Political Roundtable Part XXX

[Fairview4Life]

Multiple GOP reps lobbied the WH between 1-6 and 1-20 for pardons.

Very interesting.

Also the Proud Boys left the ellipse rally at 1030 ish, well before Golfy McBonespurs
had even started to speak, and went to the capital. It seems obvious they were doing pre battle reconnaissance.

This upends the lie that it was a protest that just got out of hand.

The assault itself:

Read on Twitter

The flaggers calling people to storm the building in a coordinated fashion was new to me.

The overall plot:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/01/13/the-structure-of-the-january-6-assault-i-will-settle-with-seeing-normies-smash-some-pigs-to-dust/

[Zonkerbl]

Send them all to the gulag!

[doclinkin]

Doc

Republicans *literally* do the opposite of this. And they just won a HUGE VICTORY. Persuasion is for losers.

The Republicans are not interested in persuading people. They brainwash them. Fine! Two can play at that game, and the name of the game is to rant and rave about something often enough that people start thinking they believed it the whole time.

No the name of the game is to own a media corporation and put production values behind your rant. ALSO they sell fear. Most would-be pundits sell loud noise on twitter to people who already agree with you. No babies blood child abduction ring Comet Pizza etc. etc.

No one in this thread is paying the slightest bit of attention to me.

I have listened to what you said. And surprise, I still disagree. You make the error of hearing your own opinion as the Voice of Truth, that if some one does not fall in line with your belief, they are clearly misguided or ignorant. The Repugnicans do the opposite.
They shout out loud the dirty bits that ignorant people already secretly believe, and then congratulate their listeners for being the sort of insightful geniuses who know the Real Truth.

Consider that you are simply not persuasive enough, or perhaps that you are not selling the right KIND of stupid. I mean hell, I agree with you in general, but find your tactics wrong headed and disagreeable.

Ok agree with you in part.

I disagree that the entire job of policing is flawed entirely. I have seen it shift in the wrong direction, seen it work well, and am friends with at least 2 cops who truly hate the paranoia that has crept into the job, and who agree that there are bad cops who spoil the culture. The militarization of police is not inevitable, it has been a deliberate incremental replacement of policy and procedures.

As for not listening, my point is you can de facto defund the police by Trojan Horse-ing cuts in militarization while funding the effective and helpful programs instead, and just calling them part of the police budget. Hell as a past municipal union president I had to have these sorts of arguments to protect the jobs of civilian personnel in the PD, and expand their role in programs that are effective (code enforcement of abandoned properties, language translation, neighborhood clean up initiatives, Community Outreach programs etc) while arguing against stupid stuff like off road electric vehicles for cops to joyride through parks to sneak up on I dunno, juvenile delinquent squirrels or some shxt. It all falls under the police budget, even if the mission is different. You can starve the beast from within. Budgetary stomach stapling. Call it Public Safety, not law enforcement. The money looks like it is going the same place, but is used better, more efficiently in actually fixing real problems.

Or you know, you can think you will change anyone's mind by shouting that you are smarter than them, know more, and are actually managing to chase airplanes away from flying over your house by shouting up at the clouds. KEEP THOSE CHEMTRAILS AWAY FROM MY HOUSE!

I'm saying find a slogan that excites people the way Defund the Police does, but in the opposite direction. We as a group are smart enough to find the right kind of stupid. Republicans know to drop the thing that is not working, change the phrase, then hammer that phrase. Hammering the one that doesn't work, doesn't work. Twitter seems to only be able to convince people of what they already believe. Then they are surprised when reality heads in a different direction.

Find a phrase that works. Bang that.

Murderers aren't Apples
Fire Criminal Cops
Fire Bad Cops
Demand Better.
Demand Better fill in the blank: ...Policing. ...Safety ...Neighborhoods ...Laws. ...Mayors ...Budgets. ...Cops

Progressives can do better at reaching people where they live, by listening to what they want and are afraid of, then working with that. Instead of what the Repugnicans do to pump Fear Fear Fear. It's a harder message to sell, but it boils down to:

This shxt Sucks, there's a Better way.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=Vc27WlLt6fKFypVkhXBDUQ&s=19

[doclinkin]

Really if I'm moving the Overton window on anything it's to turn 'Socialism' into a positive word.

Like: If socialism means my grandmother can afford her medication, then: Give Me My Damn Socialism.

If socialism means gas companies can't run up prices to profit out of people's anxiety about the future then:
Where's my f'n socialism.

If socialism means corporations can't skip free and pay zero taxes because they have better lawyers than the working joe, then f that, I want socialism.

If people don't die of hunger or are unable to go to a doctor because they can't afford it... If mentally ill people are able to get help before they break down and shoot up a school... Any time you get pissed because 'Somebody should Do Something about--' whatever the problem is: that is socialism socialism socialism. You are right. Somebody should. Let's make sure it happens. You can call it what you want. You can call it good government. But we shouldn't be scared away from doing the right thing because somebody might call us a name. You're a socialist. Okay then hell yeah I'm a socialist, because it's in the word: 'society' means we are a bunch of people together, a whole bunch of individuals who know "yeah I can do it myself, but some things also take teamwork". Socialism is saying: alright, I'm on the team. I do my part, so should anybody else who can. Some people are star players, some people are on the bench, some people are the water boys or team managers or whatever, but we are all on the same team. The ones who can do the most help the most, but we all win, that's all, that's socialism.

And if you do it right it is not against capitalism, capitalism is the horse that pulls the wagon. Hitch it up. Let it pull. Feed it. But put it to work. Because right now the fattest of the fat cats have hitched all of US up to pull their fat asses while they sit on a wagon and don't even want to feed us. How the hell does that work? it doesn't. Why do the extremely wealthy get a free ride, when the rest of us have to work and pay our damn taxes. They can pay their fair share too. That's all that socialism says: if you made a s-ton of money off American workers, then you have to cut a fair slice to help out people who are a bit less fortunate. That's it. That's all. Call that socialism if you want. If that is socialism then I am all for it.

I also think we can say: to the argument that Socialism has failed every where it has been tried. Okay, no. But even if that is true, we are American, you don't think we can do it better than them? We talk about small town America where everybody pitched in and helped out their neighbors, those are american values, hard work and helping your neighbors. It's America, everybody is your neighbor. We can do it better than Russia. We can do it better than, pick a central american state. We have the brightest and hardest working and etc etc. Let's do it American style, more efficient and prouder and more hard working and more neighborly and demand that our Government work for us. For We the catdamn People. And do it right. Call it whatever you want, but that is the America I want to live in. Not scared of our neighbors, but strong enough to reach out and help people who aren't as strong as us. We should be proud that everybody looks to us as the land of opportunity. We should be able to be strong enough and good enough to help our international neighbors, so they don't have to beg for scraps, sneak into our country to find opportunity, but can stand on their own feet and know we helped them do it.

I dunno. Seems to me that is the way to go, more than nitpicking with each other on individual policies and approaches. Attack the concept of division in the first place. Ain't we all American? Don't we deserve a better Government than we get? We pay for the whole damn thing, we deserve to get our money's worth. IF that is called socialism then give me my damn socialism.

[Zonkerbl]

I've never said policing was flawed. I've said the opposite - the police are doing what they are trained to do. We want the police to dominate and pacify and they are good at it. All I'm saying is that, in situations that might require de-escalation, send someone trained to do that first. Don't send cops trained in de-escalation - de-escalation goes against their basic training. In stressful situations they will always revert to their dominance training, which is *what you want.* That's what training is for. If a cop feels threatened, I want him/her to dominate and pacify, to control what's going on. That's fine. What I want to avoid is sending cops into situations where their mere presence escalates the situation. Don't send a horse trained to moo like a cow, send an actual cow.

I don't think Floyd's murderer was a bad cop. He was doing what we've asked cops to do, what they're trained to do. "Police reform" is basically punishing cops for doing what they are trained to do. It might make us feel better but it doesn't accomplish anything meaningful. And defunding the police isn't punishing them, it's removing them from situations where they put themselves and others in danger just by their presence. Situations like domestic violence or mental health crises.

To your point about militarization - No, the problem with police militarization is the equipment is provided basically for free - you won't save any significant amount of money, it's basically obsolete salvage that the military was going to throw away anyway.

I'm continuing to argue because blithely dismissing my points does not persuade me that I am wrong. You know me, I'm a scientist and a statistician, I'm very persuadable. But saying "what you should do instead is not defund the police at all" convinces me that you are not, in fact, even trying to understand what I'm saying. But fine, once I get actual evidence that you are in fact agreeing with me, and I've said this before, I'll consider another catchphrase. "Protect the police," by not sending them into situations where their mere presence puts them and everyone around them in danger? Sure.

I get what you're saying about socialism but, as an economist, I just have to say (again) - redistributing the gains of capitalist policies from the winners to the losers so everyone benefits is not socialism - it's well executed capitalism. Yes redistribution policies were originally successfully implemented by European political parties that happened to have the word "socialist" in their name. But it irks me that good capitalist policy got labeled "socialism" as a result.

[dckingsfan]

...

Hey Zonk, what is the best way to explain why oil usage is inelastic?

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=xbXp9ONCmZS1SrGodLHAlA&s=19

[Wizardspride]

Yeah but what about BLM?!

[queridiculo]

...

Hey Zonk, what is the best way to explain why oil usage is inelastic?

Lack of alternatives on the demand side.

[dckingsfan]

...

Hey Zonk, what is the best way to explain why oil usage is inelastic?

Lack of alternatives on the demand side.

I have always struggled with how to explain this (and actually have folks understand this concept)... I wonder if there is another corollary?

Figured Zonk would have to had to explain this to others at some point...

[dobrojim]

Hey Zonk, what is the best way to explain why oil usage is inelastic?

Lack of alternatives on the demand side.

I have always struggled with how to explain this (and actually have folks understand this concept)... I wonder if there is another corollary?

Figured Zonk would have to had to explain this to others at some point...

Not an economist but I did take a college level course in Economics.

I think the answer is that especially in the short term, there are no good substitutes (for oil/gas).
When you buy an ICE vehicle, you basically are committing to purchasing fuel at whatever
price it is sold at.

Or meeting your transportation needs in some other way besides driving a car.

[Zonkerbl]

...

Hey Zonk, what is the best way to explain why oil usage is inelastic?

1. It's not. If you observe US oil consumption, you will see that consumption responds significantly to gasoline prices, and the longer your time horizon the more elastic it is.
2. A certain middle class wedge of the population has chosen a lifestyle where they have to commute to work every day and they can only afford a house that is not accessible to mass transport (i.e. within walking distance of a metro station in DC), so in this limited context they have no choice but to keep driving to work everyday no matter how high the price of gas gets. Poorer populations cannot allow themselves the luxury of paying super high gas prices so they take the bus, take less trips to the grocery store, and eventually move somewhere where they can get to work more easily, even if it's a slum. For wealthy people expenditures on "necessities" are a trivially small part of their overall budget so they tend to be pretty unresponsive to price fluctuations. But even the middle class has the option of moving to a more slummy neighborhood with better bus service, or teleworking, or remote working, or moving back home to be closer to your parents and take a lower paying job that nevertheless doesn't force you to commute an hour in crappy traffic everyday.

Oil consumption is way more elastic than people think it is. Is it elastic enough to actually be considered "elastic" according to the definition (quantity consumed changes by more than 1% when price changes by 1%)? I don't know really. If you look at consumption changes from 1-5 years I'd bet you it's pretty elastic though.

Big Oil wants you to think oil consumption is inelastic so we don't implement a carbon tax. "Oh the tax will have to be super high because oil consumption is inelastic" Wrong.

[dckingsfan]

...

Hey Zonk, what is the best way to explain why oil usage is inelastic?

1. It's not. If you observe US oil consumption, you will see that consumption responds significantly to gasoline prices, and the longer your time horizon the more elastic it is.

2. A certain middle class wedge of the population has chosen a lifestyle where they have to commute to work every day and they can only afford a house that is not accessible to mass transport (i.e. within walking distance of a metro station in DC), so in this limited context they have no choice but to keep driving to work everyday no matter how high the price of gas gets. Poorer populations cannot allow themselves the luxury of paying super high gas prices so they take the bus, take less trips to the grocery store, and eventually move somewhere where they can get to work more easily, even if it's a slum. For wealthy people expenditures on "necessities" are a trivially small part of their overall budget so they tend to be pretty unresponsive to price fluctuations. But even the middle class has the option of moving to a more slummy neighborhood with better bus service, or teleworking, or remote working, or moving back home to be closer to your parents and take a lower paying job that nevertheless doesn't force you to commute an hour in crappy traffic everyday.

Oil consumption is way more elastic than people think it is. Is it elastic enough to actually be considered "elastic" according to the definition (quantity consumed changes by more than 1% when price changes by 1%)? I don't know really. If you look at consumption changes from 1-5 years I'd bet you it's pretty elastic though.

Interesting - thanks for the tutorial, I need to go chew on this for some time.

When looking at the short-term, seeing usage increase a small amount against the change in price I would think this would make it inelastic (5% increase in usage vs. 50% increase in cost).

But I hadn't considered your other points - especially oil prices over the long-term vs. short-term...

[Zonkerbl]

Also purchases of electric vehicles tends to spike whenever the price of gas gets above $4/gallon so there's that also

[Zonkerbl]

Hey Zonk, what is the best way to explain why oil usage is inelastic?

1. It's not. If you observe US oil consumption, you will see that consumption responds significantly to gasoline prices, and the longer your time horizon the more elastic it is.

2. A certain middle class wedge of the population has chosen a lifestyle where they have to commute to work every day and they can only afford a house that is not accessible to mass transport (i.e. within walking distance of a metro station in DC), so in this limited context they have no choice but to keep driving to work everyday no matter how high the price of gas gets. Poorer populations cannot allow themselves the luxury of paying super high gas prices so they take the bus, take less trips to the grocery store, and eventually move somewhere where they can get to work more easily, even if it's a slum. For wealthy people expenditures on "necessities" are a trivially small part of their overall budget so they tend to be pretty unresponsive to price fluctuations. But even the middle class has the option of moving to a more slummy neighborhood with better bus service, or teleworking, or remote working, or moving back home to be closer to your parents and take a lower paying job that nevertheless doesn't force you to commute an hour in crappy traffic everyday.

Oil consumption is way more elastic than people think it is. Is it elastic enough to actually be considered "elastic" according to the definition (quantity consumed changes by more than 1% when price changes by 1%)? I don't know really. If you look at consumption changes from 1-5 years I'd bet you it's pretty elastic though.

Interesting - thanks for the tutorial, I need to go chew on this for some time.

When looking at the short-term, seeing usage increase a small amount against the change in price I would think this would make it inelastic (5% increase in usage vs. 50% increase in cost).

But I hadn't considered your other points - especially oil prices over the long-term vs. short-term...

Over the short run everything is inelastic. Gas/oil prices are really volatile so you see it more. You're less aware that the amount of labor you supply to the market is inelastic because wages change so slowly. Oil is certainly less elastic than, say, Budweiser. You can switch to another brand of beer. Or beer, because you can switch to wine or cocktails. Or alcohol - you can just drink less. Depends on the alternatives. So it's less elastic than other consumer goods, because, in the short run, we don't have many good alternatives, except for things that take time, like learning the local bus routes and planning for the commute to take an extra hour every day, or moving somewhere where you don't have to drive as much, or teleworking. Takes time to set that up. But given enough time it can be pretty elastic, still.

[Pointgod]

Really if I'm moving the Overton window on anything it's to turn 'Socialism' into a positive word.

Like: If socialism means my grandmother can afford her medication, then: Give Me My Damn Socialism.

If socialism means gas companies can't run up prices to profit out of people's anxiety about the future then:
Where's my f'n socialism.

If socialism means corporations can't skip free and pay zero taxes because they have better lawyers than the working joe, then f that, I want socialism.

If people don't die of hunger or are unable to go to a doctor because they can't afford it... If mentally ill people are able to get help before they break down and shoot up a school... Any time you get pissed because 'Somebody should Do Something about--' whatever the problem is: that is socialism socialism socialism. You are right. Somebody should. Let's make sure it happens. You can call it what you want. You can call it good government. But we shouldn't be scared away from doing the right thing because somebody might call us a name. You're a socialist. Okay then hell yeah I'm a socialist, because it's in the word: 'society' means we are a bunch of people together, a whole bunch of individuals who know "yeah I can do it myself, but some things also take teamwork". Socialism is saying: alright, I'm on the team. I do my part, so should anybody else who can. Some people are star players, some people are on the bench, some people are the water boys or team managers or whatever, but we are all on the same team. The ones who can do the most help the most, but we all win, that's all, that's socialism.

And if you do it right it is not against capitalism, capitalism is the horse that pulls the wagon. Hitch it up. Let it pull. Feed it. But put it to work. Because right now the fattest of the fat cats have hitched all of US up to pull their fat asses while they sit on a wagon and don't even want to feed us. How the hell does that work? it doesn't. Why do the extremely wealthy get a free ride, when the rest of us have to work and pay our damn taxes. They can pay their fair share too. That's all that socialism says: if you made a s-ton of money off American workers, then you have to cut a fair slice to help out people who are a bit less fortunate. That's it. That's all. Call that socialism if you want. If that is socialism then I am all for it.

I also think we can say: to the argument that Socialism has failed every where it has been tried. Okay, no. But even if that is true, we are American, you don't think we can do it better than them? We talk about small town America where everybody pitched in and helped out their neighbors, those are american values, hard work and helping your neighbors. It's America, everybody is your neighbor. We can do it better than Russia. We can do it better than, pick a central american state. We have the brightest and hardest working and etc etc. Let's do it American style, more efficient and prouder and more hard working and more neighborly and demand that our Government work for us. For We the catdamn People. And do it right. Call it whatever you want, but that is the America I want to live in. Not scared of our neighbors, but strong enough to reach out and help people who aren't as strong as us. We should be proud that everybody looks to us as the land of opportunity. We should be able to be strong enough and good enough to help our international neighbors, so they don't have to beg for scraps, sneak into our country to find opportunity, but can stand on their own feet and know we helped them do it.

I dunno. Seems to me that is the way to go, more than nitpicking with each other on individual policies and approaches. Attack the concept of division in the first place. Ain't we all American? Don't we deserve a better Government than we get? We pay for the whole damn thing, we deserve to get our money's worth. IF that is called socialism then give me my damn socialism.

I think generally the Democratic Party needs to get away from labels and ideologues. Using your socialism example, there’s a not insignificant number of Hispanic voters they hear socialism and think Madurai, Venezuela, Castro and all types of oppressive regimes not immediately high quality of life countries like Canada, Norway, Sweden etc. The negative aspects of Socialism has been so deeply ingrained in some people who might not even be deeply political that it kind of doesn’t make sense to lean into it. I’d argue that the majority of the Democratic base doesn’t care about the labels, but rather what Democrats want to do.

Fight income inequality, provide healthcare for everyone, eliminate child poverty, who cares if these carry the label of socialism as long as it gets done? I’d argue the patriotic thing to do is to make sure that people don’t go hungry or bankrupt. The child tax credit is wildly popular, the messaging should be around working families not trying to make Socialism popular.

We’ve all acknowledged that Republicans love socialism when it benefits them or corporate bailouts. Yes their hypocrisy makes no sense, but the point isn’t to change their mind about socialism, it’s about showing that the Democratic Party is the only party that will fundamentally improve their quality of life and take the country down the right direction.

[Zonkerbl]

Also people take vacations in the summer so demand for gas goes up, so it looks like consumption is increasing when prices increase. You have to strip out seasonal demand in your regressions to get an accurate elasticity measure.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=5ESxAEtLX56jEs3pHl6E8g&s=19

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

?t=5ESxAEtLX56jEs3pHl6E8g&s=19

Read on Twitter