|
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 January 28 2017 04:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 28 2017 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:On January 28 2017 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2017 23:49 Acrofales wrote:On January 27 2017 23:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:I can't help but find the mind-bogglingly dumb mistakes like tweeting a photo of the inauguration with the wrong date and having no one in the administration able to spell Theresa May's name somewhat cathartic amongst all the discussions implying that Trump's presidency is some master gamesmanship plan. One thing's for sure: the incompetence aspects leftover from the campaign (not registering delegates to national conventions/not applying in a timely manner to general election ballots/etc.) are here to stay. It's been 16 years, so I can't really compare. Is Trump actually completely incompetent, or is this the same kind of stuff we got with "Bush or Chimp?", Bushisms and the relentless flow of people making fun of Dubya? Despite him being a fairly intelligent man according to more levelheaded opinions. That said, Dubya 2.0 would be a bad enough blow for the world. So I'm not sure it really makes much of a difference whether Trump is an absolute moron, or simply looks like one any time he opens his mouth/twitter account. Because at the end of the day, George W. Bush's policies cast the world into a ruinous recession (sure, it wasn't all him, but it was on his watch), and two disastrous wars that achieved absolutely nothing in the long run, regardless of whether you agree with his intentions or not. Personally, I would far prefer another GWB term over Trump. GWB might have been dumb, but he was a good, respectful human being, and didn't go out of his way to marginalize every possible group of Americans. Heck, GWB had to make a statement during 9/11, and he kept it together and noted that this was not an attack by all Muslims or mainstream Islam, but instead by radical terrorists, which was not only true but it was also aimed at minimizing anti-Muslim American sentiment, which was the right thing to do. Could you imagine Trump handling 9/11? He'd nuke the entire Middle East and lynch all Muslim Americans. And he'd probably Tweet pictures of that too. Not only is Trump dumb and unqualified (to the point where I've regrettably had to start tuning out the few delusional people who still think he's some sort of masterful genius who only fakes being an idiot), but he's also malevolent and ill-intentioned. He's actually a bad person, not just a bad president and bad representative of the American people. I think this is going to be the time when people start to realize that society isn't some divine, given, totally guaranteed, stable framework for humanity. Things have been so stable and decent that everyone started getting spoiled and wanting their dream list. Clinton, Bush1+2 etc kept the lights on and kept things moving mostly forward, on a macroscopic scale. I hope these next 4 years give people a wake up call and start to realize that boring isn't so bad. People just aren't satisfied to see someone keep the lights on. At this point they're going dim and people really want someone to replace them with something more reliable, even if it means we will have to live with candles and flashlights for a while. Because the status quo is simply not willing to be self-correcting at this point - some people just have too much to gain to be willing to help out those for whom it's getting worse. Right, this perspective is exactly what I was talking about. People are underestimating how dim the candles and flashlights can be and assuming there will always be a certain amount of safety and stability. Maybe people realize that candles aren't all that great but perhaps replacing the lights is the only way forward. That it has to get worse before it gets better.
perhaps, but the balance of evidence indicates it's far more likely people are simply not making a well and thoroughly thought out choice that's likely to achieve what they want it to; and that they are making significant errors in their thinking.
|
Quick check on something unrelated: is everyone in agreement now that Trump's claims of "repeal and replace" much less "universal healthcare" were a load of stinking horse crap?
Remember, the Trump told us this on January 11th:
We're going to be submitting -- as soon as our secretary's approved, almost simultaneously, shortly thereafter, a plan. It'll be repeal and replace. It will be essentially simultaneously. Probably the same day, could be the same hour.
|
On January 28 2017 04:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:07 Gorsameth wrote:On January 28 2017 04:05 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2017 04:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:
It's actually rather amusing that people here seem to be treating sanctions and tariffs like some magic money making solution...I mean, you're literally just increasing the cost of goods going into the US.
Which in this case is oil, American car parts and agriculture.
Or, to reword the plan, the plan is essentially to create a "Wall Tax" by making American citizens pay more for their gas, cars and food, for a massive concrete structure. The idea is that the US relies on its own means of production rather than depending on foreign nations - and foreign workforces - to get them what they want to buy. Sounds amazing, until you tell those people that they now pay 30% more for everything. Lets see how much they want real American products then. I'm sure the people who now make $40k for making American instead of $15k in retail work for selling Chinese will be happy.
I wasn't aware your also raising the minimum wage by 3x. Because that's what all those low skill factory jobs will be paying.
|
On January 28 2017 04:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:07 Gorsameth wrote:On January 28 2017 04:05 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2017 04:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:
It's actually rather amusing that people here seem to be treating sanctions and tariffs like some magic money making solution...I mean, you're literally just increasing the cost of goods going into the US.
Which in this case is oil, American car parts and agriculture.
Or, to reword the plan, the plan is essentially to create a "Wall Tax" by making American citizens pay more for their gas, cars and food, for a massive concrete structure. The idea is that the US relies on its own means of production rather than depending on foreign nations - and foreign workforces - to get them what they want to buy. Sounds amazing, until you tell those people that they now pay 30% more for everything. Lets see how much they want real American products then. I'm sure the people who now make $40k for making American instead of $15k in retail work for selling Chinese will be happy.
they won't get their job back though
![[image loading]](http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Chart2.jpg)
Free trade has only eliminated a comparatively small amount of jobs, most well paying manufacturing is permanently lost to productivity increases.
|
On January 28 2017 04:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:07 Gorsameth wrote:On January 28 2017 04:05 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2017 04:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:
It's actually rather amusing that people here seem to be treating sanctions and tariffs like some magic money making solution...I mean, you're literally just increasing the cost of goods going into the US.
Which in this case is oil, American car parts and agriculture.
Or, to reword the plan, the plan is essentially to create a "Wall Tax" by making American citizens pay more for their gas, cars and food, for a massive concrete structure. The idea is that the US relies on its own means of production rather than depending on foreign nations - and foreign workforces - to get them what they want to buy. Sounds amazing, until you tell those people that they now pay 30% more for everything. Lets see how much they want real American products then. I'm sure the people who now make $40k for making American instead of $15k in retail work for selling Chinese will be happy.
And what about all the poor bastards who don't work in manufacturing? And what makes you think that John Doe who works at Mcdonalds, Jane doe who works at Walmart, and any other retail employee won't suffer when prices skyrocket to compensate for all the higher wages the companies have to pay? Making shit in America doesn't magically negate the need for line level employment. Sounds like a good portion of the U.S. workforce (aka poor and uneducated) are about to get raped. Capitalism is such bullshit sometimes. The fact that we can't have a universal living wage and then cap companies in terms of price charged so they take a hit to profit to pay their employees instead of passing it to consumers drives me bonkers every damn day. Who gives a fuck if Walmart makes 20bn a year instead of 30bn (numbers out of my ass). The level of greed in America is sickening sometimes.
|
anyone want to guess the amount of time and capital investment needed to build up enough manufacturing capacity to make up for what we lose if we stop trading with mexico?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Oh well, I guess it's just our lot in life that the people who used to have decent jobs but don't can never get them back and being poor and compensated by the state is all they can strive for.
I'll go inform the electorate. I'm sure their response will be something along the lines of, "well we don't really want to inconvenience you, so it's alright."
|
On January 28 2017 04:28 LegalLord wrote:
Oh well, I guess it's just our lot in life that the people who used to have decent jobs but don't can never get them back and being poor and compensated by the state is all they can strive for.
I'll go inform the electorate. I'm sure their response will be something along the lines of, "well we don't really want to inconvenience you, so it's alright."
or we could have jobs retraining and investing in industries where the US has advantages instead of trying to compete with countries which are vastly better at the type of manufacturing we did in the 19th and 20th century. it's natural to wear rose tinted glasses and be nostalgic for the good old days, but it's not a good plan for the future.
stop strawmanning dude.
|
On January 28 2017 04:28 LegalLord wrote:
Oh well, I guess it's just our lot in life that the people who used to have decent jobs but don't can never get them back and being poor and compensated by the state is all they can strive for.
Who is saying that? Can you point me to a single poster in this thread who is saying this? Pointing out that the manufacturing jobs who have been lost in the US in the last couple of decades are not magically coming back because of protectionist policies (in particular because the overwhelming majority of them disappeared for reasons unrelated to free trade agreements) is completely different from saying that people can have no other hope but to be "poor and compensated by the state". That's a ridiculous strawman which does nothing but poison the discussion.
|
On January 28 2017 04:28 LegalLord wrote:
Oh well, I guess it's just our lot in life that the people who used to have decent jobs but don't can never get them back and being poor and compensated by the state is all they can strive for.
I'll go inform the electorate. I'm sure their response will be something along the lines of, "well we don't really want to inconvenience you, so it's alright."
The invention of cars killed a lot of industries and jobs too. But lets think about how many jobs were created in the long run. This isn't the first and won't be the last time some big industry gets taken a dump on while another industry rises to greatness.
|
Buggy whips! They can make buggy whips!
The point of this whole conversation is that it's bad policy to tax the entire country to create a small number of jobs. The problem wasn't the policy, it's the messaging.
Turn it around, how big a tax on the rest of the citizens of the US would be OK with you to let people go back to coal mining or light manufacturing jobs that have been lost?
|
On January 28 2017 04:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:17 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2017 04:07 Gorsameth wrote:On January 28 2017 04:05 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2017 04:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:
It's actually rather amusing that people here seem to be treating sanctions and tariffs like some magic money making solution...I mean, you're literally just increasing the cost of goods going into the US.
Which in this case is oil, American car parts and agriculture.
Or, to reword the plan, the plan is essentially to create a "Wall Tax" by making American citizens pay more for their gas, cars and food, for a massive concrete structure. The idea is that the US relies on its own means of production rather than depending on foreign nations - and foreign workforces - to get them what they want to buy. Sounds amazing, until you tell those people that they now pay 30% more for everything. Lets see how much they want real American products then. I'm sure the people who now make $40k for making American instead of $15k in retail work for selling Chinese will be happy. And what about all the poor bastards who don't work in manufacturing? And what makes you think that John Doe who works at Mcdonalds, Jane doe who works at Walmart, and any other retail employee won't suffer when prices skyrocket to compensate for all the higher wages the companies have to pay? Making shit in America doesn't magically negate the need for line level employment. Sounds like a good portion of the U.S. workforce (aka poor and uneducated) are about to get raped. Capitalism is such bullshit sometimes. The fact that we can't have a universal living wage and then cap companies in terms of price charged so they take a hit to profit to pay their employees instead of passing it to consumers drives me bonkers every damn day. Who gives a fuck if Walmart makes 20bn a year instead of 30bn (numbers out of my ass). The level of greed in America is sickening sometimes.
Note that he said Americans in retail work. Not manufacturing. I think he thinks that the increase in the cost of goods is entirely profit so that people selling those goods will make more money.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 28 2017 04:33 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:28 LegalLord wrote:
Oh well, I guess it's just our lot in life that the people who used to have decent jobs but don't can never get them back and being poor and compensated by the state is all they can strive for.
I'll go inform the electorate. I'm sure their response will be something along the lines of, "well we don't really want to inconvenience you, so it's alright." or we could have jobs retraining and investing in industries where the US has advantages instead of trying to compete with countries which are vastly better at the type of manufacturing we did in the 19th and 20th century. it's natural to wear rose tinted glasses and be nostalgic for the good old days, but it's not a good plan for the future. stop strawmanning dude.
You miss the point. Yes, it's true that "the jobs aren't coming back" and we shouldn't pretend they will. That begs the question, though, of what follows? The same as there are people who win bigly from a globalized economy, there are those who lose - and they're looking for a real living, not a social safety net like the poor. The tendency seems to be to just dismiss them or to say "go retrain" which misses the point in an utterly massive way.
And it should be no surprise that people start to revolt when that happens.
|
nobody has dismissed them, or just says go retrain, they say we need to fund education programs to provide that retraining, to get people trained for the new industries.
you did in fact strawman legal, don't bring up the valid points to counter the fact that your previous point was a strawman.
if you have the valid points, start with those instead of a strawman.
also, what protectionism woudl be doing IS a social safety net, it's basically a welfare program by another name.
|
On January 28 2017 04:28 LegalLord wrote:
Oh well, I guess it's just our lot in life that the people who used to have decent jobs but don't can never get them back and being poor and compensated by the state is all they can strive for.
I'll go inform the electorate. I'm sure their response will be something along the lines of, "well we don't really want to inconvenience you, so it's alright."
Well if we stopped institutionalized racism, put money into real education instead of the shitholes we call schools now, invested more heavily into infrastructure and alternative energy, decriminalized weed and taxed it, did away with our horrendous private for-profit prisons, did away with mandatory sentences (see point 1), and paid a living wage for every full-time job, maybe that would help? Just maybe? Wouldn't have to suck on that government teat if your government and employer aren't actively trying to fuck you with terrible policy designed to make money for someone else. But again, don't wanna inconvenience anyone like you said. Especially those poor overworked rich folks.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 28 2017 04:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:28 LegalLord wrote:
Oh well, I guess it's just our lot in life that the people who used to have decent jobs but don't can never get them back and being poor and compensated by the state is all they can strive for.
I'll go inform the electorate. I'm sure their response will be something along the lines of, "well we don't really want to inconvenience you, so it's alright." The invention of cars killed a lot of industries and jobs too. But lets think about how many jobs were created in the long run. This isn't the first and won't be the last time some big industry gets taken a dump on while another industry rises to greatness.
It also wouldn't be the first time that as a large segment of the population perceived a substantial decline in their way of living because the benefits of such technology went disproportionately into the hands of the elite, they started to revolt.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 28 2017 04:45 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:28 LegalLord wrote:
Oh well, I guess it's just our lot in life that the people who used to have decent jobs but don't can never get them back and being poor and compensated by the state is all they can strive for.
I'll go inform the electorate. I'm sure their response will be something along the lines of, "well we don't really want to inconvenience you, so it's alright." Well if we stopped institutionalized racism, put money into real education instead of the shitholes we call schools now, invested more heavily into infrastructure and alternative energy, decriminalized weed and taxed it, did away with our horrendous private for-profit prisons, did away with mandatory sentences (see point 1), and paid a living wage for every full-time job, maybe that would help? Just maybe? Wouldn't have to suck on that government teat if your government and employer aren't actively trying to fuck you with terrible policy designed to make money for someone else. But again, don't wanna inconvenience anyone like you said. Especially those poor overworked rich folks.
Maybe it would help. Too bad the candidate who wanted all those things wasn't electable enough and the issues in the world were just too important to risk losing the election to some demagogue from the right.
|
On January 28 2017 04:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 04:38 Mohdoo wrote:On January 28 2017 04:28 LegalLord wrote:
Oh well, I guess it's just our lot in life that the people who used to have decent jobs but don't can never get them back and being poor and compensated by the state is all they can strive for.
I'll go inform the electorate. I'm sure their response will be something along the lines of, "well we don't really want to inconvenience you, so it's alright." The invention of cars killed a lot of industries and jobs too. But lets think about how many jobs were created in the long run. This isn't the first and won't be the last time some big industry gets taken a dump on while another industry rises to greatness. It also wouldn't be the first time that as a large segment of the population perceived a substantial decline in their way of living because the benefits of such technology went disproportionately into the hands of the elite, they started to revolt.
No, the first time the white middle class perceived a substantial decline, the white man can not tolerate that he has to sit in the back of the bus for the first time. 'The American dream' wasn't even open for large segments of the population until very recently. Imagine if every other marginalized group in the US would have reacted as strongly. You'd live in a state of permanent civil war.
This idea of Trump's real America in which only the fears and anxieties of one specific group are relevant is absolutely mind-bending.
|
On January 28 2017 03:48 mahrgell wrote:
Will it turn in a decent outcome for the US, when Trump treats all US allies like this?
See, these sentiments strike me as being hilariously misplaced. We aren't talking about a third-rate nation like Peru. We are talking about the US -- the most powerful and influential country in the world, and the country from whom everyone else wants something. We're the hot blonde on the world stage. We can afford to be an asshole from time to time with minimal (if any) repercussion.
|
This is why "alternative facts" have any currency.
WASHINGTON — Scientists and environmentalists reacted with fear this week as the Trump administration purged nearly all mention of climate change programs from the White House and State Department websites and ordered a freeze on federal grant spending at the Environmental Protection Agency and other government agencies.
Memos ordered employees of at least four agencies not to send out news releases or to create social media posts, blog entries or official website content, and to consult with senior officials before speaking to the news media.
Such memos or oral communications landed this week at the E.P.A. and the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture and Health and Human Services, in a broad halt to external communications while the Trump administration struggles to put political appointees into position. Small flare-ups of communications — apparently in dissent — appeared on Twitter, but they were quickly stopped.
The Twitter posts of the social media division of the Badlands National Park broadcasting the threat of climate change became something of a cause célèbre before they disappeared from the platform on Tuesday. A White House spokesman, Sean Spicer, attributed those Twitter posts to a former park employee who had commandeered the park’s account.
Longtime employees at three of the agencies — including some career environmental regulators who conceded that they remained worried about what President Trump might do on policy matters — said such orders were not much different from those delivered by the Obama administration as it shifted policies from the departing White House of George W. Bush. They called reactions to the agency memos overblown. On Wednesday, Douglas Ericksen, a spokesman for the E.P.A., said that grants had been only briefly frozen for review, and that they would be restarted by Friday.
“I’ve lived through many transitions, and I don’t think this is a story,” said a senior E.P.A. career official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media on the matter. “I don’t think it’s fair to call it a gag order. This is standard practice. And the move with regard to the grants, when a new administration comes in, you run things by them before you update the website.”
www.nytimes.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
