Clinton: Half of Trump's Supporters are a "Basket of Deplorables"
209 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51030854]I try to be respectful in these threads, people have a reason behind their actions so getting mad at someone is just unproductive. I'm controversial sometimes but if people start battling each other then people stop focusing on the topic in the OP, and perhaps worse is that people just stop listening to each other.
#basketofdeplorables is nearing 1million tweets. Clinton really hurt herself with this one and I would expect to see it brought up in the 1st debate on the 26th. We won't see how this affects the polls until a few days have passed, but I don't see how this could've helped her numbers.[/QUOTE]
I think it was a pretty stupid move on her part
she could have said "there's a handful or two of some undesirables" or something to that effect, really limiting the scope of such a statement would have been a much better idea.
I feel like she'll get judged harsher than Trump on what amounts to the same degree of bullshit from each of them though.
Due to Trumps nature of putting out a new gaffe for the public on a basically daily basis, he's got immunity from his own stupidity in that sense because it all just becomes a glut of actions too large to keep in ones mind all at one time.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51030877]What hurt her is apologizing. She either should have completely walked back the statement or double-downed. At least with the latter she can show up to the campaign and point to polling data that shows that a major chunk of Trump supporters hold racist, homophobic, or xenophobic views.[/QUOTE]
She did the worst possible thing: a non-apology. She said she overgeneralized and then went on to say that Trump is actually all of those things... but somehow the supporters aren't.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51030887]She did the worst possible thing: a non-apology. She said she overgeneralized and then went on to say that Trump is actually all of those things... but somehow the supporters aren't.[/QUOTE]
On top of that, she said she regrets using "half" and left it at that. So now that she didn't clarify and left it vague, Trump supporters are interpreting it as more than half or all. Its getting worse
She never even said "I was wrong" she said "I regret what I said." Yeah, obviously, now that it's blown up like this she regrets it.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/QUeZ8gD.png[/img]
Looks like she dun goofed
[url]http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-regrets-calling-half-trump-supporters-basket-deplorables-n646126[/url]
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;51031094]*circumcision*[/QUOTE]
we need ratings in SH
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51029423].
...that resulted in an ideological alliance. The result is that any expression of anti-globalist sentiment means you must be a racist or nationalist who just hates the outside world. [B]Obviously I'm painting with broad strokes here.[/B][/QUOTE]
Isn't that exactly what you're complaining about?
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51030986]On top of that, she said she regrets using "half" and left it at that. So now that she didn't clarify and left it vague, Trump supporters are interpreting it as more than half or all. Its getting worse[/QUOTE]
I mean, it wasn't a great apology, but you would have to be pretty dumb to interpret it as more than half or all.
[QUOTE=Conscript;51029413]I have a comfy IT job and a degree, I'm fine. It's the rest of my generation I'm concerned about, and you should feel the same
Besides tony 'social exclusion not class war' blair, we also have hillary 'will breaking up big banks end racism?' clinton. You really have to look no farther than the current state of the left to see there is an alliance of opportunity between social justice and the elite
Liberals taking the place of Marxists in the 60s has set the stage for this[/QUOTE]
Oh god, you suffer from Engineer Syndrome.
[QUOTE=Fort83;51030102]Is he indirectly agreeing that he shouldn't be president.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51030206]Does he even manage his own twitter?
I imagine he has a team he just calls up or texts them something to put on the twitter.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MissZoey;51030608]Assuming it's 50/50 right now and Clinton said half of his supporters, this just tells me that Trump doesn't understand math (50% of 50 is 25 duh) and is relying on the average intelligence of his supporters to see the word "half" and instantly hop on the bandwagon.[/QUOTE]
Obama was referencing the "47%" comment made by Mitt Romney in 2012. Hillary's comment was extremely similar, and both she and Donald know it.
[editline]s[/editline]
[QUOTE=Swilly;51031551]Oh god, you suffer from Engineer Syndrome.[/QUOTE]
I have never heard if this. Is it similar to White Male Finance Privilege?
[QUOTE=Chonch;51031783]I have never heard if this. Is it similar to White Male Finance Privilege?[/QUOTE]
10 seconds on Google:
[QUOTE=Urban Dictionary]A student currently studying engineering who believes he or she is better than everyone else simply because he or she studies engineering. It is especially common with engineers who are not failing all of their classes, but can be seen in any and most engineers. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;51031811]10 seconds on Google:[/QUOTE]
That was a tongue-in-cheek jab at the concept of treating people differently based on outward characteristics.
Holy shit the level of discourse surrounding this election just keeps bottoming out every day. It's quickly turning into a war of attrition instead of trying to figure out how to deal with the shitty situation we've been dealt and work to prevent this shit from happening again.
I've tried my best to focus on policy, specifically economics as best as I can, because regardless of people's personal positions on civil liberties and what have you, people pretty universally want to do well financially. I've been pretty irritated lately with Trump supporters on this forum because as soon as they're confronted with pretty hard evidence that Trump's policies are disastrous, they usually ignore the evidence and move on to another talking point.
[QUOTE=bunguer;51029783]The thing you need to understand is that there is enough shit on both candidates that I'm honestly surprised they aren't both in jail or somehow out of the race.
Regardless, as I've said before, Trump says a lot of stupid shit.[/QUOTE]
These candidates are garbage. Clinton views the average American with contempt. The Democrats can't stop shooting themselves in the foot because they thought they had this election in the bag. Clinton's support is failing everywhere. Wasserman Shultz was embraced by Obama and Clinton during her primary despite the shady shit that went on. Clinton in the OP made what would normally be a suicide move. I've voted for an independent candidate every cycle prior to this election, and I'm very reluctantly voting Clinton because of how terrible Trump is, and because of how terrible Pence has been for us Hoosiers.
[QUOTE]
The thing that throws me off is that Hillary also says a lot of shit [b]and[/b] has a much darker past and policies - you know, those things that matter for the future of the country? - and somehow it's taboo to criticize her actions and policies.
Why is "Don't you miss the old days where you could just punch a guy in the face" more important than the actual policies they defend and promised?
[/QUOTE]
It's not taboo to criticize her actions and policies. It's really more of a question of where people's priorities should be during this election. For a lot of people discussing these topics in these threads, we've previously covered a lot of policy issues. People jump into the extra comments and fluff because policy largely goes ignored. I sympathize with people not wanting to lay everything out for the umpteenth time only to get ignored. Tracking down all the citations for things is tiring, especially if people don't engage honestly.
[QUOTE]
Wanna know how Trump can be a better candidate than Hillary when it comes to jobs, outsourcing and global economy?
Look no further than the TPP, she has supported the TPP 45 times in the past while Trump firmly opposes it.
Also, Trump has a series of policies regarding raising taxes for outsourced jobs and goods. Which does the help the jobs domestically and might motivate to keep factories inside the country.[/QUOTE]
I'm against the TPP. I don't necessarily trust that Clinton will hold to her promise on opposing the TPP, and I've said as much previously. It's now part of the platform she's campaigning on, and you can be dead certain I'll be one of the first to jump on her if she ends up pulling some underhanded shit. That we can agree on.
Tariffs I know less about. I do know that [URL="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/tariff-reform-needed-to-boost-the-us-economy"]the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has been opposed to tariffs for a considerable amount of time[/URL]. I don't really think they're all that reputable of a source personally, but from what I do know about tariffs and protectionism in general is that they tend not to bolster local production, they tend to result in higher prices for consumers, and that they end up causing more jobs lost and economic damage than they save. The losses are distributed far and wide throughout a national economy instead of isolated within the sector that's directly threatened by foreign goods. [URL="http://www.mackinac.org/4107"]Here's an article on some Bush era tariffs on steel and how that screwed a number of Americans[/URL].
Maybe you've got some evidence that indicates how tariffs are more of a benefit than a hindrance. Most of the papers I've found on them seem to indicate short term gain and long term losses. That's actually a pretty consistent result when you analyze most of Trump's policies. He's playing the short game consistently, and hoping that people will be too short sighted to realize the long term consequences. [URL="https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf"]Here's a fairly recent analysis on Trump's economic outcome[/URL]. A small boost is predicted for the first year, largely because people will have more money to invest due to his lower proposed taxes. His plan has been consistently predicted to add to the deficit though, and the bulk of the government programs he's saying he'll cut provide benefit to Americans and the proposed spending cuts won't come anywhere near the added gap in federal revenue his tax cuts will make. Trump's plan means a bigger deficit quicker, long term economic and environmental damage, fewer high value jobs, and that's not even getting into his plans to restrict civil liberties and increase government surveillance.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;51031953]Holy shit the level of discourse surrounding this election just keeps bottoming out every day. It's quickly turning into a war of attrition instead of trying to figure out how to deal with the shitty situation we've been dealt and work to prevent this shit from happening again.
I've tried my best to focus on policy, specifically economics as best as I can, because regardless of people's personal positions on civil liberties and what have you, people pretty universally want to do well financially. I've been pretty irritated lately with Trump supporters on this forum because as soon as they're confronted with pretty hard evidence that Trump's policies are disastrous, they usually ignore the evidence and move on to another talking point.
These candidates are garbage. Clinton views the average American with contempt. The Democrats can't stop shooting themselves in the foot because they thought they had this election in the bag. Clinton's support is failing everywhere. Wasserman Shultz was embraced by Obama and Clinton during her primary despite the shady shit that went on. Clinton in the OP made what would normally be a suicide move. I've voted for an independent candidate every cycle prior to this election, and I'm very reluctantly voting Clinton because of how terrible Trump is, and because of how terrible Pence has been for us Hoosiers.
It's not taboo to criticize her actions and policies. It's really more of a question of where people's priorities should be during this election. For a lot of people discussing these topics in these threads, we've previously covered a lot of policy issues. People jump into the extra comments and fluff because policy largely goes ignored. I sympathize with people not wanting to lay everything out for the umpteenth time only to get ignored. Tracking down all the citations for things is tiring, especially if people don't engage honestly.
I'm against the TPP. I don't necessarily trust that Clinton will hold to her promise on opposing the TPP, and I've said as much previously. It's now part of the platform she's campaigning on, and you can be dead certain I'll be one of the first to jump on her if she ends up pulling some underhanded shit. That we can agree on.
Tariffs I know less about. I do know that [URL="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/tariff-reform-needed-to-boost-the-us-economy"]the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has been opposed to tariffs for a considerable amount of time[/URL]. I don't really think they're all that reputable of a source personally, but from what I do know about tariffs and protectionism in general is that they tend not to bolster local production, they tend to result in higher prices for consumers, and that they end up causing more jobs lost and economic damage than they save. The losses are distributed far and wide throughout a national economy instead of isolated within the sector that's directly threatened by foreign goods. [URL="http://www.mackinac.org/4107"]Here's an article on some Bush era tariffs on steel and how that screwed a number of Americans[/URL].
Maybe you've got some evidence that indicates how tariffs are more of a benefit than a hindrance. Most of the papers I've found on them seem to indicate short term gain and long term losses. That's actually a pretty consistent result when you analyze most of Trump's policies. He's playing the short game consistently, and hoping that people will be too short sighted to realize the long term consequences. [URL="https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf"]Here's a fairly recent analysis on Trump's economic outcome[/URL]. A small boost is predicted for the first year, largely because people will have more money to invest due to his lower proposed taxes. His plan has been consistently predicted to add to the deficit though, and the bulk of the government programs he's saying he'll cut provide benefit to Americans and the proposed spending cuts won't come anywhere near the added gap in federal revenue his tax cuts will make. Trump's plan means a bigger deficit quicker, long term economic and environmental damage, fewer high value jobs, and that's not even getting into his plans to restrict civil liberties and increase government surveillance.[/QUOTE]
Glad to have some actual discussion on the policies.
Regarding the so controversial Tariffs on Chinese goods, some context is warranted to make it clear how different the situation is from adding tariffs to industrial materials.
In the steel example, tariffs hurt the industries directly by making raw materials more expensive which results in worse economic conditions because state-side industries will use those raw materials and as your article mentions, it caused "Fewer sales of products containing steel and fewer jobs for people who make finished goods with steel."
In the case of Chinese goods, we are looking at finished goods, not raw materials. [url=http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3407400280.html]There has been successful cases of this working[/url], in various countries, and I do believe this can work in this case too.
China is currently not playing fair, while their reduced prices come from cheaper labor, that's actually not the main reason. [url=https://chinaperspectives.revues.org/3063]Only 39% comes from labor prices, the rest comes from unfair trade practices such as currency manipulation. [/url]
Additionally, China does not abide by IP law nor environmental regulations which can give them an edge in certain industries while creating major problems to the world.
Finally, that fairly recent analysis on Trump economic outcome should be taken with some caution due to [url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/24/hillary-clinton/clinton-trump-both-say-moodys-economist-others-tea/]conflicting agendas.[/url] As it turns out, Zandi is a registered Democrat and donated the maximum amount to Clinton’s primary campaign. (however, not dismissing his ability as an economic analyst)
With that said, I do think some points the analysis made do seem sound and should be used to reform some of the policies but others seem to fall into the very dubious speculative nature, such as "The economy would also struggle to grow if Mr. Trump acted on his pledge to deport 11 million immigrants. An already-tight labor market would constrict even further, driving up labor costs. Positions would go unfilled, the Moody’s analysts said, with Americans unlikely to take the jobs once held by undocumented immigrants, such as those in agriculture — even at higher wages."
We're talking about creating 11 million tax-paying jobs that don't require education and yet, the analysis seem to simply count them as losses.
[QUOTE=bunguer;51032157]Glad to have some actual discussion on the policies.
Regarding the so controversial Tariffs on Chinese goods, some context is warranted to make it clear how different the situation is from adding tariffs to industrial materials.
In the steel example, tariffs hurt the industries directly by making raw materials more expensive which results in worse economic conditions because state-side industries will use those raw materials and as your article mentions, it caused "Fewer sales of products containing steel and fewer jobs for people who make finished goods with steel."
In the case of Chinese goods, we are looking at finished goods, not raw materials. [URL="http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3407400280.html"]There has been successful cases of this working[/URL], in various countries, and I do believe this can work in this case too.[/QUOTE]
This first article suggests two things, first, that tariffs pretty well fucked the South early on to such a degree that we almost had a constitutional crisis, and second, that tariffs extended the damage done during the Great Depression.
Yes, Chinese goods are not a perfect 1:1 to materials such as steel, but the industries they're dominating aren't nearly as specialized or valued as the industries we've shifted into in response. We're moving away from petrochemicals, textiles, and comparatively simple goods and into highly specialized things like aerospace, electronics, pharmaceuticals, and vehicles.
[QUOTE]China is currently not playing fair, while their reduced prices come from cheaper labor, that's actually not the main reason. [URL="https://chinaperspectives.revues.org/3063"]Only 39% comes from labor prices, the rest comes from unfair trade practices such as currency manipulation. [/URL]
Additionally, China does not abide by IP law nor environmental regulations which can give them an edge in certain industries while creating major problems to the world.[/QUOTE]
That's not what this analysis says. [URL="https://chinaperspectives.revues.org/3063#tocto1n11"]Low wages is the single largest factor for the dominance of Chinese goods[/URL]. Wages have been rising (slowly) in China, so we might see some correction soon in that regard. The environmental issues they've been causing are hurting them economically, and Trump' solution isn't to hold them to international standards, but to destroy the EPA, loosen regulations, and shoot for a short term fix for what your report suggests is 5% of the problem. The TPP is a proposed solution on the piracy angle, but we're both against that. Interestingly the thing the Chinese have been the most after has been [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/28/man-admits-stealing-patented-corn-seeds-from-us-fields-to-take-to-china"]our GMO crops[/URL] because they've caused so much environmental damage they have a lot of trouble feeding their people with their land.
The main thing that this report suggests people do to combat China's dominance is to adopt their system of Industrialized Network Clustering.
[QUOTE]
Finally, that fairly recent analysis on Trump economic outcome should be taken with some caution due to [URL="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/24/hillary-clinton/clinton-trump-both-say-moodys-economist-others-tea/"]conflicting agendas.[/URL] As it turns out, Zandi is a registered Democrat and donated the maximum amount to Clinton’s primary campaign. (however, not dismissing his ability as an economic analyst)[/QUOTE]
I meant to put in a disclaimer about that as well, but you'll notice that your source suggests that the political affiliations of the economists in question really don't mean anything if the methodology is good, and Moody's stuff is pretty universally praised. Zandi is well renowned for his work.
[QUOTE]
With that said, I do think some points the analysis made do seem sound and should be used to reform some of the policies but others seem to fall into the very dubious speculative nature, such as "The economy would also struggle to grow if Mr. Trump acted on his pledge to deport 11 million immigrants. An already-tight labor market would constrict even further, driving up labor costs. Positions would go unfilled, the Moody’s analysts said, with Americans unlikely to take the jobs once held by undocumented immigrants, such as those in agriculture — even at higher wages."
We're talking about creating 11 million tax-paying jobs that don't require education and yet, the analysis seem to simply count them as losses.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/business/economy/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-moodys-report.html?_r=0"]Kevin Hassett of the conservative American Enterprise Institute thinks Zandi's analysis is correct in these areas, more so than his work on the effects of tax cuts[/URL]. That link is one of the articles cited by your politifact article.
The politically neutral Tax Policy Center predicts accelerated deficit growth under Trump's plan. The conservative Heritage Foundation predicts economic catastrophe with Trump's tariffs on Mexico and China. The conservative American Enterprise Institute also thinks Trump's plan is bad. Global financial advisers think Trump's plan is bad. What's also important is that these groups have held these positions [I]consistently[/I]. These groups held these positions during the primaries and before.
If you're fiscally conservative, Trump shouldn't be your candidate. Trump isn't fiscally conservative. He's not for free trade, and his policies aren't founded on conservative principles. He's not environmentally conservative. He [I]is[/I] fairly socially conservative. Pence prioritized social conservatism over our economy, education, and general governing here in Indiana. Maybe you're a fellow independent and you don't care about what these conservative groups have to say. While I'm glad you're willing to bring some sources to the table here, I don't really think you've found anything that's all that supportive of these policies. I don't want that to be the case. I wish this were an issue that could just be boiled down into matters of personal opinion. I'm hoping beyond reason that someone has some model that can even spin his policies as remotely good, but I haven't found any. His policies are really just that bad. That's the conclusion I have to hold until further evidence surfaces, and no matter how much I truly loathe Clinton or the Democrats at large I can't in good faith advise anyone to vote for Trump.
If even conservative groups think his plans are bad (and they've been saying this since early in the primaries) why the hell are people supporting him? If it's for the social conservatism he's advocating, Clinton isn't that far off in the OP. If it's for gun rights (which he does want to restrict for various 'undesirables') is that worth the economic burden? Is that worth the increased surveillance? Is that worth the environmental damage?
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51030089]The furry thing confused me. Archangel said that Trump appeals to degenerates and yet he and I are in the same boat. I try to keep my personal interests out of politics where possible, like one normally has nothing to do with the other.[/QUOTE]
When I refer to degenerates I refer to those who I consider an impediment to humanity's progress, those malicious and petty individuals who would blame all their problems on minorities, and use the law to limit or remove their rights and freedoms. People who disregard scientific fact in favor of their own convenient lie. I thought the 'furry' comment was just retarded, so I've no idea what you're trying to imply.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;51032655]This first article suggests two things, first, that tariffs pretty well fucked the South early on to such a degree that we almost had a constitutional crisis, and second, that tariffs extended the damage done during the Great Depression.
Yes, Chinese goods are not a perfect 1:1 to materials such as steel, but the industries they're dominating aren't nearly as specialized or valued as the industries we've shifted into in response. We're moving away from petrochemicals, textiles, and comparatively simple goods and into highly specialized things like aerospace, electronics, pharmaceuticals, and vehicles.
That's not what this analysis says. [URL="https://chinaperspectives.revues.org/3063#tocto1n11"]Low wages is the single largest factor for the dominance of Chinese goods[/URL]. Wages have been rising (slowly) in China, so we might see some correction soon in that regard. The environmental issues they've been causing are hurting them economically, and Trump' solution isn't to hold them to international standards, but to destroy the EPA, loosen regulations, and shoot for a short term fix for what your report suggests is 5% of the problem. The TPP is a proposed solution on the piracy angle, but we're both against that. Interestingly the thing the Chinese have been the most after has been [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/28/man-admits-stealing-patented-corn-seeds-from-us-fields-to-take-to-china"]our GMO crops[/URL] because they've caused so much environmental damage they have a lot of trouble feeding their people with their land.
The main thing that this report suggests people do to combat China's dominance is to adopt their system of Industrialized Network Clustering.
I meant to put in a disclaimer about that as well, but you'll notice that your source suggests that the political affiliations of the economists in question really don't mean anything if the methodology is good, and Moody's stuff is pretty universally praised. Zandi is well renowned for his work.
[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/business/economy/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-moodys-report.html?_r=0"]Kevin Hassett of the conservative American Enterprise Institute thinks Zandi's analysis is correct in these areas, more so than his work on the effects of tax cuts[/URL]. That link is one of the articles cited by your politifact article.
The politically neutral Tax Policy Center predicts accelerated deficit growth under Trump's plan. The conservative Heritage Foundation predicts economic catastrophe with Trump's tariffs on Mexico and China. The conservative American Enterprise Institute also thinks Trump's plan is bad. Global financial advisers think Trump's plan is bad. What's also important is that these groups have held these positions [I]consistently[/I]. These groups held these positions during the primaries and before.
If you're fiscally conservative, Trump shouldn't be your candidate. Trump isn't fiscally conservative. He's not for free trade, and his policies aren't founded on conservative principles. He's not environmentally conservative. He [I]is[/I] fairly socially conservative. Pence prioritized social conservatism over our economy, education, and general governing here in Indiana. Maybe you're a fellow independent and you don't care about what these conservative groups have to say. While I'm glad you're willing to bring some sources to the table here, I don't really think you've found anything that's all that supportive of these policies. I don't want that to be the case. I wish this were an issue that could just be boiled down into matters of personal opinion. I'm hoping beyond reason that someone has some model that can even spin his policies as remotely good, but I haven't found any. His policies are really just that bad. That's the conclusion I have to hold until further evidence surfaces, and no matter how much I truly loathe Clinton or the Democrats at large I can't in good faith advise anyone to vote for Trump.
If even conservative groups think his plans are bad (and they've been saying this since early in the primaries) why the hell are people supporting him? If it's for the social conservatism he's advocating, Clinton isn't that far off in the OP. If it's for gun rights (which he does want to restrict for various 'undesirables') is that worth the economic burden? Is that worth the increased surveillance? Is that worth the environmental damage?[/QUOTE]
The crisis on that Tariffs law still had to do with raw materials, the Tariffs will always include some trade-offs and when dealing with raw materials, there will always be losses in industries that require them. However, that was just an example of an early tariffs attempt. Reagan learned from the previous mistakes and applied tariffs in a much smarter way, putting tariffs on Japanese goods and making Japan play by the rules (very similar to how China is currently behaving), making it a successful move.
Regarding the analysis on the Chinese factors for cheap prices, we gave the same value for the same factor. 39% of that ability from low wages, the rest comes from other factors that shouldn't exist such as currency manipulation - people typically say that the reason China goods are so cheap is due to cheap labor but that's not true, it's just one of the factors and it doesn't even account for 50%, that's what I meant. Tariffs are not meant to make China goods invalid, they attempt to reduce some of their unfair advantages, which even if they are "just" 20-30% still makes a very large advantage in the global scale.
It's also the first time I'm hearing about Trump not wanting to hold them out to international standards when it comes to environment and so on, if what you say is true then I'm against it.
The article about Zandi says he is a valid economic analyst but it doesn't go over the actual article so there's no way to actually say how valid that analysis is. (which is something I also said) [i]"Zandi is a well-respected economist, and we are not in this fact-check casting doubt on the credibility of his Trump report or his work generally."[/i]
Also, saying Moody's stuff is pretty universally praised is somewhat far from the truth. They are very criticized for their inability to actually predict anything on a macro scale (e.g. consistently failed to predict recessions). Most of the articles that talk about "economic disaster" mention that Moody's report, including the article you posted, which means that it's a full circle in terms of logical reasoning.
There's a lot of critics on that report such as this one: [url]http://crouchingtiger.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Moodys-Rebuttal-FINAL-June-25-2016.pdf[/url]
Those critics are also made from very prestigious economists, so it's not like we are talking about some random analyst.
In short, the arguments you made were the most developed I've seen in discussions here but I don't think the situation is as clear as you paint it. On the tariffs side you have certain measures that prove that this can work (Regan) and on the policies at the macro scale, you have Moodys report which is controversial and criticized by many other economists too. (and all the articles use that same Moody's report)
[QUOTE=bunguer;51033730]The crisis on that Tariffs law still had to do with raw materials, the Tariffs will always include some trade-offs and when dealing with raw materials, there will always be losses in industries that require them. However, that was just an example of an early tariffs attempt. Reagan learned from the previous mistakes and applied tariffs in a much smarter way, putting tariffs on Japanese goods and making Japan play by the rules (very similar to how China is currently behaving), making it a successful move.[/QUOTE]
But Reagan's tariffs on Japanese goods were considered blights on his record when you look at fiscal conservative organizations. [URL="http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa032.html"]Harley Motorcycles was run like shit and had to be propped up by tariffs in 82, and it hurt consumers[/URL]. From that article:
[QUOTE]Once again, [B]President Reagan chose to sacrifice free trade and economic prosperity to short-term political goals[/B]. Consumers may well view the higher price of motorcycles as just another form of public financing of presidential campaigns; this version is available to incumbents only.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107.html"]Reagan fucked consumers again with Japanese Tariffs on electronics in 87[/URL]. Milton Friedman, one of the primary intellectuals responsible for modern challenges of Keynesian economics lambasted Reagan for these tariffs. They didn't work, and most everyone has been saying that since the 80's.
[QUOTE]
Regarding the analysis on the Chinese factors for cheap prices, we gave the same value for the same factor. 39% of that ability from low wages, the rest comes from other factors that shouldn't exist such as currency manipulation - people typically say that the reason China goods are so cheap is due to cheap labor but that's not true, it's just one of the factors and it doesn't even account for 50%, that's what I meant. Tariffs are not meant to make China goods invalid, they attempt to reduce some of their unfair advantages, which even if they are "just" 20-30% still makes a very large advantage in the global scale.[/QUOTE]
It is the main reason though. Wages account for nearly 40% of the cost difference by your estimate, and that's an unsustainable practice. Currency manipulation, health and safety violations, lax environmental rules, and government subsidies (that are by and large a response to international sanctions) are all unsustainable practices, and these things are hurting the Chinese economy overall. Their market is crashing. They have massive health and safety problems that will only cost them more money in the long run. [URL="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chinas-economic-problem-worse-we-expected-it-crushing-other-markets-1521875"]Their growth is stalling out[/URL]. ~70% of their current advantage was built from practices that benefit them in the short-term, but are fucking them long-term.
[QUOTE]
It's also the first time I'm hearing about Trump not wanting to hold them out to international standards when it comes to environment and so on, if what you say is true then I'm against it.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/economic-vision"]That's straight from his proposed policy[/URL]. He's said for a while now he's [URL="http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-vows-to-slash-funding-for-education-epa-1452551107"]out to gut the EPA[/URL]. [URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385?ref_src=twsrc^tfw"]He doesn't think climate change is real[/URL], and the best international body we have for environmental protection is the IPCC. [URL="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2128167"]China is prioritizing environmental protection currently because their current practices are unsustainable[/URL]. How does loosening methane emissions in the US make us more competitive than China if they're doing the opposite because they've dealt with the repercussions first hand? How does ending water conservation measures in drought stricken areas help? Once again, Trump is pushing for short-term gains over long-term growth and stability. What's even stranger to me, is that [URL="http://grist.org/politics/donald-trump-climate-action-new-york-times/"]Trump supports actions against climate change when it benefits his personal interests[/URL]. That really doesn't inspire confidence for me, and it doesn't give you a clear picture of what you're actually voting for should you vote for him.
[QUOTE]
The article about Zandi says he is a valid economic analyst but it doesn't go over the actual article so there's no way to actually say how valid that analysis is. (which is something I also said) [i]"Zandi is a well-respected economist, and we are not in this fact-check casting doubt on the credibility of his Trump report or his work generally."[/i]
Also, saying Moody's stuff is pretty universally praised is somewhat far from the truth. They are very criticized for their inability to actually predict anything on a macro scale (e.g. consistently failed to predict recessions). Most of the articles that talk about "economic disaster" mention that Moody's report, including the article you posted, which means that it's a full circle in terms of logical reasoning.[/QUOTE]
Moody's is one of the Big Three next to S&P and Fitch. Yes, these financial ratings agencies have their problems, but the way the burden of proof works is that you've got to come up with something better, and explain the evidence that's already on the table. I'd happily read anything put out by S&P, Fitch, ARC, anything reputable that addresses Zandi's methodology.
[QUOTE]
There's a lot of critics on that report such as this one: [url]http://crouchingtiger.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Moodys-Rebuttal-FINAL-June-25-2016.pdf[/url]
Those critics are also made from very prestigious economists, so it's not like we are talking about some random analyst.
[/QUOTE]
You've literally given me a report produced for the Trump campaign:
[QUOTE=Page 4][B]I was asked by the Trump campaign to independently review the paper’s methodology[/B] and findings with the broader goal of determining how such a flawed report could emanate from a well-established firm such as Moody’s. The short answer to that question is that the lead author is a Democrat and a major contributor to Hillary Clinton who appears to be pursuing a political agenda on behalf of the Democratic Party.[/QUOTE]
The report focuses on the messenger, not the message. If Zandi working with Democrats is enough to dismiss his report for you, this criticism of Zandi's work should be even less valid. Moody's analytics puts out these studies from a neutral angle, and has done so historically. What's worse, an allegedly neutral work from a historically neutral outlet produced by an author that may have some personal preferences, or a purpose built response piece put out by an open partisan? Which is more reliable?
Another thing you'll notice about this article is that it's mostly rhetoric. Navarro didn't model [I]anything[/I] in this piece. Zip. Zero. Nadda. There are no projections. No forecasts. No trends. No hard information. Navarro didn't take Zandi's work, factor in his corrections, and show the results. Why? If he's so certain that these factors would change the projected economy under Trump, why didn't he model them? It's one thing to acknowledge flaws in methodology. It's an entirely different beast to make a better model, and Navarro didn't even offer anything in that regard. We have pages of empty rhetoric and promises, and that's it. If his criticisms are valid, these changes to Zandi's model should show that if he actually simulated them. Instead, Navarro dismisses all of the evidence presented. Does that sound reasonable to you?
[QUOTE]
In short, the arguments you made were the most developed I've seen in discussions here but I don't think the situation is as clear as you paint it. On the tariffs side you have certain measures that prove that this can work (Regan) and on the policies at the macro scale, you have Moodys report which is controversial and criticized by many other economists too. (and all the articles use that same Moody's report)[/QUOTE]
You're probably the first Trump supporter/defender/apologist/what have you that's put up some interesting information. I don't presume to know your political ideology, and I hope I haven't come off as condescending throughout these posts. I'm honestly actively looking for even a shred of evidence that Trump's policy is anything other than disastrous. I still don't think your arguments are consistent. I still think you've yet to put up any convincing supporting evidence for Trump's economic policies. You'll notice that I haven't put up any arguments supporting Clinton's policies in these posts. The evidence there is incomplete, and the outlook is often not so great either. [URL="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/01/26/clinton-tax-plan-would-raise-498-billion-but-hinder-gdp-growth-report/"]The same analysts that predict massive deficit growth under Trump also predicts Clinton's plan will stagnate wages and hit the GDP[/URL]. The only thing I can say with confidence thus far is that Trump's policies are predicted to be pretty bad consistently. So far we're looking at a a tale of two recessions to be honest.
Trump's economic policies are absolutely horrid from a conservative and/or free trade economic perspective.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51036165]Trump's economic policies are absolutely horrid from a conservative and/or free trade economic perspective.[/QUOTE]
If I were fiscally conservative I'd be pulling my hair this cycle. Johnson seems to be the best alternative to the Republican nominee, but he's pretty much being ignored and any real analysis of his plan is hard to come by.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;51036224]If I were fiscally conservative I'd be pulling my hair this cycle. Johnson seems to be the best alternative to the Republican nominee, but he's pretty much being ignored and any real analysis of his plan is hard to come by.[/QUOTE]
Even Johnson is a tepid libertarian at best. His tenure as a govenor might be described as slightly left, if anything. If I remember right, he increased government deficits and spending more than any of the other governors who served around him. There's really no one I can throw my support behind this election.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51036232]Even Johnson is a tepid libertarian at best. His tenure as a govenor might be described as slightly left, if anything. If I remember right, he increased government deficits and spending more than any of the other governors who served around him. There's really no one I can throw my support behind this election.[/QUOTE]
The only thing I know to do is vote for the candidate that plans on fucking up the least amount of things, but my state will probably vote for Trump anyway because Pence is a Hoosier and a Republican even though his policies as governor have been really unpopular here.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;51034861]But Reagan's tariffs on Japanese goods were considered blights on his record when you look at fiscal conservative organizations. [URL="http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa032.html"]Harley Motorcycles was run like shit and had to be propped up by tariffs in 82, and it hurt consumers[/URL]. From that article:
[URL="http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107.html"]Reagan fucked consumers again with Japanese Tariffs on electronics in 87[/URL]. Milton Friedman, one of the primary intellectuals responsible for modern challenges of Keynesian economics lambasted Reagan for these tariffs. They didn't work, and most everyone has been saying that since the 80's.
It is the main reason though. Wages account for nearly 40% of the cost difference by your estimate, and that's an unsustainable practice. Currency manipulation, health and safety violations, lax environmental rules, and government subsidies (that are by and large a response to international sanctions) are all unsustainable practices, and these things are hurting the Chinese economy overall. Their market is crashing. They have massive health and safety problems that will only cost them more money in the long run. [URL="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chinas-economic-problem-worse-we-expected-it-crushing-other-markets-1521875"]Their growth is stalling out[/URL]. ~70% of their current advantage was built from practices that benefit them in the short-term, but are fucking them long-term.
[URL="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/economic-vision"]That's straight from his proposed policy[/URL]. He's said for a while now he's [URL="http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-vows-to-slash-funding-for-education-epa-1452551107"]out to gut the EPA[/URL]. [URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385?ref_src=twsrc^tfw"]He doesn't think climate change is real[/URL], and the best international body we have for environmental protection is the IPCC. [URL="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2128167"]China is prioritizing environmental protection currently because their current practices are unsustainable[/URL]. How does loosening methane emissions in the US make us more competitive than China if they're doing the opposite because they've dealt with the repercussions first hand? How does ending water conservation measures in drought stricken areas help? Once again, Trump is pushing for short-term gains over long-term growth and stability. What's even stranger to me, is that [URL="http://grist.org/politics/donald-trump-climate-action-new-york-times/"]Trump supports actions against climate change when it benefits his personal interests[/URL]. That really doesn't inspire confidence for me, and it doesn't give you a clear picture of what you're actually voting for should you vote for him.
Moody's is one of the Big Three next to S&P and Fitch. Yes, these financial ratings agencies have their problems, but the way the burden of proof works is that you've got to come up with something better, and explain the evidence that's already on the table. I'd happily read anything put out by S&P, Fitch, ARC, anything reputable that addresses Zandi's methodology.
You've literally given me a report produced for the Trump campaign:
The report focuses on the messenger, not the message. If Zandi working with Democrats is enough to dismiss his report for you, this criticism of Zandi's work should be even less valid. Moody's analytics puts out these studies from a neutral angle, and has done so historically. What's worse, an allegedly neutral work from a historically neutral outlet produced by an author that may have some personal preferences, or a purpose built response piece put out by an open partisan? Which is more reliable?
Another thing you'll notice about this article is that it's mostly rhetoric. Navarro didn't model [I]anything[/I] in this piece. Zip. Zero. Nadda. There are no projections. No forecasts. No trends. No hard information. Navarro didn't take Zandi's work, factor in his corrections, and show the results. Why? If he's so certain that these factors would change the projected economy under Trump, why didn't he model them? It's one thing to acknowledge flaws in methodology. It's an entirely different beast to make a better model, and Navarro didn't even offer anything in that regard. We have pages of empty rhetoric and promises, and that's it. If his criticisms are valid, these changes to Zandi's model should show that if he actually simulated them. Instead, Navarro dismisses all of the evidence presented. Does that sound reasonable to you?
You're probably the first Trump supporter/defender/apologist/what have you that's put up some interesting information. I don't presume to know your political ideology, and I hope I haven't come off as condescending throughout these posts. I'm honestly actively looking for even a shred of evidence that Trump's policy is anything other than disastrous. I still don't think your arguments are consistent. I still think you've yet to put up any convincing supporting evidence for Trump's economic policies. You'll notice that I haven't put up any arguments supporting Clinton's policies in these posts. The evidence there is incomplete, and the outlook is often not so great either. [URL="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/01/26/clinton-tax-plan-would-raise-498-billion-but-hinder-gdp-growth-report/"]The same analysts that predict massive deficit growth under Trump also predicts Clinton's plan will stagnate wages and hit the GDP[/URL]. The only thing I can say with confidence thus far is that Trump's policies are predicted to be pretty bad consistently. So far we're looking at a a tale of two recessions to be honest.[/QUOTE]
To conclude our little discussion, I too would like to see other economic models from other agencies or even a model from Navarro.
At the very least we would have more data points to discuss. I understand that one feels inclined to trust that Moody's report and without other model it's difficult to argue against it with actual data - instead of just using rhetoric as Navarro did.
Despite all my arguments in favor of Trump, I don't necessarily agree with all his policies nor I disagree with many of the policies made by Clinton. In truth, I find that there are serious problems with both candidates, but alas, it's not like there is much of a choice. However, in light of all the fear mongering, I also don't think that either of them have the power to cause major disasters, either economical or political.
You didn't come off as condescending at all and I appreciated all your sources and reasoning.
[QUOTE=notlabbet;51027523]It's fucking crazy how divided this nation is. This is going to be a huge issue if something isn't done to stop the two party system.[/QUOTE]
There's a reason George Washington was vehemently against a two party political system.
Hillary is a joker, all she's done is given people a name to be proud of "deplorables". It's funny actually.
[QUOTE=Anteep;51054957]Hillary is a joker, all she's done is given people a name to be proud of "deplorables". It's funny actually.[/QUOTE]
Clinton and Trump are both bad choices for president but one bad choice is better than the other
hint: its not Trump
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.