« What will Japan do about Syria? | Main | On-Line Sales Taxes »

April 11, 2018

Comments

You can use words like "tend to be Republican" but the point is to foster resentment against the people that voted Republican.

since i wrote it, i can tell you exactly what the intent was.

i'm calling out people who responded to trump's appeals to bigotry, militant nationalism, and malice. because IMO those things suck, and you find them appealing IMO you need to check your head.

if that's not you, then you have no reason to take offense.

i don't give a crap about the letter after the name. i've voted for republicans, i'm sure i'll do it again.

fwiw, were i strongly disinclined to vote for clinton on policy grounds, i would likely have voted for mcmullin.

there have been situations where i thought the available (D) was not really an appropriate choice, and i've pulled the lever for the (R).

i'm not talking about party, i'm talking about ugly.

Republican voters also handed Trump the nomination

yep

You sit over there and whine while us Republicans secure our freedom, fix the economy, make the world a safer place and create sustainable prosperity for your kids and grandkids.

it goes without saying, i assume, that these are your opinions.

it goes without saying, i assume, that these are your opinions delusions

But 4 more years of aggressively destroying every principle this country was built on: rule of law, personal responsibility, free markets, free people, was not an acceptable alternative.

But that is what they and we got because they voted for Trump and no there really is no fact based or rational argument that Clinton would have performed as badly or as detrimentally. NOt even close.

I do not like it at all when people generalize about the R base voters and call them racists or stupid. That is not fair or accurate. R base voters are prejudiced against EVERYONE outside their base and their disinformation bubble because of an over developed sense of entitlement which has metastasized into hyperpartisanship.

The basic message of the R party and its propaganda machine is the message its voters want to hear: that they are the only good Americans and everyone else is a threat to them, the only holders of good American values. It is a nostalgia for the good old days when people like them were the standard generic American and everyone else was a hyphenated American or not a real American at all. The basis of the R voting bloc is a sense of entitlement==Republican voters are entitled to government services and entitled to get their way and entitled to feel like they are the real true Americans. OUt of that sense of entitlement , they view everyone else as not as worthy as they are, Thus, the addiction to defamation, which is the mainstay of Republican discourse.

Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya.
Clinton Crime family
People in cities are the elitists
Bums on welfare
Gay people as a threat to family values
Trans people are lurking in the bathrooms!
Illegal immigrants are the cause of violent crime are raping women in numbers no one has ever seen before, are voting in California, and are getting welfare!
Muslims are taking over Dearborn!
Clinton should be locked up for something and the FBI knows what she should be locked up for and is keeping it secret!
The FISA warrent isn't valid because Mueller is a Democrat and is running a witch hunt
Immigrants are bring ebola into the US!
Immigrants are stealing jobs!
Democrats cause budget deficits!
And so on.

Always those bad people over there are a threat to us, the real true and only good Americans. The innate virtuousness of Repubicans and the innate badness of everyone else is the fundamental core belief of contemporary conservatism. Perhaps hte only core belief

There really is no conservative philosophy. The pattern with R politicians is that they run for office on hate and fearmongering directed toward individuals or groups and the pattern with R voters is that they vote for the hate and fearmongering The pattern is also that they make exceptions for people they know personally. Its those other black people who are lazy, not their neighbor, those other Mexicans who are rapists, not their employee, and so on.

So no I dont think that it is fair or accurate to call R voters racists or idiots. I think it is fair and accurate to say they need to get over themselves.

Of course its my opinion. And in some ways not very strongly held. But some of those policies I truly believe have significantly moved us to a more sustainable economic path.

If you only look at the ugly you miss most of the people who voted for him, all of us who didnt.


Marty: ... every principle this country was built on: rule of law, personal responsibility, free markets, free people ...

Rule of Law: "Lock Her Up!"; fire Comey; pardon Arpaio; threaten Rosenstein.

Personal Responsibility: pay hush money to porn star; hide your tax returns; "alternate facts".

Free Markets: tariffs; promote coal; denounce Amazon.

Free People: reporters have too much freedom, white supremacists not enough.

Self-dealing, hiring "the best people" who turn out to be either incompetents or crooks, kissing Putin's ass at every opportunity -- these too must be principles the US was built on.

Glad to know what MAGA means, finally.

--TP


Here's some free enterprise:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/world/asia/elliott-broidy-trump-malaysia-china-guo.html


BTW does refusing to sanction a dictator who murders reporters count as keeping people free?

some of those policies I truly believe have significantly moved us to a more sustainable economic path...

I'm curious to know what those might be ?

And he just appointed this genius as his economic advisor...
https://www.nationalreview.com/2007/12/bush-boom-continues-larry-kudlow/

Exploding the deficit during a growth period is sustainable? Trade wars are sustainable?

Well, to be fair, if your plan is to reduce wages to Chinese levels, they'll be no need to import manufactured goods from China.

every principle this country was built on: rule of law, personal responsibility, free markets, free people ...

yes. your party has abandoned all of them in service of a con man.

If you only look at the ugly you miss most of the people who voted for him, all of us who didnt.

I'm not talking about people who didn't.

It's unclear to me how many people who did found his rhetoric appealing and how many felt the alternative meant the demise of the republic.

A hell of a lot thought it was great. And IMO those foks need to do a head check.

And it ain't just Trump.

destroying every principle this country was built on: rule of law, personal responsibility, free markets, free people

I can't really let this go without comment, and it has nothing to do with Trump.

It's offensive to me that conservatives assume that *their* preferred principles and policies are the ones that are closest to the "founding principles of the country".

You and I have different understandings of how things should work. Neither one is outside the scope of what was intended when the country was founded. Neither is outside of the "American tradtion" because that tradition is not one single thing.

John Adam's MA, Hamilton's NY, Willam Penn's PA, Jefferson's VA, Oglethorpe's GA. All very different societies and traditions. All American, for good or ill.

I have no problem with you wanting the policies you want. I will not accept your claiming that they are any more "American" than the policies I want.

And none of it has anything to do wih what I'm talking about when I talk about ugliness in our public life. That's not a partian thing, it's more of an American id thing.

And none of it has anything to do wih what I'm talking about when I talk about ugliness in our public life. That's not a partian thing, it's more of an American id thing.

This is incorrect. Republicans have fully embraced ugliness, including hate, exclusion, lies, corruption and exploitation, both in policy and rhetoric. Both sides don't do it, and we have to quit pretending that the only way to be civil is to hide that nasty truth.

while I'm happy to have a conversation, russell, cleeks comment above and sapients after is what
I was responding to, just matching tone. Actually
they are the evidence that some on both sides "do it".

This is incorrect.

Back in the day, Wallace was a (D), mostly.

Right now, and ever since Nixon, the (R)'s are making hay riding the national id. But it's found a home in various places, over the years.

All I'm asking is for (R)'s *right now* to address it. If folks want to run on tax cuts and deregulation, fine with me. Leave the other stuff out of it.

every principle this country was built on: slavery, genocide, protective tariffs, geographical expansion by force of arms....

Admittedly, of the major parties, only the GOP has leading members that espouse originalist policies like limiting the franchise to landed gentry, abolishing child labour laws, abolishing the election of senators by the people, considering the ban of (volontary) slavery a violation of the freedom of contract, considering the idea of an income tax unbiblical and unamerican...
And on the matter on anti-miscegenation laws one also finds the majority of originalists on the GOP side today (although it is more a state and local thing with limited resonance in D.C.).

It's offensive to me that conservatives assume that *their* preferred principles and policies are the ones that are closest to the "founding principles of the country

That's part of the entitlement I was talking about. Conservatives will also claim that independence, hard work, and personal responsibility are conservative values when there is nothing innately and certainly nothing exclusively conservative about them. In fact those are generic values that everyone has. What is exclusively conservative is the snobbery of assuming those values are theirs.

All I'm asking is for (R)'s *right now* to address it. If folks want to run on tax cuts and deregulation, fine with me. Leave the other stuff out of it.

would be nice.

but "Deplorable and Proud" is a pretty common bumper sticker on pickups in rural NC. it's usually right next to a Trump/Pence sticker.

they know what they are. they know why they like Trump.

And it is the kind of 'pride' that many theologians rank as top of the deadly sins and the root of most others.
(St.Augustine thought that original sin was really about sex but the majority of his colleagues were unanimous that it was, at the roor, pride).

In fact those are generic values that everyone has. What is exclusively conservative is the snobbery of assuming those values are theirs.

Thank you for putting it so succinctly. I've had this thought floating around in my head in a nebulous, non-verbal form for some time. Now I have the words, and a conveniently small number of them. The only thing I would change would be to add scare quotes around "conservative."

The people who fit this description aren't traditional conservatives, any more than the cells of a cancer tumor in someone's lung are lung cells.

(I'm not sure exactly how this relates to cleek's law, but the two of them sum it up pretty well.)

You sit over there and whine while us Republicans secure our freedom, fix the economy, make the world a safer place and create sustainable prosperity for your kids and grandkids.

the thing is, that's not what "you Republicans" are doing, at all.

we're coasting on the Obama economy. the unnecessary and ill-advised Trump/Ryan tax cuts are going to hurt, bad - even by "conservative" metrics, they're bad, since they're going to blow the deficit up to levels that had you all screaming about the end of days when it was last that large. his tariffs are insane (and now the GOP is the party of tariffs! lol).

you aren't securing any "freedom" (whatever the hell that means). you aren't making the world safer place. Trump is alienating our allies and emboldening our rivals. even if we don't assume he's deliberately trying to Make Russia Great Again, he's effectively doing that.

he's replaced stability and predictability with idiocy petulance and chaos, which is causing our allies to start to work around us instead of with us.

you hired a degenerate racist moron to run your party. things are working out as expected.

Im sure youre confusing "claiming those values as theirs" with "wanting to retain those values as core American values".

Policy either rewards thise values or it doesn't. Its s policy discussion not an owning of the values discussion. And it comes in degrees.

This policy promotes individual responsibility more than that one, while understanding a safety net is important. Is then portrayed as hateful of people that have fallen on hard times. The response being you dont believe in any personal responsibility? Which begets "you dont own that value". Which begets "you sure as heck dont believe in it". And tbe circle is complete.

Policy solutions to our most intransigent problems should be built on how to help the most people over time, governments primary role in this endeavor.

We can't get past counting who gets helped and hurt the day things are implemented to have any of those duscussions, because that's how Democrats win. Thr tax cut hurt joe in nyc so its bad, no matter that kt helped 300m people and its economic impact will help everyone invluding Joe. Those hateful Republicans hurt Joe.

Bah.

This is my good news for the day.

Exploding the deficit during a growth period is sustainable? Trade wars are sustainable?

It is perhaps notable that, among the 20 developed countries, the United States is the only one which is not reducing its government's deficit. Even perennial basket cases like Greece are reducing their deficit. Everybody but us!

I suppose it's conceivable that isn't a problem. But it sure seems like a big red flag to me.

Thr tax cut hurt joe in nyc so its bad, no matter that kt helped 300m people and its economic impact will help everyone invluding Joe. Those hateful Republicans hurt Joe.

Except your example is an inaccurate caricature. I wouldn't oppose a tax cut if I actually believed it would help 300M people in the long run, including Joe, even if it hurt Joe in the short term. You're begging the question by assuming your conclusion.

As it stands, the tax cut in reality helps a bunch of people who have been accumulating wealth at a record pace for decades, which I believe accelerates a trend that will be good for no one in the long run. You can disagree with that, but at least disagree with the argument someone is actually making.

Trump is alienating our allies and emboldening our rivals. even if we don't assume he's deliberately trying to Make Russia Great Again, he's effectively doing that.

To be fair, he's doing more to Make China Great Again than for Russia. His intention seems to be as you say; certainly not to build up China. But that's definitely what he is accomplishing with his various actions. (I started to write "policies." But realized that term can't really be applied to current US foreign "policy". Or trade "policy". It's pretty much all flailing around more or less at random.)

We can't get past counting who gets helped and hurt the day things are implemented to have any of those duscussions, because that's how Democrats win. Thr tax cut hurt joe in nyc so its bad, no matter that kt helped 300m people and its economic impact will help everyone invluding Joe.

I'm missing something here. If a (Republican) policy will help 300 million people while hurting one (or a handful), how is counting a win for Democrats? Seems like counting ought to be exactly a win for the policy.

As for picking out individual examples to make a policy point, all politicians do that. Doesn't matter what party they are in. Doesn't matter if their policy is liberal, conservative, libertarian, populist, or whatever. It's nonsense, but apparently helps people see whatever point they are trying to make. So I guess we are stuck with it.

To be fair, he's doing more to Make China Great Again than for Russia.

Not just in relation to the economy, either. Who do we think is the better 10-dimensional chess player in relation to North Korea, Xi Jinping or Donald Trump?

m sure youre confusing "claiming those values as theirs" with "wanting to retain those values as core American values".

I wish that was the case. However, those core values are not under attack by non-conservatives and are in fact shared by non-conservatives, and are in fact the basis for policies supported by non-conservatives, so the "conservative" assumption that they are the noble and heroic defenders of those values against the people who dont share them is based on the assumption that the values are more theirs than anyone else's.

so the "conservative" assumption that they are the noble and heroic defenders of those values against the people who dont share them is based on the assumption that the values are more theirs than anyone else's.

seems like there's an echo of "conservatives'" complaints against 'identity politics' in there. only people who aren't white conservatives participate in identity politics because white conservative isn't an identity - it's the default setting for "American". everybody else is some kind of special interest group.

For example, the recurrent theme that bums are wasting welfare dollars. That's based, not on evidence, but on the paranoid assumption that those other people over there are not deserving like Repubicans are. Repubicans are the hard workers who deserve socialist programs like Bonneville Power and all kinds of subsidies and supports like farm price supports and tax funded jobs in red states and subsidized crop and herd insurance and on and on and on, but boy we better cut Medicaid funding and Food Stamps out of fear that someone some where who is undeserving is getting help! Because Republicans are the hardworking people and those other people are (niggers on welfare, bums on welfare, illegals on welfare, women who are having kids to get welfare, whatever hatemongering stereotype is is handy for R politicians to promote).

That snobbish assumption of entitlement is not exclusively a Republican trait, but it is the biggest sales pitch for the Republican party, has been for decades, and is the primary message of Faux and the rest of the propaganda network. And I don't think R politicians and propagandists would push the theme of tribal superiority if it was not effective with members of the tribe.

This Frum article is perhaps germane to the discussion with Marty:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/comey-memo-conservatives/558521/

the hard workers who deserve socialist programs like Bonneville Power and all kinds of subsidies and supports like farm price supports and tax funded jobs in red states and subsidized crop and herd insurance and on and on and on, but boy we better cut Medicaid funding and Food Stamps out of fear that someone some where who is undeserving is getting help!

It occurs to me that perhaps the problem is one of labeling. If farm supports had a catchy name that they were always referred to by, they might be seen as more like Medicaid. And that would mean that the problem is that the Democrats come up with more easy-to-remember labels. ;-)

Makers: steelworkers, nurses, teachers, janitors, plumbers, code writers, coal miners, medical technicians, truck drivers, etc., dishwashers, etc.

Takers: Hedge fund managers, vulture capitalists, too-big-to-fail banks.

The GOP has it exactly backwards.

Excellent Frum article, Nigel. But then so much of his post-Trump-nomination output is excellent. Thank God for the existence of decent conservatives, to remind us that such a category exists in the public sphere. And I never thought I'd be saying such a thing in his axis-of-evil days.....

the tax cut in reality helps a bunch of people who have been accumulating wealth at a record pace for decades, which I believe accelerates a trend that will be good for no one in the long run.

Tax cuts!

hsh, and I disagree entirely. Investment is up, businesses are buying and hiring, tax revenues will be up in the second half of the year. So we will see who's right

make a graph of an economic indicator you like over the past ten years. leave off the axis labels.

see if you can spot Trump's election.

wj--in regard to labeling. Conservatives label anything that helps them as support for jobs or workers, and anything that helps anyone else as welfare. It's all wlefare, but we are back to that sense of entitlement....

Not just "welfare". Give it a name of its own. (And if the other party won't when it is enacted, well tack one on the next time you have control of the Congress.)

Investment is up, businesses are buying and hiring, tax revenues will be up in the second half of the year.

In continuation of a trend that began literally years before Trump took office. What will tax revenues be up relative to in the second half of the year? The first half of the year? Prior years?

Put it on your calendar to look at this graph in one year, Marty.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W006RC1Q027SBEA

I get your point about labbeling. This reminded me of an analysis of the economy of one of the northern teir counties in WA, I can't remember which one; Okanogan, Pond d'Oreille (didnt spell that right0 doens't matter, which since the study was applicable to many red areas nationwide. What the study found was that without goverment money, the county would be vertually uninhabited by humans.

Food Stamps were what kept local govercieries open since people who could drive or could afford gas drove into the nearest big town or city to grocery shop. Almost everyone else lived off the government: law enforcement, education, the PO, people connected to the National Forest or BLM, people who leased rach land at subsidized rates or work in a timber mill that was harvesting public tress off public land wihtout fully compensating the public for our loss

Ask those folks about that and they will tell you taht it is all necessary to support the economy. I was actually told by a logger once that as long as there was a National Forest he would always have a job. They feel so owed that they are not even aware of their since of being owned.

But suggest that tax dollars should be spent to support the economy of somewhere else? Especially somewhere inhabited by those coastal elites or those illegals or those bums or those people dont have the real true independent hardworking free enterprise values like they have...

Repubicans are the hard workers who deserve socialist programs like Bonneville Power...

Just for the record, BPA is not the example you think it is. First, the revenues raised from electricity and irrigation water have always covered the cost of ongoing operations and maintenance, plus the cost of construction amortized over 50 years at a reasonable interest rate. BPA is a profit center for the federal government, rebating cash to the Treasury each year. Second, the electricity has overwhelmingly been sold to metro areas across the West; eg, huge amounts flow down Path 65 to Southern California. At some points in the year, Path 65 represents almost 50% of LADWP's supply.

So we will see who's right

Haven't we already?

I'm not trying to pile on, but this is where the conversation breaks down for me. Is Kansas an economic utopia in need of a little tweaking or is it an abject failure? I don't see how policy discussions can begin if we can't agree on one of these notions.

Pete, I can point to ten Blue states thst hsve been abject failures over time for various reasons. Mot really a valid comparison.

It might be useful to have a list of those 10 blue states. Or even just some of them.

If only so we can start figuring out what we think constitutes success and failure. Because without that, we aren't going to get anywhere.

states traditionally considered 'blue':

WA
OR
CA
HI
ME

MA
CT
RI
NH
NY

NJ
MD
DE
IL
WI

light blue:
NV
CO
NM
PA
VA

so, 20 total. 21 if you add DC.

i don't see any abject failures in there.

i see 16 of the top 20 states for personal income, though.

Marty,

Fair play, and I realize that federal is not state, but I think wj is right, and that might be the place to start. Connecticut, frex, is having its troubles as well.

Gish, im wrong. Only two blue areas CT and DC. One more than Ksnsas. I dont reel like playing tit for tat anymore. The tax code wil solidify a long term tenuous recovery into one where the Fed can raise rafes and clean up kts balance sheet so it has some ammo if there is a other downturn. One where wages go up instead of remaining flat because all the GDP growth can be accomplished with better productivity. One where work force participation might, not comvinced, increase 2-4 %. All of those things build a stronger and more sustainable economy with some backstop.

And will reduce debt not increase it. But if you measure today the deficit is bigger becsuse we jus cut the taxes so receipts from existing skurces is down and the money hasnt had time to work through the economy.

So sure, so fsr some rich peoe got a tax cut, along with almost everyone else. Thats my point, policy often takes time to schieve the expected goals.

"Investment is up, businesses are buying and hiring, tax revenues will be up"

As they all were when Reagan raised taxes, Bush I raised taxes, Clinton raised taxes, and Obama raised taxes a little bit.

As they were, to a much greater degree, throughout the postwar era and the blissful Boehner 1950s when marginal tax rates were much higher for decades, up to 91-93% at the highest brackets and on down the line to the dozens of marginal tax brackets.

I've posted historical tax tables here many times before, but I'm not going to waste my time any longer.

The stock market on average does better under Democratic Administrations than Republican and that is a century-long trend.

The market went straight up under Obama. I have the improved net worth to prove it, but pearls before swine.

Corporations are plowing their recently reduced corporate tax rates into buying back their own stock, which they have done for decades as well.

That's not a productive activity. But what it does is reduce the supply of shares available in the markets by vast amounts (by some large double digit percentage over the past thee or four decades), thus manipulating our way to higher equity prices.

Like OPEC. Like the diamond industry.

Hooray for me, but NOTHING was produced except stagnant wages for most of the mp afficianados now deciding whether to take a hit of opioids or the asshole's daily tweet barrage, and that started way before Obama entered the scene.

How do I know this, without reading UNAmericanCommiePinko.com on a regular basis?

I read business sites and publications, largely published by pro-business, low-tax-loving moderate to conservative interests.

Still, polls are now showing that a plurality of Americans disapprove of the republican tax legislation as unnecessary and profligate, and that includes many of those in the higher tax brackets.

Larry Kudlow is full of fucking shit.

Gish, im wrong. Only two blue areas CT and DC. One more than Kansas.

Not a problem. It gives us a couple of places where we can look at tax (and spending) policies, and see if we can see similarities. (We might want to look at Oklahoma as well. My impression is that they have been having challenges as well.)

Thank God for the existence of decent conservatives

no offence GFTNC, but you might want to look into David Frum's history a bit... he was a Bush toadie, Iraq war supporter, wrote a book with Richard Perle and is an unrepentant neocon warmonger - if that's what goes for a decent conservative these days, then Lord have mercy on us

It's funny to me that Obama's recovery was too tepid, after the near-global economic collapse that came at the end of 2 Bush terms. Obama's economic powers, in the face of relentless obstruction, fell short of being godlike. See?!?!

Marty,

Without going into all of your points, let me just say that the tax bill is a stupid disaster that will do nothing to help the economy, but will certainly save the Trump class a lot of money on their taxes.

Please stop believing idiot blowhards like Kudlow and Lou Dobbs.

IL is probably worth keeping an eye on. S&P and Moody's both rate their bonds one grade above "junk"; Fitch rates them two grades above, but says that's subject to future downward consideration. The state is some $15B in arrears in its current account, and sold $4.5B (of an authorized $6B) in bonds in October to reduce that. It is never a good sign when a state is selling large bond issues to pay current operating expenses.

Share repurchases increase EPS, which executive comp is often based upon.

see, e.g.,

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/how-share-repurchases-boost-earnings-without-improving-returns

bernard, I am disappointed in Kudlows selection, not sure what Lou Dobbs has to do with anything. Ive been in business management in one role or another since 1988.

I base my opinions on the other business people I talk to, my own experience and reading tons of quarterly reports, both business and government. In additkon to listening to some smarter people than me that I know well and whose jobs is evaluating these things.

One of the places where I see folks on the left being elitist is the assumption that if you disagree with them you must be stupid or influenced by some media talking head. You cant be examining the facts and coming to an informed opinion tha doesnt happen to agree with theirs.

In fact, Im pretyy sure that condescension is at the heary of ehat I consider elitist, pick your word.

Eccept vount in all those 70 odd consecuyive months the Fed deigned to keep interest rates at essentially zero, they continued to add to their balance shert, capital investment was stagnant and wages eere didnt move. Inthe last 3 months of Obama and Trumps first year all those things changed.

The stock market eent up under Obama because of its starting point. GDP growth regained pre 2008 levels when?

2008 was a great time to have money to invest.

And since *i* cant even read what i just wrote im off for the day. I reay struggle commenting on my phone because I cant type on it or read very well. My apologies.

I'm about as good at economics as I am at sound engineering, so all caveats apply. We're ~5% of the world population with ~40% of its wealth and we can't keep the lights on or the water potable in some places, while corporate personhoods are living quite well as they pit state against state for the biggest tax giveaway.

I'm told that tax cuts are needed to get us out of a recession and to stimulate a lukewarm economy and also to stimulate an overstimulated economy. It seems to me that there is no circumstance in which the solution is not tax cuts.

I'm beginning to think there's something else going on.

GDP growth regained pre 2008 levels when?

it hasn't.

and it has never regained what it was during the Clinton years, either.

capital investment was stagnant...

hmmmm...really?

Please provide your pre 2008 growth rate number. Was that for 1 year, 2 years, 10 years? Then we can compare/contrast.

You cling to a supply side theory that has been repeatedly discredited. Lowering taxes does not create more tax revenue. If the fed is against the lower bound, the government can apply fiscal stimulus. Why didn't we apply more under Obama?

Answer: Deficit scolds.

The plain fact is the economy has suffered a shortage of demand since the crash. By not going all out to get growth back on track we essentially gave away a good deal of potential output that can never be recovered.

This, in turn, will adversely impact our standard of living in the future.

Giving more of our financial wealth to the already rich will not alleviate this.

2008 was a great time to have money to invest.

Indeed. I was 100% stocks then, and I still am. But then I love to gamble.

I don't know the future any better than anybody else, but what goes up comes down. Sooner or later the gamblers on Wall Street selling stocks to each other will have pumped them up so high as to lose all meaningful relationship to future earnings. Then the shit hits the fan.

I wouldn't be surprised if it happens on Trump's watch (3rd or 4th year).

but you might want to look into David Frum's history a bit... he was a Bush toadie, Iraq war supporter, wrote a book with Richard Perle and is an unrepentant neocon warmonger

This. And he needs a shave.

Sooner or later the gamblers on Wall Street selling stocks to each other will have pumped them up so high as to lose all meaningful relationship to future earnings.

I don't know that they've lost all meaningful relationship to future earnings. But there is no real doubt that they are seriously overpriced. Which, in turn, means that a serious correction (not to say "crash") is in prospect. Whether it will happen this year, next, or the one after -- I have no idea. But it will happen, and probably sooner than later.

So we will see who's right

Actually, that probably won't happen.

However things turn out under Trump, it won't change anybody's mind about what proper tax and economic policy should be.

However things turn out under Trump, it won't change anybody's mind about what proper tax and economic policy should be.

If they go well, Trump succeeded. If they go poorly, he succeeded in preventing them from being far worse.

I think I've grasped Marty's argument. Democratic Party presidents such as Obama can't help doing well for the economy, since they inherit a crashed economy from their incompetent Republican predecessors. Whereas Republican Party presidents like Trump can't help looking doing badly since they inherit a healthy economy from their competent Democratic predecessors.

Therefore Republican presidents are much better, and Democratic presidents much worse, than they appear to be.

no offence GFTNC, but you might want to look into David Frum's history a bit... he was a Bush toadie, Iraq war supporter, wrote a book with Richard Perle and is an unrepentant neocon warmonger - if that's what goes for a decent conservative these days, then Lord have mercy on us

I don't need to look into it, novakant and bobbyp, I knew it. It was everything I vehemently disagreed with, nay despised. But Lord have mercy on us indeed: the fact that he sees Trump for what he is, has been prepared to say so openly and eloquently, and furthermore sees the incredible danger (moral and otherwise) that the Trump phenomenon presents to America, makes me put him in a different category from the 80% (thanks cleek) of Republicans who think the job Trump's doing is just dandy. Frum's no wj, it's true, but as far as I'm concerned, by comparison with most of them, that makes him a decent conservative.

The question is whether or not programs like Bonneville Power are socialist in nature.



Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods



Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


This is an abstract from the link that follows;
ABSTRACT TVA and the other federal electric utilities were created under Democratic administrations, and their service territories were initially bluer than average. These subsidized enterprises sell cheap power preferentially to non-investorowned distributors, so such utilities are more prominent where the federal utilities are important sellers. The political map of the U.S. has changed dramatically since the federal utilities were created. The federal utilities and non-investorowned distributors are now more important on average in red states than in blue ones. Interest has trumped ideology: Republican policy-makers strongly opposed to socialism in principle seem happy with the important role of government enterprises in the U.S. electric utility industry.

https://ceepr.mit.edu/files/paper

Granted people can get into fusses over the meaning of terms like 'socialism". It is a broad term which is further confused by changes over time and by variations on the theme

However the basic idea is government on behalf of the coummunity owns and operates a means of production and distribution of some kind of good which is what PBA is and does.

The Paul Ryan types have not been gunning for the PBAl but they have been gunning for other socialist or quasi=socialist programs such as Medicare and Medicaid precisely because they are within the definition of socialism The push to privatize and the push to end big government programs is ideologically driven by ideologues who see socialist programs as bad (not because the programs do any harm, but because the programs are outside of their ideology).


Capitalism good, socialism bad, and the hell with the consequences to the community--unless the consequences will hit the Republican politician's voters hard enough to affect the pols chances of re-election. Then re-define the socialist program as not socialist any more because Republican voters are entitled to big government programs.

Oh, real socialism. I thought you were using the word in the contemporary "propped up with taxpayer money" derogatory sense, like the various farm support programs. My bad.

you can have my publicly owned, sponsored, and/or managed water, sewer, electric, and gas services, police and fire department, schools and libraries, trash pickup, motorways, air traffic control, and national weather service when you can pry them from my cold dead hands.

i probably left a few out.

i'm coming after your broadband, too.

that is all.

The Norquistian/mp aborted baby by drowning in the bathtub, but only for the rich:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-tax-cuts-will-benefit-investors-not-workers-ceo-says-191854710.html

...other socialist or quasi=socialist programs such as Medicare and Medicaid precisely because they are within the definition of socialism

Not my definition. The transfer payment form of these programs favors capital and accumulation and diminishes solidarity etc. This is welfare capitalism, with all the attending externalities and risks.

Socialism is state ownership and management of hospitals, with doctors educated on the giv't dime, and drawing a gov't salary. Socialism is about production and controlling prices, not distribution.

Count, what that CEO, at ADP, said is it was going to the shareholders at ADP "because that's where we're at".

I'm sure there are more companies that "thats where they are at", but it was a company specific statement to his employees in which he noted that other companies were giving bonuses and raises.

I respect his candor.

you can have my publicly owned, sponsored, and/or managed....

Actually, our trash pickup isn't. It's put up for bid regularly, but that's kind of the opposite of"sponsored".

And unlike something like power, the infrastructure requirements are just a (transferable, or maybe publicly owned, landfill. So it's not locked in like the public utilities.

But I definitely take your point about Internet provision. Moving that to the public utility model seems sensible. (Although probable lease use of the infrastructure for TV, etc., i.e. non-Internet, to Comcast or whoever. TV doesn't need to be a public utility the way Internet does.)

"that's where they are at" is more of a shrug than it is candor.

He could have said "because my hair is green" or "the stars are just not aligned properly" or "it is what it is" and just about the same amount of candid information would have been transmitted.

More, with numbers:

https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/16/investing/stock-buybacks-tax-law-bonuses/index.html

Actually, our trash pickup isn't.

My town puts out a contract for trash pickup for bid also. I pay taxes to the town, the town uses some of those taxes to hire a trash hauler.

Trash goes either to the local town-owned and -operated landfill, or to a regional private dump that hires out to local towns and cities.

I don't haul my own trash, nor do I directly pay the guys who do. It's negotiated and organized through the town, on my behalf. Which is kind of my point.

I don't really care all that much who "owns the means of production". Sometimes it makes sense for things to be owned publicly, sometimes it doesn't.

What I do care about is the ability of people to collectively do useful things for their mutual general benefit through the instrument of their government. That is inimical to the goals of the Randian privatizers among us.

We, the people. Those are not abstract words.

I respect his candor.

My understanding is that something like single-digit millions of people will see a raise or one-time bonus out of the tax change. Raise-wise, it will be difficult to factor the effect of the tax change out of the overall effect of near-full employment. One-time bonus, most likely the effect of the tax change.

There are about 150 million people in the work force.

We'll see how it goes. And, we'll see what public services go on the chopping block after the midterms. The (R)'s are by god not going to look at reducing any of the entitlements before November. They are already at risk of losing the House.

Anecdotally, my employer responded to the tax windfall by bumping up their 401k match by a half a point. If you're making $100K, and you participate in the 401k, that will net you about $500 for the year. Ten bucks a week.

my employer did nothing. i got the same raise and bonus i've got for the last five years. which is fine.

health insurance costs will more than eat the raise.

I pay taxes to the town, the town uses some of those taxes to hire a trash hauler.
. . .
I don't haul my own trash, nor do I directly pay the guys who do. It's negotiated and organized through the town, on my behalf. Which is kind of my point.

Whereas I do directly pay the company which hauls the trash. Get a bill every month. (It's based on the size of the bins I have. Plus a surcharge if I have weeks when the bin is overfull -- i.e. the lid doesn't close.)

FYI
byomtov comment from back on the 18th removed from the spam folder. No clue why it was there.

that's cool wj. trash pickup is not really a "we the people" hill I'm committed to dying on. :)

health insurance costs will more than eat the raise.

yup.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/04/21/gop-faces-rural-rebellion-over-trump-trade-agenda/23416923/

Farmers upset because the President they elected because they thought he would screw other people is instead screwing them. Puts Congressional Republicans in a dilemma; do they apply to farmers the same ideologically driven policies they apply to cities, poor people, blue states and others who are not paying them donations or voting for them? Or so they lose the ideology when it comes to their own constituents?

Sandy Springs, Georgia is a city with a population of over 100 thousand that, until recently, had less than a dozen employees. Except for city management, everything else was contracted to private companies or to police and fire services from other jurisdictions.

Sandy Springs, Georgia

Good for them, if that's how they want to roll.

Handy for them that their neighbors have sufficient cops and firemen that they can hire some out.

No worries Charles, I'm not gonna come to your town and make you hire anybody.

Just keep your libertarian hands offa my stuff.

Just keep your libertarian hands offa my stuff.

Libertarianism is all about keeping hands off other people's stuff.

Don't tread on anyone.

Handy for them that their neighbors have sufficient cops and firemen that they can hire some out.

These services can also be private.

For decades, Scottsdale, AZ had a private fire service. And Las Colinas, TX has had a private police force.

Don't tread on anyone.

And of course, it's as simple as that.

Leave the public goods and services that people rely on the hell alone. Or there will be hell to pay.

If you don't want to hire your own cops and firemen in your town, live your life. I will not stop you. I don't live in your town, I have no issue with how you want to run it. Just don't f*** it up and make the rest of us come and bail you out.

That said, we don't all live in your town.

People should be free to as they wish, until they decide to form a government. Where did this government thing come from, anyway? Did the government mandate itself?

"For decades, Scottsdale, AZ had a private fire service. And Las Colinas, TX has had a private police force."

And?

Well, c'mon, finish the story.

"Libertarianism is all about keeping hands off other people's stuff."

Since when?

My trash is the trash of a free American, whether its government or private hands placed on my trash stuff and telling me what to do with it and paying them to do what they forced me to do with it.

"That said, we don't all live in your town."

Yeah, but run over to their town and pick up their trash for them because they can't be troubled to do it themselves, uncollected trash being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Trash and throw it on their lawn, shall be infringed but only by private actors or the suckers from nearby municipalities.

Libertarianism is all about keeping hands off other people's stuff.

Well except for the libertarians (or, at least, self-proclaimed libertarians) who feel compelled to run for office and enact laws to keep other people from having a larger government if they want it.

Beware the dead white algorithm:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/your-next-job-interview-could-be-with-a-racist-bot?via=newsletter&source=Weekend

I see it this way.

People who want to privatize public education and libraries are taking something away from me.

People who want to privatize police, fire, and other public safety functions are taking something away from me.

People who want to privatize or remove from public oversight and regulation services like water, sewer, gas, and electricity, are taking something away from me.

People who want to defund or eliminate or privatize entities like the FAA, or the National Weather Service, or the public highway system, are taking something away from me.

People who want to defund, reduce, or eliminate programs like Social Security, into which I have been paying at a rate higher than outflow for the last 35 years so that there would be a cushion to fund my retirement so I wouldn't be an excessive burden on the Gen X Y Z and millenials, are taking something away from me. Ditto Medicare.

I don't make use of Medicaid, the VA, TANF, housing assistance, or any number of other things that keep poorer and / or unlucky people from being homeless, sick, or hungry, but people I know do. Don't take that away from them.

Because my understanding of what government is about includes all of those things. People deciding to employ common resources to do useful and necessary things for themselves, things which would likely be harder to obtain if they waited for the blessed market to make them happen.

I don't worship the market. I think it's fine, but I also think it's more less like the weather. If it's raining out, I don't act like that is some phenomenon ordained by some invisible hand, which I must simply suffer gladly. I bring an umbrella.

If you want private cops in your town, fine with me. I don't live there. How you handle your public safety is not my problem or concern. Do as you wish.

If it's stuff that isn't just local to your town, leave it the hell alone. You might not rely on it, other people do.

Don't tread on me.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad