|
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. |
Norway28674 Posts
On September 06 2016 01:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:Aside from the occasional too much of a hawk which comes from quite a lot of people (myself included) and the even more occasional supports fracking from GH, virtually none of the attacks on Hillary Clinton in this thread are based around her policies. Mostly all of them either attack her for her alleged incompetence or crookedness. Looking through https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ , it has been linked before, I think it's thoroughly reasonable through and through. I mean, there is significant overlap between what policies people prefer and what candidates people prefer - I think mostly all the Trump supporters in this thread support him more for his policies than his personality (and as much as I disagree with his policies, I mean this as a compliment), but from what I've seen before, more Americans would support Hillary's policies if they did not know they were Hillary's policies. It certainly does look reasonable at first glance. But it's also important to realize that it's a marketing campaign, and while it does seem reasonable it also is full of empty platitudes ("bring manufacturing back home" is something everyone says but no one actually wants to enact a policy for). Hillary has always been a candidate that, at any given period in time, will adopt the most popular stance of the populace, and will therefore rank pretty highly on most "which candidate do you agree most with?" quizzes and the like. But they don't really represent the real general consensus of what kind of candidate she is. She is nominally socially progressive, in that she will support social issues that people care about but isn't the kind of politician who will truly put her reputation on the line to do so. She's a warhawk, which she tries to spin into "supported by our military officials" but which in reality has a lot of poorly considered interventions that have done more harm than good towards US interests abroad and are borne of a Wolfowitz-style arrogance. She's in general a globalist, and while she says she opposes the TPP no one really believes that (and in that link you might notice that she doesn't mention trade prominently, if at all). Also widely acknowledged to be a liar and a corrupt figure, which has a lot of truth to it even if it is overplayed by her opposition. Not the worst track record that there could be, but far from good. People support what policies they think will be implemented, rather than explicitly what the candidates say they will support. While people can be misled, it's probably for the best that you take what politicians say with a grain of salt.
I think this post mostly backs up how it's not Hillary's suggested policies that are attacked, but once again, her character. You're giving credulence to her negative policy suggestions (warhawkishness), but either don't believe she holds her stated opinion (TPP) or don't believe she can actually deliver (bring manufacturing back home) on policy suggestions you deem positive. I agree that the general consensus on what Hillary type of candidate Hillary is differs from what she herself claims, but I don't fully agree that this is the fault of herself, and I certainly don't believe it is because she has not presented her political plans for when elected president. She could spend the rest of the election not mentioning Trump, not talking about her personal qualfications, only outlying specific policy plans for the future, and people would just.. not believe her.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 06 2016 02:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Or perhaps your interpretation, and the interpretation of many others, is straight up ignorant. Maybe people don't understand how many other variables are constantly in play.
See, this is precisely what I'm talking about in terms of just randomly seeking to insult and dismiss people with little more than just "dem ppls are ignorant, w/e their opinion dont matter." Without even seeking to understand what my specific objections are to the trade deals and the like (which may or may not be different from the "commoner" exceptions to said deal; you didn't even bother to ask), you just want to find a way to dismiss the argument or to lump it with other arguments you aren't fond of (e.g. Iran deal).
Let me just put it simply: you either learn to discuss the issues, without seeking to be dismissive of opinions you don't like, or I won't bother giving you the courtesy of a reply. This is no way to conduct a discussion and I know that you specifically are at least sometimes capable of acknowledging that. Given that your original reply to me started with a hostile tone I should have known better than to reply, but I guess we all make mistakes.
On September 06 2016 02:30 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 02:10 LegalLord wrote:On September 06 2016 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:On September 06 2016 01:59 LegalLord wrote:
I think you far underestimate just how disconnected the average person is from politics.
I disagree. There's plenty of stupidity that makes people vote against their interests but there is also a lot of stupidity from "technocrat" style leaders who fail to acknowledge that people have a pretty good idea of whether or not a certain policy will actually be bad for them. Are you actually trying to say the average american has a firm understanding of international trade dynamics and shifts in manufacturing technologies over time? That's completely ridiculous. No, but that's pretty far from what I said as well. In a much simpler sense, they can tell whether or not their jobs will be at risk if a given policy is supported. Obviously there is a need for experts to be able to deal with the more difficult issues of international trade, but their credibility is strongly undermined by the fact that they have not always been known to act in the interest of the working class population - instead, favoring those who fund them. Calling said working class people idiots because "they just don't understand" ... yeah that's fucking stupid. No they really are pretty misinformed. The vast majority of people don't have the time or will (or both) to sift though the mass of information. They usually default to just what they have heard via MSM or by word of mouth. Hell a good chunk of people take those idiotic facebook memes seriously because they are lazy and will auto reject or accept them based on if they already supported the position or not. People are lazy and take in easy to digest material thrown at them. How else do you think people voted for the delusion that was trickle down economics? Or why despite their bad rep MSM still can be effective? People don't actually critically examine policy, they mostly vote for whatever side they already were leaning towards.
Not altogether untrue - people do genuinely vote for shitty things that are not really in their best interest. But there is also plenty of abuse of that factoid to push policies that really aren't in the best interest of the general population, but that actually just use a twisted interpretation of "expert opinion" to back genuinely harmful policies under the guise of being supported by experts (who support the opinion they are paid to support).
|
She writes an op-ed attacking talks with Iran calling it foolish, they would never agree. First debate she said she supported it and suggested it was her idea and Obama followed. She supported TPP it's in the hardback of her book, paperback comes out it's removed. She attacks Sanders for his Education, and Healthcare plan. Lo and behold she now says it is part of her platform.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 06 2016 02:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 01:59 LegalLord wrote:On September 06 2016 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:Aside from the occasional too much of a hawk which comes from quite a lot of people (myself included) and the even more occasional supports fracking from GH, virtually none of the attacks on Hillary Clinton in this thread are based around her policies. Mostly all of them either attack her for her alleged incompetence or crookedness. Looking through https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ , it has been linked before, I think it's thoroughly reasonable through and through. I mean, there is significant overlap between what policies people prefer and what candidates people prefer - I think mostly all the Trump supporters in this thread support him more for his policies than his personality (and as much as I disagree with his policies, I mean this as a compliment), but from what I've seen before, more Americans would support Hillary's policies if they did not know they were Hillary's policies. It certainly does look reasonable at first glance. But it's also important to realize that it's a marketing campaign, and while it does seem reasonable it also is full of empty platitudes ("bring manufacturing back home" is something everyone says but no one actually wants to enact a policy for). Hillary has always been a candidate that, at any given period in time, will adopt the most popular stance of the populace, and will therefore rank pretty highly on most "which candidate do you agree most with?" quizzes and the like. But they don't really represent the real general consensus of what kind of candidate she is. She is nominally socially progressive, in that she will support social issues that people care about but isn't the kind of politician who will truly put her reputation on the line to do so. She's a warhawk, which she tries to spin into "supported by our military officials" but which in reality has a lot of poorly considered interventions that have done more harm than good towards US interests abroad and are borne of a Wolfowitz-style arrogance. She's in general a globalist, and while she says she opposes the TPP no one really believes that (and in that link you might notice that she doesn't mention trade prominently, if at all). Also widely acknowledged to be a liar and a corrupt figure, which has a lot of truth to it even if it is overplayed by her opposition. Not the worst track record that there could be, but far from good. People support what policies they think will be implemented, rather than explicitly what the candidates say they will support. While people can be misled, it's probably for the best that you take what politicians say with a grain of salt. I think this post mostly backs up how it's not Hillary's suggested policies that are attacked, but once again, her character. You're giving credulence to her negative policy suggestions (warhawkishness), but either don't believe she holds her stated opinion (TPP) or don't believe she can actually deliver (bring manufacturing back home) on policy suggestions you deem positive. I agree that the general consensus on what Hillary type of candidate Hillary is differs from what she herself claims, but I don't fully agree that this is the fault of herself, and I certainly don't believe it is because she has not presented her political plans for when elected president. She could spend the rest of the election not mentioning Trump, not talking about her personal qualfications, only outlying specific policy plans for the future, and people would just.. not believe her.
I personally believe that stated positions are less relevant than history. As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words, and the person that someone has been in the past is a lot more relevant than what they say they will be in the future. People change and so do their positions, but seldom fundamentally so. It's not always so much a trust issue - I do the same with more trusted candidates.
|
Though I think that most people are generally ignorant of policy, it is pretty clear that people understand economic and trade policies well enough insofar as those policies impact their immediate financial concerns. You can bet that steel workers and other manufacturing unions know exactly what's up with the current array of passed and proposed trade deals.
|
On September 06 2016 02:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
She writes an op-ed attacking talks with Iran calling it foolish, they would never agree. First debate she said she supported it and suggested it was her idea and Obama followed. She supported TPP it's in the hardback of her book, paperback comes out it's removed. She attacks Sanders for his Education, and Healthcare plan. Lo and behold she now says it is part of her platform.
Yet we still have Kwiz sticking with "supposed untrustworthiness" Like bruh, she's just not trustworthy, no if, and's, or but's about it.
Hillary is a lot of things, but trustworthy ain't one of them (unless you're a corporate sponsor/part of the MIC maybe). If Hillary was some person you were talking to and she lied as much as she had, people would think you have brain damage to take her statements at face value.
|
On September 06 2016 02:39 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 02:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Or perhaps your interpretation, and the interpretation of many others, is straight up ignorant. Maybe people don't understand how many other variables are constantly in play. See, this is precisely what I'm talking about in terms of just randomly seeking to insult and dismiss people with little more than just "dem ppls are ignorant, w/e their opinion dont matter." Without even seeking to understand what my specific objections are to the trade deals and the like (which may or may not be different from the "commoner" exceptions to said deal; you didn't even bother to ask), you just want to find a way to dismiss the argument or to lump it with other arguments you aren't fond of (e.g. Iran deal).
You're ignorant, I'm ignorant and most of TL is ignorant when it comes to global manufacturing dynamics. But that's ok. We don't need to know everything and that is my point. We hire lawyers because we don't know shit about how to defend ourselves. We defer to expertise in many instances, yet scoff at it whenever it is a concept that appears straight forward on the surface. The idea of "China makes things cheap because they don't have rights, then we lose our jobs" is a really easy to understand, utterly ignorant narrative. People don't have armchair opinions on nuclear fusion because there isn't an easy angle to it. My point is that just because it is easy to form an opinion on something, it does not necessarily mean the opinion is grounded in reason or reality.
|
On September 06 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:
Though I think that most people are generally ignorant of policy, it is pretty clear that people understand economic and trade policies well enough insofar as those policies impact their immediate financial concerns. You can bet that steel workers and other manufacturing unions know exactly what's up with the current array of passed and proposed trade deals.
I agree with this.
However, I also feel that "can tell whether something is good for me in the short term" is still woefully inadequate for holistically judging the merits of a particular economic policy. I'd want someone to be somewhat more informed than that to meaningfully engage in policy discussion.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 06 2016 03:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 02:39 LegalLord wrote:On September 06 2016 02:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Or perhaps your interpretation, and the interpretation of many others, is straight up ignorant. Maybe people don't understand how many other variables are constantly in play. See, this is precisely what I'm talking about in terms of just randomly seeking to insult and dismiss people with little more than just "dem ppls are ignorant, w/e their opinion dont matter." Without even seeking to understand what my specific objections are to the trade deals and the like (which may or may not be different from the "commoner" exceptions to said deal; you didn't even bother to ask), you just want to find a way to dismiss the argument or to lump it with other arguments you aren't fond of (e.g. Iran deal). You're ignorant, I'm ignorant and most of TL is ignorant when it comes to global manufacturing dynamics. But that's ok. We don't need to know everything and that is my point. We hire lawyers because we don't know shit about how to defend ourselves. We defer to expertise in many instances, yet scoff at it whenever it is a concept that appears straight forward on the surface. The idea of "China makes things cheap because they don't have rights, then we lose our jobs" is a really easy to understand, utterly ignorant narrative. People don't have armchair opinions on nuclear fusion because there isn't an easy angle to it. My point is that just because it is easy to form an opinion on something, it does not necessarily mean the opinion is grounded in reason or reality.
There's different degrees of knowledge and expertise about the subject. There's people who don't have a damn clue what they're talking about, who may or may not acknowledge that fact (who will either delegate fully to experts or pretend that they know when they do not). There are people who have a slight bit of knowledge, but underestimate how much depth there is to certain factors, or who feel like it's so complicated that no one could possibly understand and it should be left to experts. Then, there is the level where people have some knowledge, and while they acknowledge that the experts know more they also see that experts are not perfect, that there is plenty of contention/bias/perverse incentives to support popular opinion/lying among them, and that there is plenty of valid reason to oppose expert opinions if you know why they might not be trustworthy or well-considered. And finally there are actual experts, who collectively know better than those who are less informed but are not a particularly monolithic body and each plenty ignorant on matters they themselves don't work much with.
The same way you'd use your own judgment on a doctor's opinion or maintain some base of knowledge on legal matters that may concern you without constantly consulting a lawyer for legal advice, while acknowledging that they are actual experts, you can do the same on issues of international politics. It doesn't mean that you're a better expert than they are - it's just acknowledging that non-expert individuals are not all that ignorant of matters that concern them and further that you are a fucking moron if you take an "expert opinion" without any grain of salt and without trying to consider for yourself whether or not there is some reason to doubt the validity of what an expert says is true.
On September 06 2016 03:14 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:
Though I think that most people are generally ignorant of policy, it is pretty clear that people understand economic and trade policies well enough insofar as those policies impact their immediate financial concerns. You can bet that steel workers and other manufacturing unions know exactly what's up with the current array of passed and proposed trade deals. I agree with this. However, I also feel that "can tell whether something is good for me in the short term" is still woefully inadequate for holistically judging the merits of a particular economic policy. I'd want someone to be somewhat more informed than that to meaningfully engage in policy discussion.
The fact that their concerns tend to be straight-up ignored when brought up, however, tends to be a pretty telling argument in favor of the fact that the policies aren't good for them.
|
legal -> which concerns of theirs are being straight up ignored?
|
On September 06 2016 03:57 zlefin wrote:
legal -> which concerns of theirs are being straight up ignored?
Their jobs.
|
I'd rather hear legal's statement on which things were ignored; at any rate I'm also not aware of anyone straight up ignoring thier concerns on jobs, everything I've heard addresses them, and has ways to try to compensate for them. certainly my own plans do.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 06 2016 03:57 zlefin wrote:
legal -> which concerns of theirs are being straight up ignored?
If they lose their jobs (a valid concern when foreign competition is introduced), assuming that it really is a necessity based on global factors (a very strong and questionable assumption for that matter), what are they meant to do afterwards? How will their economic loss be compensated for to avoid leading to a race to the bottom and a loss of living standards?
Many of those who support trade deals fail to account for this factor.
|
Well, then I simply disagree with their claim, as I see plenty of known methods and responses to try to adjust for those things, which are proposed, at least that's my impression. and since my far less than an expert plans account for the job loss, I assume the actual expert plans also account for them.
I think everyone who supports trade deals is aware of the jobs issues. I question where you're getting info that it is not so.
It seems more like a talking point to sow hate than an actual reflection of reality.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The general decline in manufacturing jobs, and the replacement of such jobs mostly with minimum wage positions, seems to run contrary to the notion that people aren't hurt by cheap labor competition. It's not the sole factor but one that does strongly contribute to be sure.
Of course there is plenty of other things to object to with regards to trade deals, but we're talking peasant politics right now so I'll stick to that.
|
The question would then be, why are the standard compensatory mechanisms not working? Was there some flaw in the political process which prevented them from being used? also, most of the job losses aren't due to labor competition, but to automation.
ah, diffuse benefit and focused detriment, such a pesky class of problems. (this statement was for my own amusement, but I can expound on it if someone really wants).
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Automation is definitely the other major cause, yes. Cheap labor which is not well-considered, that harms the locals while benefitting those who have direct influence on policy, also plays a major role.
There are a lot of problems with the political process that cause this to happen. Influence can be bought by powerful individuals. Sometimes parties just straight up ignore the will of certain parts of the populace, making it really hard to change things if both major parties are against you and you are pushed towards fringe groups. Sometimes the solutions are tough to implement, especially when it runs contrary to the interest of powerful groups. Plenty of other causes; this is a widespread failure of modern politics to address the issues of a growing group of the disenfranchised.
|
Norway28674 Posts
hasn't it been shown that productivity among american factories has not decreased over the past decades? Thus that automation is really the major explanation for why there are less manufacturing jobs?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 06 2016 04:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
hasn't it been shown that productivity among american factories has not decreased over the past decades? Thus that automation is really the major explanation for why there are less manufacturing jobs?
Depends on how it's measured. A lot of indicators measure profit, which really is just a way of saying that US companies focus more on higher margin industries, such as high tech. Also manufacturing isn't the only industry with disenfranchised workers.
It's both.
|
drone -> iirc, it has been shown that overall production is similar. iirc 2/3 or so of the job loss are due to automation, with 1/3 being to cheaper foreign competition.
I'm unclear on the extent to which cheaper foreign goods have also made things more affordable for the populace at large, though there's certainly some effect.
Legal -> I know those things happen in general, but are there any specific cases where you can point to the compensatory mechanisms not working well, despite having been planned? A case study would help illuminate the issue. as neither of us is being very thorough in our explanations, me less thorough than you, a lot of stuff gets missed as we talk past each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
