patrick.net

Economics: The Capitalist's version of Gender Studies

Heraclitusstudent says

The United States might have leaned against China’s export-led strategy, they argue, perhaps by insisting more forcefully that Beijing let its currency rise as its trade surplus swelled. It might have tried to foster the cutting-edge industries of the future, as government had done so many times before, encouraging the shift from textiles to jumbo jets and from toys to semiconductors.

The Gov didn't want to lean on China to let it's currency to rise, because the Gov is using China to finance it's debt. The Democrats have been trying to help develop green energy. The republicans have been shitting on their efforts. No one has been working on infrastructure, which they should have been doing starting in 2008. That's an Obama fault, and I think that Bernie would have gotten it right doing it the FDR way . If Trump did it, he would hire that shit out and get a great deal using H1Bs as cheap labor :-o.

Heraclitusstudent says

Chinese competition reduced earnings by $213 per adult per year."

Doesn't sound too bad. One tax credit fixes that. I can't copy text from NYT articles, but there is a stat in there that says that the whole pie increased 3%, but the distribution was bad for the lower half. That could be fixed with a more progressive tax. Trumpfuck and Cruz missile want a flatter tax system. So, fuck all to you lower wage freeloaders :-p.

YesYNot says

because the Gov is using China to finance it's debt.

I think it is the opposite: the US gov is forced to spend money to compensate for what is lost in trade due to low China currency.

YesYNot says

Doesn't sound too bad.

No it doesn't. I think it's actually much worse than that for the lower half of the population.

YesYNot says

the whole pie increased 3%, but the distribution was bad for the lower half.

Yes and even if the overall pie increases, you simply can't write off half the population. This is not a solution.

YesYNot says

That could be fixed with a more progressive tax.

Most lower revenues already don't pay taxes and get some benefits of one type or an other. Getting transfers of payments is not a substitute for being able to make a leaving - especially in the US where people just don't like redistribution and free-loaders.

YesYNot says

Chinese competition reduced earnings by $213 per adult per year."

Doesn't sound too bad. One tax credit fixes that. I can't copy text from NYT articles, but there is a stat in there that says that the whole pie increased 3%, but the distribution was bad for the lower half. That could be fixed with a more progressive tax. Trumpfuck and Cruz missile want a flatter tax system. So, fuck all to you lower wage freeloaders :-p.

Yah but that's AVERAGE, not what is actually happening to the workers most affected. If you lose your $35k job at a vacuum cleaner factory in Akron, Ohio, and get a $20k job as a shoe salesman you need a lot more than a damn tax credit to make up the slack. But for those of us who aren't intellectually gifted, it's not a feasible alternative to become chip designers or whatever.

Here's the big question:
WHAT DO YOU DO WITH ALL THE DUMB PEOPLE?

What our nation has elected to do was put them out of work, give them subsistence benefits, and watch as their families were destroyed by crime and poverty.
The dumb people need jobs to feel and be good, too. Perhaps even more than the smart people do.
I know you democrats are all elite and stuff, but how about you get off your high horses and figure out what to do about the dumb people?
Locking them all away in prison isn't viable no matter how you swing it.
You have to give them work or you end up with an underclass similar to the black urban underclass and nobody wants that model to spread and become the new norm. Ferguson much?

Quigley says

I know you democrats are all elite and stuff, but how about you get off your high horses and figure out what to do about the dumb people?

Their solution is more free shit and worthless degrees. In other words, their solution has been tried many times and doesn't work.

Quigley says

Yah but that's AVERAGE, not what is actually happening to the workers most affe

It's the average of jobs exposed to Chinese competition ( low wage ). The average wage is up. Plus, they didn't figure out what portion was due to trade and what party is due to technology.

I'm thinking dumb people need to be taught to do construction without fucking it up. Have a massive public works program. Yeah people like to feel needed, but tariffs are still handouts. Id be happy to see inflation and a cheaper dollar, though, which would take care of a big part of the problem.

zzyzzx says

Their solution is more free shit and worthless degrees. In other words, their solution has been tried many times and doesn't work.

Republicans never had a solution for a good reason: they never thought that 50% of the population being poor was a problem.
It's all their own fault.

What makes a republic a great system is not the leaders that people pick.
Rather it is the possibility of regime change without revolutions or civil wars.

Revolutions and civil wars are among the most destructive plagues that can befall a country. These are even worst than an external war as they will destroy not only institutions but the very sense of common national identity within a country.

A country like France took a good century to recover from its revolution, and I would say Russia and China are not back out the woods yet.

In comparison a Trump kicking some dust with the polite self-indulgent intelligentsia in DC seems a small price to pay.

Bellingham Bill says

Manufacturing is following in the footsteps of farming 50 to 100 years ago. In the end almost ALL manufacturing jobs will be replaced by robots, just like robots/machines replaced most of the farmers. Services will be next.
The future belongs to the brainy, the skilled, and the educated.

Ironman says

marcus says

I only learned recently that modern flat earth groups are a real thing.

Yep, they're teaching Math in L.A..... go figure...

From people who just figured out flat earth groups are a real thing. Now you see why we have to import math whizzes?

Well, what if we get a benevolent dictator ?

I guess Robber barons existed even in 1900s. But the population was intelligent enough to recognize the wealth disparity problem, elect someone like FDR (and also grassroots Congressmen who completely understood the point of the New Deal program) who pushed through the New Deal. One just has to read the way FDR spoke to understand what he stood for, which stand true even more so today.

The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:
Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
Jobs for those who can work.
Security for those who need it.
The ending of special privilege for the few.
The preservation of civil liberties for all.
The enjoyment -- The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.
These are the simple, the basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.

But the key here is that the populace was intelligent enough.
Democracy works only if you have an intelligent collective that knows how to use it.

There is so much false propaganda, diversions and distractions in this country that there is a large section of really stupid populace.
Stupidity breeds and amplifies other qualities - greed, dishonesty, complete lack of empathy and negative energy in general.

If stupidity overwhelms intelligence, then we've got the rule of the mob.
The political system then ends up deserving a Trump Presidency, to show how screwed up the system really is.

YesYNot says

when polled, they like

That's a lie. Both parties have "low information voters," but you are a misinformation voter. You didn't bother citing a source, but if you look for one you will find either literally a joke (a talk show that did a gimmick similar to Jaywalking, expressly not a poll) or a misleading presentation of a poll from a certain southeastern state (and even that poll did not say what you said). Have at it: present your source, if you dare. More likely, you won't even bother. I do see a pattern in your misinformation though: you favor conscription, because you rely on sources that favor conscription, because conscription centralizes power. They spread misinformation that serves their interest, and you swallow it, and spread it. They like Obamneycare/HeritageFoundationCare for the same reason they like conscription, and you like it because they do. The details are incidental, at least from your POV; you don't even bother reading them, you merely lie. They used lies to sell Obamacare, lies that had already been disproved by Romneycare, and they continue to rely on lies to defend it, because the facts prove it is a POS that most Americans continue to oppose, correctly.

YesYNot, do you support female conscription? After all, being allowed to join Army should mean forced to join Army when you don't want. Also, what if a female soldier or sailor gets pregnant after receiving deployment orders? Should there be penalties, or should we rely on "honor and morality" - ie total lack of real accountability?

Jesus, curious, here's my original quote:
In response to

Millennials are also wanting boots on the ground against ISIS - just not their own boots.

I said...

Maybe, we'll have to resort to a draft, like we had to do back when their daddies were trying to stay out of Vietnam. That way, only poor, dark skinned, and middling people will have to die in the desert. Trump types can flat foot their way to the couch.

I know humor is harder to get on the internet, but did you really think that I was seriously advocating for forcing all of the poor, dark skinned, and middling people to die in the desert? I was making fun of the millennials who want to put other peoples boots on the ground, assuming that the other quote was accurate.

Thunderlips, see above. In regard to the draft, I don't think that the draft should be used at all unless there is a WWII type situation where we are in imminent danger of being invaded. The ISIS situation IMHO is less than a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10 where WWII was probably an 8. If it the draft is used, able bodied women should be conscripted as well. We are past the point of looking at women as if they are a dainty flower in need of protection from everything. I have no idea about the pregnancy thing - never thought about it.

In regard to this:

YesYNot says

Hell, when polled, they like the Affordable Care Act, but hate Obamacare.

I was recalling something that I heard on NPR while driving a long while back. The story may have referenced the poll here: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/27/poll-obamacare-vs-affordable-care-act/, but I'm not sure. In any case, in this poll, the 'branding' Obamacare made more people like it and more people dislike it. It probably was due less people recognizing the ACA as Obamacare, and due to people's opinion being colored by their opinion of Obama. My main point, though, was that there has been a huge campaign to take down Obamacare by the Republicans. In my opinion, the primary reason for this is that it bears his name.

curious2 says

I do see a pattern in your misinformation though

I'm honored that you've taken such an interest in me. Can you tell me which centralized power hungry sources are feeding me my opinions?

You seem obsessed with my characterization
YesYNot says

Paris wasn't nothing, but it was statistically insignificant, as you have already admitted. It's a war against ideology, and we need to set a positive example.

of what you wrote
curious2 says

but I would prefer not to have Charlie Hebdo massacres here like those in Bangladesh; even if the % murdered is not large enough to change dramatically the overall mortality statistics, the consequences for the culture (including terror and self-censorship) can be profound.

I'm not sure why you've held this up as proof of my being a liar. I assumed that by 'not large enough to change dramatically the overall mortality statisitcs' that you meant 'change significantly.' You seem to be stuck in repeat on an argument about whether about 100 dead people represents a significant change in the overall mortality statistics.

YesYNot says

in this poll,

Respondents opposed "Obamacare" by a margin of 17% and "Affordable Care Act" by 15%. The margin of error was 3%. That's obviously contrary to the lie you told above, where you claimed falsely that "they like" it depending on what it's called.

YesYNot says

Can you tell me which centralized power hungry sources are feeding me my opinions?

LOL - by your own admission, you listen to the government news for your view of conscription, and you don't even seem to listen very closely since you get the numbers wrong. The point is though that you lie anyway, so you end up being even worse than your preferred sources that mislead you. The link shows three different lies from you, but you choose to focus on only one as if it were the only one, which shows you are still lying. Maybe in your work life you can lie to people's faces and they don't call you out on it, because of habituation or rank stupidity, but online your lies are showing for all to see.

YesYNot says

If it the draft is used, able bodied women should be conscripted as well.

It would be interesting to see if you can find examples of your preferred sources saying that. In the past, the old men in government have tended to use conscription to send away millions of young men, many never to return whole, thus leaving the young women available to the old men. Even today, America requires young men to register for conscription, but excludes young women from registration and conscription.

You clearly don't know what a lie is. I repeated what I heard on NPR two years ago. It might have been based on that CNN poll, which tells a different story, as I noted. Discussing this with you was helpful, because you knew what I said wasn't accurate, but your also a nasty obsessive person.

curious2 says

LOL - by your own admission, you listen to the government news for your view of conscription, and you don't even seem to listen very closely since you get the numbers wrong. The point is though that you lie anyway, so you end up being even worse than your preferred sources.

Now, I don't even know what you are talking about. Government news? Is that some conservative lingo for CNN? I don't even know what you think my view on conscription is, but it didn't come from a news network.

You can look up the meaning of lie, and see your comments for examples. Again, I listed three for you on a single page.

You have a point though that NPR is no longer primarily funded by government, which it was during the days of active conscription. They do return for government funding when they need it, but now they are relying increasingly on advertising from the same corporations that fund the politicians, in addition to voluntary donations from listeners like you. The issue with NPR is mainly that people who listen to it tend not to listen to much else; it's a less distorted echo chamber than Faux Noise, but equally isolating. The fact you emerged from it spouting precisely counterfactual assertions about public opinion on major legislation should tell you something.

YesYNot says

your also a nasty obsessive person.

By "also," I assume you mean both of us. You should also look up the possessive vs the contraction, but it isn't my place to remedy all of your deficiencies. The difference that matters to me is, anybody who doesn't like my comments is free to ignore them, but we are not free to ignore the nasty policies that you advocate, e.g. conscription and importing a doctrine that endangers Americans who would otherwise have been free to ignore your nastiness if only you limited it to your commentary.

You listed 3 examples of you calling me a liar. I didn't lie in any of them. Despite my stating that I would be against the draft in anything less than a WWII (Edit to state that I meant WWII, not WWI) situation presenting an imminent threat, you continually say I'm for a draft. That seems to me to be closer to a lie than anything I've written.

By 'also,' I meant that you're a nasty person as well as being a person who doesn't know what a lie is.

Regarding your/you're: Thanks for the grammar lesson. I'm sure that you can find some more mistakes as well if you keep sniffing around. Be sure to pat yourself on the back and call me out on it when you achieve SUCCESS!

YesYNot says

I'm for a draft.

You wrote regarding America's current military misadventures, "Maybe, we'll have to resort to a draft, like we had to do back when their daddies were trying to stay out of Vietnam." You can lie about what you wrote, and maybe IRL you can bribe or bully people into not calling out your lies, but online you have nothing to offer but your words, and your words are lies. All Americans should have stayed out of Vietnam, and your lethal insistence that you "had to" draft people's daddies to kill and die there is incredibly nasty. It's even worse than your insistence on Obamneycare and terrorist immigration (and your calling terrorist murders "insignificant", meaning they didn't happen to anyone you care about).

So you still think that I was serious when I initially wrote it?

I explained that it was a joke ( http://patrick.net/?p=1289981&c=1273035#comment-1273035 ), which was probably obvious to most people in the first place. Yet, you insist that I'm just lying. Do you take everything literally? Are you autistic? It's a serious question.

YesYNot, were you joking about calling the Paris murders "insignificant" too? Were you joking when you said no refugees had been arrested for terrorism, and backed that lie with a source that listed three? Were you joking when you lied about what America has "always done"? Either your sense of humor is rather obscure, and at best an acquired taste, or you are lying again. Maybe you should listen to George Carlin for some pointers on what a joke sounds like, instead of pretending that your lies are merely jokes. People love George Carlin. I love George Carlin. You are a nasty liar. I can tell the difference, even when you lie about it.

YesYNot says

I don't think that the draft should be used at all unless there is a WWII type situation where we are in imminent danger of being invaded.

There was no danger of invasion of any kind to the US in WWII. The Germans lacked any type of amphibious attack force or large scale shipping. The Japanese military had less then 100,000 tons of shipping available to them after taking the Philippians and Malaysia. That is sufficient for a little over a division or 20,000 men. The Hawaiian islands had 100,000 troops in 1941. You cannot conquer 100,000 well fortified troops with an amphibious assault of 20,000 troops. The Japanese certainly knew that, they were very good military planners. The idea of invading the US mainland 4,000 miles further east would have been totally absurd.

Logistics is boring, but wins wars.

curious2 says

YesYNot, were you joking about calling the Paris murders "insignificant" too?

No. 100 people is statistically insignificant. Although this is an unpopular observation, it is important to make. Otherwise we are in danger of over reacting. One only has to look as far back as Iraq for an example.
curious2 says

Were you joking when you said no refugees had been arrested for terrorism,

No, but I later admitted that the quote was misleading, because it relies on a technicality of the definition of a refugee and what was classified as a terrorist act in the US. I'm glad I made the comment, because it led to an interesting discussion of the topic.curious2 says

when you lied about what America has "always done"?

No. What we have always done is a figure of speech. I meant in recent history, as I explained the first time you called me a liar.

I've explained that all again, because I'm not sure if you can tell the difference between sincere thoughts and humor. That's the last I'm going to rehash old crap with you.

YesYNot says

100 people is statistically insignificant.

yup, when the terrorism isn't any worse than our own domestic fuckups doing the mass-shooting, it's not much in the terrorism department.

The San Bernardino shootings were really weak sauce.

Now, the Aum attacks in Tokyo were something special. Those people had plans, and a mission. Didn't kill many, but missed me by only 30 minutes, LOL.

bob2356 says

There was no danger of invasion of any kind to the US in WWII. The

Dam. I knew I was opening myself up with that post. I was thinking that with Hitler and Japan doing as well as they were, there was limited time to act while there were still allies to help. Also it's not clear that they wouldn't get the bomb and use it. But if I'm wrong, fine. My point is that I would prefer not having a draft unless necessary. And I don't consider the threat of ISIS to be anywhere close to making a draft necessary. I also think we should use much more restraint with the military we have. They signed up to defend the country, not to police the world and help us overreact to all potential threats.

Heraclitusstudent says

Redistribution is what you do when you refuse to place yourself in conditions where companies actually have to compete for labor. It's a bandage, a kludge.

Some people call progressive taxes redistribution. It's really just making people pay something more commensurate with the benefit they derive from the gov services that the taxes are paying for.

Both Germany and Japan declared war on us in '41, so FDR spinning up the draft in 1940 was a good idea.

'course, he and/or his minions did a lot to make sure Japan and Hitler started the war as they did, but I think our policy in 1940-41 was perfectly reasonable.

Japan was faced with either GTFO of China or expand the war south, and German u-boats were going to have to stay out of our half of the Pacific.