Bernie Sanders

[redcairo]

It is my opinion that the federal government should set minimal standards for qualifying to vote.  But then in recent years there has been a push to remove all qualifications.  I'm pretty sure Putin voted for Trump.

 

LOL!

 

I've always had to showed a *certified* *birth certificate* to get a license. But my friend who was an illegal walked into the DMV and got a license. I was so shocked! And insurance. And registered a car. And got an apartment. Most things she needed an ID for, but in CA at least, getting the ID was easy.

 

In the end, we should bottleneck everything through the ID process IMO, and make that one the review point. Then nothing else is affected except "must show legal state ID."

[Brian]

If I recall correctly, back in 1979 when I registered in Florida to vote I had to provide my birth certificate as evidence of citizenship.

 

Yes, there are still many scams going on regarding voting, especially in larger cities.

 

It is my opinion that the federal government should set minimal standards for qualifying to vote.  But then in recent years there has been a push to remove all qualifications.  I'm pretty sure Putin voted for Trump.

Yeah, we've gotten much more progressive since the '70s, haven't we?

[Marblehead]

Progress is a concept that must be viewed with an open mind.  If we have an agenda then progress is anything that supports our agenda.

 

I actually saw the changes starting in the late 1960s and we haven't stopped yet.

[gatito]

I'm pretty sure Putin voted for Trump.

 

If that's the case, then at least he stopped Hillary from starting WW3.

[Brian]

Progress is a concept that must be viewed with an open mind.  If we have an agenda then progress is anything that supports our agenda.

 

I actually saw the changes starting in the late 1960s and we haven't stopped yet.

I'd trace them back more than half a century earlier but whose counting.

 

Speaking of Bernie (see what I did there?), it looks like he's got a new part-time job as political/economic op-ed writer for the Washington Post:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/bernie-sanders-carrier-just-showed-corporations-how-to-beat-donald-trump

 

Since that's the "PostEverything" section, I think I'll submit a column and see if they publish it...

 

[Marblehead]

I'm sorry but that article is bullshit.

 

Could we send Bernie to Cuba?  Or maybe Norway?

[gatito]

I guess that, under the present circumstances, he'd be lucky to land-up in either of those two jurisdictions.

[redcairo]

What'd Norway ever do wrong??

 

RC

[Brian]

Bernie misses the mark with that article, though. Trump is out-of-bounds not with the tax cuts or regulation reduction but with the Wilson/Hoover/Roosevelt-like threat to punish businesses which choose to leave the US. Totally unconstitutional (and a really bad idea...)

Edited December 1, 2016 by Brian

[Brian]

It's probably a bad idea...

 

But I'd still be fascinated with actually living in a world where that is "the way things are".

 

If outsourcing and globalization hadn't been as fully integrated with businesses and economies, I think we would have reduced a number of problems that have been growing out-of-sight over the past n decades. Too bad it's one of those non-commutative situations where you can't just undo where things were problematic; things develop in time and dependencies have been acquired for things that probably shouldn't have come into existence.

 

Even so, I think it'd be fascinating to see it happen.

What changes would you like to see?

[Brian]

I don't know.

 

I mostly view it from an abstract structural perspective. Not related to policies, not related to established industry or economy, not related to typical social wants, not related to international relations, not really related to any typical things that get consideration...

 

Mostly because I really only interact with economy and policy insofar as I am made to purchase foods and pay taxes and fees for things, and deal with the various laws related to property.

 

Aside from that, I am an insurrectionist in the sense of Max Stirner. I don't really engage with the wider system such as it is (as someone who is consciously interfacing the the laws and conventions in recognition of myself as a part of the abstract social system). My environment is the world itself, the land and its cycles. The stuff of law and policy and government and economy are just weird things in my environment that are most prominently expressed through people or the physical infrastructure of things that people have made.

 

So I don't really have a stake....I'll have to deal with the side-effects of whatever happens, but I don't relate to it the way most other people do.

I was curious what you meant by "that" in your first sentence and "it" in your last, that's all.

[MooNiNite]

they should just let them leave. If the government would actually lower taxes the economy could work and businesses would stay...

[MooNiNite]

Paying certain companies to stay and keeping taxes high, gives ridiculous amounts of control to the government. 

[redcairo]

He doesn't have to do it. He might not even be able to do it. Merely uttering publicly that he thinks it should be done will have certain effects that by the time he even gets to more directly addressing the subject, might have been useful.

 

I think there should be very significant import taxes period, and that if there is an "advantage" to importing if you are a US company instead of from somewhere else, that those advantages should get a very hard ding (reduction) if all the labor wages and labor taxes are going to another country instead of ours. To me this is what the government should have been doing all along.

 

Making it so businesses do NOT have the advantage by acting like vampires instead of contributors, is a good thing.

 

As far as punishment, IMO this could only be done in a way that was what I said above -tariffs apply to everything, and 'benefits' from being local are 'reduced' under certain circumstance. I don't think there is any constitutional way to reach into a business.

 

Of course, that didn't stop the government from slithering into the auto industry, putting out for the banks, and more.

 

RC

[Marblehead]

I guess that, under the present circumstances, he'd be lucky to land-up in either of those two jurisdictions.

 

You think they wouldn't want him, huh?

[Brian]

He doesn't have to do it. He might not even be able to do it. Merely uttering publicly that he thinks it should be done will have certain effects that by the time he even gets to more directly addressing the subject, might have been useful.

 

I think there should be very significant import taxes period, and that if there is an "advantage" to importing if you are a US company instead of from somewhere else, that those advantages should get a very hard ding (reduction) if all the labor wages and labor taxes are going to another country instead of ours. To me this is what the government should have been doing all along.

 

Making it so businesses do NOT have the advantage by acting like vampires instead of contributors, is a good thing.

 

As far as punishment, IMO this could only be done in a way that was what I said above -tariffs apply to everything, and 'benefits' from being local are 'reduced' under certain circumstance. I don't think there is any constitutional way to reach into a business.

 

Of course, that didn't stop the government from slithering into the auto industry, putting out for the banks, and more.

 

RC

Nearly all of the US's recessions and depressions since 1807 (and we're talking 40 or so) can be directly tied to attempts by the federal government to manipulate the economy. Tariffs are artificial market distortions. We currently have about 15 thousand in place. If they worked as promised, we should have 15,000 production industries (not companies but entire segments) booming in the US.

 

A small tariff is a short-term gain to a particular special-interest group but is also a tax on the consumer and the long-term effect is a loss of liberty because it reduces the consumer's options. This reduction comes in the form of either products disappearing from the local market or those products being priced out of the reach of consumer's who may otherwise select them, which has the same effect on all but those for whom money is no object. This approach also increases the black market (smuggling, counterfeiting, etc.) and embeds a barbed hook in the economy which is then painful and damaging to remove. Additionally, the loss of competition and the shelter provided by this sort of protectionism stifles innovation and creativity, which is not to the benefit of the citizen or, in the long-term, the protected industry. The latter effect may not be obvious but, even if the distortion is never removed, the industry tends to lag its global competition in foreign markets, as an example.

 

A large tariff is even worse. Large tariffs introduce significant and generally unpredictable shifts in the marketplace (see the impact of the "chicken tax" as an example) but, more importantly, tend to trigger tariff wars which have serious negative impact on the economy as a whole. If politicians were less hubristic and more strategic, or if the population were more aware of history, we would learn from the mistakes of Fordney-McCumber & Smoot-Hawley. Alas...

 

The question of tariffs aside, it is the philosophy which troubles me here.

 

There are two approaches to success in business -- as in other forms of competition. I can work to make "my team" better, stronger, etc., or I can work to make the other team worse, weaker, etc. When Tanya Harding's figure-skating career was in jeopardy, she chose to hire a leg-breaker. We don't know the details of the conversation Trump had with the CEO of Allied Technologies but I suspect intimidation in relation to the parent company's multi-billion-dollar defense-contractor business was more persuasive than a few million in tax incentives -- the financial impact of abandoning a nearly finished factory would almost certainly be greater than the benefit from the tax-break which state and municipal governments provided. This suggests strong-arm tactics by the President-Elect to bully a business and I find that particularly mephitic.

 

Add to that the fact that the President doesn't have the constitutional authority to insert himself into the affairs of an individual business or industry in any fashion, or to make tariff decisions, or to announce that corporations will not be allowed to leave (regardless of whether he truly intends to follow through, this is problematic). History is replete with examples of political strongmen manipulating the economy according to their personal wishes and the results are almost universally disastrous -- it sometimes seems to be working for a while but the apparent short-term success quickly fades and the deleterious impact spirals out of control.

 

I've spent the last number of years warning advocates on one side of the illusory fence to be very careful about championing overreach by "your guy" because the power grab is cumulative and they won't like it when "the other side" gains access to the dangerously "souped-up" levers of power. Now I suspect I'll spend a few years telling the first group to learn from their mistakes and the "other group" to be very careful with the flamethrower they've just picked up. Of course, neither group is going to listen but I won't get upset about any of it. This is just the way the river runs.

[Brian]

Ah. The "threat to punish businesses which choose to leave the US".

 

Though I haven't looked into the specifics of how scale is being discussed to know how this would impact multinational corporations versus local businesses. I was thinking in the extremely general sense of how it'd be nice to reverse the use of global connections to distribute labor and resources. I prefer it when businesses and the functions of human-made systems are kept as local as possible.

 

But I am largely an ignoramus since I am opposed to the last few hundred (or 1000+, depending on the region) years of social structuring and don't really want to engage with it beyond what is necessary.

Two basic ways to approach this -- one is by force and one is by awareness. The former is quick and can be implemented upon the population by a small group of powerful individuals but it always fails (as history demonstrates with depressing regularity) because the change is superficial and has unanticipated consequences. The latter approach operates at a glacial pace and relies upon elevating awareness and awakening of the population as a whole. This approach also represents an existential threat to those who wish to hold power over others -- even if with well-intentioned motivations -- and it runs counter to the philosophy inherent in the quick & forceful approach. Chapters 56, 57 & 58 of the TTC speak directly to these two approaches, in my opinion.

[dust]

You entered this thread with the position that the claims are "utter nonsense" -- remember?

 

Yeah, I claimed that.

 

I didn't say that I never make claims or have opinions! You suggested that if you showed me evidence, I would not believe you, so you don't bother showing me evidence. To which I responded that I am generally able to change my opinion if contrary and convincing evidence is presented, or if I find it myself.

 

But, assuming you are always right and you always have 100% solid evidence backing you up (which you seem to believe), I can't find all this evidence by myself. Even if I look for it, it may very easily pass me by. Again, I'm not claiming to be some superstar researcher.

 

 

 

You found the survey results (or at least some site dismissing it as utter nonsense), more likely, but you seem to have not bothered to actually read it. You also seem to have a poor understanding (or a willful misunderstanding) of how statistical surveying works...

 

And you seem to have terrible reading comprehension.

 

This was, I think, the first result I looked at:

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/

 

It is obviously on your side. But from what it said, I was able to extrapolate (big word) that the poll never actually mentioned 'illegal aliens' or anything of the sort -- it mentions noncitizens, never 'illegal'.

 

 

 

http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/lib/sitefiles/National_Hispanic_Presentation_06-21-13_-_FOR_RELEASE.pdf

 

13% of those who said they were not citizens also said they were registered to vote.

 

https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/24416

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/27/methodological-challenges-affect-study-of-non-citizens-voting/?utm_term=.c23ada6cbe29

 

"... shows that nearly one-fifth of CCES panelists who said that they were not American citizens in 2012 actually reported being American citizens when they were originally surveyed for the 2010 CCES. Since it’s illogical for non-citizens in 2012 to have been American citizens back in 2010, it appears that a substantial number of self-reported non-citizens inaccurately reported their (non)citizenship status in the CCES surveys."

 

People get shit wrong all the time. Nearly a fifth of respondents apparently not able to respond correctly to whether or not they are a citizen. A study this large, and still so much respondent error. You think a poll of 800 is likely to be more accurate?

 

As I noted before, in another survey only 49% of Latinos were able to say with certainty that they were registered voters; in this Mclaughlin poll, a whole 86% of those who claim citizenship say they are registered. That's a big discrepancy.

 

The fact is, a weak poll claiming that 13% of noncitizens are registered to vote proves neither that they are all voting nor that they all have no right to vote (I posted a link in another post showing that in some cases, legal noncitizens are granted the legal right to vote).

 

 

As to the number of illegal aliens (which you imply to be the oft-repeated 11 million number), it is curious how we have documented illegal immigrants coming in by the hundreds of thousands each year but that number hasn't changed in many years. More realistic estimates put it at between 25 million and 40 million at this point. Let's take the lower end of that (25 million) and assume that only 5% vote -- that'd be 1.25 million. That's only looking at illegal aliens who might also illegally vote! Factor in a percentage of the legal aliens who might also illegally vote and the claim of millions goes from "utter nonsense" to quite reasonable and well worth investigation as it has the potential to significantly impact election outcomes. In fact, it is quite unreasonable to simply dismiss the claim as "utter nonsense."

 

Yeah... do you believe that everyone who enters the US stays? All illegals just stay put, forever illegal?

 

Some will eventually become citizens; some will leave quickly; some will leave later; some will, indeed, remain illegal for a long time.

 

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/?utm_expid=53098246-2.Lly4CFSVQG2lphsg-KopIg.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewresearch.org%2F

 

"Net Loss of 140,000 from 2009 to 2014

...

More Mexican immigrants have returned to Mexico from the U.S. than have migrated here since the end of the Great Recession, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of newly available government data from both countries. The same data sources also show the overall flow of Mexican immigrants between the two countries is at its smallest since the 1990s, mostly due to a drop in the number of Mexican immigrants coming to the U.S.

 

From 2009 to 2014, 1 million Mexicans and their families (including U.S.-born children) left the U.S. for Mexico, according to data from the 2014 Mexican National Survey of Demographic Dynamics (ENADID). U.S. census data for the same period show an estimated 870,000 Mexican nationals left Mexico to come to the U.S., a smaller number than the flow of families from the U.S. to Mexico."

 

 

So.. yeah. Aside from your inflated numbers, though (inflated number of illegal aliens, inflated number who are registered to vote, inflated number who are willing to risk being caught voting [and deported] to cast a vote), do you have any evidence of in-person voter fraud or any illegal immigrant voting (in a presidential election, for simplicity's sake) in the last few cycles?

[Brian]

Yeah, I claimed that.

 

I didn't say that I never make claims or have opinions! You suggested that if you showed me evidence, I would not believe you, so you don't bother showing me evidence. To which I responded that I am generally able to change my opinion if contrary and convincing evidence is presented, or if I find it myself.

 

But, assuming you are always right and you always have 100% solid evidence backing you up (which you seem to believe), I can't find all this evidence by myself. Even if I look for it, it may very easily pass me by. Again, I'm not claiming to be some superstar researcher.

 

 

 

 

And you seem to have terrible reading comprehension.

 

This was, I think, the first result I looked at:

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/

 

It is obviously on your side. But from what it said, I was able to extrapolate (big word) that the poll never actually mentioned 'illegal aliens' or anything of the sort -- it mentions noncitizens, never 'illegal'.

 

 

 

 

https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/24416

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/27/methodological-challenges-affect-study-of-non-citizens-voting/?utm_term=.c23ada6cbe29

 

"... shows that nearly one-fifth of CCES panelists who said that they were not American citizens in 2012 actually reported being American citizens when they were originally surveyed for the 2010 CCES. Since it’s illogical for non-citizens in 2012 to have been American citizens back in 2010, it appears that a substantial number of self-reported non-citizens inaccurately reported their (non)citizenship status in the CCES surveys."

 

People get shit wrong all the time. Nearly a fifth of respondents apparently not able to respond correctly to whether or not they are a citizen. A study this large, and still so much respondent error. You think a poll of 800 is likely to be more accurate?

 

As I noted before, in another survey only 49% of Latinos were able to say with certainty that they were registered voters; in this Mclaughlin poll, a whole 86% of those who claim citizenship say they are registered. That's a big discrepancy.

 

The fact is, a weak poll claiming that 13% of noncitizens are registered to vote proves neither that they are all voting nor that they all have no right to vote (I posted a link in another post showing that in some cases, legal noncitizens are granted the legal right to vote).

 

 

 

Yeah... do you believe that everyone who enters the US stays? All illegals just stay put, forever illegal?

 

Some will eventually become citizens; some will leave quickly; some will leave later; some will, indeed, remain illegal for a long time.

 

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/?utm_expid=53098246-2.Lly4CFSVQG2lphsg-KopIg.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewresearch.org%2F

 

"Net Loss of 140,000 from 2009 to 2014

...

More Mexican immigrants have returned to Mexico from the U.S. than have migrated here since the end of the Great Recession, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of newly available government data from both countries. The same data sources also show the overall flow of Mexican immigrants between the two countries is at its smallest since the 1990s, mostly due to a drop in the number of Mexican immigrants coming to the U.S.

 

From 2009 to 2014, 1 million Mexicans and their families (including U.S.-born children) left the U.S. for Mexico, according to data from the 2014 Mexican National Survey of Demographic Dynamics (ENADID). U.S. census data for the same period show an estimated 870,000 Mexican nationals left Mexico to come to the U.S., a smaller number than the flow of families from the U.S. to Mexico."

 

 

So.. yeah. Aside from your inflated numbers, though (inflated number of illegal aliens, inflated number who are registered to vote, inflated number who are willing to risk being caught voting [and deported] to cast a vote), do you have any evidence of in-person voter fraud or any illegal immigrant voting (in a presidential election, for simplicity's sake) in the last few cycles?

https://spreadsheets.google.com/feeds/download/spreadsheets/Export?key=1Ny4Mg9WcZkge-J20I__NFL3e04UjRFwxh76UTwC-G6A&exportFormat=pdf

[Brian]

FWIW, dust, it really isn't the case that I am always right or that I always have 100% solid evidence. On the contrary, my understanding of things is constantly in flux as a result of on-going personal investigation and research, and I very rarely state a serious opinion on something without having personally done significant research on the topic. Drives my family nuts, BTW -- I'd say "Well, actually..." and they'd say "Oh, that's BS" and then they'd go look it up to prove me wrong. Eventually, they stopped.

 

 

Much of what I discover comes from obscure sources so it is often not easy for me to point to a precise reference but it can generally be relocated with some effort. Thing is, I rarely have enough attachment to it to put forth the effort to prove I didn't just make it up, or prove that it wasn't from a spurious source -- especially when the person asking for it has been attacking my character and calling me names. If I happen to be sitting in a library or in front of a computer (or both, as is sometimes the case), and if the search doesn't take more than a minute or two, I may toss out a link or reference but I am more likely to just provide sufficient information for an inquiring mind to do the research independently. Besides, people learn more when they do their own research -- it's a form of gungfu in its own right.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Brian

[Marblehead]

I just think up a lot of shit all on my own.  And when I share it some people actually believe me.

[redcairo]

Hmn. Well Brian I find myself ambivalent because I agree with what you say in principle -- our market's not been free since so long before my birth it seems impossible to do at this point, but ideally it would be as much as possible (which means 'way more than now'). But, given we are only looking at it now and not 100+ years ago when we should have, I am unclear how we can implement the ideal principle now and have it work at all.

Because something needs to work... even if not ideally...

 

Tariffs are artificial market distortions. We currently have about 15 thousand in place. If they worked as promised, we should have 15,000 production industries (not companies but entire segments) booming in the US.

Seems to me that aside from automotion-etc. (and simply changing culture and technologies), the primary loss of jobs is from offshoring, and not just 'regular' jobs but the jobs at every level, from raw materials (e.g. steel) up through all the widgets and such, up through manufacturing, and all the 'associated' jobs for that. But corporations exist to make money and will always be driven by that. They make more money using chinese or pakistani labor and factories than ours; and they make more money contracting out to groups that use child labor in third world countries; and so on. (There are other things like toxic waste disposal I won't get into that can have a very big cost diff.)

But it seems to me we simply cannot compete in a 'world market' when the competition is age six and makes an amount per day that even at 10x would not let us survive even if our economy were far better.

But we have a huge country -- a huge market. I don't see why to a great degree we cannot be our own market on a lot of things. I'm not saying prevent everything else. I'm not sure what I am saying -- I've never thought much about this so I don't have a list of ideas -- merely that we're this huge country, with a huge market, and instead of making stuff and buying it from each other, the normal course of life, we don't make it so we're on welfare or unemployed or flipping burgers, and then we buy it from someone else. Surely there's got to be at least a partial improvement, if not solution. ?

 

the loss of competition and the shelter provided by this sort of protectionism stifles innovation and creativity, which is not to the benefit of the citizen or, in the long-term, the protected industry. The latter effect may not be obvious but, even if the distortion is never removed, the industry tends to lag its global competition in foreign markets, as an example.

I guess I can see that -- perhaps the auto industry is an example.

I do think that our country has not reached for the higher-end mfg that some other countries (e.g. Germany) did. (The big post I made on the 100 days 1.2 thread, on jobs that ref'd a mfg industry report on that market from '00 to now, talked of that.)

We're in the situation that, as I was saying in comments on Mish's econ blog recently, have killed the middle level of jobs the way the middle class has gone -- you can flip burgers, or, aside from management or medical, you need a four year degree, not because the job does but because the schooling/corporate collusion was completed long ago.

People say you're not supposed to expect to be able to live on full time minimum wage, you're supposed to work your way up. But there's nowhere to go, to some degree, if management is not your interest/skill/whatever (and for most people it is not). Most the "jobs in the middle" have vanished. And economists say with a shrug, "Yes, but some were replaced by the service industry." But the service industry is mostly minimum wage or not far from it.

 

but, more importantly, tend to trigger tariff wars which have serious negative impact on the economy as a whole. If politicians were less hubristic and more strategic, or if the population were more aware of history, we would learn from the mistakes of Fordney-McCumber & Smoot-Hawley. Alas...

Dammit Brian I always end up having to go read a bunch of boring crap when you post stuff like that. I don't know how I'm supposed to stay uneducated when I have to read in order to have conversations without looking like a moron. Much. Story of my life. I did however get a brief flash of a Ferris Bueller video out of it LOL! Which was just as boring as the rest of the ref -- but did lead to the far more entertaining woke-me-up-better music vid here :-)

 

There are two approaches to success in business -- as in other forms of competition. I can work to make "my team" better, stronger, etc., or I can work to make the other team worse, weaker, etc.

I cannot see ANY competition to SLAVERY that is anything other than either
a> also slavery, or
b> technology that makes even pennies-a-day-poor-kids unneeded,

Neither of which employs our people.

 

the financial impact of abandoning a nearly finished factory would almost certainly be greater than the benefit

Finding someone else to take some of that on might have helped, we really don't know the details.

 

This suggests strong-arm tactics by the President-Elect to bully a business and I find that particularly mephitic.

Why would you assume that he went and did something negative and brutal for this? How bizarre. I don't.

I figure maybe he went and told them what he wanted, and that he wanted to use them as an "example" (massive free advertising too). Told them what he had planned for taxes though that'll take a little time to kick in; and probably worked out some negotiations with sources and resources he knows of around the world and here and in Mexico that could on the whole make it worth it to them. They are still going to Mexico in a small way, just only ~30% of it, and they had planned for 10x this many people going in the future to Mexico, in a few years, that they say they might keep here -- that factory stuff probably isn't built yet down there.

Bottom line is the guy has many decades of experience and top world-level contacts so I'm sure he could say, "I will personally find a way to make this work for you, if what the government can offer isn't enough, because having a company to make an example of for this PR is so important."

Why do people tend to assume another person is going to behave like some corrupt monster?

He wants the PR, he wants "a real example" of intent, he needed a place to start, it happens to be in his VP's state, which is also a swing state, so it all makes sense to me. I don't see it as anything bad.

He does not have a political history of being bad and half his platform is about the attempt to make things UN bad and get rid of situations that allow corruption so why assume the worst?

 

Add to that the fact that the President doesn't have the constitutional authority to insert himself into the affairs of an individual business or industry in any fashion

1. He isn't the president yet. He is almost certainly using his non-presidential connections, contacts, resources or sources, to contribute to this.

2. I'd like to point out the massive, massive interference, repeated, in the past here, and none of those people are in jail. However that is not any argument for doing it now especially when his platform is rule of law/constitutionalism. Just sayin.

 

or to make tariff decisions

No, but of course as Chief Exec he can direct those who do make laws or regs toward his vision -- I am sure whatever is required to do it properly will be pursued. Why assume anything else.

 

or to announce that corporations will not be allowed to leave (regardless of whether he truly intends to follow through, this is problematic).

He didn't say that. He said there would be consequences if they did -- I think there SHOULD BE some "advantage to operating within this country, compared to operating from without it." (Added later: looks like he thinks public shaming will be useful. Sigh.)

However that is done. I refuse to agree that it should be just as advantageous to a company to operate in china and sell here, than to operate here where they're putting in salary and taxes etc. and sell here.

 

I've spent the last number of years warning advocates on one side of the illusory fence to be very careful about championing overreach by "your guy" because the power grab is cumulative and they won't like it when "the other side" gains access to the dangerously "souped-up" levers of power.

I agree that
a> nothing is right only for one side and
b> precedent and reducing balances and limits, can be terrifying.

RC
 

[dawei]

Because something needs to work... even if not ideally...

 

Seems to me that aside from automotion-etc. (and simply changing culture and technologies), the primary loss of jobs is from offshoring, and not just 'regular' jobs but the jobs at every level, from raw materials (e.g. steel) up through all the widgets and such, up through manufacturing, and all the 'associated' jobs for that. But corporations exist to make money and will always be driven by that. They make more money using chinese or pakistani labor and factories than ours; and they make more money contracting out to groups that use child labor in third world countries; and so on. (There are other things like toxic waste disposal I won't get into that can have a very big cost diff.)

 

But it seems to me we simply cannot compete in a 'world market' when the competition is age six and makes an amount per day that even at 10x would not let us survive even if our economy were far better.

 

But we have a huge country -- a huge market. I don't see why to a great degree we cannot be our own market on a lot of things. I'm not saying prevent everything else. I'm not sure what I am saying -- I've never thought much about this so I don't have a list of ideas -- merely that we're this huge country, with a huge market, and instead of making stuff and buying it from each other, the normal course of life, we don't make it so we're on welfare or unemployed or flipping burgers, and then we buy it from someone else. Surely there's got to be at least a partial improvement, if not solution. ?

 

 

You really struck a cord with me on this... you're replying to Brian, I know.

 

Is the US a huge country and a huge market?   Maybe we're still too green and in a buying frenzy compared to most of the established world and markets...  so are we the norm or outlier? 

 

And it does seem part of the problem is our variation or stratum... aka. Diversity... *cough*...  

 

It seems the US left the manufacturing gig for the technology gig... but we now see many around the world getting into the manufacturing gig...     I'll use an idea I think you'd use:   Gas stations make pennies on gas... so they depend on millions of transactions in a month... equates to *whatever*.  But they go for the slow and long game of it.

 

Defense contractors and manufacturers benefit from the governments approval of sales.  Obama just approved $20 billion in sales to  foreign purchase of Boeing aircraft .   How many americans will truly benefit from that ?    Are the top echelon to reap more than the average Joe ?    I'm also not sure of the solution but it feels politics still looks through rose colored glasses at the $$$ which affects a few.  

[redcairo]

I'm pretty sure that the reason approval of foreign sales in that category exists is because 'technology' to foreign agents is always in question as possible threat to national security. But Boing is in the USA far as I know so there are jobs/taxes here for what it builds even if it is selling overseas (which it does).

 

When I worked at Lockheed Martin (contractor) for awhile, the UAE was visiting. Their leader (who is both religious and political leader) was trying to talk everybody into letting him buy jet fighters AND engineering plans for them. He brought several young men who were the top pilots/engineers/soldiers in his very tiny army. For an offbeat reason a few of them ended up spending actual time with my tiny (totally non-airplane non-tech non-mil) team. They were very interesting young men. Impressive.

 

Anyway. Sales to outside the country of things we make inside the country are good.

 

But it would be nice if we could have some more sales of things inside the country that we make inside the country.

 

As a feeble attempt to pretend we're still on topic, I'll mention that I saw another bit by Bernie last night I think it was, with him rambling on about stuff so nuts I seriously wondered why I had never seen how nuts he was before the election, because aside from socialist (I knew that already) he had seemed like an ok guy. Now I'm thinking he was more an unknown than it seemed.

 

RC

[Brian]

Just as an FYI, Boeing is now building composite engines in Asheville in one of the most advanced manufacturing facilities on the planet. The local community college is training the workforce.

 

Remember that the second best time to plant a tree is now.

 

Leaders don't need to brandish a stick. Rather than talk about how he is going to make it "very, very difficult" for companies to leave he should be talking about how he is going to make it very, very easy for companies to stay, or to come.

 

I've worked in corporate management for more than 20 years in several industries, including more than a decade with a multinational pharmaceutical company with facilities in 13 countries on five continents. Slave labor isn't free and there are significant costs & risks associated with relying on any labor pool. Substantial reductions in the burden imposed by government wouldn't guarantee every company would stay but it would be sufficient to tilt the scales for many.

 

Note, BTW, that neither Trump nor the big-government establishmentarians in the Republican Party aren't talking about curtailing the size and strength of the central government but merely pointing the barrel in a slightly different direction. Big-government "Progressives” and big-government "Populists" are cut from the same cloth, just tailored a bit differently.