2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

251 to 300 of 7,079 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Samy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

We need better free trade agreements, but free trade agreements are crucial to maintaining a stable and peaceful world.

Free trade stops wars. Then we figure out...

Free trade, however, has also resulted in all the blue collar jobs going away, when manufacturing is offshored to Bangladesh. And that's going to result in cities burning probably within our lifespans. True, countries won't go to war because they have so much to lose anymore. They'll burn from within because the people have nothing anymore.

It's important to note that the US doesn't have any free-trade agreements with Bangladesh (we don't have them with almost any East or South-East Asian countries). So keep in mind, not having one didn't prevent outsourcing any jobs there, so it's kind of a red-herring.


Samy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
See the part where I said we need better free trade agreements?
"Better" and "free" are more or less mutually exclusive here. Either you restrict trade so that companies can't offshore, providing domestic jobs -- but then it's not a free trade agreement. Or you have a free trade agreement, which by definition is free, and allows for convenient offshoring and loss of domestic jobs.

Are you making the claim that it is impossible for two countries to engage in trade that is mutually beneficial? Because for what you're saying to be true, it would have to be impossible.

Otherwise, if it IS possible that two countries can engage in mutually beneficial trade, your point is false.

Let's start with a simple concept. I have some milk cows. You have some chickens. Would it be possible for you and I to trade milk and eggs that resulted in us both being able to have nicer meals? Or do you consider this concept to be impossible?

If this seems like an ultra simplification, well, I had to make it super simple, because this is a basic concept you're attempting to disprove.


I'm against Free Trade myself. I think it is responsible for the Loss of US manufacturing.

Manufacturing has actually INCREASED over the past 2 decades, but most of the jobs have gone elsewhere.

Ironically, even though the US has lost a lot of jobs to those locations, I believe the US is actually manufacturing MORE these days than it did in the past (though what that manufacturing actually is, is beyond my knowledge).

I'd all for heavily taxing Imports. Tax them the heck. In addition, former US businesses that move headquarters elsewhere...triple or quadruple their taxes for ANYTHING in the US.

Tax their owners sky high, and if they want to do away with their citizenship, say, that's okay for a one time tax of 99.9% of everything you own. And if they refuse...enforce it by force.

The US would slam into a depression so quick, it would probably be in the depths and dirges for at least 2 or 3 years, maybe half a decade until manufacturing started to return.

At that point, the US would probably start returning to a better balance.

The other nations may want to tax us equally, at which point, we agree. We won't ship them food (we feed 25% of the world at this point, some say as high as 50-75%), and let their food prices sky rocket to levels where they probably will be BEGGING us to trade again, at any price we want as long as it's lower than what they have to pay already.

But that's my take. The republicans are responsible for NAFTA (even if Clinton signed it, it was a Bush creation and a Bush LEGACY). I feel they are the ones pushing for TPP even if democrats also support it.

I think part of the push for Bernie was disgust at how the middle class has been sold out for the elites, how much of the middle class can't afford simple things like an education, healthcare (people praise the ACA, but what is the meaning of health insurance when you have a deductible at $6000 a year...that's not a deductible, that's a...your insurance is worthless and you might as well just not have it instead of giving insurance companies money).


Irontruth wrote:
Samy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
See the part where I said we need better free trade agreements?
"Better" and "free" are more or less mutually exclusive here. Either you restrict trade so that companies can't offshore, providing domestic jobs -- but then it's not a free trade agreement. Or you have a free trade agreement, which by definition is free, and allows for convenient offshoring and loss of domestic jobs.
Are you making the claim that it is impossible for two countries to engage in trade that is mutually beneficial? Because for what you're saying to be true, it would have to be impossible.

That's not the claim Samy is making, although it's also certainly defensible when you consider that countries can "benefit," in the abstract, from things that don't necessarily benefit everyone in those countries.

Quote:


Let's start with a simple concept. I have some milk cows. You have some chickens. Would it be possible for you and I to trade milk and eggs that resulted in us both being able to have nicer meals? Or do you consider this concept to be impossible?

This trade doesn't necessarily benefit the person who was selling you eggs before you cut a trade deal that undercut him. In fact, it's probably to his detriment.

The same thing applies at the country level; if Freedonia has an excess of dairy capacity which it sells to Sylvania in exchange for their eggs, then the Freedonian egg farmers are going to be hurt. Indeed, the whole point of such a deal is that it raises the supply of eggs for Freedonia, which reduces the income of the Freedonian egg farmers.

This is probably to the overall benefit of Freedonia as a whole -- after all, everyone gets the advantage of cheaper eggs, while only a small minority of egg farmers (and people who make egg farming equipment, and egg wholesalers, and so forth) will be hurt. So economists can correctly claim that this is a beneficial trade.... but whom does it benefit? The Fredonian egg farmers will almost certainly vote against any politician who suggests this particular trade.

----

But the other thing to note, of course, is that this particular "free trade" pact is neither absolute nor all-encompasing. As the owner of a Freedonian winery, I don't suddenly get new markets when the "milk for eggs" deal goes through; I still face whatever trade barriers are are in place in Sylvania. And even the Freedonian dairy farmers may well still be subject to Sylvanian general laws regarding the dairy industry. If, for example, Sylvania has outlawed raw milk (as the FDA has in the USA), they will probably insist that Freedonian milk must also be pasteurized if it is to be sold in Sylvania.

Does this violate "free trade"? In the absolute sense, of course. This may still make it economically infeasible for Freedonian dairies to meet the Sylvanian standards, while Sylvanian eggs flood the Freedonian market. But most economists wouldn't consider this to be unfree.... just lopsided. That would (in my opinion) be an example of a "bad" free trade pact, not because it was unfree, but because the negotiating team were idiots who didn't do their homework.


Actually US manufacturing output is skyrocketing again. We did have a slump in 2007~2009 but our absolute ability to manufacture is vast.

The problem is we don't need as many people to achieve this and the skill level needed for the task is low as well meaning it is not as well paying in absolute terms as before and there isn't as much of it jobwise to go around.

Yes we have lost manufacturing jobs overseas too which acts as a double whammy but outsourcing is not the single cause of this problem by a long shot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:


Yes we have lost manufacturing jobs overseas too which acts as a double whammy but outsourcing is not the single cause of this problem by a long shot.

But it's a great and understandable cause, which fits well onto a postcard or a bumper sticker. No one is going to campaign against robots and 3D printers -- but there are people on this very thread complaining about offshore manufacturing and outsourcing.


IMHO there will need to be a massive re-education program going soon. 3-D printing, robots, AI, loss of jobs overseas, ect. will cost more jobs than will be made and they will not go away. The question is, what do these people do now that they are out of work?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sharoth wrote:
IMHO there will need to be a massive re-education program going soon. 3-D printing, robots, AI, loss of jobs overseas, ect. will cost more jobs than will be made and they will not go away. The question is, what do these people do now that they are out of work?

Well programming is something that will be useful well into the future. Networking knowledge too, and the thing with both is they increase our security posture as a nation as well.

There are far too many people ignorant of technology as a whole and network infrastructure specifically.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Samy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

We need better free trade agreements, but free trade agreements are crucial to maintaining a stable and peaceful world.

Free trade stops wars. Then we figure out...

Free trade, however, has also resulted in all the blue collar jobs going away, when manufacturing is offshored to Bangladesh. And that's going to result in cities burning probably within our lifespans. True, countries won't go to war because they have so much to lose anymore. They'll burn from within because the people have nothing anymore.

See the part where I said we need better free trade agreements? Did you read that part, or just skip over it? Cause it's important. Like, really important to my stance. It's so important, that skipping over it or ignoring it makes a response to my stance a little pointless.

I'd like to stress once more, it's important.

As a thought on that, doesn't China have a gaggle of trade agreements? China seems perfectly willing if they feel the need to go to war in spite of those agreements.

Ah, yes, they apparently do: 14 signed with 5 more under negotiation.

I'm not sure who on that list is supposed to be the counterexample.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
IMHO there will need to be a massive re-education program going soon. 3-D printing, robots, AI, loss of jobs overseas, ect. will cost more jobs than will be made and they will not go away. The question is, what do these people do now that they are out of work?
Well programming is something that will be useful well into the future.

While I might agree with that in theory -- although programming is actually a job that is very easy to outsource, as millions of US-based programmers have found out -- that doesn't actually answer the question asked.

It's very easy to wave your hands and say "all of the old lathe operators should learn how to program computers." That is, in fact, more-or-less the officially stated position of the Democratic party for the past thirty or so years (the Republican position, as stated above, is more like "suck it up, Buttercup.") The problem is that retraining is hard, retraining is time consuming, retraining does not allow you to support your family, and once you've retrained as a computer programmer, you've still got the problem that there aren't jobs near you, and even if there are jobs near you, you're still fifty-five years old and subject to rampant age discrimination.

To put it in perspective, there are, in 2014, about the same number of "metal and plastic machine workers" in the United States as there are "software developers" -- just over 1 million each. How many new programmers do you think the industry can absorb? [The Department of Labor suggests about 50-100,000 new programmers per year, which is a phenomenal number, but there are also roughly 60,000 new CS graduates per year.] Moving from a machine shop to Google is actually a very hard jump to make....

Telling these people displaced by robotic lathes "let them learn to program" is about as useful as telling starving French peasants "let them eat cake."


Coriat wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Samy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

We need better free trade agreements, but free trade agreements are crucial to maintaining a stable and peaceful world.

Free trade stops wars. Then we figure out...

Free trade, however, has also resulted in all the blue collar jobs going away, when manufacturing is offshored to Bangladesh. And that's going to result in cities burning probably within our lifespans. True, countries won't go to war because they have so much to lose anymore. They'll burn from within because the people have nothing anymore.

See the part where I said we need better free trade agreements? Did you read that part, or just skip over it? Cause it's important. Like, really important to my stance. It's so important, that skipping over it or ignoring it makes a response to my stance a little pointless.

I'd like to stress once more, it's important.

As a thought on that, doesn't China have a gaggle of trade agreements? China seems perfectly willing if they feel the need to go to war in spite of those agreements.

Ah, yes, they apparently do: 14 signed with 5 more under negotiation.

I'm not sure who on that list is supposed to be the counterexample.

Semi-counterexample. My only point is that despite having 14+ trade agreements, China is probably willing to throw down over its South China Sea expansion.


Reshoring and DFI (direct foreign investment) is returning manufacturing jobs to the US just recently at a pace greater than they are leaving. One of the reasons is simple labor costs. Chinese et al wages are dramatically increasing, the manufacturing facilities there are aging and the Pacific Ocean is a big place, so QA is done there instead of here.

Localized production - i.e., producing goods in the market/nation they are to be sold in - has been increasing steadily. Shortens supply chains, reduces shipping and warehousing costs, QA is often VASTLY improved and - best of all - reduces or eliminates the need to order production runs by the shipload.

The jobs are returning: 5 to 6 million "blue collar" jobs exist right now in the US. Trade schools cost about a fourth of what a 4 year degree does. Averaged salary difference between a trade school graduate and a B.S. degree was $3,000 a year in 2013. The trade school graduate starts working 2 years earlier, incurring far less student loan indebtedness. Non-manufacturing "blue collar" jobs are effectively impossible to outsource. Plumbers don't fly across the planet to fix your busted toilet.

Some scholarships exist for trade schools. More than a few trade employers offer paid training.

The odds are that manufacturing jobs and the attendant need for skilled tradespeople are going to increase, at an accelerating pace.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
IMHO there will need to be a massive re-education program going soon. 3-D printing, robots, AI, loss of jobs overseas, ect. will cost more jobs than will be made and they will not go away. The question is, what do these people do now that they are out of work?
Well programming is something that will be useful well into the future.

While I might agree with that in theory -- although programming is actually a job that is very easy to outsource, as millions of US-based programmers have found out -- that doesn't actually answer the question asked.

It's very easy to wave your hands and say "all of the old lathe operators should learn how to program computers." That is, in fact, more-or-less the officially stated position of the Democratic party for the past thirty or so years (the Republican position, as stated above, is more like "suck it up, Buttercup.") The problem is that retraining is hard, retraining is time consuming, retraining does not allow you to support your family, and once you've retrained as a computer programmer, you've still got the problem that there aren't jobs near you, and even if there are jobs near you, you're still fifty-five years old and subject to rampant age discrimination.

To put it in perspective, there are, in 2014, about the same number of "metal and plastic machine workers" in the United States as there are "software developers" -- just over 1 million each. How many new programmers do you think the industry can absorb? [The Department of Labor suggests about 50-100,000 new programmers per year, which is a phenomenal number, but there are also roughly 60,000 new CS graduates per year.] Moving from a machine shop to Google is actually a very hard jump to make....

Telling these people displaced by robotic lathes "let them learn to program" is about as useful as telling starving French peasants "let them eat cake."

Sorry I didn't mean to offer it as a silver bullet, or absolute solution. However programing is going to become one of those skills like reading and writing that you simply have to have.

The issue is our current technological knowledge saturation is still low.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Are you making the claim that it is impossible for two countries to engage in trade that is mutually beneficial?

Nope. Only the claim that the less trade barriers (taxes et al) there are, the easier it is to offshore jobs.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Samy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
See the part where I said we need better free trade agreements?
"Better" and "free" are more or less mutually exclusive here. Either you restrict trade so that companies can't offshore, providing domestic jobs -- but then it's not a free trade agreement. Or you have a free trade agreement, which by definition is free, and allows for convenient offshoring and loss of domestic jobs.
Are you making the claim that it is impossible for two countries to engage in trade that is mutually beneficial? Because for what you're saying to be true, it would have to be impossible.

That's not the claim Samy is making, although it's also certainly defensible when you consider that countries can "benefit," in the abstract, from things that don't necessarily benefit everyone in those countries.

Quote:


Let's start with a simple concept. I have some milk cows. You have some chickens. Would it be possible for you and I to trade milk and eggs that resulted in us both being able to have nicer meals? Or do you consider this concept to be impossible?

This trade doesn't necessarily benefit the person who was selling you eggs before you cut a trade deal that undercut him. In fact, it's probably to his detriment.

The same thing applies at the country level; if Freedonia has an excess of dairy capacity which it sells to Sylvania in exchange for their eggs, then the Freedonian egg farmers are going to be hurt. Indeed, the whole point of such a deal is that it raises the supply of eggs for Freedonia, which reduces the income of the Freedonian egg farmers.

This is probably to the overall benefit of Freedonia as a whole -- after all, everyone gets the advantage of cheaper eggs, while only a small minority of egg farmers (and people who make egg farming equipment, and egg wholesalers, and so forth) will be hurt. So economists can correctly claim that this is a beneficial trade.... but whom does it benefit? The...

Do you see the part where Samy said "more or less mutually exclusive"? Did you read that part? Do you agree with it?

I don't want to go off on other tangents. I want to talk about THAT ONE PART first.


Irontruth wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Samy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
See the part where I said we need better free trade agreements?
"Better" and "free" are more or less mutually exclusive here. Either you restrict trade so that companies can't offshore, providing domestic jobs -- but then it's not a free trade agreement. Or you have a free trade agreement, which by definition is free, and allows for convenient offshoring and loss of domestic jobs.
Are you making the claim that it is impossible for two countries to engage in trade that is mutually beneficial? Because for what you're saying to be true, it would have to be impossible.
That's not the claim Samy is making,
Do you see the part where Samy said "more or less mutually exclusive"? Did you read that part? Do you agree with it?

I did, and if you accept an unrealistically absolutist definition of "free trade agreement," (the one Samy posed) there exists only one possible free trade agreement, and hence there can be neither a "better" or "worse" free trade agreement. It only makes sense to talk about comparatives when there are two items to actually compare.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Samy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
See the part where I said we need better free trade agreements?
"Better" and "free" are more or less mutually exclusive here. Either you restrict trade so that companies can't offshore, providing domestic jobs -- but then it's not a free trade agreement. Or you have a free trade agreement, which by definition is free, and allows for convenient offshoring and loss of domestic jobs.
Are you making the claim that it is impossible for two countries to engage in trade that is mutually beneficial? Because for what you're saying to be true, it would have to be impossible.
That's not the claim Samy is making,
Do you see the part where Samy said "more or less mutually exclusive"? Did you read that part? Do you agree with it?
I did, and if you accept an unrealistically absolutist definition of "free trade agreement," (the one Samy posed) there exists only one possible free trade agreement, and hence there can be neither a "better" or "worse" free trade agreement. It only makes sense to talk about comparatives when there are two items to actually compare.

Did I indicate that I hold to this unrealistic definition of "free trade"? I don't think I did. If I did, I apologize, because that's not my intention. So, you can stop trying to explain how it's an unrealistic definition, because I agree, it's not a good definition, nor was it the one I was working with.

In fact, my post was about how it was an unrealistic definition.

So.... I'm not sure why you're responding to me and not someone else.


Irontruth wrote:


Did I indicate that I hold to this unrealistic definition of "free trade"?

No, but you did indicate that you had neither read nor understood Samy's post to which you were responding, because what you wrote was a complete non sequitur.

Quote:


In fact, my post was about how it was an unrealistic definition.

No, it wasn't, because it didn't address the issue of "free trade" at all. Unfree trade agreements (even in the loose sense) can still be mutually beneficial. For example, I could negotiate a trade agreement that reduces but does not eliminate tariffs, or that imposes less restrictive quotas than normal. Neither of those are free trade agreements, but they're probably more beneficial than strongly protectionist policies.

Quote:
I'm not sure why you're responding to me.

Because you're more wrong than Samy is. Which, given Samy's fundamental misunderstanding of "free trade," is quite an accomplishment.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Because you're more wrong than Samy is. Which, given Samy's fundamental misunderstanding of "free trade," is quite an accomplishment.

LOL :D


Orfamay Quest wrote:

Because you're more wrong than Samy is. Which, given Samy's fundamental misunderstanding of "free trade," is quite an accomplishment.

What part specifically did I say that was wrong? Don't veer off into things I didn't say, or parts I haven't talked about yet. Stick to what I've said.

Cause I whole-heartedly agree with everything you've said on trade agreements. Your analysis is pretty much the analysis I would write, so I'm SUPER interested where you and I are both wrong.

Edit: let me do a longer edit before you respond.

1. I said I'm for better trade agreements. I'm generally for free trade, because I'm not in favor of protectionism. I don't believe in unregulated trade, because I'm not for an economy without regulation. I believe our economy should be highly regulated and I would extend that to our trade agreements as well.

2. I posted how I was against a reductionist view of someone else's definition of the term "free trade agreement".

That's the extent of what I've posted concerning economics in this thread. What thing in either of those points do you consider particularly heinous and wrong?


All I know is I'm getting sick of bugs being blown in my face to keep the fan going in the window so I don't blow out some brain cells...


Irontruth wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Because you're more wrong than Samy is. Which, given Samy's fundamental misunderstanding of "free trade," is quite an accomplishment.

What part specifically did I say that was wrong?

[...]

1. I said I'm for better trade agreements. I'm generally for free trade, because I'm not in favor of protectionism. I don't believe in unregulated trade, because I'm not for an economy without regulation. I believe our economy should be highly regulated and I would extend that to our trade agreements as well.

2. I posted how I was against a reductionist view of someone else's definition of the term "free trade agreement".

Both points 1. and 2. You did not post that you were for better trade agreements -- you posted that you were for "better free trade agreements," a point that evidently confused Samy, and you didn't actually correct him.

You did not post that you were against a "reductionist" anything.

The fact that you're unfamiliar with the contents of your own posts doesn't bother you?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Looks like Clinton is getting the expected 'convention bounce'. Polls are about where they were before either convention... Clinton about six points ahead and just some small decreases in the 'undecided' and 'other' categories.

Given that ~90% are already saying that they won't change their minds, it seems unlikely that results will shift much either way between now and the election. Barring some game changing 'October surprise' type event of course.

If so, Trump has some major hurdles to overcome. He'll need to win all three of the big battleground states (Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) to pull it off.

Sovereign Court

Thomas Seitz wrote:
All I know is I'm getting sick of bugs being blown in my face to keep the fan going in the window so I don't blow out some brain cells...

Maybe you should start a thread about being without AC.

Sovereign Court

CBDunkerson wrote:

Looks like Clinton is getting the expected 'convention bounce'. Polls are about where they were before either convention... Clinton about six points ahead and just some small decreases in the 'undecided' and 'other' categories.

Given that ~90% are already saying that they won't change their minds, it seems unlikely that results will shift much either way between now and the election. Barring some game changing 'October surprise' type event of course.

If so, Trump has some major hurdles to overcome. He'll need to win all three of the big battleground states (Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) to pull it off.

In my experience, at this point little either candidate does or says will change folks minds. What will change their minds are events in the country that are considered significant. Economic or violent attacks at key points in election season can do a lot to shift the numbers. I suppose how the candidates react to those events will affect voter opinion, but they still need events to be exceptional. Otherwise we are on cruise control until November.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Unless of course, if you bad mouth gold star parents because they criticized you. Or, if you don't even realize your BFF had already invaded a country you wouldn't let him invade.

Then, what you say might have an effect.


CBDunkerson wrote:


If so, Trump has some major hurdles to overcome. He'll need to win all three of the big battleground states (Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) to pull it off.

On the other hand -- or maybe on the same hand, I'm not sure -- Fivethirtyeight.com and similar sites put Trump ahead in two of those states (FL and OH) and have PA balanced on a razor's edge. Fivethirtyeight.com gives the election to Clinton right now, but not by any sort of comfortable margin, and well below what the betting markets like Betfair have.

So if you're a Clinton supporter, or even merely anti-Trump, "don't get cocky, kid."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

Unless of course, if you bad mouth gold star parents because they criticized you. Or, if you don't even realize your BFF had already invaded a country you wouldn't let him invade.

Then, what you say might have an effect.

Sadly, not likely. If Trump saying stupid offensive stuff was going to hurt him, he never would have gotten this far.

Maybe this time will be different. We'll see.


If you keep piling s~!! around your ankles, eventually you can't escape from it. :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know, TheJeff, moving from primary voters to general voters may change the equation. (He said in a naive tone of voice, while blinking optimistically.)


GJ @ 13%...


thejeff wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

Unless of course, if you bad mouth gold star parents because they criticized you. Or, if you don't even realize your BFF had already invaded a country you wouldn't let him invade.

Then, what you say might have an effect.

Sadly, not likely. If Trump saying stupid offensive stuff was going to hurt him, he never would have gotten this far.

Maybe this time will be different. We'll see.

That's -- or that could be -- the difference between primary and general voters. The New York Times has an interesting graphic on its front page right now showing that only 9% of Americans voted for Trump or Clinton as candidate, meaning only one person in 20 is on record as a Trump supporter.


Apparently not content with the bait and switch...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Because you're more wrong than Samy is. Which, given Samy's fundamental misunderstanding of "free trade," is quite an accomplishment.

What part specifically did I say that was wrong?

[...]

1. I said I'm for better trade agreements. I'm generally for free trade, because I'm not in favor of protectionism. I don't believe in unregulated trade, because I'm not for an economy without regulation. I believe our economy should be highly regulated and I would extend that to our trade agreements as well.

2. I posted how I was against a reductionist view of someone else's definition of the term "free trade agreement".

Both points 1. and 2. You did not post that you were for better trade agreements -- you posted that you were for "better free trade agreements," a point that evidently confused Samy, and you didn't actually correct him.

You did not post that you were against a "reductionist" anything.

The fact that you're unfamiliar with the contents of your own posts doesn't bother you?

I don't even know where to start. I guess you're just looking for a fight or something? I posted to clarify my stance, because it was clear that I failed to do so. You've responded in a manner where you are clearly trying to NOT see what I'm saying. So I guess whatever.

I stand by both those points. If you'd like to discuss them, I'm willing to. If you just want to "win"... I concede. You know more than me.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
On the other hand -- or maybe on the same hand, I'm not sure -- Fivethirtyeight.com and similar sites put Trump ahead in two of those states (FL and OH) and have PA balanced on a razor's edge.

Clinton 63% to Trump 36% is the "razor's edge"?

If so... keep that razor AWAY from me. :]

Fivethirtyeight.com DOES have Trump aheard in FL and OH, but only recently and by much smaller margins than he is behind in Pennsylvania. I expect once post convention polls for those states come in he'll slip behind Hillary there as well.

In any case, he needs to win all three... and Pennsylvania isn't close.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

Unless of course, if you bad mouth gold star parents because they criticized you. Or, if you don't even realize your BFF had already invaded a country you wouldn't let him invade.

Then, what you say might have an effect.

Sadly, not likely. If Trump saying stupid offensive stuff was going to hurt him, he never would have gotten this far.

Maybe this time will be different. We'll see.

The Khan stuff looks like if might of had some impact, but the Trump campaign has pivoted to claiming Mr Khan is a cryptoislamicist who is helping Clinton on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.

So...

Yeah.

The Ukraine thing was never going to matter.

Liberty's Edge

CBDunkerson wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
On the other hand -- or maybe on the same hand, I'm not sure -- Fivethirtyeight.com and similar sites put Trump ahead in two of those states (FL and OH) and have PA balanced on a razor's edge.

Clinton 63% to Trump 36% is the "razor's edge"?

If so... keep that razor AWAY from me. :]

Fivethirtyeight.com DOES have Trump aheard in FL and OH, but only recently and by much smaller margins than he is behind in Pennsylvania. I expect once post convention polls for those states come in he'll slip behind Hillary there as well.

In any case, he needs to win all three... and Pennsylvania isn't close.

Remembering that polls this far out are semi-useless, I wonder how much of that is familiarity breeding contempt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Are you making the claim that it is impossible for two countries to engage in trade that is mutually beneficial?
Nope. Only the claim that the less trade barriers (taxes et al) there are, the easier it is to offshore jobs.

There's a couple things to me that are bigger than protecting outdated or inefficient jobs:

1) reducing the amount of armed conflict in the world. Increased trade between nations reduces the chances that they fight. A less violent world isn't perfect, but the working class and poor get hurt the most during a war, so anything that prevents war is good, even if it hurts their economic standing. Being dead would hurt it even more.

2) people in other countries have the same right and claim to work for a living as people in the US. Just like people in Ohio don't deserve jobs more than people in Pennsylvania, people in Mexico have as much right to a job as those in either state.

3) even without trade agreements, technology is replacing workers. Not just blue collar jobs either, legal aids and research lawyers are losing jobs because of better search engines, as an example.

I agree with you in that most trade agreements hurt workers involved in the industries effected. Often times though, those workers are already hurting, the trade agreement is just the last nail in the coffin.

We don't need to stand against "free trade" (I don't mean completely unregulated, but more open and increased trade). The world is more connected and that's a GOOD thing. What we need to do is stand up for better safeguards for all citizens. Increased wealth distribution, job retraining, better working conditions everywhere, etc.

Part of the problem is that we've been making economic gains the past 30 years, but most of the benefits have been going to the top 0.1%. We need to spread those benefits out, so that all Americans see gains from a stronger economy. Robots replacing people shouldn't put people into poverty, it should mean that we all just work a little less to accomplish the same or more than we did before. If that makes sense.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
On the other hand -- or maybe on the same hand, I'm not sure -- Fivethirtyeight.com and similar sites put Trump ahead in two of those states (FL and OH) and have PA balanced on a razor's edge.

Clinton 63% to Trump 36% is the "razor's edge"?

Er, no. More like 56%/44%, looking at just the poll numbers. You're welcome, of course, to place more weight, trust, and confidence on Silver's statistical magic than I do. (The big difference is the "trend line," which basically says that Clinton should win because Clinton did really well in late June. I don't believe my stockbroker when he says that, either.)


Still not a terribly sharp razor, though, right?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Er, no. More like 56%/44%, looking at just the poll numbers. You're welcome, of course, to place more weight, trust, and confidence on Silver's statistical magic than I do. (The big difference is the "trend line," which basically says that Clinton should win because Clinton did really well in late June. I don't believe my stockbroker when he says that, either.)

Heh... well, if you want to look just at the polls without Silver's trending analysis factored in then what you really want is the 'nowcast';

Clinton 70% to Trump 30%

Krensky wrote:
Remembering that polls this far out are semi-useless, I wonder how much of that is familiarity breeding contempt.

Actually, polls tend to firm up within a few weeks after the conventions as more people say they have firmly settled on their choice... but this year seems anomalous in that more people are saying they have firmly settled now than usually say so the week before the election. I guess we can put that down to increasing partisanship and the especially polarizing nature of the candidates this year.


Pan wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
All I know is I'm getting sick of bugs being blown in my face to keep the fan going in the window so I don't blow out some brain cells...
Maybe you should start a thread about being without AC.

Who said that it was the lack of AC?!

(Also AC is now fixed)

Sovereign Court

Thomas Seitz wrote:
Pan wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
All I know is I'm getting sick of bugs being blown in my face to keep the fan going in the window so I don't blow out some brain cells...
Maybe you should start a thread about being without AC.

Who said that it was the lack of AC?!

(Also AC is now fixed)

Its off topic is all.


K.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am glad that your AC is now fixed, Thomas Seitz. It does suck being in the summer with no AC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can we agree that opposition to trump goes beyond mere partisanship yet?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Pan wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
All I know is I'm getting sick of bugs being blown in my face to keep the fan going in the window so I don't blow out some brain cells...
Maybe you should start a thread about being without AC.

Who said that it was the lack of AC?!

(Also AC is now fixed)

What does Armor Class have to do with it? Well, I suppose if your AC is too low, you'll get hit by bugs more often.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My friend has a terrifying take on the election:

  • Clinton represents four more years of a long, slow decline of our country into a theocratic plutocracy, with more "deregulation", more Supreme Court decisions that deem that corporations have the same rights as people, and in general more "Corporations are King" decisions and focus, converting us into "plutarchs" and "serfs".
  • Trump represents a fundamental upheaval. The man cannot be diplomatic if he tries, cannot comprehend international trade or relationships, and had such a simplistic view of international conflict it's terrifying to behold. He would be catastrophic for the U.S.

  • Hence, you have two choices:
    (1) Vote to maintain the status quo.
    (2) Vote to intentionally cause a crisis in this country. Our country has always responded well to crises, and come out the better for it.

    Therefore, our duty as responsible U.S. citizens is to vote for Trump, intentionally causing a catastrophe, because it's better than accepting the continuing decline of the country under our current "party leadership" (both Democrat and Republican -- the only thing they can agree on is that corporations are more important than people).

    I'm sorry to say I have no argument to dissuade him...

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
    Irontruth wrote:
    Samy wrote:
    that the less trade barriers (taxes et al) there are, the easier it is to offshore jobs.

    There's a couple things to me that are bigger than protecting outdated or inefficient jobs:

    1) reducing the amount of armed conflict in the world.

    Granted. If free trade can stop wars, that's certainly a big plus. Having said that, increasing domestic unemployment can lead to *civil* wars (see Arab Spring et al). So unless things are carefully balanced and skillfully led, it can become a choice between foreign wars and civil wars. You don't want MAJOR unhappiness on the home front, and that's what the Western world is currently headed towards, our own Arab Spring time.

    Liberty's Edge

    9 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    NobodysHome wrote:

    My friend has a terrifying take on the election:

  • Clinton represents four more years of a long, slow decline of our country into a theocratic plutocracy, with more "deregulation", more Supreme Court decisions that deem that corporations have the same rights as people, and in general more "Corporations are King" decisions and focus, converting us into "plutarchs" and "serfs".
  • Those are all GOP policies which have been opposed by most Democrats. Clinton is a bit of a corporatist, but even she doesn't go so far as the 'Corporations have human rights' nonsense. She certainly doesn't go for GOP theocratic efforts.

    Quote:
  • Trump represents a fundamental upheaval. The man cannot be diplomatic if he tries, cannot comprehend international trade or relationships, and had such a simplistic view of international conflict it's terrifying to behold. He would be catastrophic for the U.S.
  • All true... AND he would be far more likely to advance the agenda incorrectly attributed to Clinton above.

    Quote:
    Our country has always responded well to crises, and come out the better for it.

    Nonsense.

    cf. Civil War, Cuban missile crisis, Iran hostage crisis

    Quote:
    Therefore, our duty as responsible U.S. citizens is to vote for Trump, intentionally causing a catastrophe, because it's better than accepting the continuing decline of the country under our current "party leadership" (both Democrat and Republican -- the only thing they can agree on is that corporations are more important than people).

    You are living on a different planet than I am. It sounds unpleasant there. Even so... deliberately making things even worse in the hopes that this will then result in change for the better seems like a bad plan.

    Quote:
    I'm sorry to say I have no argument to dissuade him...

    Try introducing reality and/or logic to the discussion.

    251 to 300 of 7,079 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards