Obama Administration Gives Up on Pacific Trade Deal(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Obama Administration Gives Up on Pacific Trade Deal
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-administration-gives-up-on-pacific-trade-deal-1478895824
484 comments
This is an argument that Trump has been making for decades. He believes US is getting the short end of these deals because he sees the US almost as mob guys providing protection but forgetting to collect protection money. He sees the US as spending money protecting Japan, S. Korea, and Europe without getting proper return. I believe we've been getting peace and favorable trade deals in return. He thinks that isn't enough and that it's time to collect.
The same thinking has him arguing that we should get the oil fields after the Iraq war.
I don't agree with this reasoning but we're about to see this play out.
Edit: here's a video that I linked to in my other comments. It's an Opera interview from 1988 where Trump says Japan is "beating the hell out of this country" and "they aren't paying" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI
This has been the most consistent part of Trump's platform. America is getting the short end of the deal.
Again, I'm not a Trump supporter but this policy is what Trump genuinely believes and will likely pursue.
The same thinking has him arguing that we should get the oil fields after the Iraq war.
I don't agree with this reasoning but we're about to see this play out.
Edit: here's a video that I linked to in my other comments. It's an Opera interview from 1988 where Trump says Japan is "beating the hell out of this country" and "they aren't paying" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI
This has been the most consistent part of Trump's platform. America is getting the short end of the deal.
Again, I'm not a Trump supporter but this policy is what Trump genuinely believes and will likely pursue.
It has also greatly benefited America during the whole post-war period. It is not a coincidence that the world's consumers are spending much of their money on products from American companies. Whether the American lower class gets a share of the profits is an other question of course.
This goes for tech too. American companies like Uber, Netflix, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple have been able dominate most of the world market. In a protectionist world they will be locked out, just like they are in China today.
This goes for tech too. American companies like Uber, Netflix, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple have been able dominate most of the world market. In a protectionist world they will be locked out, just like they are in China today.
Yeah, whatever you may think of the American hegemony since WW2, that's what made America the #1 world power. Drop that, and the US will just be one of many.
And on the one hand, I think that might be good; I'm not a fan of hegemony and imperialism. But for all its faults, the US is at least a democracy, unlike Russia and China. As a European, I strongly prefer American hegemony over Russian hegemony. But maybe it's time for the EU to finally stand on its own feet and take up the leadership of the free world. Hopefully more benevolently than the US, although recent events don't look very hopeful there either.
And on the one hand, I think that might be good; I'm not a fan of hegemony and imperialism. But for all its faults, the US is at least a democracy, unlike Russia and China. As a European, I strongly prefer American hegemony over Russian hegemony. But maybe it's time for the EU to finally stand on its own feet and take up the leadership of the free world. Hopefully more benevolently than the US, although recent events don't look very hopeful there either.
I wish we would, but we (Europe) are fragmented and each country is an easy target for the wills of the larger powers. It's easy to play each EU country against the other, not necessarily by bribes but by exploiting all the conflicting interests and the lack of a central authority. Try to do that with US states without the blessing of Washington.
And in time of danger every country becomes more egoistical, as the many recent crisis demonstrated (bonds, migrants, etc). So China and Russia will benefit of a US downsizing and Europe will get the worst of it.
The only way out would be ejecting every country not willing to really merge into a strong political union, make the United States of Europe, get back some of the other countries when they'll be willing to give away their sovereignty. Problem is: there are zero countries willing to give away their sovereignty now. National political leaders are not going to risk their authority and privileges and run for a European government which only a few of them will get into.
And in time of danger every country becomes more egoistical, as the many recent crisis demonstrated (bonds, migrants, etc). So China and Russia will benefit of a US downsizing and Europe will get the worst of it.
The only way out would be ejecting every country not willing to really merge into a strong political union, make the United States of Europe, get back some of the other countries when they'll be willing to give away their sovereignty. Problem is: there are zero countries willing to give away their sovereignty now. National political leaders are not going to risk their authority and privileges and run for a European government which only a few of them will get into.
> But maybe it's time for the EU to finally stand on its own feet and take up the leadership of the free world
As a German, I don't see that happening. The EU is beginning to collapse outright (Brexit, the way Europe still treats Greece and the way Europe leaves Germany stranded with the refugees, esp. Eastern Europe) and even if the EU manages to stay together as an union, the trend to nationalism and right-wing populism is worrying:
- in France, le Pen/Front National has a non-small chance of winning the elections in 2017
- Hungary with Orban basically has a fascist in power
- the situation in Poland doesn't look much better (Kaczynski nationalist government, 100k right-wing demonstrants marched in Warsow today, https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute-in-europa/videos/warsch...)
- Italy is under threat from the M5S party led by Beppe Grillo, they want to exit at least the Euro currency, and the general situation is unstable
- in Greece left-wing Tsipras is in a coalition with right-wing ANEL
- Germany has, mainly fueled by the refugee situation, seen a rise of both a nationalist party (AfD) in parliaments with people predicting 10-20% at the Bundestag elections as well as massive violence against refugees and left-wing people.
- Turkey isn't part of the EU, but I think that the situation in Turkey could explode into civil war sooner than later. Or into a Hitler-level dictatorship.
And should it come to war... well I don't believe that the EU stands a flying chance against the Russians. German tank troops practice with broomsticks instead of blank cartridges (I'm serious, https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article137549045/Bun...), the new NH90 marine helicopter isn't licensed to fly over sea, and the A400M transporter jet isn't remotely useful right now.
Europe without US protection is a nightmare, and I'm afraid that at least Russia will exploit this. Especially as no country in the EU except maybe France actually has the capability or will to fight.
As a German, I don't see that happening. The EU is beginning to collapse outright (Brexit, the way Europe still treats Greece and the way Europe leaves Germany stranded with the refugees, esp. Eastern Europe) and even if the EU manages to stay together as an union, the trend to nationalism and right-wing populism is worrying:
- in France, le Pen/Front National has a non-small chance of winning the elections in 2017
- Hungary with Orban basically has a fascist in power
- the situation in Poland doesn't look much better (Kaczynski nationalist government, 100k right-wing demonstrants marched in Warsow today, https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute-in-europa/videos/warsch...)
- Italy is under threat from the M5S party led by Beppe Grillo, they want to exit at least the Euro currency, and the general situation is unstable
- in Greece left-wing Tsipras is in a coalition with right-wing ANEL
- Germany has, mainly fueled by the refugee situation, seen a rise of both a nationalist party (AfD) in parliaments with people predicting 10-20% at the Bundestag elections as well as massive violence against refugees and left-wing people.
- Turkey isn't part of the EU, but I think that the situation in Turkey could explode into civil war sooner than later. Or into a Hitler-level dictatorship.
And should it come to war... well I don't believe that the EU stands a flying chance against the Russians. German tank troops practice with broomsticks instead of blank cartridges (I'm serious, https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article137549045/Bun...), the new NH90 marine helicopter isn't licensed to fly over sea, and the A400M transporter jet isn't remotely useful right now.
Europe without US protection is a nightmare, and I'm afraid that at least Russia will exploit this. Especially as no country in the EU except maybe France actually has the capability or will to fight.
rasz_pl(2)
Europe is too divided, Russia will most likely rule over Europe. Look out for a Russia backed victory of Le Pen in France and AfD in Germany. If that happens the reorganisation will be total.
While I agree that the EU is divided, I doubt Russia will rule over Europe. Russia is a lot weaker than it was during the Cold War, and Europe is a lot stronger. A lot.
That said, Putin plays a subtle game, and his ties to various European extremist groups is certainly cause for worry. He will continue to destabilize Europe, but a lot more than that is needed for Russia to rule over Europe. Though if the EU is sufficiently divided, the Baltics are definitely within reach.
That said, Putin plays a subtle game, and his ties to various European extremist groups is certainly cause for worry. He will continue to destabilize Europe, but a lot more than that is needed for Russia to rule over Europe. Though if the EU is sufficiently divided, the Baltics are definitely within reach.
With brexit doesn't seem that likely either
Brexit could actually work out well for a more united EU. The UK has always been one of the biggest opponents of further European integration. Without the UK, it might actually happen.
That is a theory I had not heard.
And the economy will not be missed, even when trying to fix the ships that are Greece and Italy and Spain?
At some point it seems like Germany can't have the only economy propping up the rest of the EU
And the economy will not be missed, even when trying to fix the ships that are Greece and Italy and Spain?
At some point it seems like Germany can't have the only economy propping up the rest of the EU
Closer economic integration would definitely solve the problem of Greece and other weak economies. Every country has their weaker provinces that would have sick economies if left on their own, but they work fine because they're part of a country with an economic policy that takes care of the entire country. The US has plenty of poorer states, for example, and they get way more federal money. Every country has areas like that, and takes care of them to some degree.
But Greece has to fend for itself, and has lost the means to fend for itself, because they're not in control of their monetary police. They're unable to devalue their coin as they should. But if they were to become part of a more integrated EU economic policy, the EU would eat up their debt without blinking, and invest in Greece to fix the problem, which is currently apparently against the rules.
But Greece has to fend for itself, and has lost the means to fend for itself, because they're not in control of their monetary police. They're unable to devalue their coin as they should. But if they were to become part of a more integrated EU economic policy, the EU would eat up their debt without blinking, and invest in Greece to fix the problem, which is currently apparently against the rules.
But he's not aware of the whole story. Japan is paying us money (billions, I think) to keep those bases there. I assume the same goes with other countries. This isn't free protection.
In 1988, Japan loomed large in the American psyche, the same way China does today, if not more so. It was the unstoppable economic juggernaut that was destroying American jobs.
I doubt Trump would had the same views of Japan specifically, as he did then. He seems to have transferred his ire to China.
I doubt Trump would had the same views of Japan specifically, as he did then. He seems to have transferred his ire to China.
He took out a full-page ad in 1987:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/that-time-trump-spent-n...
And read it almost verbatim at the third debate. It was quite interesting how little his views have changed in the intervening years.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/that-time-trump-spent-n...
And read it almost verbatim at the third debate. It was quite interesting how little his views have changed in the intervening years.
He just plainly thinks it's not enough. Here he is talking about how Japan is "beating the hell out of this country" and "they aren't paying" back in 1988 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI
He, Trump, started receiving intelligence briefings[1] at the same(?) level as Obama just a couple of days ago.
So we should start to see him become more aware of the facts. What affect this has on him remains to be seen.
1. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election...
So we should start to see him become more aware of the facts. What affect this has on him remains to be seen.
1. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election...
He received his first briefings months ago and promptly conflates them with public news reports and then lied about what he learned.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/trump-didnt-lea...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/trump-didnt-lea...
What affect this has on him remains to be seen.
Perhaps very little, since it's been known for some time they've been doctored to, shall I say, achieve certain domestic political goals.
If he wants to start dealing with this stuff sooner rather than later, he needs to get some of his advisers' clearances current again, and have them start digging.
Perhaps very little, since it's been known for some time they've been doctored to, shall I say, achieve certain domestic political goals.
If he wants to start dealing with this stuff sooner rather than later, he needs to get some of his advisers' clearances current again, and have them start digging.
In Korea, the US is paid about $1 billion which is approaching half of the burden to the US.
but are they paying us what we expend? I think that's the point being made here.
And I don't know the answer to that question, but it's important in this discussion.
And I don't know the answer to that question, but it's important in this discussion.
If you have to pay the same amount either way, why not spend it on your own military? While you may not get quite the same level of firepower, it will be under your control and you won't have to worry about a newly elected president leaving you high and dry.
Because it gives both of us a firm ally and makes it far easier for us to coordinate.
First off let me clarify that I'm no Trump supporter either. :) That said, I've been reading a book called "The Accidental Superpower" that I find very insightful, and the author makes arguments similar to the ones you mentioned. He argues that since WW2 the US has defended free trade around the world (through "the Bretton Woods system") essentially "for free" - even though we shoulder the defense burden for the rest of the world we haven't used this to negotiate treaties that are biased in our favor. The author sees this system ending in the next 20 years (i.e., the US will no longer defend the world's commerce for free) and he spends a large portion of the book discussing how different countries around the world will have to adapt.
A couple interesting notes: the author predicts that in a world with less free trade the US would do relatively well thanks to shale oil and our other natural resources (like rivers and rich farmlands).
He also talks a lot about demographic changes. He says in the US this will cause some pain from ~2020-2030 as the baby boomers retire, but we'll recover as millennials enter the most productive years of their careers (40s-early 60s).
However he also predicts much more dire consequences for Russia due to demographic changes, and suggests they might not recover from a decline starting around 2020.
Compare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russia_Sex_by_Age_2015010...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_by_Sex_and_Age_2015-0...
I can't repeat the entire analysis from the book in this box but I've found the author's comments to be thought-provoking so far. :)
Of particular interest to the HN crowd, the author also argues that demographic issues mean that right now there is an unusually large amount of investable capital available, but this will soon change as baby boomers begin to retire and switch from accumulating and investing their money to trying to stretch what they've already earned to last the rest of their lives. He predicts we'll see much less money available for risky investments starting in the next few years, due simply to demographic changes around the world.
A couple interesting notes: the author predicts that in a world with less free trade the US would do relatively well thanks to shale oil and our other natural resources (like rivers and rich farmlands).
He also talks a lot about demographic changes. He says in the US this will cause some pain from ~2020-2030 as the baby boomers retire, but we'll recover as millennials enter the most productive years of their careers (40s-early 60s).
However he also predicts much more dire consequences for Russia due to demographic changes, and suggests they might not recover from a decline starting around 2020.
Compare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russia_Sex_by_Age_2015010...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_by_Sex_and_Age_2015-0...
I can't repeat the entire analysis from the book in this box but I've found the author's comments to be thought-provoking so far. :)
Of particular interest to the HN crowd, the author also argues that demographic issues mean that right now there is an unusually large amount of investable capital available, but this will soon change as baby boomers begin to retire and switch from accumulating and investing their money to trying to stretch what they've already earned to last the rest of their lives. He predicts we'll see much less money available for risky investments starting in the next few years, due simply to demographic changes around the world.
Unfortunately, it does seem likely that "Make America Athens losing the Peloponnesian War (again)" is the policy objective.
If one wanted to look on the bright side, there's a chance that "I am a master businessman who can cut better deals" is a merely way to have something say about foreign policy without having to go to the effort of thinking about it.
If one wanted to look on the bright side, there's a chance that "I am a master businessman who can cut better deals" is a merely way to have something say about foreign policy without having to go to the effort of thinking about it.
Providing a launch pad for forward deployment of Armed forces is a pretty good deal IMO. Doing this helped the US keep USSR in check. Now assume that NATO never happened. Life would go on. These countries would be in a lot of debt, but they'd have their own armies for sure with the US twiddling their thumbs from across the ocean. Maybe Russia would've occupied a couple more countries. Although it seems these countries should pay up for protection money, consider the difference a rent that US is paying them for maintaining a military base. A quick google search gave me "...he United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad.."
Exactly. He comes at it like a bean-counter, not a strategist.
That's not necessarily bad. The civil war, world war 2 and the cold war are pretty obvious examples. You can't solve problems by just throwing money at them, but having money to throw at problems makes a lot of those problems much easier.
I'm willing to revise my opinion of the guy. He's done two things i thought were impossible, winning the primary and the presidency. Maybe he will get that trillion dollar infrastructure program in place. I doubt it, but, at this point there's not much for me to do but wait and see.
I'm willing to revise my opinion of the guy. He's done two things i thought were impossible, winning the primary and the presidency. Maybe he will get that trillion dollar infrastructure program in place. I doubt it, but, at this point there's not much for me to do but wait and see.
Many people have said the same thing before only to find themselves in a hopeless situation.
I'm having a hard time thinking of wealthy nations suddenly plundered. All i can come up with is the mongol invasion, and the conquest of the incas. The Incas are pretty marginal though, obsidian embedded in a stick isn't much use against toledo steel.
Being powerful and picking the wrong fight seems like the usual collapse. The Spanish losing their armada, or Germany's first invasion of France.
Help me out, remind me of some of those people, would you?
edit
Maybe Carthage falling to Rome? i don't know enough about the circumstances. I do remember something about Hannibal occupying most of Italy.
further edit
France falling to Germany is a pretty good example.
I can't help but think sudden all out invasion of the US leads immediately to nuclear war.
I dunno. backing away from playing world cop might be the worst thing ever. I'm just not smart enough to foresee what that world might look like. I'd hope some sort of international organization would be founded to pick up the slack, and the U.S. would play a role in that. Really, the election is over. all i can do at this point is watch what happens.
Being powerful and picking the wrong fight seems like the usual collapse. The Spanish losing their armada, or Germany's first invasion of France.
Help me out, remind me of some of those people, would you?
edit
Maybe Carthage falling to Rome? i don't know enough about the circumstances. I do remember something about Hannibal occupying most of Italy.
further edit
France falling to Germany is a pretty good example.
I can't help but think sudden all out invasion of the US leads immediately to nuclear war.
I dunno. backing away from playing world cop might be the worst thing ever. I'm just not smart enough to foresee what that world might look like. I'd hope some sort of international organization would be founded to pick up the slack, and the U.S. would play a role in that. Really, the election is over. all i can do at this point is watch what happens.
I haven't seriously studied the Punic Wars, and all this is from memory, but the one with Hannibal pretty early on started with one of the worst defeats in Roman military history, I think you'd have to go to Augustus for the next one of that level or so.
But after that, he wasn't able to take Rome, and the Romans refused battle in Italy. Instead, they eventually kicked enough ass in Africa that Hannibal was recalled to there, where he eventually lost. I think that was the 2nd, and the 3rd was simply finishing off a weak Carthage so it would never threaten Rome again, "Carthage delenda est" and all that. Neither fits the pattern you're looking for.
The number 1 thing we should focus on is keeping the sea lanes open. Everything else after that is gravy, and indeed, no longer playing "world cop" now that the Cold War is over is one of many areas where Trump and the people who voted for him are aligned.
As for other examples, maybe the Norman conquest of Britain? But that's seriously complicated in cause, and I'm not sure Britain counted as a wealthy nation back then.
Ah, that's a key, look for battles where the king was a participant and got killed in it. Resistance tends to fall apart after that.
And an "all out invasion" of the US is physically impossible prior to e.g. taking out our hunter-killer subs and otherwise securing a logistics line, unless you think Canada or Mexico/Latin America are up to the job, and there "a rifle behind every blade of grass" suffices.
But after that, he wasn't able to take Rome, and the Romans refused battle in Italy. Instead, they eventually kicked enough ass in Africa that Hannibal was recalled to there, where he eventually lost. I think that was the 2nd, and the 3rd was simply finishing off a weak Carthage so it would never threaten Rome again, "Carthage delenda est" and all that. Neither fits the pattern you're looking for.
The number 1 thing we should focus on is keeping the sea lanes open. Everything else after that is gravy, and indeed, no longer playing "world cop" now that the Cold War is over is one of many areas where Trump and the people who voted for him are aligned.
As for other examples, maybe the Norman conquest of Britain? But that's seriously complicated in cause, and I'm not sure Britain counted as a wealthy nation back then.
Ah, that's a key, look for battles where the king was a participant and got killed in it. Resistance tends to fall apart after that.
And an "all out invasion" of the US is physically impossible prior to e.g. taking out our hunter-killer subs and otherwise securing a logistics line, unless you think Canada or Mexico/Latin America are up to the job, and there "a rifle behind every blade of grass" suffices.
The late bronze age collapse comes to mind where only Egypt really survived, if you can call it that as they were never the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse
It is interesting in that for Greece, they basically had to rediscover writing the fall was so complete. Though its likely a confluence of things contributed. Also our relative isolation in the USA means its unlikely we'll see anything truly similar but it does show what can happen to interdependent nation states.
Carthage is probably a more recent example we could key off of. But its still a ways off from suddenly as it took about 4 generations and a lot of mutual antagonism between Carthage and Rome. Rome also went a bit overboard in razing the city you could argue.
Another to add to the list, though not for plunder specifically is Portugal with its earthquake in Lisbon effectively ended their global dominance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse
It is interesting in that for Greece, they basically had to rediscover writing the fall was so complete. Though its likely a confluence of things contributed. Also our relative isolation in the USA means its unlikely we'll see anything truly similar but it does show what can happen to interdependent nation states.
Carthage is probably a more recent example we could key off of. But its still a ways off from suddenly as it took about 4 generations and a lot of mutual antagonism between Carthage and Rome. Rome also went a bit overboard in razing the city you could argue.
Another to add to the list, though not for plunder specifically is Portugal with its earthquake in Lisbon effectively ended their global dominance.
> He thinks that isn't enough and that it's time to collect.
Amazon sells their extra servers as a product. The US can start selling their extra nuclear weapons as a product. Business 101!
Amazon sells their extra servers as a product. The US can start selling their extra nuclear weapons as a product. Business 101!
Rightly or wrongly I think a sizeable portion of the world is tired of the flavour of stability the U.S. provides.
It feels a bit like the U.S. thinks the rest of the world isn't capable of looking after itself. And perhaps it isn't, and some boarders will be redrawn, but I get the feeling a lot of people are ready to give it a shot.
Especially considering the U.S. as de facto self-appointed global police, is doing a terrible job of looking after it's own citizens with regard to education, healthcare, the war on drugs, shooting black men, mass shootings, etc etc etc.
Personally, the way I feel about the U.S. as the purported bastion of "The Free World™", the leading light of Democracy is this:
It has to stop. No one believes the charade any more. And with the presidential election being a choice between terrible and wacko, the U.S. would be the laughing stock of the world if the situation wasn't so frightening.
I'll give one strong example:
In October 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners.[1]
How can you take yourselves seriously?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra...
Edit: fixed randomly incorrect reference
It feels a bit like the U.S. thinks the rest of the world isn't capable of looking after itself. And perhaps it isn't, and some boarders will be redrawn, but I get the feeling a lot of people are ready to give it a shot.
Especially considering the U.S. as de facto self-appointed global police, is doing a terrible job of looking after it's own citizens with regard to education, healthcare, the war on drugs, shooting black men, mass shootings, etc etc etc.
Personally, the way I feel about the U.S. as the purported bastion of "The Free World™", the leading light of Democracy is this:
It has to stop. No one believes the charade any more. And with the presidential election being a choice between terrible and wacko, the U.S. would be the laughing stock of the world if the situation wasn't so frightening.
I'll give one strong example:
In October 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners.[1]
How can you take yourselves seriously?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra...
Edit: fixed randomly incorrect reference
If you look just at the shield of deterrence that the U.S. has held over western Europe, it has allowed the growth of both social democracy and of the common market there. European nations all spend a much lower percentage of their budgets on defense than the U.S. does. While their citizens take that as a sign of cultural superiority, their leaders know that it is made possible by NATO and the outsized role that the U.S. has played in it for decades. Every one of those nations is looking at Russia right now and wondering "what happens next."
Same thing on the other side of the planet: both Japan and South Korea have very little military might; they depend on the deterrence the U.S. provides. They are looking at China and wondering what happens next.
If the U.S. reduces or removes these relationships, it will dramatically change these nations. Japan and China hate each other. If the U.S. draws back, Japan will complete its transition away from pacifism and will have nuclear weapons of its own in less than a decade. Same with South Korea.
Even if you think that the U.S. is not a leading light of democracy, these are real relationships and altering them has real consequences: more weapons and more tension among more nations in the world.
Same thing on the other side of the planet: both Japan and South Korea have very little military might; they depend on the deterrence the U.S. provides. They are looking at China and wondering what happens next.
If the U.S. reduces or removes these relationships, it will dramatically change these nations. Japan and China hate each other. If the U.S. draws back, Japan will complete its transition away from pacifism and will have nuclear weapons of its own in less than a decade. Same with South Korea.
Even if you think that the U.S. is not a leading light of democracy, these are real relationships and altering them has real consequences: more weapons and more tension among more nations in the world.
Completely inaccurate in terms of South Korean military power. S. Korea has a large, well trained and well equipped military with almost 7000 armored vehicles, thousands of artillery systems, a robust air force, and a navy perfectly suited for their requirements. It's even arguable that they could adequately defend themselves against North Korea without US help, as long as China doesn't intervene.
I believe the point made above was in regards to China. SK's ~1500ish MBT's and ~200ish Gen4 aircraft isn't so "well equipped" or "robust" when put up against the PLA and PLAAF.
China roughly outmatches SK by 4:1 across the board, but China has to worry about more than just SK. They have to be concerned about India, Vietnam, Russia, Japan, SK, and of course the US. China has been on an incredible spending spree and upgraded a lot of their equipment, but there not as well trained as other modern militaries. This is changing, but not something that can be done overnight.
If the U.S. withdraws into itself, that will dramatically accelerate all of this. China knows it can't beat the U.S. in a shooting war, but it also knows the U.S.'s #1 interest in the region is "no shooting wars." The U.S. wants peaceful stability. China knows that we don't have territorial ambitions in Asia. Lots of other countries do though.
North Korea could destroy Seoul without even crossing the border. And they are better prepared for defense.
And who will stop China from intervening if US is out of the picture?
And who will stop China from intervening if US is out of the picture?
NK is starving, equipped with ancient hardware, and without adequate fuel for training. The one thing they have is artillery, which can do an incredible amount of damage to SK.
So you think the current token US force in SK can stop China if it decides to intervene? That force just acts as a nuclear tripwire; it doesn't need to be larger to act in that fashion.
So you think the current token US force in SK can stop China if it decides to intervene? That force just acts as a nuclear tripwire; it doesn't need to be larger to act in that fashion.
Yeah, S Korea is the Israel of SEA.
Just to be clear, I don't disagree with anything you've said here, and as such I prefaced my comment with "Rightly or wrongly".
And it seems likely to me that as Trump continues to receive intelligence briefings, economic and military advice, we will see a whole lot not change. That's my prediction. Probably.
And it seems likely to me that as Trump continues to receive intelligence briefings, economic and military advice, we will see a whole lot not change. That's my prediction. Probably.
[deleted]
There are two kinds of stability:
1) A big strong guy, stronger than anyone else, fucks with anyone who tries to change anything
2) lots of strong people stop anyone who gets too destructive
I don't think 1 is remotely sustainable. 2 might be doable.
> In October 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners.[1]
> How can you take yourselves seriously?
Totally agreed.
If the US had low crime rates, great quality of life, and was seen as universally fair and just - well then 1 might work. But when it's so unjust, unfair, and unbalanced at home, while we spend billions abroad... it stops making sense.
1) A big strong guy, stronger than anyone else, fucks with anyone who tries to change anything
2) lots of strong people stop anyone who gets too destructive
I don't think 1 is remotely sustainable. 2 might be doable.
> In October 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners.[1]
> How can you take yourselves seriously?
Totally agreed.
If the US had low crime rates, great quality of life, and was seen as universally fair and just - well then 1 might work. But when it's so unjust, unfair, and unbalanced at home, while we spend billions abroad... it stops making sense.
> 2) lots of strong people stop anyone who gets too destructive
That's a very idealistic view. You can't have lots of more or less equally strong parties -- only a very few. From those few all secretly want to switch to 1).
That's a very idealistic view. You can't have lots of more or less equally strong parties -- only a very few. From those few all secretly want to switch to 1).
> From those few all secretly want to switch to 1).
Unless each of those has learned that 1) always ends poorly and has decided they're better off with strong allies comitted to the ideals of justice.
Yeah, we quibble over the details. But there is a direction we all want to go - safety and personal freedom are universal ideals.
Even dictatorships fake elections.
Unless each of those has learned that 1) always ends poorly and has decided they're better off with strong allies comitted to the ideals of justice.
Yeah, we quibble over the details. But there is a direction we all want to go - safety and personal freedom are universal ideals.
Even dictatorships fake elections.
So either everyone gets along and agrees the western worldview is the best one, and the strong protect the weak as opposed to getting bought of or silenced, or the whole thing collapses ?
I believe the economic analysis would be: it's not a Nash equilibrium, and therefore it cannot exist for any length of time, because the cost of it rises exponentially over time.
So can I just say: Good luck with that, and I, personally, would like to opt out if possible.
I believe the economic analysis would be: it's not a Nash equilibrium, and therefore it cannot exist for any length of time, because the cost of it rises exponentially over time.
So can I just say: Good luck with that, and I, personally, would like to opt out if possible.
We want safety, personal freedom and justice enforced by some agreement because we're weak and we need the agreement to protect us. Powerful ones are looking for more power because it's the power that protects them. The idea of safety is universal. The means to achieve it are not.
Scenario 2 describes Europe shortly before World War I.
In some ways the world is quite different now, with nuclear deterrent...but it's still worth considering history.
In some ways the world is quite different now, with nuclear deterrent...but it's still worth considering history.
> It feels a bit like the U.S. thinks the rest of the world isn't capable of looking after itself. And perhaps it isn't, and some boarders will be redrawn, but I get the feeling a lot of people are ready to give it a shot.
Well, this was the sentiment of most Americans after World War 1. It took the attack on Perl Harbor for Roosevelt to have enough support from congress to join WWII.
I think that after WWII the US government made part of its foreign policy to use economic integration and military might to prevent any country from ever dragging them into WWIII.
I am personally not worried about China, Russia, the middle east or even North Korea. But I would be seriously worried to see Japan rebuild their military because we pulled our bases out of there.
Well, this was the sentiment of most Americans after World War 1. It took the attack on Perl Harbor for Roosevelt to have enough support from congress to join WWII.
I think that after WWII the US government made part of its foreign policy to use economic integration and military might to prevent any country from ever dragging them into WWIII.
I am personally not worried about China, Russia, the middle east or even North Korea. But I would be seriously worried to see Japan rebuild their military because we pulled our bases out of there.
> Especially considering the U.S. as de facto self-appointed global police, is doing a terrible job of looking after it's own citizens with regard to education, healthcare, the war on drugs, shooting black men, mass shootings, etc etc etc.
Those things aren't really related, except as far as american attitudes go.
For example, a massive amount of money is spent on health care.
Those things aren't really related, except as far as american attitudes go.
For example, a massive amount of money is spent on health care.
In what way aren't those things related? Can you give this a more thorough treatment to expand why you think this.
A massive amount of money in the U.S. is spent on administering healthcare.
Not much actually goes towards actual health care.
Healthcare could be relatively inexpensive to provide, if we chose to eliminate the profit motive.
It's absurd to me that anyone should profit from my being unwell. That's the sort of thing mosquitoes, leeches, ticks, pathogenic viruses and bacteria, thrive on.
I don't have a fully-formed whole-system replacement for for-profit-healthcare, but it definitely seems like something we ought to work on.
How does it make sense that people's unwellness should be paying for my neighbours Toyota Prado (that's never been taken off the road).
A massive amount of money in the U.S. is spent on administering healthcare.
Not much actually goes towards actual health care.
Healthcare could be relatively inexpensive to provide, if we chose to eliminate the profit motive.
It's absurd to me that anyone should profit from my being unwell. That's the sort of thing mosquitoes, leeches, ticks, pathogenic viruses and bacteria, thrive on.
I don't have a fully-formed whole-system replacement for for-profit-healthcare, but it definitely seems like something we ought to work on.
How does it make sense that people's unwellness should be paying for my neighbours Toyota Prado (that's never been taken off the road).
Being the global police and having good healthcare are orthogonal to each other. One doesn't really effect the other all that much. I don't really get why are saying they do?
I do think US attitudes lead to both things (world police/broken health care system).
I do think US attitudes lead to both things (world police/broken health care system).
It shouldn't take much of an effort as a thought experiment to glimpse how having a global authority calling the shots and not keeping it's own affairs in order comes across as hypocritical and undermines that authority.
Rather, I think what you've done here is mimic the common HN pattern of saying "X is orthogonal to Y, so I don't get what you're saying", which, as I've try to point out above, lacks imagination.
I even went to some length to try to explain why I feel like that.
Rather, I think what you've done here is mimic the common HN pattern of saying "X is orthogonal to Y, so I don't get what you're saying", which, as I've try to point out above, lacks imagination.
I even went to some length to try to explain why I feel like that.
How can you take yourselves seriously?
A large daily dose of craven "speaks comfortable untruths for power" mainstream media, who have been owned by the military-industrial complex for decades. The morons at CIA didn't see it coming, that Americans would question the lies of network news, or else they would have attempted to strangle this internet thing in its cradle. They've adapted somewhat, e.g. the "good work" done at Facebook this cycle or the constant fear-mongering about Russia, China, North Korea, ISIS, etc. They just couldn't get their bloodthirsty old gal over the line, though.
The conspiracy theorist in me would like to be a fly on the wall in Pence's personal security briefings. If they hear what they like from him, he'll be our President in short order. Wasn't he a big incarceration fan?
A large daily dose of craven "speaks comfortable untruths for power" mainstream media, who have been owned by the military-industrial complex for decades. The morons at CIA didn't see it coming, that Americans would question the lies of network news, or else they would have attempted to strangle this internet thing in its cradle. They've adapted somewhat, e.g. the "good work" done at Facebook this cycle or the constant fear-mongering about Russia, China, North Korea, ISIS, etc. They just couldn't get their bloodthirsty old gal over the line, though.
The conspiracy theorist in me would like to be a fly on the wall in Pence's personal security briefings. If they hear what they like from him, he'll be our President in short order. Wasn't he a big incarceration fan?
I suspect we actually know very little about Trump's intentions. I believe that, like Clinton, he was willing to say just about anything to get into office, regardless of what he truly intends.
What were Clinton's outrageous promises?
If anything, I think what killed her is that she is a very unexciting stay-the-course President. No major changes, just incremental improvements. Very likely what is actually happen in any Presidency. What's sad is that the American people punished her for actually being realistic about what a President can actually do.
There's not going to be a new border wall and there's not going to be any more jobs for the middle class. Clinton knows that, Trump doesn't.
If anything, I think what killed her is that she is a very unexciting stay-the-course President. No major changes, just incremental improvements. Very likely what is actually happen in any Presidency. What's sad is that the American people punished her for actually being realistic about what a President can actually do.
There's not going to be a new border wall and there's not going to be any more jobs for the middle class. Clinton knows that, Trump doesn't.
> I think what killed her is that she is a very unexciting stay-the-course President. No major changes,
Also lies and corruption, that's what killed her. But you're right that it would have still been "no major changes" from what she was before.
She had major investors behind her, all that money from speeches, all the media, Obama, the DOJ, people at CNN passing her debate questions before hand. And she still lost. To a TV show star.
I don't buy the idea that was "experienced", "the most qualified", "a good manager". She lost to Trump. That is a fact now. The argument of her competence, integrity, intelligence is very hard to make at this point.
Also lies and corruption, that's what killed her. But you're right that it would have still been "no major changes" from what she was before.
She had major investors behind her, all that money from speeches, all the media, Obama, the DOJ, people at CNN passing her debate questions before hand. And she still lost. To a TV show star.
I don't buy the idea that was "experienced", "the most qualified", "a good manager". She lost to Trump. That is a fact now. The argument of her competence, integrity, intelligence is very hard to make at this point.
We certainly had the opportunity to examine the inner workings of Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
We had no data whatsoever on Trump or the RNC. Beyond his barrage of lies, low-level offenses (paying fines with his nonprofit, bribing elected officials, all that), and alleged sexual assaults, that is. I think he did so many little bad things that the American People couldn't keep track of them, and voted for the interesting television personality.
It is unfair to assume that "no news is good news", but assume we did. The Clinton campaign lost the information war badly. (And apparently against state-sponsored adversaries!)
And what did we conclude from Hillary's emails? That she got paid by investment banks and accepted donations to her Foundation from foreign dignitaries that she interacted with while Secretary of State? While I don't think that influenced her decision-making, the appearance of impropriety is just as bad as actual impropriety, and so I can see why people were upset. But like I said, I trust her decision-making and voted for her anyway, because her positives vastly outweigh her negatives.
(The DNC is another issue altogether, but it's very simple why they didn't support Bernie. They're the DNC, not the "independent who suddenly claims to be a democrat" NC. The system of political parties sucks. But it's the system we set up and keep voting for. I don't think Bernie would have beaten Trump. College students can make some pretty good subreddits and Facebook posts, but they just aren't enough of the electorate. Clinton and Trump both have Very Powerful Friends, and you need them to be elected.)
We had no data whatsoever on Trump or the RNC. Beyond his barrage of lies, low-level offenses (paying fines with his nonprofit, bribing elected officials, all that), and alleged sexual assaults, that is. I think he did so many little bad things that the American People couldn't keep track of them, and voted for the interesting television personality.
It is unfair to assume that "no news is good news", but assume we did. The Clinton campaign lost the information war badly. (And apparently against state-sponsored adversaries!)
And what did we conclude from Hillary's emails? That she got paid by investment banks and accepted donations to her Foundation from foreign dignitaries that she interacted with while Secretary of State? While I don't think that influenced her decision-making, the appearance of impropriety is just as bad as actual impropriety, and so I can see why people were upset. But like I said, I trust her decision-making and voted for her anyway, because her positives vastly outweigh her negatives.
(The DNC is another issue altogether, but it's very simple why they didn't support Bernie. They're the DNC, not the "independent who suddenly claims to be a democrat" NC. The system of political parties sucks. But it's the system we set up and keep voting for. I don't think Bernie would have beaten Trump. College students can make some pretty good subreddits and Facebook posts, but they just aren't enough of the electorate. Clinton and Trump both have Very Powerful Friends, and you need them to be elected.)
Re: the DNC I think the focus on the DNC also over-emphasizes the power of the DNC (eg, the primaries are run by the State committees, not the DNC) while confusing the direction the influence flows in the DNC -- members of the DNC are influential members of the Democratic Party because being an influential member of the Democratic Party is how you become a member of the DNC.
If the DNC's role in the primaries was replaced with a laptop to add up the popular vote of all of the primaries, all delegates and superdelegates eliminated, the members of the Democratic party who would otherwise be "superdelegates" -- elected Democrats in Congress, top members of the state Committees, past and current Democratic Presidents, Democratic governors, etc -- would still have an outsized influence in backing one candidate or another, because they are influential people with personal experience with the candidates whose opinions are trusted by many people.
Pretending it could be any other way is silly; when I need an opinion on someone, as either a political candidate, a plumber, or a potential new engineering hire, I talk to people who have personal knowledge, whose opinions I trust. Demanding that these people not share their opinions is absurd.
If the DNC's role in the primaries was replaced with a laptop to add up the popular vote of all of the primaries, all delegates and superdelegates eliminated, the members of the Democratic party who would otherwise be "superdelegates" -- elected Democrats in Congress, top members of the state Committees, past and current Democratic Presidents, Democratic governors, etc -- would still have an outsized influence in backing one candidate or another, because they are influential people with personal experience with the candidates whose opinions are trusted by many people.
Pretending it could be any other way is silly; when I need an opinion on someone, as either a political candidate, a plumber, or a potential new engineering hire, I talk to people who have personal knowledge, whose opinions I trust. Demanding that these people not share their opinions is absurd.
If voters cared about lies, they would have strongly rejected Trump. They just wanted lies that appealed to them.
Agree. Well in this case we know which ones they picked.
So what do think she should have done better? Did she not lie convincingly enough, and Trump was a better liar?
So what do think she should have done better? Did she not lie convincingly enough, and Trump was a better liar?
Some of Trump's statements made more sense, others were more exciting, many of them were just lies, as I suspect we are about to find out.
But yes charisma is often the ability to persuade, and persuasion passes through exaggeration, bravado, and if you are completely lost, lying. Everything indicates Trump is a pathological liar (same with Hillary). But because voters got caught up in his narcissism, he "won" (again electoral college only etc.)
But yes charisma is often the ability to persuade, and persuasion passes through exaggeration, bravado, and if you are completely lost, lying. Everything indicates Trump is a pathological liar (same with Hillary). But because voters got caught up in his narcissism, he "won" (again electoral college only etc.)
I think that doesn't do justice to the many people who voted Trump because they didn't want to vote for Hillary.
Whether justified or not, many of the Trump voters/fans I've spoken to did not get caught up in Trump's 'narcissism'; they just feel so sick of 'the establishment' that they'd do anything to not get another Clinton in office.
To be clear, I myself would probably have voted for Hillary instead of Trump, because I'm a cautious person and I prefer the 'evil' I know over the unpredictable nature of Trump. But if I squint, so to speak, I could see myself voting for Trump just because I dislike Hillary so much. That in itself scares me a bit (I'm big on LGBT rights and whatnot, on a very personal level).
The reason why I'm pointing this out is that 1) we are now stuck with Trump, so let's try and make the best of it, 2) part of why we got here was the incredibly shallow name-calling and condemnation and stereotyping from both sides, encouraged by the media.
Our best way forward is to try and understand the situation and most important the people involved, and why they voted the way they did, and go from there. And perhaps being honest and factually correct is a good idea too.
Could be further analysis proves you right, btw. But right now I have no reason to believe that most people voted Trump primarily because they got 'caught up in his narcissism'.
Whether justified or not, many of the Trump voters/fans I've spoken to did not get caught up in Trump's 'narcissism'; they just feel so sick of 'the establishment' that they'd do anything to not get another Clinton in office.
To be clear, I myself would probably have voted for Hillary instead of Trump, because I'm a cautious person and I prefer the 'evil' I know over the unpredictable nature of Trump. But if I squint, so to speak, I could see myself voting for Trump just because I dislike Hillary so much. That in itself scares me a bit (I'm big on LGBT rights and whatnot, on a very personal level).
The reason why I'm pointing this out is that 1) we are now stuck with Trump, so let's try and make the best of it, 2) part of why we got here was the incredibly shallow name-calling and condemnation and stereotyping from both sides, encouraged by the media.
Our best way forward is to try and understand the situation and most important the people involved, and why they voted the way they did, and go from there. And perhaps being honest and factually correct is a good idea too.
Could be further analysis proves you right, btw. But right now I have no reason to believe that most people voted Trump primarily because they got 'caught up in his narcissism'.
No idea. More pandering, more lying. Nominate someone with no record of anything.
[deleted]
> I don't buy the idea that was "experienced", "the most qualified", "a good manager".
She was a lawyer, first lady for 8 years, a senator, and secretary of state. She's incredibly experienced and qualified.
Trump is nothing but lies and corruption. It's hypocritical to whine about Hillary and ignore trump.
She was a lawyer, first lady for 8 years, a senator, and secretary of state. She's incredibly experienced and qualified.
Trump is nothing but lies and corruption. It's hypocritical to whine about Hillary and ignore trump.
> It's hypocritical to whine about Hillary
I didn't know I was "whining" sorry about that. Will try to keep my tone in check.
> and ignore trump.
Have you read the rest of the posts? Are you responding to the same comment section in HN? There is a lot of stuff being ignored but Trump is not one of those things.
> She's incredibly experienced and qualified.
Let's accept that. How do we reconcile the fact that she completely blew this election? With a star team of strategists, Obama behind her, all the financial support, media helping her every single step of the way, even down to passing her debate questions in advance, all that experience. Out of all people she lost to Trump? What happened there?
I didn't know I was "whining" sorry about that. Will try to keep my tone in check.
> and ignore trump.
Have you read the rest of the posts? Are you responding to the same comment section in HN? There is a lot of stuff being ignored but Trump is not one of those things.
> She's incredibly experienced and qualified.
Let's accept that. How do we reconcile the fact that she completely blew this election? With a star team of strategists, Obama behind her, all the financial support, media helping her every single step of the way, even down to passing her debate questions in advance, all that experience. Out of all people she lost to Trump? What happened there?
> How do we reconcile the fact that she completely blew this election?
We don't reconcile them, because while not unrelated, they also aren't tightly correlated. "Experienced and qualified" don't guarantee success in an election (or anything else for that matter). Trump is clearly not experienced politically and a large number of people agree that he's not qualified, yet he still won.
Experienced and qualified people fail at stuff pretty regularly.
We don't reconcile them, because while not unrelated, they also aren't tightly correlated. "Experienced and qualified" don't guarantee success in an election (or anything else for that matter). Trump is clearly not experienced politically and a large number of people agree that he's not qualified, yet he still won.
Experienced and qualified people fail at stuff pretty regularly.
> Experienced and qualified people fail at stuff pretty regularly.
Everyone fails. But this was not a simple tactical fail, this is a strategic type long sequence of failures.
> "Experienced and qualified" don't guarantee success in an election (or anything else for that matter).
What good are those things for then? I would imagine such a long experience at being a politician should translate into the ability to manage an election, understanding and communicating the issues to the constituents, seeing what the voters want, and so on.
Everyone fails. But this was not a simple tactical fail, this is a strategic type long sequence of failures.
> "Experienced and qualified" don't guarantee success in an election (or anything else for that matter).
What good are those things for then? I would imagine such a long experience at being a politician should translate into the ability to manage an election, understanding and communicating the issues to the constituents, seeing what the voters want, and so on.
> But this was not a simple tactical fail, this is a strategic type long sequence of failures.
Really? Because from what I saw, the biggest failure from Hillary was the email scandal, and of course the failure to actually get elected. I didn't see sequence of failures. If anything, Trump had a much bigger sequence of failures, from the tax leaks, to the Trump University fraud, to belittling a former Miss Universe, to the pussy grabbing comments and more. He got elected nonetheless because he managed to sell a message people wanted to hear.
> What good are those things for then? I would imagine such a long experience at being a politician should translate into the ability to manage an election, understanding and communicating the issues to the constituents, seeing what the voters want, and so on.
Those things are helpful, in the same way that being smart is helpful if you're starting a company. But smart people start failing companies all the time and experienced politicians lose elections all the time, too.
Really? Because from what I saw, the biggest failure from Hillary was the email scandal, and of course the failure to actually get elected. I didn't see sequence of failures. If anything, Trump had a much bigger sequence of failures, from the tax leaks, to the Trump University fraud, to belittling a former Miss Universe, to the pussy grabbing comments and more. He got elected nonetheless because he managed to sell a message people wanted to hear.
> What good are those things for then? I would imagine such a long experience at being a politician should translate into the ability to manage an election, understanding and communicating the issues to the constituents, seeing what the voters want, and so on.
Those things are helpful, in the same way that being smart is helpful if you're starting a company. But smart people start failing companies all the time and experienced politicians lose elections all the time, too.
> Really? Because from what I saw, the biggest failure from Hillary was the email scandal,
I would say the sequence of failures is not understanding what voters were looking for. That didn't happen as a singular event. That happened at first, then later, it happen probably up until she canceled the fireworks show for celebration party. As a politician, knowing what the voters she (hopefully!) planned to represent wanted, should have been one of the top qualification requirements, would you say?
Losing the Rust belt was a major strategic failure. I can understand if it was down to a few electoral votes, could then argue it was random, but it was 60 votes.
> he managed to sell a message people wanted to hear.
But she's been in politics with all that experience. Out of all the people shouldn't she be the one who can sell people what they want to hear? Maybe the idea is that she has a higher integrity than Trump and wouldn't want to do that?
> biggest failure from Hillary was the email scandal,
Email scandal was not one thing. The contents of the emails show sequence of failures.
> If anything, Trump had a much bigger sequence of failures
Exactly, it was terrible, and she still couldn't win. That is just baffling to me.
> Those things are helpful, in the same way that being smart is helpful if you're starting a company. But smart people start failing companies all the time and experienced politicians lose elections all the time, too
That's a fair point I agree with that in general.
I would say the sequence of failures is not understanding what voters were looking for. That didn't happen as a singular event. That happened at first, then later, it happen probably up until she canceled the fireworks show for celebration party. As a politician, knowing what the voters she (hopefully!) planned to represent wanted, should have been one of the top qualification requirements, would you say?
Losing the Rust belt was a major strategic failure. I can understand if it was down to a few electoral votes, could then argue it was random, but it was 60 votes.
> he managed to sell a message people wanted to hear.
But she's been in politics with all that experience. Out of all the people shouldn't she be the one who can sell people what they want to hear? Maybe the idea is that she has a higher integrity than Trump and wouldn't want to do that?
> biggest failure from Hillary was the email scandal,
Email scandal was not one thing. The contents of the emails show sequence of failures.
> If anything, Trump had a much bigger sequence of failures
Exactly, it was terrible, and she still couldn't win. That is just baffling to me.
> Those things are helpful, in the same way that being smart is helpful if you're starting a company. But smart people start failing companies all the time and experienced politicians lose elections all the time, too
That's a fair point I agree with that in general.
I'm not clear where you're going with all this. Clearly Clinton lost. Clearly she made mistakes. That's indisputable. But based on the fact that the populace elected Trump, I'm not sure there's anything Clinton actually could have done to win. What Trump had was a message that apparently appealed to a very large section of the population (plus a xenophobe outreach campaign that built him a base to get through the primaries), and even if Clinton wanted to sell that message, I don't believe she could have, because she actually has a track record that the message clearly doesn't align with.
You seem to be convinced that experience and qualifications necessarily lead to winning elections, and therefore Clinton's loss proves that she has neither. But this is fundamentally untrue. Many times voters have chosen someone with less experience and weaker qualifications. I'd argue that Clinton was more qualified and more experienced than Obama when he beat her in the primaries. McCain was arguably more qualified and certainly more experienced when Obama beat him in the general election, too. He won because at the time voters preferred his message and his vision.
You seem to be convinced that experience and qualifications necessarily lead to winning elections, and therefore Clinton's loss proves that she has neither. But this is fundamentally untrue. Many times voters have chosen someone with less experience and weaker qualifications. I'd argue that Clinton was more qualified and more experienced than Obama when he beat her in the primaries. McCain was arguably more qualified and certainly more experienced when Obama beat him in the general election, too. He won because at the time voters preferred his message and his vision.
> at built him a base to get through the primaries), and even if Clinton wanted to sell that message, I don't believe she could have
That makes sense.
Also good point on experience regarding Obama/Clinton/McCain
> I'm not clear where you're going with all this.
Nowhere really. I am just baffled about this and wanted to discuss stuff and see what other people think about it. As much as we don't do political stuff here, this still a more sane forum than reddit for example.
That makes sense.
Also good point on experience regarding Obama/Clinton/McCain
> I'm not clear where you're going with all this.
Nowhere really. I am just baffled about this and wanted to discuss stuff and see what other people think about it. As much as we don't do political stuff here, this still a more sane forum than reddit for example.
Trump got debate questions as well. See Megan Kelly.
Yes Hillary blew the election. In the end Colin Powell was right - whatever she did right she ruined with hubris
Yes Hillary blew the election. In the end Colin Powell was right - whatever she did right she ruined with hubris
Can you give a cite for that? I missed that story.
The ones I read in Podesta's emails were quite clearly leaked, and then Donna lied about the message being changed by Russia. That was false, because it's DKIM validate and those headers cover the body as well as the headers.
The ones I read in Podesta's emails were quite clearly leaked, and then Donna lied about the message being changed by Russia. That was false, because it's DKIM validate and those headers cover the body as well as the headers.
She's dull and kinda unlikeable. She had some good ideas but nothing really exciting.
Trump has, in his way, an Obama like gift for getting people excited to vote for him. It makes him look god awful to his opponents, but it gets people to vote.
Trump has, in his way, an Obama like gift for getting people excited to vote for him. It makes him look god awful to his opponents, but it gets people to vote.
Also remember all the free press Trump has gotten?
The money she's made from speeches is relatively trivial.
Alright, let's take that off the table. How do you explain other stuff. How did she manage to lose this election?
I don't really think I'm qualified to say, but that's never stopped anyone ;) I don't think she could pivot too far to the right, and so had difficulty attracting any conservative vote. I'm not sure why she couldn't get out the democratic vote more. Maybe she just wasn't charismatic enough.
There's also sexism.
There's also sexism.
I think she should have pandered more on jobs. I'd take her exaggerations over Trump's made up stuff.
Her losing the Rust Belt to Trump will probably be seen as one of the biggest election campaign blunders.
I don't see making the case for her "experience" and "qualification" anymore. With all the resources, media, donations, etc she should have had this election in the pocket.
I don't see making the case for her "experience" and "qualification" anymore. With all the resources, media, donations, etc she should have had this election in the pocket.
True. Whatever happened there was a major fuck up. And Bill Clinton was right all along - the campaign had no message whatsoever.
> the campaign had no message whatsoever.
The irony of this failure is that heeding to the message "It's the economy, stupid!" was what put Bill in the White House to begin with.
The irony of this failure is that heeding to the message "It's the economy, stupid!" was what put Bill in the White House to begin with.
[deleted]
I wouldn't be surprised if there will in fact be a new border wall. If there's anything I've learned from this election cycle, it's that many of us have repeatedly and consistently grossly underestimated what's possible in politics.
Presidents generally do try to fulfill their campaign promises, and building the wall is the biggest, most concrete, and earliest campaign promise he made. Realistically, it's also one of the most straightforward of all his promises to achieve, and at $25-30B it's not very expensive in the grand scheme of a presidency. Its overall effect will be minimal, meaning that it won't wreak havoc, it won't do much good either (in fact it might ironically backfire by keeping people in instead of out), but it will satisfy his supporters.
Presidents generally do try to fulfill their campaign promises, and building the wall is the biggest, most concrete, and earliest campaign promise he made. Realistically, it's also one of the most straightforward of all his promises to achieve, and at $25-30B it's not very expensive in the grand scheme of a presidency. Its overall effect will be minimal, meaning that it won't wreak havoc, it won't do much good either (in fact it might ironically backfire by keeping people in instead of out), but it will satisfy his supporters.
As job creation schemes go I'd much rather people build stupid walls than build bombs and weapons.
I'd be interested to know the CO2 estimates for a 5,000 mile wall.
I'd be interested to know the CO2 estimates for a 5,000 mile wall.
Interesting question. Some say the carbon footprint of concrete production is pretty horrific, but I don't know much about the specifics.
I honestly don't believe he has many intentions and is not motivated by a vision for the country or the world. He's a super-aggressive competitor and I think that's his sole motivation.
President Obama ridiculed him to his face at the Correspondent's Dinner a few years back. The campaign is a Fuck You to Obama and the rest of the establishment that laughed at him as a lightweight.
He worked very hard and won and now he'll be improvising. He'll have to pay back some people that supported his campaign, many of whom have specific political goals. He'll allow them to work towards those. But apart from a big tax cut for the very rich (strangely) I'm almost certain see that he doesn't care much at all about the rest of his platform. Certainly not the Christian-right stuff.
Maybe he has a real conviction about trade deals. It'll be interesting to see if he moves the needle on any meaningful trade metrics.
That's just my personal impression from listening to him talk.
President Obama ridiculed him to his face at the Correspondent's Dinner a few years back. The campaign is a Fuck You to Obama and the rest of the establishment that laughed at him as a lightweight.
He worked very hard and won and now he'll be improvising. He'll have to pay back some people that supported his campaign, many of whom have specific political goals. He'll allow them to work towards those. But apart from a big tax cut for the very rich (strangely) I'm almost certain see that he doesn't care much at all about the rest of his platform. Certainly not the Christian-right stuff.
Maybe he has a real conviction about trade deals. It'll be interesting to see if he moves the needle on any meaningful trade metrics.
That's just my personal impression from listening to him talk.
Indeed. We rail on Facebook for making a pro-Trump echo chamber, but the powerful elite and well-educated also live in an echo chamber. In our echo chamber, everyone is equal, and we want to work together, and we incorrectly assumed that that's what voters think. Nope. That KKK endorsement probably helped more than it hurt. It was a wake up call from believing that humanity is mostly decent. It's not.
Over the past few days I've been hearing much about the liberal elite, but I think most are disregarding that at least half of the wealthiest Americans are conservative. Many of these conservatives don't believe in what you stated.
That said, Trump's candidacy was not enthusiastically received by most of the wealthy conservatives. Carl Icahn and Peter Thiel are the only billionaires that I can think of that supported Trump. Charles & David Koch didn't endorse or fund his campaign or use their political entities to support him.
So your point remains and is good. I wanted to remind the HN audience that the elite is comprised of conservatives too, and they disagree with the liberal elite about much.
That said, Trump's candidacy was not enthusiastically received by most of the wealthy conservatives. Carl Icahn and Peter Thiel are the only billionaires that I can think of that supported Trump. Charles & David Koch didn't endorse or fund his campaign or use their political entities to support him.
So your point remains and is good. I wanted to remind the HN audience that the elite is comprised of conservatives too, and they disagree with the liberal elite about much.
Yes, we've really corrupted the terminology in order to fit a multitude of positions into two political parties.
I'm guessing that most of the wealth in the Republican party comes from people that are Republicans because they want a lower corporate tax, rather than people that want bans on who can use which bathroom. But somehow they ended up in the same political party.
I'm guessing that most of the wealth in the Republican party comes from people that are Republicans because they want a lower corporate tax, rather than people that want bans on who can use which bathroom. But somehow they ended up in the same political party.
Absolutely it's a mixed bag. Mike Pence is a proponent of both of the examples you gave, having especially harsh attitudes about the LGBT community. It appears that Icahn and the Koch family are against governments regulating who is or isn't permitted to enter a bathroom; rather, they believe that limited regulation and low taxes are key to economic growth.
> Charles & David Koch didn't endorse or fund his campaign or use their political entities to support him.
Maybe not directly, but Pence has pretty strong ties to the Kochs and his nomination as VP was widely seen as a nod to them.
Maybe not directly, but Pence has pretty strong ties to the Kochs and his nomination as VP was widely seen as a nod to them.
given the effort and energy needed go run a multi year campaign, i highly doubt it. look at his videos of him talking about the possibility of running decades ago. he has always had the passion hidden for many years.
He's also a negotiator and he likes to seek out extreme positions as a starting point.
Did Clinton really incite racial divide? Throwing Muslims and Latinos under the bus?
While I give credit that Trump may indeed be well intentioned but the main difference between him and Clinton is that Trump does not understand his words have consequences. Clinton knew to attack Trump the persona and not attack an ethnic group.
While I give credit that Trump may indeed be well intentioned but the main difference between him and Clinton is that Trump does not understand his words have consequences. Clinton knew to attack Trump the persona and not attack an ethnic group.
I'm not convinced he really wants to do the things you list.
We will all find out in time, but as I watched him sit with Obama yesterday and also with Paul Ryan, both of whom looked like seasoned politicians who knew what was expected of them, I saw in Trump a man who looked lost and uncertain.
I suspect that he liked the idea of being president more than he will enjoy doing the job.
We will all find out in time, but as I watched him sit with Obama yesterday and also with Paul Ryan, both of whom looked like seasoned politicians who knew what was expected of them, I saw in Trump a man who looked lost and uncertain.
I suspect that he liked the idea of being president more than he will enjoy doing the job.
Trump has been as consistent as Bernie over the decades with regards to foreign policy. Here he is in 1988 on Oprah saying similar things to what he's said on the campaign trail https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI
I don't agree with Trump but to think he really doesn't want to do the things he's been saying over the decades seems wrong.
I don't agree with Trump but to think he really doesn't want to do the things he's been saying over the decades seems wrong.
Interesting. He also says in that interview he doesn't really have the inclination to be president. That's what I wonder about now, if he really wants this.
He said "if it got so bad, I would never want to rule it out totally". He's been saying this for decades. I guess he finally thought it's bad enough for him to step in.
I feel like I need to keep adding a disclaimer that I'm not a Trump supporter because my comments make it seem like I agree with him. I'm simply stating his views because I keep seeing people project their own feelings onto him even though he has been clear about many parts of his platform. Sure, he's had to walk back many statements or clarify that he was "being sarcastic" but there are many parts of his platform where he is crystal clear, yet people don't think he'd actually pursue those policies.
I feel like I need to keep adding a disclaimer that I'm not a Trump supporter because my comments make it seem like I agree with him. I'm simply stating his views because I keep seeing people project their own feelings onto him even though he has been clear about many parts of his platform. Sure, he's had to walk back many statements or clarify that he was "being sarcastic" but there are many parts of his platform where he is crystal clear, yet people don't think he'd actually pursue those policies.
...I feel like I need to keep adding a disclaimer that I'm not a Trump supporter...
President Trump: How & Why... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
In one sense you're right, but without such disclaimers we might be subjected to long threads of asinine assumptions and uncharitable translations.
Maybe you have the intense discipline and perfection to fail to make the mistake, but I doubt most of us on HN are devoting that much attention to our biases to completely avoid it. Most humans struggle to do this. I think it's useful to add a hedge or disclaimer.
I see this come up frequently on HN, usually not as well-worded as your response. Typically it's just "ad hominem" with the link to the logical fallacy on wikipedia.
But the source of a fact or argument is valuable information. Since humans have finite time and attention, it's useful to know why someone is making an argument.
Wouldn't you want to know if a drug study was sponsored by its manufacturer before believing it?
I see this come up frequently on HN, usually not as well-worded as your response. Typically it's just "ad hominem" with the link to the logical fallacy on wikipedia.
But the source of a fact or argument is valuable information. Since humans have finite time and attention, it's useful to know why someone is making an argument.
Wouldn't you want to know if a drug study was sponsored by its manufacturer before believing it?
Wouldn't you want to know if a drug study was sponsored by its manufacturer before believing it?
I can pursue an agenda while being both polite and thoughtful. If I were to ask a series of questions, using the Socratic Method, you would absolutely want to know what my motive was before misspeaking and harming your position.
Commenters on HN post both to persuade other commenters and to expose their own opinions to scrutiny by the community. I attempt to persuade and be persuaded by other HN commenters. It is useful to add disclaimers so other commenters can see if I have an agenda. Often I do, and it's useful to disclose that so suspicion is suspended and discourse can continue.
Commenters on HN post both to persuade other commenters and to expose their own opinions to scrutiny by the community. I attempt to persuade and be persuaded by other HN commenters. It is useful to add disclaimers so other commenters can see if I have an agenda. Often I do, and it's useful to disclose that so suspicion is suspended and discourse can continue.
> This would only work in a place where the discourse is generally polite and thoughtful, HN being an example of such.
Sadly, I'd say the fact that every other commenter seems to go out of their way to point out that they're not a Trump supporter, and the fact that I feel the need to do so myself, is evidence enough that HN is not polite and thoughtful enough when it comes to this issue.
And honestly I wouldn't expect that from HN, even though I do feel this is still a place where there is relatively more politeness and thoughtfulness.
Sadly, I'd say the fact that every other commenter seems to go out of their way to point out that they're not a Trump supporter, and the fact that I feel the need to do so myself, is evidence enough that HN is not polite and thoughtful enough when it comes to this issue.
And honestly I wouldn't expect that from HN, even though I do feel this is still a place where there is relatively more politeness and thoughtfulness.
I haven't seen anyone being attacked over admitting to supporting President-elect Trump, but I have seen a few hyperbolic posts from both sides being downvoted.
The debate in the comments was lively and both sides were represented over the Sam Altman post defending his decision to keep Peter Thiel at YCombinator.
The debate in the comments was lively and both sides were represented over the Sam Altman post defending his decision to keep Peter Thiel at YCombinator.
[deleted]
[deleted]
His trillion dollar infrastructure plan, which is vitally needed in this country where bridges and trains are falling apart, is going to be stopped dead in its track by Mitch McConnell. He flat out said it wasn't a priority.
It's going to be an awful four years where any of the good things Trump said (the stuff that resonated with Bernie supporters, renegotiating trade deals, infrastructure improvements, term limits and curtailing lobbyist influence ) are going to be flat out denied by this awful congress headed by one of the slimiest most cynical men in our history. Mitch McConnell's congress is a massive roadblock to progress.
It's going to be an awful four years where any of the good things Trump said (the stuff that resonated with Bernie supporters, renegotiating trade deals, infrastructure improvements, term limits and curtailing lobbyist influence ) are going to be flat out denied by this awful congress headed by one of the slimiest most cynical men in our history. Mitch McConnell's congress is a massive roadblock to progress.
McConnell has opposed pretty much every reasonable element of Trump's campaign platform to "drain the swamp". On term limits, McConnell simply said, "We have term limits; they're called elections." And, was emphatic that Republican leadership would not be doing anything on that front. Interestingly, the last time term limits were a campaign promise was when Republicans swept the house back in 1994 with the "Contract with America", which included a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on the house and senate...it turns out term limits are only attractive when you're not soundly in the majority.
So, yeah, we're looking at four years of obstructing their own candidate on anything good or reasonable that an "outsider" might want to do. While pushing aggressively forward (or backward, as the case may be) on all the same stuff they've been outraged at Obama for over the past eight years.
So, yeah, we're looking at four years of obstructing their own candidate on anything good or reasonable that an "outsider" might want to do. While pushing aggressively forward (or backward, as the case may be) on all the same stuff they've been outraged at Obama for over the past eight years.
Trump, for better or worse, is currently vastly more powerful than both McConnell and the rest of Congress. If Trump frames them as corrupt politicians standing in the way of 'Greatness' they will lose all support from the Republican base. They will talk a big game, but will have to back down if Trump forces the issue on anything.
While it may work to get some populist laws through, this dynamic also makes us extremely vulnerable to an autocratic power grab.
While it may work to get some populist laws through, this dynamic also makes us extremely vulnerable to an autocratic power grab.
I have this fantasy that Trump will be attuned to and care for the popular sentiment in good ways as well as bad. That he will steamroll some important changes that Hillary, Obama, Bush, and Bill wouldn't or couldn't.
Unfortunately I can't help but fear for the bad things he might push for, whether prompted by those close to him or populist sentiment.
Unfortunately I can't help but fear for the bad things he might push for, whether prompted by those close to him or populist sentiment.
I worry that people will lose attention after the election, but I hope they don't. Yes, it's hard to say this but absolutely the lose cannon of Trump over those normal Republicans.
I guess that means let's hope Peter Thiel wins the power behind the thrown? :/
I guess that means let's hope Peter Thiel wins the power behind the thrown? :/
He could conceivably get support for the Democrats on some of those things. He doesn't necessarily need that many Republicans on his side. As a Republican president presumably more than zero senators might be willing to follow him against McConnell.
Reading the subreddit The_Donald on Reddit it's blatantly clear that they share no love for McConnel and want him purged as they "drain the swamp".
I'm not a Trump supporter but I'd be behind purging the Old Guard and bringing in new ideas.
I'm not a Trump supporter but I'd be behind purging the Old Guard and bringing in new ideas.
I despise McConnell but he is looking down the barrel of a raid on the Fed - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12935834
When push comes to shove and if Trump tries to suborn the Senate, McConnell, like Roberts on the Court, might be the great white hope.
When push comes to shove and if Trump tries to suborn the Senate, McConnell, like Roberts on the Court, might be the great white hope.
He will be caught between his campaign promises, and the old guard GOP who are rapidly taking over his administration.
The value of stability to who? Other nations? America has ample military resources for defending its own shores, and I fail to see how we'll be negatively impacted by exiting the Middle East (aside from wailing from the pro-Israel lobbies).
Trump knows exactly what he's doing, and it is completely in line with his "America First" slogan. It's about focusing on improving our own citizens' lives before pouring trillions into wars, offshore military bases, NATO defense payments and UN programs in the name of globalization.
Trump knows exactly what he's doing, and it is completely in line with his "America First" slogan. It's about focusing on improving our own citizens' lives before pouring trillions into wars, offshore military bases, NATO defense payments and UN programs in the name of globalization.
The point to the post you're replying to is that "defending its own shores" is not the only value derived from American dominance. A free and unimpeded military environment in the middle east is one where, say, Russia feels justified in blackmailing Saudi over OPEC disputes.
A withdrawal of forces from ROK and Japan means that they now have to turn to China for protection from the lunatics in the North.
A world without NATO means that Russia gets to annex Russian-speaking regions of Estonia whenever they want, just like they ALREADY DID to the Ukraine.
It's tempting to believe that there are no militarist nuts with guns in the modern industrial world, but it's not true. What is true is that they've been largely suppressed in the post-cold-war era by American military dominance.
Until now. I'll actually put this prediction down in writing: before the end of Trump's term, there will be at least one shooting war involving one of the players mentioned above.
A withdrawal of forces from ROK and Japan means that they now have to turn to China for protection from the lunatics in the North.
A world without NATO means that Russia gets to annex Russian-speaking regions of Estonia whenever they want, just like they ALREADY DID to the Ukraine.
It's tempting to believe that there are no militarist nuts with guns in the modern industrial world, but it's not true. What is true is that they've been largely suppressed in the post-cold-war era by American military dominance.
Until now. I'll actually put this prediction down in writing: before the end of Trump's term, there will be at least one shooting war involving one of the players mentioned above.
Absolutely this. You can't just absolutely do a complete 180 on the principle of US's place in the world Post-WW2 and not expect bad things to happen. There is a reason things are the way they are. It's because we have let America always think they are the greatest and have some sort of God-given right to be the best in the world. They absolutely hate Muslims and can easily quote the fact that Islam dictates global dominance, hence it is wrong. When the US says it comes first and should have global dominance, everyone else is supposed to roll over and conform to all their demands?
They just elected a strongman into office who has a clear pattern of misplacing blame for all of the countries problems on the out-groups, including immigrants, Muslims, LGBT, liberals, politicians, the "upper class", and all kinds of other things. What will happen when his misplaced blame doesn't solve the problem? He will double down on the out-groups that gave him such easy support... It is DANGEROUS to have the principle of America first and everyone else second when you don't understand the consequences of America's actions and what it has inflicted on the world. It started the globalist capitalist elite, and now it doesn't want to be on the hook for them while blaming IMMIGRANTS for problems that were clearly caused by big corporations. So he wins by promising to cut taxes for those same corporations... I just don't get what he thinks his end-game is. Mostly WW3, I suppose.
They just elected a strongman into office who has a clear pattern of misplacing blame for all of the countries problems on the out-groups, including immigrants, Muslims, LGBT, liberals, politicians, the "upper class", and all kinds of other things. What will happen when his misplaced blame doesn't solve the problem? He will double down on the out-groups that gave him such easy support... It is DANGEROUS to have the principle of America first and everyone else second when you don't understand the consequences of America's actions and what it has inflicted on the world. It started the globalist capitalist elite, and now it doesn't want to be on the hook for them while blaming IMMIGRANTS for problems that were clearly caused by big corporations. So he wins by promising to cut taxes for those same corporations... I just don't get what he thinks his end-game is. Mostly WW3, I suppose.
> It's about focusing on improving our own citizens' lives before pouring trillions into wars, offshore military bases, NATO defense payments and UN programs in the name of globalization
This is literally the exact same argument the first group of people to use the "America First" slogan made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
And what those people ended up accomplishing was making sure that when the U.S. finally did enter World War 2, it did so more or less unarmed and with its Pacific Fleet sitting at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. Which meant that it took longer to defeat the Axis than it should have, and a lot more Americans (and people, both military and civilian, in all the other nations that struggled against fascism) had to die to make that happen.
In the age of rapid transit and telecommunications, the world is even smaller than it was then. Which makes hiding behind the oceans that sit between us and the rest of the world even less viable of a strategy today than it was.
This is literally the exact same argument the first group of people to use the "America First" slogan made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
And what those people ended up accomplishing was making sure that when the U.S. finally did enter World War 2, it did so more or less unarmed and with its Pacific Fleet sitting at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. Which meant that it took longer to defeat the Axis than it should have, and a lot more Americans (and people, both military and civilian, in all the other nations that struggled against fascism) had to die to make that happen.
In the age of rapid transit and telecommunications, the world is even smaller than it was then. Which makes hiding behind the oceans that sit between us and the rest of the world even less viable of a strategy today than it was.
Are you unaware that Trump wants to increase military spending?:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/politics/donald-trump-defense-...
Every Trump supporter seems to see exactly what they want to see of Trump's candidacy. I just had a conversation with someone who believes Trump will be great for LGBTQ equality. No awareness that the campaign has specifically, and emphatically, said, it would roll back almost every bit of progress that has been achieved over the past eight years.
Trump, apparently, won because Trump is whatever people want him to be, even if he has clearly and repeatedly said he is the opposite.
Trump, apparently, won because Trump is whatever people want him to be, even if he has clearly and repeatedly said he is the opposite.
And meanwhile those of us in the centrist technocrat left are dodging post-election spitballs thrown by progressives and hoping beyond hope that what Trump ACTUALLY wants to do is just sit on his ass in the oval office and play emperor and DOESN'T try to actually get anything done.
The spitballs are because what America (and the world) desperately needs right now is an opposition party. The centrist (actually, center-right, or even just right wing, compared to European politics) Democratic party has no power against right wing extremist ideologues. If the response of leading Democrats, thus far, is any indicator, there will be literally no effective opposition to Trump and the GOP leadership.
This is why progressives hate the Democrats so much lately.
This is why progressives hate the Democrats so much lately.
Oddly enough, despite the fact that the Dutch political climate is more left and quite different from the US, I'd say that many 'progressives' here also hate 'traditionally their' parties (usually Labor and Greens and the like).
The term 'regressive left' is becoming more common in my surroundings, and ever since Pim Fortuyn (2002, the precursor to our Dutch version of Trump, and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense) there's been a growing sense that our 'left' not only lacks an answer to populism, it's part of the 'evil neoliberal establishment 1% elite etc.'.
There's a sentiment around me that Labor/greens/D66 (center-left democrats?) are mostly an intellectual elite that doesn't understand the problems we face. They call for integration and multiculturalism, but don't feel any of the adverse effects or problems that result. And somehow they seem way too much into privatizing things, dismantling our welfare state, and general Neoliberal-tasting things.
Now, I don't know enough to have a very strong opinion on all of this. But I do sort of get the intense hatred of the 'intellectual left elite'. It feels degrading and shitty to be told that you're wrong and your problems are bullshit and you're being manipulated by a populist, and you're a racist, and all that, and I can totally see how that could make one respond with a big middle finger and a vote for exactly those populists. Even if just out of spite. And even regardless of the consequences.
Of course I have no answer to this problem. I'm a well-educated, left-leaning, academically-minded, LGBT-affiliated white man and I'll probably do fine no matter what. I feel the way forward for me is to start engaging more with those who feel like they need to 'fuck shit up' with their vote, and to try and properly understand why all these things are happening that I didn't predict and that don't make sense to me.
But dear God I'm trying my best to bite my tongue and not blindly disparage Trump or our own populist movements. Because 1) it seems counter-productive, and 2) a surprising number of my highly-educated, intellectual-type friends are in favor of those movements, so I can't afford not taking them seriously.
And I suppose 3) most people are smarter than they seem, including the really dumb ones.
The term 'regressive left' is becoming more common in my surroundings, and ever since Pim Fortuyn (2002, the precursor to our Dutch version of Trump, and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense) there's been a growing sense that our 'left' not only lacks an answer to populism, it's part of the 'evil neoliberal establishment 1% elite etc.'.
There's a sentiment around me that Labor/greens/D66 (center-left democrats?) are mostly an intellectual elite that doesn't understand the problems we face. They call for integration and multiculturalism, but don't feel any of the adverse effects or problems that result. And somehow they seem way too much into privatizing things, dismantling our welfare state, and general Neoliberal-tasting things.
Now, I don't know enough to have a very strong opinion on all of this. But I do sort of get the intense hatred of the 'intellectual left elite'. It feels degrading and shitty to be told that you're wrong and your problems are bullshit and you're being manipulated by a populist, and you're a racist, and all that, and I can totally see how that could make one respond with a big middle finger and a vote for exactly those populists. Even if just out of spite. And even regardless of the consequences.
Of course I have no answer to this problem. I'm a well-educated, left-leaning, academically-minded, LGBT-affiliated white man and I'll probably do fine no matter what. I feel the way forward for me is to start engaging more with those who feel like they need to 'fuck shit up' with their vote, and to try and properly understand why all these things are happening that I didn't predict and that don't make sense to me.
But dear God I'm trying my best to bite my tongue and not blindly disparage Trump or our own populist movements. Because 1) it seems counter-productive, and 2) a surprising number of my highly-educated, intellectual-type friends are in favor of those movements, so I can't afford not taking them seriously.
And I suppose 3) most people are smarter than they seem, including the really dumb ones.
Whatever. Still seems misdirected to me given the situation we're in. Being right isn't being helpful. People are legitimately terrified.
It's not about being right. It's about whether the Democratic party, as it stands today, has the guts to aggressively take on Trump and Republicans, and I think history has shown us that they do not. So, the Democratic party, today, is a party that people don't really like all that much, and has mostly driven straight down the middle when Republicans push extremist right wing agendas. So, over and over, when the chips fall, the result is far to the right of center. And, Democrats congratulate themselves on their willingness to compromise (unlike those awful Republicans, who are just so stubborn).
Even when Republicans haven't owned all of the branches of government (which is the state we've now found ourselves in), legislation has ended up tilting to the right...because for all their flaws, they know how opposition works, even if you don't have the majority.
Even when Republicans haven't owned all of the branches of government (which is the state we've now found ourselves in), legislation has ended up tilting to the right...because for all their flaws, they know how opposition works, even if you don't have the majority.
You can drive that knife as much as you want, if it makes you feel better. I'm an upper middle class white man whose gonna do just fine in Trump's america. It still doesn't change whose ass is going to sit in the oval office, nor do much to help our neighbors waiting for the deportation squads to arrive.
Tell me when you're through with the stabbing and want to work productively again WITH me to fix this. I'll be waiting.
Tell me when you're through with the stabbing and want to work productively again WITH me to fix this. I'll be waiting.
What does that work look like, to you?
You just characterized this guy who hasn't said a single violent thing as some knife-stabber, you're part of the obstacle preventing us all from working together.
Just keep at it. My bleeding centrist establishment abdomen will be here all week. Let me know when you're done.
(Edit just to clarify the sarcasm, as I feel you won't get it if I don't: if you check upthread, the metaphor I picked originally was "spitballs". I escalated for effect when it became clear that SwellJoe was more interested in yelling at the corrupt DNC establishment elites than in discussing what to do about a Trump presidency, which was the original topic.)
(Edit just to clarify the sarcasm, as I feel you won't get it if I don't: if you check upthread, the metaphor I picked originally was "spitballs". I escalated for effect when it became clear that SwellJoe was more interested in yelling at the corrupt DNC establishment elites than in discussing what to do about a Trump presidency, which was the original topic.)
"SwellJoe was more interested in yelling at the corrupt DNC establishment elites"
What have I said that is in a "yelling" tone? Please point it out to me, so I can adjust my tone. I'm speaking the truth as I see it, as clearly as I understand it. The Democratic party lost big this year. It was not just the presidential race. Republicans swept the board, at the national, state, and local level, including in places they shouldn't have won.
If you believe staying the course is the right course of action for the DNC and the party in general, I believe the onus is on you to defend that position; there are people who have tried to bring the party back to being a grassroots party of the working class (among others, of course), and have been repeatedly shushed, shunned, dismissed as being "extremist", etc. So, the working classes have spoken and embraced a fascist who, at least, speaks to them where they are and acknowledges the pain they're feeling. That he can get away with giving scapegoats rather than solutions is predictable in the absence of consistent messaging and action from the Democrats on those same issues.
The argument can no longer be made that the center lane is the pragmatic approach; though one could certainly argue that there's room for center-left Democrats in red state elections, and I would even agree with that and support that. But, the party has no passion left in it; it's been shoved out by party functionaries who cling to power within the party, all the while it sinks further below water.
Losing (big and wide) is not pragmatic.
What have I said that is in a "yelling" tone? Please point it out to me, so I can adjust my tone. I'm speaking the truth as I see it, as clearly as I understand it. The Democratic party lost big this year. It was not just the presidential race. Republicans swept the board, at the national, state, and local level, including in places they shouldn't have won.
If you believe staying the course is the right course of action for the DNC and the party in general, I believe the onus is on you to defend that position; there are people who have tried to bring the party back to being a grassroots party of the working class (among others, of course), and have been repeatedly shushed, shunned, dismissed as being "extremist", etc. So, the working classes have spoken and embraced a fascist who, at least, speaks to them where they are and acknowledges the pain they're feeling. That he can get away with giving scapegoats rather than solutions is predictable in the absence of consistent messaging and action from the Democrats on those same issues.
The argument can no longer be made that the center lane is the pragmatic approach; though one could certainly argue that there's room for center-left Democrats in red state elections, and I would even agree with that and support that. But, the party has no passion left in it; it's been shoved out by party functionaries who cling to power within the party, all the while it sinks further below water.
Losing (big and wide) is not pragmatic.
> Every Trump supporter seems to see exactly what they want to see of Trump's candidacy.
This is part of his genius. There's a similar concept in some mythology that I can't place at the moment...
This is part of his genius. There's a similar concept in some mythology that I can't place at the moment...
>No awareness that the campaign has specifically, and emphatically, said, it would roll back almost every bit of progress that has been achieved over the past eight years.
Source?
Source?
Here's one, pretty well-cited, article on the subject: http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-...
And, look at the legislative record of the people he has chosen to be part of his team. They are among the most anti-LGBTQ legislators at the national level (and his VP has been a nightmare on LGBTQ and women's issues).
I guess it is Trump's lack of legislative record that allows people to make him a grab bag of whatever they want to see. But, when you check the history of who he's got on the team, the story is pretty clear.
And, look at the legislative record of the people he has chosen to be part of his team. They are among the most anti-LGBTQ legislators at the national level (and his VP has been a nightmare on LGBTQ and women's issues).
I guess it is Trump's lack of legislative record that allows people to make him a grab bag of whatever they want to see. But, when you check the history of who he's got on the team, the story is pretty clear.
> History shows that when America is not prepared is when the danger is greatest. We want to deter, avoid and prevent conflict through our unquestioned military dominance
My suspicion is that he wants less direct military involvement and a greater threat if military involvement is required.
That is, he's proposing that we replace the "World Police" model with the Swiss model.
My suspicion is that he wants less direct military involvement and a greater threat if military involvement is required.
That is, he's proposing that we replace the "World Police" model with the Swiss model.
That's a somewhat rational reconstruction of his argument. I am not sure that's the only possible reading. (At least one other one is that he was or is simply not coherent.)
It goes hand in glove with his push for nuclear rearmament. Trump wants a strong, military deterrent but wants to stop nation state building and proxy wars. I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive.
There could be some detterant benefit in having someone like Trump. With Obama enemies always knew that he would take a rational approach anf try and avoid war. An irrational President is potentially more scary. He will attack even when logically it is a bad idea.
Sort of like Luo Ji as the "Swordholder"? That's kind of scary, but actually it's less scary to imagine a single person making occasionally irrational decisions, than a slow inexorable buildup of media hype and intelligence service bullshit with no obvious cause but one possible result. Actually it feels like the election interrupted one of the latter, and I'm glad because I'd prefer we not go to war with Russia.
That doesn't really go against what he said.
In so much as America is a "global cop", it's because we actually directly benefit the most from "continued peaceful existence of the world". We do the most trade, we are the largest economy. We have the most to lose.
Michael Hudson summed it up a different way - in exchange for military protection, use our currency and open your companies to ours. Oh, and we'll win the guns at you next if your military gets big enough to challenge ours.
We're also sitting on an abundance of natural resources. In stark terms: We only rely on continued world peace because of globalization and our reliance on international trade. It isn't inconceivable that we could return to total self-sufficiency if we wanted to.
We more than 'rely' on world peace and global trade, we thrive on it. Could we be self-sufficient in isolation? Maybe. Would we be better off? Unlikely. Comparative advantage is a real thing.
Yes, unskilled factory workers in China really are cheaper than unskilled factory workers in USA. That's why the Rust Belt voted for Trump, isn't it?
US military dominance is what makes USD the world's reserve currency which in turn drives 30-40% of our GDP if we start to withdraw it will start to affect USD standing as a world's
reserve currency.
This is just one of those myths that gets bandied all around the web. It's a reserve currency because it's a huge balanced economy, and the dollars are freely floated and available. And it's not exactly proven that a strong dollar benefits the US altogether.
You are confusing the exchange rate with our ability to basically control word's money supply. The Middle East is basically economic preferences in exchange for security type of setup. One of the consequences of that is that's world's oil trade is denominated in USD. Putin's wet dream is changing that.
The strong vs weak dollar is one of those things that nobody seems to understand. A weak dollar means it's harder for BMW to sell in America, but easier for Ford to sell in Europe. Why should that make people in Detroit angry?
In fact, Trump is in favor ( as all nationalists should be ) of depreciating our currency to be more competitive.
These kinds of economic predictions are nearly impossible to prove or verify.
I remember approximately 1 week ago that Trump being elected would cause a global economic meltdown. Krugman himself said the stock market would "never recover" if he is elected.
And already stocks are up, and have been the last few days.
I remember approximately 1 week ago that Trump being elected would cause a global economic meltdown. Krugman himself said the stock market would "never recover" if he is elected.
And already stocks are up, and have been the last few days.
Bond market is getting hammered though, because it believes he'll revive inflation.
If he lets the Tea Party horsemen of the apocalypse loose on Yellen and the Fed, he just might
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/02/25/infrastructure-co...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/02/25/infrastructure-co...
> does not properly account for the value of the stability the U.S. provides throughout the world now.
Countries destroyed by brutal dictators propped up and supported by US might have something to say about the "stability" part there.
> I think it's incredibly short-sighted.
Or we could try a few more regime changes in Libya, maybe create another ISIS because that was lots of fun.
I think "pax Americana" sounds not like you think it sounds to many countries in the world.
Countries destroyed by brutal dictators propped up and supported by US might have something to say about the "stability" part there.
> I think it's incredibly short-sighted.
Or we could try a few more regime changes in Libya, maybe create another ISIS because that was lots of fun.
I think "pax Americana" sounds not like you think it sounds to many countries in the world.
Don't forget the war on drugs that continues to claim thousands of lives and destabilize countries in Latin America.
> It's essentially the end of "pax Americana".
> I think it's incredibly short-sighted.
The US is still coasting on foreign policy that was essentially made in 1945 after WWII. There's just no way that policy can be maintained indefinitely.
Trump has made comments to the effect that he'd like to lay the foundations of a new type of foreign policy that'll last for decades to come. Whatever you think of his plans I think it's clear that the US can't maintain these foreign entanglements indefinitely, and will need to distribute some of the load to their current allies.
US defence spending as share of GDP is in broad terms stable, and lower than the 50s and 60s, so the basis of saying the policy can't be maintained indefinately is unclear.
Of course, US spending could have been even lower still if we avoided using false pretences to engage in a pointless war of choice in Iraq, which, of course, had nothing to do with commitments to Europe or Japan.
Of course, US spending could have been even lower still if we avoided using false pretences to engage in a pointless war of choice in Iraq, which, of course, had nothing to do with commitments to Europe or Japan.
The basis for citing US share of world GDP is that the US has military commitments against adversaries whose collective share of the world GDP pie is growing, and their militaries along with it.
Just saw on the news that after Trump met up with Obama, he's announced he wants to retain some core parts of Obamacare.
The broken promises already started. And they're going to keep going. "Draining the swamp" already isn't happening. A lot of Washington insiders are on his team. I don't know if he's actually going to be able to do any of the things he's promised now that he's in the know.
The broken promises already started. And they're going to keep going. "Draining the swamp" already isn't happening. A lot of Washington insiders are on his team. I don't know if he's actually going to be able to do any of the things he's promised now that he's in the know.
Some provisions of Obamacare are very popular, even among Republicans. Requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions was supported by 74% of Americans, including 62% of Republicans, in a Harris Poll survey this past May.
Of course, how do you keep insurance companies from going out of business under the weight of that provision? That's where the individual mandate came from--which is the least popular part of the law.
So: good luck with making the numbers work, Trump.
Of course, how do you keep insurance companies from going out of business under the weight of that provision? That's where the individual mandate came from--which is the least popular part of the law.
So: good luck with making the numbers work, Trump.
Requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions...
I always believed that once you accept this as a required outcome, you initiate a dependency chain that ends in single-payer government health care. There's just no way around it.
I always believed that once you accept this as a required outcome, you initiate a dependency chain that ends in single-payer government health care. There's just no way around it.
It's not clear whether Trump even opposes single-payer healthcare.
He pushed the repeal of Obamacare pretty hard toward the end of the election when it became apparent that was a winning message. But he has said repeatedly that he does not believe that the U.S. can just abandon people without healthcare. "We have to take care of our people"--he said things like this a number of times.
The big question now is how much control Trump will have over his own administration, vs. the established GOP machine in DC.
Trump's inexperience with governing means he doesn't know all the tricks and levers for getting what he wants. He's used to just issuing commands to his corporate staff. The executive branch does not work like that. Everyone has their own agendas, and will undercut or sell out the president if they think it will help them.
He pushed the repeal of Obamacare pretty hard toward the end of the election when it became apparent that was a winning message. But he has said repeatedly that he does not believe that the U.S. can just abandon people without healthcare. "We have to take care of our people"--he said things like this a number of times.
The big question now is how much control Trump will have over his own administration, vs. the established GOP machine in DC.
Trump's inexperience with governing means he doesn't know all the tricks and levers for getting what he wants. He's used to just issuing commands to his corporate staff. The executive branch does not work like that. Everyone has their own agendas, and will undercut or sell out the president if they think it will help them.
Yeah, what puts "Affordable" in "Affordable Care Act" is also the most unfavorable part. That's why I believed it was essentially designed to fail (politically) and be repealed, and that's indeed what is about to happen.
Meh, let someone else do that. They'll just repeal the ACA wholesale, and get back to the important stuff of Benghazi and email hearings.
Don't worry, he'll pardon her for her crimes, eventually.
>>I don't know if he's actually going to be able to do any of the things he's promised now that he's in the know.
Keep in mind Obama also made many (leftist) promises in his 2008 campaign, such as closing Gitmo. Once he understood certain realities though, he had to abandon those promises and become more of a center-left president.
In this election, the Democratic base wanted a real leftist. That's why there was tremendous excitement about Bernie. The Democrats decided to field a center-right candidate instead. The result is clear: they got crushed.
Keep in mind Obama also made many (leftist) promises in his 2008 campaign, such as closing Gitmo. Once he understood certain realities though, he had to abandon those promises and become more of a center-left president.
In this election, the Democratic base wanted a real leftist. That's why there was tremendous excitement about Bernie. The Democrats decided to field a center-right candidate instead. The result is clear: they got crushed.
Just wanted to throw a word on the trade deals. The major aspect in the current trade deals that got negotiated in secret (like TPP and TTIP) were not tariffs or trade barriers. Tariffs are currently the lowest they ever been between nations and its more or less just a formality to finally have them completely removed.
What would have a major effect on the world is the new copyright and patent laws and the investor-state arbitration. The world will less be changed from not having those, and by many views for the better. I don't expect China or Russia to try impose harsher copyright and patent laws, destroying ship loads with generic drugs or implement a world-wide investor-state arbitration.
What would have a major effect on the world is the new copyright and patent laws and the investor-state arbitration. The world will less be changed from not having those, and by many views for the better. I don't expect China or Russia to try impose harsher copyright and patent laws, destroying ship loads with generic drugs or implement a world-wide investor-state arbitration.
Recent data suggests trade restrictive measures are at an elevated level.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-10/trump-or-n...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-10/trump-or-n...
My bet is that Trump will do what presidents before him did, much the same way. Presidents do what their consultants tell them, and what political and business interests and deals dictate. If he asks an Asia expert, that expert will say to Trump the same as what he said to Obama. Campaign speech and slogans is one thing. What substantial changes have resulted from Obama's "hope" campaign slogan?
I agree with you that it certainly makes larger conflicts more likely.
This backing off on world power actually began with Obama, and has been a theme throughout. I'm on mobile right now and can't dig them up, but there a lots of state and military papers on it.
Here's the Secretary of Defense speaking in 2011:
"But in my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should “have his head examined,” as General MacArthur so delicately put it."
This backing off on world power actually began with Obama, and has been a theme throughout. I'm on mobile right now and can't dig them up, but there a lots of state and military papers on it.
Here's the Secretary of Defense speaking in 2011:
"But in my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should “have his head examined,” as General MacArthur so delicately put it."
> He wants to cede more of the Middle East to Russia, reduce our participation
Maybe it was a different week, but I thought his complaint was that we were weak against Russia and letting them do whatever they want. That's where his whole he's know Putin respects power but we have not been projecting it came from.
Again, maybe that was said at a different time. It is why I keep saying we'll have to wait and see what he really does and not just says.
Maybe it was a different week, but I thought his complaint was that we were weak against Russia and letting them do whatever they want. That's where his whole he's know Putin respects power but we have not been projecting it came from.
Again, maybe that was said at a different time. It is why I keep saying we'll have to wait and see what he really does and not just says.
> the value of the stability the U.S. provides throughout the world now.
https://chomsky.info/fateful02/
> We have to understand “stability” to mean maintenance of specific forms of domination and control, and easy access to resources and profits. And the phrase “fundamentalist religious zealotry,” as noted, is a code word for a particular form of “radical nationalism” that threatens “stability.”
https://chomsky.info/fateful02/
> We have to understand “stability” to mean maintenance of specific forms of domination and control, and easy access to resources and profits. And the phrase “fundamentalist religious zealotry,” as noted, is a code word for a particular form of “radical nationalism” that threatens “stability.”
If he plays his hand wisely he actually has a chance to negotiate better terms for US as the opposite party will be pretty sure he is capable of pulling the plug.
Except China wants to keep the status quo.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-china-media-i...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-china-media-i...
[deleted]
I think that's true, but for most of his supporters this probably doesn't matter. Even though America has been doing well on the world stage in influence and soft power, the benefits are perceived to have been bestowed on the wealthy and not shared evenly with those in rural areas torn by economic changes from globalization.
One can see it as a market division between those 3-4 players instead of them competing with each other everywhere.
Why should American taxpayers fund 'Pax Americana'? What's in it for them?
I actually think the exact opposite. Obama's actions have clearly ended, or diminished at the least, Pax Americana. He's basically withdrawn completely from the Middle East enabling Russia to fill the vacuum. Obama's abandoned our friends in Easter Europe enabling Russia to fill the void. That's just factual.
[deleted]
Distinct possibility those countries will dislike us less though. Currently we're like their overprotective (attack) helicopter parents. I am a little bit less worried about the major powers as I am the less predictable ones like North Korea.
And of course once the shit hits the fan everybody will refuse to accept responsibility and somehow it will be the Democrats fault. And again the cycle will begin where the Democrats have to again clean up the Republican's mess. Nobody remembers 2008.
Everyone who thinks of themselves as a "rival" to the US is right now throwing parties with swimming pools filled with fine, expensive champagne.
It's like your main competitor, who was always 10 steps ahead of you, just got as a CEO that guy who's yelling loudly all the time but knows nothing about the industry.
It's like your main competitor, who was always 10 steps ahead of you, just got as a CEO that guy who's yelling loudly all the time but knows nothing about the industry.
I think America will really have to become "Great Again" because by electing Trump they have shown that he is right. The country who openly voted for a racist and a xenophobe is surely not great. The faster democrats and other get out this stupid rust belt explanation phase the better.
Fine with me (although I disagree all that will occur under him, but it will be inevitable, all empires decline). It's not my responsibility to pay taxes to police the world (while European and other friends gloat to me about their welfare system). We've got a geographic advantage, we should use it. What's shocking is how has the rest of the world not realized that the US' track record in policing the world has been abysmal and destructive? I would prefer these decisions be distributed across the world rather than resting on the hands of the US population (don't get me started on them).
What if the US is actually already making a net gain on the security they provide? The Pax Americana had its upsides for the hegemon. (The Brits certainly liked their time at the top.)
After Nelson's victory at Trafalgar, GB had delivered a global message loud and clear "We took out Napolean's France and the Bourbon Spanish fleet, we can take you out too". Global security for trade at the time was provided by the Royal Navy. Financial security for the investor was given as Lloyd's of London ensured a way to hedge against losing your entire shirt, should the ship you bought 20% stake in not return. The a market ripe for the middle-class titleless but incredibly affluent landed gentry (because no one of title would ever be considered a worker, how disgraceful!) to re-invest the profits gained from industrialization into other ventures.
The other (arguably more important) component that differentiated Pax Britannica from the Pax Americana was colonies. The US was brought into WWII with an ideological high-mindedness that prevented us from doing what GB/France did in WWI with the Sykes–Picot Agreement and chop up colonies as war proceeds. Those colonies are precisely what kept Britain afloat -- i.e., from Indian spices, Indian silks, and high quality Wootz steel, as well as from rich land - Virginian soil that was ridiculously fertile and prime for tobacco. (All of which had to be routed through GB and taxed, often to return to its origin to be processed, leading to a bunch of pissed-off rich white landed gentry to commit treason.)
I digress. Pax Americana would have occurred regardless of our (overinvolvement) in national affairs. Quite simply, there was no one left with an infrastructure intact post WWII to produce the materials for reconstruction. A well-executed Marshall Plan in place ensured an economically secure US post-WWII, the profits of which allowed a "Leave it to Beaver" suburban (somewhat artificial) saudade. Teamsters needed to load that cargo on and off ships, machinists needed to work the lathes to create those widgets being exported to a reconstructing Belgium. This also was during an era when the highest federal tax rate was 91% rather than 35%, because yes, _wars cost money_. If congress declares a state of war, the executive administration has the moral obligation to the country to increase taxes appropriately (not print 30 year notes like they were going out of fashion, leaving the mess for the next administration / generation to clean up).
Surely, there are people making a net gain off of the security provided by the armed forces. But it's definitely not John in Minnesota working the Bridgeport. Those jobs are all mechanised. The net gain exists is going to someone working logistics in a nice bespoke suit from Saville Row will flying First Club BA from JFK to Heathrow. The profits will then get routed to some holding company that owns the majority stake in some set of Lichtenstein AG's with an executor being some nameless attorney in the Dutch Antilles who isn't allowed to reveal the name of his client.
He'll keep his money there, or maybe move it to UBS if he's accrued enough capital to be invited into the Private Wealth community. Maybe he'll be advised to move that money into a holding corporation based in Hong Kong, buy US 30 year notes and take the small hit on the 11% HK tax and tiny purchasing power loss if the coupons + payout doesn't beat inflation because you'll be claiming the profits at 15% long-term capital gains anyways (and that's if you even want to remit the money back into the US).
(I'm not a tax attorney (especially not one with experience in international tax law), CPA, nor a chartered accountant, but I do enjoy reading technicalities (in any system) because semantics of category is like a game of chess to me. An actual professional will obviously not execute the series of strategies I delineated above in that exact form, but it covers the gist of how Romney had an effective tax rate of 13.9%. For more details, PricewaterCooper has a PDF floating around for corporate tax minimization. Julius Baer, a former private bank for high net-worth individuals, was one of the first major Wikileaks. It delineated the methodologies of legal money movement for individuals and their method de jour at the time (though its an arms race against tax institutions, so they constantly evolve like infectious bacteria vs antibiotics (you pick which is which ;) ))).
The other (arguably more important) component that differentiated Pax Britannica from the Pax Americana was colonies. The US was brought into WWII with an ideological high-mindedness that prevented us from doing what GB/France did in WWI with the Sykes–Picot Agreement and chop up colonies as war proceeds. Those colonies are precisely what kept Britain afloat -- i.e., from Indian spices, Indian silks, and high quality Wootz steel, as well as from rich land - Virginian soil that was ridiculously fertile and prime for tobacco. (All of which had to be routed through GB and taxed, often to return to its origin to be processed, leading to a bunch of pissed-off rich white landed gentry to commit treason.)
I digress. Pax Americana would have occurred regardless of our (overinvolvement) in national affairs. Quite simply, there was no one left with an infrastructure intact post WWII to produce the materials for reconstruction. A well-executed Marshall Plan in place ensured an economically secure US post-WWII, the profits of which allowed a "Leave it to Beaver" suburban (somewhat artificial) saudade. Teamsters needed to load that cargo on and off ships, machinists needed to work the lathes to create those widgets being exported to a reconstructing Belgium. This also was during an era when the highest federal tax rate was 91% rather than 35%, because yes, _wars cost money_. If congress declares a state of war, the executive administration has the moral obligation to the country to increase taxes appropriately (not print 30 year notes like they were going out of fashion, leaving the mess for the next administration / generation to clean up).
Surely, there are people making a net gain off of the security provided by the armed forces. But it's definitely not John in Minnesota working the Bridgeport. Those jobs are all mechanised. The net gain exists is going to someone working logistics in a nice bespoke suit from Saville Row will flying First Club BA from JFK to Heathrow. The profits will then get routed to some holding company that owns the majority stake in some set of Lichtenstein AG's with an executor being some nameless attorney in the Dutch Antilles who isn't allowed to reveal the name of his client.
He'll keep his money there, or maybe move it to UBS if he's accrued enough capital to be invited into the Private Wealth community. Maybe he'll be advised to move that money into a holding corporation based in Hong Kong, buy US 30 year notes and take the small hit on the 11% HK tax and tiny purchasing power loss if the coupons + payout doesn't beat inflation because you'll be claiming the profits at 15% long-term capital gains anyways (and that's if you even want to remit the money back into the US).
(I'm not a tax attorney (especially not one with experience in international tax law), CPA, nor a chartered accountant, but I do enjoy reading technicalities (in any system) because semantics of category is like a game of chess to me. An actual professional will obviously not execute the series of strategies I delineated above in that exact form, but it covers the gist of how Romney had an effective tax rate of 13.9%. For more details, PricewaterCooper has a PDF floating around for corporate tax minimization. Julius Baer, a former private bank for high net-worth individuals, was one of the first major Wikileaks. It delineated the methodologies of legal money movement for individuals and their method de jour at the time (though its an arms race against tax institutions, so they constantly evolve like infectious bacteria vs antibiotics (you pick which is which ;) ))).
Thanks for the historic overview!
I am not quite sure about the fiscal (?) impact of the colonies: industrialisation clearly made Britain rich, but I am not so sure about the colonies. (I am trying to find some good data, and I will have to formalise my hypothesis in a way that's testable with numbers.)
The American 91% federal income tax rate only existed on paper: the federal tax take as a proportion of GDP over time is mostly flat, no matter what happened to the top marginal tax rate. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law) One of the tax dodges to get around those high marginal rates was employer provided health care---and the US still haven't recovered from that mistake.
About the tax shenanigans you describe: that's one of the reasons I am a firm believer in land value tax---basically impossible to evade if implemented right. But exactly because it's such an easy to administer and hard-to-avoid system, it'll `never happen'.
I am not quite sure about the fiscal (?) impact of the colonies: industrialisation clearly made Britain rich, but I am not so sure about the colonies. (I am trying to find some good data, and I will have to formalise my hypothesis in a way that's testable with numbers.)
The American 91% federal income tax rate only existed on paper: the federal tax take as a proportion of GDP over time is mostly flat, no matter what happened to the top marginal tax rate. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law) One of the tax dodges to get around those high marginal rates was employer provided health care---and the US still haven't recovered from that mistake.
About the tax shenanigans you describe: that's one of the reasons I am a firm believer in land value tax---basically impossible to evade if implemented right. But exactly because it's such an easy to administer and hard-to-avoid system, it'll `never happen'.
It has upsides for the most powerful corporations, who use the military to protect their resources and investments overseas with force, and have toppled and ruined countless nations who provide unfavorable decisions towards their activities in those countries. I could not care less about those corporations.
Would you be ok with the same setup except where instead of corporations, all american citizens benefit equally from those exploits?
[EDIT:] You propose something impossible. The military-industrial complex was created, and is maintained, for the obscene revenue it generates for well-placed corporations. If there were no money in it, "unnamed Pentagon sources" wouldn't lie through the media that we're in some sort of danger from rural Arab wedding guests. It's a roundabout transfer from USA taxpayers and bondholders to armaments manufacturers, not a profitable enterprise in which individual citizens might plausibly take part.
With a background in Economics - I've always been inclined to support free trade deals. Granted it's one thing to theoretically say they're great, and another to say it to the face of someone who's lost their job because of it.
Cheaper goods help the American people in aggregate - but they disproportionately hurt certain swathes of the population, primarily those who work in manufacturing and related fields. One has a large intangible benefit spread out - another has a very tangible human face to it.
Cheaper goods help the American people in aggregate - but they disproportionately hurt certain swathes of the population, primarily those who work in manufacturing and related fields. One has a large intangible benefit spread out - another has a very tangible human face to it.
The problem with this argument is that numerous studies have shown that trade is responsible for a small proportion of manufacturing jobs lost in America in the past few decades.
Increases in productivity and automation have been shown to be responsible for most of the job losses, and those would have happened with or without free trade agreements. In fact, the US manufactures more things than it ever has before -- it simply does so with fewer workers.
This means that restrictions on trade won't bring many jobs back. If US companies have to manufacture things in the US, they will automate their factories as much as possible to save money.
These articles cite the studies I mentioned, and are pretty good in general:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/business/economy/more-weal...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/the-rage-ag...
Increases in productivity and automation have been shown to be responsible for most of the job losses, and those would have happened with or without free trade agreements. In fact, the US manufactures more things than it ever has before -- it simply does so with fewer workers.
This means that restrictions on trade won't bring many jobs back. If US companies have to manufacture things in the US, they will automate their factories as much as possible to save money.
These articles cite the studies I mentioned, and are pretty good in general:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/business/economy/more-weal...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/the-rage-ag...
That's a reasonable argument, and I'll have to read up more on it. What I posted above was via by economics classes from some time ago, so it may be time to actually take a look at the data.
By no means am I for trade restrictions - I was just commenting on the fact that the answer (like most of any complex issues) is "it depends".
By no means am I for trade restrictions - I was just commenting on the fact that the answer (like most of any complex issues) is "it depends".
Maybe the point is that an economic strategy that chases marginal cost savings only creates short term benefits for investors while selling out an industrious workforce that were otherwise poised to create the next big innovation.
Imagine if word processing never happened because the Typists union lobbied for laws which require a human typist to draft documents, or if engineering technicians prevented CAD software from being used and replacing their jobs. Those workers were industrious, but removing them increases productivity.
Here's the big problem: You're not wrong in that automation is mostly good. But most people who are cheering for automation, or even for overseas cost savings, are not interested in what happens next to those who lose their jobs because of it. And we need to come up with a variety of solutions for that, because there are many different types of people who are losing these jobs. People who are younger are more likely able to be retrained to do something else, but someone who is 50 and nearing retirement is going to need a different approach. Not only will it be harder for them to be retrained, it will be much harder for them to get a job after that retraining.
You are writing as if technological unemployment has even been a problem. It just hasn't. (We might see some in the future, but I would bet against it.)
Let's look at a recent historic example:
The housing bubble employed lots of blue collar workers in construction. The bubble burst, and those jobs went away. But---and here's the crucial part---people forget that unemployment did not pick up: basically those laid off found new jobs.
We only got a general uptick in unemployment when the fed's mismanagement turned this minor recession into The Great Recession.
See https://www.aei.org/publication/did-the-housing-crash-cause-... and just look at the timelines: housing starts (and thus employment in the construction sector) decline by around half between the peak in 2006 and the end of 2007. General unemployment barely budges.
Then only in 2008 The Great Recession kicks in, and unemployment takes off.
The oft-repeated narrative that when the housing bubble burst, those blue collar workers lost their jobs and never got another one is simply not true.
The narrative that those blue collar workers who lost their job during The Great Recession didn't have another job to switch to, that's much closer to the truth. But that Great Recession was entirely avoidable.
Let's look at a recent historic example:
The housing bubble employed lots of blue collar workers in construction. The bubble burst, and those jobs went away. But---and here's the crucial part---people forget that unemployment did not pick up: basically those laid off found new jobs.
We only got a general uptick in unemployment when the fed's mismanagement turned this minor recession into The Great Recession.
See https://www.aei.org/publication/did-the-housing-crash-cause-... and just look at the timelines: housing starts (and thus employment in the construction sector) decline by around half between the peak in 2006 and the end of 2007. General unemployment barely budges.
Then only in 2008 The Great Recession kicks in, and unemployment takes off.
The oft-repeated narrative that when the housing bubble burst, those blue collar workers lost their jobs and never got another one is simply not true.
The narrative that those blue collar workers who lost their job during The Great Recession didn't have another job to switch to, that's much closer to the truth. But that Great Recession was entirely avoidable.
Imagine if all the software jobs could have been outsourced in the 1960's. Who in the world would be hosting Silicon Valley today?
I'm not aware of any laws prohibiting outsourcing my job today. Companies don't do it because they still get superior engineering talent here today, along with some other plusses like locals who understand the market and culture.
The superior engineering talent is simply a result of a small educational lead we had in the US because we birthed the PC industry. The rest of the world is catching up, and software engineering work is shifting overseas.
If we continue with a shareholder only focus those jobs will go overseas as soon as the cost-benefit ratio flips. If this is a strategic industry where innovations can still potentially reshape the economic landscape, then we should make efforts to keep the talent onshore, so that we can mine the industry for those innovations ourselves.
If we continue with a shareholder only focus those jobs will go overseas as soon as the cost-benefit ratio flips. If this is a strategic industry where innovations can still potentially reshape the economic landscape, then we should make efforts to keep the talent onshore, so that we can mine the industry for those innovations ourselves.
If I interview at a job and I'm not the best candidate, why should the company hire me instead of someone else? I should deserve things that I earn.
And if that point occurs and the best software engineers are working elsewhere for cheaper, US companies are going to be disadvantaged if they have to pay more for similar work. They'll find it tough to compete with the likes of Baidu or VK.
The only way I can see this working is if the US goes full isolation and both prevents its companies from hiring externally and prevents other companies from entering its market.
And if that point occurs and the best software engineers are working elsewhere for cheaper, US companies are going to be disadvantaged if they have to pay more for similar work. They'll find it tough to compete with the likes of Baidu or VK.
The only way I can see this working is if the US goes full isolation and both prevents its companies from hiring externally and prevents other companies from entering its market.
In a Western market economy, we encourage the outcomes we want through regulation and policy. For example the High Tech industry is propped up in the US through fat government contracts for defense related companies (eg Palantir, Google), strategic venture funds (CIA's In-Q-Tel), government innovation efforts that are given away (Darpa, Arpanet), government funding to universities to teach certain course or research certain fields. Since farming, manufacturing, infrastructure and energy could also be supported in this way, we should give them the same love that Silicon Valley gets from the Government. Particularly because they would help the other half of America get back to work. Above all we should not be imposing regulations to force these industries out of business.
The US government already props up many of these industries too, like corn farmers and green energy. If you're in the corn business or making solar panels, you can bet you're gonna lobby for continued support.
Tech certainly started from a government investment, but at this point much of it is probably self sustaining. In-Q-Tel makes up a small % of venture investments (mostly in defense-useful areas), and most of the money stems from B2C or B2B.
> Above all we should not be imposing regulations to force these industries out of business
Agreed. I'd also argue we shouldn't be imposing regulations to play favorites, because that has the side effect of hurting other businesses. Should the government help taxi cab companies or uber? Greater regulation favors the cab companies, which powers lobbyists to keep things the way they are.
Part of this digresses into what you think the role of government should be. Personally I don't think government should try to be our parents: it should level the playing field, try to stay out of the way, and let market forces shape most of the economy, intervening only for the important stuff like environment. The reasons are varied and some philosophical, but if you're starting from different beliefs you'll see things differently.
Tech certainly started from a government investment, but at this point much of it is probably self sustaining. In-Q-Tel makes up a small % of venture investments (mostly in defense-useful areas), and most of the money stems from B2C or B2B.
> Above all we should not be imposing regulations to force these industries out of business
Agreed. I'd also argue we shouldn't be imposing regulations to play favorites, because that has the side effect of hurting other businesses. Should the government help taxi cab companies or uber? Greater regulation favors the cab companies, which powers lobbyists to keep things the way they are.
Part of this digresses into what you think the role of government should be. Personally I don't think government should try to be our parents: it should level the playing field, try to stay out of the way, and let market forces shape most of the economy, intervening only for the important stuff like environment. The reasons are varied and some philosophical, but if you're starting from different beliefs you'll see things differently.
"Government should try to stay out of the way, let market forces shape most of the economy". Of course, we already know that excessively planned economies cannot compete with market economies. I'm simply saying, we lose our chance to innovate wherever we allow investors to fully outsource industries - it sells off our future potential unless we replace it with some other human endeavor. What's the goal of humanity? To reach a GDP high score? I hope not.
GDP is just easy to measure, but tends to correlate well with almost everything we care about in an economy (in the long run). There's nothing too magical about it.
I don't see why you want government fat cats and lobbyist deciding about innovation? Why are they better placed than the people who risk their money?
I don't see why you want government fat cats and lobbyist deciding about innovation? Why are they better placed than the people who risk their money?
Market forces are the things which have "sold off" so many jobs in the past, and many more to come. Markets work by their magic through "survival of the fittest" and if we stop unfit companies from dying off (e.g. US banks which took too much risk in 2008, or US auto manufacturing), we slow down this mechanism.
[deleted]
Probably not. The people that get sold out are not the innovators, not the highly educated. The people that get sold out are the people on lower rungs of economic ladder, whose jobs are automated and/or done more cheaply overseas, and who are mainly left scrounging for lower-paying service sector jobs. Only the more industrious, intelligent, and adaptable among them will be able to get re-training/education to get new jobs that pay the same.
What big innovation did you expect factory workers to create?
Well, in a Widget Factory there are all sorts. It's a hierarchy of workers with different skills. Typically though it is experienced/managerial/technical staff, who figure out how to improve things. Yes some of them do come out of the lower ranks. Pretty sure Henry Ford was just an engineer in someone else's company before he started making cars which lead him to inventing the modern assembly line as we know it today.
Ford used to work for Edison. (According to Wikipedia.)
Are you implying factory workers aren't intelligent enough to come up with something new?
I'd say they're less likely to invent the next big thing when working full time on an assembly line than otherwise.
I've personally met several of these workers who have created things that ended up being very helpful for their employers.
There's a reason why most of these companies have programs to encourage their workers to come up with these ideas and submit them to said company.
There's a reason why most of these companies have programs to encourage their workers to come up with these ideas and submit them to said company.
The famous Toyota Production System is designed around getting a continuous stream of innovations from factory workers.
Automation was (and still is) that next big innovation.
Or do you want only innovations that don't disturb the status quo?
Or do you want only innovations that don't disturb the status quo?
Automation is a subset of operational efficiency, which itself is only a small impetus for innovation. Off the top of my head, the impetus for innovation can be 1) to create bigger markets, 2) to create better quality, 3) to create extended product function, 4) to reduce cost. Cost reductions themselves can be discovered through 4.1) reduced labor costs (automation), 4.2) reduced material cost, 4.3) synergies with other product development efforts, 4.4) reduced risk/waste in production processes, 4.5) regulatory cost reduction, 4.6) reduced energy costs...
How does it benefit those it displaces?
Automation can be great. But we need to think long and hard about what to do with those that are going to be left behind. Job retraining can help somewhat, but a person who was 10 years or so away from retirement isn't likely to be helped by that, as they're going to have a very difficult time finding a job.
And please don't say "basic income". There is no way that is anywhere near politically feasible right now.
Automation can be great. But we need to think long and hard about what to do with those that are going to be left behind. Job retraining can help somewhat, but a person who was 10 years or so away from retirement isn't likely to be helped by that, as they're going to have a very difficult time finding a job.
And please don't say "basic income". There is no way that is anywhere near politically feasible right now.
I would be interested to see a tally of how many manufacturing jobs exist in China that are almost entirely exporters to the US.
Not sure if that's comparable though. If you're going to start a factory in China, you look at the cost of labor vs automation, and you pay for labor. If you have to start a factory in the US, you have a higher minimum wage, and realize automation is cheaper, so you hire less workers.
The comparable piece though, is that every time a manufacturer opens up somewhere the supply chain to that manufacturer develops around it. Manufacturing still has the highest economic multiplier of any business sector at $1.8 per $1 invested.
>trade is responsible for a small proportion of manufacturing jobs lost in America
I've seen conflicting claims on this. Other reports say trade has caused massive job losses.
Anyone who lives in a formerly manufacturing heavy area is going to be find that argument hard to believe. We see companies closing down shops and moving them overseas time and time again.
I've seen conflicting claims on this. Other reports say trade has caused massive job losses.
Anyone who lives in a formerly manufacturing heavy area is going to be find that argument hard to believe. We see companies closing down shops and moving them overseas time and time again.
> Anyone who lives in a formerly manufacturing heavy area is going to be find that argument hard to believe. We see companies closing down shops and moving them overseas time and time again.
The studies I mentioned showed that about 15% of the manufacturing jobs lost in the US were sent overseas due to trade. That's a small proportion of the total jobs that were lost, but it still adds up to a lot of people seeing their local factories close down.
The studies I mentioned showed that about 15% of the manufacturing jobs lost in the US were sent overseas due to trade. That's a small proportion of the total jobs that were lost, but it still adds up to a lot of people seeing their local factories close down.
Nobody on the ground believes that, it looks smells and sounds like horseshit.
This plays out in every collective bargaining deal. The company says "here's the offer, if you don't like it, we'll close the place and go to [Alabama|Mexico|China]".
The automation thing is a statistics trick. You look at total value of the finished output which skews the numbers to things like car assembly where many tasks are automated, but ingnore the downstream parts manufacturing, much of which is offshore or in Mexico.
Have you ever seen a textile factory? There isn't a ton of automation for many phases of the work. Just a race to the bottom to places like Bangladesh where it's easy to abuse the workforce.
The economic outputs may be bigger, the cream is only rising to the top.
This plays out in every collective bargaining deal. The company says "here's the offer, if you don't like it, we'll close the place and go to [Alabama|Mexico|China]".
The automation thing is a statistics trick. You look at total value of the finished output which skews the numbers to things like car assembly where many tasks are automated, but ingnore the downstream parts manufacturing, much of which is offshore or in Mexico.
Have you ever seen a textile factory? There isn't a ton of automation for many phases of the work. Just a race to the bottom to places like Bangladesh where it's easy to abuse the workforce.
The economic outputs may be bigger, the cream is only rising to the top.
And what do you think happens if you force those factory jobs back into the US with tariffs and then force companies to pay workers a living wage with benefits?
The companies instead pay big companies and already highly paid engineers to build machines to automate the work. Companies will always do whatever is most efficient, they don't care if they are using humans in Bangladesh or machines in the US.
The companies instead pay big companies and already highly paid engineers to build machines to automate the work. Companies will always do whatever is most efficient, they don't care if they are using humans in Bangladesh or machines in the US.
We elected republicans, so they give no shits about living wages.
If we made my t-shirts here, they'd cost $6 instead of $4.50, but the line workers would be making and spending money here instead of collecting disability and doing nothing. Supporting businesses doing equipment sales and repair would reappear. Wholesalers would open warehouses, etc.
The losers would be the middlemen brokering the skimming. I remember buying a pair of shoes in the 90s from a company that closed its factory in Maine. The next year the same shoe, made in some guangdong factory cost 20% more. I'd rather make a living for my neighbor than a fortune for some middleman.
If we made my t-shirts here, they'd cost $6 instead of $4.50, but the line workers would be making and spending money here instead of collecting disability and doing nothing. Supporting businesses doing equipment sales and repair would reappear. Wholesalers would open warehouses, etc.
The losers would be the middlemen brokering the skimming. I remember buying a pair of shoes in the 90s from a company that closed its factory in Maine. The next year the same shoe, made in some guangdong factory cost 20% more. I'd rather make a living for my neighbor than a fortune for some middleman.
> Nobody on the ground believes that, it looks smells and sounds like horseshit.
If you don't like an evidence-based argument, you should respond with a different evidence-based argument rather than dismissing it as "horseshit" and "tricks."
If you don't like an evidence-based argument, you should respond with a different evidence-based argument rather than dismissing it as "horseshit" and "tricks."
This conversation is the election in a nutshell. Obama and Hillary stuck with a whole-economy, stats-based approach to talking about the recovery, meanwhile Trump addressed the anger and despair of middle class working folks who see their jobs going away or getting worse.
Some evidence in favor of this argument is that automation is taking jobs even when it's impossible for those jobs to be outsourced: e.g. in coal mines.
On one podcast I was listening too they held a survey asking people whether trade deals were "good", "bad", "I don't know", "I think it's complicated". When following up, neither the "good" nor "bad" responders could answer questions about how trade deals worked (whereas the other categories had a better grasp).
Trade deals are hard, I believe one of the reasons we have been so successful at finding private tax evaders was in the same trade deal that killed Detroit.
Trade deals are hard, I believe one of the reasons we have been so successful at finding private tax evaders was in the same trade deal that killed Detroit.
Trade deals are hard, I believe one of the reasons we have been so successful at finding private tax evaders was in the same trade deal that killed Detroit.
Can you elaborate on that? What killed Detroit wasn't a trade deal, except to the extent that we allowed Japan to sell autos here at all.
What killed Detroit was a self-administered one-two punch: incompetent executives and engineers who designed awful cars that nobody wanted to buy, and unions who ganged up on their employers to demand outrageous compensation for building those cars.
Can you elaborate on that? What killed Detroit wasn't a trade deal, except to the extent that we allowed Japan to sell autos here at all.
What killed Detroit was a self-administered one-two punch: incompetent executives and engineers who designed awful cars that nobody wanted to buy, and unions who ganged up on their employers to demand outrageous compensation for building those cars.
> What killed Detroit wasn't a trade deal, except to the extent that we allowed Japan to sell autos here at all.
I'm referring to what killed Detroit the city, and it's jobs, not what killed the automakers.
A famous quote regarding NAFTA [1] from Ross Perot was abouta "giant sucking sound" [2] the jobs would make as they flowed to Mexico because of lower wages and healthcare expenses.
Looking it up I can't find any details on NAFTA helping catch tax evaders so I must be thinking of a different international arrangement.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agre...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_sucking_sound
I'm referring to what killed Detroit the city, and it's jobs, not what killed the automakers.
A famous quote regarding NAFTA [1] from Ross Perot was abouta "giant sucking sound" [2] the jobs would make as they flowed to Mexico because of lower wages and healthcare expenses.
Looking it up I can't find any details on NAFTA helping catch tax evaders so I must be thinking of a different international arrangement.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agre...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_sucking_sound
Detroit was already pretty much toast by the time Perot ran.
You earmark a portion of the extra money made via exports or imports and use that to retrain/employ workers who have lost their jobs.
That's the theory, but I worry that the practice could be different. Are people really that fungible? I have a feeling that if you ask a 50-year-old auto manufacturing specialist to start again (at the bottom) in a different industry and a different city, the experience would break him.
I agree that free trade is generally a good thing but the TPP had too many serious problems to make up for that.
Can you elaborate?
Michael Geist has some excellent coverage [1] of TPP, albeit from a Canadian perspective.
Biggest problem with TPP in my mind is that it codifies many aspects of IP law overreach - like extending copyright terms even further and mandating DMCA-like anti-circumvetion rules [2].
[1] http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tech-law-topics/tpp/
[2] https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/upload...
Biggest problem with TPP in my mind is that it codifies many aspects of IP law overreach - like extending copyright terms even further and mandating DMCA-like anti-circumvetion rules [2].
[1] http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tech-law-topics/tpp/
[2] https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/upload...
Countries that allow slavery shouldn't be allowed to be in a free trade agreement competing against American workers, for one.
This is easily my biggest problem with the way free trade currently works out. Fighting for good worker protections, 40 hour work weeks, decent salary, and against slavery and child labour, is all pretty pointless if you just outsource all the misery to poorer countries where workers are still exploited like that.
I think western countries should have free trade with all countries that have decent labour conditions, but raise tariffs on countries with bad labour conditions. That way your own workers don't suffer under unfair competition, and other countries are actively encouraged to improve the lot of their workers if they want more advantageous trade with you.
I think western countries should have free trade with all countries that have decent labour conditions, but raise tariffs on countries with bad labour conditions. That way your own workers don't suffer under unfair competition, and other countries are actively encouraged to improve the lot of their workers if they want more advantageous trade with you.
And the same for internal variations in environmental protections & so forth. I like the sound of some general system of assessing how big an "unfair advantage" the lack of a given regulation grants in the other country, and counterbalancing that edge with an equal tariff.
Which countries allow slavery?
It depends on the definition of slavery and allow. As I understand it, slavery is officially abolished globally. Other forms of forced or coerced labor exist throughout the world, of varying legal degrees. Enforcement is also varies, so whether or not something is legal can be irrelevant if the laws aren't effectively enforced.
Is there a source that can give me information on countries that are shady in this way as it relates to the tpp?
Good question. I didn't look specifically into that relationship, but rather into slavery in general. One of the reasons the statement piqued my interest is because of the idea of what constitutes slavery, if it isn't specifically defined as outright ownership of another human being.
I found this Wikipedia entry useful:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery
I haven't looked deeply into this. To approach it specifically as it relates to TPP, questions I would want answered would be
- What forms of slavery would be relevant to the TPP?
- What level of slavery would be considered relevant?
- What level of enforcement would be considered lax or insufficient?
I know I'm unqualified to make these determinations.
Here's an example of where this has been discussed:
"Is the TPP Okay With Slavery? Really?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/slavery-really_b_7462...
I found this Wikipedia entry useful:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery
I haven't looked deeply into this. To approach it specifically as it relates to TPP, questions I would want answered would be
- What forms of slavery would be relevant to the TPP?
- What level of slavery would be considered relevant?
- What level of enforcement would be considered lax or insufficient?
I know I'm unqualified to make these determinations.
Here's an example of where this has been discussed:
"Is the TPP Okay With Slavery? Really?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/slavery-really_b_7462...
The biggest if I recall, was that it was a virtually never ending agreement that nobody could exit after they'd entered into it which exposed each countries legal system to the others.
Subsidies for international corps.
Then someone with a background in Economics should understand the benefits do not accrue evenly. When developed nations trade with developing nations, the middle class of the developed nation loses.
This is partly why the neoliberal playbook the democrats having been running backfired. Sure, open up trade, but ensure that the wealthy people and large corporations don't accrue all of the benefit.
This can be done in a number of ways but none of them were even attempted, it was just good for business == good for america, period.
This is partly why the neoliberal playbook the democrats having been running backfired. Sure, open up trade, but ensure that the wealthy people and large corporations don't accrue all of the benefit.
This can be done in a number of ways but none of them were even attempted, it was just good for business == good for america, period.
It's not like republicans were going to allow tax increases or redistributive policies to happen, so inevitably we ended up here.
Eh, Bill Clinton passed NAFTA with a smile on his face. He should have demanded:
- 12 months family leave
- shorter work days
- mandatory 6 weeks vacation
- universal health
- etc
And then negotiate from there. But he didn't and the democrats in power at the time didn't. They were too busy patting themselves on the back for figuring out that cozying up to corporate America would allow them to compete with the Republicans.
- 12 months family leave
- shorter work days
- mandatory 6 weeks vacation
- universal health
- etc
And then negotiate from there. But he didn't and the democrats in power at the time didn't. They were too busy patting themselves on the back for figuring out that cozying up to corporate America would allow them to compete with the Republicans.
> When developed nations trade with developing nations, the middle class of the developed nation loses.
The middle class is doing just fine, thank you.
If anything, you could try to make some argument about the poorer part of the population (though even they are not really impacted).
The middle class is doing just fine, thank you.
If anything, you could try to make some argument about the poorer part of the population (though even they are not really impacted).
Actually, it isn't. Median income hasn't moved up since the 70s, and as a proportion of wages, it's dropped. When you factor in the increase in part time employment and the drop in full time employment since 2008, plus the cost of the ACA... This is the reason Trump won. Most people aren't happy.
Wikipedia says:
> According to the CBO, between 1979 and 2011, gross median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose from $59,400 to $75,200, or 26.5%. However, once adjusted for household size and looking at taxes from an after-tax perspective, real median household income grew 46%, representing significant growth."
> Another line of analysis, known as "total compensation," presents a more complete picture of real wages. The Kaiser Family Foundation conducted a study in 2013 which shows that employer contributions to employee healthcare costs went up 78% from 2003 to 2013. The marketplace has made a trade-off: expanding benefits packages vs. increasing wages.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...)
> According to the CBO, between 1979 and 2011, gross median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose from $59,400 to $75,200, or 26.5%. However, once adjusted for household size and looking at taxes from an after-tax perspective, real median household income grew 46%, representing significant growth."
> Another line of analysis, known as "total compensation," presents a more complete picture of real wages. The Kaiser Family Foundation conducted a study in 2013 which shows that employer contributions to employee healthcare costs went up 78% from 2003 to 2013. The marketplace has made a trade-off: expanding benefits packages vs. increasing wages.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...)
The victims are literally left behind by the forward march of progress.
Previously, the rate of change was much less, so it was easy to speak about retraining, going back to school, etc.
But nowadays things are moving fast, and accelerating. It's going to get more and more difficult to provide a soft landing for those who are falling off the back of the ascending, accelerating rocket. It's only going to get worse. And the irony is, it's happening because of something that's considered good overall - progress.
We need some radical changes in how we think of... uh... everything I guess. Jobs. Social security. A man's worth. You name it, it's in there.
Previously, the rate of change was much less, so it was easy to speak about retraining, going back to school, etc.
But nowadays things are moving fast, and accelerating. It's going to get more and more difficult to provide a soft landing for those who are falling off the back of the ascending, accelerating rocket. It's only going to get worse. And the irony is, it's happening because of something that's considered good overall - progress.
We need some radical changes in how we think of... uh... everything I guess. Jobs. Social security. A man's worth. You name it, it's in there.
It doesn't matter how far they drop the price of a good if your income is zero.
The central bank can print arbitrary amounts of money. So demand is never a problem.
(And the government can tax land all they want without disturbing the economy, so basic income is not much of a problem either. At least economically---politically land lavue taxes are hard to push through.)
(And the government can tax land all they want without disturbing the economy, so basic income is not much of a problem either. At least economically---politically land lavue taxes are hard to push through.)
You're making two very bold claims in your post. Are you really sure about that? Because I've learned to be suspicious of people who speak about economics and politics as matters of fact.
Taxes definitely diminish demand and central banks definitely print money. The term hyperinflation comes to mind.
You are right to be suspicious. So let me be a bit more nuanced and guarded and explain my claims.
I claimed two things.
First, the central bank can always increase aggregate demand. My argument follows standard market monetarist lines.
Demand is just another word for money that's being spent. The central banks can increase that amount by `printing money'. In practice, this has meant buying government bonds, but the central bank could buy all kinds of assets (like real estate or stocks). http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-tool-for-central-banks-buyin... talks about the Bank of England buying corporate bonds. Or they just drop the newly printed money from helicopters. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_money)
(And as a second prong to my argument: if buying assets would not increase inflation, the Bank of England could just buy up eg all of America, and give each Brit a nice big ranch. And if helicopter money would not increase inflation, the Bank of England could just infinitely finance a lavish basic income for everyone directly.)
If any central bank in charge of a fiat currency ever seems to have problems creating arbitrary large amounts of demand, that's purely a political issue holding them back, not lack of ability. (I explicitly say `in charge of a fiat currency'. Eg a gold standard makes it much harder to `print money'.)
Of course, ideally we the central bank would create enough steady demand to avoid layoffs and economic slumps, but not drive inflation above something innocuous like a 2% target. We don't want Zimbabwe style inflation. Instead of targeting the growth of the price level (= inflation), a better approach is to target the trajectory of the price level over time directly; or to target the trajectory of nominal aggregate income. For historical reasons the latter approach is called nominal GDP level targeting. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_income_target)
Second, I claimed that land value would be a good base for taxation. My argument follows standard Georgist lines, and is basically mainstream economic orthodoxy. (See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax and http://www.henrygeorge.org/rem42.htm)
That claim has two parts: (a) there's enough land value to be taxed to create significant revenue, (b) taxing land value would not disturb the economy.
What do we mean by a land value tax (lvt)? An lvt is a recurring tax on the unimproved value of land. `Unimproved' means that we subtract the value of any structure built on top. The aim is to tax land as a factor of production, not capital or labour.
Actually, we want to be taxing the recurring income that accrues from land. Whether income ever hits the market or not, as in the case of an owner-occupier. The easiest way to do that is to tax a proxy, the land value.
When you tax anything, you usually get less of it. That's welcome in the case of eg alcohol consumption or sulphur emissions, but not in the case of working or investing.
Mark Twain famously quipped "Buy land, they're not making it anymore." That means, that no matter how we tax or subsidies land, we are going to have the same amount of it in a specific territory.
The landlord also won't be able to pass on the tax to tenants or leasing companies. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence for why that is so.)
There is already a lot of land rent to go around, but when we decrease other taxes, the land rent increases. (You can see that empirically in the areas around eg the Swiss/German border: the Swiss side has lower taxes and higher land values.)
The idea is to shift all (or almost all) taxation from labour and capital to land.
Anything questionable about these things?
I claimed two things.
First, the central bank can always increase aggregate demand. My argument follows standard market monetarist lines.
Demand is just another word for money that's being spent. The central banks can increase that amount by `printing money'. In practice, this has meant buying government bonds, but the central bank could buy all kinds of assets (like real estate or stocks). http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-tool-for-central-banks-buyin... talks about the Bank of England buying corporate bonds. Or they just drop the newly printed money from helicopters. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_money)
(And as a second prong to my argument: if buying assets would not increase inflation, the Bank of England could just buy up eg all of America, and give each Brit a nice big ranch. And if helicopter money would not increase inflation, the Bank of England could just infinitely finance a lavish basic income for everyone directly.)
If any central bank in charge of a fiat currency ever seems to have problems creating arbitrary large amounts of demand, that's purely a political issue holding them back, not lack of ability. (I explicitly say `in charge of a fiat currency'. Eg a gold standard makes it much harder to `print money'.)
Of course, ideally we the central bank would create enough steady demand to avoid layoffs and economic slumps, but not drive inflation above something innocuous like a 2% target. We don't want Zimbabwe style inflation. Instead of targeting the growth of the price level (= inflation), a better approach is to target the trajectory of the price level over time directly; or to target the trajectory of nominal aggregate income. For historical reasons the latter approach is called nominal GDP level targeting. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_income_target)
Second, I claimed that land value would be a good base for taxation. My argument follows standard Georgist lines, and is basically mainstream economic orthodoxy. (See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax and http://www.henrygeorge.org/rem42.htm)
That claim has two parts: (a) there's enough land value to be taxed to create significant revenue, (b) taxing land value would not disturb the economy.
What do we mean by a land value tax (lvt)? An lvt is a recurring tax on the unimproved value of land. `Unimproved' means that we subtract the value of any structure built on top. The aim is to tax land as a factor of production, not capital or labour.
Actually, we want to be taxing the recurring income that accrues from land. Whether income ever hits the market or not, as in the case of an owner-occupier. The easiest way to do that is to tax a proxy, the land value.
When you tax anything, you usually get less of it. That's welcome in the case of eg alcohol consumption or sulphur emissions, but not in the case of working or investing.
Mark Twain famously quipped "Buy land, they're not making it anymore." That means, that no matter how we tax or subsidies land, we are going to have the same amount of it in a specific territory.
The landlord also won't be able to pass on the tax to tenants or leasing companies. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence for why that is so.)
There is already a lot of land rent to go around, but when we decrease other taxes, the land rent increases. (You can see that empirically in the areas around eg the Swiss/German border: the Swiss side has lower taxes and higher land values.)
The idea is to shift all (or almost all) taxation from labour and capital to land.
Anything questionable about these things?
> Anything questionable about these things?
Yep, always :)
I mostly buy your argument about central banks creating demand. But I think the phrase "The central bank can print arbitrary amounts of money" is ambiguous enough to warrant questioning. It'd be more convincing to say "The central bank can print arbitrary amounts of money, subject to political constraints". Because I do think those political constraints are non-trivial. But fair enough.
Your other claim was that land could be taxed "without disturbing the economy". I'm not sure I'm convinced. A land tax would undoubtedly modify land use, which would change how the economy operates. So maybe you meant it could be done without adverse consequences?
In general I think a land tax is a good idea: it would encourage efficient use of land. It would also mean that people pay their fair share for infrastructure improvements that they benefit from.
On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to say that a land tax can't have adverse consequences. Consider what might happen if a very high land tax was imposed. It might incentivise people to move to lower-value areas, pushing up urban sprawl and commute times. It might also increase the risk of starting up certain types of small business (will my city centre coffee shop go under because I can't afford the tax payments?). So I don't think it's fair to say there would be no unintended consequences.
Yep, always :)
I mostly buy your argument about central banks creating demand. But I think the phrase "The central bank can print arbitrary amounts of money" is ambiguous enough to warrant questioning. It'd be more convincing to say "The central bank can print arbitrary amounts of money, subject to political constraints". Because I do think those political constraints are non-trivial. But fair enough.
Your other claim was that land could be taxed "without disturbing the economy". I'm not sure I'm convinced. A land tax would undoubtedly modify land use, which would change how the economy operates. So maybe you meant it could be done without adverse consequences?
In general I think a land tax is a good idea: it would encourage efficient use of land. It would also mean that people pay their fair share for infrastructure improvements that they benefit from.
On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to say that a land tax can't have adverse consequences. Consider what might happen if a very high land tax was imposed. It might incentivise people to move to lower-value areas, pushing up urban sprawl and commute times. It might also increase the risk of starting up certain types of small business (will my city centre coffee shop go under because I can't afford the tax payments?). So I don't think it's fair to say there would be no unintended consequences.
At this rate, we will hit the (soft) limits on HN's reply-thread depth. ;) I am happy to continue via email and publish any results in a blog, if you want to.
The common fears were always that fiat money would get inflated away, if we are not careful. And that politicians would be the ones pushing for inflation. Instead, major (fiat) currencies have been experiencing below-target price level growth; and politicians like PM Theresa May have been asking the Bank of England to stop the money printing, instead of asking for more.
What a topsy-turvy world.
Yes, there are clear political constraints on the central banks---whether real, anticipated or just imagined.
Perhaps an average nominal wage level target could help.
Instead of talking about inflation (`the cost of living') growing too slowly, the central bank could talk about wages growing too slowly.
About land taxes: I meant to specifically talk about `deadweight loss of taxation' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss). You are right, that in some aspects land tax will have `negative deadweight loss' and thus is even better than a tax that has no effects: it has good effects.
I assume we are always talking about a land _value_ tax, and not by area.
Taxed by area, a very high tax could have lead to people abandoning ownership when taxes exceed rents they receive.
Taxed in proportion to value, that will not happen: the market value of the land will just drop until the tax is bearable. As a simple mathematical model we have:
yearly land rent = land value * (prevailing interest rate + land value tax)
Often, we can't observe the yearly land rent directly especially for owner-occupied housing.
For a given rent, interest rate and tax rate, there's always a land value that will work out.
But yes, right now a landowner can subsidize their own grossly inefficient use of land, by just using the land himself sub-optimally instead of making more money by renting it out to the highest bidder. (And that subsidy would not be visible, as it never hits the market to get explicitly valued in terms of dollars.) Under a land value tax system, that implicit subsidy would need to be made explicit---since mere land-ownership doesn't provide an implicit income.
The common fears were always that fiat money would get inflated away, if we are not careful. And that politicians would be the ones pushing for inflation. Instead, major (fiat) currencies have been experiencing below-target price level growth; and politicians like PM Theresa May have been asking the Bank of England to stop the money printing, instead of asking for more.
What a topsy-turvy world.
Yes, there are clear political constraints on the central banks---whether real, anticipated or just imagined.
Perhaps an average nominal wage level target could help.
Instead of talking about inflation (`the cost of living') growing too slowly, the central bank could talk about wages growing too slowly.
About land taxes: I meant to specifically talk about `deadweight loss of taxation' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss). You are right, that in some aspects land tax will have `negative deadweight loss' and thus is even better than a tax that has no effects: it has good effects.
I assume we are always talking about a land _value_ tax, and not by area.
Taxed by area, a very high tax could have lead to people abandoning ownership when taxes exceed rents they receive.
Taxed in proportion to value, that will not happen: the market value of the land will just drop until the tax is bearable. As a simple mathematical model we have:
yearly land rent = land value * (prevailing interest rate + land value tax)
Often, we can't observe the yearly land rent directly especially for owner-occupied housing.
For a given rent, interest rate and tax rate, there's always a land value that will work out.
But yes, right now a landowner can subsidize their own grossly inefficient use of land, by just using the land himself sub-optimally instead of making more money by renting it out to the highest bidder. (And that subsidy would not be visible, as it never hits the market to get explicitly valued in terms of dollars.) Under a land value tax system, that implicit subsidy would need to be made explicit---since mere land-ownership doesn't provide an implicit income.
IIRC manufacturing is like 3% of American jobs. Not sure why the American people care so much about it. It's gone and not coming back.
>Not sure why the American people care so much about it. It's gone and not coming back.
Because millions of older, former Obama voters in the rust belt can recall when their small towns weren't chained-shut shitholes drowning in drug abuse, hopelessness and commercial devastation.
It was when the plant was open.
Those people, out of desperation, have given us Cheeto Jesus.
Because millions of older, former Obama voters in the rust belt can recall when their small towns weren't chained-shut shitholes drowning in drug abuse, hopelessness and commercial devastation.
It was when the plant was open.
Those people, out of desperation, have given us Cheeto Jesus.
in the post-war decades, manufacturing provided a huge number of well paying jobs for people without college degrees. relegating those people to part time retail and uber precariat is bad for everyone.
I don't disagree, but that does not change the fact that we will never bring manufacturing back in that way.
Look at Germany, rather than throw their manufacturing sector under the bus in favor of financial engineering and management consulting, they continuously upgrade their manufacturing culture. So maybe they don't make shoes there but they are building the robots that the rest of the world is using to make shoes and cars. You need skilled workers for that and you need to constantly be reinvesting in your people. The neoliberal approach throws your population under the bus as quickly as possible as they are not deemed worthy of investment.
>The neoliberal approach throws your population under the bus as quickly as possible as they are not deemed worthy of investment.
Absolutely. In fact, that's not just neoliberalism, it's capitalism generally. The fundamental interests of the producers and of the persons above them who legally appropriate that which is produced will never meet.
Cooperative ownership and governance of the means of production is the only way out of this problem. Not ESOP, not profit sharing -- only worker ownership.
Absolutely. In fact, that's not just neoliberalism, it's capitalism generally. The fundamental interests of the producers and of the persons above them who legally appropriate that which is produced will never meet.
Cooperative ownership and governance of the means of production is the only way out of this problem. Not ESOP, not profit sharing -- only worker ownership.
What I don't understand is why these huge numbers of unemployed workers (which must depress wages to the minimum) aren't like catnip to labor-intensive industries. It's like having our own little China/Vietnam/Bangladesh within our own borders.
Is the minimum wage too high or something?
Is the minimum wage too high or something?
>Is the minimum wage too high or something?
I would ask in response: why does anyone still believe that the supply of something, rather than the demand of it, overdetermines the price of a thing?
This seems at best an incomplete worldview. At worst, it's the epitome of thoroughly discredited supply-side market theology.
There is unemployment because there is no demand for labor in these areas largely because the main employer in the area decided to pad profits by getting labor supplied from brutally poor people living in unregulated nations.
I would ask in response: why does anyone still believe that the supply of something, rather than the demand of it, overdetermines the price of a thing?
This seems at best an incomplete worldview. At worst, it's the epitome of thoroughly discredited supply-side market theology.
There is unemployment because there is no demand for labor in these areas largely because the main employer in the area decided to pad profits by getting labor supplied from brutally poor people living in unregulated nations.
But if the employer could pay less for labor in the U.S. then perhaps they would have kept the jobs here. That's what I meant by asking if the minimum wage is "too high".
This isn't related to supply-side economics. Just the basic idea that price floors (like minimum wages) can exclude the price point at which supply and demand would be in equilibrium, specifically by suppressing demand by keeping the price artificially high.
This isn't related to supply-side economics. Just the basic idea that price floors (like minimum wages) can exclude the price point at which supply and demand would be in equilibrium, specifically by suppressing demand by keeping the price artificially high.
>But if the employer could pay less for labor in the U.S. then perhaps they would have kept the jobs here.
The notion of a sustained equilibrium between supply and demand is a real-world fiction to begin with, but even if it was not, we can never forget that fulfilling employers' true demand for labor includes putting children to work in coal mines and chaining humans for sale. True demand for labor is unfulfillable, so I think we have to recognize that using pricing mechanisms alone to frame what are fundamentally commercial and political questions is a mistake for all concerned.
The notion of a sustained equilibrium between supply and demand is a real-world fiction to begin with, but even if it was not, we can never forget that fulfilling employers' true demand for labor includes putting children to work in coal mines and chaining humans for sale. True demand for labor is unfulfillable, so I think we have to recognize that using pricing mechanisms alone to frame what are fundamentally commercial and political questions is a mistake for all concerned.
Companies that make the robots that make things outsourced their robot production to China a few years ago so it's only a matter of time before the Chinese steal that tech, too.
The problem, then, is education and retraining. Send all these people to community college. It's dirt cheap and that's what they're there for.
Community college as a 50 year old in Kansas gets you what? An $8/hr, 35hr/week call center job without benefits?
That is the kind of negative stereotyping that we need to stop, now. Community colleges train people in most trades at a basic level, and they care more about your success in the workforce than most big colleges. I personally know many people with successful, fulfilling careers who started at community college. Maybe not stuff that people on HN would find glorious, but far better than disgruntled stagnation.
Farming is the same way. Fewer people than in previous decades but we are manufacturing more and growing more food now than ever.
So why do the fresh eggplants at the store come from Mexico and all(!!!) of the frozen fruit come from Mexico, Honduras, Chile, Peru, the Balkans(!?), and Canada?
Because it is more efficient to do so. Either those crops require more labor, different climate, or are lower yielding, etc. than what we grow locally. If it paid more to grow those crops, we would grow them.
I've been revisiting this as I've been helping my wife with a class on it. I'd say free trade in general is a net positive for the world but agree that it's hard to explain that to someone in the US that just lost their job. Those cheaper goods help most Americans too. I don't know enough about TPP to comment on specifics.
Alas the TPP was only marginally about trade. Lots of exporting of American IP protection, too.
Really, it would be best for everyone to just unilaterally drop all their barriers and tariffs---no mutual deal necessary. (Like Britain did for some time in the 19th century.)
Really, it would be best for everyone to just unilaterally drop all their barriers and tariffs---no mutual deal necessary. (Like Britain did for some time in the 19th century.)
> free trade
Who said TPP had anything to do with free trade?
Various powerful interest groups lobby and shove economic capture for themselves into these deals, transferring power over these matters from American voters to some international group looking over their interest.
The TPP is chock full of economic capture goodies which have nothing to do with free trade.
Who said TPP had anything to do with free trade?
Various powerful interest groups lobby and shove economic capture for themselves into these deals, transferring power over these matters from American voters to some international group looking over their interest.
The TPP is chock full of economic capture goodies which have nothing to do with free trade.
One problem is that economic theories are all based on dozens of underlying assumptions, many of which are baseless and false. Further, these flawed economic theories used incredibly flawed metrics (like GDP) to measure growth. They ignore real costs, like the massive environmental destruction caused by transporting items around the world. An accurate formula would attribute a tangible, financial value to the finite resources of the earth (the environment) upon which we all depend on to survive, and calculate those costs when determining whether or not "free trade" in the aggregate was actually beneficial. This doesn't even address the massive costs incurred by wars and policing needed to maintain safe and stable transit routes around the world, or the secondary and tertiary costs associated with these activities.
Just charge a tax on eg carbon dioxide emitted etc, and the market price of goods will reflect their ecological impact.
Can someone explain to me why the sentiment on here has changed? If I remember correctly, when we first learned of this TPP, everyone here was up in arms that it was a secret cabal designed to infringe on innovation. I think there was an EFF blog post describing those sentiments.
I'll get down voted but it doesn't really matter. The sentiment changed because of identity politics. As soon as Trump mentioned he was against the tpp places like hn and reddit suddenly became very quiet in their opposition to it.
Once all the candidates came out against it, it became clear it was not going anywhere anytime soon. So why bother posting about something that is not going to happen.
I don't think identity politics had anything to do with it. Bernie Sanders was against the TPP as much as Trump was, for many of the same reasons.
I don't think identity politics had anything to do with it. Bernie Sanders was against the TPP as much as Trump was, for many of the same reasons.
You know, it would make a really interesting study to follow up on theories (in the scientific sense) like this. The HN data is available, isn't it?
I agree it would be interesting!
This certainly isn't scientific at all but a quick search for tpp (all time popularity) shows the first page of results as posts that primarily took place more than a year ago. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=tpp&sort=byPopularity&prefix&p...
Trump mentioned he was opposed to the tpp almost exactly one year ago today.
If we search the popular 'tpp' posts from December 1st 2015 to today, we get results that show posts that are critical of the tpp but over half of the first page of results have less than 100 upvotes. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=tpp&sort=byPopularity&prefix&p...
Like I said, not scientific but kind of interesting I guess?
This certainly isn't scientific at all but a quick search for tpp (all time popularity) shows the first page of results as posts that primarily took place more than a year ago. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=tpp&sort=byPopularity&prefix&p...
Trump mentioned he was opposed to the tpp almost exactly one year ago today.
If we search the popular 'tpp' posts from December 1st 2015 to today, we get results that show posts that are critical of the tpp but over half of the first page of results have less than 100 upvotes. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=tpp&sort=byPopularity&prefix&p...
Like I said, not scientific but kind of interesting I guess?
I'd be interested to know if it was the same people speaking on both occasions though, because it is entirely possible that different sentiments being expressed was a result of different people expressing sentiment, rather than the same people changing their sentiment.
In other words, the same people who disliked TPP before could dislike it today, but not be commenting in the threads talking about Trump's opposition to it and new people who didn't comment on it before could be expressing their opinion formed by recent events (or even harbored from before).
I definitely think an in depth study on internet group think would be interesting, I just think that examining closer to see who composes the group and how it's thinking is an important aspect of that study.
In other words, the same people who disliked TPP before could dislike it today, but not be commenting in the threads talking about Trump's opposition to it and new people who didn't comment on it before could be expressing their opinion formed by recent events (or even harbored from before).
I definitely think an in depth study on internet group think would be interesting, I just think that examining closer to see who composes the group and how it's thinking is an important aspect of that study.
Cool. Nice quick hack! How would you go about tying in identity politics?
My theory is that, and this totally based on opinion, most people don't want to show support for a specific idea or policy of the "enemy" politician out of fear from being persecuted by those who are on their same team. "I might agree with Trump on the tpp but I will certainly never say I agree with Trump about anything."
Working with what you've described, how would you go about supporting that with HN data? Selfish reason for asking: I've been thinking about doing something like this, but haven't yet spent much time thinking about it. :)
It could also be that the ones who are against something are always more vocal.
It could be but it's not. The same phenomena happened with Facebook. Ordinarily Facebook is a pariah among enlightened and virtuous Internet folk; compromising privacy and marketing their users for ad revenue, etc. But then someone accused Facebook of grooming their news feed to suppress stories that might validate right wing/conservative/republican/whatever views and Shazam! I've never seen so many corporate sovereignty advocates lecturing the world about how Facebook is free to do with its news feed whatever it wishes, imbued with the right of free speech, and how dare anyone in Congress have the temerity to mention the I word. How chilling!
Tesla is another great example. Ordinarily, self serving research by a corporation is dismissed as junk science or "misinformation." But let Tesla publish survey results [1] to argue their end of a regulatory dispute and that view ricochets around the progressive echo chamber as though a voice from the sky had spoken The Word, Tesla of course being the golden boy of anti-fossil fuel group thinkers.
The sudden concern for the consequences of stopping these big trade deals is nothing more than partisanship. Pretend otherwise if you wish, but it's dead either way and the world is better for it. Thank you President Elect Trump.
[1] http://venturebeat.com/2016/11/11/tesla-autopilot-germany/
Tesla is another great example. Ordinarily, self serving research by a corporation is dismissed as junk science or "misinformation." But let Tesla publish survey results [1] to argue their end of a regulatory dispute and that view ricochets around the progressive echo chamber as though a voice from the sky had spoken The Word, Tesla of course being the golden boy of anti-fossil fuel group thinkers.
The sudden concern for the consequences of stopping these big trade deals is nothing more than partisanship. Pretend otherwise if you wish, but it's dead either way and the world is better for it. Thank you President Elect Trump.
[1] http://venturebeat.com/2016/11/11/tesla-autopilot-germany/
The issue with the TPP is that it put the interests of international conglomerates above the ability of sovereign nations to decide what happens within their borders (ie an energy company could sue a small country for increasing the gas tax). While free trade is almost universally desirable, it must be balanced against the concentration of power that inevitably accumulates from unfettered capitalism.
That's not correct. A company would have been able to sue only if the country was enacting a policy that would allow them to unfairly take advantage of an investor. e.g. if the country made a deal that allowed a factory to be built in their country and then enacted a policy (tax or otherwise) that would force the investor to halt operations in their country for sole the purpose of taking control of the factory.
Without that part of the trade deal there would be no stoping a small country from what is essentially stealing from a international company. Before trade deals those types of disputes were usually settled with armed conflict.
Without that part of the trade deal there would be no stoping a small country from what is essentially stealing from a international company. Before trade deals those types of disputes were usually settled with armed conflict.
Examples of previous ISDS cases, http://www.isdscorporateattacks.org
The few I just read from the link actually sounded pretty reasonable IMO. And that is despite the obvious bias of the website and the charged language.
Because what are the motivations to post a comment ? When you agree with the situation you are less inclined to comment, but when you find the situation unjust you let your voice be heard. You cannot infer the stance of the community based on the proportions of agree/disagree comments.
EFF and others remain firmly opposed, after many blog posts.
This is a huge win, we can negotiate better agreements.
This is a huge win, we can negotiate better agreements.
Well there's a selection bias here. When I read this news I literally cheered. But there's no reason to say anything about it, it is what it is.
I won, and I'm not sure what I'm expected to say beyond that.
I won, and I'm not sure what I'm expected to say beyond that.
That's not completely fair. I have always been for the TPP and still am. I have not changed my position.
The EFF stance wasn't rational, standardizing IP laws with trade partners was actually a good thing for innovation IMO. I understand their aversion to it, but disagree.
I'm pretty sad that this trade deal has died. It is scary that we're giving up free trade for protectionism, which will actually hurt those people that were hurt by the existing trade deals a great deal more.
The EFF stance wasn't rational, standardizing IP laws with trade partners was actually a good thing for innovation IMO. I understand their aversion to it, but disagree.
I'm pretty sad that this trade deal has died. It is scary that we're giving up free trade for protectionism, which will actually hurt those people that were hurt by the existing trade deals a great deal more.
Standardising can be done by taking more reasonable IP laws over to usa instead of pushing usa's boneheaded IP bullying onto the rest of the world incrementally.
People follow the leaders and adjust themselves to political realities. They are not homo economicus or rational without a certain tough mindedness. Not a very complex business.
I think as a somewhat meta-analysis of the outspoken HN crowd on this deal (based on current comments) - it's valuable to look at previous discussions on HN:
Top comment excerpt from this thread from a year ago [1]:
It is an awful document, with horrible policy, yes....What these leaders are pushing is not democratic, it is oligarchic.
Top comment excerpt from this thread from a year ago [2]:
Reading these things makes me angry. There are people in the world who uphold economic wealth and ownership over life itself.
And there are many others from this search: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=TPP&sort=byPopularity&prefix&p...
Note that the EFF's stance hasn't changed:
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
What seems to have changed is the messenger only. That's worth closer introspection.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10363500 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11037232
Top comment excerpt from this thread from a year ago [1]:
It is an awful document, with horrible policy, yes....What these leaders are pushing is not democratic, it is oligarchic.
Top comment excerpt from this thread from a year ago [2]:
Reading these things makes me angry. There are people in the world who uphold economic wealth and ownership over life itself.
And there are many others from this search: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=TPP&sort=byPopularity&prefix&p...
Note that the EFF's stance hasn't changed:
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
What seems to have changed is the messenger only. That's worth closer introspection.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10363500 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11037232
Didn't Google openly support TPP? Seems to me that Google's was one of the biggest losers on Nov 8. Eric Schmidt openly supported Hillary, there were accusations of SERP manipulation, YT censorship and so on. I wonder if FTC [0] will finally be able to go after them for anti-trust since Google's lobbyists won't be able to stop them [1].
[0] http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/
[1] https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close...
[0] http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/
[1] https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close...
I strongly suspect you'll see a shift in how the US handles Google. At least a dozen or so Googlers work at the White House, and they'll need to find new jobs by January 20th. (Someone with more time on their hands than me will hopefully track whether or not they all go back to working at Google HQ instead of Google White House.)
Given their liberal slant and their strong support for Hillary, even a pro-business-leaning Trump probably isn't going to do Google any favors. And as the four antitrust cases in the EU are likely to go through within the next year, the FTC will probably at least feel some pressure to do their job.
Here's Google's open endorsement of the TPP: https://blog.google/topics/public-policy/the-trans-pacific-p...
Given their liberal slant and their strong support for Hillary, even a pro-business-leaning Trump probably isn't going to do Google any favors. And as the four antitrust cases in the EU are likely to go through within the next year, the FTC will probably at least feel some pressure to do their job.
Here's Google's open endorsement of the TPP: https://blog.google/topics/public-policy/the-trans-pacific-p...
The reason Obama wanted TPP so badly was that he saw it as necessary to contain China's growing influence in South East Asia. Trump, who also claims to want to contain China, seems uninterested or uninformed in this type of geopolitical struggle.
The part of the TPP that turned off most techies was the extending and exporting of our draconian Intellectual Property laws. Those laws were designed and pushed by Hollywood as a form of protectionism for the their industry, exactly the kind of protectionism for American companies that Trump claims to support. Hollywood politically is normally aligned with Democrats, but Trump's celebrity is a product of that same Hollywood, so I imagine Trump understands very well the desire for those IP protections.
The part of the TPP that turned off most techies was the extending and exporting of our draconian Intellectual Property laws. Those laws were designed and pushed by Hollywood as a form of protectionism for the their industry, exactly the kind of protectionism for American companies that Trump claims to support. Hollywood politically is normally aligned with Democrats, but Trump's celebrity is a product of that same Hollywood, so I imagine Trump understands very well the desire for those IP protections.
This is a shame. Globalism is good for people overall, and the US has almost instantly lost a lot of credibility and influence in the region (especially in contrast to China).
EDIT: I'm amazed to see all other comments so far are anti-trade.
EDIT: I'm amazed to see all other comments so far are anti-trade.
> EDIT: I'm amazed to see all other comments so far are anti-trade.
A lot of the people who frequent this site are against the TPP because of its copyright and intellectual property provisions.
A lot of the people who frequent this site are against the TPP because of its copyright and intellectual property provisions.
> Globalism is good for people overall
Globalism may indeed be good for 3rd world countries, as their wages and the wages of 1st world countries will tend to converge. This is obviously not good for 1st world workers, who still have 1st world house payments, taxes, etc.
An argument could be made that the 3rd world countries also suffer, as they end up being dictated to by the much stronger 1st world countries, and give up much of their sovereignty. 1st world countries also give up some sovereignty, which doesn't sit well with the general populous, as the beneficiaries of that loss of sovereignty are the multinational corporations, not the man on the street.
Globalism may indeed be good for 3rd world countries, as their wages and the wages of 1st world countries will tend to converge. This is obviously not good for 1st world workers, who still have 1st world house payments, taxes, etc.
An argument could be made that the 3rd world countries also suffer, as they end up being dictated to by the much stronger 1st world countries, and give up much of their sovereignty. 1st world countries also give up some sovereignty, which doesn't sit well with the general populous, as the beneficiaries of that loss of sovereignty are the multinational corporations, not the man on the street.
As someone from a third world country that was entertaining a similar trade deal with the US, I certainly wanted to take no part on the humongous shit show that is the US patent system, which was part of the deal.
protectionist policies might work if there is only one 1st world country and one 3rd world country, but America's share of world gdp is shrinking rapidly and an attempt to preserve their lead via protectionism is likely to backfire as they isolate themselves from the world economy.
Globalism doesn't lower 1st world wages. (And people certainly benefit from cheaper fridges---but those consumer benefits are diffused amongst the population, and have no clear champion.)
Did you miss the part where the election was partially a referendum on globalism?
If you are assuming Clinton and Trump are proxies for and against globalization respectively, more people (aka popular vote) actually voted for continuing globalization.
Interesting that people keep rolling out this tired meme when she only won by, what, 200k votes? Your argument isn't very powerful when the margins are so tiny; you're arguing for a technicality.
[deleted]
Clinton also stood against TPP.
She only changed her stance because of pressure from Sanders. Given her "private and public policies", I didn't believe her.
She was against it, after she was for it. No one believed her, especially since Terry McAuliffe let the cat out of the bag.
[EDIT:] I'm surprised the DNC downvoted this, since McAuliffe is yet another plausible person to blame while diverting attention from their terrible and misguided primary-fixing.
[EDIT:] I'm surprised the DNC downvoted this, since McAuliffe is yet another plausible person to blame while diverting attention from their terrible and misguided primary-fixing.
Like I said in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12934475 the popular vote is irrelevant.
You mean the same election where the majority of people voted for the pro-globalism candidate?
Like I said in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12934475 the popular vote is irrelevant.
I'm not saying Donald Trump shouldn't be president as he clearly won the game. What I'm saying is that you can't claim the election was a "referendum" on anything because more people voted against him than for him.
Yes. Everyone did.
Because globalism is not going anywhere. Trump can't isolate the US without dramatic, negative consequences. Trade war with the China ? Economists predict a worldwide recession. Tariffs on Mexico to pay for the wall ? Good luck to US agriculture.
Because globalism is not going anywhere. Trump can't isolate the US without dramatic, negative consequences. Trade war with the China ? Economists predict a worldwide recession. Tariffs on Mexico to pay for the wall ? Good luck to US agriculture.
25% does not make a mandate.
Edit: Only ~50% of eligible voters voted. Half of those voted for the winner. That's only 25% that actively voted in support of the winner.
Edit: Only ~50% of eligible voters voted. Half of those voted for the winner. That's only 25% that actively voted in support of the winner.
The 25% is a consequence of the Electoral College system. And before someone says "well, we should just go by popular vote" - if the election was determined by popular vote, the campaigns would have completely different strategies, with different participation and outcomes.
The 25% is not a consequence of the Electoral College system. The 25% is a consequence of only 50% of eligible voters voting, half of which voted for the winner.
True, but the electoral college contributes to the problem. In winner-takes-all states that are heavily for one party or the other, there is not much incentive to vote. Turnout would almost certainly be higher under a national popular vote.
Then people could complain or discuss about voluntary versus obligatory voting, then about having just two real candidates versus more (powerful) parties, then about limited vs unlimited funding, then private vs company vs public funding, then about quotas for any category you name, then ...
There are so many combinations and possibilities that it's hard to say which one is the best.
And all them can be gamed.
There are so many combinations and possibilities that it's hard to say which one is the best.
And all them can be gamed.
> [...] then about having just two real candidates versus more (powerful) parties [...]
You can have more than two candidates without more powerful parties.
Proportional representation leads to parties, something like range voting can keep the primacy of candidates, but lets us escape from the two party system.
http://rangevoting.org/
You can have more than two candidates without more powerful parties.
Proportional representation leads to parties, something like range voting can keep the primacy of candidates, but lets us escape from the two party system.
http://rangevoting.org/
Proportional representation in the electoral college is equivalent to a national popular vote, and is no more or less conducive to party power than the status quo.
Proportional representation in the House of Representatives is possible without increasing party power (or even without parties at all) by using Single Transferable Vote.
Instant Runoff Voting (the single-winner variant of Single Transferable Vote) for presidential (and gubernatorial) elections would help to protect against excessive party power by allowing third party and non-party candidates a fair chance.
Proportional representation in the House of Representatives is possible without increasing party power (or even without parties at all) by using Single Transferable Vote.
Instant Runoff Voting (the single-winner variant of Single Transferable Vote) for presidential (and gubernatorial) elections would help to protect against excessive party power by allowing third party and non-party candidates a fair chance.
[deleted]
Instant Runoff Voting (and the Single Transferable Vote) wouldn't really help: Australia has those, and if anything, there electoral system is even worse than Britain and the US---eg they don't have a single non-white MP.
Electoral systems can do little for democracy other than promote majority rule. STV and related systems do this well and also provide proportional representation on non-party matters. Civil society also has a role to play in keeping democracy healthy.
Instant Runoff Voting is really only suitable for single winner elections like presidential, gubernatorial and mayoral elections, and not for the multi-winner legislative elections it is used for in Australia.
There are better forms of STV than that used for the Australian Senate, but I'd take any form of STV over FPTP.
Instant Runoff Voting is really only suitable for single winner elections like presidential, gubernatorial and mayoral elections, and not for the multi-winner legislative elections it is used for in Australia.
There are better forms of STV than that used for the Australian Senate, but I'd take any form of STV over FPTP.
FPTF is definitely awfully. STV might be marginally better or not. But why settle for something so marginal and still clearly suboptimal. It's also complicated to explain, yet alone count votes.
Approval Voting or Range Voting are much simpler to explain and to execute, and they have much better properties. (And, yes, I can well believe that the Australian system can be improved up on, and doesn't present the best version of STV. There's lots wrong with Australia, so this aspect probably too. Eg, their STV system requires a valid ballot to rank all parties, making sure that every vote cast will eventually be counted for one of the major parties. The guy who came up with a hack to avoid having to choose a major party got jailed for promoting it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langer_vote)
Range Voting is literally the same procedure people know from figure skating competitions in the olympics: the judges (=voters) give the candidates numbers, candidate with the highest average wins.
Approval voting can be explained as: just like FPTP, but ticking multiple candidates (eg everybody but Trump or Hillary) doesn't void your ballot. (Or you can see it as a special case of Range Voting, that only allows the numbers 0 and 1. Approval voting was my favourite system to elect a single winner, until I learned about Range Voting.)
The range voting guys wrote about STV, too, see http://www.rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html
Approval Voting or Range Voting are much simpler to explain and to execute, and they have much better properties. (And, yes, I can well believe that the Australian system can be improved up on, and doesn't present the best version of STV. There's lots wrong with Australia, so this aspect probably too. Eg, their STV system requires a valid ballot to rank all parties, making sure that every vote cast will eventually be counted for one of the major parties. The guy who came up with a hack to avoid having to choose a major party got jailed for promoting it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langer_vote)
Range Voting is literally the same procedure people know from figure skating competitions in the olympics: the judges (=voters) give the candidates numbers, candidate with the highest average wins.
Approval voting can be explained as: just like FPTP, but ticking multiple candidates (eg everybody but Trump or Hillary) doesn't void your ballot. (Or you can see it as a special case of Range Voting, that only allows the numbers 0 and 1. Approval voting was my favourite system to elect a single winner, until I learned about Range Voting.)
The range voting guys wrote about STV, too, see http://www.rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html
By "STV" I mean the multi-winner form ("quota-preferential" or "PR-STV"). Neither range voting nor approval voting is a substitute for it; they don't provide proportional representation. For that you need Reweighted Range Voting: http://rangevoting.org/RRVr.html
I'd be happy to see STV, RRV or both used more widely.
I'd be happy to see STV, RRV or both used more widely.
Oh, I don't have too much of an opinion on multi-winner systems right now---apart from the practical observation that the post-war German systems seems to produce appropriately boring consensus politicians. (But I highly doubt it's an particularly optimal system.)
I'll look into it, thanks.
My note was about single-winner systems.
I'll look into it, thanks.
My note was about single-winner systems.
Given that the vote was basically 50-50, and that most of the votes are cast outside the swing states that got the attention, then no, the 'mandate' result would not have been different from 25%. Different tactics wouldn't shift that general number much.
In that case, virtually no elected official in the US has ever had a mandate, and our government should therefore do nothing.
Yes, lots of potential voters don't vote. They made that choice. It's not a new choice. This election is not much different from any other. We'd surely argue that Obama or Reagan had mandates, but they also didn't clear 50% of eligible voters. Indeed, even in Reagan's "landslide" 1980 election, he won only 50.7% of the popular vote, and only 52.6% of voters turned out - numbers not radically different from this time around - 47.2% of the popular vote where 56.9% of voters turned out.
Yes, lots of potential voters don't vote. They made that choice. It's not a new choice. This election is not much different from any other. We'd surely argue that Obama or Reagan had mandates, but they also didn't clear 50% of eligible voters. Indeed, even in Reagan's "landslide" 1980 election, he won only 50.7% of the popular vote, and only 52.6% of voters turned out - numbers not radically different from this time around - 47.2% of the popular vote where 56.9% of voters turned out.
It sure does. We're all going to have to live it. It doesn't get more mandate-y than that.
No, but losing the Rust Belt cost the Democrats the election. The loss of manufacturing cost a lot of jobs in that region.
Jobs that are never coming back.
Renewables and natural gas will decimate coal in the coming years. And low end product manufacturing won't be able to compete with the cheaper labour and supply chain superiority of other countries.
US manufacturing if it survives at all will be high end, highly skilled work. And the US is woeful when it comes to investing in technical training.
Renewables and natural gas will decimate coal in the coming years. And low end product manufacturing won't be able to compete with the cheaper labour and supply chain superiority of other countries.
US manufacturing if it survives at all will be high end, highly skilled work. And the US is woeful when it comes to investing in technical training.
Why are you telling me this?
I was explaining why Clinton lost the election. Someone needs to solve the Rust Belt problem. I have no idea if Trump has a plan but he did not ignore the people in those states so they voted for him.
You don't win votes by telling people their jobs aren't coming back.
I was explaining why Clinton lost the election. Someone needs to solve the Rust Belt problem. I have no idea if Trump has a plan but he did not ignore the people in those states so they voted for him.
You don't win votes by telling people their jobs aren't coming back.
>>You don't win votes by telling people their jobs aren't coming back.
I think you can, if you present them with alternatives that make sense. Coming up with such alternatives requires a lot of planning and creative thinking through, which Hillary thought not worth it because polls showed her ahead in those states...
I think you can, if you present them with alternatives that make sense. Coming up with such alternatives requires a lot of planning and creative thinking through, which Hillary thought not worth it because polls showed her ahead in those states...
Because I would argue Hillary didn't lose the rust belt.
Trump won it. By lying to those people that he will bring their jobs back.
Trump won it. By lying to those people that he will bring their jobs back.
I think with enough regulation, he can bring their jobs back. It just comes at the cost of productivity, which means we end up paying extra for it.
Consider the Obama tire tariffs. Tire manufacturing is up in the US, we created some jobs, but overall we all collectively pay way more in tires.
Consider the Obama tire tariffs. Tire manufacturing is up in the US, we created some jobs, but overall we all collectively pay way more in tires.
Yeah tires are really expensive now. It stands to reason, that they would pick a product that even poor people have to buy. Couldn't have tariffs on fancy phones and luxury cars!
Yup. More details: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/23/how-o...
We all collectively paid $1.1 billion dollars to give up to 1200 people a job in the tire industry.
We all collectively paid $1.1 billion dollars to give up to 1200 people a job in the tire industry.
Yup, and we should've been willing to pay a whole lot more, so that more people kept their rust-belt jobs, and weren't swayed by Trump's "jobs, jobs" appeal.
Wow, i feel better now. She didn't lose, Trump won. Do you belong to a generation where everyone is a winner?
The person who runs our country depends on those votes. It's really important that people are not forgotten. If Trump makes even a little progress with jobs, he'll be a two term president.
The person who runs our country depends on those votes. It's really important that people are not forgotten. If Trump makes even a little progress with jobs, he'll be a two term president.
Globalism is good overall, yes, but it is very bad for certain subgroups. Everyone else has been benefiting at the expense of blue collar workers in developed countries.
Someone loose their job because there's a change in global economic structures. Another group of people lose their business of selling ice for house hold refrigeration.
The problem is not globalisation or change, its the idea and related political deception that somehow if there are protectionist barriers the emergence of new suppliers, products, new skills, new ideas will go away.
This is but one of several of similar distorted perceptions of reality that underpins the faulted democratic systems. If Society and government should facilitate something it's increased adaptability and acceptance for change, rather than selling the fraud that they can take it away.
The problem is not globalisation or change, its the idea and related political deception that somehow if there are protectionist barriers the emergence of new suppliers, products, new skills, new ideas will go away.
This is but one of several of similar distorted perceptions of reality that underpins the faulted democratic systems. If Society and government should facilitate something it's increased adaptability and acceptance for change, rather than selling the fraud that they can take it away.
No one was paying these people any mind, that's why Hillary lost.
It doesn't matter if those particular jobs aren't coming back, this is something that people do not get.
Guess which region of the country both the republics and democrats will be catering too for the next 4 to 8 years?
Exactly. They got what they wanted, which is to be listened to.
Stop putting this down as them simply being yokels who don't know any better.
It doesn't matter if those particular jobs aren't coming back, this is something that people do not get.
Guess which region of the country both the republics and democrats will be catering too for the next 4 to 8 years?
Exactly. They got what they wanted, which is to be listened to.
Stop putting this down as them simply being yokels who don't know any better.
I don't think the parent was calling them yokels who don't know any better. Rather hinting at the idea that every piece of government policy helps one group and hurts another.
Globalization clearly hurts manufacturing in america, but it helps some of our export industries.
It's not entirely zero-sum, but looking at the stock market these past few days (decrease in tech, increase in manufacturing banking and energy) implies that we've picked some new favorite industries.
Personally I don't think government should aim to handout success to those who vote for them, but democracy seems to encourage that. I think ideally the people who work hardest should reap the most success. Reality of course isn't fair, so the government is there to even the playing field.
Globalization clearly hurts manufacturing in america, but it helps some of our export industries.
It's not entirely zero-sum, but looking at the stock market these past few days (decrease in tech, increase in manufacturing banking and energy) implies that we've picked some new favorite industries.
Personally I don't think government should aim to handout success to those who vote for them, but democracy seems to encourage that. I think ideally the people who work hardest should reap the most success. Reality of course isn't fair, so the government is there to even the playing field.
It's not that simple. Even if blue collars workers had it bad, other people haven't benefitted at their `expense'.
There's no total fixed sum of `goodness' to go around in the economy.
There's no total fixed sum of `goodness' to go around in the economy.
If corporate america and the government had been less greedy and not insisted in rolling in corporate sovereignty and absurdly broken copyright and patent laws into free trade deals and considered providing some sort of relief to people negatively affected in the short term we wouldn't be having this backlash.
But that's communism... and free market.... /s
I think most of the TPP discussion was FUD, but the backers of TPP are partially responsible for that because it was negotiated in secret (even our own Congress was forbidden from taking notes while viewing it!). They did a horrible job of marketing it to the American people. There are issues with TPP, but it seems they can be fixed and we shouldn't toss the entire thing. But I think a lot of the fear is based on ignorance of trade agreements.
Obama is smartly trying to move the country closer to Asia because he sees that is where the growth is. Growth in Europe is anemic and doesn't seem to be getting better anytime soon, so why not align your country with the region that is growing and seems to be looking to the future? Plus we already do a lot of business with Asia, so why not improve relations through better trade deals?
Obama is smartly trying to move the country closer to Asia because he sees that is where the growth is. Growth in Europe is anemic and doesn't seem to be getting better anytime soon, so why not align your country with the region that is growing and seems to be looking to the future? Plus we already do a lot of business with Asia, so why not improve relations through better trade deals?
I don't get it either. Free Trade has improved the lives of billions of people. It helps prevent wars and binds people and countries together. I just don't get the Hacker News Hate on Free Trade.
I support free trade, but I am strongly opposed to TPP. In the past 10 years we've seen many attempts at faux-free-trade agreements... corrupting deals negotiated in secrecy, intentionally hidden from pubic checks / balances, supporting big corporate interests and oligopolies.
That is not free trade.
When it comes to TPP in particular, I am radically opposed to their proposed IP laws. EFF has a short write up on how TPP undermines with digital IP: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
That is not free trade.
When it comes to TPP in particular, I am radically opposed to their proposed IP laws. EFF has a short write up on how TPP undermines with digital IP: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
As an Australian, I loathe the TPP, negotiated in secret, where US IP laws can invade our own; pharma companies can jack up the prices on medication; and foreign companies that don't even have a presence here can sue our government and hold them to ransom.
Most importantly, it's not a "free trade deal". It's just a "trade deal". Australia's trade deals in the past with the US have done things like removed tariffs for all US goods coming here, but not removed tariffs the other way around. We're definitely the little brother in this relationship.
Most importantly, it's not a "free trade deal". It's just a "trade deal". Australia's trade deals in the past with the US have done things like removed tariffs for all US goods coming here, but not removed tariffs the other way around. We're definitely the little brother in this relationship.
All these trade deals have onerous (read: harsher) copyright and intellectual property terms.
I can't speak for HN posters in general, but a lot of people I know are pretty positive on globalization and open trade as a concept, but against these specific treaties because of the staggering amount of power they put into the hands of giant corporations.
Honestly me too. I'd rather us dictate trade in the Pacific than let China set the terms. That's really what this is about. Globalisation is happening regardless of whether people want it or not. It is all about who sets the terms though.
Globalization is not inevitable nor irreversible. Pre-WWI the world was globalizing rapidly, but with WWI, the Great Depression/inter-war era, etc. it suffered massive setbacks. They were not pleasant setbacks for pretty much anyone involved.
TPP is designed to form a high-standards trade bloc against Chinese influence. That is its entire purpose.
Yeah, I get that. It is us making the deal. I can get not liking specifically TPP because of some provisions. But I didn't read through it closely enough to decide if I like that specific plan or not. But trading in the Pacific and setting the rules I do like.
I'm ambivalent about free trade in general, and I tend to agree with the issues people have with TPP in particular, but I did want to address this sentiment:
> Globalisation is happening regardless of whether people want it or not.
Why? Globalization is a product of human behavior and human choices. Neither sunspots, cosmic rays, hurricanes, or earthquakes make globalization happen. It seems absurd, to me, to pretend that globalization is this Force beyond our control, that we just have to adapt or die.
That isn't so. Globalization has gone on in the world because we, including and especially the United States of America, made it happen. The governing and business elite has chosen time and again to pursue globalization policies because it seemed like the right thing to do economically and often because it benefited them.
We can choose to enact different policies and go in a different direction any time we want, and even pro-free trade economists like Krugman concede that the consequences will not be particularly dire (see his Brexit commentary.)
> Globalisation is happening regardless of whether people want it or not.
Why? Globalization is a product of human behavior and human choices. Neither sunspots, cosmic rays, hurricanes, or earthquakes make globalization happen. It seems absurd, to me, to pretend that globalization is this Force beyond our control, that we just have to adapt or die.
That isn't so. Globalization has gone on in the world because we, including and especially the United States of America, made it happen. The governing and business elite has chosen time and again to pursue globalization policies because it seemed like the right thing to do economically and often because it benefited them.
We can choose to enact different policies and go in a different direction any time we want, and even pro-free trade economists like Krugman concede that the consequences will not be particularly dire (see his Brexit commentary.)
I do think it is a natural progression. Even China and NK can't be isolationists. And it isn't just because the US. There are a lot of advantages of working together. This is expansion through economic, as opposed to through territory.
To be an isolationist is significantly more difficult because you have to do everything yourself. The bigger you are territorial and population wise (note Russia's problem here), the easier it is. But if you are smaller you just don't have access to all the resources and labor that you need to advance. Unless your goal is to stagnate, but I don't think that is in our nature.
Actually the advantage of expansion through economics, as opposed to territory, is that you don't have to rule. Now there are trade agreements that are made, but those are much easier to renegotiate (brexit) than law of the land. Let them hash it out. Territorial expansion has the problem that your population becomes more diverse and a different set of cultures wants to abide by different laws. The purpose of territorial expansion is to gain more power and wealth. But it also generally leads to wars being waged. Now this happens with economics too, but not to the same degree. It is just much simpler to just trade.
There's a lot that goes into this and I'm not going to write a book in a HN post. But I do think that if another country was in power they would be doing the expansion, in place of America. That it is a natural progression if you look over a long period of history. Starting from just taking what we want to developing allies and trade routes. Globalization really is just a natural progression of what we've been doing for thousands of years.
To be an isolationist is significantly more difficult because you have to do everything yourself. The bigger you are territorial and population wise (note Russia's problem here), the easier it is. But if you are smaller you just don't have access to all the resources and labor that you need to advance. Unless your goal is to stagnate, but I don't think that is in our nature.
Actually the advantage of expansion through economics, as opposed to territory, is that you don't have to rule. Now there are trade agreements that are made, but those are much easier to renegotiate (brexit) than law of the land. Let them hash it out. Territorial expansion has the problem that your population becomes more diverse and a different set of cultures wants to abide by different laws. The purpose of territorial expansion is to gain more power and wealth. But it also generally leads to wars being waged. Now this happens with economics too, but not to the same degree. It is just much simpler to just trade.
There's a lot that goes into this and I'm not going to write a book in a HN post. But I do think that if another country was in power they would be doing the expansion, in place of America. That it is a natural progression if you look over a long period of history. Starting from just taking what we want to developing allies and trade routes. Globalization really is just a natural progression of what we've been doing for thousands of years.
The absence of free trade and isolationism are not the same thing at all. We were still trading with Mexico before NAFTA.
TPP isn't free trade. We're talking globalization. Not free trade. You're either not reading what I'm saying or not understanding that globalization does not equate to free trade. Help me out here, what are you missing? We trade with Mexico because we want to. NAFTA is just terms we set.
China is not part of TPP.
The other poster meant that China can make deals with these countries that were originally on the TTP list. And that their deal could lock us out etc.
These agreements usually go far further than removing tariff, business establishment and labour barriers.
I do not think it's that black and white. While it can be good, that does not make it inherently so.
Jamacia is a good example[1].
[1]http://www.lifeanddebt.org/
Jamacia is a good example[1].
[1]http://www.lifeanddebt.org/
>> Globalism is good for people overall...
It's good for "some" people. There also has to be a level playing field, some of the "players" have been caught cheating (currency manipulation for example - excellent analysis here http://www.epi.org/publication/trans-pacific-partnership-cur...), some (like Japanese automotive "politics") are openly hostile without any repercussions.
It's good for "some" people. There also has to be a level playing field, some of the "players" have been caught cheating (currency manipulation for example - excellent analysis here http://www.epi.org/publication/trans-pacific-partnership-cur...), some (like Japanese automotive "politics") are openly hostile without any repercussions.
This isn't just free trade, and many people were against the TPP a few months ago. It was such an unpopular position to support it that Clinton changed her position on it. If you've been following this issue it shouldn't really come as a surprise that most people are against it, at least on HN.
While globalism just took a big slap in the face, i dont think it's even reversible [it's too big to fail]. Trump may soften some edges, shake it up a bit, but I don't expect fundamental changes. Remember that populist leaders generally don't hold on to positions.
Globalism is nothing more than the rich elite gaining control over more peasants. Sure, it's good for some of us.
Without globalism, you wouldn't have the internet as it is today, cheap computers, and smartphones wouldn't exist. High-tech depends on cheap asian manufacturing for its parts. Social media would be relatively negligible due to lack of network effects, and the 'peasants' love social media.
Globalism is good for people overall, but not for the people at the top of the pile right NOW. Which is the US.
It is amazing to witness. Especially since free and open trade is unquestionably responsible for so much economic growth. It is especially important for countries like the US who were always going to need to move higher up the value stack as they had to complete with cheaper overseas labour.
The US is very much going the way of the UK. Slowly but surely moving towards irrelevancy.
The US is very much going the way of the UK. Slowly but surely moving towards irrelevancy.
> Globalism is good for people overall
Who is it good for and how?
Who is it good for and how?
In theory, there are couple benefits:
* Cheaper products for everyone
* Competition drives innovation
* Lower risk of large-scale wars
* Ship high-pollution industries overseas
* Improved price stability
In practice, it falls apart because...
- US has a poor social safety net. Low-income workers often end up jobless or in even lower skilled jobs
- Globalism builds bigger corporations, which actively suppress competition
- Big direct wars are replaced with constantly simmering proxy wars
- We can't control environmental degradation in other countries
* Cheaper products for everyone
* Competition drives innovation
* Lower risk of large-scale wars
* Ship high-pollution industries overseas
* Improved price stability
In practice, it falls apart because...
- US has a poor social safety net. Low-income workers often end up jobless or in even lower skilled jobs
- Globalism builds bigger corporations, which actively suppress competition
- Big direct wars are replaced with constantly simmering proxy wars
- We can't control environmental degradation in other countries
People who can buy cheaper fridges. People who can sell cheaper fridges.
How can people buy cheaper fridges when they're no longer employed because it is cheaper to employ someone to do their jobs where safety, benefits and human rights don't exist?
Unemployment doesn't work that way. Otherwise, eg Singapore would have lots and lots of unemployment.
Enough aggregate demand and a flexible labour market lead to low unemployment. (And on the flip side, a shortfall of aggregate demand can lead to recession and high unemployment.)
Central banks can with their fiat currencies these days can always print enough money (eg quantitative easing) to prop up aggregate demand, if they choose so.
Enough aggregate demand and a flexible labour market lead to low unemployment. (And on the flip side, a shortfall of aggregate demand can lead to recession and high unemployment.)
Central banks can with their fiat currencies these days can always print enough money (eg quantitative easing) to prop up aggregate demand, if they choose so.
Trade is a tool. It should be used to further the national interests of the USA. Last election hinted that there is more to the USA than Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Hollywood.
I am sad to say that it seems many countries have gone in the same direction as the United States; the European Union recently rejected a free-ish trade agreement with Canada.
The CETA free trade deal was (eventually) signed
(https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/30/eu-canada-s...)
At least one silver lining to the GOP/Trump change in the wind. I hope that we are able to find more as time goes on. As outrageous as Trump is and as much as I find him personally reprehensible I hope for at least a few welcome policy changes.
TTIP is probably dead as well:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-eu-trade-idUS...
Only problem with that is that CETA is still on it's way, so there is still a possibility that the American corporations get what they wanted to have with TTIP.
With Trump wanting to end NAFTA, and CETA having no ISDS but a real court, and Canada being a lot more liberal, I actually don't see much of a threat in CETA.
The TPP was a disguised corporate takeover of national sovereignty, with supranational TPP courts deciding trade policies.
I dont know why your getting downvoted. This is a serious problem. Also copyrights and patents. Think drugs that people need. This is more about protectionism than free trade from what I've been reading
"ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages" [0]
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-set...
"ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages" [0]
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-set...
New trade agreements can be negotiated with a broader set of government, corporate and civil society stakeholders, with early public transparency when possible.
NAFTA 1.0 is likely to be re-opened. One outcome could be that sensible provisions in TPP find their way into NAFTA 2.0, while parts of NAFTA 1.0 are removed. TPP was a giveaway to a narrow set of special interests. If it is renegotiated, it will at a minimum include a larger set of stakeholders. This time around, there will be a high level of public scrutiny.
NAFTA 1.0 is likely to be re-opened. One outcome could be that sensible provisions in TPP find their way into NAFTA 2.0, while parts of NAFTA 1.0 are removed. TPP was a giveaway to a narrow set of special interests. If it is renegotiated, it will at a minimum include a larger set of stakeholders. This time around, there will be a high level of public scrutiny.
Trade deals and transparency unfortunately don't go well together. Trade deals are negotiations — the government can't just decide what to do, since they're dealing with other governments. There needs to be a give and take. If negotiated in public it is way too easy for carefully balanced deals to collapse in the face of opposition from small subgroups even if the net impact is moderately good for lots of people.
The flip side is that it is not great that this results in influential industry groups having way too much power. Not sure how to resolve this.
The flip side is that it is not great that this results in influential industry groups having way too much power. Not sure how to resolve this.
>The flip side is that it is not great that this results in influential industry groups having way too much power. Not sure how to resolve this.
Don't make multinational all-encompasing trade deals. If you want freer trade, the best way to do it is to make small agreements on a country-by-country basis to tear down some protectionist policies each party has against the other.
This allows you to pick and choose the deals the population wants.
Don't make multinational all-encompasing trade deals. If you want freer trade, the best way to do it is to make small agreements on a country-by-country basis to tear down some protectionist policies each party has against the other.
This allows you to pick and choose the deals the population wants.
If you want free trade, the best way to go about it is to just lower your own barriers to trade: just because other countries are banging their heads against the wall doesn't mean we should do so, too.
No negotiation required.
The classical parable uses the more topical `if that other country was putting rubble in all their harbours, would we do so too? If not, why does it make a difference if their barriers physical or political?'
No negotiation required.
The classical parable uses the more topical `if that other country was putting rubble in all their harbours, would we do so too? If not, why does it make a difference if their barriers physical or political?'
> If you want free trade, the best way to go about it is to just lower your own barriers to trade: just because other countries are banging their heads against the wall doesn't mean we should do so, too.
Are you saying protectionist policies don't work? Because your idea would do nothing but hurt your own country by putting you at a disadvantage.
Are you saying protectionist policies don't work? Because your idea would do nothing but hurt your own country by putting you at a disadvantage.
Protectionist policies are as a whole bad for the country enacting them. (But they can benefit certain special interests.)
This is basically the least controversial and most orthodox position in the history of all of economics. Basically all economists agree with this one, even if they disagree on a lot of other things.
This is basically the least controversial and most orthodox position in the history of all of economics. Basically all economists agree with this one, even if they disagree on a lot of other things.
Yes, e.g. Vietnam has established bi-lateral trade agreements with several of the TPP participants.
There are many points on the spectrum between fully public and fully private, including compartmentalization. TPP took an extreme position, blocking even members of Congress from taking notes. At a minimum, elected representatives of citizens need access to draft documents, and the ability to include trade policy experts on their staff.
I think abandoning TPP is a mistake. TPP is for curbing China influence. I think many Americans underestimate China. They are a lot more powerful than they show.
And why should USA curb china?
They're eating our lunch. If you think China is a nice guy and compete fairly, you are wrong. China is dominating Asia, pulling away American allies, spreading its economic influence, fast. If we are ok, then we don't have to do anything.
That didn't seem to happen with the USSR, and that sentiment was very popular during the Cold War.
This is a very important question.
If you guys wanna be better than China, please do it, by being better yourselves, not by making your competitors worse.
That attitude is improper, specially for the most powerful country.
If you guys wanna be better than China, please do it, by being better yourselves, not by making your competitors worse.
That attitude is improper, specially for the most powerful country.
Dunno - I think that spheres of influence concept is extremely proper for the upcoming multipolar world.
Because they're not going to always be interested in living under American hegemony.
Then we go to war. It's good for business.
because they are competing?
It has been my observation that Free Trade / Globalization has typically benefited the weaker party in the deal or Corporations. The American worker has historically been the causality. Ross Perot use to say hear that sucking sound, it's your jobs going to Mexico and Canada.
As time goes on I suppose automation and AI will make cheap labor a non-factor in the cost of a widget. Countries/Corporations will want to trade to secure access to products and markets instead of using cheap labor to gain an advantage. Products will have to compete on their quality and technological advantages. The main factors determining the cost of a product will be clean and reliable power, good transportation network and access to raw materials.
Either way it seems likely now that in the future the Manufacturing worker in Asia or America will eventually be a casualty.
As time goes on I suppose automation and AI will make cheap labor a non-factor in the cost of a widget. Countries/Corporations will want to trade to secure access to products and markets instead of using cheap labor to gain an advantage. Products will have to compete on their quality and technological advantages. The main factors determining the cost of a product will be clean and reliable power, good transportation network and access to raw materials.
Either way it seems likely now that in the future the Manufacturing worker in Asia or America will eventually be a casualty.
I wonder if this would have helped Hillary if they did this a few months ago.
Grant multinational corporate supremacy over government is wrong.
Republicans are against free trade now.
Why do a suprising amount of people in this thread act like the TPP is "just free trade".
The Fine Article:
The Obama administration on Friday gave up all hope of enacting its sweeping Pacific trade agreement, a pact designed to preserve U.S. economic influence in fast-growing Asia that was buried by a wave of antitrade political sentiment that culminated with Tuesday’s presidential election.
The WSJ article we are here to talk about actually equates the treaty with free trade.
The article also basically describes an alignment with Congressional GOP with Trump on the subject:
Just over a year ago Republicans were willing to vote overwhelmingly in support of Mr. Obama’s trade policy. But as the political season approached and voters registered their concerns by supporting Mr. Trump, the GOP reacted coolly to the deal Mr. Obama’s team reached with Japan and 10 others countries just over a year ago in Atlanta.
There are reasons not to equate the treaty with free trade and not to equate GOP with Trump but the actual article points out the links.
The Obama administration on Friday gave up all hope of enacting its sweeping Pacific trade agreement, a pact designed to preserve U.S. economic influence in fast-growing Asia that was buried by a wave of antitrade political sentiment that culminated with Tuesday’s presidential election.
The WSJ article we are here to talk about actually equates the treaty with free trade.
The article also basically describes an alignment with Congressional GOP with Trump on the subject:
Just over a year ago Republicans were willing to vote overwhelmingly in support of Mr. Obama’s trade policy. But as the political season approached and voters registered their concerns by supporting Mr. Trump, the GOP reacted coolly to the deal Mr. Obama’s team reached with Japan and 10 others countries just over a year ago in Atlanta.
There are reasons not to equate the treaty with free trade and not to equate GOP with Trump but the actual article points out the links.
[deleted]
They are for building walls, cancelling trade agreements, leaving military alliances, I guess they wanna be isolationists
Trump =! GOP
According to many in GOP...
According to many in GOP...
Why Democracy is difficult:
There is a politician Who says they believe in an ideology Which tends to favor an idea Which may result in them voting for a policy/law Which leads to an implementation Which needs to be enforced Which is finally very difficult to measure ( because there is no 'control' country that is identical save for this particular law.)
And that is like the best case scenario without the analytically impenetrable layers of bureaucracy and politics which can derail and subvert the process.
There is a politician Who says they believe in an ideology Which tends to favor an idea Which may result in them voting for a policy/law Which leads to an implementation Which needs to be enforced Which is finally very difficult to measure ( because there is no 'control' country that is identical save for this particular law.)
And that is like the best case scenario without the analytically impenetrable layers of bureaucracy and politics which can derail and subvert the process.
Good. One thing Trump will not have to do.
One could say he's already done it.
Neither here nor there now, but would Obama or was Obama planning on giving up on it regardless of winner? If so, why wait till after election results?
Why not undercut one of Trump's platform items before the elections?
Why not undercut one of Trump's platform items before the elections?
I'm curious if they had left out the most objectionable parts of this deal it seems like it might have been approved without much fanfare.
You don't need 3000 pages of legalese written by corporate lobbyists to have a trade agreement. Instead, you need to declare unilateral free trade with a single sentence:
We hereby impose no tariffs, quotas, or restrictions on
goods imported from _____.
Life is not nearly that simple.
First of all, there is rarely a good reason to accept unrestricted imports from another country unless that country also allows unrestricted imports from you -- and even then, it might not be a good idea.
Second, trade doesn't just "happen" -- it's not like someone shows up with a boat full of shipping containers and the port unloads it and starts selling the stuff to passers-by out of a booth in the parking lot. There are tons of safety regulations, customs laws, retail distribution agreements, etc. that need to be negotiated before it is legal to bring stuff from one country into another. That often requires coordination between governments to make sure their laws are compatible, applications get sent to the right departments and actually get processed, inspectors are hired and sent to the ports, etc.
So, before any corporate lobbying is involved or anyone even mentions copyright and IP law, a trade agreement is already extremely complex.
First of all, there is rarely a good reason to accept unrestricted imports from another country unless that country also allows unrestricted imports from you -- and even then, it might not be a good idea.
Second, trade doesn't just "happen" -- it's not like someone shows up with a boat full of shipping containers and the port unloads it and starts selling the stuff to passers-by out of a booth in the parking lot. There are tons of safety regulations, customs laws, retail distribution agreements, etc. that need to be negotiated before it is legal to bring stuff from one country into another. That often requires coordination between governments to make sure their laws are compatible, applications get sent to the right departments and actually get processed, inspectors are hired and sent to the ports, etc.
So, before any corporate lobbying is involved or anyone even mentions copyright and IP law, a trade agreement is already extremely complex.
[deleted]
So I read these comments in the Wall Street Journal and wanted to repeat them here. I was pretty depressed but David Van Wie's attitude has uplifted me and I believe that I will follow his example. I'm the opposition now.
>>>David Van Wie:
“It’s different now,” he said
You better believe it is. Now, Mr President-elect, you are entrusted with the hopes and dreams of 60 million people who made you president of all 320 million Americans. In spite of everything they knew about your shortcomings and character flaws, they still chose you.
You made many, many extravagant promises, Mr. President-elect. Lots of people were paying attention and now expect that the amazing people you appoint to replace the incompetent idiots there before will stand and deliver for the country. You talked a good game, and now you need to put up your best stuff under a white hot spotlight.
More people voted for your opponent. Remember that when you say, "I won" as if you came into town with the wind at your back instead of through the mysteries of the Electoral College. It ain't bragging if you got it. Do you got it? Time will tell.
The job requires absorbing constant criticism 24 hours a day for 1,500 days in a row, unless you are reelected. Then you can have 1,500 more days of unrelenting criticism. The rap on you is that you can't take criticism at all. Show us what you've really got! Show the world that you are better than your critics think you are.
>>>>Gustavo Luzardo
@David Van Wie At some point you have got to let it go man... take a deep breath, calm down, and enjoy the ride... ONLY in the western world, you have the fortune of having events like this, change left and right, within seconds, continuously re inventing the world, the peoples, the politics.
This victory, the unlikeliness, the teaching lessons, the change of course, the reversals that yes, will come with this, ALL OF IT, is the marvel that the West offers to its people, eternal, swift and deliberate change.
Or...
find a safe space, with hot chocolate, comfort dogs, full of kleenex for your "cry in", all the while you sooth with Play Doh... Live in fantasy, day dreaming
I suggest you embrace and help everybody plough thru the first choice
>>>>David Van Wie @GUSTAVO LUZARDO "take a deep breath, calm down, and enjoy the ride"
No. I'm the opposition. My job is to punch you in the mouth every day for the next 725 days, then kick you in the balls and stomp on your head. Figuratively speaking, of course.
I think I understand the West pretty well. Skip the guided tour of cliches. Go tend your own garden. Your little team of Western philosophers promised the country quite a bit. Get to work.
I got these comments from:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-willing-to-keep-par...
>>>David Van Wie:
“It’s different now,” he said
You better believe it is. Now, Mr President-elect, you are entrusted with the hopes and dreams of 60 million people who made you president of all 320 million Americans. In spite of everything they knew about your shortcomings and character flaws, they still chose you.
You made many, many extravagant promises, Mr. President-elect. Lots of people were paying attention and now expect that the amazing people you appoint to replace the incompetent idiots there before will stand and deliver for the country. You talked a good game, and now you need to put up your best stuff under a white hot spotlight.
More people voted for your opponent. Remember that when you say, "I won" as if you came into town with the wind at your back instead of through the mysteries of the Electoral College. It ain't bragging if you got it. Do you got it? Time will tell.
The job requires absorbing constant criticism 24 hours a day for 1,500 days in a row, unless you are reelected. Then you can have 1,500 more days of unrelenting criticism. The rap on you is that you can't take criticism at all. Show us what you've really got! Show the world that you are better than your critics think you are.
>>>>Gustavo Luzardo
@David Van Wie At some point you have got to let it go man... take a deep breath, calm down, and enjoy the ride... ONLY in the western world, you have the fortune of having events like this, change left and right, within seconds, continuously re inventing the world, the peoples, the politics.
This victory, the unlikeliness, the teaching lessons, the change of course, the reversals that yes, will come with this, ALL OF IT, is the marvel that the West offers to its people, eternal, swift and deliberate change.
Or...
find a safe space, with hot chocolate, comfort dogs, full of kleenex for your "cry in", all the while you sooth with Play Doh... Live in fantasy, day dreaming
I suggest you embrace and help everybody plough thru the first choice
>>>>David Van Wie @GUSTAVO LUZARDO "take a deep breath, calm down, and enjoy the ride"
No. I'm the opposition. My job is to punch you in the mouth every day for the next 725 days, then kick you in the balls and stomp on your head. Figuratively speaking, of course.
I think I understand the West pretty well. Skip the guided tour of cliches. Go tend your own garden. Your little team of Western philosophers promised the country quite a bit. Get to work.
I got these comments from:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-willing-to-keep-par...
I hope he spends the freed up time doing more important things. I suggest he go as far left and oversweeping as he can in his remaining days.
> I suggest he go as far left and oversweeping as he can in his remaining days.
I agree. Lets have some real scorched Earth progressivism lest our famously short attention span have us forgetting why we elected Trump and reelected his party's Congress.
I agree. Lets have some real scorched Earth progressivism lest our famously short attention span have us forgetting why we elected Trump and reelected his party's Congress.
There's this thing called "Congress" that is designed to prevent exactly that. (Granted, Congress has been pretty useless at that task for at least the last 12 years...)
Just about the only thing Congress has been doing for the last 6 years is preventing the president from doing anything. Seriously, that's it. So if that's your criteria for congressional success, mission accomplished.
However, pushing back against the president is only one of many things Congress is designed to do. Other things include governing the country and dealing with its problems. These are the tasks they have been useless at. Long on obstruction, short on governance. It's what their supporters elected them to do, so in some sense they are doing the will of the constituents, but it doesn't make it any more adult or responsible or constructive.
However, pushing back against the president is only one of many things Congress is designed to do. Other things include governing the country and dealing with its problems. These are the tasks they have been useless at. Long on obstruction, short on governance. It's what their supporters elected them to do, so in some sense they are doing the will of the constituents, but it doesn't make it any more adult or responsible or constructive.
> Long on obstruction, short on governance.
So, this is fun. Two elections ago, Australia voted in an obstructionist party with an obstructionist leader - Tony Abbott. What were his policies? "No!". That was it. His policies were basically to deny the incumbent government anything.
So, he got into power. Despite being a senior political veteran of over two decades, he had no policies. It turns out that the "No!" doesn't cut it when you're in power, and it's all you've trained yourself to do. He lasted less than one term before his party replaced him, despite that same party using their opponent's previous early leader replacement as election material.
So, in short, Americans now have a government that has trained itself to be obstructionist and not think about actual policy and consequences. Good luck.
So, this is fun. Two elections ago, Australia voted in an obstructionist party with an obstructionist leader - Tony Abbott. What were his policies? "No!". That was it. His policies were basically to deny the incumbent government anything.
So, he got into power. Despite being a senior political veteran of over two decades, he had no policies. It turns out that the "No!" doesn't cut it when you're in power, and it's all you've trained yourself to do. He lasted less than one term before his party replaced him, despite that same party using their opponent's previous early leader replacement as election material.
So, in short, Americans now have a government that has trained itself to be obstructionist and not think about actual policy and consequences. Good luck.
> Just about the only thing Congress has been doing for the last 6 years is preventing the president from doing anything.
That is correct. And the electorate just validated them for their service at protecting the nation.
That is correct. And the electorate just validated them for their service at protecting the nation.
So, you're saying that Obama winning in 2012 was a validation by the electorate of the work he did during his first term? I can see that. Well, since by your logic the electorate has already validated the ACA, I'm sure that the incumbent won't do anything to change it.
Based on your username, you're clearly a thoughtful, mature, and rational person, who is constantly fretting over details and being their own worst critic and relentlessly playing devil's advocate with their own beliefs in pursuit of the truth. So by your logic, Clinton winning in 1992 and 1996 was clearly a validation by the electorate of Democratic policies in the '90s. I'm sure those policies will find a resurgence under Trump, since as you say elections represent the will of the country as a whole, and not something far more complicated than that. It's so refreshing living in such a black and white world, where everything's simple to understand.
Based on your username, you're clearly a thoughtful, mature, and rational person, who is constantly fretting over details and being their own worst critic and relentlessly playing devil's advocate with their own beliefs in pursuit of the truth. So by your logic, Clinton winning in 1992 and 1996 was clearly a validation by the electorate of Democratic policies in the '90s. I'm sure those policies will find a resurgence under Trump, since as you say elections represent the will of the country as a whole, and not something far more complicated than that. It's so refreshing living in such a black and white world, where everything's simple to understand.
"Congress"? What's that? The opposite of "Progress".
[deleted]
The result will be a world that is more clearly apportioned among 3-4 major powers. Small Asian countries, if they can't get a feeling of solid support from the U.S., will eventually ally themselves with China. And the EU and Russia will battle (hopefully not openly) over the lands between and near them.
It's essentially the end of "pax Americana". I think it's incredibly short-sighted. Trump looks at international relations as a quarterly balance sheet but almost certainly does not properly account for the value of the stability the U.S. provides throughout the world now.