Political Roundtable Part XII

[gtn130]

I would hardly characterize McCain and Graham as representative of Republicans in general. Those guys are bought and paid for by the military industrial complex and the Israel lobby. They're ALWAYS for the maximum amount of global intervention. I personally think much higher of several Democrats than I do of Lindsey Graham.

I wonder what Nate was saying about these guys before Papa Trump came into the picture.

Is there a single issue you don't agree with Trump on?

Two years ago, I would have disagreed with Trump on trade, but after doing some more research on the economics of protectionism, I think Trump may actually be on the right track. I think there are limits to the effectiveness of protectionism, but modest tariffs can be helpful to offset the advantages less developed nations have with respect to environmental and labor regulations.

I suppose I disagree with Trump on the transgender issue. I think transgenderism is rare enough that it should be classified as more of a mental illness than anything else. (And I don't mean this in a negative way. I'm not trying to ridicule them. I think they need real help from mental professionals rather than surgery.) As I understand it, most people who consider themselves transgender are also very likely to be depressed, and that depression doesn't get any better even when they "switch". https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

I'm a little concerned with Trump's policy in the Middle East. At this point, I'll take a wait and see approach. His rhetoric has been conflicting so I'm not sure where he stands. Are we going to "bomb the hell out of ISIS" or should we never have fought wars in the Middle East in the first place. I'm hoping he is taking steps to extricate ourselves from the region.

Is he though? Automation appears to be a much bigger factor in all of this. Bringing back manufacturing jobs when they could be automated, making companies less efficient and less profitable - it's difficult for me to see how that's a good thing. Wouldn't training unemployed Americans for jobs actually needed in our information / services economy make more sense?

[Zonkerbl]

No, Trump is flat out wrong about trade.

We have been doing it wrong though. For society to really benefit, the winners have to compensate the losers.

What we need is unfettered trade and MORE SOCIALISM. Or fund the trade adjustment assistance program. One of those.

[nate33]

No, Trump is flat out wrong about trade.

We have been doing it wrong though. For society to really benefit, the winners have to compensate the losers.

What we need is unfettered trade and MORE SOCIALISM. Or fund the trade adjustment assistance program. One of those.

Yeah, but high amounts of wealth distribution doesn't work either. The recipients lose their work ethic and morale, and descend into despair and drug abuse.

[nate33]

I wonder what Nate was saying about these guys before Papa Trump came into the picture.

Is there a single issue you don't agree with Trump on?

Two years ago, I would have disagreed with Trump on trade, but after doing some more research on the economics of protectionism, I think Trump may actually be on the right track. I think there are limits to the effectiveness of protectionism, but modest tariffs can be helpful to offset the advantages less developed nations have with respect to environmental and labor regulations.

I suppose I disagree with Trump on the transgender issue. I think transgenderism is rare enough that it should be classified as more of a mental illness than anything else. (And I don't mean this in a negative way. I'm not trying to ridicule them. I think they need real help from mental professionals rather than surgery.) As I understand it, most people who consider themselves transgender are also very likely to be depressed, and that depression doesn't get any better even when they "switch". https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

I'm a little concerned with Trump's policy in the Middle East. At this point, I'll take a wait and see approach. His rhetoric has been conflicting so I'm not sure where he stands. Are we going to "bomb the hell out of ISIS" or should we never have fought wars in the Middle East in the first place. I'm hoping he is taking steps to extricate ourselves from the region.

Is he though? Automation appears to be a much bigger factor in all of this. Bringing back manufacturing jobs when they could be automated, making companies less efficient and less profitable - it's difficult for me to see how that's a good thing. Wouldn't training unemployed Americans for jobs actually needed in our information / services economy make more sense?

Not everyone is trainable for the information economy. The IQ requirements are too high.

It's better to overpay Americans $40,000 a year to make widgets, than it is to pay Mexicans $20,000 a year to make widgets while paying Americans $30,000 a year in welfare.

[verbal8]

No, Trump is flat out wrong about trade.

We have been doing it wrong though. For society to really benefit, the winners have to compensate the losers.

What we need is unfettered trade and MORE SOCIALISM. Or fund the trade adjustment assistance program. One of those.

Yeah, but high amounts of wealth distribution doesn't work either. The recipients lose their work ethic and morale, and descend into despair and drug abuse.

What evidence do you have that this typical happens?

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

No, Trump is flat out wrong about trade.

We have been doing it wrong though. For society to really benefit, the winners have to compensate the losers.

What we need is unfettered trade and MORE SOCIALISM. Or fund the trade adjustment assistance program. One of those.

Yeah, but high amounts of wealth distribution doesn't work either. The recipients lose their work ethic and morale, and descend into despair and drug abuse.

That one is a real head scratcher.

[Zonkerbl]

No, Trump is flat out wrong about trade.

We have been doing it wrong though. For society to really benefit, the winners have to compensate the losers.

What we need is unfettered trade and MORE SOCIALISM. Or fund the trade adjustment assistance program. One of those.

Yeah, but high amounts of wealth distribution doesn't work either. The recipients lose their work ethic and morale, and descend into despair and drug abuse.

Haha god your mind is twisted with prejudice and bias.

First of all what the hell with the tired old stereotypes about ethics and drug abuse? You sound like my sister.

Second, just because ALL YOU IDIOTS don't know how to implement wealth distribution in a way that doesn't distort incentives is YOUR PROBLEM.

Unconditional cash transfers to workers in sectors that qualify. No conditions on finding a job, nothing. Everybody who asks for it gets it, no questions asked, no STUPID JUDGEMENTS ABOUT HOW UNETHICAL AND DESPAIRING THEY ARE.

[nate33]

No, Trump is flat out wrong about trade.

We have been doing it wrong though. For society to really benefit, the winners have to compensate the losers.

What we need is unfettered trade and MORE SOCIALISM. Or fund the trade adjustment assistance program. One of those.

Yeah, but high amounts of wealth distribution doesn't work either. The recipients lose their work ethic and morale, and descend into despair and drug abuse.

What evidence do you have that this typical happens?

Perhaps I should have phrased that differently. Wealth redistribution doesn't necessarily cause a decline in morale and an increase in substance abuse, but it doesn't appear to fix it either. Zonker's theory that all that we need to do is redistribute more wealth from the employed to the unemployed is unlikely to address these societal problems

Unemployment leads to a higher risk of drug use:
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/does-higher-unemployment-lead-to-more-drug-use/?_r=0

The unemployed have double the rate of alcohol and drug abuse:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/26/news/economy/drugs-unemployed/index.html

Link between unemployment and suicide:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/suicide-and-the-older-unemploy/

Long term unemployment makes it less likely to get a job in the future:

According to calculations from the Council of Economic Advisers, a person who has been unemployed for five weeks or less, has a 31% chance of getting a job. Once they've been unemployed between 27 and 52 weeks though, those odds drop to 12%.

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2014/01/08/long-term-unemployed/

[Benjammin]

I guess we need to rewrite that old, outdated, musty thinking: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." No pursuit needed, just passively wait for happiness to be delivered to you. Where do I sign up for that deal?

Sent from my XT1650 using RealGM mobile app

[Ruzious]

No, Trump is flat out wrong about trade.

We have been doing it wrong though. For society to really benefit, the winners have to compensate the losers.

What we need is unfettered trade and MORE SOCIALISM. Or fund the trade adjustment assistance program. One of those.

Yeah, but high amounts of wealth distribution doesn't work either. The recipients lose their work ethic and morale, and descend into despair and drug abuse.

Nah, Trump doesn't do drugs and seems pretty happy while I've been subsidizing him.

[Zonkerbl]

Interesting article about how liberals can convince conservatives of things and vice versa:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/the-simple-psychological-trick-to-political-persuasion/515181/

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah, but high amounts of wealth distribution doesn't work either. The recipients lose their work ethic and morale, and descend into despair and drug abuse.

What evidence do you have that this typical happens?

Perhaps I should have phrased that differently. Wealth redistribution doesn't necessarily cause a decline in morale and an increase in substance abuse, but it doesn't appear to fix it either. Zonker's theory that all that we need to do is redistribute more wealth from the employed to the unemployed is unlikely to address these societal problems

Unemployment leads to a higher risk of drug use:
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/does-higher-unemployment-lead-to-more-drug-use/?_r=0

The unemployed have double the rate of alcohol and drug abuse:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/26/news/economy/drugs-unemployed/index.html

Link between unemployment and suicide:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/suicide-and-the-older-unemploy/

Long term unemployment makes it less likely to get a job in the future:

According to calculations from the Council of Economic Advisers, a person who has been unemployed for five weeks or less, has a 31% chance of getting a job. Once they've been unemployed between 27 and 52 weeks though, those odds drop to 12%.

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2014/01/08/long-term-unemployed/

But that's not what I said. You've crafted a five paragraph rebuttal to what you *wished* I had said.

You have this fervent desire that I behave like the imaginary liberal scarecrows in your conservative blogs so you can trot out your prepackaged counter arguments. I'm an independently thinking human being, not a monster. Plus I'm a professional economist and not an idiot. I'd appreciate at least enough respect from you for my intelligence and experience to respond to what I actually wrote.

If you could reread what I said please, I think I was pretty clear. But I'd be happy to clarify.

[dckingsfan]

Not everyone is trainable for the information economy. The IQ requirements are too high.

We have had this conversation before. When you talk about the information economy, there are a wide range of jobs.

Accounting - AP, Purchasing, etc.
Marketing & Product Management
Sales
QA
Etc.

Many of those jobs are done by folks that are two standard deviations to the left of the mean. But, you need to have the educational system aligned to these types of jobs.

And that has been the great failure, so, PROBLEM 1: the misalignment of our educational system to the jobs available. We are still aligning our educational system to the past.

PROBLEM #2: We don't have enough of the type of workers that we need to grow the information economy OR manufacturing.

Manufacturing jobs are on a decline worldwide. They just are - and it will continue to trend that way. You don't want your main strategy to chase those jobs.

[dckingsfan]

Hey Zonk, your feeling on our Educational System and any push to reform it? It seems like the "liberal establishment" (ignore the rash generalization, I just don't know how to put it) is fighting this tooth and nail.

[nate33]

I'd appreciate at least enough respect from you for my intelligence and experience to respond to what I actually wrote.

Here is what you wrote:

Haha god your mind is twisted with prejudice and bias.

First of all what the hell with the tired old stereotypes about ethics and drug abuse? You sound like my sister.

Second, just because ALL YOU IDIOTS don't know how to implement wealth distribution in a way that doesn't distort incentives is YOUR PROBLEM.

I have no intention of giving you respect since this is the way you consistently interact on this board.

[nate33]

Not everyone is trainable for the information economy. The IQ requirements are too high.

We have had this conversation before. When you talk about the information economy, there are a wide range of jobs.

Accounting - AP, Purchasing, etc.
Marketing & Product Management
Sales
QA
Etc.

Many of those jobs are done by folks that are two standard deviations to the left of the mean. But, you need to have the educational system aligned to these types of jobs.

And that has been the great failure, so, PROBLEM 1: the misalignment of our educational system to the jobs available. We are still aligning our educational system to the past.

PROBLEM #2: We don't have enough of the type of workers that we need to grow the information economy OR manufacturing.

Manufacturing jobs are on a decline worldwide. They just are - and it will continue to trend that way. You don't want your main strategy to chase those jobs.

I recognize that manufacturing is on the decline, but that doesn't mean we should just compound the problem with more globalization and low skill immigration. If my leg is bleeding, don't shoot me in the arm.

And I seriously doubt that accounting, purchasing, marketing, etc. can be done by people with a 70 IQ. Sales can probably done by people one standard deviation to the left, but not two.

[dckingsfan]

I recognize that manufacturing is on the decline, but that doesn't mean we should just compound the problem with more globalization and low skill immigration. If my leg is bleeding, don't shoot me in the arm.

hehehe, okay. But actually my point was it shouldn't be our main strategy. It should be secondary.

And I seriously doubt that accounting, purchasing, marketing, etc. can be done by people with a 70 IQ. Sales can probably done by people one standard deviation to the left, but not two.

I actually have experience with this - you would be surprised by the results. You can really compartmentalize many of these jobs. And that Estonian proverb - turns out to be true.



Also, remember, that the new manufacturing jobs take more thinking than many of the new information economy jobs. If you worked in a factory back in the 70s (okay that dates me but stick with me) and then walked into a factory now, you would be absolutely lost.

So, I go back to my main points.
PROBLEM 1: the misalignment of our educational system
PROBLEM #2: We don't have enough of the type of workers that we need to grow the information economy OR manufacturing.

and the corollary problem, focusing on manufacturing is a losing strategy.

[montestewart]

I guess we need to rewrite that old, outdated, musty thinking: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." No pursuit needed, just passively wait for happiness to be delivered to you. Where do I sign up for that deal?

Sent from my XT1650 using RealGM mobile app

Is that one of Trump's programs? Cool!

[payitforward]

I reject the premise. The notion that I need to explain how I "got to where I am politically" implies that my position is somehow wrong, abnormal, or illegitimate; and your position is not. I've got half of America on my side and a majority of the states and counties. You explain to me how you got to where YOU are politically.

Do YOU genuinely want to know or are you just going tit for tat?

Now if you really want to know I have no problem explaining.

Nah. I don't really want to know. Or rather, I already know. Given our school system, most people are, by default, indoctrinated to the left end of the political spectrum. Being a leftist is easy. Nothing is ever your fault and only your intentions matter, not your results.

I'd be more willing to engage in productive dialog with you, nate, if you didn't write stuff like this. I don't recognize any reality in those last 3 sentences.

Moreover, how could I be expected to respect someone who doesn't know me but thinks he can write in those terms about me?

I'd appreciate your stepping back from your own commitments for a moment to consider that question. As well, I'd really appreciate exchanging some understanding about our histories. It might make this thread a little more useful; I can't see how it could hurt.

[TGW]

Hey Zonk, your feeling on our Educational System and any push to reform it? It seems like the "liberal establishment" (ignore the rash generalization, I just don't know how to put it) is fighting this tooth and nail.

Liberals don't want taxpayer money subsidizing charter schools. And btw, do you agree that charter schools should be transparent if they take federal monies?