US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[benjipwns]

From Pew's report:



Also, hadn't seen this:

[benjipwns]

Now we posting fanfic on facebook:

Robert Reich
Yesterday at 7:23am ·
I had breakfast recently with a friend who's a former Republican member of Congress. Here's what he said:
Him: Trump is no Republican. He’s just a big fat ego.
Me: Then why didn’t you speak out against him during the campaign?
Him: You kidding? I was surrounded by Trump voters. I’d have been shot.
Me: So what now? What are your former Republican colleagues going to do?
Him (smirking): They’ll play along for a while.
Me: A while?
Him: They’ll get as much as they want – tax cuts galore, deregulation, military buildup, slash all those poverty programs, and then get to work on Social Security and Medicare – and blame him. And he’s such a fool he’ll want to take credit for everything.
Me: And then what?
Him (laughing): They like Pence.
Me: What do you mean?
Him: Pence is their guy. They all think Trump is out of his mind.
Me: So what?
Him: So the moment Trump does something really dumb – steps over the line – violates the law in a big stupid clumsy way … and you know he will ...
Me: They impeach him?
Him: You bet. They pull the trigger.

[Joe Molotov]

Robert Reich? Sounds like neo-nazi scum.

[etiolate]

Benji I feel like you only argued that the business of the press has been a growing, maturing field that has a good spot and is now regressing. That's not a satisfying argument. That's not a valid excuse for a lack of fact checking.

It still remains they have to up their game if this is a game of trolling. Points of view vs pure objectivity isn't even the argument. It's just having some integrity and self-respect. These things cannot be shrugged off as delusions.

[benjipwns]

I didn't make that argument in the slightest. I didn't excuse anything.

The idea that there is some grand "game of trolling" happening between a monolithic media and...random people on the internet that functions as a proxy war of some kind is pretty delusional.

[etiolate]

Ehh I think you wanted to try a handwave with your post, but alright.

The trolling is about the Trump group, their tactics and that versus the press. It's about them adopting that strategy and mindset, succeeding all the way to the whitehouse with it, and whether the press can hold them accountable if they don't get what's going on. That's the question I've kept asking that everyone avoids.

[chronovore]

Now we posting fanfic on facebook:

Robert Reich
Yesterday at 7:23am ·
I had breakfast recently with a friend who's a former Republican member of Congress. Here's what he said:
Him: Trump is no Republican. He’s just a big fat ego.
Me: Then why didn’t you speak out against him during the campaign?
Him: You kidding? I was surrounded by Trump voters. I’d have been shot.
Me: So what now? What are your former Republican colleagues going to do?
Him (smirking): They’ll play along for a while.
Me: A while?
Him: They’ll get as much as they want – tax cuts galore, deregulation, military buildup, slash all those poverty programs, and then get to work on Social Security and Medicare – and blame him. And he’s such a fool he’ll want to take credit for everything.
Me: And then what?
Him (laughing): They like Pence.
Me: What do you mean?
Him: Pence is their guy. They all think Trump is out of his mind.
Me: So what?
Him: So the moment Trump does something really dumb – steps over the line – violates the law in a big stupid clumsy way … and you know he will ...
Me: They impeach him?
Him: You bet. They pull the trigger.

I've been wondering for a while if this is the plan. There is too much destabilization under Trump, and he's too easily manipulated.

[benjipwns]

Ehh I think you wanted to try a handwave with your post, but alright.

The trolling is about the Trump group, their tactics and that versus the press. It's about them adopting that strategy and mindset, succeeding all the way to the whitehouse with it, and whether the press can hold them accountable if they don't get what's going on. That's the question I've kept asking that everyone avoids.

A handwave of what?

[benjipwns]

The redefinition of "trolling" into uselessness as a term is just one really longterm troll by shadowy power brokers isn't it?

[VomKriege]

Ehh I think you wanted to try a handwave with your post, but alright.

The trolling is about the Trump group, their tactics and that versus the press. It's about them adopting that strategy and mindset, succeeding all the way to the whitehouse with it, and whether the press can hold them accountable if they don't get what's going on. That's the question I've kept asking that everyone avoids.

A handwave of what?

Aren't you paid by Soros ?

Fun fact : Soros is actually hiding all his nefarious activities behind a front, unfortunately he's using a palindrome of his own name.

[Phoenix Dark]

https://twitter.com/seanspicer/status/302491904707272704

[etiolate]

Ehh I think you wanted to try a handwave with your post, but alright.

The trolling is about the Trump group, their tactics and that versus the press. It's about them adopting that strategy and mindset, succeeding all the way to the whitehouse with it, and whether the press can hold them accountable if they don't get what's going on. That's the question I've kept asking that everyone avoids.

A handwave of what?

That's like the second line right after handwave. Fukkin benji.

We'll settle on this: you all dodge the Q so you got no answer

On to funnies

[benjipwns]

Is this some kind of Zizek roleplaying?

[VomKriege]

https://twitter.com/seanspicer/status/302491904707272704

I mean this only further proves that Russia/4chan as a collective got this man into office. Unbelievable

[chronovore]

https://canipunchnazis.com

[Optimus]

Hoooooly mother of cringe. The pretentiousness... The shitty poem...

[Nola]

I guess there's an argument that press briefings, however pointless, are a ritual. And symbols are not meaningless even if of little substance. It's also a highwater mark for press access and a tacit approval by government that they will take questions and not shut down outside observers.

But yeah the whole "fourth power" thing always sounded a bit hollow and self-aggrandizing. Though I guess it's rather an upside that journalists have internalized delusions of integrity and truthfulness, I'd say they are more likely to try to self-police.

The belief that press (or Hollywood, media and / or academics) are somehow a homogeneous micromanaged cabal will never not be funny.

Speaking personally, the only way I look at the press thing is in the context of the situation. And like most other people, are guilty of trying to ascertain motive, causation and consequence. I guess i don't really feel guilty about that, its what a citizen should do in my mind. Though at the same time you want a news media that contextualizes things so people don't go off the deep end with errant speculation. But that is where things become tricky as well. Almost whatever you choose to contextualize that will be open to accusations of partisanship. But leaving little or no contextualization is just reckless and bad journalism IMO. And if you dare answer the charges of partisanship you get framed as your response being proof of the conspiracy.

Benji is right, in isolation the press briefing is mostly an eventless exercise most of the times. Its the larger context that is why I will give it some mindshare.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

And whether these sentiments of mine are overblown or not, Trump seems to be angling to take a very adversarial role toward the press.I recognize this is not a unique thing to Trump, and as a campaign strategy was kinda brilliant, however, the end game of a prolonged strategy of trying to de-legitimize the free press except when they cover Trump positively, if successful, is something that concerns me long-term.

The "liberal media" thing has certainly been around for some time and made quite a few opportunistic alternative media founders wealthy and/or famous for those dissonant enough to not see the hypocrisy, and the trend is nothing new. Nor really are the strategies being used. When I see stuff like this it does inescapably come off like another notch on this long attempt, now dialed up several notches, to basically destroy those journalistic entities that while not free of bias, do often try and operate in a manner consistent with good media behavior.

[close]

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

Now we posting fanfic on facebook:

Robert Reich
Yesterday at 7:23am ·
I had breakfast recently with a friend who's a former Republican member of Congress. Here's what he said:
Him: Trump is no Republican. He’s just a big fat ego.
Me: Then why didn’t you speak out against him during the campaign?
Him: You kidding? I was surrounded by Trump voters. I’d have been shot.
Me: So what now? What are your former Republican colleagues going to do?
Him (smirking): They’ll play along for a while.
Me: A while?
Him: They’ll get as much as they want – tax cuts galore, deregulation, military buildup, slash all those poverty programs, and then get to work on Social Security and Medicare – and blame him. And he’s such a fool he’ll want to take credit for everything.
Me: And then what?
Him (laughing): They like Pence.
Me: What do you mean?
Him: Pence is their guy. They all think Trump is out of his mind.
Me: So what?
Him: So the moment Trump does something really dumb – steps over the line – violates the law in a big stupid clumsy way … and you know he will ...
Me: They impeach him?
Him: You bet. They pull the trigger.

I've been wondering for a while if this is the plan. There is too much destabilization under Trump, and he's too easily manipulated.

This is actually kind of sound reasoning. The GOP establishment has got to know they've lucked into an unstable position of power. They can get a lot of items off of their list and blame Trump for all the bills to be paid later on, even years down the line (the ACA replacement we were crafting would have worked, but we could only get Trump Care passed, sorry about the humongous costs and all the dead people).

[I'm a Puppy!]

I said this in the unpopular opinions thread. I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans impeach Trump because they can't control him.

[Optimus]

I said this in the unpopular opinions thread. I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans impeach Trump because they can't control him.

Trump and the alt-right are already plotting against old guard republicans. It's only logical that they also plot against Trump. The question is, do they really want to disturb the hive?

[Mandark]

I said this in the unpopular opinions thread. I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans impeach Trump because they can't control him.

I can only imagine that happening if Trump becomes unpopular among Republican voters, if he turns against the Congressional GOP on something they consider a core priority.

Neither of those seem terribly likely, but weirder things have happened.

[Nola]

It's sound reasoning, but I don't think it will work long-term.

They tried privatizing Social Security under Bush and it failed spectacularly, because like now with the ACA, Republican politicians really don't seem to understand the details of the policies they preach, their costs and their consequences in an accurate way. Nor what their followers actually want.

I think they severely underestimate how much they can distance themselves from Trump with that strategy.
 

[recursivelyenumerable]

Now we posting fanfic on facebook:

Robert Reich
Yesterday at 7:23am ·
I had breakfast recently with a friend who's a former Republican member of Congress. Here's what he said:
Him: Trump is no Republican. He’s just a big fat ego.
Me: Then why didn’t you speak out against him during the campaign?
Him: You kidding? I was surrounded by Trump voters. I’d have been shot.
Me: So what now? What are your former Republican colleagues going to do?
Him (smirking): They’ll play along for a while.
Me: A while?
Him: They’ll get as much as they want – tax cuts galore, deregulation, military buildup, slash all those poverty programs, and then get to work on Social Security and Medicare – and blame him. And he’s such a fool he’ll want to take credit for everything.
Me: And then what?
Him (laughing): They like Pence.
Me: What do you mean?
Him: Pence is their guy. They all think Trump is out of his mind.
Me: So what?
Him: So the moment Trump does something really dumb – steps over the line – violates the law in a big stupid clumsy way … and you know he will ...
Me: They impeach him?
Him: You bet. They pull the trigger.

That Republican's name? Richard Nixon.

[VomKriege]

The White House wants to renegociate NAFTA ASAP. (Reuters France)

itshappening.jpg

[benjipwns]

You have to give a six month notice before withdrawing from NAFTA apparently.

I have to assume he'll instead get Mexico and Canada to agree to some around the edges changes that probably everybody's wanted for years and proclaim it as a great yooge deal. Maybe they'll even agree to rename it so it's no longer NAFTA but like MAGAFTA and say he scrapped it.

The Canadians already know about the secret clause that allows the President of the United States to automatically declare Canada the 51st state (source: John Turner and Ed Broadbent) so it's more about negotiating with Mexico.

[Raist]

The Canadians already know about the secret clause that allows the President of the United States to automatically declare Canada the 51st state (source: John Turner and Ed Broadbent) so it's more about negotiating with Mexico.

But then don't forget that this would invariably trigger the secret rule that would MQGA (i.e a full-fledged french overseas territory).

[archie4208]

https://twitter.com/seanspicer/status/302491904707272704

Finally a politician I can relate to. 

[Boredfrom]

I said this in the unpopular opinions thread. I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans impeach Trump because they can't control him.

I can only imagine that happening if Trump becomes unpopular among Republican voters, if he turns against the Congressional GOP on something they consider a core priority.

Neither of those seem terribly likely, but weirder things have happened.

This actually seems likely to happen.

[ToxicAdam]

The White House wants to renegociate NAFTA ASAP. (Reuters France)

itshappening.jpg

We're getting our wall!

[Optimus]

The White House wants to renegociate NAFTA ASAP. (Reuters France)

itshappening.jpg

Good. Trade deals only benefit the fucking corporations. The middle class of both the more and less developed nations always suffer. In less developed nations the ruling class of the more developed ones has an interest in keeping the wages low and the population desperate and poor so they manipulate politicians and policy to achieve that, and in the more developed ones they lose jobs and force wages down since they're now competing with a more poor and desperate workforce. Let's hope he torches the deal.

[benjipwns]

http://nypost.com/2017/01/22/caroline-kennedy-could-be-the-baggage-free-hillary-clinton/

Now with politics again in sight, the Kennedy insider asserted, “The presidency is on her mind now, believe me.”

She has the money to run, with a net worth estimated to be between $80 million and $500 million, according to Bloomberg and CNN. The Post has reported that she receives $12 million to $30 million a year from Kennedy trust funds.

another close source revealed, “Caroline is seen in some quarters as the next Hillary Clinton. She has the Kennedy name but no Clinton baggage.”

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[Optimus]

Free trade makes the country as a whole better off if there are policies in place to assist the people who are displaced by it. This is Kaldor-Hicks efficiency theory. The problem is we don't really do that, but I'd rather see us take those steps than go back to protectionism.

It's a no true Scotsman fallacy. We will never take those steps because in the real world that's not how free trade deals work. They ALWAYS screw the middle class and promote the interests of corporations. Like conservatives with trickle down economics liberals have this illusion that "if we do it right" free trade deals might work for the middle class. They don't, end of story.

[benjipwns]

Free trade over protectionism is like the one thing economists agree on.

Economists have the least influence on policy where they know the most and are most agreed; they have the most influence on policy where they know the least and disagree most vehemently.

If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'

[Optimus]

Free trade over protectionism is like the one thing economists agree on.

Economists have the least influence on policy where they know the most and are most agreed; they have the most influence on policy where they know the least and disagree most vehemently.

If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'

Which economists? Libertarians economists? Liberal economists? Socialist economists? Neocon economists? Economics is a pseudoscience, every economist only agrees with economists of his own ideology and since it's obvious that the higher US private educational system promotes neocons and liberals that why most of them agree on it.

[benjipwns]

What makes national borders so special that our autarky should start only at them?

[toku]

our govt organizations are subtweeting now

https://twitter.com/DeptofDefense/status/823515639302262784

[zomgee]

 

[Optimus]

What makes national borders so special that our autarky should start only at them?

You opened up a huge discussion there. It's because there are borders why corporations exploit the situation and screw both the populations of more and less developed nations. In every fucking step of the way corporations exploit these borders, from taxation, wages, labor rights to prices, competition and so on. They make sure less developed nation continue screwing their citizens so that they can have obedient wage slaves and then sell their shit to developed nations who screw their citizens less. At least that was happening all these years, now that they've gotten even more greedy and capitalism is imploding because it can no longer sustain growth they're cannibalizing themselves by slowly ruining the middle class of more developed nations too. Trade deals are part of that.

My point is, either have borders or don't but don't let these fuckers use them as a tool to screw everyone but themselves. "Protectionism" is basically rules that don't allow corporations to exploit the situation we're in whether we like it or not.

[Phoenix Dark]

Free trade makes the country as a whole better off if there are policies in place to assist the people who are displaced by it. This is Kaldor-Hicks efficiency theory. The problem is we don't really do that, but I'd rather see us take those steps than go back to protectionism.

It's a no true Scotsman fallacy. We will never take those steps because in the real world that's not how free trade deals work. They ALWAYS screw the middle class and promote the interests of corporations. Like conservatives with trickle down economics liberals have this illusion that "if we do it right" free trade deals might work for the middle class. They don't, end of story.

You're not good at this.

[Optimus]

Free trade makes the country as a whole better off if there are policies in place to assist the people who are displaced by it. This is Kaldor-Hicks efficiency theory. The problem is we don't really do that, but I'd rather see us take those steps than go back to protectionism.

It's a no true Scotsman fallacy. We will never take those steps because in the real world that's not how free trade deals work. They ALWAYS screw the middle class and promote the interests of corporations. Like conservatives with trickle down economics liberals have this illusion that "if we do it right" free trade deals might work for the middle class. They don't, end of story.

You're not good at this.

It's funny how every time I compare liberals to conservatives I receive these passive-aggressive one liners that contain zero arguments. If you don't want to be compared to them start acting less like them.

[Mr. Gundam]

https://twitter.com/seanspicer/status/302491904707272704

Yeah, Sean... we're still not cool. Maybe if you do all your press briefings in it we can start talking.

Also, how many Executive Orders has he signed now?

[Nola]

Free trade over protectionism is like the one thing economists agree on.

Economists have the least influence on policy where they know the most and are most agreed; they have the most influence on policy where they know the least and disagree most vehemently.

If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'

Which economists? Libertarians economists? Liberal economists? Socialist economists? Neocon economists? Economics is a pseudoscience, every economist only agrees with economists of his own ideology and since it's obvious that the higher US private educational system promotes neocons and liberals that why most of them agree on it.

In terms of which ones agree on the principles of comparative advantage? All of them really.

I am sympathetic to an extent to your underlying criticism though. Free trade is not really free trade as we often practice it. China still operates a very mercantilist economy in many sectors. Then again so do we. However, what Trump has hinted at is even worse. Assuming he doesn't pivot. At least if I am understanding his tax right. My hot take is it will hinder American competitiveness with no real advantage without raising import tariffs, which if done would trigger trade wars.

US manufacturing is up. Re-shoring has been an ongoing trend and businesses have been in a bit of re-thinking on the profitability of international expansion. But there are just some hard truths people don't want to face like automation. Which accelerated during the recession. And no matter how punitive your tariffs or taxes are, it is not going to stop that.

You want to make major gains to grow the middle class? Fix fucking healthcare properly and invest in the already high demand healthcare sector where 13 of the 20 fastest growing occupations are. Where the outrageous rise in insurance costs have factored in stagnating wages. Invest in re-education and trade schools. Invest in infrastructure directly, build out the green energy sector.

[Optimus]

Free trade over protectionism is like the one thing economists agree on.

Economists have the least influence on policy where they know the most and are most agreed; they have the most influence on policy where they know the least and disagree most vehemently.

If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'

Which economists? Libertarians economists? Liberal economists? Socialist economists? Neocon economists? Economics is a pseudoscience, every economist only agrees with economists of his own ideology and since it's obvious that the higher US private educational system promotes neocons and liberals that why most of them agree on it.

In terms of which ones agree on the principles of comparative advantage? All of them really.

I am sympathetic to an extent to your underlying criticism though. Free trade is not really free trade as we often practice it. China still operates a very mercantilist economy in many sectors. Then again so do we. However, what Trump has hinted at is even worse. Assuming he doesn't pivot. At least if I am understanding his tax right. My hot take is it will hinder American competitiveness with no real advantage without raising import tariffs, which if done would trigger trade wars.

US manufacturing is up. Re-shoring has been an ongoing trend and businesses have been in a bit of re-thinking on the profitability of international expansion. But there are just some hard truths people don't want to face like automation. Which accelerated during the recession. And no matter how punitive your tariffs or taxes are, it is not going to stop that.

You want to make major gains to grow the middle class? Fix fucking healthcare properly and invest in the already high demand healthcare sector where 13 of the 20 fastest growing occupations are. Where the outrageous rise in insurance costs have factored in stagnating wages. Invest in re-education and trade schools. Invest in infrastructure directly, build out the green energy sector.

First of all, leftist economists, actual leftist economists not liberals who are actually rightwingers, don't support free trade deals because historically they always end up being used to promote the interests of the ruling class.

China already has in place huge tariffs for American products they don't need to import and compete with theirs. American competitiveness btw doesn't matter much and economic numbers don't means shit, Wall Street continued to thrive during Obama's presidency while the middle class was dying. Americans need to learn that these numbers hardly mean much for the middle class these are stats that show how the top 1% is doing and, naturally, are being used by government and media to show how the country is doing. Automation btw is already making these numbers even more pointless.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence but the middle class will continue to get screwed even with those policies in effect if there are destructive trade deals like NAFTA and TPP.

[jakefromstatefarm]

Man, ever since election day we've seen some quality competition -from etiolate's spiteful intellectual posturing, to Atra's drive-by illiberal maymaying, to MTW's concern trolling, not to mention all the anons from the gaf thread coming in to deliver their (((valuable))) two cents once in a blue moon- and even so, Optimus and his brand of unnecessarily abrasive, paint-by-the-numbers radsoc is still dominating the running for Poli-bore shitposter of the year 2k17.

Strong year, fellas. I know in my heart that AIA and Jaydub are looking up and smiling from whichever circle of digital hell they managed to fall backwards into.

[Optimus]

I think Reply #2462 is relevant to your post. Sorry for triggering you, next time maybe you'll even offer an actual argument!

[VomKriege]

Free trade makes the country as a whole better off if there are policies in place to assist the people who are displaced by it. This is Kaldor-Hicks efficiency theory. The problem is we don't really do that, but I'd rather see us take those steps than go back to protectionism.

Europe is supposed to have better safety nets but the resentment against globalisation is no more muted than in the US : a lot of it is the immigration but free movement of individuals cannot be easily divorced from goods and services. Assistance politics will only carry you so far (and you have to fund them). My opinion is that part of the issue lies with too weak a political push to couple adhesion to an open market to much more stringent demands on mandatory wage minimums and labor laws (safety, worker rights, environment regulations...), hopefully to bridge in part the work cost gap and to speed up the access to better living conditions. More prosperous populations means less incentives to emigrate on economic motives too. It seems to be the ultimate strategy instead of making anti-brown people fortresses out of Europe and the USA.

I may of course be dead wrong but I think that the underlying problem is that a global market means having matching global politic institutions*, either that you want to decide on global norms or to scale up assistance & economic relief policies. We're still far away from international governance (even on the cusp of regressing) but the EU could conceivably achieve it and in fact is probably condemned to it for its continued existence. I don't know which one of politics or economy drives the other, but we need both the horses and the cart.

* By which I mean stronger institutions than the one currently existing (UN, IMF, WTO, etc...). More powerful so have to be made more accountable.

[Nola]

Authorities are also pushing back against the perception that the CIA workforce was cheering for the president. They say the first three rows in front of the president were largely made up of supporters of Mr. Trump’s campaign.

An official with knowledge of the make-up of the crowd says that there were about 40 people who’d been invited by the Trump, Mike Pence and Rep. Mike Pompeo teams. The Trump team expected Rep. Pompeo, R-Kansas, to be sworn in during the event as the next CIA director, but the vote to confirm him was delayed on Friday by Senate  Democrats. Also sitting in the first several rows in front of the president was the CIA’s senior leadership, which was not cheering the remarks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sources-say-theres-a-sense-of-unease-in-intel-community-after-trump-cia-visit/

[seagrams hotsauce]

Free trade makes the country as a whole better off if there are policies in place to assist the people who are displaced by it. This is Kaldor-Hicks efficiency theory. The problem is we don't really do that, but I'd rather see us take those steps than go back to protectionism.

It's a no true Scotsman fallacy. We will never take those steps because in the real world that's not how free trade deals work. They ALWAYS screw the middle class and promote the interests of corporations. Like conservatives with trickle down economics liberals have this illusion that "if we do it right" free trade deals might work for the middle class. They don't, end of story.

You're not good at this.

It's funny how every time I compare liberals to conservatives I receive these passive-aggressive one liners that contain zero arguments. If you don't want to be compared to them start acting less like them.

Don't read into it too much, you just rarely post anything that dignifies a response beyond driveby shitposting

[Optimus]

Free trade makes the country as a whole better off if there are policies in place to assist the people who are displaced by it. This is Kaldor-Hicks efficiency theory. The problem is we don't really do that, but I'd rather see us take those steps than go back to protectionism.

Europe is supposed to have better safety nets but the resentment against globalisation is no more muted than in the US : a lot of it is the immigration but free movement of individuals cannot be easily divorced from goods and services. Assistance politics will only carry you so far (and you have to fund them). My opinion is that part of the issue lies with too weak a political push to couple adhesion to an open market to much more stringent demands on mandatory wage minimums and labor laws (safety, worker rights, environment regulations...), hopefully to bridge in part the work cost gap and to speed up the access to better living conditions. More prosperous populations means less incentives to emigrate on economic motives too.

I may of course be dead wrong but I think that the underlying problem is that a global market means having matching global politic institutions, either that you want to decide on global norms or to scale up assistance & economic relief policies. We're still far away from international governance (even on the cusp of regressing) but the EU could conceivably achieve it and in fact is probably condemned to it for its continued existence. I don't know which one of politics or economy drives the other, but we need both the horses and the cart.

Immigration isn't the only reason resentment against globalization grows in Europe. EU has been a catalyst for the loss of labor rights, stagnated wages, austerity, privatizations and less control of the economy even in social democracies. Resentment grows because EU didn't end up being what was promised, because the free market was used by large corporations of heavy industrial nations to obliterate and buy out the competition of weaker economies, destroy most of their small businesses and then exploit the workforce of these nations which caused stagnation to the wages of the richer nations. It's a recipe that has been repeated a million times in every free trade agreement. Add to that a shitty inflexible currency and there you have it, the perfect clusterfuck.

[VomKriege]

Immigration isn't the only reason resentment against globalization grows in Europe.

I don't think I said that ?

[Samson Manhug]

Spicer's whining at this press conference about negative press being frustrating and demoralizing is incredible. This man has no shame.

[Optimus]

Immigration isn't the only reason resentment against globalization grows in Europe.

I don't think I said that ?

You didn't, I was adding that immigration you mainly talked about isn't the only reason and most probably not the main one.

[Brehvolution]

[Syph]

lol@arguing against free trade

not to mention "higher US private educational system" isn't divided into "neocons and liberals" etc, but into chicago school, austrian, keynesian, etc.
not to mention arguing that they skew "neocon" (which you really meant to say chicago school) is just flat out wrong.

and lol at broad-strokes calling it a pseudoscience; take an econometrics course and actually perform some regressions then get back to me

spoiler (click to show/hide)

source: im a fucking honors econ major

[close]

[Optimus]

lol@arguing against free trade

not to mention "higher US private educational system" isn't divided into "neocons and liberals" etc, but into chicago school, austrian, keynesian, etc.
not to mention arguing that they skew "neocon" (which you really meant to say chicago school) is just flat out wrong.

and lol at broad-strokes calling it a pseudoscience; take an econometrics course and actually perform some regressions then get back to me

spoiler (click to show/hide)

source: im a fucking honors econ major

[close]

You didn't need the spoiler, I already figured it out. I was talking about what American colleges teach students and that has very rarely anything to do with Left economics. And btw neocon was a typo, I meant neoliberal, neocon refers to foreign policy. I will also insist on economics being a pseudoscience, while certain parts of economics aren't  (macro-economics is pure math afaik) the field is so influenced by politics that makes anything economists say irrelevant and extremely biased. Which is why they have failed so spectacularly the last decade.

[Optimus]

Sanders, joined by rust belt Democrats, praises Trump for nixing TPP

“Today’s announcement that the US is withdrawing from TPP and seeking a reopening of NAFTA is an important first step toward a trade policy that works for working people,” said Trumka. “While these are necessary actions, they aren’t enough. They are just the first in a series of necessary policy changes required to build a fair and just global economy. We will continue our relentless campaign to create new trade and economic rules that end special privileges for foreign investors and Big Pharma, protect our planet’s precious natural resources and ensure fair pay, safe conditions and a voice in the workplace for all workers.”

[Brehvolution]

Spicer was right!



http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

[Phoenix Dark]

Free trade makes the country as a whole better off if there are policies in place to assist the people who are displaced by it. This is Kaldor-Hicks efficiency theory. The problem is we don't really do that, but I'd rather see us take those steps than go back to protectionism.

It's a no true Scotsman fallacy. We will never take those steps because in the real world that's not how free trade deals work. They ALWAYS screw the middle class and promote the interests of corporations. Like conservatives with trickle down economics liberals have this illusion that "if we do it right" free trade deals might work for the middle class. They don't, end of story.

You're not good at this.

It's funny how every time I compare liberals to conservatives I receive these passive-aggressive one liners that contain zero arguments. If you don't want to be compared to them start acting less like them.

You just made a 1:1 idealogical comparison between trickle down economics, an exclusive conservative view, and...free trade, something liberals and conservative economists and politicians have supported. You're making a lazy comparison that doesn't make sense.

I notice this a lot from Bernie bros (most of whom know nothing about politics or policy I might add), who seem to think that only he is a liberal. Kinda like that white guy who discovers rap music and wants to tell everyone how nobody has ever rapped like Eminem before.

[benjipwns]

First of all, leftist economists, actual leftist economists not liberals who are actually rightwingers, don't support free trade deals because historically they always end up being used to promote the interests of the ruling class.

The system of protection was an artificial means of manufacturing manufacturers, of expropriating independent laborers, of capitalizing the national means of production and subsistence, and of forcibly abbreviating the transition from the medieval to the modern mode of production.

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen that I vote in favor of free trade.

[Optimus]

First of all, leftist economists, actual leftist economists not liberals who are actually rightwingers, don't support free trade deals because historically they always end up being used to promote the interests of the ruling class.

The system of protection was an artificial means of manufacturing manufacturers, of expropriating independent laborers, of capitalizing the national means of production and subsistence, and of forcibly abbreviating the transition from the medieval to the modern mode of production.

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen that I vote in favor of free trade.

You need to read about the difference between internationalism and globalization, the left doesn't oppose a united worldwide community it opposes globalization. No fucking way in hell Marx would be in favor of free trade agreements. "Free trade" btw doesn't necessarily mean no tariffs, free trade at Marx's time meant a very different thing.