Market politics

[Fermi Paradox]

Welcome to the political corner

I think a lot of it might just be a rejection of Bernie by the Democratic core because he's an outsider. He has made it clear throughout his political career he's not a Democrat except when he's running for president. To the party leaders they see Bernie using the Democratic party as a flag of convenience and reject him because of it.

Agreed, the Democratic establishment (aka Republican light) is just one of many interests that he'll have to fight.

Other prominent Democrats with views similar to Bernie are embraced because they have demonstrated they are also loyal to the party. Warren was under a lot of internal party pressure to endorse Hillary in 2016 because Bernie was the outsider trying to hijack the party mechanism.

Indeed. I didn't say it was easy for Warren to not endorse Hillary. But the fact that she did, shows me that she does not have the political courage necessary to actually implement progressive policies given that all Republicans and most of the Democrats will fight to keep the corrupt system in place. Pelosi is the perfect example: She's doing everything in her power to discredit people like AOC or Ilhan Omar and the policy ideas they represent.

In a way Bernie's campaign in 2016 was similar to Trump's. Both were outsiders to the party they were running for who were trying to grab the nomination away from the establishment candidates. Bernie failed to win, but Trump managed to seize control of the Republican party. One of the differences between the parties is the Republicans these days only care about winning. If Joseph Stalin came back from the dead, ran as a Republican, and won, they would embrace him.

Partially agree. Yes, Trump and Bernie both ran as anti-establishment candidates. Trump actually promised similar policies to Bernie (ending the wars, stopping outsourcing and helping the forgotten middle class, etc.) which is why he won. However, Trump turned out to be a typical establishment Republican after all. He decreased taxes for the rich, increased outsourcing, is implementing anti-immigrant policies, and might be about to start the next war. He's the perfect Republican except that he is too open about his bigotry for their liking. Jeb Bush actually mentioned this in an interview where he said he loves all of Trump's policies but essentially does not approve of his style.

The Democrats have more concern about doing things the right way and whether you agree with it or not, they believe that the presidential candidate should be someone who had been a Democrat for more than a minute before declaring.

To the vast majority of people who aren't party insiders, the whole rejection of Bernie seems odd. His political views these days overlaps with a number of elected Democrats.

At least that's my take on it.

Not sure if the Democrats fight tooth and nail to keep Bernie out of office because he's an independent. I'd rather attribute it to them wanting to keep the corrupt system up and running. I'd characterize the order of goals of the Democrats as follows:

1) Beat Bernie
2) Beat Trump

Bernie is what Democrats are supposed to be. That's why he threatens so many "real" Democrats.

100% agree.

 

[Intl Professor]

This summer my wife is taking a history course required for graduation from roughly Reconstruction after the Civil War to the present day. She has her first paper due tomorrow about the contradictions of various wings of the Progressive era when a frontal attack on racial injustice is, for example, tempered by Booker T. Washington's redirection toward self-improvement through education and preparation for employment in a time of rapid technological and economic change. Even more complicated was the Suffrage Movement for women which had strains of racism and anti-immigrant focus in the quest for clean government.

It struck me how parallel are today's quandaries of the progressive movement. Moving toward a sustainable future with many technical changes, such as deep learning and AI, people have many new opportunities yet others are left behind. The very deep bench of Democratic presidential candidates offers many partial remedies yet is hung up on the dilemma of what to do about Biden who offers little new but a focus on defeating Trump.

Compromise is still the order of the day.

As I've said before on this forum I think Elizabeth Warren should be at the top of the ticket.

Here is a largely sympathetic article from the New Yorker on her campaign with a brief criticism of her policy positions. Like Bernie she too has been tilling the field of progress for decades and more concretely.

Can Elizabeth Warren Win It All?

 

[Mader Levap]

You completely misunderstand my point.

Your point can stand without silly hyperbole like "half of USA's GDP".

 

[Cartegena]

Forbes points out that this number is more than the U.S. defense budget and “ten times the federal spending for education.”

Why is the federal government spending a cent on education? It's a local matter, mostly even below a state-level concern.

Forbes seems to be not above working both sides of the street:

Debunking Myths About Federal Oil & Gas Subsidies

 

[SO16]

While I agree with the US military being at least partially an oil subsidy, our military spending is not half of GDP, it's like 3-4% of GDP (~$700 billion):

Military expenditure (% of GDP) | Data

Does that include the healthcare costs of PTSD and other medical issues our military personnel encounter?

Does that budget include the Iraq war of 2 trillion plus all by itself?

Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study - Reuters

 

[ZachF]

Does that include the healthcare costs of PTSD and other medical issues our military personnel encounter?

Does that budget include the Iraq war of 2 trillion plus all by itself?

Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study - Reuters

Not sure if it includes vet care, but it does include spending on wars.

15 years at ~$150b per year sounds about right for Iraq ($2 trillion)... all of it borrowed too, so we're probably spending a permanent ~$60b per year just to cover the interest on that war now.

Look, I'm like the last person to defend MIC bloat, but incorrect facts & figures does no one any help.

 

[Intl Professor]

Not sure if it includes vet care, but it does include spending on wars.

The earliest mention of this order of magnitude was by Stiglitz, a nobel prize winning economist. He noted it was so high because it included veterans' expense in later years.

 

[bhtooefr]

The Democrats have more concern about doing things the right way and whether you agree with it or not, they believe that the presidential candidate should be someone who had been a Democrat for more than a minute before declaring.

 

[Intl Professor]

If you believe, as my most conservative Catholic friend did, that Christ was the first communist, then Democratic Socialism might just be Christian Capitalism. Just labels, yes, but that's what language is for.

 

[neroden]

OT

The U.S. defense budget IS a subsidy to fossil fuels.

People say we get cheap oil from the Middle East, but what does it cost annually to keep the US Sixth Fleet on constant patrol in the Eastern Med? What does it cost for a single 'sabre-rattling' sortie of a Carrier Group into the Persian Gulf? How much of the R&D budget pays for weapons that will only ever be used to protect oil-soaked medieval autocracies?

Yeah, it's not listed as a budget item. Hint: it's like HALF of the U.S. GDP. Not the Federal Budget; the G.D. GDP.

How embarrassing.

In the even bigger picture, the US has been backing Saudi Arabia solely to secure the oil supply -- there's obviously no other reason to back them -- they're both a brutal and abusive regime, and they're totally disloyal to the US (as was reinforced by the murder of Khashoggi).

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabian fortunes (from Americans buying oil from them) have been going to set up extremist Wahhabbi madrassas to spread a depraved, heretical version of Islam around the world, thus causing "Islamic terrorism" to appear in countries which had always previously followed peaceful versions of Islam, like Indonesia. Saudi Arabian money also went to establish al-Qaeda, which was run by a Saudi (bin Laden), and 15 Saudi citizens were joined by 4 others to make the 19 hijackers on 9/11.

The hijackers might even have been trained by Saudi government officials. These connections were covered up by the G W Bush administration (the "28 pages" which were redacted).
Alleged Saudi role in September 11 attacks - Wikipedia

Meanwhile, the US support for the brutal dictatorship of Saudi Arabia alienates all reasonable people in the Muslim world and causes anti-US sentiment worldwide.

The US support for Saudi Arabia is a subsidy for fossil fuels. A subsidy which has cost the US its reputation in a large part of the world, and killed thousands of innocent people, including Americans.

 

[neroden]

As I've said before on this forum I think Elizabeth Warren should be at the top of the ticket.

The polls are moving in the right direction. She's in the #3 position in the (primary) polls right now. But she's the candidate currently seeing a surge up in poll numbers, while Biden and Bernie are fading.

Warren would be a fine President.

Here is a largely sympathetic article from the New Yorker on her campaign with a brief criticism of her policy positions. Like Bernie she too has been tilling the field of progress for decades and more concretely.

Can Elizabeth Warren Win It All?

 

[SO16]

The polls are moving in the right direction. She's in the #3 position in the (primary) polls right now. But she's the candidate currently seeing a surge up in poll numbers, while Biden and Bernie are fading.

Warren would be a fine President.

Warren could have supported Bernie. She hee hawed around and then supported Hillary even though Bernie aligned more with Warren.

Warren/Hillary says and does things based on how the wind is blowing. Bernie has stuck to the same message for decades.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Warren is an absolutely horrendous politician, which is obviously a wonderful character traits, but doesn't help one get elected.

Secretary of the Treasury.

 

[Unpilot]

OT



In the even bigger picture, the US has been backing Saudi Arabia solely to secure the oil supply -- there's obviously no other reason to back them -- they're both a brutal and abusive regime, and they're totally disloyal to the US (as was reinforced by the murder of Khashoggi).

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabian fortunes (from Americans buying oil from them) have been going to set up extremist Wahhabbi madrassas to spread a depraved, heretical version of Islam around the world, thus causing "Islamic terrorism" to appear in countries which had always previously followed peaceful versions of Islam, like Indonesia. Saudi Arabian money also went to establish al-Qaeda, which was run by a Saudi (bin Laden), and 15 Saudi citizens were joined by 4 others to make the 19 hijackers on 9/11.

The hijackers might even have been trained by Saudi government officials. These connections were covered up by the G W Bush administration (the "28 pages" which were redacted).
Alleged Saudi role in September 11 attacks - Wikipedia

Meanwhile, the US support for the brutal dictatorship of Saudi Arabia alienates all reasonable people in the Muslim world and causes anti-US sentiment worldwide.

The US support for Saudi Arabia is a subsidy for fossil fuels. A subsidy which has cost the US its reputation in a large part of the world, and killed thousands of innocent people, including Americans.

Would give this a double Love if I COULD. To say the support of SA is an unmitigated disaster would be putting it lightly.
When the "kingdom" falls....and it surely will that place will make Syria look like a resort.

 

[wdolson]

The polls are moving in the right direction. She's in the #3 position in the (primary) polls right now. But she's the candidate currently seeing a surge up in poll numbers, while Biden and Bernie are fading.

Warren would be a fine President.

I am concerned about her wealth tax idea. It would hand companies like Tesla to the Chinese.

Though her idea would take the help of Congress and it's probably unlikely to get through, even with a massive shift in Congress in 2020.

I am concerned about a president who is too much of a one trick pony. She is not really much of a foreign relations wonk, though there aren't too many in the pack who are. But overall she would be a breath of fresh air after 40 years of Republican control of the narratives. She probably would be effective at sweeping in the 7th Party System which Obama was unable to do.

Warren is an absolutely horrendous politician, which is obviously a wonderful character traits, but doesn't help one get elected.

Secretary of the Treasury.

Make her AG and cut her loose on the money laundering networks. Pass some laws against some the the currently legal, but highly unethical games played by the Wall St billionaires and watch them quake in their boots.

 

[Intl Professor]

I am concerned about her wealth tax idea. It would hand companies like Tesla to the Chinese.

Color me dense, but how would that work? Isn't she talking about a nominal 2% per year? We pay about 3% of annual income for property tax or .625% on value of the house or .25% of net worth. I have no idea how taxes on Chinese work for the wealthy. If top party leaders, low penalties are given, according to a NYT study two years or so ago.

 

[neroden]

So the lunatics in the White House or the Pentagon appear to be illegally sending surveillance drones over Iran, which Iran promptly and appropriately shot down. (I do not believe the Pentagon's claims that they were over international waters; the Pentagon has a very long and well-documented history of lying about this.)

If the White House instigates war with Iran, it would be suicide. Every military analyst says so; every geopolitical analyst says so.

If they started a self-destructive war with Iran, the best case outcome would be for 2/3 of the Senate to vote to invoke the War Powers Act, declare peace with Iran, and then quite probably impeach Trump and remove him from office.

If the Senate didn't do its job (very likely), the worst-case outcome would be the dissolution of the United States -- the vast majority of the people want nothing to do with a fourth Middle Eastern quagmire war, and the state governments would eventually be forced to refuse to cooperate with the idiotic war (withdrawing the National Guard from the President's authority, cutting power to federal military bases, etc.)

----
(For those who doubt how much of a disaster a US attack on Iran would be: The degree to which the US would lose is overspecified.

First of all, the US would immediately lose access to Turkey; that's the only political move for the Turkish government, and they'd take it. Pakistan would almost certainly shut down US access, since it already did so once and had to be bribed heavily to reopen access. Russia would most certainly help shut down US supply chains, and can completely shut down all traffic for the US from the north of Iran. (Though they might supply Iran with support.) This would lead to the internship of every US soldier trapped in Afghanistan.

Russia already has Syria as a client state and would probably kick the US out. Anti-US sentiment would destroy the ability of the US to operate in Iraq and Syria, though US soldiers might be able to escape through Saudi Arabia. European countries would be under very strong pressure to stop assisting the US, and so the supply chain from the West would probably be dead too.

Millennium Challenge 2002 demonstrated that Iran can probably sink 1/3 of the US Navy in a week. They have already landed and dissected previous US drones; they can probably hack and control some of them. They've proven they can shoot these drones down. Everyone agrees that they can shut the Persian Gulf pretty much immediately.

Even if the US somehow got land forces into Iran, there is nowhere near enough of an army to occupy even a tiny bit of the country; the rule of thumb for *easy* occupations would require 4 million ground troops, and this would be a hard occupation. And the US army already has awful morale, because nobody wants to be sent to the quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq. Adding a third, even worse quagmire would lead to even lower recruitment and substantial desertion and refusal to deploy. Plus, if trying to attack Iran, the US couldn't really move the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, which are contiguous.... so basicall ythey'There's no way the US could ever get a large enough occupation force.

And of course, the US army is essentially useless -- a Potemkin army full of overpriced hardware (paying for military contractors' vacations to Vail) which refuses to update its tactics, strategy, grand strategy to fit reality.

Saudi Arabia is on the verge of overthrow, and having the US send Christian troops there to attack Muslims -- even if they are attcking Shia Muslims -- has inflamed popular sentiment there in the past, to the point where the Saudis have really made great efforts to get the US out of their bases and to make them hide when they are there. So it's unlikely the US could operate from Saudi bases for long before the country became a hostile environment. The extremely under-equipped Yemeni opposition to the Saudis was capable of striking Riyadh already.

Congress already told Trump to get the US out of Yemen and he refused. Congress will have even more votes to tell Trump to get out of Iran. Funding is not going to be forthcoming. Pretty much everyone recognizes the fake gin-up of lies to excuse war from the Iraq War, and it's not going to be effective this time -- the last lie campaign was too recent.

Trump doesn't even want to start a war in Iran.

TLDR: Iran has every military advantage, the US has none, and no domestic or international support.)

 

[Intl Professor]

I could say Doofus, but I won't, you obviously leave out Trump's plan B, using nukes. We already have accounts for Trump's ignorance on that score from his first secretary of state. Reportedly at his first Pentagon briefing on nuclear weapons he asked, something to this effect, "why have the weapons if you don't use them?"

There's a real reason among some Evangelicals to consider him the Anti-Christ.

 

[wdolson]

Color me dense, but how would that work? Isn't she talking about a nominal 2% per year? We pay about 3% of annual income for property tax or .625% on value of the house or .25% of net worth. I have no idea how taxes on Chinese work for the wealthy. If top party leaders, low penalties are given, according to a NYT study two years or so ago.

The tax is on your net worth, not on income or a single piece of property. For most entrepreneurs, virtually all their wealth is tied up in stock in the company they founded. All taxes on some kind of asset, like property tax is assessed on a given date and then has to be paid at a later date. For people who's wealth is tied up in stocks, they need to sell stock to pay the tax.

Because many large investors will be dumping stock at once to pay the tax, the stock market will go down around tax time and instead of having to sell 2% of their stock, they might have to sell 3-4%. Because most American investors will be selling and not buying, foreign buyers with long term goals will be buying up the dumped stock.

This will happen every year, not just once. Over time the founders of these companies will lose control of their companies to foreign investors who will promptly move the company out of US jurisdiction, probably laying off a lot of American workers when they do. The youngest, fastest growing American companies would cease being American companies.

For people who are just investors like Warren Buffet, he can sell a selection of his stock and it won't make a big difference to the overall economy.

The big problem I have with Warren is she fails to distinguish between people who are wealthy because they created something new and have never had a significant portion of their wealth in anything but stock in their company and those who are wealthy because they either found a loophole in the US financial system and exploited it, or were just savvy investors.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

The tax is on your net worth, not on income or a single piece of property. For most entrepreneurs, virtually all their wealth is tied up in stock in the company they founded. All taxes on some kind of asset, like property tax is assessed on a given date and then has to be paid at a later date. For people who's wealth is tied up in stocks, they need to sell stock to pay the tax.

Because many large investors will be dumping stock at once to pay the tax, the stock market will go down around tax time and instead of having to sell 2% of their stock, they might have to sell 3-4%. Because most American investors will be selling and not buying, foreign buyers with long term goals will be buying up the dumped stock.

This will happen every year, not just once. Over time the founders of these companies will lose control of their companies to foreign investors who will promptly move the company out of US jurisdiction, probably laying off a lot of American workers when they do. The youngest, fastest growing American companies would cease being American companies.

For people who are just investors like Warren Buffet, he can sell a selection of his stock and it won't make a big difference to the overall economy.

The big problem I have with Warren is she fails to distinguish between people who are wealthy because they created something new and have never had a significant portion of their wealth in anything but stock in their company and those who are wealthy because they either found a loophole in the US financial system and exploited it, or were just savvy investors.

Couldn't the BOD grant new options to compensate for the decreasing share ownership? Elon Musk is a unique case, but most other Founders don't reject a salary AND have all their wealth tied up with a single company. The non-founding CEO's are even less invested.

Even for passive investors, 2% per year means you'll get poorer each year, but at an asymptotic rate (tax owed would be 2% of a smaller amount each year, unless the investments appreciate faster than 2% annually).