Donald Trump for President Thread

[ilikecheese]

Some people are strict Constitutionalists.

I believe it was designed as a living document, the mere fact that a right is in the Constitution does not prevent that from being changed. Also, the wording of the Amendment is questionable.

But yeah, I really don't understand the mindset of being for unrestricted access to guns beyond the intellectual adherence to strict Constitutionalism.

It is a living document as evidenced by the 27 amendments to the document.

 

[RaleighBlue]

I won't argue with "it's broken" or "it needs fixing," but the line of argument that talks about the widening wealth gap has specific problems an I think conflates issues. First, the wealth comparisons are very difficult because America's wealthiest are also the world's wealthiest, and don't really compare to anyone. That's to say they are excusable in their actions, but let's begin by comparing Gates and Buffett, give away or otherwise charitably use the majority of their wealth, to others like Cuban, Ballmer, and Jobs, who variously reinvest or keep the majority of their wealth. Let's also distinguish whether these are doing harm or help to the US and World economies. Nobody is doing more to try and solve malaria in Africa than Gates, and without his obscene resources, I'm pressed to figure out who else can do such. No doubt there are those who use their obscene wealth in obscene and oppressive ways (which, itself, is not new), but how and when are they making life worse off for the average American.

So use data that cuts out the very wealthy and compare the 4 remaining classes and compare these: poor, working poor, working middle, and upper middle. Or compare wealth inequality between ethnicities. Show me this data and long-term trends and we'll have something to talk about (but not in nominal values, only in % changes). There are real issues: housing, cost of health care, cost of education. But let's not forget where we start.

Here are two graphs that show more or less the same data in different formats:

Quick breakdown: the US poor (actual poverty and/or near the poverty line) equal (in purchasing power), the Chinese middle class (if such truly exists) and the Indian elite. Granted, both are large nations, which skews the deciles, but still the point should stick. The baseline for wealth in the US is very high. Do we have issues? Yes, and I would argue these are largely present on racial lines vs class lines, but let's not get carried away to quickly on the inequality = bad before we understand exactly what inequality is and isn't. Unless we're just going to fit the data into a narrative/political framework, and if so then go ahead. The issues are much more complex than "we shipped all the jobs overseas," because that also means "we have access to cheaper materials and services and we're able to provide basic goods to more people for cheaper."

I'm just old enough to remember the classic Bell/AT&T phone and I live in a town with a defunct AT&T factory, so I have some memory of this. We're not actually worse off losing poor jobs/business, although the results are certainly "lumpy," if that's an appropriate term. The loss of the US Steel industry might be lamentable, but some losses are gains.

Shipping jobs overseas is not a bad thing, I realize it may have sounded like I believe it is. In general, I'm all for globalization. But we have to accept that good ideas have drawbacks as well, and we need to account for those drawbacks rather than accept them wholesale.

I'm also being extremely idealistic in this thread, because why not, it's the internet.

Whether inequality is bad or not is a moralistic question, based entirely on subjective thought - is it better to have everyone a low-medium level, or let extremes take over? My argument is to try and balance between the two better than we are, but I accept that is a subjective ideal - I think we succeed best as a collective, but still need to allow room for individual growth and attainment.

Which is why I believe in a tax on wealth rather than income. If you are producing something the market sees as valuable, then you are entitled to it. However, idle wealth is not moving the markets (invested wealth is, of course, nothing is easy or perfect).

I also get your argument that things aren't really that bad - they not. Relatively things are fine, and there is no reason to really suspect that they'll get worse. However, there is a deep sense of social dissatisfaction in this country, and ignoring it is risky. Especially when there are very few good arguments against attempting to soothe it.

Poor people are, as they tend to be, tired of being marginalized and ignored. They are beginning to rise up again, as they did in the 20's with Unions, so far through conservative populist political movements. But at the core, all of this is the disenfranchised getting tired of their lot in life and trying to do something about it. And regardless of how we're doing against non-first world nations (China/India), we are falling well behind in social standards compared to our assumed peers in the first world.

But perhaps that is the crux - there is a social first world and an economic first world. Being part of one doesn't mean you're part of the other. Maybe we've always just been part of the latter?

 

[joey_macmo]

Trump only just ahead on early voting in florida it seems, people who monitor these things think this means he loses the state.

 

[gorgeousgeorgeEFC]

Trump has zero chance. I just don't see a way to 270 for him. In fact, I can only see a trouncing for him.

Would be quite something if Hillary took a couple of southern states that have been traditionally Republican, such as Georgia and Arizona. And I think she can.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Shipping jobs overseas is not a bad thing, I realize it may have sounded like I believe it is. In general, I'm all for globalization. But we have to accept that good ideas have drawbacks as well, and we need to account for those drawbacks rather than accept them wholesale.

I'm also being extremely idealistic in this thread, because why not, it's the internet.

Whether inequality is bad or not is a moralistic question, based entirely on subjective thought - is it better to have everyone a low-medium level, or let extremes take over? My argument is to try and balance between the two better than we are, but I accept that is a subjective ideal - I think we succeed best as a collective, but still need to allow room for individual growth and attainment.

Which is why I believe in a tax on wealth rather than income. If you are producing something the market sees as valuable, then you are entitled to it. However, idle wealth is not moving the markets (invested wealth is, of course, nothing is easy or perfect).

I also get your argument that things aren't really that bad - they not. Relatively things are fine, and there is no reason to really suspect that they'll get worse. However, there is a deep sense of social dissatisfaction in this country, and ignoring it is risky. Especially when there are very few good arguments against attempting to soothe it.

Poor people are, as they tend to be, tired of being marginalized and ignored. They are beginning to rise up again, as they did in the 20's with Unions, so far through conservative populist political movements. But at the core, all of this is the disenfranchised getting tired of their lot in life and trying to do something about it. And regardless of how we're doing against non-first world nations (China/India), we are falling well behind in social standards compared to our assumed peers in the first world.

But perhaps that is the crux - there is a social first world and an economic first world. Being part of one doesn't mean you're part of the other. Maybe we've always just been part of the latter?

Inequality creates good things too. The Gates foundation has about $44.3B in endowments. If they only have one success, but can solve (or significantly reduce/improve) malaria in Sub-Sahara Africa, that's money well-spent. Or, they could take it and give $55 to each of SSA's roughly 800M residents, which would be substantial short-term income for almost all, but do very little to improve the region in the long-term.

And if that's true (maybe I've made too many assumptions, but it seems reasonable to me), then we can take a step back and admit we don't really understand inequality and its effects.

A similar (to me) argument is the role of governance in improving lives (an issue that "pinkos" like yourself may not have trouble conceiving, but Libertarians find this idea irksome). Land-use/deed restrictions are powerful tools for improving life, when used appropriately. The most valuable land in America may be NYC's Central Park, at least if you decided to parcel it up, sell it, and develop it. The income for NYC should it do so would probably be in the billions. but the net loss for NYC would be catastrophic, far in excess of any short-term gains, and no market actors/forces would be able to prevent the ruin of one of NYC's great assets because on a parcel-by-parcel basis the best use is to develop the land for housing/commercial use. Only when you've built up and ruined most of Central Park would you realize the mistake made in selling the land.

 

[ItsOKImAPilot]

To the learned economists here, is it possible to see our currency as the international medium exchange unseated by the efforts of China and the petrodollar? Any insights on the effects of the upcoming election?

I know @The Esk is really knowledgeable on this kind of stuff but some others might be able to help me out.

 

[RaleighBlue]

Inequality creates good things too. The Gates foundation has about $44.3B in endowments. If they only have one success, but can solve (or significantly reduce/improve) malaria in Sub-Sahara Africa, that's money well-spent. Or, they could take it and give $55 to each of SSA's roughly 800M residents, which would be substantial short-term income for almost all, but do very little to improve the region in the long-term.

And if that's true (maybe I've made too many assumptions, but it seems reasonable to me), then we can take a step back and admit we don't really understand inequality and its effects.

A similar (to me) argument is the role of governance in improving lives (an issue that "pinkos" like yourself may not have trouble conceiving, but Libertarians find this idea irksome). Land-use/deed restrictions are powerful tools for improving life, when used appropriately. The most valuable land in America may be NYC's Central Park, at least if you decided to parcel it up, sell it, and develop it. The income for NYC should it do so would probably be in the billions. but the net loss for NYC would be catastrophic, far in excess of any short-term gains, and no market actors/forces would be able to prevent the ruin of one of NYC's great assets because on a parcel-by-parcel basis the best use is to develop the land for housing/commercial use. Only when you've built up and ruined most of Central Park would you realize the mistake made in selling the land.

Well, this is what makes me a pinko - I believe that planning results in a greater end product than organic growth.

Your point about Central Park could be easily extended to all public land in the U.S. - such as our National Parks and monuments. The market does not see value in leaving them undisturbed (undeveloped) and free. Yet we can see that there is a social value, that may even result in a long term economic value in the insights that can be learned in childhood.

I believe the market is an extremely effective way to moderate a society for short term growth, but it is weak in long term planning. I believe that the U.S. tends to over value the markets benefits and over indulge its weaknesses.

Libertarians benefit from society, but would rather not contribute. I find it a hellishly selfish philosophy based upon the principle of 'I got mine'. Lower my taxes and leave me alone is a tactic that only works when you're already 'ok' and don't care about the people that need the help. Or you believe that the market is truly just and can never be manipulated. I would love to be Libertarian, because if I'm entirely selfish - it suits me personally very well.

Regarding inequality, I disagree, but once again accept that it is a purely moralistic function. That 44.3 Billion in endowments can be money well spent, but in private hands it is left entirely up to the charity of the individual, which may or may not work - and lives and rights depend on it...can we be comfortable with that? I'm not, but respect if you are. I do see the viewpoint that the private sector more efficiently distributes that money than a centralized bureaucracy, but think that's all much of a muchness - for every well run organization there are a half dozen poorly run organizations.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Well, this is what makes me a pinko - I believe that planning results in a greater end product than organic growth.

Your point about Central Park could be easily extended to all public land in the U.S. - such as our National Parks and monuments. The market does not see value in leaving them undisturbed (undeveloped) and free. Yet we can see that there is a social value, that may even result in a long term economic value in the insights that can be learned in childhood.

I believe the market is an extremely effective way to moderate a society for short term growth, but it is weak in long term planning. I believe that the U.S. tends to over value the markets benefits and over indulge its weaknesses.

Libertarians benefit from society, but would rather not contribute. I find it a hellishly selfish philosophy based upon the principle of 'I got mine'. Lower my taxes and leave me alone is a tactic that only works when you're already 'ok' and don't care about the people that need the help. Or you believe that the market is truly just and can never be manipulated. I would love to be Libertarian, because if I'm entirely selfish - it suits me personally very well.

Regarding inequality, I disagree, but once again accept that it is a purely moralistic function. That 44.3 Billion in endowments can be money well spent, but in private hands it is left entirely up to the charity of the individual, which may or may not work - and lives and rights depend on it...can we be comfortable with that? I'm not, but respect if you are. I do see the viewpoint that the private sector more efficiently distributes that money than a centralized bureaucracy, but think that's all much of a muchness - for every well run organization there are a half dozen poorly run organizations.

Gov't is full of and caters to rent-seekers, which is why federal funds are not well-spent. To be fair, corruption in the US is much, much lower than in other nations (an argument Collier makes in how to give aid to Africa; aid can fund corruption an limit development). So individuals can be much more efficient, but also have much less oversight. The Gates Foundation is probably an outlier among the wealthy.

In the end, I don't trust anyone to make the right choice, so although I do like good incentives (because people, like dogs, appreciate and respond to incentives) but I'm neither tethered to a system nor surprised when individuals and institutions fail. So I like to praise the good examples.

(Sound like a Libertarian after reading all that--yech. Too many conference calls today.)

 

[SerenityNigh]

To the learned economists here, is it possible to see our currency as the international medium exchange unseated by the efforts of China and the petrodollar? Any insights on the effects of the upcoming election?

I know @The Esk is really knowledgeable on this kind of stuff but some others might be able to help me out.

I'm no economist, but China's economy is state-supported and gas/oil are commodities, which fluctuate too much to make a durable investment unless you're in a Mad Max-type scenario.

 

[RaleighBlue]

Gov't is full of and caters to rent-seekers, which is why federal funds are not well-spent. To be fair, corruption in the US is much, much lower than in other nations (an argument Collier makes in how to give aid to Africa; aid can fund corruption an limit development). So individuals can be much more efficient, but also have much less oversight. The Gates Foundation is probably an outlier among the wealthy.

In the end, I don't trust anyone to make the right choice, so although I do like good incentives (because people, like dogs, appreciate and respond to incentives) but I'm neither tethered to a system nor surprised when individuals and institutions fail. So I like to praise the good examples.

(Sound like a Libertarian after reading all that--yech. Too many conference calls today.)

Sure, and I get the argument.

I just think the solution is to crack down on rent-seekers in government and try and fix that problem rather than bowing to the market. The market has had approximately 4000 years to do what it does. And it's very good at some things, and less good at others. It's brilliant at pushing society forward. It's terrible at governing that society.

I haven't yet given up hope on the ideas behind a centralized government. Just because ours is broken doesn't necessarily mean that all governments must fail this way. And not trying to improve society because your system of government means it will be taken advantage of seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Government doesn't have to be stupid and evil. We do a disservice to ourselves by simply accepting that it is and trying to make do under that weight.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Sure, and I get the argument.

I just think the solution is to crack down on rent-seekers in government and try and fix that problem rather than bowing to the market. The market has had approximately 4000 years to do what it does. And it's very good at some things, and less good at others. It's brilliant at pushing society forward. It's terrible at governing that society.

I haven't yet given up hope on the ideas behind a centralized government. Just because ours is broken doesn't necessarily mean that all governments must fail this way. And not trying to improve society because your system of government means it will be taken advantage of seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Government doesn't have to be stupid and evil. We do a disservice to ourselves by simply accepting that it is and trying to make do under that weight.

Can you wait to crack down on the rent seekers until I retire?

 

[mezzrow]

Gov't is full of and caters to rent-seekers, which is why federal funds are not well-spent. To be fair, corruption in the US is much, much lower than in other nations (an argument Collier makes in how to give aid to Africa; aid can fund corruption an limit development). So individuals can be much more efficient, but also have much less oversight. The Gates Foundation is probably an outlier among the wealthy.

In the end, I don't trust anyone to make the right choice, so although I do like good incentives (because people, like dogs, appreciate and respond to incentives) but I'm neither tethered to a system nor surprised when individuals and institutions fail. So I like to praise the good examples.

(Sound like a Libertarian after reading all that--yech. Too many conference calls today.)

I could have written that, serenissimo. Check yerself.

 

[Dylan]

It is a living document as evidenced by the 27 amendments to the document.

Lets not forget the 2nd amendment was an AMENDMENT!!!

So the Constitution was changed to allow for the 'freedom to bear arms'. People seem to forget that.

 

[SerenityNigh]

I could have written that, serenissimo. Check yerself.

I'm a solid centrist/moderate with a Southern conservative background, so don't be surprised when I enter your territory

 

[ItsOKImAPilot]

This is just getting stupid.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-doctors-surveyed-reports-aaps-300350768.html