Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Market politics

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prayer is an irrational waste of time, so I'll pass.

Like most of our psychology prayer is irrational—markets too. People are wrong about the purpose of prayer. When you pray for the well-being of others one does so to feel better about things; prayer is for the prayees. Buddha was right about changing one's attitude in the face of adversity and clearly right in fixing responsibility where it belongs, on ourselves, for our psychic and moral well being. That personal responsibility is probably why he had so much criticism of established religions, as we do for established politicians and traditional parties.

Karma is really just "what goes around, comes around," to quote some famous poet. Irony, my dear friends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johann Koeber
When you pray for the well-being of others one does so to feel better about things; prayer is for the prayees.
Of course, people have been conditioned to believe they are "taking action" and feel better "doing something". It's quite dangerous when done instead of taking real potentially beneficial action. It serves no purpose if you realize you are actually doing nothing. I can honestly say there has never been a moment in my life when I even considered it for a moment as an option any more than I've ever considered trying to cast a spell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
Correct, except for 21 states who have not bound electors. FairVote - States that bind electors
I don't think this means what you seem to think it means. Even in most of those states, all of the electors come from the party that wins the popular vote in that state. Sure, they don't have to vote for their own candidate... but they almost universally do.
 
We do a lot of things to avoid doing what we ought to do. I certainly agree that using good wishes as a substitute for concretely available action is wrong. What is beneficial is a ritual designed to wish well for all, including those who have offended us. It helps me to get outside of myself at least once a day. But then I'm constantly fighting an undeserved yet over weening ego—not true of all, of course.

We do think along the same lines in some ways. I wondered about what you call a spell. Wishing others ill is a curse not a prayer. Now I'm quibbling over words, a sign of senility,
 
  • Funny
Reactions: STARR X
Or karma is real and that's why Trump is president... [ducks and runs]

It may be collective karma for not learning the lessons of GW Bush. Or not learning the collective karma about racism and too many blindly ran the wrong direction when a racist ran after the first black president?

Whether Russia is doing this or not, it seems the electorate doesn't rank the Russia story very high at all.

Immigration Surges to Top of Most Important Problem List

The "Situation with Russia" doesn't even rank above 1%.

One of the problems with these sorts of questions is few polls ask follow up questions with the "why". For years the ACA/Obamacare polled below 50% approval and the Republicans thought the public was on their side when they got the reigns of power only to find out that a fair chunk of those who did not approve of the ACA didn't think it went far enough.

I feel more comfortable socializing here than I did with colleagues when a full-time teacher. Part of that is because teaching about foreign governments and international relations is usually a multi-disciplinary enterprise. I learned more from historians, philosophers, economists, geographers, etc., than fellow teachers of government. Hence I am pleasantly surprised by the enlightened discourse here, but I shouldn't be. It is possible my prejudice that the wealthy are insulated from Christian concern for the poor is misplaced. (I assume, and hope, you are all wealthier than we.)

Probably not I. I make a reasonable living, but I'm far from rich. From observation I've seen different types of rich people. There are two types of self made wealthy, those who happened to get wealthy doing something to create something new and has some benefit for the world, and those who got rich ripping people off (including those who found a legal loophole to do it). The latter tend to be all about themselves and the former tend to still have middle class values. Most came from the middle class and still see them as their peers.

Inherited wealthy can go either way. Some are entitled twits who think the world should bow down to them because they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and others learned somewhere along the way that they were born with a gift and it's their duty, not their privilege. The latter are more likely to do good with their wealth.

Also there are different flavors of Christianity who choose to believe different things. Calvanism took the idea in a very different direction from the Catholics and the Protestants who didn't move as far from Catholicism in their practices (mostly Church of England and Martin Luther's branch).

I'm not at all convinced Trump is successful in any way. He was successful in having a wealthy father. In manhood (and I use the term loosely) he darkens everything he touches. Where would he be without bankruptcy laws? Signs of success? His electoral success depends on the weakness of others, both his supporters, his opponents, ignorance of voters, lazy reporters, venal business tycoons, and the list goes on.

Karma implies consequences for one's actions. What is it Jefferson said, "I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just?" My wife prays for the benefit of others and thus earns possible credit toward her sins in past lives. I can't imagine Trump praying; that would acknowledge existence of a higher power. That's really sad. We must pray for him, non-believers as well. Who is it who said "they know not what they do?"

To get somewhere in the same universe as investing, pray for the shorts too. Other losers.

Trump has one and only one talent. He can convince a certain demographic of people to buy whatever he's selling. At absolutely everything else he's a compete idiot. If he hadn't been born rich, he probably would have been a successful used car dealer at one of those places that advertises financing for those who struggle to afford a car.

I forced myself to really listen to him talk a few weeks ago. First I listened to the words and it was incomprehensible word salad. Some people have transcribed his speeches and his incoherence is really on display if you read it. But then I tuned out the words and listened to his cadence.

When someone like Barack Obama speaks, he's either reading from a teleprompter where he keeps up his cadence because the words are in front of him, or he speaks like Elon Musk often does with a lot of pauses, "ums" and such. Both Elon and Obama do it because they are actually trying to think and talk at the same time.

When Trump reads off a teleprompter, he's boring as watching grass grow because he's not in his element. When he's freewheeling, his cadence is that of someone who is supremely confident in what he's saying. He never pauses for words. He mispeaks all the time, but covers it by saying "and the right term" or doesn't bother to correct at all. He projects the air of someone who knows what he's talking about even when it's obviously utter horse pucky.

At this point its a pretty sure bet he's a Malignant Narcissist (the worst form of Narcissistic Personality Disorder). Giving someone like that power is like feeding a mogwai after midnight (the movie Gremlins), but a narcissist that far gone is absolutely sure of themselves. At this point I would not be surprised if Trump thinks of himself as a god. Literally.

I have had a brush with a personality disorder and my SO has had a couple of family members (one blood the other by marriage) with them. They are rare which hides their danger because they do not think like "normal" people. Their personality disorder warps their universe around the filters of their condition and they act on these weird perceptions.

Rick Wilson says, "remember everything Trump touches dies!"

Correct, except for 21 states who have not bound electors. FairVote - States that bind electors

I hate the idea of binding electors. It's a corruption of the intent of the body in the first place. They have become a rubber stamp of the general election result. Originally the president was not elected by popular vote because the framers of the constitution thought the general public were idiots. But while I do like the popular vote, the electoral college should serve as a backstop to prevent a nut job from becoming president.

After this mess is over it will be time for some new laws and a constitutional amendment with some new requirements for being president. I think there should be two more requirements:
1) To become president a person must obtain the highest level of security clearance, and they must maintain it. If they do anything that would cause any other federal employee to lose their clearance, they are out.
2) Public service: to be president a person must have held for at least x years one or a combination of: elected office with a constituency at least as large as the smallest congressional district in the country, a high level appointed office (cabinet post), or served as flag rank in the military.

Some of the powers of the president need to be reigned in by statute. Right now the president is allowed to declassify anything at any time. They should still have broad powers to do so, but must do it in writing ahead of time and a reason must be given for the change. The Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate can review them at any time for any reason and if they feel its invalid, they can send it to a judge to determine if the president's security clearance should be lifted.

If Trump had held any kind of public office before running for president, he probably would have gotten nowhere because all his opponents could point to the poor job he did. He was able to sluff off a lot of the criticisms because he had no record in office.
 
Hence my point that the college failed to act as intended.

The Founders explicitly opposed parties, or "factions" as they called them, and wanted the electoral college to prevent an unfit person from becoming President. They're on the record about this -- it's easy enough to look up. This failed totally.
 
1) To become president a person must obtain the highest level of security clearance, and they must maintain it. If they do anything that would cause any other federal employee to lose their clearance, they are out.
This is a bad idea. The CIA type operators are proven to be bad actors and can play loony games by denying security clearances, while also giving security clearances to Russian moles.

I would, rather, suggest that it be made absolutely clear that there is no such thing as "Presidential privilege"; that the President can be prosecuted for any crimes by any federal, state or local DA, and must show up just like any other citizen who is charged with a crime. I think that would do the trick.

We also need a separately elected federal Attorney General, like most states have. It's obvious that having the President select the AG is no good.

Some of the powers of the president need to be reigned in by statute. Right now the president is allowed to declassify anything at any time.
Most of the powers of the President need to be stripped. Another major problem is that the government is allowed to *classify* anything. Overclassification is a problem -- it's used to cover up criminal activity, pretty routinely, which is illegal, but nobody's stopping it.

If Trump had held any kind of public office before running for president, he probably would have gotten nowhere because all his opponents could point to the poor job he did. He was able to sluff off a lot of the criticisms because he had no record in office.
Maybe, but I point to George W. Bush, and Andrew Cuomo, as counterexamples; they had awful records of incompetence in public office, and it didn't stop them.

I believe in structural fixes. Approval voting and the national popular vote for President. Party-proportional representation for the House (ending gerrymandering). Elected attorney general (again, approval voting and the national popular vote). 14-year terms for the Supreme Court. Transfer the appointment-related powers of the Senate to the House, and introduce a "Parliament Act" so that the House can override the Senate in a crisis. Then we'd have something approximating a parliamentary democracy, rather than the joke we have today.
 
Like most of our psychology prayer is irrational—markets too. People are wrong about the purpose of prayer. When you pray for the well-being of others one does so to feel better about things; prayer is for the prayees.
Well, if it makes you feel good, great. Doing bullshit like prayer or wishing good towards evil people just makes me depressed and angry, so I don't do bullshit like prayer. This may be a psychological difference between those on the autism-spectrum and those not.

I also don't do pointless rallies -- the very common sort where they're just to raise the spirits of the ralliers -- because I find them depressing and exhausting. This is definitely an introvert vs. extrovert thing.

So maybe this sort of stuff works for some psychologies, which is fine, do it if it works for you, but for some of us, it's a counterproductive use of our time. Meditation, exercise, clearing one's mind of all thoughts of worthless evil people -- much more productive. I try to only think about worthless evil people when I'm making practical plans to figure out how to deal with them; the rest of the time, they aren't even worth a thought.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Johann Koeber
Prayer is an irrational waste of time, so I'll pass.


Trump is the consequence of a failed electoral system which did not perform as it was supposed to. Let's not pretend the other candidate or the preceding president were just as bad as Trump simply because they had their own issues.

The point was that we are accelerating in the wrong direction.
Our frog is being boiled in that we accept ever more corrupt politicians and ever more influence from money. Heck, even the Russians are spending money on our elections. Just as bad, depends on your point of view. Both bad and unacceptable, depends on fact. I do not care if they are bad to the point of beyond a reasonable doubt as that is not my standard for pubic service and it should not be the electorate's standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
This is a bad idea. The CIA type operators are proven to be bad actors and can play loony games by denying security clearances, while also giving security clearances to Russian moles.

No process is perfect, but checks and balances can be added to the process of getting security clearances to make it more consistent and less prone to corruption. We need something akin to security clearances for anyone handling these things.

I would, rather, suggest that it be made absolutely clear that there is no such thing as "Presidential privilege"; that the President can be prosecuted for any crimes by any federal, state or local DA, and must show up just like any other citizen who is charged with a crime. I think that would do the trick.

It's possible SCOTUS may settle that question in the next year or so. Since the memo written during the Nixon administration the Supremes have ruled the president is not above the law for civil cases, it is a small step to say the president is not above the law for criminal matters either.

We also need a separately elected federal Attorney General, like most states have. It's obvious that having the President select the AG is no good.

My SO suggested that the AG and top DOJ people should be promoted from within elected by other DOJ employees.

Most of the powers of the President need to be stripped. Another major problem is that the government is allowed to *classify* anything. Overclassification is a problem -- it's used to cover up criminal activity, pretty routinely, which is illegal, but nobody's stopping it.

It has been a problem.

Maybe, but I point to George W. Bush, and Andrew Cuomo, as counterexamples; they had awful records of incompetence in public office, and it didn't stop them.

Both Bush and Cuomo have traded on their name. But Trump is an order of magnitude worse than GW was.

I don't know what to do about it, but something needs to be done to classify news as the factual reporting of events and opining on the news as something else. Fox News exists to promote Republican propaganda. Though that might be ending in a few years. Their demographic is among the oldest TV viewers and Rupert Murdoch's sons are not fans. They will likely make changes when Murdoch dies. It still doesn't prevent someone from doing it again.

Fox News enabled Bush to come to power as well as Trump. Trump was the logical conclusion of the Fox BS machine.

I believe in structural fixes. Approval voting and the national popular vote for President. Party-proportional representation for the House (ending gerrymandering). Elected attorney general (again, approval voting and the national popular vote). 14-year terms for the Supreme Court. Transfer the appointment-related powers of the Senate to the House, and introduce a "Parliament Act" so that the House can override the Senate in a crisis. Then we'd have something approximating a parliamentary democracy, rather than the joke we have today.

Something that opens the door wider for third parties would be good too. The Republicans have been able to become the mess they are because only the two major parties can realistically hold power. There is finally talk of forming a new right party by the former Republicans who are sane and fed up with the cult the GOP has become. The problem is under the current system a new right party will spend 10 or more years out in the wilderness if they succeed at all. The Libertarians have been trying to crack into the "big leagues" for 40 years and they still are "also rans" in virtually every election.
 
Something that opens the door wider for third parties would be good too.
So, *this* I know. I've studied election theory since the 1980s. The reason we have a two-party system is something called "Duverger's Law" (you can look it up) -- it's simply game-theory mathematics. The result of the first-past-the-post single-member districts.

If we had *party-proportional representation* in the legislature (anything from party-list to multi-member Single Transferrable Vote), it wouldn't apply. If we had *approval voting* for Presidents and Governors, it wouldn't apply. In both cases the door would be MUCH more open for third parties.

Unfortunately, "instant runoff voting" still leads to a two-party system (that's the game-theory math for you), so that doesn't help.

The Center For Election Sciences is a not-for-profit trying to educate about this. People don't realize that there is mathematical modelling (and empirical evidence) for which election systems are prone to which forms of failures of democracy, which ones force third parties out, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sean Wagner
I took a much grosser look at this in teaching comparative government classes. (I'd never heard of Single Transferrable Vote or STV, but was aware of ranking systems' and their superiority.) Proportional representation is obviously a more democratic system in that in principle a variety of parties can be represented in legislatures. Usually the downside is getting to a situation where a governing coalition is possible. Sometimes in French history and more frequently in Italy's experience, being able to form a government is often impossible. The French term for it is "immobilisme," if I remember correctly. Never knew the Italian usage, probably something like "normalisme" or just hands in the air and a shrug. (No slur intended, my wife does the same and it is not possible for her to have a drop of non-Asian blood. I nonetheless accuse her.) In Israel's case with proportional, the governing coalition for conservatives requires coalition with the most insane far right religious parties imaginable. Hence Israel's foreign policy is nuts for both Israel and its neighbors and U.S. policy, as the dog being wagged, is the same now.

The advantage of our's and the British system is a tendency to two party results, now not so "normal." The German system is widely touted as the best since it is a mixture of the two and yet has a local element strengthening federalism. Too complicated to understand how it works, even for most Germans. I understood it for a semester or two before I retired, but I'm too old to bother looking it up. (Our textbooks didn't describe it well either.)

I remember being advised to read Maurice Duverger's work. Read a few articles, but not books. That goes back to about 1962!

Neroden, you are an absolute monster of a mind. When do you ever get a life? I worry about you as much as I worry about Musk!
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden and dm28997
Yesterday's NYT had a great article re divisions within the Dems.

Opinion | The Democratic Party Picked an Odd Time to Have an Identity Crisis

A very useful summary of experts on the issue. The biggest takeaway I get is the dangers of talking about "rights" which leads rightly or wrongly to hardening of positions, which we don't need. He doesn't give this example but it helps me understand Trump supporters better. When a woman or minority talks about their issues as a "right," I can imagine a white guy saying, "what about my rights?"

We're all humans yet cursed with an individual consciousness. That curse has creative advantages, of course. But issue framing is required for communication. As Edsall points out Democratic politicians often futz things so compromise is possible. But the rank and file and during campaigns...?

I forgotten who said it but I like the pundit who once said: "cynicism is the rust of democracy." Demanding a "right" may be the plaque of democracy, the bad cholesterol.
 
The black swan that worries me most is the one with the orange hair.



We live in a multivariate world, which is the math term for the best laid plans of mice and men...

Tesla is on the cusp of building the best midsize premium car in the world at a very profitable scale, but it isn’t just direct competition that could send things sideways. A trade war, a coup in China or a war in the Middle East can all have unintended consequences. There aren’t a lot of black swans out there, but they are hardly endangered species either.

What the hell do I know. Not a trader, occasionally making short term bets when the world seems really crazy, but I don’t have the juevos to put every dime on the line.

Good luck, if you win , I’ll win too.[/QUOT
 
Not really sure what thread to put this in. It relates to the Trump administration trying to stop CA from putting restrictions on automakers.

It’s a series of tweets from Mary Nichols, chair of the CA air resources board. In it she talks about CA history in leading the way to reduce particulates and auto emissions. It’s quite a good and informative set of posts. Check it out.
Mary Nichols on Twitter
 
  • Like
Reactions: EinSV
I've posted it on other forums but it is worth adding here (IMO)-

ANYONE can boost the economy by eliminating regulation. Most of us would prefer to have some rules of engagement (aka regulation) so that we do not live in a Lord of the Flies world. The key is sensible regulation and prosperity and that is double tough requiring talented administrators. We will not attract talent to public service until we eliminate money in politics. Until the money goes, all we will do is attract ever more morally and criminally corrupt candidates (note - gender neutral statement).

All it takes is 80% of the electorate to decide money in politics is like yelling fire in a movie theater. Sure, its free speech but the price is too high. The bummer for me is there appears to be 35% on each side that reject reality for their tribe/leader which leaves 30% remaining to do the thinking for all of us. You can not get 80% from that equation :(
 
I've posted it on other forums but it is worth adding here (IMO)-

ANYONE can boost the economy by eliminating regulation. Most of us would prefer to have some rules of engagement (aka regulation) so that we do not live in a Lord of the Flies world. The key is sensible regulation and prosperity and that is double tough requiring talented administrators. We will not attract talent to public service until we eliminate money in politics. Until the money goes, all we will do is attract ever more morally and criminally corrupt candidates (note - gender neutral statement).

All it takes is 80% of the electorate to decide money in politics is like yelling fire in a movie theater. Sure, its free speech but the price is too high. The bummer for me is there appears to be 35% on each side that reject reality for their tribe/leader which leaves 30% remaining to do the thinking for all of us. You can not get 80% from that equation :(

The Founding Fathers were aware of this problem and is why they fought for a small central government (enumerated powers) to limit the amount of corruption at the federal level. The idea was that corruption could be better controlled at the local level.

The US is overly regulated today and unfortunately most of that is regulatory capture.

Expecting to remove money out of politics is like asking a kid to give up his lollipop. Ain't gonna happen!
 
I've come to accept it is not going to happen but only because voters are too stupid to not be played by the Roves/Carville's of this world.

It "just" takes 80% of us to say that being an American means believing in the rule of law and one voice one vote. If we could limit the conversation to just that then it is easy to understand that my giving a dollar to a candidate makes my voice that bit louder then yours. Regretfully, we are too stupid to talk to each other. We just want to get on our side and blame the other side for all that is bad without regard for fact or solutions.
 
I've posted it on other forums but it is worth adding here (IMO)-

ANYONE can boost the economy by eliminating regulation. Most of us would prefer to have some rules of engagement (aka regulation) so that we do not live in a Lord of the Flies world. The key is sensible regulation and prosperity and that is double tough requiring talented administrators. We will not attract talent to public service until we eliminate money in politics. Until the money goes, all we will do is attract ever more morally and criminally corrupt candidates (note - gender neutral statement).

All it takes is 80% of the electorate to decide money in politics is like yelling fire in a movie theater. Sure, its free speech but the price is too high. The bummer for me is there appears to be 35% on each side that reject reality for their tribe/leader which leaves 30% remaining to do the thinking for all of us. You can not get 80% from that equation :(

Eliminating regulation might cause a short term boost to the economy, but it will likely hurt the economy down the line.

Eliminating regulation is an idea that came from the Libertarians. A Libertarian who was disappointed that the party was getting nowhere about 20 years ago decided to seed libertarian ideas into both parties. The Democrats embraced a lot of the social libertarian ideas which has led to same sex marriage and marijuana legalization in some states. The Republicans have embraced the elimination of regulation and that's where I believe Libertarian ideals go off the rails.

The libertarian argument is that if there were no government regulations, everyone would self regulate and the world will be fine. That works OK in a world where 100% of the population has a conscience and is fully aware of how their actions impact the whole. With no regulatory framework, one bad actor or a few can bring down the entire structure.

When credit default swaps started, someone who saw where it could lead tracked down Alan Greenspan in a restaurant and told him where it could lead. Greenspan refused to believe that they would be a problem because he did not believe that anyone would do anything as dangerous to the economy as pushing bad loans into the pools, which is exactly what happened.

The Deep Water Horizon happened because the Bush administration had gutted the regulatory agency that monitors refineries and drilling rigs. The rest of the oil industry saw what cutting corners could do and largely self regulated, but BP saw an opportunity to make a few more bucks and cut corners like mad until disaster struck. The petroleum engineers on the Deep Water Horizon saw something was wrong and raised the alarm, but they were overridden by the BP manager.

Some industries do a relatively good job of self regulating. Bar associations police bad lawyers. The boundaries vary by state and most legal clients don't know they can file a complaint on a bad lawyer, but most lawyers I know are always concerned about getting reprimanded by the disciplinary board. My SO has had a couple of bar beefs that went nowhere (the most recent was filed by an ex-client on the urging of his new attorney in another case because the new attorney had screwed up and was trying to blame someone else. My SO prevailed, but her case was reviewed in detail and she had to document she had done nothing outside the rules.)

States also have medical boards to police bad doctors.

Where an industry is doing a decent (nothing will ever be perfect) job of regulating itself, we don't need outside regulation. But in places where a failure could result in something catastrophic (like economic collapse, a massive oil well blow out, or a nuclear meltdown) we need an external and impartial regulatory framework and the best one to do that is the government.

There are cases where the regulators have been corrupted, like in the case of the FDA, but government regulation is necessary, not for you and me, but for those who would cut corners and hurt all of us.

The Founding Fathers were aware of this problem and is why they fought for a small central government (enumerated powers) to limit the amount of corruption at the federal level. The idea was that corruption could be better controlled at the local level.

Some did, some didn't. The argument between a strong central government vs the states having the bulk of the power goes back to the founding of the republic. The Articles of Confederation were much more state-centric and they failed. The size and role of the central government was the main bone of contention between Adams and Jefferson.

The US is overly regulated today and unfortunately most of that is regulatory capture.

The US has too much regulatory capture, but I disagree that it's overly regulated. There is some dumb regulation, but there are also pending disasters that are unregulated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.