US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6352

On December 02 2016 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:


Trump's single greatest strength, media/cultural manipulation, could end up being an extremely valuable weapon that empowers American businesses.

I think it is very possible that Trump pushing people to support a company could have a really, really big impact. Supporting a set of American manufacturing businesses as a matter of patriotism and politics could go very well.

Forgive me, but I think this is a time where his rally size is very relevant. He gets people seriously, seriously excited. I could imagine the Trump cult having a really noticeable impact on a business.

On December 02 2016 06:31 Mohdoo wrote:
Here's what I'd like to see as a follow up to Trump's Carrier thing: A big, enthusiastic endorsement of Carrier where Trump encourages Americans to support Carrier.

Being generous, let's say Carrier has an ENORMOUS bump in sales. Doesn't that send a clear signal to other countries? Americans will totally rally around a great company keeping manufacturing in the US.

Imagine this: Trump has a list of "Great" American companies who agree to improve US manufacturing. Could be big.

On December 02 2016 06:03 LegalLord wrote:
So, it's been quite a year, I'm sure we'd all agree. Well we're finally in December, and as we approach New Years I think it's a good time to reflect on what has happened this year. And to do that, we're going to look at The Economist's Top Ten Global Risks - both the current ones and the previous ones. Unfortunately their archiving capabilities leave something to be desired; they do have old forecasts available, but they aren't indexed in a way I've found useful. So I'm going to just link each of their individual predictions for your searching convenience.

Their risk calculations are two factors on a scale of 1 to 5: likelihood and impact. Their risk factor is the product of those two factors. Read their actual articles for full details, as listed below in their ranked order.

Previous risks:


Current risks:


Risks that pretty much just carried over: Grexit, EU fracture, jihadi terrorism. Incidentally they're all pretty big risks that are tied to internal problems within the EU. The Greek situation doesn't seem like a stable solution, there is little evidence that the refugee crisis (a big factor associated with the jihadi terrorism risk) is dying down soon, and the EU's internal conflicts only seem to grow more and more troublesome with each passing election (populism, but also various other realignments that tend towards a less pro-EU composition). This trend looks likely to continue into 2017.

Risks that are similar, but evolved: Chinese economy, South China Sea, and emerging markets credit crisis. The Chinese "hard landing" scenario does continue to seem likely; there are absolutely troubling signs there. China isn't in the middle of a visible crisis quite yet but it would be hard to think that it's not approaching that state. The South China Sea conflicts haven't happened yet, but they seem more likely to happen. On the other hand, The Economist does seem to predict some further stability for the emerging markets, with oil risks decreasing (the price appears to be somewhat stabler), credit issues less likely in a lot of emerging economies, and the possibility of a boom is feasible (some of said emerging economies do show some promising signs).

Risks associated with populist movements: Trump won, Brexit referendum resulted in a Leave vote, and the populist wave doesn't look like it's nearing its conclusion. Austria has at least an even chance of electing a populist, East Europe in general has some less pro-EU tendencies in recent times, and France and Germany will have populist challengers (Le Pen may or may not be relevant, probably not, and Germany's Merkel is unlikely to lose). The populist wave is more anti-globalist and it does seem like some hallmarks of that globalism (especially the TPP and TTIP) are in serious trouble. Hard Brexit is an associated risk here too, and I can't say that it looks clear which direction the government is ultimately going to go. I only see this 2016-esque populist tide continuing into the future.

Risks that have mostly fizzled out: oil seems to have stabilized, and the emerging markets credit crisis seems to have not come to pass (as described earlier). The Ukraine situation is likely on its way to a resolution; the Ukrainian government has plenty of internal instability to deal with, they no longer have any feasible chance of winning the conflict on the battlefield, and sooner or later this conflict will have to be resolved through some form of diplomacy. Syria is similar; on the military front the outcome seems to be quite clear, in that ISIS seems to be being pushed back and now it's time to find diplomatic arrangements that all the sides will agree to. Frankly it seems like Europe has lost much of the will to take an active role in any of these and they're looking for face-saving measures to back away from those conflicts. Related is that the will for sanctions on Russia seem rather weak, and besides some short-lived Aleppo drama it's mostly went down without much fanfare. Ultimately this is likely to wind down over the next year or so.

Risks that are important, but not well-represented: Nuclear proliferation and Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. Dangerous countries with nuclear weapons or close to them. Hopefully the Iran deal shows promise; North Korea looks like it might get worse before it gets better. Pakistan is stable in a relative sense but it's an ever-present danger to worry about. Also dangerous is the Paris Accords and the willingness of countries to cooperate; it is hopeful that Trump does not back out of them, and thankfully it does seem like he is retracting his "rip up the Paris Accords" stance over the past month.

Happy 2016! And here's to another year. Hopefully we'll survive.

On December 02 2016 06:05 xDaunt wrote:

There are just a lot of butthurt liberals who are upset that they didn't think of what Trump did first. It's pretty clear that this is a YUUUGGGGEE PR victory for Trump.

But in all seriousness, the federal government should be doing things to create a business friendly environment that, at the very least, doesn't do anything to encourage companies to relocate. This is why our corporate tax structure is so backwards. We should have lower corporate taxes (effective and nominal) and then make up the revenue shortfalls with taxes on higher wealth individuals. Discouraging companies from hiring Americans is just stupid.

On December 02 2016 06:33 farvacola wrote:
Any talk of tax reform must also address the degree to which the corporate form is used to shelter the assets of officials. Lowering the effective rate prior to confronting this dynamic is a recipe for further economic harm to everyone but the rich.

On December 02 2016 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:

So you are in favor of companies being able to buy Presidential endorsements?

I thought Trump campaigned partly on an anti-corruption platform.

On December 02 2016 08:29 Mohdoo wrote:


Yes. If a company decided to make a factory in the US instead of Taiwan, I would gladly give them by business. Applying moral pressure and reward to businesses sounds great to me. So long as it helps American manufacturing, I don't give a shit how it gets done. So long as the common (American) man benefits

On December 02 2016 08:42 zlefin wrote:

how much extra are you willing to pay for the products?
10%? 20%? 50%? 100%?
how much extra can you afford to pay? some people don't have a lot of spare money with which to afford such things.

On December 02 2016 09:15 Mohdoo wrote:


Double the price of a smartphone? No. Double the price of a USB cable? Maybe. I mean, totally depends on what and why and whatnot.

On December 02 2016 10:27 warding wrote:
I'm baffled by the 'took our jerbs' rhetoric. The unemployment rate in the US is below 5%, why is the idea of bringing back manufacturing jobs from a country whose median income is five time lower appealing to anyone?

With electronics sourcing being part of my job, I just don't see how the US could ever set up the infrastructure and critical mass to actually become competitive in mass manufacturing of electronics. The sheer mass of skilled workers willing to relocate within China if need be constitutes a huge advantage for them when it comes to making the decision of where to produce the next iPhone. It's just not doable in the US.

On December 02 2016 11:40 xDaunt wrote:
It's pretty clear that the Carrier deal is a huge success for Trump. He's not even in office yet, and he now has an image of being able to get shit done and fulfill his campaign promises. The political capital that this gives him cannot be understated. His popularity will continue to increase, which will allow him to bludgeon his political opponents into compliance with the bully pulpit. There is next to zero chance that this deal will come back to bite him in the ass, even if there's an economic downturn.