrong, or if I can not prove with absolute certainty that I am right,
that does NOT make every single other conception of government equally valid.
Not only can we prove many “opinions” false – we must. We can not have society, frankly we can not have a world where everything is an opinion and all opinions are equal.
Gravity is only a theory. Another’s opinion that it is false does not result in our flying of the earth.
Funny that they state R ad A completely differently in your wiki link and in a way that actually makes sense. And funny that you cannot find me one single link that supports the idea that your statement is R ad A. But its good that you recognize that your appeal to authority is invalid (not false! Ha, this from the man trying to reduce my sensible argument to mere semantics!), that is a starting point that could someday lead you to go a few steps further and say, Ooops, I, Dave, was wrong.
You are a dabbling in philosophy.
Knowledge: A tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom: You don’t put tomatoes in fruit salad
Philosophy: Is ketchup a smoothie?
“Funny that they state R ad A completely differently in your wiki link and in a way that actually makes sense.”
I am glad that someone can make it make sense to you.
Is there any possibility we can get past this nonsensical argument that if someone else has not described something in exactly the words I have then my describption is wrong ?
“And funny that you cannot find me one single link that supports the idea that your statement is R ad A”
I have no clue what you think you are saying there.
RA applies to anything that is binary or linear – anything that does not violate the law of the excluded middle.
Absolutely the size and scope of government (or taxation, or ….) myriads of other things violate the law of the excluded middle – they are not binary or linear propositions.
Essentially they are curves with an maximum somewhere in the middle, and therefore they can not be refuted via RA.
My argument with you is that you refuse to accept that any of these things are not binary or linear.
Just getting you to accept that the size and scope of government can not increase limitlessly,
requires you to grasp that government has limits – even if we can not agree on what they are.
We have wasted hundreds of words because you are forcing me to prove multi-millennial rules of logic.
That is fine, but the requirement to do so is a demonstration of your lack of understanding of logic.
Most people probably do not understand that many forms of logical argument date back to the greeks. Most people probably are not familiar with Reductio Ad Absurdem.
But they grasp that an argument like bigger is always better – applied to hamburgers is obviously false, because a 100ton hamburger is no better.
They may not understand the formal logic behind that argument
They may not understand that it only applies to binary or linear premesis.
But they do understand the argument
They understand that “bigger is better UP TO A POINT” even if they are not sure what that point is.
They also understand that you can not debate where that point is, or whether that can be established with more than probability, until you grasp that a 100ton hamburger is not better.
Put more simply I am trying to get you to qualify your premises – where qualifications are necessary to avoid RA falsification.
I am trying to get you to accept that qualifications are even necescary.
But I do often feel like I am beating against a brick wall – because I go to a fair amount of trouble to qualify my arguments where necescary.
Only to be told I am boring and repetitious that you “get” what I am arguing followed by a clearly false and misrepresented version of my arguments.
You have wasted alot of space arguing that extreme != absurd.
I have provided you thesarsus and dictionary references that they are the same
As well as ultimately several definitions of RA that explicitly use the word “extreme”.
The argument was entirely semantic and stupid. and a waste of time.
You apparently do not know what a fallacy is.
Fallacy: faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.
Logic has rules. Follow the rules and the answers that result are absolutely reliable.
An argument that does not follow the rules is not reliable. It is not inherently false.
There is nothing wrong with appeals to authority – where both parties to the argument accept the authority. Nearly all argument ultimately rests on appeals to authority.
If I cite data from US Census – my argument contains an appeal to authority.
At the same time if you cite say DailyKos – I am going to attack that as an appeal to authority – because DailyKos is not an authority I accept.
Apparently you seem to think it is critical that I admit having been wrong in my life.
Need I provide you a long list of mistakes I have made ?
Regardless, logic and argument is one of the ways that we test things.
Another is to try them.
I think most of us would prefer to have seen some things like say Naziism resolved by thorough argument rather than by trying them.
“You are a dabbling in philosophy.”
I know far more about logic than I do about architecture – yet I am a registered architect.
i.e. A licensed professional.
I learn things that interest me. When I do so I tend to do so thoroughly.
As to Philosophy – we can discuss Kirkegaard or Kany if you want.
Whether the students at Middlebury or elsewhere are disgusted at PC,
They are still leaving college not far from you or Moogie – beleiving absolute nonsense.
I honestly read your posts, and I can not understand how you resolve the contradictions.
But I guess that is what distinguishes libertarians from everyone else – atleast that is what Prof. Haidt found.
I can not long term hold two conflicting ideas, opinions, views, sets of facts ..
It is on occasion necessary to do so for short terms to get through something.
But ultimately where things are in conflict – I must resolve that conflict.
I can not concurrently accept most of the basic premises of economics – that you do appear to have some grasp of and then pretend that some policy that obviously runs afoul of them is going to work well – just because it is comforting.
What has been happening for decades is students are leaving college – not sold on the far left, but still accepting things just short of that.
Unless I misread you, you articulated that in dealing with some people or some issues public dishonesty was acceptable even meritorious.
The flaws in that are so enormous I can not possibly grasp how anyone could beleive it.
Yet, though I had not heard it from you before, it is a common tenant on the left that a lie in service to some greater good is acceptable.
No It is not. Nor merely because of the obvious moral problems, but because you rapidly lose any connection to the truth. You can no longer trust others, and they can no longer trust you.
In the best of circumstances – absent some authority such as government to punish harmful receipts, the world on its own will ultimately develop some system to weigh credibility.
For internet sales we have ratings and trust systems. When dealing closer to home we rely on our knowledge of peoples trustworthiness.
The point is that credibilty is extremely important, undermining your own for some political gain ultimately does you more harm than good.
Freaking hilarious. I wrote a post pretty much completely agreeing with you about campus PC and how wrong it is and somehow you found in it that:
“Unless I misread you, you articulated that in dealing with some people or some issues public dishonesty was acceptable even meritorious.”
Yes, you misread me. Since I am a glutton for punishment today point out to me exactly which words you think I used that said that “public dishonesty was acceptable even meritorious.”
Good grief, I get as much crap and nonsense when I agree with you as when I disagree!
There could be an entire psychiatrist’s convention dedicated to your case!
Responding to:
Yes, you misread me. Since I am a glutton for punishment today point out to me exactly which words you think I used that said that “public dishonesty was acceptable even meritorious.”
Your prior post.
“One must not deal honestly with extremists if they have root causes, such as fighting racism, that are real.”
I specifically allowed myself the out of misunderstanding – because frankly that is a horrible sentence to parse, And I have occasionally had my typing get mangled, or written something differnet than I intended, or dropped a modifier, which is what I am hoping you did.
Nothing wrong with my mental health.
Why would you expect that I would not dwell on the fact that those things you are right about contradict those that you are not ?
You keep saying that I am unchangeable. That is false.
I am specifically trying to raise with you the very things that would force me to reassess my views.
Unfortunately, I am on the wrong side of Prof. Haidt’s paradox, and I am speaking to the rider when I need to be speaking to the elephant.
But I do not make decisions based on emotions and therefore I am really bad at making appeals to emotion. They are inherently fallacious and that to me is dishonest.
Regardless, I have to deal with you where you are,
you have to deal with me where I am.
It is just life.
I can hope that someday you will not be able to hide from the contradictions that you somehow juggle in your mind.
I guess you are hoping that someday my emotions will overwhelm my reason.
“One must not deal honestly with extremists if they have root causes, such as fighting racism, that are real.”
Ah I see. Yes that could be read multiple ways, it was a sarcastic assessment of how Higher Ed administrations are dealing with PC extremists.
Stories about more real people, the kind I work and live with:
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/04/can-brain-science-pull-families-out-of-poverty/523479/
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/04/preschool-at-home/523932/?utm_source=nl-atlantic-daily-042417#article-comments
And the logical end to this is that the state should raise all of our children – because clearly we are doing badly, and clearly it is doing better.
I also find it odd that your are linking to an article that asks the same kind of questions that Charles Murray is getting pilloried for.
Your article is noting race based differences between childrens early rearing that it claims have life long results. How is that not claiming that minorities are inherently inferior ?
Regardless, I tend to agree that children’s early experiences are important.
But I can tell you that the article is dishonest with respect to that. Head Start has resulted in numerous studies of precisely this area, and resulted in strong evidence that programs like it provide a significant advantage to students as the enter K-12.
That is the good news. The bad is that the beneficial effect fades within 3 years, and by 4-5th grade it is not possible to tell those kids who had early intervention from those who did not.
Your artcile here pretends that work does not exist.
I beleive based on my own experiences that a childs first years have a strong long term effect.
But thus far the evidence of a sustained effect are NOT present, and your article is regurgitating well know strong but short term effects as if they were long term.
Alot of what your article discusses iss essentially cognitive therapy.
I am not sure how well that works on other issues, though I am open to the possibility.
But it is know to work very well on depression.
With respect to the “science” in the article – there is nothing close to a cause and effect relationship demonstrated.
I would not be surprised if the stresses of poverty act to rewire peoples brains.
But as with myriads of other things – it is a FACTOR, not a cause.
The different people do not respond to the same environment the same way.
We know as an example that a bunch of things trigger and increase depression in people.
But not all people, and not equally.
I keep trying to tell you that:
We are not all equal. It is not the role of government to make us equal, nor is it inside of governments power to do so. Government must TREAT us equally, that is all it can do
You also have the odd beleif that government is somehow benovolent and that our other interactions are not.
I would suggest that you contemplate that however evil you think we treat people outside of government, that we are likely to treat them worse when we have power.
And both history and psychology tell us that is so.
We have both the milgram experiment and the standford experiment to show us that people given power over others doe not behave well.
JS Mills noted two centuries ago that democratic societies were more likely to move towards individuals imposing their impression of how people should live onto others than non-democratic ones.
Anyway what is it that you think your paper demonstrates ?
That life is tough ? That some people are better able to deal with it and thrive than others ?
And what is it that you think ought to be done about it ?
I think quite obviously at your core is the premise that if something is less than perfect – government must fix it.
If we ever discover a way to determine which people are more prone to violence or crime – at birth or shortly thereafter – should we pre-emptively incarcerate them ?
“What we’re trying to do is create virtuous cycles where people take a step and they find out they can accomplish something that they might not have thought they could accomplish, and they feel better about themselves,” Babcock said.
Everyone has a choice in life. Accept, complain and wallow in the life you have been handed, or do whatever you can to take those steps that Babcock talks about and move yourself and your kids up a step or two to get out of poverty. How many times does one hear about the grandmother that forced her kid in the projects to study and get good grades and now they are some professional in some industry? How many times do you hear about people coming to this country without a dime in their pocket and now they are millionaires? Everyone has a choice and everyone is motivated at a different level. Those motivated at a low level complain about their walk in life, stay within the same community they grew up in and continue in a dead end job, while others are motivated to take the chances needed to improve themselves professionally and personally. No one is ever “stuck” in the position they are currently in unless they accept that as a fact.
And don’t talk to me about “privilege” and how the “rich” don’t know what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck. I grew up in that “poorer” life, but had a mother that would not allow me to accept that life. I will not write my history for you as there is too much to write but just know “rich” was not part of my life growing up. Lower middle class was a stretch.
I do not know whether the information Babcock relates is correct, but I strongly suspect it is.
But that is not relevant. The fundamental error that Moggie and the left are pushing is that there is some right involved here.
This is little different from the claim that if there is a self help scheme, a get rich plan, a diet or some other means of improving the lives of people who could use a better life – which ultimately in some form or another is all of us – that we have a right to it and government is obligated to provide it for us.
I sincerely hope that those who need help and want help, will get help with whatever their problem is.
I choose to devote some portion of my own time and wealth to facilitating exactly that.
But I can not help everyone everywhere with every problem – that is far beyond not merely my ability but that of all government combined.
I can choose what problems in the world I will devote my energies to, and how much of my resources I will direct at those.
That is not enough for the left. Apparently everyone who has any problem in life is entitled to my help and everyone else’s.
That is not sustainable – and in fact we all know that.
So instead the left fights with itself and the rest of us over which problems from the infinite menu of problems government will expensively fail to solve today.
The net result is a cult of victimhood with groups vying with each other for preeminent victim status – because we can not fix everything, choices must be made – even when dealing with the vast resources of government.
I keep asking you to consider the unseen effects of the stupidity of the left.
One of those is that our charity must increasingly compete with government for resources, worse still charities are increasingly falling into the domain of government.
Today there is 350B/year in Charitable giving – that is more than all federal safety net programs excluding PPACA, Medicare and Social security which are not supposed to be charity.
When my mother was dying – hospice was a god send.
When my Father=in-law was dying Hospice was incredible.
When my father was dying hospice was damn near evil.
What was different ? Two things – Hospice was increasingly getting more funding from government. Hospices mission is to help people die well. You can not get hospice care until you cease trying to sustain your life and ready to work on getting the most however little that might be, or what is left.
That mission is at odds with government, ion myriads of ways and Hospices resources keep getting directed towards the wishes of government, and not the needs of the dying.
In my county there are 3 hospice care facilities – because that is something government will pay for. Two are closed partly for lack of money, and party for lack of demand. People who want hospices help want to die at home.
The other problem was that with my father inter family conflict put Hospice in a difficult position.
Two family members who lived on the other side of the country were unwilling to accept that Dad was dying, and ultimately that meant they deluded themselves in to beleiving that he was actually being Killed – otherwise why was he continually getting worse ?
Allegations were made to Hospice in this regard and because of Hospices overly close relationship with government instead of confronting these ludicrous claims Hospice ended up nervous and uptight and hostile and self protecting, instead of doing for my father what he needed.
I believe that the hospice idea is excellent. But it is being corrupted because increasingly Hospice is a tool of the government not carry forth the mission it chose for itself.
This is a problem with everything that government touches.
Instead of individuals and voluntary organizations deciding what they care about and carrying forth their own approach, the choices are decided ever further away by government with little regard for the specific needs of the people involved and based on what makes the best soundbite and what is politically expedient.
We went through a big scandal with Planned parenthood a while back.
I have no problem with PP providing abortions – I have contributed to them in the past.
I have no problem with their profiting in anyway they can from an abortion.
I do have a major problem with government funding PP.
The left seems to think that government can pay for things – and only those on the left are going to have a voice in how that money is spent.
Get a clue. If government pays for something – such as healthcare – then All of us – including the Westboro Baptist church have a voice in how that is spent.
“I keep asking you to consider the unseen effects of the stupidity of the left.”
Was this meant for me or someone else since you replied to my post?
If for me, i see the stupidity of both the right and the left and how they want to control peoples lives in some manner. They just do it in a different manner.
If I replied to you – then I replied to you.
But if I remarked about the left, I was not pointing a finger at you.
Control of other peoples lives and unseen consequences are independent government failures.
I do not want to try to do a long term analysis of the different past errors of Republicans vs democrats.
We have to deal with the republicans of the moment and the democrats of the moment.
In a sane country, this sort of thing would unite Democrats and Republicans as Americans:
http://www.yaf.org/news/statement-young-americas-foundations-april-27-lecture-uc-berkeley/
It doesn’t matter what you think of Ann Coulter. She is a provacateur, yes, but she has been speaking on college campuses for years, and while her ideas may provoke outrage, they do not incite riots.
This situation at Berkeley appears to have potential for only bad outcomes. Either Coulter will decide to back down and cancel her speech, or she will attempt to speak and have paid “protesters” such as Antifa and the Black Bloc riot and destroy, while the police stand down, and Berkeley students provide cover to the rioters.
Theoretically, Coulter could speak and peaceful protests could take place outside of the venue, she could speak in a venue that goes undiscovered by the the rioters, who will leave without rioting, or the stand-down order,referred to by the YAF, doesn’t really exist and the police will break up and arrest any rioters. All unlikely, at this point.
It Americans cannot unite against riots, I really do fear for the future of this country.
When individuals can not learn from history, we are all doomed to failure in the long run. The only difference between free speech at Berkeley in the 60’s and 70’s and banned speech at that same university today is the reversed roles. In the late 60’s, the university banned the speech and the students protested. Today it is just the opposite since the snowflakes do not want to hear anything that goes against their protected cocoon. While the university first allowed this speech to take place, they later stopped it.
Maybe if students had to take classes in school that meant something they might learn something that would change their perspective. One has to wonder what good does it do to learn about revolutionaries in the 1700’s that defined our constitution and then not learn about the revolutionaries that died in the 70’s (Kent State) defending those same rights created 200 years prior. Although Kent State was more of an anti-war demonstration, it was still part of the free speech movement since that was all intertwined during that period of time.
“Maybe if students had to take classes in school that meant something ”
Exactly what does that mean? The young people I talk to all have to take history, English, government, sciences, math, computers…same stuff I took in the 1980s. I suspect if you look up the curriculum at most colleges you would find very similar requirements. College is supposed to give you a well-rounded view of things. I have to go to college this summer to renew my teaching certificate, I will ask them.
I went to see Jerry Falwell in ’81? at my college, I’m sure it was paid for by the college.This was the beginning of the conservative take over of this nation. (I’m sure people older than me feel the liberals took over for too long before that). I found him to be appalling…and looking back today maybe a state school should not have paid him to be there.
I don’t want my tax dollars spent on people who promote white supremacy…which fits Ann Coulter to a T.
I had to send my children to a cyber charter to get them a decent education – and even that was mostly not what I received in the 60’s 70’s and 80’s – though I that was lacking too.
As to colleges – there is a reasonable humanities requirement to a STEM education.
But it is far too common outside of STEM fields for a college education to provide no prerparation for the real world. Chelsea Clinton is extremely well educated – I beleive she has a doctorate.
She went to some of the best schools in the world and received honors from them.
Have you actually read anything she has written ? To a large extent she does nto know what she is talking about and does not write very well. And I am not talking about her ideology or ideas.
If we can not expect better from purportedly the best and the brightest, if we can not expect an understanding of facts and reason I should think you should be able to demonstrate to graduate from High School from people with Phd’s – then yes, something is terribly wrong with our education.
Further, we have amble evidence of that. Are you really debating that the quality of education has substantially declined over the past 40 years ?
We can fight over the remedy – I do not know the answers, except that I do know that more of what we have done over the past 40 years is NOT the answer – obviously.
But are you really trying to claim there is no problem ?
And Frankly I did not think the education I received 50 years ago was all that good.
I did not read the federalist papers, or Thomas Paine, or Patrick Henry or even George Washington in HS (or college). I did read Woodrow Wilson and FDR, and Margret Sanger, and Martin Luther King.
If you graduated from college and you can not without research write three accurate sentences about the work of:
Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Kant, Goethe, Michellangello, Da Vinci, Van Gogh, Thoreaux, Paine, Madison, Washington, Lincoln, Edison, Einstein, Heisenberg, Smith, Freud, Maslow, Skinner, Dante, Milton
Basically all of the say 300 most significant thinkers in a wide variety of fields in human history,
then your education has failed.
Probably you should also be able to write 3 coherent accurate sentences about 50-100 of histories worst villians too.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/04/19/524563155/when-active-duty-service-members-struggle-to-feed-their-families
If our government does such a shitty job of taking care of our military – which it does. I have close friends who were in the service. If it can not provide them with decent health care – which it does not, if it covers up its own gross incompetence, promotes the people who screw up, demands more money and still does the job badly,
Then why is it that you think it will do better for people it does not owe any actual obligation ?
Sorry Moogie, your link is damning – but not in the way you think.
It is a demonstration that government can not even competently manage the tasks that are clearly its role.
Public and private colleges are bound by different rules regarding speakers.
Further these have been changing over time.
As a rule of thumb, colleges do not pay speaking fees.
But they provide free of charge a venue and security for speakers that are brought by various college groups.
Those groups may pay the speakers – though that is rare, regardless, the groups cover everything beyond venue and security from their activities budget, dues, and private donations.
Jerry Falwell is dead. Good Riddance.
But I would suggest reading JS Mills Essay “On Liberty” with regard to Why it is important for you to hear from people like Falwell. You can not have any real hope of knowing your OWN position, until you have not merely heard but fully understood the position of those opposed to you articulated by its strongest advocates.
There was no “conservative take over” of the nation. Falwell, the religious right and social conservatives briefly gained somewhat more political influence than they deserved in the 80’s and 90’s.
At the same time they got nothing of what they actually wanted.
Moogie, You are the teacher so I will ask you this since I only know what my kids learned in school almost 20 years ago.
Is there anything in history class that covers the free speech movement during the 70’s. If there is, then I apologize for this comment. If not, wasn’t the free speech movement important enough to be covered, just as is the equal rights movement of the 60’s? And if it is, is there anything in history books today that has lessor meaning than this movement?
Since your the teacher and are younger than I am, you are closer to what is important than I am.
Moogie, in addition to having little understanding of basic economics, you apparently have no understanding of the First Amendment.
Even if Ann Coulter were a white supremacist, which she is not, she would have the right to speak.
I hope you’re not going to be teaching social studies or history……..
I am a free speach absolutist.
Few realize that New York Times Vs. Sullivan – generally a watershed Free speach case was decided 5:4.
Justice Brennan put together the majority that defines free speach today.
The 4 justices dissenting ? All wanted to go FARTHER. Currently the only speech that is not protected from government prior restraint is “fighting words” – that is speach intended to create violence IMMEDIATELY.
I would prefer we did not have public universities. Whenever governments role expands into spheres that are not its business we get all these nonsensical conflicts.
We are having a battle in the supreme court right now over whether a Luthern Church can receive government funding for safety improvements to its playground.
It is near certain the court is going to say yes – government can not deny to a church school something it gives to everyone else.
But that is actally the WRONG answer. The right answer is that government can not fund any private entities improvements – safety or otherwise.
Once again we are going to have to sort out complex establishment clause issues, because government is acting outside its legitimate scope.
In constitutional terms “incite riots” is a term of art.
It does not mean “says nasty things that often result in riots”.
It means littlerally exhorts listeners to engage in immedeate acts of violence.
I would be shocked if Coulter backed down – though I would note that she is not in complete control, the group that invited her could back down.
While I think Coulter wants things to be as safe for herself as possible, otherwise I think she would be happy with violence. When protestors resort to violence they discredit themselves.
Yes, it is possible that there could be a venue change, but that is a bad idea.
The violence that would likely result from her speaking is much like that at Middlebury,
it is NOT about what she has to say. It is about WHERE she is saying it.
As Prof Haidt noted the protestors at Middlebury calmed down briefly when they Though Murray was going to continue off campus.
The “crime” of these people is that they are speaking heresy in the church.
The Campus has become the snowflake church.
The violence is not about what Coulter is saying – it is about WHERE she is saying it.
Well, for one thing it Does unite Americans. When you have Dave, myself, Bernie Sanders, and Middlebury Prof Stenger all on the same page (as well as a large majority of Vermonters judging from the reaction in Vermont to the Middlebury riot) regarding freedom of speech on campus, then that IS a lot a people.
You won’t get 100% of the people to agree to anything.
Its probably school activity money that is paying her, (she probably is not doing it free of charge, but it would not change anything if she is) which is some form some of tax money, so yes Tax money is funding Coulters obvious vile White Barbie racism. On the other hand, other left wing school groups can use their money to bring in vile left wing nuts like Wade Churchill and then tax money is funding vile left wing America hating nuts.
When Wade Churchill was scheduled by a UVM radical group led by a pair of actually communist women profs to speak his vile Roosting Chickens speech, we got wind and raised an uproar. The talk was cancelled. It was not the intention. I did not want it cancelled personally, I just wanted everyone to listen and realize what shit the far left is. Howard Zinn came and spoke not long after and he was not much less repulsive than Churchill. I attended, wrote it all up in a sort of alternative e-newsletter called the Dwinell Sternberg report which went out to all the legislators among other and that was free speech in action, Zinn’s and mine. It all had consequences, it was a bad defeat for the college far lefties. There was little support for Churchills or Zinns ideas and much repulsion. An intellectual battle,fought within proper respect for the 1st amendment.
The “rules” regarding college speakers are different for public and private colleges.
I do not beleive that colleges pay speaking fees – particularly public colleges.
But campus groups or outside groups can sponsor a speaker.
The college – particularly public colleges is generally obligated to provide the venue and security.
Though in several of the recent incidents colleges have extorted funds for additional security from the club sponsoring the speaker – which for a public college is almost certainly unconstitutional.
Private colleges are in theory free to have whatever rules they wish – though there is some law that effects free speech if you take government funds.
If we were to get rid of public education, and public funding of private education this problem would disappear.
Those paying the tuition of students attending college get the primary vote in how free they want speach on campus.
I hope that they would support the freest possible speach. But they would not be obligated to do so.
Speaking out, protesting, and exercising your own free speech is important – even critical.
But first you should listen. Not because it is a legal requirement. but because the only means to accurately weigh an idea is to hear it advocated by the best and brightest of its advocates.
While you are free not to. You harm yourself when you decide that you know what others are going to say and close your ears and mind.
I would also think that issues like free speach might give you an understanding of why we do not decide what is acceptable or allowed by simple majorities.
Most of us intuitively understand that we can not silence others because we do not like what they say. That 51% of us can not silence them, that 99% of us can not silence them.
That we can not silence others even when what they say is hurtful.
Because MOST of the time we correctly understand that there is a difference between the emotional harm of offensive speach and actual harm caused by real violence.
I say most – because all this safe space and micro-agression nonsense demonstrates that atleast some of us do think that words are weapons and the use of them is violence.
But presuming you are NOT one of the snowflakes. I would ask that you consider that words are not the only place that we should not conflate actual harm and violence with outcomes we do not prefer.
We are justified in using the force of government to par people from actual violence and harm to others.
We are no more permitted to use government to impose prior restraint a persons non-violent acts.
There is no difference in the lack of justification. And just as with speach, the consent of a majority is not sufficient to interfere with the non-violent actions of another.
Where there is actual harm to others – we can punish the harm, but we must do so after the fact.
Most of us understand the harm caused by prior restraint in the context of speech.
But speach is not special. Where there is no violence we must wait for actual harm.
We may not engage in prior restraint against non-violent actions – even with a super majority.
In some instances SCOTUS has wisely found that activities other than speach are expressive.
Therefore we can burn flags. BTW this is also why Citizens United was decided correctly.
We can not prohibit speach directly.
We can not prohibit expressive acts.
We can not indirectly prohibit speach and/or expressive acts by regulating the necescities of speach or expressive acts.
We can not prevent public protest – by regulating the sale of megaphones.
We can not prevent flag burning by regulating the sale of flags.
We can not silence a political perspective by depriving it of funding to purchase air time or venues.
“Even if Ann Coulter were a white supremacist, which she is not, ”
No, really she is. Calling Charles Murray a white supremacist, as the Southern Poverty people instigated and every intellectually lazy campus lefty accepted without thinking is lazy slander, but Coulter? Give me a break. Look up her comments, she has made it clear over and over. Oh, its just humor those things she says? What crap, its what she means, its her message. Its why even right wing publications don’t carry any longer, which is their right to choose who’s words and thoughts they print.
She and her sponsors still have the 1st amendment on her side.
To the extent conservatives are in denial about someone like Coulter’s obvious racism it only makes it easier to feed the idea that someone like Murray is a white supremacist.
I’d be interested in any actions taken or words that she gas written or spoken, that you would consider to be “white supremacy.” I am not being snarky, I’m genuinely curious as to how you define the term.
I’m willing to accept Wikipedia’s definition:”White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology centered upon the belief, and the promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore white people should politically, economically and socially rule.”
I have stated in the past that I am not particularly favorable to provocateurs of any stripe, but I have heard Coulter interviewed numerous times, and I read one of her books ~it was 10-15 years ago, I don’t recall which one. One of the interviews that I watched was on Univision, with Jorge Ramos, not exactly a white supremacy-friendly guy, and I never saw any evidence of any sort of racist ideology whatsoever.
Regardless, in our country, we allow racists to speak. George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, Louis Farrakhan, David Duke etc. have not only spoken freely, but have campaigned for office, either themselves or for others. American universities have hosted racists, anti-Semites, murderers, rapists, etc to speak on campus, paid and unpaid. The Constitution protects speech. It protects the right of assembly. It does not protect violence, except in self-defense.
Neither you nor I are under any obligation to “humor” what Ann Coulter says. But we are obligated to let her say it.
“has” not “gas” lol. Freudian typo?
“White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology centered upon the belief, and the promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore white people should politically, economically and socially rule.””
The first Coulter quote I found in a search was
“In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner.
One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been.
The 2nd sentence succinctly satisfies every element of your definition. She isn’t so stupid to use the N word, but she is quite raunchy when it comes to hispanics.
If you need more:
“There’s a cultural acceptance of child rape in Latino culture that doesn’t exist in even the most dysfunctional American ghettos. When it comes to child rape, the whole family gets involved.”
“A lot of people are upset when I talk about Mexican child rapes, Muslims clitorectomies, Muslim honor killings…white people don’t do that. ”
There is a ton more of bigoted stuff, most of what I found in a quick was aimed at hispanics, some at blacks, some at jews.
Her usual defence is that this is all just humor. Problem is, she isn’t a comic, she is a conservative political commentator, has been and still is quite popular in some conservative circles, while not in others, to their credit. I read many of her comments during the trump campaign and white people finally taking back what should belong to them was a recurring theme. Her theme is that America has been white and should remain white because everything will be better.
A white supremacist. White-power barbie. Vile.
Still has 1st amendment rights, just like Nazi, Communists and the Klan. Defending her rights is one thing, defending her ideas is another.
With respect to your first Coulter Quote.
Is there something I am missing ?
Coulter is calling on other races to deal with white in the same way they were dealt with.
Most of the rest is statistics.
With respect to the 2nd quote – my wife is a public defender an enormous portion of her cases are sexual abuse of children.
I would not that these range for RARE actual instances of real child predators, to very common instances where an 18 year old has consensual sex with a 15 year old and ends up in jail for a decade and a registered sex offender for life.
Nearly ALL the intra-family abuse cases come from one of two groups:
The Amish, and hispanics.
MAYBE Coulter is overstating her argument. Regardless, is it Racist to note that different cultures have different norms ? I do not think that you will find much female genital mutilation among mormons as an example.
Aparently you think that noting that each culture has practices that others think are abhorent is “racist”.
Regardless it is a FACT that a variety of different forms of conduct that OUR culture deems unacceptable are found in varying frequencies in other cultures religions and races.
Noting that is NOT racism.
In the 60’s if a Car blew up in London it was reasonable to assume that the Irish Catholic IRA did it.
Today if there is terrorism in Europe it is almost certainly islamic.
No all muslims are not terrorists. But TODAY terrorism is nearly exclusively Islamic.
I guess you think Heather McDonald is racist because she notes that Black Families report crimes against Black’s at more than double the frequency that whites report any crimes.
Was it racist for Murray to note that IQ statistically varies with race ?
Must we ignore all data that violates our ideology ?
The fawning of the left over islam is one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen.
I do not understand how an ideology that is so strongly opposed to racism, sexism, religious discrimination, gay rights, …. can celebrate a religion, race, people and culture that TODAY are by far the worst in all of these.
Christian fundimentalists look positively enlightened in their attitudes to almost everything in comparison with MODERATE islam. Radical islam is a minority – somewhere between 2 and 20% of muslims – that is 10’s and possibly hundreds of millions.
But it is a large loud vocal violent and dangerous minority – and in several instances they either control or strongly influence governments.
I would note that being mostly tolerant of Islam is NOT at odds with MY ideology – I value freedom.
Except specifically where islam is actually infring on the liberty of others – I can both welcome muslims to the US and condemn some of their practices and attitudes.
I am not seeking to make most of their non-violent conduct illegal even if it is reprehensible.
But the left is actively bashing others for being intolerant of the most intolerant modern culture of consequence. I am hard pressed to think of a better exampel of the farcical self contradiction of progressivism.
Congressman Upshaw “You will not think that a southern man is more than human if he smiles
over the fact of your reaction to that real problem you are confronted with in any community with a superabundance or large aggregation of negro labor.”
Representative John J. Cochran of Missouri: “I have received numerous complaints in recent
months about southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South.”
Representative Clayton Allgood: “cheap colored labor that”is in competition with white labor throughout the country.”
These are the remarks of several southern democrats urging the passage of Davis-Bacon requiring union contractors on federal projects.
I think these remarks are far more rascist than Coulters – yet Davis Bacon remains the law of the land.
Over the course of the two decades after Davis-Bacon passed blacks were almost entirely driven out of skilled construction labor and nearly driven out of unskilled construction labor.
A 1968 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission study showed that “the pattern of minority employment is better for each minority group among employers who do not contract work for the government [and are therefore not subject to Davis-Bacon] than it is among prime contractors who have agreed to nondiscrimination clauses in their contracts with the federal
government [who are subject to Davis-Bacon].”
A report issued by the Comptroller General of the United States in 1979, for example, stated that “Davis-Bacon wage requirements discourage nonunion contractors from bidding on federal construction work, thus harming minority and young workers who are more likely to work in the nonunionized sector of the construction industry.”
Former NAACP general counsel Herbert Hill noted that even when the number of black union apprentices increased because of government pressure, many of those apprentices never graduated to journeyman status. Hill concluded that as of 1982 “the pattern of racial exclusion in the building trades . . . remained intact.”
As another economist observed, the low percentage of skilled black construction workers “is due primarily to Davis- Bacon.”
In 1982 the DOL relaxed some D-B rules to increase minority participation in D-B projects – the labor unions appealed and the courts found for the unions.
Davis-Bacon remains the law of the land today, despite the fact that it is nearly certainly unconstitutional and discriminatory as applied and facially.
And you want to rant about Coulter ?
Anyone the the left of Che is a Racist homephobic, transphobic mysoginist, hateful, hating hater – didn;t you get the memo ?
Even Roby does not get that democrats are in serious political trouble BECAUSE they have labeled 75% of the country as evil.
If the GOP keeps coming up with asinine tax reform that adds trillions to the deficit, they too will be in for big problems. Hopefully there will be enough conservatives in congress with a brain that will block this brain fart before it escapes.
Ron, you are still basing your argument on CBO.
When ever has CBO been right about ANYTHING ?
PPACA was going to save money – but apaerently a straight repeal will save $1.6T/decade.
How can BOTH of those assertions come from the same institution ?
Dave this WAS NOT CBO. I never said it was CBO. I said it was the WSJ that estimated these numbers.
It does not take a fiscal genius to develop a model on some computer program and input all the personal and business data for revenues, deductions and exemptions for past federal budget years along with the federal rates that drive those numbers. That could have been done months ago when tax reform began to be a topic for legislative discussion.
Then today, with the new rates, new exemptions and changes for deductions are entered into the program, the program spits out a new tax revenue number. That is where the increased deficit number came from.
Who has ever seen the CBO come up with anything the same day as something is proposed. They are government employees. We will be lucky to see numbers from them by September.
Now everything is an estimate and as new information comes out, those are entered and new deficit numbers calculated.
But I say anyone that says this will be revenue neutral is full of crap and selling the voters a bag full of S^!!.
“It does not take a genius.”
Actually that is a loaded question.
It does not take a genius – it is an impossible task.
Paul Romer Christine Romer’s husband published a wonderful and relatively readable paper on economic modeling recently – though it applies to all complex computer models.
In which he said that in any complex modeling scheme involving multiple simultaneous equations and coeficients, getting it right would be purely accidental and it is not possible to construct a model without injecting your own biases into it subconsciously.
You just said Trump’s budget will cost $2T – I constructed a spreadsheet in 2min that produced 2T of increased GDP over 10 years with only a 2/10 of a percent increase in growth.
I was able to get a 2T increase in government revenues over the same time with a 1% increase in growth.
And at this point we have only 2 variables. construct a model with 30 variables and you can get any result you want over 10 years.
I am BTW not a big fan of Either WSJ, while they are not “progressive” and quite often feature some very good editorials, there is also much economic nonsense that WSJ should know better.
Further WSJ often is Pro Business – particularly big business, rather than Pro Free markets – and they are quite different things.
I am not trying to defend Trump’s budget or tax plan.
What I am pointing out is that 10 year projections are at least as accurately modeled by ideologues on the back of napkins as by thorough models.
Because small changes in one or another coeficient throws the whole thing out of whack.
As an example – the Reagan Tax cuts DID generate significantly more revenue.
The Bush cuts ended up actually being revenue neutral – but it took sometime to work that out, and that is because most of the cuts – the middle class cut that has been retained – was net negative.
The demand side keynesian arguments we here constantly are CRAP.
There is no instance that I am aware of anywhere ever of a tax cut stimulating the economy by increasing demand over the long run.
Put more simply you can not spend your way to prosperity.
At the same time there is plenty of evidence that tax cuts that spur investment – “supply side” cuts work. Bushes “Cut” was a combination of a small supply side tax cut and a large demand side one, and it took 3 years for the benefits of the supply side cut to equal the cost of the demand side cut.
I do not know enough about Trump’s plan to do my own prognostications.
But I will make some generalizations that conflict with your assertions and are inarguably true.
Any change in taxation that increases economic growth by 1% will ALSO increase tax revenues by $2T in the first decade.
Work by Christine Romer prior to serving as Obama’s CEA strongly suggested that the REVENUE optimizing max tax rate is about 33%. That any tax of any kind higher than that will produce LESS revenue, not more.
Estimating the growth optimizing max tax rate is much harder. But there is plenty of economic evidence that strongly suggests it is below 20%
Regardless, my primary point is that any estimate of the cost or gains of tax changes that does nto factor the changes in growth is just meaningless scribbles.
And complex models are no better than back of the envelope.
So the FIRST question regarding some change should be
What will its effect on Growth be ?
That has got to be a guess. It is really difficult to know how stimulative of burdensome changes will be.
But you start there. Small changes in growth over a decade have huge changes in everything else.
Far larger than anything else being discussed.
Ryan demonstrated early in the obama administration that with a 5% growth rate the problems of SS and medicare and entitlements and … all go away – so long as we do not create new ones.
Tylen Cowen is a neo classical economist at George Mason University.
He is sort of an Austrian lite economist – there are alot of Austrians at GMU.
He has an excellent blog – Marginal Revolution that is one of the top 100 economics blogs in the world – I think even one of the top 10.
He is definitely NOT a keynesian and would be far closer to a deficit hawk.
In the article below he is presenting essentially a permutation of the argument I raised.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-26/u-s-can-afford-trump-s-radical-tax-cut
I want to go further and address some of what we increasingly know – some of it is simple math, The most key issues are whether the driving assumptions are correct.
Those assumptions are either right or wrong and we can not ever KNOW for sure.
Did the Reagan economy spike because of Volker’s actions at the Fed, because of the tax cuts, or because that is what typically happens after a recession ?
I hold an opinion on that, but I can not prove it. We only very rarely get to conduct controled economic experiments in near laboratory conditions.
That MW increases in the marianas islands are one of those. The Oregon experiment with health insurance was another.
Both of those come as near as we can get to absolutely confirming classical liberal economics.
Most of the time we have to settle for more ambiguous results. Because we do not have controlled experiments – there are many variables acting at once and knowing exactly which was responsible for the effect we are noting is difficult.
That said the evidence strongly suggests that AGAIN classical liberal economics is most likely correct.
You can claim differently – but I will be able to find LOTS of circumstantial evidence that contradicts you. Not absolute proof, – but still when you find that historically everything nearly always supports one school of economics – that is pretty impressive.
BTW the inabilty to proove something true in the real world is NOT the same as the inability to prove things false.
Classical Keynesian economics has been falsified. I beleive the recent “financial crisis” falsified neo-keynesian economics too – but the dust has not completely settled on that and likely wont for years.
So on to the analysis.
First to a very large extent Macro economics DOES work like ordinary business and family economics.
I have more debt today than ever before in my life. But I also have building assets, and an income to support that debt. Increasing my debt is NOT inherently absolutely wrong.
But it is something I should be careful about.
Contra shallow economic thinkers on the right Debt CAN increase forever without negative consequences. That does not mean is should or that it is not dangerous, but there is no automatic presumption that government debt must eventually be paid off.
What can not continue forever is debt rising as a percent of GDP.
That is the personal finance of increasing debt with nothing to show for it.
Regardless, Rogoff and Reinhart demostrated conclusively that as debt relative to GDP rises a countries economics stagnate in ways that become increasingly difficult to recover from.
That is the big problem with US faces – we are close to debt/gdp ratios that trap us into low growth forever unless we make draconian choices.
There are two ways to work through the GDP/debt “trap”
Decrease debt or increase GDP.
As Tyler Cowan is noting Trump’s economic plan is a big bet on the later.
If Trumps tax plan results in 1.5% increase in growth – all that is being said about it costing $2T will prove false. If it increases growth more than that the tax cut will be net positive in revenue.
Contra the left none of that is Voodoo it is all simple math. What is not simple is deciding if the plan will increase growth. If it does not it will add $2T to debt and leave us weaker economically.
It is not actually the debt that is the problem – it is the near permanent 2% growth economy that is the real problem. We have had that for 18 years – it sucks.
So you can forget the entirety of what CBO or WSJ say.
What matters is do you think that Trump’s proposal will increase economic growth ?
Now I am going to address another aspect of this.
Again in economics we do nto have controled experiments – only regressions and evidence – often strong.
The evidence for tax cuts being economically stimulative is mixed.
Most times we have done so the results have been good.
But the bush tax cuts probably were no better than neutral.
The structure of the cuts matters alot – and what Trump is proposing appears to be structured for growth.
The fact is business taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes and upper markin income taxes ALL have very strong negative economic impact.
While the income taxes on the middle class and lower have negligable economic impact.
I wish it was nto that way – but the evidence strongly suggests it is.
The one fly in the ointment is that there is strong evidence that the economy does NOT respond all that strongly to decreases in tax rates – why ? Because as long as there are no changes in spending the economy as a whole (the people who are in it), is not stupid and not fooled by politicians.
All spending must be paid for. We know that. Government will either inflate, borrow, or tax to pay for spending. All of which are taken into account by the economy.
Claiming we can magically spur growth by cutting taxes requires everyone to believe in perpetual motion of a sort. Most of the data we have shows that tax cuts ALONE have a weak but positive impact on growth.
By far the strongest economic impact – the most certain way to economic growth – that we have data on is cutting spending. Cutting spending IS a tax cut – the economy will never have to pay for spending that does not occur.
While much of the above is consistent with classical liberal economics.
It is also consistent with myriads of broad studies and data and regressions.
But most of it is simple math and logic.
The only parts that are “ideological” is deciding what will happen in the greater economy if taxes are cut, or increased, or spending is cut, or increased.
And I want to end with one other observation.
That is a return to the Paul Romer paper I keep refering to. I am going to have to find it again and link to it.
These “back of the envelope” analysis – so long as they do not ignore a clear 2nd order “unseen” but foreseeable effect are more likely to be correct that massive computer models and economic simulations.
The economy (like many other things) is too complex to be model able.
Back of the envelope simple analysis can not account for the unforseeable – but neither can complex models. While the variabily in dozens of coeficients for other parameters is so high and subjective that the models actually lose to back of the envelope calculations based on simple principles.
Regardless, the most critical factor – one Paul Ryan got in 2009.
Was that Growth is by far the most important factor in the economy.
I have zero doubt that we can have 7.5+% sustained growth today.
But I do not think that it is possible with the government we have.
5% is close to the limits of what can be done if our politicians make mostly the right choices and are only mildly stupid and corrupt.
But sustained 5% growth would make the long term problems we fear such as SS and Medicare go away. It would destroy the deficit as a problem, and rapidly get us to where current government spending as distasteful as it might be to me was sustainable.
And finally 3.5% growth would make Trumps proposed tax plan revenue neutral – not a $2T deficit increase.
I have beat on this repeatedly but can not get it through.
Small increases in growth DWARF all social safetynet programs ever.
I read the majority of this comment. The one thing that you left out of all of the growth issues is the aging demographics of the country. From 2020 to 2030, Millennials (18-34) will increase 6 million, while all other age groups will experience a decrease.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/
According to some information available, the age group 35 to 64 had the highest percentage of spending per capita than the other age groups. If this is in fact true, then how will economic growth be impacted with the significant decrease in population in this key age group? The 18-34 age group has a lower spending on things that have the highest impact on economic growth.
I have no answer, but just my basic instincts tells me if there are fewer people in an age group that is a key driver of economic activity, then there is a very good chance that economic growth will be slowed by that demographic change.
I keep repeating over and over that
Standard of living increases when more value is produced with less human effort.
Demographics and the rest of what you raise are quasi tanagential.
If growth increases by 5% – all the demographic and population shift data will be covered.
If it does not We are SOL.
I am not trying to say that the things you raise are not true,
but they relate to the argument I have made regarding Paul Romer’s paper on models.
They are coeificients in a much larger model.
If you get 5 coeficients in a 30 factor model perfect, and you completely understand them – the model is just as likely to fail as if you understand none.
You are right about the demographics and other issues, and they do matter,
But the objective is to produce greater value with less human effort.
If we do that – the demographics and other issues will have solved themselves some how
If we don;’t we are in trouble.
Your issues again though true also address why this should not involve government – it is to complex.
You also again fixate on consumption.
Sorry the Keynesian fixation on consumption is just wrong.
Demographic changes are not going to fundimentally alter consumption – so long as we contineu to produce value.
If we produce value – then we can afford to consume value these are inseparable.
If demographics have changes and we have produced more value – it will be consumed differently.
My guess is that as our demographics bubble passes through – production will change to reflect the changing wants and needs of a differently structured population.
Regardless, those are issues for producers to solve – and they will profit from doing so.
You are also echoing a very very common fallacy – it is the same one that I am constantly confronted when addressing pollution.
The presumption that how things are is how they must be.
A corallary is the beleif that if one acts – particularly if government acts, and change occurs that the government act caused the change.
Government educates most kids today – badly and expensively.
That does nto have to be so.
We know we can educate kids as well or better for less than 1/4 of what public schools spend – catholic schools do that all the time.
We know that we can educate kids without government – that occured in the past and in countries besides the US today.
The fact that some demographic group is responsible for most spending at this moment does nto mean that must or will be so.
I am constantly noting that for polution, safety and myriads of other purportedly beneficial government regulations – none have ever disrupted trends that predate them.
If some change by government regulation has a real significant effect there should be a pronounced change in trends shortly after enacting that regulation.
Whether it is seat belts of clean air or clean water – that has NEVER happened.
The positive effects of regulation are small if they exist at all.
One of the huge misperceptions is that regulation causes the improvement.
Government typically regulates because people express a desire for something to change.
If people what something to change – then produces respond to that value.
They start responding slowly – long before any regulation is passed and continue through the passage of the regulation.
Allthough regulations usually have negative effects that no regulation does nto have.
The positive effects occur – not because of the regulation – but because peopel value something.
“I keep repeating over and over that
Standard of living increases when more value is produced with less human effort.”
And I keep talking about the ability of people to buy something (much like Moogie). If I own a business and I produce widgets and I find a way to produce twice as many widgets with 1/2 as much labor, I don’t care how productive those remaining people are if the country does not have the money or the will to spend money to buy my widgets.
GM can produce a car using robotics and the remaining people are much more productive because one man may be operating ten robots, but if the demographics in the country have changed and the most populated age group is one that is saving money and not spending money, then GM just ends up with lots full of cars.
So in your world where you say the standard of living increases when more value is produced with less human effort, that only works when those humans are working in another field and earning income AND they are willing to spend.. It does not work in a world where they are unemployed and the number of people able to buy something decreases or in a world I am describing where people have bought most everything they want or need and much of their money is in retirement funds or is going into retirement funds.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-4/consumer-expenditures-vary-by-age.htm
Check out the spending patterns by age group. Remember that the 18-35 age group will be the fastest growing through 2030. They also have the smaller spending pattern, while those with the largest spending patterns are decreasing in numbers.
In my world, fewer people earning money = less total money available for spending = less spending = slower economic growth. (That’s based on all the BS about tax cuts giving back more money to people so they have more to spend).
You are getting sucked in by the details.
Absolutely if you or GM make poor choices – and your market disappears bad things will happen to you. They may also happen to your or GM’s employees – though experience tells me that labor adapts far easier than we credit it.
But if the market overall is producing more and more efficiently – then we are better off.
BTW there will ALWAYS be winners and losers.
There can be no other way.
Increasing standard of living DEMANDS that the labor needed to produce something is reduced.
That always idles atleast temporarily some labor.
Further those employers that do not respond – fail themselves.
When more value is produced with less human effort standard of living rises.
PERIOD, no qualifications,
That ALWAYS works, there is no ONLY.
That does not preclude there being some winners and some losers – BTW there are always some winners and some losers.
I would further note that you can try to fight this all you want but we have 500 years of evidence (aside from the fact that it is a tautology) that it works.
We have produced greater value with less human effort repeatedly since the begining of time, but more rapidly than ever before over the past 5 centuries.
The result has often been significant dislocation, and disruption. But it ALWAYS results in higher standards of living.
It is not only important but this is the ONLY way that standard of living increases.
Arguing against this rejects 3 centuries of ALL forms of economics and claims the luddites were right, further if not true – there is no way to improve standard of living.
We would actually be trapped in a malthusian nightmare of decline and disaster.
Whenever possible I recommend trying NOT to use money in your economic arguments or thought.
Money is not wealth per se. It has a number of important functions, but many of its attributes and behavior distort economic arguments.
For one thing which is one of the huge problems with arguments about the distribution of money (income inequality), is that people exchange money for wealth.
That means that if money concentrates in one class that actual wealth is concentrating ELSEWHERE.
But money also has the problem that its value is unstable and dynamically variable.
“Check out the spending patterns by age group. Remember that the 18-35 age group will be the fastest growing through 2030. They also have the smaller spending pattern, while those with the largest spending patterns are decreasing in numbers.”
The world is constantly changing. What you are citing is a snapshot. It is not fixed, it has not been that way always and need not be that way forever.
It is a consequence of myriads of other factors, not a driving force itself.
One of the biggest problems with “free markets” is that ultimately you have to trust that people will work things like this out on their own. That you do not need someone at the top making decisions to “fix” perceived problems.
You are seeing something you think is a problem and are asking that someone do something about it before it is too late.
The alternative is that you have to trust that all of us on our own controling only our own lives, will ultimately resolve this big problem you are worried about.
That is scarry. We want to kick big problems up to experts.
But life and history tells us that is the worst solution.
That individuals acting in their own interests work these things out – and that they do so much BETTER than experts.
“In my world, fewer people earning money = less total money available for spending = less spending = slower economic growth. ”
That is NOT the real world.
The amount of money available is not relevant. You can halve or double the amount of money tomorow and change nothing.
Fewer people earning money !- less money available.
And Fewer people earning money is only temporary
Again do not be confused by money.
If more is produced there is always more available to spend.
The wealth of a nation is what it produces – not how much money it has.
If we produce more we can and will consume more – end of debate.
Money is just the slips of paper that help us shift what has been produced to the people who wish to consume it.
Consumption is an END, not a means. This is the huge fallacy of Keynesian economics.
Good Deal. I like that answer.
“The amount of money available is not relevant. You can halve or double the amount of money tomorow and change nothing.”
So I vote for scraping the tax deal, replace it with one that increases taxes, eliminates the national deficit and begins to pay down 5% of the debt yearly until it is paid off. Then my grandkids will not be paying for what my generation consumed.
AND you did say that changes nothing in the way of GDP growth, so we should still have the same growth rate, right?
What “I said” is what the data we have indicates.
I have not as of yet formed an opinion of the Trump Tax proposal. I am not in a rush because congress is unlikely to do exactly what is proposed.
With respect to your proposal.
As I said we need to weigh what the data indicates in making choices.
There is a very high probability that we are already over the revenue optimizing maximum for taxes on capital and investment So increasing those will not help you pay down the deficit, and might make it slightly worse.
I did not say that taxes do no economic harm. I said that the data on taxes is not as clear as those on the right tend to make it.
The reason it is unclear is that people are not stupid. A change in taxation that does nothing except change WHEN we pay the taxes will likely have small effect.
That is why the data on taxes and debt and inflation effects are weak – that is NOT the same as non-existent. While the data on spending is unequivocal.
That is not because taxes are unimportant and spending is massively important.
It is because all changes in spending represent a CLEAR change in the burden of government on the economy while changes in taxes are ambiguous.
As an example the Trump proposal as I understand it decreases tax rates, everything else being equal it increases deficits and debt – therefore it will likely be only weakly stimulative – based on the data we have. At the same time it may not increase deficits – because tax rates are higher than the revenue optimizing max and it is entirely possible that the tax cut will bring in more revenue than it costs. My guess is that is not true either – but something in the middle likely is.
i.e. that it will increase deficits but significantly less than predicted, and that it will increase growth – but probably not as much as hoped.
If you actually want a significant benefit – cut spending.
BTW the debt slowly gets paid off every year no matter what – you do not have to do anything to have that happen. The problem is that we continue to borrow.
My personal debt declines every single year and will be paid off soon enough – unless I borrow more. I actually wish I had borrowed more and invested it.
We should be making choices based on the way things actually work as best we know them – not what someone says – not even me.
The driver of economic activity is that we have needs and wants, and that without effort those needs and wants can not be met. That is unlikely to ever end as we have always needed and wanted more than we are capable of providing.
If we ever get to a point where no one has any more unmet needs and wants – standard of living will not rise further, no further jobs will be created, growth will stop.
But there is no reason to expect that any time soon if ever.
That is fundamental.
You say there will be some demographic shift and people will age out of the group of prime consumers. Will people cease to need and want more than they can possibly have ?
Will everyone be sated ? If not then the demographic shifts you are worried about are only of concern to producers – who need to determine long in advance what people will need and want in a month or a year or sometimes more.
You say that buying some product from china and therefore producing it in china rather than here will reduce the number of jobs in this country.
Will people here quit needing and wanting things because something is produced in China rather than here ? Will we have finally succeeded in what has never before occurred – producing more of everything than people need or want ?
As long as that is not the case the only impediment to infinite jobs is the restrictions govenrment imposes on jobs.
Exactly the same is true of immigrants legal or otherwise.
Unless and until we have the capacity to sate the needs and wants of everyone – there is no limit to demand to increasing production to ever more jobs.
Very little in economics is zero sum – the primary zero sum equation of all economics is that we can not consume what we do not produce.
In all else our needs and wants exceed our ability to fulfill them.
Every economic argument that claims that some increase in efficiency, some way in which we produce more value with less human effort will somehow cause more harm than good is fallacious. It presumes that the human need and want of more will stop. That our wants and needs are finite. The only thing that is finite is our current ability to fulfill them, and economic growth means that finite ability is ever increasing.
Priscilla, you have clearly not being paying attention – 75% of the country is homophobic, racist, mysoginist, transphobic, hateful hating haters.
While I think there is a germ of truth in Robby’s Barbie remarks,
The left does not grasp that being clueless on many minority issues is not the same as being racist.
The left also does not get that humans are tribal. We are always going to choose those closest to us over those farther away.
We are going to choose family over community, and community over state and state over country and country over the world.
We are going to choose those whose values we share over those we do not.
We are going to choose based on stupid things like race. gender, religion when we either have no other basis for making a choice or when we do not have the time or energy to dig deeper.
I doubt Coulter is a font of knowledge on race. I am sure that she prefers those within her own white barbie world to those outside.
But that does not make her a resurgent Nazi.
This works both ways. One of the interesting things I found as a consequence of adopting two asian children is how people in all minorities have changed how they relate to me.
Even people I do not know. If I go into a grocery store and pass a minority couple – it is highly unlikely they will smile at me, or smile back if I smile at them.
But if my kids are with me, that changes radically.
That is racism of a form, it is also human nature. It is not going to change.
“While I think there is a germ of truth in Robby’s Barbie remarks,
The left does not grasp that being clueless on many minority issues is not the same as being racist.”
Dave, there has actually been a noticeable trend for a month or so now on your part to being, how to put it, more generous to opinions outside of your own, to being less rigid. Many here might not notice it, but I’ve been here a long time and I’ve noticed it. For me it makes a difference, its an improvement. I’m a lot more likely to engage with you under these circumstances. Which is not to say that we won’t still drive each other nuts.
As to your second sentence, I thoroughly agree, except that the left is no more a monolith than the right, there are a variety of views on this and anything. Now, drunks waving confederate flags and shotguns and terrorizing black citizens in Georgia are going to be clearly recognizable as racists. For me, Coulter is also a racist, a far more dangerous one, the confederate flag and shotgun brigade are mere foot soldiers, Coulter is one of the grand Generals. She bridges the gap between the foot soldiers and the clueless white people who have simply a natural human tendency to be most comfortable among their own culture.
Fanatics of the left have the goal of making pretty much everything racist. Fanatics on the right oppose them and their damned PC by making almost nothing racist.
The origin of the word racism is apparently much younger than I expected, 1902. One does not have to go very far back in history to be in a time when the word would have had no meaning whatsoever because what we call racism today was just the way that everyone in the world had operated for all of history.
And yet, not everyone was oblivious to the idea behind the word. Northerners as a group abhorred slavery and recognized that it was founded in some way on the concept of racism, while the majority in the south saw it as either a necessary evil or even a huge boon to both races, including many famous Southern politicians! What you thought of it depended most of all on where you were born. Humans will adopt any position if the position favors their own interests and defend them in the most high toned and eloquent words. The human race has not changed into a new species since the pre civil war days and political parties capture and reinforce existing moral beliefs today.
Jefferson Davis Quotes the Bible
“It [slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts…Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God – let him go to the Bible…I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation…Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testaments – in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized, sanctioned everywhere.”.
~Davis
James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina: “Sir, I do firmly believe that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth.”
Henry Wise, Congressman (and future governor) from Virginia: “The principle of slavery is a leveling principle; it is friendly to equality. Break down slavery and you would with the same blow break down the great democratic principle of equality among men.”
Stephan Dodson Ramseur, future Confederate general, writing from West Point (where he was a cadet) to a friend in the wake of the 1856 election: “…Slavery, the very source of our existence, the greatest blessing both for Master & Slave that could have been bestowed upon us.”
There is no moral equivalence between Coulter and the berkley rioters.
Coulter at worst engages in offensive speach.
The rioters engage in violence.
Roby,
It has taken me most of my life to discover I am libertarian.
I have been conservative and liberal in the past.
But the critical facets that make me libertarian today have always been present.
I am and have always been anti-authoritarian.
I am mostly an unassuming person.
In school I was a loner and bullied.
I am and was not only a nerd, but as my wife notes I am the uber nerd.
I am the nerd other nerds seek out for advice.
I mostly try not to make waves in the world.
I mostly want left alone.
I am mostly vanilla, and uninteresting.
I have never taken an illegal drug in my life, I do not mostly understand why anyone wood.
I have never tried smoking, I barely drink,
I have never even kissed anyone but my wife.
Yet, I believe that drugs – including heroin should be legal, that prostitution should be legal,
If you passed a law tomorow that said no one can paint their house orange – I would feel compelled to paint my house orange than night – even if I hated orange.
The surest way you can get me to do anything is to tell me that I can not.
With respect to our interactions:
If you make and argument that requires the use of force by government that you can not justify,
you can expect me to respond.
If you try to claim that you are doing so for some high moral purpose – you can expect me to vigorously attack your morals.
You do not agree – but I think those are both reasonable.
As “ideological” as you think that may be.
If you use force you must justify it.
If you make a claim of moral superiority you should expect your morality to be at issue.
I would note those are reciprocal. I DO make moral arguments on occasion.
I am well aware than invites Moral attack, and I am prepared for and expect that.
I think I have pretty think skin.
As to everything else ?
Does it really matter whether I think I better understand the mind of Trump voters than you ?
Many of the issues we address, have no knowable answer.
So long as Force is not involved – at worst we disagree.
Finally,
I have been trying to learn something from Haidt’s parable of the elephant and the rider.
That is not something I am at all good at.
I have strong feelings. But I strive mostly not to make decisions based on them – particularly not decisions involving force.
I do not value emotional appeals and I mostly do not know how to make them effectively.
My life and even my work are quite strongly wrapped up in logic.
I do not actually consider myself to be really good at logic. It is innate.
I do not understand why other people are not.
I do not understand why when you encounter a contradiction in your views that you do not wrestle with it until you resolve it.
You say I am stubborn and can not be changed – that is absolutely false.
Find a real contradiction and I will be compelled to work it out in my head over and over until I can resolve it – and nearly always that means changing a view. And that usually cascades through many many other views.
I appear to be rigid on many things – because I have argued them all before – with you, with others, with myself, usually to far greater depth than we have here.
I am confident – because most of the ground I argue over has been covered before – by myself and others.
For a while I watched videos of people like Milton Friedman who would take challenges from audiences and very quickly zero in on the fallacies. I was in awe. How could he digest the question so quickly and zero in on the critical fallacy – one usually implicit rather than explicit.
After engaging with people on the left – and even occasionally on the right, for several years I have found that it becomes quite easy.
There is no “zeroing in”, all of this quasi authoritarian stuff shares a large number of common flaws. It is not so much a question of finding the critical flaw in a specific example, but of choosing which to the numerous ones that are there to focus on.
But the biggest is the Seen vs. Unseen.
When we act as individuals our actions have both seen and unseen effects. Usually the unseen – unintended effects are larger and often opposite the seen ones – the initial ones.
As individuals we adjust until we get it right.
As individuals we exist in a world where everyone is making choices with consequences seen and unseen. But we are NOT all making the same choices. Most of the time the negative consequences cancel, and the positive ones reinforce. That is the nation of individual action in a free society of other individuals. That is essentially what Hayek’s “spontaneous order” is .
When we act collectively as government:
Adjustment is slow – if it ever happens at all.
Just look at recent examples with PPACA.
Further government choices are backed by force – there are few if any others out there capable of making alternate choices that intentionally or otherwise mitigate the harms and amplify the good.
Government is like the kid in the bathtub slowly moving in the water until it is all oscillating together and suddenly dumps gallons onto the floor.
Force changes how things work – mostly in a bad way.
I am not looking to defend Coulter much – as I have read a little of her.
At the same time I would ask if you have ?
There are lots and lots of things said ABOUT Coulter so it is very easy to be sure you know all about her – but without reading and listening to her WITHOUT some presumption to start with, you are trusting the overhyped rhetoric of others.
Coulter is not the best example for my argument – as she like Milo Yanopolis and several others are deliberately provocative. Murray and to a lessor extent McDonald are advocating for ideas that they can support through research and science.
But I would note that if we can misrepresent Murray and McDonald – why would one beleive that the left and media have not equally carcitured others ?
It is unlikely that if you listened with an open mind that either you or I would find Coulter acceptable, or agree with her on much.
But I would bet that if you were able to do so, that just like Murray and McDonald, you would find that the carciture is just as false.
The only thing I am certain of regarding Coulter is that she seeks attention through controversy.
I admit I have not read any of her books though I have read her essays and comments. Even a bad actor can be caricatured, putin, assange, coulter. One can go to far, yes, and its a mistake. Its an excellent post. I still believe from what I have read of her writings that her ideas meet the standard of racism. She likely does not believe that she is.
George Wallace changed as his life went on and he recognized what he had done in his heyday. One can always hope for such insight to arrive.
My point about Coulter is not that I or you should agree with her.
It is that leveling cries of racism advances nothing.
Coulter should be judged based on what she writes – not because she is labeled in some way.
I doubt that you and I treat race the same. Coulter certainly not the same as either of us.
Whatever racism is, we are all “guilty” of it.
We are all closer to our own that the “other”.
My family can attack each other viciously – but if someone from the outside steps in we will all gang up on them.
I am sure that Coulter prefers “black welfare queens” to radicalized muslim’s seeking to immigrate.
Further whatever the context we must look at the “other” as honestly as we can.
Both the flaws and the strengths.
Just heard a reporter for the WSJ talking about the tax cuts and the estimates, in total, increases the deficit by 2 trillion over 10 years.
Is there no one in Washington that has a clue as to what continuing debt and deficits will end up doing to our future generations? Trump wants to increase military spending, won’t touch entitlements, wants to build the wall regardless of “Mexico paying for it” (his words) and now wants to increase the deficits and debt by another 2T on top of the trillions that was going to be added anyway.
While I would like to see congress get serious about deficits.
Doing so requires among other things that ALL of us understand two things:
That Tax rates and government revenues do not linearly correlate and that government has not even come close to working that out.
That means future claims of the fiscal effects of legislation are little more than playing with a ouija board.
Regardless, we do nto have a tax problem, we have a spending problem.
Yep, and this is due to the incompetence of our government to gain control on the programs that have caused the spending problem.
1. Social Security is about 25% of the expenditures. Since the money was already spent years ago, they now have to draw money from the general budget, so it is now an entitlement and not a retirement program. Had the government accounted for this money the same as a private concern using approved actuarial studies and written the law to make sure the revenues coming in covered future expenditures and the revenues were actually invested, that 25% would not exist today.
2. Medicare and Medicaid account for another 25% or so. Again, complete government incompetence in managing money. Medicare was suppose to be paid for by employees and employers. The legislation should have been written again to meet actuarial requirements and had that occurred, this 25% would be down around 10% or so just for the Medicaid cost.
Note: And had the tax rates and the wage limits been adjusted yearly for the changes in actuarial requirements for FICA and Medicare no one would have complained much since they would have been minor adjustments yearly.
3. Military spending accounts for 16% or so of the budget. This amount is not really out of line and would not be a problem if not for the 50% on the top two items. When only 16% is in the budget, we see what it does to the military.
4. Interest on the debt accounts has been 10% over the past couple years, but this is based on interest rates at a all time low of 2% or so for government debt. Increasing debt will increase this amount 5% of the federal budget for every 1% increase in the interest rates. And that will happen, regardless of economic growth since increasing tax revenues will be offset by the reduction in tax rates proposed today.
5 Another 8% or so is spent on VA benefits. (Must be something other than health care!)
So that takes care of 84% or so of the budgeted outlays. WE HAVE A TOTAL INCOMPETENCE PROBLEM IN GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, OVERSIGHT, LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT. Total incompetence at all levels led to this problem and trying to fix the spending problem that they can control can not happen with only 16% of the budget involved.
And we all know no one is going to jeopardize their careers by attacking Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid for the most part. So future generations will take care of this when a meltdown occurs and government has to do something.
The problems in govenrment are not new – they have been arround forever.
One of the arguments for limited government – for government NOT doing what it does nto have to, is that whatever government does will be inefficient and costly, and perform poorly.
That is not ever changing. Trump is doing ONE important thing that will have long term consequences. He is choking the shit out of the bureaucracy.
While that can be reversed – it still sets a new baseline.
Under Trump the bureacracy is still going to F’up expensively.
Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.
Adam Smith
The problem with SS etc. is not that they are not well run.
They are government programs that MUST be a given.
It is that they exist at all.
This is my concern about RyanCare or whatever we are pondering next.
The larger the role of government in healthcare the worse and more expensive it will be.
Overall I think Trumponomics is nonsense.
That said it is probably an order of magnitude closer to something that actually works than Obama nomics or progressive economics.
Regardless, neither Trump nor Clinton were going to confront our problems with entitlement spending.
Trump atleast is confronting SOME other spending.
Given the insantiy in congress of both parties, I think rational fiscal policy is impossible.
That said it is my guess that Trumps brand of bad fiscal policy will prove LESS bad that what we currently have.
“Is there no one in Washington that has a clue as to what continuing debt and deficits will end up doing to our future generations? Trump wants to increase military spending, won’t touch entitlements, wants to build the wall regardless of “Mexico paying for it” (his words) and now wants to increase the deficits and debt by another 2T on top of the trillions that was going to be added anyway.”
I remember commenting soon after trump was elected that Ron was not going to be very happy with trump’s budgets for exactly what you just described.
You’ve met my expectations, which I mean as a compliment.
Roby, I remember you saying that. And that, along with many other reasons is why I did not vote for either of the major party candidates.
At least my conscience is clear from that election
Here! Here!
I thought the moderates were supposed to be comfortable with the middle, with compromise.
I do not speak for Ron, but I suspect he shares some of my views on this.
With very few exceptions however bad Trump ends up being, it is still likely an improvement over Clinton.
I am happier with Trump that I expected – that is a very low bar.
I am happier with Trump that I would have been with Clinton – also a low bar.
Compared to what we actually need to do ?
I do not know.
Nations and economies are resilient.
No matter how bad government screws up we manage to pull through anyway.
With few exceptions the cost of government screwups are that our standard of living does nto rise as fast as it would have otherwise.
That is bad, and for many people it is very bad. But it is not the same as some post apocalyptic society.
One way or another the mistakes we have been making over the past 70 years will get corrected.
“I thought the moderates were supposed to be comfortable with the middle, with compromise.”
I agree but with one caveat. Middle positions resulting from compromise by both sides resulting in limited government for the most part. Government plays a role, but in very limited situations as defined by the constitution.
“I agree but with one caveat. Middle positions resulting from compromise by both sides resulting in limited government for the most part. Government plays a role, but in very limited situations as defined by the constitution.”
Ahh – and here is where I think we mostly part.
In my experience left-right compromises do not ever result in limited government – even fully adopting the right does not get us that.
left-right political compromises slow the rate at which government grows.
I am prepared – when in the minority to SOMETIMES compromise to slow the rate of government growth – though often I think we are better off losing than compromising.
I expect when in the majority to have to compromise over the rate at which I am going to shrink government back to where it belongs.
But there is a huge difference between how I see compromise and how most here do.
I compromise over legislation – not principles.
I will allow you to do something BAD, to avoid something more BAD.
To many here see compromise as the principle. The results of a compromise are not something less bad, the moderate position expressed here is that the compromise position is the correct result. It is the principle.
“In my experience left-right compromises do not ever result in limited government – even fully adopting the right does not get us that.”
Amen!!! At least not in the last 25 years when our country has gone hog wild over deficit spending.
The only compromises made in Washington today is ones that promote career politicians. Not compromises that do much good for the country.
There is good compromise and bad compromise. The last good compromises was R.R. and T.O. What happened in the 80’s drove this country for years.
With respect to O’Neil we would have been even better off had Reagan gotten all of what he wanted.
That compromise was not good, it was just less evil than one of the alternatives.
Deficits concern me too.
They particularly concern me as politicians are completely oblivious to them.
When I borrow money to buy a car or house or start a business – that is supposed to be a good thing. And so long as I can produce so that I can repay the loan – it is a very good thing.
So debt and deficits are not inherently bad.
But if I do not produce – then my debt becomes a looming disaster and can destroy me.
When I borrow for myself I think about all these things.
When I borrow I am motivated to produce – so that I can keep my car, my house, my business.
And if I am not motivated – I will lose them.
Government produces very very little. Government borrowing is often a cost with little or no benefit.
While it is not inherently always a bad thing – it is never done with the thought the rest of us put into borrowing. Nor does government debt motivate anyone to do better to produce more.
At the same time reducing deficits and debt are not an end. though they are often a means to an end.
I worry alot about our debt. I do not personally completely agree with the Tyler Cowan article I linked to – or better put I am skeptical that given washington that it will all work out for the good.
At the same time Cowan properly makes the point that growth is the goal, not deficit reduction.
The US is fortunate among nations in the world with significant debt, the ability to grow out of nearly all our problems still exists.
But that opportunity is slowly closing.
Eventually we will reach the point where we can not grow out of our problems if we do not do something about them first.
In 2009 it is likely that a pure growth solution would have resolved every single problem we had.
As time moves forward increasingly we must grow AND reduce spending.
The more time we waste or the less growth we get – the more we must reduce spending.
Contra the left we can not tax our way out of this. As I noted we are already past the point where increased taxes will overall produce greater revenue.
Re: Coulter. I am not of the opinion that pointing out the disconnect between non-assimilating immigrants who may or may not be white and traditional American cultural and moral norms makes one a white supremacist. I’ll take an offensive provocateur any day, especially one who points out that child marriage, honor killings, condemnation of gays and genital mutilation is repugnant and in violation of both our customs and laws, over a university that tries to silence speech that some, even many, find offensive.
Offensive speech is just that ~ offensive. It is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. In the language of the ACLU: ” Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution.”
Re: Trump’s tax cuts. Needless to say, politics will shape the debate, but I tend to agree with Dave that Trump’s bad fiscal policy will likely be less bad than what we’ve seen over the last 10 years. The one thing I am sure of is that whatever we get will look much different than what we heard today, which was an opening bid. The Democrats are already swearing a shut down, no matter what………
“I’ll take an offensive provocateur any day, ”
Well, do we really have to choose between being for one bad thing or another? Its not possible to be anti campus PC and anti Coulter’s words that clearly met your standard for white supremacy, without trying to paraphrase them into something more respectable?
But if we are making such bad choices, then, as Coulter notes, in our children’s time its gonna happen that we are not a white majority country. Liberals, lefties, progressives, with all their pretentious language, with all their very partial views of history, with all their smugness and intolerance, are still in a fumbling way trying to build some kind of path to the multiracial future that our kids and grandkids will increasingly live in.
Whereas all too many conservatives will tell you that we are all colorblind now and ask why we have hyphenated Americans one minute and talk with varying degrees of subtlety about the advantages of white culture the next minute, when they could just as easily say some other words like American culture, or western culture. If its so incomprehensible that groups hyphenate their heritage, we are all colorblind now, and one just deals with the person in front of them, then why all the concern about being white? I call Bullshit.
Racism has got to be a rather recent word and concept. For all of history racial and ethnic groups have been trying to be in control of other groups and spread their culture and control. Its the most natural thing in the world to be more comfortable in one’s own culture and less comfortable in someone else’s. Pride in the achievements of one’s own ancestors and culture is totally natural and certainly not inherently evil in itself. But it can certainly become evil quickly enough when “other” gets turned into the boogie man by people like Coulter and trump. Coulter ain’t building no bridges to the world of a non-white majority in America that is coming to our kids and descendants lives.
So if I had to make a false choice and choose who I detest less I’d have to take the PC crowd over the Coulter crowd.
I loath the PC playbook all the same and think that its absurd and deeply unAmerican that Coulter or that other guy or any other guy can’t speak at a federally funded institution without a riot. And, almost everyone seems to agree.
The right contains some batshit crazy racists, like the ones who went on a drunken spree driving around Georgia in their pickup trucks waving their confederate flags and shotguns and finally invading some black family’s birthday party for their kid before southern law finally decided to pull the plug on their parade. The left contains some batshit crazy PC warriors who riot, destroy stuff, and burn things. I wish the two idiot armies would have it out in a desert somewhere and leave no man or woman standing, but we are not going to be so lucky.
If we are going to have it, Priscilla, that the first group are your tolerated evil and the second group are my tolerated evil, then we have a bad future. What Coulter represents and what the Berkeley rioters represent are both unAmerican (in the best sense of the word) and intolerable, at least to me.
No Roby I disagree.
To get overt racism from Coulter’s words you have to start presuming her intent.
Coulter’s words DO NOT meet some clear standard of racism – unless you are using a standard that is going to ensnare everyone.
Further citing data and facts that is unflattering to one group or another is never racist.
It is being honest. IF we are not prepared to consider all the possibilities – even ones that are not PC, then we are being dishonest.
I do nto like Coulter and I would be surprised if she is not more racist than any poster here.
But the quotes cited so far are not overt racism.
Your defence of the left makes your standard error.
It presumes that there is a role for government.
It also presume that there is one answer that we should try to find.
First, no nation on the planet has dealt as significantly as the US with diversity.
The other anglo countries are the closest,
We are starting to see the EU trying to cope with problems we had more than a century ago – and they are doing as badly or worse than we did.
I would also note myriads of errors in your premise.
I do not know the actual statistics, but my encounters with other racially mixed adoptive families strongly suggest that a very large portion of them are christian evangelicals – certainly not liberals.
In fact the left has rewritten the rules for adoption to deliberately try to shrink the number of evangelicals adopting minority kids.
Please note – I am not trying to claim that christian evangelicals adopting Black babies is inherently a good thing. I know several blacks that had horrible experiences as the black kid in some evangelical community.
At the same time, foster care is worse than adoption and better than other forms of state care.
My point is that the left TALKS about all this issues, and plans all these issues,
but often the real world front lines of the diversity are worlds away from where the left lives.
There has been a huge swing on the issue of gays in the past decade.
The left had NOTHING to do with that. The change occurred primarily because MOST of the right stopped fighting the issue – particularly many evangelical churches.
Regardless, I have seen little evidence that the left is any more deeply involved in confronting our issues with race and culture.
You confuse talking with doing, and you confuse government with actual change.
When people say “american culture” – the left says “racism”
When people say “western culture” – the left says racism.
We must conform to those three principles that I repeat over and over with respect to our relations to others – regardless of race, creed, orientation or anything else.
Government must be completely totally blind to all of our differences – outside those of conduct violating those principles.
Beyond that how we relate to each other in terms of race or religion or …. is up to each of us – not government.
Much of what you are claiming the left is actually engaged in has no answers.
There is no answer to should we assimilate or diversify, should we hold on to our culture, should we live together or separately.
These and thousands of other questions regarding how we relate to each other have no absolute answers. If the left is “engaged” in discussing them – it is engaged in nonsense.
Even the left can not agree on these answers.
Yet, you are certain that Coulter is an evil racist – why – because she cites data that varies by race.
The left can not figure out whether “black culture” is something to protect or assimilate – and the left talks about it constantly – how would Coulter then be racist by presuming to talk about “white culture” ?
Coulter does not even hold different views than many many on the left – except that in places where the left uses the words “hispanic” or “black” coulter uses the words white.
The point I am trying to make is that you are trying to solve a problem that does not have an answer.
We may not initiate violence or fraud against others.
We must keep our commitments
We must make whole those we actually harm.
There is no race or creed or orientation in any of those.
All else we must workout on our own – we must do so without the interference of government.
Nor are we likely to end up with ONE SINGLE ANSWER.
Because these questions do not have answers.
If Coulter is racist then Ta-Nehisi Coates is too.
You and others here continuously criticise me for purportedly “knowing all the answers”.
But you fail to get that my argument – my philosophy, my ideology is exactly the opposite.
We must answer the fewest questions possible by force as a society through govenrment.
Specifically because we do NOT know all the answers.
Your post argues that the left is doing better than the right – in confronting problems that have no answers. That is an impossible argument.
WE must as individuals subject to the sanctions of government conform our conduct in a few very specific ways – to respect the equal freedom of others and to avoid total anarchy.
For everything else we find the answers on our own.
Often there may not be answers, or the right answer will be different for different people.
I do not have all the answers. I do not even try to answer the overwhelming majority of questions.
It is the left – and to a lessor extent the right that claims to have answers that can be imposed by force.
Talk about bullshit
Try rereading your own post.
As best as I can tell Coulter and now Trump are evil racists because … well they just are.
But others who take pride in their race or culture or religion they are not because …. tell they just are not.
I am not so found of Trump or Coulter. but I see plenty form “minorities” that say the same things except substituting some flavor of minority for the word white and that is not only acceptable but to be celebrated.
As I said “I do not have all the answers”, but unlike you I am not trying to impose by force answers that you can not even define.
It is clear from your post that you do not know what racism is – meaning that your only means of determining whether something or someone is racist is your emotional reaction – not some principles.
I am not trying to defend Trump or Coulter. Frankly, I am not much interested in “racism”.
specifically because it can not be defined, and it is not black and white.
So long as I am not seeking to use force, I can like or dislike Coulter or Trump.
I can choose to have to do with them or not.
I can discriminate against them.
That is what freedom means – it includes the freedom to choose not to like or engage with people I do not like such as Trump or Coulter – for whatever reason.
I am not obligated to demonstrate why I do not like Trump or Coulter.
I am free to base my choices – as you do on “emotional response” rather than principle or reason – but only because I am not in doing so violating on of those few societal principles.
You want to take choices – that you can not even explain the basis by which you make them yourself and impose them by force on all.
I do not want to call Coulter a friend or someone I agree with, or even someone whose views on race.
The left wants to define racism as somehow binary. That is nonsense.
As Haidt (among others) pointed out – Humans are tribal. We prefer those of our tribe.
In all instances involving others we will prefer those we are closer to those we are not.
For some of us that is stronger than others. Further for each of us our Tribe is not identical.
I adopted two children from Asia – that changed my tribe.
Coulter is someone arguing for the superiority of her tribe over others.
That is a form of racism – it is also human and natural, and it is NOT the same as lynching others.
In the grand scheme it is small.
It is very little different from those here arguing against outsourcing or bringing in immigrants.
All the same – all trying to choose some set that we define as “US” over some other set we see as “Them”.
And in the end we ultimately have to make choices.
I do not have a problem with choosing to buy goods made in the US, or locally, or …
What I oppose is taking that choice from individuals and making those choices that belong to each of us individually and making them as a society and imposing them by force.
Still that process of making choices is discrimination.
It may be based on race, or gender, or national origin – or the college an applicant graduated from or how they carried themselves in an interview.
But choose and discriminate are just different connotations for the same action.
There is no objectively best choice, and not enough time in life to consciously investigate and weigh most of the choices we make.
So we take short cuts, and that process is discrimination.
So it will always be possible to call anyone a racist.
“So it will always be possible to call anyone a racist.”
I agree with this.
My concern is that it becomes a very slippery slope when racism is defined in purely political terms. I am more than willing to acknowledge that Ann Coulter, by asserting that American values and culture are superior to some others, perhaps all others, is exhibiting a form of racism.
But I believe that the left displays a high degree of racism itself, which goes unchallenged by too many media and academic type. The racism of the left is often the bigotry of low expectations; that is, insisting upon special circumstances for certain groups, because they “cannot make it on their own.”
There is also the more malicious racism and sexism directed at people on the right who don’t accept the “correct” understanding of bigotry. For example, Ann Coulter is routinely called “white supremacist Barbie” and “racist c**t”, terms I believe to be explicitly sexist, yet liberals often laugh it off, because, after all, it’s only Ann Coulter, right wing extremist. Clarence Thomas has been mocked throughout his long tenure on SCOTUS for not asking questions of lawyers and “relying” on the queries of Scalia. The implication there is pretty clear.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Both sides carry around a lot of hammers. Free speech and honest dialogue ~ of the sort that we have here ~ is the only way that I know of to deal with it.
“I am more than willing to acknowledge that Ann Coulter, by asserting that American values and culture are superior to some others, perhaps all others, is exhibiting a form of racism.”
So then would anyone – including a minority arguing for the value of their race, their culture also be racist ?
The fact is that by overuse we have made the term “racist” close to meaningless.
Frankly I think that is a good thing and it is a part of the explanation of this election – and something the left needs to learn – but has not.
Identity politics FAILED disastrously in this election.
It has been defanged.
When the left returns to the actual politics of ideas rather than name calling – we will all be better off. In the meantime, until they significantly de=emphasize the name calling, they are not going to win many elections any more.
Thomas is quite interesting.
Anyone who thinks he is a Scalia today has not read his opinions.
He is not a libertarain – atleast not as I would accept but he is by far the most likely to write a libertarain oppinion.
He is unfortunately also likely to write a batshit defense of government.
Regardless, he has a significantly different philosophy than anyone else on the court, including Scalia or Gorsuch.
Well, I may be guilty of sexism, but Coulter plays on her looks, its part of her shtick. And another part of her shtick is being downright nasty and crude. That is the Arena she chooses. I’m not feeling VERY guilty.
Many on the right choose to fly very close to the sun with racial commentary. I have the theory that many liberal types like to offend righties with their sexual ideas, choices, freedoms and many righties like to offend liberals with their race ideas, both just for the pleasure of offending someone. Well, those righties may have kids and grandkids and they may be playing with a racial fire that is going to burn their descendents in that non white world that is coming. A person traveling around campus with Mao’s little Red Book may even take pride in having someone call them a commie so they can call the accuser a McCarthyist. Very cute. A person playing close to the racist fire with Coulter may enjoy being called a racist so they can turn on their accuser with PC snowflake.
I’m not going to cry a river for people who are being deliberately too cute and provocative for the pleasure of playing the martyr. Lie down with dogs, get fleas.
One another tack, at some point someone other than myself is going to acknowledge that ‘the left” is not a monolith.
Lefty Middlebury Prof Stenger did quite a sincere and decent job of exposing the PC lies directed at Charles Murray by the SPLC and students in her NYT piece. I highly doubt she would have said differently prior to the riot. There are plenty of differences on “the left.”
Sexist – another word with about as little meaning as racist.
BTW of course Coulter plays on her looks. So what ? Aren;t we all free to use whatever advantage god or nature gave us ?
I keep pointing out – WE ARE NOT EQUAL.
We are also not obligated the fell guilty about or refrain from taking or using the advantages we are given.
The left is not monolithic – but it is far more monolithic than the right.
There are also some structural distinctions.
On the right different groups have distinctly different objectives.
Groups on the right often disagree vehmently .
Unifying behind a candidate sometimes requires compromise – but the differences remain and often provoke conflict.
On the left the differences are nearly always only about proirities.
What to do first. What is most important.
The left Unifies – often by going for “all of the above”
That mitigates conflict but it is thoroughly impractical.
I highly doubt Stanger could have written her NYT peice but for what happened to her.
Again I would refer to Haidt. One of the things he has noted, is that as a professor, he can visit other colleges and he is incredibly free as a visiting professor or speaker.
At his “home” college he has come to significantl self censor – as have many other professors,
because a complaint from a student can consume months of his time – even a spurious one.
Stanger is only free to speak – because she was actually hurt.
On the left that gives her a victim status that makes criticising her much harder to do.
For what it’s worth Roby, I don’t think that the Left is a monolith, and I don’t consider you a leftist. But you are a self-proclaimed liberal (nothing wrong with that), and I think you are more sympathetic to some left wing arguments, just as I am more sympathetic to right wing ones, despite the fact that I don’t consider myself an extremist of any sort.
And, also, sorry for using the Barbie example, which I know realize must have seemed directed at you, since you referenced the term in one of your comments on this subject. I had honestly forgotten about that, and was not making a backhand dig at you with my reference to sexism.
No Need! I was entirely unhurt. She simply receives back what she dishes out. Its seems to have revived her career. White-Power Barbie is her niche in life and we are just helping to advertise her to her clients.
“No Need! I was entirely unhurt. She simply receives back what she dishes out. Its seems to have revived her career. White-Power Barbie is her niche in life and we are just helping to advertise her to her clients.”
I have no problem with your “dishing it out” against anyone.
Absolutely Coulter stepped up to the bully pulpit, she had better expect flak.
At the some time though the “white power barbie” comment is superlative.
At the same time it makes HER point. It is witty, sharp, it communicates some Truth, and it is racist and sexist.
Note, I have no problem with it – just as I have no problem with Coulter’s remarks.
you are doing the same as her, you are as right or wrong as she is.
Miss Morality dated Bob Guccione, the Penthouse Magazine guy. From that platform she gives pointy lectures of moral philosophy to liberals! She must be like 80 years old by now and she wears tops that show off her abs! Its like Bruce Jenner giving lectures on how to be normal. She is irresistible as a target, intentionally.
Absolutely nothing there I would disagree with.
“So then would anyone – including a minority arguing for the value of their race, their culture also be racist ?”
If one were being intellectually consistent ~ and honest~ the answer would be yes, of course they would be racist.
I happen to believe that it takes more than believing in the greatness of your values and culture to be racist. I think that you also must believe that those who are different than you are intrinsically inferior. And that their inferiority has to do with the circumstances of their birth or their religious belief.
Generally I agree with you.
But I also beleive that we must go where data, logic and reason lead us.
When they take us where we do not want to go, we should go to a great deal of effort to prove that we have the data logic and reason correct.
But we should not bar ourselves from pursuing truth because it runs at odds with what we beleive.
Murray is getting in deep trouble for even breathing that the data might imply differences between races.
Ultimately I do not believe that he is correct, or alteast more correct than that historical factors may
have driven different aspects of genetic development at different rates.
Btw, a footnote to this discussion.
Roby, Ann Coulter apparently dated Bob Guccione’s son, Bob Guccione, Jr. at some point in the 90’s. The son founded a magazine about the record industry.
I googled this, after reading your comment about her dating the father. I have not followed her dating history, as it seemed irrelevant to much of anything, but that surprised me.
Fact Check: 4 Pinocchios 😉
I’ll knock it back to 3, since the father and son have the same name.
Dating either would be irrelevant UNLESS she was advocating for some kind of sexual sterility.
Maybe she is – I have not read her.
But we should not presume from views on one topic that she is somehow hypocritical because she must hold some views on another topic without confirming that.
I am libertarian – all over the place people presume that because I argue that we should cut spending that I support the drug war, criminalizing abortion, and building border walls.
I do not know coulter very well, but she seems to be a more provacative O’Reily.
i.e. she is more “republican” than conservative. She is more interested in her team winning, than what her team stands for.
I happen to believe that it takes more than believing in the greatness of your values and culture to be racist. I think that you also must believe that those who are different than you are intrinsically inferior. And that their inferiority has to do with the circumstances of their birth or their religious belief.
Fine, I agree. But Coulter and trump qualified for that via their comments, particularly on hispanics.
Pride is pride fine, but derogatory prejudice is derogatory prejudice. Now trump is just a blowhard who will mindlessly attack anything, McCain, fallen soldiers, Fox anchors, so he gets a sort of an idiot pass perhaps. But the various commentators and activists, and I would include some famous BLM activists, who play with racial fire and get burnt? Cry me a river, they decided to play with fire.
If you can see that Rev Wright or Al Sharpton are playing with racial fire then you can see that people like Coulter and Limbaugh are also playing with fire.
“If you can see that Rev Wright or Al Sharpton are playing with racial fire then you can see that people like Coulter and Limbaugh are also playing with fire.”
I am not especially fans of any of those people.
Are we now using “playing with racial fire” rather than racism ?
I am not interested in semantics.
Coulter et al are offensive. That is enough.
Racism – to the extent that it is an issue for government, is the use of force to restrict the liberty of someone because of their race.
Outside of govenrment the use of force to restrict someones liberty is ALWAYS a crime – whether it is racist or not. We need not deal with the “motives”.
Inside of government treating people differently for any reason other than their conduct is always wrong.
Outside of government treating people different for reasons that offend you are a basis to speak out, to protest, to boycott, to make decisions differently.
If you do so because someone is “racist” – great.
If you do so because they where bow ties – you are free to do so.
I avoid having to do with Limbaigh, Coulter, Wright and Sharpton.
each for different reasons.
But that is my choice.
BTW Limbaugh producer for many decades and occaisonal co or guest host is black.
Of course I can see that. I have been making that point repeatedly, while you have been trashing Coulter’s looks, personal life, ethics etc.
You have not claimed that Al Sharpton should be banned from speaking at public universities, nor has he. If you claimed that he should, then I would disagree, just as I disagreed with you about right-wing polemicists like Coulter. Free speech is free speech.
I think you meant to reply to Roby ?
I do not recall trashing Coulter’s looks. etc.
nor have I ever defended Sharpton.
But both should be free to speak.
“while you have been trashing Coulter’s looks, personal life, ethics etc.”
Spoken by the person who felt the need to mention the Hillary is having a gay relationship with whatsername (Weiner’s wife) rumor! I well remember my eye roll at that one! And ethics, you’ve never trashed anyone’s ethics here? Sheesh yourself!
Please god don’t tell me that the main difference between you and Coulter is style and not substance.
The most important thing Trump must do as president is increase economic growth.
He has already started most of what can be done unilaterally as president to do so.
Overall, I am more concerned about legislation that harms growth than what might help it.
Congress is better at harming than helping.
Doing nothing is a good start.
If the republican or Trump agenda never materializes – we are still likely to get improved growth.
A 2/10 of a percent increase in growth will generate $2T in increased GDP over 10 years.
1 1% increase in growth will generate 2T in additional Tax Revenues – presuming that government collects approx 20% of GDP in taxes.
All those are totals over 10 years, but that is the same as the rest of the budget numbers.
I am not pretending to know what the exact effects of Trumps budget would be – if implimented as is. Further if we go from 2% growth to 3% growth it will be hard to prove what caused it.
All we have is that growth is below 2% for Obama’s presidency and barely above 2% since 2000.
From Reagan thru clinton I beleive Growth averaged 3.5%.
Deficits shrank under clinton primarily because economic growth starting with Reagan was larger than increases in government.
“Coulter is someone arguing for the superiority of her tribe over others.
That is a form of racism – it is also human and natural, and it is NOT the same as lynching others.”
Totally agree.
“In the grand scheme it is small.”
That’s a matter of opinion; in my opinion her words have large and bad consequences, since she is famous, since she is a symbol and a self promoting controversy it infinitely magnifies the effect of her opinions. If she was a clerk at Rite-Aid and had those opinions it would be nothing at all. But she isn’t, she’s a hero to a group of people, an example of intellectual leadership. Very much in the wrong direction. Hispanic families rape children?!? White people don’t do that? If we are taking the worst actions of some member of a group as representing that group I can make a very long list of the things white people actually have done, and in groups. She should not want to go there.
Words do not have direct consequences.
While we are responsible for them – we pay in terms of our reputation.
Words are not actions. They are not violent – even when they advocate violence.
Those who hear are free to make up their own minds and choose for themselves.
Coulter nor any other are not shamans capable of making us act outside our will.
Yes, Coulter is bigger and more accountable – and AGAIN that accountablity is through respect and reputation.
I do not like or respect Coulter. The only extent to which I value her is as a provocateur.
In that I would prefer Milo Yiannopoulos – who was quite overt about the fact that his big issues was free speach, and not so much the specific things he said. For a while he was touring with a couple of other speakers. I think Milo was there specifically to be the lightning rod for the left protesters. To be the one who ensnared them in the tangle of their own values and beliefs.
He was not so much about what he said but about the how bad the left looked as it spewed hate at a jewish gay male queen who openly slept with black men.
Coulter is as you aptly put the near perfect white blonde barbie.
It is likely that I have a negative impression of her just because of that.
She is a provocateur – but not so perfect a one as Yanopoulos.
I would also rather defend Murray – who is not a provatateur, just a somewhat libertarian academic who has found himself in a bigger spotlight than he sought.
“Hispanic families rape children?!? White people don’t do that?”
I know the anecdotal data from my wife’s work.
As I said my wife handles criminal appeals. Today the majority of those are sex crime related.
and most of those are adults of some form with children of some form.
And of those – nearly all that involve “whites” involve the amish or old order mennonites (pretty much the same). The number of cases she gets from the white community is very small.
Put more simply there is a disparity in the cases that goes beyond bad actors and into cultural differences – BTW that also explains the mennonites
Separately I am nearly certain there is national data to confirm what she is seeing locally.
And this is independent on the fact that our “sex crimes” laws are completely screwed up.
Where there are cultural differences of misconduct related to whites – we should go there.
But there is no requirement as a speaker to make the arguments that someone else wants you to make.
Coulter is not speaking about the problems of white culture. There is no quid pro quo or requirement for balance.
Frankly I think Coulter’s argument is stupid.
The implied threat is that mexican’s coming to the US are going to rape white children.
This is cultural and those who do this will do so regarding of which side of an artificial line they are on.
If they come to the US – they MIGHT change their culture over time.
They might get caught.
If they remain in mexico – the same things will happen with no possiblity of redress.
But you can not call Coulter racist for raising a fact you do not like.
.
Let’s keep in mind, that the issue involving Ann Coulter is the issue of free speech. Not whether or not she is racist, or whether we like her or not.
She has the right to speak her mind. She has the right to be White Power Supremacist Barbie, and be an offensive, sarcastic, inflammatory polemicist. She has the same right as domestic terrorist and literal bomb-thrower Bill Ayres, to speak on college campuses. That was always my point.
People who don’t like what she has to say have the same right to peacefully protest and speak out against her. This should not be a difficult concept for college students.
But it is.
“Let’s keep in mind, that the issue involving Ann Coulter is the issue of free speech. Not whether or not she is racist, or whether we like her or not.”
If this is directed at me, I am puzzled as to why. It could not possibly be clearer where I stand on this, I’m am probably even angrier than conservatives are because as a liberal leaner I am embarrassed, its “my side” that looks stupid because of these nut jobs, and someone like Coulter, who has no business winning any moral victories, wins a moral victory.
Sad.
All the same, I sometimes seem to be the only person in the country who thinks that college students don’t just call flat out in love with ideas of the campus radicals and that in fact most of them have the brains to think for themselves and say, Yuck.
I keep harping on my UVM experiences. Does anyone suspect UVM of being anything less than thoroughly liberal as a whole? Campus radicals got nowhere there.
The idea of backlash does not seem to occur to people. Its astounding.
If collage students, who, Priscilla, are NOT a monolith, don’t have the brains and common sense to process this stuff and figure out who is making sense, then we are pretty badly screwed anyhow, right?
99+% of them are not there to riot and they could give a shit about transgender bathrooms either, as my tutoring time spent recently at a Vermont state collage showed me.
My sister is quite a bit to the left of me, She lives in Portland where the local anarchist shits shut down a local yearly parade by threatening to do their thing if any republican politicians were in the parade. My really lefty sister was outraged, wrote a letter to the editor (I know, powerful stuff, next she’ll get a bumper sticker and Really do some damage to them) giving them a piece of her mind.
Conservatives have an actual winning issue here, I am surprised they don’t do more with it.
And, on the subject of backlash, when the protested conservative speaker is someone like Murray, who is by all accounts a rather kind, amiable, broad minded soul, that does eventually come out and helps the conservative side. When the protested speaker is someone like Coulter there are Two backlashes going on, not one, because she has a stupid mouth and is a terrible example of conservative thought. So, people observing this are caught between two kinds of repulsive behaviors and ideas. That is not a win for conservatives.
Personally, I was let down by the reaction of conservative media and politicians etc. to the Murray riot, I wish they would have taken their winning issue there are really run with it, made 10 times more commotion about it than they did. Same with the running amok of BLM at Dartmouth a few years back. That faded so fast it was amazing, no follow up, no persistence. Americans as a group, even most liberals, hate this shit. NYTimes opinion pieces and coverage sounded as pissed off as the conservative media, and they did not just ignore it, they jumped on it and said the same things I am saying.
I’d actually Like trump for a day if he found a way to arrest those anarchist punks in the act and prosecute them. The sight of bloodied and unmasked anarchist punks sitting in a paddy wagon would make me very very happy with anyone who was involved in making it happen. You’d think some political genius at the WH would figure that out. I actually want something conservatives want and our savior-potus is too busy playing golf or tweeting to produce it.
(How do I write such a windy manifesto in what seems like 2 minutes when I just sat down with the idea of writing a sentence or two?)
“Words do not have direct consequences.”
Oh Bullshit. You’re fired! I want to marry you. I have a gun, go to the vault and give me all the money there. We find the defendant guilty.
Arguing nonsense for the sake of arguing.
“Coulter nor any other are not shamans capable of making us act outside our will.”
Now, just take that message to heart and apply to college students on a PC campus.
You’re fired!
Do you lose something that was actually yours ?
I want to marry you.
When you have actually entered into a contract that is the action.
You are listing an aspiration.
I have a gun, go to the vault and give me all the money there.
I beleive that meets SCOTUS’s definition of imminent violence.
Regardless, would you find someone guilty if they said
I have an empty pez dispenser, go to the vault and give me all the money there.
“Now, just take that message to heart and apply to college students on a PC campus.”
I have no problem with their words.
I have a problem with their acts.
It wan’t directed at you, Roby. Sheesh.
National Review gets it right:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447160/ann-coulter-berkeley-rioters-progressives-fail-protect-free-speech
“It wan’t directed at you, Roby. Sheesh.”
If there is a “directed at you” rule here, I never heard of it. But if there IS such a rule, inform Dave, the human contradiction machine, of it!
Priscilla, this is humor! Although, after reading a gazillion of Dave’s contradictions aimed at me and Rick and everyone else in proportion to how liberal they are perceived by Dave as being, its humor about something that is real.
Rick’s site.
He gets to make the rules.
I do not think there is a “directed at you rule”
I do not mostly respond based on how liberal posters are.
I respond MOSTLY when a poster says something that I think is wrong.
Ron P who is about as close as anyone here to my positions and I are having a protracted exchange over whether the bad outweighs the good of more efficient production.
I do get especially fired up when those on the left profess to be “holier than thou”.
When you step up on a soap box you should expect others to try to kick it out from under you.
I expect to have to defend my soap box when I step onto it.
and I whack away at others when they step up.
Is that a problem ?
They may have got it part right, but the part about Coulter being the liberal there because she hasn’t thrown rocks or set anything on fire directly is pretty funny.
One thing I remember pretty well Priscilla, is the tone of your assessment of Al Sharpton a while back during BLM inspired rioting, which was pretty damning and unforgiving. One may as well just say well, Al Sharpton is OK because he has never thrown rocks or set anything on fire.
Sharpton and Coulter are the same thing, bottom feeding opportunists taking advantage of tense situations to make a buck. You can see one clearly , but not the other. Why? Ideology? Politics?
“It wan’t directed at you, Roby. Sheesh.”
What? wasn’t directed at me?
We have lapsed into mass confusion about who is addressing who about what. It happens when a bunch of people are arguing with a bunch of people about many different topics at once. Amazing we keep it as straight as we do!
“Is that a problem ?”
Dave, something humorous is happening here of the “who’s on first varaiety.
There is nothing wrong with that, only confusing, but funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg
The threading appears to have broken down if that is what you are referring to.
Beyond that, I really can’t get inspired into a knock down drag out over coulter vs. Sharpton.
Put them both in a room and hope no one comes out.
Absolutely Murray is a better martyr for free speach – but it is very rare that is what we get.
And I would note that the vitriole directed against Murray is indistinguishable from that directed at Coulter.
Recycling old themes that is a part of why the left lost the election and seems intent on doubling down on failure.
The left sees no difference between Hitler and Murray.
There is alot to dislike in Donald Trump, but he was not the carciture the left painted him as.
Not only did that carciture fail to stick – many americans felt they were being identified as hateful hating haters.
Personalizing your enemy only works when much of the electorate does not decide you mean them.
Absolutely this mess on campuses is the work of a small cohort of the left.
It is not mostly academia – though because they have sold the nonsense that some things are not entitled to free speach protection they are unable to control things as their acolytes take things to logical extremes.
It is not most students.
But it is a destructive force – and it is damaging the left as a whole.
I know that you consider yourself a near free speach absolutist.
But this out of control left wing nuts are doing to your left idelogy what I do to it – reductio ad absurdem.
Only I am doing it to prove it is absurd. They are taking it to its logical conclusions and buying that the absurdity is truth.
Under the heading of bright spots in my day, watching it in front of a live audience I just realized how ridiculously talented those guys were!
Gonna watch all their movies.
“Beyond that, I really can’t get inspired into a knock down drag out over coulter vs. Sharpton.
Put them both in a room and hope no one comes out.”
Big Smiley Face to that!
And I’ll agree that the “left” or at least the part of it that freaked out about Murray, has very, very poor skills are distinguishing shades of meaning and is very susceptible to treating someone like Murray, if not like Hitler, then at least like David Duke.
Conservatives have a real issue there (campus free speech adn PC in general) and I would be happy to see them focus a big spotlight on it, while also avoid the shades of meaning issue themselves.
This is not a conservative issue.
Historically it has been real liberals not conservatives or progressives that supported free speech.
Justice Brandeis, Douglas, the ACLU.
Even the left Berkeley free speech movement.
Though the 50’s anti-communist fight is misportrayed as black and white – partly because of idiots like McCarthy, still the right has not historically – not in the 19th century nor the 20th been on the side of free speech.
Broad support of free speech by the right is relatively recent.
It has strengthened as the right has essentially surrendered in the culture wars.
It is not the right that is essentially saying – you can be gay, trans, whatever as you wish, but I expect not to be forced into endorsing your choices.
The significant ramp up of attacks on right speakers is relatively recent.
Further it has been pretty broad. Murray is really not on the right.
And who can endorse boycotting condelezza rice ?
The intellectual foundations for this were laid by modern left academia.
That has not looked to explicitly censor anyone but has been claiming for some time that all viewpoints are not entitled to be expressed.
A portion of todays campus left has taken that seriously.
And we are seeing the results.
At the same time I should note – there is no right to free speech on a college campus – atleast not a private college.
While I think that censoring speech is incompatible with the purpose of a college.
The choose of what speech is to be tolerated on campus belongs with the administration (not the students) and the choice of what college one attends belongs to the person paying for it.
Public colleges are a problem here and just demonstrate another area that is best solved by chasing government out.
But so long as we have public colleges they must protect free speech rights – because government force can never be used to censor.
I have for the most part downplayed the “bitter partisan” claims and arguments.
I do not think that “professional politics” is all that different from the past.
Our founders were notorious for the bitter conflicts they had with each other.
That said there are ways that we are changing politically that are unique – or atleast rare.
There was palpable fear on the part of the left when Obama was elected that the right would resort to violence.
Frankly I find the “the right hates our black president” idiocy annoying, and also foreshadowing.
There are always a few outliers doing something stupid, but for the most part the right dealth with their 2008 loss effectively. They protested, they organized, they used what power they had to impede the left big government agenda as much as they could.
But this “hate” meme was nonsense.
I have however been worried about the “right”.
The bigger government gets the more people who are victimized by it. That is unavoidable.
You can pretend that somehow the left will run a kinder gentler government – but it is not happening. Eric Garner died for selling loose cigarettes in one of the most left cities in this country. Do police lean right ? Maybe a little – I think law enforcement does generally, but it does not matter – if you give people real power – they will abuse it – police, bureaucrats, does nto matter.
Are they all evil or power mad – no, but the larger government is the more frequent abuses will be.
BLM arose from the technology of cell phones that is revealing to all of us that people killed, injured, or otherwise mistreated by police are not always thugs, or atleast not acting in a way that justified what happened to them.
There was a novel while I was in school about a protagonist that sought to take down a police state – by joining it and enforcing its edicts with cruel vigor until the regime was so repressive that it was impossible to keep the lid on.
The bigger government is the more people will be pushed into opposing it.
That has been happening on the right, and it is growing.
Our faith in government is at an all time low – far far lower than it has ever been before.
That is a consequence of big government.
Thus far this opposition has been non-violent, so long as the “rules” are atleast loosely followed and a real opportunity to change things legitimately remains it is likely that anti-government forces will become violent. But there will always be a few on either side.
At the very same time a fanatic group has been building on the left.
The rhetoric is quite different.
The normal left has been talking about the “hate” of the right – but this large body on the extreme left is preaching real hate. they are also somewhat openly talking of revolution and violence.
Clinton’s loss has made this worse.
I do not care much that the left opposes Trump and interferes with his agenda – that is legitimate.
I do not care than they protest.
I am concerned about the violence.
Thus far it has been mostly small potatoes – whether it is BLM stuff or that which followed the election.
But I am very worried that the left is moving towards violence.
It does not take that many to push things over the edge.
I would also note that violence will justify a push to get tough law enforcement.
One of my disappointments with Obama is that he had a real opportunity to effect change in law enforcement and he blew it. By fixating on the racial component he sent a message to the majority of the country that this was not a problem they need to care about, and therefore any effort tto improve things died.
Roby I’ll make this on last point about free speech for now, because we are going around in circles, and that we agree in principle, despite our differing opinions on the looks, personal life and/or ethics of Ann Coulter (or Al Sharpton. Although we would probably agree that his looks are not that gre.
Yes, I despise Al Sharpton ~ he is a race-baiter and a hustler, who preys upon poor blacks, in order to enrich himself.
And you despise Ann Coulter. She uses nasty sarcasm and sweeping generalizations to make her points and sell her books.
They both have the right to speak without fear of being shut down by violent mobs. And the government, including government entities such as public universities, have the obligation, under the Constitution, to protect their right to speak and to punish those who would try to intimidate or stop them.
Any conservative or liberal who believes in the Bill of Rights, needs to see this as a critical issue. It’s truly not a partisan one.
Our freedoms do not come from the bill of rights.
They come from nature.
Government is there to secure them. It can not create them.
This is one of the distinctions in constitutional thought between Scalia and Gorsuch and why I have some hope for Gorsuch.
Randy Barnett was interviewed by Reason on Gorsuch and said that he was the best choice any libertarian could possibly expect out of republicans or democrats.
But that experience shows us that it is near impossible to know how a judge will rule when they ascend to the supreme court.
Its gotta be the last one, because it already takes 5 minutes to find the reply button at the top.
I agree with you, and with Dave about free speech and most especially in educational institutions. OK, the First amendment never meant that a student would get sent home for telling a teacher to F themselves. And some other caveats here and there. But the big principle is just what you and me and Bernie and Dave say it is.
My personal bone to pick is those sweeping generalizations. If I make them here about anything conservative you and Dave will object strenuously. Dave may take 20 posts to do it.
So, students are not a monolith. Liberals are not a monolith any more than, say, rural voters in red states are. If one sweeping generalization is dumb and destructive then similar ones about the other side are too.
The violence that has occurred on certain campuses is despicable and unAmerican, but those idiots are not about to spread their tactics like a virus and cause riots the red counties. They’d get shot or else ridiculed and fired like the wack job Melissa Click, former professor in Missouri, now one year lecturer in Oregon, a serious demotion.
They are harming education itself as a concept and a principle. I agree. What they are probably doing the most harm to is the more reasonable version of the left. I’d give a lot to see them stop, with the violent ones in jail.
The issue of free speech tends to make clear WHY government needs divorced from as much of our lives as possible.
Your Boss CAN restrict your speech.
As can your teacher, or school or college.
You are NOT free to speak as you please anywhere that you ARE free to leave, that is not government.
The same is true of your other rights.
I beleive that employers and schools, and … should not restrict our speech, that they should not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, ….
But we can not bar them from doing so by force. We can however choose to work elsewhere, or attend a different school or ….
Except that when government is involved we can not.
Further, what teachers, employers and neighbors CAN do – government CAN NOT.
When government stays out of things it does nto belong in – we tend to have bright lines – mostly.
As government expands that is when we get these questions of “rights in conflict”.
Except there is rarely a conflict of rights. What we really face is a conflict between our rights and government powers.
People and ideologies are not monolithic as you note.
But the left today is much more homogenous than the right.
Equally important it is far more devoid of competing voices.
I do not think the violence is really that much about Murray or Coulter.
It is the anger of the extreme left because most people do NOT share their views and they just do not understand that. They are sure they are right – in the same way that islamic or christian fundamentalists are sure they are right.
They believe they are anointed to change the world – and the world is not listening.
Aaarrrg! …that a student would NOT get sent home for telling a teacher to F themselves.
When I was at Monticello I recall a written remark by one of the DuPonts I believe.
Northerners are friendly to the negro as a group but intolerant of them as individuals.
Southerners are intolerant of the negro as a group, but close to them as individuals.
There are plenty of quotes from Jefferson and Madison and Washington about the evils of slavery.
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that, considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.
Thomas Jefferson
Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.
Thomas Jefferson
The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it.
Thomas Jefferson
This is the kind of moderate I am:
“The technical definition of a centrist or moderate is that you take a position in the political center.
What is the center? A Centrist is an independent. You do not hold yourself to the party politics of the right or left.
Being a Centrist allows you to have your politics “a la carte.” In short, you have the freedom of your own independent political thought.
You support some liberal principles and some conservative principles while having the freedom to disagree with both.
You want to find the right solution to a problem regardless of whose idea it is or whether it is from the right or the left or from anywhere else in the spectrum.
You put realistic solutions ahead of political bickering and “scoring political points” plus will push ahead on your own to vocalize and put forth efficient, effective solutions.
You value and practice non-partisanship while at the same time stick to the principles of maximizing choice, responsibility & public good.
You work to find common ground to grow from and work with.
You hold strong convictions and will always take a firm but reasonable stance on any issue.
General ideology:
> You want an efficient government.
> You see right thru the current charade of “corrupt political hypocrites” and “grandstanding” for no other reason than furthering of selfish ego and personal gain.
> You want fiscal responsibility and restraint.
> You want freedom of choice on personal issues.”
https://uselections.com/ideology/moderate.shtml
NOT, not, the disparaging “I thought the moderates were supposed to be comfortable with the middle, with compromise.”
No, you don’t know moderates, just like lefties, righties, indies, we are not monolithic
The problem with “a le carte” is that it is fine in food, not so hot in politics.
If you just pick and choose what appeals to you without considering that this stuff has to work together to provide a functioning society and government.
Progressivism is also an “a le carte” ideology – while it is significantly left of center – it has no cohesive principle or principle to connect the various positions.
Conservatism is less ideological and more principled – the central principle of conservatism is “go slow”. That still leads to inconsistancy, but less so.
American conservatism is more ideological.
One of the reasons that the US Libertarian party has not done well is that both US parties – and particularly modern republicans have strongly incorporated libertarain ideology into their own.
The US has historically and politically placed a much higher value on individual liberty that the rest of the world. While there are plenty of exceptions. I can list myriads of ways in which our government at all levels is far to totalitarian.
You do not want efficient government.
Government is force – The Nazis ware the efficient use of force.
All of our insufficient checks and balances are wise impediments to the efficient use of force.
Hilarious! Arguing for the sake of arguing. Good grief. You are channeling the spirit of Little Miss Contrary. You know perfectly well what he meant, cutting waste. No I am not reading minds, I 100% guarantee you that if you ask dduck he’ll tell you he meant cutting waste, red tape, useless or contradictory regulations, you know, stuff Dave likes and would be for if his argue gene wasn’t stuck on full throttle.
Not contrarian.
I am quite serious
YOU DO NOT WANT EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT.
Efficient government is more dangerous than corrupt government.
You can not eliminate government waste.
The incentives are not and can not be there.
This is also why you want to minimize what government does – because government is always wasteful.
Even in those things that are its legitimate role it is inefficient and wasteful.
Red tape is a typically means of hamstringing YOU – not government.
If it actually interferes with government – I am for it.
Contradictory regulations are the nature of the beast – they partly come from the fact that we have weak and self contradictory principles.
I am not so much opposed to contradictory regulations as just regulations.
When actual harm occurs punish the harm.
That is what government is supposed to do.
The irony just hit me Dave. You hate, as you say, contradictions.
But you spend your whole life contradicting people!
Have I contradicted myself ?
There is no irony.
If I hated Nazi’s would it be irony for me to protest them ?
The response to a contradiction is to check your premises.
that is what I have suggested to dduck
“You want freedom of choice on personal issues”
Everything is a personal issue.
Bravo!
To dduck
I am watching the Trump legal battles with interest.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/todays-nullification-crisis-15159.html
And I am often multiply conflicted.
I have no problem with sanctuary – though I would note it is extra legal – civil disobediance and note a legitimate role of government.
I would really prefer that government just quit subsidizing the crap out of everything.
I have no problem with state and local government not enforcing federal laws and not cooperating with the federal govenrment. In fact though I do not expect them to be hostile, it is NOT their job to aide the federal govenrment in its.
I am finding it interesting that the left is fighting Trump by taking up legal doctrines that they have vigorously opposed in the past.
Nullification, federalism, economic rights, broad standing.
I think as things are that Trumps opponents are completely wrong on the law – meaning that law as understood by current precedent.
But I think they are mostly right on the law – as it should be.
My big concern is that if the left prevails in its arguments – those arguments MUST become precedent.
The Robarts case against the immigration EO is rooted in the argument that standing exists because the economic rights of businesses that might wish to employee people from the countries Trump has banned are infringed.
Since FDR it is been impossible to prevail against the government in even the smallest matter based on an economic rights claim.
I am rooting for the left – they have opened the door to infinte challenges to current and future regulation based on their abridgement of economic rights.
With respect to the santuary cities argument – I look forward to the federal government being uniformly required to enforce all of its laws and regulations without the assistance of the states and local government.
Interesting article with law professors debating different conceptions of “The rule of law”.
As well as what happens when our laws lack the key attributes necescary for “the rule of law”.
http://www.libertylawsite.org/liberty-forum/one-need-not-choose-between-the-rule-of-law-and-constitutional-federalism/
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/12/481750685/many-manufacturing-workers-don-t-make-enough-to-keep-off-public-assistance
We all wish we were making more.
9.50/hr is 21,000/year.
That is not middle class – but only just barely
If Ms. Wade is receiving the assistance she is claiming that she does – that is typically another 13,000/yr. That would put her real income at very near the US Median.
And that would presume that she is the only person working in her family.
Yes, lots of people receive assistance today – being poor in the US today is ALOT better off than being poor in 1960.
Do you remember the pictures of what being “working class poor” meant when these great society programs were started ? Alot worse than the people you are claiming need ever more now.
Sorry Moogie but 9.50/hr WITHOUT public assistance is a “liveable wage”.
I do not wish to attack Ms. Wade – she has made her choices – I hope she is happy with them, but I am gathering she is not.
If I were actually looking to help someone – she would be far from the top of my list.
BTW the average US manufacturing wage is over $20/hr – that is 45K/yr.
And actually yes people can manage to live at these jobs WITHOUT assistance.
I have REPEATEDLY sat down with my kids and worked with them to figure out what they need to live on their own – it is not that much. But it is not living that well either.
I do that and they know it in the hope they will make wise choices.
My Son BTW is still in HS and works at Target about 20hr a week. He makes $11/hr.
Is there a reason these people can not manage that ?
I would think that someone who can manage a manufacturing job can manage retail at Target.
My Father-in-law was a factory worker – he worked for RCA. I do nto think he ever made more than 20K/year. When he finally quit working in his early 70’s he was only making 15K.
He never collected any form of assistance in his life. He never thought of himself as poor.
He never graduated from HS.
He came home after work at RCA and raised chickens, and grew his on vegetables to make ends meet.
My mother-in-law never worked a day in her life – so his income was their only income.
On that income – he bought a house on almost 2 acres. He manage to pay for two cars – actually three for a little when my wife was a teen.
My wife paid her own way through college. They would not let her apply for any assistance, and would not let her borrow money. They were an evangelical family and women were not supposed to go to college. Some of the things I did together with her family was going to see Jimmy Swaggart. Most of my HS was evangelical Christians.
Anyway, I got a clue what poor actually is.
In 1983 when we were first married – I bought my first house – it cost 26K – your could not buy much of a house nor in any decent neighborhood for 26K. We lived there for 8 years.
During that time every neighbor was robbed – we were not as we had two big dogs.
There were knife fights in the street sometimes.
Even though the police station was 4 blocks away if you called – it took them 45 minutes to come, and when they did have the police force showed up – because they were not going to send a lone patrol car to my neighborhood.
I told you before, that my family never helped me out of trouble. I had to stay out of trouble or deal with it myself.
Regardless, you do not need 15/hr to live in this country.
I am guessing from the article that Ms. Wade is a single mother.
That is hard. But I know lots of people who managed – without any assistance – actually poor people. People much worse off than Ms. Wade.
If you can not afford kids – do not have them.
If you have kids young – you will make your life all the harder.
I have not made some mistakes in my life. And I have made others.
It is not someone else’s job to bail me out.
To the extent I have an actual duty to help others – it is my personal duty. It is not a duty that can be iimposed on me by government.
Further I get to choose how I will effectuate that duty.
Personally I provide free meals for “homeless people” – pretty much none of the people who come to the shelter for free meals anymore are actually homeless.
Most are like Ms. Wade – making their resources stretch.
That’s fine and it is my choice.
I have also helped muslim immigrants get settled.
I give to my wife’s church
and my family periodically sends things to chinese orphanages.
If I had lots of money to give – it would probably go to those chinese orphanages.
The kids there make Ms. Wade look like the 1%.
Just to be clear since you seem intent on going there.
I do not think that Ms. Wade is “lazy”.
Nor do I think she is a “victim”.
Everyone thinks that if they earned a little more money they could “make ends meet” and maybe save a little.
Yet, no one starves to death in this country. and very few people do in the wold anymore and what starvation we do have is due to war and politics, not poverty.
My father-in-law who was worse off than Ms. Wade – managed to save, and make ends meet.
It is not lack of income that keeps us from “making ends meet”.
I know families with 150K AGI’s who can not make ends meet.
You can live in a small apartment, and feed yourself in my community for just over 9K/year.
That is half what Ms. Wade was getting. That is not a great life.
Get a room mate and you can do it for about 6K/yr.
But do not add a child.
BTW I rent to people today who are making less than Ms. Wade. My two best apartments have families that are making about what Ms Wade is, they can’t make ends meet either.
But they have cars, and computers and tablets and cell phones and multiple large flat screens.
That is all fine – good for them. But when they “can’t make ends meet”.
It means exactly the same thing as it does when I can’t
It means they spent all their income, did nto save and did not count on something going wrong, like the car breaking down, or a child needing dental work.
Do I have sympathy – sure.
But I am not rushing to do something stupid like raise the Minimum wage which will likely result in their having NO job.
One does not have to have a deep understanding of economics to understand that half the people of this nation are not making a middle class income. And it sure as hell has nothing to do with them being “lazy” or “entitled”. It has to do with greed at the top.
“One does not have to have a deep understanding of economics to understand that half the people of this nation are not making a middle class income.”
But one has to have a pretty willfully deep Misunderstanding of economics not to understand that middle class by definition includes:
the lower middle class, quintile 2 (unless I have the numbering backwards)
the middle middle class, quintile 3,
the upper middle class, quintile 4.
So that’s 60% of the country.
Then there’s the upper class, the top quintile.
Even the bottom quintile disproportionately contains the young.
Middle class to you means whatever you want it to mean.
I don’t believe Dave that our standard of living is wildly improving just because everyone can by a load of cheap stuff at Walmart. But I do believe that nearly every economist who is simply practising economics and not politics or ideology, will state that our standard of living as a whole is improving rather than declining.
A double income family is now nearly mandatory to be a middle class family, that is a real difference from, say, the 60s. Its very reasonable that many people do not see that as a wonderful improvement in our standard of living. But your happy moral times were an extremely short period of time, perhaps 2 decades, and even they were nowhere so wildly wonderful and fair and decent as you are mythologically making them.
In case its mysterious, each quintile contains 20% of the population.
You are making a slightless less transparent version of the same statistical mistake Moogie keeps making.
If most american families choose to have two wage earners, then the probability is that most middle class families will have two incomes.
There has never been a time in which we would not be more wealthy if the average family had two incomes than if it had one.
All that has changed is that 100 years ago it was difficult or impossible for a family to have two incomes. Now it is commonplace.
That is good thing. not a bad one.
You are still free to choose not to.
But in most instances you will be worse off if you do.
BTW that is MORE true of those with higher incomes than lower incomes.
And why the average top quintile family has 2.54 full times jobs, and the average bottom quintile family has .25
I wish I had a time machine toi send people back to these periods they think were so much better
“I wish I had a time machine toi send people back to these periods they think were so much better.”
Oh , I get your point, but I wish you did too. When you get it can you please send me back to about 1955? I want to go to the hop and maybe Woodstock. I want to see Little Richard, the Beatles, and Hendrix. I want to watch space walks, Geminii flights see us land on the moon again, and not on the internet, but on TV, while it happens. I want Huntley-Brinkley on the telly, not Hannity. I want to be able to watch the south desegregate and blacks escape from the back of the bus. I want to go to the ball park and see Willy Mays, Micky Mantle, Tom Seaver, see the Mets win the world series. I’m so damned nostalgic I even miss Howard Cosell.
Seriously, 1965 seems to me to have about been the peak of life in the USA.
Sitting in a gold 67 Vette convertible at a drive in movie, drinking a milkshake with a recently sexually liberated woman watching a Pete Sellers movie seems to me like heaven. Everything went downhill from there.
We live in an ugly soul-less time and I don’t just mean in the USA.
I was born in 1958.
One of my earliest memories was watching the Kennedy Funeral on a tiny BW TV.
I saw news about woodstock as it happened – it was being portrayed by the news as a disaster.
I sat LR, the Beatles, and Hendrix on TV in the 60’s.
As well as the Gemeni and apollo missions on TV.
I made a scale model of a Saturn V rocket that was 7′ tall in my BR
There were only 3 channels on TV – and that only if you held the rabbit ears just right and stood on one foot.
I have no interest in seeing Huntley-Brinkly ever again nor Hannity.
I also remember duck and cover exercises in school and wondering if today would be the day we wiped ourselves out.
I remember famines accross the world with millions of kids dying.
I remember the assassination of RFK, and then MLK.
I remember the riots.
I remember the body counts from vietnam on TV evernight
I remember kent State.
I remember forced busing and the holy wars over that.
I was bussed to a black school.
There were losts of good things.
There were also lots of bad.
I would also note that in all times – we tend to appreciate the good things – because they were so hard to get.
I remember my families first color TV. Buying it was a huge event.
We bought our 50″ flat screen at costco a couple of years ago – on a whim because it was on sale. It is a far better TV. But it was a far less significant event.
This could end up being a duplicate. WordPress is doing its screwball stuff again for me.
Moogie, thought you might be interested in this calculator. I entered my information and I am right at middle income for my metropolitan area and demographic data.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/11/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/
You make some interesting comments in past comments and then …..” half the people of this nation are not making a middle class income”….. where every web site contradicts your statement.
Now read on into the body of the article and it will say that the middle class is shrinking since 2000. But that is due to an increase in both the lower income levels as well as the upper income brackets. They state 1/2 the change goes to each category.
And yes, much of that is due to lower income in manufacturing. But again, do some research before regurgitating talking points provided by the liberal politicians and media.
You comment consistently on income going to the rich, but what country is generating the profits that the 1%’ers are being paid for..
So for example, GE’s CEO makes with salary, bonuses and benefits about 33 million. However, less than 1/2 of GE’s revenues are generated by operations in America, More revenues comes from production in 33 other countries.
You keep talking about the rich getting richer and hording the money while the poor get poorer. Are you saying that companies like GE who pay their CEO for worldwide operating results should pay their American workers more based on income from Europe, Asia and Africa?
Ron,
I am sorry, but you seem to be falling for the same nonsense that Moggie is.
The middle class is not shrinking.
That is completely impossible.
The middle quintile is the middle 20%.
20% is always 20%.
I have posted a gif of the change in income distribution since 1979.
What has happen is that the curve has flattened and the income range for each quintile has increased. That is a good thing not a bad thing.
It means every quintile is earning more than it did before – AFTER adjusting for inflation.
I personally do not understand the pay of CEO’s.
But I do not understand that of movie stars, Rock musicians, or professional athletes.
With respect to Tiger Woods – I do not see bonking a tiny white ball around the yard as valuable.
And I am free to feel that way about anyone’s income.
But I do not get to decide what any of those people get paid.
Kodak went bankrupt a few years back.
I think Kodak shareholders would be happy to give a big paycheck to its CEO – had he managed to avoid that.
EVERYONE is worth as much as they can persuade someone else to give them for what they do.
The only voice each of us has in that is our personal choice to pay those who in one way or another work for us what we choose to pay them.
We do not have the right to tell someone else what they should pay another.
Guess you do the same thing Moogie does. You don’t read what other people post. Did you read the article? It says that the middle class is shrinking, but not because of what the liberal press and liberal talking mouths are saying. 1/2 the people who are no longer middle class are now upper class.
So now you can go look for your web sites and post 10+ to prove your point and Moogie can go find 10+ that prove her point.
Remember figures don’t lie, but liars can figure. And statistics are nothing but figures
Your correct – I did not read the link.
I am aware of the changes to the structure of class.
I doubt I am at odds with the article.
The issues I addressed were essentially math errors.
There is always a middle class, it is always 20% of the population – unless you add lower middle and upper middle in which case it is 60%.
The income and wealth that the middle class have changes over time – with higher numbers being BETTER
This is like the arguments that get made over the portion of the population in poverty.
In the UK poverty is defined as the bottom 15%.
In the US the definition is more complex – it is based on what one can afford. HOWEVER government upwardly adjusts that basket over time – to keep the portion of the population in poverty about the same – in the US about 14% of the population.
Regardless what is true in the US and the UK is that living in poverty today means having ALOT more than 40 years ago.
We must be very careful about statements about the decline or expansion of shrinkage of various classes or portions of the people that are defined as percentages.
Claims regarding those are nearly always false – because they are deluded by the definitions.
Buy definition only 20% of the country is making middle class income.
Another 40% are always making more.
the last 40% are always making less.
That will ALWAYS be that way.
You are making the same stupid argument the british MP did several years ago – complaining that it was horrible that in such an affluent country as the UK 15% of Brits still lived in poverty – the exact same as had 40 years before.
That would be because in the UK poverty is defined as the bottom 15% of the population.
Absent a change in the measure of poverty 100 years from now 15% of the UK will by definition live in poverty.
Please tell me that you have never taught math ?
What people do not seem to understand is that even if Trump brings back manufacturing jobs, they will no longer pay a middle class income. The powers at the top are decreeing that fewer and fewer jobs will pay a living wage.
Which is really incredibly stupid…they will make far more money if more people had more money to spend. The only time we had a strong middle class in world history was when the working people were well-paid!!! It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to see this.
Conservatives have brought us back to where the majority of history has been spent – a few filthy rich, everyone else miserably poor. They want it that way. And people were sucker enough to believe a billionaire would rescue them. BWHAHAHAHAHA. Another 4 years down the drain.
“Conservatives have brought us back to where the majority of history has been spent – a few filthy rich, everyone else miserably poor.”
I actually have not met or seen a single miserably poor family in Vermont in my 40 years here, and I have had all kinds of jobs and experiences, I’m not rich or living among some special rich enclave. And Vermont is far from the top of the states income wise.
Hey Moogie, check out what’s going on in Greece and Venezuela if you’d like to see actual examples of governments that have impoverished their citizens.
Greece is nominally capitalist, Venezuela socialist ~ in reality, both are oligarchies in which the ruling elite has systematically robbed the wealth of the country for itself.
Inflation in Venezuela was 800% in 2016 (no, that is not a typo). It doesn’t matter how much those people make, they can’t afford anything. The cost of goods and services is projected to rise by 1500% in 2017.
I really don’t know what your point is. Is it merely that we should have elected Bernie? Or that the government should mandate higher wages and all will be well? Or that we should tax the rich until they’re not rich anymore?
“The powers at the top are decreeing that fewer and fewer jobs will pay a living wage.”
To what powers do you refer? What would Bernie “decree”?
The differences between Greece and Venezuela are not so much ideology but of authoritarianism.
Greece is probably as socialist as Venezuela.
But greek governance has not been dominated by a single cult, and the results of elections are respected.
Priscilla, its a nice serious answer, but when you called her a troll a while back, you were correct. She does not converse, she just does drive by shootings, reusing one and the same ineffective bullet each time.
Wouldn’t I love to have a really smart, sharp highly educated liberal come here and settle in and talk about these things. Someone out of my father’s mold. But those people are busy. We just get moogie and her drive bys.
“Wouldn’t I love to have a really smart, sharp highly educated liberal come here and settle in and talk about these things”
Modern progressives are illiberal not liberal.
Regardless, intelligence on the left is rarer all the time.
Amoung other reasons because the left increasingly purges or back shelf’s its brightest people – because they can not be sold the incoherent nonsense that is left policy today.
The people at the top do not ‘decree” what a job will pay.
That is decided by you when you decide to buy something or not.
Those jobs moved overseas – because lower prices increased what you were willing to buy.
You are correct that Trump can not bring back the jobs that left.
Manufacturing will and is returning.
And the jobs coming back are very high paying.
But they are also very few.
And you all continue to fixate stupidly on money.
Divide the price of everything including labor by 10.
We will be no better or worse off.
All that matters is what can you buy with the proceeds from what you produced.
Money is an intermediary to facilitate the transaction – that is all.
As to “living wage” – the Minimum wage buys much more today than in 1975.
Pick ten ordinary things that people need.
Look up their price in 1975 convert that to the number of MW hours you would have to work to buy that thing.
Do the same with the 2017 prices and MW for the same things.
If from ten items you found ONE that requires more hours of work to purchase today – that would be unusual. In fact it is likely that of the 10 items you picked – atleast 5 cost HALF as much today.
The only things that cost more or nearly the same are those government is heavily involved in – like healthcare.
Almost no one will make more money if people have more to spend.
UNLESS you increase the value produced the effect of dumping more money into the economy is inflation – nothing else.
Though you might be right – the rich tend to win the inflation game – but the poor lose.
One of the things that really cheeses me about the left is that what you want to do to “help others” nearly always screws them over.
You claim that free market serve the rich.
BULL – it is your nonsense that serves the rich.
As you said if the poor had more money – the rich will get richer.
The poor however will be exactly the same as before OR WORSE.
You have wreaked havoc on our education system – both public and higher education are now ridiculously expensive and worse in quality than ever before.
You have bumped the cost of healthcare to govenrment by $2T/decade and even more to ordinary people. Yet we have nothing to show for it.
There are not more doctors, more nurses, there are not more services being delivered, people are not healthier, and they are not living longer.
Teh only thing that has happened is that it is more expensive.
Which is always the only thing that happens when government dumps money into a problem.
Until towards the end of the medieval period in europe – 99.99% of human history – over 150,000 years, 99.99% of us lived in abject poverty.
And the .01% – lived in condictions worse than the poor today.
Through that entire period – life expectance rose maybe a few years at most.
What ended that was the very thing you piss all over – free markets.
I do not have alot of faith in Trump.
To the extent I might defend him that would only be that as bad as he may be – he is less bad than Hillary.
Regardless, how well Trump has governed will not be decided by our remarks.
It will not be decided by the media, it will not be decided by the left.
It will be decided by voters – in 2018 and again in 2020.
If we continue to have the sub 2% growth that we have had for the past 16 years – Conservatives, Republicans and Trump are in deep shit.
Conversely if we have 3% growth – it may take a decade before a democrat can get elected dog catcher.
Regardless we have wasted 18 years on nonsensical progressive economics.
One of the reasons the left lost the last election is that Trump was less scary to the electorate than 4 more years of Obama.
http://www.theonion.com/article/berkeley-campus-lockdown-after-loose-pages-wall-st-55815
Amen!
And tomorow we will read the same story in the New York Times.
Moogie…Thought you might be interested in this.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/30/iphone-factory-observer-why-trump-cant-bring-manufacturing-jobs-back.html
And as a reminder, Apple is led by one of the more liberal leaders in consumer electronics.
If they won’t bring back manufacturing, who will?
Apple is not “liberal”. They are a business
US Manufacturing is not and aside from ordinary blips when the economy is weak has not been “in decline”
What has occurred – was inevitable – we are manufacturing ever more with less labor.
But those jobs that remain are high skill and high wage jobs.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead-output-has-doubled-in-three-decades-2016-03-28
BTW Ron your article ends with the wrong answer.
But that is common when people look at exactly how things are and presume they will not change.
Apple may move iPhone manufacturing out of China – maybe to Vietnam
or it may move it back to the US.
If it returns to the US it will be far less labor intensive and far more automated and it will bring with it a few very well paid jobs.
As to Trump.
Some businesses are leaving the US and some returning all the time.
Trump will find a few returning and make some big pronouncement taking credit for it.
Or he will use the power of the presidency to leverage some business to move back a bit earlier than planned.
But overall the changes that are going to happen are going to happen one way or another.
I would note that Trump change in corporate tax rates alone could cause a major move of businesses back to the US.
The price advantage China has on production is now only about 15%, While they have lower labor costs than the US, they have higher energy costs higher resource costs and far less reliable infrastructure – as well as the requirement to transport gods across the pacific.
Very small changes will tip- the balance for some companies back to the US.
But AGAIN, this will result in small gains of well paid high skill jobs.
It will NOT result in large numbers of medium skill blue collar jobs.
I do not care who you are if you do a job that can be done by a machine you can expect to lose that job at some time in the future.
The good news is that there is no limit to our ability to productively use human resources.
The bad is that without increasing skills your value will just constantly decrease.
Once again you are not reading what is written, you are reading what you want to read.
“Apple is not “liberal”. They are a business”
Now go back and read what I wrote. Never said “Apple” was liberal.
“Apple is led by one of the more liberal leaders in consumer electronics.”
I do not know whether cook is republican, democratic, conservative or liberal.
But I know that is a small factor in his business decisions.
Apple MIGHT do “liberal” things – if it believes those things will boost its business.
This is one of our problems – because businesses are not going to devote their resources to our ends – EXCEPT when it is in their interests.
I supported Cooks stand against the FBI regarding cracking iPhones for the Feds.
I know that Cook made arguments for not cooperating that might appeal to some on the left.
But I beleive the critical factor was that, in possibly the short run and definitely the long run not cooperating helped Apple.
Our phones may not be secure – but we do not want to beleive that the companies that made them for us are secretly cooperating with government to spy on us.
BTW that pitch appeals not merely to those on the left – but also to the rest of corporate america and to many on the right.
Dave, think back on all the conversation that has taken place between Moogie and others on this site. She has consistently talked about a declining middle class (right or wrong, I won’t get into that) because the rich and conservatives are paying low wages and hoarding (my word, not her’s) all the income manufacturers are making.(Correct or not, that is her thinking) She supports the Liberal agenda for most everything and regurgitates almost word for word the liberal media positions.
So now comes an article about Apple and how they make phones in China and the working conditions that goes with that industry. They are one of the most profitable companies in America and they are led by one of the more Liberal CEO’s of any super large company in America.
So without saying it outright, I post this article and tell her she might be interested and remind her who the CEO is. All hoping that she puts 2 and 2 together to see that it is not just the conservatives that make tons of money, lead mega profitable companies and ship jobs overseas costing jobs in America and having a negative impact on the economy (and don’t comment on this because I already know you have very different positions that I will never accept).
Sometimes it is better to share information and not say anything further and hope people see something different than their previous beliefs than to say their positions are wrong and put them on the defensive which makes acceptance of a different position more difficult to accept.
While you and I share much common ground, there are issues where we differ.
What I find most disturbing is that those issues are fairly well understood, we have lots of facts.
Differing viewpoints are NOT inherently of equal merit.
I do not expect that you will agree with me on something merely because I say so.
I would hope that as you become more knowledgeable you would adjust your views to reflect new facts that you learn.
Despite being accused of being riggidly ideological – I am ALWAYS looking at the facts to see how well they fit with my views on issues. I have made myriads of changes to my views in the course of my life – reflecting either a better understanding of facts or the emergence of new facts.
If the facts do not support my views – it is inevitable that my views will change.
I would hope that yours would too.
Well Dave, just as you and I disagree on the impact of unequal trade agreements on jobs and income, so do the “experts” in the field of economics.
http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790
I have researched NAFTA, WTO and other agreements and where you believe unequal trade agreements are good for our economy because it allows cheap crap into this country that does not last and has to be replaced in 2-3 years and allows many Americans to buy stuff at Walmart, I believe that unequal trade agreements cost jobs, drive down wages for the remaining jobs available and results in a slower growth overall.
So like you said “While you and I share much common ground, there are issues where we differ”, I suspect this difference will not be cleared up since there is support for both positions, its just what you want to accept and who you believe.
Skimming your article I do not understand why you think it makes your case.
Just to be clear anything that raises standard of living ALSO displaces labor.
Producing more with less means that some resources will be idled – available to produce something else. That is normal and good.
Your article notes that eonomists pretty universally think that NAFTA was good.
BTW NATFA is not my idea of free trade.
Just unilaterally dropping barriers is free trade.
Most of our trade agreements are what I would call “:managed trade” – still on net good.
But not as good as actual free trade – even if one sided.
Anyway your article cites lots of benefits that came from NAFTA as well as noting that there are more difuse benefits that are enormous but hard to see.
Then the article lists some of the purported negative influences – and does so badly.
Increasing trade deficits are always balanced by capital accounts gains.
Certain aspects of free exchange are inherently zero some.
If you trade dollars to someone for goods – they get dollars and you get goods.
You gain a benefit NOW.
They are trading for something in the future.
There are really only two things that can happen to the money you pay.
1). They spend it – and if they do ultimately it MUST be spent on your goods.
Dollars can travel arround the globe – but eventually they must turn into some form of spending at home.
2). Those dollars are in some way destroyed – they are stuffed in a mattress, burned whatever.
That pretty much never happens for obvious reasons.
So the end result is there never is any sane reason to fret about trade deficts.
Your article itself notes that NAFTA has resulted in far more new job creation than any lost jobs.
There is newar universal agreement among economists
I would disagree with Mankiw on only a single point.
Congress should not expand the power of the president to unilaterally negotiate trade deals.
Congress should terminate all trade deals and get completely out of trade.
Low uniform tarrifs – if any at all, with no political agenda, and no other involvement in trade.
If people want to sell each other things across national borders – it is not governmets business.
Trade deals are bad not for any of the reasons you cite – but because they are heavily used by congress and business as a way of imposing even more regulation onto the american people.
The US for a century had some of the best copyright law in the world.
Through trade deals we now not only have the worst – but have made that of the rest of the world even worse.
If you have researched Trade thoroughly – then you do not need to “beleive” any thing.
You know the facts, and the facts are NOT consistent with your beleifs.
I flog this to the left constantly.
Beliefs, oppinions are NOT equal.
People hve an equal right to beleive the earth is flat.
That does not mean that view has equal merit.
While we can not know alot of things with absolute certainty. In fact the heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us there is almost nothing we can know with absolute certainty.
We can know that somethings are absolutely false.
And we can know that somethings are far more probably true than others.
Free trade is a win-win
Unfree trade is a win-win.
Everything that raises our standard of living also has negiative impacts – that can be turned into even greater positive ones.
one of the more obvious is we keep counting jobs lost.
If a job goes to mexico – that can be counted as a loss ONCE.
Do you know anyone who lost their job as a result of a trade deal who a decade later still has no job ?
Nearly every lost job, ultimately becomes a gained job elsewhere.
and that too raises our standard of living even further.
https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_6441.html
We find some evidence that terror is systematically imported from countries with large Muslim populations. A larger number of attacks against foreigners in the host country increases the risk of terror from foreigners there. We find that host country policies relating to integration and the rights of foreigners are key to fight terror – stricter policies that exclude foreigners already living in a country increase the risk of terror. High-skilled migrants are associated with a significantly lower risk of terror compared to low-skilled ones, while there is no significant difference between male and female migrants.
OK where did this come from? When did I say anything about terrorism and immigrants?
I beleive there are some bizare threading issues.
There have been several instances where replies were not connected propeerly the to posts they were about.
Mostly I do not think I have had that problem – but others have complained.
“She supports the Liberal agenda for most everything and regurgitates almost word for word the liberal media positions.” Hardly. Please give me an example.
“-declining middle class
-because the rich and conservatives are paying low wages
-hoarding
-Income Inequality”
As I mentioned before…our right is so far right that now even moderate positions are seen as “libtards” or too far left.
As long as you are questioning whether the middle class is disappearing, whether wages are too low, whether the wealthy are hoarding…if these are not FACTS then there is not much help for this nation. As long as you believe our problems are caused by those “lazy” people and not because all the wealth has shift to the top…then we can never work to solve this problem. Which is EXACTLY what the wealthy want us to think & do…nothing. They have worked since 1980 to put us back into this position of wealth at the top and everyone else poor…as it had been throughout the eons. Before that evil FDR came along and made things more fair. The only reason we are not doing more poorly is that we are still living off the money of the Greatest Generation. And the money their children were able to make before things started going to hell in the 70s
“Cheap Labor” is poppycock. That is code for slave labor. People who keep saying “well you can just get another job” are not living in the real world. You can only go from one poorly paid job to another. Every report I see says most jobs being created are low wage jobs, without benefits – including manufacturing. If you want a healthy, robust economy, most of the people must make a living wage. We proved that after WWII.
There are other nations that do have lower Income Inequality where things are much better – but no one is going to admit the US is not on top of everything any more. Universal healthcare and upping the minimum wage would be a good start. Since conservative thinking (now called neo-liberalism!) came to dominate us, we have sunk in most every measure when it comes to working people.
So go ahead with denial. It serves the wealthy well.
1). The middle class is the same size as it always was and always will be.
The media wage for each quintile has INCREASED – meaning we are all doing better.
The rate of increase has slowed during the 21st century – as a consequence of more activist and progressive government, as compared to the last 2 decades of the 20th century where median incomes were rising faster. Overall growth has followed the same pattern – 3.5% for the last 20 years of the 20th century, sub 2% for the first 21st.
2). Wages are increasing – though again not as fast as before – because growth has been weak.
You will never see wages increase without increasing growth.
3). Hording ? Presumably you mean of money, otherwise that makes no sense.
The rich have money because the rest of us exchanged our money with them for wealth – the things we want and need. They did not steal, we traded our money for actual wealth voluntarily.
And we got a very good deal for it – we now have twice the wealth we had 40 years ago – check the US Census data. Regardless, the rich do not have that money in their basements, in their mattresses, in holes in the ground. they have invested it – something government would not do, and neither would you. I would also not that a substantial portion of the so called money of the rich is actually our own money – from retirements funds and the like – the portion of US corporations owned by ordinary people is the highest that it has been since before the great depression.
But stupid laws have put our retirement funds into the control of others – because as is typical left wing nuts do not trust people to run their own lives.
4). We have been through this income inequality nonsense before.
As I noted above – as I demonstrated with the animated gif of income changes since 1979
the bell curve of income distribution in the 70’s has been flattened and stretched – most sane people would call that a good change.
Reverting to the distribution of the 70’s would be miserable.
No the right is not farther right – they have moved to the left not the right.
The absolutely most right wing change that might occur at the moment would be to return control of abortion to the states. I think even that is unlikely.
More likely is further restriction by the states of late term abortions. Because Rowe Vs. Wade is written stupidly relying on science (which has nothing to do with law or rights), that was inevitable. Further that has extremely broad popular support.
We are not going to reduce women’s rights, minority rights, or gay rights.
Even issues involving Transgendered – something like 0.1% of the population or less – outside of those issues involving kids very few people on the right care.
I see absolutely zero shift right on any important issues.
What we are seeing is very small progress on government fiscal responsibility.
The republicans are fiscal idiots, but democrats are absolute spendthrifts.
We now have PPACA and can not get rid of it – despite the fact that it has not improved our health in any noticeable way, increased the cost of government by $2T/decade, increased our health insurance costs,
Regardless eliminating it is not a “right shift”
Trump is a poor republican and not all that conservative. Several of his key initiatives are both economic idiocy and an overt appeal to blue collar democrats – the very group you are claiming is being screwed. while I think Trump is wrong in those areas – he is NOT conservative on them, and they represent a left shift for the party.
I don’t bother reading your junk Dave, because it is from the conservative “media” that wants to keep most people poor and themselves rich. “Blue collar” whites are their own worst enemy, as we see because they keep voting Republican which has been screwing them for 37 years…the latest being the Yam Man.
I will post articles from reliable sources (also called “terrible mainstream media” by those on the right) so you can actually be informed on what is REALLY happening in this country.
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/22/482135775/what-its-like-to-be-a-part-of-the-vanishing-middle-class
Moogie – with very few exceptions I do not link to or source my information from the “media”
While you do that constantly.
In the rare instances that journalists get issues correct – it is purely by accident, certainly not by understanding.
The arguments I have made are mostly my own.
To the extent they are influenced or patterned – they are influences by people likje Adam Smith, John Stuart Mills, Fredrick Bastiat Thoreaux, Hayek, Coase, Freidman, Olstrom, Buchanon, Lucas, Barro, Nozick. And others of the greatest minds in the past several centuries.
While I did just post an NPR and PBS soruce mostly to refute your nonsense – even NPR can not be wrong all of the time.
NPR is not anywhere close to a “reliable source”. While I like NPR and listen to it regularly.
They are completely clueless – even in instances where they are right, they still tend to be clueless.
Regardless, you keep posting things that are nonsense on their face.
Do you understand what that means ? It means they are so obviously erroneaous that deep inspection is completely unnecescry.
It means they are little different from articles claiming the earth is flat, or that dolphins are god.
Nearly every article you have posted claims the middle class is “disappearing”.
There really is no need to look further at any such article – it is already complete nonsense.
Your own inability to understand that – explains to me why you are not teaching.
Though my oppinion of most schools is low enough that maybe it does nto completely explain why you are not teaching.
Regardless, it explains why you should not be teaching.
Nor is the problem specifically about the middle class.
If you are incapable of grasping how stupid the articles you are providing are – how can anyone trust anything you say on any subject ?
One of the articles you posted openly admitted that it was not using the accepted defintion of middle class.
But it did not say what defintion is was using – because it can not.
There is no consistent defintion that would produce the results the article offered.
The results required a definiton that varied over time
Which makes the entire article giberish.
I can not make you read what I post.
I can not make you do anything.
But I would suggest – for your own good, learning something about the things you post from people who actually know what they are talking about and have gained near universal acclaim for their thought.
I would highly recomend Ronald Coases How China became capitalist as a start.
Coase was one of the 4 most brilliant and peerless economists of the past century.
He is pretty much respected by everyone. And he is very easy to read and understand.
I can make other recomendations on narrower subjects – Paul Romer – the husband of Obama’s cheif economic advisor has a brilliant paper on modeling.
But it is not so easy to read and you probably would miss its very broad application..
I would recomend this for another reason – you are quite obviously miserable.
You are a teacher who has stopped learning.
I can not conceive of that.
I would be completely distraught if I stopped learning.
And I would note – reading journalists – is not learning.
It is not learning if they are from Fox. It is not learning if they are from NyTimes.
.
You don’t think NPR is reliable. BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
I love NPR, I love to listen to them.
But NPR is completely full of IYI’s – intellectual yet idiots.
Some of their guests are pretty bad – but the hosts are worse.
Like you they beleive that they can utter commands to the world and it should respond as they desire.
Hardly a sentence is spoken on NPR that does not contain atleast two fallacies.
What is most disturbing is that many of the errors are so obvious and unforced.
Every now and then there is a hint of intelligence.
One of the hosts was asking about the just passed Republican healthcare plan and he asked his guest – the head of some hospital association whether ER visits had declined as a result of PPACA – since he was predicting they will now rise.
The guest ducked the question and the host never followed up.
ER visits rose under PPACA.
So much for the lefts understanding of economics.
Most of the things you cite are not merely NOT facts – they are quite obviously NOT facts.
There are 330M people in the US there are 66M in the middle quintile. That group has higher median income than ever before. But it is still the middle 20% – like it always has been.
If you expand the definition of middle class to 60% – that is 192M people, and again with higher median income than ever before
Anyway the middle class can not shrink unless the population shrinks
It can increase or decrease in median income – it has increased – that is good.
The only person arguing about “lazy” people here is you.
All of us make choices – we should be as free as possible to make choices that do not harm others. We should be free to direct our efforts however we please. Mike Tyson should not expect to have a successful career as an opera singer – without directing the same effort into that as he does boxing. Regardless, making your own choices and living with the outcomes – is life. It is not lazy. Making choices and expecting to get both what you chose by directing your efforts and all the things you did not choose by virtue of some left wing nut sense of entitlement – that is not lazy – that is greed and envy.
Wealth has NOT shifted to the top – it can not. Money has. It is not the same.
If you have money in your pocket – that is money, not wealth. you convert it to wealth when you spend it. The rich do not spend all that much.
Everyone is now poor ?
Really ?
FDR was not evil, he was just a failure.
Rexford Tugwell on Herbert Hoover. “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs Hoover”
FDR did not even conceive of the New Deal – a progressive republican did.
And it was a colossal failure.
The US alone of all nations in the world at the time had a recession int he midst of a depression.
The US unlike most of the rst of the world experimented in massive govenrment intervention – and failed. The great depression in the US lasted longer than any other country – even countries that went into the depression weaker.
As a typical left wing nut you confuse virtue signally with accomplishment.
Do not tell me all the purportedly wonderful things you want to do for the less well off – tell me how any of the things you have actually done have done more good than harm ?
The standard of living in China has increased nearly 200 fold since Mao’s death.
We have 1.6Billion people who are 200 times better off than before.
Does that sound like “slavery” to you ?
And we have another 1.8B people in india who have dramatically improved – just not so much as China.
In fact the only poor nations in the world that have not improved dramatically – are those we have given aide to.
In the past 40 years Africa has received 1T in aide and is WORSE off than before.
You do not seem to grasp that your idiocy actually harms the very people you seek to help.
The jobs created will be those that match the available labor.
Unemployment is highest among poorly educated minority males.
We could create more high wage high skill jobs – but we do not have the people to fill them.
Or do you want high school dropouts getting 6 figure salaries doing brain surgery ?
Jobs created need to match the highest skills of those available to do them.
What we proved after WWII is that Keynesian stimulus is unnecessary and does not work, that burdensome regulations do not work.
Though I will note that the post war period was mostly good if you were white and male.
Otherwise it was a peak period of racism and sexism.
“There are other nations that do have lower Income Inequality where things are much better ”
Please name a single nation that has a higher standard of living AND lower income inequality ?
We purportedly have universal healthcare at the moment – it has proved expensive and disastrous
and we have just spent much of the past 6 years fighting to get rid of it.
It is easy for the left to sell us most anything – for free.
It is near impossible when people are asked whether they would pay for it.
Actual liberalism is the ideology that values liberty.
.
You are the only one living in denial – of reality.
The problems we face today are universally failures of government. They are easy to fix – less government. We do extremely well on our own. The worst thing we can do is double down on more government.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w23361
“Separately, we demonstrate that prices on Amazon have fallen by approximately 40% over the same period, suggesting that a significant share of the cost savings have been passed on to consumers”.
http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/26/middle-class/
Moogie – why would I even bother to read an article that is captioned with a statement that is clearly mathematically FALSE ?
The middle class is not “disappearing” – that i a mathematical impossibility.
We have been over this before.
You can make arguments that the composition of the middle class is changing – and it is.
The middle 20% of us are doing better than ever.
If you do not beleive that – present data.
But if you start with complete absurdities like “the middle class is disappearing”
You just make yourself and whoever you cite look stupid.
You claim to be a teacher – yet you can not grasp relatively simple math concepts.
Things like if you divide something into 5 equal parts – you will always have 5 equal parts.
You can live in the fantasy world of your own chosing, where the laws of math and logic do not apply. But I choose to live in the real world, and I am therefore bound by the laws of math and logic.
The middle class in the US is approx 66M people – that is 1/5 of 330M
They are not “disappearing”.
Words have meaning. We can choose to define them differently – but we must be careful for atleast 3 reasons.
Most of us think using worlds – when the meaning of words is not clear – our thinking is not clear.
We communicate using words – when the meaning of words is not clear – we fail to communicate.
Finally when the meaning of words is unclear we can compare apples and oranges and find them the same.
If we make comparisions regarding the “middle class” and do not use an invariant definition of middle class those comparisons are meaningless.
This BTW is an extremely common problem with left wing nut (and occasionally right wing nut) statistics and arguments.
It is very easy to prove anything – if you can define words however you please and change their meaning from one sentence to the next.
“The middle 20% of us are doing better than ever.”
Rick should delete you from this thread for spreading lies.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/can-the-middle-class-be-saved/308600/
Again – why should I even read something that starts with a nonsensical premise ?
There is and will always be a middle class.
What has been changing is that its wealth and income have both been slowly increasing.
http://billmoyers.com/story/whats-killing-american-middle-class/
And if I write an article and title it “who killed Barack Obama” – would you waste your time reading something that was obviously false to start ?
In the top 25 returns on google when you look for “disappearing middle class” only a couple say its just you’re imagination…and how predictable one was the National Review.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/
Can google make 1+1=3 ?
Google is a powerful tool.
But it tells us not only what is true – but also what many people incorrectly beleive to be true.
Regardless of the question.
If I google “alien abduction” the first hit is an article in the boston globe about why alien abductions are down. dramatically.
As to your pew article, it is a brilliant excercise in meaningless statistical play.
I especially like the graph noting that the share of adults living in middle income families is falling.
BY WHAT MEASURE ?
That is actually quite important, and the article does not define it – though the article explicitly notes that it is using an unusual definition.
If I use a mercator projection map – greenland is very nearly as large as Africa.
Despite the fact that Greenland is about 1/20th the size of Africa.
It is important to know what we are measuring and how we are measuring it.
Your pew article briefly notes that there are different deffinitions of “middle class”.
And then falsely claims to use one based on income consistently throughout the article.
The way you get the nonsensical results they and you and the left consistently do is by making comparisons against purportedly identical groups with different definitions and composition.
.
I have been reading articles like these since the early 90s. And if 9 out of 10 articles (probably higher than that) are stating that we have a serious problem with money staying at the top, that wages have been stagnant for years, that one of the main reasons people go bankrupt is because of healthcare, that manufacturing jobs (which apparently are the only jobs a non-degreed worker can get that should pay well) …when I can look around my neighborhood and see the damage moving jobs overseas has done…when I can talk to many college graduates personally who are not making a middle class living…
The only articles that claim “all is well” are from conservative sources funded by the wealthy. BTW…I don’t care what their political leanings are. If they are hypocrites I will call them out on it.
And I can think for myself that the people who are keeping the money at the top want it to stay that way, and will tell any lies necessary to the uneducated and un-informed to keep the status quo…
That is what the top 10% most fear, is people like me will finally unite and demand good wages again. It came to violence before, and I’m afraid it will have to again.
Nearly all the articles you cited are just that – the work of journalists – not economists, not actual studies. Not work that is expected to conform to high degrees of scrutiny.
And we know that most of the media leans heavily left and has for all of my lifetime.
So why would I not expect the places you read to confirm the nonsense you beleive ?
You have a legitimate interest in your own money – you have none in that of others.
What belongs to others – whether actual wealth or money is not yours.
While you are free to have whatever oppinion you wish with regard to that – you are not free to use force to act on those oppinions.
If we go back to europe in the 30’s there were myriads of articles on the “jewish problem”.
Does that justify the holocaust ?
Aparently you think because you and many others seem to want to do so – that stealing is acceptable.
You do not seem to understand that it is not the distribution of either money or wealth that is important. It is the production of wealth that matters.
If you fixate on distribution – you impoverish everyone.
Elizabeth Warren taught my Wife in Law School.
I actually read her study on bankruptcy and healthcare.
While it has been hyped out the whazoo – and clearly you have bought the hype.
It for the most part does NOT say the things claimed of it.
Unpaid healthcare costs are a factor in about 1/3 of all bankruptcies.
A factor is NOT the same as a cause.
The typle medical expenses discharged in bankruptcy are about $2500 – not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
About 1.5M people per year file personal bankruptcy. that is about 1 in 200 people.
Based on Warren’s data there is about $1B in medical debt discharged in bankruptcy each year.
That is less than 1/200th the yearly cost to the federal government o PPACA
In fact total debts discharged in ALL bankruptcies each year are about 1/5 of what PPACA costs.
If healthcare related bankruptcies are the justification for any of the policies that the left pushes – that would just demonstrate the stupidity of the left – you are squashing a bug with a nuclear weapon.
Rather than fixate on whether the authors of an article are left or not.
Why not just look into the actual data and see if their writing is consistent with facts, logic and reason.
If not – it is irrelevant who paid for the article or what ideological perspective it represents
What is false is false – even if uttered by Mother Theresa.
What is true is true – even if spoken by Hitler.
You do know what a logical fallacy is ?
BTW why is the number of articles written some measure of anything ?
As I noted before european journalism in the 30’s was fixated on “the jewish problem”.
Should we take that seriously because of the frequency with which it was addressed ?
I have no problems with your “calling out” hypocrits.
But I have not seen you do that.
What I have seen you do is write with green envy that others are somehow better off than you.
You seem to think that There are only two choices – that either you are lazy or they are evil.
As I noted before – we are not equal.
That comes from nature.
Wishing it otherwise does not make it so.
must we lobatomize stephen Hawking because he is smarter than you or I an that is not fair ?
Must we cripple ourselves – because we are more physically able than he and that is not fair ?
There are myriads of ways in which it is manifestly obvious that we are not equal.
You can not fix that – and would be very unwise to true.
Rather than piss and moan because someone else has more money than you, or talent, or beauty or athletic prowess or …. accept that we are not equal.
That you would not want us to be.
What is this nonsense about “people at the top telling lies to keep their money” ?
If it is their money – aren’t they entitled to keep it ? Why would they have to lie to keep it ?
If you can demonstrate that someone – rich or poor got whatever they have through actual force or real fraud – then government is not only free to but obligated to take that and return it to whoever it was taken from. But absent proving that. you have no claim to anything that is not clearly yours. You have no claim to what is others.
Not if they are rich and not if they are poor.
Why is it that we are even discussing stealing from others ?
I do not understand this “the rich lie” meme of yours – but if anyone is lying to prevent you from stealing from them – then they are doing the public -= asn you a service.
This is typical leftist nonsense.
If you do not want to be compared to communists, socialists and fascists – do not talk and act like them.
We have seen througout the world and history where this stupid rhetoric of class warfare leads
We know what groups accuse those who have done better of lies and deceipt.
We know what groups criminalize even the thoughts they do not like.
I have no problem with your insisting on whatever wage you choose.
That is your perogative.
But just as you can demand more the person with the job can refuse to offer more.
Your freedom and theirs are the same.
You are not obligated to work.
They are not obligated to hire you.
Regardless, you are free to demand whatever you wish.
You are NOT free to use force to get it.
There are only limited legitimate justifications for the use of force.
If those are not met – your use of force is criminal.
Our founders in the declaration of independence went to significant trouble to provide the justification for revolution – and even then – they primarily stuck to self defense.
Regardless, you should read the declaration – it establishes the purpose of government as securing our rights – not infringing on them.
Making up for lost time 🙂
The term “neo-liberalism” popping up all over. That is the term for what conservatives have been doing for the past 35+ years in trying to create a completely “free market” that they believe will solve every problem, economically speaking. The problem is that it screws working people – if there is no bottom on wages, working people are paid slave wages. There has to be some controls.
I believe this is being done deliberately…conservatives will once again blame “liberals” for the state of things. Because just like with health care, most are too lazy to think for themselves or do research. We are in a pickle.
Currently less than 2% of workers are making the Minimum wage.
Clearly 98% of us are sufficiently valueable that we need no floor to keep us from being paid “slave wages”.
Do you think that just spouting off nonsense makes it somehow true ?
Please cite a real world instance where a “free market” resulted in a sustained race to the bottom ?
The boogey monsters of the left – do not exist.
Is someone outside of government using actual force or even the threat of actual force against you ? Have they engaged in actual deceipt that caused you personal actual harm ?
Have they made an agreement with you and failed to honor it ?
Have they intentionally or unintentionally harmed you and refused to make you whole ?
If none of the above are true – then you can not justify the use of force.
Absent such justification the use of force is a crime.
The evidence thus far is that you are incredibly poor at research so I would not be criticising others as “lazy” .
Though I would note the ONLY person here who has called others lazy is YOU.
You say that the rest of us think that the poor are lazy – but the evidence is that the left thinks everyone – rich, poor, or in the middle that does nto go along with them is either lazy or stupid or evil.
Each of these judgements requires those ont he left making them to do something even god does nto do – judge our intentions rahter than our actions.
Without reading all your lies…I expect you are arguing that there is “always a middle class” because there will always be income that will be in the middle!!
When I define the middle class, it is thus: able to own a home, a decent car, enough money to put into savings and retirement, and healthcare. At $50,000 a year, that is BARELY enough for a family of 4 to be middle class, and right now most Americans are making less than that. So it is impossible for most American mothers to stay home, they must work.
“Middle class” is not how much money you make, it is what that money can get you. And right now, it is not much.
And again, since robots are going to replace many workers…who will be able to afford all these things?
And as far as “education” for poor people goes…since the money is staying at the top both wage and tax-wise, schools have gone down continually since the conservatives started running things in 1980. Teacher salaries should have gone up dramatically if you wanted to attract the best and brightest, but they have not. (Up until the 1970s teaching was the best paid career a woman could get – even though it wasn’t much – do you really think the best & brightest have chosen teaching since then?) Now with “vouchers” we will continue to see things decline – except for wealthy white “Christians”. The legimate research I’ve looked at says charter/private schools are not any better than public. Only the very highest dollar ones come close to paying their teachers what a public school does, and test scores are not found to be any higher.
I actually do help poor people, unlike conservative policies which make sure all the money stays at the top. Another big conservative lie is that “liberals” just want to give money to the poor to get votes…well since poor people are the LEAST likely to vote, that’s pretty retarded. I guess we actually do care about the poor, not their votes.
Your definiton of middle class is nonsense.
No one in the 19th century could afford a car.
A mortgage on a 160K home is about $900/yr.
I am getting offers for health insurance for a family of 4 for between $200/month and $2000/month.
Generally the $200/month plans are HDHP’s – i.e. they are basically 10000 deductible plans – and unsurprisingly they cost about 10,000.year less than low deductible plans.
According to Kaiser 2016 health insurance costs ranged from $2000/person/yr to $5000/person/year. – that is 8-20K.
New car payments are about 300/month.
Food for the average family is about $6000/year.
So what do we have ? That is 19,200/year without healthcare and savings – if you live in one of those deep blue states with high insurace costs – that would be anbother 20K/yr for health insurance, and you are at 39K/year – that leaves you 11K for savings.
Middle – is Middle.
Regardless of who you define it – it is always the group in the middle.
and the middle always exists.
The middle is by defintion – NOT one of the extremes.
if your definition of middle has far more people on one side of your definiton that the other – then it is NOT middle.
Here is an article about federal housing assistance and Ben Carson by NYT.
While the article has a clear bias against Carson. Still much manages to get out anyway.
Why should government be paying to house drunks and addicts ?
Why do you expect people to make batter choices – when regardless of what choices they make the outcome will be the same ?
I do not think it is arguable that government is entitled to take our wealth and give it to others for housing – even people who are truly in need and “”deserving” whatever that is.
But even accepting for the sake of argument that some “deserving” people – I am still not sure why those “deserving” people who receive government assistance are more “deserving” than you or I ?
Isn’t that a clear violation of equal protection of the law ?
Aren’t you openly addmitting that failure creates entitlement – that people who have failed at life are somehow better than those who have not ? How is the claim that there is some “deserving” class different from saying the rest of us are “lazy” to use your words – or at the very least not deserving – because we have not failed ?
Regardless, I can have some sympathy for the couple who is in public housing while persuing a college education. I am not sure why government is paying for that – but still they are trying to get ahead. I can tell you as a landlord I am more inclinded to give favorable treatment to those of my tenants who are working to improve their lives than those headed for hell.
The article quotes someone as saying “first we provide housing – then we address addicition”
Sounds great – sounds like something someone from a charity or church might say.
Why is it coming from government ?
Why is government making choices like these with OUR wealth ?
Why is government deciding how charity is to be dispensed ?
While I think there is evidence that contradicts that assertion – it does nto matter.
If the salvation army insists that you are clean and sober before providing you with shelter – that is their perogative.
If the little sisters of the poor will provide housing for addicts and drunks – that is theirs.
And I can choose which I will support.
Further we can observe and see what actually works.
Why is government deciding what are essentially choices of charitable preference ?
And why are any of these people more entitled to housing assistance – that you or I ?
Government is supposed to presume we are equal.
These programs inherently accept that we are not.
In doing so the left ultimately cedes the argument that the rich should be denied unequal control of government.
If it is acceptable for one group – the “deserving” or undeserving or whatever poor to get special treatment from government – then whey not the rich ?
If you are allowing government to discrimate in favor of one group or against another – then why that particular arrangement.
More now than ever education is not an excuse.
The internet is available, I can learn how to do most anything there. Often with videos.
You want to learn how to cast aluminum or repair a microwave or rebuild a carbeurator ?
You want to work for more money – post on craigslist.
There is someone who will hire you to mow their grass, plant trees, fix their sink, clean their house – myriads of jobs you can get paid for.
Further those jobs can lead to skills and connections and more serious employment.
Honestly Teachers salaries are too high. My Grandmother was a teacher – I have a great deal of respect for teachers. She was good, worked hard and get paid crap compared to today’s teachers. Create an actual free market in teaching and you will get better teachers, they will do a better job educating your kids and only those who are actually good will get paid well.
Regardless, you forget another fundimental – we have to do the tasks we have with the people that we have.
Let us say we pay teachers more – and magically get better teachers.
That means that skilled people will have LEFT other productive jobs to become teachers.
That means we will end up with poorly skilled people elsewhere.
This same is true of every job. We can and often do pay more to get better people.
But that is a zero sum game – it takes people from other tasks where there skills are also needed.
This is a huge problem in software development – my field.
We have far more need for skilled people than skilled people exist – hence the efforts to get indians and other talented people from elsewhere in the world.
But that is not all we do. We also strive to figure out how to make the less able software developers more able.
I do embedded software. 20 years ago worked on 8 bit systems and wrote in assembler.
While I thought that was easy most software developers can not do it.
I wrote incredibly powerful very tiny code to run on very limited devices.
Today you can buy a board that runs linux – quite well for $6.00
That is a 1.4Ghz processor, with network, wifi, USB, IRDA, SDcard 512G ram – more horsepower and capabilities than a laptop from about 10 years ago.
More importantly you can write and test software on your laptop, you can use tools and languages that are incredibly easy to work with.
Put simply you can use far less capable and far less talented software developers to do embedded work.
A couple of decades ago I did nearly all kinds of software – in the early uC era you had to do everything from printer drivers to Payroll programs.
I deliberately chose NOT to go after web work professionally – because it was highly competitive and there were all these cheap resources from Ukraine and eastern europe that I could not afford to compete with.
That proved a mistake – today there is a vast shortage of web developers – why ?
Because everything is web connected and web programmed. Increasingly I am doing more web work – because embedded development today is web work. Because it is easier and faster to deliver a client a solution using web tools than the means I used to employ.
Regardless – learn Java or C# – unless you are a nitwit, you can do that using excellent free online course in about 30 days. It usually takes me 3 days to learn a new programming language – but then I already know dozens.
Anyway there is a vast shortage of Web, Java, and C# developers.
You can get freelance work for about $30/hr.
Yes, I am sure you have read “legitimate research”
Regardless, like always you are looking in the trunk when the engine is in the front of the car.
First private education is CHEAPER than public – Catholic schools inarguably do as well or better than public schools at 1/4 the cost.
There are 4 reputable private schools (aside from numerous catholic schools) in my county.
The most prestigious is a private girls school. It costs about 30% more than public high school, it include room and board, it has an unparalelled education, it is a well know name, it will open doors to you and get you into really good colleges and jobs, you will rub shoulders with people who will be useful connections for the rest of your life.
All for not that much more than public high school.
The next is about the same price as public high school – not quite as prestigious – no living on campus, no horse riding, etc. But definitely better than the public high schools in the state.
The next is a menonite high school. That is a bit more than 1/2 the cost of public high school.
And probably provides a definitely better education than public school.
But because I have to pay school taxes for my entire life – including on my apartment buildings, I can not afford a private education TOO – not even a cheap catholic school one.
So my kids went to a “public” cyber charter.
These are available in most of the country.
And you can cite all the “research” you want. I am intimately familiar with two of them – having had my kids go through a total of over 20 years in them.
They are not necescarily superior to normal public schools.
But they do put a spotlight on a huge problem that none of your “research” addresses.
ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL.
We do not all learn the same way. But traditional public schools teach us all the same way.
My daughter would have been at the bottom of her class and would have little future – she would probably be unmarried and pregnant by now with a crappy job at McD’s had she continued in public school.
She had very serious developmental problems as a result of 2 years in a crappy chinese orphanage. When she received the special attention she needed she thrived. When she did not she failed. The traditional public schools failed her. She graduated from a Cyber Charter with a 3.92 GPA – and that particularly cyber charter is demonstrably more difficult than most of the states high schools. She is 20 now, she has 3 jobs, and is a licensed EMT, she is going back to school to work slowly towards more advanced degrees. She wants to pursue child psychology.
But that will take a long time, and she has planned to be able to both support herself and educate herself in the meantime.
None of that would have been possible had she stayed in normal public school.
I would also note that more than half her peers in the cyber charters – were poor inner city kids – usually of single parents with crappy education.
These kids do not do well in cyber charters. They tend to perform below the state wide average.
They are a major factor in driving down all that “research” you conducted.
But you and that research forget the elephant in the room
All these kids – as badly as they are doing, are doing MUCH better than they would in their traditional city schools – but they are only performing at or slightly below the statewide averages.
A reasonable logical person understanding facts would understand that represents a significant improvement, and that these schools are therefore performing well.
Someone blind to facts intent on proving their own biased assumptions would conclude that because cyber charters only perform at about the state wide averages that that represent no significant improvement – that is despite the fact that 50% of their students are coming from totally failed public schools.
And you would also have to ignore the fact that even though cyber charters only perform at about the state averages – they cost 25% LESS than traditional public schools have far lower fixed costs, and that they cost less while actually making a profit.
Again something the left is clueless about – that people can actually get incredibly rich delivering greater value at lower prices.
To those on the left the walton family are criminals.
Yet, they have gotten incredibly wealthy by saving the rest of us $2500/yr/family to get the same value. Most of us would call that a win-win.
Clueless Left wing nuts want to go after walmart with pitchforks.
You think that profit is a dirty word and must mean that someone got screwed when it nearly always means LOWER costs and greater value for the rest of us.
I beleive I linked to a study of retailing – $ sales are growing. Online Retailers are doing incredibly well. But about 1/3 of the brick and mortar retailers are likely to go under in the next few years.
Sears Penny’s and KMart are in serious trouble. But even AFTER they fail and jobs will be lost – retail will STILL have grown significantly.
Further while retail is growing and proftis are growing prices are DROPPING.
Amazon alone has cut its costs %40 over the past 5 years – nearly all that has resulted in price cuts to consumers.
Further – like the effect of Walmart – online retail and the local failures is causes ALSO create local opportunities.
Walmart does kill off some local mom and pop businesses – particularly small undiferentiated grocery stories but actually reputably done studies demonstrate that by the end of 3 years – the average new walmart both increases jobs – because it directly employs people, and because it creates new business oportunities.
Undifferentiated mom and pop grocery stores become specialty grocery stories – selling higher price higher quality good that walmarts do not carry. And that people can now afford because they are paying less at walmart.
The same is happening as a result of online retail.
Local undiferentiated stores are being replaced by a growing number of speciality stores.
And most of these local specialty stores – not merely have a local storefront – but an online presence.
Just one example from my community is there is now a store about a mile from me that sells nothing but different oils.
You want avocado oil ? Or cashew oil or hundreds of different oils I never heard of – they got it.
And you can go to the store or buy from them online.
You want special message oils or cooking oils (or both) or fancy oils for on your salad or ….
They got it.
These are things we did not have 50 years ago.
They exist BECAUSE we can buy all kjinds of other things cheaper.
I keep telling you that standard of living rises when we produce more value with less human effort.
One of the nice parts of that is that it is a virtuous circle – producing more value with less effort – even if that is walmart, or Amazon or cheap chinese goods – means those of us who bought those lower priced goods (more value at lower cost) now have additional resources to purchase other things.
If Walmart reduces costs for the average family 2500/year.
That means they either have 2500 to put into savings,
or 2500 to spend on other things – like frufy oils.
And one of the reasons for the “inequality” you fixate on is that most of us choose NOT to save and invest, we choose to consume. We choose more wealth now, rather than later.
And being free means that each of us gets to make that choice for ourselves.
With respect to your nonsensical claim that teachers wages are declining.
Utter nonense. BTW teaching has only recently become a well paid job – it is only recently that it is even considered “a profession”
And no I do not want “the best and the brightest” teachers.
You seem under the delusion that if every job in existance paid incredibly well we would all miraculously get smarter.
We have a population with a wide variety of skills and intelligence.
The objective is NOT to attract the smartest to whichever job catches our fancy at the moment.
It is to distribute skills and intelligence as needed.
We do not even want them distributed evenly – we want a FEW of the best and the brightest to become teachers – because they will improve teaching for all of us.
But the rest of the best and brightest should go elsewhere.
Every job needs a few, and some jobs need alot.
Regardless, you are pushing more poorly thought out left wing nut magic beans nonsense.
Each of us is as free to vote as the next.
If you want chauffeured to the polls you must pay for that yourself.
BTW the bottom quintile votes in higher rates normally than the next lowest quintile.
One of the reasons Trump won was because lower middle class people voted more heavily than normally and favored Trump and balanced the votes of the lower class that traditionally votes for handouts and confiscation from others.
Activism is NOT helping others.
I want to know when you cooked a meal for a poor or homeless person, helped an immigrant family, took an addict to get help, fed people at a soup kitchen, built a home for the poor,
Something that involve getting your hands dirty and helping someone that you could look in the eye.
BTW the DATA is that conservatives give 3 times the money AND the time that those on the left do.
I do participate in things that actually help people, and do to my own church and organizational affiliations – I tend to seem more of those on the left who are working to help others.
That said, the primary groups in my community and the largest number of people helping are conservative.
I noted that I help sponsor an immigrant family.
There is a singificant network of churches supporting immigrant families in my county.
We have an unusually large number of immigrants.
Conservative evangelical churches arround me routinely sponsor immigrants.
My family ended up sponsoring an immigrant family – because the church that initially sponsored them dropped out – because the family was muslim.
We have a large immigrant population of Karen Burmese.
Most of the Karen are christian – but there is a small group of muslim Karen.
“you believe unequal trade agreements are good for our economy because it allows cheap crap into this country that does not last and has to be replaced in 2-3 years and allows many Americans to buy stuff at Walmart”
Actually that poor quality junk is another thing bringing America down. I have to replace stuff probably 5x as often as my grandparents did. That is not better value, it winds up costing people more. I probably couldn’t afford to buy “quality” stuff…if it even exists any more. I hear people complain about department store items almost as often as Walmart junk. It also produces more trash.
So our jobs have been taken and reduced to slave wages in other countries; they don’t produce quality goods so we wind up paying more; the jobs we have now don’t pay squat; exactly what is there to celebrate about the conservative method of economics?
It makes NO logical sense to believe with most of the population making less than $50,000 that we can have a strong economy. It is not possible – there is just not enough money to spend!!
Every indicator from reliable sources says we are being screwed. Stop reading conservative lies. You are damaging the nation.
Moogie, until you begin to educate yourself on the issues of trade and trade agreements, its impact on American jobs and impact on the economy, I am not going to try to help you understand the cause of some of the problems you continue to post. Who signed NAFTA as president? What congress sent that bill to the president? What president negotiated TPP? What impact does unfair trade agreements have on wages in the US. Where all of these conservatives that you continue to blame?
Once you have researched this topic, then we can discuss the impact.
I’m looking at the big picture, Ron.
Owners cannot keep make excuses for not paying the majority of people a living wage. This is what happened thru out human history – “owners” kept most of the profits for themselves and most people work long hours for a pittance. Lords vs. peasants, plantation owners vs. slaves, robber barons vs. railroad workers, mine owners vs. coal diggers, factories vs. workers ….its always been the same. What changed after WWII in the USA was that for that short period of history working people were paid well, creating the strongest middle class ever, less poverty, more invention, better schools. …it wasn’t capitalism that worked so well, it was more people having more money. I believe the Greatest Generation was great in so many ways – and this was one of them.
Obviously the wealthy didn’t much like things being more egalitarian. Since 1980, politicians have worked to return us to the status quo. And they have done a ripping great job. I have heard so many terms used…”value added” “cheap labor” “free market” and excuses made – “well, manufacturing jobs are gone” (as if they are the only jobs that should pay well) OR you don’t have enough education. Now its that you don’t have exactly the “right” education. They will keep making up reasons why they shouldn’t have to pay well.
This is no longer just an American problem. This is a world problem. Owners are just going to keep moving business to wherever the government will let them have the cheapest labor. But “cheap labor” is the problem – when workers don’t make enough the economy stalls. You cannot have a robust economy without paying most people a living wage. Of course, to keep this from happening, owners start in with “what is a living wage?”. Or they keep us arguing among ourselves about less important issues like racism, sexism, classism, religion, morals etc. The owners worst fear is that we will finally start collaborating and demand good wages again.
One of my strengths is that I DON”T know so much about economics. Again, I look at the whole picture. I looked at a few economics books and noticed that any mention of working people and minimum wages is glaringly absent. I suspect on purpose.
I want a middle class again that meets the requirements I set out on another rant above – (not Dave’s idea that there is always a middle class just because someone has to be in the middle!)
This should give you some idea of what has happened over the last 35 years: I have to take some college classes this summer. When I started to college in 1981 a semester hour was $4/hr. (Texas, and I still have the paper) The minimum wage was $3.35. I just paid $291/hr. (Virgina) Minimum wage is $7.25.
THAT IS WHY PEOPLE ARE HAVING SO MUCH TROUBLE MAKING ENDS MEET. Not because they are lazy. People like Dave are destroying this nation.
Moogie, You my be surprised, but in some respects I agree with these comments. But please keep in mind that some of the richest companies paying the lowest wages world wide are tech companies based on the west coast of this country. And those companies are not run by the ultra rich “conservatives” you keep commenting about. The problem lies in all facets of society.
As I keep harping about, it starts with even trade agreements where China sending Buick’s to America without a tariff imposed reciprocates and allows Cadillac’s into China without a tariff. That is “even”. It is not even trade when china imposes a 20%+ tariff on a Cadillac that restricts the number of people rich enough in China to buy one since they cost $10,000 dollars (equivalent in Yuan) more than they would without a tariff. This decreases jobs in America and drives down wages due to more labor available than jobs to fill.
Even, Fair, Free (whatever the term) trade will not solve all the problem, but it would help to make the trade most equal between countries and improve jobs.
now Dave will tell us how wrong I am and I will continue to disagree. But free trade politicians and company leaders sit on both sides of the political line, its not just conservatives.
I don’t think I ever bring what company owners are Libs and who are Conservs because I wouldn’t know. I do know that “neo-liberalism” (which sounds like a fancy term for free market) has been embraced by all kinds to make a big buck. (and I may have mentioned earlier than conservs are bringing the term into play so “liberals” get blamed for the economy)
I’m for what ever kind of trade terms will even the playing field…I’m pretty sure Dave will say all countries should have no tariffs because that would be free trade all around. But that will not force pay to be better. Our ancestors had to fight for what little we have today; no child labor, safety rules, 8/40, minimum wage (there are no federal rules on breaks/lunch). We take all this for granted today, but 12 hour days 6/7 days a week was not uncommon up until the early 1900s. I think history has shown pretty clearly that most companies must be forced to pay a decent wage…Henry Ford and Costco are the only 2 I’ve heard of that really value their employees.
Walmart could afford to pay far better. The oil companies could afford to pay far better to the stores that sell their gas; they only make pennies per gallon. What to me is so stupid is all companies would be making MORE money if they only paid better. More people with money, more spending. It just seems incredibly obvious.
I keep wondering how many people out of China’s 1.4 billion have real middle class money. One million? 10 million? Just imagine what would happen if a whole billion had money. Economic orgasm!!
You seem to think that we get to choose how economics works.
While there are multiple competing – though significantly overlapping schools of economics.
They seek to explain how the economy works.
A common thread to nearly all schools of economics is that the government can not make the economy work as it wishes too.
You can choose between coffee or tea,
You can choose to beleive keynesian or austrian economics best explains how things work.
But in the end the economy works as it does.
The difference between economic schools is like the debate over a helio centric or earth centered solar system – both theories represent science but only one is right.
If people are able to follow the principles of neo-liberal economics and “make big bucks”,
That would be strong evidence that neo-liberal economics is substantially correct.
Though I would note that economics tells you little about how to run a business.
Primarily it tells you how NOT to run a government.
I have not heard the term neo-liberal economics in a long time.
Regardless, I do not blame “liberals” for anything I correctly blame progressives.
A liberal is one ho prizes liberty
Neo-liberal economics is the economics of free people.
Progressivism is the faux/failed economics of state control.
Republicans/Trump have once again screwed those of us below the $100,000 a year mark. Many of them were dumb enough to vote conservative.
How so ?
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
Adam Smith.
As best as I can tell Trump is reducing taxes, and easing the burden and tyrany of government.
While he is not do so to the extent I might hope, he is mostly moving in the right direction.
Regardless, he is reducing the stupidly destructive redistributive nature of modern government – which most harms the poor and lower middle class.
He is sending a pretty clear message that if government is not going to get int he way of your success – and if you manage to succeed you will get to keep most of the benefits of your success.
I would note again contra the Left that most of us move through 2.5 quintiles int he course of our lives. That if you are poor you have more than an 80% chance of making it to middle class.
The converse is also true – if you were born rich – you have a very high probability of ending up middle class.
Leveling the playing field is the same kind of rot that “fair” is.
Trump and many republicans at the moment seek to “level the playing field” by doing things that are well known to be stupid and will harm americans.
Regardless, there is always someone who is capable of making some stupid argument that the playing field is not level.
As if that is in anyway meaningful.
Chinese low skill labor has a lower cost than the US – it is not “fair” that they can make products cheaper than we can.
It is also not “fair” that they have lower standards of living.
There are myriads and myriads of differences between us and China – none of those are “Fair”.
Nor is there some formula to work out all the these differences.
What we do know is that if someone else can make something at lower cost than we can do ourself that doing so means that THEY and WE are better off.
That is true for individuals, it is true for states it is true for countries.
Nearly all the things you say had to be “fought for” have happened as a result of our becoming more prosperous.
And they have happened in other nations whether there were laws or not.
If you actually have any experience with modern facrories you would know that most have their own workplace safety rules that are far more stringent than any govenrment rules.
They have them because it is in their interests.
Because a skilled workforce is valuable and disruption to production are extremely costly.
I would note that Ford is somehow your hero at the moment – but he was a racist, fascist, and he was no friend to labor. Ford’s labor history is brutal.
I would point out the Ford hunger strike of 1932,
The River Rouge Strike of 1941,
The 1945 Strike.
Walmart makes 1.5% on average on each sale.
If Walmart pays its workers more prices will go up.
That will harm the rest of us.
Companies make more money when more value is created with less resources.
Paying people more without an increase in productivity will make them less not more.
What you do not understand could fill and ocean.
McD’s knows the exact effect on sales and company profits of a 0.01 change in the price of any product. They have already maximized profits.
If the benefits or paying workers more were greater than the costs – they would do so.
The same is true of oil companies. BTW minor changes in oil prices have global consequences.
The rise of US fracking has significantly empowered the US globally – and made us far less dependent on the mideast – making problems there less important and easier to solve.
Obama did nothing to take advantage of this – in fact actively hindering Fracking.
So Far Trump appears to be benefiting.
Regardless, if you raise gasoline prices – you may end up sending more troops to the mideast to fight an die for oil.
The demand side model of economics has completely failed.
Demand is a LAGGING economic indicator.
Increasing demand increases prices – not production.
You do not need to wonder about China.
The MEDIAN income is about 11K/year.
That means 50% oor 700M people earn less and 50% or 700M people earn more.
You need not imagine if a billion people suddenly had money.
It has just happened.
40 years ago the median income in China was $60/year.
Over the same time period India went from about 300 to $5500.
That is another 1/6B people with far more wealth than before.
Yes it has been an “economic orgasm”
One that the entire left has completely missed.
And both India and China did so by moving from rigid socialist economics to significantly freer economics.
Neither has the same economic freedom as the US. But they have far greater economic freedom than 4 decades ago.
While there is lots of other evidence elsewhere of the tremendous benefits of free markets.
China and india alone irrefutably demonstrate that greater economic freedom means incredibly rapid increase in standard of living – economic orgasm, as you said.
Again I would note this all happened completely without any of the policies that you advocates.
All the gains in china occured at the margins – the area furthest from government control.
As these economic liberalizations occured – mostly with the communists turning a blind eye to them – and then succeeded greatly – Beijing was increasingly willing to allow a bit more.
But the chinese government kept control of the big things – well except that many of the little things that they allowed at the fringe have become new big things and are outside government control.
India went from a more benign form of socialism to a timid embrace of free markets.
Most of india’s gains were from deregulation.
India would be touted as the proof that free markets outperform regulated economies – except that during the same time period China has done even better.
And yes 3+ Billion people who are much better off is radically changing the world
Why is it that you want to penalize americans by depriving them of the ability to by less expensive cars ?
You seem to think that a high tarriff punishes the chinese.
It does not – it punishes american consumers.
When US consumers pay less for a car – they have more to spend on other things – they are BETTER off. When they pay less for a car – their standard of living rises – by definition.
In the event that China is doing something evil to allow selling US citizens cheaper cars – then china is transfering the wealth of its citizens to US citizens – why would you wish to stop that ?
Next you seem to presume there is some right to a specific job.
There is not and never has been.
Anything that improves standard of living will free up labor.
Anytime we get more value for less human effort – we are NET better off.
Nothing can occur that makes us better off without atleast temporarily dislocating some labor.
BTW even if car manufacture moving to china results in fewer US manufacturing jobs and surplus labor and declining wages in some fields – we are STILL on net much better off.
If we eliminated the Minimum wage tomorow and half of those currently unemployed ended up with jobs paying $4/hr. That would result in about a $2T increase in GDP.
That would mean $2T of additional wealth in this country.
BTW that is about 4 times more new wealth than our social safety net costs.
Further if we significantly decrease unemployment – even by adding workers at a lower than current minimum wage rates, after some initial adjustment – wages will rise – for most everyone 0 because you are correct that a surplus of labor drives wages down.
But you miss that it increases employment and that increasing employment increases the pressure to raise wages.
In 1921 – the last significant recession that government did the right thing – slashed spending and otherwise stayed out.
Unemployment peaked rapidly at 14%. Wages dropped – by more than 50% at the bottom, employment immediately picked back up, and within 18months wages were above where they were before the recession started.
I keep harping on the seen and unseen. I linked to bastiats essay on it before.
Actions have consequences – whole chains of consequences.
There is essentially a Newton’s law of economics – that most actions trigger reactions that are opposite and often larger than the original action.
Absent government involvement these oscilations quickly dampen to nothing and we usually end up better off. That is because the market is free – something happens the market respionds – when the response has consequences the market immediately responds again – and again and again. Whether the consequences are positive – they are built on. When they are negative a counteraction occurs.
But all of this only occurs when markets are free.
When govenrment is involved market responds to the government action – usually to cancel out its effects. Government is both sluggish and frankly not motivated to respond.
As a consequence things do not self correct.
This is called spontaneous order – or order from the bottom up.
It is organic rather than formally planned.
It is how nature works, and it is how humans work absent government interference.
This was first noticed by Adam Smith, it was named by Jayek and more recently Elenor Olstrom received a Nobel for noting that the purported “tragedy of the commons” – is usually fallacious – that people solve problems – like those shouting fire in a crowded theater or fishing a species to extinction quite well on their own – without government, and usually they do so better.
One means by which all this works is represented by
“the Coase theorem” which describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that if trade in an externality is possible and there are sufficiently low transaction costs, bargaining will lead to a Pareto efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property.
In rare instances in the real world the coase theorum does not work that well.
The reason is that transaction costs are not sufficiently low.
But the advance of society and technology is all about reducing transaction costs.
Standard of living increasing trade with China is only possible because we have significantly reduced transactions costs in dealing with China – increasing tarrifs will break that – inontherwords Coase tells us anything that increases transaction costs makes the economy work WORSE.
The primary transaction cost most businesses face today – is government.
“Why is it that you want to penalize americans by depriving them of the ability to by less expensive cars ?”
The Buick Envision sells for more than $40,000. It is built in China where labor is a fraction of the cost that it is in America. A Ford Explorer, with options is in the same price range. It is built in America.
So you tell me who is getting the benefit of “free” trade. GM, who is selling an equivalent car for the same price as Ford, but has a cost basis significantly less than Ford so they are making more profits, or the American consumer that is paying the same price regardless as to the cost basis for that car. And remember, there are fewer people able to buy that car since they lost their jobs to China.
You have ducked my question.
I do not care which car you prefer. It is your right to buy whichever one you please.
I have no idea whether the GM or Ford is more profitable – and you are merely guessing.
It is entirely possible that Ford is selling a crappier car and pricing it higher because consumers are more likely to buy american – and can easily be convinced the US made car is better – whether it is or not.
But none of that matters. You are free to buy or not buy whichever vehicle you wish.
What you are not free to do is use force to alter the free choices of others.
And we are once again repeating this “lost their jobs” nonsense.
The only job you “own” is one you create for yourself.
You have no right to a job.
But let me ask you some other questions – did you build your own home ? Grow your own vegetables, generate your own electricity ?
If not then you have deprived your self of work and shipped that job to another who is doing it for less cost than you can yourself – shame on you.
The entire argument is nonsense.
First most of these jobs are gone no matter what.
Either they move to someplace like China – or Robots get them.
If you have a relatively low skill job – that job has little future.
In fact there are only two ways you can keep such a job – either be paid crap, or pray that our standard of living does NOT rise.
Manufacturing is actually moving back to the US – Manufacturing has been consistently growing in the US since the Great Depression. What has declined is manufacturing jobs.
If you made cars and are out of work – do something else.
There is a near infinite number of choices – and guess what – that is exactly what has occurred.
Detroit is dead – the people have left. They have gone elsewhere for other jobs
I have not had only one job since I was a teen.
If you lost a job – I have sympathy for you.
But sympathy is no justification for using force.
My sympathy is not going to move me to change the law.
I have lost jobs too. It is a part of life.
I have had to start over in my 40’s – multiple times. Sympathy is ALL I have for you.
I have had far worse happen to me than losing a job.
I have had things happen to me that were actually caused by the serious malfeasance of others.
You can bitch and moan – but whether some misfortune of yours is the consequence of your own mistakes, just life, or the actual malice of others – the only one who can fix your life is you.
Of you are not happy – a helicopter drop of money will not fix that.
If your life sucks – for whatever reason – only you can fix that.
And what you fail to grasp is the temporary dislocation of some factory workers who lost something that never was theirs in the first place, and are capable of finding something else – and most do, is tiny compared to the benefits of greater value at lower costs.
Fair and free are not even close to the same thing.
It does not matter whether the context is trade – or anything else.
Fair is undefinable. As 10 people to define fair and you will get 11 answers.
Any parent who has dealt with a whiny tolder has shouted “Life is not fair”
Fair is not a goal, it is unacheivable, and it is not even desireable.
Further fair comes at the expense of free – they are nearly antipodal.
I am not even slightly interested in a discussion of what is “fair” not in the context of trade – not in any other context.
Anyone who starts whining about “fair” has reverted to being a toddler and we can not run sociery directed by accomidating toddlers.
It is not that we agree or disagree that matters.
We are not debating something that has no answer – such as what color do you like – blue or red.
We are debating something that there are known demonstrated and failrly well understood answers to.
You are arguing about philigoston’s – in the 21st century.
The data is against you. The economics is against you.
What you have is sentiment, politics and corruption.
That is not the way we should be making choices.
Further you seek to impose your will on others by force.
Kansas grows wheat cheaper than Conneticutt should conneticutt put a tarriff on wheat from Kansas – as kansas has put conneticcutt farmers out of business ?
Is there some trade deficit between kansas and conenticutt that impocerishes one at the benefit of the other ?
One of the smartest things our founders did we barred the states from interfering with interstate trade – that was the “original intent” of the commerce clause. Control of interstate commerce was given to the federal government not so that it would do something – but to keep states from doing anything.
Because your nonsensical arguments about China – apply in exactly the same way to kansas and conneticutt.
The US has had a large and growing completely free trade zone inside the nation for 250 years.
It has clearly worked unbelievably well.
Equally important it has not worked in anyway as antitrade mercantilists claim things work.
It should be self evident to you that free trade works.
There is nothing special about state borders that makes free trade accross them “fair” while it is not accross national borders.
“Owners” need to make up no excuse.
There is no obligation to pay a higher price for anything. – not labor, not anything.
Employers want the best labor at the lowest price.
Employees want the highest pay for the least work.
Both are free, no gun to anyone;’s head.
An employer is no more obligated to pay what you want than you are obligated to take whatver they offer.
It is called freedom.
Absent force or fraud there is no moral violation.
I posted a link citing studies that amazon has reduced costs by 40% over the past decade.
Nearly all of that has been passed on to consumers.
As a practical matter no producer is obligated to share profits with consumers.
They do not do so because they want to – they do so because it is good business.
You are comparing free arkets to mercantilist systems of the past – that more closely resemble what you want to impose on people – our masters in government decided everything.
The kings and rulers of the past had absolutely nothing to do with business and generally were economically inept. They had everything to do with government – that is what they were – government.
The post war period was great compared to the prewar period.
It was horrible compared to today.
Jim Crow, significant discrimination, women and minorities driven back out of the work force.
MORE poverty – not less, and much worse poverty.
Invention BTW is far faster today.
And still you continue this nonsensical fixation on money.
It is absolutely trivial for govenrments to provide all of us with more money – much more money.
Mostly they do not – because more money is BAD, not good.
Standard of living has NOTHING to do with money,
It is raised by creating more value with less human effort.
Money appears nowhere in that sentence.
If you do not want politicians serving special interests – disempower government.
Nothing else works.
You are the one who keeps bemoaning the loss of manufacturing jobs.
Can you atleast be consistent with your arguments.
98% of people make more than the minimum wage.
That means nearly all of us are paid an amount worked out between ourselves and our employer based on our value
That means that we can increase (or decrease) or compensation by being more (or less) valuable.
BTW if you can not persuade someone to hire you – hire yourself.
The ability to create your own job is greater than ever.
I have already given you innumerable suggestions.
You claim to be a teacher – purportedly that means you are able to write.
It is pretty easy to get freelance writing work – myriads of small publications are short on content and pay is about a $ for four fully edited and published words.
You should be able to manage that.
Myriads of small jobs are going franchise now.
Ben Franklin Plumber, HighTech Locksmith, ….
These require a van and some tools and you are good to go.
Services provide you leads and jobs and often even schedule and bill for you.
In my area all kinds of guys towards the bottom have bought a used pickup, a trailer and a lawnmower and started lawn services. Add a snow plow to the pickup and you have snow removal work in the winter.
You say you are a teacher – there is a desparate need for tutors – post on Criagslist.
Regarldess, if you can not find decent paying work you either are really really unqualified or you are not looking.
Not looking is fine. Blaming others is NOT.
Here is an excellent documentary for you from PBS and the economy from the post war though to the start of the 21st century.
It should dispel most of the nonsense you keep spraying.
The world has been getting better – for a long long time. Not worse.
Absolutely with Bush II and Obama the rate of improvement has slowed dramatically.
That is a POLITICAL failure, not a failure of free markets.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/story/index.html
You are bitching about the high price of education
The federal government has been heavily subsidizing college for 4 decades – of course prices rose dramatically.
Just as when we artificially subsidized mortgages – housing prices rose.
You do not seem to get that the LEFT has made all the problems you keep blaming on others.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/03/increased-tuition-subsidies-increase-the-price-of-college-tuition/#12368f3b45a2
Moggie;
Have I initiated force or fraud against another ?
Have I made a commitment I have not kept ?
Have I caused actual harm to another ?
Given that the answer to each of these questions is NO! then I can not possibly be “destroying the country”
That said YOU do initiate force against others – by voting to have government infringe on the rights of others.
Therefore you actually are “destroying the country”
“middle” has a meaning. There is no “special” meaning of middle in the context of “class”
In the context of US classes it is the class that is in the middle.
It is generally accepted that the middle class is the middle quintile by income.
Some people define it as the middle 3 quintiles.
The difference does not matter for the sake of our argument – so long as whichever version you use, you do so consistently.
In fact though I am unlikely to accept some custom definition of middle class of yours,
You will still run into the same problem – i.e that you argument is FALSE, so long as you use the same definition of middle class consistently for all your claims.
In the form of logic
There does not exist a credible definition of “middle class” such that using the same definition those people classified as middle class 50 years ago were not worse off than those classified as middle class today
Further
There does not exist a definition of “middle class” that used consistently results in both a shrinking middle class and a worse off one.
All of the cites you keep pushing make the some combination of errors.
They either do not use a consistent definition for middle class,
or they use a relative definition and then try to make comparisons that are not valid for relative sets.
BTW in another post I demonstrated that you can meet your requirements on 30K/year
That is 20K less than you seem to think is insufficient.
My guess is that is also why you think of yourself as in such bad shape.
You do not appear to be fiscally competent.
Now I can easily see how someone could consume that extra 20K today – or even more – and not be able to meet your minimum requirements.
But to do so they would have to consume things that are NOT in your list of requirements, and for the most part were not even available to people 50 years ago or atleast not the middle class. Things such as flat screen TV, Cell phones, laptops,
I have no problem with people consuming those things – in fat those things are among the absolute evidence that people are wealthier – i.e. better off, today than 50 years ago.
Your defintion of the middle class going to hell seems to be – being twice as well off is not good enough – you want them to be 4 times as well off.
So do I. And that was possible – if we had less government.
The net impact of trade agreements are strongly positive. I think you would be hard pressed to find but a few economists in the entire world to disagree.
Everything that improves standard of living also displaces labor – by definition.
What would be better than NAFTA actual free trade – no agreement, no or law tarrifs.
If you do not like a product – do not buy it.
But you are not entitled to prohibit others from buying it just be cause you label it poor quality junk.
Maybe you are right, maybe not.
But you do not get to make that choice for others.
No one “took” your job.
No force was used, and you did not lose something you owned.
Hi Rick,
I don’t even know if this is a reply to the “Dear Democrats” letter given the verbal pollution now on this blog, but I agree that the Dems have slipped from loftier heights.
Your words to the Dems are accurate, but both sides have dragged each other into the muck of tribal politics. No, I don’t know when it started happening, but well before Trump I’m sure.
At least in the past, politicians “acted” like they were acting responsibly and had some concern for us common folk. Now the masks have slipped and we see Mr. Hyde and not Dr. Jekyll.
Trump has accelerated the slide into cultural and political anarchy with a large twist of idiocy.
I don’t yearn for the “good old days” when politicians knew the art of lying but it would be nice if a dose of civility could return.
P.S. I don’t like rules that restrict freedom of expression, but your blog is being ruined by an excess of “free expression”, at least for me and perhaps former posters that you might not hear from.
Duck – if he has written the “Dear Dems” I have not seen it yet.
Sorry if you think I am being uncivil. We have let conservative “media” take control of this nation. I, like many others, have stayed too quiet for too many years while the likes of Rush, Hannity, Beck, Coulter were allowed to spew their garbage and more sensible people did not speak out loudly enough against their BS. So we are in a fine mess now of the worst unqualified idiot in our highest office and the people badly divided – IMHO because of conservative “media”. Well, I can be silent no more.
When you have the folks with money telling working people that their is no such thing as Income Inequality, that the middle class is just fine, when they are using racism, sexism and classism to divide us, that we should be so happy that world poverty is going down because 3rd world countries now have slave jobs…this is because the people are so misinformed by conservative “media”. And they do it intentionally to keep the working people divided.
The nation is badly divided after 8 years of Obama.
Trump is the consequence of that division – not the cause.
But the left constantly confuses the ends and the means.
I am no friend of Coulter, Beck, Hanity, …
But they are no more extreme and in most instances less extreme than their peers on the left.
As Pew Research noted – Fox viewers are CLOSER to the center by a large margin than NYT readers. or NPR listeners.
As I noted – not a Fox fan, but they dominate the new outlets BECAUSE they are closer to center.
.
If you do not want to be accused of being dishonest, you should not make obvious and stupid misrepresentations.
Please quote where “the people with the money” are saying there is no such thing as income inequality.
For every viewpoint there is some idiot expressing it. But I have never heard anyone say that.
What I have heard is plenty of people who should know providing credible data that IE is not a problem, and lots of left wing nuts arguing that their envy justifies theft..
IE is a made up meme of the left to get people stupidly angry and envious.
Of course income inequality exists.
Doctors are not paid the same as burger flippers.
What is also true is that within th limits of our skills, our experience and our education each of us is free to strive for the highest potential income we can.
What left wing nuts fixated on IE are pushing is preventing exactly that by FORCE.
I do not want to be Bill Gates. But I certainly do not want anyone telling me I am not allowed to be Bill Gates.
Well when you tell Bill Gates he can not be Bill Gates you are also telling all of us that we are not free to aspire to be Gates – or not.
If you can dictate to someone how rich they are allowed to aspire to be – you can tell them anything..
You seem to think that you know what is best for everyone else – yet thus far according to your own screeches you have not done so well for yourself – and that according to you is the fault of others.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves”
If you are a teacher – you should be familiar with that
“when they are using racism, sexism and classism to divide us”
Do things become true just because you say them ?
While we are all different and that naturally divides us in many ways, I can not think of an example of the rich or the right deliberately trying to divide people.
At the same time your IE rants are exactly what you are accusing others of an attempt to divide the world into haves and have nots.
I have no idea what the “conservative media” says on these issues – I know what the facts – often from government sources say.
Speaking of buying hokum from canned sources – why is it that you keep making arguments that are clearly off base.
Who here is a toady of “the conservative media” ?
Those of us tell you that you are full of crap do not to my knowledge follow Rush or Hanity or …
I certainly don’t. So how is it that I who listens to NPR and reads the Washington Post and New York Times is being brainwashed by Fox and Limbaugh who I never watch or listen to.
You are repeating nonsense arguments.
I would also note that they work both ways – and very effectively against YOU.
It is far more likely that you are being brainwashed by the left wing media, than any of the rest of us here are being brainwashed by the right.
Unless Rush Limbaugh has bizzarre powers of telepathic hypnosis I would have to pay some attantion to right wing media to be brainwashed by them
And the so called conservative media remarks I make – come from nobel prize winning economists. In the event that some on the right are parroting the same arguments – they come from very good sources.
The only person seriously misinformed is you.
You are the one consistently wrong about facts.
While Rick gets to make his own choices.
But I would ask you to explain how his blog is being “ruined” ?
You are free to ignore posts you do not like, no one forces you to read them.
You seem to think that the mere presence of dissent somehow harms you
If I post 100 responses for every one of yours – you are as free to say what you have to say as before.
dhlli: I feel free to say you are an idiot, not because of your ideas, some of which I might agree with (I don’t have the inclination to wade through your verbal messes), but because you talk WAY too much and crowd out other posters. You are a pig in other words. You are free to not respond, but you can’t stop yourself can you? I dare you to keep quiet.
-That’s how you are ruining this blog.
I talk too much – so what ?
No I do not crowd out other voices.
This is the internet – not a crowded room where if one person talks to loud you can not here the others.
If you do not wish to read my posts – don’t. it is that simple.
In fact the act of ignoring me makes many of my arguments as well as my words.
Here you are free – that is the point – so am I.
And my excercise of my freedom does not come at your expense –
Not even the fake expense of being drown or crowded out.
If you wish to speak yourself – speak. No one is stopping you.
But just like me – while you have a right to free speech, you have no entitlement to be heard.
I do not care what you dare me to.
You are free to challenge me to a comparison of the size of our fingers if you wish.
That does not mean I must accept.
What is your definition of “ruining this blog” ?
If it is being able to say whatever you want and not hove someone else disagree – then yes I am ruining it – though I am not alone in that, and frankly I see no value in that measure.
Regardless, if you are unhappy with what I say – you can respond, you can ignore me, or you can go away. That is called freedom.
Mostly what I hear is that you are unhappy – and you are blaming that unhappiness on me.
Again your prerogative.
You are free to say, think and feel whatever you wish.
But doing so does not make you right.
As for me – I am doing something I enjoy.
My work is somewhat irregular so sometimes I have more time for this and others not.
And sometimes I lose interest – again something that does not seem to be a characteristic uniquely mine.
Rick BTW is free to kick me or whoever he pleases out.
Or you can start your own blog and limit the conversation to who and what you want.
Again so long as you do not use force against others – that is fine.
I do not have any problem with others doing things I think are completely stupid.
Go form a commune if you want.
But I have a major problem when anyone seeks to there way of doing things on the rest of us buy force.
“Please name a single nation that has a higher standard of living AND lower income inequality ?”
Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Japan, Denmark, Netherlands….
But I expect Pew Research isn’t “reliable” to you, Dave. Conservative “media” has made a joke out of journalism…telling us that they are the only “real” news and that everyone else is fake, allowing them to tell you what ever BS will keep working people divided. MSM gets it wrong sometimes, but it is better than the outright lies of conservative “media” that has flourished since 1986 when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed by Reagan.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/19/global-inequality-how-the-u-s-compares/
I have no idea what you say that Pew says – but of the countries you listed only Norway has a higher standard of living according to IMF, World Bank and CIA.
And of the 10 countries with higher standards of living than the US – Two have much higher GINI indexs.
Countries with a higher standard of living than the US according to IMF
Qatar, Luxemborg, Macau, Singapore, Brunei, Kuwait, Norway, Ireland, UAE,
Switzerland, San Marino, Hong Kong,
Eliminate the Oil Baronies – Qatar, Brunei, Kuwait, Norway, UAE
I do not think any of these countries has a population greater than New York City.
Only 3 are european – one of those is a tiny country with vast oil resources, the other two are the world banking giants.
And only one is on your list – all of the nations on your list – except Norway have lower standards of living. Some have MUCH lower standards of living.
I would also note than NONE of the countries on you list have accepted 15% of their population in dirt poor immigrants int he past 40 years.
Again from Pew – only 25% of us think the media is “mostly accurate”.
That number is not much different for those of us who lean left as right.
I have no problems with claims that the conservative media is biased and inaccurate.
But any assumption that the left is any better is nonsense.
I found it hillarious as an example that NYT and WaPo beat Trump up because he tweeted that he had been “wiretapped” – when a month before BOTH NYT and WaPo ran stories with Headlines saying Trump had been Wiretapped.
Apparently Trump’s tweets are held to a higher standard than the newpapers of records headlines.
Regardless, the fairness doctrine was an absolute disaster.
Fred Friendly – former CBS News President was the author of several books, including The Good Guys, The Bad Guys, And The First Amendment (an account of a number of First Amendment court cases and particularly of the Fairness Doctrine)
Before you go spouting nonsense about how great the Fairness doctrine was you might want to read something form the media on it. Friendly is generally regarded as a 60’s liberal not a conservative.
I’d being needing to hear this. Finally some sense!
dhlli: LMAO
is that an argument ?
Nope.
Been in class, have to to get my teaching license back…sad when you’ve spent 15 years as a working person despite your college degree and teaching pays better than anything you have done. When this nation realizes that the ONLY way to have a robust economy it to be sure the majority of people are paid a livable wage…we may get somewhere.
Also been dealing with lots & lots of drama from my grown foster kids, who continue to be a part of my life. I will keep trying to love them like they are my own, despite their stupidity!! Be thankful if you had sane, stable parents. That is what makes the biggest difference in what people accomplish, IMHO. Bad parenting is really difficult to overcome. I didn’t say impossible, but really really hard. And it becomes worse when you have major health problems – mental or physical, or if you are just not gifted intellectually, as some of mine are.
Be more thankful and quit this “everyone is equal” crap.
Moogie;
the ONLY way to have a robust economy, the ONLY way to have a high and rising standard of living is to:
Produce greater value with less human effort.
Wages are not a part of that equation.
We have had this discussion before.
If you beleive in magic beans. If you can not grasp that higher wages without producing greater value makes us POORER then you should not be teaching anyone.
You do not have the common sense to see that we do NOT have enough people making enough money to buy stuff!!!! That is why the economy sucks! Even you should be able to see that.
You sure as hell aren’t teaching anyone anything valuable except all the loser stuff you hear on conservative “media” – everything that will keep poor people poor. You have ZERO critical thinking skills.
How poor does the majority of the population have to be before you realize what conservatives have done for the last 30 years is working for NO ONE except the top 10%??????
Just keep sucking up that conservative poison that destroyed the middle class.
Still idiotically fixated on money and fallacious demand side economics.
The left likes to think of actual free markets as a race to the bottom.
Maybe that is because if demand driven markets were actually correct – that would be a race to the bottom,
AGAIN if you increase demand by increasing money – you get inflation. That is all.
You do not get more production.
Let go of your stupid fixation on money.
Even Keynes ultimately abandoned this demand driven nonsense – unfortunately it appeals to politicians and idiots – and apparently teachers.
My views of economics do not come from conservatives.
The come from actual real world economists – from Adam Smith to Bastiat, Say, through modern economists, like Hayek, Friedman, Barro, Coase, Lucas, Buchanon, Acemoglu, Olstrom – there are alteast half a dozen nobel winners in there.
You say that things have gone to hell over the past 30 years for the poor.
Fine – pick 10 people who were 20 30 years ago and fine ONE that is not wealthier today than 30 years ago.
And I am not interested in nonsense that they do not feel as well off.
Why do we have to keep plowing the same stupid field ?
You repeat the same fallacious arguments – they stink no less this time than last.
So lets examing your “the rich keep getting richer” meme.
Fewer then 10% of the Forbes 400 – the richest people in the world – were born into the top 10%.
So whoever the rich are – they are not the same people for the most part as they were 30 years ago.
If you look at the past – there is a common thread to the periods of time when the rich were constantly getting ever richer.
That thread ? PEACE.
We can end income inequality fairly easily – world war will do so effectively.
There is another thread to modern income inequality – increasing life expectance.
Longer life means greater wealth for all of us. But it has the most profound effect on the most productive – those who do not cease working because they are 65.
Warrne Buffet is 86 – and still working.
Bloomberg 75
The Koch’s 77
The Walton’s – mostly 70’s
Adleson 86
Sorros 86
The Mars’s – late 70’s
Is it surprising that if you spend half your life working that you will be less well off than if you spend most of it working ?
I really have no idea what arguments fox or other “conservative” sources concoct.
Because I am not a conservative and I pay less attention to conservatives than even progressives. My arguments are my own – or those of economists or philosophers or other respected thinkers of the past 200 years.
I don’t know why Rick keeps letting you post – you insult people, and you are incapable of thinking outside the conservative bubble of “completely free unregulated markets” that screw workers and have brought down our nation. We are NOT wealthier than we were 40 years ago when then slide started, and only the people in the top tiers think we are. If we were so well off so many people would not have felt desperate enough to vote for a jackass to save them.
I noticed someone suggested that the conversation on here is rather limited and since you post about half of what is on here. You bore me, and you try to brainwash people who don’t know better, like Faux News. I suspect they pay you. This is why we can’t escape conservative views – they have the money to perpetuate them, while the views that would help working people will not be paid for (of course) by the wealthy business owners.
Thanks for sinking my country.
Typical of a left wing nut – if you do not like what someone says – demand they shut up or be shut up.
Rick can do as he pleases, it is his blog.
Read your own posts, you are as if not more insulting than I am.
You complain about what I post – yet you have never yet even made an arguement, much less presented facts to support what you post.
You say that free markets screw workers – how so ?
History tells us otherwise.
In the US the 19th century had greater market freedom than today, during that same period the US absorbed nearly 100M immigrants – nearly all at the bottom, and still had the fastest rate of growth of standard of living in our history.
I can come up with other examples throught out the world – or counter examples.
What of the USSR, the PRC, Cuba, North Korea or more recently Venezeuala.
Which of these workers paradises where the free markets have been destroyed would you rather live in than here ?
The facts say the OPPOSITE of what you assert – that workers do best when markets are freest.
Yes, actually we are wealthier than 40 years ago. There are myriads of sources of data that will confirm that – though your own mark I eyeball should tell you that just fine.
But if your own eyes are not good enough, There is federal reserve data, census data, tax data, NBER data, all kinds of data.
I keep challenging your qualifications as a teacher – specifically because you are so obviously wrong about all these things, do not bother to check them out and use a single cherry picked and horribly inaccurate data source to mean far more than it can possibly do.
I provided you with the animated gif of changes in income distribution over the past 40 years and asked you to identify what part of that change you had some problem with.
And have yet heard no response.
I have asked to present what you think should have occured – because it is pretty trivial to demonstrate that anything besides the flattening and spreading out of the income curve that is what actually happened would have made us WORSE off rather than better.
I did not vote for Trump so I have little right to claim to know why others did.
But thus far he has done fairly well.
As to why I think he was elected ?
Because the left failed and alot of people were prepared to risk something else.
While Trump might be an asshole – he is not a jackass.
He was a risk.
I do not personally agree with everything he has done.
I especially do not agree with much of what he says – which sounds like more of your nonsense.
I wonder what it is that you think constitutes Conservative – when Trump spouts protectionist economic nonsense that is most definitely at odds with the free markets that actually work and far closer to left wing nut nonsense.
Trump has also argued for “pump priming” seeming to think he invented it.
Again another stupid economic idea that originates on the left.
If you do not like what I say – do not read it. That is what Freedom means.
Given that it is impossible for me to use force on anyone here – it is impossible for me to “brainwash” anyone.
If someone wishes to pay me to post – I will be happy to accept payment.
As I suspect you would too. But alas no one is paying me.
Regardless. my posts are my own. My primary sources are what I read – from Adam Smith to Elinor Olstrom and Ronald Coase – none of which are on Fox.
I do not watch Television News and have not probably since Huntley Brinkley.
I do not have access to Broadcast Television anymore. I have little interest in what talking heads – whether Sean Hanity or Rachal Maddow tell me to think.
I can think for my self and the wonder of the internet – I can find primary sources on most anything and do not have to rely of journalists – educated by others like you and incapable of critical thought.
What you can not escape is econ 101. It is not Conservative or progressive. It is just how the economy actually works. While we do not know everything and likely wont, we know far more than enough to know the basics and those are completely at odds with your nonsense. You can not command the economy from the top. It will always attempt to thwart you.
One of the other arguments for free markets is that they are free – litteraly.
It costs you absolutely nothing extra to have a free market.
But anything that is not a free market – comes at a cost.
If you wish to control prices – you must pay people to establish what those prices should be. You have to pay other people to compel the rest of us to adhere to those prices,.
You will inevtiably end up with inflation, shortages and black markets – and you must pay people to use force to shut those down.
The left Rants about “law and order” types – like Trump and Sessions – but these are the inevitable consequences of your laws and regulations.
The left said – no selling loose cigarettes. And the NYC Police ended up killing Eric Garner for breaching that law.
You seem to think that if you pass laws that they will work like magic.
I am constantly repeating that government is force. Because it is critical to understand that everything you ask government to do – ultimately results in the use of force – depriving someone of life. liberty or property.
Free markets do not do that.
Think about that – anything that is not a free market – all regulation adds significant cost,
Just to break even it must also provide equal value.
You don’t ever post any facts – just right wing “facts” otherwise known as BS.
At least I can see the country is going to hell in a handbucket because of right wing “free market” excessiveness. You are blind, and keep saying we are just great economically when we are NOT. Raise wages, raise quality of life.
You post on here as much as the rest of us combined – so I think you must be trying to convince yourself that the nonsense you spout is the truth.
Moogie;
While you are blind to reality – the country is not “going to hell”
In nearly all ways it is measurably better than the past.
HOWEVER, it is true that during the 21st century the rate of improvement has declined by nearly half (and in the 20th century the rate of improvement was only half the 19th)
Those are for the US only.
Most of Europe has had lower growth for far longer than the US and some of Europe has worked towards fixing that.
The so called nordic social democracies as a whole have less regulation. lower debt, more regressive taxes, greater economic freedom, but deeper and broader social safetynets.
less diversity, lower corporate taxes, and higher – though declining total taxes.
Lower growth in the US is a RELATIVE bad thing.
That is probably the single most significant factor driving the election of Trump.
While Trump is far from a free market advocate, much of what he has actually accomplished is making small changes towards freer markets.
I recently read where the government has adjusted its economic data from about 2013 through to the present.
This is continuously being done – generally every quarter results in reassessments of the past. Growth through to 4Q2016 is consistently getting revised DOWN.
It now looks like we were teetering awfully close to a recession a couple of years ago.
Conversely the adjustments to 1Q2017 have been significantly UP.
They are still not good – but the upward revision puts 1Q2017 near or above the average for the whole Obama Administration. More importantly we are currently seeing an upward trend starting after the election.
The 4Q2016 and 1Q2017 effects are all psychological – Trump’s changes could not possibly have had any noticeable economic impact during 1Q2017.
That does nto mean they will have no impact.
I pay somewhat close attention to the economy. We have been seeing mixed signals for years and even today they continue.
The possibility exists that the economy will tank. Reagan was elected towards the begining of a deliberately caused recession – by Volker at the Fed and that continued right through the mid term elections before turning arround.
I have also read alot of economic analysis that suggests that the past 16 years have deeply entrenched some strong government negatives in the economy – deficits, debt, spending, and regulation, and it may take radical reform or a very long time to get out of sub 2% growth – even if we do the right thing.
I do not beleive that – everyone but Volker beleived stagflation was permanent.
That said I could be wrong.
While the economy incontrovertible responds to the econ 101 principles that I have pummeled everyone here with, it does nto always respond fast and fixing only one of many variables does not necescarily result in dramatic improvements – such as Voiker eventually got.
The really big deal at the moment is regulation – as Trump is mostly acting on that unilaterally – but without congress he can only unburden the economy from its crushing load of regulation by a small amount. Whether that will have a significant positive economic impact is to be seen.
Trump appears to MOSTLY be trying to agressively reign in spending – that will have a double good effect – it reduces spending AND it slows regulation even further.
But Trump can not cut spending unilaterally.
Further Trump like Reagan is boosting defense spending.
That was a winning gamble for Reagan, it brought the more rapid collapse of the USSR.
There is no rational basis for Trump to increase military spending.
We should CUT military spending. But I can not get everything.
We also have a huge overhanging debt and looming SS and medicare problems that Trump thus far seems to be ducking – like Bush and Obama before him.
Anyway (I can drone on about pluses and minuses.
The most fundimental question is in the end does Trumps actions improve growth.
IF they do – Obama (and Bush) go down in history as failed president.
Republicans do well in midterms and Trump is re-elected.
If they do not – regardless of the cause, Obama looks better than he actually was, and Republicans get clobbered in the mid terms and Trump likely is a one term president.
These last two items are likely true – regardless of what you or I beleive about the causes of economic shifts.
You still do not seem to grasp that you can not improve standard of living (quality of life), just by changing the amounts of money.
Typically when as individuasl we talk about money it almost always carries along with it the important adjective – EARN.
When you create more value – you and the world are better off – and any additional money that you receive has only positive impacts – you are better off.
When you get more money without creating more value – you are actually worse off.
Presumably you have heard of inflation. It is what made life hell in the 70’s.
I eat alot of chocolate – am I trying to convince myself that chocolate is good – or is it actually good ?
I write alot of software – am I trying to convince myself that software has value – or does it actually have value ?
I have two adopted asian kids – am I trying to convince myself I am not racist – or do I just have two great kids that I love alot and make me incredibly proud ?
Do you know what a fallacy is ?
“It costs you absolutely nothing extra to have a free market.
But anything that is not a free market – comes at a cost.”
BWHAHAHAHAHA It has cost most of us born in the 60s and 70s the chance to own a home (or for me something that doesn’t have wheels on it). It has cost many of us our health, since so many don’t have health insurance. It has cost us retirement, because we will never make enough to retire. It has cost our children & grandchildren any inheritance. And unless wages are raised SOON, we will continue the downward spiral because you know what? I’m not the only one spending my parents money to stay afloat. When that money is gone, if wages have not gone up, who will be able to by anything??
And if you replace all us low lifes with robots…who the hell will be buying anything??? That is already what is happening now!!!
Moogie, “It has cost most of us born in the 60s and 70s the chance to own a home (or for me something that doesn’t have wheels on it). ”
As a teacher, I would hope you do not allow your students to make unsubstantiated claims such as this without providing documentation to support those facts. Used to be footnotes if I remember right.
The following link is an excellent article concerning home ownership. Yes, ownership has declined and that is due to many different reasons. The article provides data as to why this has happened. In addition, many builders are no longer building starter homes since the profit margins are so slim in that market, so there are fewer lower priced homes for younger people to purchase.
But the data indicates that 63.5% of American own a home. That does not indicate “most do not”. For those 35-44, it is 58% and from 45-54 it is 69%. Again. That does not indicate “most of you born in the 60’s and 70’s do not own a home.
Moogie
The link
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/12/15/in-a-recovering-market-homeownership-rates-are-down-sharply-for-blacks-young-adults/
Ron;
Once again stupid government policies result in more harm to minorities than the rest of us.
BTW I am reading elsewhere that things are rapidly changing with millenials.
They are starting to move out of cities. They are starting families, they are buying homes.
And they are buying large expensive homes similar in size to those that Baby Boomers currently own.
I do not recall the source – I think it was a link on real clear markets.
Regardless, home builders, energy producers and myriads of other suppliers are responding to produce to reflect the changing wants and needs of millenials.
Ron;
According to the sources I linked to in response to Moogie.
Home ownership rates went UP from 1994 to 2006 and dropped rapidly from 2006 levels to 1998 levels where is it now stable.
Home ownership rates are HIGHER than in the 60’s and 70’s.
Home ownership from 1994-2006 rose for many reasons – but ONE of those – articifially low interest rates AKA easy money was artificial. Artifical factors are unsustainable – therefore they cause bubbles.
The post 2006 decline in homeownership was because demand collapsed because prices rose to high. There is no other consequential factor in the immediate decline in home ownership.
Prices and homeownership rates eventually stabailized – when the effects ot he artificial increase were cleared from the system.
Ron;
Otherwise excellent response to moogie.
US Life expectance since 1960
Please show me the point at which we lost our health ?
Where we all started dying younger because of poor healthcare ?
Conversely show me the upward spike caused by PPACA ?
What does it take for you to see the real world as it is ?
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:USA:JPN:CAN&hl=en&dl=en
More PPACA failure.
You can not magically provide additional healthcare to 30M people without increasing the supply of healthcare providers. Yet the reverse is happening.
BTW too many people chasing too few doctors just means inflation in heatlh care prices – pretty much what we have seen.
I though Social Security was supposed to pay for your retirement ?
You can not blame markets for that failure. That rest completely at the feet of government.
Most of us pay about 12% of our income into a government retirement system over 35 years. Any private system would be able to easily provide a luxurious retirement – even for minimum wage workers with that. In fact there is no 35 year period in US history at which investing in the stock market would not have produced 3-4 times the benefits that we get from Social Security – including right over the great depression.
Further if trillions of dollars of retirment savings had actually been invested rather than squandered by government our standard of living would be much higher.
It is possible you can explain the lower rate of increase in standard of living in the 20th century solely by the money SS removed from investment.
Reegardless, if you can not afford to retire blame govenrment.
I thought inheritance was something left wing nuts seek to tax the crap out of ?
You seem to be arguing with yourself.
In 1983 the federal minimum wages was 3.35.
I bought a top of the line refridgerator in 1983 and it cost me 1200.
Or 10 weeks of minimum wage labor to buy.
In 2017 the MW is 7.25. Home Depot sells a far better Fridge for 999. or just under 3.5 weeks of MW labor.
If you need your parents money to stay afloat but were able to do so in the past – you are a spendthrift.
We produce about $18T of goods and services each year.
It is an economic tautology that the value we produce is ALWAYS the value we have to spend (with very minor adjustments for changes in debt)
Whether you happen to like it or not – so long as we produce value we will ALWAYS be able to consume just about that value.
In case you had not noticed from my example above the MW could have stayed the same and it still would have taken LESS labor to buy a better fridge today than in 1983.
While this is not true of everything – it is actually true of most things.
As I keep pointing out to you – and you keep ignoring,
US Census data indicates that POOR families have atleast TWICE the wealth they did 40 years ago. Oops
Dave…Moogie..
https://ycharts.com/indicators/sales_price_of_existing_homes
According to the census data for 1965, when Moogies parents would be buying their first home (since she said she was 60’s to 70′ generation and that’s about when her parents would be buying there first home) the average price of a home was right at $20,000 and the average income was $4,658. So a home was 4.42 years of income. In the above chart, the average home price is around $240,000 in 2017 and according to census data the average income in 2015 (last numbers published) was $55,775. The house cost 4.48 years of income and that might be lower since incomes have gone up slightly in 2 years.
I don’t expect Moogie to believe any of this, but it is documented facts. So what is the dfference today than the 60’s and 70’s that “……cost most of us born in the 60s and 70s the chance to own a home (or for me something that doesn’t have wheels on it).
Ron;
The Case-Shiller chart I provided essentially says the same thing.
BUT I would further note that (off the top of my head) the average new home size in 1960 was 1200 sq ft. Today it is 2800 sq. ft.
Regardless I commend you.
you have just done a slight variant of what I keep telling people to do
Try to factor money out of long term comparisons of value.
Whether you compare prices in terms of hours needed to earn – or years of wages needed to earn you have still factored money out.
Our inflation adjusters are total crap. But more important inflation is NOT uniform.
The yr/yr rate of inflation for housing is not the same as that of healthcare.
Dave, your comment about house size supports my comment about “starter homes” . I remember living in southern California in the early 60’s and all the houses being built were almost flat roof, three bedroom (10×10), 1 and 1/2 bath, with kitchen and living room on a postage stamp sized lot. If you cranked out the windows on each house, they would almost touch. And no air conditioning, open windows for sleeping, so being that close, parents made sure kids room was not next to the adults bedroom next door so they would not hear things they should not and then be asking questions about “moaning and screaming” the next morning.
The 2800 sqft home is being bought by retired folks or others with real money, not working class folk. I have a 1500 sqft double wide trailer that Grandpa had to help me buy, and actually few people around here in my age bracket or younger have been able to buy their own homes. Not just in my area: I know people all around the country.
My parents bought their first home, a townhouse in MD when I was 12, when they were 34.
I want more specific data that I have been unable to find – like what percentage of the market is now 1500 or less sqft homes, what I consider working class homes. I suspect a very small market now.
To expect a family of 4, even in my rural area to be able to afford a respectable home on $55,000 a year, and have money for retirement, savings, college ect. is laughable. And average income in my area is $30,000, I believe.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/homeownership-rate-in-the-u-s-tumbles-to-the-lowest-since-1965
You always find “sources” I’ve never heard of. Probably financed by some right wing think tank. Critical thinking is necessary. Again the fact that this country is broke enough to elect our Moron in Chief should indicate to you something is really wrong.
Moogie. If you truly are a teacher, I now know why our kids are falling farther behind in education compared to the rest of the world. I can not believe you lack the common sense of a fruit fly.
You say “You always find “sources” I’ve never heard of. Probably financed by some right wing think tank”.
All I did was enter into Google search “average wage in America in 1965” and “Home prices in America in 1965”. Then I did the same thing for 2017, Many different sources appeared and then I looked at each one (not going much more than 5 links down the list), with the home price link being the one that seemed to give the most up to date info.
So for you I searched ‘How many homes under 1500 square feet were built in america in 2015. Many sites appeared, but this one gave excellent facts
http://www.builderonline.com/money/prices/are-new-starter-homes-history_o
Please read the complete article and you will find that there are many different reasons for not having the “Starter Home” that so many individuals in my generation and my parents used to get into that market. The ones people can afford based on inflated numbers from previous generations are not being built. Please note the issue with land cost, development of land costs, labor costs and the features people want in a house today. When starter homes were built in large quantities years ago, crown moldings, granite cabinet tops, custom cabinets, built in appliances, today being closer to work due to gas prices compared to the 60’s (built 35-50 miles in the suburbs year ago) and everything else people want today were not in those homes!!!!!
And by the way, my wife and I bought a double wide fro $15,000 in 1978. We lived in it fro 8 years (5 of those while I built my own 3800 square ft home on the property), did not eat out, did not buy “wants”, only needs, did not buy any new car and only one 7 year old car that was my inlaws car, financed much of the home cost through sweat equity and did not really begin earning an income above the :”average” until years later. So when I hear sob stories you tell, they go in one ear and out the other. You can accomplish anything if you put all of your energies toward that end. One only needs to look at those that lost everything in the depression and then were able to recover to be able to leave something to their kids when they died in the 50’s through hard work and wise spending!!!!!!!!!!!
Hope this helps.
Ron P : No, I have more common sense than most of this nation, and obviously you are older than me so you really don’t get it. I see this over & over & over with those born before 1960. The old “we worked hard, you are just lazy” BS.
Conservative sources are always telling you we are just fine economically, that young people are just lazy. That way you will keep voting for those that will not increase wages, change the tax structure, ensure healthcare, or anything else to bring up the status of the working class to what it was.
“The ones people can afford based on inflated numbers from previous generations are not being built” They are building homes geared towards those than can AFFORD them – since working class people can’t afford them at any price, why bother? When half this nation lives paycheck to paycheck, with no way to save …. I think this proves the growing divide between the haves and have nots, with nothing in the middle. “based on inflated numbers”???? What the hell does that mean?? To me it means that working class people should not be expecting to own their own homes like prior generations. Pretty much a smack in the face.
The only problem is that because of poor wages, more & more people with all kinds of degrees (2 & 4) year are finding themselves with no good paying jobs. And then conservatives come along and say: if you demand higher wages, we will just replace you with robots. NO ONE IN THIS THREAD YET HAS EXPLAINED HOW YOU WILL SELL ANYTHING IF NO ONE CAN AFFORD TO BUY STUFF.
And I got news for you, if I have not explained it already in this thread – I’m a f-ing rocket scientist next to most of the teachers I have worked with. Starting with my generation born in the 60s, do you REALLY think our best and brightest are becoming teachers??? They were up until the 60s, because it was the best paying job a woman could get. THAT is the major problem with our schools.
In fact, I will have to dig for the story/s that I have read where one of the major problems in this country is that our best and brightest go mostly into banking/finance/business because that is where the best money is by a long shot. NOT into science or even technology, much less teaching.
Income Inequality has lead to these results. Until conservatives are ready to right the wrongs they created over the last 35+ years, we will continue to sink.
God, No! Not the “your an old fogey and do not get it meme”.
First, while my body tells me I am not 18 anymore, and I can predict weather based on some of my joints – for the most part I still “feel” like I did when I was 20.
The only difference is I am wiser and more perceptive now.
I have 58 years of experience that informs my Bull Shit Detector.
Alot of your problem is a broken Bull Shit detector.
You keep saying the world is going to hell – guess what people have been saying that since … Malthus.
It is not. I have lots of complaints.
The rate of improvement has dropped since Bush.
We are screwing up all over – and YET overall things still improve, just more slowly than before.
That is not good. Slow growth makes us far more fragile.
We ARE more nervous, more worried – and reasonably so.
But there is still a difference between “the sky is falling” and there are clouds in the sky, maybe there is a storm coming.
If you have a family of 4 and ONE minimum wage earner – you can afford a 55K home.
In the event you can not buy one – that either is because you have not tried or you have wrecked your credit.
I have not read anyone here call you or anyone else lazy.
I have heard people say they managed to do well by working their ass off.
If you translate that into calling you lazy – that is your own judgement on yourself.
I do not give a flying fig is you choose to live in crappy conditions.
That does not make you lazy.
I do care that you think you are entitled to more than you have without working for it.
And from what I can tell in your case, you seem to think that it should be delivered to you.
From what little facts I can discern from your remarks there is no reason you need help from your parents, and no reason you can not live in a decent house.
That you do not is the consequence of your own choices – that is OK. Really.
I do not care what free choices you make in your life.
But the whining that after having made your own choices – you are entitled to the things you opted NOT to value as much and pour whine all over the rest of us.
That I am calling you.
That is not lazy.
That is envy.
Given that you do not know how to do a simple google search or read a graph you are certainly not a rocket scientist.
I think I beleive you that you stand head and shoulders above the average teacher.
But that is just an indictment of teachers.
And you are right – the best and the brightest do not go into teaching.
In fact the best and brightest do not want to work for government.
So you are saying that the end of gender discrimination in other fields resulted in the quality of teachers going to hell ?
A 55K home with a 30 year mortgage and an FHA 98% mortgage will cost you about 1500 to close and about 260/month in payments. You can figure another 50-100 in taxes and other costs you would not have if you rented. So you are looking at less than $400/month for a 55K home. 55K in my part of the country right now will get you about 1300sq. ft.
That is tiny bit smaller than your double wide. But it will be 3 bdr – so all the rooms are smaller – they were all smaller 100 years ago.
A 100K home under the same terms will have a mortgage of 477/month or about 600/month to compare to an equivalent rental.
Someone earnign the minimum wage and working full time spending 35% of their income on housing will have $465/ month for housing – that would get an approx. 75K home.
That is a single MW earner. A two earner MW family can easily afford a 100K home.
I doubt there is such a thing as a 55K home in NYC or Seattle or SF.
But there are thousands of them in my city and throughout most of the country.
In 1989 I paid 100K for a nice suburban 2800 sq. ft. home – that is probably worth about 200K now.
I currently live in a 1800K home that I paid 225K for – but it has 2 acres of woods and still has easy access to civilization, and I am 10 years into a lifetime addition that will ultimately triple the size of the building.
I am sure Moggie is dripping with envy – but I would note that I have no working AC,
only about 2500sq.ft is heated. There are no finished floors in half the building,
Only recently did many of the interior walls get finished. The walls are finally insulated, and the roof insulation is almost complete – meaning my vermont castings stove can heat the building to 65 now in the heart of the winter – I have been living with 55 room temps in the winter for most of the past decade.
I tend to work on the house when I do not have other work – but then I have no money.
I can’t work on the house when I am busy – but that is when I can afford to.
Someday it will be finished – and it will be quite nice, and when that occurs Moogie might justifiably call me upper middle class. but at the moment my wife probably thinks her Double wide is appealing.
A 30K a year family income is sufficient to purchase a 150K home.
A quick Zillow search in my area produced 23 hits close to me.
These ranged from brand new duplexes in developments to farm houses and nice homes in small towns.
Sizes ranged from 1100 to 2500 sq. ft. depending on lots size.
Dave, Moogie has said she is in rural southwest virginia. Searches for homes there indicate a medium priced home for $125,000 to $150,000.
She just wants a hand out or someone to listen to sob stories. Never has said there are extenuating circumstances other than low income that caused her to be living in a trailer.
By the way, I lived fro 8 years in a double wide. 3 bedroom, 2 bath, wall to wall carpeting. Nice place. Better than some homes that were built in the 60’s in California that probably crumbled after 20 years.
Ron;
I have the same understanding regarding Moogie as you.
But I am sticking to counter arguments I can support with facts.
My expectation is that homes where Moogie lives are significantly cheaper than where I do.
Though they are low here.
But even there. There is no requirement that she live in appalachia or whereever.
I do not doubt that you can not live in manahattan on a single MW job with a family of 4.
If that is your circumstances – MOVE.
If you have so little wealth as you claim – moving will be trivial.
And if that is not the case – you have proven that you are better off than you claim.
Regardless, I have provided counter examples for lots of moogie’s nonsense
All of us would like to be magically better off without having to do something to become better of. Most of us do not try to claim that as an entitlement.
Ron;
Thank you for jumping in with other links and data and your response on googling.
I get really tired of this nonsense that I am “cherry picking” data from “faux news”
When it is coming from places like US Census, NBER.
And is trivially found.
My “source” was case-shiller.
They are pretty much THE name in housing data and market analysis.
They predicted the housing bubble way ahead, they predicted it bursting.
They predicted a nation wide price drop of 20-30% – everyone thought they were nuts.
Case Shillers raw date comes from HUD and the Census and places like that.
Most of the graphs I post identify where the data came from – US census, the Fed,
CBO, GAO, …. “right wing” sources like the federal goverment.
BTW Zero hedge – which you will likely call “conservative” but I would call – more likely to get data right than bloomberg – is confirming your bloomberg link
I will separately say that economic data from the past 2 years is more suspect (that is normal – it usually takes about 2 years for all the adjustments etc to be properly made).
I am getting all kinds of conflicting data on the economy.
We have been teetering on recession for most of the obama administration – particularly since 2012.
Recent revisions to 2013-2015 seem to indicate we came very very close to a recession.
We have downward revised things in that time frame by over $1T in production.
Conversely 1Q2017 was initially reported as weak. It is now revised to about 2% – more importantly it is 2% on a rising trend line.
I am still getting mixed signals. Plenty of economists think we are headed for recession.
While as many think we are headed into strong growth.
I do not know.
But I do know how to read the data – and to report it honestly.
The buildings that are being bought up as apartment buildings by people like me, were the homes of the upperclass 100 years ago – or the homes of the middle class 50 years ago.
My parents 2nd home when they had managed to reach the level of successful business owner and professional was in one of the most affluent parts of my county at the time.
Today their 2nd home is being sold to yuppies as a starter home for people who want to save money buy buying an old home rather than a new (larger) home in the suburbs.
I would also note that american homes and apartments are on average twice as large as those of europe. That MEANS we are nearly twice as well off.
I have a request that I think all of us can agree to, liberal, moderates and conservatives. When the thread gets to over 100 comments and comments are stacked upon comments, it gets to the point that it is really hard to determine who someone is responding to when they are not identified in the text.
So my request is a simple one. If you see something I post and want to respond, start with “Ron……” or of responding to one of Dave’s comments, start with “Dave, ……” That way everyone will know who the response is for
There have been responses stacked on one persons comment directed to someone else as well as comments made in the “root text” and they are responses to some other previous comment, but they are hard to determine for whom the comment is meant, especially when two or more previous comments by two or more people are included in the new comment.
that last paragraph is somewhat confusing!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just like some of the responses lately.
Ron;
OK
Also…I wonder what the average age of the homes are now. One Millennial I know owns his own home, has a wife and 3 kids…but its of the age his great-grandparents could have built it new on a working man’s salary. Older homes generally are constantly needing to be fixed, which costs even more.
Did a Google search for you “average age of homes in America”
http://eyeonhousing.org/2014/02/the-age-of-the-housing-stock-by-state/
You might want to take a course on searching the internet!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW Dave…you have written several times about how low prices for goods are and seem to think we should be celebrating. Well, people like me are not celebrating because we have so little money we have to buy the cheapest of stuff, which means it all breaks faster and we have to replace it more often. So we are actually spending far MORE or stuff over a life time than our grandparents did. What I wouldn’t give to be able to buy good sheets – I’ve spent a fortune in the last 10 years or so on them. (just for one example)
No you are not spending more over a life time.
I bought a 475 Sony color TV in 1981. In 1985 it broke and cost 285 to fix.
It still works. I have it. Compared to the “cheap stuff” produced today it is crap.
It MIGHT last longer but it has no value.
For the 285 I paid to fix it in 1985 I can now get a 4K 42″ flat screen.
Appliance repair has virtually died because the replacement cost is cheaper than the repair cost.
That means you can afford MORE stuff over a lifetime.
The sheets I have today are far better than the ones I had as a kid – so I do not know what has your goat.
You are all FULL OF SHIT!!
Your reply was to Rick.