Politics: A new beginning

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
I agree. Correction: I bet average, median, and the interquartile range of income for the lowest earning 80% of legal US residents would fall after taking into account any benefits they would enjoy due to greater purchasing power.

But the real question is for how long? I think it would be a temporary issue.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city

I agree. Correction: I bet average, median, and the interquartile range of income for the lowest earning 80% of legal US residents would fall after taking into account any benefits they would enjoy due to greater purchasing power.

Originally posted by Not Me

But the real question is for how long? I think it would be a temporary issue.

I bet it would permanently harm the current crop of non-college educated workers. I bet it would also harm more US workers than it would help by trading a lot of medium-paying jobs for some high-paying jobs, but mostly low-paying jobs.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Originally posted by Skeks in the city
I bet it would permanently harm the current crop of non-college educated workers. I bet it would also harm more US workers than it would help by trading a lot of medium-paying jobs for some high-paying jobs, but mostly low-paying jobs.

You're getting there, but follow the money trail. Why would Bush do all this? Because, once the decent jobs go away, guys have to enlist in the military, even though they're sickened by the imperialistic ends being persued by the military.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
I bet it would permanently harm the current crop of non-college educated workers. I bet it would also harm more US workers than it would help by trading a lot of medium-paying jobs for some high-paying jobs, but mostly low-paying jobs.

If by current crop you mean the present generation of non-college educated workers, I agee that is a possible IF not enough was done to try to retrain people AND if the present generation was unwilling to relocate as needed to find employment.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many people refuse to move out of the rust belt and would rather just continue to live where there are no jobs for them and lament their plight in life all the while refusing to belive that the region's economic glory days are gone forever.

FYI - California is one earthquake away from joining the rust belt.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
FYI - California is one earthquake away from joining the rust belt.

Except our women are far prettier and have all their teeth.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Except our women are far prettier and have all their teeth.

I really should have said one MAJOR earthquake away, since we have earthquakes here all the time. I mean the BIG ONE.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
If by current crop you mean the present generation of non-college educated workers, I agee that is a possible IF not enough was done to try to retrain people AND if the present generation was unwilling to relocate as needed to find employment.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many people refuse to move out of the rust belt and would rather just continue to live where there are no jobs for them and lament their plight in life all the while refusing to belive that the region's economic glory days are gone forever.

FYI - California is one earthquake away from joining the rust belt.

I think you might be too focused on Time Magazine 1978 articles. the midwest is doing just fine economically. Before you decide to move here, you should know though, we do have black people living here.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It would facilitate further reasoned discussion if you don't spend any more of our time going on about:

(a) how the administration clearly leveled with the American people up front; and

(b) how the administration has handled it all as well as could be expected; so

(c) all criticism is meritless partisan bitching;

until and unless you do us the courtesy of actually addressing the substantive points on those issues that LDE and I have attempted to raise, particularly including the specific questions.

It seems to me that I have spent quite a few words here dealing with specifics, addressing the substantive points (?) that you keep repeatedly raising, and re-stating, and rephrasing, and . . .

I'm thinking that the only actual "substantive point" that you will recognize from me, or anyone else, must necessarily consist of "oh, ok, you're right and I'm wrong".

But, in the interest of giving you one more shot at claiming obfuscation, here goes:

(a) I think the administration leveled with us, as in, there were no lies. I also think they were possibly wrong about the WMDs, but we'll see, as I said (over and over) earlier. Even in hindsight, I just don't see the horrid misdirection or outright lies that you seem to have seen. I have not felt lied-to in all of this process, and I think I watch the news more than most. I have said that they "sold" this war to the country. This is not surprising to you, is it? Kennedy "sold" us on welfare programs for years, in good faith, and I don't call him a liar or thief simply because his system has produced more, rather than less, poverty. He believed in a theory, and he sold it to the country, by emphasizing the good and ignoring the bad. That's how pols sell ideas. So, did Bush talk more about the benefits of this war then the costs? Sure he did. But, did he lie and say it would be easy or costless? No way in hell. If I remember right, it was Bush who shot down the "we'll pay for this with Iraqi oil" idea. The oil revenues need to be presently earmarked for Iraq debt, but what is a precondition to repudiation of odious debt? Possibly the formation of a governing body empowered to speak for the country?

(b) I think the admin has handled it (the tactical war) OK so far. Just "OK". There have been operational errors - I think I mentioned earlier about not letting the whole damn SH army walk home with their RPG's - and I'm sure there will be more. That's life. (Larry wants to "analyze" this. Uh huh. How's this analysis - they fucked that one up. I suspect that that statement is what Larry will call "analysis". What he terms "analysis, I call repetition of points that you want to make. It's a valid criticism - but, really, you want to "analyze" it? Right.) Show me a perfect war. If that's what this is about - if you are claiming that I am claiming that Bush et al are running a perfectly brilliant war, tactically - well, we've been wasting our time, because I don't believe that. I do feel better about your views, though, if you are reduced to simply saying "we need forty-five more soldiers with radios sitting behind the K-Mart in Tikrit." Finally, if you thought we'd be doing this on the cheap, well, you didn't watch the news. For the last twelve years.

(c) Not all criticism is partisan bitching. In fact, some of the most pointed tactical criticism is coming from Repubs these days. But, the repeated, essentially baseless moaning that keeps coming from some sources is mere partisan bitching. There is a frighteningly large proportion of Dems these days who, if Bush walked on water, would cry "look, he can't swim!" (Sorry, I just read that somewhere.) The constant repetition of the "he lied" theme is, in my mind, partisan bitching, and baseless at that. If you are asking me to accept such statements as knowledgable criticism, well, sorry. Even on the rabid internet blogs, (yours, not mine), the outright "he lied!" theme is slowly being replaced with a more nuanced, "he should have frowned more when speaking of the cost of rebuilding a country so we could have suspected it would be more than seventy dollars!", simply because the "he lied" theme has been shown to have no support, and you can only go so far on a dead horse.


Now, if you are going to read this point-by-point response to your post, and once again rend your garment and cry that I'm evading again, spare me.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm just saying that if free trade really produces net social gain, you'd figure people could cut deals to get a compromise to make it happen.

Yeah! We could set up a system to share those profits!

We could call it . . . I know! . . . Taxation! "Progressive" Taxation, even!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
we do have black people living here.

Be careful what you say or next thing you know, someone here will be calling your a racist. There are quite a few posters who throw that term around willy-nilly* anytime anyone mentions race.

Oh wait, never mind, you are a liberal so you are allowed to mention race.

*anyone know the orgin of willy-nilly? Too lazy to look it up.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
[far too few paragraph breaks for the number of words]

I get a headache when I try to read long posts without enough paragraph breaks.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
Oh wait, never mind, you are a liberal so you are allowed to mention race.

finally, someone get's me. that's the point i've been trying to make here. for most of the country i'm liberal. bilmore is moderate, club isn't really right wing, right wing was my boy fluff. no, club is mainstream rep. AG TS GGG LDE, they are extremists. that what hurts me most. i'm a liberal, but here i seem just a little right of center, and I know those left of me are killing the movement. power to the people!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Hi Sweetie. Did you just use the word cat in reference to a person? Well ya know, they say if you sleep with a book under your pillow ya might wake up smarter. Uhm, whats under your pillow that has you doing that?

As for Coase, he basically advocated for certainty in the law AFAIK. Essentially, he posited that people allocate resources ineffiently trying to hedge risk when there is not certainty in the law. I guess it could be characterized as relating to transaction costs. I love the theory cuz it makes so much sense.

Hello

Actually, I looked it up (!!!) and the theory deals more with externalities and letting the market deal with them. However, the theorem seems to depend on perfect information (i.e., zero transaction costs) and Coase himself has written about how really, there are so few situations in which the informational requirement is met that sitting back and letting the markets do their thing, in real life, is rarely justifiable under the theorem.

Oddly, I have arguments with a friend that nearly always end up with me saying "we're in agreement except I think that transaction costs are higher than you do, so we come to totally different conclusions." Obviously whatever lectures or whatever I've heard on the Coase stuff stayed in my head to some degree. Bizarre. Who would have thought.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
finally, someone get's me. that's the point i've been trying to make here. for most of the country i'm liberal. bilmore is moderate, club isn't really right wing, right wing was my boy fluff. no, club is mainstream rep. AG TS GGG LDE, they are extremists. that what hurts me most. i'm a liberal, but here i seem just a little right of center, and I know those left of me are killing the movement. power to the people!

Well, it is a damn good thing then that you are considered a liberal here, because that is all that will shield you from being called a racist if you insist on mentioning race.

[Dave]

For once the U.S. isn't the focal point of all that's wrong in the world ...

ZIMBABWE'S President Robert Mugabe has named Australia, New Zealand and Britain as an "anglo-saxon unholy alliance" against his country