198 replies to this topic

[onbekende]

Think I figured out the HR policies of Trump for picking his Secretary's, he is going for a technocracy (something I approve) but with a twist:

 

- own several ten's of millions $

- nod in agreement when Trump speaks

[Lysistrata]

Gov. Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy. Curious about this pick because 4 years ago he was calling for the DoE to be eliminated. I have seen politicians take over a department for the sole purpose of eliminating them before... I wonder what they have planned.

[Shahenshah]

I like how Lys takes you all on the red herring chase when he cant counter 'data-based' points. 

[Lysistrata]

I like how Lys takes you all on the red herring chase when he cant counter 'data-based' points. 

So nice to hear from you Shah! I miss you. Mathematics is a slippery thing. If you have a desired result, you can change any number of variances to achieve your desired result. The only graphs, polls, charts, theories, predictions, or "data based" points I'll believe anymore are those that I do myself... which is none. So, I really only have my own common sense to rely on.

[Black Rook]

 

I like how Lys takes you all on the red herring chase when he cant counter 'data-based' points. 

So nice to hear from you Shah! I miss you. Mathematics is a slippery thing. If you have a desired result, you can change any number of variances to achieve your desired result. The only graphs, polls, charts, theories, predictions, or "data based" points I'll believe anymore are those that I do myself... which is none. So, I really only have my own common sense to rely on.

 

What common sense?

[onbekende]

Really, did he get the Department of Energy? HAHAHAHAHAHA, this is the fellow that wanted to abolish it (don't recall the specifics anymore, something about merging) but actually forgot about that policy idea of his in a Republican primary debate no?

 

 

 

I like how Lys takes you all on the red herring chase when he cant counter 'data-based' points. 

So nice to hear from you Shah! I miss you. Mathematics is a slippery thing. If you have a desired result, you can change any number of variances to achieve your desired result. The only graphs, polls, charts, theories, predictions, or "data based" points I'll believe anymore are those that I do myself... which is none. So, I really only have my own common sense to rely on.

 

so will you also stop believing anything Republican that comes out in terms of numbers/graphs/data?

[Lysistrata]

 

 

I like how Lys takes you all on the red herring chase when he cant counter 'data-based' points. 

So nice to hear from you Shah! I miss you. Mathematics is a slippery thing. If you have a desired result, you can change any number of variances to achieve your desired result. The only graphs, polls, charts, theories, predictions, or "data based" points I'll believe anymore are those that I do myself... which is none. So, I really only have my own common sense to rely on.

 

What common sense?

 

 

Is that the best you can do?

 

Really, did he get the Department of Energy? HAHAHAHAHAHA, this is the fellow that wanted to abolish it (don't recall the specifics anymore, something about merging) but actually forgot about that policy idea of his in a Republican primary debate no?

 

 

 

I like how Lys takes you all on the red herring chase when he cant counter 'data-based' points. 

So nice to hear from you Shah! I miss you. Mathematics is a slippery thing. If you have a desired result, you can change any number of variances to achieve your desired result. The only graphs, polls, charts, theories, predictions, or "data based" points I'll believe anymore are those that I do myself... which is none. So, I really only have my own common sense to rely on.

 

so will you also stop believing anything Republican that comes out in terms of numbers/graphs/data?

Yeah that's the one. Rick Perry totally blanked in a debate on what 3 departments he would eliminate... and Energy was the one he forgot... ooops... a bit ironic for sure. I take all "data based" points with a grain of salt. The more that come out, the more it's obvious they are only designed to influence your support. Brexit and Trump are the two most recent examples. Even I was completely convinced that Donald Trump had no chance to win... because of media driven polling. There should be a law against lying so much.

[onbekende]

Then alot of Trump supporters should be charged aswell I guess. Alot of Trump votes unaccounted by pollsters came from: 1) people not stating it cause of various reasons or he got alot of last-minute votes; and 2) people non responsive to pollsters (which is a double edged sword, fault also lies with pollsters).

 

Heck even all the pro-republican side of the media had him losing in the polls (don't start about the LA Times of whoever, they got it wrong aswell as they never did a electoral college breakdown).

[Sister Midnight]

I can't read this thread, but:

 

[hilowe]

I can't read this thread, but:

 

 

That's as good as Trump picking El Chapo to head the DEA (seen that one a ton on Facebook).

[Lysistrata]

The current Administrator for the FAA is Michael Huerta. He was confirmed by the US Senate on January 1, 2013, for a five year term. Donald Trump cannot nominate the Twilight Zone Airplane Gremlin to replace Huerta until 2018. More fake news.

[SeaBeeGipson]

The current Administrator for the FAA is Michael Huerta. He was confirmed by the US Senate on January 1, 2013, for a five year term. Donald Trump cannot nominate the Twilight Zone Airplane Gremlin to replace Huerta until 2018. More fake news.

Damn, I was looking forward to the Twilight Zone Airplane Gremlin.

[Sister Midnight]

 

I can't read this thread, but:

 

 

That's as good as Trump picking El Chapo to head the DEA (seen that one a ton on Facebook).

 

 

 

Have you seen this one?

[DeathMerchant]

 

 

I can't read this thread, but:

 

 

That's as good as Trump picking El Chapo to head the DEA (seen that one a ton on Facebook).

 

 

 

Have you seen this one?

I approve of Sauron for Secretary of Defense and Agent Smith for Head of FBI.

[hilowe]

 

 

 

I can't read this thread, but:

 

 

That's as good as Trump picking El Chapo to head the DEA (seen that one a ton on Facebook).

 

 

 

Have you seen this one?

I approve of Sauron for Secretary of Defense and Agent Smith for Head of FBI.

 

 

I just don't know, I mean Voldemort for Treasury??? What's his experience with money? I think that Danny Ocean (from Ocean's 11) would do well as Treasury Secretary.

 

Also, Mugabe for Attorney General. Perfection. Couldn't find a better candidate.

[Lysistrata]

I don't think Vlad will take the pay cut

[onbekende]

Seeing as President of Russia he gets $60k and as SoS he would get $205k...

 

Not that it really matters, he gets most his $$ from running the joint like a racketeering business anyway.

[Niels]

My opinion is most heavily influenced by my life experience in the lower class. I've been to a lot of areas with a lot of unemployed, working age, people. Competition can get rather fierce for crappy low-wage jobs. Some of the worst was from the recession, granted, but things are still not very good for the lower class.

Maybe this is an unpopular response (in fact, I know it is), but if one is in an area with poor economic opportunities: then move.

Every American literally moved to this country, or to the land that would become this country, or within this country in search of better opportunities.  Native Americans followed huntable animals across Beringia.  People from the Old World since 1492 have come seeking land, jobs, and fortune.  The only exception might be African Americans whose ancestors were forcibly relocated here against their will, but even so, many of their grandparents moved internally seeking a better place to live in the during the Great Migration from 1910-1970.

To show that I'm not speaking purely academically, I'll use my family as an example: On one side, my ancestors came here to escape the Irish Potato Famine and the brutality of British rule over Ireland.  On the other side, they were Jews from the then-Russian Empire, who got tired of having their wealth and lives threatened by the repeated pogroms.  Both sides had to move repeatedly for employment reasons before settling in New York for a few decades (ca. 1930-1990), then again moving to various other states in the 1990s.

Point is: Americans used to move to seek better lives, and it is still a way to get ahead which is why those on upward trajectories move to vibrant cities like SF which are responsible for an increasing share of our nation's GDP.  By contrast, those who refuse to uproot themselves like their own ancestors did, are, and think themselves to be, on downward paths.

 

One poignant expression of this idea that sticking around somewhere that is economically depressed is a poor choice comes from an article in the National Review:

 The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. ... The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.

(emphasis mine)

 

That doesn't mean absolutely no good can come from flirting with it. Even if the good is simply the current generation getting first-hand context on why free trade is better than protectionism. I know it's far from the ideal way to learn it but yeah, every few hundred years we might need a reminder.

Maybe you are right, maybe a reminder is necessary.  When it goes poorly, I'm sure going to resent the negative impact on my life, particularly since it will come during what ought to be my prime earning years.
I do hope that there are not worse things than protectionism that we need to be reminded are bad.  For example, note the part of my ancestry about Jews and pogroms: we had the Inquisition (most intense in the 15th & 16th centuries) and those pogroms (19th & 20th centuries).  A cynical reading of the repetitive view of history says they'll be more in the 22nd.  Again, hopefully no "reminders" will be necessary that state-sponsored anti-Semitic violence is also bad.

[Canik]

Maybe this is an unpopular response (in fact, I know it is), but if one is in an area with poor economic opportunities: then move. Every American literally moved to this country, or to the land that would become this country, or within this country in search of better opportunities. Native Americans followed huntable animals across Beringia. People from the Old World since 1492 have come seeking land, jobs, and fortune. The only exception might be African Americans whose ancestors were forcibly relocated here against their will, but even so, many of their grandparents moved internally seeking a better place to live in the during the Great Migration from 1910-1970. To show that I'm not speaking purely academically, I'll use my family as an example: On one side, my ancestors came here to escape the Irish Potato Famine and the brutality of British rule over Ireland. On the other side, they were Jews from the then-Russian Empire, who got tired of having their wealth and lives threatened by the repeated pogroms. Both sides had to move repeatedly for employment reasons before settling in New York for a few decades (ca. 1930-1990), then again moving to various other states in the 1990s. Point is: Americans used to move to seek better lives, and it is still a way to get ahead which is why those on upward trajectories move to vibrant cities like SF which are responsible for an increasing share of our nation's GDP. By contrast, those who refuse to uproot themselves like their own ancestors did, are, and think themselves to be, on downward paths.

Yep that's not going to get you a lot of popularity points if you went from poor community to poor community telling everyone to move. Moving costs money, which poor people do not have much of by definition.

And those example you cite in history, it was a different time. America was the 'new world', it was a new frontier that kept steadily expanding until recently.  Now everything is settled, mapped, regulated, all land is either privately or government owned and either way they probably don't want you on it. Correct me if I'm wrong but there's already a good number of homeless and unemployed in SF, NYC, etc. (and keep in mind whatever numbers you find are probably softened at least a bit. Having homeless & unemployed isn't something to brag about)
 

 

Maybe you are right, maybe a reminder is necessary. When it goes poorly, I'm sure going to resent the negative impact on my life, particularly since it will come during what ought to be my prime earning years. I do hope that there are not worse things than protectionism that we need to be reminded are bad. For example, note the part of my ancestry about Jews and pogroms: we had the Inquisition (most intense in the 15th & 16th centuries) and those pogroms (19th & 20th centuries). A cynical reading of the repetitive view of history says they'll be more in the 22nd. Again, hopefully no "reminders" will be necessary that state-sponsored anti-Semitic violence is also bad.

What/who are you going to be resentful towards?

And by the way, for all we know the protectionism (or the movement that comes along with it) could advert a bigger disaster in the future. I know we've got a lot of economic things literally down to a science but I still don't think we know it all and can say for sure how everything will be effected especially in the long-term. We have elections every 4 years so this may not last that long. I mean, there is some possibility that America does well in the next 4-8 years. It is not a 'guaranteed fact' that we're going to do bad just because there is some flirting with protectionism.

The reminder thing was a bare minimum benefit assuming things clearly get worse from it.

[Niels]

Yep that's not going to get you a lot of popularity points if you went from poor community to poor community telling everyone to move. Moving costs money, which poor people do not have much of by definition.

A totally fair point, which is why it would be great if there was some kind of assistance program aimed at helping people move to more economically-vibrant areas.  We already have programs aimed at retraining people, but they often fail to result in meaningful improvement because of poor implementation and because the retrained person remains in a place with bad employment options.
However, on the other hand, very few people have been perpetually poor (intergenerational income mobility is not as high as it used to be, but is still high).  It should have been clear that the world was changing (as my original chart at the beginning of this conversation showed with respect to perpetually declining % of jobs in manufacturing from 1950 onwards).  I mean, I can put up this article from the 1982 New York Times about an 80% decline in steelworker jobs in Jonestown, PA from 1977-1982.  Not all the steel mills closed simultaneously, so an entire industry was not made unemployed and poor overnight, but it should have been obvious that (1) the industry was in decline and (2) finding something new to do, possibly somewhere else, would be advised.

 

And those example you cite in history, it was a different time. America was the 'new world', it was a new frontier that kept steadily expanding until recently.  Now everything is settled, mapped, regulated, all land is either privately or government owned and either way they probably don't want you on it. Correct me if I'm wrong but there's already a good number of homeless and unemployed in SF, NYC, etc. (and keep in mind whatever numbers you find are probably softened at least a bit. Having homeless & unemployed isn't something to brag about)

Well, the "American Frontier" was official deemed closed based on the data of the 1890 Census.

Yet, several large internal migrations occurred after this time.  First, the 1910s-1970s Great Migration I mentioned earlier.  Second, movements induced by the Dust Bowl, such as the "Okies" who moved from Oklahoma to California in the 1930s.  To get back to the earlier comment about poor people being unable to move because they are poor, I would note that uneducated Black sharecroppers and farmers who have had their farms foreclosed upon were also poor people - their net worths were probably not much different from $0 at the time they moved north or west, respectively.

Yes, there are homeless and unemployed people in SF and NYC (there are everywhere), but this does not change the fact that on average the people in these places are more economically productive, and that these places have positive business/job growth (whereas rural areas don't) - see this Washington Post article and specifically the main chart in it.  Specifically regarding the homeless people, I suspect that a large number of them have untreated mental health issues (which it would be great to address) and congregate in cities because there are more people, with more money, who might take pity on them and give a dollar - if not, organized assistance (government, religious, and/or humanitarian) are more concentrated in cities.

 

What/who are you going to be resentful towards?

Those responsible for approving policies that would be expected to reduce economic growth without a clear upside, and the persons who empowered them?
I'd be equally resentful if I was forced to accept an eminent domain buyout of my property at below-market rates for a "bridge to nowhere" type of project that voters/politicians approved for some reason.

 

We have elections every 4 years so this may not last that long. I mean, there is some possibility that America does well in the next 4-8 years. It is not a 'guaranteed fact' that we're going to do bad just because there is some flirting with protectionism.

This is all true - nothing is guaranteed.  I want to make clear that although I do not approve of Mr. Trump as a person, and do not agree with most of his policies, I am not rooting for him to fail so I can be right and say "told you so" to people who did support him.  Ultimately, I will be pleasantly surprised if he does a decent job, but I think if he does, it will be by pursuing more accepted policies (e.g. broad changes to corporate taxes and regulations), rather than one-off deals like the Carrier silliness or protectionist measures.