Economics

[tussin]

GS is tired of Trump's chaos, and thinks the rich should be willing to pay slightly higher tax rates in exchange for less political volatility.

Also cheaper goods from China. Basically a rerun of Obama-era fiscal policy.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Also cheaper goods from China. Basically a rerun of Obama-era fiscal policy.

Right. If Trump loses, it'll be because he didn't deliver for the people who put him office in 2016 by prioritizing jobs and American industry.

 

[Legacy]

Right. If Trump loses, it'll be because he didn't deliver for the people who put him office in 2016 by prioritizing jobs and American industry.

Perhaps we have a difference of opinion on who put him in office and what his priorities were.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Perhaps we have a difference of opinion on who put him in office and what his priorities were.

You're reading too much into my comment. By "the people who put him in office", I mean the few thousand blue-collar midwesterners who pulled the lever for Obama in 2012 but decided to gamble on Trump in 2016 due to his promises about re-shoring American manufacturing jobs. He didn't follow through on any of that, so he's about the lose in a landslide.

 

[BobbyMac]

You're reading too much into my comment. By "the people who put him in office", I mean the few thousand blue-collar midwesterners who pulled the lever for Obama in 2012 but decided to gamble on Trump in 2016 due to his promises about re-shoring American manufacturing jobs. He didn't follow through on any of that, so he's about the lose in a landslide.

A rare disagreement with Mr. Whiskey.

The reason he's GOING TO lose is it's more than just GS who can't handle the chaos.

He'd have been Landslide Don if he'd just went ahead and gotten that Thumbectomy.

In regards to bringing back jobs: Sucks that a Republican President had to bring a voice to it. One of the reasons I hate today's Democratic Party. They abandoned the workers and pander to the #neverworkers.

- Signed the son/grandson of lifelong USW/UAW workers.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

A rare disagreement with Mr. Whiskey.

The reason he's GOING TO lose is it's more than just GS who can't handle the chaos.

He'd have been Landslide Don if he'd just went ahead and gotten that Thumbectomy.

Not sure how much we disagree here. He ran as an outsider, promised to shake up the status quo, but then filled his entire administration with a bunch of GOP careerists who ensured his actual policies really didn't deviate from his predecessors. So yeah, "GW Bush except really mean on Twitter" is going to lose hard. But if he'd actually delivered on his 2016 campaign promises, I don't think his abrasive personality would matter.

In regards to bringing back jobs: Sucks that a Republican President had to bring a voice to it. One of the reasons I hate today's Democratic Party. They abandoned the workers and pander to the #neverworkers.

- Signed the son/grandson of lifelong USW/UAW workers.

The majority of Americans are in the upper left quadrant:

... and yet they have no representation in Washington. Trump seemed to be moving in that direction for a time, but that's clearly not happening now.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

A rare disagreement with Mr. Whiskey.

The reason he's GOING TO lose is it's more than just GS who can't handle the chaos.

He'd have been Landslide Don if he'd just went ahead and gotten that Thumbectomy.

In regards to bringing back jobs: Sucks that a Republican President had to bring a voice to it. One of the reasons I hate today's Democratic Party. They abandoned the workers and pander to the #neverworkers.

- Signed the son/grandson of lifelong USW/UAW workers.

Unions have been systematically dismantled by GOP. Not sure I agree that Dems have abandoned them although the GOP has been very effective at framing Unions in negative lights over the last 30 years. My state is now 100% union free and and is considered a "right to work state", which means the employer can fire you for any reasons whatsoever and unions are not allowed to take dues from you. If a union cant collect dues, it cant function. The GOP did that. They took the power of collective bargaining and have effectively neutered the ability of an individual to get redress from their emplyer.

 

[IrishLax]

Any discussion of unions has to start with the fact that there are both major pros and major cons. When working at their best, they function like the MLB player's union. When working at their worst, they function like police unions.

Unions were responsible for establishing basic workers' rights we all take for granted today. They fell apart partially because they became corrupt and infested with organized crime.

The pendulum is starting to swing back the other way because with automation the shareholder class sees increasing amounts of wealth transfer in multiple industries while workers get squeezed. There will always be a ying and a yang.

 

[stpeteirish]

Trump just ended COVID stimulus negotiations. Seems foolish to me. Politically dubious and economically beyond dubious as Jerome Powell just got done saying we need more fiscal stimulus.

Can anyone from the Repub side explain the merits of this decision?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Any discussion of unions has to start with the fact that there are both major pros and major cons. When working at their best, they function like the MLB player's union. When working at their worst, they function like police unions.

Unions were responsible for establishing basic workers' rights we all take for granted today. They fell apart partially because they became corrupt and infested with organized crime.

The pendulum is starting to swing back the other way because with automation the shareholder class sees increasing amounts of wealth transfer in multiple industries while workers get squeezed. There will always be a ying and a yang.

It's also important to realize that our union system is very adversarial by design. Most other Western nations have much more collaborative systems that encourage worker ownership, worker presence on boards, etc. It works a lot better.

If the GOP wants to keep winning, it needs to move left economically, become pro-union and probably push for reform of our current labor laws.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

It's also important to realize that our union system is very adversarial by design. Most other Western nations have much more collaborative systems that encourage worker ownership, worker presence on boards, etc. It works a lot better.

If the GOP wants to keep winning, it needs to move left economically, become pro-union and probably push for reform of our current labor laws.

I have a feeling that since the GOP has been so heavily committed to busting unions as a central tenet to their Reagonomic Trickle down approach this is unlikely to happen. It’s of little coincidence that the right to work state map is nearly identical to the US presidential map.

The Boeing 787 ops are closing in Seattle and being moved to North Charleston (expanding current 787 production there). I have a ton of stories of how Boeing is benefiting simply by operating in SC with no unions.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Unfortunately, love of Mammon is the most sacrosanct part of the GOP platform imo.

Sent from my SM-J337U using Tapatalk

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I have a feeling that since the GOP has been so heavily committed to busting unions as a central tenet to their Reagonomic Trickle down approach this is unlikely to happen. It’s of little coincidence that the right to work state map is nearly identical to the US presidential map.

There's no constituency for microwaved Reaganism anymore. The post-WWII GOP coalition was social conservatives, anti-communist hawks and fiscal libertarians. The SoCons still vote GOP despite having f*ck-all to show for it, the neocon hawks were the first to go "Never Trump" and they've all since jumped ship for the DNC, and neoliberal economics is basically unchallenged by either party now (watch Goldman Sachs light up its HQ in rainbow each Pride Month and ask yourself whether that ideology is actually threatening anyone in power).

Forgive me for continuing to reference this chart, but it's important:

Most voters are in the upper left quadrant. Which party will have an easier time moving there? I think it'll be easier for the GOP to moderate economically than it will be for the DNC to moderate on social issues (just channel Teddy Roosevelt!), but it won't be easy for either party.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Trump just ended COVID stimulus negotiations. Seems foolish to me. Politically dubious and economically beyond dubious as Jerome Powell just got done saying we need more fiscal stimulus.

Can anyone from the Repub side explain the merits of this decision?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Art Laffer, the supply sider who advises Trump on economic matters, visited the White House ~1 week ago<br><br>Laffer believes a stimulus deal would hurt the recovery, saying: "A relief deal really wont help the economy ..The spending is not good for the economy<a href="https://t.co/PevJsXZOSb">https://t.co/PevJsXZOSb</a></p>— Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) <a href="https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1313576156164165633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

We need to fire this MFer into the sun. Few bear more responsibility for the status quo than him.

 

[Legacy]

You're reading too much into my comment. By "the people who put him in office", I mean the few thousand blue-collar midwesterners who pulled the lever for Obama in 2012 but decided to gamble on Trump in 2016 due to his promises about re-shoring American manufacturing jobs. He didn't follow through on any of that, so he's about the lose in a landslide.

Just referencing the moneyed interests behind the well-crafted facade presented to those in deep need of economic relief. While he has succeeded in deregulating, tax "relief' and withdrawl from foreign compacts, are those voters better off? He also promised better health care at lower prices, drug price reductions, protection of those with chronic diseases that effects those blue-collar workers and their families.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Art Laffer of the Laffer curve? That is downright...humorous

Sent from my SM-J337U using Tapatalk

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Art Laffer, the supply sider who advises Trump on economic matters, visited the White House ~1 week ago<br><br>Laffer believes a stimulus deal would hurt the recovery, saying: "A relief deal really wont help the economy ..The spending is not good for the economy<a href="https://t.co/PevJsXZOSb">https://t.co/PevJsXZOSb</a></p>— Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) <a href="https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1313576156164165633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

We need to fire this MFer into the sun. Few bear more responsibility for the status quo than him.

I find the Laffer Curve vague and unconvincing.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Any discussion of unions has to start with the fact that there are both major pros and major cons. When working at their best, they function like the MLB player's union. When working at their worst, they function like police unions.

Unions were responsible for establishing basic workers' rights we all take for granted today. They fell apart partially because they became corrupt and infested with organized crime.

The pendulum is starting to swing back the other way because with automation the shareholder class sees increasing amounts of wealth transfer in multiple industries while workers get squeezed. There will always be a ying and a yang.

I would imagine you agree that this is a broad simplification of a major issue. But people don't get rich off of squeezing labor. It helps at the margins, no doubt. But where people get rich is when they can leverage cheaply and with minimized risk.

The seeds for the economic dysfunction were planted many moons ago, before the significant rise in automation. The feather in the cap, so to speak, was the monetary response 12-13 years ago. The goal of the Fed at that point, as it stands today, is to protect asset prices. They view the economy through the asset price lens. Well, in the end, who ultimately has access to that insanely cheap capital? Does the college kid that can't find a job have access to it? Does that laid off (insert career choice here) get it? Nope. The people that benefited, as still do today, are the ones that have invested capital and now know that the world will crumble if asset prices fall too steeply. It's why the stock market remains where it is despite the fact that GDP has plunged.

 

[Bluto]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Art Laffer, the supply sider who advises Trump on economic matters, visited the White House ~1 week ago<br><br>Laffer believes a stimulus deal would hurt the recovery, saying: "A relief deal really wont help the economy ..The spending is not good for the economy<a href="https://t.co/PevJsXZOSb">https://t.co/PevJsXZOSb</a></p>— Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) <a href="https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1313576156164165633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

We need to fire this MFer into the sun. Few bear more responsibility for the status quo than him.

Amen brother.

 

[Bluto]

There's no constituency for microwaved Reaganism anymore. The post-WWII GOP coalition was social conservatives, anti-communist hawks and fiscal libertarians. The SoCons still vote GOP despite having f*ck-all to show for it, the neocon hawks were the first to go "Never Trump" and they've all since jumped ship for the DNC, and neoliberal economics is basically unchallenged by either party now (watch Goldman Sachs light up its HQ in rainbow each Pride Month and ask yourself whether that ideology is actually threatening anyone in power).

Forgive me for continuing to reference this chart, but it's important:

Most voters are in the upper left quadrant. Which party will have an easier time moving there? I think it'll be easier for the GOP to moderate economically than it will be for the DNC to moderate on social issues (just channel Teddy Roosevelt!), but it won't be easy for either party.

Sanders would have clobbered Trump in 2016. Oh well...

 

[tussin]

I’m curious on the long-term economic ramifications of a post-COVID world. Hopefully this means broader accessibility to attractive jobs and looser requirements to be located in or near high-cost metros for young professionals. If WFH is broadly embraced, I’d love to move back to my hometown (Scranton).

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

There's no constituency for microwaved Reaganism anymore. The post-WWII GOP coalition was social conservatives, anti-communist hawks and fiscal libertarians. The SoCons still vote GOP despite having f*ck-all to show for it, the neocon hawks were the first to go "Never Trump" and they've all since jumped ship for the DNC, and neoliberal economics is basically unchallenged by either party now (watch Goldman Sachs light up its HQ in rainbow each Pride Month and ask yourself whether that ideology is actually threatening anyone in power).

Forgive me for continuing to reference this chart, but it's important:

Most voters are in the upper left quadrant. Which party will have an easier time moving there? I think it'll be easier for the GOP to moderate economically than it will be for the DNC to moderate on social issues (just channel Teddy Roosevelt!), but it won't be easy for either party.

I probably fall somewhere near the upper right hand corner of the lower left hand quad. I hear what you are saying but the voters they have actively cultivated for 30 years still believe the things they were brought up to believe IMO. Reagan and Bush are still gods and Cinton(s) and Obama are still devils, even though Obama's economic policy/growth was very effective and very much as neoliberal as the Bush Era.

I accept what you are saying about the moderate conservatives flocking to the Dems to beat Trump but people like the Lincoln Project are still very much excited about the judges being installed and miffed about the economy and American standing in the world, but they will quickly turn their sights on Dems again once Trump (not Trumpism) is in the rearview mirror. Ultimately, I believe the end of the GOP will end up being a relatively small group of angry white suffragists.
https://thebulwark.com/who-are-these-republicans/

This GOP is inhospitable to conservatives (see former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan among many others), moderates (see John Kasich), and people of decency and courage (see Mitt Romney). Rather than purging its ranks of kooks and conspiracists, it welcomes and courts them. Rather than fight fair, it seeks to win by keeping people from the polls. America needs a sane, serious, humane, center-right party that aims to persuade, not to dominate. This GOP is not it

Is Trumpism the death knell for the GOP?

 

[Ndaccountant]

I probably fall somewhere near the upper right hand corner of the lower left hand quad. I hear what you are saying but the voters they have actively cultivated for 30 years still believe the things they were brought up to believe IMO. Reagan and Bush are still gods and Cinton(s) and Obama are still devils, even though Obama's economic policy/growth was very effective and very much as neoliberal as the Bush Era.

I accept what you are saying about the moderate conservatives flocking to the Dems to beat Trump but people like the Lincoln Project are still very much excited about the judges being installed and miffed about the economy and American standing in the world, but they will quickly turn their sights on Dems again once Trump (not Trumpism) is in the rearview mirror. Ultimately, I believe the end of the GOP will end up being a relatively small group of angry white suffragists.
https://thebulwark.com/who-are-these-republicans/


Is Trumpism the death knell for the GOP?

3rd party can't get here soon enough.

 

[Wild Bill]

3rd party can't get here soon enough.

Don't count on it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Ultimately, I believe the end of the GOP will end up being a relatively small group of angry white suffragists.

It cannot both devolve into that and remain one of our two mainstream parties. If that comes to pass, the GOP will have been replaced by something different.

Is Trumpism the death knell for the GOP?

I don't think "Trumpism" is really a thing, and whatever passes for it won't survive his presidency. But I do think his election is a sort of death knell for the GOP. Trump could never have been elected if the post-war fusionism were still strong and functional. There's just no coalition for zombie Reaganism anymore, no matter how badly GOP careerists and libertarian think tankers might try to meme it back into existence.

The question is what that new coalition is going to look like. The upper left quadrant is the most realistic path back to sustainable victory for them, but it'll take a lot of courage to buck the momentum created by the think tanks and donors. There are a lot of darker places it can go too, and our media's penchant for spotlighting extremism in the service of selling alarmism seems intent on driving us there.

 

[zelezo vlk]

In good news, it looks like there may be some punishment for Big Tech. The below is from Matthew Stoller's great blog on antitrust, but there's a lot more in the link. And the bolded bit follows up on Whiskey's quip about the think tanks. They've long been bought https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/cheerleading-monopolies-and-sexual

Monopolies, Lies and Fear
The basic thesis of this report isn’t a surprise, and consists of two basic elements. The subcommittee found that Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon are abusive monopolies. The report also noted that Obama and Trump era enforcers failed to uphold anti-monopoly laws, which allowed these corporations to amass their dominance.

What makes these platforms unusually dangerous is that they are gatekeepers with surveillance power, and they can thus wield “near-perfect market intelligence” to copy or undermine would-be rivals. For Apple the dominant facility is the App store, for Google it’s the search engine, Maps, adtech, etc, for Facebook it’s social media, and for Amazon it’s the marketplace, AWS, Alexa, Fulfillment, and so forth. They exploit their gatekeeping and surveillance power to extract revenue, fortify their competitive barriers, and subsidize entry into new markets.

Over and over, the report just lays into the Federal Trade Commission and Antitrust Division for refusing to enforce monopolization laws and failing to stop mergers, even when they had evidence that such mergers were anti-competitive. The four companies bought more than 500 companies since 1998. However, "for most, if not all, of the acquisitions discussed in this Report,” it says, “the FTC had advance notice of the deals, but did not attempt to block any of them." What were the priorities of the agencies? "Both agencies have targeted their enforcement efforts on relatively small players—including ice skating teachers and organists—raising questions about their enforcement priorities." Ouch.

But the subcommittee report is also a deeply political document, explicitly so. Cicilline attacks the way that these corporations finance think tanks and academics. “Through a combination of direct lobbying and funding think tanks and academics,” it wrote, “the dominant platforms have expanded their sphere of influence, further shaping how they are governed and regulated.” I got fired from my think tank after criticizing Google in 2017, so that section rings true to me. The platforms also engaged in routine attempts to deceive investigators, and the report is merciless about such attempts at deception. For instance, the committee asked Amazon for a list of its top ten competitors. The report authors noted that “Amazon identified 1,700 companies, including Eero (a company Amazon owns), a discount surgical supply distributor, and a beef jerky company." The report has multiple examples of such dissembling, from each company.

The report also notes the coercion they have imposed on commerce. It’s one of the first things Cicilline articulated last year when starting the investigation as he started poking around, how scared businesspeople were to talk to the subcommittee. Investigators found “a prevalence of fear among market participants that depend on the dominant platforms, many of whom expressed unease that the success of their business and their economic livelihood depend on what they viewed as the platforms’ unaccountable and arbitrary power.”

The report is peppered with footnotes of interviews from anonymous customers and merchants who use the platforms. Said one source, “It would be commercial suicide to be in Amazon’s crosshairs . . . If Amazon saw us criticizing, I have no doubt they would remove our access and destroy our business.” One attorney representing app developers said they “fear retaliation by Apple” and are “worried that their private communications are being monitored, so they won’t speak out against abusive and discriminatory behavior.”

It’s a sophisticated document, with sections analyzing industry dynamics among voice assistants and cloud computing, as well as presenting better data on the platforms themselves. Facebook, for instance, has over 200 million users in the U.S. just on its Facebook app, and is on 74% of mobile phones, which is new information. Amazon has in all likelihood over 50% of online sales, not 40% as eMarketer puts out. And I learned some new areas of anti-competitive activity, like Google requiring users of Maps APIs to have a Google Cloud Platform account, or credible allegations that Amazon Web Services engaged in “cross-business data sharing.”

But the key finding was that “courts and enforcers have found the dominant platforms to engage in recidivism, repeatedly violating laws and court orders,” which “raises questions about whether these firms view themselves as above the law, or whether they simply treat lawbreaking as a cost of business.”

I put up a twitter thread yesterday with all the various nuggets I found interesting, but the bottom line is that the House Antitrust Subcommittee found, with lots of evidence, that these are aggressive and deceptive predatory monopolies.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

It cannot both devolve into that and remain one of our two mainstream parties. If that comes to pass, the GOP will have been replaced by something different.

Yes. Either the party has to reformat itself after Trump and reject the whackadoo Trumpists or the Trumpists are going to have to reformat their cognitive dissonance.

I don't think "Trumpism" is really a thing, and whatever passes for it won't survive his presidency. But I do think his election is a sort of death knell for the GOP. Trump could never have been elected if the post-war fusionism were still strong and functional. There's just no coalition for zombie Reaganism anymore, no matter how badly GOP careerists and libertarian think tankers might try to meme it back into existence.

The question is what that new coalition is going to look like. The upper left quadrant is the most realistic path back to sustainable victory for them, but it'll take a lot of courage to buck the momentum created by the think tanks and donors. There are a lot of darker places it can go too, and our media's penchant for spotlighting extremism in the service of selling alarmism seems intent on driving us there.

Honest question because I am an economic moron... but what would a purely conservative economy actually look like (+1 on your chart)? I ask becasue the chart seems to indicate the entire voting population prefers an economy that is at a minimum moderate to far left.

 

[tussin]

Honest question because I am an economic moron... but what would a purely conservative economy actually look like (+1 on your chart)? I ask becasue the chart seems to indicate the entire voting population prefers an economy that is at a minimum moderate to far left.

I'd imagine flat tax, no social security, major cuts to other entitlements, major cuts to corporate taxes, scaling back almost all most government agencies, dedication to free markets (domestic and global), right-libertarianism.

EDIT: The above was in practical policy terms. I think from a purely academic standpoint a +1 would be something akin to anarcho-capitalism... but I might be wrong.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I'd imagine flat tax, no social security, major cuts to other entitlements, major cuts to corporate taxes, scaling back almost all most government agencies, dedication to free markets (domestic and global), right-libertarianism.

Does this type of economy exist anywhere? Has it ever existed?

 

[NorthDakota]

Does this type of economy exist anywhere? Has it ever existed?

Not in any meaningful sense that I'm aware of.