|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 10 2016 01:13 oneofthem wrote:
i posted a long thing on why this blind hate on 'free trade' and not distinguishing the situation circa 1994 to now is misguided. it's broadly similar to the wapo piece so don't really feel like rehashing it.
the geopolitical component is really important though. the TPP/TTIP does not reduce tariffs as much as it harmonizes regulation and establish the basic momentum of a global governance structure on trade. it puts our trade leverage in concrete terms and is really ameliorative of the specific problems seen in the trade with china and so on.
TPP in particular will steer supply chain (through the country of origin rules) and thus development to our allies in the pacific region. it is very important to the future of the region.
And how much money should the US be spending (or losing, depending upon how you want to characterize it) to promote the geopolitical ends of these trade deals? That's the rub.
|
On March 10 2016 01:27 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt.  I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). There are populists on the left and right in both countries (EU left leaning populists: Die Linke in Germany, Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and plenty more; US right leaning populists: well, the tea party, Ron Paul). In fact, this is more pronounced in Europe where many countries have more proportional seat allocation systems, such that small fringe parties can still get into parliaments and be competitive. Yeah but again that's the general idea that I had of populism, that it comes in extremes (the left wing parties that you mention are all far left). Bernie is not far left. Again I find that interesting. But furthermore, Sanders is to the left of France's Hollande
I do not think that's true at all, but I don't know Hollande very well.
edit: http://xpatnation.com/would-bernie-sanders-be-considered-a-socialist-in-europe/#.T95X69K0p
|
On March 10 2016 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:27 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 10 2016 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt. I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). There are populists on the left and right in both countries (EU left leaning populists: Die Linke in Germany, Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and plenty more; US right leaning populists: well, the tea party, Ron Paul). In fact, this is more pronounced in Europe where many countries have more proportional seat allocation systems, such that small fringe parties can still get into parliaments and be competitive. Yeah but again that's the general idea that I had of populism, that it comes in extremes (the left wing parties that you mention are all far left). Bernie is not far left. Again I find that interesting. But furthermore, Sanders is to the left of France's Hollande I do not think that's true at all, but I don't know Hollande very well.
Look up the issues I mentioned.
|
On March 10 2016 01:30 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:I am a Trump supporter, but have you guys looked at their stances on issues: http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htmhttp://www.ontheissues.org/Ted_Cruz.htmhttp://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kasich.htmhttp://www.ontheissues.org/Marco_Rubio.htmCruz is absolutely insane, like 100x worse than Trump looking at it from the libertarian perspective, Kasich is too religious, saying things like: "I can't figure out how anyone gets along without the Bible. (May 2006)" and "The Lord wants America to succeed and for America to lead. (Aug 2015) ", and Marco Rubio is already out of the race, but he's just a confused little puppy, not knowing for what he stands at all. I think his positions are most similar to a normal voter, but he seems so slow mentally, that I dunno... I just imagine another George W. Bush, I think you want someone more influential. Anyway, my point is that Trump might not be perfect, but are the other candidates really better? The media and the establishment is trying to bring him down, but what for? I don't think the others are any better. So, don't vote republican if all of their candidates are complete lunatics?
Then why are people caring whether Trump wins the primaries? We're trying to get rid of Trump for Hillary runs against someone else? If they are all lunatics then Hillary wins no problem.
I think Trump is good choice, I'm just saying they are all awful choices if you're a liberal, like even worse than Trump (especially Cruz), so you keep seeing all these articles posted about how to not vote for him in the primaries... And who cares about that, its not like you're bringing in anyone with liberal values by not voting for Trump in the primaries.
|
On March 10 2016 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:19 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt. I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). I think populism is something that's used on both extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. The Tea Party could be characterized as a moderately to fairly successful populist movement even if you disagree with them. But Bernie is not extreme by any non-american definition of the word. I would have agreed with you before the term was applied to him, which is what I find interesting. That's why context is so important. Relative to America, Bernie is pretty out there. The right/left populist cries of "America is the greatest country in the world, we should be able to do X" ignores a lot of facts. Well that's just not really an argument. If America is so out there that a normal 'world' candidate appears out of place and you can't do what you should be able to because of that, you should still want the people who have the potential to bring it somewhat less out of balance as opposed to the candidates that will keep it as out of place as it is. Your argument only works when there's a second part that says it's okay for America to be this out of place. I don't think you're making that argument.
Sanders is recommending things that don't work in the US, or just don't work period. America has significant structural and cultural differences that preclude the implementation of many European-style solutions he recommends. It would be like doing a kidney transplant from a non-match donor without an immunosuppresant regimen.
|
On March 10 2016 01:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:19 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt. I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). I think populism is something that's used on both extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. The Tea Party could be characterized as a moderately to fairly successful populist movement even if you disagree with them. But Bernie is not extreme by any non-american definition of the word. I would have agreed with you before the term was applied to him, which is what I find interesting. That's why context is so important. Relative to America, Bernie is pretty out there. The right/left populist cries of "America is the greatest country in the world, we should be able to do X" ignores a lot of facts. Well that's just not really an argument. If America is so out there that a normal 'world' candidate appears out of place and you can't do what you should be able to because of that, you should still want the people who have the potential to bring it somewhat less out of balance as opposed to the candidates that will keep it as out of place as it is. Your argument only works when there's a second part that says it's okay for America to be this out of place. I don't think you're making that argument. Sanders is recommending things that just don't work in the US, or just don't work period.
Then he won't be able to do those things. But his effort is going to push America in the right direction, as opposed to letting it stay in the same place. Again, that's assuming the center and moderation is the destination, which is my assumption.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 01:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:13 oneofthem wrote:
i posted a long thing on why this blind hate on 'free trade' and not distinguishing the situation circa 1994 to now is misguided. it's broadly similar to the wapo piece so don't really feel like rehashing it.
the geopolitical component is really important though. the TPP/TTIP does not reduce tariffs as much as it harmonizes regulation and establish the basic momentum of a global governance structure on trade. it puts our trade leverage in concrete terms and is really ameliorative of the specific problems seen in the trade with china and so on.
TPP in particular will steer supply chain (through the country of origin rules) and thus development to our allies in the pacific region. it is very important to the future of the region. And how much money should the US be spending (or losing, depending upon how you want to characterize it) to promote the geopolitical ends of these trade deals? That's the rub.
it's not a 'cost' as in it can be prevented, unless you incur the cost of tariffs to rekt foreign competitors who can take advantage of lower cost manufacturing. the shifting of supply chain to lower cost countries is just not going to stop. you can shape the regulatory environment and steer the flow of trade one way or another, but to bring some of the processes to the u.s. is impractical.
develop a more entrepreneurship friendly environment and rekting monopoly power should be the focus of a democratic economic agenda, with the attendant effective investment in infrastructure and human development. you want more higher value added businesses that create jobs, and really it's america's vital strategic advantage & interest to keep these future businesses here.
|
On March 10 2016 01:40 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2016 01:13 oneofthem wrote:
i posted a long thing on why this blind hate on 'free trade' and not distinguishing the situation circa 1994 to now is misguided. it's broadly similar to the wapo piece so don't really feel like rehashing it.
the geopolitical component is really important though. the TPP/TTIP does not reduce tariffs as much as it harmonizes regulation and establish the basic momentum of a global governance structure on trade. it puts our trade leverage in concrete terms and is really ameliorative of the specific problems seen in the trade with china and so on.
TPP in particular will steer supply chain (through the country of origin rules) and thus development to our allies in the pacific region. it is very important to the future of the region. And how much money should the US be spending (or losing, depending upon how you want to characterize it) to promote the geopolitical ends of these trade deals? That's the rub. it's not a 'cost' as in it can be prevented, unless you incur the cost of tariffs to rekt foreign competitors who can take advantage of lower cost manufacturing. the shifting of supply chain to lower cost countries is just not going to stop. you can shape the regulatory environment and steer the flow of trade one way or another, but to bring some of the processes to the u.s. is impractical.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that all processes be brought back to the US. But there is a strong suggestion that we shouldn't be constantly soaked by every trade deal that we enter into.
|
On March 10 2016 01:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:19 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt. I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). I think populism is something that's used on both extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. The Tea Party could be characterized as a moderately to fairly successful populist movement even if you disagree with them. But Bernie is not extreme by any non-american definition of the word. I would have agreed with you before the term was applied to him, which is what I find interesting. That's why context is so important. Relative to America, Bernie is pretty out there. The right/left populist cries of "America is the greatest country in the world, we should be able to do X" ignores a lot of facts. Well that's just not really an argument. If America is so out there that a normal 'world' candidate appears out of place and you can't do what you should be able to because of that, you should still want the people who have the potential to bring it somewhat less out of balance as opposed to the candidates that will keep it as out of place as it is. Your argument only works when there's a second part that says it's okay for America to be this out of place. I don't think you're making that argument. Sanders is recommending things that just don't work in the US, or just don't work period. Then he won't be able to do those things. But his effort is going to push America in the right direction, as opposed to letting it stay in the same place. Again, that's assuming the center and moderation is the destination, which is my assumption.
That's contingent on the assumption that the other candidates are about preserving the status quo-- while it's quite obvious the Republican candidates want to take America in an insane direction, Hillary is moving leftwards as I think is practically possible. If you look at her platform she shares many of the same goals as Sanders except with a very different idea of how to get there and how far we can realistically get. If Sanders had not run, I'm fairly sure Hillary would have been hit with a lot of cries about being too far left-- she has been in the past many times.
There's also no reason to assume that the 'world center' or rather what you seem to be suggesting is the European norm is necessarily something to aspire for in and of itself. I don't necessarily see a huge benefit to anyone if the US became identical to the EU. It's not about moving to another system, it's about taking the current system and keeping the good while minimizing the bad as much as humanly possible.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 01:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:40 oneofthem wrote:On March 10 2016 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2016 01:13 oneofthem wrote:
i posted a long thing on why this blind hate on 'free trade' and not distinguishing the situation circa 1994 to now is misguided. it's broadly similar to the wapo piece so don't really feel like rehashing it.
the geopolitical component is really important though. the TPP/TTIP does not reduce tariffs as much as it harmonizes regulation and establish the basic momentum of a global governance structure on trade. it puts our trade leverage in concrete terms and is really ameliorative of the specific problems seen in the trade with china and so on.
TPP in particular will steer supply chain (through the country of origin rules) and thus development to our allies in the pacific region. it is very important to the future of the region. And how much money should the US be spending (or losing, depending upon how you want to characterize it) to promote the geopolitical ends of these trade deals? That's the rub. it's not a 'cost' as in it can be prevented, unless you incur the cost of tariffs to rekt foreign competitors who can take advantage of lower cost manufacturing. the shifting of supply chain to lower cost countries is just not going to stop. you can shape the regulatory environment and steer the flow of trade one way or another, but to bring some of the processes to the u.s. is impractical. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that all processes be brought back to the US. But there is a strong suggestion that we shouldn't be constantly soaked by every trade deal that we enter into.
with some of these places developing pretty soon there will be more of a balance of trade. look at the example of japan for example. what was once a deadly threat is now an important market and also supplier, making both countries much better off.
it's not really a path independent problem. there is no easy 'reverse gear'. if there is anything for sanders to crusade against it's the concentration of firms and the multitude of barriers to entry for competition.
|
On March 10 2016 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:27 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 10 2016 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt. I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). There are populists on the left and right in both countries (EU left leaning populists: Die Linke in Germany, Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and plenty more; US right leaning populists: well, the tea party, Ron Paul). In fact, this is more pronounced in Europe where many countries have more proportional seat allocation systems, such that small fringe parties can still get into parliaments and be competitive. Yeah but again that's the general idea that I had of populism, that it comes in extremes (the left wing parties that you mention are all far left). Bernie is not far left. Again I find that interesting. But furthermore, Sanders is to the left of France's Hollande I do not think that's true at all, but I don't know Hollande very well. edit: http://xpatnation.com/would-bernie-sanders-be-considered-a-socialist-in-europe/#.T95X69K0p
What's sure is that Sanders is to the left of Valls, but that's not something hard to achieve
|
On March 10 2016 01:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:38 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:19 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt. I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). I think populism is something that's used on both extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. The Tea Party could be characterized as a moderately to fairly successful populist movement even if you disagree with them. But Bernie is not extreme by any non-american definition of the word. I would have agreed with you before the term was applied to him, which is what I find interesting. That's why context is so important. Relative to America, Bernie is pretty out there. The right/left populist cries of "America is the greatest country in the world, we should be able to do X" ignores a lot of facts. Well that's just not really an argument. If America is so out there that a normal 'world' candidate appears out of place and you can't do what you should be able to because of that, you should still want the people who have the potential to bring it somewhat less out of balance as opposed to the candidates that will keep it as out of place as it is. Your argument only works when there's a second part that says it's okay for America to be this out of place. I don't think you're making that argument. Sanders is recommending things that just don't work in the US, or just don't work period. Then he won't be able to do those things. But his effort is going to push America in the right direction, as opposed to letting it stay in the same place. Again, that's assuming the center and moderation is the destination, which is my assumption. That's contingent on the assumption that the other candidates are about preserving the status quo-- while it's quite obvious the Republican candidates want to take America in an insane direction, Hillary is moving leftwards as I think is practically possible. If you look at her platform she shares many of the same goals as Sanders except with a very different idea of how to get there and how far we can realistically get. If Sanders had not run, I'm fairly sure Hillary would have been hit with a lot of cries about being too far left-- she has been in the past many times. There's also no reason to assume that the 'world center' or rather what you seem to be suggesting is the European norm is necessarily something to aspire for in and of itself. I don't necessarily see a huge benefit to anyone if the US became identical to the EU.
I don't really believe Clinton will do anything to move the US leftwards, you're correct on that. I think she's clearly an establishment candidate and the establishment has zero interest in things moving or changing in any fashion. From what I've seen of polls and reactions within the US, I'm far from the only one thinking that.
Your second paragraph I've already addressed. Like I've said, your argument is coherent if you don't believe that America should necessarily align with the rest of the world. Which is a fine thing to believe, but is different from simply saying "Bernie can't do these things because America".
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a continuation of obama's policies and some increased regulatory stuff on finance is moving the country to the left. there is a bit of redistribution and tax reform.
the kind of radical utopia sandernistas want is not in this world. it's just bad policy
|
On March 10 2016 01:54 oneofthem wrote:
a continuation of obama's policies and some increased regulatory stuff on finance is moving the country to the left. there is a bit of redistribution and tax reform.
the kind of radical utopia sandernistas want is not in this world. it's just bad policy
TIL the whole world except America have bad policies
|
On March 10 2016 01:51 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:43 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:38 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:19 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt. I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). I think populism is something that's used on both extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. The Tea Party could be characterized as a moderately to fairly successful populist movement even if you disagree with them. But Bernie is not extreme by any non-american definition of the word. I would have agreed with you before the term was applied to him, which is what I find interesting. That's why context is so important. Relative to America, Bernie is pretty out there. The right/left populist cries of "America is the greatest country in the world, we should be able to do X" ignores a lot of facts. Well that's just not really an argument. If America is so out there that a normal 'world' candidate appears out of place and you can't do what you should be able to because of that, you should still want the people who have the potential to bring it somewhat less out of balance as opposed to the candidates that will keep it as out of place as it is. Your argument only works when there's a second part that says it's okay for America to be this out of place. I don't think you're making that argument. Sanders is recommending things that just don't work in the US, or just don't work period. Then he won't be able to do those things. But his effort is going to push America in the right direction, as opposed to letting it stay in the same place. Again, that's assuming the center and moderation is the destination, which is my assumption. That's contingent on the assumption that the other candidates are about preserving the status quo-- while it's quite obvious the Republican candidates want to take America in an insane direction, Hillary is moving leftwards as I think is practically possible. If you look at her platform she shares many of the same goals as Sanders except with a very different idea of how to get there and how far we can realistically get. If Sanders had not run, I'm fairly sure Hillary would have been hit with a lot of cries about being too far left-- she has been in the past many times. There's also no reason to assume that the 'world center' or rather what you seem to be suggesting is the European norm is necessarily something to aspire for in and of itself. I don't necessarily see a huge benefit to anyone if the US became identical to the EU. I don't really believe Clinton will do anything to move the US leftwards, you're correct on that. From what I've seen of polls and reactions within the US, I'm far from the only one. Your second paragraph I've already addressed. Like I've said, your argument is coherent if you don't believe that America should necessarily align with the rest of the world. Which is a fine thing to believe, but is different from simply saying "Bernie can't do these things because America".
It's a big stretch to assume Hillary would be a status quo president based on her record, or it suggests a certain ignorance or blindness to what she has done in the past.
Why would we want America to be another EU? There are great things about the US and also some bad ones. Why not work to eliminate or minimize the bad while preserving and maximizing the good? Beyond that, take a look at Sanders' individual proposals on subjects from healthcare to financial regulation. They are simultaneously poorly fleshed out and almost guaranteed to be impractical, nevermind being impossible to get through Congress. Single payer doesn't work in America. A tax on trades doesn't solve the problem and hurts a lot of people. Free public college does nothing to control cost or quality.
|
On March 10 2016 01:57 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:51 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:43 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:38 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:19 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). I think populism is something that's used on both extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. The Tea Party could be characterized as a moderately to fairly successful populist movement even if you disagree with them. But Bernie is not extreme by any non-american definition of the word. I would have agreed with you before the term was applied to him, which is what I find interesting. That's why context is so important. Relative to America, Bernie is pretty out there. The right/left populist cries of "America is the greatest country in the world, we should be able to do X" ignores a lot of facts. Well that's just not really an argument. If America is so out there that a normal 'world' candidate appears out of place and you can't do what you should be able to because of that, you should still want the people who have the potential to bring it somewhat less out of balance as opposed to the candidates that will keep it as out of place as it is. Your argument only works when there's a second part that says it's okay for America to be this out of place. I don't think you're making that argument. Sanders is recommending things that just don't work in the US, or just don't work period. Then he won't be able to do those things. But his effort is going to push America in the right direction, as opposed to letting it stay in the same place. Again, that's assuming the center and moderation is the destination, which is my assumption. That's contingent on the assumption that the other candidates are about preserving the status quo-- while it's quite obvious the Republican candidates want to take America in an insane direction, Hillary is moving leftwards as I think is practically possible. If you look at her platform she shares many of the same goals as Sanders except with a very different idea of how to get there and how far we can realistically get. If Sanders had not run, I'm fairly sure Hillary would have been hit with a lot of cries about being too far left-- she has been in the past many times. There's also no reason to assume that the 'world center' or rather what you seem to be suggesting is the European norm is necessarily something to aspire for in and of itself. I don't necessarily see a huge benefit to anyone if the US became identical to the EU. I don't really believe Clinton will do anything to move the US leftwards, you're correct on that. From what I've seen of polls and reactions within the US, I'm far from the only one. Your second paragraph I've already addressed. Like I've said, your argument is coherent if you don't believe that America should necessarily align with the rest of the world. Which is a fine thing to believe, but is different from simply saying "Bernie can't do these things because America". It's a big stretch to assume Hillary would be a status quo president based on her record. Why would we want America to be another EU? There are great things about the US and also some bad ones. Why not work to eliminate or minimize the bad while preserving and maximizing the good? Beyond that, take a look at Sanders' individual proposals on subjects from healthcare to financial regulation. They are simultaneously poorly fleshed out and almost guaranteed to be impractical, nevermind being impossible to get through Congress. Single payer doesn't work in America. A tax on trades doesn't solve the problem and hurts a lot of people. Free public college does nothing to control cost or quality.
It's okay. You're now explaining why you don't want it, as opposed to just saying it can't be done in America like you did earlier. I think that position is coherent, I don't think the other one was. It can't be done and it shouldn't be tried are two very different things.
|
On March 10 2016 01:44 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2016 01:40 oneofthem wrote:On March 10 2016 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2016 01:13 oneofthem wrote:
i posted a long thing on why this blind hate on 'free trade' and not distinguishing the situation circa 1994 to now is misguided. it's broadly similar to the wapo piece so don't really feel like rehashing it.
the geopolitical component is really important though. the TPP/TTIP does not reduce tariffs as much as it harmonizes regulation and establish the basic momentum of a global governance structure on trade. it puts our trade leverage in concrete terms and is really ameliorative of the specific problems seen in the trade with china and so on.
TPP in particular will steer supply chain (through the country of origin rules) and thus development to our allies in the pacific region. it is very important to the future of the region. And how much money should the US be spending (or losing, depending upon how you want to characterize it) to promote the geopolitical ends of these trade deals? That's the rub. it's not a 'cost' as in it can be prevented, unless you incur the cost of tariffs to rekt foreign competitors who can take advantage of lower cost manufacturing. the shifting of supply chain to lower cost countries is just not going to stop. you can shape the regulatory environment and steer the flow of trade one way or another, but to bring some of the processes to the u.s. is impractical. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that all processes be brought back to the US. But there is a strong suggestion that we shouldn't be constantly soaked by every trade deal that we enter into. with some of these places developing pretty soon there will be more of a balance of trade. look at the example of japan for example. what was once a deadly threat is now an important market and also supplier, making both countries much better off. it's not really a path independent problem. there is no easy 'reverse gear'. if there is anything for sanders to crusade against it's the concentration of firms and the multitude of barriers to entry for competition.
How the hell can you claim that there's a balance of trade between the US and Japan?
|
On March 10 2016 01:54 oneofthem wrote:
a continuation of obama's policies and some increased regulatory stuff on finance is moving the country to the left. there is a bit of redistribution and tax reform.
the kind of radical utopia sandernistas want is not in this world. it's just bad policy
Republicans didn't deregulate Wall Street. Clinton did. We do not need more of the same Clinton.
Even Rubio and Trump are on the left of Clinton on this issue (even though Rubio is no.1 raising money from Wall Street on the republican size).
So we get 8 years of Hillary. Then we get 8 years of Michelle Obama? Then 8 years of Chelsea? Then 8 years of Malia Obama?
And that's solid left-wing politics? Give me a break. Obama is on the right of W Bush on many issues, like assassinating American citizens using mere presidential decrees.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 01:56 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:54 oneofthem wrote:
a continuation of obama's policies and some increased regulatory stuff on finance is moving the country to the left. there is a bit of redistribution and tax reform.
the kind of radical utopia sandernistas want is not in this world. it's just bad policy TIL the whole world except America have bad policies
do you think the u.s. would turn into sweden if we just passed a 20 dollar minimum wage? policies require certain underlying fundamentals to work, and when these differ, such as the distribution of productivity in workers, the same policy would have vastly different effects.
i don't relaly want to cite the lucas critique on anyone but it's relevant here
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 02:01 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:54 oneofthem wrote:
a continuation of obama's policies and some increased regulatory stuff on finance is moving the country to the left. there is a bit of redistribution and tax reform.
the kind of radical utopia sandernistas want is not in this world. it's just bad policy Republicans didn't deregulate Wall Street. Clinton did. We do not need more of the same Clinton.
Even Rubio and Trump are on the left of Clinton on this issue.So we get 8 years of Hillary. Then we get 8 years of Michelle Obama? Then 8 years of Chelsea? Then 8 years of Malia Obama? And that's solid left-wing politics? Give me a break. Obama is on the right of W Bush on many issues, like assassinating American citizens using mere presidential decrees.
that's just factually wrong.
deregulation happened in the context of more activity in the industry. you are looking to blame too much of the government and not enough of the capitalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
