2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Drakle]

EDIT: I'll have to address the free trade thing later, but at minimum it is very complicated and the last 40 years, when 'free trade' became very popular, is when we started seeing the massive divergence in wages from productivity and the dominance of the ultra wealthy/international finance away from manufacturing/ domestic finance.

Free trade would create wealth if the losers of free trade were compensated out of the increased wealth. But, that never happens, cuz we believe in wealth trickling upwards.

Well, either way, it is way too late to turn the clock back on free trade. Trying to reverse it, in even partial measures like Trump does, just causes mass economic dislocation. The Rustbelt has already rusted.

And the prior tariff walls created a lot of festering problems, which were only exposed by free trade. Like the US steel industry just collectively decided to stop innovating, and got lapped by other industrial powers. The US car industry was also pretty bad as well at competing. Tariffs would have just meant they could have coasted on being lazy for longer.

Also, a lot of the employment decline is wrongly blamed on trade when a lot is tech. Manufacturing output in many industries has grown, even as employment has plunged. Which should only be encouraged, since productivity, ensures that they will remain competitive.

But it is a simple fact that free trade creates wealth and makes the economies of the world more productive. Failure to allocate it correctly is an taxation, education and other issues, not a free trade issue. It is the UK and US who most publically screwed up industrial areas with their New right policy, from Thatcher and Reagan. But places like Germany transitioned fairly well.

I mean one of the most punishing tools the US government has, is sanctions, which is just cutting nations off from trade (and capital) to various degrees.

Yes thats 4 bad apples. How many police officers across the whole country marched with the protesters after that happened, hugged them, took a knee with them for Floyd? Hundrets? Thouasands? Definitly way way more than 4.

Tons of police came out to crack protesters heads, shoot journalists with pepper bullet, and turn peaceful protests into violence. While letting Proud boys and looters run wild.

Police are needed. That is a fact in any modern society, no matter how good the social safety net is. If anything the US is under policed in terms of raw numbers. But police culture in the US is rotten.

Also, a bad apple, is that it infects the rest of the barrel and makes it all inedible. That is the point of the saying.


Also in terms of the debate. The right's iron grip on Facebook is clear.

The most shared stories include a nonsense Nobel peace prize nomination, Chris Wallace is biased against Trump, Biden is wearing an earpiece, Clinton made up Russia, and actually, Trump totally pays Taxes. Along with a couple actually factual ones.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Wrong thread, but it's impossible to know the number of bad-adjacent apples there are, because the incentives prevent good cops from excising bad cops. If your mortgage depends on turning a blind eye, then you turn a blind eye.

"One bad apple spoils the bunch"... as the saying goes.

Which is why I've always found the "bad apple" defense of police pretty ironic.

 

[Gori the Grey]

1) I actually think the Osmond's "One Bad Apple Don't Spoil the Whole Bunch" has flipped the meaning of the fragment "One Bad Apple"
2) You're 100% correct about Biden's best moments in your post above, and I think it's largely because of those that he is regarded as having won the debate. And then
3) I'll add one more thing to your post above. I think Trump even spoiled his own pre-rehearsed zingers by the rant-and-rave mode in which he conducted the whole debate. The content of charges he was trying to level against Biden was lost in the sheer franticness with which he said everything.

 

[cardgame]

Yes thats 4 bad apples. How many police officers across the whole country marched with the protesters after that happened, hugged them, took a knee with them for Floyd? Hundrets? Thouasands? Definitly way way more than 4.

How many police officers who marched with the protesters after that happened, hugged them, took a knee with them for Floyd went back and picked up their nightsticks and tear gassed them 30 minutes later after the brass and the press was satisfied with their photo op?

 

[Lexicus]

Give the press no opportunities to 'both sides' this crap

I am not sure this actually works. As I read the situation, the dynamic is such that if Biden merely looked visibly exasperated the media would turn it into a "both-sides" moment.

But free trade has led to massive economic growth

Free trade hasn't got a thing to do with it. Economic growth is driven by investment, not trade. Assuming you are talking about poor countries (since rich countries have seen much slower GDP per capita growth in the "free trade" world than they did before - there are many reasons for this but it's obviously false that free trade has led to "massive economic growth" in the rich countries.

Opening up poor countries to direct foreign invetment may lead to massive economic growth on paper but that doesn't mean there aren't serious issues and better development paths for these countries to take.

Theres some bad apples among the police and some bad apples among the protesters. Most police are good people who risk their lives daily... and most protesters are piecefully protesting and dont agree with leftextrem violence. Thing is - the bad apples in police are almost immune against prosecution, the bad apples of the protesters are not at all.

No one who says the police are "just a few bad apples" ever denies the existence of the blue wall of silence, yet the blue wall in itself is proof that the "few bad apples" notion is wrong. I mean, actually it's right since as @Sommerswerd is fond of pointing out the saying is "a few bad apples spoil the bunch" not "a few bad apples mean the rest are fine" but we'll leave that aside for now.
I suggest looking up what Frank Serpico has to say about the "few bad apples" thing if you actually want to learn something new.

 

[Samson]

Free trade hasn't got a thing to do with it. Economic growth is driven by investment, not trade. Assuming you are talking about poor countries (since rich countries have seen much slower GDP per capita growth in the "free trade" world than they did before - there are many reasons for this but it's obviously false that free trade has led to "massive economic growth" in the rich countries.

Opening up poor countries to direct foreign invetment may lead to massive economic growth on paper but that doesn't mean there aren't serious issues and better development paths for these countries to take.

And it should be noted that early very high growth rate of the great global superpowers (Dutch, British and American) have been achieved during periods of protectionism.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Free trade hasn't got a thing to do with it. Economic growth is driven by investment, not trade.

Mostly wrong. Trade opportunities create the need for investment. China in the 21st C is a pretty good example of how improving global trade infrastructure created the opportunity for US industry to move offshore and enrich China. Investments followed and built upon itself.

If investment drove economic development, then one could build laundromats and restaurants in every economically hard-hit city and have recovery. Economic growth happens when new money from outside an economy flows into it. If the Federal government gave everyone in Akron OH $10,000, you would see a temporary growth in the economy. If they gave that money ongoing, the growth would be more permanent.

 

[El_Machinae]

Both trade and investment create growth. Might as well discuss Area without discussing both Length and Width.

 

[Sommerswerd]

1) I actually think the Osmond's "One Bad Apple Don't Spoil the Whole Bunch" has flipped the meaning of the fragment "One Bad Apple"

Not for me. I've never even heard of that song. I doubt that I'm alone in that.

3) I'll add one more thing to your post above. I think Trump even spoiled his own pre-rehearsed zingers by the rant-and-rave mode in which he conducted the whole debate. The content of charges he was trying to level against Biden was lost in the sheer franticness with which he said everything.

Trump has a potential insurmountable advantage on Biden in a debate format that he could fully exploit if he wasn't such a ding-dong. Biden, has a moral and intellectual tethering to at least trying to say things that make sense and are truthful. So he has to think about what he says before he says it, and when he catches himself misspeaking or rambling or not making sense he stumbles and tries to collect his thoughts, so he can actually say what he means and/or has practiced. Plus, he wants to come off as thoughtful and compassionate, so he has to be soft-spoken and well mannered in the way he presents his points.

Trump on the other hand feels no such obligation or inclination to saying anything coherent or meaningful and he knows that the audience has no expectation of that from him. So he is fully free to just rant and rave stream of consciousness word salads without any regard for whether he is responding to the question or the issue at hand, or indeed, whether he is even speaking in complete sentences. Plus Trump's style is to project overconfidence, braggadocio and to be casually dismissive of facts or specifics so just ranting and raving loudly suits him perfectly. As long as he is projecting confidence, it doesn't matter what he actually says.

So if Trump had the discipline to just let Biden talk, Biden will eventually stumble, stammer, or misspeak about something and because he is acting in good faith, he will try to correct himself and/or otherwise give away that he made a mistake. Then, when its Trump's turn to talk, he can rant and rave about how stupid and senile Biden is and mock him for making a mistake, and if Biden tries to interrupt to defend himself Trump will have the moral high ground to say "Scuse me, scuse me, I didn't interrupt you", which Biden would have to accept, then Trump can go back to ranting and raving word salad, lying and making things up, and he will seem like the stronger debater, because he will say all his rantings with confidence, because he doesn't have to worry about making sense or being correct or remembering any facts or statistics. He can just make it up.

I am not sure this actually works. As I read the situation, the dynamic is such that if Biden merely looked visibly exasperated the media would turn it into a "both-sides" moment.

Agreed. Conservatives/FOX News, beginning with the initial "fair and balanced" slogan, have very successfully cemented a false narrative into the American political consciousness... that you can only be credible/believable if you are "in the middle", "fair and balanced", appreciate "both sides" and so on. Its so pervasive that the media is obsessed with giving Republicans/Conservatives airtime, even when they are saying things that are mostly lies and misleading garbage. So they are going to "both sides" it no matter what, for fear of being labeled "biased".

 

[Gori the Grey]

Not for me. I've never even heard of that song. I doubt that I'm alone in that.

Walk up to a random colleague at work and say "One bad apple . . . "

 

[Sommerswerd]

Walk up to a random colleague at work and say "One bad apple . . . "

What age?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Walk up to a random colleague at work and say "One bad apple . . . "

And if they are under 60 they probably won't remember this song.
I don't although I do vaguely remember a couple of songs by the Osmonds.

 

[stinkubus]

As someone who lives in a country with somewhat universal healthcare, I'm part of the cohort that realizes that it's cheaper overall. The American system is super-expensive mainly because of the Adversarial Paperwork of insurance plus rent-seeking. But that Adversarial Paperwork means that I have an administrator shuffling papers to get a procedure approved so that the insurance company can hire administrators to deny my claim.

Under Medicare for All, those 'jobs' would disappear. Now, since the jobs aren't actually productive, the USA could actually just replace them with permanent pensions and show a net-benefit (if humans thrive under free money and free time), but that will never happen. All of those people will have to be re-hired in positions that make them feel useful. It might be pretty painful.

The government would need workers with the exact same skills to administer its own program. Those workers could easily be folded into the civil service system, probably with a choice of locales in which to live and work.

Increased productivity gains can be paid back to the working class via increased wages AND reduced hours/increased paid leave.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Then, when its Trump's turn to talk, he can't rant and rave about how stupid and senile Biden is and mock him for making a mistake

There are two reasons why Trump won't ever do this. You've already listed the most important of the two. But the other is this: this strategy that you describe here would require Trump listening to what Biden says and responding to the content of that, i.e. thinking on his feet. All of Trump's "zingers" against Biden were pre-planned. Half of the reason for his interruption was that he was in a rush to get them out. If he expected anyone to pick up from his presentation rather than knowing it already from Fox what 3.5 million dollars was supposed to mean, no one would pick it up. The force of that smear against Biden depends a little on the content and it was lost in the delivery.

 

[Gori the Grey]

What age?

How could I answer that? it's a random colleague. I'm counting on you to randomize properly!

The person will fill out your sentence by saying "don't spoil the whole bunch, girl"

 

[V55]

Okay i agree, bad apples was bad wording. A few black sheeps nails it better.

(...) because the incentives prevent good cops from excising bad cops. If your mortgage depends on turning a blind eye, then you turn a blind eye.

Tons of police came out to crack protesters heads, shoot journalists with pepper bullet, and turn peaceful protests into violence. While letting Proud boys and looters run wild.

Police are needed. That is a fact in any modern society, no matter how good the social safety net is. If anything the US is under policed in terms of raw numbers. But police culture in the US is rotten.

No one who says the police are "just a few bad apples" ever denies the existence of the blue wall of silence, yet the blue wall in itself is proof that the "few bad apples" notion is wrong.

I agree with all of you, there are plenty of issues in the police, going from immunity(already brought that up) over lack of training, lack of motion to report bad cops, right(extreme) bias etc... It shows in the statistics too - in no other country so many people get shot by police. For the Nr1 nation by economy having such a high police brutality rate is a shame.i agree police reform is necassary, and Biden solution to bring police and civil rights heads on the table for that seems the most reasonable way to do that. My point was to critizise the generalization of a former post. If one side says all protesters are rioters, and the other all police are murders - i understand if you have strong feelings because of certain events, but this is leading to nowhere constructive, that was my point.
Because, the only solution if your statement is ALL police are murders or ALL protesters are rioters is completly abolishing police or completly abolishing the right to piecefully protest, and that provenly just doesnt work but only makes things worse.

 

[Ajidica]

I am not sure this actually works. As I read the situation, the dynamic is such that if Biden merely looked visibly exasperated the media would turn it into a "both-sides" moment.

I think it comes down to the optics of the 20 second clip the news shows use as a highlight. The people who the candidates are fighting over, the mythical "undecided voter", are not a news or political junkies. When the news shows the clip of all three people yelling over each other, the "undecided voter" thinks the clip matches up with being told about "both sides". If, however, the best clip the news can find to support "both sides" is a clip of Trump ranting and raving over Biden looking, for lack of a better word, presidential, the assertion that this was a "both sides" issue doesn't carry the same weight.
EDIT: In other words, draw as big difference as possible between himself and Trump. Apart from the red meat crowd, Trump ranting and raving and being a bully is not an attractive figure. Heck, if Biden only had to tailor his message to the undecided voter crowd, a winning argument would be "vote for me, and you won't hear about politics for another four years".

 

[Sommerswerd]

How could I answer that? it's a random colleague. I'm counting on you to randomize properly!

The person will fill out your sentence by saying "don't spoil the whole bunch, girl"

Well then you're lucky I accepted your challenge in good faith because the first random colleague I asked had no clue about that song. However, I did not want to just gleefully return to the thread to dance on your grave, I actually wanted to learn something new and also give your assertion a fair shot of being right, since I take your claims seriously.

So I asked a few more and I found a colleague who, exactly as you predicted, immediately sang the "don't spoil the whole bunch, girl" in response... Although he was adamant that it was a Michael Jackson song and was impressed that I "knew" that it was an Osmonds song. When I admitted that I'd actually heard about it from someone else he actually Googled it... Turns out the song was actually written for the Jacskon 5 and they were going to record it but they decided to record "ABC" instead. So TIL a bunch of new stuff. Thanks Gor

And if they are under 60 they probably won't remember this song.
I don't although I do vaguely remember a couple of songs by the Osmonds.

Confirmed. The one guy who was familiar with the song was in his 60s. The other people who didn't were in their 30s 40s and 50s.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The people who the candidates are fighting over, the mythical "undecided voter"

Emphasis mine.

EDIT: In other words, draw as big difference as possible between himself and Trump.

Agree

His best play is to ignore Trump's goading and stay as "Presidential" as possible, to draw as stark a contrast as possible. At least once in the debate, at key moment, he is going to have to stand up to Trump and challenge him to an arm wrestling match or whatever and say that he is full of malarkey or whatever, but that's it. Other than that, I think Biden will stay on message and try to appear as reasonable and normal as possible.

Heck, if Biden only had to tailor his message to the undecided voter crowd, a winning argument would be "vote for me, and you won't hear about politics for another four years".

Best.Campaign.Slogan.Ever.​

 

[Kyriakos]

Best.Campaign.Slogan.Ever.​

Not really. If people can't survive without things changing for the better, it isn't appealing to just be a shadow.
Those people may abstain.