Political Roundtable - Part VI

[Induveca]

Interesting article in the WSJ titled: Best Poverty Cure: Escape From Baltimore

Kind of supports Induveca position.

The Harvard study identifies Baltimore as the city where the odds are most stacked against a child’s escaping poverty. Mr. Kotkin says his center’s study underscores “the relative worthlessness of good intentions.”

Pretty slanted against progressives - but if you cut through that - probably best for a poor person from Baltimore to just leave.

It's completely logical. The city is dead, to pretend it isn't and remain in a financial prison is only being done out of ignorance. Move to DC or New York suburbs, or worst case scenario public housing. Infinitely better life, and access to a decent education, culture, jobs and capital.

A parent pretending sticking around or screaming "I love Baltimore!" is going to change reality borders on child cruelty. The poor residents of Baltimore already know what awaits their kids, they're living it now.

[Zonkerbl]

I come from a long line of Communist hippies who used to chain themselves to nuclear reactors, and I protest that this hallowed tradition is being shot down by dirty capitalists in tophats.

Furious about what? Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can trespass and prevent a business from operating. I don't have strong feelings about the pipeline either way (I don't know enough about the environmental consequences/economic benefit), but I definitely think someone materially burdening everyone around them should be punished accordingly.

[Zonkerbl]

Just had a talk from Ricardo Hausman about "networks" the other day and how each person's productivity is determined not just by their level of education but their access to networks of people who can do stuff they can't.

Kind of leads to uncomfortable questions, like, is the best way to reduce poverty is try to increase a certain poor villages access to the outside world? Or move as many people in that village out to where there are more networks? You almost inevitably have to conclude the latter.

Which is something I knew already. The development story for the last hundred years has been, poor people moved to the city where the jobs are. In countries where cities were generating high skilled jobs, poverty has decreased.

Most development projects in rural areas are a complete waste of time. The only one that makes sense is land reform, which makes it easier to sell your land and use that money to move to the city.

Thinking about this - you can see where the #1 place for cities/states to put their $$s is into education. And it behooves this city/states to have real completion for the education $$s.

I think the city/states that are going to do the best going forward are those that are most forward thinking in this area.

Not necessarily, actually. That was one of the main points he made, is that in-school education is necessary but not sufficient. He talked a lot about "on the job know-how."

[dckingsfan]

Just had a talk from Ricardo Hausman about "networks" the other day and how each person's productivity is determined not just by their level of education but their access to networks of people who can do stuff they can't.

Kind of leads to uncomfortable questions, like, is the best way to reduce poverty is try to increase a certain poor villages access to the outside world? Or move as many people in that village out to where there are more networks? You almost inevitably have to conclude the latter.

Which is something I knew already. The development story for the last hundred years has been, poor people moved to the city where the jobs are. In countries where cities were generating high skilled jobs, poverty has decreased.

Most development projects in rural areas are a complete waste of time. The only one that makes sense is land reform, which makes it easier to sell your land and use that money to move to the city.

Thinking about this - you can see where the #1 place for cities/states to put their $$s is into education. And it behooves this city/states to have real completion for the education $$s.

I think the city/states that are going to do the best going forward are those that are most forward thinking in this area.

Not necessarily, actually. That was one of the main points he made, is that in-school education is necessary but not sufficient. He talked a lot about "on the job know-how."

Yep, good point. It is interesting that hubs come up all over the place. We know about Silicon Valley. San Diego became a hub for Golf Clubs. Boston for medical devices.

So, yes. You need that thriving educational environment. AND cities have to develop an infrastructure to support their key industries.

Either way, throwing $$s at the issue isn't going to work unless it is very structured.

[dckingsfan]

Interesting article in the WSJ titled: Best Poverty Cure: Escape From Baltimore

Kind of supports Induveca position.

The Harvard study identifies Baltimore as the city where the odds are most stacked against a child’s escaping poverty. Mr. Kotkin says his center’s study underscores “the relative worthlessness of good intentions.”

Pretty slanted against progressives - but if you cut through that - probably best for a poor person from Baltimore to just leave.

It's completely logical. The city is dead, to pretend it isn't and remain in a financial prison is only being done out of ignorance. Move to DC or New York suburbs, or worst case scenario public housing. Infinitely better life, and access to a decent education, culture, jobs and capital.

A parent pretending sticking around or screaming "I love Baltimore!" is going to change reality borders on child cruelty. The poor residents of Baltimore already know what awaits their kids, they're living it now.

Yep, hard to move - but you really have to do just that.

And if you are Baltimore - man. What an uphill battle. You would basically have to rip out the infrastructure and start from scratch or you are going the way of Detroit.

[Zonkerbl]

So now let's talk about Greece...

[dobrojim]

I'd rather hear our rightward leaning friends discuss how they would address a wide flat field
of GOP candidates as far as the 'debates' - we really shouldn't call them that - go.
Or the lefties discuss whether Bernie should be the nominee even if he loses.
Which would be worse/better, Madam President, your random GOP guy (actually
I would say it's going to be Walker right now) or candidate Bernie with the potential for
a devastating loss and all 3 branches going to the GOP.

[Induveca]

I'd rather hear our rightward leaning friends discuss how they would address a wide flat field
of GOP candidates as far as the 'debates' - we really shouldn't call them that - go.
Or the lefties discuss whether Bernie should be the nominee even if he loses.
Which would be worse/better, Madam President, your random GOP guy (actually
I would say it's going to be Walker right now) or candidate Bernie with the potential for
a devastating loss and all 3 branches going to the GOP.

I'm hoping for Rand Paul on the republican side. Only guy with any charisma, or semblance of a unique mindset. Then again he's Ron Paul's son, so that's to be expected.

[nate33]

I'd rather hear our rightward leaning friends discuss how they would address a wide flat field
of GOP candidates as far as the 'debates' - we really shouldn't call them that - go.
Or the lefties discuss whether Bernie should be the nominee even if he loses.
Which would be worse/better, Madam President, your random GOP guy (actually
I would say it's going to be Walker right now) or candidate Bernie with the potential for
a devastating loss and all 3 branches going to the GOP.

I'm hoping for Rand Paul on the republican side. Only guy with any charisma, or semblance of a unique mindset. Then again he's Ron Paul's son, so that's to be expected.

Scott Walker is my guy.

Rand Paul seems a bit to flip-floppy to me. He lacks his father's conviction. I also don't think Senators make good Presidents. Former Governor's are best. Walker was elected 3 times in a purple state and had major policy victories while in office. Walker's midwestern roots would deliver Wisconsin and Ohio. If he wins Florida or Pennsylvania, he wins it all.

Walker is one of the few Republican candidates standing up to big business on the immigration issue, which gives me some hope that he might be a little less bought off by the banker lobby. At the same time, he should still get decent campaign funding from business because he has a track record of favoring business over labor on the union issues.

[dckingsfan]

So now let's talk about Greece...

This is going to come down to the wire... hopefully the Euro doesn't take another hit.

[Induveca]

So now let's talk about Greece...

This is going to come down to the wire... hopefully the Euro doesn't take another hit.

I'm all for the Euro taking another hit. I don't sell a lot of product in the EU anymore, but I certainly outsource a lot of tech labor there! US based freelancers have priced themselves out of the tech game. Instead of dancing around the freelancer vs full time employee laws, office space, HR, MASSIVE legal costs.....I simply use ODesk (now Upwork). I can bring up a competent team of 10 people in under a week on 2 week contracts. Then whittle that down to 5 people after doling out the same tasks to groups of 2 without them knowing.

Whoever does it best and communicates well? They get the long term gig. To do that in the States would cost me 30k at least including legal and the ridiculous hourly wages (80+ an hour). The guys I pay 25 in South America/Vietnam/EU do a far better job considering costs and the absence of litigation concerns.

EU at parity? Ahh I can dream. Makes spending more time in Paris/Amsterdam an afterthought as well. I got a roundtrip coach ticket to Amsterdam a few months ago for 475 bucks (with tax!). It costs me more to fly to Miami usually.

[dckingsfan]

We export lots of food to the EU. I was hoping natural gas would happen soon as well.

Tech professional services are a sub fractional portion of our exports to the EU.

We definitely don't need that hit to the GDP at this time - we are on the bubble to drop into another recession. And that never helps unless you are a short seller in the markets.

[dckingsfan]

I'd rather hear our rightward leaning friends discuss how they would address a wide flat field
of GOP candidates as far as the 'debates' - we really shouldn't call them that - go.
Or the lefties discuss whether Bernie should be the nominee even if he loses.
Which would be worse/better, Madam President, your random GOP guy (actually
I would say it's going to be Walker right now) or candidate Bernie with the potential for
a devastating loss and all 3 branches going to the GOP.

I'm hoping for Rand Paul on the republican side. Only guy with any charisma, or semblance of a unique mindset. Then again he's Ron Paul's son, so that's to be expected.

Scott Walker is my guy.

Rand Paul seems a bit to flip-floppy to me. He lacks his father's conviction. I also don't think Senators make good Presidents. Former Governor's are best. Walker was elected 3 times in a purple state and had major policy victories while in office. Walker's midwestern roots would deliver Wisconsin and Ohio. If he wins Florida or Pennsylvania, he wins it all.

Walker is one of the few Republican candidates standing up to big business on the immigration issue, which gives me some hope that he might be a little less bought off by the banker lobby. At the same time, he should still get decent campaign funding from business because he has a track record of favoring business over labor on the union issues.

Not sure how big his social conservative agenda will be received by the middle and left... I would think Hillary would beat him. Other than those issues, I like him.

[pineappleheadindc]

.
I'm putting this out here risking lots of you on this thread completely laughing me off of political discussion for a while. But here goes:

-- I kinda think Michael Steele (former RNC Chairman) is an interesting political pundit. I find myself agreeing with him a lot on his thoughts about political issues/processes.

Okay, I own this. Flame away, all.

[pineappleheadindc]

I'm hoping for Rand Paul on the republican side. Only guy with any charisma, or semblance of a unique mindset. Then again he's Ron Paul's son, so that's to be expected.

Scott Walker is my guy.

Rand Paul seems a bit to flip-floppy to me. He lacks his father's conviction. I also don't think Senators make good Presidents. Former Governor's are best. Walker was elected 3 times in a purple state and had major policy victories while in office. Walker's midwestern roots would deliver Wisconsin and Ohio. If he wins Florida or Pennsylvania, he wins it all.

Walker is one of the few Republican candidates standing up to big business on the immigration issue, which gives me some hope that he might be a little less bought off by the banker lobby. At the same time, he should still get decent campaign funding from business because he has a track record of favoring business over labor on the union issues.

Not sure how big his social conservative agenda will be received by the middle and left... I would think Hillary would beat him. Other than those issues, I like him.

dckingsfan -- My friends and I were talking politics last week.

We all seem to agree that any party/candidate that comes out as truly (not just rhetoric, but policy) financially conservative and socially liberal would probably sweep to victory. These two stances are not mutually exclusive in reality.

[crackhed]

.
I'm putting this out here risking lots of you on this thread completely laughing me off of political discussion for a while. But here goes:

-- I kinda think Michael Steele (former RNC Chairman) is an interesting political pundit. I find myself agreeing with him a lot on his thoughts about political issues/processes.

Okay, I own this. Flame away, all.

michael steele aint ready 4 president, but he's an outstanding indiv. f what any dem thinks

[dckingsfan]

Scott Walker is my guy.

Rand Paul seems a bit to flip-floppy to me. He lacks his father's conviction. I also don't think Senators make good Presidents. Former Governor's are best. Walker was elected 3 times in a purple state and had major policy victories while in office. Walker's midwestern roots would deliver Wisconsin and Ohio. If he wins Florida or Pennsylvania, he wins it all.

Walker is one of the few Republican candidates standing up to big business on the immigration issue, which gives me some hope that he might be a little less bought off by the banker lobby. At the same time, he should still get decent campaign funding from business because he has a track record of favoring business over labor on the union issues.

Not sure how big his social conservative agenda will be received by the middle and left... I would think Hillary would beat him. Other than those issues, I like him.

dckingsfan -- My friends and I were talking politics last week.

We all seem to agree that any party/candidate that comes out as truly (not just rhetoric, but policy) financially conservative and socially liberal would probably sweep to victory. These two stances are not mutually exclusive in reality.

Welcome to the club of no party brother... and no question you are right - at least in my mind.

[penbeast0]

The problem with being a fiscal conservative or social libertarian (as opposed to social liberal) is that campaign money flows to candidates who agree to provide special benefits for various businesses or wealthy individuals. While most rich people talk about wanting a level playing field, the facts are that their funding goes to candidates based not on everyone having no benefit but on bills that give businesses (or unions or individuals) a thumb on the scale. Thus fiscal conservatives/social libertarians end up just being naysayers (like Ron Paul) and not generating the financial machine needed to make a legit run for the presidency.

Among other reasons, it's why I think Rand Paul has close to zero chance of ever winning the nomination.

[dobrojim]

The most depressing thing about how money buys influence (leading to favoritism)
is not that it happens but how cheaply the pols are bought or conversely,
how easily the public is sold out, typically pennies on the dollar.

[dckingsfan]

Exactly... and often bankrupting local municipalities, special tax breaks for corporations that don't need it and generally moving money away from the most needy.

@ penbeast0, and I do mean social liberal vs. libertarian. In other words, not a party that rejects the need for government but one that tries to do the most good within the constraint of the resources (treasure) that are available. A party that prioritizes spending based upon the most good to all.

A social libertarian would reject that platform.