Donald Trump and US politics

I think the biggest job-killer is the transition from free market to goverment-sanctioned oligopoly. When mergers occur, the very predictable aftereffect is downsizing. Our current trend is towards fewer and fewer corporations each controlling larger and larger portions of the market share, which means fewer and fewer positions available for labor and greater and greater profits for the executive class.

This class holds onto their positions by corrupting government into passing regulations with a double standard, to which the up-and-coming competitor is vulnerable and strangulated and to which the megacorporations are immune as if by some sinister magic. This isn't free-market capitalism; it is cronyism and functionally socialism. The political parties are two sides of the same coin here; megacorporations that want new regulations in fear of future competitors pay the Democrats, while those seeking immunity from existing regulations pay the Republicans.

My biggest concern with taxes isn't what the particular brackets are. My concern is that the loopholes are closed, that the corporate elite don't exist in a world above ours where the tax code magically doesn't apply to them. The rule of law means no man or group of men is above the law; it's about time we start applying that.

But really, if we want to make jobs, taxes are but a single component of a larger strategy. We need to start getting serious about anti-trust laws and breaking up these megacorporations if we want the American workforce employed again. Trump's emphasis on reducing the offshoring of jobs has helped somewhat, but there's still lots of work to be done.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Standing is racist now.

Spoiler

They should remove the national anthem. Why should they play the national anthem before sporting events? Cut that crap and play ball.

When it comes to televised broadcasts I'd be inclined to acquiesce; you can play or not play the anthem beforehand on your own time. However, when it comes to the live show, I definitely disagree; the anthem is part of the tradition. And if the anthem continues to be part of the live, might as well include it in the broadcast; if you don't like it, tune in later or fast forward.

It is national-glorification, never like it, it is a kind of propaganda. We don't have that as part of our tradition, we see this during international sporting events, where people want to play their national anthem when they win.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I think the biggest job-killer is the transition from free market to goverment-sanctioned oligopoly. When mergers occur, the very predictable aftereffect is downsizing. Our current trend is towards fewer and fewer corporations each controlling larger and larger portions of the market share, which means fewer and fewer positions available for labor and greater and greater profits for the executive class.

This class holds onto their positions by corrupting government into passing regulations with a double standard, to which the up-and-coming competitor is vulnerable and strangulated and to which the megacorporations are immune as if by some sinister magic. This isn't free-market capitalism; it is cronyism and functionally socialism. The political parties are two sides of the same coin here; megacorporations that want new regulations in fear of future competitors pay the Democrats, while those seeking immunity from existing regulations pay the Republicans.

My biggest concern with taxes isn't what the particular brackets are. My concern is that the loopholes are closed, that the corporate elite don't exist in a world above ours where the tax code magically doesn't apply to them. The rule of law means no man or group of men is above the law; it's about time we start applying that.

But really, if we want to make jobs, taxes are but a single component of a larger strategy. We need to start getting serious about anti-trust laws and breaking up these megacorporations if we want the American workforce employed again. Trump's emphasis on reducing the offshoring of jobs has helped somewhat, but there's still lots of work to be done.

Countries wants monopolies. Monopolies make lot of money. It give the countries that have them a competitive edge over others. U.S. pretty much allow a lot of its own pseudo-monopolies to exist. These pseudo-monopolies make lot of profit without the need to create jobs with weak labor laws overseas. It is the joke when people say no man is above the law. Lots of people get away with crimes when government is corrupted and laws are not rigidly enforced. You don't apply your laws overseas that how they get away with it.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I think the biggest job-killer is the transition from free market to goverment-sanctioned oligopoly. When mergers occur, the very predictable aftereffect is downsizing. Our current trend is towards fewer and fewer corporations each controlling larger and larger portions of the market share, which means fewer and fewer positions available for labor and greater and greater profits for the executive class.

Mostly true.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

This class holds onto their positions by corrupting government into passing regulations with a double standard, to which the up-and-coming competitor is vulnerable and strangulated and to which the megacorporations are immune as if by some sinister magic. This isn't free-market capitalism; it is cronyism and functionally socialism. The political parties are two sides of the same coin here; megacorporations that want new regulations in fear of future competitors pay the Democrats, while those seeking immunity from existing regulations pay the Republicans.

This is tough to change, especially since money talks and is now considered free speech. Corporations and the rich just buy what they want to happen in government with campaign contributions. It's not 100%, but mostly works. Reducing wealth disparity would also help. There is too much money at the top end that has nothing to do, but be contributed to politics. That money has much better uses than feeding political discord and buying politicians.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

My biggest concern with taxes isn't what the particular brackets are. My concern is that the loopholes are closed, that the corporate elite don't exist in a world above ours where the tax code magically doesn't apply to them. The rule of law means no man or group of men is above the law; it's about time we start applying that.

Closing loopholes would be nice.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

But really, if we want to make jobs, taxes are but a single component of a larger strategy. We need to start getting serious about anti-trust laws and breaking up these megacorporations if we want the American workforce employed again. Trump's emphasis on reducing the offshoring of jobs has helped somewhat, but there's still lots of work to be done.

The jobless rate is low. those not working are either unqualified for today's jobs or won't do the jobs needed.

Corporations do not like labor. Their goal is to reduce their need for it as much as possible. That is not going to change. The freer the markets, the more corporations will seek out and find the lowest labor costs they can. That is not the US. Breaking up some of the giant multi nationals might help some, but it won't solve the problem.

What are the most important problems to be solved? Wages? Jobs? Wealth?, Taxes? Government "corruption"? Mega corporations? Prioritizing the problems allows meaningful solutions.

"

ChanBalam wrote:

This is tough to change, especially since money talks and is now considered free speech. Corporations and the rich just buy what they want to happen in government with campaign contributions. It's not 100%, but mostly works.

In 2016 the candidate with less funding won (ignoring third parties). This is a good step in the right direction.

"

ChanBalam wrote:

Corporations do not like labor. Their goal is to reduce their need for it as much as possible. That is not going to change. The freer the markets, the more corporations will seek out and find the lowest labor costs they can. That is not the US. Breaking up some of the giant multi nationals might help some, but it won't solve the problem.

I believe the free market is characterized by mutually agreed, voluntary transactions, minimally molested by both government and non-government coercion. Therefore, in regards to international trade, there frequently arises this misnomer of "free trade" with nations whose governments and/or industries are complicit in oppressing a labor force even less free (or entitled, whatever) than our own, allowing the supply chain to rely less upon free trade than it did previously. We can debate all day about what rights workers should or shouldn't be entitled to, but whatever is decided, if we allow free trade with a nation that affords its people less protections than our own, the result is not that our workers enjoy enhanced rights, but that their jobs are handed off to relative slaves outside our borders. It is a vital part of labor rights to include nationalistic protectionism specifically against nations who labor rights are not up to domestic standards. (This is a common problem with minimum wage increases.)

"

ChanBalam wrote:

What are the most important problems to be solved? Wages? Jobs? Wealth?, Taxes? Government "corruption"? Mega corporations? Prioritizing the problems allows meaningful solutions.

First, breaking up the megacorporations with anti-trust action, as a necessary means to an end. Second, the removal of government corruption via at least partially separation of economy and state; this is the policy end. Then, increased jobs and wages, as a natural result of policy that prevents the return of oligopoly.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I believe the free market is characterized by mutually agreed, voluntary transactions. Therefore, in regards to international trade, there frequently arises this misnomer of "free trade" with nations whose governments who are complicit in oppressing a labor force even less free than our own, allowing the supply chain to rely less upon free trade than it did previously. We can debate all day about what rights workers should or shouldn't be entitled to, but whatever is decided, if we allow free trade with a nation that affords its people less protections than our own, the result is not that our workers enjoy enhanced rights, but that their jobs are handed off to relative slaves outside our borders. It is a vital part of labor rights to include nationalistic protectionism specifically against nations who labor rights are not up to domestic standards. (This is a common problem with minimum wage increases.)


First, breaking up the megacorporations with anti-trust action, as a necessary means to an end. Second, the removal of government corruption via at least partially separation of economy and state; this is the policy end. Then, increased jobs and wages, as a natural result of policy that prevents the return of oligopoly.

We (the US) cannot control how other nations value labor and those foreign labor rates are what they are. Corporations will take advantage of them unless you can shame them into not doing so. Our labor rates cannot be applied to nations whose cost of living is far below ours. US corporations have made many foreign workers rich by local standards even if the working conditions are not up to our standards. This fact will be tough to change without curtailing US corporations' ability to make products anywhere they want. Rather than trying to get SE Asia to change its labor policies, we would have more success educating our own workforce to do the jobs that will be required in the next decade or two. You cannot put globalization back into the bottle. It is here to stay. We need to focus on what we can change.

To break up the global mega corps, you have to revamp our election systems and how campaigns are paid for. Anti Trust action is a government function supported by taxes.

You cannot separate the economy from the government. Private enterprise will not provide (or will provide poorly) many tasks provided by governments. Taxation makes that work. People are too greedy and easily corruptible.

Without a tax based government, who do you think will provide immediate help or clean up the damage from Harvey, Irma and Maria?

"

ChanBalam wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I believe the free market is characterized by mutually agreed, voluntary transactions. Therefore, in regards to international trade, there frequently arises this misnomer of "free trade" with nations whose governments who are complicit in oppressing a labor force even less free than our own, allowing the supply chain to rely less upon free trade than it did previously. We can debate all day about what rights workers should or shouldn't be entitled to, but whatever is decided, if we allow free trade with a nation that affords its people less protections than our own, the result is not that our workers enjoy enhanced rights, but that their jobs are handed off to relative slaves outside our borders. It is a vital part of labor rights to include nationalistic protectionism specifically against nations who labor rights are not up to domestic standards. (This is a common problem with minimum wage increases.)


First, breaking up the megacorporations with anti-trust action, as a necessary means to an end. Second, the removal of government corruption via at least partially separation of economy and state; this is the policy end. Then, increased jobs and wages, as a natural result of policy that prevents the return of oligopoly.

We (the US) cannot control how other nations value labor and those foreign labor rates are what they are. Corporations will take advantage of them unless you can shame them into not doing so.

Or you tariff the imports from a particular nation proportional to the difference in labor rights/privileges.

"

ChanBalam wrote:

You cannot separate the economy from the government. Private enterprise will not provide (or will provide poorly) many tasks provided by governments. Taxation makes that work. People are too greedy and easily corruptible.

Government is run by people. It's a mistake to think government is inherently less corruptible than individuals.

Still, I agree that a full separation of state and economy is impossible. That's why I qualified my language — I said partially. Oligopolies maintain control by enacting new economic laws after corrupting key government officials, so limiting government power to interfere with the economy in particular ways can help to prevent them from utilizing some methods of turning government against their competitors.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Or you tariff the imports from a particular nation proportional to the difference in labor rights/privileges.

Government is run by people. It's a mistake to think government is inherently less corruptible than individuals.

Still, I agree that a full separation of state and economy is impossible. That's why I qualified my language — I said partially. Oligopolies maintain control by enacting new economic laws after corrupting key government officials, so limiting government power to interfere with the economy in particular ways can help to prevent them from utilizing some methods of turning government against their competitors.

High tariffs have a couple of less than perfect effects: they create black markets (NYC cigarette taxes are in effect a tariff on bringing cigarettes into the state). That has been a huge opportunity for organized crime. They also reduce demand for products because the prices are high for both items made domestically or imported. Reduced demand holds down job growth. Japanese tariffs on imported food keep local farmers in business and keep Japanese prices high. When US frozen beef was allowed into Japan a new fast food beef bowl industry flourished and gave the Japanese access to a lower priced meal opportunity. Recently, the tariff on frozen beef from the US was raised and will probably shrink the beef bowl market, put restaurants out of business or force higher prices on every one. Japan beef farmers will benefit, but everyone else will just pay more for lunch.

In the US prescription drugs are priced higher than elsewhere in the world. This is permitted by regulation (much like a tariff forces higher prices on imports). A tariff is just a regulation to force shoppers to buy from local companies rather than buy imported products. So what happens? US buyers of drugs circumvent the system and buy from overseas or across borders. "Educated" people and rich people can always find ways to get around tariffs. The rest just pay more. for the most part tariffs protect the few at the expense of the many.

While everyone is subject to be corrupted, those in government in the US are subject to more scrutiny than those in the private sector. For example, Sec Price's use of private jets for travel has been outed and he now says he will pay all of the money back and not use private jest in the future. We will see.

Librarian rejects FLOTUS Seuss book donation because muh racism: http://archive.is/6z5Qj

Stupid Librarian.

I saw that yesterday but didn't get around to reading her stupid blog post until this morning. She is no librarian if she puts her opinions before students' book needs/wants and furthermore it is just rude to act like that when someone donates something. Doesn't need the books? Then donate them to poor kids that can't afford them.

Oh, wait, Dr Seuss is a horrible racist now. The left doesn't know how stupid they sound, truly.