2020 US Election (Part One)

[Zardnaar]

It's often easier for the right to have first female leader than the left.

They're good at over looking stuff when it's convenient.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

It's often easier for the right to have first female leader than the left.

They're good at over looking stuff when it's convenient.

And what does this mean?

 

[Takhisis]

A Nixon-goes-to-China effect.

 

[luiz]

It's too bad that the more "progressive" democrats have to combine pretty reasonable policies with what seems like an almost pathological disliking (and basic misunderstanding) of businesses and how they work.

I mean, I'm a more of a right-winger myself, but even I believe in the US the rich pay way too little taxes and there should be far more social protections. I mean Canada and Australia manage to have rather robust social systems while remaining strong free market economies; why can't the US?

But then candidates like Warren and Sanders extrapolate this to shot-in-the-foot policies such as breaking up tech firms, which will only lead to deterioration of American economic clout and competitiveness. It's not like China will break up Baidu or Ali (and for that matter Europe will never touch its champions either). This comes from the fact that people like sanders and Warren never had real jobs their entire lives and have no idea how companies actually work.

 

[cardgame]

It's too bad that the more "progressive" democrats have to combine pretty reasonable policies with what seems like an almost pathological disliking (and basic misunderstanding) of businesses and how they work.

I mean, I'm a more of a right-winger myself, but even I believe in the US the rich pay too little taxes and there should be far more social protections. I mean Canada and Australia manage to have rather robust social systems while remaining strong free market economies; why can't the US?

But then candidates like Warren and Sanders extrapolate this to shoot-in-the-foot policies such as breaking up tech firms, which will only lead to deterioration of American economic clout and competitiveness. It's not like China will break up Baidu or Ali (and for that matter Europe will never touch its champions either). This comes from the fact that people like sanders and Warren never had real jobs their entire lives and have no idea how companies actually work.

Hmmm, turns out monopolies are good, actually. I am extremely intelligent.

 

[luiz]

Hmmm, turns out monopolies are good, actually. I am extremely intelligent.

Yeah I'm go take a wild guess here and say you have no idea what you're taking about.

How has the "monopoly" Amazon (which BTW controls only a tiny fraction of retail sales in the US) drove up prices for consumers? In fact what negative effect has it had over consumers at all? What about Google, how is it screwing the American consumer? And how will handing over primacy over search engines to some Asian or European firm help Americans?

American "" progressives""" like to claim they only want to adopt tried and tested policies of countries like Denmark or Sweden. Do you see Denmark or Sweden trying to break up their big companies? No, they protect them tooth and nail. The issue of course is that people like Sanders, Warren or you not only don't know how companies work, you also don't have the slightest clue how the Danish economy works either. You just assume it's some left-wing utopia - but the fact is that despite their very robust social systems, in many ways they are more "right-wing" than the US.

 

[Narz]

Yeah I'm go take a wild guess here and say you have no idea what you're taking about.

How has the "monopoly" Amazon (which BTW controls only a tiny fraction of retail sales in the US) drove up prices for consumers? In fact what negative effect has it had over consumers at all?

Amazon is great for consumers, I dont think anyone can argue with it.

Local small businesses not so much.

But whatever, brick and mortar retail is a waste of space anyway. I'm happy when buy-stuff spaces close down and yoga studios, gyms and experiential businesses (like make some clay thing while you drink wine) open up.

 

[luiz]

Amazon is great for consumers, I dont think anyone can argue with it.

Local small businesses not so much.

But whatever, brick and mortar retail is a waste of space anyway. I'm happy when buy-stuff spaces close down and yoga studios, gyms and experiential businesses (like make some clay thing while you drink wine) open up.

Yeah Amazon might have had an impact on brick and mortar in general, but small businesses were already screwed by Walmart and the rise of the shopping mall, which happened long before Amazon. If anything, Amazon is having a negative impact over shopping malls and hypermarkets, not small businesses.

And you're quite right, inner cities are way more vibrant in the age of Amazon than they were in the age of the shopping mall.

Breaking up Amazon will be great for Asian competitors like Ali and Rakuten or European competitors such as Cdiscount, as they are based in countries whose politicians are not stupid to the point of destroying national companies that give their nations a huge competitive edge.

 

[Ajidica]

But then candidates like Warren and Sanders extrapolate this to shot-in-the-foot policies such as breaking up tech firms, which will only lead to deterioration of American economic clout and competitiveness. It's not like China will break up Baidu or Ali (and for that matter Europe will never touch its champions either). This comes from the fact that people like sanders and Warren never had real jobs their entire lives and have no idea how companies actually work.

Warren worked as a public school teacher, and then became a nationally respected expert on bankruptcy, personal finance, commercial codes, and consumer debt - becoming tenured at Harvard law.
If that doesn't count as a 'real job' then I don't know what is a 'real job'.

American "" progressives""" like to claim they only want to adopt tried and tested policies of countries like Denmark or Sweden. Do you see Denmark or Sweden trying to break up their big companies? No, they protect them tooth and nail. The issue of course is that people like Sanders, Warren or you not only don't know how companies work, you also don't have the slightest clue how the Danish economy works either. You just assume it's some left-wing utopia - but the fact is that despite their very robust social systems, in many ways they are more "right-wing" than the US.

It is my understanding that many European countries have adopted to some degree corporatist policies for their 'flagship industries' and will undertake state intervention to protect them. Protecting domestic industries to ensure they remain internationally competitive is one thing, doing nothing as an industry hollows out the domestic economy and concentrates an unhealthy level of power in an unaccountable company with overwhelming market influence is quite another. That European countries are fighting tooth and nail to protect their domestic companies should be read as an indicator they don't want an Amazon or Google style behemoth exercising a comparable level of influence in their country as those companies do in America.

 

[luiz]

Warren worked as a public school teacher, and then became a nationally respected expert on bankruptcy, personal finance, commercial codes, and consumer debt - becoming tenured at Harvard law.
If that doesn't count as a 'real job' then I don't know what is a 'real job'.

I actually meant never had real private sector jobs. Being a senator is also a real job, IMO.

It is my understanding that many European countries have adopted to some degree corporatist policies for their 'flagship industries' and will undertake state intervention to protect them. Protecting domestic industries to ensure they remain internationally competitive is one thing, doing nothing as an industry hollows out the domestic economy and concentrates an unhealthy level of power in an unaccountable company with overwhelming market influence is quite another. That European countries are fighting tooth and nail to protect their domestic companies should be read as an indicator they don't want an Amazon or Google style behemoth exercising a comparable level of influence in their country as those companies do in America.

Your understanding is wrong. Asian and European countries already have companies with comparable clout to Amazon or Google (Ali has higher revenue than Amazon). Do you hear about China trying to break up Ali? No, because unlike some American progressives, the Chinese are not idiots.

Now, both China and Europe do regulate firms more, and exert some degree of state control over large firms. That's one thing. Breaking up their national large firms and thus handing over the edge to foreign companies is a fully different thing that does not even cross their minds.

 

[Ajidica]

I actually meant never had real private sector jobs. Being a senator is also a real job, IMO.

Harvard is a private university, not public. Try again?
Richard Painter* has spent his entire life either teaching at public universities, working in government, or in non-profit advocacy groups. Has he never had a 'real job'?
*I'm citing him as he is regarded as a national authority on ethics laws and worked in the Bush White House as an ethics lawyer.

Your understanding is wrong. Asian and European countries already have companies with comparable clout to Amazon or Google (Ali has higher revenue than Amazon). Do you hear about China trying to break up Ali? No, because unlike some American progressives, the Chinese are not idiots.

Saying "China does it this way" at a time when the Chinese government is looking at cyberpunk dystopias and saying 'Hold my beer' does not seem like a particularly compelling reason to do something.

Now, both China and Europe do regulate firms more, and exert some degree of state control over large firms. That's one thing. Breaking up their national large firms and thus handing over the edge to foreign companies is a fully different thing that does not even cross their minds.

I'm perfectly fine with introducing a corporatist policy over large and systemically important companies in exchange for not breaking them up.

 

[Lexicus]

It's funny to me because I also disagree with the idea of "breaking up" these large companies, but on the grounds that it is an insufficiently radical policy. It doesn't accomplish much. The breakup of national monopolies just results in local monopolies, as we've seen with the telecommunications industry and ISPs. Natural monopolies need to be brought under public control, not "broken up".

 

[luiz]

Harvard is a private university, not public. Try again?
Richard Painter* has spent his entire life either teaching at public universities, working in government, or in non-profit advocacy groups. Has he never had a 'real job'?
*I'm citing him as he is regarded as a national authority on ethics laws and worked in the Bush White House as an ethics lawyer.

Harvard might be private in some sense, but working there is not the same as working in a private company, which as far as I know Warren never did.

Saying "China does it this way" at a time when the Chinese government is looking at cyberpunk dystopias and saying 'Hold my beer' does not seem like a particularly compelling reason to do something.

Well China is the country which is overtaking yours, or perhaps already did, as the leading economy on earth. We might have a thing or two to learn from them. Which doesn't mean we should copy everything they do, just like how they didn't copy everything American.
But it's not only China that does it that way. It's also Japan, Germany, France, and Scandinavia, the holy cow of American "progressives" (who nevertheless are remarkably provincial and quite clueless about how these countries actually function).

I'm perfectly fine with introducing a corporatist policy over large and systemically important companies in exchange for not breaking them up.

That's a much smarter approach, yes. And also serves national interest far better. Of course, it has to be smartly done.

 

[luiz]

It's funny to me because I also disagree with the idea of "breaking up" these large companies, but on the grounds that it is an insufficiently radical policy. It doesn't accomplish much. The breakup of national monopolies just results in local monopolies, as we've seen with the telecommunications industry and ISPs. Natural monopolies need to be brought under public control, not "broken up".

You might be shocked to hear I actually support far greater regulation of American tech groups. But that doesn't mean I'd put them under direct "public control", because state-owned companies are hardly examples of innovation and good management. More regulation and government oversight would be far preferable, which incidentally is how they do it in China, Japan and Europe.

 

[Ajidica]

Harvard might be private in some sense, but working there is not the same as working in a private company, which as far as I know Warren never did.

Seems like you are trying to make a distinction without importance. Why is being a nationally known tenured Harvard law professor not a 'real job'?

Well China is the country which is overtaking yours, or perhaps already did, as the leading economy on earth. We might have a thing or two to learn from them. Which doesn't mean we should copy everything they do, just like how they didn't copy everything American.

Immense tech companies with near total market dominance is probably not something we should be emulating. Isn't multiple relatively balanced companies competing for a choosy customer base supposed to be the ideal capitalist system anyhow?

That's a much smarter approach, yes. And also serves national interest far better. Of course, it has to be smartly done.

Any policy or approach has to be smartly done. Even supporters of privatization (like I assume you are) would agree that the post-Soviet privatization/ shock therapy was not smartly done.

 

[luiz]

Seems like you are trying to make a distinction without importance. Why is being a nationally known tenured Harvard law professor not a 'real job'?

I meant real private sector job, and mispoke. She certainly has had real academic and government jobs. But she lacks private sector experience.

Immense tech companies with near total market dominance is probably not something we should be emulating. Isn't multiple relatively balanced companies competing for a choosy customer base supposed to be the ideal capitalist system anyhow?

Tech companies are permanently held in check in a way that old industrial companies were not. Just think of IBM or Yahoo, both or which were entirely dominant at some point. Breaking them up would have been quite stupid, and unnecessary as history showed.
In China, Baidu and Ali are allowed to grow as much as they want. But they are clearly subordinate to the power of the government, which is very quick to intervene when they do something perceived as against national interest. So they are not all-powerful at all. And this is an area where the US could perhaps learn from China.

Any policy or approach has to be smartly done. Even supporters of privatization (like I assume you are) would agree that the post-Soviet privatization/ shock therapy was not smartly done.

Indeed and indeed.

 

[stinkubus]

Immense tech companies with near total market dominance is probably not something we should be emulating. Isn't multiple relatively balanced companies competing for a choosy customer base supposed to be the ideal capitalist system anyhow?

The efficiency of free markets under neoclassical theory depends on the assumption that *none* of the participants (buyers or sellers) has any market power (the ability to unilaterally effect prices with their actions).

Once you relax this assumption you can readily demonstrate that market outcomes are not efficient (i.e. observed prices will not reach the market clearing price).

 

[luiz]

The efficiency of free markets under neoclassical theory depends on the assumption that *none* of the participants (buyers or sellers) has any market power (the ability to unilaterally effect prices with their actions).

That's a common misconception...

 

[stinkubus]

That's a common misconception...

Can you show your work, please?

 

[Ajidica]

I meant real private sector job, and mispoke. She certainly has had real academic and government jobs. But she lacks private sector experience.

Why is private sector experience important? Her focus of study is bankruptcy law, personal finance, commercial codes, and consumer debt - seems pretty real world to me.
Since presumably spending a month flipping burgers wouldn't satisfy your desire for private sector experience, what would satisfy your desire for private sector experience?
It's not like private sector experience is all its cracked up to be - Exhibit A is the Orangutan sitting in the Oval Office.

Tech companies are permanently held in check in a way that old industrial companies were not. Just think of IBM or Yahoo, both or which were entirely dominant at some point.

Google or Amazon have far more power than Union Carbide, US Steel, or Anglo-American ever had.

Indeed and indeed.[/QUOTE]