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.
What do you mean "forced Obama's hand to show his birth certificate? How is that statement not rattling around in your brain as crazy and wrong. Ask yourself this if Obama was white would this even have been an issue?

This idea that he somehow has your interest's in mind is what I find so strange. I do not dismiss people that might have voted for him in 2016 (my brother did) I do dismiss people who support him now. The train wreck we see happening now was something some of us saw coming. If you did not because the 20 year effort to portray Hillary as a evil witch made the choice in 2016 "anyone but her" that I kinda understand. But now 2 years in with 3 chief of staffs, 2 attorney generals soon to be 3 US Ambassadors to the UN 3rd EPA chief, how many communications directors?. Does this not seem like someone who can "hire the best"?

Hoe does his appointment of Andrew Wheeler as EPA chief sit with you? Here is a little info about this great pick for the EPA

I think the most telling thing is he can't find a Chief of Staff to replace Kelley. The Chief of Staff job is one of the most coveted in Washington. But despite Trump's claims, he can't get any takers.

The media is frequently biased in various directions (mostly in favor of the status quo, against both ends of the political spectrum).

Rather than a bias, I think of it more in terms of what is "news". People want to hear about something different, not the same old thing. Reporting there was a car accident is not news worthy unless it was a huge pile up because car accidents are too common. There is the old joke that "dog bites man" is not a story, but "man bites dog" is.

The status quo is the norm. It's not news worthy. What is news worthy are things outside the status quo, or norm. Politicians that stand out and are different make the news and ones that are just run of the mill don't.

I don't see it as the news being for the status quo as more the news contrasts with the status quo.

Ah, I was taking a big historical view here.

Private for-profit businesses were banned by Lenin during the first round of establishing the USSR, causing an economic collapse; restored by the New Economic Program, reviving the economy; and banned again, causing another economic collapse; then revived under Gorbachev. They were banned by the Chinese Communist Party, causing an economic mess; re-legalized under Deng Xiaoping, causing an economic boom, etc.

Unfortunately, due to lack of regulation, for-profit businesses have metastatized into corrupt monopolistic cartels in Russia and into worker-abusing toxic-waste-dumping poisonous-product scammers in China, just as they did in the US in the 19th century age of "unfettered capitalism". But despite the blatant evils to which for-profit businesses can lead, I don't think banning them outright is a good idea.

Many communists do think so, however. They make *totally correct* arguments about why running an economy based on greed leads to a lot of terrible things. And it does; rewarding people for greed via the for-profit business system is actually very problematic, and leads to everything from Love Canal to robosigned foreclosure fraud. It incentivizes fraud (profitable!), theft (profitable!), worker abuse (profitable!) and pollution (profitable!).

But outright bans on for-profit businesses, as suggested by Karl Marx and actually implemented in the past in China and Russia, aren't the answer; such bans have been tried and have failed. Instead, we need to apply a lighter regulatory touch.

I missed you were talking about in communist countries.

Capitalism is not bad when it's reasonably regulated. Too restricted and the economy chokes, too little and you get what's happened in the US over the last 30 years, staggeringly huge inequity and an economy more obsessed with moving money around than actually making anything as well as booms and busts like we've seen over the last 20 years (dot com boom, housing bubble boom, the big splat in 2008, followed by the current expansion).
 
But outright bans on for-profit businesses, as suggested by Karl Marx and actually implemented in the past in China and Russia, aren't the answer; such bans have been tried and have failed. Instead, we need to apply a lighter regulatory touch.

My own preference is to have several levels of regulation, up to and including nationalization of certain businesses. (Also, states and even municipalities in some cases can run businesses that fall in a nationalization framework, even if it's not actually the nation running it.)

Businesses that are unimportant to survival and participation in society, and have minimal negative externalities: Unregulated.
Businesses that are unimportant to survival and participation in society, but do have significant negative externalities: Regulated either to directly deal with their own negative externalities, or taxed to pay for the government dealing with them
Businesses that are important to survival and participation in society: Heavily regulated to ensure that they are a net benefit to society and that everyone can survive and participate in society
Businesses that are important to survival and participation in society, but are net negative to society despite heavy regulation, or society is unable to access their products due to being priced out of reach: Nationalize them.
Businesses that are important to survival and participation in society purely because they've inserted themselves in a way that requires people to go through them, especially because of : End them or significantly restrict their business, and if their activity is something that's needed, create a national alternative to it.

Also note that if there's a need, a national solution may be warranted if the market isn't serving it.

So, someone running an Etsy shop? Unregulated, unless there's significant negative externalities to their business.

News media? Heavily regulated (with things like the Fairness Doctrine returned to use, and requirements to share their best knowledge of the truth unless it's clearly satirical).

Oil companies? Nationalize them, and create a plan to phase them out.

Healthcare? Nationalize it.

Real estate companies? Nationalize or end them and replace them depending on context.

Now here's where it gets fun... automakers, especially GM, get ended under this rule set. (See GM's killing of mass transit systems.) And, this affects Tesla because... IMO, there shouldn't be a need for Tesla's cars to ever be mass-produced. (However, the Semi is potentially useful in my ideal model, and Tesla Energy is extremely useful.) How I'd probably implement this is to replace road infrastructure with infrastructure for mass transit and for vulnerable road users (pedestrians, light vehicles like bicycles and scooters), and close increasing areas of cities off to car traffic except for emergency vehicles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
IMO, there shouldn't be a need for Tesla's cars to ever be mass-produced. (However, the Semi is potentially useful in my ideal model, and Tesla Energy is extremely useful.) How I'd probably implement this is to replace road infrastructure with infrastructure for mass transit and for vulnerable road users (pedestrians, light vehicles like bicycles and scooters), and close increasing areas of cities off to car traffic except for emergency vehicles.

Completely unrealistic for much of the country. Those of us not living in high population centers will always need mass produced vehicles.
 
This is what I keep opining about. Dismissing people as being stupid or not as informed.

There is a very hard lesson to be learned here. If it were just the 35-40% that were going to feel the consequences of learning this lesson, I would be less concerned. Regretfully, this experiment pulls us all into the pain associated with making very bad decisions.

This may very well be talking down to someone. By the same token, you are making a mistake that affects a country and democracy I love dearly. It is not a wise mistake nor one made from an informed position. Trump won the electoral college via 77k or so votes. It is a fair assessment of the facts to say-
Trump would not have been elected had it not been for Russian attacks against HC.
Trump would not have been elected had it not been for Wikileaks timed dumps of stolen emails.
Trump likely would not have been elected without the Justice Department commenting publicly on a decision not to indite.
Trump and his campaign have had more contacts with the Russians than any other presidential candidate.
Trump and his campaign have gone out of their way to tell coordinated lies about those contacts.

This is just what is reasonably well known today. Imagine what we will know tomorrow even with a biased media.

Yes, I do question someone who can, with a straight face, support the person and situation I have described above to hold the highest elected office in the country.
 
There is a very hard lesson to be learned here. If it were just the 35-40% that were going to feel the consequences of learning this lesson, I would be less concerned. Regretfully, this experiment pulls us all into the pain associated with making very bad decisions.

This may very well be talking down to someone. By the same token, you are making a mistake that affects a country and democracy I love dearly. It is not a wise mistake nor one made from an informed position. Trump won the electoral college via 77k or so votes. It is a fair assessment of the facts to say-
Trump would not have been elected had it not been for Russian attacks against HC.
Trump would not have been elected had it not been for Wikileaks timed dumps of stolen emails.
Trump likely would not have been elected without the Justice Department commenting publicly on a decision not to indite.
Trump and his campaign have had more contacts with the Russians than any other presidential candidate.
Trump and his campaign have gone out of their way to tell coordinated lies about those contacts.

This is just what is reasonably well known today. Imagine what we will know tomorrow even with a biased media.

Yes, I do question someone who can, with a straight face, support the person and situation I have described above to hold the highest elected office in the country.

Let's get some facts straight. The Russians hacked the DNC, a private organization, and released emails through Wikileaks that made Hillary look bad. No one is denying the veracity of those emails. Some Democrats and many Bernie supporters decided not to vote for Hillary, vote 3rd party, or stayed home based on those emails.

Trump didn't win this election, Hillary lost it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeQ and traxila
The Russians hacked the DNC, a private organization, and released emails through Wikileaks that made Hillary look bad.
And they did it because they had an agreement with Trump that he would drop the US sanctions on Russia due to their illegal annexation of Crimea, and Trump would get to build towers in Moscow. Pure quid-pro-quo.

The power of state sponsored electronic eavesdropping is impossible for any non-state actor to counteract (and many state actors too). This was the action of a state intelligence organization, combined with a world class propaganda machine to ratchet up the FUD You air ANY political organizations private machinations, selectively taken out of context, or course it's gonna be ugly.

So an illegal deal between Trump and Russia targeted a military grade dissinformation efforts against a political foe. That Clinton still took the popular vote is impressive against those odds.

Read all about it here: https://www.amazon.com/Proof-Collusion-Trump-Betrayed-America/dp/1982116080
 
And they did it because they had an agreement with Trump that he would drop the US sanctions on Russia due to their illegal annexation of Crimea, and Trump would get to build towers in Moscow. Pure quid-pro-quo.

The power of state sponsored electronic eavesdropping is impossible for any non-state actor to counteract (and many state actors too). This was the action of a state intelligence organization, combined with a world class propaganda machine to ratchet up the FUD You air ANY political organizations private machinations, selectively taken out of context, or course it's gonna be ugly.

So an illegal deal between Trump and Russia targeted a military grade dissinformation efforts against a political foe. That Clinton still took the popular vote is impressive against those odds.

Read all about it here: https://www.amazon.com/Proof-Collusion-Trump-Betrayed-America/dp/1982116080

Don't disagree with any of this but all Clinton had to do was to keep her hand out of the cookie jar and she couldn't do it. Trump didn't get more votes than Romney in many of those swing states. Those states that went for Trump were making a statement. I actually think they would still vote for Trump today even after all the information that's been released so far.
 
If the US ended the war on drugs, then made all the recreational drugs legal but heavily regulated (and taxed), the illegal drug trade in Central America would dry up and the gangs would starve for lack of income. That's what happened when prohibition ended in the US. The criminal gangs involved in the alcohol trade remained for a few years trying other lines of business, but eventually starved out.
The solution to the the "war" on drugs is to surrender. If you can't beat it--tax it.
 
And they did it because they had an agreement with Trump that he would drop the US sanctions on Russia due to their illegal annexation of Crimea, and Trump would get to build towers in Moscow. Pure quid-pro-quo.

The power of state sponsored electronic eavesdropping is impossible for any non-state actor to counteract (and many state actors too). This was the action of a state intelligence organization, combined with a world class propaganda machine to ratchet up the FUD You air ANY political organizations private machinations, selectively taken out of context, or course it's gonna be ugly.

So an illegal deal between Trump and Russia targeted a military grade dissinformation efforts against a political foe. That Clinton still took the popular vote is impressive against those odds.

Read all about it here: https://www.amazon.com/Proof-Collusion-Trump-Betrayed-America/dp/1982116080

My SO has been following Abramson for a while and really wants that book. It's on order for Christmas.

Don't disagree with any of this but all Clinton had to do was to keep her hand out of the cookie jar and she couldn't do it. Trump didn't get more votes than Romney in many of those swing states. Those states that went for Trump were making a statement. I actually think they would still vote for Trump today even after all the information that's been released so far.

I don't think so. The Upper Midwest swung back into the D column pretty strongly in this year's elections. CNN had an analysis up on their site a few days ago of exit poll results. In 2016 Trump won non college educated whites overall by a pretty healthy margin, but in the midterms the non-college white vote split. Evangelicals, both college and non-college went for Republicans in a big way, both men and women, college and non-college, all were over 70% for Republicans. Among non-Evangelical, non-college educated whites (more common in the upper Midwest), men went for Republicans, but smaller than 2016 and women went for Democrats 57/41. College educated non-Evangelical whites went for Democrats by healthy margins.

Basically Trump's support is crumbling back to just white Evangelical Christians. A relatively large coalition, especially in some states, but far from enough to win anything above a local race.

Trump's coalition is cracking - CNNPolitics

The solution to the the "war" on drugs is to surrender. If you can't beat it--tax it.

Yup!
 
  • Informative
Reactions: neroden
Basically Trump's support is crumbling back to just white Evangelical Christians. A relatively large coalition, especially in some states, but far from enough to win anything above a local race.

Warning: I'm going for the third rail....

"Evangelical Christians" are getting what they want in that a morally bankrupt President

-Yes, I believe the two women.
-Trump committed a felony campaign finance violation to pay for their silence just before the election.
-I believe the guy on the Access Hollywood video describing his approach to women.

who is a criminal

-See the point about campaign finance above.
-Likely to come out in the near future is money laundering as his recovery method from bankruptcy.

is making lifetime appointments to the bench.

Really?

This is about as unbelievable as getting all done up in white fancy dress to parade around your own gilded city in Italy all while heading up the largest world wide criminal conspiracy known to this planet. This is all the more insane when you take into account that the people involved profess to posses the moral high ground while they employ, enable and cover up one of the worst of all crimes - the destruction of innocence for physical pleasure - child sexual molestation.

Folks, we are off the rails. I'm not talking about crazy gun toting outrage shooting up a pizza parlor in NY because of some whack job internet based conspiracy about HC running a criminal ring out of it; I'm talking about people actually running criminal rings right out in the open and we are not doing anything about it.

In Florida, if you do not very carefully clean your counters at night to remove any sugar, big palmetto bug roaches will appear in the dark.
If you leave enough sugar out, they will appear in the daylight and scatter when you enter the room.
If you leave even more sugar out, they will not even bother to scatter when you come into the room.

 
Last edited:
Evangelicals, both college and non-college went for Republicans in a big way, both men and women, college and non-college, all were over 70% for Republicans....
Basically Trump's support is crumbling back to just white Evangelical Christians.

So, his backing is literally a religious cult.

The fact that they're following someone who basically fits their profile of the Antichrist is really disturbing. Some are probably doing it deliberately to try to bring about the Apocalypse, because that's a thing with many white evangelical "Christians". (The same group trying to cause the End Times backs Israel for the same reason -- because they think it's a required step in destroying the world.)
 
So, his backing is literally a religious cult.

The fact that they're following someone who basically fits their profile of the Antichrist is really disturbing. Some are probably doing it deliberately to try to bring about the Apocalypse, because that's a thing with many white evangelical "Christians". (The same group trying to cause the End Times backs Israel for the same reason -- because they think it's a required step in destroying the world.)

I've made the same ironic observation. I've also thought the person in Congress who is probably walking the talk with the Christian message the best is Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish. But my childhood teachings stressed the "by their actions ye shall know them" philosophy.

Many religious scholars think "forcing the end" is bad form, but some American Evangelicals think that's what they are supposed to do.

I was also thinking about my comments the other day that there are some jobs you can't get native born Americans to do. A lot of it goes back to poverty consciousness. Some people are poor, but don't get trapped in that mindset and they are willing to do anything they need to, including taking a demeaning job for a while, to get out of poverty. In some cases maybe they won't make it out, but they want their kids to. A lot of immigrants have that attitude, which is why they are willing to do a lot of jobs others won't do.

Poverty consciousness can become pervasive in a population when a population is beaten down and kept in poverty for generations. A pervasive attitude can seep in that this particular population is at the bottom of the pecking order and while they want it to stop, they don't think it will. A lot of study with this has been done on African American populations, but it's also very pervasive in some white groups too.

The Appalachians have had a poverty consciousness for hundreds of years. The poor hillbilly is an American meme, but it has a basis in truth. Poor Southern whites can also have this consciousness. Near the tail end of the industrial revolution a lot of Appalachians ended up getting recruited for factory work in the Upper Midwest and things did get better for them financially for a generation or two, but they never shook the poverty consciousness and when the economy turned against them, it just compounded their mindset.

One thing that goes along with poverty consciousness is disrespect. Many people with this mindset are hyper sensitive to being disrespected and may have out of proportion reactions to incidents. Taking a demeaning job is a sign of disrespect and it really punches their buttons.

For someone who doesn't have the mindset, a demeaning job is just something you endure and get on with your life. But for someone with the mindset, a demeaning job is an attack on their dignity as a human being. Something that is severely challenged to begin with. So they will either not take those jobs, or will quit when they feel disrespected by it.

It means we have a lot of jobs that native born could use, but won't do because of what amounts to PTSD from being poor for many generations. This isn't just an American thing. It exists in many countries around the world. It contributed to the Brexit vote in the UK.

It's also something that fuels Donald Trump supporters. His "Make America Great Again" slogan went over big with the poverty consciousness whites whose fathers and grandfathers made good money at the factory, but the family now struggles to get by on scraps. They had poverty consciousness to begin with which they went back to when times got bad.

White collar workers tend to figure out something to do when the company they worked for kicks the bucket. I have a friend who knew a lot of people at Enron. They had all tried to get her on there, but she was working other gigs and she smelled something wrong with Enron. It was devastating in the short term for all her friends when the company went under, but as the shock wore off, they went out and found something else to do. Nobody she knew ended up on welfare.

When white collar people end up on the streets en masse, a lot will be unemployed for a while, but entrepreneurship tends to spike and those new businesses end up hiring up those who stick around. Silicon Valley took a hit from the dot com crash, but it rebounded and you wouldn't know that there were many doom and gloom predictions about the place 16 years ago.

The trick is how do we end poverty consciousness and replace it with the sort of attitude immigrants have? Nobody has come up with a good solution yet.
 
Last year it was 8 men, then it was down to 6 and now it’s almost 5.

While Americans fixate on Trump, the super-rich are absconding with our wealth, and the plague of inequality continues to grow. An analysis of 2016 data found that the poorest five deciles of the world population own about $410 billion in total wealth. As of 06/08/17, the world’s richest five men owned over $400 billion in wealth. Thus, on average, each man owns nearly as much as 750 million people.

<snip>
Full article at:
Five Men Own Almost as Much Wealth as Half the World’s Population
 
I've made the same ironic observation. I've also thought the person in Congress who is probably walking the talk with the Christian message the best is Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish. But my childhood teachings stressed the "by their actions ye shall know them" philosophy.

Many religious scholars think "forcing the end" is bad form, but some American Evangelicals think that's what they are supposed to do.

I was also thinking about my comments the other day that there are some jobs you can't get native born Americans to do. A lot of it goes back to poverty consciousness. Some people are poor, but don't get trapped in that mindset and they are willing to do anything they need to, including taking a demeaning job for a while, to get out of poverty. In some cases maybe they won't make it out, but they want their kids to. A lot of immigrants have that attitude, which is why they are willing to do a lot of jobs others won't do.

Poverty consciousness can become pervasive in a population when a population is beaten down and kept in poverty for generations. A pervasive attitude can seep in that this particular population is at the bottom of the pecking order and while they want it to stop, they don't think it will. A lot of study with this has been done on African American populations, but it's also very pervasive in some white groups too.

The Appalachians have had a poverty consciousness for hundreds of years. The poor hillbilly is an American meme, but it has a basis in truth. Poor Southern whites can also have this consciousness. Near the tail end of the industrial revolution a lot of Appalachians ended up getting recruited for factory work in the Upper Midwest and things did get better for them financially for a generation or two, but they never shook the poverty consciousness and when the economy turned against them, it just compounded their mindset.

One thing that goes along with poverty consciousness is disrespect. Many people with this mindset are hyper sensitive to being disrespected and may have out of proportion reactions to incidents. Taking a demeaning job is a sign of disrespect and it really punches their buttons.

For someone who doesn't have the mindset, a demeaning job is just something you endure and get on with your life. But for someone with the mindset, a demeaning job is an attack on their dignity as a human being. Something that is severely challenged to begin with. So they will either not take those jobs, or will quit when they feel disrespected by it.

It means we have a lot of jobs that native born could use, but won't do because of what amounts to PTSD from being poor for many generations. This isn't just an American thing. It exists in many countries around the world. It contributed to the Brexit vote in the UK.

It's also something that fuels Donald Trump supporters. His "Make America Great Again" slogan went over big with the poverty consciousness whites whose fathers and grandfathers made good money at the factory, but the family now struggles to get by on scraps. They had poverty consciousness to begin with which they went back to when times got bad.

White collar workers tend to figure out something to do when the company they worked for kicks the bucket. I have a friend who knew a lot of people at Enron. They had all tried to get her on there, but she was working other gigs and she smelled something wrong with Enron. It was devastating in the short term for all her friends when the company went under, but as the shock wore off, they went out and found something else to do. Nobody she knew ended up on welfare.

When white collar people end up on the streets en masse, a lot will be unemployed for a while, but entrepreneurship tends to spike and those new businesses end up hiring up those who stick around. Silicon Valley took a hit from the dot com crash, but it rebounded and you wouldn't know that there were many doom and gloom predictions about the place 16 years ago.

The trick is how do we end poverty consciousness and replace it with the sort of attitude immigrants have? Nobody has come up with a good solution yet.

In education we now pay more attention to grit as a success factor. May also be true for immigrants. Who has grit and who doesn't may depend upon role models. True in my case, but I never had the urge to be superb in everything. Just getting by with the least effort was my motto.

I was cleaning a bannister in our fraternity one day, when an upper classman I greatly admired asked "what keeps you going?" I thought but didn't say, "people like you." He had a near straight A average, was Chair of the Intrafraternity Council, and a power in other student government. Also, he was a scholarship student who had humble economic beginnings. He wore suits all the time, but they were polyester.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: neroden
We need to demand that wealth is accrued only from adding value. Of course we will debate the definition of value but at least we will have started the conversation. It is the human condition to take the easy way out and that applies to the acquisition of wealth and power. If we can do it the wrong way, it seems we prefer to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.