[mike777]

Phil, on 2016-April-29, 05:23, said:

Trump was in Orange County last night at the fairgrounds. There was a riot that involved some protesters but I seriously doubt any of the instigators were from here.

The most excited people get about anything is deciding between the carnitas and carne asada.

If those who were violent and spit in the face of the cops ...if not from here....from where?

[awm]

Well, I feel that the influence of money in politics is incredibly corrosive any one of the biggest issues of this election. Donald Trump apparently agrees with me, and Hillary Clinton apparently does not. But I'm definitely voting for Hillary Clinton in the general election when it comes down to those two candidates (very likely at this point).

If you view two candidates as fairly similar except on one important issue it's easy to vote on that issue. But I don't really believe there are people who (for example):

1. Think that we should raise taxes on the wealthy and...
2. Think the government should be active in making college more affordable and...
3. Think Mexican citizens who came to the US illegally as children should be allowed to become US citizens and...
4. Think we should welcome refugees from Syria into the US and...
5. Think climate change is a big issue and we should lead the world in addressing it...

and yet would vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton because Donald Trump is against abortion.

Usually the "single issue" voters think a single issue is most important, but also agree with the candidate they are voting for on a host of other issues.

In any case, I don't believe it's actually "undecided voters" who decide elections. It's "non-political voters" who only sometimes turn out. This is probably a change from how things were thirty years ago, but the pattern in presidential versus non-presidential elections is pretty indicative.

[kenberg]

Actually I thought Trump favored abortion but thought women should be punished for having one. Or something like that. It's a little hard to follow.

I think this election year has shown just how poorly we understand how the public comes to political conclusions. The success of both Sanders and Trump caught nearly everyone, including me, by surprise. We can start by examining our own political calculations as Adam and Mike are doing.

I start with the belief that throughout history most lives have been spent in misery. I asked my father about his childhood, he replied "My childhood was hell" and refused further comment. I believe this to be more the norm than the exception. We are very very lucky. I start with that.

Next I take it as an article of faith that I cannot possibly understand in depth most of the problems of our age.

Let's look at trade, to see how this applies.

NAFTA:
I understand that this has worked out well for Mexico. I think having an economically healthy neighbor to our south is not only good for them it is good for us. I have no idea how it has worked out for Canada. For us? I imagine some industries, some workers, have suffered. If I were one of those workers, I probably would not be interested in arguments about the greater good for the greater number, or about the inevitability of change, or whatever. But in fact change happens. The 1950s were a great time to be a blue collar worker in American. The 1930s not so good. "Once I built a railroad, now it's done, buddy can you spare a dime."

TPP:
Look, if I am not all that well prepared to argue the pluses and minuses of NAFTA, which is in the history books, I am probably not going to be good at analyzing the pluses and minuses of a pact that has not yet happened. But as a general principle, supporting trade seems right.

Worldwide:
Yes, I am opposed to ten year olds working twelve hour days in unsafe conditions. That's the easy part. And I take environmental problems seriously. But now what, specifically, are we to do?


Ok, you probably get the idea. I don't expect miracles and I think the choices are difficult. I want someone in charge who I think sees the world, and sees our responsibilities, roughly as I do. I want someone who can work with other people. At its best, this is more than the ability to compromise, it is the ability to work through to something with greater benefit to all.


I really do not think that Democrats have an automatic advantage over Republicans in this. But usually it seems to work out that way, and lately the Republicans seem to have lost their collective mind. Well, I suppose "collective" is a dirty word for Republicans.

[Al_U_Card]

The (political) history of mankind can be boiled down to:

Good climate, abundant harvests, decent economy, let the good times roll.

Bad climate, poor harvests, depressed economy, let the (political) heads roll.

Despite current optimism, nothing much to do about the climate.
Harvests depend on the climate to a significant degree.
The economy is the one area where our input can be significant.

A healthy economy (in these days of world-wide free trade) can overcome many problems and allow for the populace to leave the political class in place.

Providing that healthy economy is more a political problem than an economic one. Wise stewardship of our marketplace is what makes the difference. People with money in their pockets are too busy enjoying life to be bothered with the contemplation of disruption, whatever its proposed benefit. Only major external upheaval can create unrest when those forces impinge on extant prosperity.

Presently, our economy depends on the financial sector and the military-industrial war machine.

Rock and a hard place, anyone?

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2016-April-29, 17:43, said:

Hillary has a lot of baggage but I think she wants very much to be a good president.

She wants very much to be president.

[awm]

As far as NAFTA and TPP go, it's too simplistic to analyze these by saying "trade is good" and leaving it at that. As far as I can understand, what happens is basically the following:

1. Free trade allows companies to move production to wherever it is cheapest, and then transport the finished products to wherever there's demand. These days transportation costs are low enough that (provided there are no restrictions on trade) this is generally feasible.
2. This is obviously a big advantage for corporations, which can greatly reduce their expenses. Thus the corporate lobby is virtually always in favor of trade.
3. Whatever's good for corporations is usually good for their shareholders, so investment groups and wealthy individuals also support trade.
4. Some of the savings from reduced cost of production are usually passed on to consumers, which is good for people with a steady income.

That's the good side of trade. Here's the bad side:

5. People with relatively low skills often find that their jobs can be done more efficiently overseas in a country where labor is cheaper (or where automation is more efficient). Trade deals typically cause them to lose their jobs and finding work becomes difficult for them. We see this in the US manufacturing sector with NAFTA shouldering a great deal of blame (much cheaper to build cars in Mexico or China where labor is cheap). NAFTA was also disastrous for Mexican farm workers, because most agricultural products are more efficiently produced in American factory farms.
6. It becomes much more difficult for governments to improve environmental or safety standards, because companies will just move overseas where the standards (and cost of compliance) are less. Without free trade, companies wanting access to US markets might have to comply with US regulations; with free trade they just move to China or India, meaning Americans have the choice between jobs or clean water. In fact more recent deals (like TPP) give corporations the ability to directly sue for "lost profits" when a government increases the cost of doing business.
7. Trade deals exert downward pressure on wages, especially for low-skill workers (because again, companies have more flexibility in moving across borders to places with a lower wage).
8. Trade deals make it easier for companies to avoid paying taxes, by moving their headquarters to places with a low corporate tax, or by arranging bogus deals where a foreign subsidiary "loans" money or equipment at a high interest rate. This sort of tax dodge wouldn't work if foreign-based companies had to pay significant tariffs (would create a huge advantage for being "based" in the country where most of the sales are made). The passage of trade deals over the years has a high correlation with the drop in US government revenue coming from corporate taxes (which has also caused deficits and pressure to raise individual tax rates and/or cut essential programs).

The conclusion is that trade deals are extremely good for the wealthy. US politicians (of both parties) are much more responsive to what their wealthiest donors want than to voters at large, which is why we keep seeing these deals regardless of which party holds the presidency. It is very interesting that TPP (negotiated and supported by the Obama administration) is likely to pass with overwhelming support from Republicans in congress (who normally oppose everything Obama does) while being opposed by both Democratic primary contenders (admittedly Hillary probably reverts to supporting it after election season is over).

Trade is not so good for working class people. In principle this can be fixed by negotiating strong international standards on environment, safety, wages, and taxes as part of the deal. This never happens (because the corporations and wealthy investors who want the trade deal don't want it to happen).

[y66]

That's one of the most concise analyses of the pluses and minuses of trade I've ever seen, not that I have time to read a lot of stuff outside the water cooler where, unfortunately (for us), awm does not post as frequently as he used to. I do read Krugman who seems to know a thing or two about this topic. I feel sure he would concede that awm's post covers more ground than this post which may not be his last word on this.

[helene_t]

Excelent summary, Adam. Just a couple of other things to consider:

Pro: social progress in developing countries. Being a bangladeshi textile factory worker may not be everybody's dream but it is probably better than the alternatives that would exist without the textile export, i.e. being an unemployed yute farmer / beggar / prostitute.

Con: Increased pollution due to intercontinental transportation of goods.

[Al_U_Card]

The key (for ensuring continued prosperity) is innovation. As long as the prosperous continue to create the potential for added value (do i-phones count?...) then even lower wage workers gain through education and training. A continual process which many feel too arduous for an entire working career.

Once the lower rungs of the employment hierarchy refuse to adapt, their jobs can be out-sourced in no time. Unions are the linch-pins in this situation and they are notorious for trying to maintain entrenched gains...

[hrothgar]

awm, on 2016-May-01, 10:51, said:

5. People with relatively low skills often find that their jobs can be done more efficiently overseas in a country where labor is cheaper (or where automation is more efficient). Trade deals typically cause them to lose their jobs and finding work becomes difficult for them. We see this in the US manufacturing sector with NAFTA shouldering a great deal of blame (much cheaper to build cars in Mexico or China where labor is cheap). NAFTA was also disastrous for Mexican farm workers, because most agricultural products are more efficiently produced in American factory farms.

While I agree that NAFTA has been awful for Mexican farmers and many American workers, it is unclear to me why I should have any particular sympathy for these individuals as opposed to say, the Vietnamese factory workers who are much better off than their contemporaries living / working in same agrarian villages.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2016-May-01, 12:02, said:

That's one of the most concise analyses of the pluses and minuses of trade I've ever seen, not that I have time to read a lot of stuff outside the water cooler where, unfortunately (for us), awm does not post as frequently as he used to. I do read Krugman who seems to know a thing or two about this topic. I feel sure he would concede that awm's post covers more ground than this post which may not be his last word on this.

Part of my intent was to explain how I come to a political conclusion, with the idea that many others go at this in about the same way. The Krugman article cites a 50+ page article by the Council of Economic Advisers. I could read this, possibly I could even understand it. As Krugman notes, others see it differently. I could read their views. Then I could get a couple of books on international economics and read them. Will I? What do you think? And then, after I thoroughly understand the arguments for and against NAFTA I could move on to the TPP. And of course trade agreements are not the only political ssue in the upcoming election. Surely I must have an informed opinion about the problems in Brazil and how the US should approach this.

This dies not mean that I don't regard thoughtfulness as relevant. Certainly I do.

But my point, or part of it anyway, is that it is completely unrealistic to expect the typical voter (me, for example, I am typical enough to illustrate this point) to have a fully informed opinion regarding all of the important issues. I doubt that Hillary has a fully informed opinion about all of the important issues, and I am not sure Donald Trump can find Brazil on a map.

[kenberg]

I want to add a little.

i was looking through some of the arguments about NAFTA. I don't want to take the time to search out exact quotes but I am pretty sure what I am about to say is broadly accurate.


One of the arguments was that since the beginning of NAFTA there has been a dramatic rise in the number of undocumented immigrants to the US from Mexico, demonstrating that NAFTA made life tough for them. Well, yes. But when the argument turns to a discussion of immigration, it is often pointed out that currently the net immigration rate is zero or even negative and has been for a while. Ok, both statements about immigration numbers can be and probably are true. But how it is presented depends on the purpose of the speaker. If we wish to explain how NAFTA has adversely affected Mexicans, we cite as evidence the large increase in undocs in the US since NAFTA was ratified. If we wish to explain why NAFTA is helping Mexicans, we point out how in the last few years flow northward has pretty much stopped, thus suggesting there are now decent opportunities at home.

If we actually want to understand, it takes work.

I see that the Mexican farmer has been hurt by competition from US food conglomerates who provide food at lower prices. I an see why this would be a problem. I can also see why the Mexican factory worker might like the idea of cheaper, and quite possibly a greater variety of, food.

So it takes work.


Surely markets are now global. I was in high school when the first Volkswagens hit the market. $1685 to take one off the floor as I recall. Except there was a waiting list. This was stunning. It was also a long time ago. The world economy is here (yes, I realize we all know this). I would like it very much if a normal person could live a normal life without getting a B.S., let alone an M.B.A. I would like it, but I think it is tough. Which brings me to my starting point mentioned above. I think that over much of time and space human life has been spent in misery. I very much favor doing something to make life better. I am not at all convinced that the answers are obvious. Not left, not right, and most definitely not obvious.

[mike777]

I am strongly in favor of free trade.


I guess the opposite is expensive trade or zero trade??.


For example if China wants to sell me high quality steel at a price close to zero....ok.


If India wants to sell me high quality cotton at a price close to zero....ok.


If The UK wants to sell me rock and roll at a price close to zero....ok...yes


If the world wants to sell me super genius high tech guys/bridge experts at a price close to zero....yes.

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2016-May-02, 21:03, said:

I guess the opposite is expensive trade or zero trade??.

Protectionism...but you knew that. There are plenty of examples of emerging economies that have gone bad because they opened themselves up to free trade too quickly and got swallowed by the more advanced competition. Protectionism has its place too, as does heavy regulation and state intervention.

[kenberg]

Some guy named Obama, I don't know much about him, wrote a piece for the Washington Post about trade

https://www.washingt...165d_story.html

[billw55]

awm, on 2016-May-01, 00:11, said:

... because Donald Trump is against abortion.

kenberg, on 2016-May-01, 07:12, said:

Actually I thought Trump favored abortion but thought women should be punished for having one. Or something like that. It's a little hard to follow.

Right, hard to follow. He just says whatever he wants at whatever time, none of it is binding in any way so who cares?

In fairness this is true of many politicians. But with them we have a recourse: we can check their voting record. This is one reason why a candidate for president should have experience as an elected official in order to be taken seriously. All these fools slobbering over Trump don't seem to imagine that he can and will simply blow them off anytime he feels like it.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2016-May-01, 07:12, said:

Actually I thought Trump favored abortion but thought women should be punished for having one. Or something like that. It's a little hard to follow.

To be fair, what he said was that if abortion were illegal, women who get them should be punished -- as opposed to punishing just the doctor performing it. He also said he's pro-life.

But then he flip-flopped a few hours later, declaring the women and fetus to be "victims" of abortion.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2016-May-03, 08:33, said:

To be fair, what he said was that if abortion were illegal, women who get them should be punished -- as opposed to punishing just the doctor performing it. He also said he's pro-life.

But then he flip-flopped a few hours later, declaring the women and fetus to be "victims" of abortion.

You are right, I was stretching, and I think it is important.
As we move past the primaries into the general election it is very important to be accurate in the criticism of Trump. He is a bully, he is obnoxious, he likes to file for bankruptcy leaving others holding the bag, and he has no experience in government. I see no reason whatsoever to think that he has the slightest interest in the lives of the people who are his biggest supporters. It seems to me this should be adequate, no need to stretch anything. If this is not adequate reason for rejecting him, we are in big big trouble .

[awm]

As someone who's pro-choice, I had always assumed that if abortion were illegal, women who get abortions would be breaking a law and therefore punished in some way. I was as surprised as Trump to learn that this is apparently not the official pro-life stance on the matter, even though there HAVE been cases where women were charged with attempted murder for seeking a (late term) abortion!

[kenberg]

awm, on 2016-May-03, 17:28, said:

As someone who's pro-choice, I had always assumed that if abortion were illegal, women who get abortions would be breaking a law and therefore punished in some way. I was as surprised as Trump to learn that this is apparently not the official pro-life stance on the matter, even though there HAVE been cases where women were charged with attempted murder for seeking a (late term) abortion!

It makes some logical sense in legal terms, given that it is illegal, for the woman to be held responsible for her part in it, at least as an accomplice. That being said, I can't imagine it actually being done. I mean that pretty literally, I try to imagine the woman being arrested, convicted and in prison and I can't.