dagblog - Comments for "The Warren Retort"

In a democracy, the people

HSG — Wed, 20 Jul 2016 15:36:50 +0000

In reply to ...and economic development

In a democracy, the people elect leaders who appoint representatives to Trade Commissions who balance the various factors that you raise. What we don't do is throw up our hands and say anybody can bring anything in here and ~~compete with~~ eviscerate our middle class.

Hal, I can no longer respond

CVille Dem — Mon, 11 Jul 2016 01:19:24 +0000

In reply to In 2002, Hillary voted for a

Hal, I can no longer respond to your comments as long as they continue to be the usual way that you non-respond to legitimate efforts to discuss ideas. I remain disappointed because you block out so much information, and just remain like a chunk of ice, so sure that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and I do think it is unfortunate, most particularly for you. You are deaf/blind/whatever to anything you have not already decided on. I don't care who you vote for. I don't care what you say you are doing for the upcoming election. Somehow I don't think a lot of people are making their voting decision on what "Hal" is promoting. As the judge on People's Court says, "Good Luck."

The truth is that I also think that I am right, but I don't require everyone who has a different (and well-thought-out viewpoint) to admit that they are wrong. Good people can disagree. You don't seem to get that.

It's not about right and

ocean-kat — Sun, 10 Jul 2016 22:29:39 +0000

In reply to Actually, the problem of job

It's not about right and wrong. The vast majority of our discussions were subjective. My subjective analysis about Hillary's economic plan to expand on Dodd/Frank and Sanders plan to reinstate Glass/Stegall hasn't changed. You seem to want me to admit you were "right" before you will help the democrats win. Not going to happen.

My subjective analysis is that health care corporations are a small force against single payer. The largest force against single payer is the fact that 70% of the population gets their health care from their employers, are happy with it, and will resist any change. I support an incremental change building on the ACA. You want me to say I'm wrong before you're willing to help Hillary win. That is not going to happen.

My views haven't changed. Of course I think my subjective analysis is more correct than your subjective analysis. I post what I believe. I'm not spinning for Hilary. I'm not going to lie about my views as the cost of getting your help to elect Hillary. Go help Trump get elected. I don't give a fuck what you do.

Let us both make concessions

ocean-kat — Sun, 10 Jul 2016 21:51:28 +0000

In reply to Michael Wolraich - In

Let us both make concessions to the other. I will say that Hillary voted for war if you will say Sanders turned into a sore loser who was unable to face the fact that the voters didn't want him and that he lost in a landslide. It became all about him and his ego and he's now helping Trump to win.

We both will then have criticized our candidate in a way the other side believes to be true. We can both do that and work together, both not do it and work together, or you can walk away and help Trump win. I don't care what you choose.

"But as you can see the

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 10 Jul 2016 21:18:43 +0000

In reply to Michael Wolraich - In

"But as you can see the Clinton supporters are unwilling to work with me except insofar as such work comprises helping their candidate win" - what else is there, Hal? It's an election, not a turnip growing contest. You want to figure out "mistakes", we want to win an election. Come back in December, maybe we'll have time to throw away then.

And your definition of "support" is like someone pissing in the tub and bragging they kept the water warm. I for one don't want you anywhere near the candidate - you're only good at poisoning the well, nothing for teamwork and finding middle ground.

Until they recognize their

Michael Maiello — Sun, 10 Jul 2016 21:04:10 +0000

In reply to Michael Wolraich - In

Until they recognize their mistake...

Until these people who disagreed with me recognize that they were wrong, I'm going to have a tough time agreeing with them! #neverchangehal

Michael Wolraich - In

HSG — Sun, 10 Jul 2016 20:55:33 +0000

In reply to If you're not willing to get

Michael Wolraich - In response to a question you posed, I explained it was important to me that Clinton supporters acknowledge the obvious flaws in their candidate because only then could we work together to make America better. You expressed contempt for my position and instead urged me to reach out to Clinton supporters to find common ground. I did just that. But as you can see the Clinton supporters are unwilling to work with me except insofar as such work comprises helping their candidate win. So it seems I was right doesn't it? Until they recognize their mistake, we cannot work together even on somewhat unrelated issues like immigration, registering voters, and supporting progressive Congressional candidates because Clinton's backers insist that I not just support but actively work with them on their cause celebre.

...and economic development

Michael Maiello — Sun, 10 Jul 2016 20:54:04 +0000

In reply to All right. I'll reply

...and economic development that relies on developing small businesses in industries that serve domestic markets are all much better, i.e., more sustainable, more environmentally sound, more equitable long-term strategies.

Sounds great, but let's not pretend there's not a trade off here. Say I live in Baklistan and we have developed a sustainable, local business that supplies me with Yurps. But what if the world's best Yurps come from outside of Baklistan? They are cheaper and better and they come from Freedonia. I am a consumer in Baklistan. We have trade protections in place that keep Freedonian Yurps out of our market. Is it right that I am forced to purchase inferior Yurps at inflated prices, just because the local Yurpmaker has built a business that way?

Put another way, the locally owned store can actually be as oppressive as Wal-Mart, if it is the only game in town.

Put yet another way, how would your trade regime affect my ability to get the world's best wines?

Land reform => still farming?

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 10 Jul 2016 20:51:01 +0000

In reply to All right. I'll reply

Land reform => still farming? competing against industrial farms? forget that. Better to drive a cab. Or at least was.

"anti-poverty programs" - uh, that's like "world peace programs" - who could be against? what does it mean?

"education for girls and women" - what do you do if they're educated and there are no jobs nor affordable ways to export goods?

"small business that serve domestic markets" - there are no serious domestic markets - people there are poor and have low discretionary income. It's either export or go hungry.

"Free trade" means essentially lowered barriers. Yes, in cases barriers are good for survival if incoming goods & services swamp the local market. But we're often talking about pathetic levels of competitiveness. How does the biggest market help poorer countries compete, have opportunity, grow next generation industries?

Actually, the problem of job

HSG — Sun, 10 Jul 2016 20:43:43 +0000

In reply to You've stated here that you

Actually, the problem of job loss is a very simple one. We have shed millions of manufacturing jobs because labor costs 1/20 or less in some other countries than it costs here. It's kinda like why we stopped using sperm whale oil in the 1860s. Petroleum was much cheaper and more plentiful. Had we enacted heavy taxes on petroleum then, the sperm whales would have been very quickly hunted to extinction. The problem of global warming is equally simple. We over consume fossil fuels now because in most instances they generate more calories per dollar expended than clean green alternatives. If we raise the prices with a fossil fuels tax, we will consume less.

With respect to geo-political strategy, the free trade deals have been devastating for America. We have empowered and enriched the Chinese Communists such that they are now lording it over Tibet and scaring Australia in the South China Sea. Likewise, free trade has vastly increased the sway of neo-fascistic governments in Singapore and Malaysia where human trafficking continues unchecked. Greece is approaching third world economic status due to the control over its economy exercised by Germany by virtue of the "free trade" Eurozone.

Regarding my support for John Kerry, it would seem I picked the right horse back then given he has done much more for peace - especially with Iran - as Secretary of State than Clinton did. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/hillary-clinton... Kerry has also been willing to criticize Israel and Netanyahu whereas Clinton wants to take our relationship with Israel to the next level. http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/25/kerry-netanyahu-wrong-on-iraq-and-wr... In any case, some time back, I explained the differences between Kerry and Clinton and why he was a better choice then than she is now.

The question you have to ask yourself O-K is am I going to nitpick everything Hal writes because I don't like his conclusions or is it just possible that he's been right and I've been wrong all along.