MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 7 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 6 days ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 3 years 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 3 years 12 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 3 years 12 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 10 hours ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
Hits of the Day
- artappraiser (106)
- PeraclesPlease (81)
- artappraiser (78)
- artappraiser (65)
- artappraiser (62)
When Smug Liberals Met Conservative Trolls
By artappraiser on Fri, 03/09/2018 - 12:57pm |Rhetorical tendencies in American politics feed off each other and drag us all into the abyss.
Op-ed by Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor in chief of Reason magazine, @ NYTimes.com, for Sunday Review, March 9
[....] The result: an odoriferous stew of political rhetoric that is nearly irresistible to those on the inside and confusingly abhorrent to those on the outside.
The explosion of the smugs-vs.-trolls phase of our political discourse is traceable to a now infamous 2004 confrontation between Jon Stewart and Tucker Carlson in the waning days of “Crossfire,” in which Mr. Stewart, a comedian, dropped his jester’s mask and accused Mr. Carlson and his ilk of undermining serious discourse with their partisan feuding and made-for-TV talking points. “Stop hurting America,” was his specific request. Mr. Carlson sputtered and fumed; it was generally agreed that Mr. Stewart won the day.
Around the same time, New York University psychologist Jonathan Haidt was formulating a theory about why liberals and conservatives have such a hard time productively conversing. After mucking around in a lot of survey data, he came up with this basic idea: Liberals and people of the left underpin their politics with moral concerns about harm and fairness; they are driven by the imperative to help the vulnerable and see justice done. Conservatives and people of the right value these things as well but have several additional moral touchstones — loyalty, respect and sanctity. They value in-group solidarity, deference to authority, and the protection of purity in mind and body. To liberals, those sincerely held values can look a lot like, in Dr. Haidt’s words, “xenophobia, authoritarianism and Puritanism.” This asymmetry is the fountainhead of mutual incomprehension and disdain [.....]
URL:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/opinion/sunday/smug-liberals-conservative-trolls.html
- Add new comment
- 32198 reads
Comments
Largely worthless - ignores a decade of Rush Limbaugh and fails to address that a 1hr comedy show couldn't come close to competing with a network news business, especially a loaded-for-bear 24x7 propaganda group like Fox. As for "smug", Reagan championed that side of the street to great effect with his "looks like Jane/smells like cheetah" and other cultural posturing. And that "sincere beliefs" bit? Fuck me, I must be thinking of a different party than the self-serving loud-mouthed Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Giuliani, and yes even sainted John McCain.
(The author also ignores that Jon Stewart went on CNN and called them a bunch of dicks and told them to do their jobs. Smug? I think it was frustration.)
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/09/2018 - 4:13pm
The article boils down to both sides do it. The time when that could be stated as truth has long since passed. Evangelicals are willing to accept a man who had to pay a 25 million dollar lawsuit and tried to cover up adultery with a porn actress as acceptable. Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat. They want to overlook an attack by Russia. What the Republicans are doing is not normal. Pointing out what The a Republicans are doing is not being smug, it is being honest.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/09/2018 - 4:36pm
We liberals obviously need sensitivity-training to understand how our micro-aggressions are driving conservative snowflakes to seek safe spaces on Fox & Friends.
by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 03/09/2018 - 5:44pm
I think what many "liberals" need to do is (1) to acknowledge the harm that "liberal" policies pursued by "liberals" like the Clintons and Barack Obama did to millions of poor, working, and middle-class Americans and (2) to reject politicians, regardless of party affiliation, who champion those policies in the future.
by HSG on Fri, 03/09/2018 - 9:07pm
OK, after they finish their sensitivity training, we'll send them to your reeducation camp to teach them what proper liberals should think.
by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 03/09/2018 - 9:51pm
Yeah, some kind of from-the-ground-up retreading, like a "back to Year Zero" approach. I hear Cambodia has some great terrain for these kind of Outward Bound activities - grow your own rice, shed any intellectual trappings, become one with the people.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/09/2018 - 10:39pm
So wait you're saying "three strikes and you're out," "free" trade deals, bailing out big banks not underwater home owners, and signing off on the repeal of Glass-Steagall didn't harm poor, working and middle-class Americans? Really Michael?
by HSG on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 8:18am
Oh my my...
There goes Hal again.
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Fri, 03/09/2018 - 11:11pm
Be kind to our little Marxist, he means well. I curiously was by Bette Midler's Twitterfeed earlier, and she referenced Mao/the Chinese killing 40 million in their Great Leap Forward. I was like, wow, liberal Hollywood singer/icon still gets it, manic comic energy but still has some basic history. (I dont mean that as a dis to actors/Hollywood beyond that, just still amazed someone famous referenced this 70-year-old atrocity in a tweet tied to modern politics.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/09/2018 - 11:35pm
Marxist? This is a perfect example of how those who find my style off-putting and hate when I cut through bullshit make things up about me so they don't have to try to refute my actual statements.
by HSG on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 8:21am
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 8:31am
Your style is off-putting because you ignore current events. Republicans have been taken to court to stop a bogus voter fraud investigation. The guy in the White House may have violated campaign laws to pay off a porn star. Trump is doing nothing to stop a Russian cyberattack. Republicans want to have box lunches sent to people receiving food aid from the government. Immigrant families are being separated. Poor and marginalized today by Trump and the GOP. We don’t take you seriously because despite the absence of data that supports your position that only purity test Democrats can win, you would rather see Republicans elected than change your stance.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 10:25am
For Hal, the stuff Republicans do is broken eggs. Broken eggs are necessary for "omelettes."
Peracles may be wrong with his Marxist comparison, it may be something else:
by NCD on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 1:25pm
Again NCD - you might try to actually refute what I write rather than the cardboard cutout Hal that you have created in your own mind.
by HSG on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 1:27pm
No, dude, you created it. When 6 or 7 strangers have the same impression, maybe you can just wise up and own it.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 1:31pm
True. And why? Is that he is usually being a rhetorically "smug liberal"? I'd like tor repeat the lede for the original article: Rhetorical tendencies in American politics feed off each other and drag us all into the abyss.
It's interesting how many here jumped on Mangu-Ward's piece as if she was participating in ye olde FoxNews/Limbaugh/O'Reilly polarization game, bait liberals and then where liberals must defend. Not our problem: "they" caused it. She was saying: the solution is don't participate, stop the knee jerk reaction, don't feed, just say no, talk real.
I do agree that humorous retorts and teasing are appropriate responses, though. It's the way most of us deal with ideologues in our our families/tribes, get them to come around to some kind of tolerance. It's not always easy to do with the written word, though.
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 4:20pm
For all the talk of both-sideism that is widely decried by Democrats every time anything even comes close to comparing the two parties, perhaps we can agree that both sides do, indeed, find blaming the other for all ills convenient. That's not new. And that anyone wishing to discuss the larger picture that encompasses both sides, and who dares compare them as similar in nature if not specifics, is likely damned by both sides.
Folks like Hal aren't suggesting the two parties are alike in any way; they are too focused on what makes a piece of their "own" party superior to the other pieces. Perhaps an extreme version of having to fix it from within first ... until liberal progressives convince pretty much everyone else to embrace the Socialist Democratic platform, the party currently known as Democrat is doomed to failure. With that mindset, what the party in power does is beside the point.
by barefooted on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 5:01pm
Given the change in demographics, I’d wager that the Republicans go away first.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 6:33pm
Is that observation a comment about party strategy per barefoot's remarks?
by moat on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 7:08pm
Nearly everything you write is in service of one point. The readers here have seen you make the point hundreds if not thousands of times and responded. They get it now, they are not stupid, and don't have to engage any more on the details of the particular item you are trying to squeeze into your ideological point.
In the rare instance where you venture off into offering an opinion on something that you can't somehow squeeze into the zealous preaching of your one point about American political situation, you do get nuanced interaction.
The mystery is why you can't just let go of expecting different reactions here from your sermons, the audience here gets what you think on that and doesn't agree. When you find another news item that fits your bias confirmation, why do you expect it to be the final straw that will change someone's mind here? It's just folly to expect that. With another, different audience, it would at least make sense to try, see how it flies. It would even make more sense to preach to a choir of the like minded. But to take offense from a small audience that disagrees with your ideology and to expect them to continually defend against your ideology is silly.They know you, they get it, they disagree, there is really no sensible response after years of this except ridicule.
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 4:34pm
I am horrified by what Republicans are doing. If you want to stop them, you have to elect more Democrats and maintain them in power. You won't be able to do that until Democrats renounce the neoliberal policies that have empowered the right.
by HSG on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 1:26pm
When progressives lose they were somehow cheated. When progressives win it's because they rejected establishment policies. When moderate democrats win a progressive would have done better. When moderate democrats lose it's because they weren't progressive. This is the premise you start with and any data must be spun to support the premise.
Conor Lamb is running even in a district that went 20 points for Trump. He's a conservative democrat imo. I see no evidence that a Sanders type liberal would do better in that district. Even if you claim without evidence a progressive would do better it's still clear that something has shifted and it goes beyond just policy.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 2:08pm
Yes, something has shifted and it goes beyond policy.
We all do not have to agree on everything to agree to some things.
Interest in finding those things is growing.
by moat on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 6:31pm
From the Atlantic:
Lamb calls himself a “Western Pennsylvania Democrat,” which seems to him to mean focusing on things like labor issues, the opioid crisis, and the need to protect entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security. Lamb’s emphasis on these particular items is an effort to endear him to the same voters who supported Trump—perhaps the same people Trump referred to in his 2016 victory speech as the “forgotten men and women of America.”
The congressional district has more than 87,000 union members, and Lamb is leaning heavily into labor issues. Trump did well with labor’s rank-and-file, producing a 13-point swing in his favor compared with Romney four years earlier. Lamb has been endorsed by most labor unions in the area, and on Tuesday he attended a march through downtown Pittsburgh as the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing a case that could deal a serious blow to organized labor. Saccone, meanwhile, has taken the opposite tack, endorsing right-to-work legislation and declining to meet with labor leaders.
by HSG on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 10:22am
The Atlantic article affirms ocean-kat's observation that Lamb is a Democrat.
by moat on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 11:07am
Does that mean Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not? See Barack Obama once Proposed Cutting Social Security . . . and Hillary Clinton in Paid Speeches . . .
by HSG on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 8:22am
Isn't it more germane to the topic at hand to read the Democratic Party Platform for 2016 and note that Lamb is in complete agreement with it regarding Social Security and measures to protect workers and jobs?
See pages 6 and 13 for details.
by moat on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 1:51pm
At a recent debate, the Democrat Lamb said "we have to take some action to level the playing field," calling trade measures "long overdue." The 33-year-old former prosecutor added that he backs tariffs that "focus on China more so than our friends" like Canada. Lamb is a populist Democrat, if not a progressive one. He has adopted positions that are very different from those championed by establishment Democrats like Barack Obama and the Clintons. That's why he may win in a blue-collar working-class district. I think he's wrong about Canada though since it imports steel from China then turns around and sells it to us. In addition, producers in Canada have a competitive advantage against American ones since Canada has single-payer universal health care.
by HSG on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 8:49am
from
The battleground race in Pennsylvania that shouldn’t be
by DANTE CHINNI, First Read/Politics @ NBCNews.com, March 11
Charts and other back up @ the link
Also the only reason this race matters, why so much is being spent on it, is for temporary momentum purposes.This is a election for a very temporary seat, the district isn't going to stay the same, it's going to be redrawn like all of them in PA!
However,Interestingly, Chinni also states at the end, this district is the kind of mix of voters that is common in PA in general.
by artappraiser on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 7:03pm
More @ Trump privately trashes Rick Saccone by Jonathan Swan @ Axios.com, March 11, like:
and
and
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 5:07am
Hal Ginsburg:
Sounds like broken eggs in the "soul battle" with expectations of a triumphal omelette, or revolution.
You haven't had one blog showing you care about what RMRD mentions and the horrific con the GOP is pulling on the " millions of poor, working, and middle-class Americans" which you claim to care about only when attacking Democrats.
The metaphor mentioned by Arendt is appropriate. You have uncompromising authoritarian tendencies. You need to acknowledge that fact.
by NCD on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 3:44pm
To my amazement,in efforts to prove his main ideology right and true, more often I've seen Hal go beyond simple authoritarian, totalitarian or Marxist leanings to more specifically like a Soviet trying to prove that the planned economy is working out for the people just fine! In spite of any facts that might prove otherwise. One must always leave out facts of complicated reality.
(One example was the suffering NY taxi driver story he once posted, where it was implied that the takeaway should be that the evil black market capitalist Uber hegemon is undermining all the fine jobs the government-regulated system once provided. Inconvenient facts ignored: the government-regulated system was actually a government-favored cartel of rentier medallion owners providing a service that most of "the people" couldn't afford, it was affordable only to the upper classes. And the mass of yellow cab drivers were not known to have well-paying jobs before Uber appeared. And that they offered a service that was often unavailable in sufficient quantity at times when most needed,in bad weather even when one could afford it. Meanwhile, the transportation alternative made for "the masses" is falling all to hell due to government misappropriation and graft. But let's believe these things: the government regulated jobs are the salvation, black market solutions favored by the people that actually work for them in daily life are the problem, and the story of yellow taxi drivers in NY going broke in competition with Uber is proof. Forget what the masses want, Hal knows what they need, they are just going to have to be patient for all this planned economy stuff to work out.)
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 8:00pm
P.S. I see it more like Walt Disney Marxism: if you would all only believe hard enough,it would become true! Forget the facts, just keep preaching and believing!
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 8:06pm
"if you would all only believe hard enough,it would become true! Forget the facts, just keep preaching and believing!" That's what the free traders and the neoliberals insist. If we just keep believing elite economists, everything will turn out fine. Ignore your lyin' eyes when you tour our hollowed out heartland, Baltimore's inner city, or the substandard living conditions in impoverished Salinas, CA.
As to your claim that I support a planned economy, to believe that you'd have to believe that limiting the number of hack drivers is akin to planning an economy. In fact, central planning increasingly comes from corporate board rooms where workers and consumers are pawns in a global game played by a few billionaires.
by HSG on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 8:35am
This is batty - of course limiting # of drivers is 1 example of planning an economy/pre-determining (limiting) supply. That there might not be enough competition in a monosopy (real word) then there can be centralized planning coming from the private sector, but most often we're referring to a widespread practice of centralized government defining the limits of supply through different means - which could include limiting the number of medical licenses given a year, the number of flights in and out of an airport, and so on. Usually we get around the inefficiencies by reverting to *local* control, even if some centralized standards are promoted from the top.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 2:00pm
He's *worker* focused, not customer/consumer/end-user focused. God ol' On The Waterfront dockworkers-style unionism and protectionism, taking the weekly paycheck and union bonus home. Rejiggling the costs of *that* "greatest generation* isn't allowed.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 8:21pm
And that leads me to this: even Bernie doesn't play that tune! He's smarter than that, has a bunch of millennial fans who mostly think of Uber as the bees knees, like the Greatest Gen thought of sliced bread (not to mention cheap imported clothes), don't want to own a car, and certainly don't want to work in a factory making 'em out of 'mercan steel. That they might hang a poster of Rosie the Riveter on the wall doesn't mean they want to grow up to be her.
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 8:52pm
Plus I would argue that a substantial number of American Greatest Generation weren't that interested in that dream that either. 1954 hit movie comes to mind.
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 9:24pm
Consumers need to be protected of course as does the diversity of goods offered to us. I do favor high tariffs, imposed on goods and materials sourced from low wage nations, to protect our working-class and domestic manufacturing base. In order to protect consumers, I support a beefed up Antitrust Division of the Justice Department that zealously enforce laws designed to prevent large corporations from restraining trade and from dominating industries. This would foster innovation and more competition on price within our borders and prevent the emergence of a monopsony of dominant employers with the power to maintain below-competitive market wages.
by HSG on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 8:57am
Excellent analysis. Hal's unflinching certainty in his dogma ,and cynical use of various props, alive or dead, to attack the terrible Clintons and Obama is frankly at times astounding. One wonders what knowledge of history, what experience with the classes of people he claims to care about, he has had.
One book I would recommend for those who believe in "perfection of government" or that thoughtful inspiring progressive leaders like FDR, were paradigms for unsullied government is The Forsaken, An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia
. From a review of the book:
... The book criticizes the actions or inaction of many American individuals: Americans naive enough to risk their futures and lives in the Soviet Union in the Great Depression era, Henry Ford whose book "My Life and Work" was a bestseller in Russia and whose factory ethic was admired by Stalin and who also made millions selling automobiles and factories to Stalin (the UAW's Walter Reuther worked for a time in the Gorky Ford plant), capitalists who encouraged Franklin Roosevelt to recognize the new Soviet Union as it would be good for business, President Franklin Roosevelt ambassador to the Soviet Union, Joseph Davies, an incompetent political appointee who was rich, acquisitive of Russian art, naive of what was going on in Russia to the point where his behavior reminds one of the Queen's Court in Alice in Wonderland.... Davies attendance at Russian show trials and his belief in the guilt of all those quickly convicted and executed. The book also parcels out rebuke for FDR Vice-President Henry Wallace who was easily and completely duped by the Russian NKVD in admiring the Kolyma slave camps in a visit there in 1944, US Embassy employees and State Department officers who knew Americans in Russia were being arrested and eliminated as they stepped out of the embassy onto the streets... it is frankly no surprise that with a pro-Soviet ideology and advisers who were blinded to the realities of Stalinism, people like like Davies, and VP like Wallace, FDR handed over Eastern Europe to Stalin after the war. Men who cared little about reports of the crimes of Stalin, or for the lives of Americans trying to flee Stalin, would hardly flinch at putting millions of others behind his Iron Curtain.
by NCD on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 8:31pm
thanks for the recommend, I have long had an interest in the whole Greenwich Village commie thing of the years before the Depression, but never got into learning much about what happened in the upper reaches of power as regards the Soviets in the 20th century decades before they became our allies in WWII.All I know is fleeting bits and pieces here and there that suggests: it was more complicated than one might think from anti and pro commie demagoguery produced for the populi.
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 8:58pm
Yes. I am confident that I am right but all you have to do is adduce evidence that I'm not and I'll reconsider. What would cause you to reconsider?
by HSG on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 10:24am
That's just not true no matter how many times you say it. You have strong ideological positions that aren't based on evidence that no evidence will shake. The steel and aluminum tariffs are indicative of this. You can make a case for tariffs while acknowledging that these tariffs are wasteful and foolish. Many more people buying products from steel using industries will be hurt by the tariffs than the small numbers of steel producers. And the number of jobs in steel and aluminum production is by far less caused by foreign competition than increased productivity. It's an undisputed fact that 20 years ago it took 10 workers to produce a ton of steel while now it takes 1 to 1.5 workers. I've not read a single article that disputes that number. In almost every industry automation is a larger cause of job loss than foreign competition but no where is this more apparent then in steel production. I'm not dogmatically against all tariffs though I do tend to see the problem of job loss more through the lens of increased productivity mostly due to automation. While it's possible that some surgical use of tariffs to protect some high end manufacturing might have some value it's clear that the steel and aluminum tariffs are not in this category.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 2:26pm
Based on logic and the extant evidence, I believe with few exceptions that high-wage countries that run trade deficits are generally better off after they impose tariffs. Since the U.S. is a high-wage nation with enormous trade deficits, I believe our country - especially certain segments of the working-class - would on balance benefit from the tariffs on steel and aluminum.
If you can cite to examples of high-wage nations with trade deficits that have imposed tariffs to their ultimate dismay, I will revisit my opinion. What evidence would cause you to revisit yours?
by HSG on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 5:30pm
I know that's what you believe but you haven't provided any evidence to back up the contention that the benefits to the steel industry would outweigh the increased costs for finished products made of steel. You haven't even made a good argument that the marginal increase in jobs in the steel industry would out weigh the increased prices and loss of manufacturing jobs that could result. You haven't countered a single one of my argunents. And that's without considering job losses from decreased exports when other countries put their own tariffs in place.
There's plenty of information about high wage countries with trade deficits that have experienced ultimate dismay when imposing tariffs. The steel tariffs in the US in the Bush years is a good example. There is a broad consensus among economists of both conservative and liberal bent that they hurt more than helped the economy. And that's with their withdrawal before the EU placed tariffs on American goods in response.
While it's possible that I could be convinced tariffs to protect certain high value manufacturing are good, at this point I don't see how I could be convinced these steel tariffs are a good idea. There's just far to much evidence and far too many reasons they are bad for most Americans and the economy.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 6:31pm
The Bush tariffs on steel are interesting. I do think they merit further examination. One study - commissioned by steel consumers - claimed that there was a net reduction in Americans job due to them. That study is obviously problematic since the study was underwritten by a group that saw its steel prices rise as a result. But still I give it some credence.
One concern that I had when the tariffs were announced was that Boeing could lose market share to Airbus since Boeing - which manufactures here - will have to pay more for aluminum which they require to make airplanes. There are ways that Trump could address that problem. I would impose tariffs on Airbuses made with cheaper foreign steel - for all I know domestic airlines that purchase the Airbuses will have to pay a tariff - but it would be tough to enforce.
Usually tariffs are imposed at the port of entry. Presumably though, United and Delta will take delivery of Airbuses in Paris and London. So, I could foresee problems for Boeing. But Boeing hasn't done badly at all over the past few weeks. It's up very slightly in the past month. On the other hand, Airbus has done much better. It's up about 20% during that same period. Obviously investors think Boeing will suffer relative to its foreign competitor due to the tariffs.
So, there likely will be some companies that may be harmed by the tariff - generally those that compete in international markets against foreign producers. This is obviously not the situation that GM, Ford, and Toyota face since they manufacture here for the domestic market. On balance, tariffs will mean less steel imported and therefore more steel manufactured for American consumption. That means more work for American aluminum and steel workers and therefore more wages. I do not foresee drops in demand for products manufactured here for the American market. But perhaps I'll be wrong.
What evidence would cause you to revisit your opinion?
by HSG on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 7:03pm
It's ridiculous to discuss the effects of the tariff at this point. It's premature to look at how the stock market reacts just on the theory of steel tariffs when even republicans know that Trump's word is flexible. Already he's rolled back the tariff and promise some countries will get exemptions. Also tariffs can and likely will lead to a trade war depending on the severity of the tariff and the consequent severity of the response. Any prediction of the outcome based on the stock market the day the full extent of the tariff is announced doesn't tell us what the response from other countries would be and what their effect would be.
You keep asking the same question as if I haven't answered it. I and others have made a substantial case each from our own angle. I don't see how any new bit of information could overturn the many ways and many reasons we've laid out that convince me the steel and aluminum tariffs would be bad. The only question is how bad will it get. But if some highly respected liberal economist like Krugman came out and said he was totally wrong on all that he has written on these tariffs. If he withdraws all he's written and now claims they would be great for America I'd read his new completely different information on the issue and reconsider.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 7:26pm
I don't expect Krugman to take back what he wrote. In 2010, though, he did come out grudgingly in favor of 25% across-the-board tariffs on all Chinese imports. You fear a trade war but again a trade war harms those who are winning the trade peace. We are losing it.
by HSG on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 8:42am
There is no "logic", especially for someone who hasn't studied the fields. These are complex systems, and results can be counterintuitive. Some of the greatest minds make well-meaning mistakes, and then there are egotists like Mao who produced the disastrous Great Leap Forward killing millions by forcing his personal iron smelting social experiment on a nation.
There are thousands of examples and discussions and articles about tariffs, pricing, wages, protection, health of the economy, etc. If you really think you're going to find a single piece that says all tariffs good or all tariffs bad, all trade good or all trade bad, you're seriously off in the weeds. All of these discussions are about tuning complex systems and finding the right compromises, not any "do this, don't do that" prescriptions. Only people like Reagan work with those types of "cutting taxes increases revenue" types of misleading catch-phrases, to great negative effect. What we *can* say is within some specific conditions, more of X in concert with Y tends to result in Z.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 6:31pm
You're both right. There's complexity there. In the end though, you're insisting that American workers paid $20-30/hour compete with Asian and Latin American laborers paid $2 or less. If you were a producer, where would you manufacture? See it really is simple.
by HSG on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 6:44pm
Are you going to do this again? I"m not *insisting* fuck all, except that there are economic analyses that tend to reveal which kind of trade and competition structures work under what circumstances, how the production & supply chain works, what skills and competences and facilities and infrastructure and clustering and tariffs and availability of labor and education levels and marketing and good ol' luck and ultimately productivity have to do with analyzing whether certain types of production in 1 place can survive and compete successfully against others. German factories can compete against Chinese factories because of the productivity factor, not just wage, along with available knowhow, infrastructure, similar companies around along with suppliers, and often nearby markets, along with certain EU tariff structures for different regions. That's it, Hal - nothing magical - lots of formulas and equations to optimize across different industries and workforces to figure out what works and what doesn't, what's more or less mutually beneficial vs predatory or mutually disastrous.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 7:13pm
See
argumentcomment at bottom.by HSG on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 3:43pm
This is a really good point AA. I was in a steam room once with a bunch of older women, and they were all talking with each other, I’m pretty sure they were all friends. One woman was talking about the years she drove cabs, things I didn’t realize about cab drivers, like they had to pay for their own insurance on cars they didn’t own, and they paid for all the gas, which was made up for in tips, hopefully. They paid a rent for the car they didn’t own too.
It was fascinating to listen too, but also told me a story about how difficult it was to make a living doing anything like this, because inevitably she had to rely on tips to live, and the job was kind of an indentured servitude, and this was long before Uber was even a thing.
by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 8:33am
You've quoted the "war for the party's soul" passage on a number of occasions. Thanks! I like it too.
by HSG on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 10:23am
The "will continue to the great benefit of Republicans" betrays that at your core you are a self righteous fraud.
by NCD on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 3:00pm
So you think what I wrote is untrue and that Democratic infighting is bad for Republicans? Look my point was very clear. The infighting is bad but it would also be bad for the party and the American people over the long-term if the corporaDem wing prevails. If you agree with me that the infighting is bad, why are you fighting with me?
by HSG on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 5:26pm
So the only option is to agree with you?
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 4:12pm
Hal, the time for "infighting" is when Democrats have a firm hold on power, as they do in California.
You seek to get your "soul fight" demands met by using the hostages Republicans take for your own ends.
Republicans hold power and they use minority populations and the poor, sick and immigrant as pawns against the opposition Party for pushing the GOP con, an agenda of looting for the rich.
It is abundantly clear you don't give a crap about these families and people, so when you feign concern about the victims, it's only to further your attacks on Democrats, never in support of the opposition and against the Republicans.
At your core you support Trump as your obsession is hate for the Clintons and Obama, and Trump is your anti-Clinton/Obama.
by NCD on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 5:05pm
The House committee investigating the Russia hacks is shutting down. Nothing to see here. Adam Schiff and Democrats on the committee sense a coverup.
http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/377966-house-intelligence-committee-finishes-russian-investigation
If you are worried about humans losing jobs, you might look at the impact of artificial intelligence on jobs.
Edit to add:
The second statement is directed to Hal.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 9:14pm
Tom Toles:
by NCD on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 10:35pm
All Republicans and Trump needed to win was say "Vote White".
by NCD on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 12:27am
Hey Hal, how about Andrew Yang? https://www.verdict.co.uk/andrew-yang-2020/
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 5:47am
The Republican Base is yearning for an intellectual exchange with Democrats.
by NCD on Fri, 03/09/2018 - 8:07pm
I understand Jonathan Haidt's thesis that the clash of sincerely held moral beliefs is elemental to the Manichaeism he deplores in our political life. But Haidt draws his own line in the sand in The Righteous Mind:
It sounds like Haidt has found his enemy.
by moat on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 11:47am
Yeah, fundamentalism. Thanks for the reminder.
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 3:52pm
Was just reading on one amazing example of how far fundmentalists can go in creating a delusionary world to fit the fundamentals.
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 8:15pm
Once upon a time, Biology was on the front lines of the revolution. Worth remembering while the Communists were debating Lysenko, Norman Borlaug was revolutionizing SE Asian crop yields - likely an impressive persuader for the Indira Gandhi-inspired non-aligned nations. Fighting for hearts and souls is one thing; but the way to their hearts is often through their stomachs - preferably not by bayonet.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 9:42pm
Mao's Great Leap Forward, and MAGA, would it work here to boost steel?
by NCD on Sat, 03/10/2018 - 11:56pm
He changed the culture significantly with that program. Families used to cook in their woks and eat as a family. Mao made them melt down their individual woks and do their cooking in group kitchens. It was a huge and destructive change. (From Wild Swans, by Jung Chang). Read this book...it is an excellent read and I learned a lot, including about the opioid epidemic.
by CVille Dem on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 9:55am
Thanks, my local library has it, just requested it.
by NCD on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 10:32am
Moat, did you read The Righteous Mind. I've started it, but I find Haidt to be a bit...um...smug. The subject is interesting, but the writing has a self-congratulatory tone that's putting me off, so I wonder if it's worth finishing.
by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 03/11/2018 - 9:48pm
I did read it. The tone is annoying and ultimately derives from Haidt assuming the reader has problems they may not have. If you already do not demonize everyone you disagree with, then maybe you don't need the full dose.
The worthwhile part of the book is when he pulls together a synthesis of anthropology, sociology, and psychology to deliver a kind of genealogy of morals. Using that map to classify political expression raises more questions than it answers in my mind.
He is doing something similar to Lakoff who sorts through rhetoric to find patterns he sees as the defining characteristics of political beliefs. The differences between their ideas to the side, I think Lakoff does a better job of acknowledging his own advocacy in the midst of what is supposed to be an objective description from an impartial observer.
by moat on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 2:34pm
Thanks for the summary. My sense is that Haidt is also trying to go deeper than Lakoff--to develop a genealogy of morals, as you put it, founded in psychology rather than philosophy. It's an interesting project, but the glibness and self-certainty undermine it. Maybe I'll skip ahead to the synthesis you mention.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 6:09pm
Yes, Haidt's project is much more ambitious than Lakoff's.The range of who is included in the references/bibliography is interesting in itself.
It is hard to live up to one's bibliography.
by moat on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 6:38pm
Everything we think about the political correctness debate is wrong
Support for free speech is rising, and is higher among liberals and college graduates.
By Matthew Yglesias @Vox.com, Mar 12
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 12:56pm
In response to PP's "Are you going to do this again . . ." above.
Thanks PP. I agree that formulating and implementing sound trade policy is obviously very difficult. The economy involves so many moving parts and putting a thumb on the scale here is likely to affect something all the way over there. While, in general, I strongly support tariffs in order to protect the jobs and wages of American workers, I do not believe that they are appropriate on all goods imported from all countries. To the extent that I have argued or implied differently here, I issue a retraction.
A small snippet from John Culbertson's still timely 1986 Harvard Business Review article The Folly of Free Trade: "[U]niform U.S. tariff rates high enough to balance U.S. trade with low-wage nations would virtually exclude imports from other high-income nations and would thus discriminate against those with high incomes." It would also mean that many American consumers would lose the opportunity to enjoy desirable foreign-made products like Scotch whiskey, French Champagne, and Mercedes-Benz automobiles which are manufactured in regions where the comparative advantage is not low wages.
by HSG on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 3:45pm
So you go back 32 years to find a heretical academic outlier that posits a primary concern that consumers won't get enough BMWs, scotch whiskey and other luxury goods? You *are* a curious guy. Who knew you were so concerned about the tastes of the 1%. But hey, keep on trying, perhaps this is progress.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 5:15pm
PP - do you really not get it? Our workers have been losing their livelihoods for 30+ years because they cannot compete with laborers getting paid 1/15 or less what ours earn. In contrast, Scotland has Scotch. We have Bourbon. Scottish distillery workers and farmers make close to what our distillery workers and farmers make. They compete on a roughly even playing field.
France has Champagne we have Napa Valley and Kona Coffee. The grape and coffee growers compete on a roughly even playing field. Germany makes Mercedes. We don't have a good comp but it's not because German workers are underpaid. it's because our oligopolistic auto industry forsook the high-end luxury market. This is why, by the way, antitrust actions breaking up GM as an anti-competitive combination is long past due.
Our textile workers can't compete on a roughly even playing field with Haitian garment workers who are paid 61 cents/hour. We can't compete on a roughly even playing field with China when it comes to making iPhones because their workers are paid under $2/hour. That's the problem. Indeed the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, cited earlier in this thread, provides that when nations where labor is scarce, i.e., relatively highly paid, eliminate tariffs, the decline in wages paid to the formerly scarce input outweighs the slight drop in prices and labor's standard of living will decline. Time has vindicated both the Stolper-Samuelson theorem and Culbertson's prescient HBR article.
by HSG on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 6:42pm
Hal. Do you really not get it? The world is full of different countries. Countries are in all sorts of different areas of the world, with different climates, infrastructures, populations, talents, and more. Some attention to what some countries can easily offer, and what other countries can do better (or worse) just makes sense. There are places that can offer great skiing; others that can offer scuba diving....and on and on.
Maybe some acceptance of the fact that we are living on an actual planet is in order.
Please explain how I am wrong, and include multiple world maps, and population concentrations; plus typical restaurant choices as well as educational priorities and health care options, as well as hay vs sticks vs bricks for house building options.
by CVille Dem on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 7:01pm
I suppose he yearns for the days when US women had good garment district sweatshop jobs. Now those 80 hour workweeks have gone to Haiti and Bangladesh - #UNFAIR!!! Why do those 3rd world types keep bothering us? Let them drink Scotch while sewing family crests on sweaters! We need parity economies to trade with, not pariah and parasite economies! Where do all these shithole countries come from anyway?
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 7:21pm
Tens of millions of American workers were able to make a living making shirts, automobiles, televisions, and more recently computers. Now, they're desperate and angry and more inclined to vote for dangerous demagogues. Why is this so hard for you to understand and why do you evince absolutely no sympathy or empathy for your fellow Americans in distress?
by HSG on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 7:41pm
It's not that we don't care. We just have different solutions to the problem. All you have is tariffs. We don't think that will work. A few times a year for years I've been linking to the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Report Card for America’s Infrastructure and advocating for a massive infrastructure bill to put people to work. That's the 2013 report, here's the most recent 2017 report. That work desperately needs to be done. But not just repair, maintenance, upgrades and replacement of our basic infrastructure. We need higher quality internet wires and wireless connections and hundreds of millions of solar panels, wind turbines, and other types of non polluting renewable energy production. We've under invested and delayed so long. There's so much work that needs to be done in this country that we don't need to use tariffs to bring back minimum wage jobs making T-shirts in this country.
The way I see it you want the democrats to pander to the ignorant who are scapegoating free trade deals for the loss of jobs when the problem is robots. Pandering to ignorance might get us some votes in the short term but it's not going to solve the problem. The world has changed, it's changing ever more rapidly, and we need solutions for the future because there's no going back.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 4:46am
Tariffs are not "all [I] have." I argue for any number of ways to address unemployment, underemployment, low wages, and poverty. Tariffs are a big part of the solution. One way to think about it is right-to-work states versus pro-union states. The latter are generally at a big disadvantage when competing for blue-collar jobs because it's easier to keep wages low when you negotiate with workers individually rather than with their lawyers and representatives.
I definitely support a significant increase in ongoing expenditures on our infrastructure. This should include upgrading and maintaining the internet - let's nationalize it by the way or at least create a government corporation that competes with the monopsony of Time-Warner, Comcast, and Verizon. We should also be spending far more on maintaining and improving our schools, parks, etc.
Another important solution, which you oppose by the way, is single-payer health care. This would lift the burden from corporations of a major added expense of labor. Thus, it would also help workers compete against robots. Corporations would be spared the expense of maintaining the health of their human employees but would still be liable for maintaining their non-human workforce.
by HSG on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 7:46am
First of all, my "fellow Americans" are now selling computer services with cloud, IoT, database/data analytics/Big Data, for Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Oracle, Microsoft, HPE, SaS, Netflix.... the edgy stuff in computers are data center high density designs, not PCs. IBM has a cool new 50 qubit quantum computer. John Deere is doing nice stuff with agroanalytics. Designing new medical devices to track fitness and disorder. Electric cars and personal space travel and next gen long haul public transport. New drone systems and self-driving cars/planes. why you think these jobs are worse than Gateway assembling desktops (that no one buys anymore) beats me.
And then if we go back to assembling phones ourselves, what will the people in 3rd world countries do - beat the ground with sticks? Your lack of concern about 3rd world poverty and helping grow their way out of it is notable.
Frankly I think our jobs and commerce is fine, with a biy of redistribution. It's the huge money, trillions, stolen by wars/defense contractors and banks/financial meltdowns that makes us come up short, not anyone's trade meanness. We're coming out ahead there.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 8:17pm
PP - we run a massive trade deficit. You can point to all manner of high-tech jobs and jobs in export industries in response. The bottom-line is that we lose many more jobs due to trade than we gain by it. I have great concern for third world poverty and have often spoken of how free trade is just about the worst way to make it slightly less inhumane while proposing alternative solutions with a much better track record. You mocked those solutions. When I asked you to come up with ways to address the plight of the American worker you sneered "what am I Jesus of economics?"
by HSG on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 8:23pm
Sorry, I missed these "alternative solutions with a much better track record" - give them lots of charity so their leaders can abscond with it is the one with the biggest track record, or "help them run an economy and trade with them" is what's worked in SE Asia. I must have missed yours.
And it's not like the US economy is doing poorly - it's that the distribution of the profits is poor. If the elites are going to steal money, they're going to steal money, whether it's made by good trade or other means. Fixing that problem is the issue, not whether we signed a specific trade deal. And no, I don't long for jobs putting together TV sets like they did 50 years ago. I really don't understand why you think the richest economy in the world should be competing with the poorest on basic manual labor. Shouldn't we be able to do something more intelligent & productive for $15/hour?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 3:29am
re: why you think the richest economy in the world should be competing with the poorest on basic manual labor.
really! Big picture just hit me so hard when the textile industry jobs came up on the other thread. The history. I am sure it was more than really hard on some big families when child labor was outlawed! We did it anyways.
Which brought us to: what is so very very special about children that they don't have to work in lousy factories but adults still have to? It's called progress, and some people get hurt when it happens. Really, why is the labor movement meant to be frozen @ 1960? Whatever happened to being envious of the length of European vacations? Fighting for even shorter work hours, what happened to that? Why did the EU people start imitating us by getting on the productivity hamster wheel rather than the other way around? MAGA bah humbug, what was so great about it? The idyllic two week vacation in the family car on the interstate? The rest of the time dad never sees the kids, then keels over of a heart attack at retirement. Meanwhile Betty Friedan et. al. almost commits suicide in the suburbs, We all look on the b.s. representation in the ads of the time with irony now.
by artappraiser on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 4:17am
One reason that we lost the textile industry is because manufacturers in Asia and Latin America employ child labor and we pretty much ended the practice in the early-20th century. By embracing "free trade," we pit our domestic workers against child laborer who are much cheaper and more tractable. We also made the practice of employing/forcing children to work much more profitable.
Kinda puts the lie to PP's encomiums to the glories of free trade for developing nations doesn't it? You can mock the 50s and 60s all you want. Last I checked that was a time when poverty rates were plummeting, the civil rights movement reached its apotheosis, and the University of California really was affordable for nearly everybody who could get in.
by HSG on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 7:53am
Oddly, Hal, here in the EU we have "free trade" but no child labor. How could that be? Could it be your chimera strawman is complete bollocks in most actual real-world discussions? Ach yes, loads of bollocks. Or as they say in Chile, "shittier than a chicken on a stick". See, most "free trade agreements" have conditions - not just open, unregulated trade. And considering all countries have at least bilateral trade agreements (or they then run trade through 3rd countries), it means all we're actually talking about is swapping one set of trade rules for another hopefully better set - not an open unregulated playing field. It's like you think there are countries that have trade simply without rules, which is a fantasy of yours.
As for UC education, Prop 19 or whatever killed that, not trade agreements. Swing and aa miss.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 10:45am
Child labor is a documented problem in EU countries Bulgaria and Italy. Our government has very little power over child labor traffickers in Asia while free trade makes the practice much more profitable since the margins are higher when you're manufacturing for sale to relatively wealthy consumers in developed nations.
You allege that I have lied about you. I reject that accusation. I may have mischaracterized your positions on some issues but I have never willfully or recklessly done so. You on the other hand routinely misstate my views e.g., "[i]t's like you think there are countries that have trade simply without rules, which is a fantasy of yours" and implying that I ever attributed UC's tuition hikes since the 1960s to "free trade." Edit to add: looking at my last response, I guess I can see how you might have gleaned the idea that I blame trade for higher tuition. I erred in the way I broke up the paragraphs. My point about UC was that the 50s and 60s were a much better time in many ways for working and middle-class Americans despite AA's derision.
by HSG on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 11:48am
Go back and look at your claim. You lied to me about me. Quit telling you didn't. Just don't do it.
AA.s derision is that our exceptional 50's decade was exceptional. If Europe could desteoy itself every decade, maybe we could sustain iti
'll accept that Italy has a poverty problem including some child labor, a tradition especially in the south, made worse by the mafia state the last 10-15 years. What it has to do with trade, I dont get. As AA noted, as societies increase their wealth, they put their kids in schools and not factories/street hawking. Child labor AFAIK has greatly decreased of late, though the 2008 collapse worsened things worldwide. Again, I dont see this as the natural byproduct of trade.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 2:27pm
Our government has very little power over child labor traffickers in Asia while free trade makes the practice much more profitable since the margins are higher when you're manufacturing for sale to relatively wealthy consumers in developed nations.
The much derided TPP included such child labor practices in Asian countries among its conditions. There were shortfalls, to be sure:
Within that article and hundreds of others, all kinds of current policies are dismantled even as possibilities for new ones are dissected and pronounced "not nearly good enough". Makes me wonder if anything ever will be.
Hal, since all trade agreements include so much more than what, where and how stuff is bought and sold, do you have a solution that incorporates all the pluses and subtracts all the minuses enough to create the perfect trade balance around the world? If not, perhaps you will, at least, consider that greater minds than yours have worked to find such a thing and have thus far failed ... and that the need to keep trying "trumps" everything else.
by barefooted on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 3:25pm
Barefoot, excellent comment! Especially:
The remarkable thing about both Hal and Trump is both have an authoritarian bent, both have "the best" simplistic schemes to make America great again.
Both believe in their own infallibility as to "obvious" facile solutions for every conceivable problem/issue/weakness/iniquity of humanity and government. Present and causing trouble in various forms since the dawn of recorded history. (ie bad stuff happened before Bill Clinton and even before the "neolibs"..!!)
by NCD on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 3:51pm
Speak of the devil of not giving a damn what those with some knowledge think: Trump demands aides pump up anti-China tariffs/After the administration's top trade official presented a package targeting $30 billion a year in imports, the president asked for an even bigger number. @ Politico.com,2:26 pm
by artappraiser on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 3:49pm
TRADE WAR FIRST...!
REAL WAR NEXT..!!!
by NCD on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 3:53pm
Of course, I acknowledge that there's no perfect trade agreement. Moreover, even if there were one, it would remain perfect for a nanosecond before dynamics changed what was perfect. But just because we can't attain perfection doesn't mean we should accept deeply flawed agreements that are written by and for global elites with little or no input from laborers, environmentalists, or consumer advocates.
by HSG on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 4:45pm
Since we can't attain perfection, does that mean we should ignore the gains for labor/consumers and massive improvements to global environmental causes as well as steps toward economic equality that the flawed agreements represent? Should we simply turn up our noses at possibilities because we dislike the "global elites", even as we struggle to collectively define who they are?
by barefooted on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 5:13pm
Land reform, education, women's rights, and aid to small-scale producers all have a better record than free trade. Perhaps you could drop the snark huh?
by HSG on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 7:56am
What land reform where? Ho killed 50-100,000 peasants doing land reform in the 50's. Stalin killed millions of Kulaks.
Education - well, okay, educated populace like in India helps compete for sure, including trade if you weren't against it. Is that it?
Women's rights has a track record of helping a poor country thrive, uh, like where? This sounds like fantasy again.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 11:23am
I'm so sick of this stuff PP. I want to have a polite respectful discussion I am prepared to do so. Are you?
by HSG on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 4:53pm
The one comparative advantage that China and the far east have when it comes to manufacturing the items that we buy from Amazon is much much cheaper labor. It's exactly the same advantage that ante-bellum planters in the South had when they were selling rice and cotton to the rest of the world. Do you favor a $1/hour minimum wage?
by HSG on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 7:39pm
do you really not get it? Our workers have been losing their livelihoods for 30+ years because they cannot compete with laborers getting paid 1/15 or less what ours earn.
We think you don't get it. Over and over again I and others have produced links comparing the loss of jobs from trade and the loss of jobs from automation. Free trade is by far not the largest factor in the job losses. And all the indications are that the move toward getter automation and the problems caused by it will accelerate. We've all discussed this frequently yet you don't see it, even as part of the problem. Tariffs cannot solve the problems of increased productivity and automation.
From what personal information people have posted I suspect you're a bit younger than most of the people here. All us old fuckers should be so set in our ways and attached to the world of our childhood that we should be missing these modern trends. Instead of needing younger folks to drag us into a clearer understanding of the future you're the one looking into the past for a bygone age that's just not coming back.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 8:17pm
Let's say you're right and automation is a bigger driver of job loss than off-shoring. Why would we compound the harm caused by automation with off-shoring? Wouldn't it be smart policy to stop the bleeding wherever we can. We can stop job losses due to our massive trade deficit through tariffs. There is also much that we can do in response to automation - here are a few thoughts: Shorter work weeks, earlier retirement age, a much greater commitment to re-educating workers - especially younger ones who are being made redundant, a guaranteed minimum income - which I discussed here at length by the way. Unfortunately, the solutions proposed by Democrats and Republicans seem often to be going in the wrong direction.
by HSG on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 8:20pm
Let's say? You've been telling us that you respond to evidence and are open to changing your mind. I've been posting links about the effects of increased productivity for years. Links to short articles like the one above and to longer PDF's with all the details. Studies that compare the job losses due to automation to the job losses from trade. Do you even bother to read them? You never respond to the data and arguments they provide. First provide evidence and a convincing argument why all these studies are wrong.
As I've posted I can be convinced that some limited use of tariffs might be ok to protect some high value manufacturing. But we don't need to bring back low value manufacturing of T-shirts or I-phones. They're shitty jobs that even at minimum wage will substantially raise the prices paid by the vast number of poor and middle class people.
I've listed some ideas of what we could do in the comment above. I've posted support in theory for a guaranteed minimum wage. I just don't think we're ready for it and there's still so much work that needs to be done.
I've also posted several times about education. But here's a problem I have with you and Sanders. I want to see college made more affordable. Hillary came up with a good plan to do that. Sanders had a good plan too to make all public colleges free. I suppose one could consider that marginally better but I do like the idea that Hillary mentioned of people having some sort of buy in to their education. Too often people treat free stuff as worth what they paid for it and offering "free" is often not the most pragmatic policy position to get the most votes. Purity scolds like you and Sanders trashed her plan because it just wasn't good enough, it wasn't free.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 8:50pm
I haven't denied that roboticization is a factor in declining employment and have recommended ways to deal with it. Do you acknowledge that single-payer/Medicare-for-all is essential to deal with it. I didn't trash Hillary's plan for debt-free college.
by HSG on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 11:50am
which I discussed here at length by the way
I remember just the opposite, you basically supporting the Protestant work ethic while a bunch of us were talking about this.on this thread by C'Ville. Specifically there you mention the deep emotional and intellectual satisfaction that meaningful work provides.
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 11:35pm
I said I discussed a universal basic income I did. I don't think it's a perfect solution by any means but it's better than poverty. It also can help more workers find meaningful work since, with the security UBI provides, they may be willing to take on low-paying internships or stay in school longer to develop essential skills.
by HSG on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 8:26am
Hal-lucinations on Haitians.
There are about 26,000 garment workers in Haiti. (out of population 11 million)
In 2010 Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama granted temporary protected immigrant status to 58, 700 Haitians as victims of the Haitian earthquake.
Trump has given the 58,700 (and families) until 2019 to leave the lives they have made in America. He plans to deport them to Haiti.
Senator Schumer and 15 other Democratic Senators have opposed the move to deport the 58,000+ Haitians, and their families who may accompany them.
Hal says Schumer and the Democrats do not have a soul, Hal thinks his soul is more pure.
The numbers to be expelled by Trump are over twice the number of Haitians in the garment trade in Haiti, which Hal wants to end, throwing 26,000 Haitians out of jobs.
Does Hal care about what Trump is doing to Haitians? No. Never blogged on it.
Did Hal ever give credit to Obama or Hillary for helping these Haitians...no. Hal has only attacked Hillary and Obama.....for years.
Does anyone believe Hal cares about any Haitians, anywhere?
by NCD on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 8:59pm
26,000 garment workers in Haiti.
And those jobs won't last long, you'll need significant training soon to work producing textiles:
Flexible Automation in Textile Manufacturing
@ aia-india.org
(just from a quick google)
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 11:47pm
Lewis Hine prayed for this.
He did not just care about children, he was working with the low hanging fruit first. We didn't evolve brains to continue to be beasts of burden. We should be celebrating that this is finally happening. Instead some are using the internet to preach save the coal mining jobs! So absurd.
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 11:44pm
Machines, and Artificial Intelligence, Elon Musk:
Some AI experts think they know more than they do and they think they're smarter than they are ... this tends to plague smart people, they define themselves by their intelligence and they don't like the idea that a machine can be way smarter than them so they just discount the idea, which is fundamentally flawed.
"I'm very close to the cutting edge in AI and it scares the hell out of me.....there needs to be a public body that has insight and then oversight to confirm that everyone is developing AI safely -- this is extremely important," he said.
by NCD on Mon, 03/12/2018 - 11:54pm
Yeah I have been trying to grok some of this lately.
This is the problem with Russian bots type activities: garbage in, garbage out with algorithms that "learn.".Bigger chaos potential than most people are thinking. Has to be protected/regulated, has to just like with state secrets. Significant overhaul needed to the whole concept of free speech and free publication, where it fits and where it doesn't. I.E. everyone is not free to print their own money. Geeks often get this,that is why they are enamored of ideas like "block chain" which doesn't at all look like a serious answer, but something is needed along those lines.
by artappraiser on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 12:19am
Hit me when skimming the above article, when I saw this, this is what people who make it a point to "buy American" may actually be supporting:
by artappraiser on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 12:35am
Yes, you can find articles like this for every industry. I remember reading a good article several months ago about automation in the oil industry reducing numbers of employees. We could bring back all the jobs with tariffs after a long period of extremely painful reordering of the long supply chains but the number of jobs brought back would be a fraction of those lost as the new factories would be state of the art robotics. And the cost of goods would skyrocket. There's a small part of me that wants to see a trade war to finally put to death this idea that these trade deals are the problem. Just a couple of years of the suffering a trade war would bring and which ever party started the war would be out of power.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 12:57am