Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

Just got in from a hard day of sitting around Best Buy while they worked on my computer. In the end, it was, as usual, the government's fault. But I digress.



Yup. That works. Maybe we can use Lenin's formulation that the government owns the "commanding heights" of the economy. That leaves room for small farms and the like. "Greatest good for the greatest number" is Marx's exact phrase fro the Manifesto. And the difference between communism and socialism is "power comes from the barrel of a gun" as Mao said in communism. Violence is not a necessary predicate to the socialist.

I've always defined capitalism as an economic system where the "commanding heights" are privately owned and in which operates a mostly free market. You have pointed out to me that there is just no such thing as a totally free market, and a proper function of government is to facilitate behavior as close as possible to that of a free market (anti-trust etc.). The inherent problem with capitalism is summarized in the phrase "...rich man's cat, poor man's baby..."

Fair enough?

The government's fault your computer sucks, or that Best Buy took a long time? Important distinction.

I am not familiar with that cat/baby phrase, but I always myself would have agreed about capitalism as you described it. But, increasingly, it's clear to me that it is important to appreciate the tension between capitalism and free markets. We've always been told they go together, but in truth capitalism is the art of taking some money and turning it into more money. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with free markets, level playing fields, competition, etc. I think it's important, especially when we both agree about the extent of rent seeking in the US economy, to remember the difference and to be clear on which elements are desirable.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Today Nevada update suggests Republicans need a VERY big turnout on Election Day itself. He estimates almost 60% of the total votes have already been cast there. Registered Dems with a 37,000 statewide vote lead...61,000 vote lead in Clark County

http://www.ktnv.com/news/ralston/the-nevada-early-voting-blog

[entropy]

::::yawn::::

[Da Geezer]

... But, increasingly, it's clear to me that it is important to appreciate the tension between capitalism and free markets. We've always been told they go together, but in truth capitalism is the art of taking some money and turning it into more money. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with free markets, level playing fields, competition, etc...

Ah, now I see where we disagree. Capitalism always presupposes a free market. It always presupposes competition. And, it presupposes that the "invisible hand" of the market turns man's basically evil nature to the benefit of society in general.

Have you ever read economic texts called "anti-capitalism"? Three years ago, I was talking to a student from Wayne State who told me he was taking a class in Anti-Capitalism. My first question was, well if you are against it, what are you for. Answer: I don't know but not capitalism. His professor had told them the first day that any mention of N. Korea would mean an F for the course.

He held the same definition that you do: That capitalism means those with money making more money by any means. And that dovetails into rent-seeking, buying influence, monopoly power and all the things you and I agree are problems in society, given man's basic nature.

That is the definition commonly used in progressive literature. But it bears no resemblance to capitalism as an economic system. In fact, capitalism presupposes a lot of small operators in every industry. That supposition proved quite wrong when you think about Ford, Edison, Vanderbilt or Jay Gould. But I will point out that those men started without wealth and they built vast wealth. I'll concede that the wealthy men of today did not start in poverty, but they (other than Buffett) created companies like Microsoft, Oracle, Google, Facebook and many others. Capitalism says that these men would not have given their lives to various industries and innovations without the possibility of making and keeping their money. It is just not happenstance that the major disruptive technologies of the last 150 years have come from the US.

I heard the phrase "...rich man's cat. poor man's baby.." from a socialist professor I had in college. I understand it is sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic and all that crap. I happen to think it captures the fundamental tension in capitalism. If there is one cup of milk available, it will go to the rich man's cat. Have you ever thought about the phrase "supply-side"? Part of supply is to see to it that there is plenty of milk (and employment) so the poor man can feed his baby.

WaPo today says if Trump wins NH (currently tied) he wins the Presidency using today's polls.

Good article on youth unemployment in Europe. Now it makes some sense for the Germans to let in migrants, at least more so than Spain or Greece.

[iam416]

I still think HRC is a lock, but, man, if NH comes in for Trump then shit's gonna get real.

Meanwhile:

At a time of such tectonic instability, even the most experienced head of state requires wisdom and delicacy to maintain equilibrium. Trump has neither. His joining of supreme ignorance to supreme arrogance, combined with a pathological sensitivity to any perceived slight, is a standing invitation to calamitous miscalculation.

-- Charles Fucking Krauthammer

[CGVT]

FWIW, Nate Silver has NH 65-35 Clinton

[Da Geezer]

Oh, and the British court determined that the Brexit vote was not sufficient to allow Britain to exit the EU without the consent of Parliment. Brexit is just never going to happen. It creates way too much freedom for the transnational progressives to allow.

And there is this: http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/...s-weiner-case/

Sounds like a nut-case. But I'm a good friend of his mother's (Elsa) and have emailed her to find out if this is what Eric actually believes is the case. It would give a reason for Comey's announcement: the threat of a dump.

This brings to mind the announcement by Drudge (later confirmed) in the 1990's that Bill Clinton had a habit of putting cigars up the vagina of the interns he conquered, and then walking around the oval office with the unlit cigar in his mouth. And Hillary has the former Miss U introduce her rallies because Trump called her "fat" and "demeaned" her. According to Hillary, that disqualifies Trump from being President. But Bill was qualified with his nicely basted cigars.

Again, this election is about what Trump says against what Hillary does.

I've come to the conclusion that voting for neither is the only vote that makes sense.

[iam416]

FWIW, Nate Silver has NH 65-35 Clinton

Yeah, he also notes it's really close.

There’s been a potential breach of Hillary Clinton’s electoral firewall. And it’s come in New Hampshire, a state that we said a couple of weeks ago could be a good indicator of a Donald Trump comeback because of its large number of swing voters. Three new polls of New Hampshire released today showed a tied race, Trump ahead by 1 percentage point and Trump up by 5. There are some qualifications here: The poll showing Trump with a 5-point lead is from American Research Group, a pollster that’s had its issues over the years. And other recent polls of New Hampshire still show a Clinton ahead. But the race has clearly tightened in New Hampshire, with Clinton leading by only 2 to 3 percentage points in our forecast.

[Hannibal]

If Trump wins NH and the national trend follows, then Maine District 2 could decide the election and give Trump a 270-268 victory.

[Hannibal]

RCP averages have Hilary winning 297-241, with Florida leaning Hillary by about a point and a half, but Trump winning NC and NV.

[iam416]

If Trump wins NH and the national trend follows, then Maine District 2 could decide the election and give Trump a 270-268 victory.

Correct.

I find it hard to believe he wouldn't win the House, though.

[iam416]

with Florida leaning Hillary by about a point and a half, but Trump winning NC and NV.

Yep. He has to win everything and steal on of her "firewall" states. NH, I think, is the only one of those she can realistically lose.

I think he'll barely win NC, I think Florida is a coin flip, and I have no idea what to think about Nevada -- I could see an 8 point range with either candidate winning by 4.

I really don't want to stay up waiting for Nevada results to come in.

[Hannibal]

IMHO the margin of error is much bigger than any pollsters are advertising. The sampling methodology is a huge X factor. The potential range of outcomes is much wider than people think. You can see it just in comparing the polls to one another. A couple of days ago a poll came out showing Trump +7 in NC and another one saying Hillary +3. What's that -- double the "margin of error"? Bullshit, really. I could see Trump tanking down to McCain levels and I could also see him way surpassing expectations and winning all of the close states.

[iam416]

Well, I mean, when you aggregate the polls then I disagree. I don't think HRC is going to lose PA, Michigan or Wisconsin. I do think NH is very much in play.

I think NC will be close. The polls there are super tight. I think Florida will be close. Again, the polls are generally super tight.

There are outliers, but the larger the number of data points the better the predictive power. That said, the polls way underestimated Obama's margin in 2012, so perhaps they'll be wrong again.

[Hannibal]

If all of the polls have a systemic error, then aggregating them just aggregates the same error. Does that error exist? Has it in the past? 1980 is probably the last known Presidential election where that happened. It has happened a few times in the midterms since then too. The conditions seem right for that type of error again.

Not making any predictions. Just speculating that the range of outcomes is a lot wider than people think. Like the first week of the college football season.