Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Sanders' most attractive policy proposal is also the one that ensures he'll never win the nomination: he intends to break up "too big to fail" financial corporations to reduce both incentives to greed and systemic risk. The national Democratic apparatus takes in millions from these folks, so has every reason to want to freeze Sanders out of the process.
The DNC, headed by our beloved Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has been unabashedly shilling for Clinton since day one, basically vowing to throw the whole weight of the committee's ability to manage the primary process behind ensuring that she faces as little competition as possible.
Which is not to say that I would object to Clinton winning the election. She's eminently qualified for the Presidency — undoubtedly the most qualified of any current candidate — by way of her experience; she has immense prestige internationally; she has a broad range of popular and business support; her views are progressive enough that I think she'd move our various national conversations in the right direction.
That doesn't stop me from wistfully thinking about the kind of revolutionary change a man like Sanders could bring if he had a sympathetic Congress and a few years to work.
edited 7th Jan '16 5:22:39 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Sanders's whole stance on TBTF is 'bring back muh Glass-Steagal act'. Which isn't much use.
Krugman made the point in October that the repeal of Glass-Steagal wasn't what caused the credit crunch. There was no correlation between how diverse a bank's business was and how it weathered the crisis. Sterns, Lehman, and Merill Lynch were pure investment banks, AIG and NCI were insurance companies, and Wachovia and Washington Mutual died because they made bad loans. The most split banks, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan, both felt they could survive relatively unscathed, and had to be forced to take TARP assistance. The crisis was caused by shadow banking, which Clinton actually has presented a plan to deal with, whilst Bernie hasn't (yet).
edited 7th Jan '16 5:36:11 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei
Valid points. However, Glass-Steagal would have prevented consumer banks from simultaneously running investment businesses, which would have at least mitigated some of the bank failures.
All that said, Bernie's focus on economic inequality and the power of the wealthy to influence government is apt and extremely valuable, but unfortunately it seems to be most of his act. He's just not broad enough to take the top job, in my opinion.
I love his stump speech, but every time he goes in front of a mic, he says the exact same thing. It grates after a while.
edited 7th Jan '16 5:37:23 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"In what sense?
I agree with the rest of your post; other problems with Bernie is he commits the fallacy of assuming that because free trade was/is bad for Detroit, its bad for all America, and his policy on the Federal Reserve is Ron Paul-tier nuts.
Schild und Schwert der ParteiPersonally, I see Hillary as being just as smug and arrogant as Trump, but not as loud when she's doing it. She's like that WASP mom that sips her red wine on her yacht during the summer.
Besides, her being yet another darling of Wall Street completely marks her claims of "understanding the middle class" as total bullshit.
"Somehow the hated have to walk a tightrope, while those who hate do not."![]()
![]()
![]()
Clinton's policy team is ridiculously good though. She's basically locked down every liberal American economist
except Paul Krugmannote
A number of outside advisers were involved, as well, including Nobel Prize-winning liberal economist Joseph Stiglitz; former Obama White House economic advisers Gene Sperling, Alan Krueger, Christina Romer and Ronnie Chatterji; economists Alan Blinder and Heather Boushey; political scientist Jacob Hacker; law professor David Kamin; and Tanden.
I mean, I don't support Hillary because I think she's that good - I used to support Sanders - but she seems to be the candidate with the most 'least terrible' policy positions.
edited 7th Jan '16 6:39:48 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiAs a world-class cuckold, maybe. That's essentially what most people know her for, outside the US. Otherwise, yeah, she just gives off the vibe of a sailboating, horseriding, wine-sipping WASP called Aunt Martha. She stinks of privilege.
edited 7th Jan '16 6:36:01 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Those questions do not seem to take into account what I said: That Free Trade benefits the U.S but harms other coutnries. It just seems to be talking baout the U.S (which is understandable) but it has nothing to do with what I was saying!
Unless I missed something? Maybe work adblock removed a part of it
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesIt's not at all clear that Mexico's poor performance is due to NAFTA.
The first question on the IGM Chicago poll is whether economists think free trade is a good thing;
You'll note that a massive majority of the economists polled agree.
Schild und Schwert der ParteiFree trade in the sense of removing tariffs and other mercantilist obstacles to the movement of products across borders is generally a good thing for everyone involved. However, the United States does not practice free trade, because it heavily subsidizes a number of its export industries, such as agriculture, in order to artificially reduce competition.
It's only "free" if one side doesn't enjoy an unfair competitive advantage.
Glass-Steagal reduced the risk to consumer credit markets from major crashes because it formed a firewall between consumer and investment banking. That is, under G-S, a depository institution could not also speculate in the stock market and thus risk its principal. The reason why so many big banks got in trouble in 2008-2009 was because they were heavily leveraged in CDOs, which would not have been allowed under Glass-Steagal. Instead, they'd have had to spin off subsidiaries for that purpose which could have absorbed the losses.
edited 7th Jan '16 6:48:09 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If we really want to stop screwing over Mexico, et. al., then we should stop paying giant agri-corps to keep food prices artificially low.
"Trade" agreements in the modern sense, like TPP and TTIP, are not really about trade in products, because those are already virtually unrestricted (domestic subsidies aside). Nowadays, they are about two things: free movement of capital and intellectual property. Neither of those benefits consumers.
- Free movement of capital is mainly a way to let businesses shift around their income to shield it from taxation.
- Intellectual property controls are about companies locking out competitors with patent infringement suits.
edited 7th Jan '16 6:51:20 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Continental Illinois traded in CDOs before it collapsed, though. CI was a commercial bank, and it died in 1994 before G-S was repealed. Citibank's skulduggery might have been prevented, but the trading in subprime mortgages and all the accompanying grief would not.
The firewall argument is fair enough.
edited 7th Jan '16 6:55:32 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiProblem is that
- a) The United States does not actually engage in Free Trade (They are still subsidizing corn and many other products, for example) and
- b) It is known that NAFTA has perpetuated the drug cartels
, which perpetuate violence and poverty and
- c) Still does not take into account that although countries might have access to a wider variety of products, the purchasing power of the average citizen of one nation to the other is still wildly different
- d) A wider variety of products is not really something that will help the poor. They still cannot afford them. And sure, that sounds like a populist argument, I am just saying that taking into account that along with the previous fact of how many more poor we have in latin american countries (Since I am following the example of NAFTA) as compared to the U.S, the overall benefit does not seem to be a huge plus to poorer nations with poorer citizens
So, as economists from the U.S I can understand they see the benefits and reap them more, but from other points of view, I can neither sing praises nor condemn Free Trade. It probably does bring gold to the coffers of the government via the sheer amount of trade it brings, but with corruption, bad administration and other stuff it is hard for that money to benefit the general populace.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesClinton Blair conversations disclosed.
Edit: Cross posted in the British politics thread.
edited 7th Jan '16 7:06:36 AM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.Corruption and maladministration in Mexico is Mexico's business, though - it has very little to do with free trade. You could argue that maladministration in Mexico has led to the gains being squandered, but it seems difficult to argue that Mexico would be less badly administered but for NAFTA, and if thats the case then the increase in FDI and exports seems a good thing insofar as it can offset Mexican government maladministration.
The drug trade is first and foremost down to the US's spastic drugs policies and the massive demand they create, which, again, aren't really down to NAFTA.
edited 7th Jan '16 7:05:48 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiI am not arguing that NAFTA's to be blamed for the maladministration of Central American governments and Mexico's.
Much less, by its drug problems.
Just that looking at its end results, it ended up doing nothing to benefit anyone but the United States. If Free Trade's objective was to enrich both countries, then I cannot say it was succesful since it failed to take into account that what little the poorer country would take would not get to be enjoyed by its populace, but by a few corrupt hands.
edited 7th Jan '16 7:23:25 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesEh, NBER found that tariff reform overall benefited Mexico post-NAFTA.
Things got marginally better for the US and marginally worse for Canada.

You really think Syria is less hospitable than New Mexico?
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.