America under President Trump

[kactus]

1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said:

Exactly!  And what the president did was fully lawful.  She knew she was a lame duck anyway, this way she gets martyr status from the left and Trump does away with her - everybody wins.

He didn't have to sack her. She could have resigned.

[marcus]

5 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Exactly!  And what the president did was fully lawful.  She knew she was a lame duck anyway, this way she gets martyr status from the left and Trump does away with her - everybody wins.

Your interpretation is that it was lawful. Her interpretation is that it was unlawful.

“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Acting Attorney General Sally Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department lawyers, CNN first reported. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”

Of course, this was a political move, but what she did was not against the law. She is not required to accept whatever the president says.

[Hal 9000]

6 minutes ago, kactus said:

He didn't have to sack her. She could have resigned.

Why would she resign?  Getting fired plays so much better with the leftist agenda.  I mean really, look at her, look at her political stock.

[Hal 9000]

6 minutes ago, marcus said:

Your interpretation is that it was lawful. Her interpretation is that it was unlawful.

“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Acting Attorney General Sally Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department lawyers, CNN first reported. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”

Of course, this was a political move, but what she did was not against the law. She is not required to accept whatever the president says.

I never said that she broke the law.  I do however, wonder what she would've thought of Obama doing the same thing.

It was 100% political - she's the woman that stood up to Trump...and (the woman) was fired for standing up for those beliefs - Hollywood movies are made of such heroic actions. 

[Cum Laude]

5 hours ago, marcus said:

Your interpretation is that it was lawful. Her interpretation is that it was unlawful.

“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Acting Attorney General Sally Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department lawyers, CNN first reported. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”

Of course, this was a political move, but what she did was not against the law. She is not required to accept whatever the president says.

Aye Marcus, there’s the rub, eh? Change nothing, problems never get solved. Make changes, even more problems arise. There can be no winners here unless you count the army of lawyers who will rake in hundreds of billions on either action OR inaction, and in the end, the problems will be just as bad or worse, the bag of money will be empty, and it will be our problem to fill it back up again with either today's earnings or by leveraging the future to get more today. A corrupt system can only produce corrupt byproducts. What this new administration is certainly accomplishing, and right quickly I might add, is to set the couch and the mattresses on fire to call to attention to the fact that the house is on fire. We can only wonder how long it will take for all of the sellout scumbags to leave the burning building with as much of the valuables they can carry, leaving us, the real and chronic losers, inside to perish. That is how it works and how it always has worked.

[Altai]

Feto terror organization members also partipicate, probably funding and managing protests against Trump. Here a pic which is going to be another symbol of protests against Trump. A muslim (feto member) father and his daughter side by side with Jewish father and daughter. Seem like another planned PR work. 

[OftenWrong]

On 2017-01-28 at 5:14 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

You have nothing constructive to offer. 

It just seemed that what you said was callous somehow. That is what I meant. "These jobs are good enough for Bangladesh."

Note I am not singling you out here. There has been confusion on the left that I've suddenly become sympathetic to the cause of third world child labourers. That is not the point I'm making. The point is that leftists have suddenly come to accept and take advantage of the very things that were their primary raison d'etra which means, their raisin for being..

[OftenWrong]

On 2017-01-28 at 5:39 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Fair enough, but these things aren't binary either.  Change happens at some pace, and you and I could discuss what is acceptable there.

Change is the only constant. We can also discuss that the total wealth in any closed system is conserved. Or as renowned political scientist Albert Oftenwrong writes, "For every economic change in one region, there is an equal and opposite economic change in another."

Corporations took advantage of the situation at a time when the economy was strong enough to support "free trade", to draw off the remaining wealth in the system. Not by increasing the price of goods for sale, no, but by keeping that price essentially the same and dramatically lowering the cost of production. That worked well for them for a while, until the system became hollowed out. When there is no middle, consumer spending drops. The system is slowing down, coming to a halt. Economy's dying. Something needs to change before that happens, and the sooner the better. Solution- Enter the strongman.

[Michael Hardner]

 

8 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1) Change is the only constant. 2) We can also discuss that the total wealth in any closed system is conserved. Or as renowned political scientist Albert Oftenwrong writes, "For every economic change in one region, there is an equal and opposite economic change in another."

1) Agreed.

2) This sounds like zero-sum economics, which isn't applicable to liberalized trade.  Liberalized trade is win-win if the deals are negotiated fairly.  Note that both sides lose jobs, so job loss itself isn't an indicator of a fair deal.

The reset of your post sounds like it supports point #2.  Argus is pretty good at defending economic orthodoxy, maybe he can weigh in.

[OftenWrong]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

1) Agreed.

2) This sounds like zero-sum economics, which isn't applicable to liberalized trade.  Liberalized trade is win-win if the deals are negotiated fairly.  Note that both sides lose jobs, so job loss itself isn't an indicator of a fair deal.

The reset of your post sounds like it supports point #2.  Argus is pretty good at defending economic orthodoxy, maybe he can weigh in.

Those are nice ideas for discussion in the uni classroom. They are idealized theories. Human reality shows there is another constant: corruption. There's free trade, and then there's fair trade. 

You want evidence just look at economic history over the last 2-3 decades, compare that to the standard of living for middle class households in the decades before. I remember when the NAFTA came out, was just a kid but I followed some of the media discussion back then. People were saying the same things as we are now, jobs will go south (way south) giving them the opportunity for a better life, while we lose our livelihood in return. The price of cars the same. But the profit on sales went way higher. Shareholders get the benefit, auto workers get the crankshaft.

 

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Those are nice ideas for discussion in the uni classroom. They are idealized theories. Human reality shows there is another constant: corruption. There's free trade, and then there's fair trade. 

Really.  So economic theory isn't based in reality ?  Are you saying that globalized trade is just... a bad idea overall ?

 

28 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

You want evidence just look at economic history over the last 2-3 decades, compare that to the standard of living for middle class households in the decades before.

If I found evidence that trade deals are good for the economy overall - economic papers, and such - would you be convinced ?  From your statement above, it doesn't seem so.  Corporations have done very well by globalism - as have the wealthiest investors.  If that hasn't trickled down, is the fault of globalism or something else ?  It seems that the wealth was generated but somehow wasn't spread around.  Aren't those two different sets of policies at work ?

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

It just seemed that what you said was callous somehow. That is what I meant. "These jobs are good enough for Bangladesh."

Note I am not singling you out here. There has been confusion on the left that I've suddenly become sympathetic to the cause of third world child labourers. That is not the point I'm making. The point is that leftists have suddenly come to accept and take advantage of the very things that were their primary raison d'etra which means, their raisin for being..

I was not clear enough. These jobs are a start for Bangladesh. They are a big improvement on what people had.

The biggest problem in the developing world - too many people. Female emancipation is key to getting families smaller. 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

 The biggest problem in the developing world - too many people. Female emancipation is key to getting families smaller. 

Bangladesh's fertility rate is 2.2 now, comparable to France (2.0).  Female employment and birth control are having an impact to change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh

 

[OftenWrong]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Really.  So economic theory isn't based in reality ?  Are you saying that globalized trade is just... a bad idea overall ?

I'm saying it is a bad idea now. It may have been helpful in principle but now that it's become accepted way of doing things, it's become a problem. Not just the economy but globalization in general, including the misguided implementation of multiculturalism. The idea sounded good in principle, but failed to connect the dots with human frailty. Corruption, unfairness, greed. The concept "free trade" has existed long before the modern era, and has been detested as the bane of economic prosperity for the common man.

"Free trade policies have battled with mercantilist, protectionist, isolationist, communist, populist, and other policies over the centuries."

Globalism was implemented too quickly and broadly, without necessary protections that make it fair. I mean protection from the loss of cultural erosion in the west.

Free trade also presents certain moral problems, which need not be listed here. Rather than concern ourselves purely on terms of profit margins for one group, we need to take a larger view that society is an organic system that is connected end to end. It does matter that moving production to a third world country causes local loss of prosperity, when applied on a large scale and without regard for the consequences, both short and long term. Small people matter, because they come in large numbers. That points to a different kind of trade model. That is why I use the words fair trade.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

1) I'm saying it is a bad idea now. It may have been helpful in principle but now that it's become accepted way of doing things, it's become a problem.  Not just the economy but globalization in general, including the misguided implementation of multiculturalism. The idea sounded good in principle, but failed to connect the dots with human frailty. Corruption, unfairness, greed. The concept "free trade" has existed long before the modern era, and has been detested as the bane of economic prosperity for the common man.

2) Globalism was implemented too quickly and broadly, without necessary protections that make it fair. I mean protection from the loss of cultural erosion in the west.

3) Free trade also presents certain moral problems, which need not be listed here. Rather than concern ourselves purely on terms of profit margins for one group, we need to take a larger view that society is an organic system that is connected end to end. It does matter that moving production to a third world country causes local loss of prosperity, when applied on a large scale and without regard for the consequences, both short and long term. Small people matter, because they come in large numbers. That points to a different kind of trade model. That is why I use the words fair trade.

1) Why now ?  You yourself pointed out that it has been happening for centuries so why now ?  What specifically is the problem ?  I see Trump as firing up the economic losers who voted for Democrats and got healthcare instead of jobs.  Now he'll take away their healthcare and won't deliver jobs.

2) Necessary protections would have cost tax dollars and involved distribution.  That's what I alluded to in my post above but you didn't answer - what do you think ?  If they had taxed the big winners of free trade and retrained/incentivized economic losers would that have been better ?

3) This is the Republican flip that I have been seeing.  Right wing populist is concerned about the 'little guy' after pushing for better business conditions and lower corporate taxes for 30 years.  Concern about Military spending and warmongering.  "We're through the looking glass, Alice."

[OftenWrong]

31 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I was not clear enough. These jobs are a start for Bangladesh. They are a big improvement on what people had.

The biggest problem in the developing world - too many people. Female emancipation is key to getting families smaller. 

They certainly are a start the question now is, is that where it remains for them? For how can these businesses afford to pay poor people more? It always translates to a loss in profit, of a necessary increase in the price of goods. But those possibilities are already highly limited.

I know what you are saying, it is an attempt to be helpful, spread the wealth around. But we should not pretend that these things are done to benefit the poor. They are not. At the first sight of profits moving elsewhere, globalists will pull out their money and shut down the high tech factory in Bangladesh, and move it to Dar Es Salamm.

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Stay on topic and avoid thread derailment syndrome. 

[OftenWrong]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Why now ?  You yourself pointed out that it has been happening for centuries so why now ?  What specifically is the problem ?  I see Trump as firing up the economic losers who voted for Democrats and got healthcare instead of jobs.  Now he'll take away their healthcare and won't deliver jobs.

2) Necessary protections would have cost tax dollars and involved distribution.  That's what I alluded to in my post above but you didn't answer - what do you think ?  If they had taxed the big winners of free trade and retrained/incentivized economic losers would that have been better ?

3) This is the Republican flip that I have been seeing.  Right wing populist is concerned about the 'little guy' after pushing for better business conditions and lower corporate taxes for 30 years.  Concern about Military spending and warmongering.  "We're through the looking glass, Alice."

1) There has been strong debate including acceptance and resistance to free trade for centuries. I'm no economist or historian but it seems like changes are needed to any economic system once its advantages have been fully exploited. It appears we have reached that tipping point. I keep thinking about a city like Detroit as example, or maybe Michigan in general. Looking closer to home, we got a lot of industries that are bleeding dry and moving out here. Intelligent, preemptive changes are needed to minimize the loss. Doubtful that Trump won't deliver, a bit too early yet to pass judgement. Results matter not big words, and Trump's got lots of the latter let's see if his ideas actually work.

2) I think protectionism needs to come back to some extent. I'd rather accept the premise that global conflict between nations expresses itself through economic war rather than real war. That's a step up in civility. Reason I mention it is because that's what we're seeing, a power struggle every bit as important as real war. Behind the thin veneer of trade agreements is a desire for national victory at the expense of "others". We have not, and will not, outgrow this. The pressure exists both economically and culturally.

3) We're not in Kansas no more. Again one should look at it in a historical context. The economy was strong in the 50's - 70's, it could weather such changes in the short term. It made sense to enact trade laws to benefit shareholders. Trickle-down theory was a fantasy though, and we need to revise the situation as it is now. There is no golden rule that works, for all time, Dorothy.

 

<added>

These matters are very important, in the context of President Trump's impact on America.

Edited February 4, 2017 by OftenWrong

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1)  I'm no economist or historian but it seems like changes are needed to any economic system once its advantages have been fully exploited. It appears we have reached that tipping point. I keep thinking about a city like Detroit as example, or maybe Michigan in general. Looking closer to home, we got a lot of industries that are bleeding dry and moving out here. Intelligent, preemptive changes are needed to minimize the loss. Doubtful that Trump won't deliver, a bit too early yet to pass judgement. Results matter not big words, and Trump's got lots of the latter let's see if his ideas actually work.

2) I think protectionism needs to come back to some extent. I'd rather accept the premise that global conflict between nations expresses itself through economic war rather than real war. That's a step up in civility. Reason I mention it is because that's what we're seeing, a power struggle every bit as important as real war. Behind the thin veneer of trade agreements is a desire for national victory at the expense of "others". We have not, and will not, outgrow this. The pressure exists both economically and culturally.

3) We're not in Kansas no more. Again one should look at it in a historical context. The economy was strong in the 50's - 70's, it could weather such changes in the short term. It made sense to enact trade laws to benefit shareholders. Trickle-down theory was a fantasy though, and we need to revise the situation as it is now. There is no golden rule that works, for all time, Dorothy.

1)  Ok - so "why now" means we have areas of economic loss and Trump will address that.  But does it make sense to turn back the clock and bring back manufacturing or put up trade barriers ?  The last phase of adjustment to trade is adapting and I would think that being in that phase we should look for replacement industries.

2) But if they don't redistribute wealth, impose regulations and so on how will this help people economically ?  Factory jobs aren't unionized anymore, the wages aren't what they were... would that reverse itself ?

3) Agree on trickle-down.  So regulations, the rebirth of organized labour... another world war to bring manufacturing back perhaps ?

[SpankyMcFarland]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Bangladesh's fertility rate is 2.2 now, comparable to France (2.0).  Female employment and birth control are having an impact to change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh

 

That is very encouraging. They still have 170 million people to take care of in a disappearing river delta one-tenth the size of Quebec. Elsewhere, e.g. sub-Saharan Africa, the reproductive news is not so good.

Edited February 4, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

The jobs Trump wants back are gone. He can retrieve a few for the cameras if he distorts the market enough but their days are numbered. The robots are going to take them anyway, wherever they are based.

Edited February 4, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The jobs Trump wants back are gone. He can retrieve a few for the cameras if he distorts the market enough but their days are numbered. The robots are going to take them anyway, wherever they are based.

And the software.  The reawakening of populism is going to come back with a roar and identities will be challenged.  In 4 years there will still not be factory jobs and those impacted by automation will have to face the facts.

[-TSS-]

Judging by the outcry Trump has created during these two weeks and the two months before after he was elected one would be excused to think he has declared himself a dictator who has cancelled all future elections and has declared himself a president forever.

Only that kind of belief makes sense to the ferocity of the protests he has caused. As if there is not a next time.

 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Judging by the outcry Trump has created during these two weeks and the two months before after he was elected one would be excused to think he has declared himself a dictator who has cancelled all future elections and has declared himself a president forever.

Only that kind of belief makes sense to the ferocity of the protests he has caused. As if there is not a next time.

It's progressives, though. I have noticed that the ferocity of progressives anguish over something is usually in inverse proportion to its importance.

Thus we have Canadians out in the streets tonight protesting against an American policy which doesn't affect us whatsoever, and which isn't even in force any more.

Or, for another example, the way a very, very few transgendered people wanted to have laws letting them go into opposite public bathrooms and changing rooms because the focal point of all their efforts.

When it comes to important things, like, say, freedom of speech, well, they don't care. It's the unimportant things which obsess them.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Argus

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1)  Ok - so "why now" means we have areas of economic loss and Trump will address that.  But does it make sense to turn back the clock and bring back manufacturing or put up trade barriers ?  The last phase of adjustment to trade is adapting and I would think that being in that phase we should look for replacement industries.

2) But if they don't redistribute wealth, impose regulations and so on how will this help people economically ?  Factory jobs aren't unionized anymore, the wages aren't what they were... would that reverse itself ?

3) Agree on trickle-down.  So regulations, the rebirth of organized labour... another world war to bring manufacturing back perhaps ?

I don't know, but it sure makes for great theatre.