Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

The GOP stalled any attempt at stimulus spending during Obama's presidency, we'll see how principled they are now that a trillion dollar roads bill comes up.

[iam416]

Wait, you mean additional stimulus spending.

I doubt they'll be particularly principled. Or maybe they will. Those House Rs are nutjobs when it comes to that shit.

However, government spending is one of the issues Rs can act one. The Ds are for it, but the public doesn't trust them on it. So it has to be the Rs. It's like Social Security. The Rs can't touch it because the public doesn't trust them on the issue for shit. It has to be the Ds that move.

There are a dozen issues like that where one party controls the issue to some degree. Public works spending happens to be one where the Rs can move.

And to be clear -- I'm talking in a purely political sense. How do voters react type stuff. I'm not talking about substantively right or wrong, I'm talking election result right or wrong.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The Dems need a complete rebuilding from the state level up, surely.

I think this election was more about the economic policies and free trade embraced by Dems over the past 20 years than the cultural stuff.

The R's have been taken over by someone who completely rejects Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman on trade. How do Dems explain to a blue collar voter that trade is good for them when they see evidence otherwise? Do the Dems just follow along with the R's and start calling for protectionism too?

We're probably all guilty of laughing at "non-sophisticates" at some point or another, and everyone deserves their voice heard...that goes for minorities and voters under 40 as well.

[iam416]

The apparent R shift on protectionism is appalling, IMO. It leaves me without a party I'm even remotely close to.

I'm not sure what the Ds do. I'm not sure how to read the progressives/wonky elites. Sanders is definitely in line with Trump. Wonky elites are definitely globalists.

everyone deserves their voice heard...that goes for minorities and voters under 40 as well.

No way!!!! Heh. I'm fairly certain they get their voice heard. In fact, they made it loud and clear in 2008 and 2012 when Obama crushed it with those constituencies. And I don't recall condemnation of those voters with a broad brush, but my memory is hazy these days. In any event, they chose not to make their voice heard this election.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Heh, well if I'm to take seriously the concerns of Cousin Cletus of Harlan County when he demands the coal mine reopen with $25/hr jobs and lifetime employment (and prayer put back in schools, by Gawd), then let's also take seriously the concerns of the shrill racism-crying, safe space-demanding youth vote. Seems what's fair is fair.

Or regard both of these as caricatures. Heh.

[iam416]

I'd prefer the latter and proceed with an undeniably sound "The Talent Knows Best" policy.

But, yeah. Activists/Reactionary voters have valid concerns. For me, it's a matter of sorting through bullshit messaging I can't stand to get to the actual issue and the issue that is pragmatically redressable. That's very hard for me to do sometimes, so I need to do a better job of that.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump's really loving that this dumb Hamilton scrap popped up...completely drowning out any coverage of Trump U or his numerous conflict of interest stories.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Melania and Barron Trump not moving to the White House, per NY Post. Also been speculation that Trump doesn't want to really live there and might only stay there during the week. Will mean the security presence around Trump Tower will make traffic a nightmare around that part of Manhattan. I know there was talk of shutting down 5th Avenue completely for a few blocks.

[THE_WIZARD_]

shaddup

[hack]

No, that is almost the opposite of what I said. Under Obama, growth has been close to zero. I've actually argued to you that growth is well below zero which explains (1) why more 25-54 men are out of the work force than in 1930 at the height of the Great Depression. That's also (2) why there has been no wage growth since 1999 (for working people). That is also (3) why interest rates are close to zero (but going to rise next month). Under Obama, the upper 10%, mostly dealers in paper, and the lowest 10% (welfare) have done great. They belong to the Democrat Party.

An increased growth rate typically is spread throughout the economy. Again, I know you like to look at it as a fixed pie, so lets just say that today we have a pie with the size of 18T and next year we have a pie of 19.25 T. Let's just assume all the distributions are the same as our current shares (they will be more spread out, but that is a different issue) Can't you see that you get a bigger piece of pie, even if your percentage of the GDP stays the same?

How can allowing working men and women in WV to go back to work hurt the rest of us? Why should their lives be turned upside down? After the election DSL said something on the order of "the Dems should have had more plans for the coal miners that were put out of work". DSL and I both posted articles that had the thesis of a dignity gap, that working men wanted the dignity of a real 40-hour-a-week, Dad-bring-home-the-bacon job.

I'd honestly like to know why folks in what NR calls "the Great White Ghetto" should have their jobs eliminated by government decree. Can you answer me that? Would you feel differently if coal miners were preponderantly black or mostly illegals?

I'd also like to know your definition of middle-class. Not to argue, but just to see how we differ on that. Have you ever heard either party use the term "lower class" to describe the lowest 10%?

You've asked for a whole lot here. You'll get it, save for the pie thing, which we've just gone over so many times here. I'm tired of explaining that one and will take a pass, unless you want to change what you are saying.

But, first, can you edit that first paragraph to clarify? You're not really saying that growth rates at close to zero now explain the lack of wage growth since '99, right? Not sure why you picked that year as a cut-off rate, but since '99 growth rates have been above 5% some of the time and damn well near it a bunch too. What you're saying there doesn't make sense.

[froot loops]

If you are serious about being President, you stay in the White House. It's not a part time job. Your staff will be in the White House, it doesn't make sense.

[Da Geezer]

I picked 1999 as the year because I'm sure of that date. American wages as a whole were the same in 2016 as they were in 1999 (when adjusted for inflation). The political statement, "Working Americans have not had a raise since 1999" is mostly true.

In general, economic growth means more hiring and more job creation. Employers have to pay more for laborers because there is more demand for labor. That raises wages. I didn't mean to imply that GDP% growth = wage% growth as a mathematical equation. But they do move in tandem.

I was the one who pointed out that the GDP growth was 7% in 2002, and I also have previously pointed out that there were periods of growth after the Bush tax cuts.

And, unrelated, but commenting on some posts above, stimulative spending is a good thing to jumpstart a lagging economy. At least that is what I believe and have been taught. But, during the Obama presidency, we have printed about $9 Trillion of extra money and injected that into the economy. Standard economic theory would view that as very stimulative, probably more stimulative, than an infrastructure program. When you spend $ 1 Trillion on infrastructure, you have to tax the money away from someone to pay for it. If you just print money to pay for it (or any other federal spending) you don't have to take any money away from anyone. Standard economic theory says that printing money causes inflation, but that has simply not happened in any of the major economies. We should be concerned with the "why" of negative interest rates because they fly in the face of what economists all have been taught.

[Da Geezer]

I recall when CGVT threw the bullshit flag on me. I found this article interesting, not only because it used the word bullshit, but also on how it analyzes the treatment of Hillary and L. Ron Hubbard and Christ as similar. It also has a link to an article titled "If Hillary goes to jail, so should Guiliani".

https://reason.com/archives/2016/11/20/america-called-bullshit-on-saint-hillary

[hack]

I picked 1999 as the year because I'm sure of that date. American wages as a whole were the same in 2016 as they were in 1999 (when adjusted for inflation). The political statement, "Working Americans have not had a raise since 1999" is mostly true.

In general, economic growth means more hiring and more job creation. Employers have to pay more for laborers because there is more demand for labor. That raises wages. I didn't mean to imply that GDP% growth = wage% growth as a mathematical equation. But they do move in tandem.

I was the one who pointed out that the GDP growth was 7% in 2002, and I also have previously pointed out that there were periods of growth after the Bush tax cuts.

And, unrelated, but commenting on some posts above, stimulative spending is a good thing to jumpstart a lagging economy. At least that is what I believe and have been taught. But, during the Obama presidency, we have printed about $9 Trillion of extra money and injected that into the economy. Standard economic theory would view that as very stimulative, probably more stimulative, than an infrastructure program. When you spend $ 1 Trillion on infrastructure, you have to tax the money away from someone to pay for it. If you just print money to pay for it (or any other federal spending) you don't have to take any money away from anyone. Standard economic theory says that printing money causes inflation, but that has simply not happened in any of the major economies. We should be concerned with the "why" of negative interest rates because they fly in the face of what economists all have been taught.

Right -- so you see why I'm confused by what you posted, then? Feel free to restate so I know what to reply to.

[Whitley]

Wait, you mean additional stimulus spending.

I doubt they'll be particularly principled. Or maybe they will. Those House Rs are nutjobs when it comes to that shit.

However, government spending is one of the issues Rs can act one. The Ds are for it, but the public doesn't trust them on it. So it has to be the Rs. It's like Social Security. The Rs can't touch it because the public doesn't trust them on the issue for shit. It has to be the Ds that move.

There are a dozen issues like that where one party controls the issue to some degree. Public works spending happens to be one where the Rs can move.

And to be clear -- I'm talking in a purely political sense. How do voters react type stuff. I'm not talking about substantively right or wrong, I'm talking election result right or wrong.

I don't know Paul Ryan is sharpening his knives to go after entitlements, especially Medicare and Social Security