WHAT'S NEXT FOR LIBERALISM?

[theeedude]

There are two reasons to create jobs in a small town:
1. It's a university town, and you can benefit from the local educated talent.
2. You can be the sole employer and have the local government shower you with money and have the local workers (especially ones who own a house there and can't move) as compliant serfs clinging to the only job they can get there.

 

[desura]

Small towns can prosper as areas of production. Farming is an example. The other thing is that all things considered, the way things were supposed to work was that comparative advantage would mean that unique goods that could only be found in certain countries would be traded, while more basic goods would most be produced domestically. But now, most common basic goods have their production concentrated in Asia, where the production poisons the land and the people are underpaid.

 

[blankslate]

To lose again with Democrats if the DNC and how they put their finger on the scales for an establishment puppet over a populist aren't changed soon.....


____________

 

[theeedude]

Small towns can prosper as areas of production. Farming is an example. The other thing is that all things considered, the way things were supposed to work was that comparative advantage would mean that unique goods that could only be found in certain countries would be traded, while more basic goods would most be produced domestically. But now, most common basic goods have their production concentrated in Asia, where the production poisons the land and the people are underpaid.

Comparative advantage just means you can do something cheaper and/or better than someone else. Basic goods aren't exempt from it.

 

[Jhhnn]

To lose again with Democrats if the DNC and how they put their finger on the scales for an establishment puppet over a populist aren't changed soon.....


____________

Concern trolling for Bernie & tearing down the dirty Democrats, huh? Your bullshit won't fly in the face of a 12 point spread between Sanders & Clinton. The degree to which the party favored Clinton can't account for that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Concern trolling for Bernie & tearing down the dirty Democrats, huh? Your bullshit won't fly in the face of a 12 point spread between Sanders & Clinton. The degree to which the party favored Clinton can't account for that.

Besides that, I don't think anybody could have out-done Trump as a populist. Make America White again really resonated.

 

[norseamd]

Apologies for the tardiness. Was reconfiguring my new laptop along with a slew of fixes for the house, yard and wifey's car.

I'd say my post was 85% tongue in cheek,10% sarcasm and a 5% dig at Trump's problematic bromance with Putin.

Alrighty then.

And I agree Marx isnt the angel many want him to be.

 

[Blue_Max]

Besides that, I don't think anybody could have out-done Trump as a populist. Make America White again really resonated.

I'd LOVE to see you tell us all where he actually said that.

Bullsh*t like that cost you the election. LEARN from that.

 

[agent00f]

I'd LOVE to see you tell us all where he actually said that.

Bullsh*t like that cost you the election. LEARN from that.

If you didn't have to be so politically correct, what do you really want to say about them blacks and mexicans?

 

[agent00f]

Agreed. The folks you reference are beguiled & bewildered. What they have left is their pride, which makes them even easier targets. They'll be learning the hard way what the rest of us already know.

Trump? Trump can't deliver. Repubs can't deliver either. They actually have no intention of doing so & never have. They'll just set us to fighting with each other over the crumbs.

Give trumpster annual income was something like 72k/yr, how low do you think that has to dip before econ > race? Keep in mind appalachians still cheered every time the wall got higher to keep out rapists.

 

[Blue_Max]

If you didn't have to be politically correct, what do you really want to say about them blacks and mexicans?

Anyone else notice that rather than answering the question, they just hurl another false accusation in order to squash the question and redirect the focus?

Expect more of that bullshit if this Marxist extreme leftism is allowed to continue flourishing.

...and in case it actually needs to be said, I have no problem with anyone's skin tone. I have a problem with people that follow ideologies that destroy the societies they reside in.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'd LOVE to see you tell us all where he actually said that.

Bullsh*t like that cost you the election. LEARN from that.

It's unremarkable that he could say one thing & his devotees would get the subliminal meaning immediately. It's also unremarkable that they'd deny it, even to themselves.

 

[agent00f]

Anyone else notice that rather than answering the question, they just hurl another false accusation in order to squash the question and redirect the focus?

Expect more of that bullshit if this Marxist extreme leftism is allowed to continue flourishing.

...and in case it actually needs to be said, I have no problem with anyone's skin tone. I have a problem with people that follow ideologies that destroy the societies they reside in.

Like those ideological mexicans raping them white womens. It's not really my fault you're too dumb to understand why you guys despise not being allowed to say what you really think about welfare queens.

 

[desura]

This whole "America is a land of immigrants" is bull. America at its core is an English settler society, and there are legitimate concerns about large scale immigration fundamentally changing the character of the country, namely, Mexican immigration. This is because Mexican immigration has been very large-scale, and the ease of going back to Mexico to reinforce cultural and family ties means that they delay assimilation to the American culture which at its core if English-constitutionalism. The differences between the societies of Mexico and America are pretty profound.

For instance, Mexico is experiencing a shocking amount of carnage and violence currently. Why doesn't this happen in America? Probably something to do with the incorruptibility of local law enforcement. Likely, there is a tipping point in corruption where enough corrupt officers and the entire system goes to shit. This goes back to the basic culture, and can't be explained simply through economics or circumstance. Likely it has something to do with the religious conviction of Americans.

Fareed Zakaria made a good observation that the one society that has not experienced populist eruptions is Japan. Japan is also pretty much closed to immigration, and they are so homogeneous that they discriminate against Koreans. Even with the poor economy of Japan, they still have a high trust society largely due to their homogeneity. This is because if one certain group disproportionately utilizes state benefits, there becomes a creeping suspicion that they are not playing along with the social compact implicit with these state benefits, but are rather exploiting them. And the human psyche is a complicated thing, so the more cultural similarities that a person sees, the more they trust the stranger, while the more differences they see, the less they will trust.

 

[theeedude]

Trump Trash uses welfare just as much as Mexican immigrants if not more. When I drive by Home Depot, I know which "certain group" I see eager to work. When I drive by the fields, I know which "certain group" I see doing back breaking work there from the break of dawn.

 

[agent00f]

This whole "America is a land of immigrants" is bull. America at its core is an English settler society, and there are legitimate concerns about large scale immigration fundamentally changing the character of the country, namely, Mexican immigration. This is because Mexican immigration has been very large-scale, and the ease of going back to Mexico to reinforce cultural and family ties means that they delay assimilation to the American culture which at its core if English-constitutionalism. The differences between the societies of Mexico and America are pretty profound.

For instance, Mexico is experiencing a shocking amount of carnage and violence currently. Why doesn't this happen in America? Probably something to do with the incorruptibility of local law enforcement. Likely, there is a tipping point in corruption where enough corrupt officers and the entire system goes to shit. This goes back to the basic culture, and can't be explained simply through economics or circumstance. Likely it has something to do with the religious conviction of Americans.

Fareed Zakaria made a good observation that the one society that has not experienced populist eruptions is Japan. Japan is also pretty much closed to immigration, and they are so homogeneous that they discriminate against Koreans. Even with the poor economy of Japan, they still have a high trust society largely due to their homogeneity. This is because if one certain group disproportionately utilizes state benefits, there becomes a creeping suspicion that they are not playing along with the social compact implicit with these state benefits, but are rather exploiting them. And the human psyche is a complicated thing, so the more cultural similarities that a person sees, the more they trust the stranger, while the more differences they see, the less they will trust.

Seems pretty obvious whether more american conservatives identify more with this guy or any of them mexicans.

 

[norseamd]

It's unremarkable that he could say one thing & his devotees would get the subliminal meaning immediately. It's also unremarkable that they'd deny it, even to themselves.

 

[Jaskalas]

What makes you believe anyone would have any more success than the dozens of educators who've failed before them? This is not a rhetorical question. I've certainly seen zero evidence the bulk are teachable in any way, which rather explains the current predicament.

For example, I recall informing you that trump supporters are by any account not poor with substantial supporting data, and look how effective that was.

And I recall countering with MULTIPLE demonstrations that your NATIONAL survey was an outright LIE for speaking to the rural people of the upper Midwest and Appalachians. Look how effective educating you was.

Give trumpster annual income was something like 72k/yr

There you go again. It wasn't "rich" Californians who gave Trump a victory in swing states.
But it would be blue states who represent a majority popular vote in a national survey.

 

[norseamd]

There you go again. It wasn't "rich" Californians who gave Trump a victory in swing states.
But it would be blue states who represent a majority popular vote in a national survey.

For the most part, it wasnt poor rural white folk who won Trump the election. It was rich white people who live in suburbs, and white Midwesterners who live in the Rust Belt. But many hipster lefties will always jump at the opportunity to trash poor rural white people.

 

[agent00f]

And I recall countering with MULTIPLE demonstrations that your NATIONAL survey was an outright LIE for speaking to the rural people of the upper Midwest and Appalachians. Look how effective educating you was.

Unfortunately your "demonstrations" only prove that you don't have a mind for data. The trump numbers are significantly higher than the average, and it's completely counterfactual to believe this trend somehow reverses in some special areas (and thus need to be compensated for even more elsewhere). Just because poor people exist doesn't mean they're for trump, and the fact you believe your completely irrelevant links prove this is absolutely comical. These are simply the well off with respect to their peers, looking to keep it that way by keeping minorities and other competitors out.

In fact, it's demonstrably case that living in economically effected areas has zero (if not negative) effect on overall trump support:
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/193898/economic-hardship-favorable-views-trump.aspx

"The analysis looked at commuting zones (CZs) that are in the top fifth and the bottom fifth of all commuting zones in the country, ranked by manufacturing orientation, exposure to Chinese imports and exposure to Mexican immigration by virtue of proximity to the U.S.-Mexico border.[2]

If there is something about living in the top fifth of these CZs that causes residents to be more likely to have a favorable view of Trump, then the expectation would be that those with underlying demographic characteristics favorable to Trump and who live in the top fifth of the CZs ranked by the three criteria I listed above would be even more likely to have a favorable opinion of him than others. And those in the bottom fifth, who otherwise fit the description of someone who would have a favorable view of Trump, would be less likely to have a favorable opinion of Trump due to their geography.

This is not the case, however. The analysis shows that individuals who have the demographic characteristic of prototypical Trump supporters are actually less likely to hold a favorable view of Trump if they live in areas with a high share of manufacturing jobs and high exposure to Chinese imports than those living in areas low on these dimensions.

Thus the apparent correlation between Trump support and the manufacturing orientation of a local area is driven, at least in part, by the demographics of those living in the place rather than by the economic characteristics of the place. Older, less-educated white men tend to live in industrial metropolitan areas, but men with these same characteristics are more likely to support Trump if they live in parts of the country that have been relatively sheltered from trade competition or manufacturing decline.

Likewise, Trump has emphasized the need to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, but his support overall and even among likely Trump supporters is actually lower alongside the border and in neighboring areas with high immigrant populations than it is in the distant northern areas that would be least affected by a wall.[3]"

---

I am curious though what makes you believe you're any good with empirical arguments, when the only half-decent ones you're ever been able to produce are a result of parroting people like me.

There you go again. It wasn't "rich" Californians who gave Trump a victory in swing states.
But it would be blue states who represent a majority popular vote in a national survey.

No, it was the uneducated but relatively well off rural population. The sort who want to keep all their blue-area subsidies out of the hands of welfare queens.

 

[agent00f]

For the most part, it wasnt poor rural white folk who won Trump the election. It was rich white people who live in suburbs, and white Midwesterners who live in the Rust Belt. But many hipster lefties will always jump at the opportunity to trash poor rural white people.

No, within the white population there was a massive inversion of the vote along education lines, Trump +14% non-college educated and -10% otherwise. The sort of mass demographic shift not seen since civil rights; hardly unsurprising for those familiar with studies on rather unabated racial resentment in this country. It's not a coincidence these people absolutely despise that school teaches it's not ok to speak their mind about them minorities.