Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

IMHO the solution is anti-political correctness and nationalism. This is a very broad umbrella, huge tent approach that captures a lot of what has defined the Republican Party since Goldwater, plus leaving room to debate on some of the issues like abortion and free trade. You retain Conservative attitudes about hard work and American exceptionalism. America first, protect our borders. Fuck political correctness.

I mostly agree, but the way you communicate these ideas is paramount. I like fighting from the high ground. Frame the issues advantageously and attack with reasoned, considered arguments.

Analysis of the free-tuition proposal is an example. We're coming out of the period in which we ask whether government can pay, and just leave it at that. A full cost-benefit analysis

I'm all for a full analysis. I can talk at some length on the issue. The superficial appeal works considerably more the Ds. A more in-depth analysis ultimately favors, IMO, a more conservative approach.

But, at some level the question is CAN WE PAY? I realize the Progressive answer is, of course! But then you get the absurdity of Sanders' economic "plan".

[Da Geezer]

I tend to think of the Hispanic "bloc" as generally hard-working and, well, religious. I think, at bottom, they're more conservative than not. The thing is -- if you come here, work your ass and succeed then you're drifting right or at least to personal accountability. My guess is we view Hispanic immigration differently. If your view is that they tend to be welfare-state recipients, then I get your conclusion.

Or there is a third way to view the matter. That legal Hispanics do tend to be hard-working, religious, and admirable in every way, and that the illegal Hispanics, often not by their own choice become welfare-state recipients. it is illegal immigration that should be the issue, not immigration in general.

[iam416]

I don't subscribe to that view, Geezer. But, I'm not particularly well-informed on the issue.

[hack]

Hack: The phrase "free-market capitalism" has always seemed redundant to me too. But it developed as China moved from a socialist, command, economy to a more capitalist-oriented consumer economy. The differentiation in China is that the Party still controls the "commanding heights" (Lenin's phrase) of the economy. Free-market capitalism is generally used for those (few) economies where private parties make decisions for major industries. Incidentally, capitalism has raised BILLIONS of humans out of poverty, but, hey, who cares?

I'd really like to see you deal with the first proposition, that of how a society deals with the fact of a population that is more than 50% on the dole in one way or the other.

It has, whether in democratic America or authoritarian China. But I'm on the record as saying that regardless of underlying ideology, systems get old and clever people find loopholes and the problems grow from there until it's time for something new. I think history supports that idea. Even though there is much about capitalism to recommend, it's just another system and has the weaknesses of all other systems. This might be the right spot for a discussion on noblesse oblige -- to what extent has that mindset been lost and how important has it been?

As for the first proposition -- the on-the-dole part -- well, I don't really know. Is it a problem? If you assume that inside every person there is an entrepreneur waiting to be unleashed, if only they weren't coddled, you see it as a problem. There's pretty strong evidence that that's not true. Some people need to be taken care of. With free trade, manufacturing's gone and it probably isn't coming back, so the policy decisions of the past have possibly eliminated the most logical solution. It's hard to imagine going back to a less-connected world. For all the hatred of globalism, cross-border financial flows as a percentage of GDP continue to climb. I would hazard a guess, though, that a sane approach to debt probably brings better results than what's currently happening here. Canada's debt-GDP ratio is lower than that of the US, and its social safety net is more significant. The EU average debt:GDP is also lower than that of the US. Hard to read, but the first number to the right is the debt:GDP ratio. Rogoff and Reinhart, if their numbers are trustworthy, say at 90% and higher you're in crisis mode. Obviously for a city state like Singapore there's a different set of factors. And for the country with the defacto global currency, same.


Japan 229.20 Dec/15 226 229 50.6 % Yearly
Greece 176.90 Dec/15 180 180 22.6 % Yearly
Lebanon 133.28 Dec/14 133 185 131 % Yearly
Jamaica 132.72 Dec/14 136 136 87.31 % Yearly
Italy 132.70 Dec/15 132 133 90.5 % Yearly
Portugal 129.00 Dec/15 130 130 50.3 % Yearly
Cape Verde 123.00 Dec/15 114 123 54.28 % Yearly
Cyprus 108.90 Dec/15 108 109 45.1 % Yearly
Belgium 106.00 Dec/15 106 133 74.1 % Yearly
Singapore 104.70 Dec/15 99.3 106 66.9 % Yearly
U.S. 104.17 Dec/15 103 122 31.7 % Yearly

So, I guess if I were to look at that I'd wonder why the heck the US ratio is so damn high when in comparson to all of the places on the list where the social safety net is reportedly much lower. A question of efficiency?

I also think if you're a REAL deficit hawk you consider that there are three types of government handouts - to people, to the private sector, and a separate category for military spending. And you have to care about reducing spending in each of those areas, and be open to the idea that a full cost-benefit analysis may proscribe unbalanced cuts across the three areas. I hear a lot of talk of fiscal conservatism but most of the ire is aimed at just one of the three categories, and I know that for some but not all fiscal conservatives this is just a way to hide behind identity politics.

[Da Geezer]

Why free college?

Well, when you read comments on this forum about supply-side economics, or Reaganomics as it was called in 1982, you see the effects of total control of an education system by one political party. Why would the Dems not want another 4 or 5 or 6 years of indoctrination?

If you want to truly integrate colleges, then hire some conservative professors. I have never understood why skin color is so terribly important, while intellectual diversity counts for nothing, particularly in a college environment.

[hack]

Pointless to argue the ethics of it -- many of us are good people and we have different values nonetheless. Practicalities could be a good avenue of discussion. GM knows the answer -- so that recent graduates can afford to buy a car. Again, full cost-benefit analysis. Right now the cash of young people is hoovered up and locked away in long-term investments through endowments, to keep the cost of capital low for S&P500 companies. There is very little movement of that cash through the economy in a way that would generate broad-based wealth and opportunity. If we put it back in the hands of the college graduates they will spend a good chunk of it in the real economy.

[iam416]

FWIW, military spending as a percentage of GDP has dropped by nearly 50% over the past 50 years.

That's not to say, however, that there is massive waste. It is, afterall, a bureaucracy. I can and should be more efficient. That said, the US doesn't have the luxury of being Canada and spending $7.34 and some beef jerky on the military. I adhere to JFK's position that the US, as the world's leading democracy, needs to have an adequate state of military readiness.

I'm also perfectly happy addressing "spending"/tax breaks in other areas. I'm all for comprehensive spending reform, including entitlements, military and the "wall street" bucket -- which will get us almost no where, but I'm for it symbolically if we can address the actual real problems in a real way.

LOL at it every happening. The only way the Ds are going to cut any of the $25 Trillion in future mandatory spending is to, perhaps, means test Social Security and, less likely, raise the SS age.

[Da Geezer]

It's hard to imagine going back to a less-connected world. For all the hatred of globalism, cross-border financial flows as a percentage of GDP continue to climb. I would hazard a guess, though, that a sane approach to debt probably brings better results than what's currently happening here. ...

I'm trying not to edit what you said.

I agree. But the national debt rose from $ 10 trillion to $ 20 trillion in the last eight years. Why would anyone want a continuation of these policies?

I will say, though, that I can see negative interest rates may make capitalism as an economic system, untenable. This is utterly new and dangerous ground. I don't pretend to know the ramifications of negative rates, but I just "feel" like we are making a mistake on the level of the 1930's when they let the banks close and folks really did lose their money. $ 13 Trillion of negative interest sovereign debt worldwide now, including Japan, Switzerland, and Germany.

[iam416]

Again, full cost-benefit analysis.

Increasing the number of college graduates doesn't increase the number of jobs. The focus ought to be on training for real market demands. There are, e.g., various forms of "Code Schools" around the country that can train individuals in less than six months and place them in reasonably paying jobs shortly thereafter -- jobs that pay as much or more than jobs available to dozens of different majors.

Eh, whatever. "FREE" TUITION! for all.

[hack]

Yeah. I really have a hard time understanding the physics of that. You can get paid to borrow money? But what I do know is that if capitalism is so great then why are there next to no opportunities to park capital? And if there's so much free money out there, then who the fuck cares about our debt? Borrow more! Just use it wisely. (My vote would be infrastructure. I don't think tuition should be free, but I do think it should be a whole lot lower.)

[hack]

Increasing the number of college graduates doesn't increase the number of jobs. The focus ought to be on training for real market demands. There are, e.g., various forms of "Code Schools" around the country that can train individuals in less than six months and place them in reasonably paying jobs shortly thereafter -- jobs that pay as much or more than jobs available to dozens of different majors.

Eh, whatever. "FREE" TUITION! for all.

What the kids are studying is a fine and fair question and should be asked, sure. But are you saying that putting billions in cash in the hands of people in their prime spending years isn't going to create consumption, and therefore, indirectly, jobs?

[Da Geezer]

Hack, are you saying that there is an ethical reason to oppose diversity of intellectual beliefs? Why can't we just expose students to a variety of things and have actual debate in colleges like we do here in this forum? Of course, my answer is that the indoctrination that now takes place creates the leftist zombies that are necessary to the election of statists.

And, college students are not the ones that are putting money into the system. They are a mere conduit for government support of "high education"

[froot loops]

The US does not produce enough students that are versed in IT. We have a big shortage on that and need to import a lot of immigrants from the east. Mostly India but other countries as well. They are all college graduates as far as I can tell.

[iam416]

What the kids are studying is a fine and fair question and should be asked, sure. But are you saying that putting billions in cash in the hands of people in their prime spending years isn't going to create consumption, and therefore, indirectly, jobs?

They still need jobs. You're not giving them $100,000 and saying go spend it. You're relieving them of an obligation to pay back loans at something on the order of $300-1000 per month depending on how irresponsible you were in buying your education. What's more, that period of repayment is delayed. And, of course, you can refinance it down even lower amounts if you want to pay it back in 25 years instead of 10.

The baseline question is still do they have a job? Period. If they don't have a job then saving $300/mo isn't to increase spending.

What is seems certain to me is that more kids who shouldn't go to college will and they will do so at a significant cost to society. Education dollars, IMO, ought to be targeted and segments of the population that are unemployed--how do you engage poor kids in Chillicothe, Ohio and get them off the dole into work. How do you break the cycle of poverty? The answer is, IMO, more likely targeted lower cost training with relatively quick returns in terms of employment. The answer isn't, IMO, to encourage kids who can't handle college to go to college.

I agree with you that college costs should be lower. I think there's a very strong argument to be made that the availability of "free money" has played a significant role in increasing tuition. I also think it makes for uninformed decisions. Higher education decisions ought to be about the cost of the services and the return on investment. Half of that equation is effectively minimized.

[hack]

No, I'm not saying that, Geezer. I haven't weighed in on that in this discussion but I fully agree. Three years in Ann Arbor and I felt pretty intellectually cooped up myself. I'm still exposed to it in DC - especially as an internationalist who has derived most of my knowledge from on-the-ground experiences and must interact frequently with the people who have a grad degree and took a chaperoned trip to a country once a few years back.

Academia is a pretty damn insular world and I have very little that's positive to say about it, save for that qualifications are necessary and expensive.