• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT6| Delete your accounts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
BISMARCK, N.D. — A constant stream of changes and scuffles are roiling Donald J. Trump’s campaign team, including the abrupt dismissal this week of his national political director.

A sense of paranoia is growing among his campaign staff members, including some who have told associates they believe that their Trump Tower offices may be bugged.
Click to expand...

Picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html?_r=1
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
Crab said:
He won't suspend his campaign until the convention. He'll argue that superdelegates shouldn't be counted until they actually vote, and will make a public display of trying to persuade them, to force Clinton to have to acknowledge his views a little longer. The only way he suspends on June 7th is if he and Clinton have worked at some behinds-the-scenes concessions he is satisfied he can't improve on.
Click to expand...

And that is bad for Dems
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
pigeon said:
So like, while I think Kristoffer's overall "screw human rights who needs those" position is huelenical (maybe even kristofferian), and a lot of this post seems crazy, I actually specifically do agree that the whole idea of criticizing China for their labor rights system is colonial. Sending smart people over to other countries to say that they should stop doing things their way because we know better is not really a new idea for Western civilization. Nor does anybody seem to be willing to broach the question of, if we're going to use trade power or whatever to force our labor law expectations on other countries, how do we then provide them with corresponding aid to make sure they can successfully industrialize and get their citizens out of poverty?

But ultimately the reason we're not allies with China has nothing to do with China's labor issues. It isn't even specifically about human rights, although it probably should be because China's whole police state, imprison and murder dissidents thing is pretty bad. It's about China's imperialism and how the state economy ties into it.

A good example of this is the Dr. Strange controversy. Leaving aside the whole issue with replacing an Asian dude with a white woman, the Marvel spokesperson came right out and said that the reason they whitewashed the Ancient One was that China wouldn't let them sell the movie there if it played up Tibet, because China's official policy is to suppress Tibetan culture until it is extinguished. It should be pretty clear why that's problematic, and why the other countries near China have been so interested in American protection and support, and why we're interested in giving it.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with this post's analysis, but I have two points of criticism.

The first is even entertaining the notion of trading aid for improved labor conditions. China doesn't want anyone's aid. The entirety of the 20th Century was about rebuking the old masters and showing the world that it was self sufficient and powerful enough to obtain its own interests. These goals persist today in the rampant imperialism in the south and the establishment of Chinese dominated economic structures like trade parternships and opening an international bank. Time over time, China has proudly asserted that it has been, can be, and is a powerful nation. Even if the US offered aid with a threat of reducing trade with the nation, it would just

Btw, there are tons of factories leaving China for Vietnam and the Philippines because of increases in labor safety laws. There is no need to speed up the process with petty hypocritical gringo charity, white man's burden redux. As pigeon said, it's colonial.

From a Chinese perspective: the US has never done anything to help the Chinese industrialized and prosper without the blood and sweat that comes along the way. So if they're not going to help, get out of the way.

Anyway, let me elaborate on what my actual position was, because thus far I have mostly just been defending China against biased moral superiority positioning.

I do think in 50 years, China will be the greatest nation on Earth. It has undergone the most impressive cultural, economic, industrial, and political changes in human history, rivaling the French Revolution and 2nd industrial revolution. I think China does have an abyssmal human rights record because developing nations have abyssmal human rights. But I also sympathize with totalitarianism and empathetic to why China feels the way it does given its long and complicated history.

But what I am also worried about is the United States positioning itself against the clear winner in the long run, the post-America world that Fareed Zakaria talks about. This is perhaps not worth compromising your moral positioning on, but given the history of China and the positive impact of the market economy on its political climate, I am very positive about its future.

But regardless of how China develops, the US will never take a role in that. Ever. This is a hard fact. We have never taken a serious stance against any nation in history when it was against our economic interests to do so, and we have never taken a serious stance for reasons as small as freedom of speech or political dissent. As far as I know, we have never successfully westernized a large country before, either. We had the exact opposite effect in Iran. Moral superiority as a GOAL is hopeless.

In any case I don't need my qualifications on defending human rights being challenged. I just don't really see anything happening in the long term there that has anything to do with the US.
 
I

itschris

Member
Democrats sweat next convention blow-up

In the wake of a recent Nevada state party convention that descended into chaos, Democrats are sweating out a similar event in Wyoming Saturday.

When Democrats meet in Cheyenne to select delegates to the July national convention, the same elements that created such a volatile mix in Nevada will be present: Anger and frustration over Bernie Sanders’ delegate haul, super delegates who backed Hillary Clinton before the state caucuses took place, and threats to state party officials.

...

Top Wyoming Democratic officials, especially those publicly backing Clinton, reported receiving angry calls, letters and threats.

"I have received some very negative phone calls and some very negative letters," said state Rep. Mary Hales, a Clinton supporter. The threats, she said, were "things like ‘bitch,’ and that they're going to contact your family members, put this information out on a blog, and things like that."

The state party’s executive director, Aimee Van Cleave, said that in addition to receiving threats, someone let the air out of her car tires.

...

The Sanders camp has also been involved in taking precautions to maintain a level of civility at the convention. On Tuesday, a Sanders field organizer met with pro-Sanders delegates in Laramie to discuss proper conduct at the convention, according to Wyoming state Rep. Charles Pelkey, the only elected official in the state who endorsed Sanders. Pelkey said he planned to have another meeting with Sanders delegates on Thursday.

"There’ll be people shouting and there’ll be chants and such but violence? Here? I don’t expect that at all," Pelkey said.

Pelkey said he planned to push a petition changing the district-level delegate allocation between the two candidates from the current even split of 4-4 to 5-3 for Sanders.
Click to expand...

At this point, I would just give them the extra delegate. I mean, even though the delegate allocation is just following the rules, he did win Wyoming 56-44. It's not like it makes any practical difference, and I'd rather not see another Nevada. Of course, I don't want there to be the appearance of giving in to threats either.
 
B

BlastProcessing

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html?_r=1
Click to expand...

My favorite bit:

Asked for comment about his management style, and the current state of his campaign, Mr. Trump declined, criticizing the reporters writing this article. “You two wouldn’t know how to write a good story about me if you tried — dream on,” Mr. Trump said in an email relayed by his spokeswoman, Hope Hicks.
Click to expand...
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
RastaMentality said:
Warren deserves the Majority Leader Senate job when we get it back tbh.
Click to expand...

I agree, strongly. This and Sanders leading the Budget Committee plus Perez VP is a strong line-up to bat for Clinton when she needs stuff done.
 
D

DataStream

Member
Had someone call me a fascist and 'Saddam' for talking about the legitimacy of the super-delegate process on FB today.

susan-powter_l.jpg
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
as a side note, does would anyone be interested in an EconGAF thread? I'm getting quite tired of some of the more poorly informed posts and was thinking about putting something together. I was thinking I'd start at a proper technical level, but try doing it with a fairly easy-going approach - start with utility curves, set up the First Fundamental Theorem and proof for GCEs, and then all the reasons the assumptions might not hold and why the pricing mechanism doesn't always deliver Pareto efficient outcomes. I think that's the important stuff because if you understand that, most of the rest of economics follows pretty naturally. Could also do the IS-PC-MR model with the QQ extension for a look at how modern monetary policy works, and when you want to use fiscal policy. Maybe a little bit on consumption and inequality.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Crab said:
as a side note, does would anyone be interested in an EconGAF thread? I'm getting quite tired of some of the more poorly informed posts and was thinking about putting something together. I was thinking I'd start at a proper technical level, but try doing it with a fairly easy-going approach - start with utility curves, set up the First Fundamental Theorem and proof for GCEs, and then all the reasons the assumptions might not hold and why the pricing mechanism doesn't always deliver Pareto efficient outcomes. I think that's the important stuff because if you understand that, most of the rest of economics follows pretty naturally. Could also do the IS-PC-MR model with the QQ extension for a look at how modern monetary policy works, and when you want to use fiscal policy. Maybe a little bit on consumption and inequality.
Click to expand...

I would definitely read this and probably post in it, although mostly to repeat the joke about macro vs micro and talk about how Marx had the right idea.
 
H

hawk2025

Member
Crab said:
as a side note, does would anyone be interested in an EconGAF thread? I'm getting quite tired of some of the more poorly informed posts and was thinking about putting something together. I was thinking I'd start at a proper technical level, but try doing it with a fairly easy-going approach - start with utility curves, set up the First Fundamental Theorem and proof for GCEs, and then all the reasons the assumptions might not hold and why the pricing mechanism doesn't always deliver Pareto efficient outcomes. I think that's the important stuff because if you understand that, most of the rest of economics follows pretty naturally. Could also do the IS-PC-MR model with the QQ extension for a look at how modern monetary policy works, and when you want to use fiscal policy. Maybe a little bit on consumption and inequality.
Click to expand...


Now you're just talking dirty to me.

Yes, yes.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
pigeon said:
I would definitely read this and probably post in it, although mostly to repeat the joke about macro vs micro and talk about how Marx had the right idea.
Click to expand...

Marx did have the right idea tho.

Well, except the teleological conception of history and all the stuff he nicked from Hegel and also the labour theory of value.

But the rest of it, hells yeah.

On a serious note, I do actually find it kind of weird how much of academia still draws from Marxists texts and works, particularly sociology, given the contempt he's held in by the general populus.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Like nobody else does that with other early economists. I've never once seen anyone go "fuck Ricardo, everyone knows that Ricardian equivalence is shit, show me a state run on government house utilitarianism - oh wait you can't 'cause they all failed". But if its Marx people suddenly become complete experts who've never read Das Kapital but nevertheless somehow know it's a conspiracy.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
an econ-GAF thread would definitely be a day 1 sub for me for the same reason that i've been subbed to /r/badecon since forever

get the ball rolling on that, y'all
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
Crab said:
Like nobody else does that with other early economists. I've never once seen anyone go "fuck Ricardo, everyone knows that Ricardian equivalence is shit, show me a state run on government house utilitarianism - oh wait you can't 'cause they all failed".
Click to expand...
That's because Ricardian equivalence didn't sweep the world and capture the attention of every society for 50 years after WWII, causing wars and turmoil.
 
3

3phemeral

Member
DataStream said:
Had someone call me a fascist and 'Saddam' for talking about the legitimacy of the super-delegate process on FB today.[/IMG]
Click to expand...

One of my old classmates asked "Can someone tell me how Hillary recieved classified information if she used her private email server?"

Mistakenly thinking it was a genuine question. It turned out he was really only asking because he "Wanted to find evidence of criminality." He had already come to a conclusion that she was guilty. He later clarified that "From her own mouth, she said she only used her private email server. So how did she recieve classified information?"

After a lot of back and forth and about her having multiple accounts or methods to receieve actual born-classified info, he was very convinced that she only used her private server because "she said it herself!"

After I pointed out that on the same document he linked, it stated "Clinton recieved classified information by hard copy and used a closed-email system to view sensitive information."

He only responded with "I'm not naive eneough to believe they printed eveything classified."

And why do all my hardcore Bernie friends always respond senetences with alternating caps like: "I don't believe her. SHE IS A LIAR."

Just give in!

lHQLnu
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
BlastProcessing said:
It would be a great start, but we all need to show up in the Midterms for anything to really move forward.
Click to expand...

I mean sure, but you got to motivate people! Can't blame people for not voting, that's putting politics the wrong way round; you gotta blame parties for not enthusing them enough to vote.
 
H

hawk2025

Member
Crab said:
Like nobody else does that with other early economists. I've never once seen anyone go "fuck Ricardo, everyone knows that Ricardian equivalence is shit, show me a state run on government house utilitarianism - oh wait you can't 'cause they all failed". But if its Marx people suddenly become complete experts who've never read Das Kapital but nevertheless somehow know it's a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

This is true.

But I think it plays with the pedestal that Marx is often placed on in the first place. No one considers Smith or Ricardo as having written all-encompassing treatises on how economies should function today in the field.

There is an unhealthy chunk of heterodox economists (at least in South America -- my experience in the US is limited to post-graduate ortodoxy, which completely dominates, so I can't speak for less common fringes of American economists) that do seem to place Marx's writings in that position to a crippling fault.
 
J

Jenov

Member
Suikoguy said:
So, Sanders is going to continue ignoring the Tax Return situation until it no longer matters if he releases them.

I do have to wonder what Trump and Sanders are hiding.

Ironically I think it's a case of Sanders being too rich, and Trump not being rich enough, lol.
Click to expand...

This would be way too funny if true :)

It is really curious that they're not releasing them though, considering it's been a standard for I don't even know how long now..
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
hawk2025 said:
This is true.

But I think it plays with the pedestal that Marx is often placed on in the first place. No one considers Smith or Ricardo as having written all-encompassing treatises on how economies should function today in the field.
Click to expand...

I'd like to introduce you to the Adam Smith Institute. :p But yeah, I also get your point.
 
O

Orbis Tabula

Member
Crab said:
as a side note, does would anyone be interested in an EconGAF thread? I'm getting quite tired of some of the more poorly informed posts and was thinking about putting something together. I was thinking I'd start at a proper technical level, but try doing it with a fairly easy-going approach - start with utility curves, set up the First Fundamental Theorem and proof for GCEs, and then all the reasons the assumptions might not hold and why the pricing mechanism doesn't always deliver Pareto efficient outcomes. I think that's the important stuff because if you understand that, most of the rest of economics follows pretty naturally. Could also do the IS-PC-MR model with the QQ extension for a look at how modern monetary policy works, and when you want to use fiscal policy. Maybe a little bit on consumption and inequality.
Click to expand...

I'd be very interested. I doubt I'd have anything of value to add, but I would certainly read it. The mathematician in me can't ignore the words "fundamental theorem."
 
S

studyguy

Member
Mentioned it in the slack, but the drought has impacted my livelihood pretty significantly within the past couple years. The fact that something as meaningless as "open up the water" being said as a solution to the continued issues in the Central Valley and around south costal farming for CA is bonkers.

A year and a half back nearly half of my strawberry clientele ended up literally burned up due to a lack of water and continued heatwave. The ongoing pressure to keep fields going instead of going fallow is enormous, especially out in the central valley. You basically have some farmers at worst hoarding or stealing water from others when they were tamping down on private usage for ag. Counties enacting a range of difference ordinances on usage, and no one actually wanting to foot the bill on renovating delivery systems that were way outdated.

I don't see WE'RE GONNA OPEN UP THE WATER or claiming THERE IS NO DROUGHT actually working with farmers in any capacity. Shit's not a joke. I've seen multigenerational businesses go bust over this shit now. Seems like a bad way to be in Fresno of all places.
 
T

Thunder Monkey

Banned
Crab said:
I mean sure, but you got to motivate people! Can't blame people for not voting, that's putting politics the wrong way round; you gotta blame parties for not enthusing them enough to vote.
Click to expand...

Nope.

I blame them.

I've voted in every election I've been able. Even strange run-off elections. I have never had a candidate for pres come anywhere close to my political ideology. Even Bernie is farther right than me. By a lot actually.

I still come out and vote. And I vote Dem. Closest viable party for me to chose from.

I want to see some progress made. It may be generations before they start hitting my checklist, but we have to start somewhere.

I put the impetus on myself and them. You don't sit back and hope for a better world. You try to make it yourself, no matter how small the means at your disposal.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Roland_Gunner said:
But Sanders has proven he has no understanding of how the banking system functions. No one who writes this should even be on the committee:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/opinion/bernie-sanders-to-rein-in-wall-street-fix-the-fed.html
Click to expand...

Half of that article is very, very right; half of it is incredibly wrong. He's absolutely right that the main problem with the US economy is regulatory capture. Clinton's banking plan is pretty toothless. It might give the Fed more powers and try and increase the independence of the various commissions... but the Fed already has a shit ton of powers and the problem with the commissions is that they *are* independent. The Fed can already force banks to take on more assets, apply various credit restrictions, etc. Making the Volcker rule stronger is kind of pointless because the Fed could already effectively do that, even only as a special measure, and the problem is not the lack of power but the lack of will. The reason for the lack of will is, as Sanders quite correctly highlights, the fact that most of these organizations end up being a revolving door from Wall Street. You're trusting the wolves to guard the sheep, and only Sanders has really pointed out how much of a problem that is.

The rest... eh. He's not right about interest rates. I mean, I don't think the Fed's mandate is either, we should be looking at NGDP targeting or price path targeting and not inflation targeting, but Sanders is more wrong. :p He's right about banks keeping money out of the economy, but his policy solution is inane - if you charge banks money on their desposits, they'll just try and hold physical deposits and you end up with the normal shoestring problems. He's very much right about Fed transparency and how more direct Fed assistance helps, although I suspect for the wrong reasons.

Either way, I think the second part is the much less important part. The Budget Committee doesn't run the Fed. If you have good people in the relevant places, then Sanders' mutterings are kind of irrelevant. The most important part is getting those good people, and that, I think, is something Sanders would push for much more effectively than almost anyone else I can think of.
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
Was listening to NPR earlier, had a panel of experts who seemed pretty serious about the whole Clinton Emails thing. Getting kinda worried that this could actually end up sticking around 'til November and really hurting her, though probably not to the extent that Trump will have a shot.

BERNIE GO HOME, pls.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Poodlestrike said:
Was listening to NPR earlier, had a panel of experts who seemed pretty serious about the whole Clinton Emails thing. Getting kinda worried that this could actually end up sticking around 'til November and really hurting her, though probably not to the extent that Trump will have a shot.

BERNIE GO HOME, pls.
Click to expand...

I think this is the height of it. They have a new shinny thing (The IG Report) to talk about. Nothing really knew and the fundamentals haven't changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom