Lock him up! Lock him up!

EDIT: Whatever. We all know the economy is humming along nicely and Trump will get re-elected. Meanwhile, the Democrats still don't know whether they want to be somewhat socialist or not and without a coherent message their bid for the presidency is doomed to fail. They need to stop pandering to special interests and tap into the overarching issues of justice, such as tax evasion/exemption of the rich and corporations, job security, health care.

It's not right that many people are one hospital bill away from poverty. It's not right people need to work 2 full-time jobs to just make ends meet. It's not right you're forced to wear a diaper because you can't take a break from your assembly line work. It's not right you have to sleep in your car even though you have a job. It's not right the American Dream has become just that... just a dream instead of reality people can aspire to even with the lowest paid job. If society cannot afford basic dignity for low wage labour then it's simply barbaric.

We all know the economy is humming along nicely and Trump will get re-elected. — Benkei

A corporate Dem like Biden could win. All he needs is Pennsylvania and Florida. Bernie could potentially win too but it'd be harder.

Why would anyone who believes in raising the economic situation of people at the bottom vote for Trump? He's done little except screw them over more.

Why would anyone who believes in raising the economic situation of people at the bottom vote for Trump? He's done little except screw them over more. — YuZhonglu

The unemployment rate is down, so there is an aggregate benefit. Perhaps some of the people who had been unemployed would vote for him.

There is also an economic theory that low unemployment results in demand for labor exceeding supply, and that this drives up wages. I don't know if this has ever been confirmed, but it's not an implausible theory. Even if true, no individual is likely to notice it, so I don't see how this would get him any votes.

That said, my problem with Trump-onomics is that the only thing he's actually done is to decrease taxes for the rich and for corporations. This has resulted in increased deficits, and in fact -- they are on an unsustainable path: unsustainable because we're on an unsustainable path: eventually, interest on the national debt will dominate the budget. This is the same unsustainable path Ronald Reagan put us on in the 80s. Within the next few years, there will be no choice but to increase taxes to get deficits down. That will result in economic contraction. Whoever is President will be blamed.

Wishful thinking I'm afraid. Biden is just ms. Clinton but with a dick. That is to say, mainstream Democrats don't appeal as much as you think. Trump's appeal is and was because he isn't part of the establishment. Pitting him against an establishment Democrat is not going to do much.

Try this the next time you get into your car: stop and say to yourself: "While I'm driving, somebody is going to pull out in front of me, or swerve and almost crash into me, or otherwise do something really annoying."

Then while you're driving, try to have the response that's logically appropriate to the events unfolding. Why have a head explosion over something you knew beforehand was likely?

Would people benefit from this kind of approach to political events? Probably not. It's all about catharsis. It's all Passion Play. Explode away. Totally convince yourself that what you're really angry about is that pundit's attempts at spin or a presidential twitter.

The numbers so far say otherwise. And he'll be strong in the right places. Barring some accident, he has the edge. The downside is he's Biden.

[img]

The downside is he's Biden. — Baden

The downside is that whoever runs with even a small chance of success will be a professional politician. "Professional politicians" are not all liars , thieves, knaves, and scoundrels but a lot of them are. Some that are not outright LTKorS are beholden (aka in hock) to powerful interests such as the petroleum industry, the defense industry, or something of that sort. Most politicians are not intellectuals with broad interests and long-term perspectives (they'd go nuts if they were). Then there is the political system which is in charge of delivering the kind of results we tend to get, which are the results the political system wishes to get.

Voters are almost not part of the political system. The individual's single participation in the system (voting) is practically irrelevant. It's irrelevant not because the other candidate won; it's irrelevant because all of the candidates were losers, to use a favorite term of the current Loser in Chief, Donald Trump.

Is Senator Sanders something other than the rest? He might be something other than the rest; so might Mayor Buttigieg. Maybe Elizabeth Warren is the real McCoy. But in any case--gay mayor, socialist senator, or progressive hero--the political system is what it always is, and whoever wins will be unsuccessful in conducting a revolution from the white house. Presidents are successful because their actions conform to the range of options provided by the political system.

There is also an economic theory that low unemployment results in demand for labor exceeding supply, and that this drives up wages. I don't know if this has ever been confirmed, but it's not an implausible theory. Even if true, no individual is likely to notice it, so I don't see how this would get him any votes. — Relativist

What you wanted to say and almost did was "Demand for labor which can not be met by reserves of unemployed workers tends to drive up wages."

It's sound theory, but it's not a law of nature. Over the last few years (during the recovery from the last deep recession) unemployment was dropping, employment was rising, and wages were stagnant for quite some time--in violation of the theory. Now, they finally have started to rise.

People don't notice these increases in wages? Bullshit! Of course individuals notice, whether their wages rise or fall. Most workers are living paycheck to paycheck, and changes in their take-home pay whether from a tax change or a wage change has immediate consequences. I've lived paycheck to paycheck, and believe me, a $10 difference in the check is noticeable (even if it doesn't allow one to change one's lifestyle. It just feels good to see a little more.)

What you wanted to say and almost did was "Demand for labor which can not be met by reserves of unemployed workers tends to drive up wages." — Bitter Crank

No, the qualification doesn't belong there. The idea is that when there's demand for labor, workers are enticed to move to better paying jobs.

It's sound theory, but it's not a law of nature. Over the last few years (during the recovery from the last deep recession) unemployment was dropping, employment was rising, and wages were stagnant for quite some time--in violation of the theory. Now, they finally have started to rise. — Bitter Crank

I imagine there's something to it, but you're right - it's not a law of nature. I expect it's a general trend, although I expect it would be a slow process.

People don't notice these increases in wages? Bullshit! — Bitter Crank

I didn't mean pay increases aren't noticed, I'm just suggesting that no one will open their pay envelope, see a raise, and exclaim "cool - the supply/demand for labor thing is paying off."

"We have to go back to Hitler days and put them all in a gas chamber." — Maw

I'm sure some people are thinking about how big the concentration camps, gas chambers, crematoria, and ash pits will need to be, and where they should be located. Though, the rage of the dominant US demographic doesn't seem to work that way these days. Separating children from parents at the border and then losing the connection between x child and x parent is more like the current regime. There are ways (...ve have vays...) of keeping undesirable groups fairly wretched without actually running them through an extermination center.

Look at blacks. The majority of them have been kept out of the economic horn of plenty for 150+ years. Enough have made it to deprive the rest an excuse for not succeeding. We could make life a lot less convenient for illegal immigrants without resorting to hydrogen cyanide in the showers. The unpleasant bureaucratic resources of the State have not been fully unleashed upon illegal immigrants. The hounds have not been released, yet.

Remember, the Nazi's were successful in encouraging a lot of Jews, communists, and decadent intellectuals to get the hell out of Germany without the gas chambers (that came later). Late night visits to the local police station, limitations on work, residence, travel, benefits, etc.-- people got the message and left if they could. Eventually the Nazis took over the countries where many of the unwanted fled -- like Holland and France. We'd have to take over Mexico and Central America to effect a final solution to the problem, which would be really bad PR. It was bad PR for Germany too, but they were on a roll at that point and war had already commenced, so not too much was made of it.

I'm just suggesting that no one will open their pay envelope, see a raise, and exclaim "cool - the supply/demand for labor thing is paying off." — Relativist

Right. People don't operate that way. Even professional economists who get raises don't say that. What they say is, "Finally my brilliance has been noticed, however slightly they are rewarding it."

There is still a problem in the wage/unemployment/employment relationship. Some regional chiefs in the Federal Reserves are against an increase in the interest rate, because they believe the reserve of unemployed is still too large. For some reason (apparently not clear to them) structural problems are keeping workers out of the job market. They may not have any of the demanded skills; they may have criminal records which are effective bars to employment; they may be sufficiently out of the loop to even know how to get into the job market. They may not be able to get to jobs. (Transportation between areas with higher than average unemployment and areas with unfilled jobs is often non-existent. If you don't have a reliable car (and most long-term unemployed people don't) getting to a job that is 15 miles away is impossible.

No, the qualification doesn't belong there. The idea is that when there's demand for labor, workers are enticed to move to better paying jobs. — Relativist

OK. Yes. True. And wages have to be high enough. I wouldn't cross the street for a job that paid $3 an hour. That's the problem with "Americans just don't want to work" or "just won't do that job." Slaughter house jobs, for instance, are too dangerous for Americans to work in for anything less than a competitive wage. Meatpackers can hire illegal immigrants at very low wages because the wages they are competing with are in Mexico or Guatemala, not Iowa, Missouri, or Minnesota. And yes, the immigrants get seriously injured working on the meatpacking disassembly lines.

Yeah, it's complicated. My main thing is that Presidents get credit and blame for the economy, despite the fact that they rarely have any direct, short term impact. Policies that do make a difference usually take years to have an impact.

dude, polls had Clinton winning with a 90% likelihood. Excuse me for not taking them too seriously.

I just rolled a die. The laws of probability told me there was an over 80% likelihood that a 6 wouldn't show up. But it did. So, excuse me for not taking the laws of probability too seriously.

See the problem.

As it happens, the average of polls panned out within the margin of error. And Clinton won the popular vote as expected. What the polls didn't correctly predict was the electoral college win because she won in the wrong places. Less chance of that with Biden and if the RCP national average still has him up by 8% (outside the margin of error) on election night, he wins and wins big, or I eat my die.

The question is will he get there (win the primary) and maintain that advantage. It's a long campaign.

See the problem. — Baden

Yes, an over reliance on probability to predict the future.

I'll buy you a beer when Trump loses.

As long as it's not Heineken. :vomit: :wink:

Re the China Trade War: one of the snippets that's come out of the last few days commentary, is that Trump mistakenly believes that China pays the US tariffs on goods exported to the USA. Of course, as his economics adviser Larry Kudlow was obliged to admit on live television, it's the receiving country's buyers that actually pay the tariffs. So, again, this telegraphs so clearly Trump's total ineptitude and incomprehension: launching a trade war without even understanding how tariffs work. The Dunning Kruger presidency at work again.

Trump mistakenly believes that China pays the US tariffs on goods exported to the USA. — Wayfarer

I'm not quite sure that's true. In basic economic terms, the goal is to impose a deadweight loss cost on products originating from China, supposedly bolstering the competitiveness of American products. That was the intention of imposing tariffs.

However, given the example of steel, China has an absolute advantage due to being the sole country that has such cheap labor and the capacity to satisfy world demand. So, as you say, the deadweight loss is actually hurting US interests from my perspective.

Supposedly, we can compensate by importing goods from Canada and South America; but, China is pretty hard to beat in the commodities market.

I'm not quite sure that's true. — Wallows

China does not pay the tariffs - the receiving country pays them.

All that said, I have read the Dems are in support of tariffs and reining China in. So I'm not taking issue with the principle, simply making the observation that as so often the case, Trump seems not to understand fundamental principles of governance.

China does not pay the tariffs - the receiving country pays them. — Wayfarer

No, this isn't entirely true. It hurts China by decreasing demand for its products within the US. This is like econ 101, so I think you understand the point, along with my previous post.

No, this isn't entirely true. I — Wallows

It is entirely true, Wallows. It might indeed 'hurt China', it might do what tariffs are supposed to do, it might even be a desirable thing, but China does not pay the tariffs. That is the point of the post I made, so please don't obfuscate.

It might indeed 'hurt China', but China does not pay the tariffs. — Wayfarer

No, nobody is forcing US consumers to buy Chinese products, despite their products perhaps being cheaper than US products or European products. I mean, when you go to the grocery store or buy an appliance, are you always going to choose the cheapest product, or even appealing to your patriotic sensibilities of the sticker "Made in the USA"? That the whole schtick with nativist tendencies of any previous or future president of any country.

And, claiming that Trump is dumb or stupid or inept, really does the discussion no good.

claiming that Trump is dumb or stupid or inept, really does the discussion no good. — Wallows

It never hurts to state the obvious when the stakes are so high.

"Professional politicians" are not all liars — Bitter Crank

Here's an example of Trumpian logic. All professional politicians are liars. I'm not a professional politician. Therefore I'm not a liar.

The sad part ... many of his supporters seem to think it's valid logic.

There's one possibility you're overlooking though and that's when the Chinese government increased subsidies to compensate for the tariffs. I don't know if that happened but I wouldn't be surprised.

There's one possibility you're overlooking though and that's when the Chinese government increased subsidies to compensate for the tariffs. — Benkei

That may be true, but it's beside the point.

not entirely, because it means American consumers wouldn't notice the effect of the tariffs as prices would remain more or less the same. So while technically they pay the tariff the economic burden would be shifted to the Chinese government and their tax payers.

I'm not sure whether that happened and I'm not sure that that's what Trump meant in his tweets but I'm also not sure what to make of his tweet otherwise.

Edit: also, those comments under his posts are depressing. Communication is really breaking down in social media. It's just opinions, opinions, hate or unswerving loyalty.

Trump’s senior economic advisor contradicts him on ‘who pays’. It’s not that different to insisting that ‘Mexico would pay for the wall’.

I stand corrected. I was going on reporting in the Guardian and that linked the tweet in my post which had one possible meaningful explanation. The tweets in the Time's article are pretty dumb.