Trump - Clown Genius

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Chad:

Hm. You are right that the piece/poll I quoted concerns broad ideas more than specific policies. Here is one more geared to specific policies:

http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/ ... l_results/

59% support raising taxes on income over one million to 50% (Reagan rates);
51% support single payer healthcare via Medicare;
71% support a $400 billion/year infrastructure jobs program;
71% support debt-free college at public universities.

The above (and several of the other highly supported policies in the poll) are either very near or identical to some of Sanders's top proposals. I actually think Sanders has been more specific in terms of policy goals than any other candidate in recent memory, but I'm kind of biased; I follow his campaign by far the closest.

[Chad]

I agree Sander's has more detail than most in his proposals. My issue is that it's still very shallow. None of them realistically talk about how much a program would cost, how much a tax measure would pull in, how the policy would impact other aspects of the economy, what companies would do, what the wealthy would do, etc. This is part of why I suggested the general public votes on emotion. Yay, free college! Yay, free childcare (Pre-K). Boo, Wall Street. No one talks about how to pay for anything, what economic ripples it would create, or if something impacting Wall Street is more than just revenge. They don't even know what carried interest is they just see Wall Street and say, yes. Not that I'm for carried interest.

Now, all that being said, if it comes down to Trump or Cruz vs Sanders, I'm taking Sanders. Just as long as his VP is solid, because the dude is ancient. Also, he won't be able to pass a 1/4 of what he wants due to congress, while the Trump or Cruz might have a chance to pass their extreme platforms.

[Ego]

The elephant in the room for EREers is that the extreme candidates are whipping up teapot-tempests among those who feel like they are not doing well right now. Most of us here are doing pretty well under the status quo. If we weren't we wouldn't be here talking about early retirement. If the teapot-tempest for change gets out of control it could ruin a good thing for us.

[Dragline]

RE: Munger article... no offense, but honestly, this was a good laugh.

"Munger thinks he’s “a little nuts,” saying that the Vermont senator is too fixated on income inequality, which he says is simply a consequence of democracy. He thinks that people will accept their economic status if it’s justified—though Sanders‘ position appears to be that it isn’t."

Munger's comments are an interesting representation of the orthodoxies of the Great Generation, of which he is one of the last. (He's also that strange thing known as a "liberal Republican" who worked on abortion rights cases in California back in the 1960s when he still practiced law.)

There were a number of very strong taboos for that generation that were strongly reflected in the culture of the 1950s. One was against socialism or communism or anything that sounded remotely like it. So that's his knock on Sanders. Another was against gambling and drugs (and prostitution and non-traditional sexual practices), which were associated with criminal elements and moral degeneracy or deficiency. So that's his knock on Trump.

What's more interesting to me from a macro point of view is that it is only with the rise of the millennial generation that many of the old orthodoxies are finally being completely overthrown -- the most concrete examples being legalization of marijuana in many places and gay marriage. Gambling has also gone from a forbidden activity only conducted in a few places in the shadows to a widespread entertainment that is acceptable to a super-majority of people. (As long as you call it "gaming", not "gambling" in the industry-speak.)

In the meantime, there are new orthodoxies that are being created (essentially by Millennials in terms of numbers) that will likely dominate from about 2024-2044.

This will lead to a lot of old and bitter Gen-Xers who never wanted any orthodoxies . . .

[theanimal]

Why does Trump Terrify People?

[jennypenny]

I can't get the link to work. Is it just me?

[Ego]

This time it really is just you. Works for me.

[jennypenny]

Ended up reading it on my phone. My computer's security software is flagging that whole site. Dilbert must be a spy.

According to DH, Trump's a shoo-in if the crowd at the gun show yesterday was any indication.

[Dragline]

I just read he really flogged the neocons over Iraq last night like Rand Paul was supposed to but never really did. That would actually be an issue he could go after HRC on as well that would have a lot of traction with independents and younger people.

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Chad: I definitely agree that a lot of the presentation in debates and speeches is shallow, more at the level of ideas and emotional appeals, and Sanders is guilty of that as well; he's also done IMO a poor job of defending against the allegations that it couldn't be paid for, no economists back him up, etc.

However, his campaign has released budget details of many of his proposals, including Medicare for all, and independent impact analyses have been conducted. A lot of economists support the ideas, including Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's Secretary of Labor--a fact that, again, I REALLY wish he'd use when Hillary makes claims like "None of the economists I know think this adds up..."

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/20/robert_ ... y_partner/

Agreed on the VP pick's importance. Really hoping for Elizabeth Warren. They've been flirting for a while. Just ask her out, Bernie! She's totally into you.

@Ego: ERErs are a very efficient subset of the middle-class that has developed proficiency at gaming the system(s). That doesn't mean the system is really "working" for them, and it certainly doesn't mean it's working generally (morally, economically, environmentally). The nature of ERErs also implies, ipso facto, that they would do comparatively well in any system. So the "rocking the boat" argument doesn't really fly... er, sail?

Socioeconomically and politically speaking, ERErs most closely resemble ordinary senior retirees. No politician is going to beat them up, including Sanders. He'd protect the low capital gains and dividend taxes for income under $250k. Medicare for all seems like a huge (yuge?) victory for early retirees. The 0.5% tax on speculative trading would sting, but apparently is has mixed benefits: http://www.marketplace.org/2016/02/11/e ... ay-college

Ultimately, since I believe ERErs share the intrinsic economic interests of the middle class laborers more than the wealthy capitalists (I realize this may not be the gospel here, but it's my opinion), I believe an economy that asks more of the latter to lift the lifestyles of the former could only benefit ERErs.

Granted, I wouldn't want to be holding (or working for) pharmaceutical companies or insurance companies and the like, but frankly, I don't exactly like supporting them anyway. Doing so is a necessary evil we frequently see folks holding their noses over in all the "ethical investing" threads.

Like I said, I do feel like Sanders's policy ideas are clear, sound, and have been vetted by experts, and the expected effects have been found to be beneficial in the credible analyses I've seen.

So I guess my question is, which of his policies do you guys disagree with or feel would mess things up?


RE: Trump Fear:

My main fear of Trump is simply that he is actually the status quo in (clown) disguise. The problem with American politics is that it's bought and paid for by, and operates for the benefit of, the very wealthy. People hate politicians for taking money from billionaires, but electing a guy like Trump is just cutting out the middle-man. You can see the status quo shining through already in the tax plans he's released--more hand-outs for the rich that would cut federal revenue by $9.5 trillion over the next ten years. You can also see it in his rhetoric--whom he scapegoats, what problems he talks about and what solutions he offers.

To a lesser extent, I also fear the element of society that he's empowering with his divisive rhetoric, the types of thinking he's legitimizing at a national level. The idea of "political correctness" can be used to stifle and control discourse, but the opposite extreme is just as bad if not worse. True political correctness is simply the common sense/common courtesy practice of being polite and respectful of people who are different from you. When people are encouraged to think of that as a bad thing, yeah, I fear the consequences of that when such thinking is given executive power and national backing.

That's what I fear. Most of his other attributes I merely find distasteful and/or lacking for a leader. I don't think he gets a pass on his divisive rhetoric simply because he's "clowning for the primaries". I'm not all that impressed by what I know of his business experience, and moreover, I seriously question this notion that business experience even translates to governing.

I'm cringing over Adams's fawning. The OP article was bad enough in its cheerleading of, to paraphrase, Trump's ability to "brainwash" people who aren't aware that he's doing it. Makes you wonder how Adams feels about North Korea's "national branding". No time to dismantle each of his arguments as to why we shouldn't fear Trump, but these clips seem representative of where he's coming from:

"But I don't see any risk of legal citizens being deported..."

"The elephants in the room are race and gender. I’m the same race and gender as Trump, so I see no risk of him discriminating against people like me."

I'm not one to typically use the term "privilege", but come on. I'm happy for Scott Adams; with his $75 million net worth (ironically) built on the backs of pointing fun at corporate power structure in America, I'm sure he has little to fear from anything, much less who would be president. But he could at least have some self-awareness here.

[IlliniDave]

Well, regarding healthcare, this is the kind of thing people fear.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/nadeem-esm ... 33080.html

The VA is an example of a gov't run single payer subsystem here in the US. Why would anyone think they could operate an even bigger system better?

I can't speak to how effective European systems are, but most of them are small relative to what a US system would have to be.

I'm not sure that studies that look at short term benefits are accounting for the rather large future unfunded Medicare and Medicaid liabilities, which if you believe doomsayers like Bill Gross are staggering.

I like the idea of universal healthcare that is virtually free for me once I'm retired!

[slsdly]

@IlliniDave: I'd hesitate in drawing real conclusions from anything out of the Canadian think tanks, the Fraser Institute among them. They have a strong privatization bias on everything; free markets will solve all of our problems, blah, blah. I agree with them that there are problems with the Canadian system. Indeed, privatization could help with those problems. There was a recent exercise in one Ontario hospital where doctors were informed of the cost of everything they requested -- as it turns out, they were requesting things they *might* need, did not actually use, and had no idea it cost so much to do that. Thus with the support of the staff they were able to reduce costs simply through awareness. A private company offering these same services would probably be more cost conscious in the first place. But to chalk up our problems to "single payer systems are bad" is a bit simplistic.

[IlliniDave]

slsdly, not really looking to draw conclusions, just to illustrate why everyone, even on the left, isn't anxious to rush headlong into socialized medicine. When the next door neighbor is struggling, people notice. Canada is probably the most comparable model to what we'd wind up with here. It may be a brilliant and flawless success in Sweden or somewhere, but it's a problem of a different magnitude in a place like that.

I'm undecided on socialized medicine here--I certainly see advantages, but I don't buy the idea that it will provide the same or better care for less cost. Administrative challenges aside, I think just looking at the Canadian income tax rates as compared to the US will give an idea of the magnitude of the per capita costs. Socialized medicine has some good aspects, but we need to be honest about the price, and we need to think carefully about whether we want to remove the R/D facet of medicine from the free market economy and turn it over to the gov't (if we strip the profits from the enterprises to control prices, the R/D risk will have to be transferred to the gov't).

[Chad]

...we need to think carefully about whether we want to remove the R/D facet of medicine from the free market economy...

Let's not pretend that the healthcare setup is a free market. If you want to argue that keeping the current system is better than a more socialist system, that's understandable. But, we are nowhere near a free market in healthcare with our current setup.

[Slevin]

@Chad Agreed. An opaque system on the financial end with an extractive middleman in the middle (they gain x% of the costs, so higher prices benefit them, Jacob had a post on this sometime last week) is nowhere near a free market. It is a market full of informational asymmetry, where those with the information abuse it to gain the maximum profit from those given care.

@Dave, I think this is a great example where the idea of worker Co-ops (from the "New" brand of Socialist thinking) may be a great solution. They are not inherently driven by the responsibility to investors to maximize short term profits over ethics (sick-care, prescriptions with asymmetric harm/benefit) and still need to stay competitive with the other Co-ops on the financial front. I would agree that the same problems in informational asymmetry would still largely inhabit a state run health care system.

[IlliniDave]

Chad, I was thinking more along the lines of the industry that creates medical technology/drug technology (upstream investment) more so than the consumer/application end of things. The comment was in response to comments above that the single payer should effectively dictate prices for such goods/services. R&D is a high risk venture and if the reward side of it stifled then the technology companies will be unwilling to take the development risk. Maybe that's better, I dunno. But it would wind up sorta like the defense industry where the government largely foots the tab for R&D, owns most of the technology, then limits/structures the profits of the actual providers.

Slevin, I'm not arguing for or against anything, just pointing out examples of why many people are skeptical of getting free lunch out of a single-payer system. It might be a good system, or perhaps the co-ops (I don't know what those are exactly, sounds like a mutual company though) you mention are better, but either will be costly I believe.

I don't think we can just "stick it to the rich guys" to pull these big transformations off. We'll all have to share the pain I think. As it stands today we have large unfunded future medicare and medicaid liabilities and now we're talking about standing up an even bigger system that some argue will cost us all less going forward. At this point I'm skeptical.

[GandK]

...and we need to think carefully about whether we want to remove the R/D facet of medicine from the free market economy and turn it over to the gov't (if we strip the profits from the enterprises to control prices, the R/D risk will have to be transferred to the gov't).

Most such R&D happens in the US, I believe, enabled if you will by privatization. I'm now wondering how many other nations' health care systems we are subsidizing by remaining privatized in the current fashion. Other nations probably don't have to pay to develop a lot of new drugs for their citizens as long as the US is doing it for them. Worse, because we don't bargain collectively with Big Pharma and other countries do, they tend to get the new drugs far less expensively than the society that enabled the research (via low taxes and sky-high drug prices) does. This seems wrong to me.

I don't mean to imply that we should start price-gouging Europe and Canada, but I do think we should stop the price-gouging of Americans by enabling the US government, at least, to collectively bargain the way that other governments are permitted to do.

[Chad]

Chad, I was thinking more along the lines of the industry that creates medical technology/drug technology (upstream investment) more so than the consumer/application end of things. The comment was in response to comments above that the single payer should effectively dictate prices for such goods/services. R&D is a high risk venture and if the reward side of it stifled then the technology companies will be unwilling to take the development risk. Maybe that's better, I dunno. But it would wind up sorta like the defense industry where the government largely foots the tab for R&D, owns most of the technology, then limits/structures the profits of the actual providers.

Even the tech/drug area is still far from being a free market. The rest of the world tells these companies what they will pay for this equipment and these drugs, while US consumers aren't able or are prevented from making legitimate decisions concerning these purchases, due to multiple factors.

[IlliniDave]

Chad, it's basically something like what GandK described--right now the free market in this country is apparently subsidizing the rest of the world. The average cost to bring a new drug to market is over $2B. If the company cannot recoup that cost plus a reasonable return for the relatively high risk venture, they simply won't do it. The only drugs that would be cost-effective would be the recycled generics that can be sold for the cost of making the pill plus a token markup. Development of new medicines and technology in the private sector would probably no longer be viable, which would require the gov't to step in and take that over (or we could cede the point of the spear to China or someone). That's all my point is. No idea if that's a better or a worse situation than what we have today.

[jacob]

Fact check.

There are more new drugs being discovered in Europe than in the US. Also R&D dollars spent in Europe produce more new drugs per "research dollar" than is the case in the US. European drug prices handily cover R&D costs with high profit margins (30-40%) so it's not a question of gouging US consumers in order to pay for free riding Europeans. The difference between the two regions is that US companies spend much more(*) on marketing and administration than does Europe where prices are fixed (by the government) and advertising/soliciting is either outright illegal or strongly restricted; and _that_ difference is why US drug costs are higher than European drug costs.

(*) The marketing budgets of big US pharmaceuticals far exceed their R&D budgets.

See,
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/28/5/w969.full
http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7522/958 ... f_ipsecsha