Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[cherdano]

Hillary's switch on the TPP is, in my opinion, simply pandering to the ignorant for votes.

 

The interview with Ezra Klein has interesting comments by her on immigration:

 

Is it a big job displacement? No. But is it something? Yes. Is it something that is painful and personally hurtful to somebody you know, maybe not you but someone down the line? Absolutely. And I think it’s a mistake to just make the economic argument.

 

I'd imagine that her thinking on trade is similar. She knows that economists would judge TPP to be a benefit, and that there'll be more winners than losers. But she also thinks that it is not enough to make their argument - you also need to convince voters that it's a good idea, and that politicians have made a serious effort at softening the impact on those losing by the deal (and unless TPP doesn't do anything, there'll be a few losers from the disruptive effect of any change).

 

The odd thing about all that is that trade in general doesn't poll that well, and neither did TPP before the primaries began. It just became a political hot issue for both Trump and Sanders supporters.

 

Personally, I find it hard to understand how some (especially Sanders supporters) developed such strong opinions about TPP. It's an extremely complex deals, with some stuff that's clearly beneficial, others that I don't like much, and a lot lot more I don't know much about.

[Phil]

Phil, I find it hard to understand why so many find Hillary unlikeable.

 

I thought she did:

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/26/13065174/first-presidential-debate-live-transcript-clinton-trump

I don't think she needs to say more than that.

 

 

If I were coaching her, I would have told her to go right for the jugular on this issue and said,

 

"Mr. Trump, if you can't be expected to adequately prepare for a presidential debate, how can you be expected to make national policy decisions or negotiate trade deals if you dont prepare?"

 

Re: the likability aspect, well, I don't think she's especially articulate (BHO has set a high bar unfortunately - so did Bill) and she has a real penchant for not telling the truth, or telling a filtered version. She reminds me of so many of my bridge opponents that never disclose because they think it's winning bridge.

 

On Monday, they both spoke in sound bites. Hers were just more intelligent and we'll rehearsed.

 

Note: I was a Bernie supporter, and I didon't like her six months ago.

 

Note2: many people in my family support Trump. They've asked me what is so great about HRC. But I don't have to make the case for her, I merely have to make the case against him, which is trivial.

[Phil]

Here's the excerpt from VOX:

 

Trump: Look, the African-American community has been let down by our politicians. They talk good around election time, like right now. And after the election they say see you later, I'll see you in four year of the African American community, they've been abused and used in order to get votes by Democrats and politicians.

 

They've controlled these communities for up to 100 years. I'll tell you, you look at the inner cities, and I left Detroit and Philadelphia and you've seen me. I've been all over the place. You decided to stay home, and that's okay. But I will tell you. I've been all over, and I've met some of the greatest people I'll ever meet within these communities, and they are very, very upset with what their politicians have told them and what their politicians have done.

 

Clinton: I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And yes, I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that's a good thing.

 

Seems she picked a strange time to play this card.

[awm]

Good opinion piece in the Post today: How passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be good for America

 

 

Crawling fearfully into a nationalistic hole, as the anti-trade movement demands, exemplifies short-term thinking perfectly. And even more ridiculous is relying on more tax cuts for the rich to build the economy. Hillary's switch on the TPP is, in my opinion, simply pandering to the ignorant for votes.

 

Note that the authors of this article are CEOs of large multi-national corporations. It's exactly these sorts of companies which most stand to benefit from the TPP.

 

As far as I can tell, the truly horrifying thing about the TPP is the investor-state dispute settlement which basically lets multinational companies sue countries for damages when they pass profit-reducing laws like environmental protections, family leave, a minimum wage, etc. Further, these lawsuits are judged not by neutral third parties but by corporate lawyers who are likely to represent the vary corporations they are judging in the next case down the line.

 

In general economists agree that trade is good on the whole, but it can easily lead to a "race to the bottom" in terms of labor, safety, and the environment as companies relocate to the places with weakest relevant regulations (and apparently, sue countries which try to improve standards for billions). A well-designed trade deal should therefore ensure that participating countries with lower standards gradually raise them, whereas the TPP seems to make it difficult for any participating country to raise them without being sued.

[Cyberyeti]

Note that the authors of this article are CEOs of large multi-national corporations. It's exactly these sorts of companies which most stand to benefit from the TPP.

 

As far as I can tell, the truly horrifying thing about the TPP is the investor-state dispute settlement which basically lets multinational companies sue countries for damages when they pass profit-reducing laws like environmental protections, family leave, a minimum wage, etc. Further, these lawsuits are judged not by neutral third parties but by corporate lawyers who are likely to represent the vary corporations they are judging in the next case down the line.

 

In general economists agree that trade is good on the whole, but it can easily lead to a "race to the bottom" in terms of labor, safety, and the environment as companies relocate to the places with weakest relevant regulations (and apparently, sue countries which try to improve standards for billions). A well-designed trade deal should therefore ensure that participating countries with lower standards gradually raise them, whereas the TPP seems to make it difficult for any participating country to raise them without being sued.

 

And the rest of the world sees American based multinationals producing dodgy products and suing anybody objects on public health or environmental grounds. This is why TTIP is despised by many in Europe, and probably won't get passed.

[PassedOut]

Here's the excerpt from VOX:

 

Trump: Look, the African-American community has been let down by our politicians. They talk good around election time, like right now. And after the election they say see you later, I'll see you in four year of the African American community, they've been abused and used in order to get votes by Democrats and politicians.

 

They've controlled these communities for up to 100 years. I'll tell you, you look at the inner cities, and I left Detroit and Philadelphia and you've seen me. I've been all over the place. You decided to stay home, and that's okay. But I will tell you. I've been all over, and I've met some of the greatest people I'll ever meet within these communities, and they are very, very upset with what their politicians have told them and what their politicians have done.

 

Clinton: I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And yes, I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that's a good thing.

 

Seems she picked a strange time to play this card.

It seems to me that Trump was teasing her about staying at home preparing for the debate, so what time would have been better? And I don't see that she had to refute Trump's notion that the Republicans have been doing a better job of acting in the interest of African-Americans than have the Democrats.

[kenberg]

Note that the authors of this article are CEOs of large multi-national corporations. It's exactly these sorts of companies which most stand to benefit from the TPP.

 

As far as I can tell, the truly horrifying thing about the TPP is the investor-state dispute settlement which basically lets multinational companies sue countries for damages when they pass profit-reducing laws like environmental protections, family leave, a minimum wage, etc. Further, these lawsuits are judged not by neutral third parties but by corporate lawyers who are likely to represent the vary corporations they are judging in the next case down the line.

 

In general economists agree that trade is good on the whole, but it can easily lead to a "race to the bottom" in terms of labor, safety, and the environment as companies relocate to the places with weakest relevant regulations (and apparently, sue countries which try to improve standards for billions). A well-designed trade deal should therefore ensure that participating countries with lower standards gradually raise them, whereas the TPP seems to make it difficult for any participating country to raise them without being sued.

 

I am not prepared to either endorse what you say or dispute what you say, but I think you have very well demonstrated the true tragedy of this election. There are many topics that need but are not getting substantial discussion.

 

A day or two before the debate I suggested a question for HC about the TTP, along the lines of "We get it that you have changed your mind about the TTP, but are you objecting to some of the details or objecting to the broad idea of it?" I think that she touched on this a little, saying that, I forget her exact words, we need to develop trade with the world. But that's too easy.

 

DT is a disaster, most, not all, of us agree. He will tell China what to do, tell everyone what to do, of course they will all do what he says because he is the Donald. If they refuse, he will fire them. But the corollary is that we do not have any engagement over differing but realistic alternatives. This is very much to be regretted.

[Winstonm]

Last night I heard a report that Hillary Clinton has proposed an idea to make college free to instate residents. This is a farsighted positive idea on par with the grand ideas proposed by the likes of FDT and LBJ, and an idea that is constructive rather than punitive. There is virtually no media coverage about it - the media is still reporting on the latest Trump fiasco or falsehood.

 

It's hard for Hillary to make any image inroads without news coverage. Our U.S. media seems to have this Presidential election cycle confused with WWF Wrestlemania.

[kenberg]

Last night I heard a report that Hillary Clinton has proposed an idea to make college free to instate residents. This is a farsighted positive idea on par with the grand ideas proposed by the likes of FDT and LBJ, and an idea that is constructive rather than punitive. There is virtually no media coverage about it - the media is still reporting on the latest Trump fiasco or falsehood.

 

It's hard for Hillary to make any image inroads without news coverage. Our U.S. media seems to have this Presidential election cycle confused with WWF Wrestlemania.

 

This is another area where I think that competing realistic ideas would be very welcome. I need to see a seriously ill friend but I will come back to this later. Opportunity is very good. I am not positive that free college is so good. It might, as is often the case, depend on the details.

[hrothgar]

This is another area where I think that competing realistic ideas would be very welcome. I need to see a seriously ill friend but I will come back to this later. Opportunity is very good. I am not positive that free college is so good. It might, as is often the case, depend on the details.

 

FWIW, free college tuition is one of the areas where I don''t agree with the progressive left.

I am strongly in favor of permanent minimum income.

Furthermore, I believe that this amount should be sufficient to allow a person to attend classes at a state college.

 

However, I think that it is a mistake to explicitly tie the income to a activity (attending college)

[PassedOut]

FWIW, free college tuition is one of the areas where I don''t agree with the progressive left.

I am strongly in favor of permanent minimum income.

Furthermore, I believe that this amount should be sufficient to allow a person to attend classes at a state college.

 

However, I think that it is a mistake to explicitly tie the income to a activity (attending college)

The permanent minimum income is inevitable, in my opinion, because it's the only sensible solution to the problems we are already starting to face. However, the political reality is that it will take a long time for folks to accept our evolving situation, and free college tuition is, I think, a useful interim step. We need to work toward a future that maximizes the efficient production of goods and services without dooming folks who lack the interest and/or talent to compete in that arena. This is not going to be an easy or simple transition.

[Al_U_Card]

If they refuse, he will fire them.

As opposed to firing at them (with drones etc.) as already approved by the consensus? :ph34r:

:lol: :blink:

[Winstonm]

FWIW, free college tuition is one of the areas where I don''t agree with the progressive left.

I am strongly in favor of permanent minimum income.

Furthermore, I believe that this amount should be sufficient to allow a person to attend classes at a state college.

 

However, I think that it is a mistake to explicitly tie the income to a activity (attending college)

This is why I enjoy these forums so much - a solution I had not considered. I can see the benefit to a minimum income simply in economic activity.

[Al_U_Card]

The permanent minimum income is inevitable, in my opinion, because it's the only sensible solution to the problems we are already starting to face. However, the political reality is that it will take a long time for folks to accept our evolving situation, and free college tuition is, I think, a useful interim step. We need to work toward a future that maximizes the efficient production of goods and services without dooming folks who lack the interest and/or talent to compete in that arena. This is not going to be an easy or simple transition.

Learning from the past involves not repeating the same mistakes. It's all about the banking system and its casino-capitalism joint venture with the financial corporations. Rapacious business practices are bad enough but when the oversight of government is dictated by the Federal Reserve and its economic policies, the only loser is the common man.

[Winstonm]

This is another area where I think that competing realistic ideas would be very welcome. I need to see a seriously ill friend but I will come back to this later. Opportunity is very good. I am not positive that free college is so good. It might, as is often the case, depend on the details.

 

How do we overcome the "let's go back to the Wild West good old days" mentality in sufficient numbers to pass constructive legislation that is for the benefit of the many rather than the few?

[mycroft]

My concerns about trade pacts is that it always seems to be bad for every country - People have been saying that NAFTA was bad for US labour and bad for Mexico; well, apart from the stuff already present in the Auto Pact, it was bad for Canada as well. I wonder who they're good for.

 

I don't think this is necessarily the case with trade pacts; just the ones that get negotiated recently. Apart from everything above (and I will push the ISDS in particular), the three things that get me are Data Security (i.e. the fact that, from customers/employees to companies, there is to be none, remove any you have (EU, we're looking at you)), the migration of some of the more draconian copy"right" proceedings from the MPAA to the rest of the world, and the fact that these deals are negotiated in such secrecy that the intent is for the public to know what's in it the day after it's ratified by your government and not before.

 

Why? I'm sure it's because we're going to be happy with what's in it, and they want to give us a pleasant surprise for our birthday.

 

A minor concern is that it seems like the free flow of manufacturing is guaranteed, but the free flow of retail is "grey market" and a big no-no. So, you can use the fact that living is much cheaper in Bangladesh to make your products, but I can't use that fact to buy them there? Interesting.

 

PMI will probably happen - but it's another thing that will be fought against tooth and nail - because the big companies won't let the "hey, it's crap, but it's this or starve, right?" lever go very easily. It's just too useful (the so-called "gig economy" or "choose your hours and your clients" jobs will disappear save for those who actually want to gig, for instance, if their employees "independent contractors" have an alternative to "volunteering").

[Al_U_Card]

My concerns about trade pacts is that it always seems to be bad for every country - People have been saying that NAFTA was bad for US labour and bad for Mexico; well, apart from the stuff already present in the Auto Pact, it was bad for Canada as well. I wonder who they're good for.

 

 

Negociators, bureaucrats that apply and oversee the regulations and corporations that have access to whatever locale provides the best profitability.

[Al_U_Card]

How do we overcome the "let's go back to the Wild West good old days" mentality in sufficient numbers to pass constructive legislation that is for the benefit of the many rather than the few?

You don't have to, if you restrict the passage of legislation that controverts individual rights, liberties and freedoms. Legislating to "fix" problems invariably ends up creating more problems than before, with an extra layer of bureaucracy added into the mix, for good measure. Currently, the addition of riders and other items of special interest into laws make them fraught with danger. Less is actually more.

[kenberg]

This is another area where I think that competing realistic ideas would be very welcome. I need to see a seriously ill friend but I will come back to this later. Opportunity is very good. I am not positive that free college is so good. It might, as is often the case, depend on the details.

 

 

How do we overcome the "let's go back to the Wild West good old days" mentality in sufficient numbers to pass constructive legislation that is for the benefit of the many rather than the few?

 

In brief: Huh?

 

I'll confess to having somewhat ill-formed ideas here but I will try.

 

There are many differences between high school and college. A big difference, I think, is that choice is involved. I finished elementary school when I was 13, and then I went to high school. No choice. I finished high school when I was 17, and I chose to go to college. I chose which college, I chose a major, I gave some thought to why I was doing this. Affordability was involved. I think 17 is a good age to be thinking about all of this.

 

There should be a thought based decision to go on to college, and performance based financial help would be a push in that direction. I don't want to overstate this, I want everyone to have the opportunity. But I don't think it is good, and especially I don't think it is good for the young person, to have this opportunity in the form: Well, you are 17, you graduated from hs, so of course you go on to college. No charge, and no planning needed.

A 17 year old needs to be thinking about her/his plans and how to accomplish them . As the old saying goes, If not now, when? Given effort on his/her part I am fine with spending public money to help make opportunity available.

 

 

Something like the above is where I am at. I'm open to thought on this. I think that 17 year olds are ready to largely take responsibility for their own lives and I think we should work with them on this but leave many of the choices and much of the effort to them.

 

I don't think of this as the Wild West. I'm a cowboy who never saw a cow, never roped a steer cause I don't know how.....

[Phil]

Not a fan of FREE COLLEGE FOR EVERYONE unless.....Wait for it...it's a MOOC or at least an online degree.

 

Brick and mortar education is so last century and Uncle Sam doesnt need to subsidize these to the tune of 30, 40, 50k a year...or more simply so high school grads get to enjoy that 'college experience'.

 

Subsidizing JUCO + 2 years at university is only marginally better.

 

Whatever we do, these should be treated like ROTC, etc.. so when you get out, you get to use your degree and get some experience giving back and rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.

[kenberg]

I disagree with the last part of the above. Too much like indentured servitude. Give help or don't give help, but when the student is done with college s/he is done.

 

 

Again going on my personal experience. When I stated college I barely knew what grad school was. I liked math, people told me that if I liked math I should be an engineer, I scanned the engineering programs and it appeared EE and Aero were the most math heavy so I flipped a mental coin and chose EE. As I got going and learned more i switched to Physics and then to Math. Grad school and being a Prof were ideas that came later.

 

If the idea, or part of it, is to help kids from non-academic backgrounds, my background was seriously non-academic. I learned, and I have a store of memories. One being early in college when I was asked if I would like to go with some folks to see the Monet exhibit and i said "Who's Monet?" This became something of a punchline for cluelessness.

 

I think it is very reasonable to expect a 17 year old to address life seriously. But don't expect those from non-academic (NB I did not say disadvantaged, I said non-academic) background to know the details of where they are headed. As to ROTC, I got the sales pitch from them at a mandatory session on a variety of topics before classes started. Fortunately I had worked for a while as a door to door salesman and I knew a con job when I heard one.

[Winstonm]

In brief: Huh?

 

I'll confess to having somewhat ill-formed ideas here but I will try.

 

There are many differences between high school and college. A big difference, I think, is that choice is involved. I finished elementary school when I was 13, and then I went to high school. No choice. I finished high school when I was 17, and I chose to go to college. I chose which college, I chose a major, I gave some thought to why I was doing this. Affordability was involved. I think 17 is a good age to be thinking about all of this.

 

There should be a thought based decision to go on to college, and performance based financial help would be a push in that direction. I don't want to overstate this, I want everyone to have the opportunity. But I don't think it is good, and especially I don't think it is good for the young person, to have this opportunity in the form: Well, you are 17, you graduated from hs, so of course you go on to college. No charge, and no planning needed.

A 17 year old needs to be thinking about her/his plans and how to accomplish them . As the old saying goes, If not now, when? Given effort on his/her part I am fine with spending public money to help make opportunity available.

 

 

Something like the above is where I am at. I'm open to thought on this. I think that 17 year olds are ready to largely take responsibility for their own lives and I think we should work with them on this but leave many of the choices and much of the effort to them.

 

I don't think of this as the Wild West. I'm a cowboy who never saw a cow, never roped a steer cause I don't know how.....

 

Let me try again. Can you imagine any of the current Republican Congressmen or Senators agreeing to raise taxes in order to pay for a public service that does not benefit the the top 1%? In my view, this group leans toward libertarian ideology, which to my thinking is not far off from yipee-o-kay-ay let's go back to the days when men were men mindset.

[barmar]

There are pros and cons to the "give back" idea of free college tuition.

 

I think I've heard of rural areas that have no (or too few) nearby doctor sponsoring one of their best college students to go to medical school, on the condition that they'll come back and take up a practice there. There's a specific need, so it's a win-win situation for both. Presumably the student was already planning to go to med school, so he's just being constrained on where he practices and perhaps his specialty.

 

But this type of thing seems like a special case. For most people, the point of making college free is that it's an investment in the future of the country. In order to compete in the global economy, we need a more educated workforce. A generation or two ago there were lots of manufacturing jobs that paid a good salary to people with at most a high school education. Those have practically all dried up in this country. While some people can still make a decent living without a college education (Ken has talked about his children in the past), it's more the exception than the rule.

 

As for Richard's idea that we just guarantee a certain income, but not earmark it specifically for college, is that really workable? Would that minimum income really be enough to both live on and also pay for college? I just assume that the free college plan would be on top of whatever general welfare we provide. So everyone gets to eat and have a roof over their head, and if you also want to go to college you get that as well.

 

Germany, one of the most vibrant economies these days, has free college tuition.

[shyams]

As for Richard's idea that we just guarantee a certain income, but not earmark it specifically for college, is that really workable? Would that minimum income really be enough to both live on and also pay for college? I just assume that the free college plan would be on top of whatever general welfare we provide. So everyone gets to eat and have a roof over their head, and if you also want to go to college you get that as well.

 

The UK (or more specifically, England) has a structure akin to this. A graduate student (UK citizen) can draw a loan for their education. The loan becomes payable if, and only if, the student goes on to work in a job that earns him/her £xx,xxx per year (I think it's £21k). Students who never attain that salary will never have to pay back the loan. Those who earn more than £21k will have a capped payment in excess of £21k --- in other words, a person earning £22k will have to make a mandatory payment which is significantly lower than a person earning £52k.

 

If I recall from a past news report, the UK Govt recovers only 45%-50% (not sure if this includes accrued interest) of the loan funds -- the rest never become payable.

[Elianna]

I disagree with the last part of the above. Too much like indentured servitude. Give help or don't give help, but when the student is done with college s/he is done.

 

 

We (at least in CA, I don't know if it's statewide or nationwide) have something that is a twist on this. Instead of signing up ahead of time to "give back", if a someone has worked for (I believe 3+) in certain public service jobs (for example - teaching at a school where a certain percentage of students receive free or reduced lunch) and have a college loan, they can apply for loan forgiveness.

 

So it's not a promise that they MUST fulfil, but an extra bonus if they are working at a high needs but not as high-paying job.