Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

Heh. Of course. But that doesn't mean you think the status quo is awful or that the country is heading straight for an iceberg.

[iam416]

Hack:

I appreciate your thoughts on Easterbook. I realize this is his baby and he writes on it at every turn, but it doesn't make it wrong.

I also realize that my perspective makes me more likely to agree with his position while yours makes you less. No problem.

He has written on it for the past decade, but I haven't seen it discussed here. I think it an interesting topic to discuss. I firmly believe that to be the generic American in 2016 means you're as well-situated as any generic person in history. I'm astounded by advances that bring remarkable technology to the masses, provide increasingly amazing healthcare solutions, feed billions more people than was previously thought possible and generally provide for a quality of life that dwarfs previous generations.

I get that this generation likely faces an uncertainty in the job market that is higher than in previous generations. Jobs for life may be harder to come by -- IMO, that seems to be the case, but empirically, no clue. There are costs that scare the shit out of people, namely college (and to a lesser extent, healthcare). I think it's fine -- responsible -- to acknowledge the problems. I'm just no where near throwing the baby out of with the bathwater.

[entropy]

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBZ2V9LMeDk&feature=youtu.be"]This is How Corrupt The Political System Is - YouTube[/ame]

[hack]

I'd like to see Easterbrook stop banging his head against the wall and apply his hyperlogical approach to himself. He's a good thinker and writer in his own rigid way, and if it occurred to him to really dig into it a little deeper, and not just stop at pat conclusions, then maybe he'd have a more interesting take on this. Then again, he gets paid by the word just like I do, and can do this one in his sleep. Freelancers have to have stuff they can just reel off without donating too much brainpower in order to make a living. Ideally that's for a non-published client and not the New York Times though.

I do think it's an interesting topic to discuss, most certainly. There's no doubt that the numbers point to one thing and the viewpoints of people another. Or, then again, maybe it's just always this way. People are always ready to indulge in fear, and adjusting to change is hard. I lived in Turkey when it really began to take off, and as it went from sleepy to growing people became busier and busier and the space of a few years Istanbul was noticeably more stressed and less polite and genteel than what people were used to. Just a little hint of progress is all it took for people to notice the tradeoffs and start complaining about them. But people are still happier there than here. IMO people are happier when they are a far way from the top but making progress than when they are at the top and focused on preserving what they have. Just a sense.

Another viewpoint is the Unabomber's manifesto. The guy was a crazy whacko who did awful things but the intellectual exercise that got him there has some very valid insights about ego and happiness.

[froot loops]

While Hack finds fault with it, he is doing it from a writers viewpoint. I'm not a writer so I'm not burdened by that viewpoint. Sure he bangs these out, but at this point of the article is welcome, he is a lone voice on this subject. It kind of mirrors what President Obama has been speaking about.

[hack]

Well, I guess in a sense, but I also truly don't think you can show people the best and most unassailable set of statistics supporting the same point and expect them to change their tune. I just don't see that humans are logical enough to expect that out of us. This is independent of measurables.

[froot loops]

If they aren't logical enough to understand 10 percent unemployment in 2008 to 5 percent unemployment in 2016 is measurable for optimism then no approach is helpful.

[iam416]

That's the thing that's perplexing. I get that Trumpees hate Obama; I'm perplexed that so many Ds think things are a disaster.

Then again, progressives are quite possibly DINOs or just not Ds -- I mean, Sanders is NOT a D.

I can probably make the same case against Trump, but eh, that's been beaten to death.

Anyway, if I were a party line guy then I'd be all in on 2008 to 2016 and rah, rah Obama.

[froot loops]

Trump is the much bigger problem. Trump got his conservative bona fides by being a birther, a movement whole GOP endorsed. Birtherism by its nature is a hugely pessimistic stance to take. As is building a wall and banning Muslims.

[Wild Hoss]

If they aren't logical enough to understand 10 percent unemployment in 2008 to 5 percent unemployment in 2016 is measurable for optimism then no approach is helpful.

Its because that 5% isn?t the same jobs as were there before. That 5% has been filled by lower-paying ones.

Nevermind the fact that many of those jobs were bloated offshoots of a debt-fueled bubble economy that was market-corrected out of existence in spectacular fashion, along with Bear Sterns.

Its scary how many people still think the 2000s were the norm.

[Da Geezer]

Trump is the much bigger problem. Trump got his conservative bona fides by being a birther, a movement whole GOP endorsed. Birtherism by its nature is a hugely pessimistic stance to take. As is building a wall and banning Muslims.

1. The original Birther argument was a concoction of the Hillary Clinton Campaign in 2008.

2. "Whole" GOP? I doubt if 10% of the GOP base and if 2% of Republican elected officials bought the argument. Obama's birth announcement appeared in the Honolulu newspaper right days after his birth. That would have to be a very well thought out conspiracy in order to do that.


Sorry, but who is Easterbrook and what is he always saying?

[froot loops]

That isn't a new problem since 2008 though. That has been an ongoing issue for as long as I can remember. It is a real issue that got more acute since the wall came down and China liberalized their economy. This were good things to happen but it has made more things competitive. The genie is out of the bottle on that one.

It is like people have amnesia on how bad things were in 2007-2009. The median income stagnation is something to be attacked, but it is different than just flat out unemployment.

[Da Geezer]

If they aren't logical enough to understand 10 percent unemployment in 2008 to 5 percent unemployment in 2016 is measurable for optimism then no approach is helpful.

Hoss is right. There is a substantial difference in the quality of jobs now being taken.

As significant, the measurement of unemployment that froot is using is of persons looking for jobs. This is affected by extended unemployment insurance, increases in welfare payments, a 30% increase in food stamp recipients to 48,000,000, and poor training in the educational system.

If you look at unemployment as including those who are not working, that rate is about 13%.

As important, most Americans know persons who have been "eliminated" from well-paying jobs by government regulatory action (eg. coal workers). I read a report about a month ago that said that government regulation costs the economy $ 1.9 Trillion yearly.

[froot loops]

1. The original Birther argument was a concoction of the Hillary Clinton Campaign in 2008.

2. "Whole" GOP? I doubt if 10% of the GOP base and if 2% of Republican elected officials bought the argument. Obama's birth announcement appeared in the Honolulu newspaper right days after his birth. That would have to be a very well thought out conspiracy in order to do that.


Sorry, but who is Easterbrook and what is he always saying?

10 percent and 2 percent is a laugh. if those were the real numbers they sure kept their opinion to themselves, nobody really shot down any birther arguments. How many GOP officials directly condemned the birthers? If they said anything in opposition it was in the weakest language possible. They would hem and haw, but that was the extent of it. Mitt Romney was the nominee and he wanted Trump's birther nomination. If you are against it you need to speak out against it, if you cynically allow it to go on because it may help you win an election, then you aren't really against it or you are part of the problem.

And clearly Fox News was all in on Birtherism. And it carried through on this campaign with birther attacks

[iam416]

The idea that "birthers" represent the Rs is laughable.