What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Razgovory]

So will Trump supporters trade in their "Deplorable" shirts for new "Human Capital Stock" shirts?

[DGuller]

So will Trump supporters trade in their "Deplorable" shirts for new "Human Capital Stock" shirts?

What am I missing in the whole human capital stock gate? Is that some kind of a racist dog whistle? 

It sounded to me like what he was saying is that economy can be quickly restarted back to prior level because the means of production were largely not permanently affected.  That's kind of what every economist would be thinking about when trying to figure out how quickly the economy would bounce back, no?

[Razgovory]

So will Trump supporters trade in their "Deplorable" shirts for new "Human Capital Stock" shirts?

What am I missing in the whole human capital stock gate? Is that some kind of a racist dog whistle? 

It sounded to me like what he was saying is that economy can be quickly restarted back to prior level because the means of production were largely not permanently affected.  That's kind of what every economist would be thinking about when trying to figure out how quickly the economy would bounce back, no?

It betrays a certain view of human beings.  You would understand that if you were also human, you godless robot.

[DGuller]

It betrays a certain view of human beings.  You would understand that if you were also human, you godless robot.

That's ridiculous.  Human capital has a very specific meaning that conveys useful information in economics.  Is that all there is to it?

[crazy canuck]

It betrays a certain view of human beings.  You would understand that if you were also human, you godless robot.

That's ridiculous.  Human capital has a very specific meaning that conveys useful information in economics.  Is that all there is to it?

A representative of a government speaking to an audience of people anxious about their job prospects should probably not address his audience as human capital stock.  Perhaps a more empathetic way to frame it would have been "workers are ready to return to work".  That is Raz's point, which you rejected as ridiculous. 

edit: but it dawns on me that he the person making the comment didnt for a moment think he was addressing workers - only shareholders.  I am not sure what your justification might be.

[DGuller]

It betrays a certain view of human beings.  You would understand that if you were also human, you godless robot.

That's ridiculous.  Human capital has a very specific meaning that conveys useful information in economics.  Is that all there is to it?

A representative of a government speaking to an audience of people anxious about their job prospects should probably not address his audience as human capital stock.  Perhaps a more empathetic way to frame it would have been "workers are ready to return to work".  That is Raz's point, which you rejected as ridiculous. 

edit: but it dawns on me that he the person making the comment didnt for a moment think he was addressing workers - only shareholders.  I am not sure what your justification might be.

What I rejected as ridiculous is ascribing a set of beliefs to someone because he was a professional using professional language.  It's a tempest in a teapot, a typical Twitter mob idiocy, with enough bad faith you can pick apart almost anything anyone says.

[crazy canuck]

You are blind

[Barrister]

AOC is the one who started the rant about "Human capital stock".

[DGuller]

You are blind

And you are tiresome.

[Sheilbh]

What I rejected as ridiculous is ascribing a set of beliefs to someone because he was a professional using professional language.  It's a tempest in a teapot, a typical Twitter mob idiocy, with enough bad faith you can pick apart almost anything anyone says.

Only use professional/expertise language when you're speaking to an audience who know what you're talking about, otherwise it may be misinterpreted because people don't know what it means and/or it sounds weird to non-in-crowd people. This isn't some ridiculous character assasination or novel social media idiocy - it's basic politics as long as the mass media's existed.

You can get away with this in an interview with the WSJ or the FT (just about), probably not on any media that can be easily clipped. It's like when Gordon Brown did a pre-election speech to normal people and talked about "post neo-classical endogenous growth theory". That really means something to economists, so probably just say it to them.

He never really lived that down and neither did his advisor Ed Balls who wrote the speech (Michael Heseltine was asked what he thought of post neo-classical endogenous growth theory and quipped "it's not Brown, it's Balls" )

[DGuller]

Only use professional/expertise language when you're speaking to an audience who know what you're talking about, otherwise it may be misinterpreted because people don't know what it means and/or it sounds weird to non-in-crowd people.

I would hope that AOC knows what human capital is.

[Sheilbh]

I would hope that AOC knows what human capital is.

Don't see the relevance of that at all.

Edit: Also he's on CNN, not corresponding with AOC.

[grumbler]

Kevin Hasset way over-estimated the intelligence of his audience, that's all.  You cannot use complex analogies with even basic morons, let alone morons looking to misinterpret what you are saying in the most bizarre fashion possible.

[DGuller]

I would hope that AOC knows what human capital is.

Don't see the relevance of that at all.

Edit: Also he's on CNN, not corresponding with AOC.

If I take Barrister's post as a given, AOC was the one who started that outrage.  AOC, having a degree in economics, would almost certainly understand exactly what is meant by human capital, and that it's not even a remotely controversial term in economics.  That means that her outrage either comes from bad faith or highly motivated lack of comprehension.

[Razgovory]

It betrays a certain view of human beings.  You would understand that if you were also human, you godless robot.

That's ridiculous.  Human capital has a very specific meaning that conveys useful information in economics.  Is that all there is to it?

Human capital does.  I've never heard of it referred to as "Human capital stock.  Stock typically refers to animals or things.  Stuff that exists to profit its owner.  It's like calling babies "potential sources of protein".  That is probably true, but it reflects a certain mindset that does not value human life.