The Republican Debate

by wj

Just in case someone wants to comment.

Beyond my personal astonishment that Mr Trump's staff didn't try to get him at least minimally informed about how the Internet works. (Although I suppose those could have been totally off-the-cuff remarks.) Not that total ignorance appears to have slowed any of them down when proposing foreign policy "solutions".

Comments

[Ugh]

The bombings will continue until you love us.

[Ugh]

The headline in the WSJ yesterday read "Terror Takes Center Stage During Republican Debate," which I thought could have been the headline for every GOP presidential debate since around 1980, with a different value for "terror" than what I think the WSJ had in mind.

[cleek]

i didn't watch it. just like i didn't watch the last one, or the one before that, or the one before that, or the last half of the one before that. and from what i've read about what i didn't watch, i feel pretty good about my decision!

i know what they're selling. i don't care to know who sells it best.

[Tony P.]

To repeat myself from the other thread:
What a bunch of saber-toothed pants-wetters.

That goes double for the kiddie-table debate, about which I have a question:

Rick Santorum said (twice, I think) that there might be "theological" problems with bombing Raqqa. Not being well-versed in Apocalypse Theory, I wonder what he might have been alluding to. Anybody know?

Not that it matters much, of course.

--TP

[wj]

It wasn't so much the belligerence that disturbed me (although I didn't like it). It was the massive ignorance of the subject (foreign affairs) which so many of the candidates demonstrated.

They all knew what the subject of the debate would be. And they had plenty of time to prepare. But they seemed clueless.

Of course nobody can keep track of every detail. I am unconcerned if a candidate can't remember what the capital is of some country somewhere. That, after all, is why God invented reference books and the Internet.

But when they don't know what our approach is in the wars we are currently fighting, or who is on which side? That's an indication of both serious ignorance and an indifference to the subject.

[cleek]

But when they don't know what our approach is in the wars we are currently fighting, or who is on which side? That's an indication of both serious ignorance and an indifference to the subject.

not a problem given the current GOP base.

even if the candidates know them, they can't talk about the details. if they did, they'd have to deal with the sad reality that the nuances, compromises and on-the-other-hands of diplomacy and statesmanship make for unsatisfying political theater.

[Doctor Science]

I have to agree with James Fallows -- CNN bears a lot of the blame, too. To have a "foreign policy debate" that never even *mentions* climate change or the Paris accords is disgraceful, and this is on CNN for their choice of questions.

[wj]

Granted, they couldn't give specifics of what they would do differently. Bluster is always possible there.

But to at least be clear on who is fighting, and who is supporting them? Is that too much to ask?

[cleek]

CNN had Hugh Hewitt as a moderator on this last debate because he would ask questions that mattered to a partisan Republican audience. he, and his followers, wanted a debate that was less about what the media wanted to talk about and more about what the GOP base wants to talk about.

so that's what they got.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/14/459718275/hugh-hewitts-presence-on-debate-stage-represents-larger-gop-push

[Donald Johnson]

I've read secondhand that Rand Paul said some sensible things on foreign policy. The bar is very low on that, of course. And he obviously would lower his already negligible chances of getting the nomination by making sensible remarks.

[russell]

I don't watch the (R) debates. I don't need to, probably, we hear all about them afterwards.

Trump not knowing what the nuclear triad was is kind of weird. It's been a while since nuclear strategy was front and center, but still. I freaking know what the nuclear triad is, and why it is.

Christie apparently not knowing the Hussein of Jordan has been dead for something like 15 or 16 years, also weird. I mean, if you're going to drop specific names, why not find out if they're still alive.

One of those people is going to be the (R) candidate for POTUS.

What the hell is going on?

[Nigel]

Dr S, I think you're being unrealistic expecting the Republicans to take even minimal notice of what Fallows (one of my favourite journalists) regards as necessary qualifications for the presidency...

As for climate change, fortunately it no longer really matters what they (or the US public) think(s):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12052582/Even-if-the-global-warming-scare-were-a-hoax-we-would-still-need-it.html
The world is going to change with or without you.

[Marty]

" don't watch the (R) debates. I don't need to, probably, we hear all about them afterwards.".

Except I haven't seen one accurate description today, in any news or comments. It's odd how distorted trump has made the reporting. There wasn't a lot good, but Trump was more of an ass than even usual but you wouldn't get that from the coverage.

[byomtov]

I watched about half or a little more. What a catastrophe.

Cruz seems to think you can engage in carpet-bombing without hitting civilians. Fiorina thinks having had breast cancer gives her insight into foreign policy. She also threw out her usual quote of outright lies. Christie is a former federal prosecutor, as he mentioned at least fifty times. The Obama administration was hopelessly negligent, according to the debaters, in stopping the San Bernadino attack, mostly due to "political correctness." No mention of W's negligence with respect to 9/11. Rubio and Cruz quibbled over the details of some bill. Trump was Trump.

Carson called for a moment of silence for the victims in San Bernadino. The ensuing ten seconds or so was the best part of the whole thing.

[ral]

[Hi, everyone!]

I happen to be re-watching the BBC production of Tinker, Tailor. Just saw the scene with Control, Percy and George. A line stands out:

[Control] Total ignorance of subject matter doesn't bother Percy.

Life imitates art.

[ral]

It seems Chris Christie has trouble remembering his benefactors.

As Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey waited to depart on a trade mission to Israel in 2012, his entourage was delayed by a late arrival: Mr. Christie’s father, who had accidentally headed to the wrong airport.

A commercial flight might have left without him, but in this case, there was no rush. The private plane, on which Mr. Christie had his own bedroom, had been lent by Sheldon G. Adelson,

...

King Abdullah of Jordan picked up the tab for a Christie family weekend at the end of the trip.

Chris Christie Shows Fondness for Luxury Benefits When Others Pay the Bill
NY Times

[wj]

Trump was more of an ass than even usual but you wouldn't get that from the coverage.

Actually, Marty, I picked that up quite clearly from the media coverage. And considering the standard that Trump has set for himself, that's definitely an achievement.

I suspect that Trump's follies got less media coverage than usual for exactly that reason -- nobody any longer expects anything else from him. And what the others did was therefore more interesting.

[wj]

[and welcome back, ral!]

[Nigel]

To be fair, some reports were pretty forthright about Trump's idiocy.... and the Paris accords were actually mentioned (though not in quite the way one might have hoped):

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/16/donald-trump-republican-debate
John Kasich looked decidedly uncomfortable when he said that the Paris climate conference “should have been talking about Isis”...

[wj]

I'm waiting for the time, perhaps in a debate, when Trump finally decides that Cruz is a serious threat. It should be easy to spot -- he just goes all "birther" on him.

Everybody knows that Cruz was born in Canada. Since his parents were American citizens, he is too. And thus eligible to be President. But that didn't stop Trump when the target was Obama, so why should it slow him down even slightly with Cruz?

[Marty]

I guess I think the key points should be that the 4 who should be candidates agreed, disagreed, or offered some real info. Kasich, Bush, Rubio and Christie. Cruz wouldn't be in the discussion without Trump moving the playing field.

[wj]

Except that, while I may agree with you as to who should be the nominee when the dust settles, that doesn't look like how things are going. And the media should be reporting on what is actually happening. However unfortunate it may be.

[Tony P.]

Kasich, Bush, Rubio and Christie.

That these four are considered the pick of the litter among GOP contenders by reasonable Republicans (and probably by "reasonable" Democrats too) is what allows me to dare hope that America might dodge a bullet in 2016, as it did in 2008.

I still want to see a fascist vs socialist showdown in the form of Trump vs Sanders, because I'm a reckless sort of person:

He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
That dares not put it to the touch
To gain or lose it all

has always struck me as a noble sentiment.

But one can't have everything, so I would settle for a general election between any of the above and Hillary Clinton. I wish I did not have to. I wish that the GOP could offer up a candidate that a librul like me could even consider voting for.

Alas, here we are: none of the above appear acceptable to the majority of Republicans, let alone even a minority of Democrats.

--TP

[navarro]

i don't watch debates, d or r. i read through transcripts and read opinions from my favorite bloggers and read opinion pieces pointed to at the daily kos abbreviated pundit summary.

trump's special qualities have come through very clearly in all of that. the thing that has struck me as most unusual about this debate and the previous two is how unmoored from reality the statements of these people have become. reality seems no longer a burden for any of these people nor is it a burden for their supporters. the most easily checkable lies/misstatements/oversights are tossed out as if the nature of reality were whatever they choose to make of it. the fact that none of them seem to be paying any kind of a penalty for this carelessness/recklessness/mendacity is a slowly growing horror to me.

i have friends who have been republicans for decades who are appalled at these developments and even more appalled that their children and childrens' friends who are also republicans find nothing outre about any of it.

i have a bad feeling about this.

[byomtov]

the thing that has struck me as most unusual about this debate and the previous two is how unmoored from reality the statements of these people have become. reality seems no longer a burden for any of these people nor is it a burden for their supporters. the most easily checkable lies/misstatements/oversights are tossed out as if the nature of reality were whatever they choose to make of it. the fact that none of them seem to be paying any kind of a penalty for this carelessness/recklessness/mendacity is a slowly growing horror to me.

Yes. Absolutely. Yet again, the press doesn't seem to care very much. It's all about who's up or down in the polls or Iowa, or whatever.

[Marty]

I am more concerned that the fact checkers, Politifact in particular but not uniquely, are unmoored from fact checking. They have decided giving an opinion, politically spun, is ok. This gives the people at large the ability to dismiss their input across the board.

[Donald Johnson]

Without wanting to defend Politifact, I don't think they can be blamed for people dismissing facts or opinions they don't want to hear.

[Marty]

DJ, When Politifact starts ranking the accuracy of opinions then they lose credibility. Even their ranking titles have changed (true, but insufficient is an opinion not fact checking.)

[russell]

the thing that has struck me as most unusual about this debate and the previous two is how unmoored from reality the statements of these people have become.

This.

And the rest of navarro's 11:54.

[ral]

To me this seems like a combination of "we create our own reality" and politics as entertainment. Maybe it should be "we create our own reality show."

[In case it's not clear, I too find this disturbing.]

[Marty]

" the most easily checkable lies/misstatements/oversights are tossed out as if the nature of reality were whatever they choose to make of it. the fact that none of them seem to be paying any kind of a penalty for this carelessness/recklessness/mendacity is a slowly growing horror to me."

While a horror, it is not new. Hilary has made a career of this level of mendacity and her supporters have been overlooking it for a long time. That applies to the Clintons in specific, and politicians in general. Each cycle does seem to extend the ability to ignore the obvious, but really, its not new.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

While a horror, it is not new. Hilary Romney has made a career of this level of mendacity and her supporters have been overlooking it for a long time. That applies to the Clintons Republicans in specific, and politicians in general. Each cycle does seem to extend the ability to ignore the obvious, but really, its not new."

Adjusted. If you had just restrained the specific attack, you'd probably have gotten widespread agreement. But you didn't. BTW: "she's evil because she lies! We know she lies, because she's evil!" isn't evidence.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

I blame Hillary for dropped italics tags, also, too.

[ral]

Please, Marty, don't give us this "everyone does it." At some point a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. We have passed that point.

[hairshirthedonist]

Just for the sake of anectdota (for whatever it's worth) as it regards the GOP's base (which does not include all nominal or self-described Republicans! - try not to get defensive), I had a discussion about the purported war on police that Obama unleashed with a friend I could safely describe as a member of the GOP base. When I cited the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund's figures on line-of-duty fatalities to show that police deaths were at or near all-time lows under Obama, the response was something along the lines of "Oh, yeah, statistics... Ha!"

Well, you can't argue with that.

[Hartmut]

Marty, I am not going to argue with you about Hillary's general veracity. I think the lady is ambitious and willing to bend the truth significantly, if it suits her needs. Where I see the difference is that Hillary (to me) has not yet shown such a complete disregard for it on a daily base and to a degree that 5-year-olds should be able to see through it as the GOP candidates do these days. From Hillary I'd expect at least a certain quality of untruths with a nonnegligible chance of fooling rational and moderately well-informed people. There is not that much air left above the GOpsters as far as daily lies go. I am actively waiting for the final stages: claims that 1) Iran (or Syria/ISIS)just tested a nuke "I saw it on TV and my wife witnessed it personally." 2) Nukes got just dropped on Tel Aviv (and Obama in ISIS outfit was seen fleeing the scene) 3) Colorado Springs just got nuked. and finally 4) this very city we are in got nuked just 5 minutes ago and only our strong faith kept the blast and radiation out of this hall.

[wj]

Maybe it should be "we create our own reality show."

And maybe those "reality" shows are part of the problem.

I mean, sure there were always people out there who thought professional wrestling was a real competition, rather than a scripted show. But overall, not a lot of them.

However, now you have huge numbers of people watching Survivor or Apprentice and thinking those are realy real. And so the detatchment from reality grows apace.

How much of a factor that is, I couldn't guess. But it seems like it could be a significant addition to the problem. (Especially since a "reality show" star is leading the pack.)

[navarro]

@marty & snarki--

what statements are you specifically referring to by hilary or mitt which reach the fiction level of fiorina's "i saw the body parts in the video" or references to general keane? or reached for the heights of absurdity like trump's "I think for me, nuclear, the power, the devastation, is very important to me?" i think it is a mistake to lump it all together like that.

[hairshirthedonist]

If I could afford a strict personal-integrity test for US presidential candidates, whatever lies or half-truths Hilary may have uttered might be relevant. As it stands, she's head and shoulders above any of the GOP candidates overall and comparable to the best of them personal integrity-wise.

If there's something I'm likely not to trust her on, it would be specifically in regard to her own actions within some grey ethical space, not general and verifiable facts. I'm not saying that's good, but, like I said above, considering the other likely options on offer from the GOP, I can very easily overlook whatever comparatively minor misgivings I might have about her.

[novakant]

Ben Carson thinks killing children is merciful:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/gop-debate-cnn-anchor-booed-for-asking-ben-carson-if-he-would-order-airstrikes-that-would-kill-a6775331.html

The astonishing thing is not the rationale, which every president since at least Vietnam has followed - the astonishing thing is that it is openly promoted as a sign of "toughness" to the raucous cheers of the crowd. Wtf went wrong in the US?

[cleek]

who here thinks any of the GOP frontrunners would come out looking great after 25 solid years of "investigations" of all kind (legal, professional, sensationalistic, journalistic, amateur, etc.) ? there is an industry devoted to digging around in the Clintons' lives.

but Trump can't go a day without some new whopper. Cruz is only slightly less frequent in his fabulations though no less mendacious. Carson is basically insane, so the fact that he can't tell the truth is excused with some pity.

[byomtov]

It's true the Clintons aren't the most truthful people on earth.

Still, there do seem to be differences. Not least, their lies tend to be of the personal type, rather than policy-related, or maybe about themselves rather than other things.

Look at Fiorina. She saw a non-existent film. She makes patently false statements about retired generals.

Cruz tells us we have runaway inflation. Can he read the newspaper?

Someone (Rubio?) claimed Obama had reduced the military by 25%. Where did that come from?

And another thing. Leaving outright falsehoods aside, pay attention to what these people think are good ideas. Carpet-bombing. Deporting 11 million people. Shutting the door to Muslims. Stopping all climate research. Bully China into doing something about N. Korea.

It was interesting to me that Fiorina, whom I dislike more every time I see her on TV, was shocked at Trump's suggestion that we would be better off if the trillions spent on Mideast wars had been spent on infrastructure in the US.

"That's something Obama would say!!" Well, me too.

[wj]

It may be noteworthy that, among his various appalling statements, Trump occasionally says something that might actually be a constructive policy suggestion. Like the one about spending money on infrastructure. And yet, his poll numbers don't nosedive.

It's enough to make you wonder if, should a pragmatic Republican candidate say something sensible like this, his poll numbers might survive as well. Or do you have to spout insanity to get cover for one or two sensible ideas?

[russell]

OK, so, to be fair, I went and read about half of the transcript of the LV debate. And, I came away with the same impression that I had from hearing and reading second-hand accounts.

For me, it's not about specific instances of lying. It's about what strikes me as the naive and borderline infantile quality of the discussion.

How to address ISIS? Kill the bad guys!

How to prevent illegal immigration? Build a wall!

It's like listening to a bunch of four-year-olds.

I give Rubio credit for apparently thinking about things for more than 15 seconds before talking. And I give Paul credit for at least recognizing that there are limits to what we may be able to do in the world.

The other folks sound like children. Confabulating pre-schoolers.

And not for nothing, but Fiorina is in fact a lying sack of crap.

[russell]

OK, so, to be fair, I went and read about half of the transcript of the LV debate. And, I came away with the same impression that I had from hearing and reading second-hand accounts.

For me, it's not about specific instances of lying. It's about what strikes me as the naive and borderline infantile quality of the discussion.

How to address ISIS? Kill the bad guys!

How to prevent illegal immigration? Build a wall!

It's like listening to a bunch of four-year-olds.

I give Rubio credit for apparently thinking about things for more than 15 seconds before talking. And I give Paul credit for at least recognizing that there are limits to what we may be able to do in the world.

The other folks sound like children. Confabulating pre-schoolers.

And not for nothing, but Fiorina is in fact a lying sack of crap.

[russell]

OK, so, to be fair, I went and read about half of the transcript of the LV debate. And, I came away with the same impression that I had from hearing and reading second-hand accounts.

For me, it's not about specific instances of lying. It's about what strikes me as the naive and borderline infantile quality of the discussion.

How to address ISIS? Kill the bad guys!

How to prevent illegal immigration? Build a wall!

It's like listening to a bunch of four-year-olds.

I give Rubio credit for apparently thinking about things for more than 15 seconds before talking. And I give Paul credit for at least recognizing that there are limits to what we may be able to do in the world.

The other folks sound like children. Confabulating pre-schoolers.

And not for nothing, but Fiorina is in fact a lying sack of crap.

[Hartmut]

wj, yes I think that is indeed the case. But is a high risk strategy. The base may turn any moment on its current idol and then any sane thing uttered in the past will be quoted as proof that one has been duped again by just another RINO traitor.
Currently Ryan can do what his predecessor got crucified for because he is still considered to be of the true faith but it's only a matter of time before he too falls from grace for lack of practiced insanity.

[Marty]

that was perfectly expected, our candidates lies are ok.

[hairshirthedonist]

"Our" candidate isn't really accurate. Clinton's a candidate, and whatever lies she may have told aren't "ok." They just aren't at odds with readily observable or verifiable reality. They aren't fantastical or idiotic. I don't know or have any way of knowing what her intent was with her e-mail server, but I do know or can easily find out that King Hussein is dead. It's in the realm of common knowledge.

If you don't see a difference, good luck with "your" candidate.

[Marty]

"Look at Fiorina. She saw a non-existent film. She makes patently false statements about retired generals.

Cruz tells us we have runaway inflation. Can he read the newspaper?

Someone (Rubio?) claimed Obama had reduced the military by 25%. Where did that come from?"

Fiorina - what Russell said, but many of us knew that already.

Cruz - Anyone who pays attention to the economic news knows that basic goods and healthcare have been experiencing accelerating inflation for several years. Some in the Fed have pushed for quicker rate hikes because of that.

Rubio - uh, Obama cut military spending by 25%, that's where it came from.

[Marty]

King Hussein, wasn't a lie, it was a mistake. Not by my candidate, bur it wasn't a lie.

[Marty]

And it certainly has begun to ring hollow as you say "I don't know what her intent was". Her intent was to break the law. And she did. There was no other reason to do it. The discussion is completely nonsensical. Given any other explanation she I'd as stupid as the worst candidate on the GOP stage. Pick your answer.

[cleek]

Anyone who pays attention to the economic news knows that basic goods and healthcare have been experiencing accelerating inflation for several years.

since the early 80s, in fact.
https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/us-medical-care-cpi-inflation-us-headline-cpi-inflation_chartbuilder.png?w=1024&h=576

damn you, Obama!

Obama cut military spending by 25%, that's where it came from.

cite?

because that's not what these numbers say:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Historical_spending

[ral]

Exiting Iraq and Afghanistan probably saved some money.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

@Marty:"Her intent was to break the law."

Yeah, I'm sure she wakes up every morning, stretches, rubs the sleep out of her demonic eyes, and says "today, I will break the law, for reasons." Uh huh.

Great mind reading there, Marty. Makes me think you're mental or something.

[Hartmut]

ral, iirc neither got paid out of the defense budget (under the official assumption that both those wars would be netto money earners, i.e. not be of any cost to the US taxpayer once they were finished, i.e. after a few days, at most weeks).

[Hartmut]

"Breaking the law" is rarely the intent, just means to an intended end.

[bobbyp]

Anyone who pays attention to the economic news knows that basic goods and healthcare have been experiencing accelerating inflation for several years.

This is simply not true.

Obama cut military spending by 25%, that's where it came from.

One could quibble, but yes, defense spending both in constant dollars and as a % of GNP have decreased as the military effort in the middle east has wound down. This is not at all unusual after wars end. This only shows that Rubio is still wet behind the ears.

Her intent was to break the law.

Absent a confession, we are ignorant as to her intent, but I'd agree it was a pretty stupid thing to do. As for "breaking the law", when will the indictment come down?

[ral]

Hartmut, I hope we have also exited the era of creative defense accounting. :-)

[russell]

that was perfectly expected, our candidates lies are ok.

I noted that I hadn't watched the debate. You noted that the impression I may have gotten from second hand sources might not be accurate.

So, I read about half the transcript while I ate my lunch. My comment was simply a response to that.

If you want to talk about the statements of the (D) candidates after their next debate, which will no doubt be broadcast from 2:00-4:00 AM on community access TV thanks to the clever planning of Wasserman Shultz and her pals at the DNC, we can do that as well.

I'm just responding to the (R) debate here.

Clinton's a candidate, and whatever lies she may have told aren't "ok." They just aren't at odds with readily observable or verifiable reality. They aren't fantastical or idiotic.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm getting at.

Fiorina - what Russell said, but many of us knew that already.

Thank you.

Anyone who pays attention to the economic news knows that basic goods and healthcare have been experiencing accelerating inflation for several years.

Cruz aside, yes, this is true. And, as cleek notes, it's been so for quite a while.

[Hartmut]

ral, only temporarily if at all :-(

[bobbyp]

Russell,

The claim "accelerating inflation" is simply wrong. Medical costs have gone up, but not at an "accelerating" rate. In fact, since 2012 the rate of increase is "decelerating". Throwing the word "inflation" into the mix is just a misnomer.

Medical costs are driven by demographics (aging population implies more resources devoted to health care) and the inefficiencies of our insane healthcare delivery system (a policy matter), two factors, the second of which GOP policymakers offer NOTHING.

[Marty]

"They just aren't at odds with readily observable or verifiable reality. They aren't fantastical or idiotic."

Neither are most of the things the Republican candidates say. There are a few odd things, but the ones quoted in the threw aren't close to "readily verifiable". Obama has cut defense spending by 25%, or close to that, you can disagree with what gets counted. bobbyp puts up an overall inflation chart that is largely discounted by economists in favor of underlying numbers that are more indicative. Even if you decide you don't agree there is nothing nonsensical or idiotic about it. Neither is the fence, while not practical, it has been talked about for decades by politicians. In the places where the fence has been built it has been proven largely ineffective, and drones offer better results.

[cleek]

Obama has cut defense spending by 25%, or close to that, you can disagree with what gets counted.

again, cite?

what are you counting? real dollars or %GDP? starting when?

because in real dollars, the defense budget is up from when he took office. in %GDP, it's about equal.

it's down from its 2010/2011 peak. but that peak happened under Obama. and i don't remember any Republicans giving him credit for that.

[byomtov]

Anyone who pays attention to the economic news knows that basic goods and healthcare have been experiencing accelerating inflation for several years. Some in the Fed have pushed for quicker rate hikes because of that.

Some goods go up and some go down. That's why we use indexes to measure inflation. Even if you think the ones that have gone up are more important that doesn't mean inflation is the problem. And if inflation were the problem, the gold standard would be worse than the disease.

Military cuts? See here for some edification.

Note too that the calculation in Politifact uses 2010 as a baseline. I'd think 2009 - the last Bush budget - would be better.

[bobbyp]

bobbyp puts up an overall inflation chart that is largely discounted by economists in favor of underlying numbers that are more indicative.

Which economists? Name one and provide the figures they cite.

The fed inflation target is 2%, and generally we have been under that this decade. If it comes down to a choice of who to believe, Marty or the BLS, I'll stick with the BLS, thanks.

[wj]

King Hussein, wasn't a lie, it was a mistake.

Gotta say I'm with Marty on this one. There are some things about foreign affairs that any serious candidate ought to know off the top of his head -- and some of the folks running clearly don't know. But this really isn't one of them.

[Marty]

bobbyp, in fact for the last 10 months we have had zero inflation, overall, core and negative for energy. Prior to that food, energy, core inflation had outpaced overall inflation for quite some time, the misery index end of inflation. I could, but can't this weekend, find some quotes from various Fed guys, a few economists, some commenters on CNBC. I can't because I'm commenting between some personal things going on. The point I was making though, was what Cruz said wasn't a lie, or particularly stupid.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"King Hussein, wasn't a lie, it was a mistake."

Absolutely, and not a major mistake, IMO. Now, if you're not sure you remember the name of the leader of Jordan (or Saudi Arabia, or Qatar, or Sweden), better to just say "The King of Jordan".

I would expect a serious candidate to know the names (and job titles!) of (a) the leader of Russia, (b) the leader of China, (c) the leader of the UK. Beyond that is nice, but not essential.

Now, if McCain said something like "I was chatting with the Emperor Franz-Josef of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and he said..." it could be disqualifying, but not for 'getting the name wrong'.

BTW, does anyone here know what the Emperor of Japan looks like?. I had an opportunity to meet him a decade or so ago (delays, cancellations, so NO), it was going to be in a somewhat informal Q&A meet/greet setting, and wondered what kind of horrible incident would be triggered by "Hiya! I think the coffee is ready, want a cup?"

[byomtov]

what Cruz said wasn't a lie, or particularly stupid.

Well, it was badly exaggerated, and it really was pretty stupid. The rise in food prices has been due to a series of events, some natural like droughts, and some possibly avoidable to a degree by more careful practices by producers. These have cut production, resulting in price increases in specific markets.

Regardless, it is not the kind of "inflation" that can be cured by a monetary policy response, and certainly not by introducing the gold standard. Geniuses are supposed to understand this stuff.

[hairshirthedonist]

It's one thing to off-handedly refer to the wrong guy. When you're making a big blustery fncking deal on a nationally televised presidential debate out of how you're deftly going to change the mind of a country's leader in executing your intended foreign policy, whether it's a mistake or a lie, it's fncking stupid. That's the point - not that he was lying, that it was a bold and forceful statement made in ignorance of or at odds with basic fact. And if you don't like that particular example, go find another one, because there are plenty to go around.

Clinton may lie about her own actions, but she doesn't say blatantly stupid things in national or international forums.

[cleek]

yeah, what hsh said.

getting a name wrong offhandedly is one thing. getting it wrong while you're trying to demonstrate what a great world leader you are is something else.

maybe it's not disqualifying, but it certainly shows that he's not exactly a ME scholar.

[russell]

The claim "accelerating inflation" is simply wrong. Medical costs have gone up, but not at an "accelerating" rate.

Fair enough. I stand corrected, medical costs haven't gone up at an accelerated pace, they've just gone up, continuously, for decades.

Lots of reasons for that, it might have been interesting for any of the (R) candidates (or any candidates) to address some of them.

The long and the short of it is that simply stating that overall inflation is low doesn't tell the whole story. Some things go up, some go down, and the impact of some things going up or down is greater than for others.

The significant thing IMO is whether folks in general are financially secure. They are not.

That would also be worthwhile addressing.

And yes, I know the focus of the LV debate was foreign policy, but in general I think the participants with the possible exception of Paul and, perhaps, Rubio and Kasich, simply took that as an opportunity to tell us all about what tough guys they were.

I guess there's an audience for that, but I don't really give a crap about what tough guys they are. I want to know what solutions they have to offer.

Plus, none of them are particularly credible as tough guys, in any useful sense.

[byomtov]

Russell,

The long and the short of it is that simply stating that overall inflation is low doesn't tell the whole story. Some things go up, some go down, and the impact of some things going up or down is greater than for others.

No doubt. But the best policy approaches to these problems varies hugely depending on whether the increases in medical costs, for example, are part of a general increase in prices or are a function of conditions in that segment of the economy.

It is seriously counter-productive to solve the wrong problem.

[bobbyp]

Ted Cruz suggests that we return to the gold standard.

Simply put, that is insane.

[hairshirthedonist]

My solution to global warming is to return to using steam engines for any and all locomotion.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

The long and the short of it is that simply stating that overall inflation is low doesn't tell the whole story. Some things go up, some go down, and the impact of some things going up or down is greater than for others.

"Some things go up, some go down" ISN'T inflation. Inflation is an OVERALL increase in prices, so yes, you have to look at the prices in the overall economy to get a measure of it.

While modern economies are not based on 'metal', the idea of inflation is best explained in those terms: when the quantity of money increases, prices increase. In modern economies, there are lots of different things that count as 'money' (M1, M2, etc), and complex interactions between prices and 'money'. 'Inflation rate' is just one of the economic quantities used to try and make sense of a large and complex economy.

[Tony P.]

From the late 1960s, when I first became familiar with American money and prices, I remember certain numbers:

$0.30 a gallon of gas
$0.35 a pack of cigarettes
$11 K the price of my parents' fist house
$1.25 the minimum wage

Notice that gas vs cigs was about 1:1 then. It ranges from 1:3 to 1:5 now.

Notice that minimum wage vs gas was 4:1 then. It's about 1:1 now.

Notice that my father, earning minimum wage or very near it then, paid 4 years' gross wages for our first house in 1968. Try doing that now.

Also, try asking Ted Cruz (or alleged policy wonk Paul Ryan for that matter) to define "inflation" over the last 50 years, given those numbers.

Notice, finally, that I consider the minimum wage to be one price among the many prices in this frenzied to-and-fro that we lovingly call "the economy". We buy food and gas and medicine and houses with wages -- not with gold, whose price in the late 1960s I neither know nor care about.

--TP

[CharlesWT]

We've been lucky, so far, that technological advancement has been able to outrun inflation.

[ral]

To russell's point,

The significant thing IMO is whether folks in general are financially secure. They are not.

That would also be worthwhile addressing.

I agree, and it's a big topic. I think financial insecurity explains a large portion of today's political environment.

From my own experience I'd say a big part of the explanation is outsourcing, a path trod for many years now. In my view it's a trend based on short-sighted decision making. Maybe it was unavoidable (due to public market pressure for quarterly results) but it has led to a much weaker position for our country.

There is hardly anything in the world that someone cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price alone are that man's lawful prey.

The Wikipedia tells me this is not a well-sourced quote, but it's a good line anyway.

[Doctor Science]

Hi gang, just dropping in to say that we moved to the new house yesterday -- or at least moved most stuff -- and that I'll be internet-impaired until Tuesday. The advantages of desktop computers are many, but at times like these a laptop would be nice ...

[hairshirthedonist]

I thought desktop computers were for corporate offices. ;^)

I didn't watch the Dem debate, but it sounds like they were far more adult than the participants in the GOP debate yet again. I don't know how America will respond to that. I'm trying to remain hopeful.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

hsh, you've forgotten other demographics use desktop rigs as well. Plainly, Dr. S is a fanatical gamer.

[wj]

Outsourcing, especially international outsourcing, has often proven to be a case of "penny wise and pound foolish." As a number of companies are finding out.

Low tech mass production can sometimes be accomplished in low tech countries. But high tech work that requires years of experience to do well? Much harder to get done at a level acceptable to your customers.

If your business depends on repeat business from satisfied customers, and your high tech infrastructure is shaky, that's even worse. You can get away with it if all of your competitors have made the same mistake.

But if word gets out that someone hasn't, those quarterly results that you were chasing are suddenly problenmatic. And the staff that you saved money by laying off are long gone, without any good way to get them back.

[russell]

It is seriously counter-productive to solve the wrong problem

Yes, I agree with this.

My point overall on the inflation topic is that, while it may be factually true that the rate of inflation as a whole is not high, that doesn't really address many folks' real experience of trying to get by.

Inflation's relative flat, wage growth also at least as flat, if not more. And for some very essential things, notably health care, inflation isn't really flat.

I completely agree that solving the wrong problem is counter-productive. What I would like to hear from people running for national office is an understanding of the distinctions between things that are a problem and things that are not, and some ideas for solutions that have at least some chance of being effective and on-point.

I'm not hearing it from the (R)'s. Not by my understanding of what the really crucial issues are.

Inflation per se, especially in the range of rates that we see now and can expect to see in the near term, is not a particularly critical problem.

Not being able to afford things you need, and living at risk of financial disaster, are.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Notice that minimum wage vs gas was 4:1 then. It's about 1:1 now.

Where is this at? Federal minimum wage has been $7.25/hr since '09, and gas prices have never been consistently higher than a peak around $4/gal that I've seen. Right now it's obviously skewed in the other direction.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

(...albeit not to the degree it was in your '60s example.)

[Snarki, child of Loki]

@wj: Low tech mass production can sometimes be accomplished in low tech countries. But high tech work that requires years of experience to do well? Much harder to get done at a level acceptable to your customers.

If your business depends on repeat business from satisfied customers, and your high tech infrastructure is shaky, that's even worse.

Which assumes that the "C-level" crowd aren't just looking to cash out quickly, and too bad if they leave a smoking crater behind. The initial 'profit' from outsourcing can come from a reputation that took decades to build, and a year or two to trash.

IMO, there seems to be a cultural myopia, with short-term winning out over everything. MOSTLY, among those with economic or political power, but with the risk and uncertainty propagated to the rest of the population, everyone gets to play the game too.

Not sure when it started, but probably when the word "conservative" changed from "prudent, cautious" to "amoral greed-head".

[Tony P.]

NV,

I blew it. I meant that minimum wage vs cigarettes was 4:1 in the late 60s, and about 1:1 now. (This is probably a good thing.) Min wage vs gas is about 4:1 right now, just as in the 60s, although as you point out it was down around 2:1 not long ago.

My main point, of course, is still that relative prices (gas:cigs, wages:houses, etc.) vary all over the place, and the single number we call "inflation" is hard for honest amateurs to pin down. Much easier for dishonest amateurs, of course.

--TP

[bobbyp]

Hard to imagine today a GOP US Senator voting to sustain a Democratic President's veto of the most odious piece of anti-union federal legislation in the post WWII era.

God bless you, Wayne Morse.

[Marty]

" meant that minimum wage vs cigarettes was 4:1 in the late 60s, and about 1:1 now."

Of course the cost of cigarettes now is about 2/3 (IIRC) taxes, mostly Federal. So that is planned inflation.

[Nigel]

Far from being the divisive figure some here paint, Trump has shown the ability to unite...
Britain:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-is-disliked-by-74-per-cent-of-britons-a3141976.html

[bobbyp]

Of course the cost of cigarettes now is about 2/3 (IIRC) taxes, mostly Federal. So that is planned inflation.

Federal tax per pack is $1.01. So, from looking at this data, it would appear the big taxes are state and local, and they vary quite a bit.

Industry marketing strategies also come into play wrt prices.

Somebody more familiar with this industry can weigh in, but it looks like the retail price of a pack of 'premium' smokes, sans all federal, state, and local taxes would be somewhere around $3.90.

Signed,

Ex smoker

[Tony P.]

So that is planned inflation.

Planned cost increase, yes. Not "inflation". The price of one commodity changing relative to other commodities is not a rise in the general price level. It is not a drop in the value of the currency. It is not something that the central bank can counteract with monetary policy. It is not inflation.

--TP

[CharlesWT]

In 1964, the minimum wage was $1.25 an hour or five silver quarters. Today the melt value of five silver quarters is about $13.00

[Slartibartfast]

Interestingly, the melt value of the silver in five quarters in 1964 inflates to about $9.00, currently.

Not that either of these facts has anything to do with much at all. But interesting nonetheless.

[cleek]

$13, according to cointrackers ($2.58/per):

http://cointrackers.com/coins/494/1964-washington-quarter/

but the collectable value of a 1964 silver quarter is about $6. so, don't melt them.

[hairshirthedonist]

Or use them to play Pac Man...

[russell]

when I was in college I knew a guy who spent a summer traveling around new england, paying his way by arbitraging silver coin.

this was in the late-ish 70's, when silver coin would still show up here and there.

he'd pull into a small town, go to the local bank, and exchange $100 or so in paper money for rolls of quarters. then, while he had his morning coffee, he'd go through them and pick out the silver ones.

then, he'd take the copper ones back to the bank and turn them back into paper, and sell the silver ones as collectibles or for their silver value.

my sister did the same thing, she was working as a bank teller and when a silver quarter crossed her path she'd exchange it for a copper/nickel one.

she got a new queen anne chair out of the deal.

[russell]

when I was in college I knew a guy who spent a summer traveling around new england, paying his way by arbitraging silver coin.

this was in the late-ish 70's, when silver coin would still show up here and there.

he'd pull into a small town, go to the local bank, and exchange $100 or so in paper money for rolls of quarters. then, while he had his morning coffee, he'd go through them and pick out the silver ones.

then, he'd take the copper ones back to the bank and turn them back into paper, and sell the silver ones as collectibles or for their silver value.

my sister did the same thing, she was working as a bank teller and when a silver quarter crossed her path she'd exchange it for a copper/nickel one.

she got a new queen anne chair out of the deal.