Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Report Card for Donald Trump
#41
(12-17-2016, 09:02 AM)Mikebert Wrote:
Warren Dew Wrote:If you think Smoot Hawley and the resultant retaliations helped the US economy, you're ignoring all of the empirical evidence about it.
I didn't say it was good for the economy.  You said it destroyed the economy. I said that was horseshit. That is, there is little evidence that the tariff was a significant factor in the downturn over 1929-30.  I believe it had a mildly negative impact because of this identity:

GDP = Aggregate demand - trade deficit.

Since we had a trade surplus back then, trade volume added (modestly) to GDP.  So an effort to reduce the volume of trade (which is what Smooth Hawley was intended to do) would have a modest negative impact on GDP, all else being the same.  Today we have a large trade deficit and so reducing trade volume will make GDP modestly larger, all else being the same.  But the impact is secondary to the larger impact from tax and monetary policy.  The Fed response to the Credit Anstalt collapse was a more important factor than Smoot Hawley  Similarly part of our economic problems stem from the "October revolution" in Fed policy.

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.
Reply
#42
(12-17-2016, 01:39 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:
(12-16-2016, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: He also argues that it worked well when it was used.  Do you agree with that?  If not, why are you bothering to bring him up?

Short and sandals work well in the summer when it is hot outside.  Unless you live in the Southern hemisphere (hi, Tara Marie!), they are completely inappropriate now.  Same with tax cuts; perhaps they were needed back in 1980 (during the late Awakening, when it was our saecular summer) but now in our saecular winter, we need other tools.

Certainly the situation now is different; in particular, as Bartlett points out, the situation Reagan was facing was inflationary, and the current situation is not.  Thus he is correct to critique Rubio's strategy of merely duplicating the deflationary supply side stimulus of the 1980s.

My proposal goes well beyond that, however.  For example, to address the wage disparities that have resulted from a supply side easy immigration policy for the past three decades, we need to clamp down on immigration and illegal immigrants.  That will be quite inflationary since it will increase wages, especially at the lower end of the scale.

It will also dampen growth, since it will restrict the labor supply.  To counteract the negative effects on growth, we will need some combination of monetary stimulus and fiscal stimulus.  Since both  the basic wage leveling policies and the monetary stimulus will be inflationary, we will need the fiscal stimulus to be supply side stimulus:  the deflationary effect of supply side stimulus will help counteract the inflationary effect of the immigration policies and monetary stimulus.

I wear a heavy coat and boots in the winter, but that doesn't mean I quit wearing my shirt and pants underneath.
Reply
#43
(12-18-2016, 04:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-17-2016, 08:24 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-16-2016, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-13-2016, 01:47 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-10-2016, 01:50 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Reagan's 1981 tax cut was an across the board cut of 23%, between 3 percentage points and 20 percentage points depending on your bracket.  The social security tax rate increase was less than 1 percentage point.  Only by being ignorant of basic arithmetic can one believe that Reagan increased tax rates overall.

It may be worth noting that this guy actually understand Reaganomics, and argues against it today.

He also argues that it worked well when it was used.  Do you agree with that?  If not, why are you bothering to bring him up?

Ok course he liked it then.  Bruce Bartlett designed the system Reagan used.  Other economists argued then, and now, that it was mostly smoke and mirrors, but I cited Bartlett because he saw real value ... then.  He sees it as unusable to counterproductive now.

If you don't believe he was right then, you have no reason to believe he is right now.  In other words, you're just fishing up a red herring.

To conclude and declare that, is to say that people cannot learn from mistakes, get more informed, be wiser and reach better conclusions.

I think people can, even if it's rare.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#44
(12-18-2016, 07:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(12-18-2016, 04:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-17-2016, 08:24 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-16-2016, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-13-2016, 01:47 PM)David Horn Wrote: It may be worth noting that this guy actually understand Reaganomics, and argues against it today.

He also argues that it worked well when it was used.  Do you agree with that?  If not, why are you bothering to bring him up?

Ok course he liked it then.  Bruce Bartlett designed the system Reagan used.  Other economists argued then, and now, that it was mostly smoke and mirrors, but I cited Bartlett because he saw real value ... then.  He sees it as unusable to counterproductive now.

If you don't believe he was right then, you have no reason to believe he is right now.  In other words, you're just fishing up a red herring.

To conclude and declare that, is to say that people cannot learn from mistakes, get more informed, be wiser and reach better conclusions.

I think people can, even if it's rare.

If David wants to admit to mistakes and learning from them, he's free to say so.

If you're talking about Bruce Bartlett, who wrote the article at the link, he's not admitting to any mistakes either, and in fact specifically asserts that Reaganomics was the right policy and worked well.
Reply
#45
(12-18-2016, 04:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-17-2016, 08:24 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-16-2016, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-13-2016, 01:47 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-10-2016, 01:50 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Reagan's 1981 tax cut was an across the board cut of 23%, between 3 percentage points and 20 percentage points depending on your bracket.  The social security tax rate increase was less than 1 percentage point.  Only by being ignorant of basic arithmetic can one believe that Reagan increased tax rates overall.

It may be worth noting that this guy actually understand Reaganomics, and argues against it today.

He also argues that it worked well when it was used.  Do you agree with that?  If not, why are you bothering to bring him up?

Ok course he liked it then.  Bruce Bartlett designed the system Reagan used.  Other economists argued then, and now, that it was mostly smoke and mirrors, but I cited Bartlett because he saw real value ... then.  He sees it as unusable to counterproductive now.

If you don't believe he was right then, you have no reason to believe he is right now.  In other words, you're just fishing up a red herring.

Why?  I can argue that Bartlett is overly optimistic about the market economy without making the argument that 'once wrong, always wrong'.  I think his POV today is based on that old bugaboo: empirical evidence.  Greenspan had the same revelation, that the economy didn't work the way he thought it did.  Bartlett adjusted, as he should.  Only a dogmatic ideologue would argue that a truth is a lie, because his philosophy says it must be one.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#46
I will give my first grades in 7 months.
 … whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Reply
#47
(12-18-2016, 04:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-17-2016, 01:39 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:
(12-16-2016, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: He also argues that it worked well when it was used.  Do you agree with that?  If not, why are you bothering to bring him up?

Short and sandals work well in the summer when it is hot outside.  Unless you live in the Southern hemisphere (hi, Tara Marie!), they are completely inappropriate now.  Same with tax cuts; perhaps they were needed back in 1980 (during the late Awakening, when it was our saecular summer) but now in our saecular winter, we need other tools.

Certainly the situation now is different; in particular, as Bartlett points out, the situation Reagan was facing was inflationary, and the current situation is not.  Thus he is correct to critique Rubio's strategy of merely duplicating the deflationary supply side stimulus of the 1980s.

My proposal goes well beyond that, however.  For example, to address the wage disparities that have resulted from a supply side easy immigration policy for the past three decades, we need to clamp down on immigration and illegal immigrants.  That will be quite inflationary since it will increase wages, especially at the lower end of the scale.

It will also dampen growth, since it will restrict the labor supply.  To counteract the negative effects on growth, we will need some combination of monetary stimulus and fiscal stimulus.  Since both  the basic wage leveling policies and the monetary stimulus will be inflationary, we will need the fiscal stimulus to be supply side stimulus:  the deflationary effect of supply side stimulus will help counteract the inflationary effect of the immigration policies and monetary stimulus.

I wear a heavy coat and boots in the winter, but that doesn't mean I quit wearing my shirt and pants underneath.

This seems to be an excessively complicated way to achieve your goals.  Three actions can provide the intended results without the need for outside actors to take actions they may elect not to take.  First, raise the minimum wage.  $15 nationally, with a nod to more in high-wage areas, will move low wage earners to actual living wages.  Second, raise taxes on high incomes, and, for heavens sake, eliminate the special benefits that accrue to unearned income and large inheritances.  Third, Start an infrastructure building program that includes old (roads, bridges and the like) and new (smart grid, broadband everywhere, 5G wireless) projects that are truly investments in the economy. 

The rest will take care of itself.  As inflation kicks in, interest rates can be raised.  I'm no fan of the public purse being deprecated to private profits when "crowding out" occurs.  Right now, the public sphere needs far more attention.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#48
(12-19-2016, 12:23 PM)radind Wrote: I will give my first grades in 7 months.

OK, but what criteria will you use?  I'm interested in what you think is lacking and what is being done to excess.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#49
(12-19-2016, 12:17 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-18-2016, 04:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-17-2016, 08:24 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-16-2016, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-13-2016, 01:47 PM)David Horn Wrote: It may be worth noting that this guy actually understand Reaganomics, and argues against it today.

He also argues that it worked well when it was used.  Do you agree with that?  If not, why are you bothering to bring him up?

Ok course he liked it then.  Bruce Bartlett designed the system Reagan used.  Other economists argued then, and now, that it was mostly smoke and mirrors, but I cited Bartlett because he saw real value ... then.  He sees it as unusable to counterproductive now.

If you don't believe he was right then, you have no reason to believe he is right now.  In other words, you're just fishing up a red herring.

Why?  I can argue that Bartlett is overly optimistic about the market economy without making the argument that 'once wrong, always wrong'.  I think his POV today is based on that old bugaboo: empirical evidence.  Greenspan had the same revelation, that the economy didn't work the way he thought it did.  Bartlett adjusted, as he should.  Only a dogmatic ideologue would argue that a truth is a lie, because his philosophy says it must be one.

You can't argue that and be consistent with what Bartlett actually wrote, which was that Reaganomics worked great in the 1980s.
Reply
#50
(12-19-2016, 12:35 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-19-2016, 12:23 PM)radind Wrote: I will give my first grades in 7 months.

OK, but what criteria will you use?  I'm interested in what you think is lacking and what is being done to excess.

Too much political correctness and religious freedom under attack.
 … whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Reply
#51
In other words, discrimination against gays not being allowed.

Trump is not even especially interested in that issue, although his supreme court pick might have an effect on it that you favor, if he chooses someone Ted Cruz would recommend.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#52
(12-19-2016, 02:40 PM)radind Wrote:
(12-19-2016, 12:35 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-19-2016, 12:23 PM)radind Wrote: I will give my first grades in 7 months.

OK, but what criteria will you use?  I'm interested in what you think is lacking and what is being done to excess.

Too much political correctness and religious freedom under attack.

The freedom of religion under attack is the freedom of religious people to avoid being ridiculed for saying absurd stuff

Example:

This summer I took a trip to Lake Superior, and I noticed that its shore has a paucity of obvious life in contrast to the typical seashore. The shore has been unglaciated for about 8000 years (but the biblical chronology says that the Earth is only 6000 or so years old, so I must be wrong) and evolution has not allowed the stereotypically-rich fauna of ocean shores and even fresh-water lakes of southern Michigan to form. (But evolution is a fraud -- the Bible says so!). So why did God neglect to create much life for Lake Superior? (Shame on you, blasphemer!)

The truth -- Lake Superior is a hard place for even fresh-water life to get there. It has had little time in which to evolve.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#53
(12-19-2016, 03:29 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(12-19-2016, 02:40 PM)radind Wrote:
(12-19-2016, 12:35 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-19-2016, 12:23 PM)radind Wrote: I will give my first grades in 7 months.

OK, but what criteria will you use?  I'm interested in what you think is lacking and what is being done to excess.

Too much political correctness and religious freedom under attack.

The freedom of religion under attack is the freedom of religious people to avoid being ridiculed for saying absurd stuff

Example:

This summer I took a trip to Lake Superior, and I noticed that its shore has a paucity of obvious life in contrast to the typical seashore. The shore has been unglaciated for about 8000 years (but the biblical chronology says that the Earth is only 6000 or so years old, so I must be wrong) and evolution has not allowed the stereotypically-rich fauna of ocean shores and even fresh-water lakes of southern Michigan to form. (But evolution is a fraud -- the Bible says so!). So why did God neglect to create much life for Lake Superior? (Shame on you, blasphemer!)

The truth -- Lake Superior is a hard place for even fresh-water life to get there. It has had little time in which to evolve.
The young earth group is misguided.
 … whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Reply
#54
(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.
Reply
#55
(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).
**************************************************
*You know Kinser.  A while back Kinser and I discussed the Iraq war. It seemed plain as a pikestaff that the war was about oil.  What the hell else would it be about.  The strategy, it seemed to me (and him) was to bump off Saddam and install a guy we like better, have him ink deals with American oil companies to develop Iraqi oil infrastructure, then lift the embargo, end the no fly zone and watch the Iraqi economy take off. In a couple of years the new guy could hold an election and win it easily. So they invade, conquer the country in record time, bump off Saddam's family and hangers one (remember the deck of cards) and in goes general Garner who is talking with Iraqi generals looking for a successor to Saddam.  All SOP.  And then, Garner is gone and in comes this clown Bremer. WTF. Noooooooo I screamed, do you want the quagmire Cheney had predicted in '94.  Apparently yes they did.

So why did this happen? Kinser chalked it up to "they were stupid", a truly Trumpian response.  And he is a big fan of Trump despite having recently been a Marxist.  Trump appears feels the same as Kinser, and tried to cover up his support for the Iraq war during the campaign by lying about it. Given his alpha-male self image, Trump cannot but support any war that comes along.  To do otherwise would make him a girly man.

But I knew that Cheney was anything but stupid.  So I came up with an alternate hypothesis to explain events. And this led me to becoming isolationist in foreign policy after a quarter if a century if being a realist (I had supported the Iraq war initially until Bremer came in when I saw I had been so horribly horribly wrong.)

Trump, like Kinser doesn't go this extra step and so I am sure will embrace every war opportunity that comes along--just like Clinton, who never met a war she didn't like.
Reply
#56
(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.

But, with China at least, things have already gone way beyond tariffs.  At this point, the bargaining chips are the threat of US forces in Taiwan and China's building of artificial islands in the South China sea.

Trump is running way beyond his expertise with China. Hopefully he can pick someone more competent in that area and then shut up and let that someone deal with the situation.
Reply
#57
(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).
**************************************************
*You know Kinser.  A while back Kinser and I discussed the Iraq war. It seemed plain as a pikestaff that the war was about oil.  What the hell else would it be about.  The strategy, it seemed to me (and him) was to bump off Saddam and install a guy we like better, have him ink deals with American oil companies to develop Iraqi oil infrastructure, then lift the embargo, end the no fly zone and watch the Iraqi economy take off. In a couple of years the new guy could hold an election and win it easily. So they invade, conquer the country in record time, bump off Saddam's family and hangers one (remember the deck of cards) and in goes general Garner who is talking with Iraqi generals looking for a successor to Saddam.  All SOP.  And then, Garner is gone and in comes this clown Bremer. WTF. Noooooooo I screamed, do you want the quagmire Cheney had predicted in '94.  Apparently yes they did.

So why did this happen? Kinser chalked it up to "they were stupid", a truly Trumpian response.  And he is a big fan of Trump despite having recently been a Marxist.  Trump appears feels the same as Kinser, and tried to cover up his support for the Iraq war during the campaign by lying about it. Given his alpha-male self image, Trump cannot but support any war that comes along.  To do otherwise would make him a girly man.

But I knew that Cheney was anything but stupid.  So I came up with an alternate hypothesis to explain events. And this led me to becoming isolationist in foreign policy after a quarter if a century if being a realist (I had supported the Iraq war initially until Bremer came in when I saw I had been so horribly horribly wrong.)

Trump, like Kinser doesn't go this extra step and so I am sure will embrace every war opportunity that comes along--just like Clinton, who never met a war she didn't like.

And yet, here you are, assuming Trump is stupid rather than that you don't understand his incentive structure.
Reply
#58
(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).
[/quote]


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.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#59
(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.
Reply
#60
(12-19-2016, 09:21 PM)Warren Dew 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).
**************************************************
*You know Kinser.  A while back Kinser and I discussed the Iraq war. It seemed plain as a pikestaff that the war was about oil.  What the hell else would it be about.  The strategy, it seemed to me (and him) was to bump off Saddam and install a guy we like better, have him ink deals with American oil companies to develop Iraqi oil infrastructure, then lift the embargo, end the no fly zone and watch the Iraqi economy take off. In a couple of years the new guy could hold an election and win it easily. So they invade, conquer the country in record time, bump off Saddam's family and hangers one (remember the deck of cards) and in goes general Garner who is talking with Iraqi generals looking for a successor to Saddam.  All SOP.  And then, Garner is gone and in comes this clown Bremer. WTF. Noooooooo I screamed, do you want the quagmire Cheney had predicted in '94.  Apparently yes they did.

So why did this happen? Kinser chalked it up to "they were stupid", a truly Trumpian response.  And he is a big fan of Trump despite having recently been a Marxist.  Trump appears feels the same as Kinser, and tried to cover up his support for the Iraq war during the campaign by lying about it. Given his alpha-male self image, Trump cannot but support any war that comes along.  To do otherwise would make him a girly man.

But I knew that Cheney was anything but stupid.  So I came up with an alternate hypothesis to explain events. And this led me to becoming isolationist in foreign policy after a quarter if a century if being a realist (I had supported the Iraq war initially until Bremer came in when I saw I had been so horribly horribly wrong.)

Trump, like Kinser doesn't go this extra step and so I am sure will embrace every war opportunity that comes along--just like Clinton, who never met a war she didn't like.

And yet, here you are, assuming Trump is stupid rather than that you don't understand his incentive structure.

No, I am not assuming Trump is stupid. I am saying that Trump is assuming other people are stupid when their choices go bad.  This is simplistic thinking, like what Kinser did with the Bush administration.  You are reducing Trump's deal policy to what YOU want, instead of what HE wants. Trump doesn't know anything about foreign policy or most things and it shows.  But he knows deals. In deal making you don't make idle threats. You have to be willing to walk away. That means he has to be willing to play the tariff card and be happy with it.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Trump's real German analog Donald Trump takes office on Friday, and the world hol pbrower2a 2 1,195 02-09-2017, 05:52 PM
Last Post: freivolk

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)