2016 Election -- Part II

I understand basically where you're coming from, but in a bit of conflicting fashion to what I recently posted, if we had a computer manufacturer who also makes the chips and guts of a computer we would buy and use, and they move the whole thing to China and sell us that computer, what exactly employment would we have to make the money to buy that computer that we used to make? Simplistic, I know.

On the president vitriol. It seems to be that most people give the president too much credit for doing anything. IMO, it's the congress and sitting powers and well, the Fed Reserve that isn't associated with our governmental body but a private bank consortium that wields the real decision making power via the control of debt. I'm going off here on conspiracies, but my stand is a US president is nothing more than a facade, a tool, a puppet of higher power elitists. Sorry, but I think they exist but one can put any named conspiracy in the blank.

My whole life I've never seen a elected 'and I say that lightly' president ever actually do anything they blustered during the {2} or more years that they stopped doing their original job we were paying them for while campaigning after getting elected. In my mind, it's entirely possible no president was really able to use their own mind all the way back to Washington. There was always someone in the background. Always will be as far as I'm concerned.

I believe the hate for either one of the candidates is wasted energy better spent elsewhere. Why? Because I don't believe a president has any real power to effect change. Like a Mayor of a city, who has almost zero power to effect city decisions because it's the city council or commissioners that decide everything and control the purse strings of the city. The President has Congress and the banks controlling him.

And already my point is proven somewhat by the fact that Trump has backpedaled on almost everything he blurted about for a year. Nothing a politician says can be believed and they prove that every day.
Trump is already getting neutered even before he can flash his junk.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

We should concentrate on doing what we do best (and that isn't heavy manufacturing) and let other countries cope with the attendant resource extraction and pollution. Send Joe Sixpack back to community college and give him the means to learn new skills--don't build a factory for him just so he can go back to his pack-a-day-of-Bud habit.

Please enlighten me as to what we Americans do best?

Bitch, moan, whine, maybe?

Look, I don't WANT air pollution again, but in America today there are no longer the decent paying blue collar jobs there once were.

Mining ore, smelting it, making aluminum and rubber, manufacturing most everything we'd want to consume.

One reason you have so much violence with the blacks in the cities is because the manufacturing / industrial jobs that used to be there are now overseas.

Bring em back, and to hell with the cost.

Make America Polluted Again.

Quote: MrV

Please enlighten me as to what we Americans do best?

I answered that in another thread, but the short version is:

1. Information technology (hardware design, not necessarily manufacture, and software)
2. Entertainment (a significant portion of our exports as well as GDP)'
3. Optics, medical equipment, sustainable energy technology
4. Weaponry and guidance systems
5. Certain foodstuffs

We actually can't be competitive in the global heavy industry market because we have no real technological advantage there but labor under a severe labor costs handicap. And for better or worse, our industries are constrained by environmental controls, which add to the cost of doing business. Of course, in China, where there are basically no such controls, an estimated 250,000 people a year die from pollution. And we'll never get our workers to work for $4.50 an hour, the average wage in China. So Trump's blather is a pipe dream, aside from being an undesirable goal in the first place.

We should be writing software and making movies and selling them to the newly industrialized countries, and letting them bear the burden of coping with pollution, social disruption, and labor problems. The Law of Comparative Advantage says that we should be letting them make the heavy stuff and we should trade the stuff we make best for that. Put Joe Sixpack to work making solar panels and quit telling him we're gonna build him a nice new steel mill.

Quote:

And we'll never get our workers to work for $4.50 an hour, the average wage in China. So Trump's blather is a pipe dream, aside from being an undesirable goal in the first place.

Does anyone know what China's 4.50 and hour and how it relates to their cost of living compared to our minimum wage and our cost of living? Isn't the cost of living in China cheaper per capita thus it's relative?

I actually don't know the facts.

Quote: MrV

Please enlighten me as to what we Americans do best?

We specialize.

Joe answered this question in a different way, with a list of industries, but I don't think it's necessarily that straightforward. American industry can be and/or has been the best in the world at basically everything, but that doesn't mean we should continue to be. And the economy has borne that out. People who specialize in deeper and more difficult tasks routinely make more money than broad generalists. In most manual-labor industries, you start as a generalist and then specialize in some area as you get promoted. It never works the other way around. In white-collar knowledge work, knowing a little bit about everything is never as valuable as being an expert in one field. Experts often earn a *lot* more money than the generalists, especially in professional settings like medicine or law.

And we *should* specialize. Specialization is the only way we can have a society that supports science and innovation. If everyone had to be good at everything, nobody would ever have enough time to study advanced physics and figure out how to build the space drive that's necessary for us to get off this rock within the next 1000 years before we extinguish ourselves.

But the thing about specialization is that it requires more efficient deployment of resources. If it makes more economic sense for a timber company to ship raw logs overseas to be milled and ship back lumber, then mills in the Pacific Northwest will go out of business but the timber company will be more profitable. That means milling jobs go overseas. Imposing tariffs to keep those jobs here sounds good to out-of-work mill workers, but it's economic friction. It's one thing to impose tariffs based on the carbon impact of a round-trip boatride (an externality) but it's another to simply slap a tariff on the shipment just because you want to save some jobs. If the market doesn't actually support those jobs, why should they be saved? Should we bring back cassette tape manufacturing too? How about floppy disks? Telegraph operators?

Industries grow and die based on consumer demand, but the speed of that change is much faster than it was a generation ago. That's why nobody's job is safe anymore, and that's why we need to rethink the entire "get a job, work hard, make a decent living, retire" model in the first instance. It used to be true that you could learn a trade as an apprentice, or a subject in college, and that would be good for the rest of your career. It didn't need to be, but it was reliable. These days, industries are changing so fast that it's almost mandatory that everyone knows how to reinvent themselves every decade. My first job back in the mid-90s involved software technology that doesn't even exist anymore and companies that have long since gone out of business.

I've been able to reinvent myself a few times. Part of it was luck but a majority was preparation. But millions of Americans haven't been as lucky or prepared as I was and they're struggling. The question is this: should American society allow the unlucky to fail? Failure will *always* happen in a purely capitalist society without a meaningful safety net underneath it, and as this election cycle has amply demonstrated, that safety net doesn't exist.

Quote: MathExtremist

I've been able to reinvent myself a few times. Part of it was luck but a majority was preparation. But millions of Americans haven't been as lucky or prepared as I was and they're struggling. The question is this: should American society allow the unlucky to fail? Failure will *always* happen in a purely capitalist society without a meaningful safety net underneath it, and as this election cycle has amply demonstrated, that safety net doesn't exist.

The world is filled with underemployed "spare guys."

I agree we are in the Age of the Specialist: those with particular abilities lead the way for others to follow.

But how are they to follow these new trail blazers?

The traditional model of working your way up the corporate ladder has been undermined by the rapid pace of change; as you point out, the corporation one starts with may be defunct in ten years.

Most folks aren't quick enough on their feet and just fall further and further behind, often falling into a miasma of economic and personal decline.

These are the folks who need jobs; the guys without much education, and without specialized knowledge.

America used to have a place for them, but no more.

The gulf is ever widening.

ME please just admit that Joe doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about...he suggests that Joe Sixpack can go back to Community College and will then get a new job in any of those areas that he lists as what America does best. I can see it now "Hey Joe, we have a new gov't program that will pay for you to go back to Las Vegas Valley College so you can learn some weapons guidance systems skills. Sound good?" or "Maybe you'll be better at developing medical technology or alternative energy techniques once you graduate with your new Associates Degree".

That's Joe for ya, always in touch with what will work in the real world...of course as I recall he spends a lot of the time his employer is paying him to work posting on WoV (as do many others on the left with great ideas here that have never had to cover a bi-monthly payroll and you know who you are), so it is pretty clear his view of the labor & real world economics is a bit off.

You're different, you create economic value all by yourself which makes your opinion, ideas and perspective on the economy carry a lot more weight. You also understand that the fundamental problem is our economy is passing up Joe Sixpack's skill set.

But you are never going to sell the idea that those that can keep up and re-invent themselves every decade are somehow supposed to support those that can't intellectually compete in today's America. And to be honest, most Joe SIxpack's actually want to go work and be valuable somewhere. They don't want a government "safety net" on which they rely.

Infrastructure re-builds, energy patch jobs in the Bakken/Eagle Ford are examples of jobs Joe Sixpack can do here in America that can't be exported. If you don't like the carbon fuel business, you better come up with something else for Joe Sixpack to do here that can't be exported because we can't build infrastructure forever.

So what else you got besides "we need safety nets in place", because that isn't a solution. Neither is some concept that America just shouldn't let the unlucky or unprepared fail because somehow as a country we are better than that...really? You can't be serious...specifically how do we "not let these folks fail"?

How about these issues: We have an over abundance of Amercian people with labor skills that can't compete in an informational world. What impact should that have on our immigration policies? Or enforcing the borders? Or deporting folks that are here illegally regardless of where Mom & Dad vs. Child was born? I don't know that I am in favor of any particular policy on these issues, but the average Joe Sixpack looks at those issues and aligns with Trump's ridiculous rhetoric on each of those topics. That is why he got votes. Very few Joe Sixpack's care about "pu??y grabbing" or "not paying vendors due to a dispute" or what's on someone's tax return...right or wrong none of that matters to them.

Solve the problem of Joe Sixpack wanting a decent job that he can feel proud to accomplish and that affords him a middle class lifestyle and that side of the aisle will be winning elections going forward because the average American doesn't care about Pro Choice, Gay Marriage, Racism or any of a myriad of Social Issues that the left is clinging to as "moving our Country forward"...they care about jobs & the economy working for them because that "moves their world forward"

So figure that out and pass it along to the DNC, clearly Hillary's Campaign was clueless on the fundamental issue that "Hope and Change" never arrived for Joe Sixpack.

And one last thing, if you don't think getting Ford or Carrier to cave on keeping some token jobs here in the US isn't resonating with Joe Sixpack that voted for the Trump, you are mistaken. You and I know that those moves don't make any economic sense and isn't a real victory for Joe Sixpack, but perception is reality and Joe's perception is that Trump really is looking out for them.

Elizabeth Warren and the rest of the Dems better take notes or she will be taken out to the woodshack in 2020...and there will be more ridiculous protests over the democratic process we have in this country that is just "so unfair" when your candidate doesn't win. Get on with your lives or you'll end up being "unlucky or unprepared" and need a safety net to take care of you!

Quote: MathExtremist

And we *should* specialize. Specialization is the only way we can have a society that supports science and innovation. If everyone had to be good at everything, nobody would ever have enough time to study advanced physics and figure out how to build the space drive that's necessary for us to get off this rock within the next 1000 years before we extinguish ourselves.

I am an avid sci-fi reader and supporter/believer in the space program (what's left of it, anyway).

But I have to wonder: if we with our advanced understanding of the way things work cannot find a way to prevent ceaseless religious / cultural conflicts and wars with the resulting slaughter of innumerable innocents; if we cannot develop and politicize a world wide sense of empathy such that nobody need ever starve to death again, or die of easily preventable or treatable maladies; hell, if we cannot figure out a way to keep our fundamental family units intact without a fifty-fifty chance of fracture / divorce: then I submit that the best interests of the universe will be much better served if we die off and become extinct on this iron-cored orb we call earth.

We don't want the disease of humanity to infect the galaxy like a virulent, malignant cancer.

Quote: MrV

The world is filled with underemployed "spare guys."

These are the folks who need jobs; the guys without much education, and without specialized knowledge.

America used to have a place for them, but no more.

Quote: Paradigm

But you are never going to sell the idea that those that can keep up and re-invent themselves every decade are somehow supposed to support those that can't intellectually compete in today's America. And to be honest, most Joe SIxpack's actually want to go work and be valuable somewhere. They don't want a government "safety net" on which they rely.

Solve the problem of Joe Sixpack wanting a decent job that he can feel proud to accomplish and that affords him a middle class lifestyle and that side of the aisle will be winning elections going forward because the average American doesn't care about Pro Choice, Gay Marriage, Racism or any of a myriad of Social Issues that the left is clinging to as "moving our Country forward"...they care about jobs & the economy working for them because that "moves their world forward"

We all have basic needs and wants, and our "every man for himself" economy is set up to let Joe Sixpack fail when he can't (or won't) adapt to the next set of economic circumstances, or the next one after that, or the one after that. The Darwinian solution would be to let them fail and then throw them in debtors' prison when they run out of money. Except that's what foments the revolution I was talking about, and revolutions are worse than what got Trump elected, so let's not consider that further.

But if we're not going to just sit around and let "those that can't intellectually compete in today's America" fail, then the only alternative is to give them what they need to be successful and as productive as they want to be. For most people, that's time. Time to figure out what to do next -- or time to get the help to figure out what to do next -- while they're not busy worrying about being broke or unemployed or feeding their kids or paying the rent. An out-of-work coal miner might have the talent and inclination to be the next great movie director, or even just a better machinist than coal miner, but we'll never know if he's too busy trying to get another mining job. As a society, we absolutely suck at optimizing the productivity of the average worker. We're pretty good about letting the cream rise to the top, but we don't apply resources to the middle, where most people are. Most people just drift into a career and swirl around in an industry or two until they retire. How many people even get career counseling? If our society were designed to maximize the economic productivity of its citizens, it would absolutely not just let them flail around, guessing at what to do, and hoping they get lucky enough to not fail. That's where we are now, and look at how happy everyone is. Instead, we need more investment in our people. We need to give them time, and since time is money, that really means just giving people money, or the equivalent in basic needs so they don't need to spend that money in the first place. Why shouldn't every U.S. citizen be granted the right to sufficient nutrition, shelter, and clothing? Unlike last century, we now have the resources. It's really a distribution problem.

Except you're right -- the government can't do that. It's too much of a political grenade. It would require everyone to agree to, basically, socialism, and that will never happen at the federal or even state level.

But there is a potential solution.

We live in a world where society and corporations are distinct. You live in society, you work for a corporation. Corporations come and go, society smooshes around it. Most of the time corporations pay taxes and follow the rules society sets out for them, but there's tension when society acts to harm corporations and vice versa.

The way to get rid of that tension is to get rid of the distinction.

I propose that a corporate structure, if large enough, could supplement the government in providing for the basic needs of its "employee citizens." I haven't fully thought through the details -- because I lack the time and the macroeconomic skills -- but my instinct tells me that if enough people signed on to be part of "the company," and agreed not only to share a significant portion of their net worth but economic production during and even after their employment, we could make the math work. Here are a few major benefits:
a) There is no coersion -- the bane of libertarian philosophers. This is a voluntary association. It's a contract -- you have to agree to uphold your end of the bargain -- but nobody's forcing you to join. In other words, you can still be an American without being part of the company. But you don't get the benefits.
b) At the same time, a critical mass of, say, 100,000 people would go a long way to getting pretty favorable deals on everything. IBM has 400,000 people and they get to do things like providing their own self-underwritten health insurance. A critical mass of 1,000,000 people would be even stronger, and a mass of 10,000,000 people could -- if acting as a unified whole -- even swing elections. 10,000,000 people is bigger than all but 10 states.
c) Transferring resources from one employee to another inside a company is not a taxable event. If I'm a farmer growing food, and you're a tool-maker making farming equipment, and we're both members of the company, we can trade tools for food with no transactional friction from government taxes. Naturally, since bartering is so 18th century, there would be an internal corporate currency and economy.
d) Employees either work outside (at normal jobs) or they work inside, for the company. Working for the company may result in lower dollar compensation but higher corporate-currency compensation. Working for outside firms just means you pay a vig on any cash income to the company as part of your ongoing obligation. Nothing's free, after all. And maybe the vig doesn't even exist until there's a critical mass large enough to make things work at a minimum level. Eventually everything comes from inside the company and you don't need (outside) money at all. You can still get it, so as to interface with the outside world, but as the inside world grows your need to do that shrinks.
e) The company would, I expect, acquire many other firms. The employees of those firms would not be required to join, but the acquired firm itself would become another asset of the company, producing resources.
f) Over time, the company would acquire what it needed to become self-sufficient, leading to a virtuous cycle of increased employment, therefore increased total productivity, therefore stronger incentives for more people to join, etc. And as it grows, the company can provide higher and higher levels of employee benefits. Not just food and shelter but healthcare, education. Work up the Maslow pyramid, etc. The company is a non-profit, for the benefit of its employees, so it's not driven by profit motive and outside shareholders. It's driven by maximizing the welfare of its citizen-employees -- those are the shareholders. Sort of like "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
g) Citizen employee innovations would inure to the benefit of the company, just like any other employee-company relationship, so after a while the company would be the world's largest IP holder. But unlike most other companies, this one would actively encourage innovation and research. It's a lot easier to be creative and/or spend years pursuing research when you're not worried about covering basic needs.
h) And yes, if you want to screw around all day, drinking beer and playing Xbox, you get to. Maybe you don't get extra benefit levels if you're not productive, but everyone's basic needs are met. But like you said, "most Joe Sixpack's actually want to go work and be valuable somewhere" and I think working to make a corporation/society where everyone can succeed and nobody gets left behind is worth sucking up a few leeches along the way.

The trillion-dollar question, of course, is whether such an organization can grow to a critical mass to accomplish the goal of providing basic needs and then the secondary goal of demonstrating higher productivity than individual-centric capitalism. I think it can, but I'm not sure it would get there before the government realized there was meaningful competition and moved to shut it down.

Maybe this is a crackpot idea that won't work for some reason that's obvious to everyone but me. Or maybe not. Please feel free to pick this apart.

Edit: after posting that, I realized just what a wall of text that is. I wonder if that's the longest post ever on this forum -- except for the numeric gibberish that gets posted from time to time when people are convinced their betting system works or their online casino is cheating them.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Sounds like I was close to dead on. The incentive for carrier to stay is $700,000 in state money that taxpayers have no say in spending. Some committee of appointees by the governor, headed at the moment by Governor Pence, meets next on Dec 13 to approve the appropriation.

Pence stayed Governor despite being not just VPE but head of Trump's transition team, reportedly to take that last meeting and ensure the money is approved. This despite Trump claiming during the campaign that incentives of this type don't work, and he would not do them. Technically, he didn't; Indiana did. But he's taking all the credit for it.

SMH

Am I correct to assume based on your above view of kittens and donuts falling from the sky that if Satan herself had won a month ago, this same announcement would have been made at roughly the same time it was made?

SMFH

Quote: Maverick17

Am I correct to assume based on your above view of kittens and donuts falling from the sky that if Satan herself had won a month ago, this same announcement would have been made at roughly the same time it was made?

SMFH

Your snark is not appreciated. Move on.

The state amount is now reported as 7M, not 700k. Those pesky zeros.

Also, Carrier is a division of United Technologies. They have $5,000,000,000 in federal contracts. Those contracts were seen to be threatened if Carrier moved that plant to Mexico. So those were pretty strong incentives.

ME, this sounds like basic socialism and this was Bernie's message. He couldn't get past Hillary. The day a true Socialist gets in to office will be the first day of a real revolution in this country.

The "Time" that you want to provide people that are trying to figure out what to do is unemployment benefits. If I remember correctly, Obama extended these benefits for up to two years during the Great Recession. That plan of providing more "time to figure out what is next" doesn't seemed to have worked...and if two years isn't enough time to get your life back on track, the majority of these individuals did not want to get back on track.

But forget that conversation for now...what is this corporation going to have its corporate citizens do that will provide enough value for the corporation to sustain itself but that won't provide enough value in the competitive labor market?

You won't get enough "earners" to sign up for a Corporate program to offset the "needers". Why would someone that can make a good living decide to decrease their family's lifestyle for the general good of the average "Corporate Citizen"? You are going to need an equal amount of value given up by the "earners" to balance out the value needed by the "needers". You'll never get that equation to balance....your belief in altruistic human nature is misplaced.

Instead, I would focus on figuring out what low intellectual skill jobs are needed in this country and monitor the ratio of people needing those jobs to the number of those jobs we have in this country. Manage that ratio by providing incentives to create those jobs/reducing regulations on employers that provide those jobs and limit the amount of low skilled people living in this country through trade education programs and fixing the immigration flow (both legal and illegal).

What you don't do is get rid of industries to further environmental causes and provide no alternatives for those displaced. Or decide that every 30 years we should do an amnesty program and make new citizens that likely lean towards the lower end of the skill set requirements of our information age. Do you think those Amnesty Citizens will be taking up some of the construction jobs during our county's infrastructure re-build? Why are we going to give those jobs to Amnesty Citizens and not displaced coal miners?

Underneath all the rhetoric crap that spewed from DJT during the campaign, this is the message that won the election. Give Average Joe a chance to be self sufficient because none of that other crap matters to he/she putting food on the table and being able to take their kids to the movies every few weeks. The wealth gap is huge and getting larger not because Capitalism doesn't work, it is because we haven't managed the labor economics for those with skill sets that are being automated away or became obsolete due in the technology age. And the Left has decided that environmental issues and protecting lifestyle freedoms consume the political energy for "change" and "moving forward together". While the Obama Administration has been worried about the environment and social justice issues, Joe Sixpack can't make it in America and neither the Right or the Left political powers have spent any time addressing that issue...unless you call extending unemployment benefits solving the problem.

So here comes Trump...with some outrageous rhetoric that is clearly over the lines of decency!! Yet his message of working on Joe Sixpack's economic woes is resonating with people that never saw "Hope & Change" happen for them. Do I like the rhetoric that comes from Trump, no I don't. Do I think he will act on 25% of what he said to win the Election Game, no I don't. Can he do a better job addressing the real economic problems of America today than Hillary/Bernie/Warren would do, absolutely!

I remember somewhere, someone said the stock market would crater 10% if DJT was elected...I can still see Rachel Maddow "the Dow Jones Futures are now down almost 800 points" claiming that was somehow support for how terrible the Election Results would be for Amercia...how much are they down now Rachel? Didn't the markets actually recover all of that pre-market loss and close up the next day. Where are the indexes now in comparison? But now Rachel will claim that the stock market is an indication of how the wealth gap continues to expand as the facts of an increasing stock market no longer help her biased message. But she is great entertainment once you realize that she thinks her show and her message actually matters to the County's direction...pure comedy at its finest.

If the Left was so wrong about that, perhaps consider they just might be wrong about what DJT can do for this country and the middle class. I am not convinced either way on DJT just yet, but I do know what happened over the last 8 years didn't move the economic needle for the average American. The wealth gap got larger and all we are left with is Obamacare as the "Signature Legislation"...a 2700 page document that no one read before passing it into law and now the genius is leaving office for the rest of us to deal with the consequences. Perfection!! Oh and people protesting in the streets and wondering how the Democratic Nominee could have possibly lost...but she was so deserving, she worked her whole life fighting for us....she really does deserve the Blue Ribbon....[Face Palm}.

Alright, that is it for this month...I, like you, have to create some value that puts food on the table for not just me but also covers the payroll debit that hit the corporate bank account today. Of course we did have to restructure health insurance benefits for my company of two employees due to Obamacare, my old plan wasn't compliant...the plan consisted of paying directly for my employees individual health insurance coverage. Can't do that under Obamacare...huh, I thought Obamacare only affected employers with over 50 employees? Did anyone read the fine......never mind.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Your snark is not appreciated. Move on.

The state amount is now reported as 7M, not 700k. Those pesky zeros.

Also, Carrier is a division of United Technologies. They have $5,000,000,000 in federal contracts. Those contracts were seen to be threatened if Carrier moved that plant to Mexico. So those were pretty strong incentives.

So now piddley state weems from Indiana have the authority to ding the parent companies Federal contracts?

Which is it?

Trump is a do nothing who just happens to get lucky at EVERYTHING he has touched politically, OR...

secretaries and janitors in Indiana are the secret bosses who run the world? (or at least the US Federal government)




ps - we both know what happened, and who made it happen, so you don't have to respond and appear foolish in either path you would wish to take.

Quote: Paradigm

ME, this sounds like basic socialism and this was Bernie's message. He couldn't get past Hillary. The day a true Socialist gets in to office will be the first day of a real revolution in this country.

The "Time" that you want to provide people that are trying to figure out what to do is unemployment benefits. If I remember correctly, Obama extended these benefits for up to two years during the Great Recession. That plan of providing more "time to figure out what is next" doesn't seemed to have worked...and if two years isn't enough time to get your life back on track, the majority of these individuals did not want to get back on track.

But forget that conversation for now...what is this corporation going to have its corporate citizens do that will provide enough value for the corporation to sustain itself but that won't provide enough value in the competitive labor market?

You won't get enough "earners" to sign up for a Corporate program to offset the "needers". Why would someone that can make a good living decide to decrease their family's lifestyle for the general good of the average "Corporate Citizen"? You are going to need an equal amount of value given up by the "earners" to balance out the value needed by the "needers". You'll never get that equation to balance....your belief in altruistic human nature is misplaced.

To my knowledge, corporate socialism has never been attempted. And as to altruism, I'm not sure that's strictly required. There are ways such a company can be more efficient than a for-profit organization, assuming it can leverage internal resources efficiently, so I disagree with your premise that an equal amount of value will need to balance the needs. The goal would be to have such an umbrella organization be a better (more efficient) resource manager than the aggregate of individuals who comprise it. That's what companies do best anyway. Put in specific terms, a steelworker who has a job but is struggling to make ends meet and can't figure out how to improve his lot in life has no options right now. That same steelworker, if given the option to join an umbrella organization that promises basic needs and social safety in exchange for a percentage of his net worth and future productivity, would be wise to join if that organization can be a better steward of those resources than he himself can. It's all voluntary. No coercion, so it's not forced socialism.

People hire specialists (like both of us) to manage certain narrow aspects of their lives or businesses as a routine matter of course. Accountants, lawyers, doctors, mathematicians, landscapers, it's all part of the service industry where people trade their money in exchange for services performed by someone who's better at it than they are. My proposed structure is basically like someone hiring a specialist to manage the provision of basic needs. And, as it grows, a greater level of needs and then wants.

Do you own a ladder and a power drill? Do your neighbors? If you were all part of a resource-sharing neighborhood group, would you all need the same number of ladders and power drills? Of course not. Expand that to everything you do on a daily basis and that's the premise here. Efficiency through collectivism can probably outperform the aggregate performance of independent economic agents. It allows specialization.

And I don't think startup capital would be a problem. As a non-profit, donations to this organization would be a tax deduction. There are billions of philanthropic dollars out there currently earmarked for good causes. I think "providing food, shelter, clothing, education, and healthcare to every member" would qualify.

Quote:

but it's another to simply slap a tariff on the shipment just because you want to save some jobs. If the market doesn't actually support those jobs, why should they be saved? Should we bring back cassette tape manufacturing too? How about floppy disks? Telegraph operators?

Well, you got me again on the logic. The example is of a thriving dynamic market (wood) which still operates the basic way for generations. Still growing, harvesting and utilizing wood. You then give an example of profit for the timber company itself which if dropping jobs here, then the profit goes basically to the executives and shareholders, a small needy crowd indeed. Then comment why bring those jobs back if the market doesn't support it? But it was the lumber company itself killing that market correct? This is contradictory and probably a bad example for your illustration which has merits for sure. Also, a technology specific product reaches it's useful life, the newer tech takes it's place and whole communities are built to support the next tech.

Perhaps, we discussing actual movements of science, like coal to oil, heating oil to natual gas...electricity, computers and email. These are landscape changing, while 3/4 tape to dvd is mostly a bump in change and easily absorbed over time. People are still using VHS's for cripes sake. But these are incremental within the flow of usage by the general public. Who never seem to all be on the same page in the same decade, like never.

Quote: MathExtremist

My proposed structure is basically like someone hiring a specialist to manage the provision of basic needs..

When you are under the age of 18 (or 22 if going to college), we call that specialist "parents"...when you are over that age and can't figure it out for yourself, and need to hire a specialist to manage your basic needs, we call that a "Nanny State" or in your structure, a "Nanny Corporation".

Is that what you think Joe Six Pack is looking for as the answer to his economic situation? If so, you are more out of touch with middle America than I thought...but not to worry, you have plenty of company on the Left which is why the Dems lost the WH and can't win back the House or the Senate.

The best hope for the Dems in 2020 is if the RNC decides to spend time trying to overturn Roe V Wade, Gay Marriage Rights or re-instating the legality of 30 round magazine's for assault rifles. If the Trump Administration spends any significant time on these types of issues in place of creating jobs, fixing the mess created by Obamacare Regulations and implementing federal fiscal discipline, the Dems got a chance in 4 years.

But when the infra structure re-build puts Joe Six Pack to work, the energy patch starts drilling putting those Roughnecks back to work with OPEC deciding to flex its collective muscle and DJT negotiates a low corporate tax rate for repatriation of foreign earnings bringing that capital back into the country, the Dems are going to be out for a while. "It's the Economy, Stupid" as James Carville liked to say...boy watching his head explode live on MSNBC Election Night was priceless!!

And I really am done here...my time, and frankly your time, is too valuable to be debating in Fantasyland!

FOX News has gone rogue!

Not as much praise over the Carrier "deal" today from the righties.

Quote: ams288

FOX News has gone rogue!

Not as much praise over the Carrier "deal" today from the righties.

Good. If there are problems with the deal, they should address them.

Same think I expect, but don't get, from the MSM.

Quote: Paradigm

When you are under the age of 18 (or 22 if going to college), we call that specialist "parents"...when you are over that age and can't figure it out for yourself, and need to hire a specialist to manage your basic needs, we call that a "Nanny State" or in your structure, a "Nanny Corporation".

Is that what you think Joe Six Pack is looking for as the answer to his economic situation? If so, you are more out of touch with middle America than I thought...

I don't know what Joe Six Pack is looking for. I only know what his needs are, because those needs are the same as your needs and my needs. Those needs are inviolate. I don't care if you don't *want* food, without it you'll die. I don't care if you don't *want* clean water, without it you'll die. I don't care if you don't *want* a roof over your head, without it -- in many parts of the country -- you'll die. And frankly, it's beside the point whether a particular Joe Six Pack or Mary Machinist or Patrick Python Programmer is looking for any particular solution. I only care that enough people look at the option and sign up so as to achieve critical mass and thereby superior economic efficiencies compared to everyone individually going it alone. To take a direct quote from the Trump playbook, if you have terrible prospects, "what do you have to lose"?

And you think parents are specialists in providing for their children? Maybe you are, and I am, but did you know that 20% of American children live in poverty? That's among the highest child poverty rates among first-world nations, and it's absolutely disgraceful.

Again, this is all entirely voluntary. If there are no takers, there's the answer. But what do you want to bet that there will be more than a few takers, especially six months into a Trump administration where he's walked back all his campaign promises and is transparently feathering his nest with no further heed to the voters who elected him?

Quote: MathExtremist

I don't know what Joe Six Pack is looking for. I only know what his needs are, because those needs are the same as your needs and my needs. Those needs are inviolate. I don't care if you don't *want* food, without it you'll die. I don't care if you don't *want* clean water, without it you'll die. I don't care if you don't *want* a roof over your head, without it -- in many parts of the country -- you'll die. And frankly, it's beside the point whether a particular Joe Six Pack or Mary Machinist or Patrick Python Programmer is looking for any particular solution. I only care that enough people look at the option and sign up so as to achieve critical mass and thereby superior economic efficiencies compared to everyone individually going it alone. To take a direct quote from the Trump playbook, if you have terrible prospects, "what do you have to lose"?

And you think parents are specialists in providing for their children? Maybe you are, and I am, but did you know that 20% of American children live in poverty? That's among the highest child poverty rates among first-world nations, and it's absolutely disgraceful.

Again, this is all entirely voluntary. If there are no takers, there's the answer. But what do you want to bet that there will be more than a few takers, especially six months into a Trump administration where he's walked back all his campaign promises and is transparently feathering his nest with no further heed to the voters who elected him?

Takers for what?

Go start a commune, who is stopping you? Certainly not me, and certainly not Trump.

Nobody wants only what they need. NOBODY. Especially if they have to do nothing to get it. But give it a shot, just have millions to toss at it, or the experiment will be very brief.

Apparently Donald is still out there holding campaign rallies?

I'm not watching. But Twitter tells me the crowd is embarrassingly small for Donald...

The man's desperate need for approval is stunning. You won (the Electoral College). Now stop begging the hillbillies for applause and get to work....

Quote: Maverick17

Takers for what?

Go start a commune, who is stopping you? Certainly not me, and certainly not Trump.

Nobody wants only what they need. NOBODY. Especially if they have to do nothing to get it. But give it a shot, just have millions to toss at it, or the experiment will be very brief.

ME's point is that, if these needs continue to not be met, there will be a revolution, or at least a lot of tumult. Particularly, I think, as more and more people are essentially excluded from the country in most meaningful senses.

I submit, that if a bomb went off at a Goldman Sachs board meeting tomorrow, (moreso if Hillary had won), a very large portion of the country would have to grapple with how they felt about it.

Now, 20 years from now. There are no trucking or driving jobs. More engineering jobs are done by temporary immigrants. Even jobs like lawyer and pharmacist are on the way out. There are even fewer jobs in construction, or at checkout stands. etc. etc.

Politicians pal around with movie stars, compile massive fortunes of their own via corruption and keep saying, "if you don't like it, you're racist." or "don't blame me, blame the gays!" (i.e. they behave exactly as they do now).

People keep saying, "just adapt! Get a PhD in some technical field, then when that becomes irrelevant in 10 years, do it again!" "Besides, you can get underware at Wal-Mart super cheap!"

That's the vision elites have for this country. It might be rejected rather violently. We're just dipping our toe in the water now, and you got Trump and Bernie in response. "We'd rather have an unheard of, Jewish socialist who is 74 years old, or a reality TV star who is a giant asshole than that."

That happened in spite of massive corporate funding against it, the MSM going into full propaganda mode to prevent it and each party trying to sabotage the "bad" candidate, from their POV. Which actually makes me a bit optimistic. Hopefully, we can take our political system back, even if Trump is a pretty bad point man in the project.

If not, people are just going to get angrier and won't be content to just say FU with the ballot. And I'd be inclined to think they'll be justified.

So you have to come up with some credible response to these issues. ME's ideas seem pretty sharp to me.

Quote: Rigondeaux

So you have to come up with some credible response to these issues. ME's ideas seem pretty sharp to me.

Holy $h!t, ME you were right...sign him up quick, you have your first taker of the Communal Corporate Promise...that is what you meant by saying the idea was "pretty sharp", right Rigs?

First thing you'll need to do is change your direct deposit on that payroll check you're getting to the Communal Corporate Promise Account that has been set up. Do you have a pen handy to take down the ABA Routing & Account Number? Don't worry, we got you on this "needs" thing. Everything will be taken care of...

Quote: MathExtremist

We all have basic needs and wants, and our "every man for himself" economy is set up to let Joe Sixpack fail when he can't (or won't) adapt to the next set of economic circumstances, or the next one after that, or the one after that. The Darwinian solution would be to let them fail and then throw them in debtors' prison when they run out of money. Except that's what foments the revolution I was talking about, and revolutions are worse than what got Trump elected, so let's not consider that further. <<snip>>

Maybe this is a crackpot idea that won't work for some reason that's obvious to everyone but me. Or maybe not. Please feel free to pick this apart. <snip>.

Nothing to pick apart. Interesting concept that sounds similar to communism, or woodstock.
But the interesting part is I believe I've read where many scientist, economists and other brain trusts have basically agreed that communism works on paper. It's when humans interfere with the program that makes it fail. I get the same feeling from your concept. I think the very creatures your solution attempts to help will probably fail and screw it up on so many levels.

But that's just me.

Quote: Paradigm

Holy $h!t, ME you were right...sign him up quick, you have your first taker of the Communal Corporate Promise...that is what you meant by saying the idea was "pretty sharp", right Rigs?

Trump got tens of millions of supporters without a plan. I'd bet I could get hundreds of thousands of supporters with one.

Quote: MathExtremist

Trump got tens of millions of supporters without a plan. I'd bet I could get hundreds of thousands of supporters with one.

Absolutely...I mean you already have all kinds of support here, Rigs in onboard and I am sure Rx & AMS are close behind...what more evidence do you need.

The concept is barely 24 hours and is already a "Movement"...some might consider it a bowel movement, but don't let that deter you.

Quote: Paradigm

Absolutely...I mean you already have all kinds of support here, Rigs in onboard and I am sure Rx & AMS are close behind...what more evidence do you need.

The concept is barely 24 hours and is already a "Movement"...some might consider it a bowel movement, but don't let that deter you.

And maybe it is a turd, but your criticism isn't substantive on that point, it's just dismissive. Your disdain sounds like an awful lot like early Trump critics -- and look where he ended up.

Quote: sammydv

I believe I've read where many scientist, economists and other brain trusts have basically agreed that communism works on paper. It's when humans interfere with the program that makes it fail. I get the same feeling from your concept.

Partially true, imo. Certain elements of Communism are going to be bad no matter who is in charge. Particularly, the idea of a command economy (i.e. production is just determined by some official.)

Any system is going to suffer from the lizard people problem, including capitalism, which Smith recognized. Meaning, there are always going to be people determined to climb to the top and promote their own interests and status. Malignant narcissists, or whatever. And such people are the most motivated to get to the top. Once enough of them get there, and figure out how to game the system, you'll have big problems. Which we are beginning to see. Hopefully we'll be saved by checks and balances, and democratic input.

Quote: Paradigm

Holy $h!t, ME you were right...sign him up quick, you have your first taker of the Communal Corporate Promise...that is what you meant by saying the idea was "pretty sharp", right Rigs?

First thing you'll need to do is change your direct deposit on that payroll check you're getting to the Communal Corporate Promise Account that has been set up. Do you have a pen handy to take down the ABA Routing & Account Number? Don't worry, we got you on this "needs" thing. Everything will be taken care of...

I don't cash a payroll check, but if I did, I wouldn't think it worthy of disdain.

I don't think UBI requires you to give up your paycheck.

I didn't say it was a perfect plan, just that it was pretty sharp. Better than the current plan, of turning into Russia, but with more people in prison.

Another alternative, which I think someone hinted at, and which another braniac I know from the internet favors, is endless make work programs. That might hold things together for our lifetimes.

Quote: sammydv

Nothing to pick apart. Interesting concept that sounds similar to communism, or woodstock.
But the interesting part is I believe I've read where many scientist, economists and other brain trusts have basically agreed that communism works on paper. It's when humans interfere with the program that makes it fail. I get the same feeling from your concept. I think the very creatures your solution attempts to help will probably fail and screw it up on so many levels.

But that's just me.

Could be, but I'm not proposing communism. Communism is a form of government, and any form of government has to be inclusive of everyone. You're right that people who misbehave tend to screw up communism but that's because the government needs to include those who misbehave. Even criminals have rights.

But in a corporation, if someone's misbehaving, they can get fired. It's a voluntary association by both the employee and the corporation. In other words, if you're actually making use of the basic needs benefits of being a citizen employee, there is a strong incentive not to screw things up for yourself and have those benefits taken away. The carrot and the stick are both in play. If excommunication can work for religions, dismissal can work here. I mean, that's a penalty that the U.S. government doesn't even deploy. Except, didn't Trump just propose revoking citizenship for flag-burners?

Quote: MaxPen

Quote: beachbumbabs

It's a bet. 200 says Hillary will win the popular vote. Source Google. Date Dec. 1. All ballots should be counted by then.

Settled on completion of all ballets in regardless of date but before inauguration. Delays are being implemented to fuel the fires. I that is acceptable consider it a done deal.

So how's this bet coming along?

Hillary's up by 2.5 million in the popular vote. That ain't gonna change.

What does "completion of ballets" mean? Ballets? Do we gotta wait till Black Swan finishes its run? When is MaxPen gonna pay up?

Quote: ams288

So how's this bet coming along?

Hillary's up by 2.5 million in the popular vote. That ain't gonna change.

What does "completion of ballets" mean? Ballets? Do we gotta wait till Black Swan finishes its run? When is MaxPen gonna pay up?

NLT Jan 19th. The counting isn't finished. I think everybody can agree on that.

I'm not sure if this is true, but it might be that Hillary only won the popular vote because she spent too much time concentrating on large population areas where her message resonated. Trump may have paid more attention to the electoral college. Perhaps he could have won the popular vote if he concentrated on doing so, but then he might have lost in the electoral college.

Quote: Greasyjohn

I'm not sure if this is true, but it might be that Hillary only won the popular vote because she spent too much time concentrating on large population areas where her message resonated. Trump may have paid more attention to the electoral college. Perhaps he could have won the popular vote if he concentrated on doing so, but then he might have lost in the electoral college.

It was roughly ~80,000 votes total between three states (PA, WI, and MI) that won Trump the electoral college.

Many people on the Clinton campaign feel that the letters from FBI director Comey are what depressed turnout and lost them the election.

Clinton vs. Cosby

Quote: ams288

Many people on the Clinton campaign feel that the letters from FBI director Comey are what depressed turnout and lost them the election.

"Many people," including a lot more than a few law enforcement officials, think that she is a criminal, not to mention a miserable candidate who has major difficulty relating to most Americans and whose overfunded campaign was ill suited to the current state of country.

Quote: ams288

So how's this bet coming along?

Hillary's up by 2.5 million in the popular vote. That ain't gonna change.

What does "completion of ballets" mean? Ballets? Do we gotta wait till Black Swan finishes its run? When is MaxPen gonna pay up?

IIRC the bet wasn't booked. What page is that above quote on, out of curiosity?

Quote: RS

IIRC the bet wasn't booked. What page is that above quote on, out of curiosity?

It was booked.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/questions-and-answers/all-other/25807-2016-election-part-ii/467/#post563671

I'm just sad I didn't see it before he stopped taking action. Free money.

Touché.

Quote: ams288

It was booked.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/questions-and-answers/all-other/25807-2016-election-part-ii/467/#post563671

I'm just sad I didn't see it before he stopped taking action. Free money.

Why are you worried about other peoples action?

It is ballots not ballets. We all know that, spellcheck affects all.

The bet would not have been available to you. The bet was a +ev opportunity for anyone that lost on Hillary that I had minimal action with. It was explained as a gentlemans double down.

You're really taking your girls loss hard. Must suck being so bitter. You should go find Jo.

Your uninformed reference to me paying up is highly insulting and you can go f!#/ yourself.

Quote: ams288

Apparently Donald is still out there holding campaign rallies?

I'm not watching. But Twitter tells me the crowd is embarrassingly small for Donald...

The man's desperate need for approval is stunning. You won (the Electoral College). Now stop begging the hillbillies for applause and get to work....

It's called a victory tour. Trump promising people to do the job he was chosen for. I see nothing wrong with it. Typical Trump fashion.

The desperate ones are your girl and Kaine. What are they doing? The losers tour? Simply pathetic.

So Trump accepted a call from the president of Taiwan, breaking a 37-year protocol with China.

This is exactly the kind of thing about Trump that worries me. That he would have that little respect or understanding of our prior foreign policy and its implications.

Trump said regarding the brouhaha that the call generated, "Interesting how the US sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment, but I should not accept a congratulatory call." How nice, Trump has made an interesting observation. And he's only making it worse. I only hope that the world gives our president elect some leeway realizing that he is new to politics and deplomacy. But is hard to forgive and show patience for a man who by his manner and lack of tact is just asking to be put in his place.

I'm reminded of the time I saw Trump talking at the campaign podium about trade deals with China, and he imitated the accent of the country. It was very insulting. And now with this telephone gaffe he has, as one source wrote, angered one-third of the world's population in 48 hours.

People want change, to do away with all the nonsense, find prosperity, have national pride.
But it is a little scary how much we are able to overlook in order to believe in Trump.

I want Trump to succeed. But the world might just be too complicated for him to do so.

Quote: Greasyjohn

So Trump accepted a call from the president of Taiwan, breaking a 37-year protocol with China.

This is exactly the kind of thing about Trump that worries me. That he would have that little respect or understanding of our prior foreign policy and its implications.

Trump said regarding the brouhaha that the call generated, "Interesting how the US sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment, but I should not accept a congratulatory call." How nice, Trump has made an interesting observation. And he's only making it worse.

I'm reminded of the time Trump was talking about trade deals with China, and he imitated the accent of the country. It was very insulting.

People want change, to do away with all the nonsense, find prosperity, have national pride.
But it is a little scary how much we are able to overlook to believe in Trump.

I want Trump to succeed. But the world might just be too complicated for him to do so.

He's in way over his head
His tweet of "she called me" just throws gas on the dispute
He just does not get it.

I know there is a lot of talk about what Trump is doing, as there should be. Like most Presidents, some things will be good and others may not be. We should always be watching our leaders and be willing to be critical if they step outside the boundaries of good behaviors or actions. Not that we've done that well of late, but it is how we should do it...

The Democrats do not seem to yet realize they lost and that they need to change things. Nearly a month has gone by since the election and they are way still too tied up in the popular vs. electoral vote thing. I am not saying that they should not ask for recounts where they feel the results could really be wrong or something illegal may have happened, but the general direction of any party after a loss of this type--you could say they barely lost the Presidency, but their losses around the country were huge--should be to figure out what went wrong and what they need to do to fix it. I am not sure the "status quo" is the answer, but it is what they chose in the House at least.

This Trump character may well implode and be a one-termer. That would be good for the Dems, of course, because anything going that badly would probably swing at least one part of the legislative branch back to them in 2018. The problem is that he is perhaps more to the center than a typical Republican and he may even do a lot of things that the "deplorables" within the Democrat ranks like and that will give them problems in the next election cycle. Yes, there is this basket of people on both sides that are called names by the other...the great thing is that they are just as much a part of the US as any of the elites are and they make up a large enough voting group to deserve attention without name calling...usually they just get forgotten.

I know there are some wretched, worthless scoundrels on both sides. Yes, AMS, this is just another "both sides" thing for me. It is when people think only their side has any points or credibility when they get in the deepest trouble. The whole 47% thing with Romney and the deplorables thing with HRC are BOTH losing positions. How many people like to be called deplorables or leeches? Talk about pushing people to the other side for sure!!

All the fear mongering about Nazis and Hitler, etc. does absolutely no good at all; perhaps it even solidifies support for Trump because those attacks come without much support, He can't change the First Amendment and his comments on that were perhaps poorly executed, but there is an issue with fake news and lies being published as facts. The problem is how to fix it... He can't order the next set of elections to be cancelled. There are more things that he can't do than that he can do. In many ways, one of the best things about the Clinton presidency was that Bill liked being popular. Donald likes being popular. He could end up more centrist than anyone thinks or than any true conservative likes.

Roe v. Wade? I think he will find that it is not worth the time to try and overturn it.

We've just had an election where the sitting President had huge approval ratings and yet his party's candidate failed to come even close in getting voted for in the same percentages as his popularity. The Democrat machine was tone deaf as to how bad of a candidate she was--she lost to Obama in 2008, did anyone on that side even notice?

Anyway...I live in a truly great, yet imperfect, country. We will see what happens next!!

Quote: terapined

He's in way over his head
His tweet of "she called me" just throws gas on the dispute
He just does not get it.

He might not get it.

I laugh, though, when I hear stuff about China not trusting us.

It isn't like they ever trusted us or ever will.

Quote: MaxPen

Why are you worried about other peoples action?

It is ballots not ballets. We all know that, spellcheck affects all.

The bet would not have been available to you. The bet was a +ev opportunity for anyone that lost on Hillary that I had minimal action with. It was explained as a gentlemans double down.

You're really taking your girls loss hard. Must suck being so bitter. You should go find Jo.

Your uninformed reference to me paying up is highly insulting and you can go f!#/ yourself.

It had nothing to do with him using it as an opportunity to point out how Hillary won the popular vote. He certainly wasn't trying to rub it in and point how you were wrong. He was just trying to give a friendly reminder to BBB in case she had forgotten. He wanted to make sure the bet is honored so BBB had some extra money for the holidays.

#The holiday spirit.

Trump has filed a legal challenge to block the recount in Michigan.

Quote: MaxPen

You're really taking your girls loss hard. Must suck being so bitter. You should go find Jo.

Your uninformed reference to me paying up is highly insulting and you can go f!#/ yourself.

What a nasty post!

And you say I'm taking the loss hard! Sounds to me like you're taking your $200 loss harder. Psychologists would call this post "projection."

I don't think MaxPen gives a sh** about the $200. It's funny you think he does, though.

Quote: RonC

I know there is a lot of talk about what Trump is doing, as there should be. Like most Presidents, some things will be good and others may not be. We should always be watching our leaders and be willing to be critical if they step outside the boundaries of good behaviors or actions. Not that we've done that well of late, but it is how we should do it...

The Democrats do not seem to yet realize they lost and that they need to change things. Nearly a month has gone by since the election and they are way still too tied up in the popular vs. electoral vote thing. I am not saying that they should not ask for recounts where they feel the results could really be wrong or something illegal may have happened, but the general direction of any party after a loss of this type--you could say they barely lost the Presidency, but their losses around the country were huge--should be to figure out what went wrong and what they need to do to fix it. I am not sure the "status quo" is the answer, but it is what they chose in the House at least.

This Trump character may well implode and be a one-termer. That would be good for the Dems, of course, because anything going that badly would probably swing at least one part of the legislative branch back to them in 2018. The problem is that he is perhaps more to the center than a typical Republican and he may even do a lot of things that the "deplorables" within the Democrat ranks like and that will give them problems in the next election cycle. Yes, there is this basket of people on both sides that are called names by the other...the great thing is that they are just as much a part of the US as any of the elites are and they make up a large enough voting group to deserve attention without name calling...usually they just get forgotten.

I know there are some wretched, worthless scoundrels on both sides. Yes, AMS, this is just another "both sides" thing for me. It is when people think only their side has any points or credibility when they get in the deepest trouble. The whole 47% thing with Romney and the deplorables thing with HRC are BOTH losing positions. How many people like to be called deplorables or leeches? Talk about pushing people to the other side for sure!!

All the fear mongering about Nazis and Hitler, etc. does absolutely no good at all; perhaps it even solidifies support for Trump because those attacks come without much support, He can't change the First Amendment and his comments on that were perhaps poorly executed, but there is an issue with fake news and lies being published as facts. The problem is how to fix it... He can't order the next set of elections to be cancelled. There are more things that he can't do than that he can do. In many ways, one of the best things about the Clinton presidency was that Bill liked being popular. Donald likes being popular. He could end up more centrist than anyone thinks or than any true conservative likes.

Roe v. Wade? I think he will find that it is not worth the time to try and overturn it.

We've just had an election where the sitting President had huge approval ratings and yet his party's candidate failed to come even close in getting voted for in the same percentages as his popularity. The Democrat machine was tone deaf as to how bad of a candidate she was--she lost to Obama in 2008, did anyone on that side even notice?

Anyway...I live in a truly great, yet imperfect, country. We will see what happens next!!

Great post.

One thing to keep in mind with the DNC power structure. They already chose, deliberately, to risk a loss representing their backers, than get behind a popular (in both senses) candidate.

All of those people, and everyone in their families, are or will become very rich as long as they follow orders. The party itself, also depends on special interests for funding.

Some of them even believe, to at least some degree, in what they preach and vote for.

They won't change just because their ideas were rejected by voters. They'll have to be dragged out, kicking and screaming and calling everyone racist.

Quote: RS

I don't think MaxPen gives a sh** about the $200. It's funny you think he does, though.

I don't know much about MaxPen's financial life. I'll take your word for it. In that case, his butthurt response to my post highlighting the dumb bet he made seems even more strange...