# The Future of the Dems



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

The surprising and attention-grabbing state of the GOP presidential race has, to some degree, stolen attention from the major rift that has emerged in the Democratic party. The article below makes an interesting argument that Clinton's centrist economic positions (pro-trade, relatively pro-business/finance, at least as compared to Sanders) are on the verge of becoming untenable for a Democratic nominee in future years.

https://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11273978/clinton-shaky-foundation

More generally, I do think the unexpected level of support Sanders achieved does indicate that the Dems are headed for some serious intra-party troubles a few years from now. What say you, armchair pundits of AAAC?


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

The key split I see within the Democratic Party is between A) the identity politics faction (SJWs, BLM, and every splinter group representing some oppressed minority and B) the economic policy faction (policies friendly to labor, in the broad sense, not just unions, and expansion of the social safety net). I suppose a third faction could be the establishment Dems who want nothing to do with A apart from whatever is required to get votes and who largely just pay lip service to B.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Then there is the conflict of work and environment. How many union jobs have been shut down because of the environmentalist and the Democrats being the right hand of the environmentalist. If the unions want jobs they better join the Republican Party the way the Democrats are stomping out union jobs right and left.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WA said:


> Then there is the conflict of work and environment. How many union jobs have been shut down because of the environmentalist and the Democrats being the right hand of the environmentalist. If the unions want jobs they better join the Republican Party the way the Democrats are stomping out union jobs right and left.


Hillary wants to put a lot of coal miners out of work. Not sure how the Coal Miners Union can square that circle.

https://www.courier-journal.com/sto...n-well-put-coal-miners-out-business/81750336/


----------



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

SG_67 said:


> Hillary wants to put a lot of coal miners out of work. Not sure how the Coal Miners Union can square that circle.


And indeed, many of the lower-income white voters in Appalachia and the Upper Midwest who supported Hillary over Obama in '08 have gone for Sanders this time.

I think HIllary remains likely (but far from certain- I wouldn't dismiss Trump so easily) to be the next President, but I think it's conceivable that she would then face a serious primary challenge in 2020.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I don't think she's likely at all. Even with a trump candidacy, I think she is fatally flawed. 

People just don't trust her and the more she talks, the worse it gets. She has the backing of the machine but she can't even put away a socialist within her own ranks.


----------



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I don't think she's likely at all. Even with a trump candidacy, I think she is fatally flawed.
> 
> People just don't trust her and the more she talks, the worse it gets. She has the backing of the machine but she can't even put away a socialist within her own ranks.


Interesting. I agree that Hillary has major negatives, but I think Trump's negatives are somewhat bigger. If you really think Trump is greater than 50% to beat Hillary, you should hit up the betting markets, as they currently will give you way better odds than that.

I think anyone who thinks Trump has "no chance" against Hillary is deluding themselves, as I think he absolutely can win. But I still think she's the favorite.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Trump still has time and space to define his candidacy. He has time and space to convince people he's more than the caricature that he's been made out to be. 

Whether he can/will do that is another story. 

Hillary has been swimming in political waters her whole life. She's already defined and people aren't really enthusiastic about her. There's little room for her to define herself. 

Put it this way, and this is purely my opinion, people on the sidelines are looking for a reason to vote for Trump. If he doesn't give them a reason, it's unlikely they will vote for Hillary. Rather, they'll just stay home.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

WA said:


> Then there is the conflict of work and environment. How many union jobs have been shut down because of the environmentalist and the Democrats being the right hand of the environmentalist. If the unions want jobs they better join the Republican Party the way the Democrats are stomping out union jobs right and left.


I'm not entirely sure why there must be a conflict here. The trick is in creating new jobs to replace the ones being displaced by environmental regulation. It need not be an either/or choice, if our leaders are forward thinking.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

WA said:


> Then there is the conflict of work and environment. How many union jobs have been shut down because of the environmentalist and the Democrats being the right hand of the environmentalist. If the unions want jobs they better join the Republican Party the way the Democrats are stomping out union jobs right and left.


Do you know? How many? Tell me. I strongly suspect this business about environmentalism killing jobs is a canard.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

The conflict within the Dems is less acute than in the GOP, which is why the Dems, for all their problems, are not tearing themselves apart.

Here's the conflict on the Dem side:
1. Economic liberals (generally elites) versus those who favor more protectionism and, yes, regulation. We see the split the most when it comes to trade deals. But here's the thing: Democratic liberals (in the classical sense) are also generally supportive of social welfare programs and even at the most extreme are inclined to used government programs to compensate for the dislocation caused by trade. The two sides generally can unite when it comes to fending off initiatives from the GOP to dismantle social welfare or programs thought to be beneficial for those who need a hand up, whether it's public education, funding for college, affirmative action, etc. Dems on the left are not satisfied with the ACA and want single payer, full-stop socialized medicine. Dems on the right won't go that far but also will defend ACA, which does help the poor. So purists on the left get angry, but they can still recognize that the Democratic right, while balking at single-payer, is serious about using the government to help with health care and defending ACA.

As for the GOP, the split is more polarized. On one hand there are the economic liberals, although a purer breed than what one finds among Democrats. Unlike Democratic economic liberals, the R ones are eager to strip away protections and social welfare programs and are less interested in government interventions to help dislocated workers. They are hostile to ACA, which they see as too extreme. On the other, we see now the rise of the lower class Republicans who seem to want a lot of what the Democratic Left wants in terms of protections and maybe even social welfare. Up until now they've followed the lead of the GOP liberals (again, I'm using the word in the classical sense) and accepted things like trickle-down economics. It seams, however, that they've worn out of patience. But rather than turn to Bernie, who has a program for them, they're lashing out in favor of I don't really know what. 

My point is that in the D side, the two ends have more common ground and are less polarized than on the R side.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Hillary wants to put a lot of coal miners out of work. Not sure how the Coal Miners Union can square that circle.
> 
> https://www.courier-journal.com/sto...n-well-put-coal-miners-out-business/81750336/


Coal miners might blame her and the EPA, but it's fracking that's putting them out of work. Pure economics.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Trump still has time and space to define his candidacy. He has time and space to convince people he's more than the caricature that he's been made out to be.
> 
> Whether he can/will do that is another story.
> 
> ...


Trump will end up attracting some Dems but repelling others. The question is, how many go each way? I think he'll repell more than he attracts, but who really knows?

Clinton will be fine so long as she can rally disappointed Sanders voters and get a strong turn out among those who are freaked out by Trump, i.e. Latinos and Blacks. It appears to be the case that rather than try to "expand the map" by attracting minorities, the GOP under Trump will be doubling down on the white vote. Rather, the white, predominately male and non-urban vote. That can only work if he can get all those Joe Six Packs actually to vote. So few people have voted in the primaries that it's not really clear if at the end of the day I can get them out.

Of course, Clinton can also be indicted for her emails...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Latinos and blacks are going to vote for Clinton anyway. 

With comments that she's made, she can pretty much kiss coal miners goodbye; so say goodbye to Ohio and Pa. 

I doubt she will attract blue collar quite like Sanders. Blue collar workers just want to know their jobs are safe. Who else is saying that? Trump. 

Whatever else you say about him, he has a message. Ask yourself this; what is Trump's message? Make America Great Again. How is he going to do it? Close the borders, bring back jobs from China and Mexico. 

I'm not saying it's realistic, but it's simple and direct. 

What is a Clinton presidency about? Not really sure.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Latinos and blacks are going to vote for Clinton anyway.
> 
> With comments that she's made, she can pretty much kiss coal miners goodbye; so say goodbye to Ohio and Pa.
> 
> ...


Voting for Clinton is more or less a vote for the status quo as well as a vote against the GOP. But otherwise, I agree with you.

The coal miner vote is overblown. There just aren't many of them. She can take PA by grabbing the suburbanites and urbanites, the same that make PA a blue state at least for most of the time. None of those people mines coal. Now, fracking is a much bigger business in PA; the industry's done fine under Obama, although it's taking a hit now because of global prices, but that can't be blamed on Obama...or can it? I suppose one can always find a way to blame him?

Lots of blue collar types have been voting for Sanders. The question is, do they migrate to Clinton or to Trump?


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Latinos and blacks are going to vote for Clinton anyway.
> 
> With comments that she's made, she can pretty much kiss coal miners goodbye; so say goodbye to Ohio and Pa.
> 
> ...


Every bomb that goes off in Europe will reinforce Trumps border wall. I'm afraid there will be many more at this rate.

I believe folks should have a path to citizenship, and we need work visas for those with specialized skills, but there is absolutely no reason in today's world to have open, porous borders.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Dcr5468 said:


> Every bomb that goes off in Europe will reinforce Trumps border wall. I'm afraid there will be many more at this rate.
> 
> I believe folks should have a path to citizenship, and we need work visas for those with specialized skills, but there is absolutely no reason in today's world to have open, porous borders.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


There's no evidence that illegal immigration is taking jobs from Americans. If anything, employers are competing for well trained employees and having a hard time filling position in high tech manufacturing, which is where our manufacturing is going.

Low skilled immigrants, be they legal or otherwise, fill a need in our society. I don't see people lining up for jobs cleaning bathrooms, hotel rooms or picking lettuce. Even in the trades, many don't want to do roofing or rough carpentry as it is hard work.

We should have a path to citizenship and we should have a more orderly visa program for seasonal and temporary workers. If for no other reason than to allow them to be treated humanely by employers. Right now they have no recourse and are often exploited, which is something that really irritates me.

p.s. Please note my previous post where I referenced "make American great again". It is now hyperlinked and if clicked, will take you to Amazon where you can buy the "Make American Great Again" hats! Genius!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

tocqueville said:


> Do you know? How many? Tell me. I strongly suspect this business about environmentalism killing jobs is a canard.


Environmentalist influenced powerful democrats to stop the keystone pipeline. Unions lost. Environmentalist won. 
The logging-wood industry because of a bird and false science and environmentalist. Blue collar lost. Environmentalist won. (A new wood industry wants to start up here. Environmentalist are doing their best to stop it. Who is listening to the environmentalist? If you are paying attention the answer is obvious. And, at that, the site had a good industry with good paying union jobs and a huge tax income that the Democrats kicked out.)
These stories have been in the news with new ones showing up with no end in sight. The environmentalist got their power from the Democrats and not the Republicans. The Republicans would like to start up new industries that union workers would be employed at. The Democrats are with the environmentalist blocking. The Democrats have made it very unpleasant for industries that support union jobs. The Republicans don't want to see them go.

I don't know where you live or how old you are. But, it is pretty hard not to notice it in the news here in the US.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> The coal miner vote is overblown. There just aren't many of them. She can take PA by grabbing the suburbanites and urbanites, the same that make PA a blue state at least for most of the time...


Yet, in the 2012 Presidential Election, Mitt Romney won 55 of 67 Pennsylvania counties - 82% of them!


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

WA said:


> Environmentalist influenced powerful democrats to stop the keystone pipeline. Unions lost. Environmentalist won.
> The logging-wood industry because of a bird and false science and environmentalist. Blue collar lost. Environmentalist won. (A new wood industry wants to start up here. Environmentalist are doing their best to stop it. Who is listening to the environmentalist? If you are paying attention the answer is obvious. And, at that, the site had a good industry with good paying union jobs and a huge tax income that the Democrats kicked out.)
> These stories have been in the news with new ones showing up with no end in sight. The environmentalist got their power from the Democrats and not the Republicans. The Republicans would like to start up new industries that union workers would be employed at. The Democrats are with the environmentalist blocking. The Democrats have made it very unpleasant for industries that support union jobs. The Republicans don't want to see them go.
> 
> I don't know where you live or how old you are. But, it is pretty hard not to notice it in the news here in the US.


I am aware of several thousand acres of prime real estate that cannot be developed today because a federal agency is concerned about a variety of gopher tortoise that has not been seen in over 50 years.

You can't make this stuff up. It happens all over the country and is a job killer.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Yet, in the 2012 Presidential Election, Mitt Romney won 55 of 67 Pennsylvania counties - 82% of them!


Didn't matter, did it? Obama carried the state because most Pennsylvanians don't live in those counties.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

WA said:


> Environmentalist influenced powerful democrats to stop the keystone pipeline. Unions lost. Environmentalist won.
> The logging-wood industry because of a bird and false science and environmentalist. Blue collar lost. Environmentalist won. (A new wood industry wants to start up here. Environmentalist are doing their best to stop it. Who is listening to the environmentalist? If you are paying attention the answer is obvious. And, at that, the site had a good industry with good paying union jobs and a huge tax income that the Democrats kicked out.)
> These stories have been in the news with new ones showing up with no end in sight. The environmentalist got their power from the Democrats and not the Republicans. The Republicans would like to start up new industries that union workers would be employed at. The Democrats are with the environmentalist blocking. The Democrats have made it very unpleasant for industries that support union jobs. The Republicans don't want to see them go.
> 
> I don't know where you live or how old you are. But, it is pretty hard not to notice it in the news here in the US.


Anecdotes. I want numbers. You mentioned one lumber operation and keystone, jobs that weren't lost because they never happened. Do better.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

If Clinton is ready to throw coal miners overboard who is next? 

I love how she so cavalierly talks about putting coal miners out of work. Let her sit down at a dinner table with a coal mining family and look them in the eye and say that. 

She is a classic limousine liberal. Completely out of touch with the average person. This from a woman who took $250k for "speeches". I can't wait until some ambitious investigative journalist starts turning up dirt on the Clinton foundation while Hillary was SOS. 

Trump may be crude and crass and egocentric but the Clintons are downright tawdry and slimy.


----------



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

tocqueville said:


> Didn't matter, did it? Obama carried the state because most Pennsylvanians don't live in those counties.


This. More than 1/2 the population of Pennsylvania lives in the 10 biggest counties, and democratic voters are very concentrated in urban areas (which is part of why the Dems have no chance of controlling the House anytime soon). 
Pennsylvania has gone for the Dem in the last six presidential elections; I'd be a little surprised to see that change this year. But who knows.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> Anecdotes. I want numbers. You mentioned one lumber operation and keystone, jobs that weren't lost because they never happened. Do better.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's a little hard sometimes coming up with statistics when we don't know how many jobs were prevented from being created.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> Didn't matter, did it? Obama carried the state because most Pennsylvanians don't live in those counties.


Not quite that simple, which is why thirteen of PA's eighteen member delegation to the House of Representatives are Republicans. It's the large city effect - in some states, the very large city votes overwhelmingly Democratic - and thus the state will wind up in the Democratic column in the electoral college, since 48 of 50 states use the warped "winner-take-all" electoral method. Happens in New York, Illinois, and perhaps other states, too.

Between utilization of the popular vote to "choose electors" and the "winner-take-all" system, states have destroyed the original purpose of the presidential electoral system established in the Constitution...


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

tocqueville said:


> Anecdotes. I want numbers. You mentioned one lumber operation and keystone, jobs that weren't lost because they never happened. Do better.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Lets segue into another industry in which I have first hand knowledge. Frank Dodd is an abomination which has had the exact opposite effect that was intended. This crushing regulatory burden has absolutely impacted jobs and wage growth in the banking industry. Less profit for shareholders=fewer jobs and zero wage growth. Employees are always the first to suffer.

Yet the new CFPB has hired legions of field examiners at salaries well in excess of $200,000. Guess what - you and I cannot apply for those jobs, they are reserved for career bureaucrats only.

A useless regulatory agency funded by a percentage of the Federal Reserve, which means Congress does not control the purse strings.

Every time another layer of bureaucracy is created in this country the cost of everything goes up.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

rtd1 said:


> I'm not entirely sure why there must be a conflict here. The trick is in creating new jobs to replace the ones being displaced by environmental regulation. It need not be an either/or choice, if our leaders are forward thinking.


The Republicans agree with you. 
The environmentalist have the Democrats in their back pocket. 
Take rivers that have filled in with gravel and the dikes are not high enough. Environmentalist rules, powered by the Democrats, gravel companies can't take the gravel out, because of modern day faulty science run by environmentalist. New research and theories will wipe out the lies of todays science. Besides, before I was born, scientists figured out how to take gravel out of rivers without hurting the fish, and getting more. The list goes on and on. Not to mention that, around here, if the Democrats want to take gravel out of rivers they charge to high.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

tocqueville said:


> Anecdotes. I want numbers. You mentioned one lumber operation and keystone, jobs that weren't lost because they never happened. Do better.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is the weakest defense I have ever seen.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> It's a little hard sometimes coming up with statistics when we don't know how many jobs were prevented from being created.


That is not to hard to figure out. Decide how fast you want it built. Decide how many crews. A few to each crew. Truckers are not toooooo hard to count. If you want to add the steel mills to create the pipe, ask them. Anybody in this business can figure this out, and, do. If you bid wrong, you may loose your shirt.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

This is why economists write models, perform robustness checks and estimate counterfactuals. All of this is measurable, but certainly not for the untrained. Also, estimating all side effects is hard. You can debate all you want, but from what I have read there is no way to determine who is right. Yet, feel free to continue the chest puffing.



SG_67 said:


> It's a little hard sometimes coming up with statistics when we don't know how many jobs were prevented from being created.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

bernoulli said:


> This is why economists write models, perform robustness checks and estimate counterfactuals. All of this is measurable, but certainly not for the untrained. Also, estimating all side effects is hard. You can debate all you want, but from what I have read there is no way to determine who is right. Yet, feel free to continue the chest puffing.


And what happens when economists disagree?

By the way, I'm sure it was a group of economists that modeled the affordable care act and how it would reduce premiums. I'm also sure it was a group of economists who modeled how a trillion dollar stimulus and funding solar energy would lead us to prosperity.

I'm also sure it was economic modeling that predicted how wise it would be to allow sub prime loans to be made and further what a great idea to bundle them and sell them in the marketplace.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

The ACA has been a blessing for millions. The stimulus is widely credited with staving off a depression.

What else have you got?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

WA said:


> That is the weakest defense I have ever seen.


Right. Asking for actual facts is a weak defense.

But I see your point. Who cares about the environment, anyway? Why let it stand between us and jobs?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

About that pesky ACA:

https://www.rand.org/news/press/2015/05/06.html


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> The stimulus is widely credited with staving off a depression. What else have you got?


Didn't you scold another poster for not providing "facts"?

Can you please provide your facts as to how expropriating hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money and distributing it to certain political constituencies "staved off a depression"?


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> Didn't you scold another poster for not providing "facts"?
> 
> Can you please provide your facts as to how expropriating hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money and distributing it to certain political constituencies "staved off a depression"?


The stimulus was funded by running deficits, not through increased tax revenues. So your question assumes a falsehood from the start.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> The stimulus was funded by running deficits, not through increased tax revenues. So your question assumes a falsehood from the start.


Falsehood? Taxpayers are on the hook for the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual interest incurred by the national debt, and for the eventual reckoning wrought by such irresponsible deficit spending.

Oh wait, I remember, the adherents to the cult of Keynes have no problems with deficits and debt, and assume it will never be repaid. Because, you know, in the long run, "we're all dead."


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> Falsehood? Taxpayers are on the hook for the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual interest incurred by the national debt, and for the eventual reckoning wrought by such irresponsible deficit spending.
> 
> Oh wait, I remember, the adherents to the cult of Keynes have no problems with deficits and debt, and assume it will never be repaid. Because, you know, in the long run, "we're all dead."


The national debt will never be "paid off", the very idea is the result of conflating a nation with a household, and any conclusion that results from that incorrect premise is going to be false, both logically and empirically.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Since you brought up Keynes, I'll leave you with another quote of his, in response to Hayek's book, Prices And Production:

_"It is an extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in bedlam."_

Truer words were never spoken, and its appropriate to this day, not only of Hayek, but of so many scribblings of libertarians, Randians, and Austrian economists.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> The national debt will never be "paid off", the very idea is the result of conflating a nation with a household, and any conclusion that results from that incorrect premise is going to be false, both logically and empirically.


I've conflated nothing; please stop imputing things to me that I did not say.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> Since you brought up Keynes, I'll leave you with another quote of his, in response to Hayek's book, Prices And Production: _"It is an extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in bedlam." _Truer words were never spoken, and its appropriate to this day, not only of Hayek, but of so many scribblings of libertarians, Randians, and Austrian economists.


_Even truer words, from Murray Rothbard about Keynes:
_
*"**Furthermore, Keynes was scarcely a "revolutionary" in any real sense. He possessed the tactical wit to dress up ancient statist and inflationist fallacies with modern, pseudo-scientific jargon, making them appear to be the latest findings of economic science. Keynes was thereby able to ride the tidal wave of statism and socialism, of managed and planning economies. Keynes eliminated economic theory's ancient role as spoilsport for inflationist and statist schemes, leading a new generation of economists on to academic power and to political pelf and privilege."
*
We could use battling quotations for the remainder of the year, and not convince the other of "truth."


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> _Even truer words, from Murray Rothbard about Keynes:
> _
> *"**Furthermore, Keynes was scarcely a "revolutionary" in any real sense. He possessed the tactical wit to dress up ancient statist and inflationist fallacies with modern, pseudo-scientific jargon, making them appear to be the latest findings of economic science. Keynes was thereby able to ride the tidal wave of statism and socialism, of managed and planning economies. Keynes eliminated economic theory's ancient role as spoilsport for inflationist and statist schemes, leading a new generation of economists on to academic power and to political pelf and privilege."
> *
> We could use battling quotations for the remainder of the year, and not convince the other of "truth."


Notice that there's no actual critique of Keynes' theory or method in that quote? It's just one rambling ad hominem after another.

As for the "truth", the truth is that neither fiscal policy nor monetary policy are perfect. There are, as Milton Friedman put it, "long and variable lags" between implementation and results. There are unintended negative consequences. But what is the alternative? Capitalism may be the most efficient system in existence, but it is inherently unstable. What Keynes proposed was a mechanism for stabilizing the system and avoiding much of the human cost of the periodic episodes of depressions, in a way, rescuing capitalism from those who would have seen it destroyed either in their blind support or their blind opposition of it.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> Notice that there's no actual critique of Keynes' theory or method in that quote? It's just one rambling ad hominem after another.


Your hypocrisy is truly amazing. Your initial Keynes quote contained zero "critique" of Austrian, et al. "theory or method" - it was pure ad hominem - but you seek to challenge my quote on those very grounds, even though it was far more explicit than yours! I don't mind the differences of opinion; I do mind the arrogance, disdain, and hypocrisy.

You do realize, of course, that I could produce volumes of scholarly criticism of Keynes and his acolytes; I'm sure you could offer up a defense. This would all be pointless, I believe, as neither one of us is about to change our economic/political ideology...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> About that pesky ACA:
> 
> https://www.rand.org/news/press/2015/05/06.html


Did you actually read what that link says? The vast majority of folks enrolled in employer health plans and medicare. None of which has anything to do with the ACA.

It does not address costs and savings, which one of the main reasons listed as why we needed ACA.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> Your hypocrisy is truly amazing. Your initial Keynes quote contained zero "critique" of Austrian, et al. "theory or method" - it was pure ad hominem - but you seek to challenge my quote on those very grounds, even though it was far more explicit than yours! I don't mind the differences of opinion; I do mind the arrogance, disdain, and hypocrisy.


It actually was a critique of his method - the Praxeology Hayek inherited from Von Mises - and radical a priorism in general.



> You do realize, of course, that I could produce volumes of scholarly criticism of Keynes and his acolytes; I'm sure you could offer up a defense. This would all be pointless, I believe, as neither one of us is about to change our economic/political ideology...


Actually, there is a difference between us. You seem to take it as a personal affront any time I criticize a libertarian author - be it Bastiat, Rand, Hayek, Rothbard, et al. I, on the other hand, am not the least bit insulted when you criticize Keynes or anyone else for that matter. Keynes was a man. I recognize him for his contributions to economics. He certainly was wrong about some things, and I see no shame in mentioning that.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> Actually, there is a difference between us. You seem to take it as a personal affront any time I criticize a libertarian author - be it Bastiat, Rand, Hayek, Rothbard, et al. I, on the other hand, am not the least bit insulted when you criticize Keynes or anyone else for that matter. Keynes was a man. I recognize him for his contributions to economics. He certainly was wrong about some things, and I see no shame in mentioning that.


This is disingenuous; your "criticisms" of certain authors were arrogant and disdainful - nothing scholarly - primarily because you were seeking to use it as a device to insult me. I mentioned Bastiat in a tangential joking comment, and you proceeded to attack not just Bastiat and others, but entire schools of thought, in a very cheap way.

Forgive me for feeling insulted when someone is insulting me - even when attempted in a slightly nuanced, insidious manner.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> This is disingenuous; your "criticisms" of certain authors were arrogant and disdainful - nothing scholarly - primarily because you were seeking to use it as a device to insult me. I mentioned Bastiat in a tangential joking comment, and you proceeded to attack not just Bastiat and others, but entire schools of thought, in a very cheap way.


I am certainly not the first person to point out the superficiality of the arguments advanced by the French classical liberals like Bastiat and Say vs the arguments advanced by the Scottish and English classical liberals like Smith and Mill.

As for Rand, well she was Rand and pretty much insulted everyone, including those who would have otherwise been her strongest supporters.



> Forgive me for feeling insulted when someone is insulting me - even when attempted in a slightly nuanced, insidious manner.


That's the point. When I criticize a long dead political theorist, you should in no way feel personally insulted.


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

vpkozel said:


> Did you actually read what that link says? The vast majority of folks enrolled in employer health plans and medicare. None of which has anything to do with the ACA.
> 
> It does not address costs and savings, which one of the main reasons listed as why we needed ACA.


Even employee provided plans must be ACA compliant. When our company's plan became compliant a few years ago my premiums increase 20% and individual deductibles increased 4 fold. So much for deigning in costs

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> I am certainly not the first person to point out the superficiality of the arguments advanced by the French classical liberals like Bastiat and Say vs the arguments advanced by the Scottish and English classical liberals like Smith and Mill. As for Rand, well she was Rand and pretty much insulted everyone, including those who would have otherwise been her strongest supporters. That's the point. When I criticize a long dead political theorist, you should in no way feel personally insulted.


You missed my point; whether deliberate or not, I do not know.

I did not launch into a treatise on Austrian School economics, or Ayn Rand, or anyone else, for that matter. Yet, you decided to attack certain people/ideas even though they were not present in the dialogue. This was done because you made a calculation that I would be a devotee of these people, so you thought it cryptically nasty to attack them, and by association, me. How clever of you!

By the way, Bastiat's _That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen_ stills stands as an unrefuted bulwark against the statist crowd and their ideological spawn. Not bad for a "superficial vulgarian"!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

vpkozel said:


> Did you actually read what that link says? The vast majority of folks enrolled in employer health plans and medicare. None of which has anything to do with the ACA.
> 
> It does not address costs and savings, which one of the main reasons listed as why we needed ACA.


There's also a discrepancy between "signing up" and signing up and actually paying. The sign up numbers are raw numbers without allowance for actually signing up and paying into the exchanges.

Some of the big insurers have started grumbling already and in the coming years we may start seeing an exodus from the exchanges.

The ACA is a bloated, not well thought out and unpopular piece of legislation. At some point it will collapse due to it's own inefficiencies.

The entire debate was so fraught with exaggeration, falsehoods and lies, not to mention political kickbacks, that it's hard to see it as some seminal piece of legislation that will endure.

My favorite is still "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan....period!" before passage, and after passage "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan.....if". Classic!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

My fave was when Pelosi said that we have to pass it before we can really understand what is in it.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

vpkozel said:


> My fave was when Pelosi said that we have to pass it before we can really understand what is in it.


Well it proved prescient! Now we really know what's in it.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

tocqueville said:


> Right. Asking for actual facts is a weak defense.
> 
> But I see your point. Who cares about the environment, anyway? Why let it stand between us and jobs.


You don't like toilet paper?

Anybody in the construction world knows about biding on jobs. So, yes it is easy to figure out. I don't care to spoon feed people with college degrees. Is this what college degrees have come to? Answers shoved at you? No thinking required? When you start from the ground up, instead of numbers being shoved at you, you have a better understanding of the real economics, instead of useless theories.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

WA said:


> You don't like toilet paper?
> 
> Anybody in the construction world knows about biding on jobs. So, yes it is easy to figure out. I don't care to spoon feed people with college degrees. Is this what college degrees have come to? Answers shoved at you? No thinking required? When you start from the ground up, instead of numbers being shoved at you, you have a better understanding of the real economics, instead of useless theories.


To be fair, with the advances made in engineered wood products like wooden I beams there is no need to harvest any old growth lumber anymore. Fast growth pine can pretty much handle all of our wood and paper needs.

And let us not pretend that the lumber industry has not brought much of this bad press upon itself.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wood industry didn't bring much bad press upon themselves. The media glorified idiots hiding under the name science.


----------

