Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Eric the Green]

(08-22-2016, 03:16 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 12:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Extreme vetting! Let's deport all the Trump voters!

Who would take them?

Russia

Quote:Can we have them pay for their own fence?

Sure, they seem to have lots of money. Just the plane fare will do.

[Mikebert]

(08-22-2016, 10:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN is wondering if The Donald's latest reset can stick. 

Changing the subject here.  Does this seem confusing to you?  Trump changing his immigration position isn't going to be bought by those currently opposed to him it seems to me.  And surely it will turn off those who are with him now.  So he has no upside, only downside.  And I not seeing something here?

[Classic-Xer]

(08-21-2016, 03:48 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(08-19-2016, 04:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-19-2016, 02:51 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 01:16 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 12:43 PM)playwrite Wrote: You all are way too pessimistic.

The infrastructure necessary for electric driverless vehicles will make Eisenhower's interstate build out look like a piker and thus the 50s/60s economy/bull market rather tame.  It's a race but they are already testing Uber driverless cars out in Pittsburg.  All that an economic contraction would do is hasten the Congress in reaction to provide the stimulus for the  build out.

What you are also missing is that the GOP is effectively destroyed as a national political power.  It was Bush, Trump is just the cheery on top of the sunday.  Adams ending the dominate Jefferson party, Buchanan ending Jackson's, Hoover ended Lincoln's, Carter ended FDR's and Bush/Trump ended Ray-gun's.  That paves the way for eventual recognition and full employment of our monetary system - deficit hawks will be eliminated from the federal government (perhaps taken out and shot for all the harm they have inflicted) and replaced by technocrats that will keep a controlling hand on inflation.  There will be much more federal expenditure, but in a public/private partnership manner that will keep the deposed remnants of the GOP at  bay.

The economy is going to boom and it will be done under an increasingly Progressive government, including the SCOTUS, that will seal the deal for decades.  The hillbillies, like Classic, will eventually come around or at least their kids and grandkids will.

This may be true in the future, even the near future, but it's not true now.  We have two parties consisting of illogical coalitions, and the fact that the GOP is hitting the wall first doesn't make the Dems any less at risk.  So the Republican Party fractures, and then what?  I believe that the successor has to embrace the money, and bid adieu to the rest, preferring that to the exact opposite.  If the money stays, they will moderate all the RW nonsense and draw the UMC out of the Democratic Party.  If the money leaves, the GOP will become the old Democratic Party of the late 19th century.  They'll do better with the money, so that's what I expect.

That leaves the Dems with a coalition of niche special interests that tend to make demands on the party but fail to unite around any issues not their own.  In the current environment, the system will only support two major parties.  Money can fend for itself.  What about the herd-of-cats party?

Eric's got this right for those niches that are not the elites- you add them all up, let them compromise among themselves, and you got Chomsky's "population" sans the financial elites and the hillbillies.

And the financial elites on the Dem side are either for greater taxation on themselves (Warren Buffet), giving most of it away (Bill Gates; and without the Right's religious strings attached), or lobbying hard for Progressive agendas that do little for themselves (George Clooney, George Soros, Hollywood, Silicon Valley).

Together, that is a pretty solid coalition and well-financed.

On the Right, it is fracturing and collapsing.  Put a hedge fund manager from the Hampton's in a room with someone like Classic and see who crawls out alive.

Trump is not the only one making the mistake that about 35% of the electorate/population/culture of the Right represents the entire US electorate/population/culture - it just that 35% makes a lot of noise and scares people, and that should be expected from a cornered large dying animal.

You put a hedge fund manager from the Hampton's in a room with me, he'd end leaving the room broke and empty handed. Whether he's crawling like a liberal frat boy who was unable to convince me who didn't get his way who knows  that he iand others like him are financially doomed or he decides to walk out like a real man should after being rejected because the global ponzi scheme that he and his pals made a fortune in worthless digits has failed because there's no hard money to back them up, depends on what type of man the Hampton truly is at the core.

My money would be on the hedge fund manager.  Not because he pays his trainer $5K/month to keep him in top physical shape and you being a typical Trump support just short of a clogged arteries heart attack.  It's because he already has you eating out of his hand and doing tricks for him.

I'm in pretty good physical shape and I have no major health issues. You can drop that negative stereotype when speaking to me or about me in the future.

[Eric the Green]

Good for you. But looking at those videos of Trump supporters being "vetted," and other videos these last few months of Trump rallies, I'd have to say the stereotype fits for them. Like attracts like, I guess.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-22-2016, 04:34 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 10:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN is wondering if The Donald's latest reset can stick. 

Changing the subject here.  Does this seem confusing to you?  Trump changing his immigration position isn't going to be bought by those currently opposed to him it seems to me.  And surely it will turn off those who are with him now.  So he has no upside, only downside.  And I not seeing something here?

I'd say its going to have more of an upside than down side at this point. Does the liberal view and its narrative hold up as Trump unveils and lays out his plans for the first time to the American people?

[Eric the Green]

(08-22-2016, 05:35 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 04:34 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 10:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN is wondering if The Donald's latest reset can stick. 

Changing the subject here.  Does this seem confusing to you?  Trump changing his immigration position isn't going to be bought by those currently opposed to him it seems to me.  And surely it will turn off those who are with him now.  So he has no upside, only downside.  And I not seeing something here?

I'd say its going to have more of an upside than down side at this point. Does the liberal view and its narrative hold up as Trump unveils and lays out his plans for the first time to the American people?

I don't see how, when he's bound to change his plans at the drop of a hat.

The liberal view always holds up, even if not sometimes for a majority of voters in every election, because although the arc of history is long, it bends toward justice.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-22-2016, 05:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good for you. But looking at those videos of Trump supporters being "vetted," and other videos these last few months of Trump rallies, I'd have to say the stereotype fits for them. Like attracts like, I guess.

Didn't your mother ever teach you the value of not judging a whole book simply by its cover? Do I go with the image you present to me or do I stick with the image of the bulk of them that I know?

[Eric the Green]

(08-22-2016, 06:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 05:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good for you. But looking at those videos of Trump supporters being "vetted," and other videos these last few months of Trump rallies, I'd have to say the stereotype fits for them. Like attracts like, I guess.

Didn't your mother ever teach you the value of not judging a whole book simply by its cover? Do I go with the image you present to me or do I stick with the image of the bulk of them that I know?

But, you judge me you and don't even know my cover! But OK, I get your point. Your image of us is as dependent, weak slobs, or something like that. But on the other hand, most libruls I know are in pretty good shape; in fact, my running club is full of 'em. Most of them even drive electric cars!

Besides, it's not only the image of these Trump supporters I see on the videos, but also what they say. Like attracts like.....

See the first post in this big thread, and the post above about vetting..... http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...ml#pid7598

[Classic-Xer]

(08-22-2016, 05:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 05:35 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 04:34 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 10:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN is wondering if The Donald's latest reset can stick. 

Changing the subject here.  Does this seem confusing to you?  Trump changing his immigration position isn't going to be bought by those currently opposed to him it seems to me.  And surely it will turn off those who are with him now.  So he has no upside, only downside.  And I not seeing something here?

I'd say its going to have more of an upside than down side at this point. Does the liberal view and its narrative hold up as Trump unveils and lays out his plans for the first time to the American people?

I don't see how, when he's bound to change his plans at the drop of a hat.

The liberal view always holds up, even if not sometimes for a majority of voters in every election, because although the arc of history is long, it bends toward justice.

Plans that have been politically unveiled and formally laid out are harder to change than any idea being tossed out there for the sake of free publicity.

[Eric the Green]

A new young entry into the bash Trump brigade. This sort of defensive, dissembling Trump behavior is what they accuse Hillary of doing, and yet Trump does it a 100 times more often!





See Classic, all Trump opponents are youthful, fit and good looking

Quote:Plans that have been politically unveiled and formally laid out are harder to change than any idea being tossed out there for the sake of free publicity.

But.... that's ALL that Trumpie offers! There's nothing else in his coffers!

[Classic-Xer]

(08-22-2016, 06:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 06:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 05:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good for you. But looking at those videos of Trump supporters being "vetted," and other videos these last few months of Trump rallies, I'd have to say the stereotype fits for them. Like attracts like, I guess.

Didn't your mother ever teach you the value of not judging a whole book simply by its cover? Do I go with the image you present to me or do I stick with the image of the bulk of them that I know?

But, you judge me you and don't even know my cover! But OK, I get your point. Your image of us is as dependent, weak slobs, or something like that. But on the other hand, most libruls I know are in pretty good shape; in fact, my running club is full of 'em. Most of them even drive electric cars!

Besides, it's not only the image of these Trump supporters I see on the videos, but also what they say. Like attracts like.....

See the first post in this big thread, and the post above about vetting..... http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...ml#pid7598

Dude, you're a liberal book to me. A book that I've been reading and learning from for years. Did your so-called surface ( Liberal surface) turn me away, turn me off or stop me from getting to know you so to speak?

[Classic-Xer]

(08-22-2016, 07:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: A new young entry into the bash Trump brigade. This sort of defensive, dissembling Trump behavior is what they accuse Hillary of doing, and yet Trump does it a 100 times more often!





See Classic, all Trump opponents are youthful, fit and good looking

Quote:Plans that have been politically unveiled and formally laid out are harder to change than any idea being tossed out there for the sake of free publicity.

But.... that's ALL that Trumpie offers! There's nothing else in his coffers!

It's going to be interesting to see how Clinton separates herself from the Obama administration when it comes to foreign policies issues like Ukraine. Ah, who was in charge two years ago. After all, she's the long time career politician who's being judged in this election.

[Eric the Green]

The Pivot! Classic is sorta nice to me, saying he's read me as a liberal book. Thanks Classic, I think

And Mr. Trump, too!

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-22-2016, 03:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As mikebert said, values don't come unlocked in 4Ts; one set of locked values defeats the other. Only then will you see more consensus.

At one level that's right.  At some point in the real world people sharing a certain world view and set of values have to submarine those who disagree, whether at the ballot box or the battle field.

On a discussion board looking at history and political theory, there are more insightful perspectives, though, than the poster is correct and any who disagree significantly are stupid, insane, evil, selfish or etc...  I work under an assumption that there are good reasons why major world view / value systems came into existence, why they stay their course, and why people stubbornly cling to them long after their productive course has run.  Trying to understand history brings a better understanding of history than simply demonizing and refusing to listen to anything that conflicts with what doesn't want to hear.

A conversation that runs "I'm right, you're evil", "No I'm right, you're stupid" loses my interest after a while.  I'd rather probe the reasons why people cling so sincerely to conflicting perspectives, why they are so unable to perceive anything other than their own point of view.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-22-2016, 06:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 05:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good for you. But looking at those videos of Trump supporters being "vetted," and other videos these last few months of Trump rallies, I'd have to say the stereotype fits for them. Like attracts like, I guess.

Didn't your mother ever teach you the value of not judging a whole book simply by its cover? Do I go with the image you present to me or do I stick with the image of the bulk of them that I know?

One problem is that the images one group of partisans carry around in their head about opposing groups of partisans are often shallow stereotypes, often vile shallow stereotypes.  I have ever so often been told that I am a liberal, that all liberals think alike, therefore they will tell me what I think.  Many conservatives seem to perceive of themselves as greater experts on progressive thought than any progressive, well equipped to correct people on what their beliefs are.

And it works both ways.  Partisans don't seem to believe they need to listen to their opposites, as often they have a fixed notion of what they expect to be said.

What point is there to talk to you if you're not going to listen, if you are going to go by a cockeyed "image of the bulk of them" rather than by what is actually being said?

Not that they other guy won't have a similar reading comprehension problem.

[Mikebert]

Bob, here is an example of a paradigm issue and one of values issue to illustrate the difference I see. I would also say I am using the word paradigm in the sense Thomas Kuhn popularized, as a model, theory, or worldview.  Are you familiar with the Structures of Scientific Revolutions?  it's a very famous work from more than half a century ago.  It bought the word into common use.

Paradigm: There are two fundamantal ways to view tyhe process of economic growth.  The neoclassical approach is that investment leads to increased worker productivity which leads to GDP growth.  The Keynesian approach is that (increased) demand leaders to GDP growth which leads to investment.  One can call the first "supply-side" and the latter "demand-side".

In principle this is an empirical question and can be resolved using the methods of science.  The facts are consistent with both models, however. Since no profits are made unless output is sold, demand and GDP rise in tandem. And it is an historical fact that rising GDP is highly correlated with rising capital over time.  So, scientifically, there is no clearcut correct answer.

Now folks who believe the supply-side model would favor removing impediments to investment as the means to improve the economy. Therefore they support cutting taxes on the rich (the investor class), reducing regulations (impediments to productive investment) and in general reducing the scales of economic distorations that can lead to malinvestment (shrinking the size of government). 

Conversely, demand-siders favor stimulating demand by (1) putting money into the hands of people who you know will spend it (jobs programs for the poor & working class) (2) actiively encouraging the development of new leadering sectors that create new categories of demand (industrial policy).

As you probably already have have seen, most folks in the first category fall into the red side while those in the second the blue.  This issue should, in principle, be resolvable using facts and logic by the methods of science.  It is not a values issue.

Values: There is a law currently being debated in California that would remove the religious exemption to anti-discrimination law.  This issue is certain Christian schools do not hire people who are not Christians or who do not adhere to a Christian lifestyle  (also not hired would be people actively committing serious sins like gay sex, although celebate gays would be welcome).  Whether or not this law should be passed is not is not a scientific question.  It cannot be resolved by appeals to facts and logic.  It is a values issue.  Such issues are resolved by force, either politically (e.g. elections/legislation, the courts) or through violence (e.g. US Civil War, ISIS).

[pbrower2a]

(08-22-2016, 03:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-19-2016, 02:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: ... there have been successful big government programs, and unsuccessful ones.  There have been times when the people have needed a lot of help, and times they do OK with less help.  There have been times and places where the government can become ingrown and corrupt, and times when they are less so.  Depending on what times and places one focuses on in US history, one can learn very different ideas on how America works, what is wrong with it, what is right, and what could be better.

Mikebert brought up a point a while back that certain values can shift easier than others.  People get different ideas on how the world works, different focuses on what goals ought to be pushed for to improve life.  He has a point that beliefs that can be blatantly disproven by example can be superseded rather quickly.  I'd also think values that are religious or emotional might have more staying power than objective ideas that can more clearly be shown to be false.

But you can't doubt that many of the key divides in the current Red / Blue divide are extremely stubborn.  I can find merit and historical cause for both sets of ideas, perhaps because my own values hold that world views that succeed became strong because they worked or seemed to have worked in their time.  I lived through the 60s and remember the notion that big problems ought to be confronted and solved, and this often involved throwing lots of money at problems.  I also saw the National Malaise, with the string of failed US policies and projects that disillusioned many about the effectiveness of the government.

There are two sets of lessons learned.  I think we would be better off if everyone tried to learn both sets of lessons.

But that's sure not what is happening.  Partisans like you and Eric will cling to the lessons and policies of one time and with intense prejudice find ways to reject the lessons and policies of other times.  This is going to the point of demonization, where anyone who holds the other set of values must be stupid, deluded, brainwashed, evil or a clone of Hitler.  Folks from either extreme aren't considering where the other side might be coming from.  They would rather assume that the other side is totally flying mammal excrement out of their minds.

I don't see either side as being more or less evil, deluded, stupid or etc...  I do see a pendulum that ought to be swinging with the cycles.  At the moment we have a large division of wealth and entrepreneurs are having no difficulty raising funds.  There is no current need for supply side stimulus, to take from the poor to give to the rich.  There is a real lack of jobs paying living wages.  This makes it a good time for demand side stimulus.  Money has to be inserted onto Main Street, where it will allow folk to buy and sell stuff, to get goods and services moving freely again.  If we can improve infrastructure, education and health care in the process, it's worth doing.

It's not a matter of one ideology or the other always being better.  It is a matter of honestly looking at what the nation needs and adjusting policy to match the current needs, not what the needs were when last a given party sized power.  Right now, Main Street has a lot more genuine needs than the Robber Barons.  The Robber Barons are riding as high as they ever have.

Now, I might wish Mikebert could be proven right.  It would be nice if people could just look at the world, see policies that didn't work, that aren't working, and just let go of old ideas that might no longer be effective.  This doesn't seem to be happening, though.  (Classic Xer) and Eric are representative in being able to see only one side of the picture.  Both of you have lots of company, clinging to the extremes.  It seems that modern society is complex enough that many people cannot see things well enough to shift positions.

I don't think it ought to be all that difficult to open one's eyes, to see all of America and its history rather than focusing on selective bits that reinforce what one wants to believe.  Still, the partisan divide continues.

If you see all of history, you can see that there's only been one other time besides our own when the supposed "other party" besides the more-progressive one was in-fact too stubborn, deluded, brainwashed, almost Hitler like. That was the 1850s and 1860s. We are in that time again.

"There have been times when the people have needed a lot of help, and times they do OK with less help.  There have been times and places where the government can become ingrown and corrupt, and times when they are less so." While I might agree with this, that does not mean that the Reagan-Bush-Tea Party era qualifies as a time when people did OK with less help, or when the government had been ingrown and corrupt before they came along. No, people needed MORE help from government in Reagan's time, and MORE corruption occurred as a result of his election. Corruption in government is a progressives' issue anyway, not a conservative issue. Conservatives don't cure it; progressives cure it. It's not about how big government is, it's about what it does.

As a Goldwater Republican said on a PBS doc, Goldwater in 1964 would not have approved of the Tea Party's ideas today. Just because pendulums swing and cycles occur, does not mean that any ol swing is the right ol thing. It would not do either if the USA swung in a too-radical direction toward communism, isolationism, or violent leftist activities. Or a Green Party candidate who adopts and spreads Republican lies. We don't need to agree with swings that swing too far. That's what has happened in the Reagan-Bush-Tea Party era. The partisan divide will continue until this right-wing swing is defeated. 

As mikebert said, values don't come unlocked in 4Ts; one set of locked values defeats the other. Only then will you see more consensus.

The side that used to have dominance that is losing credibility tends to become resolute in its stubborn support for an increasingly-discreditable cause. In the 1850s the slave-owning planters kept asserting that slavery was the best thing that ever happened to slaves (since by 1860 the lawful slave trade had so long ended that there were practically no slaves who had been 'imported', so most slaves knew nothing other than slavery, having been born into it), that slave-owning plantations were the only way to develop an agrarian America, and the only real wealth was agricultural commodities as agriculture was the foundation of industry, and that the Bible condoned chattel slavery (it's a good thing for the slave-owning interests that the large Jewish immigration from central and eastern Europe had yet to arrive, as they would have disabused people of the meaning of the word 'servant' in the Old Testament)*

Comparison of the Confederacy to Nazis is inapt. The slave-owners had the slaves in close proximity, and they did not have extermination camps for blacks. Bad as conditions were for slaves in the Plantation South, slavery in Nazi Germany was infinitely worse. A plantation slave typically had value, a reality that slaves used to save their lives. But people in the South really believed that Southern traditions had made America and would prevail over 'mere' industrial power. The fanaticism is real due to the social isolation of many of the "Red" areas. Figure that if one is a poor kid in Appalachia or the Ozarks and hears about all the depravity in places like Pittsburgh, Columbus (Ohio), Cincinnati, Richmond, Charlotte, Atlanta, St. Louis, Memphis, or Dallas... all relatively-liberal places. Lots of people don't look like us, don't pray like us, don't listen to the same music... and that's before you even discuss all the homosexuality and abortion!

Appalachia and the Ozarks have scenic beauty and nice places for fly fishing... but you will not be going there for seeing any of the glorious old buildings of London, Paris, or Florence.

I have yet to see any polls of the High Plains states except Kansas and Texas... Texas straddles regions, so it is an electoral story in itself when it is competitive, which it really isn't. Kansas is not part of the Ozarks or Appalachians; the people are mobile. I am guessing that the Republican Party will be weakening some in the High Plains. If you live in one of those states you need some mobility.

The Tea Party supporters were sold a bill of goods. They got promises that so long as the economic elites got what they want, America would return to social norms that cultural conservatives found comfortable. What the Tea party pols didn't tell their supporters was that America in the 1950s was conservative because America was comfortable. That was when factory workers were buying houses instead of being shoe-horned into tiny apartments, when people with modest jobs saved for appliances and cars, and when the smart kids from factory families could attend heavily-subsidized public colleges and universities if they wanted lives based upon work other than machine-paced work. The bill-of-goods was 'race', 'fundamentalist or evangelical Christianity', 'abortion (against)', 'homosexuality (against)', 'evolution' 'opposition to educated elites', and 'the lyin' African in the White House'.

The linear view of history suggests that the way back to the idyllic times of the 1950s (for people of slight talent working on an assembly line for fair wages) is to turn back the calendar sixty to seventy years, when this place



was making these cars:



But Packard automobiles (Ask the man who owns one!) are not coming back. A pity, I understand, as they were by their reputation good cars.  The cyclical history suggests that the way back to a time analogous to the 1950s, in which a person of modest talent can make a modest living doing honest labor is to get through the Crisis Era and solve most of the problems that we have neglected in the name of elite indulgence. I can easily imagine a few little changes in history in which Packard survives as a marque, ends up creating a line of civilized small cars in the 1970s and ends up merging Chrysler into it. But such of course is no longer possible.

The cycle takes eighty (minimum) to one hundred (maximum) years, depending on the length of the Crisis. But even with a protracted Crisis we are closer to the 1950s analogue than we are to the 1950s. We simply know what the 1950s were like. We can reasonably expect that the people who know what the 1950s were like from first-hand experience will not be around in large numbers when the time analogous to the 1950s comes to be.

Just don't expect Packard automobiles to be built again. Today it would be silly to "ask the man who owns one"... if Packard were around today it might now have women, minorities, and same-sex couples to ask, too ... but it is not around, and it won't be back unless a company like Honda or Toyota chooses to revive the nameplate.

...The Tea Party types will be irrelevant in the next temporal analogue to the 1950s. They or their families will have some nice costumes for high-school plays of 1776, though.  

*Here's what I saw: the servant was typically a landless young man in a rural society who wanted the daughter of a landowner for marriage. He would contract for a term of service in which he would be a practical apprentice, learning the ways of animal husbandry, planting and reaping so that if he got a little plot of land he would know what to do with it. He was going to get the girl as a wife and the land as a source of sustenance. If he did not learn how to work the land he might be tempted to sell it and waste the proceeds on debauchery, leaving the landowner's daughter and the landowner's grandchildren destitute. In a land with no cash economy such was like an indenture. But think of what the indentured servant was going to get: a plot of land and the landowner's daughter. The landowner wanted the best for his daughter. This was a good arrangement for protecting a daughter.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-23-2016, 06:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Bob, here is an example of a paradigm issue and one of values issue to illustrate the difference I see. I would also say I am using the word paradigm in the sense Thomas Kuhn popularized, as a model, theory, or worldview.  Are you familiar with the Structures of Scientific Revolutions?  it's a very famous work from more than half a century ago.  It bought the word into common use.

I'm not familiar with that work, but the usage and examples you provide look entirely reasonable.  I'll add that the word 'meme' has been thrown about recently, is not entirely unrelated, and might also be used from time to time.

(08-23-2016, 06:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Paradigm: There are two fundamantal ways to view tyhe process of economic growth.  The neoclassical approach is that investment leads to increased worker productivity which leads to GDP growth.  The Keynesian approach is that (increased) demand leaders to GDP growth which leads to investment.  One can call the first "supply-side" and the latter "demand-side".

In principle this is an empirical question and can be resolved using the methods of science.  The facts are consistent with both models, however. Since no profits are made unless output is sold, demand and GDP rise in tandem. And it is an historical fact that rising GDP is highly correlated with rising capital over time.  So, scientifically, there is no clearcut correct answer.

Now folks who believe the supply-side model would favor removing impediments to investment as the means to improve the economy. Therefore they support cutting taxes on the rich (the investor class), reducing regulations (impediments to productive investment) and in general reducing the scales of economic distorations that can lead to malinvestment (shrinking the size of government). 

Conversely, demand-siders favor stimulating demand by (1) putting money into the hands of people who you know will spend it (jobs programs for the poor & working class) (2) actiively encouraging the development of new leadering sectors that create new categories of demand (industrial policy).

As you probably already have have seen, most folks in the first category fall into the red side while those in the second the blue.  This issue should, in principle, be resolvable using facts and logic by the methods of science.  It is not a values issue.

Exercising my personal value of respecting both sides of a dispute, I would say both paradigms have value and anyone honestly seeking a working understanding of economics would respect both, as I do.  I have even linked them to the recent cycles somewhat.

If one's scientific world view and values are stronger than one's political world views and values things are as you say.  Such folk will look at the numbers and history to determine the weight of merit of the two paradigms.  If one's way of looking at the world is more political than scientific, things are not as you say.  Folks will look back to a financial crisis of their youth or remember a few quotes from a famous politician to determine which paradigm they will politically cling to.  

Thus, whether these paradigms are driven by values or not is determined by one's values.

Throwing in another example, could Darwin's principle of evolution be considered a paradigm?  Is it a specific rule, pattern or understanding regarding a scientific theory?  If so, consider the individual with a Christian Fundamentalist paradigm.  According to his understanding that holy works are unquestionably, absolutely and literally true, it follows that evolution is incorrect.  Someone with a heavily scientific world view and values would disagree vehemently, and would be apt to insist that scientific evidence alone should determine if the paradigm has value.

In a similar way, the world views and values of red and blue folk in the United States does effect their perception of the worth of your two economic paradigms.  You and I have fairly strong scientific world views.  I would happily agree with you that the above economic examples ought to be resolved using something similar to the scientific method.  It's just that political partisans often include these economic paradigms within the realm of their world views, and thus are apt to be no more objective and rational in evaluating them than the fundamentalist contemplating evolution.  Thus the weight with which these not really conflicting economic paradigms bear influence on the world has everything to do with emotion, self interest, politics, voting and stubborn clinging to political dogma dictating how one believes things to be.

I would like to live in the world you describe, where scientific paradigms are always examined independently of political world view and values.  I don't see myself living in that world.  If you could give me a URL, I might consider buying a ticket to such a world, but for the moment I seem to be stuck in reality.

(08-23-2016, 06:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Values: There is a law currently being debated in California that would remove the religious exemption to anti-discrimination law.  This issue is certain Christian schools do not hire people who are not Christians or who do not adhere to a Christian lifestyle  (also not hired would be people actively committing serious sins like gay sex, although celebate gays would be welcome).  Whether or not this law should be passed is not is not a scientific question.  It cannot be resolved by appeals to facts and logic.  It is a values issue.  Such issues are resolved by force, either politically (e.g. elections/legislation, the courts) or through violence (e.g. US Civil War, ISIS).

This is far more true than I'd like.  During the awakening, in the aftermath of the Woolworth's lunch counter, the courts set things up so if you are providing goods and service to the public, you cannot discriminate.  However, there were clear specific exemptions for private homes, private clubs and churches.  I can understand the church exemption.  Churches are supposed to be places of refuge for people sharing a certain set of beliefs.

As usual, I am of divided mind.  If many so call Christians are practicing overt discrimination, I'm not pleased.

You are all too correct in that many values issues are resolved by force, either political or physical.  You failed to mention courtesy and tolerance.  These too are part of a culture's world view and values system.  If one encounters something one doesn't like, is it really necessary to call a lawyer or to throw a rock?  Can smiling, wishing the other guy well and walking away be a possibility that should at least be considered?  If a church is a place of gathering for people sharing a set of beliefs, and one doesn't share those beliefs, do you really have to crash that party?

There might be one effective logical, rational and scientific question to ask.  What would Jesus do?  

Learning to tolerate or perhaps even mean each other well might be the emotional complement of giving serious scientific consideration to conflicting paradigms.  We are becoming a hostile confrontational culture.  Differences between people are always resolved through legal action or violence?  Really?  We never were a nation totally open and welcoming of immigrants and other minorities.  There is a myth of the melting pot where diversity is a strength and everybody gets a bit teary eyed reading that plaque on the base of the Statue of Liberty.  In reality, no Irish need apply.  Chinese males can be allowed to come over and build the railroads, but if you let the women come over too they will start to breed.  Can't have that.

The culture of confrontation and intolerance is part of the problem.  It has always been a problem.  Sometimes it is prominent, sometimes it fades.  This seems to be another peak period.  I see the partisan clash of ideas as being bundled up with the hatred and intolerance.  It's not just an abstract conflict of ideas, it is "You're evil!" vs "You're stupid!"  Emotion, hate, blindness and intolerance thrive with the unwillingness or inability to listen to one another.

Have I an easy solution?  Sure!  What we need is a stampede of pearl white unicorns with rainbow manes and tails.  That will do it!  I'll start wishing for unicorns really really hard.  

In my spare time I might try to get Eric and Cynic sincerely listening to one another.  The odds of that happening might be slightly better than the unicorn stampede.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-23-2016, 06:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Bob, here is an example of a paradigm issue and one of values issue to illustrate the difference I see. I would also say I am using the word paradigm in the sense Thomas Kuhn popularized, as a model, theory, or worldview.  Are you familiar with the Structures of Scientific Revolutions?  it's a very famous work from more than half a century ago.  It bought the word into common use.

Paradigm: There are two fundamantal ways to view tyhe process of economic growth.  The neoclassical approach is that investment leads to increased worker productivity which leads to GDP growth.  The Keynesian approach is that (increased) demand leaders to GDP growth which leads to investment.  One can call the first "supply-side" and the latter "demand-side".

In principle this is an empirical question and can be resolved using the methods of science.  The facts are consistent with both models, however. Since no profits are made unless output is sold, demand and GDP rise in tandem. And it is an historical fact that rising GDP is highly correlated with rising capital over time.  So, scientifically, there is no clearcut correct answer.

Now folks who believe the supply-side model would favor removing impediments to investment as the means to improve the economy. Therefore they support cutting taxes on the rich (the investor class), reducing regulations (impediments to productive investment) and in general reducing the scales of economic distorations that can lead to malinvestment (shrinking the size of government). 

Conversely, demand-siders favor stimulating demand by (1) putting money into the hands of people who you know will spend it (jobs programs for the poor & working class) (2) actiively encouraging the development of new leadering sectors that create new categories of demand (industrial policy).

As you probably already have have seen, most folks in the first category fall into the red side while those in the second the blue.  This issue should, in principle, be resolvable using facts and logic by the methods of science.  It is not a values issue.

Values: There is a law currently being debated in California that would remove the religious exemption to anti-discrimination law.  This issue is certain Christian schools do not hire people who are not Christians or who do not adhere to a Christian lifestyle  (also not hired would be people actively committing serious sins like gay sex, although celebate gays would be welcome).  Whether or not this law should be passed is not is not a scientific question.  It cannot be resolved by appeals to facts and logic.  It is a values issue.  Such issues are resolved by force, either politically (e.g. elections/legislation, the courts) or through violence (e.g. US Civil War, ISIS).

The Civil War was the result of a political election. World War II was the result of failed diplomacy. The Revolutionary War was a result of a government that did not recognize the rights of Americans. Can history repeat itself, you better believe that it can.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-23-2016, 12:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The Civil War was the result of a political election. World War II was the result of failed diplomacy. The Revolutionary War was a result of a government that did not recognize the rights of Americans. Can history repeat itself, you better believe that it can.

From my perspective, prior the things going full out 4T military there is a period featuring escalating spirals of rhetoric and violence.  You have precursors such as the Boston Massacre, Bleeding Kansas and the Spanish Civil War.  In theory, the violence can be avoided through various means as you suggest above.  In practice, partisans get so focused in on manifesting their own values and world views that compromise is at best difficult, and is often given 20 20 hindsight viewed as impossible.  As a wise man once put it...

Second Inaugural of Abe Lincoln Wrote:On the occasion corresponding to this, four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war, seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

I'm much in that place.  I would depreciate war, but recognize that all too often war comes.