The Next President is...

[Negatory]

5 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

What economic indicator would you use, and how does the DJIA relate to the free market being a more sound judge of economics than the government since the DJIA is only 30 companies and not the entirety of the concept of the free economic market of capitalism?

The S&P 500 is also nearly at all time highs, so i don’t get your point about the DJIA. Almost every index you look at domestically is doing well.

With enough quantitative easing (expected to be up to $5T dollars this year, already at 2-3), you can prop up anything. Our balance sheet at the end of the year could be over $10T. YGBSM. Obama did it. Trump is doing it. But, the truth is, right now, we are in no place to do that. Our interest rates are almost 0. And most of that is due to not taking the chance to tighten when the economy was actually “doing well. There has been no meaningful QT at any point where it would have worked.

Its analogous to the airlines doing massive stock buybacks to inflate their prices. You can’t take on debt forever to make it look like the economy is doing well. And, worse, QE disproportionately benefits stockholders over the rest of society.

More meaningful improvement would be increasing median family wages adjusted for purchasing power. Something that no one has done in 40 years.

Edited August 1, 2020 by brawnie

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

I'll take that bet.

It’s not a bet. My assessment is that the GOP is lowering the floor dangerously low on their opponent and that in general that’s not a great strategy. The Dems fell prey to this in 2016.

Look, Biden and Trump are both slowed by age, just listen to each of them speaking in the 80s or 90s compared to today. I would greatly prefer younger candidates and office holders. IMHO there should be a maximum age for federal officer holders just like there is a minimum age. If I were king for a day I’d set the minimum age at 18 and the max age at probably 70.

My point was Biden participated in 11 debates and numerous other public events and speeches during the primary and was judged to be adequate. He even won convincingly! So to say that this guy literally can’t put together two sentences is more than a stretch, it’s a gift to Biden when he gets in TV and does an acceptable job. No one expects soaring oratory from Joe Biden anyways, and now IMHO the right is setting the expectations so low that they become easy to exceed.

Call it the “soft bigotry of low expectations” to quote an famous phrase from a man who also benefited from his competitors saying that he was an complete idiot.

Edited August 1, 2020 by nsplayr

[Prozac]

10 hours ago, Blue said:

Timely question for me, as this as recently become a hot topic of discussion on the homefront.

Stumbled upon this in Quora of all places, which I think captures what a lot of folks think.  Not all encompassing by any means, but you get the idea. 

 

Kind of sounds to me like you’d like the Republican Party to offer up a better candidate. Democrats are never going to float your boat and that’s fine. BUT the Republicans offered up several candidates who would’ve been much better than Trump four years ago. But they let him hijack and forever change the face of the GOP. While this certainly allowed them to make gains with some traditionally blue voters, my guess is the last three and a half years have pushed away far more middle of the road voters as well as erase many of the gains in minority segments that more moderate and traditional Republicans rightly hoped to gain. I’m honestly saddened by this shift in the party because even a left leaning person like me could see that there was much to admire and even items I outright agreed with in the platform. The new platform is basically “fuck you lib”. Ok then. Guess who’s voting party line for the first time ever?

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

Kind of sounds to me like you’d like the Republican Party to offer up a better candidate. Democrats are never going to float your boat and that’s fine. BUT the Republicans offered up several candidates who would’ve been much better than Trump four years ago. But they let him hijack and forever change the face of the GOP. While this certainly allowed them to make gains with some traditionally blue voters, my guess is the last three and a half years have pushed away far more middle of the road voters as well as erase many of the gains in minority segments that more moderate and traditional Republicans rightly hoped to gain. I’m honestly saddened by this shift in the party because even a left leaning person like me could see that there was much to admire and even items I outright agreed with in the platform. The new platform is basically “fuck you lib”. Ok then. Guess who’s voting party line for the first time ever?

Not neccessarily true. First off, I do not like Trump. I think he is an adhorent human being, and I can't bring myself to cast a vote for him. But as a conservative, I totally understand why people people voted for him. He didn't hijack anything, he was chosen by the people because they liked his platform/policy. While other Republicans were definitely more moral candidates, Trump was the one that stayed on course. 

The Republican party did shift but not the way you think it did. It suffered a succession of concessions to the left for several generations and Trump offered a return to a center of the party's doctrine that many people just saw as common sense. In a way, only an inexperienced politician could have pulled this off because the other candidates were so concerned with what their speech may sound like if it offended someone they continually adjusted their platform away from conservative values. Trump didn't give a crap, and in return he won a primary that everyone thought was impossible. 

But we (Democrats and Republicans alike) have to stop pretending that we care about a candidates morality for President. That was probably important in a Victorian America where religious protestentism was still extraordinarily widespread but the modern view has shifted from one of cooperation to one where people believe the very survival of their values depends on the candidate elected and flawed candidates are a neccessary evil to ensure that survival. 

Edited August 1, 2020 by FLEA

[dream big]

7 hours ago, nsplayr said:

It’s not a bet. My assessment is that the GOP is lowering the floor dangerously low on their opponent and that in general that’s not a great strategy. The Dems fell prey to this in 2016.

Look, Biden and Trump are both slowed by age, just listen to each of them speaking in the 80s or 90s compared to today. I would greatly prefer younger candidates and office holders. IMHO there should be a maximum age for federal officer holders just like there is a minimum age. If I were king for a day I’d set the minimum age at 18 and the max age at probably 70.

My point was Biden participated in 11 debates and numerous other public events and speeches during the primary and was judged to be adequate. He even won convincingly! So to say that this guy literally can’t put together two sentences is more than a stretch, it’s a gift to Biden when he gets in TV and does an acceptable job. No one expects soaring oratory from Joe Biden anyways, and now IMHO the right is setting the expectations so low that they become easy to exceed.

Call it the “soft bigotry of low expectations” to quote an famous phrase from a man who also benefited from his competitors saying that he was an complete idiot.

Dude Biden ‘won’ because he was the last man standing in a field of some of the worst candidates in history. Even many democrats I know were shocked and disappointed.  Got it, Trump is abrasive, but there is zero comparison to Biden who I think there is something seriously wrong with.  Whether it is dementia, sniffing women, or making actual racist remarks.  The guy has been around politics for 30+ years.  We don’t need more of the same. 

Most of my democrat friends (albeit I don’t have a lot of them) are actually terrified and see the writing on the wall. 

[Clark Griswold]

8 hours ago, nsplayr said:

It’s not a bet. My assessment is that the GOP is lowering the floor dangerously low on their opponent and that in general that’s not a great strategy. The Dems fell prey to this in 2016.

Look, Biden and Trump are both slowed by age, just listen to each of them speaking in the 80s or 90s compared to today. I would greatly prefer younger candidates and office holders. IMHO there should be a maximum age for federal officer holders just like there is a minimum age. If I were king for a day I’d set the minimum age at 18 and the max age at probably 70.

My point was Biden participated in 11 debates and numerous other public events and speeches during the primary and was judged to be adequate. He even won convincingly! So to say that this guy literally can’t put together two sentences is more than a stretch, it’s a gift to Biden when he gets in TV and does an acceptable job. No one expects soaring oratory from Joe Biden anyways, and now IMHO the right is setting the expectations so low that they become easy to exceed.

Call it the “soft bigotry of low expectations” to quote an famous phrase from a man who also benefited from his competitors saying that he was an complete idiot.

Concur on the age for elective federal office or any position requiring confirmation restriction, my limit would be 75 or less when you take an oath of office or are confirmed.

Never been a fan of term limits but they may be required to fight stagnation by tenure, that policy change could mitigate the problem (I think it is a problem) of our government often but not always led by people in the sunset of life, setting policies they themselves will not live with or see carried to fulfillment and having a mindset likely set by the world as it was 30-40 years ago.  

Concur on underestimation of Biden or more specifically the elements of the Left supporting him, not a pejorative statement against them but they are nimble and cunning, plan accordingly.

Musing on the election of President and the shit show that it is now, methinks we had it right prior to the 17th Amendment without the direct election of senators, applying that idea to the Presidency in an updated way (all state elective office holders being the voting population for POTUS, the people deciding the candidates to be considered as an example new process) would give the people a say but have a secondary process with less emotion and pandering to select a President that will serve the people and country best.  Not a perfect process but likely better than what we have now. 

Our current system of Popular Vote then the Electoral College is kinda like what I would want but this would be explicit, the people choose the canidates, the state government officials decide which one of the several (not just two) wins the Presidency, President elect then selects VP.

Edited August 1, 2020 by Clark Griswold
last point

[brickhistory]

Trump beat 24 GOP largely lookalikes in 2016 precisely because he wasn't like them and didn't seem to care if he's called names by the opposition (or the GOP for that matter).

Biden won because he's the centrist-ish of the Democrat field and the party knew that some of the really wacko left-field ones would absolutely doom them again.

The current push to get Biden across the line seems to "well, he's not all that, but he's our guy."  There are dozens of articles/essays in this theme on-going.

Doesn't seem to be enthusiasm for the selection, just a "not Trump" mantra.  Not wanting to vote for someone has historically reduced turn-out since the ass pain of voting usually outweighs the resigned casting of a luke-warm vote.  Not sure the "get rid of Trump" wave is strong enough to push Joe across the line.  If he actually does debate and, as is expected, shows that his time mentally is well passed, then I simply don't see how he wins.  If, on the other hand, he does manage to be energetic, focused, and coherent for 3 X 90 minutes, then mabye so.

Will it be enough?  I'm skeptical.  But then I really thought Hillary was going to win in 2016.  I was very pleasantly surprised to wake up the morning after and find out I was wrong.

And I do take comfort knowing she is not president.

Daily.

[Lord Ratner]

21 hours ago, brawnie said:

Was with you til this. The DJIA only reflects a small minority of the economy and doesn’t relate to how the majority of people are actually doing.

The free market does not mean the stock market.

One of the ugliest manifestations of crony capitalism, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, is to favor any policy or legislation that directly supports the prices in the stock market.

[Lord Ratner]

19 hours ago, nsplayr said:

 

A quick list of examples that all poll >60% among US adults is: universal background checks, legalizing marijuana, letting people buy into a Medicare and Medicaid, a $15 minimum wage, and creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are already in the country.

Add to that stopping illegal immigration and late term abortions. 

 

You are citing selective polls. The Medicare/Medicare poll results flip once the cost is added to the question.

 

It's like asking "who wants to be an astronaut" vs "who is willing to do what it takes to become an astronaut."

 

Minimum wage is a combination of not understanding economics, employment, or the reality of who makes minimum wage. But that's another topic.

[magnetfreezer]

16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I’m sorta ambivalent on $15 min wage. It would obviously help put money in the pockets of working people, which is very good for an economy driven by consumer demand. On the other hand large jumps all at once do cause problems. The Fed min wage, along with many many other government program payment numbers, should be pegged to chained-CPI or similar and then automatically raise or lower with inflation.

If you don’t do that, inaction ends up being an affirmative choice to devalue current programs which is not what congress usually intends. See the pilot bonus and flight pay issues where they were the same from like 1990 - 2017 even though a lot of the value had been lost to inflation. In principle the AF didn’t value pilots any less, but in practice they absolutely

Understand at the micro level (allow those making min wage to better afford products). At the macro level, do you see a way to avoid this becoming a positive feedback loop and raising inflation (restaurants raise costs since their labor is more expensive, demand for good goes up since min wage earners have more disposable income)? Anecdotally, friends with small businesses in areas with higher than average minimum wage end up offering fewer min wage jobs the higher the wage goes. Since many min wage jobs have been entry level (teens or others who don't need the min wage job for years) in the past, is finding a way to ensure upward mobility better than continuing to raise the bottom wage?

[Negatory]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

The free market does not mean the stock market.

One of the ugliest manifestations of crony capitalism, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, is to favor any policy or legislation that directly supports the prices in the stock market.

Agree wholeheartedly, but how do you quantify that? Most economic reports, when it comes to journalism, over the last few years have been that stock market going up = free market working well, when that's not necessarily true.

Edited August 1, 2020 by brawnie

[DosXX]

5 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Minimum wage is a combination of not understanding economics, employment, or the reality of who makes minimum wage. But that's another topic.

Usually when people say it's a misunderstanding of economics they are operating under the assumptions of econ 101. But arguing against a higher minimum wage with econ 101 knowledge is like saying black holes don't exist because Newton's Laws forbid them. It's a toy model of the actual dynamics which eventually break down in the real world, and there's substantial research (with empirical data) that shows that the low wage market resembles a monopsony. Under the monopsony model, increasing wages actually increases employment (obviously if you go past market equilibrium then you get detrimental effects). Under monopsonies there is inefficient dead weight loss with excess profits going to employers in a similar way to how monopolies have dead weight loss with excess profit going to supplier. 

If you think monopolies are a danger to a well functioning free market capitalist system then I encourage you to look into the research on monopsony and minimum wage. If you're free market to the point of allowing anticompetitive monopolies then you would be consistent in being against minimum wage increases, but usually when I discuss this with conservatives they are against monopoly power and have not considered monopsony theory of minimum wage.

IMO minimum wage should be increased until the monopsony threshold breaks down, which currently seems to be around the ~12-15 dollar range, beyond which you start to get lower employment (based on current research).  This isn't even taking into account the effects of higher wages on money velocity and demand, which would also have beneficial effects on economic output.

Now I don't expect the average American to have to delve into economic theory to justify this, so I'd put a provision in the law that would automatically lower the wage back if employment decreases by more than say 5% to increase public support. 

Sorry for the word vomit but hope that was clear enough. I think the "living wage" talking point on my side of the aisle is ineffective because it completely ignores the (important) conservative talking point on employment, but hopefully this can at least show you that there's some space for agreement here (pro market/economy).

[FlyingWolf]

17 minutes ago, DosXX said:

Calm, convincing argument

I've never had a strong opinion on it but I somewhat leaned to the probable futility of min wage raises...

but I think you've convinced me. Worthy of noting for internet banter.

Edited August 2, 2020 by FlyingWolf
formating

[busdriver]

A look at minimum wages at a national level is a bit clumsy.  It assumes that nation wide, all low wage job markets exist in a monopsony.  I'm not really sure why locality based minimum wage is bad and a federal floor needs to be set.

That said, part of me would be okay with a minimum wage hike of something reasonable ($15 would works out to $30k/yr, which is higher than Germany) and pegged to some sort of CPI.  Mainly so I don't have to listen to this shit anymore.

[brickhistory]

Trial balloon being floated about is that Biden shouldn't "dignify" Trump with a debate since Trump will simply be lying the entire time.

Which to a sane person, seems like a great opportunity to club the baby orange seal and show the fast ball is still there (mixed metaphors acknowledged).

Let's see how high this one floats...

[dream big]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Trial balloon being floated about is that Biden shouldn't "dignify" Trump with a debate since Trump will simply be lying the entire time.

Which to a sane person, seems like a great opportunity to club the baby orange seal and show the fast ball is still there (mixed metaphors acknowledged).

Let's see how high this one floats...

Democrats are acknowledging that Biden will get destroyed in a one to one debate with Trump? 

Regardless, it would be a huge mistake for the democratic nominee to not engage in one of the most basic election traditions and customs.  As it is, most democrats aren’t excited about Biden.  Pussying away from a debate won’t be a good look. 

[brickhistory]

After a couple of mid-level Democrats float "no debates needed" this weekend on various cable shows, right on cue the NYT publishes a "we don't need debates" op-ed today.

Almost like it's coordinated or something...

 

 

 

Oh, and as an aside, former President Bill Clinton's name was among those revealed as being on Epstein's island by one of the accusers in the lady pimp's civil trial records that were unsealed last week. Yet hardly a peep in the media.  

Also almost like that's coordinated or something...

[Sua Sponte]

6 hours ago, brickhistory said:

After a couple of mid-level Democrats float "no debates needed" this weekend on various cable shows, right on cue the NYT publishes a "we don't need debates" op-ed today.

Almost like it's coordinated or something...

 

 

 

Oh, and as an aside, former President Bill Clinton's name was among those revealed as being on Epstein's island by one of the accusers in the lady pimp's civil trial records that were unsealed last week. Yet hardly a peep in the media.  

Also almost like that's coordinated or something...

And what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? Your knack for strawmans, whataboutisms, and turning any topic into a something about the Clinton's is astounding. 

Edited August 3, 2020 by Sua Sponte

[brickhistory]

[gearhog]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

And what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? Your knack for strawmans, whataboutisms, and turning any topic into a something about the Clinton's is astounding. 

Please clarify: would you say we shouldn't have Presidential debates prior to a Presidential election, or should we not debate as to whether there should be Presidential debates? LOL.

As to the Clintons: would you say they have not, and do not continue to have political influence with regard to the topics being discussed in this thread?

Just giving you a hard time. Didn't want you to go around thinking anyone here fails to realize the dismissive mocking and scoffing isn't a common and cliche tactic.

 

 

 

[Sua Sponte]

36 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Can't respond with a debate, so you'll use memes. How very Gen-Z of you.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Sua Sponte

[N730]

If either of them shy away from a debate, they'll end up the loser. However, one upside to COVID would be if we finally got rid of audiences at debates.

Without an audience reaction, the power of one liners and insults go away and the candidates might actually have to have some substance.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[nsplayr]

I agree that audiences are terrible and that there should be debates. My fav ones are where they sit and have a more policy-focused discussion although there is some room for a town-hall setting in a non-pandemic year. I don’t like standing behind podiums slinging insults for audience cheers.

[busdriver]

35 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

 I don’t like standing behind podiums slinging insults for audience cheers.

That model has infected all of our politics.  I feel like they all took a lesson from Ashton Kutcher's character in "That 70's Show" and the ultimate political brownie point is a "sick burn."

We live in the dumbest of times.

[Negatory]