monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Debra Law,

Quote:

End all social programs and let the "inferiors" live or die according to their own efforts, regardless of the fact that the so-called "inferiors" don't have any of the advantages that the "superiors" enjoy

How a society is constructed is completely lost on those who espouse this view. Either that or they do understand and they lack any empathy whatsoever (many politicians fall into this category - they know!).

Most, I think, do not think/read enough about these things happen. That a society doesn't just create itself as in some ideal where things just happen. There are actual people making actual plans who have actual interests and those interests are sometimes exclusive. In fact, most times exclusive. Those people who create the framework for society are defacto rich, powerful and ensure the bulk of the country's resources are at their disposal.

And their interests are not the interests of everyone else who is not like them: rich and powerful. This is natural and I don't think in contention. My concerns are not the concerns of the homeless. What might be in contention is how the issues those differences create are prosecuted.

It is also lost on many folks that the reason for the unique freedom which the denizens of the US enjoy came in large part due to being a new country. Control was desired but could not be implemented on a large scale due to the lack of resources compared to the size of the land. This gave the illusion that this is 'the land of the free' by design.

I don't believe this to be the case. I think it was free because it had to be. The folks who lived in the east in towns that could be controlled did not experience the degree of freedom under the government that those out in the hinterlands had.

The upshot is that conditions didn't start out equal and are still not today. I do think it is better than it was, but we still have a long way to go. A few laws in the 60's won't change in unit years what had been established for hundreds of years. Its gonna probably take a few more generations before the equality those laws ostensibly created manifest on a large scale. As some have pointed out, we are now seeing the pushback of the results of those laws as the equality they 'threaten' is now actually being played out beyond insignificance.

0 Replies

From conservative Jennifer Rubin

Quote:

There you have it, once again: A man whose ego is so frail that he, like the rooster taking credit for the rising sun, sees all good news as a reflection of his own fabulousness. James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute is quoted in Politico as saying, “The president-elect judges his own personal wealth based on his own feelings. So on any given day, he could just decide based on his feelings that America is great.” (The first sentence is a reference to Trump’s own testimony in a 2007 deposition in which he asserted, “My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings.”)

The narcissistic personality is ever-present. Every person is judged to be a “good guy” or a “loser” based on what he or she says about Trump. Every bad bit of news is the result of the no-good, sleazy, rotten, most-dishonest-people-he-ever-met media. Terrorist massacres are not tragedies, but vindication that he was “right” (right about exactly what is not clear). Trump’s seeming inability to take himself out of the equation and assess events, people and policies on their own merits remains the most frightening aspect of his impending presidency. He’d rather ignore a direct attack on American democracy than admit that Russia put its thumb on the scale in his election victory. His psychological need for affirmation, for love even, takes precedence over reality and the needs of the country.

LINK
Well, yeah. As Paul Waldman noted a couple of weeks back, people who are very smart don't go around insisting to everyone over and over again that they are smart. A deep part of this must be his recognition/fear that others, many others, know far more than he does. It compensatory behavior.

But there's another aspect here too that's pretty easy to discern. He's an amoral promoter and con man and those guys are always playing up a rationale of special knowledge or special gifts as to why you should get suckered by them (though suckered isn't the term they'll use).

1 Reply

@blatham,

Quote:

though suckered isn't the term they'll use

No, not with doors open..

0 Replies

Can we talk about transcendent stupidity?

Quote:

The author, Lawrence Kudlow, is a noted voodoo economist and the reported leading candidate to head the administration’s Council of Economic Advisors. In a column touting the brilliance of Trump’s appointments — “Trump’s transition continues to go smoothly. Better than smoothly. Confidently. More than confidently. Transcendently” — and naturally omitting any mention of his own prospective candidacy, Kudlow dismisses any concerns of the conflicts of interest that are already rife. In a National Review column, Kudlow makes the case not only that Trump and his administration are not corrupt, but also that they cannot be corrupt, by virtue of their wealth. “Why shouldn’t the president surround himself with successful people?” reasons Kudlow, “Wealthy folks have no need to steal or engage in corruption.”

In point of fact, it does not take much effort to find wealthy folks who steal and engage in corruption. Look at, oh, imprisoned coal baron Don Blankenship, who indirectly murdered 29 of his employees by blatantly flouting safety regulations and who tried to purchase his state’s legal and political system to protect himself. (Blankenship endorsed Trump.) Or look at Vladimir Putin, a leader whose methods Trump has repeatedly praised and who has leveraged his power into billions of dollars of personal wealth. Or look at Donald Trump himself, who was born into massive wealth, had no need to steal or engage in corruption, yet cheated hundreds of contractors of their money, defrauded thousands through scams, and frequently boasted of his success at corrupting politicians. Clearly, it is not impossible for already-wealthy people to steal and to engage in corruption.

Chait
I really sincerely hope that's the stupidest thing I read today but anything more stupid would be terrifying.

1 Reply

In all this focus on Trump this and Trump that, has anyone mentioned that the economy grew at the rate of 3.5% last quarter? Or that since the recession ended in 2010, one year into Obama's term, the economy has added nearly 14 Million Full Time jobs? If the press has reported this at all, it apparently has been relegated to the financial pages only.

Yet Trump ran on the platform that the economy was supposedly stuck and needed someone like him to give it a good swift kick. The press and media during the whole Trump campaign has allowed itself to become Trump's Twitter Report, and has placed little value on facts.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Because to hear Trump and his fellow trumpets tell it; it is because the economy and the stock market too are looking forward to Trump coming in office. It almost does no good to talks hard facts with these people. Further, if the economy starts to tank after Trump puts some of his tax cuts and other policies in place, they will turn around and blame it on Obama like they did when Bush tanked the economy after Clinton.

0 Replies

@Frugal1,

Frugal1 wrote:

Trump must stop the funding of ALL so-called 'sanctuary cities'.

The result of Democrats who control the urban neighborhoods. Suppression of minorities at its finest.

1 Reply

For the Trumps, ‘Made in U.S.A.’ May Be a Tricky Label to Stitch

Quote:

At Saks Off Fifth recently, an Ivanka Trump white polyester and spandex blouse made in Indonesia was marked down to $34.99, from $69. A few racks over, her black and white jacket came from Vietnam, while several blocks away, at Macy’s, her leather bootee manufactured in China sold for more than $100.

At the Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue, a $35 blue cotton cap embroidered with “Trump National Golf Club” was made in Bangladesh. A Trump Tower hoodie from Pakistan set tourists back $50.

A majority of clothes these days are made anywhere but in America. And in this era of local pride and nationalistic fervor, that has become a political liability. The conflict is starkly evident in the apparel brands made and marketed by President-elect Donald J. Trump and his daughter Ivanka.

Mr. Trump has cast companies that make goods in China and other foreign countries as economic pariahs, siphoning off jobs better left at home. He has blamed the system, a set of policies in the United States that Mr. Trump acknowledged using for his own gain. And since being elected, he has continued to rail against global forces, threatening to punish companies with high tariffs if they don’t move production to the United States.

Should Mr. Trump make good on such promises, he would take aim at not only his own brand, but his daughter’s as well.

Mr. Trump doesn’t stand to lose much. While his goods are largely manufactured overseas, most of his retail ventures have gone the way of Trump vodka and steaks. And what products can be found — at his hotels and golf courses and on Amazon sold by independent sellers — are the vestiges of a mostly defunct clothing line or sporadic shipments of Trump sweatshirts and hats.

Ivanka Trump’s company, by contrast, is the type of operation that Mr. Trump is squarely aiming for. Her shoes and dresses largely retail for less than $150. Coats cost as much as $400.

Factored into those prices is the cost of materials and production, as well as shipping, tariffs, marketing and advertising expenses. Cheap production overseas means more coin in the coffers of Ms. Trump and the shoe, accessory and clothing makers that are her partners, among them Marc Fisher footwear, the G-III Apparel Group and Mondani. (Ms. Trump’s company, which is privately held, does not disclose its financials.)

Almost all of her goods are made overseas, according to a New York Times review of shipments compiled separately by Panjiva and ImportGenius, two trade databases. ImportGenius tallied 193 shipments for imported goods associated with Ms. Trump for the year through Dec. 5, mostly Chinese-made shoes and handbags. Her dresses and blouses are made in China, Indonesia and Vietnam, according to a review of hundreds of clothing tags and financial documents filed by G-III.

It is the harsh reality of the clothing business.

More at source.

0 Replies

BLOOMBERG

U.S. Consumer Confidence Jumps to Highest Level Since 2001

by Michelle Jamrisko
December 27, 2016, 10:01 AM EST

Measure of Americans’ expectations surges to a 13-year high
More households expect better economy, labor market in 2017

How Did U.S. Retailers Do This Holiday Shopping Season?
Consumer confidence climbed in December to the highest level since August 2001 as Americans were more upbeat about the outlook than at any time in the last 13 years, according to a report Tuesday from the New York-based Conference Board.

Key Points

Confidence index increased to 113.7 (forecast was 109) from a revised 109.4 in November
Measure of consumer expectations for the next six months rose to 105.5, the highest since December 2003, from 94.4
Present conditions index fell to 126.1 from 132
Share of Americans expecting better business conditions six months from now rose to 23.6 percent, the highest since February 2011, from 16.4 percent
Big Picture

American households are expecting a Donald Trump administration to deliver. They are more upbeat about the prospects for the economy, labor market and their incomes, according to the Conference Board’s report. The results corroborate surveys by the University of Michigan and the National Federation of Independent Business, which showed jumps in household and business sentiment on Trump’s pledges to boost jobs, cut taxes and ease regulations.

Economist Takeaways

“The post-election surge in optimism for the economy, jobs and income prospects, as well as for stock prices which reached a 13-year high, was most pronounced among older consumers,” Lynn Franco, director of economic indicators at the Conference Board, said in a statement. “Looking ahead to 2017, consumers’ continued optimism will depend on whether or not their expectations are realized.”

The Details

Share of those who said they see more job availability six months from now rose to 21 percent, the highest since February 2011, from 16.1 percent
Labor differential, which measures the difference between those saying jobs are currently plentiful and hard to get, fell to 4.4 points from 6.6 points
Share of respondents who expected their incomes to rise in the next six months rose to 21 percent from 17.4 percent
The difference in the share expecting incomes to increase and those anticipating they will fall was 12.4 points, the widest since January 2007
Share expecting stock prices to be higher in the next year surged to 44.7 percent, the most upbeat reading since January 2004
Sentiment rose among 35- to 54-year-olds and was the highest since July 2007 among Americans 55 and older; confidence fell among those 35 and younger
More Americans reported plans to purchase automobiles and major appliances.

And if Clinton had won?

What will all the bleeding heart liberals do with all the extra money they're going to have in your pocket?

Give it to the poor or buy a new car, appliance, or other high-ticket item?

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Despite all efforts by 0bama to stifle our economy, the private sector / free market found a way to grow. 0bama's anti-American words & polices have motivated Americans to flip 0bama the bird, and take care of business themselves.

1 Reply

The Washington Post is doing very well and is hiring 60 or so new journalists
http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/12/the-profitable-washington-post-adding-more-than-five-dozen-journalists-004900

Bezos bought the Post in 2013. A lot of readers I knew were concerned that he might implement a strategy of using the paper for his own private corporate goals and ruin the paper as a result. At the time, I talked with a writer there quite a bit about these concerns but though both of us were alert to problems, neither of us could discern prior behaviors from Bezos that might make us really worried. So there's one that he and I look to have got right.

0 Replies

@giujohn,

Oh, forgot to mention that the annual number of black murder victims is less than HALF of what it was the year the before Bill Clinton took office. Murders of blacks per year was going through the roof before Bill was elected-it rose 31% in the five years before Bill Clinton took office. Once in office, Bill Clinton CUT black murders per year by an astounding 37%.
Black Murders Per Year
Bush 41
1987...... 8,998
1988...... 9,956
1989......10,566
1990......11,487
1991......12,227
1992......11,777

Bill Clinton Takes Office
1993.....12,433
1994.....11,854
1995.....10,442
1996......9,473
1997......8,841
1998......7,933
1999......7,139
2000.....7,425

Under Bill Clinton, there were 75,540 blacks murdered in eight years. At the rate of black homicide victims during Bush's last year, 94,216 blacks would be murdered during this time. Bill Clinton becoming president saved the lives of over 18,000 blacks.

The decline in black murder victims was only slightly increased under Bush, but the decline resumed full force under Obama. But neither facts nor black lives matter to Trump partisans-Trump says murder is going up, so they think murder is going up and the press is too busy covering Trump's latest tweets to give proper emphasis to the fact that murder has been declining, mostly under Democratic presidents, since 1992.

1 Reply

@Frugal1,

Under Obama nearly 14 Million Full Time jobs have been added since the Recession Obama inherited from his predecessor ended a year into his term. Conservatives have no answer to the fact that legislation to prevent industrial pollution and prevent worker abuse, (conservatives consider the existence of the minimum wage as being anti-business), does not slow down the economy, or that quality of life matters.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

You keep using these statistics as something they are not.

Maybe this has something more to do with the decrease in crime during that time period...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0xLMhi3xgbE/So2wLC4v6PI/AAAAAAAAAD8/tECDuFakmJA/w1200-h630-p-nu/US+Prison+Population.jpg

2 Replies

Quote:

Paul Waldman
‏@paulwaldman1 Paul Waldman Retweeted Catherine Rampell
52% of Republicans think Obama was born in Kenya, & 49% of them believe HRC staffer emails contain code words for pedophilia/satanic abuse.

Quote:

Norman Ornstein ‏@NormOrnstein 14h14 hours ago
Norman Ornstein Retweeted Paul Waldman
Biggest challenge to deliberative democracy: not having common base of facts, large numbers of people deeply believing utter falsehoods

That frightening percentage of misinformed Republicans did not happen by accident. They have been misinformed as a consequence of purposeful actions and strategies consistent across modern right wing media operations. This is very dangerous and destructive.

(stats up top from Economist/YouGov poll)

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Can we talk about transcendent stupidity?

Quote:
The author, Lawrence Kudlow, is a noted voodoo economist and the reported leading candidate to head the administration’s Council of Economic Advisors. In a column touting the brilliance of Trump’s appointments — “Trump’s transition continues to go smoothly. Better than smoothly. Confidently. More than confidently. Transcendently” — and naturally omitting any mention of his own prospective candidacy, Kudlow dismisses any concerns of the conflicts of interest that are already rife. In a National Review column, Kudlow makes the case not only that Trump and his administration are not corrupt, but also that they cannot be corrupt, by virtue of their wealth. “Why shouldn’t the president surround himself with successful people?” reasons Kudlow, “Wealthy folks have no need to steal or engage in corruption.”

In point of fact, ......... Clearly, it is not impossible for already-wealthy people to steal and to engage in corruption.
I really sincerely hope that's the stupidest thing I read today but anything more stupid would be terrifying.

OK let's talk about "transcendent stupidity" ( I take it that worse even than epistemological stupidity in your pretentious lexicon.).

In the first place Kudlow was responding to widespread, but unfounded, speculation that corruption will necessarily be entailed with Trump's business interests as well as those of his appointees., In this context he was quoted as saying that the wealthy "have no need to steel or engage in corruption" , a statement that is certainly true. However the author you cite here instantly and decepively turns that into the proposition that ":it is impossible for the already wealthy to steal or engage in corruption". - a very different thing. Of course it is possible for anyone holding the reins of power, whatever his or her background or prior wealth, to engage in corruption in many forms. The real question here is whether the rich and economically successful are more likely than others to engage in such xconduct in positions of power.

On this issue examples, both pro and con, come quickly to mind. Moreover corruption can take many forms. One can use government office and the influence that attends it to incrrease his/her wealth, as it appears the Clintons have done for decades, or one can corrupt the laws and power of government to achieve political ends in ways the threaten the constitutionasl design of our government. Of the two, I believe the latter has greater potential for danger, and the question of wealth or the lack of it does not arise. In the first case my opinion is that for the already wealthy the likelihood for monetary corruption is likely somewhat less, though there are indeed exceptions.

The real "transcendent stupidity" here is the continued outporing of Blatham's carefully selected propaganda about the internal politics of a nation, not his own, and the self-aggrandizing pretense involved in his claims of authority based on his "decades of study of the culture and politics of the United States".

5 Replies

@georgeob1,

Many identify conflict of interest as corruption when any government head of state gains favors not otherwise available. Many are looking at the Trump family to see if they engage in such activities.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

You keep using these statistics as something they are not.

Maybe this has something more to do with the decrease in crime during that time period...

Ah... ya beat me to it...No matter, thanks.

And before anybody gives credit to Bill Clinton for signing the crime bill...

"Effect on the Crime Rate

Crime did drop in the years after the bill passed, as Clinton said, but he gives too much credit to the crime bill for that. Experts who have studied the impact of the law say forces independent of the law were mostly responsible for the crime drop.
A Government Accountability Office report in 2005 estimated that the 1994 crime bill resulted in 88,000 additional police officers between 1994 and 2001, and that the influx of new police officers resulted in “modest” drop in crime.
The GAO concluded that between 1993 and 2000 the Community Oriented Policing Services(COPS) funds “contributed to a 1.3 percent decline in the overall crime rate and a 2.5 percent decline in the violent crime rate from the 1993 levels.” Still, the GAO concluded, “Factors other than COPS funds accounted for the majority of the decline in crime during this period.”
What were those other factors? Increased employment, better policing methods, an aging of the population, growth in income and inflation, to name a few.
“He (Clinton) may be able to claim some credit, but the jury is very much still out on this,” John Worrall, a professor of criminology at the University of Texas at Dallas, told us via email. “Criminologists and economists are in no agreement as to the causes of the crime declines we’ve seen. Could be economic, demographic, a civilizing effect, possibly because of abortion or lead paint, tougher sentences, etc., etc. A dozen or more explanations have been offered and no one agrees.”
Worrall co-authored research published in the journal Criminology in 2007 that concluded, “COPS spending had little to no effect on crime.” But he cautioned, “Ours is one voice in a crowd. Some have found no effect. I am comfortable saying modest effect. It could not have hurt to strengthen the police presence.”
“Crime did go down through the 1990s, but nobody has shown that any of the 1994 or 1996 federal legislation was a significant cause,” Frank Zimring, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who is an expert in crime trends, told us via email."

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

And when they do what do you think a republican congress and supreme court will do about it? The voting public has truly screwed itself with their voting.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote georgeob1:

Quote:

One can use government office and the influence that attends it to incrrease his/her wealth, as it appears the Clintons have done for decades,

Baloney. Conservatives' idea of "stealing" is getting money for writing books and giving speeches AFTER they've left office, which is perfectly fine and certainly better than the conservatives' preferred method of after-office activity, which is to work for a company and use the contacts you made while in office to push your company's agenda. Or Trump's method of hiring people who used to work for a hostile foreign power, Russia, so that Russia will use all its resources to deliver the office to you in the first place. Promising to implement Putin's foreign policy once Trump takes office didn't hurt, either.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know