I can't shake the feeling that something monumental is happening, and it's happening over much of the Western world. Trump may not just be an awful accident of history, he may be part of a trend. When history will be written (if we survive long enough to have history written about contemporary times), it would almost surely identify the current times as the beginning of a period, at least on the scale of something like an Arab Spring.
But what is behind it? Is it that the values the western civilization is promoting have grown to be too far out of sync with what people really are believing? Did we just completely get surprised by the power of social media to create alternate realities, and there were no underlying tensions there until they just randomly mutated in that environment like cancer cells (with a little help from Saint Petersburg)? Has the world been too stable geopolitically and now everyone is getting overwhelmed by pent up tension to resolve simmering conflicts? Is the effect of globalization producing too much social instability and it manifests itself in wildly irrational and self-defeating ways?
Any thoughts?
All of that yeah.
I think, too, we can't underestimate the rise of populism, the likes of which we haven't seen since the early 1930s.
It will stand out as quite a watermark in the decline of work.
For years now the primary commodity hasn't been in the amount of goods you can manufacture but in consumers.
There just aren't enough consumers to support the amount of workers that we need to keep communities alive and avoid generational unemployment setting in.
The governments of the world meanwhile completely failed to learn from the last recession and rather than doing what was needed instead more fully embraced the failed ideas that led to the crash.
Even the lumpens can see there is a problem.
But they don't quite get what.
Perfect territory to blame The Others.
Explain. You'd think there are more consumers today than ever before.
Quote from: Josephus on December 31, 2016, 02:55:54 PM
Explain. You'd think there are more consumers today than ever before.
Industrial efficiency has got to the level where the work of 1 worker provides X for 100 consumers.
There just isn't enough "stuff" to be built to give each of those 100 a job that lets them all buy X. Especially considering massively unequal income distribution.
There are other histories besides the narrative of the 1930s.
It's just part of the cycle. Stuff gets built, a shock happens and the stable part survives and the fluff falls down. Then the building starts again. It's true for societies and ideas as much as for physical stuff.
I've been kind of wondering about the malaise infecting the world in recent years as well. It certainly isn't limited to the US or even the West. Xi seems to be taking China backwards as well. Here in the US I keep seeing Republicans in love with Putin. That's a bit worrying. There is also the whole thing where our conservative friends refuse to share the objective reality as the rest of us. Apparently, we live in a world where Obama is hated by the majority of the population of the US and the world and American are being butchered in the streets by terrorists. Admittedly that was told to be by someone in the military with the same rank as Siegebreaker, so maybe perform they lobotomies on the enlisted men upon reaching a certain pay grade.
What people really care about at the bottom of their hearts is their economic and social status relative to the rest of the population, once the most basic material needs are met. Globalization and technological advancement have made the income of the bulk of the population stagnate, while the elite see their wealth skyrocket. It is only a matter of time that the masses decide to strike back in whatever way they can. Since they have a vote, that's what they'll do. For now. If even that doesn't work, they'll try something else.
Quote from: DGuller on December 31, 2016, 01:27:02 PM
I can't shake the feeling that something monumental is happening, and it's happening over much of the Western world.
I just spent a good portion of tonight's party telling people to fear the new year; no optimism or even neutrality allowed.
Are you happy now? :P
STAY CALM
AND READ
LANGUISH
Quote from: Tyr on December 31, 2016, 03:01:41 PM
Quote from: Josephus on December 31, 2016, 02:55:54 PM
Explain. You'd think there are more consumers today than ever before.
Industrial efficiency has got to the level where the work of 1 worker provides X for 100 consumers.
There just isn't enough "stuff" to be built to give each of those 100 a job that lets them all buy X. Especially considering massively unequal income distribution.
If you ever took an economics course, write for a refund.
The problem isn't insufficient demand; demand is infinite. The problem is that the service sector jobs that are all that are available for a number of people in post-industrial economies don't pay well enough to support the lifestyle the people in thosse countries thinks to be their birthright. Raising the minimum wage isn't the solution; it just encourages further automation of service sector jobs.
Probably the only long-term solution is a guaranteed income, combined with free health coverage. Then people can work as a matter of self esteem, and can otherwise occupy themselves with hobbies/recreation, charitable work, etc. People aren't ready for that yet, though, I don't believe. Plus, how do you pay for such a thing? You'd have to massively increase taxes, which would just chase away the very people and institutions whose taxes would make a guaranteed income system work.
So, the problem isn't "industrial efficiency." "Industrial efficiency" has been with us since industry started. The problem is that economic solutions are proposed o a national basis, and the economic problem of the post-industrial work force isn't manifested on a national basis.
So, people buy into "double down on failure to make America Great Again" because they aren't presented with the real problem.
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 11:33:32 AM
Probably the only long-term solution is a guaranteed income, combined with free health coverage. Then people can work as a matter of self esteem, and can otherwise occupy themselves with hobbies/recreation, charitable work, etc. People aren't ready for that yet, though, I don't believe. Plus, how do you pay for such a thing? You'd have to massively increase taxes, which would just chase away the very people and institutions whose taxes would make a guaranteed income system work.
A basic universal income is increasingly being discussed here, and several cities have started small-scale trials.
However, the current liberal (economic liberal) government predictably does everything possible to bury the whole idea.
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 11:33:32 AM
The problem is that the service sector jobs that are all that are available for a number of people in post-industrial economies don't pay well enough to support the lifestyle the people in thosse countries thinks to be their birthright. Raising the minimum wage isn't the solution; it just encourages further automation of service sector jobs.
One thing that would help in the US would be a more rational tax policy. The fact that someone making minimum wage may still end up paying Federal income taxes is insane, IMO. Raise the personal exemption to, say, $50,000 and eliminate most (or all) other deductions and such, and while it certainly wouldn't be guaranteed universal income, those low-paying service sector jobs become much more attractive. I certainly make something above minimum wage, but I'm probably pretty much the lowest-paid person here who actually has a full-time job, and I see only about 50% of my gross pay on my paycheck--granted, Federal income taxes are only part of what's withheld. If I was only making minimum wage or just a tiny bit above it, I'd be taking home an even lower percentage of my gross pay. Heck, when I was in management, I had people I supervised who made either minimum wage or were about 50 cents or so above that turn down overtime because any extra pay they got would just be taken in taxes. It's obscene that the government does that to our country's lowest-paid workers. (I will note that the complaint that any extra pay from overtime would be taken in taxes wasn't exactly accurate. I sat down with one employee who told me that she didn't want any more overtime and compared her paystubs from a week in which she worked right at 40 hours with no OT and another week where she had about 12 hours OT. She actually took home about $15 dollars more in the week she had OT. So while it did technically give her more income to work the OT, $15 for 12 hours work isn't worth it.)
Quote from: dps on January 01, 2017, 01:12:26 PM
One thing that would help in the US would be a more rational tax policy. The fact that someone making minimum wage may still end up paying Federal income taxes is insane, IMO. Raise the personal exemption to, say, $50,000 and eliminate most (or all) other deductions and such, and while it certainly wouldn't be guaranteed universal income, those low-paying service sector jobs become much more attractive. I certainly make something above minimum wage, but I'm probably pretty much the lowest-paid person here who actually has a full-time job, and I see only about 50% of my gross pay on my paycheck--granted, Federal income taxes are only part of what's withheld. If I was only making minimum wage or just a tiny bit above it, I'd be taking home an even lower percentage of my gross pay. Heck, when I was in management, I had people I supervised who made either minimum wage or were about 50 cents or so above that turn down overtime because any extra pay they got would just be taken in taxes. It's obscene that the government does that to our country's lowest-paid workers. (I will note that the complaint that any extra pay from overtime would be taken in taxes wasn't exactly accurate. I sat down with one employee who told me that she didn't want any more overtime and compared her paystubs from a week in which she worked right at 40 hours with no OT and another week where she had about 12 hours OT. She actually took home about $15 dollars more in the week she had OT. So while it did technically give her more income to work the OT, $15 for 12 hours work isn't worth it.)
You both are overlooking how withholding works. Those weeks she worked OT, the program calculated her withholding as if she were earning that much every week of the year. But when she files taxes, she's going to get a lot of that back as a refund, because obviously her annual pay was less than 52 times that one week's pay.
Government services costs money. I think it's obscene to have any citizen not pay at least a nominal amount of federal income tax. You shouldn't get to be on Medicare and draw a social security check unless you pay into the system.
If you're making between 15k - 30k yearly then you're barely paying federal income tax as it is. Standard deduction plus personal exemption is around 10k. So your effective rate is probably around ~8.3%. If you have any dependents then you may be getting net money back from the government on federal income tax in the form of EITC. SS+Medicare is another 7.65%. State income tax varies greatly but let's say 6%. Total ~22% effective tax.
If one of your minimum wage workers isn't happy going home with 78 cents for every dollar they earn they need a reality check... no other dollar earned is going to get taxed less. There's nothing special in the tax code that I know of that screws over people in the 15k-30k income range.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2017, 01:28:56 PM
Quote from: dps on January 01, 2017, 01:12:26 PM
One thing that would help in the US would be a more rational tax policy. The fact that someone making minimum wage may still end up paying Federal income taxes is insane, IMO. Raise the personal exemption to, say, $50,000 and eliminate most (or all) other deductions and such, and while it certainly wouldn't be guaranteed universal income, those low-paying service sector jobs become much more attractive. I certainly make something above minimum wage, but I'm probably pretty much the lowest-paid person here who actually has a full-time job, and I see only about 50% of my gross pay on my paycheck--granted, Federal income taxes are only part of what's withheld. If I was only making minimum wage or just a tiny bit above it, I'd be taking home an even lower percentage of my gross pay. Heck, when I was in management, I had people I supervised who made either minimum wage or were about 50 cents or so above that turn down overtime because any extra pay they got would just be taken in taxes. It's obscene that the government does that to our country's lowest-paid workers. (I will note that the complaint that any extra pay from overtime would be taken in taxes wasn't exactly accurate. I sat down with one employee who told me that she didn't want any more overtime and compared her paystubs from a week in which she worked right at 40 hours with no OT and another week where she had about 12 hours OT. She actually took home about $15 dollars more in the week she had OT. So while it did technically give her more income to work the OT, $15 for 12 hours work isn't worth it.)
You both are overlooking how withholding works. Those weeks she worked OT, the program calculated her withholding as if she were earning that much every week of the year. But when she files taxes, she's going to get a lot of that back as a refund, because obviously her annual pay was less than 52 times that one week's pay.
Yep.
Luckily the gal who does payroll for the company I work for is awesome and she doesn't even bat an eye at us all constantly changing our withholdings on our W-4s. When I know I have a lot of OT coming I will change my allowances to 99 for the duration.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2017, 01:28:56 PM
Quote from: dps on January 01, 2017, 01:12:26 PM
One thing that would help in the US would be a more rational tax policy. The fact that someone making minimum wage may still end up paying Federal income taxes is insane, IMO. Raise the personal exemption to, say, $50,000 and eliminate most (or all) other deductions and such, and while it certainly wouldn't be guaranteed universal income, those low-paying service sector jobs become much more attractive. I certainly make something above minimum wage, but I'm probably pretty much the lowest-paid person here who actually has a full-time job, and I see only about 50% of my gross pay on my paycheck--granted, Federal income taxes are only part of what's withheld. If I was only making minimum wage or just a tiny bit above it, I'd be taking home an even lower percentage of my gross pay. Heck, when I was in management, I had people I supervised who made either minimum wage or were about 50 cents or so above that turn down overtime because any extra pay they got would just be taken in taxes. It's obscene that the government does that to our country's lowest-paid workers. (I will note that the complaint that any extra pay from overtime would be taken in taxes wasn't exactly accurate. I sat down with one employee who told me that she didn't want any more overtime and compared her paystubs from a week in which she worked right at 40 hours with no OT and another week where she had about 12 hours OT. She actually took home about $15 dollars more in the week she had OT. So while it did technically give her more income to work the OT, $15 for 12 hours work isn't worth it.)
You both are overlooking how withholding works. Those weeks she worked OT, the program calculated her withholding as if she were earning that much every week of the year. But when she files taxes, she's going to get a lot of that back as a refund, because obviously her annual pay was less than 52 times that one week's pay.
I'm not overlooking that (though the employees who turned down the OT might have been). But it's still asking them to work extra in a week and not see any significant gain for it until they file their taxes the next year. And in the particular case of the employee I sat down with and looked at her paystub, I was going to let her get 10-20 hours OT every week, so her yearly income would have been roughly 52 times that week's pay.
Just to be clear, I do agree with you that getting OT certainly does pay in the long run, and I do generally take OT when it's offered to me (when I don't, I don't turn it down for economic reasons, but for having other commitments/errands/obligations to attend to, or just not wanting to stay at work any longer than necessary).
I'm having a hard time seeing how you can make $15 for 12 hours of OT net of withholding.
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 11:33:32 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 31, 2016, 03:01:41 PM
Quote from: Josephus on December 31, 2016, 02:55:54 PM
Explain. You'd think there are more consumers today than ever before.
Industrial efficiency has got to the level where the work of 1 worker provides X for 100 consumers.
There just isn't enough "stuff" to be built to give each of those 100 a job that lets them all buy X. Especially considering massively unequal income distribution.
If you ever took an economics course, write for a refund.
The problem isn't insufficient demand; demand is infinite. The problem is that the service sector jobs that are all that are available for a number of people in post-industrial economies don't pay well enough to support the lifestyle the people in thosse countries thinks to be their birthright. Raising the minimum wage isn't the solution; it just encourages further automation of service sector jobs.
Untrue.
I have a TV. Why do I need another one?
Maybe I'll want something bigger and better at some point? Maybe my current one will break?
Even though I may have the money to buy a new TV every month my demand is not infinite.
It's a big part of why the idea of trickle down economics is so flawed. One person with a million dollars has a smaller demand than if that million is shared between 10.
Quote from: Tyr on January 01, 2017, 03:04:00 PM
It's a big part of why the idea of trickle down economics is so flawed. One person with a million dollars has a smaller demand than if that million is shared between 10.
That's not the logic of trickle down and it's not the flaw.
The logic of trickle down is that the rich will save and invest more in plant and equipment, creating more jobs and higher productivity.
The flaw is that capital is globally mobile.
Actually trickle down does work, it's just that due to the global mobility of capital, the poor that benefited wasn't in the same country where the tax cuts were made.
White poors hate brown poors. Film at 11.
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 11:33:32 AM
Probably the only long-term solution is a guaranteed income, combined with free health coverage.
How would you compensate for the degradation of purchasing power for the guaranteed income? It sounds like a poverty trap.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2017, 01:28:56 PM
Quote from: dps on January 01, 2017, 01:12:26 PM
One thing that would help in the US would be a more rational tax policy. The fact that someone making minimum wage may still end up paying Federal income taxes is insane, IMO. Raise the personal exemption to, say, $50,000 and eliminate most (or all) other deductions and such, and while it certainly wouldn't be guaranteed universal income, those low-paying service sector jobs become much more attractive. I certainly make something above minimum wage, but I'm probably pretty much the lowest-paid person here who actually has a full-time job, and I see only about 50% of my gross pay on my paycheck--granted, Federal income taxes are only part of what's withheld. If I was only making minimum wage or just a tiny bit above it, I'd be taking home an even lower percentage of my gross pay. Heck, when I was in management, I had people I supervised who made either minimum wage or were about 50 cents or so above that turn down overtime because any extra pay they got would just be taken in taxes. It's obscene that the government does that to our country's lowest-paid workers. (I will note that the complaint that any extra pay from overtime would be taken in taxes wasn't exactly accurate. I sat down with one employee who told me that she didn't want any more overtime and compared her paystubs from a week in which she worked right at 40 hours with no OT and another week where she had about 12 hours OT. She actually took home about $15 dollars more in the week she had OT. So while it did technically give her more income to work the OT, $15 for 12 hours work isn't worth it.)
You both are overlooking how withholding works. Those weeks she worked OT, the program calculated her withholding as if she were earning that much every week of the year. But when she files taxes, she's going to get a lot of that back as a refund, because obviously her annual pay was less than 52 times that one week's pay.
And, even then, the higher tax rate is only on the amount by which income exceeds the lower tax rate. It is preposterous that she got paid for 12 ours of overtime and saw only $15 in extra income, unless she was making way below the minimum wage.
Quote from: Tyr on January 01, 2017, 03:04:00 PM
Untrue.
I have a TV. Why do I need another one?
Maybe I'll want something bigger and better at some point? Maybe my current one will break?
Even though I may have the money to buy a new TV every month my demand is not infinite.
It's a big part of why the idea of trickle down economics is so flawed. One person with a million dollars has a smaller demand than if that million is shared between 10.
Demand the refund. Don't take no for an answer. Every word you write indicates an even deeper ignorance of basic economics.
Why would you not want an infinite number of TVs, if there was no cost whatever attached to obtaining and owning TVs? Imagine this scenario: a representative of The magical TV Company comes up to you and offers you any number of TVs you want, up to and including an infinite amount of them. These magical TVs cost nothing to run. If you want to give away TVs, you can, and the MTC will deliver them, free of charge and using non-polluting magical delivery methods, to anyone anywhere (and to as many anyones as you care to name, in any quantity per person). Broken or outdated TVs will be replaced free of charge, but they will also come out of your allotment. Any TVs you don't want right now will be stored free of charge (or, more likely, just not be created yet), but the total number you ask for right now is the total you will ever have under this deal.
So, name your number, from zero to infinite.
Would anyone NOT ask for an infinite number of TVs? If you think so, explain why.
What keeps you from acquiring an infinite number of TV sets now is a limited supply, not a limited demand.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 01, 2017, 07:11:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 11:33:32 AM
Probably the only long-term solution is a guaranteed income, combined with free health coverage.
How would you compensate for the degradation of purchasing power for the guaranteed income? It sounds like a poverty trap.
You use English words here, but not in a combination I understand. What does "degradation of purchasing power" mean in this context?
People get X amount guaranteed income. As a result, the amount of stuff X buys decreases over time.
Do you just keep making X bigger or what?
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 07:41:07 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 01, 2017, 03:04:00 PM
Untrue.
I have a TV. Why do I need another one?
Maybe I'll want something bigger and better at some point? Maybe my current one will break?
Even though I may have the money to buy a new TV every month my demand is not infinite.
It's a big part of why the idea of trickle down economics is so flawed. One person with a million dollars has a smaller demand than if that million is shared between 10.
Demand the refund. Don't take no for an answer. Every word you write indicates an even deeper ignorance of basic economics.
Why would you not want an infinite number of TVs, if there was no cost whatever attached to obtaining and owning TVs? Imagine this scenario: a representative of The magical TV Company comes up to you and offers you any number of TVs you want, up to and including an infinite amount of them. These magical TVs cost nothing to run. If you want to give away TVs, you can, and the MTC will deliver them, free of charge and using non-polluting magical delivery methods, to anyone anywhere (and to as many anyones as you care to name, in any quantity per person). Broken or outdated TVs will be replaced free of charge, but they will also come out of your allotment. Any TVs you don't want right now will be stored free of charge (or, more likely, just not be created yet), but the total number you ask for right now is the total you will ever have under this deal.
So, name your number, from zero to infinite.
Would anyone NOT ask for an infinite number of TVs? If you think so, explain why.
What keeps you from acquiring an infinite number of TV sets now is a limited supply, not a limited demand.
I can think of plenty of real world reasons not to want to accept that offer but then, I'm not the one being 'schooled' right now.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 01, 2017, 07:44:48 PM
People get X amount guaranteed income. As a result, the amount of stuff X buys decreases over time.
Do you just keep making X bigger or what?
That doesn't really seem like a very big problem. After all, in theory, people's salaries (as well as welfare allotments) should increase year over year so why wouldn't a guaranteed income...particularly if the guaranteed income was setup to ensure people had a certain standard of living in one's country?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 01, 2017, 07:44:48 PM
People get X amount guaranteed income. As a result, the amount of stuff X buys decreases over time.
Do you just keep making X bigger or what?
I am not sure how "as a result" happens. If you are talking abut inflation, that's not an issue unless money supply expands faster than the supply of goods and services expands. As workers become more efficient, more goods and services will be produced per worker, thus requiring fewer workers for a given economy. That is the very problem that a guaranteed wage would be addressing: what do you do with the surplus workers? S long as the guaranteed wage is paid for by taxes and not printing money, it wouldn't be inflationary; the companies/whatever would be paying the same number of people, just indirectly rather than directly.
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 07:53:11 PMS long as the guaranteed wage is paid for by taxes and not printing money
Do you believe that would happen?
Quote from: garbon on January 01, 2017, 07:46:22 PM
I can think of plenty of real world reasons not to want to accept that offer but then, I'm not the one being 'schooled' right now.
:huh: Did you think magical TVs were "real world?" It is a thought experiment to show the concept of infinite demand. The Economic Problem is how to distribute a limited supply to meet an infinite demand.
Not that you're the one interested in learning anything right now.
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 11:33:32 AM
Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh!
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 01, 2017, 07:55:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 07:53:11 PMS long as the guaranteed wage is paid for by taxes and not printing money
Do you believe that would happen?
:huh: Have you been reading what I write? I've explained why I don't think the guaranteed income system would work in the current world, even if it is, perhaps, the only long-term solution.
I suspect that climate change will make all of this a moot point.
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 07:56:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 01, 2017, 07:46:22 PM
I can think of plenty of real world reasons not to want to accept that offer but then, I'm not the one being 'schooled' right now.
:huh: Did you think magical TVs were "real world?" It is a thought experiment to show the concept of infinite demand. The Economic Problem is how to distribute a limited supply to meet an infinite demand.
Not that you're the one interested in learning anything right now.
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that Jos was suppose to learn from a scenario that was constructed such that you could only consider what was stated in the scenario and then use in-scenario logic to then learn a lesson about our reality. Had I realized that, I wouldn't have said anything but just filed it under useless posts. :(
There are so many places where additional human labor could add value if it wasn't so scarce. For example--medicine. I know sometimes I feel like the doctor doesn't spend enough time with me*. Also, more theraputic massages would be nice. :) We definitely could use some infrastructure improvements, particularly around transportation.
It seems to me that we are a long way from mass unemploymentfrom improved technology.
*I believe that before someone sticks their fingers up your butt, he at least should take the time to properly kiss you on the lips first.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 01, 2017, 08:25:33 PM
*I believe that before someone sticks their fingers up your butt, he at least should take the time to properly kiss you on the lips first.
That's usually an extra charge. They'll list it as GFE in the classified ad.
Quote from: garbon on January 01, 2017, 08:02:23 PM
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that Jos was suppose to learn from a scenario that was constructed such that you could only consider what was stated in the scenario and then use in-scenario logic to then learn a lesson about our reality. Had I realized that, I wouldn't have said anything but just filed it under useless posts. :(
:lol: Yes, the most basic principal of economics is declared by you to be "useless," so I guess all those economists and economics professors can just get another job.
Unless, of course, it is
you who is making the useless posts. Ever consider that? Ever think that maybe, contrary to what you and Jos believe, demand really IS infinite, like all of the economists (and, really, all the educated people) say?
That would explain a lot that you and Josq are confused about.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 01, 2017, 08:39:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 01, 2017, 08:25:33 PM
*I believe that before someone sticks their fingers up your butt, he at least should take the time to properly kiss you on the lips first.
That's usually an extra charge. They'll list it as GFE in the classified ad.
I only let female doctors give me that exam. Not gay then.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 01, 2017, 08:25:33 PM
There are so many places where additional human labor could add value if it wasn't so scarce. For example--medicine. I know sometimes I feel like the doctor doesn't spend enough time with me*. Also, more theraputic massages would be nice. :) We definitely could use some infrastructure improvements, particularly around transportation.
It seems to me that we are a long way from mass unemploymentfrom improved technology.
*I believe that before someone sticks their fingers up your butt, he at least should take the time to properly kiss you on the lips first.
Yes, education in general could improve the employability of a number of people currently underemployed, but not everyone s temperamentally suited to being a doctor, and even fewer have the temperament for the profession and the ability to learn that would make such a career possible.
I can see the possibility of new forms of entertainment providing more jobs as well.
I just don't think that those forms of employment will solve the underemployment problem facing the post-industrial world.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 01, 2017, 08:49:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 01, 2017, 08:39:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 01, 2017, 08:25:33 PM
*I believe that before someone sticks their fingers up your butt, he at least should take the time to properly kiss you on the lips first.
That's usually an extra charge. They'll list it as GFE in the classified ad.
I only let female doctors give me that exam. Not gay then.
Only choosing elderly black women is falls more under "Fetish."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 01, 2017, 08:53:59 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 01, 2017, 08:49:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 01, 2017, 08:39:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 01, 2017, 08:25:33 PM
*I believe that before someone sticks their fingers up your butt, he at least should take the time to properly kiss you on the lips first.
That's usually an extra charge. They'll list it as GFE in the classified ad.
I only let female doctors give me that exam. Not gay then.
Only choosing elderly black women is falls more under "Fetish."
JAM IT IT AGAIN, MRS BUTTERSWORTH
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 08:47:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 01, 2017, 08:02:23 PM
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that Jos was suppose to learn from a scenario that was constructed such that you could only consider what was stated in the scenario and then use in-scenario logic to then learn a lesson about our reality. Had I realized that, I wouldn't have said anything but just filed it under useless posts. :(
:lol: Yes, the most basic principal of economics is declared by you to be "useless," so I guess all those economists and economics professors can just get another job.
Unless, of course, it is you who is making the useless posts. Ever consider that? Ever think that maybe, contrary to what you and Jos believe, demand really IS infinite, like all of the economists (and, really, all the educated people) say?
That would explain a lot that you and Josq are confused about.
Not the principal, McVain, your post with its 'lesson'.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 01, 2017, 08:25:33 PM
*I believe that before someone sticks their fingers up your butt, he at least should take the time to properly kiss you on the lips first.
Tell Christian Wilkins (Clemson defensive tackle) that.
(https://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/grab-2016-12-31-19h25m17s191.png?w=1000&h=600&crop=1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSWJq-jUTMc
Explains it all.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2017, 07:59:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 11:33:32 AM
Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh!
One of his more succinct posts.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 01, 2017, 09:21:50 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSWJq-jUTMc
Explains it all.
That wasn't bad at all. Loved the Jeremy Corbyn bit.
Quote from: garbon on January 01, 2017, 08:55:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 08:47:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 01, 2017, 08:02:23 PM
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that Jos was suppose to learn from a scenario that was constructed such that you could only consider what was stated in the scenario and then use in-scenario logic to then learn a lesson about our reality. Had I realized that, I wouldn't have said anything but just filed it under useless posts. :(
:lol: Yes, the most basic principal of economics is declared by you to be "useless," so I guess all those economists and economics professors can just get another job.
Unless, of course, it is you who is making the useless posts. Ever consider that? Ever think that maybe, contrary to what you and Jos believe, demand really IS infinite, like all of the economists (and, really, all the educated people) say?
That would explain a lot that you and Josq are confused about.
Not the principal, McVain, your post with its 'lesson'.
Principal McVain? Who is he? What does he have to do with economic concepts you don't comprehend?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 01, 2017, 09:33:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2017, 07:59:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 11:33:32 AM
Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh!
One of his more succinct posts.
Grumbler is more fun, interesting and coherent when I imagine him just making whooshing sounds. It's better than Grumbler the super lawyer-economist-codebreaker-admiral-celebrity chef. He also multi-classed as Fighter/Cleric/Bard.
I used to have 96 hit points. :(
Ed used to have a Bag of Holding. Now he's just Holding a Bag.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 01, 2017, 08:49:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 01, 2017, 08:39:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 01, 2017, 08:25:33 PM
*I believe that before someone sticks their fingers up your butt, he at least should take the time to properly kiss you on the lips first.
That's usually an extra charge. They'll list it as GFE in the classified ad.
I only let female doctors give me that exam. Not gay then.
I ask for a second opinion and she gives me two fingers.
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 08:59:18 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 01, 2017, 08:25:33 PM
*I believe that before someone sticks their fingers up your butt, he at least should take the time to properly kiss you on the lips first.
Tell Christian Wilkins (Clemson defensive tackle) that.
(https://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/grab-2016-12-31-19h25m17s191.png?w=1000&h=600&crop=1)
He is just a young man experimenting with things that are still illegal in South Carolina.
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 08:59:18 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 01, 2017, 08:25:33 PM
*I believe that before someone sticks their fingers up your butt, he at least should take the time to properly kiss you on the lips first.
Tell Christian Wilkins (Clemson defensive tackle) that.
(https://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/grab-2016-12-31-19h25m17s191.png?w=1000&h=600&crop=1)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aaanything.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F12%2Ffunny_sport_moment.jpg&hash=a20c63f1e27b207bed1030656f5d34225cd38e1e)
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 08:47:23 PMEver think that maybe, contrary to what you and Jos believe, demand really IS infinite, like all of the economists (and, really, all the educated people) say?
You should expand your reading list.
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 01, 2017, 11:37:36 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2017, 08:47:23 PMEver think that maybe, contrary to what you and Jos believe, demand really IS infinite, like all of the economists (and, really, all the educated people) say?
You should expand your reading list.
Alas, while my demand for reading is infinite, my supply of time for reading is finite. I'd be glad to consider some suggestions, of course. Especially from economists who don't think the demand is infinite, and that there is therefor no (or a different) Economic Problem and, thus, another explanation for such things as The Tragedy of the Commons.
Quote from: DGuller on December 31, 2016, 01:27:02 PM
I can't shake the feeling that something monumental is happening, and it's happening over much of the Western world. Trump may not just be an awful accident of history, he may be part of a trend. When history will be written (if we survive long enough to have history written about contemporary times), it would almost surely identify the current times as the beginning of a period, at least on the scale of something like an Arab Spring.
But what is behind it? Is it that the values the western civilization is promoting have grown to be too far out of sync with what people really are believing? Did we just completely get surprised by the power of social media to create alternate realities, and there were no underlying tensions there until they just randomly mutated in that environment like cancer cells (with a little help from Saint Petersburg)? Has the world been too stable geopolitically and now everyone is getting overwhelmed by pent up tension to resolve simmering conflicts? Is the effect of globalization producing too much social instability and it manifests itself in wildly irrational and self-defeating ways?
Any thoughts?
Some semi-connected thoughts - mostly covering the same points you brought up:
I think there's been a shift in the way that ideas are propagated and consequently in the way that public opinion is shaped. In terms of deliberate state actors, both China and Russia (and others) are - I believe - committing heavily to control and influence opinion online both internally and externally. Conversely, in the West that is all - as according to our ideology - left in the hands of private interests which primarily is chasing commercial success. The days of the CIA backing abstract expressionist art seems to be long gone, and the influence of the Hollywood mythmaking machine and American rock 'n roll are fading too, it seems to me. I have a hard time identifying deliberate influential champions for the values of post-WWII Western liberal democracy these days. It may work out - maybe we don't need those champions.
It does seem we are well into a significant social and economic shift with automation and computers making a number of jobs redundant. In the long term I'm sure that'll be fine and we'll adjust - but in the short and medium terms plenty of people will suffer real economic harm and that will generate significant political consequence both in terms of conflicts and solutions. Stepping back, it'll be fine; but living through it will suck for many people (and some people, of course, will benefit immensely).
Definitely it feels to me that we've come to a bit of a crisis point in terms of the multivalent open Western society, with strong reactions gaining traction across many different countries in many different ways.
There are plenty of good points too, of course - the complete integration of social media into everyday life for many people is pretty damn phenomenal in terms of quality of life. The fact that my son can see, talk to, and interact with his grandparents regularly even though they are in China or on the opposite coast (more or less) in Canada is frankly amazing.
There are also lots of other bad points - I'm a little concerned about the rise of anti-vaccine movement, f. ex.
How will this be read in the future in terms of trends/ ages/ movements? Honestly, I think that'll be almost entirely up to the immediate needs of the people doing the reading which is hard to predict for us. Will they care about Trump or Brexit or militant anti-modern Islam? Maybe - but if they do, it'll be to make some argument about what's going on for them in the moment.
If I were to make some sort of analysis of the direction of the world at large, I'd say we're entering into the phase where the lessons - good and bad - of WWII and the conclusions we drew from it are beginning to significantly dissipate. We're getting to the time where the generation of people who were raised by people who personally experienced that time are getting on in years.
Quote from: Jacob on January 02, 2017, 03:26:21 PM
If I were to make some sort of analysis of the direction of the world at large, I'd say we're entering into the phase where the lessons - good and bad - of WWII and the conclusions we drew from it are beginning to significantly dissipate. We're getting to the time where the generation of people who were raised by people who personally experienced that time are getting on in years.
I don't know. I mean is there evidence that youth are generally the one's leading these 'negative' changes? Aren't the Boomers playing a significant role?
Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2017, 03:32:10 PM
I don't know. I mean is there evidence that youth are generally the one's leading these 'negative' changes? Aren't the Boomers playing a significant role?
I'm sure they are - more so when the influencers are people with accumulated economical and political power (since old people tend to have those), less so when they're about rejecting currently established orthodoxy (since that's what young people tend to do). Looking at the "alt right" f. ex, there are plenty of crusty old true believers in various forms to lead and lend an air of continuity to the disparate movements, but they've been significantly buoyed by a swell in gadfly lolsters raised on Nazis-as-uber-cool-villains and auto-didactic historical analysis etc.
I'm not really going to get into a discussion about the qualities and responsibilities of "generations". I find assigning personalities and collective responsibility to ill-defined cohorts of people fairly uninteresting and unproductive. It could as well be that old people have started finding the lessons less relevant than young people learning different things, or it could be that the historical moments and course of events means the lessons have less resonance altogether. To the extent that what I said could be interpreted as blaming "young people", please consider that retracted.
More to the point - the EU has been one of the guarantors of keeping Europe at peace, and it's getting a little shaky. Similarly, flirting with - or embracing - Fascist inspired imagery and language is gaining a fair bit of traction in various parts of Europe as well; something which was pretty unthinkable a decade or more ago, I think.
In the US, the hegemony in global culture seems to be winding down and the US as guarantor of the global order is increasingly coming into question as well. Both of those were, IMO, strongly defined by WWII and the results there of.
In China, the legitimacy of Communist rule rested squarely on the credentials for fighting the Japanese during WWII (credentials largely stolen from the Nationalists as I see it), but now it has largely been replaced by providing economic opportunity and security for the populace which I think is a significant shift. The adherence to Communist ideology - both in China and the former USSR and across the world has pretty much dissipated as well - and Communist states were definitely a fixture of the aftermath of WWII.
The existence and context of Israel has shifted too. The relevance of WWII to the Jewish state has largely faded except as a historical fact.
Now this is obviously an overly broad generalization and plenty of counter examples can be found I'm sure, but if I had to make one that's the one I'd make - unless a better one was offered, of course :)
The Industrial Revolution (in Britain) started in the late 18th Century. Yet it took a generation or so before it's effects really started to erode the lifestyles of the artisans that were badly affected by it. As a result, the 30 years after the Napoleonic Wars were probably the closest Great Britain came to revolution. I suspect we are in a similar position right now with the rise of of electronic computation / mechanisation and the subsequent automation. I reckon the next 20-30 years could be a similarly bumpy ride.
Yes fear the power of the millennials.
Quote from: The Brain on January 02, 2017, 04:08:53 PM
Yes fear the power of the millennials.
Darth Millennial?
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Millennial
Quote from: Jacob on January 02, 2017, 04:06:51 PM
I'm not really going to get into a discussion about the qualities and responsibilities of "generations". I find assigning personalities and collective responsibility to ill-defined cohorts of people fairly uninteresting and unproductive. It could as well be that old people have started finding the lessons less relevant than young people learning different things, or it could be that the historical moments and course of events means the lessons have less resonance altogether. To the extent that what I said could be interpreted as blaming "young people", please consider that retracted.
Yeah the reason I raised it was far from try to blame certain generations but to highlight that I think it might be a weakness to cast eyes at our distance from the lessons and actions of the 20th century. If that was already playing a significant role, I'd think those furthest away would be showing themselves significantly more susceptible to the current movements backward.
I would wonder if there is something more to be said about the discontentment with what they have available, among those who already consider themselves to be established adults. In other words, the frustration being faced by those who think they should already be at the best times in their lives and yet being faced with something less than what they saw their parents had (so those late 30s to late 40s). I guess those individuals were not there to directly learn the lessons of WWII though in the case of Europe, though they certainly were raised by those who had experienced its direct after effects.
edit: actually I thought in the case of Brexit, a great many of leavers were those who were directly affected by post war Britain. Seems a case of those who didn't learn their lessons being doomed to repeat them. :wacko:
Quote from: The Brain on January 02, 2017, 04:08:53 PM
Yes fear the power of the millennials.
I won't cut you. :hug:
Quote from: garbon on January 02, 2017, 04:25:03 PM
Yeah the reason I raised it was far from try to blame certain generations but to highlight that I think it might be a weakness to cast eyes at our distance from the lessons and actions of the 20th century. If that was already playing a significant role, I'd think those furthest away would be showing themselves significantly more susceptible to the current movements backward.
Fair :hug:
I honestly haven't got a clue as to whether they are or are not, so I'm not sure how to test that.
QuoteI would wonder if there is something more to be said about the discontentment with what they have available, among those who already consider themselves to be established adults. In other words, the frustration being faced by those who think they should already be at the best times in their lives and yet being faced with something less than what they saw their parents had (so those late 30s to late 40s). I guess those individuals were not there to directly learn the lessons of WWII though in the case of Europe, though they certainly were raised by those who had experienced its direct after effects.
Yeah, I think there's something there.
If I were to fit it into my "post-WWII trend" perspective I'd say that the expectations set during the post-WWII period (and implicitly promised to a certain extent) are being fulfilled less and less, and that is causing discontent and a wider search for remedy.
Quoteedit: actually I thought in the case of Brexit, a great many of leavers were those who were directly affected by post war Britain. Seems a case of those who didn't learn their lessons being doomed to repeat them. :wacko:
Or perhaps that the benefits of the post war settlement either started to seem less salient (i.e. they were taking for granted) or they materialized less and less over time.
Quote from: PJL on January 02, 2017, 04:06:56 PM
The Industrial Revolution (in Britain) started in the late 18th Century. Yet it took a generation or so before it's effects really started to erode the lifestyles of the artisans that were badly affected by it. As a result, the 30 years after the Napoleonic Wars were probably the closest Great Britain came to revolution. I suspect we are in a similar position right now with the rise of of electronic computation / mechanisation and the subsequent automation. I reckon the next 20-30 years could be a similarly bumpy ride.
It seems that we've seen a reaction to this transition from the right-leaning/ nationalist perspective, but has there been any popular responses with a left-leaning bent? It doesn't seem so to me. Are we going to see a resurgence in popularly supported derivative of hard socialism?
That's what they are responding to.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 02, 2017, 05:34:15 PM
That's what they are responding to.
Could you elaborate? What is the popular leftist response to the rise of electronic computation / mechanisation and subsequent automation?
There is no response. It is the mechanism, and thus cannot respond to itself. Those pressures are the result of leftist ideas being dominant in society.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 02, 2017, 06:32:24 PM
There is no response. It is the mechanism, and thus cannot respond to itself. Those pressures are the result of leftist ideas being dominant in society.
Can you expand on that? I would have thought that the pressures were the result of right-wing ideas (the internationalization of capital and the globalization of industries and services).
Those are leftist ideas. Internationalization and multiculturalism. This is the mainstream. And that's a good thing. The backlash Jake is talking about is from the right who are not the establishment. The left is the establishment. So there isn't going to be a response from the left against itself.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 02, 2017, 06:32:24 PM
There is no response. It is the mechanism, and thus cannot respond to itself. Those pressures are the result of leftist ideas being dominant in society.
As grumbler said, the dominant economical features of this age is the internationalization of capital, free trade (i.e. the globalization of industries and services), increased privatization (energy, telecoms and infrastructure, radio and tv, health care, pensions, trains, airlines, prisons, etc) which tend to be popular on the right side of the political spectrum. The left has, generally speaking, completely ceded the field on economic matters in the last several decades - even ostensibly left-wing governments have been following the economically liberal pattern of the free market.
Where the left has been more dominant when it comes to culture - acceptance of homosexuality and even movement on transgender issues, making racism and sexism socially unacceptable but while that may be unacceptable to the right it is not a response to economic issues. And it is certainly not hard socialism in any shape of form.
I suppose that makes sense though, technological change combined with the victory of right wing economical models have caused hardship - in response, the right attempts to focus the discontent on leftist progress on social issues.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 02, 2017, 07:14:25 PM
Those are leftist ideas. Internationalization and multiculturalism. This is the mainstream. And that's a good thing. The backlash Jake is talking about is from the right who are not the establishment. The left is the establishment. So there isn't going to be a response from the left against itself.
I don't think internationalization of capital is leftist at all. I identify it as a right wing concept, but potentially I am willing to compromise and call it an economist technocrat concept in the service of big capital independent of other political concerns :)
Multiculturalism is associated with the left, though - and the backlash against it is real, there we agree. It is however (and IMO), not particularly the cause of the economic issues we were discussing (what seems to be an upcoming economic shift due to technological development).
Quote from: Jacob on January 02, 2017, 07:28:34 PM
I don't think internationalization of capital is leftist at all. I identify it as a right wing concept, but potentially I am willing to compromise and call it an economist technocrat concept in the service of big capital independent of other political concerns :)
I never realized allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty was what technocratic big capital was all about. Good to know.
As far as our current political crisis: both Brexit and Trump won with narrow margins. So now they have a chance to show how horrible their ideas are. Then maybe we come rushing back in.
Pity about the TPP though. Bad timing there.
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2017, 07:55:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 02, 2017, 07:28:34 PM
I don't think internationalization of capital is leftist at all. I identify it as a right wing concept, but potentially I am willing to compromise and call it an economist technocrat concept in the service of big capital independent of other political concerns :)
I never realized allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty was what technocratic big capital was all about. Good to know.
it also lets us by cheap stuff. helping others is tangential.
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2017, 07:57:41 PM
Pity about the TPP though. Bad timing there.
Both sides seem to dislike TPP. which means its probably a good policy that will never happen :D
Quote from: HVC on January 02, 2017, 08:00:05 PM
it also lets us by cheap stuff. helping others is tangential.
It isn't for me.
Quote from: HVC on January 02, 2017, 08:00:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2017, 07:57:41 PM
Pity about the TPP though. Bad timing there.
Both sides seem to dislike TPP. which means its probably a good policy that will never happen :D
I know. But we came damn close.
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2017, 08:01:22 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 02, 2017, 08:00:05 PM
it also lets us by cheap stuff. helping others is tangential.
It isn't for me.
You become a CEO while I wasn't looking? :D I agree with you that it's a good outcome, but the second costs increase they'll find another sweatshop nation. Sometimes it helps long term, like in Taiwan (I remember when I was a kid everything was made there) who went from making trinkets, clothes, and toys, to having a robust industry now. But that's neither the intermediate nor long term goal of multinationals and companies who outsource. To use Seedy's favourite phrase, its shareholder value.
Quote from: HVC on January 02, 2017, 08:04:30 PM
You become a CEO while I wasn't looking?
Altruistic Sweatshops Inc.
Quote:D I agree with you that it's a good outcome, but the second costs increase they'll find another sweatshop nation. Sometimes it helps long term, like in Taiwan (I remember when I was a kid everything was made there) who went from making trinkets, clothes, and toys, to having a robust industry now. But that's neither the intermediate nor long term goal of multinationals and companies who outsource. To use Seedy's favourite phrase, its shareholder value.
The multinationals and companies are only the tools. But it works. Eventually the best sweatshops will dry up. Already kind of happening.
I think if we're to be consistent about our principles as leftists, then we need to apply them universally. We can't just say because it's a bank or a corporation, we'll exclude them. If our ideas aren't good for everyone, then they aren't good.
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2017, 07:57:41 PM
As far as our current political crisis: both Brexit and Trump won with narrow margins. So now they have a chance to show how horrible their ideas are. Then maybe we come rushing back in.
We are dealing with an electorate where a significant fraction don't really care about facts or truth. There's a decent chance that now they are in power they will say whatever they want to maintain it. Expect any problems to be blamed on some combination of Liberal Elites, Illegal Immigrants, Muslims, Mexicans, Chinese, Blacks, Free Trade, Bureaucrats or whatever other group/bogeyman fits their narrative.
Quote from: frunk on January 02, 2017, 09:18:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2017, 07:57:41 PM
As far as our current political crisis: both Brexit and Trump won with narrow margins. So now they have a chance to show how horrible their ideas are. Then maybe we come rushing back in.
We are dealing with an electorate where a significant fraction don't really care about facts or truth. There's a decent chance that now they are in power they will say whatever they want to maintain it. Expect any problems to be blamed on some combination of Liberal Elites, Illegal Immigrants, Muslims, Mexicans, Chinese, Blacks, Free Trade, Bureaucrats or whatever other group/bogeyman fits their narrative.
True. But we do not have to convince all of them. Just a small fraction of them. The ones whose support is shallow. They will jump ship once those people fuck it up.
I couldn't help but notice the Liberal Democrats picked up a seat in December in one of those weird British one seat election things. Kind of a small straw to grasp at but hey not nothing. Likewise I expect good things in 2018 in the midterms.
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2017, 09:36:17 PM
Quote from: frunk on January 02, 2017, 09:18:31 PM
We are dealing with an electorate where a significant fraction don't really care about facts or truth. There's a decent chance that now they are in power they will say whatever they want to maintain it. Expect any problems to be blamed on some combination of Liberal Elites, Illegal Immigrants, Muslims, Mexicans, Chinese, Blacks, Free Trade, Bureaucrats or whatever other group/bogeyman fits their narrative.
True. But we do not have to convince all of them. Just a small fraction of them. The ones whose support is shallow. They will jump ship once those people fuck it up.
Not a chance, not with the entrenching that is coming. North Carolina isn't an aberration. It's a playbook.
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2017, 09:36:17 PM
Quote from: frunk on January 02, 2017, 09:18:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2017, 07:57:41 PM
As far as our current political crisis: both Brexit and Trump won with narrow margins. So now they have a chance to show how horrible their ideas are. Then maybe we come rushing back in.
We are dealing with an electorate where a significant fraction don't really care about facts or truth. There's a decent chance that now they are in power they will say whatever they want to maintain it. Expect any problems to be blamed on some combination of Liberal Elites, Illegal Immigrants, Muslims, Mexicans, Chinese, Blacks, Free Trade, Bureaucrats or whatever other group/bogeyman fits their narrative.
True. But we do not have to convince all of them. Just a small fraction of them. The ones whose support is shallow. They will jump ship once those people fuck it up.
I couldn't help but notice the Liberal Democrats picked up a seat in December in one of those weird British one seat election things. Kind of a small straw to grasp at but hey not nothing. Likewise I expect good things in 2018 in the midterms.
How do you convince people who refuse the to share the same objective reality as you?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2017, 10:28:48 PM
Not a chance, not with the entrenching that is coming. North Carolina isn't an aberration. It's a playbook.
Well, well. Imagine that.
QuoteBreaking News
Republicans in House Vote to Curtail Power of Ethics Office (http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/with-no-warning-house-republicans-vote-to-hobble-independent-ethics-office.html%3Cbr/%3E%5Bb)
By ERIC LIPTON
9:20 PM ET
The vote came as a surprise and apparently without the support of the House speaker or the majority leader. The full House is scheduled to vote Tuesday.
The move would take away power and independence from an investigative body, and give lawmakers more control over internal inquiries.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2017, 10:45:49 PM
How do you convince people who refuse the to share the same objective reality as you?
Look not every single person who voted for Trump or Brexit is some kind of radical alt right nutcase.
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 12:20:17 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2017, 10:45:49 PM
How do you convince people who refuse the to share the same objective reality as you?
Look not every single person who voted for Trump or Brexit is some kind of radical alt right nutcase.
Nutcases, no. Ignorant, uninformed, uneducated? Certainly. But not nutcases.
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 12:20:17 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2017, 10:45:49 PM
How do you convince people who refuse the to share the same objective reality as you?
Look not every single person who voted for Trump or Brexit is some kind of radical alt right nutcase.
How many Trump voters believe in a "liberal media bias"?
I keep getting told by conservatives that the hacking didn't actually happen. It's just a liberal lie.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2017, 12:25:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 12:20:17 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2017, 10:45:49 PM
How do you convince people who refuse the to share the same objective reality as you?
Look not every single person who voted for Trump or Brexit is some kind of radical alt right nutcase.
How many Trump voters believe in a "liberal media bias"?
I don't know. But somehow I doubt Michigan and Wisconsin are lost forever.
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 12:42:03 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2017, 12:25:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 12:20:17 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2017, 10:45:49 PM
How do you convince people who refuse the to share the same objective reality as you?
Look not every single person who voted for Trump or Brexit is some kind of radical alt right nutcase.
How many Trump voters believe in a "liberal media bias"?
I don't know. But somehow I doubt Michigan and Wisconsin are lost forever.
I repeat my initial question: How do you convince people who refuse the to share the same objective reality as you?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2017, 12:28:44 AM
I keep getting told by conservatives that the hacking didn't actually happen. It's just a liberal lie.
It doesn't really matter though does it? I mean, the Russians didn't write those emails. The fact that they were inflammatory is John Podesta's fault.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2017, 01:49:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 12:42:03 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2017, 12:25:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 12:20:17 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2017, 10:45:49 PM
How do you convince people who refuse the to share the same objective reality as you?
Look not every single person who voted for Trump or Brexit is some kind of radical alt right nutcase.
How many Trump voters believe in a "liberal media bias"?
I don't know. But somehow I doubt Michigan and Wisconsin are lost forever.
I repeat my initial question: How do you convince people who refuse the to share the same objective reality as you?
Make your own lie which is more exciting!
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2017, 01:49:00 AM
I repeat my initial question: How do you convince people who refuse the to share the same objective reality as you?
I never suggested you would. The failure of Trump's policies will convince them.
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 08:40:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2017, 01:49:00 AM
I repeat my initial question: How do you convince people who refuse the to share the same objective reality as you?
I never suggested you would. The failure of Trump's policies will convince them.
Will it? Perceiving failure requires collecting facts and rationally analyzing them.
Quote from: DGuller on January 03, 2017, 08:46:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 08:40:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2017, 01:49:00 AM
I repeat my initial question: How do you convince people who refuse the to share the same objective reality as you?
I never suggested you would. The failure of Trump's policies will convince them.
Will it? Perceiving failure requires collecting facts and rationally analyzing them.
I believe I stated that the margins are thin so it only takes a small fraction of those voters to flip.
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2017, 07:55:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 02, 2017, 07:28:34 PM
I don't think internationalization of capital is leftist at all. I identify it as a right wing concept, but potentially I am willing to compromise and call it an economist technocrat concept in the service of big capital independent of other political concerns :)
I never realized allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty was what technocratic big capital was all about. Good to know.
Are you sure you are posting in the right thread? No one here is talking about whether or not to '[allow] poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty." we are talking about why populism has shifted away from the previously prevailing popular narrative that peace and prosperity are achieved through western liberal ideas.
Quote from: HVC on January 02, 2017, 08:04:30 PM
You become a CEO while I wasn't looking? :D I agree with you that it's a good outcome, but the second costs increase they'll find another sweatshop nation. Sometimes it helps long term, like in Taiwan (I remember when I was a kid everything was made there) who went from making trinkets, clothes, and toys, to having a robust industry now. But that's neither the intermediate nor long term goal of multinationals and companies who outsource. To use Seedy's favourite phrase, its shareholder value.
read some Adam Smith. He addresses your uncertainty directly.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 03, 2017, 03:40:31 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2017, 12:28:44 AM
I keep getting told by conservatives that the hacking didn't actually happen. It's just a liberal lie.
It doesn't really matter though does it? I mean, the Russians didn't write those emails. The fact that they were inflammatory is John Podesta's fault.
I am curious as to why you think those emails were unedited. Why wouldn't Clinton's enemies have altered them to their own advantage?
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 08:49:42 AM
I believe I stated that the margins are thin so it only takes a small fraction of those voters to flip.
I agree with you. The tinfoil hat brigade (on the right or the left) will never be convinced by anything so weak as evidence, but the majority of Trump supporters aren't tinfoil hat people. They expect a specific outcome, and will dump trump if he does not deliver.
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2017, 07:55:22 PMI never realized allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty was what technocratic big capital was all about. Good to know.
It isn't. It's about gaining access to foreign markets (increase profits), cheap foreign labour (decrease costs), and lowering the transactional costs of international trade. The impact on individual states is a secondary effect, even if it occasionally makes a propaganda point.
Do you genuinely believe that NAFTA, TPP, the EU common market, etc are about "allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty"?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 02, 2017, 08:44:28 PM
I think if we're to be consistent about our principles as leftists, then we need to apply them universally. We can't just say because it's a bank or a corporation, we'll exclude them. If our ideas aren't good for everyone, then they aren't good.
I didn't realize you self-identified as leftist :)
I'm not sure I follow. Which principles should we apply consistently to banks and corporations?
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 10:24:54 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2017, 07:55:22 PMI never realized allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty was what technocratic big capital was all about. Good to know.
It isn't. It's about gaining access to foreign markets (increase profits), cheap foreign labour (decrease costs), and lowering the transactional costs of international trade. The impact on individual states is a secondary effect, even if it occasionally makes a propaganda point.
Do you genuinely believe that NAFTA, TPP, the EU common market, etc are about "allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty"?
Well, yes. At least partly. These treaties were signed by poor countries for their own economic benefit.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 03, 2017, 03:40:31 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2017, 12:28:44 AM
I keep getting told by conservatives that the hacking didn't actually happen. It's just a liberal lie.
It doesn't really matter though does it? I mean, the Russians didn't write those emails. The fact that they were inflammatory is John Podesta's fault.
:yeahright: I hear this one as well.
QuoteIt isn't. It's about gaining access to foreign markets (increase profits), cheap foreign labour (decrease costs), and lowering the transactional costs of international trade. The impact on individual states is a secondary effect, even if it occasionally makes a propaganda point.
But it has that effect. That is just a fact, not propaganda.
Quote
Do you genuinely believe that NAFTA, TPP, the EU common market, etc are about "allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty"?
It is why I support them. I believe in the long run reducing poverty worldwide and tying our economies to each other will make the world more stable and peaceful. And I think it indeed has done so over the past twenty years.
I am glad that evil corporate greed can be put to such an awesome purpose. It just seems stupid to be opposed to it because corporations want to make money. They are going to do that regardless. The whole point of policy to make sure them trying to do this has as many positive impacts as possible. Right? I mean unless you intend to nationalize everything in a communist utopia but I did not think you were that sort of leftist.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 03, 2017, 03:40:31 AM
It doesn't really matter though does it? I mean, the Russians didn't write those emails. The fact that they were inflammatory is John Podesta's fault.
It matters that foreign powers are meddling in US elections. I'm sure there won't be an outcry when the Chinese hack the RNC's emails in 2018.
As for the emails, for exposed private communication there wasn't that much juicy there. I'd expect much worse if the DNC was seriously corrupt, it was all pretty mild stuff.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 10:24:54 AM
It isn't. It's about gaining access to foreign markets (increase profits), cheap foreign labour (decrease costs), and lowering the transactional costs of international trade. The impact on individual states is a secondary effect, even if it occasionally makes a propaganda point.
Do you genuinely believe that NAFTA, TPP, the EU common market, etc are about "allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty"?
It's about access to cheap foreign labor, who are then lifted out of poverty. :lol:
Could you really not see this contradiction in your position?
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 10:24:54 AM
Do you genuinely believe that NAFTA, TPP, the EU common market, etc are about "allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty"?
Do you really believe that they are NOT about attempting to alleviate poverty, and other desirable social and economic outcomes outside of the desire of corporations to make profits?
That is a rather cynical viewpoint, that I suspect you don't really hold. If one really did believe that ALL of these kinds of agreements are *always* completely about nothing more than profit motive, and any nod towards other motives is illusory, then you pretty much have to just give up on any attempt to improve human societies at all, since all such attempts are doomed to being perverted as a matter of definition.
NAFTA, the EU, TPP - these are all various agreements made between governments, not between companies. Ideally, we hope that our governments make such agreements considering a variety of competing interests. Each particular agreements will, of course, vary greatly in how much they value some particular interests over others. Some may be grossly pro-business at the expense of humane interests, and others might achieve a more laudable balance. Of course, the idea balance is in and of itself a matter of some contention, much less actually achieving it....
I also got into these arguments with Mihali and I suspect if Josie were still here she would be denouncing this sort of thing as well. I just don't get it. What is the proper leftist plan for reducing wealth inequality between states if it is not trading and doing business with each other?
At least nationalist populist right wingers have a consistent 'FUCK THE CHINESE AND MEXICANS' thing going :P
I am strongly under the impression that nations signing on to free trade agreements are doing so because they think it's in their financial best interest, and that they primarily measure such financial best interest by the success of relevant corporations.
This, generally, has the benefit of of improving the standard of living of various populations as mor money flows into companies in various countries (with the caveat that much depends on how that money is distributed).
Where nations do give concessions it is not done out of some sort of altruism, but as part of concessions to get other benefits - generally commensurate with the amount of political power they bring to the negotiations.
The notion that countries - and apparently specifically the US - join free trade agreements in an attempt to help other nations through some sort of sacrifice on their part is pretty puzzling to me.
I man, I understand that Trumpists are convinced that free trade is just another example of the US giving stuff away to undeserving foreigners but I never thought the idea had purchase outside those circles.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 10:24:54 AM
Do you genuinely believe that NAFTA, TPP, the EU common market,
Those are 3 very different agreements.
Only thing connecting them is that all relate to international trade in some way, and the US is a party to 2 out of 3.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 11:33:32 AM
I am strongly under the impression that nations signing on to free trade agreements are doing so because they think it's in their financial best interest, and that they primarily measure such financial best interest by the success of relevant corporations.
This, generally, has the benefit of of improving the standard of living of various populations as mor money flows into companies in various countries (with the caveat that much depends on how that money is distributed).
Where nations do give concessions it is not done out of some sort of altruism, but as part of concessions to get other benefits - generally commensurate with the amount of political power they bring to the negotiations.
The notion that countries - and apparently specifically the US - join free trade agreements in an attempt to help other nations through some sort of sacrifice on their part is pretty puzzling to me.
I man, I understand that Trumpists are convinced that free trade is just another example of the US giving stuff away to undeserving foreigners but I never thought the idea had purchase outside those circles.
But the US gives lots of free stuff to foreigners...we've a pretty large foreign aid dispersal. Seems weird if the policy makers didn't think at all about how free trade might impact outside nations.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 11:33:32 AM
The notion that countries - and apparently specifically the US - join free trade agreements in an attempt to help other nations through some sort of sacrifice on their part is pretty puzzling to me.
Virtually all bi-lateral or regional trade agreements are primarily geo-political in nature. Historically in the postwar era the key driver for trade liberalization were the multi-lateral GATT rounds. Bilateral or regional agreements have always been viewed with suspicion by free traders because the perception is that they undermine multilateralism, and can give rise to distortions in the world trading system.
For NAFTA specifically, a key driver was that the US sought to reinforce what it perceived as positive political and economic developments in Mexico, that would be beneficial to the US-led world system.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 11:33:32 AM
I am strongly under the impression that nations signing on to free trade agreements are doing so because they think it's in their financial best interest, and that they primarily measure such financial best interest by the success of relevant corporations.
There are political reasons for doing so as well. In any case why a nation may sign up for such a thing and why I think they are a good idea might not necessarily be the same thing, sure.
QuoteThis, generally, has the benefit of of improving the standard of living of various populations as mor money flows into companies in various countries (with the caveat that much depends on how that money is distributed).
Where nations do give concessions it is not done out of some sort of altruism, but as part of concessions to get other benefits - generally commensurate with the amount of political power they bring to the negotiations.
I mean generally when other countries do better, we do better. I mean the Marshall Plan was not done because the US was visited by three spirits and suddenly embraced the true meaning of Christmas. But I still think it was a good thing and I think more than paid for itself.
QuoteThe notion that countries - and apparently specifically the US - join free trade agreements in an attempt to help other nations through some sort of sacrifice on their part is pretty puzzling to me.
I don't think anybody has said this. I think free trade agreements are good because they help other nations. I believe helping other nations is also in our political and economic interest. The "sacrifice" is short term.
QuoteI man, I understand that Trumpists are convinced that free trade is just another example of the US giving stuff away to undeserving foreigners but I never thought the idea had purchase outside those circles.
Well you couldn't be more wrong about that. This was one of Ross Perot's key causes and it has widespread support both left and right. Trump adopted it because it played well.
Oh does it ever.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 03, 2017, 12:13:13 PM
Virtually all bi-lateral or regional trade agreements are primarily geo-political in nature. Historically in the postwar era the key driver for trade liberalization were the multi-lateral GATT rounds. Bilateral or regional agreements have always been viewed with suspicion by free traders because the perception is that they undermine multilateralism, and can give rise to distortions in the world trading system.
Interesting. I was under the impression that the regional trade agreements were thought of as less than perfect steps towards freer trade.
QuoteFor NAFTA specifically, a key driver was that the US sought to reinforce what it perceived as positive political and economic developments in Mexico, that would be beneficial to the US-led world system.
Heh. I suppose that's the disadvantage of having followed the NAFTA discussions primarily from a Canadian perspective. That it was primarily about the US helping Mexico for geopolitical reasons did not get that much coverage up here, as I recall it.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 01:02:07 PM
Heh. I suppose that's the disadvantage of having followed the NAFTA discussions primarily from a Canadian perspective. That it was primarily about the US helping Mexico for geopolitical reasons did not get that much coverage up here, as I recall it.
From the US perspective, Canada didn't figure that much into it. There was already a pretty robust US-Canada bilateral trade agreement. I understand that was controversial in Canada but not so much here. From the US side NAFTA basically maintained the status quo with respect to Canada; its significance was including Mexico and transforming the bilateral FTA into a regional arrangement.
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 11:09:46 AM
But it has that effect. That is just a fact, not propaganda.
Sure. Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations, free trade is mutually beneficial et. al. I thought that was one of the cornerstones of right wing parties in the West. Since Tony Blair's third way, the left wing has adopted that as well, of course.
That it is also beneficial to big capital is a fact too, and not propaganda, I'd think?
QuoteIt is why I support them. I believe in the long run reducing poverty worldwide and tying our economies to each other will make the world more stable and peaceful. And I think it indeed has done so over the past twenty years.
That this is a mainstream view in the US is honestly news to me.
QuoteI am glad that evil corporate greed can be put to such an awesome purpose. It just seems stupid to be opposed to it because corporations want to make money. They are going to do that regardless. The whole point of policy to make sure them trying to do this has as many positive impacts as possible. Right? I mean unless you intend to nationalize everything in a communist utopia but I did not think you were that sort of leftist.
I'm not opposing it because corporations make money :huh:
My perspective is that freer trade (both for international trade and in terms of privatizing public companies and moving towards deregulating business environments) is a right of centre idea that has been adopted by the left of centre as well (roughly since Tony Blair's "third way" of the Labour Party, though I'm not claiming he's the originator). This has been to the benefit to capital and has had broad economic benefits for nations and people as well (which is the reason the left has abandoned more socialist notions to embrace it, since the benefits are hard to deny).
However, there are negative effects as well - especially combined with recent technological advancement that renders numerous jobs redundant. On the right we are seeing a populist response drawing on nationalism and scapegoating others combined with championing reactionary social policies. And it's working pretty well. In Europe, we've seen a left populist responses take shape in the form of Podemos and Syriza, but I have a hard time placing the substance of their proposed remedy.
In terms of a left response it seems there's a fair bit of academic response to the current situation - calling attention to the negative effects of income disparity (correctly I think), and I think the notions of a guaranteed basic income and similar are left of centre. But I haven't seen any of that translated into populist movements with easily understood prescriptions on how to fix the problem.
MIM's contention that the currently disintegrating status quo is a leftist state doesn't ring true to me at all (though it makes sense from the perspective of right leaning radicals wanting to dismantle it). However, even if it is true I'd still expect a challenge to the status quo further from the left as the disintegration takes place.
What is big capital?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2017, 11:16:12 AM
It's about access to cheap foreign labor, who are then lifted out of poverty. :lol:
Could you really not see this contradiction in your position?
:huh:
I don't see a contradiction at all.
I'm not claiming that cheap foreign labour isn't getting anything out of the transaction.
I was, however, under the impression that when the West negotiated trade agreements that made it possible for Nike, Apple, etc to significantly lower their production costs by using cheap labour it was primarily motivated by getting better access to those foreign markets with their products and to lower the production costs to the benefits of (primarily Western) shareholder, rather than by some sort of desire to be nice to low skilled foreign workers.
That it also provided significant economical benefit in those economies makes it a win-win situation, making it easier to sell to all signatories and the reason why such trade agreements have received broad support across the political spectrum.
The idea that trade agreements have been a net detriment for the US and the West, but have been entered into as a gift to poor countries is not new to me; but that it has widespread acceptance in the mainstream beyond the far right and left populists is a surprise to me.
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 11:26:34 AM
I also got into these arguments with Mihali and I suspect if Josie were still here she would be denouncing this sort of thing as well. I just don't get it. What is the proper leftist plan for reducing wealth inequality between states if it is not trading and doing business with each other?
I don't know. In fact, inquiring about that was pretty much my initial question.
I mean, it used to be hard socialism - nationalizing economical assets and central planning - ultimately progressing to full on international socialism.
That idea has been thoroughly discredited and abandoned, and instead the left has adopted neo-liberal capitalism from the right with a veneer of social welfare programs to take out the worst sting (more or less). There has been no real replacement idea as far as I can tell, which is one of the reasons left wing parties have lost much of their traditional support - they used to present an alternative vision to neo-liberal capitalism; now they're mostly just a slightly different flavour. This suits some - many, I expect since the alternative vision they presented doesn't seem particularly viable - but there doesn't seem to be much of a left of centre home or rallying cry for those who reject neo-liberal capitalism.
QuoteAt least nationalist populist right wingers have a consistent 'FUCK THE CHINESE AND MEXICANS' thing going :P
Indeed, it's back in fashion.
My question is whether we'll see a return of popular hard socialism for those on the left who reject neo-liberal capitalism or whether something else will emerge... or whether there is no potential popular left response that can emerge and it's purely down to a struggle between neo-liberal capitalism and reactionary populist nationalism. I suppose that if the last scenario is the case, then yes supporting neo-liberal capitalism is indeed the left of centre position... which is somewhat bemusing since the leftist tradition has primarily been in opposition to such, and only recently has the left accepted neo-liberal capitalism and conceded defeat in the area of economic ideology.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 03, 2017, 12:07:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 10:24:54 AM
Do you genuinely believe that NAFTA, TPP, the EU common market,
Those are 3 very different agreements.
Only thing connecting them is that all relate to international trade in some way, and the US is a party to 2 out of 3.
The commonality I see is that they all are intended to facilitate trading between participants by removing barriers and establishing methods of resolving grievances.
Is that not the case?
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2017, 12:08:31 PM
But the US gives lots of free stuff to foreigners...we've a pretty large foreign aid dispersal. Seems weird if the policy makers didn't think at all about how free trade might impact outside nations.
I'm sure they thought about it :)
As I said, the thing that's surprising to me is the notion that the US and Western Europe prioritized helping foreign countries and workers over the economic and political benefits accruing to their own countries.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 01:56:40 PM
As I said, the thing that's surprising to me is the notion that the US and Western Europe prioritized helping foreign countries and workers over the economic and political benefits accruing to their own countries.
That would indeed be surprising. Where are you finding this notion? Certainly in nothing I have said.
Eh, I used to think like Jake on this matter. I think it's important to remember these poorer countries have agency. They are full partners in such agreement, they signed on because it benefits them. I think the free-market economics became universal doctrine and not just a right wing one when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 01:59:57 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 01:56:40 PM
As I said, the thing that's surprising to me is the notion that the US and Western Europe prioritized helping foreign countries and workers over the economic and political benefits accruing to their own countries.
That would indeed be surprising. Where are you finding this notion? Certainly in nothing I have said.
This bit here:
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2017, 07:55:22 PMI never realized allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty was what technocratic big capital was all about. Good to know.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 02:05:58 PM
This bit here:
Which was in response to your claim that nobody supported free trade and globalization except technocratic big capital. Well I do for the reasons I stated in contrast to your remark.
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 02:09:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 02:05:58 PM
This bit here:
Which was in response to your claim that nobody supported free trade and globalization except technocratic big capital. Well I do for the reasons I stated in contrast to your remark.
I'm sorry I responded to you at all :(
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 02:12:08 PM
I'm sorry I responded to you at all :(
Jesus Jake. It was partially a joke, obviously big capital doesn't care about that shit.
Well they do but only because it creates new markets and stuff.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 01:50:15 PM
My question is whether we'll see a return of popular hard socialism for those on the left who reject neo-liberal capitalism or whether something else will emerge... or whether there is no potential popular left response that can emerge and it's purely down to a struggle between neo-liberal capitalism and reactionary populist nationalism. I suppose that if the last scenario is the case, then yes supporting neo-liberal capitalism is indeed the left of centre position... which is somewhat bemusing since the leftist tradition has primarily been in opposition to such, and only recently has the left accepted neo-liberal capitalism and conceded defeat in the area of economic ideology.
I predicted earlier that populist leftism of various strains will rise up. I think we neo-liberals are on the way out. I think we did a lot of good in our short time though. Right now the main thing is just getting rid of the right wing populists.
But I don't think hard socialism will ever come back in vogue. It's record of failure is pretty daunting. They will have to come up with something else.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 01:56:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2017, 12:08:31 PM
But the US gives lots of free stuff to foreigners...we've a pretty large foreign aid dispersal. Seems weird if the policy makers didn't think at all about how free trade might impact outside nations.
I'm sure they thought about it :)
As I said, the thing that's surprising to me is the notion that the US and Western Europe prioritized helping foreign countries and workers over the economic and political benefits accruing to their own countries.
That would be surprising.
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2017, 02:44:35 PM
That would be surprising.
Indeed, which is why I was surprised. But apparently it was just one big misunderstanding.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 02:48:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2017, 02:44:35 PM
That would be surprising.
Indeed, which is why I was surprised. But apparently it was just one big misunderstanding.
I thought it was so absurd it was obvious it was a joke.
But anyway I thought we had a good discussion going on beside that.
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 02:52:54 PMBut anyway I thought we had a good discussion going on beside that.
I'll be happy to join in once I figure out what we're talking about :)
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 03:03:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 02:52:54 PMBut anyway I thought we had a good discussion going on beside that.
I'll be happy to join in once I figure out what we're talking about :)
Globalization and free trade. We were discussing it.
QuoteHowever, there are negative effects as well - especially combined with recent technological advancement that renders numerous jobs redundant. On the right we are seeing a populist response drawing on nationalism and scapegoating others combined with championing reactionary social policies. And it's working pretty well. In Europe, we've seen a left populist responses take shape in the form of Podemos and Syriza, but I have a hard time placing the substance of their proposed remedy.
Well I think that would happen anyway. The job loss stuff. And yeah Populists are best at channeling anger but don't have many substantive remedies. If they did they would not be Populists but rather some kind of Ideologue.
QuoteIn terms of a left response it seems there's a fair bit of academic response to the current situation - calling attention to the negative effects of income disparity (correctly I think), and I think the notions of a guaranteed basic income and similar are left of centre. But I haven't seen any of that translated into populist movements with easily understood prescriptions on how to fix the problem.
Well there are plenty of countries who might be open to that, the guaranteed basic income thing. The Bernie Sanders people want to basically shoot anybody (well not really but basically make it economically impossible) who outsources jobs, that is far scarier to me.
QuoteMIM's contention that the currently disintegrating status quo is a leftist state doesn't ring true to me at all (though it makes sense from the perspective of right leaning radicals wanting to dismantle it). However, even if it is true I'd still expect a challenge to the status quo further from the left as the disintegration takes place.
Well I think it just happened in this last election.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 01:28:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2017, 11:09:46 AM
But it has that effect. That is just a fact, not propaganda.
Sure. Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations, free trade is mutually beneficial et. al. I thought that was one of the cornerstones of right wing parties in the West. Since Tony Blair's third way, the left wing has adopted that as well, of course.
I'd say that free markets
within a given country has been one of the cornerstones of conservatives in the modern West (or at least in the US). I'm not so sure that conservatives consistently apply the same principle to international trade. In fact, I'm quite certain that some (such as myself) do, some don't.
QuoteThat it is also beneficial to big capital is a fact too, and not propaganda, I'd think?
QuoteIt is why I support them. I believe in the long run reducing poverty worldwide and tying our economies to each other will make the world more stable and peaceful. And I think it indeed has done so over the past twenty years.
That this is a mainstream view in the US is honestly news to me.
I'm surprised that you find this news to you. While I'll certainly acknowledge that Languish is not representative of the US electorate as a whole, almost all the US posters here are in favor of free trade, at least among those who I can recall expressing an opinion. And that's across the political spectrum. And up until Donald Trump, every US President of my adult life has been pro free trade. Seems pretty mainstream to me.
QuoteQuoteI am glad that evil corporate greed can be put to such an awesome purpose. It just seems stupid to be opposed to it because corporations want to make money. They are going to do that regardless. The whole point of policy to make sure them trying to do this has as many positive impacts as possible. Right? I mean unless you intend to nationalize everything in a communist utopia but I did not think you were that sort of leftist.
I'm not opposing it because corporations make money :huh:
My perspective is that freer trade (both for international trade and in terms of privatizing public companies and moving towards deregulating business environments) is a right of centre idea that has been adopted by the left of centre as well (roughly since Tony Blair's "third way" of the Labour Party, though I'm not claiming he's the originator). This has been to the benefit to capital and has had broad economic benefits for nations and people as well (which is the reason the left has abandoned more socialist notions to embrace it, since the benefits are hard to deny).
Historically, in the US at least, attitudes toward free trade have shifted back and forth as to whether the main support for if comes from the left or the right. For the first half of the 20th century, liberals in the US were much more likely to support free trade than conservatives. I would say that it's probably been more popular with conservatives than with liberals in recent years, but there has been broad support for the idea on both sides.
QuoteHowever, there are negative effects as well - especially combined with recent technological advancement that renders numerous jobs redundant. On the right we are seeing a populist response drawing on nationalism and scapegoating others combined with championing reactionary social policies. And it's working pretty well. In Europe, we've seen a left populist responses take shape in the form of Podemos and Syriza, but I have a hard time placing the substance of their proposed remedy.
In terms of a left response it seems there's a fair bit of academic response to the current situation - calling attention to the negative effects of income disparity (correctly I think), and I think the notions of a guaranteed basic income and similar are left of centre. But I haven't seen any of that translated into populist movements with easily understood prescriptions on how to fix the problem.
The most prominent person in the US to call for a guaranteed income (in the form of a negative income tax) was Milton Friedman, hardly someone to the left of center.
QuoteMIM's contention that the currently disintegrating status quo is a leftist state doesn't ring true to me at all (though it makes sense from the perspective of right leaning radicals wanting to dismantle it). However, even if it is true I'd still expect a challenge to the status quo further from the left as the disintegration takes place.
I'm not sure that MiM was talking solely or even primarily about free trade in his post.
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2017, 11:16:28 AM
Do you really believe that they are NOT about attempting to alleviate poverty, and other desirable social and economic outcomes outside of the desire of corporations to make profits?
This seems to me to be a strawman. There are more choices that
(a) "they are NOT about attempting to alleviate poverty, and other desirable social and economic outcomes outside of the desire of corporations to make profits" and
(b) "they ARE about attempting to alleviate poverty, and other desirable social and economic outcomes outside of the desire of corporations to make profits"
There are economic benefits to the US consumer and investor that accrue from the free trade deals the US has negotiated and signed, and that's why they were negotiated and that's why they were ratified. Nowhere in the ratification debate did I see the argument that the US should sign free trade agreements for the purpose of alleviating poverty. People noted that these deals would have that side-benefit, but no one would expect a Senator to vote against his constituents' interests in order to alleviate poverty in Mexico.
QuoteThat is a rather cynical viewpoint, that I suspect you don't really hold. If one really did believe that ALL of these kinds of agreements are *always* completely about nothing more than profit motive, and any nod towards other motives is illusory, then you pretty much have to just give up on any attempt to improve human societies at all, since all such attempts are doomed to being perverted as a matter of definition.
Nothing is "'always' completely about" any given thing, and Jacob certainly isn't arguing that anything is.
I don't think we are disagreeing, but I certainly had the feeling from Jacob that in his view, these kinds of trade deals were pretty much only about making comanies more money.
I think a Senator's constituent interests, for example, include concerns about working conditions in other countries, in that there are some of their constituents who do in fact care about such things, and the cultural discussion around things like working conditions certainly influence (and should influence) these kinds of trade deals. That is what I mean - these deals are not made solely based on business interests, because politicians do not, exclusively represent business interests.
At least, they are not supposed to do...
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2017, 05:24:00 PM
I don't think we are disagreeing, but I certainly had the feeling from Jacob that in his view, these kinds of trade deals were pretty much only about making comanies more money.
I think a Senator's constituent interests, for example, include concerns about working conditions in other countries, in that there are some of their constituents who do in fact care about such things, and the cultural discussion around things like working conditions certainly influence (and should influence) these kinds of trade deals. That is what I mean - these deals are not made solely based on business interests, because politicians do not, exclusively represent business interests.
At least, they are not supposed to do...
I cannot think of a single trade deal that was turned down because the working conditions in other countries were bad. There have been red herring arguments against free trade pacts that invoked the horror of people having to work under substandard conditions rather than being allowed to starve to death in perfect freedom, but I don't think those arguments carried any weight and they were seen for what they were.
The US has signed some trade deals that express the hope that working conditions will improve in partner countries, but there hasn't been a significant binding measure that i am aware of.
The tradeoff between employment and inflation is the primary basis for discussion, IMO: does the constituents' benefit from the lower inflation caused by trade outweigh the costs of losing those jobs from the US?
Businesses like the lower prices caused by trade because it improves sales and profitability. Consumers like them because that raises their standard of living. Workers don't like them because increased trade generally costs the wealthier country more jobs than it creates.
It's not ALL about business interests, but it is about business interests.
The recent trend had been to add labor standards to trade deals. The earlier model - as with NAFTA - was to require signatories to abide by their own respective labor laws, but not impose additional standards. In some more recent deals, there have been efforts to define objective outside standards (ILO has no surprisingly pushed for this). The TPP had provisions that while somewhat vague in parts, incorporated labor principles.
Quote from: dps on January 03, 2017, 03:21:32 PM
The most prominent person in the US to call for a guaranteed income (in the form of a negative income tax) was Milton Friedman, hardly someone to the left of center.
Guaranteed income (or basic income) is a very different beast from negative income tax, the incentives to the behaviors are not at all the same.
Assume a negative income tax scheme with a flat rate of tax (positive and negative) of 40% and an $30,000 exemption amount.
Compare that to a scheme where there is a $12,000 income grant, but all additional income above 0 is taxed at 40%.
Seems to me those give identical results for the same amount of earned income. So how would incentives differ?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 03, 2017, 07:37:24 PM
Assume a negative income tax scheme with a flat rate of tax (positive and negative) of 40% and an $30,000 exemption amount.
Compare that to a scheme where there is a $12,000 income grant, but all additional income above 0 is taxed at 40%.
Seems to me those give identical results for the same amount of earned income. So how would incentives differ?
I may have confused negative income tax with EITC. If the negative income tax pays you the maximum when you earn zero, then it probably won't be much different (or any different, too lazy to do the math).
I believe that what Friedman said is that a negative income tax would be preferable to existing welfare programs, because it would not entail the same distorting effects. That's not *exactly* the same as "calling for it."
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2017, 11:33:32 AM
I am strongly under the impression that nations signing on to free trade agreements are doing so because they think it's in their financial best interest, and that they primarily measure such financial best interest by the success of relevant corporations.
This, generally, has the benefit of of improving the standard of living of various populations as mor money flows into companies in various countries (with the caveat that much depends on how that money is distributed).
Where nations do give concessions it is not done out of some sort of altruism, but as part of concessions to get other benefits - generally commensurate with the amount of political power they bring to the negotiations.
The notion that countries - and apparently specifically the US - join free trade agreements in an attempt to help other nations through some sort of sacrifice on their part is pretty puzzling to me.
I man, I understand that Trumpists are convinced that free trade is just another example of the US giving stuff away to undeserving foreigners but I never thought the idea had purchase outside those circles.
I think your perception of the motivation for nations to enter into trade agreements is incorrect. When Canada started down this path with the US free trade agreement the principle arguments for doing so were that it would raise the nations standard of living by reducing the cost of goods we bought from the US (by removing the tariff) and by increasing jobs in this county by increasing the amount of goods purchased by Americans because the cost of goods produced by Canadians would also be reduced (both because a lot of suppliers were already located in the US and the tarriff for the items sold into the US would be removed). The practice has come close to matching the theory. Sure the US goes throws a protectionist rant every once in a while and we are likely in for one of those phases over the next four years. But by and large the deal has worked well for both countries.
The US-Canada FTA is a rare example of a bilateral FTA whose motivations were really primarily economic and not geopolitical. That may be impacting Jacob's view of bilateral FTAs more generally. The Canada-US relationship: similar economies, similar language and culture, same stage of development, very long (and practically unguardable) land border but over a century and half of peace - is not a common situation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 03, 2017, 08:16:52 PM
I think your perception of the motivation for nations to enter into trade agreements is incorrect. When Canada started down this path with the US free trade agreement the principle arguments for doing so were that it would raise the nations standard of living by reducing the cost of goods we bought from the US (by removing the tariff) and by increasing jobs in this county by increasing the amount of goods purchased by Americans because the cost of goods produced by Canadians would also be reduced (both because a lot of suppliers were already located in the US and the tarriff for the items sold into the US would be removed). The practice has come close to matching the theory. Sure the US goes throws a protectionist rant every once in a while and we are likely in for one of those phases over the next four years. But by and large the deal has worked well for both countries.
I think what we have here is a typical example of the languish failure to communicate, because I agree with what you're saying.
In any case, I'm done with this subject the discussion which I entered into only to disagree with Valmy's assertion that free trade was primarily driven by rich countries being motivated to help poorer countries better themselves economically. It turns out that he was joking or he didn't really mean it or I misunderstood or I expressed myself unclearly.
So far I have not found any substantial disagreements with all the people who've posted to argue with me since apparently no one here subscribes to Valmy's (joking/ poorly worded/ misinterpreted) position, so I don't have much to add on the topic.
Now, whether large sections of the US public believes Valmy's (joking/ poorly worded/ misinterpreted) assertion is of some interest to me, but I don't have much to say on the topic. As for whether free trade is a right wing or left wing point of policy remains an unsettled, if perhaps useless, point of debate; in any case, I've said my piece there too.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2017, 03:30:05 PM
So far I have not found any substantial disagreements with all the people who've posted to argue with me since apparently no one here subscribes to Valmy's (joking/ poorly worded/ misinterpreted) position, so I don't have much to add on the topic.
That is why I support free trade. My post was a joke based on what you said in the post I was responding to, which I thought was also a bit of a joke on your part.
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2017, 03:31:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2017, 03:30:05 PM
So far I have not found any substantial disagreements with all the people who've posted to argue with me since apparently no one here subscribes to Valmy's (joking/ poorly worded/ misinterpreted) position, so I don't have much to add on the topic.
That is why I support free trade. My post was a joke based on what you said in the post I was responding to, which I thought was also a bit of a joke on your part.
Yeah I know :)
I was just reiterating to CC why I wasn't interested in pursuing the conversation that flowed from that.
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2017, 03:31:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2017, 03:30:05 PM
So far I have not found any substantial disagreements with all the people who've posted to argue with me since apparently no one here subscribes to Valmy's (joking/ poorly worded/ misinterpreted) position, so I don't have much to add on the topic.
That is why I support free trade. My post was a joke based on what you said in the post I was responding to, which I thought was also a bit of a joke on your part.
I think it's safe to say that lots of laughter was had in this discussion.
Always glad to entertain.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2017, 03:30:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 03, 2017, 08:16:52 PM
I think your perception of the motivation for nations to enter into trade agreements is incorrect. When Canada started down this path with the US free trade agreement the principle arguments for doing so were that it would raise the nations standard of living by reducing the cost of goods we bought from the US (by removing the tariff) and by increasing jobs in this county by increasing the amount of goods purchased by Americans because the cost of goods produced by Canadians would also be reduced (both because a lot of suppliers were already located in the US and the tarriff for the items sold into the US would be removed). The practice has come close to matching the theory. Sure the US goes throws a protectionist rant every once in a while and we are likely in for one of those phases over the next four years. But by and large the deal has worked well for both countries.
I think what we have here is a typical example of the languish failure to communicate, because I agree with what you're saying.
I read up to Valmy's post and I now see what happened. :)
I don't think I "get" accountant humor. :hmm: