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
Just as fair as the complaints that Hillary is getting elected on the backs of Democrats from the Deep South, those folks have interests too.
Though remember, per RNC bylaws, only someone with 8 state wins under their belt can be considered, so all of those delegates mean nothing for Kasich unless he can pull some wins.
Ted Cruz Just Reminded the Republican Establishment Why They Hate Him
It's entirely about his love of the gold standard.
That’s great, you might think: the value of the dollar will be stable. But the exact opposite is true; gold is a commodity and its price, driven by supply and demand and speculation, swings wildly.
(Cross-posted in the General Economics thread)
Krugman: Robber Baron Recessions
Thanks in large part to Ronny Ray Gun, the last few decades have seen a staggering upswing in monopoly power, leading to both reduced capital investment and a reduced share of profits going to labor. This is why you can't get FIOS: because Verizon has no financial incentive to bother expanding service when it can milk its existing customers for cash.
edited 18th Apr '16 7:49:23 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The fact that the Saudi gov. is doing this doesn't seem to convince my they aren't at least partially responsible
edited 18th Apr '16 9:15:39 AM by Xopher001
That's poor etiquette. Write up a paragraph summary, don't make us click the link to have any idea what you're talking about.
Thanks in large part to Ronny Ray Gun, the last few decades have seen a staggering upswing in monopoly power, leading to both reduced capital investment and a reduced share of profits going to labor. This is why you can't get FIOS: because Verizon has no financial incentive to bother expanding service when it can milk its existing customers for cash.
The comments seem critical of Krugman, apparently from Sanders supporters.
I suppose you could see a disconnect between his criticism of liberals on economics, and his left-wing commentary. You see lots of criticism from right-wing commentators on other sites about that, saying his left-wing commentary is totally at odds with his economics, or used to be anyway (he's changed his mind based on evidence on some things, I believe).
He does criticize liberals and neoliberals both, despite seemingly partly supporting each in a sense (market is good, but there's a role for government). Which I guess is a little too nuanced for right-wing apologists living in fantasyland, and not satisfying to leftists who dislike academic economists on principle.
But as far as his criticism of Sanders goes, I agree with it. And I like Clinton, too. But I also feel Clinton being centrist-left is disappointing in terms of countering monopoly power, as Krugman put it. So it draws more apathy from me than enthusiasm, though not hostility. And to me, apathy is the biggest killer.
I want less apathy. Dean Baker has the right of it, you need to take control of the narratives from the conservatives, regardless of the government vs. market red herring.
Krugman is a person who calls out BS wherever he sees it: from left or right, and that makes him a lot of enemies in the form of people who have staked their claim on bullshitting people.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"He detests centrism, at least the phony kind that insists on giving bad arguments a voice for the sake of being perceived to be fair. Not sure how you could reasonably call him that.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Not that kind of centrism, but the pragmatic position that stakes out a position between/separate from either side. He knows there's a problem with the right's position/the status quo, but he doesn't like how far the left takes it and calls them when their plans are clearly unworkable. He seems to be in the middle of the political spectrum (at least the economic portion) to me anyway.
The Cult of Centrism doesn't encompass everyone who falls in between the two party system; though it is an issue.
This. Now maybe its too idealistic, at least in a country that's so polarized like the US, but centrist parties have done a lot of good around the world (though like every other type of party, they have their fair share of failures as well).
edited 18th Apr '16 11:46:47 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Right, well, then he (and I) are both proud to fall into that camp. I don't believe that there is a fair middle ground between left and right positions, though. Sometimes a position is just wrong and must be called out as such. The problem with our current political polarization is that doing so labels you not as a reasonable critic but as an enemy.
We see that on both sides, but much more so on the right... at least until Sanders came along. Now his faction makes a point of using that same tactic against anyone on the left who dares gainsay him.
edited 18th Apr '16 11:53:49 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yeah I like the idea, it's just...Talking about the issue of inequality, it's not so much it causing problems that's issue. It's that in that kind of situation, even though the best off people are getting the best deal they ever had and are getting a big say while everyone else is alienated, the more things are good for them, the more they feel they feel they're getting a raw deal. That's why they're lobbying so much, not just money.
I don't see centrism really responding strongly to that.
"Centrism" doesn't respond to things. That's a bafflingly illogical point of view.
Politically, the wealthy control a lot of influence and have to be accounted for. Economically, their hoarding of wealth causes serious systemic harm, but we need some accumulation of wealth in order to provide capital for investment. Government intervention carries the risk of being hijacked by ideology. Of the various solutions offered for this situation, which is most likely to work? That's a "centrist" line of thinking.
edited 18th Apr '16 12:31:41 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Ohhhh, I see. It just confuses me because there's so many people who say shut up, it's a not a problem you dirty Marxist.
Only if they're not in a bubble. Echo chambers are no good.
The same principle is why you need biodiversity in ecosystems, monocultures will be ravaged.
edited 18th Apr '16 12:38:46 PM by CassidyTheDevil
I'm not talking about whether we should back them ideologically; I'm saying that they factually, empirically, wield massive influence. If you don't pass legislation favorable to them, they will sponsor your political opponents, bad-mouth you on political talk shows, hire people to dig through your closets, even start revolutionary astroturf movements to unseat the party of which you are a member (*cough* the Koch brothers). Any systemic changes must take this into consideration or they will fail.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I would argue that centralization or monopolies or systems arent necesarily bad. They can be just as good as branching it out to several suppliers. When several of the same ocmpanies giving the same product exist, they also tend to get into under the table agreements instead of honest competition and providing good services also becomes a null point.
I am not so sure demonizing monopolies or descentralization works. I think both can work and both have strenghts and weaknesses.
Just my experience from seeing it happen ehre in latin america all the time. People bitch about companies, because companies suck. Government monopolizes or allows monopoly to other company. Monopoly sucks after a while. People complain and demand it is descentralized.
it is cyclical.
edited 18th Apr '16 12:45:22 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

I was thinking about that. It's certainly a little ironic how New York and California could end up determining not only the 2016 Republican presidential candidate, but the future of the Republican party as a recognizable entity when neither of those states have voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988,