The Bern endoses Hillary

[Genx87]

When your only metric is profit Vietnam is obviously more efficient at generating them. It's the only metric used by capitalism last time I checked.

This is true. But to address the hypothetical you were responding too. I highly doubt the Vietnamese would spend 10x as much energy to produce the same cog as we do in the United States. Energy costs money and coal or any energy source in Vietnam isnt 1/10th the cost of Nuclear or the coal we use in the USA.

 

[Paratus]

Wow a link to a bad Star Wars movie.

Not impressive.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...lf-and-the-inequities-caused-by-globalization

Want to see what happened to US manufacturing?

Note that the right scale in this chart doesn't center on 0, but the trend is still very clear. We're producing more than ever with fewer jobs. That's not China, that's our own technology.

There's the graph. I predicted it earlier. Come on take time to think about a different opinion don't be like Trump and refuse to reevaluate or be wrong.

Mongrel posted a very interesting opinion piece that if I understand it basically says that globalization isn't really the problem. It's a good engine for increasing efficiency and wealth.

Fski's chart shows a similar thing, increased production, for automation in manufacturing.

FM you I think are correct in that these "engines" don't feel like wealth engines for the average American. But it's not because they don't work. It's because the wealth they create aren't shared with the average American. Which is also said in Mongrels link.

Judging by productivity increase globalization, automation, and other means have been pretty good. Compensation hasn't followed. We have however increased the number of billionaires 10X over in the last 30 years.

So I don't think the fix is ending globalization or automation. I do think that significant differences in worker and environmental protections between countries we trade with are a problem. But I don't have a good solution to these problems.

Maybe alternative ways of wealth distribution as has been suggested in this thread.

 

[Jhhnn]

Mongrel posted a very interesting opinion piece that if I understand it basically says that globalization isn't really the problem. It's a good engine for increasing efficiency and wealth.

Fski's chart shows a similar thing, increased production, for automation in manufacturing.

FM you I think are correct in that these "engines" don't feel like wealth engines for the average American. But it's not because they don't work. It's because the wealth they create aren't shared with the average American. Which is also said in Mongrels link.

Judging by productivity increase globalization, automation, and other means have been pretty good. Compensation hasn't followed. We have however increased the number of billionaires 10X over in the last 30 years.

So I don't think the fix is ending globalization or automation. I do think that significant differences in worker and environmental protections between countries we trade with are a problem. But I don't have a good solution to these problems.

Maybe alternative ways of wealth distribution as has been suggested in this thread.

That last sentence is exactly what Bernie proposed in a way more radical than even most Dems are ready to accept, let alone a majority of voters. It's inevitable, of course, unless we're willing to accept a third world distribution of income & wealth.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is true. But to address the hypothetical you were responding too. I highly doubt the Vietnamese would spend 10x as much energy to produce the same cog as we do in the United States. Energy costs money and coal or any energy source in Vietnam isnt 1/10th the cost of Nuclear or the coal we use in the USA.

Don't play into the obfuscational bullshit, OK?

 

[Phynaz]

That last sentence is exactly what Bernie proposed in a way more radical than even most Dems are ready to accept, let alone a majority of voters. It's inevitable, of course, unless we're willing to accept a third world distribution of income & wealth.

Third world distribution of income & wealth is exactly what you want, right, Robin Hood?

 

[Jhhnn]

Third world distribution of income & wealth is exactly what you want, right, Robin Hood?

Bernie is Robin Hood. I'm just a Hillary supporter. You know- a realist.

 

[werepossum]

This is true. But to address the hypothetical you were responding too. I highly doubt the Vietnamese would spend 10x as much energy to produce the same cog as we do in the United States. Energy costs money and coal or any energy source in Vietnam isnt 1/10th the cost of Nuclear or the coal we use in the USA.

True, but their labor can be much less than 10% of ours. Oftimes cheap labor companies use far more power to make the same product, but still come out cheaper because electricity is cheaper (and often subsidized for industry), regulatory costs are much lower, and labor costs are much, much lower.

Mongrel posted a very interesting opinion piece that if I understand it basically says that globalization isn't really the problem. It's a good engine for increasing efficiency and wealth.

Fski's chart shows a similar thing, increased production, for automation in manufacturing.

FM you I think are correct in that these "engines" don't feel like wealth engines for the average American. But it's not because they don't work. It's because the wealth they create aren't shared with the average American. Which is also said in Mongrels link.

Judging by productivity increase globalization, automation, and other means have been pretty good. Compensation hasn't followed. We have however increased the number of billionaires 10X over in the last 30 years.

So I don't think the fix is ending globalization or automation. I do think that significant differences in worker and environmental protections between countries we trade with are a problem. But I don't have a good solution to these problems.

Maybe alternative ways of wealth distribution as has been suggested in this thread.

Three issues here. First, that "wealth engine" is paid for by borrowing money from the people with whom we run trade deficits. Unless you subscribe to an infinitely growing US economy, that money has to be paid back.

Second, nations with whom we run trade deficits tend to buy American companies and resources, so that increasingly, that wealth doesn't come to our nation at all.

Third, the only alternative wealth distribution to capitalism is government seizure and redistribution. That necessarily accepts that all wealth belongs to government, which has a responsibility to "fairly" distribute it. That entails a massive loss of personal liberty and corresponding increase in dependence since it removes the connection between labor and reward. I realize that you believe this is a net positive, but don't forget that government is first and foremost run by wealthy, powerful people, and wealthy, powerful people tend to not let wealth move through their hands without a good bit sticking.

 

[agent00f]

Mongrel posted a very interesting opinion piece that if I understand it basically says that globalization isn't really the problem. It's a good engine for increasing efficiency and wealth.

Fski's chart shows a similar thing, increased production, for automation in manufacturing.

FM you I think are correct in that these "engines" don't feel like wealth engines for the average American. But it's not because they don't work. It's because the wealth they create aren't shared with the average American. Which is also said in Mongrels link.

Judging by productivity increase globalization, automation, and other means have been pretty good. Compensation hasn't followed. We have however increased the number of billionaires 10X over in the last 30 years.

So I don't think the fix is ending globalization or automation. I do think that significant differences in worker and environmental protections between countries we trade with are a problem. But I don't have a good solution to these problems.

Maybe alternative ways of wealth distribution as has been suggested in this thread.

I didn't read the previous pages of the thread, but those charts are misleading because they show an aggregate instead of underlying mechanism. While it's true that amount of automation has increase, they've increased in different industries than where the jobs were cut. For example, the new machines didn't replace labor in textile work, that just moved to low wage countries, so "automation" isn't the causal reason for job loss there.

Regardless in the long run there's only going to be more sophisticated automation across the board, with increasing less people doing more productive jobs. Economists at the start of the industrial revolution predicted the results given a capitalist paradigm, and we've been living that down ever since by subsidizing ever more of the population to head off the dystopia. Very few of the crowd whining about welfare pay more in than they get back.

Also, it's always odd when globalization/free-trade is pitched as the work of the gubmint when it's the natural case in the absence of imposed boundaries.

 

[agent00f]

Three issues here. First, that "wealth engine" is paid for by borrowing money from the people with whom we run trade deficits. Unless you subscribe to an infinitely growing US economy, that money has to be paid back.

Someone who can't be bothered to google what a trade deficit is really shouldn't be arguing economics.

It's like they saw the word deficit in there and got it confused with the only other (budget) deficit they know.

 

[LegendKiller]

Someone who can't be bothered to google what a trade deficit is really shouldn't be arguing economics.

It's like they saw the word deficit in there and got it confused with the only other (budget) deficit they know.

He isnt far off considering the fact that one of the only ways the trade deficits can be maintained is to not sell the dollars coming in and lower usd value. They have to do something with the dollars. Rather than buying hard assets they just financed the debt.

 

[fskimospy]

He isnt far off considering the fact that one of the only ways the trade deficits can be maintained is to not sell the dollars coming in and lower usd value. They have to do something with the dollars. Rather than buying hard assets they just financed the debt.

Buying government securities is one way to keep down the value of your currency, sure, but the idea that a trade deficit is in principle borrowing money from someone else that must be paid back in the future is badly wrong. Not to mention that China was the one seeking to buy US debt because THEY wanted to maintain relative currency value, not the other way around.

 

[Moonbeam]

I find it interesting that there are so many ways people look at economics, almost as if they were arguing religion. I wonder if there is any such think as economic truth or whether there is anybody who can really see it. It seems to me that as with politics, some underlying fundamentals of character and personality seem to drive what reality appears to be, satisfying some underlying emotional need.

 

[blankslate]

Still not voting for her.


I understand Senator Sanders endorsing her. He said he would do it if he didn't win the nomination. He's staying true to his word. He tried as far as I can tell to get as many progressive / liberal positions into the democratic platform. It's people who want to be "realists" that helped stymie his efforts... so thanks for that asshats.


I'm looking at a third party vote.

Can't vote for someone who is supporting the TPP. Remember it's not what they say it's what they do. She appointed platform committee members who supported the TPP. that speaks louder than words.


_______________

 

[fskimospy]

Still not voting for her.


I understand Senator Sanders endorsing her. He said he would do it if he didn't win the nomination. He's staying true to his word. He tried as far as I can tell to get as many progressive / liberal positions into the democratic platform. It's people who want to be "realists" that helped stymie his efforts... so thanks for that asshats.


I'm looking at a third party vote.

Can't vote for someone who is supporting the TPP. Remember it's not what they say it's what they do. She appointed platform committee members who supported the TPP. that speaks louder than words.

_______________

What specific provisions of the TPP are you against and why?

 

[fskimospy]

I find it interesting that there are so many ways people look at economics, almost as if they were arguing religion. I wonder if there is any such think as economic truth or whether there is anybody who can really see it. It seems to me that as with politics, some underlying fundamentals of character and personality seem to drive what reality appears to be, satisfying some underlying emotional need.

I find economics to be similar to politics and religion in that way too, in that people feel perfectly comfortable making broad statements about its fundamental nature yet feel no need to back up what they say with actual research or data. I think since economics and politics are so closely intertwined people view them in a similar tribal way. This is why when I talk about economics I generally try to do so in the context of specific data or research.

For example I feel that we would have far less inflation trutherism if people stuck to data instead of emotions. Mainstream conservative economic thought said we would have lots of inflation over the last 8 years. The data clearly shows we didn't and that thought was wrong. If they were sticking to the data we would no longer be having this discussion, but since people feel no need to tether their ideas to research or data we end up with 'secret inflation' and BLS conspiracy theories.

 

[Jhhnn]

Still not voting for her.


I understand Senator Sanders endorsing her. He said he would do it if he didn't win the nomination. He's staying true to his word. He tried as far as I can tell to get as many progressive / liberal positions into the democratic platform. It's people who want to be "realists" that helped stymie his efforts... so thanks for that asshats.


I'm looking at a third party vote.

Can't vote for someone who is supporting the TPP. Remember it's not what they say it's what they do. She appointed platform committee members who supported the TPP. that speaks louder than words.


_______________

That's a litmus test right wing style headset. Anybody not with you 100% is your enemy. They just get their freak on over guns, abortion, whatever.

There's what you want, what you can have & what you want to avoid at all costs, Trump. If those things are true then there's really only one rational choice.

 

[Moonbeam]

I find economics to be similar to politics and religion in that way too, in that people feel perfectly comfortable making broad statements about its fundamental nature yet feel no need to back up what they say with actual research or data. I think since economics and politics are so closely intertwined people view them in a similar tribal way. This is why when I talk about economics I generally try to do so in the context of specific data or research.

For example I feel that we would have far less inflation trutherism if people stuck to data instead of emotions. Mainstream conservative economic thought said we would have lots of inflation over the last 8 years. The data clearly shows we didn't and that thought was wrong. If they were sticking to the data we would no longer be having this discussion, but since people feel no need to tether their ideas to research or data we end up with 'secret inflation' and BLS conspiracy theories.

I find it difficult to escape the feeling there must be an actual reality that can be perceived and measured, and yet it seems to remain illusive. It's like being in a hall of funny mirrors. As each economic voice is projected and proven to show merit a new excuse as to why that new one can't be right from the other side is projected. It seems as if those who wear blue glasses always see a reality that is visible in blue light and those with red glasses see a world that reflects nothing but red. In one world maybe things look right and in the other they feel right. In one case one has to have the capacity to be able to reason rationally and in the other to feel without emotional bias. Is the mind capable of doing both, I wonder?

 

[glenn1]

That's a litmus test right wing style headset. Anybody not with you 100% is your enemy. They just get their freak on over guns, abortion, whatever.

There's what you want, what you can have & what you want to avoid at all costs, Trump. If those things are true then there's really only one rational choice.

Do you ACTUALLY like and support Hillary on her own merits or are you just being your normal partisan diehard who doesn't really care who runs so long as they don't have a (R) after their name?

Saying someone should support the 2nd most disliked candidate in history for negative partisanship reasons ("he's worse!") is both obtuse and an insult to the intelligence of the person you're suggesting it to after they just laid out the reasons why they will vote 3rd party.

For myself there is literally nothing you could say or do to get me to vote for either Trump or Hillary. Both are monumentally horrible candidates and it would be morally negligent of me to enable (in even the smallest way) either one to achieve the Oval Office.

 

[fskimospy]

I find it difficult to escape the feeling there must be an actual reality that can be perceived and measured, and yet it seems to remain illusive. It's like being in a hall of funny mirrors. As each economic voice is projected and proven to show merit a new excuse as to why that new one can't be right from the other side is projected. It seems as if those who wear blue glasses always see a reality that is visible in blue light and those with red glasses see a world that reflects nothing but red. In one world maybe things look right and in the other they feel right. In one case one has to have the capacity to be able to reason rationally and in the other to feel without emotional bias. Is the mind capable of doing both, I wonder?

I think that's the problem with how our economic discourse is reported on. It is frequently done in a style that seems to say 'here's both sides, I guess we'll never know!' On some topics there really is no firm conclusion but on plenty of others there really is.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think that's the problem with how our economic discourse is reported on. It is frequently done in a style that seems to say 'here's both sides, I guess we'll never know!' On some topics there really is no firm conclusion but on plenty of others there really is.

Well, of course I am driven crazy by the bending over backward the press will engage in to maintain an air of impartiality, but your assertion there is no doubt is certain cases reminds me that when I think that way I'm thinking as a liberal. Conservatives think in black and white more than liberals do who can think more in tones of gray.

At any rate, my issue, I think, is with the need to know. I would like to know what truth is. I would feel more secure if I did, I think. I would be totally immune to criticism if I what I thought was reality really was. I was programed to need to know, it seems to me. In my search for proof that life is good, I lost everything I believed in and discovered in the process that the good doesn't need proof to exist. It just is and it's just fine not to know anything.

I see in the pursuit of economic truths a need to believe that I have experience with and suspect lies at the heart of a lot of certainty, certainty in which I lost all trust. I am open to the notion there is a truth in economics that may be able to be carefully measured, but also open to the idea it may be a truth that satisfies some unconscious need.

 

[Jhhnn]

Do you ACTUALLY like and support Hillary on her own merits or are you just being your normal partisan diehard who doesn't really care who runs so long as they don't have a (R) after their name?

Saying someone should support the 2nd most disliked candidate in history for negative partisanship reasons ("he's worse!") is both obtuse and an insult to the intelligence of the person you're suggesting it to after they just laid out the reasons why they will vote 3rd party.

For myself there is literally nothing you could say or do to get me to vote for either Trump or Hillary. Both are monumentally horrible candidates and it would be morally negligent of me to enable (in even the smallest way) either one to achieve the Oval Office.

I oppose the dishonest & damaging Repub agenda of trickle down economics. It hasn't worked well for middle America. It's something they all share. I oppose their maudlin pandering to pro-life control freaks, Jesus freaks, gun freaks, xenophobic freaks, conspiracy theory freaks & whatever other kind of anti-gubmint culture warrior freak they can find or create. Those issues are just shiny objects to attract votes to their top down class warfare agenda. Trump goes a step beyond with an authoritarian strongman leader cult of the fascist kind.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, of course I am driven crazy by the bending over backward the press will engage in to maintain an air of impartiality, but your assertion there is no doubt is certain cases reminds me that when I think that way I'm thinking as a liberal. Conservatives think in black and white more than liberals do who can think more in tones of gray.

At any rate, my issue, I think, is with the need to know. I would like to know what truth is. I would feel more secure if I did, I think. I would be totally immune to criticism if I what I thought was reality really was. I was programed to need to know, it seems to me. In my search for proof that life is good, I lost everything I believed in and discovered in the process that the good doesn't need proof to exist. It just is and it's just fine not to know anything.

I see in the pursuit of economic truths a need to believe that I have experience with and suspect lies at the heart of a lot of certainty, certainty in which I lost all trust. I am open to the notion there is a truth in economics that may be able to be carefully measured, but also open to the idea it may be a truth that satisfies some unconscious need.

To be clear I'm not saying there is no doubt as economics isn't firm enough to say things with certainty but there are at least quite a few areas where we can speak with a high degree of confidence.

 

[blankslate]

That's a litmus test right wing style headset. Anybody not with you 100% is your enemy. They just get their freak on over guns, abortion, whatever.

There's what you want, what you can have & what you want to avoid at all costs, Trump. If those things are true then there's really only one rational choice.

depending on where you live there is more than one rational choice... if I was in a swing state I wouldn't be looking at a 3rd party choice. If you think I'm looking at Gary Johnson go jump off of a fucking cliff.

I live in a blue state as such I can withhold my vote from Hillary and still be rational despite your dumb claims

TPP is the most concerning to me. I could forgive Hillary's delegates voting down a Nation-wide postal banking system much like state-wide one North Dakota has. or even being more "pragmatic" about health care reform instead of saying "I still support Universal Health Care"

Don't libel me by painting me "as a if you're not 100% with me you're against me" drone. I used to think you were above such baseless attacks. Now I am not so sure.

What specific provisions of the TPP are you against and why?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/tpp-isds-constitution/396389/

It is January 2017. The mayor of San Francisco signs a bill that will raise the minimum wage of all workers from $8 to $16 an hour effective July 1st. His lawyers assure him that neither federal nor California minimum wage laws forbid that and that it is fine under the U.S. Constitution.

Then, a month later, a Vietnamese company that owns 15 restaurants in San Francisco files a lawsuit saying that the pay increase violates the “investor protection” provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement recently approved by Congress. The lawsuit is not in a federal or state court, but instead will be heard by three private arbitrators; the United States government is the sole defendant; and the city can participate only if the U.S. allows it.

It is not a far-fetched scenario. The TPP reportedly includes such provisions, as a means of solving a thorny problem. In the United States, the courts are, by and large, independent and willing to fairly decide challenges to arbitrary government laws and rulings, no matter who the plaintiff is. The same is not consistently true in less developed countries.

The situation above is a hypothetical scenario that might come about because the TPP allow arbitration courts instead of Government courts to decide complaints that a corporation might bring against a countries law or regulation.

How it can come about is detailed in the following quotes from the article.

The solution proposed in the TPP is to allow foreign investors to bring claims for money damages over violations of the TPP’s investor protection provisions before a private arbitration tribunal that operates outside the challenged government’s court system. One arbitrator would be chosen by the investor, one by the country being challenged, and a third by agreement of the other two arbitrators.

The arbitrators are often lawyers who specialize in international trade and investment, for whom serving as arbitrators is only one source of their income. Unlike U.S. judges, they are not salaried but paid by the hour, and they can rotate between arbitrating cases and representing investors suing governments.

Despite the fairness of our court system, the U.S. government has consented in prior trade agreements, and in a leaked version of the still-secret TPP, to allow foreign investors to bypass our courts and instead move to “investor-state” arbitration. Thus, challenges based upon TPP to our duly enacted laws and other regulatory actions would be decided by three individuals who are not government officials and need not be American citizens. And they would have the final word as to whether the federal government will be compelled to pay damages, because there is no judicial review in any U.S. court of the merits of these arbitral rulings.

If such a case were brought, the foreign investor would sue the United States and ask that the arbitrators find that “investor-based expectations” under the TPP were violated. So, for example, it might claim that doubling the minimum wage from its prior level violated the TPP’s provisions requiring fair and equitable treatment of foreign investors. If the arbitrators agreed, they would assess money damages that would be paid from the federal treasury, but the San Francisco wage law would not be directly affected. However, because the ruling would open the door for other foreign investors in any number of businesses to bring similar claims, Congress would almost assuredly step in and override the wage increase to prevent opening the doors to the Treasury to every foreign investor in San Francisco. Indeed, in a similar situation Canada reversed a toxics ban and published a worldwide advertisement that the chemical was safe in order to avoid the possibility of having to pay substantial damages.

In recent years, there has been a major increase in the use of arbitration in the United States to decide commercial disputes, but those cases involve contracts in which the parties agreed to arbitration, with the outcome generally depending on how factual issues are resolved. TPP arbitrators, by contrast, will decide what is essentially a legal question: whether governmental actions, which are designed to protect our health, safety, environment and economic well-being, are consistent with the TPP. Those protections extend from locally enacted laws like the San Francisco minimum-wage provision, to state statutes and regulatory actions, to laws passed by Congress and decisions of federal regulatory agencies. And under the TPP, as under other trade agreements, decisions of a majority of the arbitrators on compliance with the TPP will not be subject to review in any court, federal or state. Among the other important public policy measures currently being debated that might be the basis for a TPP claim by a foreign investor include water rationing in California, the legality of selling e-cigarettes to minors, and the state regulation of medical facilities performing abortions. If a foreign investor won a TPP arbitration in these situations or the wage increase discussed above, that would not only cost the Treasury, but it would disadvantage American competitors who cannot benefit from TPP arbitrations, unless the offending law were set aside. And if governments feel compelled to set aside such laws in response to adverse rulings, the three arbitrators will effectively have substituted their own judgments for that of the electorate.

Under the TPP, the arbitrators will act like judges, deciding legal questions just as federal judges decide constitutional claims. However, unlike judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution, TPP arbitrators are not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate, nor do they have the independence that comes from life tenure. And that presents a significant constitutional issue: Can the president and Congress, consistent with Article III, assign to three private arbitrators the judicial function of deciding the merits of a TPP investor challenge?

The TPP as it is now is terrible for the U.S.

Here is a John Oliver Last Week tonight video about cigarettes highlighting how a trade agreement with a similar component affected Australia's cigarette package warnings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8&t=6m10s

How do you think the lawsuit by TransCanada against the U.S. would turn out if there was a similar agreement between the U.S. and Canada. Instead of laughing about it we might be thinking. Fuck we would really be paying TransCanada billions over the Keystone pipeline.


_________________

 

[glenn1]

I oppose the dishonest & damaging Repub agenda of trickle down economics. It hasn't worked well for middle America. It's something they all share. I oppose their maudlin pandering to pro-life control freaks, Jesus freaks, gun freaks, xenophobic freaks, conspiracy theory freaks & whatever other kind of anti-gubmint culture warrior freak they can find or create. Those issues are just shiny objects to attract votes to their top down class warfare agenda. Trump goes a step beyond with an authoritarian strongman leader cult of the fascist kind.

It would have been easier and shorter to say "No, I don't really like Hillary but I really hate Republicans."

 

[fskimospy]

depending on where you live there is more than one rational choice... if I was in a swing state I wouldn't be looking at a 3rd party choice. If you think I'm looking at Gary Johnson go jump off of a fucking cliff.

I live in a blue state as such I can withhold my vote from Hillary and still be rational despite your dumb claims

TPP is the most concerning to me. I could forgive Hillary's delegates voting down a Nation-wide postal banking system much like state-wide one North Dakota has. or even being more "pragmatic" about health care reform.

Don't libel me by painting me "as a if you're not 100% with me you're against me" drone. I used to think you were above such baseless attacks. Now I am not so sure.


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/tpp-isds-constitution/396389/

The situation above is a hypothetical scenario that might come about because the TPP allow arbitration courts instead of Government courts to decide complaints that a corporation might bring against a countries law or regulation.

How it can come about is detailed in the following quotes from the article.

The TPP as it is now is terrible for the U.S.

Here is a John Oliver Last Week tonight video about cigarettes highlighting how a trade agreement with a similar component affected Australia's cigarette package warnings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8&t=6m10s

This is a speculative article that was written before the text of the TPP was made public, meaning the author had no idea what the dispute resolution process actually was/is.