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
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
He was right on China. Trade with that country has fucked our economy six ways from Sunday, not to mention allowed China to grow into a global power challenging our influence.
What economists got wrong about free trade
Relevant article. Of course that fucking shit is out of the can and the US sure as hell can't be the country to shove it back in, after all the work we did to promote this crap.
![]()
![]()
What's MSM?
edited 29th Jan '16 7:51:40 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.Mainstream Media. New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek are all mainstream magazines.
Clinton's camp is using Karl Rovian attack methods to try and ratfuck/swiftboat Sanders as much as possible, because it's very possible with how polls are turning, if he takes Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton could kiss her chance at the presidency goodbye.
A LOT of her aides and her donors are scared shitless Democratic voters could go: "Fuck it, we're tired of New Democrat politics, we're going to redefine the Democratic Party for the new century.". Especially since the party might turn on the rich and start sharpening the proverbial axes.
Regardless of Sanders' policies, the New Democrats ARE TERRIFIED of what Sanders' represents: Snatching the power of the Democratic party away from them and back to the voters.
edited 29th Jan '16 7:59:55 PM by PotatoesRock
Being economically protectionist and for a stupidly high minimum wage does not far left make, the far left want the abolition of money, or at least the abolition of wages as workers rise up and control the factories themselves. You want far left economics? Look at Venezuela. Sanders doesn't even want to fully nationalise anything and you call him far left? He's not calling for the abolition of private education, the nationalisation of the rail network (actually that's not even far left), the nationalisation of the coal industry or bloody anything.
Still as Fighter pointed out, Trump isn't far right on anything but defence and migration, but those dominate his thinking so they define him. Sanders is dominated by left wing economic thinking, so that makes him left, not far left.
edited 29th Jan '16 8:09:49 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
From what I understand, Marxism itself was more or less "Anarchism, but without the actual anarchy part".
Marx wasn't the only guy who advocated nationalization of industry, nor even the first.
But in general, that's what it means to be far-left. It means to be socialist or communist, in the sense that "private property" rights are not respected - either all real property and capital (beyond possibly personal property) is state-owned, or it's "owned" by whoever is using it.
We had an actual far-leftist on here, wonder where deathpigeon went - debating with him was quite entertaining and enjoyable, in contrast to most of the extremists we get.
Marxism was "we'll get to anarchy naturally after the workers' state seizes everything." Needless to say, that never panned out.
edited 29th Jan '16 8:24:07 PM by Ramidel
![]()
True, there's a reason anarchists have often been throw in with Communists when it comes to studying political ideology, but you try telling the Anarchists that.
Some of our far-left got OTC banned for the same reason the far-right did, inability to debate politely and in good faith. I'm pretty sure that that's what happened to our anarchists.
edited 29th Jan '16 8:25:33 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranTrue true, most anarchists do want a communist like anarchical society, my boarding school would actually in large parts qualify an an anarchy, also as communal due to being a school.
Still one can get far right anarchists, what else are the "I don't respect no federal government, and I'll shoot them dam FBI on sight" lot?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI'm sure they don't identify as anarchists but what's the difference? Beyond anarchists tending to want bigger units of society, while the libertarians want things only shared at a family level.
Horseshoe theory and all that.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIt's usually a difference in societal structure. Most anarchists of the communist bent don't necessarily want chaos in my experience. They just think no one in a given unit/commune/collective should be above anyone else. Everyone is still expected to work together for the common good. Libertarians on the other hand have a very strong might makes right bent.
Tl;dr: The former says "Let's work together and share the fruits of our labor" the latter says "That's mine and if you don't like it I'll just shoot you."
Libertarians do at least tend to recognise that we need some kind of society beyond the size that everyone can fit in a field, they just think that everyone should respect their right to shoot people, while the anarchists will at times want us to get rid of electricity, modern medicine and the Internet because thouse things require a society can't has roles and levels of authority.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranYes, Anarcho-Capitalists are a thing (my God, they're a thing), but from what I understand they're kind of a new thing.
From what I understand, Anarcho-Capitalists tend to support One Nation Under Copyright more or less, with a fully privatized society. In my view, this ironically makes them indistinguishable from Dirty Communists, since they're simply opposite ways to combine state and business-but the end result would be exactly the same.
Leviticus 19:34This is basically the same thing as every labor saving device ever. Should we stop developing new technologies because change always means somebody somewhere lost their job? Should we ban cars because they're taking jobs away from horse buggy drivers?
Because as we all know, China never challenged US influence before the implementation of free trade. But they've just been out of control with challenging our influence since free trade was enacted. Why there was that time they supported the USA's enemies in that war in [...], and went to war with the USA over [...].
NAFTA has had a small effect on real wages. The USITC, in summarizing the vast literature on the observed rising U.S. income gap between more-skilled and less killed workers, suggests that while estimates varied, trade in general has contributed to no more than 10-20% of the wage gap. Economists generally consider the wage-gap problem to be a function of skill-based technological change that causes an employment bias toward more highly educated or trained workers. Increased trade of intermediate goods using outsourcing or production-sharing arrangements has also been linked in recent research. For Mexico, the Carnegie Endowment and the World Bank note that real wages are lower than when NAFTA began, but conclude that it was not the cause. Decomposing the trend shows that Mexico experienced a 25% fall in real wages after the 1994 peso crisis. Real wages began a steady recovery in 1997 and are approaching 1994 levels. Interestingly, the World Bank study showed that those Mexican states tied to FDI, exports, and maquilas had higher and faster-growing wages than other states.11
◊
Claims that free trade destroys jobs relies on a misunderstanding of what happens when two countries trade. What exactly do you think China does with those US dollars that it receives in payment for goods? This isn't a turn-based video game. Money isn't some arbitrary number on a that magically turns into "stuff", China literally cannot do anything with US dollars except to lend them, or buy things... from America.
"Free trade is good" is something pretty much every economist agrees on, but for whatever reason everyone thinks their education doesn't matter. It's like when people insist they know more than doctors about medicine because of their gut feeling and/or small town wisdom. Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point about Sanders' base of support though. Quick question, do you also believe voting apps
and proper qualifications
are corporate conspiracies?
edited 30th Jan '16 2:37:54 AM by Nihlus1
To buttress that point: IGM Chicago Experts Poll - Free Trade
Sigh. You just saw the word 'Chicago' and assumed, didn't you?
FYI, the IGM panel consists of economists from several different American universities and schools of thought. Krugman - hardly an evil neoliberal himself - considers it to be credible.
Krugman's article also addresses your misconception that economists can't predict anything.
Incidentally, the IGM panel backs stimulus.
edited 30th Jan '16 6:04:47 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei

The New York Times' spending article on Sanders is bunk:
Yes, in terms of outside expenditures, he is benefiting the most, but Super PAC money is spending 2 to 1 for Hillary over Sanders in overall funds used.
Basically, MSM is being used by the Clinton camp to try and ratfuck Sanders as hard as possible, terrified to death of what Iowa and New Hampshire will do.
edited 29th Jan '16 7:47:42 PM by PotatoesRock