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
Mind you, extending that to manufacturing and all business might be a decent idea.
Boeing, perhaps?note
Don't get me started on how the subsidization and preferential treatment of defense and aerospace companies lock out any hope of meaningful competition in those industries. F-35*, anyone?
*Cue incoming screams of outrage from military Kool-Aid drinkers.
edited 7th Jan '16 7:33:32 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"This, coming from a World bank peeps
. In general, I can see economic growth as a whole will look bigger but again, my problem is with its distribution. Its benefits do not reach the people who need it most, and Free Trade and the examples of the U.S, leave
much
desired
.
Now, of those things I just linked the first one is not from quite an economic expert, and the second is a "ERH MEH GERD DE JERBS" argument, but it is still something to take into account when you add the fat the enviromentalconcerns it has caused, along with its insufficient benefits to Mexico and other Free Trade signing, only to end up benefiting the United States as a whole.
As a little bit of a personal thing, the Free Trade agreement between the United States and mycountry was a subject to referendum in which I was old enough to vote. I voted yes for it (A narrow victory) and I do not regret it, but I cannot call Free Trade agreements a real success for anyone but the bigger country.
Look at it the other way too. Imagine Mexico, or Costa Rica did not sign the Free Trade agreement. yet there will be other nations the U.S sign it with. With the economical juggernauts that the U.S and other european countries are, do tinier nations really have a choice in signing Free Trade agreements? Not signing them is going to give trade preferences to other nations and will end up having poor access to goods which is going to harm them more than an "eh" agreement such as Free Trade.
edited 7th Jan '16 7:41:40 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesYou know the Germans always make good stuff
edited 7th Jan '16 7:44:29 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesFor some reason I highly doubt a single plane crash would have been enough to stop its exploitation altogether had the Concorde been American, lobbying issues and all that. Although to be fair the whole project was a supersonic middle finger to the US, of the "we Europeans can do cool stuff too" kind.
Speaking of Concorde, its French test pilot died a few days ago.
edited 7th Jan '16 7:45:52 AM by Julep
Strategic industries like defense always exist at a junction of politics and economics. All of Boeing's competitors enjoy similar amounts of state aid. I suppose the United States could reduce its military spending, but that's a political and not an economic argument.
@Aszur
Your first link admitted it did better but simply that it failed to achieve convergence between Mexico and US-CAN. Your second is from a whole debate series in the NYT, which featured also pro
-NAFTA
viewpoints
as well. The third is from the EPI, which is a think-tank in the style of the AEI or Cato Institute, so I'm not really inclined to trust its judgement over the NBER sources I already cited.
edited 7th Jan '16 7:53:21 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei@ probablyinsane: Concorde was a British/French Joint Venture, between French Aérospatiale
(now part of Airbus) and the British Aircraft Corporation
note (nationalised and became British Aerospace, now privatised BAE Systems).
Indeed. See the histories of the firms that made Concorde.
edited 7th Jan '16 7:52:16 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnWell I'm turning 18 on Tuesday, but I guess I might not vote if all the candidates are stupid. Clinton always rubbed me the wrong way, she just acts so upper crust that it feels like she's a caricature. Bernie is never getting voted, he's too extreme for some people's tastes (I live in the South, a lot of people hate him). On the conservative side...well they're conservatives.
I mean, I'm in the middle, politically speaking, but I can't find a candidate who I wholeheartedly like.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?Eh, we simply can't afford to pretend the Right in this country are even remotely sane or not malicious with their policies.
I'm not too thrilled with Clinton or even Sanders the more he talks but I'll be damned if I'm letting a Republican gain any power in this country.
Not to mention the Republicans are banking on you staying home.
Oh really when?In right there with you, AdricDePsycho. I wouldn't be automatically opposed to voting conservative except we have candidates like Trump leading the charge. I'm iffy on Hillary too, but less so than I was and, other flaws aside, she is unquestionably the most qualified candidate. That, more than any issue of policy, is what's guiding my vote.
My brother got upset with me for being willing to vote Hillary, as he's conservative and dislikes her and Obama. He's called Hillary a criminal for some of her shenanigans, but my feeling is better a crook than a bigot.
Still, if you absolutely can't vote for a mainstream candidate then maybe you can throw it to some third party candidate if there is one. Even if that person has no shot getting elected at least you can say you voted how you wanted to vote. I remember a quote by Jesse Ventura that the only wasted vote is the one that's never cast.
edited 7th Jan '16 8:28:52 AM by sgamer82
If Trump gets voted in, I'm moving. My dad is Mexican, he just got full citizenship a few years ago. I'll only vote to keep the Right out, but I'm not happy about it.
Edit: But a third-party candidate might do as well.
edited 7th Jan '16 8:28:10 AM by AdricDePsycho
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?Allow me to phrase my argument better then. I have not denied that Free Trade theoretically and practically brings economical benefits to those involved. I just do not think it does so realistically. I do not believe and I think those links support, that Free Trade agreements do not come without negative consequences (Enviromental, of easying illegal drug trade, of patent issues) PLUS its benefits are not enjoyed by the average citizen of the poorer nation in the agreement.
There is more than I added too, where Free Trade Agreements are hardly an option for the smaller nations who do not get to pick their trade partners.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes@AdricDePsycho: A single vote is ultimately a fart in the wind. What really matters is which side gets the most people to attend the chili cook off. Given that, there's no reason not to use your vote however you see fit, for better or worse.
That's my opinion anyway.
![]()
&
If you mean because it siphins votes away from a mainstream candidate that might represent you interests, I posit that's only true if you intended to vote for that person then changed your mind. Adric's said he didn't like the idea of voting for Hillary in the first place and was prepared to not vote period.
edited 7th Jan '16 8:35:18 AM by sgamer82

I can't argue with that logic, except to say that the U.S. is in something of a Catch-22 with respect to corruption in developing nations. If we ignore it, we get accused of letting our big businesses take advantage of poor Mexicans or Brazilians; if we try to root it out, we get accused of interfering with their sovereignty.
Edit: I just posted in this in the General Economics thread, but there is new information
suggesting that the decline of labor's share of income in the United States may be completely the result of the increase in capital investment in intellectual property. In layman's terms, the middle class is dying because of patent law.
edited 7th Jan '16 7:29:57 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"