The Clinton Trump Debates

[GravitySucks]

1.Many more people have insurance now than before.

2.Odd, when Reagan was President in the 1980s Republicans said that 'budgets are the responsibility of Congress, the large deficits are the fault of the Democrats.'
When Clinton was President in the 1990s Republicans said that 'budgets are the responsibility of Congress, the surpluses are the result of the work of the Republican Congress.

Strange how the Republican Congress isn't responsible this time.

Read my other post. I hold both parties responsible. Over the last year I have posted numerous times that while Bush and Obama both doubled the deficit they didn't do it alone. That is why we need to at least take a chance at busting up the establishment. If we don't or can't do it this time, I hope Canada is ready to start spending 30-40% of their budget on defense because we won't be there for you very much longer.

[3OctaveFart]

Anyone who has ever argued at length with a fool knows there's no winning. Only degrees of losing.

I fully expect the "numbers" to tilt his way.

[Lt.Uhura]

Different ditch. I don't give just Obama the blame. Bush doubled the debt and Obama doubled it again. They didn't do it alone. Over the last 16 years both parties had control of Congress and the budget. How many years did Obama go without even submitting a budget?  I know it was at least 6. That is why I don't want an establishment candidate. We need to destroy the stranglehold of the establishment on both sides.

?
...The president doesn’t "pass" a budget. That’s Congress’ job.
In Obama’s case, he has submitted his budget request each year he has been in office...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/06/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-failed-pass-budget/

[136 or 142]

Tell me how.

I commented on this earlier as an example of the lies coming from right wing media.  The labor force participation rate measures all (or nearly all there may be a few small categories not included like farmers, prisoners and those in the military not included, I forget) people from the age of 15 or 16 up.  It's one of those numbers in Canada and the other in the United States.  It's not 15 or 16 to 65, it's simply from the age of 15 or 16 until the person dies.

To count the vast majority of people 65+ the much smaller 15-16 to 18 or so as unemployed may be de jure true, but it's hardly de facto true. 

The actual unemployment rate is certainly higher than the official 5% or so, but it's most likely in the 8-9% range, not the number suggested by the '94 million unemployed Americans'

[Donald Noory]

This is the part where your mom drops to her knees and begins to choke herself.   And not with hands.

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

It's true many Republican politicians aren't the best example of fiscal responsibility or small government, they have betrayed those ideals too often in the past several years.  Both parties have contributed to this mess we're in, it's going to take a big departure from business as usual to actually change things in Washington.

[SciFiAuthor]

You haven't demonstrated you know anything about reality.

Easy to do. Look at the papers Obama's economic advisors write and he doesn't listen to.

http://www.wsj.com/news/article_email/lawrence-h-summers-on-the-economic-challenge-of-the-future-jobs-1404762501-lMyQjAxMTA0MDIwMjEyNDIyWj

[136 or 142]

Read my other post. I hold both parties responsible. Over the last year I have posted numerous times that while Bush and Obama both doubled the deficit they didn't do it alone. That is why we need to at least take a chance at busting up the establishment. If we don't or can't do it this time, I hope Canada is ready to start spending 30-40% of their budget on defense because we won't be there for you very much longer.

The problem is Trump is one specific person and would not just 'bust up the establishment' if he even has any interest in doing that.

For what it's worth, I disagree with your premise, but that's fine.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

(these people acting like I don't want Republicans swinging from lamp posts right along with the Democrats)

[136 or 142]

Easy to do. Look at the papers Obama's economic advisors write and he doesn't listen to.

http://www.wsj.com/news/article_email/lawrence-h-summers-on-the-economic-challenge-of-the-future-jobs-1404762501-lMyQjAxMTA0MDIwMjEyNDIyWj

Larry Summers hasn't been an adviser to Obama in over 6 years.  From my understanding, most academic economists regard Summers as a self promoter who tilts his positions to the wind every couple of years.

He was strongly for the 'Washington Consensus' now he's against it.
He was strongly against infrastructure investment, I can't access this article, but it wouldn't surprise me if he's now arguing for it.
As President of Harvard, he made a number of very patronizing comments about women, but now claims to be some kind of proto-feminist.

[Astrid Galactic]

In case you missed it, or feel like suffering through this thing again, Fox Business has just started reairing that trainwreck.

[GravitySucks]

?
...The president doesn’t "pass" a budget. That’s Congress’ job.
In Obama’s case, he has submitted his budget request each year he has been in office...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/06/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-failed-pass-budget/

I stand corrected. He was just late.
The president is required to submit a budget on time. 

This is an example of what I was trying to remember and I stated it wrong.

I understand it is Congress' job to pass a budget. Thanks for correcting me.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/4/obama-misses-budget-deadline/

[SciFiAuthor]

Larry Summers hasn't been an adviser to Obama in over 6 years.  From my understanding, most academic economists regard Summers as a self promoter who tilts his positions to the wind every couple of years.

He was strongly for the 'Washington Consensus' now he's against it.
He was strongly against infrastructure investment, I can't access this article, but it wouldn't surprise me if he's now arguing for it.

What makes you think that technological advancement won't create a situation where job automation outstrips job creation? I defer to Keynes.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf

[136 or 142]

What makes you think that technological advancement won't create a situation where job automation outstrips job creation? I defer to Keynes.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf

Historically lower input prices have led to more jobs and are the main driver of economic growth.  It has led to 'creative destruction' meaning many people have lost their jobs in the process and the amount of education required to hold many jobs has increased, however it has also led to enormous economic growth since the Industrial Revolution.

There are many economists who bring up your point, but my view is, especially as a non-economist, that 'it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.'

Lower input prices means businesses can produce more for the same cost, leading to higher employment and more production.  One thing I don't like about many mainstream liberals is that they still believe that economic growth is driven by consumption.   Milton Friedman and other 'supply siders' showed this to be incorrect.

[SciFiAuthor]

Historically lower input prices have led to more jobs and are the main driver of economic growth.  It has led to 'creative destruction' meaning many people have lost their jobs in the process and the amount of education required to hold many jobs has increased, however it has also led to enormous economic growth since the Industrial Revolution.

There are many economists who bring up your point, but my view is, especially as a non-economist, that 'it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.'

Why are you concerned about historic economies? It's 2016.

[136 or 142]

Why are you concerned about historic economies? It's 2016.

Because 'historic economies' are the best indicator we have to judge for how future changes will effect the economy in the future.  As I wrote, if the nature of technological advancement if truly different from the past, I don't have the expertise to offer any informed comment on it.  I also don't think the vast majority of people with economic degrees or higher have the expertise either, see my comment above on 'television economists.'

I did hear a lecture not long ago from one economist who also has studied and is an expert in many technological areas as well (a full economics PhD requires a great deal of mathematics which is transferable to many technological areas, but this particular economist has focused on how technological change might alter economies in the future.

He said, as I wrote, that for a long time he assumed that technological advances would result in lower input costs which would lead to economic growth and greater employment, but that he said he believed the nature of technological advancement would truly be different this time.

I can find his name if you're interested.

[Lt.Uhura]

TRUMP: “Thank you, Lester. Our jobs are fleeing the country. They’re going to Mexico. They’re going to many other countries. You look at what China is doing to our country in terms of making our product. They’re devaluing their currency, and there’s nobody in our government to fight them. And we have a very good fight. And we have a winning fight. Because they’re using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China, and many other countries are doing the same thing.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/26/everything-said-during-tonights-presidential-debate-between-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton/#ixzz4LQjHmi6A

Say what??  Has China forced the Trumps to have their products made there?

https://www.romper.com/p/are-trumps-products-made-overseas-hes-making-outsourcing-great-again-15309


Also, despite the fact Trump publicly blames China for the global warming "hoax", taking our jobs, etc, it seems China's leaders have a particular fondness for Trump.

Over the last several months, there has been what looks like a concerted Chinese campaign to elect the Republican. Trump “could in fact be the best president for China,” said Wu Jun, a commentator on Phoenix Television, at the end of April. Phoenix is a private station in Hong Kong that serves as a front for Beijing.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/01/make-america-meek-again-why-dictators-dig-trump.html

[GravitySucks]

Why are you concerned about historic economies? It's 2016.

And we have dissolved our entire manufacturing component of our economy. First for environmental reasons, second for low labor costs. Lower input costs don't help if you no longer have the hopper.

[paladin1991]

This is one of my favorite movies.  Post away, cuckcake.

[136 or 142]

And we have dissolved our entire manufacturing component of our economy. First for environmental reasons, second for low labor costs. Lower input costs don't help if you no longer have the hopper.

1.Just wrong, about 2/3 of manufacturing jobs lost in the United States over the last 30 years or so has been a result of technological change.

2. http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-donald-trump-is-wrong-about-manufacturing-jobs-and-china

3.Input prices effect every sector, unless the only cost they have is labor (or maybe rent and labor.)

4.As I wrote above with 'creative destruction' most of the lost jobs have shifted out of manufacturing to other sectors of the economy.  A number of these jobs are low paying, but it's a myth that all service sector jobs are low paying just as much as it's a myth that all manufacturing jobs used to be high paying.

[136 or 142]

This is the person who gave the lecture, February 1, 2014 at the UBC Vancouver Institute.

Dr. William Raduchel, Strategic Advisor, Daily Mail and General Trust, and Adjunct Professor, McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University
Will Technology Save Us or Doom Us?

From wiki:
Dr. William J. Raduchel is an independent director, angel investor and strategic advisor. He was formerly a professor of economics at Harvard, and an assistant dean at Harvard and Radcliffe. He has been an executive at Ruckus Network, Sun Microsystems, AOL Time Warner, Xerox Corporation, and McGraw-Hill. He also serves on boards for the Salvation Army and STEP (National Academy of Sciences).[1][2][3]

He was once described as Scott McNealy's mentor since his early college days, convincing McNealy to study economics, and eventually joining McNealy at Sun. Before Sun, he recruited McNealy to join Onyx Computer to manage manufacturing.[3]

[GravitySucks]

1.Just wrong, about 2/3 of manufacturing jobs lost in the United States over the last 30 years or so has been a result of technological change.

2. http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-donald-trump-is-wrong-about-manufacturing-jobs-and-china

3.Input prices effect every sector, unless the only cost they have is labor (or maybe rent and labor.)

4.As I wrote above with 'creative destruction' most of the lost jobs have shifted out of manufacturing to other sectors of the economy.  A number of these jobs are low paying, but it's a myth that all service sector jobs are low paying just as much as it's a myth that all manufacturing jobs used to be high paying.

I didn't say it was a 30 year issue. Go back 45 years when we started losing our heavy manufacturing. You must be too young to understand where our Rust Belt was in the 50's and 60's as far as manufacturing. There is a reason it is called the Rust Belt. By the late 90's we had become an information economy and not a tangible goods-based economy. Then the dotcom bubble burst. Too much disruptive change too quick. 15 years of financing multiple wars and you have where we are at.

[NXOEED]

I thought it was some pretty good chaos. I was entertained, if a little disappointed that Pepe and Milo didn't get a mention.

[SciFiAuthor]

Because 'historic economies' are the best indicator we have to judge for how future changes will effect the economy in the future.  As I wrote, if the nature of technological advancement if truly different from the past, I don't have the expertise to offer any informed comment on it.  I also don't think the vast majority of people with economic degrees or higher have the expertise either, see my comment above on 'television economists.'

I did hear a lecture not long ago from one economist who also has studied and is an expert in many technological areas as well (a full economics PhD requires a great deal of mathematics which is transferable to many technological areas, but this particular economist has focused on how technological change might alter economies in the future.

He said, as I wrote, that for a long time he assumed that technological advances would result in lower input costs which would lead to economic growth and greater employment, but that he said he believed the nature of technological advancement would truly be different this time.

I can find his name if you're interested.

Please do. But Jesus.

[136 or 142]

Please do. But Jesus.

This is the person who gave the lecture, February 1, 2014 at the UBC Vancouver Institute.

Dr. William Raduchel, Strategic Advisor, Daily Mail and General Trust, and Adjunct Professor, McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University
Will Technology Save Us or Doom Us?

From wiki:
Dr. William J. Raduchel is an independent director, angel investor and strategic advisor. He was formerly a professor of economics at Harvard, and an assistant dean at Harvard and Radcliffe. He has been an executive at Ruckus Network, Sun Microsystems, AOL Time Warner, Xerox Corporation, and McGraw-Hill. He also serves on boards for the Salvation Army and STEP (National Academy of Sciences).[1][2][3]

He was once described as Scott McNealy's mentor since his early college days, convincing McNealy to study economics, and eventually joining McNealy at Sun. Before Sun, he recruited McNealy to join Onyx Computer to manage manufacturing.[3]
Modify message

[136 or 142]

I didn't say it was a 30 year issue. Go back 45 years when we started losing our heavy manufacturing. You must be too young to understand where our Rust Belt was in the 50's and 60's as far as manufacturing. There is a reason it is called the Rust Belt. By the late 90's we had become an information economy and not a tangible goods-based economy. Then the dotcom bubble burst. Too much disruptive change too quick. 15 years of financing multiple wars and you have where we are at.

I've commented on this previously as well.  The United States was the sole manufacturing nation for about a decade after World War II when first Germany, and then other major European nations, started getting back on their feet.

However, most of the goods manufactured in European nations for export purposes were higher end products and it was not until Japan started in the early 1960s to start competing with the U.S for the mass consumer market.

By the early 1970s or so, the collusion of the then four U.S automobile manufacturers (though American Motors was small even then) led them to produce for the U.S mass market cars that were referred to as 'rust buckets.'  The Japanese manufacturers devastated the U.S auto makers and all of the U.S auto makers pledged under different names that for them 'quality is job one.'

I'm referring to the decline in U.S manufacturing after first Japanese and then South Korean manufactured goods were exported to the United States as it is simply unrealistic to expect that the U.S could return to a time when they were the only major manufacturer to the world, as much as Donald Trump and a few of the nit wit guests on Coast to Coast like Gerard Celente lie to you that this is possible.

[21st Century Man]

   I thought the debate was good.  Donald was on defense for the most part but I thought he held his own.  He was right about stop and frisk and Hillary was wrong.  Frankly, Donald was a bit soft on Hillary tonight.  He could have really gone after her about Benghazi, the Clinton foundation and a few other things but decided not to go there for whatever reason.  Hillary did fine though I thought she looked rather arrogant at times on the stage.  Maybe she pooped in her Depends and that caused her face to contort a bit.  All in all, I thought it was basically a draw.  Both sides could claim victory.

[Value Of Pi]

I didn't say it was a 30 year issue. Go back 45 years when we started losing our heavy manufacturing. You must be too young to understand where our Rust Belt was in the 50's and 60's as far as manufacturing. There is a reason it is called the Rust Belt. By the late 90's we had become an information economy and not a tangible goods-based economy. Then the dotcom bubble burst. Too much disruptive change too quick. 15 years of financing multiple wars and you have where we are at.

136 raises a good point. The 1950s and '60s are, with hindsight, looking more and more like a fairly brief honeymoon period (in historical terms) when the world was our oyster.

It seemed like it would last forever, but big changes were afoot as early as the '70s (hello, Toyota). Then came PCs and the Internet. Plus, opening up China and other big changes.

We are trying to adapt with very limited success. So yeah, too much disruptive change, too quick. I think we'll be adapting for a while longer.

[136 or 142]

136 raises a good point. The 1950s and '60s are, with hindsight, looking more and more like a fairly brief honeymoon period (in historical terms) when the world was our oyster.

It seemed like it would last forever, but big changes were afoot as early as the '70s (hello, Toyota). Then came PCs and the Internet. Plus, opening up China and other big changes.

We are trying to adapt with very limited success. So yeah, too much disruptive change, too quick. I think we'll be adapting for a while longer.

This is what Art Bell refers to as 'the quickening.'  The rate of disruptive change, at least up until a few years ago, was getting even quicker. 

[Jackstar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfECYVnKImk