patrick.net

www.youtube.com/embed/Vc1t1AZpY7Q

The steady diet of propaganda and misinformation consumed by a significant chunk of the Americans population has led to the current situation. There is a strong need among many of these people to hold beliefs that support their emotions ( hate, fear, indignation ). It's like an addiction. The result is a bizarre pathological willingness to not even care whether the beliefs they take on are even true.

We've seen this now for years. But it's grown. And then there's the Obama factor. They don't even know why they hate him so much.

Furthermore, in 2010, political scientists Brendan Nyhan1 and Jason Reifler2 found that when misinformed citizens are told that their facts are wrong, they often cling to their opinions even more strongly with what is known as defensive processing, or the “backfire effect.”

And Hillary is "Truthful" or "Mostly Truthful" on controversial statements only about 50% of the time. The other 50% of remarks Polifact looked at were either Half-truths or Falsehoods.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

tatupu70 says

But all the fact-checking in the world

hasn't delivered a candidate that does what he promises upon reaching office.

It couldn't possibly be that Trump has been hammering against Free Trade going back to the 80s when the Japanese kept (and still keep) their non-tariff barriers against US imports while getting minimally restricted access to US Markets.

He's been consistent for ~30 years on this topic.

Hillary has been consistent on Free Trade being "Good for America" for a similar amount of time, and only recently expressed 'legally careful' semi-skeptical remarks about Free Trade. Instead of the "TPP is bad, I'm against it", she says "We need to look carefully at it and make sure it's okay.", which gives her maximum lee-way to accept the whole thing as-is (or with minor token changes that have little to do with the fundamentals) when she's President. If it doesn't pass by then which it probably will. It'll be Obama's good bye gift.

thunderlips11 says

And Hillary only is only "Truthful" or "Mostly Truthful" about 50% of the time.

I read all of the mostly false, and false Hillary statements (from your link). They were terribly I tell ya. TERRIBLE !

thunderlips11 says

And Hillary is "Truthful" or "Mostly Truthful" on controversial statements only about 50% of the time. The other 50% of remarks Polifact looked at were either Half-truths or Falsehoods.

Hillary being craptacular doesn't make Trump's lies any less untruthful.

Blurtman says

hasn't delivered a candidate that does what he promises upon reaching office.

There's a difference between a candidate not delivering on all of his campaign promises and one who outright lies on the campaign trail.

thunderlips11 says

It couldn't possibly be that Trump has been hammering against Free Trade going back to the 80s when the Japanese kept (and still keep) their non-tariff barriers against US imports while getting minimally restricted access to US Markets.

He's been consistent for ~30 years on this topic.

Yep--he's good on trade. Unfortunately, he deceives on a bunch of other topics.

Protectionism ? That coincides with my theory that Trump might be our Hoover.

I'm not the first one to make that observation.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/26/donald_trump_a_21st_century_protectionist_herbert_hoover_127893.html

marcus says

Protectionism ? That coincides with my theory that Trump might be our Hoover.

Bonk! You're making an indigenous claim that has thoroughly been debunked. The new Tariffs were passed in Congress and signed by Hoover, they actually eliminated the Tariffs on hundreds of categories, and increased the average dutible tariff by a few percentage points. Tariffs were already greatly increased in the early 20s during which America boomed for the entire decade.

The new Tariffs did not take effect until the Great Depression was underway, unemployment was already in double digit percentages, and the Export percentage of GDP was only a few percentage points anyway before it passed.

The US had sky high aveage tariffs in excess of 30% for most of the entire 19th Century, and over 20% for much of the 20th Century, during which the economy increased exponentially in size and diversity.

Finally, Japan and China and many other countries retain high tariffs, quotas, 'safety' regulations, and non-tariff trade restrictions DESPITE being the beneficiaries of unilateral, one-way free trade with the US for decades. There is no recipriocity, and not even the CATO Institute tries to make the "Eventually they'll do free trade unto us as we do unto them" 80s-90s bullshit anymore.

thunderlips11 says

The new Tariffs did not take effect until the Great Depression was underway

Yes, everyone knows that there is no forward looking or psychological aspect to economic growth or recession.

I can see it is not simple, but I can not see that it was not a contributing factor to the depression.

Historically, there has been confusion as to the actual tariff level imposed by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. In the two volume series published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census entitled "The Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Bicentennial Edition," tariff rates have been represented in two forms. On page 888, the first measure (series U211) is the "free and dutiable tariff rate" which is the tariff revenue divided by the dollar sum of both dutiable and non-dutiable imports. The second measure (series U212) is the "dutiable tariff rate" which is the tariff revenue divided by the dollar value of dutiable imports. The "dutiable tariff rate" peak of 1932 was 59.1%, second only to the 61.7% rate of 1830. However, in 1933, 63% of all imports were never taxed which the "dutiable tariff rate" does not reflect. The "free and dutiable rate" in 1929 was 13.5% and peaked under Smoot-Hawley in 1933 at 19.8% which is significantly below the 29.7% "free and dutiable rate" that the United States averaged from 1821 until 1900. By 1937 the "free and dutiable tariff rate" was reduced to 15.6% when the recession of 1937-1938 occurred demonstrating no correlation between tariff levels and the performance of the U.S. economy.[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

What follows is from: http://americastradepolicy.com/did-the-smoot-hawley-tariff-cause-the-great-depression/#.Vo7OrfkrKUk

Jude Wanniski argues that the stock market crash itself was heavily affected by Smoot-Hawley, even though the start of the market’s collapse preceded the signing by some eight months. Wanniski argues that “the stock market started anticipating the act as early as December 1928” and it fell over the next year as the legislation to raise tariffs looked likely to pass and rose when it seemed the legislation might fail.

Some economists argue that the Smoot-Hawley tariff act may have been a very bad idea but that it did not cause the Great Depression. They point out that exports only accounted for some seven percent of the U.S. gross national product in 1929 and the decline in U.S. exports in the ensuing years may have been caused by the depression itself and not solely by tariff retaliation. Some note that the U.S. had also enormously raised tariffs in 1922 and that this did not cause a depression.

Those who blame Smoot-Hawley counter that the drop in exports was significant. From 1929 to 1933 American exports declined from about $5.2 billion to $1.7 billion, and the impact was concentrated on agricultural products such as wheat, cotton and tobacco. As a result, many American farmers defaulted on their loans, which in turn particularly affected small rural banks.

\marcus says

From 1929 to 1933 American exports declined from about $5.2 billion to $1.7 billion, and the impact was concentrated on agricultural products such as wheat, cotton and tobacco.

Which of course isn't because Charles LeFrance, Otto von Aleman, Hiro Nipponjin, and John Smythe got laid off from their jobs in their countries, also, and could no longer buy cotton shirts for the kids or to fill their pipe with fresh tobacco.

The vast amount of economic activity is domestic. Farmers had suffered from low prices and resulting defaults before the Great Depression - they weren't doing great in the 20s generally while everyone else was (end of WW1 Demand Surge) - and I doubt that a collapse in tobacco sales threw Guido Italiano out of his shoe factory job in Brooklyn when the factory had record sales for a decade while farmers were struggling already to pay off WW1-era expansion debt.

thunderlips11 says

Which of course isn't because Charles LeFrance, Otto von Aleman, Hiro Nipponjin, and John Smythe got laid off from their jobs in their countries, also, and could no longer afford new cotton shirts for the kids or to fill their pipe with fresh tobacco.

I think the theory is that the following, led to tarrif increases in other countries, thus dramatically affecting our exports.

The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at 19 U.S.C. ch. 4), otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff or Hawley–Smoot Tariff,[1] was an act sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley and signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels.[2]

The dutiable tariff level (this does not include duty-free imports—see Tariff levels below) under the act was the highest in the U.S. in 100 years, exceeded by a small margin by the Tariff of 1828.[3] The great majority of economists then and ever since view the Act, and the ensuing retaliatory tariffs by America's trading partners, as responsible for reducing American exports and imports by more than half.[4]

You want to say that the retaliatory tarrifs of these other countries was insignificant in comparison to the depression that they were already in. But it's a dynamic system, and even the stock market crash itself surely was affected by the perceived *risk* that financial people saw with increasing tariffs on both sides on the horizon. IT's not the level of the tariffs as much as it is the increase on both sides at a time when other indications of a fragile and irrationally exuberant market already existed.

In the end, psychology is hugely important. It triggers cascading financial events that in turn cause a more a psychologically negative situation, negative feedback loops ensue.

I actually believe that Trump winning the Presidency in fall of 2016, could rattle world financial markets more than most would imagine. Who knows ? Maybe it will be a sell the rumor, buy the fact, situation.

Probably not because he's announced his intent to lower to Corp Tax Rate to 15%.
marcus says

In the end, psychology is hugely important. It triggers cascading financial events that in turn cause a more a psychologically negative situation, negative feedback loops ensue.

Again, if psychology played a role, and it could have, the massive increase of tariffs in the early 20s should have had similar effects.

However, most believed in late 1929-early 1930 that it was only a sharp correction to follow up a decade of expansion, and the economy would return to it's "permanently high plateau". This belief was widespread in the media AND in the business community.

thunderlips11 says

Again, is psychology played a role, the massive increase of tariffs in the early 20s should have had similar effects.

This is stupid. I never suggested that Smoot-Hawley was the one and only cause of the great depression.

marcus says

it's a dynamic system

marcus says

IT's not the level of the tariffs as much as it is the increase on both sides at a time when other indications of a fragile and irrationally exuberant market already existed.

Tenpoundbass says

Just like they had the Idiots convinced that $5,00 gas was going to give us cheap Green Cars, and cheap solar energy, and make Hydrogen cheap.

Nobody was ever convinced of this. Although some have been convinced that fossil fuels being way cheaper than green energy (especially during the start up phase) does naturally postpone investment in such technologies. Even some retards understand this.

Tenpoundbass says

I remember when a 20 point swing was a major news event. Now it takes over 500 points to even register as a volatile trade. That can't be healthy.

Well 2% in a day is the same as it ever was. But I tend to agree that markets in general are too high, due to too much money in the hands of the wealthy looking for a place to be parked.

marcus says

Nobody was ever convinced of this. Although some have been convinced that fossil fuels being way cheaper than green energy (especially during the start up phase) does naturally postpone investment in such technologies.

BULL crap!

If you have to chace the populous down and ram it through their closed teeth, then it AIN'T worth a SHIT Marcus!

Can you NOT think about the charge you have brought up against reality? You've got a weak frivilous case there my well educated dunce.

You green bots had about a good 6 years and all you focused on was your vanity green energy. More $70,000(ecconomy model) Teslas.
What a load of cheap common phony bullshit you like to pull.

tatupu70 says

Yep--he's good on trade. Unfortunately, he deceives on a bunch of other topics.

Is there a more important topic out there? Trade is the lynchpin of our economy which directly or indirectly affects everyone to the point where Bill Clinton's campaign could coin the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid."

And immigration is also important, especially for people who support union labor and better wages/benefits. Illegal Immigration has been used for 30 years to undercut labor, wages, and benefits. You simply can't let everyone in the world in or we will become the same hellhole they left. And keeping people indefinitely in the "illegal" category just means they can be exploited by the owner class.

I would assert that Trump is the second most left-leaning candidate, with the Bernster in first place.
Liberals should be on his side, not attacking him in a spastic knee jerk reaction!

Quigley says

would assert that Trump is the second most left-leaning candidate, with the Bernster in first place.

Liberals should be on his side, not attacking him in a spastic knee jerk reaction!

Hear, hear. And Trump has been consistently anti-unfair, non-reciprocal trade since the 80s.

Tenpoundbass says

BULL crap!

If you have to chace the populous down and ram it through their closed teeth, then it AIN'T worth a SHIT Marcus!

See, you're so driven by emotion, that you don't even understand what I said. What I said is far beyond question (that is what you quoted).

Tenpoundbass says

More $70,000(ecconomy model) Teslas.

Twenty years ago, a flat screen TV that would go for about $600 today, cost what ? $5000 ? Does the term "economies of scale" mean anything to you ?

No, I'm not saying that a Tesla will eventually cost $9000.

Quigley says

Is there a more important topic out there? Trade is the lynchpin of our economy which directly or indirectly affects everyone to the point where Bill Clinton's campaign could coin the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid."

And immigration is also important, especially for people who support union labor and better wages/benefits. Illegal Immigration has been used for 30 years to undercut labor, wages, and benefits. You simply can't let everyone in the world in or we will become the same hellhole they left. And keeping people indefinitely in the "illegal" category just means they can be exploited by the owner class.

I would assert that Trump is the second most left-leaning candidate, with the Bernster in first place.

Liberals should be on his side, not attacking him in a spastic knee jerk reaction!

I think he's very liberal in some areas, and not so liberal in others. His tax plan is not liberal and not good. His plans to fight illegal immigration are ridiculous, even if you agree it's a problem. But, certainly he is the most liberal of the Republican candidates by far. And he may very well be to the left of Clinton.

More than anything, I worry about a President with his ego and personality. Being Commander in Chief isn't a reality show.

tatupu70 says

More than anything, I worry about a President with his ego and personality. Being Commander in Chief isn't a reality show.

Agreed. The question is whether he has the temperament and the "emotional intelligence" (not to mention actual intelligence) for such awesome responsibilities.

tatupu70 says

More than anything, I worry about a President with his ego and personality. Being Commander in Chief isn't a reality show.

He's attempting to swindle the GOP nomination right out from under all the real GOP candidates. A certain amount of bluster is de rigeur. Truthfully, if you go by issues alone, he's a solid democrat, to the left of Bill Clinton and even Obama on stuff that actually matters. He's cool with the gays, indifferent on abortion, and isn't actually racist. It's just that he doesn't pander to the PC crowd when addressing immigration, which appeals to working class people who've been screwed over by immigration disparity for 30 years.
On the Muslim thing: we do have a Muslim problem. Any group which is controlled and swayed by the beliefs and actions of the most radical unhinged minority within it is a problem. Muslims are controlled by violence, and threat of violence, mostly from within their own ranks. This is a big fucking problem, and Trump is just the one sticking his head out of the politically correct BULLSHIT to say "Wait a minute, there's a problem!"

I STRONGLY suspect that Trump will do an absolutely stunning about face once he's secured the GOP nomination. Coming out with his real positions on the issues, or at least making them part of his campaign, hasn't been possible while attempting to snow the voters into a sneaky party change.
I think he'll look a lot more like Bernie when he's allowed to be himself. This is a trust fund kid, after all, which is where we get modern day bleeding heart liberals. BUt you know what, go ahead and keep attacking him for now. It actually makes the GOP voters like him more.

Quigley says

This is a trust fund kid, after all, which is where we get modern day bleeding heart liberals.

Right. Care to guess what percentage of trust fund kids are bleeding heart liberals and what percent are hard core Fox bots ?

I notice an absence of tax policy from your list of reasons why Trump is a liberal.

As for immigration ? The part of the working class that is most upset about the immigrants that supposedly cause their wages to be lower tend to be right wing whites.

marcus says

As for immigration ? The part of the working class that is most upset about the immigrants that supposedly cause their wages to be lower tend to be right wing whites.

Marcus, you have benefited from being part of a very strong teacher's union for your entire careers. It regulates who may and may not be a member and the minimum qualifications necessary to join your career path. You don't and never had to compete with illegal immigrants who will do any job they're capable of doing for less and undercut the taxpaying blue collar worker. This is why immigration is huge for blue collar guys, they want to be able to provide for their families without Pedro, Juan, and Julio coming in and cutting the entire wage scale in half. Try to see things from another point of view. I'm also part of a strong union that keeps out the riffraff (and I'm NOT talking racially here, since around half my coworkers are minorities), but I can put myself in the shoes of people who are hurt by these Republican and Democrat policies.

marcus says

Twenty years ago, a flat screen TV that would go for about $600 today, cost what ? $5000 ? Does the term "economies of scale" mean anything to you ?

In 2007 we had an ugly ass Toyota Prius that ran around $25K for the unicorn stripped down model, that you ordered without any of the package options. Otherwise they started at $35K.
They were ugly as hell but $5.00 gallon gas hawks swore up and down that by having gas so high. The Prius would get cheaper and sexier, like the flat screens did, and like the smart phones did.

That could have happends, but all of the extrapolitcal help it got, it was in nobody's interest to develop something cheap to market. Not as long as they had a Retard with the golden checkbook.

Don't lecture me about what I don't understand. I understand plenty, and it didn't cost me a dime.

Rita Johnson worked in a furniture factory in the 70s and 80s when she was in her 20s and 30s. Unioinzed, with benefits. Then came Reagan's Amnesty and the 90s Clintonista NAFTA Neoliberalism. Now she works in a warehouse near the highway taking inventory of foreign made furniture, making the same she made in 1990 ($7.50/hr) 25 years after the fact. Also no benefits, and very likely hours that are all over the place and vary greatly from week to week.

The guys unloading the trucks full of Shenzen made furniture are all Hispanic and barely speak English; her husband can barely get 10-15 hours working as a busboy for minimum wage, he used to be an upholsterer at the factory where they met. Now he makes $8.50 an hour cleaning tables and washing dishes at the Waffle House off I-95 instead of $9.50/hr he made 30 years ago stuffing cushions.

The old North Carolina Furniture Factory couldn't compete with cheap Chinese imports; they outsourced to Mexico two decades ago, and then China a decade after that. The owners got a Tax Break for any outsourcing expenses in moving - even moving abroad (!!!). Meanwhile they enjoy their US incorporation status to take advantage of easy financing in America.

Rita makes a connection that PBS pundits, Financial Show Hosts on Television, and Professors with tenure can't grasp. "Nobody IIIIII know has been outsourced... those bumpkins are just Ray's Cyst! North Carolina Rednecks, after all... "

Much easier to disguise modern day class privilege as anti-racist and dismiss her as a White Honky Racist.

Also, unlike Raj or Pedro, Rita and Bill Johnson don't have an India or Mexico to go back to 7 years in the future after living very frugally and take advantage of the huge disparity in the cost of living to set themselves up in a Cell Phone Accessory kiosk or Bodega or Farmette.

If they were to go to these countries, there are strict laws about tourists owning property or starting businesses, and they would pay the "Rich Foreigner" price for everything, even if they taught themselves perfect Hindi or Spanish. As well as having "Rob Me, I'm a foreigner" written on their backs since they couldn't afford to live in the ritzy side of town where the police are, and where the more traveled and less desperate people live.

Quigley says

This is why immigration is huge for blue collar guys, they want to be able to provide for their families without Pedro, Juan, and Julio coming in and cutting the entire wage scale in half. Try to see things from another point of view. I'm also part of a strong union that keeps out the riffraff (and I'm NOT talking racially here, since around half my coworkers are minorities), but I can put myself in the shoes of people who are hurt by these Republican and Democrat policies.

The problem is that building a big wall is a completely asinine proposal that will cost a fortune and have questionable effectiveness. Far better is to simply enforce the laws already on the books w.r.t hiring illegals. Put the managers of companies that hire illegals in jail and you'd do much more building a wall.

tatupu70 says

The problem is that building a big wall is a completely asinine proposal that will cost a fortune and have questionable effectiveness.

I would rather a UN "Human Rights Policing" action on Mexico. The Mexican Government isn't willing to clean it up.
Then I think since the UN is in the getting rid of Despots business, Mexico seems to have a surplus we should relive them of.
Besides if we don't do it now, while it's a mission of getting rid of the systemic murderous corruption that protects the ultra violent cartels. Then we'll be dealing with ISIS or the like eventually.
As they march through Mexico, killing Christians or making Converts to add to their northward march. That wall wont do us one bit of good, if there's a Zombie horde on the other side. I've seen that movie.

Quigley says

It regulates who may and may not be a member and the minimum qualifications necessary to join your career path.

First off, I had other careers before being a teacher.

Second, I didn't say that "labor" didn't agree with you about immigration. But labor, as in unionized labor, is microscopic at this point, except in the public sector. Yes, I benefit from that, but it's beside the point.

Quigley says

Try to see things from another point of view

Wtf, man. I only said it isn't really a "left" side issue. Maybe if all the unions hadn't been killed long ago it would be. At this point many (legal) immigrants are the voters on the left.

Quigley says

but I can put myself in the shoes of people who are hurt by these Republican and Democrat policies

So can I. I only dissagreed with you that this if a left wing issue. It's usually Tea Party, and rednecks that vote republican that I always hear complaining the loudest about Mexicans. That was my only point.

Tenpoundbass says

it was in nobody's interest to develop something cheap to market. Not as long as they had a Retard with the golden checkbook.

See this is the kind of unnecessary nonsense that clouds your thinking. Do you really think that a prius can be made to cost less than or even close to the same price as say a corrola ? OF course it can not. The battery, the technology that converts breaking energy to a charge. It's totally illogical to think that the only thing keeping the price of a prius as high as it is is a "retard with a golden checkbook." That's just emotion getting in the way of what otherwise might rational thinking.

I wouldn't be surprised if Toyota makes more on a Corolla than they do on a Prius. They're playing the long game with the Prius. They care more about getting Prius out there, as many as possible, than they do about profit per car. Same is true for Tesla. Tesla is way different though, since they don't have a bunch of other profitable products.

Prius is awesome, and look at all the other hybrids now.