EPTNothing is 100% still, but....
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 721
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
Nothing is 100% still, but.... | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/17/648803684/who-is-christine-blasey-ford-the-woman-accusing-brett-kavanaugh-of-sexual-assaul "I would also note that she has medical records that corroborate these allegations that far predate Mr. Kavanaugh's nomination," Banks added in her Morning Edition interview, referring to notes from a 2012 couples therapy session, which the Post reviewed. In the session, Ford described an attack during her high school years, although she did not name Kavanaugh explicitly. Ford told the Post that she did not tell anyone, including her husband, about the incident until 2012." | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6252 Posts
On September 22 2018 21:15 kollin wrote: I have a few questions about Trump's trade war: is it right to think that this will weaken the dollar? (I'm aware it might be hard to tell right now). Also, isn't there merit in the idea of closing the trade deficit given he's increasing the fiscal deficit, so as not to run a double deficit (even if the method he's choosing is provocative)? All else equal tariffs won't reduce the deficit. Higher tariffs will lead to reduced imports. That leads to reduced demand for foreign currency and strengthens the dollar. There's merit in the idea of closing the deficit. It's just that Trumps policy will do nothing of the sort. The balance of payments consists of a current account and a capital account. It's a balance so a surplus in the current account will automatically lead to a surplus in the capital account. What this means is that if domestic savings are lower than domestic investment you'll have a current account deficit. Since domestic investment is higher than savings the difference between the two has to be funded by foreign capital. The problem with Trumps policy is that he's increasing the public budget deficit (he's spending more with tax cuts) so he's actually reducing savings. ALl else being equal reducing savings while investment stays the same (or grows) will only cause a larger deficit. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18115 Posts
On September 23 2018 18:12 RvB wrote: All else equal tariffs won't reduce the deficit. Higher tariffs will lead to reduced imports. That leads to reduced demand for foreign currency and strengthens the dollar. There's merit in the idea of closing the deficit. It's just that Trumps policy will do nothing of the sort. The balance of payments consists of a current account and a capital account. It's a balance so a surplus in the current account will automatically lead to a surplus in the capital account. What this means is that if domestic savings are lower than domestic investment you'll have a current account deficit. Since domestic investment is higher than savings the difference between the two has to be funded by foreign capital. The problem with Trumps policy is that he's increasing the public budget deficit (he's spending more with tax cuts) so he's actually reducing savings. ALl else being equal reducing savings while investment stays the same (or grows) will only cause a larger deficit. I think you're talking about something else, but you are obviously more schooled in economics than I am, so it's probably just me not understanding it. I agree on your first paragraph. Although I'm not sure that actually works for the dollar (it would for other currencies) as most of international trade is dollar transactions. All that happens is that less dollars are spent abroad, and more on the internal market. Demand for the dollar essentially stays the same, or it could even lead to an increased amount of foreign trade happening in non-dollar currencies, which would weaken the dollar, not strengthen it. However, the second paragraph is where you lost me. Trump is ranting about the trade deficit, not the budget deficit. The trade deficit is essentially "price of stuff imported" - "price of stuff exported". And so, by slapping tariffs on, you'd hope to reduce imports while keeping exports stable. Obviously it has many other effects, but essentially, that is the trade deficit, and if you believe it's a bad thing, then tariffs are obviously good. Best solution would be to go 100% protectionist, but people will be really pissed off when they realize that 90% of their stuff is imported, or has imports as an important part of their supply chain. There's a reason (actually, many reasons, but lets stick with this one) people don't look at Argentina and think "wow, that country has got its shit together". The basic misunderstanding is that a trade deficit is not a good or a bad thing, it is simply one aspect of your economic policies. If you want autarky, it is obviously bad. If you are a capitalist/globalist, you don't give a shit about it. It just means you have a service-based economy where you outsource the menial tasks of actual "production" to places where they can do it cheaper. Thus Trump, by saying trade deficit is bad, is essentially a Franco-style fascist (or Stalinistic communist, whichever you prefer: autarky in history has mainly been pursued by monstrous dictators)  | ||
|
pmh
1366 Posts
What el-erian said in the link from my previous post (wording it simple) is that the individual steps in the war (the increasing tariffs back and forth) are not so important,what is important is the process itself. As long as the process continues and goes along a predictable path it will lead to a logical outcome,which in a good scenario would be:slowly increasing tarrifs till the moment china starts to severaly feel the impact of the war while the usa is still relatively unaffected. China comes to the table and being in a bad position to negotiate makes big concessions to end the war. This would be a good end to and outcome of the process but it is not the only possible outcome. While the trade war does effect china more then the usa,there will come a point where the usa can no longer increase or even maintain tariffs without severely negatively effecting its own economy. China could come to the table early,make a few small concessions which the usa refuses and the war continues. Having come to the table already and feeling to have made a good effort the Chinese wait a long time to start 2nd talks and the war escalates till the point where it starts severely effecting the American economy as well. There are many ways in which this escalation could happen. At that point it becomes difficult to see a positive end to the trade war without considerable damage to the American/world economy. The process and the continuation of the process till a good outcome are important. The individual steps maybe don't matter that much but there are ways in which the process could end or lead to a bad outcome. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6252 Posts
On September 23 2018 19:18 Acrofales wrote: I think you're talking about something else, but you are obviously more schooled in economics than I am, so it's probably just me not understanding it. I agree on your first paragraph. Although I'm not sure that actually works for the dollar (it would for other currencies) as most of international trade is dollar transactions. All that happens is that less dollars are spent abroad, and more on the internal market. Demand for the dollar essentially stays the same, or it could even lead to an increased amount of foreign trade happening in non-dollar currencies, which would weaken the dollar, not strengthen it. However, the second paragraph is where you lost me. Trump is ranting about the trade deficit, not the budget deficit. The trade deficit is essentially "price of stuff imported" - "price of stuff exported". And so, by slapping tariffs on, you'd hope to reduce imports while keeping exports stable. Obviously it has many other effects, but essentially, that is the trade deficit, and if you believe it's a bad thing, then tariffs are obviously good. Best solution would be to go 100% protectionist, but people will be really pissed off when they realize that 90% of their stuff is imported, or has imports as an important part of their supply chain. There's a reason (actually, many reasons, but lets stick with this one) people don't look at Argentina and think "wow, that country has got its shit together". The basic misunderstanding is that a trade deficit is not a good or a bad thing, it is simply one aspect of your economic policies. If you want autarky, it is obviously bad. If you are a capitalist/globalist, you don't give a shit about it. It just means you have a service-based economy where you outsource the menial tasks of actual "production" to places where they can do it cheaper. Thus Trump, by saying trade deficit is bad, is essentially a Franco-style fascist (or Stalinistic communist, whichever you prefer: autarky in history has mainly been pursued by monstrous dictators) The trade deficit is when a country consumes more than it produces. Or in other words when it invests more than it saves. I'll quote an article since they can explain it better than I can: An understanding of the trade deficit begins with the balance of payments, the broadest accounting of a nation’s international transactions. By definition, the balance of payments always equals zero - that is, what a country buys or gives away in the global market must equal what it sells or receives - because of the exchange nature of trade. People, whether trading across a street or across an ocean, will generally not give up something without receiving something of comparable value in return. The double-entry nature of international bookkeeping means that, for a nation as a whole, the value of what it gives to the rest of the world will be matched by the value of what it receives. The balance of payments accounts capture two sides of an equation: the current account and the capital account. The current account side of the ledger covers the flow of goods, services, investment income, and uncompensated transfers such as foreign aid and remittances across borders by private citizens. Within the current account, the trade balance includes goods and services only, and the merchandise trade balance reflects goods only. On the other side, the capital account includes the buying and selling of investment assets such as real estate, stocks, bonds, and government securities. If a country runs a capital account surplus of $100 billion, it will run a current account deficit of $100 billion to balance its payments. As economist Douglas Irwin explains, “If a country is buying more goods and services from the rest of the world than it is selling, the country must also be selling more assets to the rest of the world than it is buying.” The necessary balance between the current account and the capital account implies a direct connection between the trade balance on the one hand and the savings and investment balance on the other. That relationship is captured in the simple formula: Savings - Investment = Exports - Imports https://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/americas-misunderstood-trade-deficit The last formula is key here: Savings - investment = export - imports. So when increasing the budget deficit you're decreasing (government) savings and creating a higher deficit. It's why tariffs will be largely ineffective. They don't change the underlying cause of the current account deficit: The fact that the US consumes more than it saves. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On September 24 2018 00:58 JimmiC wrote: That is the shitty part of this for both ends, any one can accuse and be plausible regardless of truth. Anyone can deny and it be plausible, regardless of guilt. The difference is one person is a professor, the other we know to be sleazy and creepy as fuck, a political operative disguised as a judge and a complete partisan hack, and one who provably perjured himself multiple times. It's much easier to believe one party over another. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
| ||
|
Lmui
Canada6215 Posts
On September 24 2018 09:33 Saryph wrote: Well there are three women now, can he recover from this or is it over? Senate Republicans are going to just ram him through, come hell or high water.They don't give a crap as to what Kavanaugh's accused of Anything they're doing now is just a show. Any result will probably impact the midterms heavily, but in exchange they have a lifetime appointment of a corrupt, perjuring judge on the supreme court which they think is worth it. Pretty shitty regardless. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
The thing is, with people who commit sexual assault is that they tend to do it more than once. And evidently several Republicans knew about this and it played into their decision to try and railroad Kavanaugh through. Note, Ronan Farrow won a Pulitizer for his reporting on Harvey Weinstein, Eric Schneiderman and les Moonves. Also, Avenatti claims that there is a third woman who he is representing. User was warned for this post: see mod note at top of thread | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On September 24 2018 09:33 Saryph wrote: Well there are three women now, can he recover from this or is it over? It’s looking like a game of chicken. The Republican senate from every single report wanted Hardiman or Kethledge, which would get through without a lot of trouble. Red state Dems would have zero cover to block his appointment and Murkowski, Collins + maybe Flake would have no reason to play both sides. Kavanaugh seemed like a compromise with Trump, who liked him due to his President is untouchable stances. The problem for Republicans right now is that Kavanugh and his supporters are digging deep with the worst excuses (He saved calendars from three decades ago so he couldn’t have been at that party and it was a long time ago anyway why should something so many years ago prevent a man from getting what he deserves) and Trump, a man who admitted to sexual assault on audio tape, is backing him to the grave. Like, Kavanaugh could have pulled out long ago and the Reps could have put up Barrett if they wanted to kill Roe v Wade. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
Second, this story contains such gems like "In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, " and " The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. " I think everyone who is named in the story denies it or doesn't recall? Again, a close friend says she was never told. Better be more. And Gorsuch didnt get this because A) he was replacing a conservative already and B) he was pre-MeToo. apparently other reporters were... hesitant. good but of sarcasm + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
The old routine of "why didn't she come forward sooner if it really happened" is just that, old. And it portrays an extraordinary insensitivity to just how harmful sexual assault can be. This isn't damning in any way. It implies about as much as saying the woman had friends. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On September 24 2018 10:58 On_Slaught wrote: It would be so much easier to confirm Kethledge/Barrett or someone like them. Are Republicans really going to push through somebody with multiple sexual assault/harrassment claims against him and basically zero investigation of any of them? Will they throw away the independent/woman vote to keep some hardcore peeps happy when a number of other picks would give you the same SCOTUS outcomes you want? Or is it stubborn pride at this point? They are politically smarter than that I'd think. Kavanaugh and Trump are digging in so what on earth are Republicans meant to do. Even if Kavanaugh is innocent, his responses have been tone deaf in this post-metoo era. Support for the guy isn’t just on party lines but also gender. The dude is astronomically unpopular. If Kavanaugh or Trump wanted to do Republicans a solid, they’d find a way to get Kavanaugh to bail out ages ago. But Trump’s obviously adopting the fuck that lying bitch approach so what can you do as a Republican senator. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On September 17 2018 08:11 Wulfey_LA wrote: My theory: that Kavanaugh is a squish on female consent is why he was picked by Trump even though he wasn't on the Federalist society list at first. Nothing says loyalty like being a part of the soft-on-consent club. Trump has had to oust several consent squishes from his cabinet already when they got caught. EDIT: think back to some other #MeToo scandals. Every time they have a kind of similar pattern. Time0: initial Ronan Farrow story Time1: first big WaPo/NYT piece Time2: furious partisan defense and smearing of the first credible accuser Time3: floodgates of other credible accusers We are currently at Time2. Nothing about Kavanaugh suggests he is going to break this pattern. If he gets confirmed, he is just going to be the #MeToo rapist on the bench at Time3. On the other hand, Anita Hill was telling the truth and it didn't matter then, but maybe it will now? We are now at Time3. I guess now there will be a wave of attempts to spin DJT and the Republicans appointing a guy with consent problems as being something the Democrats did. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself. | ||
| ||
