2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

walshyn93

The US isn't going to be able to reduce its debt unless it reduces its trade deficits. China is penalising US companies with arbitrary regulations, it is imposing huge tariffs on foreign imports. There already is a trade war but China is the only one waging it. Trump seems to be the only candidate who wants to push back against Chinese tariffs. A 45% tariff on Chinese goods would cripple the Chinese economy. The best thing to do isn't to sit by and natter about the benefits of free trade when your goods are being tariffed out of competitiveness, the best thing to do is to end the trade war that's already occurring on favourable terms.

walshyn93

K-9 wrote: »

Corporates are under pressure to keep costs low and wages tends to be the easiest thing cut, either numbers or pay levels. Companies are making massive profits but it tends to go on dividends to shareholders. Great if you are an employee with a share scheme, not so great otherwise.

Not the sole reason either, but another important factor.

Why are companies able to pay less to workers nowadays and still retain staff? Are companies just less generous than they were in the 70's?

ancapailldorcha

walshyn93 wrote: »

Why are companies able to pay less to workers nowadays and still retain staff? Are companies just less generous than they were in the 70's?

There seems to have been a shift from competition between multiple smaller employers competing for staff to a few large multinationals who will pay the minimum they can get away with. It could be argued that these same multinationals have managed to lobby governments to stifle new entrants to markets and thus limiting competition.

K-9

walshyn93 wrote: »

Why are companies able to pay less to workers nowadays and still retain staff? Are companies just less generous than they were in the 70's?

The reduction in power of unions hasn't helped (we've gone from them having too much power in the private sector to just an annoyance really). Some sectors are well paid of course but on a general level there's more and more pressure on profit and more focus on share price. Even Research and Development is down, so it isn't just wages.

K-9

Ps. Lots of these things we are talking about are all interlinked.

walshyn93

K-9 wrote: »

The reduction in power of unions hasn't helped (we've gone from them having too much power in the private sector to just an annoyance really). Some sectors are well paid of course but on a general level there's more and more pressure on profit and more focus on share price. Even Research and Development is down, so it isn't just wages.

How do unions fit into a world of globalisation? Surely stronger unions would just drive more companies out of the country.

K-9

Depends on how much stronger, definitely couldn't go back to 70's ways, but look at a company like Ryanair or US comparables, you can't join a Union if you want. Doesn't mean it's the answer and some of them are useless showers but wages stagnating for decades, the fall of unions in that same time isn't a coincidence for me.

eire4

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's genuinely incredible, I had no idea of this. The American FPTP voting system is truly awful, but this is a cool way of preventing the establishment from blocking a candidacy, even if it's never been successful. The fact that the system has this mechanism at all is pretty cool.

To be honest, my biggest issue with the US election is the fact that the House of Representatives gets to pick a candidate if nobody gets more than 50%. It should either go to whoever got the most voted, or be done by a quota system like we have here. Handing power to the house in this manner essentially cements the paradigm that there can only ever be two large parties.

Yes it is pretty incredible no doubt about it. But there you have it as things stand.


I hear you on the FPTP system. Although to be fair the US system is so blatantly borken and corrupt that is just one of many issues.

KingBrian2

walshyn93 wrote: »

The US isn't going to be able to reduce its debt unless it reduces its trade deficits. China is penalising US companies with arbitrary regulations, it is imposing huge tariffs on foreign imports. There already is a trade war but China is the only one waging it. Trump seems to be the only candidate who wants to push back against Chinese tariffs. A 45% tariff on Chinese goods would cripple the Chinese economy. The best thing to do isn't to sit by and natter about the benefits of free trade when your goods are being tariffed out of competitiveness, the best thing to do is to end the trade war that's already occurring on favourable terms.

We've been down that road before with Dev and his economic war with Britain. Ends badly for all parties concerned. In fairness to Dev he lived in different times and secured our neutrality it is yet to be seen if Trump could do the same with China. Significantly reduce tensions in the South China Sea.

walshyn93

KingBrian2 wrote: »

We've been down that road before with Dev and his economic war with Britain. Ends badly for all parties concerned. In fairness to Dev he lived in different times and secured our neutrality it is yet to be seen if Trump could do the same with China. Significantly reduce tensions in the South China Sea.

It's bad for all involved until it's over. The goal of economic war is not to destroy the other party it's to find favourable terms. Trump is right that America is getting taken advantage of by China. China knows that the US doesn't have the balls to bite back with tariffs so it's going to squeeze what it can out of them as long as the US tries everything to avoid putting up a fight. Very fall of Rome indeed.

Black Swan

Trump was at the Orange County Amphitheater in Anaheim and at OC Fair Grounds in Costa Mesa, California, and there were hundreds protesters and supporters doing a face-off separated by an army of police in cars, on horseback, and on foot in riot gear. It should be noted that Orange County is one of the few counties in California that is dominated by the Republican party in general elections, most others in the state are Democratic. There was the typical violence that occurs at many Trump rallies, and of course Trump supporters will claim that it's all the "hired" protesters fault, which is one of their favourite lines that completely ignores all the racist, bigoted, sexism, and violence-prone statements that have come out of Trump's mouth since he began campaigning for president.

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

Trump was at the Orange County Amphitheater in Anaheim and at OC Fair Grounds in Costa Mesa, California, and there were hundreds protesters and supporters doing a face-off separated by an army of police in cars, on horseback, and on foot in riot gear. It should be noted that Orange County is one of the few counties in California that is dominated by the Republican party in general elections, most others in the state are Democratic. There was the typical violence that occurs at many Trump rallies, and of course Trump supporters will claim that it's all the "hired" protesters fault, which is one of their favourite lines that completely ignores all the racist, bigoted, sexism, and violence-prone statements that have come out of Trump's mouth since he began campaigning for president.

"Words hurt therefore they justify violence" is the narrative being peddled here.

This is what the language police do. Trump says something that his opponents can twist as being racist. That is then used to justify politically motivated violence against him.

As you can see from the video below, it doesn't matter what a person's actual opinions are, it only matters what their opponents think their opinions are. And when you demand evidence to back up their propagandised ideas about Trump the response often manifests as violence from the authoritarian left.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6BbzFUeVSE

The reason for the violence against Trump supporters is because leftist propaganda has convinced people that Trump supporters are monsters and therefore don't deserve the same respect as everyone else.

Trump supporters are not crashing Bernie or Hillary rallies and causing violence. The premeditated violence is coming from the left and if you want to know why, it's because they're losing out in the marketplace of ideas.

Billy86

walshyn93 wrote: »

"Words hurt therefore they justify violence" is the narrative being peddled here.

That would be valid if Trump fans weren't causing violence.

walshyn93

Billy86 wrote: »

That would be valid if Trump fans weren't causing violence.

Who's crashing who's rallies? These are not peaceful protesters.

Suryavarman

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

They are being recruited and hired(on vias that came into existence due to free trade) at lower salaries than the native workers. you can put 1 and 1 together and get the answer. Basic economics.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2868428/new-h-1b-bill-will-help-destroy-us-tech-workforce.html

The natives are earning higher wages than the immigrants. So does that mean they're not having any impact on wages at all then? There is a wide body of literature out there that suggests immigration boosts wages for all groups in America apart from high school dropouts.

http://www.askaboutireland.ie/enfo/sustainable-living/farming-in-ireland-overvi/
The agri-food sector is one of Ireland's most important indigenous manufacturing sectors, accounting for employment of around 150,000 people. It includes approximately 600 food and drinks firms throughout the country that export 85% of our food and seafood to more than 160 countries worldwide. Research has shown that Ireland’s investment in agriculture produces a far bigger return than investment in other sectors. That is because agriculture sources 71% of raw materials and services from Irish suppliers, compared to 44% for all manufacturing companies.

Data from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) indicates that the agri-food sector (including agriculture, food, drinks and tobacco) accounts for around 7% of GDP with primary agriculture accounting for around 2.5% of GDP.

So you test all food coming into the country. Logistically impossible.

"uncompetitive", loaded term, not competitive with what, third world subsistence cash crop farming? Of course not, but you are talking about knocking knocking say, 30 cent off of the price of a bag of carrots. There is not that level of food poverty in Ireland, and if there is, exporting our farming base(and all the tax and spend in country) overseas is not the answer. That paper you linked doesnt measure the true cost. You dont create a country based on getting **** as cheaply as possible.

You seem to be suggesting that if we have free trade that that 2.5-7% of GDP just disappears off the face of the planet. Investment and employment just transfers to other industries. It doesn't disappear.

Reducing food bills by 20% is a bit more than 30 cents off the price of a bag of carrots.

You don't eliminate poverty by artificially raising the price of life's necessities.

Suryavarman

The extent to which wages have stagnated is pretty questionable and really depends on how you measure it. Where has all the Income Gone from the Minneapolis Fed

walshyn93

The reason there's violence at Trump rallies is not because of Trump supporters. I think everyone knows this whether they admit it openly or not. They're not from demographics that typically engage in crime but even if they were, the 5 or 6 Trump supporters didn't go out of their way that day to assault someone whereas the hundreds of anti-Trump protesters who have committed or threatened violence went to a specific part of town that day to cause trouble. This is essential to deciding where to place blame. If I go to someone's house uninvited and get into a confrontation, the benefit of the doubt will be against me in deciding who is at fault.

The reason there's violence from anti-Trump supporters is because the media, the Republican establishment, Democrats and BLM have convinced large numbers of people from demographics with an axe to grind against perceived oppression that Trump and his supporters are racist. And these are people who think that if someone is racist against them, sexist, homophobic or transphobic, extreme violence against them is justified.

This is why victim blaming is so common now where people blame Trump for violence at his rallies because he said something provocative. These same people would be up in arms if someone accused a rape victim of being provocative. The double-think is astounding.

The dehumanisation of people for holding a political opinion is in full swing in the early 21st century. We're right on schedule.

Black Swan

There are many racist, bigoted, and sexism quotes that have appeared in this thread that came out of Trump's mouth, but why repeat them? Robert Bellah in his "Civil Religion" noted that such arguments were pointless with anyone claiming to be a [Trump] supporter because they were true believers in their prophet, and [Trump's 1987 deal-making] bible.

A real concern for Americans is if they elect Trump, will the protests and riots typical of Trump's campaigns continue after 20 January 2017, especially if he attempts to follow through with many of the statements that have come from his mouth (deporting millions, banning by religion, etc.)?

Billy86

walshyn93 wrote: »

The reason there's violence at Trump rallies is not because of Trump supporters. I think everyone knows this whether they admit it openly or not.

The video evidence of Trump fans engaging in violence says otherwise. If you want to claim the videos we have all seen are not real then feel free, but you won't be taken seriously.

walshyn93

Suryavarman wrote: »

There is a wide body of literature out there that suggests immigration boosts wages for all groups in America apart from high school dropouts.

I'm going to need to see some evidence here.


But even if that were true, and I'm sure it was true at some stage, the fact that a trend exists doesn't mean it will continue. Future waves of migrants will compete with the middle class for their jobs too. Eventually migrants will compete for everyone's jobs except the employers'. Global capitalism demands it.

walshyn93

Billy86 wrote: »

The video evidence of Trump fans engaging in violence says otherwise. If you want to claim the videos we have all seen are not real then feel free, but you won't be taken seriously.

Maybe try taking my whole post in full rather than singling out one statement in it. It's perfectly well explained how the blame for the trend in violence ends up on those who travel out of their way to cause trouble rather than those who engage in it spontaneously. Small isolated incidents do not a trend make.

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

There are many racist, bigoted, and sexism quotes that have appeared in this thread that came out of Trump's mouth, but why repeat them? Robert Bellah in his "Civil Religion" noted that such arguments were pointless with anyone claiming to be a [Trump] supporter because they were true believers in their prophet, and [Trump's 1987 deal-making] bible.

A real concern for Americans is if they elect Trump, will the protests and riots typical of Trump's campaigns continue after 20 January 2017, especially if he attempts to follow through with many of the statements that have come from his mouth (deporting millions, banning by religion, etc.)?

I say that statements regardless of their nature do not justify violence and your response is "but he has made those statements, they're in this thread!"

That's not an argument, chap.

Billy86

walshyn93 wrote: »

Maybe try taking my whole post in full rather than singling out one statement in it. It's perfectly well explained how the blame for the trend in violence ends up on those who travel out of their way to cause trouble rather than those who engage in it spontaneously. Small isolated incidents do not a trend make.

No, because when you have this...

...who then follow it up with comments with 'next time, we might need to kill him' you cannot claim that the violence is "not because of Trump supporters" and even expect to be taken remotely seriously.

walshyn93

Billy86 wrote: »

No, because when you have this...

...who then follow it up with comments with 'next time, we might need to kill him' you cannot claim that the violence is "not because of Trump supporters" and even expect to be taken remotely seriously.

I'm not justifying sucker punching a guy. But when mass violence breaks out it's not because Trump supporters crashed a Democrat's rally. It's because Democrats crashed a Trump rally. Again, who devoted their whole day to disrupting someone's rally? Who just wanted to enjoy a rally in peace?

I'm talking about trends in violence. Why do you think posting one video is going to refute that?

Suryavarman

walshyn93 wrote: »

I'm going to need to see some evidence here.


But even if that were true, and I'm sure it was true at some stage, the fact that a trend exists doesn't mean it will continue. Future waves of migrants will compete with the middle class for their jobs too. Eventually migrants will compete for everyone's jobs except the employers'. Global capitalism demands it.

From the Brookings Institute:

How immigrants impact the wages of U.S.-born workers depends on whether immigrants and U.S.-born workers compete for the same jobs or, instead, if they complement each other in the labor market. Despite concerns that competition from immigrants might harm employment prospects for native-born Americans, recent economic research suggests that, on average, immigrants raise wages and expand employment opportunities for Americans.

They mention a Borjas and Katz paper that shows immigrants reducing the wages of high school dropouts by 4.8% and college graduates by 0.5%. On the other hand a paper from Ottaviano and Perri found immigration to have positive effects for all groups.

We live in a world with fairly low barriers to trade and capital mobility. Foreigners are already competing with the American middle class. The question is whether they should do it in America or in their own country.

walshyn93

Suryavarman wrote: »

From the Brookings Institute:



They mention a Borjas and Katz paper that shows immigrants reducing the wages of high school dropouts by 4.8% and college graduates by 0.5%. On the other hand a paper from Ottaviano and Perri found immigration to have positive effects for all groups.

We live in a world with fairly low barriers to trade and capital mobility. Foreigners are already competing with the American middle class. The question is whether they should do it in America or in their own country.

So basically one study said it reduced wages and the other said they increased. So essentially you can get whatever answer you're looking for and we still don't know which is better.

Anyway, the debate has never been about immigration vs no immigration, that's the common strawman technique employed by open borders advocates. Most opponents of current immigration laws simply prefer selective migration like in Aus.


Not to mention the fact that the most important impact of immigration isn't economic, it's social, political and cultural. Immigration decides who gets to vote in America. If too many Mexicans for example move to America, support for free market economics goes out the window and support for increasing the size of the welfare state goes up.

Immigration also decides what the culture is like. Can men and women go on the same train carriages? Not in Germany apparently.

So I'll take a 0.5 decrease in wages and keep liberal democracy intact, thank you very much.

Black Swan

Heavy protests against Trump in Anaheim, Costa Mesa, and Burlingame shows that Trump does not understand the California electorate in the slightest. Simpleminded labeling of them as left or socialist or Democratic or whatever will not win the state. Trump may or may not win the Republican California primary 7 June 2016, but he can forget winning the 55 ECs from the largest state, because his continuing hate speech has caused too much damage to his campaign. In a close election between Clinton and Trump, California could make the difference. It takes 270 ECs to win 8 November 2016 and California holds 55/270 ECs or 20.4% of the votes to win.

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

Heavy protests against Trump in Anaheim, Costa Mesa, and Burlingame shows that Trump does not understand the California electorate in the slightest. Simpleminded labeling of them as left or socialist or Democratic or whatever will not win the state. Trump may or may not win the Republican California primary 7 June 2016, but he can forget winning the 55 ECs from the largest state, because his continuing hate speech has caused too much damage to his campaign. In a close election between Clinton and Trump, California could make the difference. It takes 270 ECs to win 8 November 2016 and California holds 55/270 ECs or 20.4% of the votes to win.

Trump has as much chance of winning California in the general as he does of winning Chiapas or Sonora and for the exact same reason.

But more to your point, I'm not sure how you get from protesters protest to "Trump doesn't understand the Californian electorate". I think he does understand the Californian electorate and realises that if he doesn't win in November, pretty soon the whole country will be like California.

Amazingfun

Black Swan wrote: »

Heavy protests against Trump in Anaheim, Costa Mesa, and Burlingame shows that Trump does not understand the California electorate in the slightest. Simpleminded labeling of them as left or socialist or Democratic or whatever will not win the state. Trump may or may not win the Republican California primary 7 June 2016, but he can forget winning the 55 ECs from the largest state, because his continuing hate speech has caused too much damage to his campaign. In a close election between Clinton and Trump, California could make the difference. It takes 270 ECs to win 8 November 2016 and California holds 55/270 ECs or 20.4% of the votes to win.

Uh, "hate speech"? More like Truth-telling. And Trump understands this portion of the "Californian electorate" (you're assuming of course those violent people are eligible to vote at all) very well. I've already seen numerous posts all over Youtube and Twitter from people who were undecided now firmly in the Trump Camp thanks to these events being broadcast all over America.

Suryavarman

walshyn93 wrote: »

So basically one study said it reduced wages and the other said they increased. So essentially you can get whatever answer you're looking for and we still don't know which is better.

Anyway, the debate has never been about immigration vs no immigration, that's the common strawman technique employed by open borders advocates. Most opponents of current immigration laws simply prefer selective migration like in Aus.


Not to mention the fact that the most important impact of immigration isn't economic, it's social, political and cultural. Immigration decides who gets to vote in America. If too many Mexicans for example move to America, support for free market economics goes out the window and support for increasing the size of the welfare state goes up.

Immigration also decides what the culture is like. Can men and women go on the same train carriages? Not in Germany apparently.

So I'll take a 0.5 decrease in wages and keep liberal democracy intact, thank you very much.

Those studies were merely examples of the literature. The majority of the literature finds immigration to have positive effects on the wages of all groups apart from high school dropouts.

If you're worried about Mexicans voting then just don't allow them to vote.

Men and women can travel on the same train carriages in Germany.

Yes because what immigrants want more than anything else is to overthrow a couple of centuries of liberal democracy :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: