I think this section is going to turn out to be a monumental booby prize. I think that whoever is elected is going to preside over the largest economic meltdown since 1929, if not larger. I see this happening whether it is Trump or Hillary. I don't see anything that Trump or Hillary is proposing that will stop it.

I think a wall on the Mexican border is a terrible idea. I think keeping Muslims out is a terrible idea. I think Trump's tax plan won't work.

On the other hand, I think everything Hillary has proposed is wrong.

I think Gary Johnson has the right ideas, but I think that if he somehow got elected he would still not be able to implement them in time to make a difference.

I just don't see much ahead but disaster.

(07-29-2016 08:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I see one and only one reason to vote for Trump. He's not Hillary.
I see two reasons to vote for Hillary. One, she's a woman and we've never had one of those as president. Two, she's not Trump.

I will vote for Gary Johnson. He's not Trump or Hillary.

I was surprised to see the 'because she's a woman and we've never had one of those' argument from you. We've never had a lot of different types as president. That has nothing to do with whether they'd be the best or worst choice.

I don't care if someone is white, black, Asian, Latino, Indian, a woman, a man, rich, poor, old or young. My only concern is: who can help the country and its people and future the most at this time, given the viable choices available? Who will be better for our children's future?

Trump is hands down the better choice of these two, though I do wish we'd have another viable option. Having voted for Perot the first time in the past, I am aware of how that doesn't help things. I wish he had gotten the Republican nomination like Trump did this time, but that didn't happen.

In this country, you need to be nominated by one of the two major parties. Trump was successful despite the establishment and broke through it. Sanders was not. Hiliary is the worst of the establishment from both parties. I can never vote for the worst choice for America. So, Trump it is.

like that they used the Rice speech pic for Kennedy:

(07-29-2016 09:03 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I was surprised to see the 'because she's a woman and we've never had one of those' argument from you.

I'm not making an argument. I'm saying that something that flimsy is the best reason to vote for her.

I can't vote for Hillary, because I promised myself in 2002 that I would never, at any level for an office, vote for any of the Congresspeople who voted for us to invade Iraq.

And (as I assume is obvious to anyone who's ever read anything I've written here) I'm not going to vote for Trump.

I'll probably vote for Jill Stein, but maybe I'll go throwback and write in Nader.

(07-29-2016 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think that whoever is elected is going to preside over the largest economic meltdown since 1929, if not larger. I see this happening whether it is Trump or Hillary. I don't see anything that Trump or Hillary is proposing that will stop it.

In fact, most of the things that each one of them is proposing will make it (to adapt a phrase from Churchill's most famous speech) more severe, and perhaps more protracted...


This is not our finest hour.

(07-29-2016 09:56 PM)JOwl Wrote:  I can't vote for Hillary, because I promised myself in 2002 that I would never, at any level for an office, vote for any of the Congresspeople who voted for us to invade Iraq.
And (as I assume is obvious to anyone who's ever read anything I've written here) I'm not going to vote for Trump.
I'll probably vote for Jill Stein, but maybe I'll go throwback and write in Nader.

Why not Gary Johnson?

(07-29-2016 11:56 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think that whoever is elected is going to preside over the largest economic meltdown since 1929, if not larger. I see this happening whether it is Trump or Hillary. I don't see anything that Trump or Hillary is proposing that will stop it.

In fact, most of the things that each one of them is proposing will make it (to adapt a phrase from Churchill's most famous speech) more severe, and perhaps more protracted...
This is not our finest hour.

Agree with all of that.

I just took one of those whom should you vote for quickie online polls. As with most such polls, there were several questions for which I thought none of the answers were a good fit, but I filled in the least offensive alternative, and the overall results came in pretty close to what I would have expected:

Johnson 79%
Clinton 24%
Trump 13%
Stein 0%

I would expect that most of the Clinton/Trump differential came from the forced answers on those questions that didn't really fit.

Gary Johnson has made some, umm, anti-libertarian statements the past few days.

(07-30-2016 06:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 09:56 PM)JOwl Wrote:  I can't vote for Hillary, because I promised myself in 2002 that I would never, at any level for an office, vote for any of the Congresspeople who voted for us to invade Iraq.
And (as I assume is obvious to anyone who's ever read anything I've written here) I'm not going to vote for Trump.
I'll probably vote for Jill Stein, but maybe I'll go throwback and write in Nader.

Why not Gary Johnson?

I certainly agree with him way more than Trump, and as with most libertarians I agree with him a lot more than I do with your average (social) conservative. There's a lot of overlap on certain issues, but generally libertarians and I are coming from completely different places to get there.

That said, I think Johnson has a pragmatism to him that true-believer libertarians don't, which I like about him. I think I'd like him as President about as much as I would've Romney, which is to say -- I wouldn't expect to be too distressed by it, even though he's not who I'd pick. (Well, for Romney I would've been distressed, but only in the sense that we had in my opinion a far superior alternative, not distressed by the concept of him as President).

Your other post prompted me, so I did one of those online quizzes, too:

Clinton - 99%
Stein - 97%
Johnson - 80%
Trump - 4%

isidewith.com

(07-29-2016 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think this section is going to turn out to be a monumental booby prize. I think that whoever is elected is going to preside over the largest economic meltdown since 1929, if not larger. I see this happening whether it is Trump or Hillary. I don't see anything that Trump or Hillary is proposing that will stop it.

What are the conditions in today's economy that lead you to predict there will be a large meltdown similar to 1929? The 2008 recession was mainly caused by a housing bubble and the failure of government to adequately regulate markets. While the massive spending in 2009 to bail out various parts of the economy may have prevented a depression, the recovery since then has been very poor – the worst since World War II.

I agree that neither Clinton or Trump have proposed policies that will significantly improve the economy. Instead, both have pandered to various interest groups within their parties with proposals that have very little chance of ever seeing the light of day. Accordingly, the stalemate with respect to government policies may continue for the foreseeable future which, while not conducive to economic growth, may not take us over the cliff.

took the quiz myself:

Trump - 85%
Johnson - 57%
Stein - 15%
Clinton - 2%

Trump 92
Johnson 87
Clinton 41
Stein 33

(07-30-2016 09:04 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think this section is going to turn out to be a monumental booby prize. I think that whoever is elected is going to preside over the largest economic meltdown since 1929, if not larger. I see this happening whether it is Trump or Hillary. I don't see anything that Trump or Hillary is proposing that will stop it.

What are the conditions in today's economy that lead you to predict there will be a large meltdown similar to 1929? The 2008 recession was mainly caused by a housing bubble and the failure of government to adequately regulate markets. While the massive spending in 2009 to bail out various parts of the economy may have prevented a depression, the recovery since then has been very poor – the worst since World War II.
I agree that neither Clinton or Trump have proposed policies that will significantly improve the economy. Instead, both have pandered to various interest groups within their parties with proposals that have very little chance of ever seeing the light of day. Accordingly, the stalemate with respect to government policies may continue for the foreseeable future which, while not conducive to economic growth, may not take us over the cliff.

I see huge and growing multi-faceted threats:

1) Our massive federal debt, plus massive individual and corporate debt. Sooner or later, you run out of somebody else's money. I don't know exactly how close we are to that point, but we're inching closer every day, and neither D's nor R's seem in any hurry to do anything to reverse it.

2) Our massive trade deficit, while arguably not a threat itself, does to me reflect some things that definitely are threats. We have transitioned to a retail/service economy from a production economy. We don't make things, we buy them from other countries at Wal-Mart, and we shuffle papers and trade stocks to create the illusion of prosperity. I think where we see this is the extremely sluggish recovery that we have been able to achieve despite unprecedented injections of cash into the economy. Trump is pointing to trade and immigration barriers and Hillary to increasing taxes on corporations and high wealth individuals. Those are the things that are driving investment offshore, and will drive more offshore if implemented. We need to bring investment in productive activities back to this country.

3) The shrinking middle class and increased inequality of income and wealth. These things clearly increase instability and potential for violence, particularly when skilled demagogues play upon them for short term political gain. What both sides fail to realize is that this is the natural consequence of point 2 above. We are not going to restore a middle class without revitalizing value-added industrial activities--mining, manufacturing--jobs that can pay middle class wages. We can't redistribute our way to a middle class, we have to earn it.

4) Our education and infrastructure are falling apart, and with them go much of our ability to compete in the world economy. We can pay labor more than third world countries and remain competitive--as long as our labor is more productive. We are losing that advantage. I know there are statistics that show productivity is on the rise. But that's because of PC's, not because our workers are more competitive, and what we are really becoming more productive at is shuffling papers, not making things.

5) We seem to have no grand military or foreign relations strategy. We have focused way too much of our military capability into a no-win (because we have no intention of winning) series of regional ethnic and religious struggles in which we have no real national interest. We're spending too much money. We're killing an maiming too many of our young adults. We're making enemies instead of friends. But perhaps most important is the opportunity costs we are incurring by focusing on these areas when there is much to be done in so many other places. This is occurring at the same time that potential enemies--Russia, China, and yes, radical Islamists and other terrorists--are upping their game. There are so many places where things could just come unglued--eastern Europe, the China Sea, the Middle East. Any one of them turning for the worse could create a crisis that we could not manage.

Our political leaders on both sides seem far more interested in scoring short-term political points than in addressing difficult issues. We're playing this Pollyanna game of telling ourselves that things are going great, when in reality it's all smoke and mirrors and could come mightily undone at any moment.

I don't know which of these areas will cause the crash. I do know that any of them could, and the risk of any one of them occurring is large and growing. And I don't like those odds.

(07-30-2016 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Trump 92
Johnson 87
Clinton 41
Stein 33

That's fascinating. Apparently, there's a way to answer those questions such that I'm an 80% match with Johnson and 4% match with Trump, while you're an 87% match with Johnson and 92% match with Trump.

(Well, it's fascinating assuming that we took the same quiz, and further assuming that quiz isn't horribly flawed or intentionally skewed.)

Presumably, in addition to having very different opinions on issues, we must also have very different rankings of which issues are important. Which I suppose is no surprise given prior discussion here on the Quad.

(07-30-2016 10:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 09:04 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think this section is going to turn out to be a monumental booby prize. I think that whoever is elected is going to preside over the largest economic meltdown since 1929, if not larger. I see this happening whether it is Trump or Hillary. I don't see anything that Trump or Hillary is proposing that will stop it.

What are the conditions in today's economy that lead you to predict there will be a large meltdown similar to 1929? The 2008 recession was mainly caused by a housing bubble and the failure of government to adequately regulate markets. While the massive spending in 2009 to bail out various parts of the economy may have prevented a depression, the recovery since then has been very poor – the worst since World War II.
I agree that neither Clinton or Trump have proposed policies that will significantly improve the economy. Instead, both have pandered to various interest groups within their parties with proposals that have very little chance of ever seeing the light of day. Accordingly, the stalemate with respect to government policies may continue for the foreseeable future which, while not conducive to economic growth, may not take us over the cliff.

I see huge and growing multi-faceted threats:

1) Our massive federal debt, plus massive individual and corporate debt. Sooner or later, you run out of somebody else's money. I don't know exactly how close we are to that point, but we're inching closer every day, and neither D's nor R's seem in any hurry to do anything to reverse it.

2) Our massive trade deficit, while arguably not a threat itself, does to me reflect some things that definitely are threats. We have transitioned to a retail/service economy from a production economy. We don't make things, we buy them from other countries at Wal-Mart, and we shuffle papers and trade stocks to create the illusion of prosperity. I think where we see this is the extremely sluggish recovery that we have been able to achieve despite unprecedented injections of cash into the economy. Trump is pointing to trade and immigration barriers and Hillary to increasing taxes on corporations and high wealth individuals. Those are the things that are driving investment offshore, and will drive more offshore if implemented. We need to bring investment in productive activities back to this country.

3) The shrinking middle class and increased inequality of income and wealth. These things clearly increase instability and potential for violence, particularly when skilled demagogues play upon them for short term political gain. What both sides fail to realize is that this is the natural consequence of point 2 above. We are not going to restore a middle class without revitalizing value-added industrial activities--mining, manufacturing--jobs that can pay middle class wages. We can't redistribute our way to a middle class, we have to earn it.

4) Our education and infrastructure are falling apart, and with them go much of our ability to compete in the world economy. We can pay labor more than third world countries and remain competitive--as long as our labor is more productive. We are losing that advantage. I know there are statistics that show productivity is on the rise. But that's because of PC's, not because our workers are more competitive, and what we are really becoming more productive at is shuffling papers, not making things.

5) We seem to have no grand military or foreign relations strategy. We have focused way too much of our military capability into a no-win (because we have no intention of winning) series of regional ethnic and religious struggles in which we have no real national interest. We're spending too much money. We're killing an maiming too many of our young adults. We're making enemies instead of friends. But perhaps most important is the opportunity costs we are incurring by focusing on these areas when there is much to be done in so many other places. This is occurring at the same time that potential enemies--Russia, China, and yes, radical Islamists and other terrorists--are upping their game. There are so many places where things could just come unglued--eastern Europe, the China Sea, the Middle East. Any one of them turning for the worse could create a crisis that we could not manage.

Our political leaders on both sides seem far more interested in scoring short-term political points than in addressing difficult issues. We're playing this Pollyanna game of telling ourselves that things are going great, when in reality it's all smoke and mirrors and could come mightily undone at any moment.

I don't know which of these areas will cause the crash. I do know that any of them could, and the risk of any one of them occurring is large and growing. And I don't like those odds.

Very good analysis of the situation. But Hiliary just promised us that everything is great already and we have nothing to fear, she swears we just need to keep doing more of the same. That is clearly the wrong path to take.

I don't know exactly what Trump will do. I don't think anybody really does, including Trump himself. But I'm pretty sure he will NOT do what we are doing now, and he will do several things differently than the entrenched establishment on both sides wants. Those are two very big plusses for Trump, and help mitigate his lesser qualities substantially.

Good Owl agrees with my analysis, but he comes from the right. I'd be interested in hearing from those who lean left, where do you see us?

Right now, I think things may look okay on the surface, but not far below are lurking any number of severe perils. And nobody on either side is talking about any of the real problems. I just don't know how long we can keep kidding ourselves. I guess one clock that is ticking is that social security runs out of money in about 20 years, and we are seriously deep doo doo then, if nothing else craters before. But again, nobody wants to address that issue, either.

I think we are living on smoke and mirrors and at some point that inevitably fails. And I don't see Trump or Hillary proposing anything that will turn things around. In fact, most of what I see from either of them will make it worse.

(07-30-2016 11:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Good Owl agrees with my analysis, but he comes from the right. I'd be interested in hearing from those who lean left, where do you see us?

Right now, I think things may look okay on the surface, but not far below are lurking any number of severe perils. And nobody on either side is talking about any of the real problems. I just don't know how long we can keep kidding ourselves. I guess one clock that is ticking is that social security runs out of money in about 20 years, and we are seriously deep doo doo then, if nothing else craters before. But again, nobody wants to address that issue, either.

I think we are living on smoke and mirrors and at some point that inevitably fails. And I don't see Trump or Hillary proposing anything that will turn things around. In fact, most of what I see from either of them will make it worse.

It partially is a consequence of globalization and the rapid growth in population worldwide. As third world countries close the gap in education and use of resources, there is a leveling of standard of living, and given the starting points respectively (along with the increase in world population which has more than doubled in my lifetime, probably will be tripled soon), that doesn't work out well for us.

U.S. corporations have recognized this for decades, and whenever possible have moved production off-shore to maintain profits/cut costs.

The people at the tops of the food chain have continued to see their income and wealth increase, because they have capitalized on the globalization (our widening gap between the top 1% and the rest of the country), but because middle class production has moved to developing countries, our middle class has stagnated (edit - and shrunk - - see Venezuela for an example of what happens to democracy without a large middle class - they had a majority middle class in 40 to 50 years ago, not now).

Frankly, I have begun to assume that the people at the top of our political institutions have recognized this for some time, and because, (while we can still capitalize on increases in efficiency and technological advancement where we still are a key player), there are only minor adjustments that government can make to slow the impacts, the last 25 years have been devoted (politically) to kicking the can down the road, and taking advantage of whatever distractions they can to divert attention from what may be an inexorable problem.

On that note - I see on Yahoo that the Powerball jackpot is approaching an all-time high. Should we pool our money?

(07-29-2016 11:56 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think that whoever is elected is going to preside over the largest economic meltdown since 1929, if not larger. I see this happening whether it is Trump or Hillary. I don't see anything that Trump or Hillary is proposing that will stop it.

In fact, most of the things that each one of them is proposing will make it (to adapt a phrase from Churchill's most famous speech) more severe, and perhaps more protracted...


This is not our finest hour.

And to paraphrase Edward R. Murrow, "Trump didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it -- and rather successfully."

(07-30-2016 11:37 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  The people at the tops of the food chain have continued to see their income and wealth increase, because they have capitalized on the globalization (our widening gap between the top 1% and the rest of the country), but because middle class production has moved to developing countries, our middle class has stagnated (edit - and shrunk - - see Venezuela for an example of what happens to democracy without a large middle class - they had a majority middle class in 40 to 50 years ago, not now).
Frankly, I have begun to assume that the people at the top of our political institutions have recognized this for some time, and because, (while we can still capitalize on increases in efficiency and technological advancement where we still are a key player), there are only minor adjustments that government can make to slow the impacts, the last 25 years have been devoted (politically) to kicking the can down the road, and taking advantage of whatever distractions they can to divert attention from what may be an inexorable problem.

I don't believe that there is nothing that can be done.

A 20% consumption tax immediately makes us more competitive in both import and export markets--20% more competitive with imports, and close to 20% more competitive with exports. That shifts a lot of trade at the margins.

With the consumption tax in place, we can lower and flatten our income taxes--and broaden them by eliminating a lot of current deductions and exclusions and credits--and still balance our budget.

We need to revise our health care. Right now we still have the same problem with health care that has hurt our competitiveness internationally for years--we tie health insurance to employment and add a large cost for employers that their foreign competitors typically do not have. Bismarck, funded by savings on Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare (see below) plus the consumption tax, would solve that problem.

As for welfare, replace our current topically focused and means-tested programs with a floor under income for everyone--either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz/Linder prebate/prefund would work as a model. Let the states pick up the current programs, if they want to, paying for them with the money that Bismarck saves them on Medicare/Medicaid.

Europe provides a more comprehensive welfare safety net, universal health care, and a better tax deal for investors and corporations, by taking the approach outlined above. We can do the same and drastically improve both our economy and our income and wealth equity.

Improving infrastructure and improving vocational education will improve significantly our productivity and competitiveness in global markets. This is not simply throwing more money at either problem. This is first major paradigm shifts in the way we provide either one, and then probably equal or maybe even less expenditure but in a more efficient and effective manner.

Revamping our immigration policy to allow more highly skilled and talented foreign citizens to come here and work would improve our competitiveness. In that regard, all we need to do to solve the illegal immigration problem is a work permit program. That lets them stay here and work (what they really want) without all the problems that come with granting citizenship. A wall on the Mexican border, and excluding Muslims, are two incredibly stupid ideas that will only harm our economy.

And in case you are wondering, yes, I'm well aware that what I've just posted basically takes exception with the major planks in both Hillary's and Trump's platforms.

We can't compete with China or Thailand when it comes to sewing up Nikes. But if sewing up Nikes is our economic future then we are in deep kimchee. Germany can't compete with them either, but Germany does okay by focusing on what it CAN do better than China and Thailand. We can compete with Germany, and if we get there we will see the return of our middle class.