Has the regeneracy arrived?

[Eric the Green]

(08-03-2016, 03:03 PM)radind Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 02:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 02:53 PM)radind Wrote: I see no hope of agreement.
We have different worldviews and more opinions and speculation on the future appear useless.
Actual data is required and this will take time.

No, this is not a matter of worldviews, but of "actual data." Which I posted.

We will probably never agree.

Which translated, means, you will not take account of obvious facts.

[radind]

(08-03-2016, 06:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 03:03 PM)radind Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 02:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 02:53 PM)radind Wrote: I see no hope of agreement.
We have different worldviews and more opinions and speculation on the future appear useless.
Actual data is required and this will take time.

No, this is not a matter of worldviews, but of "actual data." Which I posted.

We will probably never agree.

Which translated, means, you will not take account of obvious facts.

It only means that I do not agree with your conclusions.
Everyone ( including me) is entitled to an opinion.

[Eric the Green]

(08-03-2016, 07:08 PM)radind Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 06:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 03:03 PM)radind Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 02:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 02:53 PM)radind Wrote: I see no hope of agreement.
We have different worldviews and more opinions and speculation on the future appear useless.
Actual data is required and this will take time.

No, this is not a matter of worldviews, but of "actual data." Which I posted.

We will probably never agree.

Which translated, means, you will not take account of obvious facts.

It only means that I do not agree with your conclusions.
Everyone ( including me) is entitled to an opinion.

How would you dispute my conclusion, for example, that "it's the GOP vs. the people?" Given the fact that they support and make possible the influential presence in politics of big money?

It seems that goes right to the point of your concern about wealth in politics. In any sane society, this would be seen as a non-partisan issue. It is, essentially. But in a country with one out of two major parties that has lost its marbles, and represents big money, and even has selected a presidential candidate who has lost his marbles, it has become partisan.

[Kinser79]

Here's the problem.  Money only matters if you conduct your campaign in the way that the Establishment conducts their campaigns, the way they want campaigns conducted.  IE lots of Tee-Vee ads (a dying medium actually), incoherent web campaigns and non-use of social media and a meme team.

I find it interesting that Jeb! (and his guac bowl) couldn't win SC and they blew hundreds of thousands of dollars but Trump won the state and spent far less and won the state.  I find it interesting that even during the Democratic Convention Trump was able to suck all the media oxygen out of the room with a few sentences.  I find it interesting that the only memes I seem to see on 4chan and etc about HRC are about how much of a crook she is when people aren't speculating about her possibly having a seizure.  Personally I think she was trying to laugh or something but it was so contrived and fake as to make people question her physical fitness to be president, never mind her moral unfitness for the office. 





Seriously watch it with the sound off, then watch it with the sound on, then watch it with the sound off again.  You can't miss it.  It is either a micro-seizure, or perhaps a mini-stroke or she is simply a terrible actor.  Whatever it is, it makes me think she shouldn't be anywhere near the oval office.

Let's put it simply.  Trump will win the election, he will win it in a completely unexpected way and he will do it sooner and under budget than anyone else can do it too.

As to the regeneracy itself, it is here, it is centered around Trump who will be taking the oath come 20 Jan 2017.  MSM hype aside anyone who listened to his acceptance speech at the Convention knows what his vision is for America, that vision is one of rising wages (partially through lowering labor supply), law and order, and prosperity through renegotiating some of these terrible trade deals.

[radind]

(08-03-2016, 11:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 07:08 PM)radind Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 06:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 03:03 PM)radind Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 02:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: No, this is not a matter of worldviews, but of "actual data." Which I posted.

We will probably never agree.

Which translated, means, you will not take account of obvious facts.

It only means that I do not agree with your conclusions.
Everyone ( including me) is entitled to an opinion.

How would you dispute my conclusion, for example, that "it's the GOP vs. the people?" Given the fact that they support and make possible the influential presence in politics of big money?

It seems that goes right to the point of your concern about wealth in politics. In any sane society, this would be seen as a non-partisan issue. It is, essentially. But in a country with one out of two major parties that has lost its marbles, and represents big money, and even has selected a presidential candidate who has lost his marbles, it has become partisan.

I see your position as partisan.
In my opinion , the big money political insiders band together against the interest of the average citizen.

[MillsT_98]

(08-04-2016, 11:18 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 12:58 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Here's the problem.  Money only matters if you conduct your campaign in the way that the Establishment conducts their campaigns, the way they want campaigns conducted.  IE lots of Tee-Vee ads (a dying medium actually), incoherent web campaigns and non-use of social media and a meme team.

I find it interesting that Jeb! (and his guac bowl) couldn't win SC and they blew hundreds of thousands of dollars but Trump won the state and spent far less and won the state.  I find it interesting that even during the Democratic Convention Trump was able to suck all the media oxygen out of the room with a few sentences.  I find it interesting that the only memes I seem to see on 4chan and etc about HRC are about how much of a crook she is when people aren't speculating about her possibly having a seizure.  Personally I think she was trying to laugh or something but it was so contrived and fake as to make people question her physical fitness to be president, never mind her moral unfitness for the office. 





Seriously watch it with the sound off, then watch it with the sound on, then watch it with the sound off again.  You can't miss it.  It is either a micro-seizure, or perhaps a mini-stroke or she is simply a terrible actor.  Whatever it is, it makes me think she shouldn't be anywhere near the oval office.

Let's put it simply.  Trump will win the election, he will win it in a completely unexpected way and he will do it sooner and under budget than anyone else can do it too.

As to the regeneracy itself, it is here, it is centered around Trump who will be taking the oath come 20 Jan 2017.  MSM hype aside anyone who listened to his acceptance speech at the Convention knows what his vision is for America, that vision is one of rising wages (partially through lowering labor supply), law and order, and prosperity through renegotiating some of these terrible trade deals.

That's a tic, not a seizure. Maybe an early precursor of Parkinson's. Better that than something far worse. The other ancient one running has something worse. Not sure if it's psychiatric or neurological in nature. May be Alzheimers (I'm being generous here). But it's seriously impairing him. He is not fit for office.

Definitely have to agree with you there. Not a seizure. I watched it closely, and I saw it was just a reaction to being asked so many questions at once.

[Eric the Green]

(08-04-2016, 08:34 AM)radind Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 11:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 07:08 PM)radind Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 06:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 03:03 PM)radind Wrote: We will probably never agree.

Which translated, means, you will not take account of obvious facts.

It only means that I do not agree with your conclusions.
Everyone ( including me) is entitled to an opinion.

How would you dispute my conclusion, for example, that "it's the GOP vs. the people?" Given the fact that they support and make possible the influential presence in politics of big money?

It seems that goes right to the point of your concern about wealth in politics. In any sane society, this would be seen as a non-partisan issue. It is, essentially. But in a country with one out of two major parties that has lost its marbles, and represents big money, and even has selected a presidential candidate who has lost his marbles, it has become partisan.

I see your position as partisan.
In my opinion, the big money political insiders band together against the interest of the average citizen.

Sorry, but I have to correct you again. The facts are "partisan." Five Republican justices against four Democrats. Trump's choices-to-be, or Hillary's. It's clear cut.

Yes, the big money political insiders band together against the interest of the average citizen, and though they try to buy both sides, they mostly support the GOP. The wealthy are the Republicans' specific clientele.

So, like many on the conservative/moderate side, you have a choice. You can vote your values (anti-abortion), or your interests (anti-big money politics and trickle-down economics/ecology). You can't do both.

[Eric the Green]

(08-04-2016, 02:19 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 11:18 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 12:58 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Here's the problem.  Money only matters if you conduct your campaign in the way that the Establishment conducts their campaigns, the way they want campaigns conducted.  IE lots of Tee-Vee ads (a dying medium actually), incoherent web campaigns and non-use of social media and a meme team.

I find it interesting that Jeb! (and his guac bowl) couldn't win SC and they blew hundreds of thousands of dollars but Trump won the state and spent far less and won the state.  I find it interesting that even during the Democratic Convention Trump was able to suck all the media oxygen out of the room with a few sentences.  I find it interesting that the only memes I seem to see on 4chan and etc about HRC are about how much of a crook she is when people aren't speculating about her possibly having a seizure.  Personally I think she was trying to laugh or something but it was so contrived and fake as to make people question her physical fitness to be president, never mind her moral unfitness for the office. 





Seriously watch it with the sound off, then watch it with the sound on, then watch it with the sound off again.  You can't miss it.  It is either a micro-seizure, or perhaps a mini-stroke or she is simply a terrible actor.  Whatever it is, it makes me think she shouldn't be anywhere near the oval office.

Let's put it simply.  Trump will win the election, he will win it in a completely unexpected way and he will do it sooner and under budget than anyone else can do it too.

As to the regeneracy itself, it is here, it is centered around Trump who will be taking the oath come 20 Jan 2017.  MSM hype aside anyone who listened to his acceptance speech at the Convention knows what his vision is for America, that vision is one of rising wages (partially through lowering labor supply), law and order, and prosperity through renegotiating some of these terrible trade deals.

That's a tic, not a seizure. Maybe an early precursor of Parkinson's. Better that than something far worse. The other ancient one running has something worse. Not sure if it's psychiatric or neurological in nature. May be Alzheimers (I'm being generous here). But it's seriously impairing him. He is not fit for office.

Definitely have to agree with you there. Not a seizure. I watched it closely, and I saw it was just a reaction to being asked so many questions at once.

Right, It was a joke.

[Kinser79]

Alphabet Soup, your accusation is wishful thinking on your part. If you haven't noticed Trump is playing the media like a fiddle. Good Press, Bad Press doesn't matter...they just can't shut up about him, and that is free advertising. Seriously you should read The Art of the Deal. It is a work of brilliance actually.

[pbrower2a]

(05-15-2016, 12:31 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but in the 1930s congress was just as divided.  FDR himself was called everything under the sun.  That is a feature of our particular system, not a bug, so getting around it isn't that much of a problem.

In that time it included "Franklin Delano Rosenfeld".

Quote:That being said, I would say that a regeneracy is noted by a recognition that the status quo is not working, and cannot be made to work by tinkering around the edges.  Obama has pretty much proved that.

Obama tried to be the New FDR, but this time the super-rich had not been so ruined that they couldn't buy some political support. That is the difference between putting an end to the economic meltdown in the equivalent of early 1931/early 2009 and late 1932/late 2010. The super-rich had themselves a little Tea Party and invited some angry old people.

Quote:On the Republican side you are seeing an alignment behind Trump on the issues of Nationalism, Protectionism and Isolationism.  On the Dems you have "Obama's Third Term" and "More of the Same" or at least that is how HRC is running at the moment (it will of course backfire because you don't get this much anger in the electorate if "4 more years" and "More of the Same" could work).  Remember Sanders may not have a chance at getting the nomination but he's set the Dems on fire too.

With Donald Trump you get a muddle on economics and foreign affairs -- and scapegoating instead of problem-solving.

Quote:In short as I've said elsewhere what I'm seeing is a realignment of the Parties and they won't fall on the left-right axis for much longer.  The economic conditions that gave rise to that in the MillSaec are passing away.  Rather we'll see alignment on the libertarian and authoritarian axis.

Maybe Eric the Green has some other idea of how to make that prediction.

Quote:It is my view that following this election the GOP will become, however, begrudgingly the party of social libertarianism and of nationalism, protectionism and isolationism, and that further this will be the basis of building the new order.  Otherwise, we will end up in the terminal stages of empire and an implosion sometime around the next 2T.

 
Bunk. Too many contradictions.

[pbrower2a]

(08-03-2016, 05:17 PM)Odin Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 02:58 PM)JonLaw Wrote:

(05-19-2016, 09:41 AM)Mikebert Wrote: That is, the Republicans would more or less become old-style Democrats, the party of Jackson, Jefferson and FDR. The Democrats would become old-style Republican/Whig/Federalist, the party of Lincoln, Hamilton and T. Roosevelt.

Note I don’t want this to happen, but it seems a lot easier since we are pretty close to that now.

The Republican party is transforming into the party of labor as we speak.  You can pretty much watch it in real time as the Establishment Republicans keep talking about how they are leaving the party/voting for Clinton/in denial about economic reality.

It's fun to watch.  You might as well enjoy watching it, since you can't unring the bell.

The Republican party is the more democratic party, hence Trump.

The Democratic party is more controlled by the political elites, which means that labor is not going to take it over.  The salaried professionals who make up the Democratic party elite think labor is some sort of combination of sad/icky because they are paid by the hour to do non-awesome things.

Fascists pander to the working class right up until they take power, then they stab them in the back, like Hitler did with Ernst Rohm and the Strasserites.

Worth remembering. Fascists (including the KKK) are as much demagogues as Commies. They make wild promises to the most unsophisticated people with the knowledge that once they get power they will not be accountable for their failures to meet those promises. Conservatives and liberals must be careful about what they promise. A conservative might make promises of trickle-down economics as a solution  (there will be more prosperity, but to get that one must accept falling real wages, ravaging of the environment, more power to owners and bosses on the job, and the dismantling of the safety net)... but if a society has 20% unemployment, maybe such might be a valid trade-off for a while. Liberals must admit that their paradise implies higher taxes that people can't really get away from. Democracy implies responsibility for achieving promises and for constraining the nastiness of the consequences. Tyranny of any kind (and our American government by lobbyist is so far a mild form of tyranny) shoves responsibility onto the common man.

This Crisis Era will compel people to ask why our political tradition is what it is. Crisis Eras may not be perfectly similar (we are not going to struggle to overthrow the authority of a king who tries to tighten his grip; we won't have slavery to dismantle in a bloody Civil War; we are highly unlikely to end up at war with Germany, Italy, and Japan). Government by lobbyists responsible only to their paymasters must go if we are to have "a new birth of freedom".

We are going to look back to the Founding Fathers and recall what they were right about (everything but slavery and male chauvinism); as did the intellectual heroes of World War II we will likely take formulas that Abraham Lincoln used. Nazi Germany and Thug Japan had  slave systems far more odious than the Confederate States of America had.

If a Degeneracy (the depraved economics, corrupt politics, and debased mass culture of a 3T develops slowly, then its repudiation in the Regeneracy appears with amazing speed and entrenches itself swiftly. In retrospect the Regeneracy seems so obvious a solution to all that ailed the overall society that people can't imagine anything else.

[radind]

(08-04-2016, 05:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 08:34 AM)radind Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 11:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 07:08 PM)radind Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 06:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Which translated, means, you will not take account of obvious facts.

It only means that I do not agree with your conclusions.
Everyone ( including me) is entitled to an opinion.

How would you dispute my conclusion, for example, that "it's the GOP vs. the people?" Given the fact that they support and make possible the influential presence in politics of big money?

It seems that goes right to the point of your concern about wealth in politics. In any sane society, this would be seen as a non-partisan issue. It is, essentially. But in a country with one out of two major parties that has lost its marbles, and represents big money, and even has selected a presidential candidate who has lost his marbles, it has become partisan.

I see your position as partisan.
In my opinion, the big money political insiders band together against the interest of the average citizen.

Sorry, but I have to correct you again. The facts are "partisan." Five Republican justices against four Democrats. Trump's choices-to-be, or Hillary's. It's clear cut.

Yes, the big money political insiders band together against the interest of the average citizen, and though they try to buy both sides, they mostly support the GOP. The wealthy are the Republicans' specific clientele.

So, like many on the conservative/moderate side, you have a choice. You can vote your values (anti-abortion), or your interests (anti-big money politics and trickle-down economics/ecology). You can't do both.

You have your opinions and I have mine.
Will compare notes in 4 years on outcome of election.

[Kinser79]

(08-05-2016, 12:03 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-15-2016, 12:31 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but in the 1930s congress was just as divided.  FDR himself was called everything under the sun.  That is a feature of our particular system, not a bug, so getting around it isn't that much of a problem.

In that time it included "Franklin Delano Rosenfeld".

And this contradicts my point how exactly?

Quote:

Quote:That being said, I would say that a regeneracy is noted by a recognition that the status quo is not working, and cannot be made to work by tinkering around the edges.  Obama has pretty much proved that.

Obama tried to be the New FDR, but this time the super-rich had not been so ruined that they couldn't buy some political support. That is the difference between putting an end to the economic meltdown in the equivalent of early 1931/early 2009 and late 1932/late 2010. The super-rich had themselves a little Tea Party and invited some angry old people.

Strangely the plans to address the economic crisis were not implemented by the Obama administration. Rather they were implemented in late 2008 by the Bush Administration. Furthermore Obama went with it because he knew that if he allowed the total collapse of the economy he knew the Democrats would never be elected again for a generation. Timing is everything when the Establishment of the two parties are nearly indistinguishable.

Since that time Obama had a 2 year honeymoon period where he could have implemented anything he wanted. He didn't instead he implemented Obamacare which is a give away to the Health Insurance Companies. In short rather than spending his political capital on doing something, he spent it instead trying to capture an industry for the Democratic Party through implementing a giant regulatory clusterfuck/corporate-welfare program which is so complex as to be incredibly prone to regulatory capture.

Strangely if you go and take a look at Main Street America, you'll notice that there hasn't been a recovery. Things are just as bad as they were in '08. Of course that would require you leaving your house, and since you don't do that PBR your utter lack of just the evidence of your eyes is not surprising.

Quote:

Quote:On the Republican side you are seeing an alignment behind Trump on the issues of Nationalism, Protectionism and Isolationism.  On the Dems you have "Obama's Third Term" and "More of the Same" or at least that is how HRC is running at the moment (it will of course backfire because you don't get this much anger in the electorate if "4 more years" and "More of the Same" could work).  Remember Sanders may not have a chance at getting the nomination but he's set the Dems on fire too.

With Donald Trump you get a muddle on economics and foreign affairs -- and scapegoating instead of problem-solving.

Completely not true. Trump's solutions are perhaps so simple you can't wrap your head around them.

1. Fix the trade. Deindustrialization happens in countries that allow it to happen. By accepting trade deals that favor foreign countries over our own we may end up with cheaper goods now but at the expense of jobs and business start ups in the future.

2. Limit immigration. Since I know you went to a university at some time, I know that you are clearly miseducated about how economics works. If you get increases in supply of a commodity (in this case labor power) and there is only so much demand for that commodity (IE by implementing anti-business policies) then the price of that commodity must as a consequence fall. And this is only the economic side of the problem and doesn't even address the fact that culture is something one is born into and not something that can be learned in a few years. If you were suddenly transported to China or Saudi Arabia you might learn Chinese or Arabic in a few years but I highly doubt you'd ever yourself feel Chinese or Arab.

Your non-argument is false. The fact is that you simply don't like the solutions he's offered.

Quote:

Quote:In short as I've said elsewhere what I'm seeing is a realignment of the Parties and they won't fall on the left-right axis for much longer.  The economic conditions that gave rise to that in the MillSaec are passing away.  Rather we'll see alignment on the libertarian and authoritarian axis.

Maybe Eric the Green has some other idea of how to make that prediction.

Eric has proven himself repeatedly to be a complete moron. I have little interests in his ideas that lead him to his prediction because they always ultimately boil down to some sort of astrology or other equally mystical mumbo-jumbo. As such I expect his prediction to be garbage just simply out of the GIGO principle.

Quote:

Quote:It is my view that following this election the GOP will become, however, begrudgingly the party of social libertarianism and of nationalism, protectionism and isolationism, and that further this will be the basis of building the new order.  Otherwise, we will end up in the terminal stages of empire and an implosion sometime around the next 2T.

 
Bunk. Too many contradictions.

[/quote]

Not an argument. Trump has been clear on his views dating back to the 1980s. Contradictions are only apparent to those who seem to have the memory span of a goldfish.

[Odin]

(08-04-2016, 08:24 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Alphabet Soup, your accusation is wishful thinking on your part.  If you haven't noticed Trump is playing the media like a fiddle.  Good Press, Bad Press doesn't matter...they just can't shut up about him, and that is free advertising.  Seriously you should read The Art of the Deal.  It is a work of brilliance actually.

Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter Tells All: “The Art of the Deal” made America see Trump as a charmer with an unfailing knack for business. Tony Schwartz helped create that myth—and regrets it.

Trump is a con man and you are the sucker.

[pbrower2a]

(08-05-2016, 10:24 AM)-- Kinser79 Wrote:

Quote:

Quote:That being said, I would say that a regeneracy is noted by a recognition that the status quo is not working, and cannot be made to work by tinkering around the edges.  Obama has pretty much proved that.

Obama tried to be the New FDR, but this time the super-rich had not been so ruined that they couldn't buy some political support. That is the difference between putting an end to the economic meltdown in the equivalent of early 1931/early 2009 and late 1932/late 2010. The super-rich had themselves a little Tea Party and invited some angry old people.

Strangely the plans to address the economic crisis were not implemented by the Obama administration.  Rather they were implemented in late 2008 by the Bush Administration.  Furthermore Obama went with it because he knew that if he allowed the total collapse of the economy he knew the Democrats would never be elected again for a generation.  Timing is everything when the Establishment of the two parties are nearly indistinguishable.

In September 2008 America practically experienced much of the same effects of a political coup. The Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the Chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission told Congress and the Administration exactly how economic policy was to be done. I would not be surprised to find that the financial triumvirate had a short discussion with the Joint Chiefs of Staff first.

Nobody wanted a replay of the full nastiness of the economic meltdown that brought the mass ruin that the three-year meltdown of the world economy (and after a year or so the meltdowns were beginning to look similar)... the President was practically clueless, and his practically-certain successor was willing to do anything to stop the destruction. Barack Obama seems to know his history quite well, and he certainly understood the causes and effects of the meltdown of 1929-1932 as anyone who did not live through it. By 2008 such understanding was rarely the result of first-hand knowledge (one had to be born about 1924 or so to even have a child's knowledge of the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929, which meant being a late-wave GI or older).

Stopping such a meltdown in its tracks was also a concern of national security, especially if one considered the greatest threat ever to American democracy -- the rise of the closest thing to an Antichrist who ever lived.


The blue and gray curves coincide after about a year and are practically indistinguishable for about a half year. The performance of securities markets after a year and a half (after late 2007 and late 1929), generally a good proxy for economic reality, suggest that at equivalent times (early spring in 1931 and early spring 2009), economic performance was very similar.

Of course there is always some lag between political action and economic results. America acted very differently in late 2008 than in late 1930. This


is one consequence of such inaction in 1930 or so. A further image would be all too predictable on my part.

Let me get personal about those consequences: you have identified yourself as black and homosexual. Neither was good for survival in a Nazi world. Neither is having a conscience. Even if I have many cultural ties to Germany I could have easily ended up on the wrong side of the demonic leadership of Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s. We need remind ourselves that many of the victims of the Holocaust were very German in culture. 

A hint: there is nothing wrong with the German people between 1933 and 1945 that Judaism would not have solved. Another hint: fascists do not thrive in countries in which democratic institutions are beyond assault.  

Quote:Since that time Obama had a 2 year honeymoon period where he could have implemented anything he wanted.  He didn't instead he implemented Obamacare which is a give away to the Health Insurance Companies.  In short rather than spending his political capital on doing something, he spent it instead trying to capture an industry for the Democratic Party through implementing a giant regulatory clusterfuck/corporate-welfare program which is so complex as to be incredibly prone to regulatory capture.

If one is in one's late 50s or early 60s and not getting a big subsidy and not getting a high income, employer-subsidized insurance, or government-reimbursed health insurance, one might contemplate emigration. When medical insurance is more costly than payments on a new Mercedes-Benz auromobile, one has a problem. Dropping the age of eligibility for Medicare to age 50, which Hillary Clinton might try to do, would solve even the economic problem of age discrimination which throws away the talents of people in their 50s and 60s, often when they are at their peask of competence in their fields.

I have my idea of how to fund such a reduction in the Medicare age: increase the Medicare tax slightly and impose what I call "abuser fees" -- heavy taxes on alcohol  content in beverages and especially cancerweed products (tobacco use of any kind, and heavy drinking both cause great increases in costs of medical care), federal taxes on fines for moving violations (bad driving imposes great costs of medical care) and child abuse/neglect, marijuana (with presumable legalization that reflects the reality of its mass use), and some increase in the fuel taxes for motor-vehicle fuel. Want to subsidize good behavior? Then impose 'negative' taxes on health-club memberships (fitness is a good thing) and even pet care (people with pet dogs and cats are statistically healthier than people without them).

Oh, yes -- tax the Hell out of pollution as an excise tax. Let people pay the real cost of buying stuff that implies destruction of the environment.

Taxing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior would seem rational enough.

Quote:Strangely if you go and take a look at Main Street America, you'll notice that there hasn't been a recovery.  Things are just as bad as they were in '08.  Of course that would require you leaving your house, and since you don't do that PBR your utter lack of just the evidence of your eyes is not surprising.

Quote:

Quote:On the Republican side you are seeing an alignment behind Trump on the issues of Nationalism, Protectionism and Isolationism.  On the Dems you have "Obama's Third Term" and "More of the Same" or at least that is how HRC is running at the moment (it will of course backfire because you don't get this much anger in the electorate if "4 more years" and "More of the Same" could work).  Remember Sanders may not have a chance at getting the nomination but he's set the Dems on fire too.

With Donald Trump you get a muddle on economics and foreign affairs -- and scapegoating instead of problem-solving.

Completely not true.  Trump's solutions are perhaps so simple you can't wrap your head around them.  

1.  Fix the trade.  Deindustrialization happens in countries that allow it to happen.  By accepting trade deals that favor foreign countries over our own we may end up with cheaper goods now but at the expense of jobs and business start ups in the future.

De-industrialization may imply economic progress so profound that people no need to buy an ever-rising amount of material stuff to be happy. Our electronic goodies are becoming dirt-cheap. Have you priced a 32" flat-screen television lately? Have you priced a low-end Android-powered tablet? A Blue-Ray disc player? If you have in-house Wi-Fi, then you have some very good and very inexpensive entertainment available.  

Quote:2.  Limit immigration.  Since I know you went to a university at some time, I know that you are clearly miseducated about how economics works.  If you get increases in supply of a commodity (in this case labor power) and there is only so much demand for that commodity (IE by implementing anti-business policies) then the price of that commodity must as a consequence fall.  And this is only the economic side of the problem and doesn't even address the fact that culture is something one is born into and not something that can be learned in a few years.  If you were suddenly transported to China or Saudi Arabia you might learn Chinese or Arabic in a few years but I highly doubt you'd ever yourself feel Chinese or Arab.


Your non-argument is false.  The fact is that you simply don't like the solutions he's offered.

Much of the immigration to America involves people from the Americas, people who often assimilate easily into what we have long thought as the American way of Life. If anything, Hispanic life has begun to assimilate much of what has been the 'Anglo' way of life through intermarriage.

...If I had to emigrate because I ran afoul of an authoritarian or totalitarian political order in America, then there would be some countries in which I could most easily fit in.

I don't watch much network television, but I did watch the opening ceremonies of the 2016 Olympic Games. Guess what national contingent of athletes looked most like the Brazilian contingent?
 


Reputedly, the extreme south of Brazil looks much like the American Midwest in culture and economics.  

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:In short as I've said elsewhere what I'm seeing is a realignment of the Parties and they won't fall on the left-right axis for much longer.  The economic conditions that gave rise to that in the MillSaec are passing away.  Rather we'll see alignment on the libertarian and authoritarian axis.

Maybe Eric the Green has some other idea of how to make that prediction.

Eric has proven himself repeatedly to be a complete moron. I have little interests in his ideas that lead him to his prediction because they always ultimately boil down to some sort of astrology or other equally mystical mumbo-jumbo.  As such I expect his prediction to be garbage just simply out of the GIGO principle.

You missed the joke. You also missed that the Left-Right divide may not so much disappear as redefine itself. Many of our predictions of the future involve some wishful thinking. I'd like to see much less of the dangerous polarization in American life. I'd also like to see the tendency toward economic inequality  reversed. I'd like a more rational political life and lesser reliance upon private debt as a metaphoric chain. The exploitative creditor loves deflation because it makes the pound of flesh easier to extract in the event of failure to pay -- and makes the debtor more helpless while debt becomes more valuable to a creditor. A debtor welcomes inflation for lessening his burden and giving more opportunities to pay off debt.

One of the more usual divides between Left and Right has been that creditors are generally on the Right (thi9nk of antebellum planters) and debtors on the Left (think of sharecroppers). Think also of the 1950s, when the typical worker was a net creditor because he had a bank balance and savings bonds, but no credit cards. The small-scale creditor still has an interest in economic opportunity because he is making more money off his work than off interest.

I have my prediction that progress will be back to the 1950s in much of the style of life, with a public that distrusts debt, prefers to pay as it goes, and even insists that education be inexpensive enough to be a pay-as-you-go proposition.

Quote:

Quote:It is my view that following this election the GOP will become, however, begrudgingly the party of social libertarianism and of nationalism, protectionism and isolationism, and that further this will be the basis of building the new order.  Otherwise, we will end up in the terminal stages of empire and an implosion sometime around the next 2T.

 
Bunk. Too many contradictions.

Not an argument.  Trump has been clear on his views dating back to the 1980s.  Contradictions are only apparent to those who seem to have the memory span of a goldfish.
[/quote]

In the 1980s practically nobody took his politics seriously. Now we are compelled to look at his political values.

I want to see a return to rationality in politics.

[Eric the Green]

(08-05-2016, 09:27 AM)radind Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 05:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 08:34 AM)radind Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 11:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 07:08 PM)radind Wrote: It only means that I do not agree with your conclusions.
Everyone ( including me) is entitled to an opinion.

How would you dispute my conclusion, for example, that "it's the GOP vs. the people?" Given the fact that they support and make possible the influential presence in politics of big money?

It seems that goes right to the point of your concern about wealth in politics. In any sane society, this would be seen as a non-partisan issue. It is, essentially. But in a country with one out of two major parties that has lost its marbles, and represents big money, and even has selected a presidential candidate who has lost his marbles, it has become partisan.

I see your position as partisan.
In my opinion, the big money political insiders band together against the interest of the average citizen.

Sorry, but I have to correct you again. The facts are "partisan." Five Republican justices against four Democrats. Trump's choices-to-be, or Hillary's. It's clear cut.

Yes, the big money political insiders band together against the interest of the average citizen, and though they try to buy both sides, they mostly support the GOP. The wealthy are the Republicans' specific clientele.

So, like many on the conservative/moderate side, you have a choice. You can vote your values (anti-abortion), or your interests (anti-big money politics and trickle-down economics/ecology). You can't do both.

You have your opinions and I have mine.
Will compare notes in 4 years on outcome of election.

I suspect we'll need to compare notes after 2028.

[radind]

(08-06-2016, 02:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-05-2016, 09:27 AM)radind Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 05:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 08:34 AM)radind Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 11:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: How would you dispute my conclusion, for example, that "it's the GOP vs. the people?" Given the fact that they support and make possible the influential presence in politics of big money?

It seems that goes right to the point of your concern about wealth in politics. In any sane society, this would be seen as a non-partisan issue. It is, essentially. But in a country with one out of two major parties that has lost its marbles, and represents big money, and even has selected a presidential candidate who has lost his marbles, it has become partisan.

I see your position as partisan.
In my opinion, the big money political insiders band together against the interest of the average citizen.

Sorry, but I have to correct you again. The facts are "partisan." Five Republican justices against four Democrats. Trump's choices-to-be, or Hillary's. It's clear cut.

Yes, the big money political insiders band together against the interest of the average citizen, and though they try to buy both sides, they mostly support the GOP. The wealthy are the Republicans' specific clientele.

So, like many on the conservative/moderate side, you have a choice. You can vote your values (anti-abortion), or your interests (anti-big money politics and trickle-down economics/ecology). You can't do both.

You have your opinions and I have mine.
Will compare notes in 4 years on outcome of election.

I suspect we'll need to compare notes after 2028.

I don't think it will take that long, perhaps 2024

[Mikebert]

To radind,

Nothing will be resolved in your mind in 2024.  If you cannot make a determination now, you won't be able to then either.  History does not play out as people expect it to. 

We DID get a panic in 2008, first one since the early 1930's.  Obama DID occupy the position of FDR.  As far as healing the economy goes, Obama has probably done better in his two terms as FDR did in his first two. Obama failed to restore prosperity, but did FDR.  The solution to the Depression and the miraculous postwar prosperity came from policies enacted during FDR's third term.  Obama cannot run for a third term, the best he can hope for is to be succeeded by a Democrat.  He is working hard to achieve that.

You cannot expect a replay of the last 4T because the parties are radically different.  The party of FDR  in today's world be a composite of Trump voters AND minorities with the SJW's split between the two parties.  A lot of moderate Democrats and some mainstream liberals would Republicans.  This is (and was) a weird combination. It wasn't stable; the Democratic coalition eventually fell apart.

How can you line up the last 4T with today  when the parties then are fundamentally incompatible with their modern versions.  Thus, there is no template you can compare the next 4 or 8  years to that will work any better than it has in the last 8.  It is entirely possible that the regneracy is long past with the climax nearing and the 1T within five years now, all of which will be crystal-clear in hindsight, but completely invisible to us now.

[pbrower2a]

We may be seeing the end of the Age of Scarcity. Although there will be shortages in high-priced luxuries (like shore-front property, gemstones, precious metals, lobster, abalone, leather-bound volumes of books, teak, mahogany, etc.), people will be able to live very well without having to do much work. Commodity fetishes and status symbols will become relevant. We are entering a world far less material, with even the printed word and recorded sound becoming irrelevant.

This could well be the ultimate meaning of the Crisis of 2020 -- how Humanity adapts. Do we cut back hours or do we waste resources on rip-offs and show projects?

[Eric the Green]

How does recorded sound become irrelevant?