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 June 18 2016 05:00 zlefin wrote: fiwi -> I feel quite sure Trump does not know what he's doing; and he doesn't seem to have picked it up/learned it (sometimes as candidates get closer, advisors help bring them up to speed on things)
disagree on nationalism being important. People can do just fine without it; and tribalism leads to a lot of the world's ills. and all candidates do plenty of focus on their own nation anyways;
Then we will have to disagree. I think nationalism is essential in uniting peoples values behind one source, and I think that a large reason why I believe the US has been struggling is because they've been doing everything half-assed, which is due to people not being able agree on things. I see it in things like the feminist movement (where I'm really against it in its current form, and I'm sure many others are), but what you see happening is that a 30% minority about something will really beat out a 70% majority about something simply because if the 70% of people is following the status quo, then their voices aren't as loud.
Additionally, I think US politics is really divisive, like they paint the large portion of the US population like some criminal no lives if they support Trump... If I'm a Trump supporter, then it's like man, fuck the country I live in, this government will not accommodate me at all. I feel like Canada deals a lot better with this, where I was a Conservative, and the Liberals won, it seemed like people we a lot more reasonable to consider everyone, and the views just seem closer, because there's a lot of Canadian pride here. In the US, a lot of people kind of just accept that often the US is the laughing stock of the world, because they know what they're doing is so silly so much of the time.
So yes, I think US nationalism is extremely important, but not the "America fuck yeah, eagles, jets, hamburgers" nationalism. And I think you can unite a lot of the country, by making people feel like they are taking their country back (a feeling I'm sure many in Britain, Germany, and France would enjoy), and having a common issue to fight for, which would be the "fight" (doesn't have to be a literal fight) against radical Islam. I think this would have many positive effects, including a reduction of all religion in the United States, and as I've stated in the past, I think that religion cannot play a big part in a society where more than one is present.
Anyway, plenty of big points without a proper and long enough argument to back them up here, but the take away message is that Americans must have pride in their country if they wish to see themselves rise.
Well said fiwi, i typically agree with you on most of your points. I also like how you speak very plainly and clear without unnecessary jargon. You also present your arguments without any hostility and emotional baggage. You need to post in here more often, my friend.
ok fiwi, we agree to disagree. As for Canada seeming more reasonable, that's because canadians are just nice. The degree of partisanship/hating on the other side in american politics has risen and fallen over time; right now it's at a high point. Sure, some people hate on trump supporters, there's also a lot of trump supporters and others who hate just as strongly on the other side. There's just too much partisanship in politics; and that is an outgrowth of tribalistic behavior. Certainly common cause brings people together; the thing is, radical islam isn't actually a threat to the US, it's only a nuisance. There's no actual need to come together to fight it, because it's really quite weak and insignificant.
I'm not sure what you mean by nationalism; taking the country back from what?
from what I've seen, plenty of americans have plenty of pride in their country.
On June 18 2016 03:59 oneofthem wrote: nah, people just want a decent job and live life. there is not much of this capitalist conspiracy stuff except in the far left.
it's not a fucking "conspiracy" dude. are you serious? it's a systems-level decription of a logic that deeply penetrates the subjectivities it creates, operating at the individual level.
edit: besides the fact that the "decent job" part is the core of the whole criticism. do you know what "precarity" even means in this context?
i'd bold the attribution of conspiratorial machinations in your previous post but to respond briefly, old style unions and socialism in one country just dont work. it would be better to find a strategy forward without ideological straitjackets based on some shared values. there is nothing automatically horrid about the market
On June 18 2016 04:52 oneofthem wrote: what are your prescriptions for the economy
Just to quickly sum up some of my points without explanation
67-68 retirement age
Public healthcare (current system is such garbage since pharmaceutical's still bringing in all the profit). Canada pays 10.5% for healthcare, US pays 17.1% as a percentage of GDP, and yet Canada has a 3 year longer life expectancy, and our costs have been greatly going up in the last few years (compared to most of Europe, you guys are completely abysmal). This would be one of the big wealth equalizers in my proposed policy.
Protectionism, tariffs on imports
Not to sound like Trump, but get better trade deals with the east. There are dozens of impoverished countries in east to do business with, while the US makes up at least 1/3rd of the high value exports to developed countries, so bargain with the advantage.
Progressively increase corporate tax rate brackets by 5-10%
Remove estate tax, or lower it significantly. I'd rather deal with with very rich families by letting them do business in a more costly way, than just take away their money and then the government allocating it poorly.
Increase education spending to 5% of budget (also greatly increase focus on trades, move away from pure service industry)... Move that budget to states and less to government
Larger mandatory contributions by employers to employee retirement, decrease social security spending accordingly
Conservative approach to the environment, ie. bring the changes about slowly. I think the current approach is far too aggressive, especially places like California where they want 50% Solar in a few years and whatnot. Yes, global warming exists, some/most of it is caused by humans, it's not a crisis.
Lower federal income tax rates, increase state rates accordingly
Approve keystone XL pipeline, and strengthen ties with Canada. Canada has a lot of natural resources that the US could utilize to improve the trades industry, and both countries could profit equally. Multilateral and open business with developed countries like Germany and France is fine, don't do that with developing countries.
These are a lot of the economic positions I stand for.
some of these are not so dissimilar to clinton's approach(public option healthcare) and some are counterproductive. increasing the corporate rate is no good.
on tariffs, the u.s. will be or already ramping up some tariffs on china particularly in steel. ongoing case
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has made clear he doesn't agree with a proposal put forward by Donald Trump -- whom Ryan has endorsed -- to ban Muslim immigration into the United States, but in an interview with the Huffington Post Thursday, Ryan floated taking a President Trump to court if he tried to implement such a ban or some of his other controversial proposals unilaterally.
“I would sue any president that exceeds his or her powers,” Ryan said in a back-and-forth about Trump's claims that he could implement a Muslim ban or build a Mexican border wall without congressional approval.
Ryan said he wasn't sure of the "legal question" of whether Trump could institute a Muslim ban on his own as president.
“That’s a legal question that there’s a good debate about,” he said, citing the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.
"On the broader question, are we going to exert our Article I powers and reclaim this Article I power no matter who the president is? Absolutely," Ryan said. He also said he discussed the limits of the executive power with Trump.
In the interview, Ryan said his endorsement of real estate mogul did not give Trump “a blank check,” and that he was still trying to achieve "real unity" between the presumptive nominee and his caucus.
On June 18 2016 05:36 zlefin wrote: fiwi -> why tariffs? Those tend to just make everyone poorer, unless done on very specific goods in specific circumstances. What makes you think the current trade deals with the East are bad? what specifically about the current trade deals is it you don't like? Higher corporate tax rates seem pointless, better to cut down on the loopholes which cause them to all pay far less than their nominal rate. On increased Ed spending; while I like it as a principle, more than 5% of what budget are you talking about? the US already spends tons of money on education. I'm just not sure what that 5% of what you're referring to is.
For the corporate loopholes, I didn't want to mention them, as I don't know exactly how many are available, and how they all work, but yes, I'd like effective corporate tax rate to increase 5-10%. Ideally crack down on loopholes first if it's cheap enough to enforce.
Tariffs lower the economic pie in the short term in a competitive market, no doubt. The reality is that in the long term, you lose a lot of your industry and technological edge, industry becomes less and less a free market, and it's no longer so good. The Econ 203 macroecon approach isn't a good way to view the world. Actually from what I've talked to most of my past economics profs about is that more or less every theory they teach you can't realistically be applied to the world, simply because the assumptions are too great. The point of an econ degree is to teach you how to develop these models yourself, and to decide what variables need to be included and what don't. Classical econ theory and Keynesian are both quite garbage imo, and it's more of a coincidence that they happen to correctly predict the world in certain cases than some rigorous prediction. Sorry, bit of a rant.
Current trade deals focus on the multinationals maximizing their profit more or less. However the idea is that you should be maximizing the benefit to the US, not to the multinationals. Large multinationals account for large income inequalities, loss of skilled jobs in the US, and just a deprivation of US capital and technology in the long term and thus loss of bargaining power. Just like how there are anti-competition acts to prevent large mergers, there should be more acts determining whether a company can leave, and if they do leave, costs associated with it. Sure, it seems a bit unethical, but that's what incorporating means, it means you aren't treated as a person anymore, but a company, and while you gain new rights, you lose others (my accounting girlfriend would know more, sorry).
Currency manipulation has been widely discussed, and things like that need to be dealt with. Things like forcing the chinese companies that profit massive from the US to put significant infrastructure in the US to benefit US workers, as well as to hold them more accountable and allow them to be more easily prosecuted is important. Like I said before, the US has way more bargaining power than any country minus maybe China (which is only because they were trading on equal footing forever). Have higher demands from these foreign countries, and don't trade on equal footing, get the US to make unreasonable looking demands, in order to allow sustained growth in the US.
A lot of whats been caused is by the short sighted people of the 70-90s, simply wanting cheap good now, and not thinking about the future and the capital flight in the USA.
On June 18 2016 05:00 zlefin wrote: fiwi -> I feel quite sure Trump does not know what he's doing; and he doesn't seem to have picked it up/learned it (sometimes as candidates get closer, advisors help bring them up to speed on things)
disagree on nationalism being important. People can do just fine without it; and tribalism leads to a lot of the world's ills. and all candidates do plenty of focus on their own nation anyways;
Then we will have to disagree. I think nationalism is essential in uniting peoples values behind one source, and I think that a large reason why I believe the US has been struggling is because they've been doing everything half-assed, which is due to people not being able agree on things. I see it in things like the feminist movement (where I'm really against it in its current form, and I'm sure many others are), but what you see happening is that a 30% minority about something will really beat out a 70% majority about something simply because if the 70% of people is following the status quo, then their voices aren't as loud.
Additionally, I think US politics is really divisive, like they paint the large portion of the US population like some criminal no lives if they support Trump... If I'm a Trump supporter, then it's like man, fuck the country I live in, this government will not accommodate me at all. I feel like Canada deals a lot better with this, where I was a Conservative, and the Liberals won, it seemed like people we a lot more reasonable to consider everyone, and the views just seem closer, because there's a lot of Canadian pride here. In the US, a lot of people kind of just accept that often the US is the laughing stock of the world, because they know what they're doing is so silly so much of the time.
So yes, I think US nationalism is extremely important, but not the "America fuck yeah, eagles, jets, hamburgers" nationalism. And I think you can unite a lot of the country, by making people feel like they are taking their country back (a feeling I'm sure many in Britain, Germany, and France would enjoy), and having a common issue to fight for, which would be the "fight" (doesn't have to be a literal fight) against radical Islam. I think this would have many positive effects, including a reduction of all religion in the United States, and as I've stated in the past, I think that religion cannot play a big part in a society where more than one is present.
Anyway, plenty of big points without a proper and long enough argument to back them up here, but the take away message is that Americans must have pride in their country if they wish to see themselves rise.
Well said fiwi, i typically agree with you on most of your points. I also like how you speak very plainly and clear without unnecessary jargon. You also present your arguments without any hostility and emotional baggage. You need to post in here more often, my friend.
Appreciate the kind words. I enjoy reading the thread, though often people don't tend to debate, but rather are fixated on a certain issue and just fight to convince the other side. I genuinely try to find a position on logical arguments and when I think I'm right or have a good argument for an unpopular view, I enjoy presenting it. I never ask people to switch sides, but it's nice when people at least consider what you said.
edit: Opps, meant to edit this into my previous post.
On June 18 2016 04:52 oneofthem wrote: what are your prescriptions for the economy
Just to quickly sum up some of my points without explanation
67-68 retirement age
Public healthcare (current system is such garbage since pharmaceutical's still bringing in all the profit). Canada pays 10.5% for healthcare, US pays 17.1% as a percentage of GDP, and yet Canada has a 3 year longer life expectancy, and our costs have been greatly going up in the last few years (compared to most of Europe, you guys are completely abysmal). This would be one of the big wealth equalizers in my proposed policy.
Protectionism, tariffs on imports
Not to sound like Trump, but get better trade deals with the east. There are dozens of impoverished countries in east to do business with, while the US makes up at least 1/3rd of the high value exports to developed countries, so bargain with the advantage.
Progressively increase corporate tax rate brackets by 5-10%
Remove estate tax, or lower it significantly. I'd rather deal with with very rich families by letting them do business in a more costly way, than just take away their money and then the government allocating it poorly.
Increase education spending to 5% of budget (also greatly increase focus on trades, move away from pure service industry)... Move that budget to states and less to government
Larger mandatory contributions by employers to employee retirement, decrease social security spending accordingly
Conservative approach to the environment, ie. bring the changes about slowly. I think the current approach is far too aggressive, especially places like California where they want 50% Solar in a few years and whatnot. Yes, global warming exists, some/most of it is caused by humans, it's not a crisis.
Lower federal income tax rates, increase state rates accordingly
Approve keystone XL pipeline, and strengthen ties with Canada. Canada has a lot of natural resources that the US could utilize to improve the trades industry, and both countries could profit equally. Multilateral and open business with developed countries like Germany and France is fine, don't do that with developing countries.
These are a lot of the economic positions I stand for.
some of these are not so dissimilar to clinton's approach(public option healthcare) and some are counterproductive. increasing the corporate rate is no good.
on tariffs, the u.s. will be or already ramping up some tariffs on china particularly in steel. ongoing case
I don't know where I can find some objective information about the current tariff situation, but it's a step in the right direction if that's the case. I would like to see large percentages, 10-20% of chinese imports isn't that unreasonable. The rate can be kept lower for developing markets to build new trade partners quicker, but one like China where we've been doing trade for a long time, should pay more.
On June 18 2016 05:12 IgnE wrote: you know now that i think about it this "conspiracy" logic bin that you love to use is something sam was interested in before his last ban.
Add us on facebook, thats where sam! is unravelling the conspiracy now! facebook is the new book thread!
On June 18 2016 04:22 FiWiFaKi wrote: Man I find it mind boggling that someone with a 75% unfavorable ratings with white men will become president.
I'm one of the people that think feminism in its current form is absolute cancer, and from the dozens and dozens of people I've talked to personally, nobody likes Elizabeth Warren minus the fact that many can agree with her that Trump is awful. Really unfortunate that the Republican Party didn't have a better flag bearer, because I'd personally rather have a heavy drug addict become president than have Clinton plus Warren. I think they are evil people with evil morals, and I'd rather have the government shut down for four years than have them in power.
Conversely, most, though not all of the people that i know quite like elizabeth warren. Never forget that we are all in our little bubbles
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has made clear he doesn't agree with a proposal put forward by Donald Trump -- whom Ryan has endorsed -- to ban Muslim immigration into the United States, but in an interview with the Huffington Post Thursday, Ryan floated taking a President Trump to court if he tried to implement such a ban or some of his other controversial proposals unilaterally.
“I would sue any president that exceeds his or her powers,” Ryan said in a back-and-forth about Trump's claims that he could implement a Muslim ban or build a Mexican border wall without congressional approval.
Ryan said he wasn't sure of the "legal question" of whether Trump could institute a Muslim ban on his own as president.
“That’s a legal question that there’s a good debate about,” he said, citing the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.
"On the broader question, are we going to exert our Article I powers and reclaim this Article I power no matter who the president is? Absolutely," Ryan said. He also said he discussed the limits of the executive power with Trump.
In the interview, Ryan said his endorsement of real estate mogul did not give Trump “a blank check,” and that he was still trying to achieve "real unity" between the presumptive nominee and his caucus.
If he abuses his powers like he says he is going to, I will use the courts to stop him. I endorse him for president and as the head of my party. But have no doubt, I will stop him if he tries to destroy the country.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has made clear he doesn't agree with a proposal put forward by Donald Trump -- whom Ryan has endorsed -- to ban Muslim immigration into the United States, but in an interview with the Huffington Post Thursday, Ryan floated taking a President Trump to court if he tried to implement such a ban or some of his other controversial proposals unilaterally.
“I would sue any president that exceeds his or her powers,” Ryan said in a back-and-forth about Trump's claims that he could implement a Muslim ban or build a Mexican border wall without congressional approval.
Ryan said he wasn't sure of the "legal question" of whether Trump could institute a Muslim ban on his own as president.
“That’s a legal question that there’s a good debate about,” he said, citing the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.
"On the broader question, are we going to exert our Article I powers and reclaim this Article I power no matter who the president is? Absolutely," Ryan said. He also said he discussed the limits of the executive power with Trump.
In the interview, Ryan said his endorsement of real estate mogul did not give Trump “a blank check,” and that he was still trying to achieve "real unity" between the presumptive nominee and his caucus.
If he abuses his powers like he says he is going to, I will use the courts to stop him. I endorse him for president and as the head of my party. But have no doubt, I will stop him if he tries to destroy the country.
And compare that to normal language. When interviewers ask pointed questions like this about something terrible about a candidate, people always respond with "that's silly" or something to that degree. It's hilarious that Ryan needs to address it as a real possibility, lol.
In the eight months since the New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, announced the first investigation of Exxon Mobil over its past research statements about climate change, nearly 20 other state attorneys general have voiced their support.
But Exxon Mobil has increasingly been pushing back, fighting subpoenas in court and winning the support of lawmakers and friendly state attorneys general who have attacked the investigations as flashy political prosecutions dressed up as legal inquiries.
The company, for example, filed a motion on Wednesday in federal court in Texas to block a demand for documents by the Massachusetts attorney general, Maura Healey, calling it a “fishing expedition.”
The filing argued that Ms. Healey was “abusing the power of government” to silence the company, and that she made statements in a March news conference with Mr. Schneiderman and other state law enforcement officials that suggested she had already made up her mind about what her investigation would find.
On Thursday, Exxon Mobil followed up with a petition in state court in Massachusetts asking the court to recuse Ms. Healey’s office from pursuing the investigation because “it is impermissibly biased” against the company.
Exxon Mobil also argued that the state law that Ms. Healey relied in her investigation has only a four-year statute of limitations.
Alan T. Jeffers, a spokesman for the company, said, “The great irony here is that we’ve acknowledged the risks of climate change for more than a decade, have supported a carbon tax as the better policy option and spent more than $7 billion on research and technologies to reduce emissions.”
A spokeswoman for Ms. Healey, Cyndi Roy Gonzalez, said in a statement that Exxon Mobil’s legal efforts are “an unprecedented effort to limit the ability of state attorneys general to investigate fraud and unfair business practices.”
The law enforcement officials’ actions also have been questioned by Lamar S. Smith of Texas, the Republican chairman of the House Science Committee, and more recently by a coalition of state attorneys general who called the investigations “a grave mistake” that “raises substantial First Amendment concerns.”
Mr. Schneiderman has consistently argued that he is trying to determine whether the company committed fraud by telling investors and consumers one thing while its research showed the opposite. “The First Amendment does not give any corporation the right to commit fraud,” said Eric Soufer, a spokesman for the attorney general.
fiwi -> I don't know how hard it is to fix the loopholes; just that the difference between the nominal rate and the effective rate is quit elarge (something like 35% to 12% or some such)
On tariff, I'd say they also cause a lot of long term damage, by preventing profitable trades in the long run, and encouraging protectionist policies that subsidize unsound companies. There's still plenty of industrial and technological edge in the world, and plenty of comparative advantage.
Current trade deals certainly might need some tweaking; though a lot of those multinationals are US companies, so the US benefits from them doing well. I'm not aware of any loss of US capital or technological deprivation, US seems to be doing just fine in both of those categories. Loss of skilled jobs is more due to automation than due to going overseas.
dealing with currency manipulation would be good certainly.
I'd like more info about this capital flight; US seems to have plenty of capital from what I've seen.
On June 18 2016 05:12 IgnE wrote: you know now that i think about it this "conspiracy" logic bin that you love to use is something sam was interested in before his last ban.
Add us on facebook, thats where sam! is unravelling the conspiracy now! facebook is the new book thread!
On June 18 2016 04:22 FiWiFaKi wrote: Man I find it mind boggling that someone with a 75% unfavorable ratings with white men will become president.
I'm one of the people that think feminism in its current form is absolute cancer, and from the dozens and dozens of people I've talked to personally, nobody likes Elizabeth Warren minus the fact that many can agree with her that Trump is awful. Really unfortunate that the Republican Party didn't have a better flag bearer, because I'd personally rather have a heavy drug addict become president than have Clinton plus Warren. I think they are evil people with evil morals, and I'd rather have the government shut down for four years than have them in power.
Conversely, most, though not all of the people that i know quite like elizabeth warren. Never forget that we are all in our little bubbles
That's surprising to me, her unfavorability ratings are very high, I watched this speech a couple days ago, and again, I feel like the main thing that makes people like her is her dislike for Trump. Very uncharismatic, and I suppose it's a bit of my emotions kicking in, but I just don't like people like her. This is the video:
But yes, the reality check is always nice. I do think that Hillary would be really kicking herself in the foot with alienating Republicans and a majority of white men by picking her as her VP.
Warren is one of the only politicians with a provable track record of financial acumen, particularly with regards to bankruptcy and anti-trust issues. And no, a double woman ticket with Clinton/Warren would not alienate "a majority of white men" lol
From what I have seen, Warren’s numbers are fine among most demographics. I don’t think she is very scary to white males either, though I see that claim get thrown around a lot on the internet.
On June 18 2016 06:44 zlefin wrote: fiwi -> what are your sources for warren's unfavorables? the poll results i've seen for her are pretty neutral.
Well sadly there's been very few polls recently.
When I made the statement, it was because of my peers, looking at Huffington post polls where she's 1.8% down with 28.7% of people having not heard enough, which is pretty god awful. Usually, as more people hear of you, your ratings go down.
Like Kasich had favorable ratings of +10-15, and most people didn't even bother to listen to what he said. And as people got to listen to what he said, that's when he went out of favor.
Her ratings only look "okay" since everyone else's ratings are awful, but the reality is she's around Hillary level if you account for everything, which is, bluntly put, fucking awful. She's more disliked than Ben Carson, and on par with dings like Chris Christie or Carly.
There's got to be like at least 10 people who she can pick that will be at least say +15 favorable. I think it's a good idea to make most people "meh happy", than 40% very happy, 10% meh happy, and 50% pissed off.
On June 18 2016 07:00 zlefin wrote: Which line am I supposed to be looking at there? I looked at the capital flows, and it looked pretty neutral in the current years.
Well sure, you can use that, but it's more a compound of the indicators.
Say you go to 10 year view, try to draw a line of best fit as well you can (yeah, that data is kind of bad, no filter and so it's just bouncing up and down). Obviously not a perfect indicator, as the capital can represent so many different sources.
Terms of trade is probably the clearest indicator out of all those that you can look at, when you zoom out to max time.
EPT
