(12-19-2016, 10:00 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 08:30 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-18-2016, 04:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: You're ignoring the effect of dividing the world economy on the dominance of existing elites.  As Turchin notes, expanding the economy has the effect of diluting the elites.  What passes for an elite in a smaller economy - for example with the market power to manipulate prices - may not have the power to act as an elite in a larger economy.

Dividing the world economy into pieces exacerbated the problem of elite dominance within each of those pieces.  In the context of the times, that was a big part of the disaster.

You are grasping for straws here and making it way more complicated than it is.  Hell you voted for Trump and do not seem to understand where he is coming from.

How often did Trump talk about the stupid people running America?  I look at America and our policies seem stupid to me from an engineering/analytical perspective. If I had Trump's ego I would assume this perception on my part arises because I really am smarter than everyone else and that they really were stupid.*   But they aren't stupid.  To understand these things you have to see things in such a way that what both sides did makes sense and would be what you too would do if you were them (i.e. if you faced the same incentive structure as they).

As Socrates told us about 2500 years ago, the true measure of wisdom is knowing that one is not all-knowing. Much knowledge takes highly-specialized learning, and some sets of learning (let us say at the extreme law and medicine) have such conflicting  demands for intellectual attention that practically nobody could master both. So don't go to an attorney for medical advice and don't go to a physician for legal counsel.

For good reason, many of our Presidents have been attorneys, and however much the study of law can hone the intellect, it also forces one to recognize one's limitations of knowledge. Can you imagine Barack Obama, truly a brilliant man, pretending to know more than the intelligence agencies or the senior military officers? Not in the least. He found them exactly the people to turn to for whacking.... well, you know who. I doubt that he would ever contradict an engineer or a physician on their areas of expertise. But Donald Trump, who has an exaggerated conception of his own brilliance, might do so.

Attorneys lose cases, and even judges get their decisions reversed.

Donald Trump has been shielded from failure and its consequences all his life, but the Presidency will not let him get away with much folly. So how does he deal with failure? I doubt that it will be pretty. There will be failures. The seven-year bull market will not last forever.  There will likely be some horrible terrorist attack -- all the more likely should he neglect the CIA briefings or shrug them off. We are talking about the CIA which has developed a cozy relationship with a President who has found it useful.

(12-20-2016, 01:06 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 09:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 07:59 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-10-2016, 01:50 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: China could reduce tariffs on our products, and improve intellectual property law enforcement.

Mexico could impose worker and environmental protections similar to our own to help level costs.

Why would they do that? What leverage would Trump have besides tariffs--which you seem to be ruling out.

Tariffs as a bargaining tool make sense.  Tariffs as a policy tool are idiotic.

There is no such thing as a bargaining chip that you cannot use.  If Trump actually believes tariffs to be worse for America than the status quo then he can't use them as a chip because the other side will know he will not play it.  It's Obama's red line all over again.

No if I want them to take me seriously I have to believe that passing a big tariff on Chinese goods is a GOOD policy, maybe not the BEST policy, but perfectly acceptable to me.  Only then can Trump say, go ahead, make my day,  I will  take great joy in slapping a 35% tariff on you assholes (or more polite words to that effect). Thus, if the Chinese will not give me what I want (i.e. the BEST policy) then I will opt for what is simply GOOD. 

The Chinese are NOT initially going to give Trump what he wants, so he will have to opt for the tariffs, at least for a time.  The burned hand teaches best, and the Chinese need to know he is serious. They are going to need to see it play out to know he is serious.  Right now nobody knows for sure who is going to be hurt worse, us of or them.  Trump has to be willing to find out.  Otherwise he has no leverage.  He knows this as a master deal maker.

It is critically important that Trump's supporters (i.e. YOU) clearly see that they were voting FOR a tariff and have no problem with this.  This gives Trump the domestic support he needs to convince the Chinese that he CAN carry out his tariff  threat.

(12-20-2016, 01:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 10:00 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 08:30 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-18-2016, 04:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: You're ignoring the effect of dividing the world economy on the dominance of existing elites.  As Turchin notes, expanding the economy has the effect of diluting the elites.  What passes for an elite in a smaller economy - for example with the market power to manipulate prices - may not have the power to act as an elite in a larger economy.

Dividing the world economy into pieces exacerbated the problem of elite dominance within each of those pieces.  In the context of the times, that was a big part of the disaster.

You are grasping for straws here and making it way more complicated than it is.  Hell you voted for Trump and do not seem to understand where he is coming from.

How often did Trump talk about the stupid people running America?  I look at America and our policies seem stupid to me from an engineering/analytical perspective. If I had Trump's ego I would assume this perception on my part arises because I really am smarter than everyone else and that they really were stupid.*   But they aren't stupid.  To understand these things you have to see things in such a way that what both sides did makes sense and would be what you too would do if you were them (i.e. if you faced the same incentive structure as they).

As Socrates told us about 2500 years ago, the true measure of wisdom is knowing that one is not all-knowing. Much knowledge takes highly-specialized learning, and some sets of learning (let us say at the extreme law and medicine) have such conflicting  demands for intellectual attention that practically nobody could master both. So don't go to an attorney for medical advice and don't go to a physician for legal counsel.

For good reason, many of our Presidents have been attorneys, and however much the study of law can hone the intellect, it also forces one to recognize one's limitations of knowledge. Can you imagine Barack Obama, truly a brilliant man, pretending to know more than the intelligence agencies or the senior military officers? Not in the least. He found them exactly the people to turn to for whacking.... well, you know who. I doubt that he would ever contradict an engineer or a physician on their areas of expertise. But Donald Trump, who has an exaggerated conception of his own brilliance, might do so.

Attorneys lose cases, and even judges get their decisions reversed.

Donald Trump has been shielded from failure and its consequences all his life, but the Presidency will not let him get away with much folly. So how does he deal with failure? I doubt that it will be pretty. There will be failures. The seven-year bull market will not last forever.  There will likely be some horrible terrorist attack -- all the more likely should he neglect the CIA briefings or shrug them off. We are talking about the CIA which has developed a cozy relationship with a President who has found it useful.

Our only hope for a return to sanity in the congress and the white house may be for Trump to screw up badly. There is a good chance he will do that. Then the Democrats can make gains in the House in 2018 and take power in 2020.

It may sound cruel to Taramarie to say so, but I'm hoping he screws up badly so this happens. Of course, 1) I will feel bad for the people who are hurt by his screw-ups and 2) the people may stick with Trump no matter how badly he screws up. After all, he can go out and shoot somebody and would not lose any voters.

It's possible that, because of his self-esteem and positive thinking, that he keeps landing on his feet, as he did in getting elected against the odds. If that happens, it will take 6 years before he may become a figurehead.

Another scenario is that he does badly, but survives in office although he loses the congress. Then he becomes "flexible" and bends toward the Democrats after 2020 and especially after 2022.

(12-20-2016, 11:01 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 01:06 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 09:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 07:59 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-10-2016, 01:50 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: China could reduce tariffs on our products, and improve intellectual property law enforcement.

Mexico could impose worker and environmental protections similar to our own to help level costs.

Why would they do that? What leverage would Trump have besides tariffs--which you seem to be ruling out.

Tariffs as a bargaining tool make sense.  Tariffs as a policy tool are idiotic.

There is no such thing as a bargaining chip that you cannot use.  If Trump actually believes tariffs to be worse for America than the status quo then he can't use them as a chip because the other side will know he will not play it.  It's Obama's red line all over again.

No if I want them to take me seriously I have to believe that passing a big tariff on Chinese goods is a GOOD policy, maybe not the BEST policy, but perfectly acceptable to me.  Only then can Trump say, go ahead, make my day,  I will  take great joy in slapping a 35% tariff on you assholes (or more polite words to that effect). Thus, if the Chinese will not give me what I want (i.e. the BEST policy) then I will opt for what is simply GOOD. 

The Chinese are NOT initially going to give Trump what he wants, so he will have to opt for the tariffs, at least for a time.  The burned hand teaches best, and the Chinese need to know he is serious. They are going to need to see it play out to know he is serious.  Right now nobody knows for sure who is going to be hurt worse, us of or them.  Trump has to be willing to find out.  Otherwise he has no leverage.  He knows this as a master deal maker.

It is critically important that Trump's supporters (i.e. YOU) clearly see that they were voting FOR a tariff and have no problem with this.  This gives Trump the domestic support he needs to convince the Chinese that he CAN carry out his tariff  threat.

I think we already know the nation that he intends to impose tariffs on. You know, the one where Carrier had intended to move another one of its manufacturing plants to until an election result changed things. I have no problem with tariffs being used for an American cause. Do you, or do any true Democrats that are still left, have a problem with using tariffs for an American cause?

Who is more reliant upon who economically? I'd say that they're more reliant upon us than we are reliant upon them economically. What has the Communist Chinese economy been able to endure and survive up to this point as far as major challenges as far as its history goes? Communist China hasn't been around as long as we have. Anyone know? We know what the American economy has been able to endure and survive up to this point in our history.

(12-20-2016, 11:01 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I think we already know the nation that he intends to impose tariffs on. You know, the one where Carrier had intended to move another one of its manufacturing plants to until an election result changed things. I have no problem with tariffs being used for an American cause. Do you, or do any true Democrats that are still left, have a problem with using tariffs for an American cause?

Who is more reliant upon who economically? I'd say that they're more reliant upon us than we are reliant upon them economically. What has the Communist Chinese economy been able to endure and survive up to this point as far as major challenges as far as its history goes? Communist China hasn't been around as long as we have. Anyone know? We know what the American economy has been able to endure and survive up to this point in our history.

http://www.onenewspage.com Wrote:While the market, and various pundits and economists have been mostly focused on the still to be disclosed details of Trump's infrastructure spending aspects of his fiscal plan, "one of the least talked about but possibly most important tax shifts in the history of the United States" is, according to DB, House Speaker Paul Ryan’s and President-elect Trump’s “border tax adjustment” proposal.

This is part of the “Better Way” reform package and also figures prominently in the writings of senior Trump administration officials.

What is it?

Put simply, *the proposal would tax US imports at the corporate income tax rate, *while exempting income earned from exports from any taxation. The reform would closely mirror tax border adjustments in economies with consumption-based VAT tax systems. If enacted, the plan will likely be extremely bullish for the US dollar. What’s more, it would have a transformational impact on the US trade relationship with the rest of the world. Consider the below:

· *A “border tax adjustment” would, roughly speaking, be equivalent to a 15% one-off devaluation of the dollar.* Imports would be 20% more expensive, because corporates would have to pay the new 20% corporate tax rate on their value. Exports would be roughly 12% “cheaper”, because for every $33 of earnings earned from $100 of exports (we use the 33% gross margin of the S&P), there would be a 12% tax cost ($33 earnings*35% current tax rate) that would no longer be imposed on corporates. *Taking the average impact on the prices of exports and imports is equivalent to a 15% drop in the dollar.*
· *A border tax adjustment would be very inflationary.* The price of exports doesn’t affect the US consumption basket so would have no impact on CPI. However, the cost of imports would go up by 20%, which based on a simple relationship between import PPI and US inflation would be equivalent to a 5% rise in the CPI. Corporates may of course choose to absorb part of the rise in import costs in their profit margins. But either way, the order of magnitude is large.
· *A border tax adjustment would be very positive for the US trade balance.* Similarly to the dollar calculations,* a border tax adjustment would be equivalent to an across the board import tariff of 20% and an export subsidy of 12%.* Keeping all else constant and applying standard trade elasticity impact parameters to an average of the two estimates *results in a more than 2% drop in the trade deficit equivalent to more than 400bn USD, or equivalently, an almost complete closing of the US trade deficit.*

In other words, should the "border tax proposal" pass, it would not only send inflation soaring, while eliminating the US trade deficit - a long-time pet peeve of Trump  - it would also be the trade-equivalent of a 15% USD devaluation, even as it leads to an offsetting surge in the actual value of the dollar.

To be sure, there are uncertainties related to all estimates above. First, there is a question mark on whether a border tax adjustment based on a territorial corporate tax system (as opposed to VAT) would be allowable under WTO rules. *The question is highly complex, but senior Trump advisers have stated they would be willing to take the issue to the WTO*.

It is also not clear what types of goods the new tax would cover – the broader the coverage the bigger the impact and vice versa.

Second, the impact on trade highlighted above should be considered an upper bound, as the post-crisis responsiveness of current account balances to relative price shifts has proven to be much lower.

Still, it is hard to argue that such a fundamental shift in tax treatment of US exports and imports would not have a material impact on trade relations and flows with the rest of the world. More importantly, Saravelos argues, the second-order impact of “re-shoring” may be more material given that US corporate activity has been disadvantaged due to the current unfavorable tax treatment of offshore profits.

* * *

Taking all of the above into account, *the academic literature is unambiguous in its conclusion that the dollar should rally strongly in the event a “border tax adjustment” is put in place*. An appreciating dollar would be a natural response to an improving US trade balance and the competitiveness gains achieved by the shift in the relative prices of exports over imports.* In extremis, the dollar would rally by 15% to fully offset the price changes caused by the tax. *This analysis is partial however, with the knock-on consequences on the Fed, US corporate off-shoring and global trade relations likely making the impact even more material.

Deutsche Bank concludes that combined with potential changes to the treatment of unrepatriated earnings, "the proposed changes to the US corporate tax code could be one of the most important shifts in US tax and international trade policy in a generation."

We wholeheartedly agree with DB's assessment in this particular case.

(12-21-2016, 07:54 AM)Odin Wrote: I was just reading yesterday that the Smoot-Hartley tariff cut US exports by 40% right when the US economy was going into the ditch. We are due for another recession right now, if Trump wants to own-goal the US economy by starting a trade war with China he's going to be as reviled as Hoover.

I'm a bit of a "protectionist" myself, but for me "protectionism" means negotiating fairer trade agreements rather than the hamfisted nationalist idiocy Trump is promoting that is about as stupid as the Smoot-Hartley tariff.

(12-20-2016, 11:42 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 11:01 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 01:06 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 09:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 07:59 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Why would they do that? What leverage would Trump have besides tariffs--which you seem to be ruling out.

Tariffs as a bargaining tool make sense.  Tariffs as a policy tool are idiotic.

There is no such thing as a bargaining chip that you cannot use.  If Trump actually believes tariffs to be worse for America than the status quo then he can't use them as a chip because the other side will know he will not play it.  It's Obama's red line all over again.

No if I want them to take me seriously I have to believe that passing a big tariff on Chinese goods is a GOOD policy, maybe not the BEST policy, but perfectly acceptable to me.  Only then can Trump say, go ahead, make my day,  I will  take great joy in slapping a 35% tariff on you assholes (or more polite words to that effect). Thus, if the Chinese will not give me what I want (i.e. the BEST policy) then I will opt for what is simply GOOD. 

The Chinese are NOT initially going to give Trump what he wants, so he will have to opt for the tariffs, at least for a time.  The burned hand teaches best, and the Chinese need to know he is serious. They are going to need to see it play out to know he is serious.  Right now nobody knows for sure who is going to be hurt worse, us of or them.  Trump has to be willing to find out.  Otherwise he has no leverage.  He knows this as a master deal maker.

It is critically important that Trump's supporters (i.e. YOU) clearly see that they were voting FOR a tariff and have no problem with this.  This gives Trump the domestic support he needs to convince the Chinese that he CAN carry out his tariff  threat.

I think we already know the nation that he intends to impose tariffs on. You know, the one where Carrier had intended to move another one of its manufacturing plants to until an election result changed things. I have no problem with tariffs being used for an American cause. Do you, or do any true Democrats that are still left, have a problem with using tariffs for an American cause?

Who is more reliant upon who economically? I'd say that they're more reliant upon us than we are reliant upon them economically. What has the Communist Chinese economy been able to endure and survive up to this point as far as major challenges as far as its history goes? Communist China hasn't been around as long as we have. Anyone know? We know what the American economy has been able to endure and survive up to this point in our history.

You do realize that Carrier was going to move their plant to Mexico, not China, right?

China's communist economy was able to endure a lot, but their economy isn't communist any more.  Their current capitalist economy has only been around for a few decades, and is showing signs of strain as growth slows.

(12-21-2016, 07:54 AM)Odin Wrote: I was just reading yesterday that the Smoot-Hartley tariff cut US exports by 40% right when the US economy was going into the ditch. We are due for another recession right now, if Trump wants to own-goal the US economy by starting a trade war with China he's going to be as reviled as Hoover.

I'm a bit of a "protectionist" myself, but for me "protectionism" means negotiating fairer trade agreements rather than the hamfisted nationalist idiocy Trump is promoting that is about as stupid as the Smoot-Hartley tariff.

(12-21-2016, 01:08 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(12-21-2016, 07:54 AM)Odin Wrote: I was just reading yesterday that the Smoot-Hartley tariff cut US exports by 40% right when the US economy was going into the ditch. We are due for another recession right now, if Trump wants to own-goal the US economy by starting a trade war with China he's going to be as reviled as Hoover.

I'm a bit of a "protectionist" myself, but for me "protectionism" means negotiating fairer trade agreements rather than the hamfisted nationalist idiocy Trump is promoting that is about as stupid as the Smoot-Hartley tariff.

Uh, there's a whole shit pot of countries that have a VAT, which the "border tax" pretty close matches.

http://www.uscib.org/valueadded-taxes-vat-ud-1676/

Of course, I'd be more than happy if we joined the rest of the world with a VAT so the US doesn't conduct trade with one hand tied behind it's back.   The "border tax" is sorta like Obamacare.  It's not perfect, but I'll accept anything that half way gets to the goal.

(12-22-2016, 02:43 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-21-2016, 07:54 AM)Odin Wrote: I was just reading yesterday that the Smoot-Hartley tariff cut US exports by 40% right when the US economy was going into the ditch. We are due for another recession right now, if Trump wants to own-goal the US economy by starting a trade war with China he's going to be as reviled as Hoover.

I'm a bit of a "protectionist" myself, but for me "protectionism" means negotiating fairer trade agreements rather than the hamfisted nationalist idiocy Trump is promoting that is about as stupid as the Smoot-Hartley tariff.

Tariffs are established to protect American based industries/businesses and the jobs associated with them. What happens to locally based American business that can't compete within the American market or industry that's flooded by cheap foreign competitors that manufacture cheaper goods? The business shuts down and never comes back again like what happened in the small town that my parents grew up in. The exports were down because American industries/business who are unable to compete here aren't going to be able to compete else where.

(12-22-2016, 08:45 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: Getting back to the original premise for a minute, here's a wishlist from another actual Trump voter, in order of precedence.

Quote:1. Avoid War with Russia - Avoiding WWIII is pretty much at the top of my list.  The moral panic and inflammatory rhetoric concerning Putin's Russia was getting to the point where even my friends and family who don't follow current events much were shaking their heads in disbelief.  We had the former NATO second in command writing a book on the coming war with Russia, supposed moderates like John Kasich demanding we "punch Russia in the nose", numerous other candidates (including the erstwhile presumptive nominee) talking about setting up potential confrontations with Russia in Syria and arming its foes in the Ukraine, going so far as to compare it to Nazi Germany.  The Russians, in turn, were responding with talk of de-escalatory nuclear strikes.  It was a recipe for disaster on a scale that would dwarf WWI, previously the gold standard for blundering political posturing leading to mass destruction.  Look, Ukraine is not a treaty ally of the West, NATO is obsolete, the Crimea is majority Russian and shows little evidence of the sort of insurgency that has traditionally accompanied territorial occupation (and if you think those evil Russkies have found a way to suppress insurgencies without a huge occupying force, it might be worthwhile to buddy up with them just to learn how they do it, since we clearly haven't figured it out).  How are Russia's interventions in Syria, Georgia, or the Ukraine qualitatively different from our invasion of Iraq, bombing of Libya, or worldwide drone program?  How much worse are they than our supposed allies the Saudis, who behead people, support terrorism abroad, and invaded Bahrain and are presently attacking Yemen, bombing them from the air and blockading their ports, leading to famine?  Don't think that has anything to do with us?  It isn't like the Saudis have a domestic arms industry to speak of, or the logistic capability to sustain an extended bombing campaign without extensive US support.  Thus far, with the exception of John Bolton, whose name has not been excluded from a Trump administration yet, he's getting high marks from me so far.

Quote:2.  Infrastructure - There is a critical need for a massive and sustained infrastructure push in this country.  Broadband, highways, water systems, power lines, the list goes on and on.  There is an opportunity to yield significant dividends in terms of not just improved capital, but mass employment for at least a generation.  While there are questions as to what a Trump infrastructure program would look like, there have been numerous indications (Mnuchin discussing an infrastructure bank, Kushner stating that Trump's desires are closer to Schumer's than McConnell's) that it may in fact be a legitimate Keynesian stimulus package and not just a corporate give-away.

Quote:So there you have it, that's what I voted for.  We'll see how it turns out.

Quote:This is a thoughtful post and I'll try to reply to it thoughtfully.

Quote:What do you think about Trump's pick for ambassador of Israel?  I am Jewish and strongly support the right of Israel to exist (side-by-side with a Palestinian state); I say this because David Friedman's stance on Israel frightens me to death

Quote:I hope you are correct.  What I've read indicates that it is nothing more than a bunch of tax incentives for corporations to build toll roads.  However, I hope you are correct.  Regardless of who we voted for, I think we all agree that we need to do a massive infrastructure push.

(12-22-2016, 02:43 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-21-2016, 07:54 AM)Odin Wrote: I was just reading yesterday that the Smoot-Hartley tariff cut US exports by 40% right when the US economy was going into the ditch. We are due for another recession right now, if Trump wants to own-goal the US economy by starting a trade war with China he's going to be as reviled as Hoover.

I'm a bit of a "protectionist" myself, but for me "protectionism" means negotiating fairer trade agreements rather than the hamfisted nationalist idiocy Trump is promoting that is about as stupid as the Smoot-Hartley tariff.

Tariffs are established to protect American based industries/businesses and the jobs associated with them. What happens to locally based American business that can't compete within the American market or industry that's flooded by cheap foreign competitors that manufacture cheaper goods? The business shuts down and never comes back again like what happened in the small town that my parents grew up in. The exports were down because American industries/business who are unable to compete here aren't going to be able to compete else where.

(12-22-2016, 08:45 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: Getting back to the original premise for a minute, here's a wishlist from another actual Trump voter, in order of precedence.

Quote:1. Avoid War with Russia - Avoiding WWIII is pretty much at the top of my list.  The moral panic and inflammatory rhetoric concerning Putin's Russia was getting to the point where even my friends and family who don't follow current events much were shaking their heads in disbelief.  We had the former NATO second in command writing a book on the coming war with Russia, supposed moderates like John Kasich demanding we "punch Russia in the nose", numerous other candidates (including the erstwhile presumptive nominee) talking about setting up potential confrontations with Russia in Syria and arming its foes in the Ukraine, going so far as to compare it to Nazi Germany.  The Russians, in turn, were responding with talk of de-escalatory nuclear strikes.  It was a recipe for disaster on a scale that would dwarf WWI, previously the gold standard for blundering political posturing leading to mass destruction.  Look, Ukraine is not a treaty ally of the West, NATO is obsolete, the Crimea is majority Russian and shows little evidence of the sort of insurgency that has traditionally accompanied territorial occupation (and if you think those evil Russkies have found a way to suppress insurgencies without a huge occupying force, it might be worthwhile to buddy up with them just to learn how they do it, since we clearly haven't figured it out).  How are Russia's interventions in Syria, Georgia, or the Ukraine qualitatively different from our invasion of Iraq, bombing of Libya, or worldwide drone program?  How much worse are they than our supposed allies the Saudis, who behead people, support terrorism abroad, and invaded Bahrain and are presently attacking Yemen, bombing them from the air and blockading their ports, leading to famine?  Don't think that has anything to do with us?  It isn't like the Saudis have a domestic arms industry to speak of, nor the logistic capability to sustain an extended bombing campaign without extensive US support.  Thus far, with the exception of John Bolton, whose name has not been excluded from a Trump administration yet, he's getting high marks from me so far.

Quote:2.  Infrastructure - There is a critical need for a massive and sustained infrastructure push in this country.  Broadband, highways, water systems, power lines, the list goes on and on.  There is an opportunity to yield significant dividends in terms of not just improved capital, but mass employment for at least a generation.  While there are questions as to what a Trump infrastructure program would look like, there have been numerous indications (Mnuchin discussing an infrastructure bank, Kushner stating that Trump's desires are closer to Schumer's than McConnell's) that it may in fact be a legitimate Keynesian stimulus package and not just a corporate give-away.

Quote:3. Trade - Look, deindustrialization has been a disaster for the working class (black, white, or what-have-you), the costs from Free Trade have been far more widely spread than the benefits, and one overwhelmingly concentrated in the Anglo countries that went full Thatcher/Reagan back around 1980.  Want to talk about automation?  Here's a list of countries by number of industrial robots per 10,000 manufacturing workers.  The United States is number 7 on the list, and the top three countries all have manufacturing work forces that make up over 20% of their labor force, roughly double the United States' 12%.  What's more, the United States has a consumer base greater than all three put together, coupled with a vast resource base that obviates the need to trade finished goods in exchange for raw materials the way all three have to.  Besides, the removal of tariffs and trade barriers occurred in the fairly recent past, and it isn't like no goods traveled across international borders before then.

Quote:4. Immigration - Look, none of the countries that people claimed they were moving to (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, etc.) in response to Trump's election (or whatever the latest cause of aggravation is) are easy places to move to, nor do they tolerate people just showing up and saying they have a right to be there whether the host country likes it or not.  There are enormous pressures on low-wage, "unskilled" workers and there is no reason to continue dumping more people in to compete with them.  There is a reason people from Samuel Gompers to Bernie Sanders, noted labor advocates all, never supported unlimited, no-questions asked immigration.  It's bad for labor, which is to say, bad for normal people.  The way people on the left have lauded tech companies for their stance on immigration despite the investigation of those same companies by the federal government for wage fixing is deplorable.  Hell, even the Labor Department has been shown to use H1B visa workers in violation of federal guidelines.  This, in spite of numerous studies showing that there is no shortage of American tech workers available to take those jobs.  A tightening of the cheap labor spigot, from farm workers to programmers is long overdue.  

Quote:5. Wars of Choice - The years since the end of the Cold War have been chock full of interventions from the Balkans to Africa to the Middle East, for little reason other than that politicians have been able to get away with it.  I put this last because, at the end of the day, it's not existential the way, say, not getting into a nuclear exchange over Syria is.  I also put it last because it is the one I have the most doubts of seeing happen, particularly given the noted hawkishness towards Iran I'm seeing in a lot of Trump's Cabinet picks (Matthis, Flynn, etc.).  I will admit, I cheered when Trump called out Bush and the War in Iraq in SC, then won its primary shortly thereafter, but I also cringed on numerous occasions with his calls for torture, murdering family members of terrorists, and general boorishness.  So, I'll put this as a nice-to-have, but I am not holding my breath.  In the absence of real peer competitors on the global stage, and a professional military drawn in large part from a small section of the population, there is simply too little pushback to this sort of adventurism abroad.

Quote:So there you have it, that's what I voted for.  We'll see how it turns out.

(12-22-2016, 01:14 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: .....I am neither Jewish, nor Christian, nor Arab, nor any combination of the 3.  I simply don't find it to be relevant to me as an American, and to be quite frank deeply resent the extent to which *some* Jewish organizations and public figures, and their evangelical counterparts, have embedded a knee-jerk support for Israel into our foreign policy.  I even have a fairly low opinion of the practice of American citizens going and serving their time in the IDF and then coming back and getting involved in public life as a journalist or what have you.  Especially when they then make an opposition to nationalism elsewhere a centerpiece of their public platform.

However, given that all of these things are, you know, things, the fact of the matter is that the US simply doesn't have that much influence over Israel's internal politics, and that Israel's politics are so right-wing because that's who the Israelis have been voting for.  The Israeli Labor Party's star has long been in eclipse, secular (Non-Russian) Ashkenazim are a waning segment of the population, and nothing has emerged to the left of center to counterbalance Likud and the various parties to its right (Israel Beiteinu, Shas, the Haredi parties).  Given the tumult in the Middle East right now, and the shifting balance of power within and among Western countries, all of the trends are going in what I'm sure you view as the wrong direction.  Sorry.

Quote:I've seen nothing but trial balloons and gossip to date.  So, in the absence of real data, all we can do is hope.  My only words of encouragement here are that Donald Trump is 70 years old, and is not likely to change significantly as a person.  He's built his life on borrowing money to have things built and slapping his name on them, and sleeping with a steady succession of pretty bimbos.  So, running up the deficit to build infrastructure, inflation be damned, seems like it would be right up his alley.  If the net result of his presidency is a construction boom, burgeoning inflation (with a corresponding national debt), and the news that he's been sleeping with, say, Hope Hicks or Kellyanne Conway or <insert woman here>... *shrugs* I would be content. 

(12-22-2016, 05:32 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Eric, I wouldn't hold your breath expecting a response.  Life is short, too short to waste with you again.