Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[PleaseBlitz]

So Trump had a pretty bad day (which he defines as a day when he isn't the center of attention).  I am setting the over/under on the number of days until his next unhinged Twitter rant to change the subject back to him at 1.5.  

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

The only way to get Trump out of office is to vote him out. The Senate will never vote convict and remove him. 

 

The emphasis should be on what Mueller said, that he committed crimes and could be prosecuted after he's out of office.

 

His administration should be hauled before the House every chance they get, and keep the pressure on.

[China]

22 hours ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

 

Follow up question - are you still in favor of all of these collectively if your tax liability triples? Make the people taking the poll have to vote what programs to remove to get the money needed to implement these.

 

 

[PeterMP]

7 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

There are policies that would help the poor become rich. Most of the wealth rich people have acquired was created, not stolen from the poor. The minimum wage does not create wealth.

 

You are saying historical evidence isn’t evidence. That’s your opinion. As far as 1950s/1960s real wage going up I would guess that had more to do with us being the manufacturing center of the world during that time and actually dramatically lowered the amount of people living in poverty. Similar how the percentage of people living in poverty are going down in China as their manufacturing economy matures.  

 

Why do you think that anybody creates wealth?  And why do you think rich people are creating it?

 

No, I'm saying the historical evidence isn't proof.  And that's always true.  No kind of evidence is proof.  

 

"It’s only an argument against continuing to do something (minimum wage) that doesn’t work."

 

You have presented evidence that the minimum wage doesn't work.  You haven't shown that it doesn't work.  Evidence isn't proof and so evidence doesn't support the making of declarative statements (like I quoted you as doing above).

 

(That's just good logic and evidence supported decision making to think or act otherwise is just sloppy logic and thinking.  Evidence does not equal proof any more than correlation proves causation.  (Correlation is evidence of causation.  It cannot prove causation because it is only evidence of it.).)

 

That isn't my opinion.  It is a fact.  And if I was saying the historical data wasn't evidence that wouldn't be my opinion either.  That would be wrong.  The historical data is evidence.  The question is how good is the evidence.

 

Now, further in this case, you are IGNORING historical evidence.  You are doing what you're claiming I've done.

 

You are ignoring the historical data from the 1950s, 60s, and part of the 70s that suggest that increasing minimum wage can increase the earning power of people.

 

And now you are making reasons up for ignoring that data, which are actually wrong.  US manufacturing (as a percent of GDP) actually declined through much of that era.

 

 

 

Now, it is true that I'm saying it might make sense to ignore much of the more recent historical data.  I'm saying it is questionable if the more recent historical data is good evidence.

 

The more recent historical evidence might not be very good evidence because it is clear post-the great recession something has changed about inflation (as measured by CPI).  It is clear there is new negative downward pressure on inflation such that it is not responding to unemployment and interest rates like it used to (and not just in the US, but in many countries).

 

As such, it is also possible that it will not respond to increases in minimum wages than it used to.

 

I'm not ignoring the more recent historical data.  I'm saying there are reasons to say the more recent historical data might not good be evidence of what will happen if we increase the minimum wage now.

 

That also isn't my opinion.  Those things I said about inflation not responding like it used to are true.  

 

(I'll also point out that China's manufacturing base did increase, but they also had several anti-poverty programs, including a minimum wage.  It is possible that China's poverty went down because their manufacturing base went up.  It is also possible that China's poverty went down because of the anti-poverty programs that they instituted (and most likely, it was a combination of things that did it).)

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/2/20678821/15-federal-minimum-wage-increase-study

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

Why do you think that anybody creates wealth?  And why do you think rich people are creating it?

 

Here is a good primer:

 

http://www.paulgraham.com/ineqold.html

 

 

Quote

 

No, I'm saying the historical evidence isn't proof.  And that's always true.  No kind of evidence is proof.  

 

"It’s only an argument against continuing to do something (minimum wage) that doesn’t work."

 

OK.

 

Quote

 

 

You are ignoring the historical data from the 1950s, 60s, and part of the 70s that suggest that increasing minimum wage can increase the earning power of people.

 

so about 25 years of data pitted against 45 years of data... interesting take.

 

Quote

And now you are making reasons up for ignoring that data, which are actually wrong.  US manufacturing (as a percent of GDP) actually declined through much of that era.

 

So, you are saying america wasn’t the center of manufacturing during the 50s and 60s??

 

Quote

 

 

 

because that’s not what your graph shows.... from 1947 till the late 1970s the percentage difference 0... and if you cherry pick peak to trough the difference is like what, 3 percent? Seems like a silly point to try to make to me.

 

Also, if the economy was growing in the 1950s and 60s (spoiler, it was), i’m not sure that “as a percentage of gdp” means anything. For example, If manufacturing is growing at 4 percent and technology is growing at 6 percent, manufacturing as a percentage of GDP would go down but so what? It’s still growing, there are still more opportunities for people to raise themselves out of poverty more effective that some minimum guaranteed paycheck.

 

You posted this but i’m not sure how it shows i’m wrong.

 

Quote

 

(I'll also point out that China's manufacturing base did increase, but they also had several anti-poverty programs, including a minimum wage.  It is possible that China's poverty went down because their manufacturing base went up.  It is also possible that China's poverty went down because of the anti-poverty programs that they instituted (and most likely, it was a combination of things that did it).)

 

 

 

The most obvious correlation between the decline of american poverty and the decline of chinese poverty is the explosion of manufacturing jobs. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

nvm...

Quote

[Rufus T Firefly]

OK, that's what happens when you don't quote someone, I guess. They delete their post and it looks like you're arguing with the great nothingness. 

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Here is a good primer:

 

http://www.paulgraham.com/ineqold.html

 

Le'ts consider two scenarios:

 

First, a wealthy person buys out all of the owners of a condominium in a condo building.  The wealthy person then starts renting the condominiums to people.

 

Remember, the rents that can be charged are not dictated by the wealthy person's costs, but supply and demand.

 

But given costs and rents, the wealthy person is making money, becoming more wealthy.  Then let's say the government changes taxation policy and increases taxes on incomes from rent.  Now, the wealthy person has higher costs (in terms of taxes), but isn't making money, but is losing it.

 

What the wealthy person is creating has not changed, but they are getting less wealthy.

 

(And let's be clear, tax policy is one thing the government could change.  Other things could be changed to affect the wealthy person's rents and so the wealth they are accumulating.  For example, if the government changes zoning laws so that new condos can be built nearby, presumably supply would go up, the rents that the wealthy person is extracting would go down, and so would the accumulation of their wealth.)

 

Let's consider another scenario.  A person has an idea to cure cancer (I generally do not like when people talk about curing cancer as if it is one disease because it is not, but for our purposes it works).  The person has some money so they are able to develop the idea, test it, show it is viable, and get a patent.

 

They don't have the money or knowledge to mass produce their drug so they take their idea and all of their information to the large drug companies.  The drug companies are able to look at all of the information, and they know if they buy the patent they will have years of exclusivity where they will be able to control supply (and demand will be high) so prices will be high and earnings will be high.

 

In this case, the a drug company pays the person $500 million dollars for the patent.

 

Let's imagine another world where no patents exist.  The same person has the same idea.  They are able to do the same tests and demonstrate the same validity.

 

But now they have no patent.  They can't lay out out all of their information to the drug companies and so the drug companies are leery about what they are buying.  In addition, the drug companies know if they do buy the idea that once they start generating the drug their competitors will reverse engineer it and start selling a replicate shortly thereafter.  And it is always possible that somebody else will come forward with the same idea the next week.  So the drug company that buys it will have a relatively short period of exclusivity.

 

In this world, the drug companies are only willing to pay the person $10K for the idea.

 

What the person has created is really the same (a way to treat cancer).  In the world with patents, there is no reason to believe more people will be cured for cancer (if anything the higher price because of the patent will likely restrict the access to the drug and so the number of people that get treatment).

 

Yet in the world without patents our inventor has gotten much less wealthy.

 

Wealth is not created.  Wealth is extracted from the environment, from ideas, from other people, etc.

 

Wealth is finite.  The universe has finite resources (there is conservation of mass and energy).  There are a finite number of ideas in the universe (every time somebody discovers something the universe does not change to create new information for somebody to discover).  After the person has come up with the cure for cancer, nobody else can become wealthy from that idea.  Nature isn't going to create another disease for somebody else to cure because cancer has been cured.

 

Government policies dictate the efficiency of extracting wealth from different sources and what happens to the wealth when it is extracted (Without patents, the ability to extract wealth from ideas goes way down.).

 

Income inequality is the result of government policies related to wealth extraction and transfer.  Changes in government policies (tax policy, copy right laws, etc) can cause more income inequality.

 

Well if you're just talking about total US manufacturing, it has pretty consistent increased (including through the 1980s and 1990s too (when the minimum wage appeared to not raise people's real income), and it is going up again now (after a drastic drop during the great recession).  If that's all it is, then minimum wage increases in the 50s and 60s should have acted the same as in 80s and 90s.

 

 

You'd have to actually give some data to support that.

 

I suspect what has changed in the US and China is that we have developed and adopted efficient systems to extract wealth (from the environment and ideas).

 

(China has adopted many of the ideas and things the US was using with respect to wealth extraction.  e.g. A good education system allows for the discovery of more ideas and so more wealth is extracted from ideas.  The education system in the US improved.  China saw the importance of a good education in the US and improved theirs too.)

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

6 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

OK, that's what happens when you don't quote someone, I guess. They delete their post and it looks like you're arguing with the great nothingness. 

 

My post was retarded, I posted it after reading the first paragraph of your link.... After reading the entire thing I tried to delete it before you replied but it was too late. On me, my apologies.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Wealth is not created.  Wealth is extracted from the environment, from ideas, from other people, etc.

 

Wealth is finite.  The universe has finite resources (there is conservation of mass and energy).  There are a finite number of ideas in the universe (every time somebody discovers something the universe does not change to create new information for somebody to discover).  After the person has come up with the cure for cancer, nobody else can become wealthy from that idea.  Nature isn't going to create another disease for somebody else to cure because cancer has been cured.

 

No, it is not finite. Technology makes it infinite in the scope we are talking about. The universe is infinite in the scope we are talking about so there is no need to bring physics into your argument. If wealth is extracted from idea then it is infinite because there are infinite ideas. QED. 

 

You didn’t read the essay. 

 

Quote

 

Well if you're just talking about total US manufacturing, it has pretty consistent increased (including through the 1980s and 1990s too (when the minimum wage appeared to not raise people's real income), and it is going up again now (after a drastic drop during the great recession).  If that's all it is, then minimum wage increases in the 50s and 60s should have acted the same as in 80s 

 

 

 

 

 

That graph shows production, not jobs. It is irrelevant to what we are talking about. Here is relevant data...

 

 

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

No, it is not finite. Technology makes it infinite in the scope we are talking about. The universe is infinite in the scope we are talking about so there is no need to bring physics into your argument. If wealth is extracted from idea then it is infinite because there are infinite ideas. QED. 

 

You didn’t read the essay. 

 

 

 

That graph shows production, not jobs. It is irrelevant to what we are talking about. Here is relevant data...

 

 

 

 

You should delete my graph from your last post.  No quoting pictures.

 

I read it.  It just isn't relevant.

 

The universe is infinite, but only in terms of space.  Empty space and without mass or energy is worthless.

 

I'm thinking very big picture, but even within our scope things are realistically finite. 

 

Even if you consider only the Earth and the energy we get from the sun, there is a finite amount of mass and energy.  And then you even get into what we can access.  Energy is finite.  If energy were infinite, then the supply of energy would be infinite and something with infinite supply would have zero cost.  Same for mater.  Even things with very large, but not infinite, supplies have essentially 0 costs (I don't pay for air.).

 

There is just no way you can look at the price we pay for energy (electricity, gas, etc) and claim it isn't finite.  And if energy is finite, then wealth must be finite.  Everybody can't have an infinite amount of money if I can't even generate an infinite amount of money because energy is finite.

 

Physics absolutely matter.  Most money is made from energy and matter conversions.  Making chair is a conversion of energy and matter.  I'm just looking very big picture, and if you are going to talk about energy and matter physics matter.

 

There aren't an infinite number of ideas.  I explained why in my last post.  You saying the opposite doesn't change it.  Why is my explanation is wrong?

 

(The idea that ideas are finite is not something I thought up.  It isn't a new idea.

 

https://buildingwithbricks.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/are-ideas-infinite/

 

 

There are people that will claim that ideas are infinite, but they normally play some sort of games.  Like here:

 

https://www.eubios.info/EJ134/ej134e.htm

 

The definition of infinite is not correct.  Just because we can't calculate a value doesn't make it infinite (if it did, then infinity would have changed over time).  You don't get to argue that the number of ideas is infinite by redefining infinite. 

 

(Though as a chemist, I'll also point out that the number of molecules you can make is not infinite.  Atoms combine together in only certain ways under certain conditions that depend on the atoms.  There is a finite number of unique possible arrangements.  For something like a polymer (where you are just repeating the same arrangement over and over), you could in theory always add on one more monomer and make a larger molecule and than you could have an infinite number (you can always make a longer (a new) chain by adding another link onto it).  But the Universe has a finite number of atoms so even doing something like that, you end up with a finite number.  The above links is wrong in more than one way.)

 

Your initial point didn't state manufacturing jobs.  It was just manufacturing.

 

I also can't help notice that your graphs start in the late 1980s.  Why didn't you go back further?

 

 

And:

 

 

So to make your argument work, you have to have a very specific claim.  That is while the absolute number of manufacturing jobs were even or going up, minimum wage worked.

 

Even though while they were going even or going up, they were becoming less important to our economy (as function of percentage of jobs and GDP).  That seems like a stretch to me.

 

And I don't think you can explain it.

 

Why is the absolute number of manufacturing jobs so important?  If I take 20 people that work on car assembly lines and teach them to create software for cell phones why does the minimum wage become less effective at giving people real income?

 

I'll also point out, you've ignored the more relevant part of the discussion about minimum wage.  So I'll repeat.  Something about inflation (as measured by CPI) has changed.  It is not responding to interest rates or employment like it used to.

 

There is more downward pressure than there used to be.  It is then possible that downward pressure will also be true/relevant to other things, like increases in minimum wage.

[PleaseBlitz]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-trumps-use-of-white-identity-politics-strategic/

 

Is Trump’s Use Of White Identity Politics Strategic?

 

Quote

From suggesting on his first day as a presidential candidate back in 2015 that Mexico was intentionally sending “rapists” to America to calling last week for several liberal congresswomen of color to “go back” to their countries, President Trump has repeatedly used racial and at times racist language over the last four years. And in doing so he has tapped into what some scholars describe as white identity politics, attracting support from those wary of the growing population of Americans who are not white or Christian, as well as those who have negative views about groups of people like black people and Muslims.

 

These moves have created an active debate among political observers about whether Trump is acting on his sincere beliefs, employing a political strategy or pursuing some combination of the two. It’s hard to know Trump’s motives (and likely it is some combo). But assuming that Trump’s rhetoric and policy approach on issues of race, religion, nationality and other forms of identity are at least in part a political strategy, is it a smart one? Does the way Trump use white identity politics help him and the GOP electorally, even if he at times veers into racism that members of his own party can’t defend? And are the Democrats (usually more establishment, centrist figures) who worry the party is playing into Trump’s hands when it defends members of Congress like Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota generally right, at least in terms of political strategy?

 

These are very complicated questions. But let’s look at what we know from the 2016 and 2018 elections and try to answer them.

 

1. The way Trump talked about identity issues probably did help him win the 2016 Republican primary.

 

The 2016 Republican primary is the place in which I think it’s most clear that Trump’s approach to issues of race and identity helped him. In their research during the 2016 primaries, UC Irvine’s Michael Tesler and George Washington University’s John Sides found that Republican voters who felt a strong sense of white racial identity and believed that whites were being unfairly discriminated against were more likely to back Trump than other GOP voters during the primaries. These voters were instrumental in building Trump’s coalition and cementing his early lead in the polls.

Trump also did well with voters who were very concerned about immigration—he was by far the most popular candidate among Republican voters who said that immigration was the most important issue to them, according to exit polls conducted during the 2016 GOP primaries. He did not have such big advantages on other issues.

 

Much more at link.  

[PeterMP]

20 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-trumps-use-of-white-identity-politics-strategic/

 

Is Trump’s Use Of White Identity Politics Strategic?

 

 

Much more at link.  

 

I think what Trump did (I'm not sure it was intentional) was simplify the Republican path to victory, but in doing so he made it made more narrow.

 

It has been simplified to lesser educated whites.  In the short term, from a marketing/branding perspective, it might be a smart thing to do.

[Bozo the kKklown]

20 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-trumps-use-of-white-identity-politics-strategic/

 

Is Trump’s Use Of White Identity Politics Strategic?

 

 

Much more at link.  

Is water wet? Thats all he is doing and has done.

[PleaseBlitz]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

I think what Trump did (I'm not sure it was intentional) was simplify the Republican path to victory, but in doing so he made it made more narrow.

 

It has been simplified to lesser educated whites.  In the short term, from a marketing/branding perspective, it might be a smart thing to do.

 

I think he simplified his path to victory in the Republican primary.  I think his electoral college victory was the product of many factors, his racism only being one.  

 

I think it's going to harm him in the next election because it prevents him from expanding his base.  I think it helps him while he is in office because it keeps his base extremely fired up, and that gives Trump total control over the party.  

2 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Is water wet? Thats all he is doing and has done.

 

Right, but the question is does he do it because that's who he is or does he do it because it's a smart political strategy.  

 

Nobody is arguing that he's not doing it.  

[Bozo the kKklown]

3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Right, but the question is does he do it because that's who he is or does he do it because it's a smart political strategy.  

It’s both. This isn’t news man. He surged up the Republican primaries doing this. He won the election doing this. 

 

I’ve been saying he is doing this because it appeals to a majority white voters of all classes for years on here. 

 

This isnt a surprise, and he knows it works.

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I think it's going to harm him in the next election because it prevents him from expanding his base. 

Err, voter suppression. They not looking to expand a base, they looking to make sure people that look like me don’t vote.

[PleaseBlitz]

Just now, BenningRoadSkin said:

It’s both. This isn’t news man. He surged up the Republican primaries doing this. He won the election doing this. 

 

I’ve been saying he is doing this because it appeals to a majority white voters of all classes for years on here. 

 

This isnt a surprise, and he knows it works.

 

Did you read the article?

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

The dream is going back to property owning white men voting.

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Did you read the article?

I don’t need too. I’m black in America.

[PleaseBlitz]

Just now, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

 

I don’t need too. I’m black in America.

 

Okay, well then opine on that.  Don't opine on an article you refuse to read. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just now, BenningRoadSkin said:

I don’t need too. I’m black in America.

 

So you are making statements regarding an article you haven't read?

 

Seems smart.

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Okay, well then opine on that.  Don't opine on an article you refuse to read. 

I didn’t say a negative word about the article. I am opining why you regard it interesting, which you did since you shared it. That’s not said in an antagonistic way either.

 

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

So you are making statements regarding an article you haven't read?

 

Seems smart.

 

What is you talking about?

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I didn’t say a negative word about the article. I am opining why you regard it interesting, which you did since you shared it. That’s not said in an antagonistic way either.

 

 

If you want to know why i find it interesting, you are going to have to read it. 

 

If it matters to you, it was written by a black guy.  

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

What is *are* you talking about?

 

Little help for you there.

 

And PleaseBlitz seems to be covering it well so I'll bow out.