The US Election 2016, Part VII

[ShadySands]

Delivery service ... you mean I don't have to suffer the shame of a dozen cashiers at the grocery store who know me by name.

I wish they sold alcohol at grocery stores here. There's one Target in the middle of town that miraculously sells everything and I'm not sure how they get away with it

 

There was a ballot measure a couple years ago to change that but I don't think it passed. Hope that brings it slightly back on the election topic

[BruceVC]

 

 

Well I've had enough of this farce. Trump is repeating the same things over and over and Clinton is copping a condescending little sneer that is just pissing me off. I could not imagine two more unlikable human beings. F--k them both. I'm going to watch baseball.

 

 

I know who won... the Falcons, the Marlins, and the White Sox. 

GD now that you have had more time to reflect on the debate are you prepared to comment on who you think " won " the debate ?

 

 

Lets  not look at this from an emotional perspective but rather the overall points raised that are based on facts and real issues. For example the fact that Trump wont release his tax returns, again this is unacceptable and should be heavily criticized 

 

 

But I know on November 8 we are all going to lose.

 

 

Okay, fair enough. You wont comment on who you think " won " this debate...lets wait until we have seen the next 2 debates

 

Then hopefully people will feel more upbeat about the state of the US political system 

[Guard Dog]

 

Then hopefully people will feel more upbeat about the state of the US political system 

 

Outside of Clinton and Trump being abducted by aliens and replaced with better candidates I wouldn't hold out much hope for that.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

 

 

Then hopefully people will feel more upbeat about the state of the US political system 

 

Outside of Clinton and Trump being abducted by aliens and replaced with better candidates I wouldn't hold out much hope for that.

 

"aliens " 

 

Come on my friend, its not that bad 

 

I accept Trump may win. I dont believe he will but I also believe Trump wont destroy the USA even if he is president. I guess I firmly see the " glass is half-full "  as far as the next US president is concerned 

[Pidesco]

From what I watched Hillary Clinton does not have a basic grasp of economics

 

 

Don't you support a guy who wants to kill the Fed?

 

[Raithe]

[Gorgon]

Just watched the highlights, man that was boring. 

[BruceVC]

Just watched the highlights, man that was boring. 

Why what were you expecting that would have made it less boring ?

 

The presidential debates are not suppose to be about theatre and entertaining people , they are suppose to be about discussing the issues. They did debate things like the birther controversy, the ISIS strategy, aspects of the economy, tax returns and other topics 

 

People keep saying " the debate was boring " so I am  interested in what people would like from the agenda ?

[Guard Dog]

 

From what I watched Hillary Clinton does not have a basic grasp of economics

 

 

Don't you support a guy who wants to kill the Fed?

 

Yes. A position I support by the way because I DO have a basic grasp of economics. The Libertarians have positions I don't agree with like support for TPP, complete elimination of agricultural subsidy, etc. But I am much more aligned with them than any other political party or candidate. Show me someone who agrees with any candidate 100% and I'll show you someone who hasn't bothered to do much thinking.

 

No what I was specifically referring to is Hillary Clinton seems to either not understand or is choosing to ignore WHY businesses leave the country. There is only one reason: it costs more to operate a business in the United States than it does wherever the hell they are moving. So to fix this her solution is to increase taxes and regulatory compliance costs and make it even MORE expensive to stay. That is like using gasoline to put out a fire.

 

But as her comments in India four years ago indicate she has no problem with outsourcing American jobs.

[Enoch]

No what I was specifically referring to is Hillary Clinton seems to either not understand or is choosing to ignore WHY businesses leave the country. There is only one reason: it costs more to operate a business in the United States than it does wherever the hell they are moving. So to fix this her solution is to increase taxes and regulatory compliance costs and make it even MORE expensive to stay. That is like using gasoline to put out a fire.

Over-regulation is mostly a red herring in the off-shoring argument.  It can be a factor (mostly in heavily polluting industries that no American really wants to live near), but for most businesses it pales in comparison to the fact that Americans are expensive to employ.  And no amount of tax reduction and deregulation is going to make American labor rates comparable to those in Bangladesh.

 

Anyhow, the biggest driver in the loss of American manufacturing jobs isn't firms going overseas-- it's mechanization.  American manufacturing output has actually been recovering in recent years, but it's doing so with the kind of factories that employ 5 engineers and lots of robots instead of 50 union workers on an assembly line. 

Edited September 27, 2016 by Enoch

[Pidesco]

There is no amount of tax and regulation reductions that is going to stop businesses from leaving the US. If there's a qualified workforce available somewhere else that does the work for a tenth of US wages, businesses are going to leave no matter what. I don't see what tax reductions can offset that.

 

In any case, the US plummeted the world's economy through lack of regulation and oversight, so I don't see how dismantling the Fed is going to help overcome that, in any way.  An overhaul of the Fed might be in order, as the financial markets continue to do the crap that got the giant recession started. Wholly removing the one financial federal regulatory body the US has seems insane.

[Pidesco]

It seems that establishment is claiming Clinton won, but people chose Trump in all polls.

No surprises there.

 

http://www.infowars.com/poll-who-won-the-first-presidential-debate/

 

Online polls? Really? They might as well include our little presidential election thread.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Yes. A position I support by the way because I DO have a basic grasp of economics.

 

You mean the Austrian School that hates the Fed because muh praxeology or Monetarism which just wants to call the central bank something else?

[Meshugger]

 

Yes. A position I support by the way because I DO have a basic grasp of economics.

 

You mean the Austrian School that hates the Fed because muh praxeology or Monetarism which just wants to call the central bank something else?

 

 

The printing of money should not be in the hands of private institutions making a profit for each debt created, but in the representative power (congress, house of representatives, sovereign, whatnot). Neither should money be tied to gold for the same reasons as it transfer the real power into people like Black Rock asset management or Soros.

 

I haven't seen any real push for this on the agenda in this election.

[Pidesco]

 

 

It seems that establishment is claiming Clinton won, but people chose Trump in all polls.

No surprises there.

 

http://www.infowars.com/poll-who-won-the-first-presidential-debate/

 

Online polls? Really? They might as well include our little presidential election thread.

 

Polish election last year.

Official Polls:

Komorowski 69%

Duda 14%

 

Internet Polls"

Komorowski 32%

Duda 47%

 

You can check Wikipedia who is the new president.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_presidential_election,_2015#Second_round

 

Not quite that, but ok.

[pmp10]

 

No what I was specifically referring to is Hillary Clinton seems to either not understand or is choosing to ignore WHY businesses leave the country. There is only one reason: it costs more to operate a business in the United States than it does wherever the hell they are moving. So to fix this her solution is to increase taxes and regulatory compliance costs and make it even MORE expensive to stay. That is like using gasoline to put out a fire.

Over-regulation is mostly a red herring in the off-shoring argument.  It can be a factor (mostly in heavily polluting industries that no American really wants to live near), but for most businesses it pales in comparison to the fact that Americans are expensive to employ.  And no amount of tax reduction and deregulation is going to make American labor rates comparable to those in Bangladesh.

 

That's true for pretty much every job in developed countries today.

Why some positions are off-shored while others are not is a more interesting discussion.

[Hurlshort]

I was surprised how much Trump continued to rail against American companies moving to Mexico.  Not only is Mexico not at the top of that list (China is a better target) but it would seem to contradict his whole wall building rhetoric.  Is Mexico stealing American jobs or are Mexicans crossing the border and stealing jobs in the US?  China is also a much better target for this rhetoric, because they are barely bringing in any American goods.  It is an imbalanced relationship, while our trade relationship with Mexico has actually balanced out more over the last decade.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/27/donald-trump/trump-says-us-companies-moving-mexico-more-almost-/

 

http://fortune.com/2015/08/10/is-donald-trump-right-that-mexico-is-killing-us-on-trade/

[Pidesco]

 

Yes. A position I support by the way because I DO have a basic grasp of economics.

 

You mean the Austrian School that hates the Fed because muh praxeology or Monetarism which just wants to call the central bank something else?

 

 

Ooh, I had no idea libertarian economics came from an outright rejection of empiricism. Wow.

[Enoch]

I was surprised how much Trump continued to rail against American companies moving to Mexico.  Not only is Mexico not at the top of that list (China is a better target) but it would seem to contradict his whole wall building rhetoric.  Is Mexico stealing American jobs or are Mexicans crossing the border and stealing jobs in the US?  China is also a much better target for this rhetoric, because they are barely bringing in any American goods.  It is an imbalanced relationship, while our trade relationship with Mexico has actually balanced out more over the last decade.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/27/donald-trump/trump-says-us-companies-moving-mexico-more-almost-/

 

http://fortune.com/2015/08/10/is-donald-trump-right-that-mexico-is-killing-us-on-trade/

Your mistake is assuming that facts have any relevance at all to what comes out of Trump's mouth. 

 

He started out with a decent showing, but he used up his good material in 20 minutes, then fell back into to the shoot-from-the-hip style that worked for him in the Primaries.  Which didn't go well-- he sounded unprepared for questions that he had to know were coming ("err, go ask Sean Hannity!"), Hills got under his skin (the condescending tone that GD noted was absolutely intentional), and his lack of basic policy knowledge was evident. 

[Gfted1]

My god is Clinton ferociously unattractive. I wanted to punch her directly in her sneering, eye rolling face and I only watched about 10 minutes.

[Pidesco]

 

 

No what I was specifically referring to is Hillary Clinton seems to either not understand or is choosing to ignore WHY businesses leave the country. There is only one reason: it costs more to operate a business in the United States than it does wherever the hell they are moving. So to fix this her solution is to increase taxes and regulatory compliance costs and make it even MORE expensive to stay. That is like using gasoline to put out a fire.

Over-regulation is mostly a red herring in the off-shoring argument.  It can be a factor (mostly in heavily polluting industries that no American really wants to live near), but for most businesses it pales in comparison to the fact that Americans are expensive to employ.  And no amount of tax reduction and deregulation is going to make American labor rates comparable to those in Bangladesh.

 

That's true for pretty much every job in developed countries today.

Why some positions are off-shored while others are not is a more interesting discussion.

 

 

Positions that require acces to local resources, local knowledge and first person interaction with other people are less likely to be off-shored. Also, job movement goes both ways. Often people will move to where their skillset will afford them better wages. I think Trump mentioned something about this phenomenon, at some point.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Yes. A position I support by the way because I DO have a basic grasp of economics.

 

You mean the Austrian School that hates the Fed because muh praxeology or Monetarism which just wants to call the central bank something else?

 

 

The printing of money should not be in the hands of private institutions making a profit for each debt created, but in the representative power (congress, house of representatives, sovereign, whatnot). Neither should money be tied to gold for the same reasons as it transfer the real power into people like Black Rock asset management or Soros.

 

I haven't seen any real push for this on the agenda in this election.

 

Well yeah, ain't no liberal going to bite the bourgeoisie. Chomsky was right about manufacturing consent and it's hilarious and depressing to see it in action.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Yes. A position I support by the way because I DO have a basic grasp of economics.

 

You mean the Austrian School that hates the Fed because muh praxeology or Monetarism which just wants to call the central bank something else?

 

 

Ooh, I had no idea libertarian economics came from an outright rejection of empiricism. Wow.

 

If you want to be extremely accurate, Libertarian economics come from Proudhon who was later pilfered by influenced Marx. What's called Libertarian today is just classical liberalism with the subjective theory of value slapped on and an edgy coat of paint.

[Meshugger]

 

 

Yes. A position I support by the way because I DO have a basic grasp of economics.

 

You mean the Austrian School that hates the Fed because muh praxeology or Monetarism which just wants to call the central bank something else?

 

 

Ooh, I had no idea libertarian economics came from an outright rejection of empiricism. Wow.

 

 

It's been based on logic instead with the motivation that economic trends are too volatile and based on irrational behaviour to be accurately predicted with empirical models. Personally, i do not care which model is used, but rather on whose interest the policies are made and by whom.

[Enoch]

My god is Clinton ferociously unattractive. I wanted to punch her directly in her sneering, eye rolling face and I only watched about 10 minutes.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the double-standard!

 

('Cause, you know, the obese toupee'd septuagenarian who uses Cheeto dust as a skin-care treatment was lookin' hot!)

Edited September 27, 2016 by Enoch