ComradeKayAdams

Hmmm…how deep are you willing to delve into this subject?? I’d begin with the research work of the ever-so-controversial Professor George Borjas at Harvard and then follow the trail of co-authors and highly cited papers as you see fit. Some more advice for your joyous intellectual journey: 1. Don’t focus solely on studies of Latin American immigration to the Southwest. Lots of relevant research has been done on stuff like H-1B visa immigration trends, Islamic immigration to the EU, and low-skilled/unskilled Eastern European laborers in the UK. 2. Without knowing your background, I’d say that it helps to have a basic knowledge of microeconomics, macroeconomics, and statistics at a freshman/intro college course level to get anything truly meaningful out of this exercise. 3. Note how markets for low-skilled/unskilled labor follow typical supply-demand curves for goods and services (that is to say, no Giffen Paradox observed to elevate wages). 4. Also look into studies on the effects of globalization (NAFTA, CAFTA-DR, TPP, China PNTR, etc.) on non-college educated American workers. Job outsourcing is not quite the same as immigrant hiring, of course, because of how and where the generated wealth gets distributed, but the same basic mechanisms of wage suppression are present and exaggerated (i.e. more easily measurable). 5. Pay close attention to the differences in job type (i.e. skills and/or education required), immigration numbers, and economic consumption habits of the immigrant populations. These differences matter! Part of my disagreement with your stance on this topic is that I feel you are ignoring these subtleties and overgeneralizing. 6. The other part of my disagreement is a moral one: you may be valuing the slightest of economic improvements for the many (as measured by GDP or national unemployment percentage) over significant economic damage for the few (wage suppression in specific industries and substantially increased unemployment prospects for population subsets). Did this response help…? So start with Professor Borjas and his publication record at his website, Tibs! Godspeed!!

Tiberius and Brueggs: I’ll stay out of whatever remains of your debate, but I wanted to add a tiny recommendation from an economic point of view and not from any ethical or national sovereignty one. It’s helpful to think of two distinct sets of jobs: the set where there is a labor supply market of American workers and the set where there isn’t. With the latter (such as many manual labor jobs in the agricultural industries), the overall American economy most definitely benefits from illegal immigrants. With the former (such as jobs in the construction and hospitality industries), there is a net overall damage to the national economy mostly from wage suppression. And if you replace illegal immigrants with legal ones (naturalized citizens or those with foreign worker visas), the same effects hold true but the degree of these effects is subdued. I believe that is what the economic data tells us, at least, which also happens to match up with economic intuition. Congratulations, Egg Boy. You are now on The List. As soon as my communist buddies take over the American government, you will be immediately assigned to Gulag #716. Yours truly will be your supervisor. But before you fret, know that I’m one of the kinder gentler ones. Most of our time will be spent on politically themed arts and crafts using those annoying plastic Sisyphus boulder-esque wrong-handed safety scissors. There will also be forced feedings of my experimental vegan recipes (I don’t measure anything…I just “eyeball” it all) and required viewings of Drought Era Bills games versus the Browns (special emphasis on the Jauron years). “Awful” is a stretch. I’ll only partly concede my point in that I could have chosen a better example that couldn’t be flagged for technicalities. Jim Crow laws varied greatly by state, legal domain, legal language, and time period. In the early morning while typing my post, I was thinking of laws that ALLOWED Southern whites to decline services to blacks on account of race and not the laws MANDATING they do so. I thought the context would have made that clear enough, as I also referenced the 1964 Civil Rights Act…a government enforcement of non-racist behavior from most Southern whites, who were otherwise inclined to routinely exercise their freedom to be racists. You are correct when you state that government intervention is going to step on someone’s toes. That is always the case. Government restricts the freedoms in one place so to (hopefully) increase the freedoms in another. It is up to the lawmakers to decide which freedoms are valued and which are not, within certain obvious limits of course (i.e. protections of Constitutional rights). This really should not be considered a controversial assertion. All the time, rational citizens are choosing to value one set of freedoms over another: the freedom to breathe clean air versus an industrial company’s freedom to cut financial corners by polluting, the freedom to not be murdered from mentally unstable individuals versus the freedom to purchase flamethrowers/grenades/bazookas/tanks/anti-aircraft artillery on a whim, the freedom from labor exploitation (inhumane work conditions, unfair compensation) versus the freedom to run a company entirely as one sees fit, etc…I think we all get the point. I’m assuming that everyone here accepts the social contract and, therefore, the belief that not all government intervention is inherently wrong.

Yeah, I’m really only a Marxist in the sense that I think good ol’ Karl and Mr. Engels did an excellent job articulating the problems with laissez-faire capitalism. From the convenient vantage point of living in the early twenty-first century, however, I have to say that their nineteenth-century solutions to capitalism’s problems left a lot to be desired. With human nature having evolved into the current form that it did, I don’t think communism will work any time soon for complex social structures larger than a few hundred or so people. The classical liberal values of money, property, and socioeconomic stratification are here to stay…and that’s perfectly fine by me, really. I’m very much a pro-capitalism person. I just happen to believe that government has a significant role to play in saving capitalism from itself. So for the time being, I’ll proudly wear the scarlet letters, “S.D.,” in this country to identify myself as a social democrat. But I ultimately favor pragmatism and common sense over political and economic dogmatism, so who knows where my weird brain will be in, say, November 2024?? I hope you did well on your midterm exam?! Yes, Polish people rock! That’s why Hitler invaded our homeland first. Unbridled JEALOUSY. Cinga, I think we’re moving closer to a mutual understanding, but I need to make a few more clarifications. I’m defining tyranny simply as “any unreasonable and excessive control over an individual’s life.” That 1-D line you reference, as I understood it, is strictly a measure of the amount of GOVERNMENT control. Government control is distinct from corporate control in that a government can exercise its power to enforce law and order as well as its power to tax. One’s ability to escape government tyranny (leave country, vote for new politicians, peaceful activism/violent revolution) is quite different from one’s ability to escape corporate tyranny (leave job, boycott goods/services, use government to enforce regulations). I’m also defining corporate tyranny as the end state of either neoliberalism (companies hijacking a feeble government for the people) or of anarcho-capitalism (companies ruling in total absence of government restraint). These following three contentions undergird my definition of corporate tyranny: laissez-faire capitalism is terrible at resolving many market failures, it does not lead to anything close to optimal economic utility (i.e. well-being) at the aggregate (i.e. societal) level, and it is an amoral system frequently overrun with immoral sociopaths (as in…clinical diagnoses using DSM-5 criteria). With all of that out of the way, I’ll now restate two important themes from my last post: 1. More government control does not necessarily equate to less individual freedom. Equivalently, less government control doesn’t necessarily mean more liberty. One easily understood thought experiment among so many: a black family driving through a desolate region of the Deep South, desperately searching for food and gasoline service during the Jim Crow era, before all that pesky government intervention (1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Act, etc.). 2. The Democratic Party, relative to the Republican Party on that 1-D line of yours, is not consistently about more government control over the individual’s life. A prominent example among multiple: the broad Christian Coalition platform embedded within the Republican Party. Ok, so let’s parse through your list of 12 a little more. I assume by “income equality” you mean less extreme income inequality? The political right generally sees the extreme inequality as a feature and not a flaw of capitalism. Both sides may agree on 3 of these (eliminating racial bias, equal rights for everyone, a clean environment) in the abstract, but they often disagree greatly when you examine specific cases…to the point that the political left doesn’t believe the political right views these as legitimate societal problems to solve anymore. 7 of these that you list (better education, better health care, eliminating poverty, less people in prison, eliminating hunger, solving student debt problems, good housing for everyone) are often treated among the political right as individual moral failings (laziness, irresponsibility, hopeless incompetence) and not systemic problems for politicians to address. The right DOES make (valid) arguments that government intervention can make these 7 issues worse and that private charity can help redress them, but I always find these arguments partially adequate at best and willfully oblivious to the systemic flaws ingrained within capitalism. For the last one (good paying jobs for everyone), the political right simply has lower standards for what constitutes a “good paying job” at the lowest tiers of the wage scale. I encourage you to look into all of the advancements (energy transfer efficiencies, energy storage capabilities, materials engineering, etc.) that have been made in renewable energy technology within the past 5-10 years, compared to the first 10-15 years of this century (especially with solar!). Also, look into other countries around the world and examine how they have been transitioning their electric power infrastructures away from fossil fuels. Lots of quality academic research literature exists out there on electric power grid performances and costs using fully renewables, hybrid renewables with nuclear (my personal favorite!), and hybrid renewables that couple home/building energy systems with traditional fossil fuel power grids. The research is based on both international case studies and speculative ones for the future. This statement is worth exploring further: “When inequality grows, wages stagnate.” From a theoretical economics perspective, this doesn’t HAVE to be the case, but if often ends up being the case. Why exactly is that? Globalization, the destruction of unions, crony capitalism, and wealth-hoarding billionaires/multi-millionaires are 4 big reasons that I’m sure Robert Reich thoroughly covers in his “Inequality for All” documentary (oddly enough, I have yet to see it but eventually will!). By “wealth-hoarding” behavior, I specifically mean not investing money saved from marginal tax rate reductions back into society via domestic job-creating companies or social welfare programs like education. There’s another possible reason that I’m not sure gets discussed much. If we focus on the histogram shape of wage frequency versus wage distribution across the total U.S. population and run it through time (say, from 1980 through 2020), we’ll notice a couple interesting things. The first is that the middle class has been hollowing out for sure. The second is that there’s still more than enough “thickness” on the approximate upper half of the histogram to sustain a healthy-enough economy! In other words…if you do enough back-of-the-envelope area-under-curve calculations on the histograms and make temporal comparisons between them all, you will easily see how you can quietly convert a macroeconomy into one that caters predominantly to the wealthier portion at the near exclusion of the less wealthy portion. So contrary to what economic libertarians often argue, wages at the lower end don’t necessarily NEED to be increased in accordance with all the extra wealth creation (as measured by GDP) in order to have enough people purchasing these extra goods and services. Also not surprisingly, there is a strong correlation between highest education level attained and wage tier. So how have we allowed all this to happen? Simple: corporate media propaganda and voter suppression. I have sooo much more to say on wealth inequality and wage stagnation, but it kinda looks like we have kidnapped the thread topic like it’s a governor of Michigan…so I will talk about this stuff somewhere else and sometime after the election hysteria dies down. Look for a new thread of mine in November. Here are some working titles: 1. “Neoliberalism and the death of the American Dream.” Not bad, Kay, not bad… 2. “Reaganomics: the hideous love child of Barry (Goldwater) and Ayn (Rand).” Meh… 3. “A 40-year golden shower: what really trickled down from Art Laffer.” Ew. 4. “K-shaped recovery, economic depression, socialist revolution.” Oooh I like it! Provocative AND apropos of current events. I think I’ll go with this one!

Trafalgar Group is about as reliable as Rasmussen. They’re coasting on their 2016 reputation for predicting Michigan correctly, but IMO that had everything to do with luck and not insight. A time traveler back to 2016 would find much more electorate insight from any randomly selected Bernie campaign volunteer in Michigan. They were all warning the Democratic Party of Hillary’s weaknesses in the Midwest! Anyway…I am suffering from poll-watching fatigue and cannot wait any longer to make my official Election Day predictions. I think I’ve been ready since the Friday after the first presidential debate! The few remaining undecided voters will have a negligible effect at this point, either not bothering to vote or approximately cancelling each other out on both sides. So barring any sudden candidate health crises or catastrophic natural disasters or World War 3 flare-ups within the next couple weeks, here they are: 1. President: I have Biden narrowly beating Trump 278 to 260 by keeping 50/53 of the 2016 electoral college map and then flipping Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. My reasons: I believe the polling methodologies used this year are largely correct. The modeling is not too dissimilar from what was used to predict the 2018 “Blue Wave,” and all have corrected the Midwest undersampling flaws by education level which plagued the 2016 polls. Future historians will say that Trump lost this election on the singular issue of his pandemic mishandling. Older people and suburban white women can’t forgive him for his callous and flippant treatment of COVID-19. Also, the pro-union white working class of the Rust Belt don’t hate Biden like they hated Hillary in 2016. The only factors I see keeping this election closer than the consensus poll projections are the party voter base enthusiasm differential that Trump enjoys, the expected number of mail-in ballots (disproportionately favoring Democrats) that will get thrown out on technicalities, and the small but measurable bump that Trump should expect from the fraction of his supporters who ignore and lie to pollsters. 2. Senate: This will be far more interesting to follow than the presidential battle! I’m projecting an earth-shattering transfer of power with 6 Rep-to-Dem flips (losers: Collins in Maine, Tillis in NC, Loeffler in Georgia, Ernst in Iowa, Gardner in Colorado, McSally in Arizona) and only 1 Dem-to-Rep flip (loser: Jones in Alabama). That would give the Democrats (with Angus and Bernie) a 52 to 48 majority. The problem with this prediction, however, is that so many of these Senate battles are neck-and-neck and well within the statistical margins of error in these polls. This could just as easily end up as something like a 53-47 Republican majority hold. But I’m sticking with my prediction. I think Americans are angry enough with Senate incumbent leadership this year, especially with how the pandemic economic stimulus response has been handled. 3. House: Democrats will hold it, going up from 232 to 244 (218 is needed for a majority). I’m feeling way too lazy to type out all my flips from 2018 lol. Pelosi will hold her seat over Buttar, which I hope will fuel a heightened sense of urgency among my fellow progressives. Biden, Harris, Pelosi, and Schumer potentially all in power for the next 2+ years?! Once the Great Orange Terror is removed, the Great Democratic Civil War between progressives and neoliberals must commence. In the words of legendary motivational speaker, Bartholomew Scott: “CAN’T WAIT.” 4. Governors: 27 to 23 in favor of the Republicans (VT, NH, WV, IN, MO, ND, MT, UT) over the Democrats (WA, NC, DE). Not exactly the boldest of predictions…but RealKayAdams keeps things REAL for ya. Time for Bills game! Woooooo!!!

Sorry 3rdnlng, I’ve been super busy for the past couple weeks and totally forgot to reply. I’m grouping my responses by topic: 1. Fracking: Ok, well at least it’s replacing coal power plants! FYI, a majority of Pennsylvanians nowadays consistently poll in opposition to Marcellus Shale fracking. I could theoretically support it, but on three future conditions that are unlikely to be met. The first condition is that it must be viewed not as an end-goal energy source, but rather as a transition-stage energy source toward a renewable energy solution package centered on nuclear and solar. That’s because any long-term greenhouse gas emissions benefits we get from carbon-specific reductions due to fracking are more than offset by the more devastating methane leakage in the short-term. The second condition is that the environmental concerns from underground water supply contaminants, air pollution due to the toxic chemicals released during fracking processes, and induced earthquakes/tremors must all be reassured following years of additional scientific research. The third condition is that the entire U.S. fracking industry must be subjected to WAY stronger regulatory oversight than the ridiculous level it currently enjoys. 2. Lumber: I’m surprised and disappointed that the U.S. is a net importer of it. I potentially really like your idea of government forestry service partnerships with private lumber/furniture/paper industries, but I hold the same forest management concerns that I have in the wildfire management topic…namely, how feasible is all this in terms of cost, manpower, and (in the case of the lumber industry) profitability? You can definitely pull me over to your side on this one, but I’d have to see numbers and calculations beforehand. Forest management methods matter as well (hey a neat “FMMM” acronym slogan…though it doesn’t quite roll off the tongue like BLM…), so I would also need reasonable forest habitat protection reassurances beforehand. 3. Energy independence: This is an admirable goal and sound economic strategy, but multiple paths to it exist. The U.S. has chosen to continue along the reliable fossil fuel status quo route while other countries have put forth successful efforts into alternative routes incorporating renewable energies. Since the 1970’s, the U.S. has never seriously entertained other energy options because the fossil fuel industry is a prominent subset of the corporate oligarchy that owns our country and dictates our public policy. I’m a somewhat reasonable hippie who understands the current transportation technology landscape, some of the environmental concerns related to extant resource mining techniques for renewables, the need for strategic petroleum reserves to prevent energy macroeconomic shocks, etc… These are all windows of opportunity, however, to leave open for certain continued activities like offshore oil/gas drilling, NOT for new plans like creating Athabasca tar sands somewhere else. Those who care only about money and not the environment should want the U.S. to be focused on renewable energy investments ASAP. The lucrative international energy market is rapidly heading in that direction. Let’s now get to the foreign policy component. The U.S. shouldn’t have the mindset where it feels it has the moral authority or the economic imperative to “dictate outcomes around the world,” as you say. A foreign policy doctrine not grounded in the Golden Rule inevitably tarnishes diplomatic and economic relationships everywhere. The Middle East is a textbook example of a region where misguided regime changes, short-sighted organized coups, and cavalier unilateral sanctions/embargos have led to all sorts of terrible unintended consequences that include energy market blackmailing. Even energy-dependent countries can still maintain prosperous economies if they engage in respectful and mutually beneficial relationships with other countries. Also, capitalist democracies can still have healthy trade relations with left-wing socialist/communist countries and right-wing fascist/authoritarian countries. One more thing…and this is super important…energy-independent countries can still exhibit dangerous economic market fragility and still be slaves to their own belligerent/manipulative foreign policy. You brought up Russia in a different context, but that country is a PERFECT example of the false security that a fossil-fuel based energy independence can bring. Russia’s economy is so disproportionately invested in oil and natural gas exports to Europe and to Middle East that it pressures them into aggressive confrontations and trade route disruptions abroad that hurt them in many other ways, including alienation from the U.S. and other potential NATO allies. Russia has enormous renewable energy potential with all the untapped transition metal oxide materials estimated to be within the Ural Mountains and throughout Siberia. Russia, like the United States, would be much better off economically by diversifying their national energy portfolio ASAP toward renewables (including nuclear…especially since they already have the Cold War refinery/enrichment infrastructure in place). 4. California habitability: As you know, I’m all about my high-tech solutions driven primarily by the private market and supported heavily by government-funded research whenever/wherever necessary. So I do like the concept of desalination plants…but aren’t their current technological forms too expensive, carbon emissions-intensive, and destructive to marine ecosystems and fisheries? Is that why there aren’t more of them already along the Pacific Coast? I also don’t see water shortage solutions like desalination plants and broader environmental solutions like high-speed rails/bullet trains as mutually exclusive pursuits. Both are inextricably linked together, anyway, through future state planning for energy/financial allocations and urban/suburban layouts. I’m glad that you mentioned bullet trains because re-envisioning public transportation is critical to reversing the problem of suburban sprawl, which I see as fundamental to the Cali wildfire problem (and to other environmental issues). A Sacramento-SF-SJ-Santa Barbara-LA-Riverside-SD high-speed rail “spine” could do wonders for the Cali economy in the same way that it has helped Europe and some of the Far East countries. Now as for Cali’s limited financial ability to make such bold environmental habitability decisions…yes, the neolibs and progressives have made a mess of the state budget, and I agree that more GOP politicians deserve a crack at reining in some of the wasteful spending. Nevertheless, what concerns me is that most conservative politicians don’t even think that many of these bold environmental decisions need to be made in the first place or that unfettered capitalism has played any inimical role. I don’t view California as a failed state, either, in the way that conservatives often portray it to be. California still props up the rest of the U.S. with the fifth largest economy in the world and with almost inarguably the number one collection of high-tech workforce talent on the planet. I maintain hope in them solving their problems! Hi, ALF! No, state public forestry/fire protection regulations don’t apply to federal public land and are different in nature from those applied to state private land. However, I’m pretty sure there are mutually agreed-upon regulatory overlaps between the state and the fed. Both, of course, maintain their separate turfs for regulation enforcement and forest land management. The USFS and California DFFP websites, along with the Cali residents here at PPP, would be much more useful if you want the regulatory details. Hope this helped?? No one has said anything about spontaneously combusting trees. Or at least I haven’t. The main issue at hand isn’t what initiated the fires, but rather what has caused them to become so large and destructive. See above reply. I don’t appreciate being called an “assclown” completely out of nowhere (especially from a PPP Moderator?!), and I REALLY don’t appreciate being categorized as a “liberal.” Act less like a cranky anti-social right-wing internet troll and act more like a mature adult. In case you didn’t know, hackneyed political one-liners and 5-minute YouTube videos from libertarian ideologues do not have value on par with peer-reviewed scientific literature. And BTW, Michael Shellenberger is not an accredited scientist. He’s an ecomodernist author playing the environmentalism heretic role in order to sell books. I already discussed his agenda and his latest book in the Global Warming Hoax thread (page 332, July 7). I agree with some of his ideas and disagree with many others. If you had fully read the second and third paragraphs of my post on page 92, you would have noticed that I can agree with Shellenberger, John Stossel, and Dr. Hugh Safford (presumably…because Dr. Safford only spoke two sentences between 3:50-4:00 in that video which were probably taken out of context) on the importance of forest management and on the fact that there is no definitive causal relationship between ANTHROPOGENIC global warming and the latest West Coast wildfires. If you really want another climate change dissertation out of me, you can first start by pointing out specific sentences from my post on page 92 with which you disagree (the third, fourth, and ninth paragraphs contain the climate change stuff…or look over pages 324-334 of the GW Hoax thread). I need details on my alleged “wrong think.” Next, provide about a couple sentences worth of example evidence you would need to see in order to reverse your current stances on MMGW and the Cali wildfires. These instructions apply to all of my haters. Or don’t do any of this…IDGAF either way, really. I’m quickly losing patience with all of the condescension and snark around here. This is now the third straight time within the past five months that you have completely avoided the content of anything I posted and made a beeline for the unprovoked personal attack. This is also now the second time you have equated my scientific “faith” with religious faith. FYI, religious faith is a conviction in something that is not subject to the scrutiny of empirical evidence. Scientific “faith” is a high confidence in the scientific method to eventually falsify wrong ideas using a combination of evidence, facts, logic, and reason. Furthermore, I am not at all blindly devoted to the theory of MMGW. If anything, I am inclined toward wanting to “believe” it to be false. But I need to see countervailing material which has been authored by people formally trained in climatology or related earth science subfields. I requested this in the GW Hoax thread and received nothing. Until this happens, I can only assume that the “MMGW = hoax” movement is nothing more than political propaganda funded by fossil fuel industries and motivated by a fanatical hatred of any form of government intervention whatsoever. If social democracy + anthropogenic climate change is my religion, then maybe laissez-faire capitalism + science denialism is yours??

Random PPP Note: While deliberately avoiding the main board and anything related to the Buffalo Bills this early morning, I decided to scan a few of the PPP pages beyond the first one. What I found were a bunch of interesting threads like this one that deserved a lot more TLC than they initially received. I also noticed a bunch of old threads whose titles are very similar to ones on the first page. So consider this your friendly reminder to look through pages 2+ more often! Everyone should pay careful attention to the details here! This 2019 Gallup poll asked only for political self-identification and did not get into actual voting history or stances on specific political issues. These are clearly separate things! The country may be noticeably center-right when it comes to political labels, but it leans slightly center-left (modern American standard…not the European one) on election day (examples: House of Reps composition, Presidential popular vote) and polls noticeably center-left on many important issues (off the top of my head: mid-/late-term abortion, unions, minimum wage laws/UBI, marijuana, health care, environment, education, regime change wars/military interventionism, economic nationalism/protectionism, progressive taxation, corporate financial contributions to campaigns). I place greater importance on voting history and on individual public policy stances than I do on political self-identification (or party registration). That’s because I don’t think the average American even has a good understanding of the meaning of already vague political labels. Lots of polling data has been compiled on this topic in support of my assertion. My personal canvassing experiences in the NYC metro area during the Democratic primaries also support these polling results. The cognitive dissonance I witnessed between labels and policies was astounding for these words: “liberal,” “progressive”, and “socialist.” Super minor contention with the poll: Gallup is normally very reliable, used a large sample number (29,000), and ended up with national results similar to others I’ve seen (something like 35% conservative, 40% moderate, and 25% liberal on average). But did the telephone surveys include cell phones too or just landlines? If the latter, would this skew the results in any way? Also, note the age demographic breakdown of these polls. Historically speaking, a portion of the U.S. population always turns more conservative with increasing age. The most obvious explanation is that people tend to accumulate wealth and have families as they get older, and so they become less willing to “share” that household wealth via assumed higher taxes from the political left. My question, though, is what happens when people DON’T accumulate wealth and have children with increasing age at nearly the pace of previous generations? Because this is exactly what’s happening now with Millenials (thanks to the Great Recession and to neoliberalism) and potentially with Generation Z in the post-pandemic years ahead. Just something to ponder... We are living under a tyranny of the minority for sure, but the real minority to be worried about is way smaller than the sum of Trump voters. The one-party corporate oligarchy is the true problem! Our government primarily serves to represent the interests of the 621 verified American billionaires. The interests of the rest of the 200+ million voting-eligible citizens are subordinate. This is not to say, however, that a viable solution would be to throw out the republic in favor of a true democracy. Although I’m definitely not a strict Constitutionalist and would make a number of changes to the U.S. Constitution if I could, I do rather like the stability its main framework has provided for so long (unlike, say, Italy’s). I would not want to tamper with key structures that serve as bulwarks against tyranny of the majority, such as the Electoral College, bicameralism, and the federalist system. Most (but not all!) major policy changes should come about slowly and only after much (rational) deliberation. And the bulk of policy change should originate at the state level and be resolved there, if possible. The best protections against extreme versions of tyranny of the minority end up being the same as those against tyranny of the majority: improved electorate education, greater first amendment freedoms, and increased civic engagement (voting, activism, etc.) so that all politicians at every level of government are constantly held accountable. Or that’s the theory behind how things should work, at least. A constitutional amendment may also be necessary to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United v. FEC. In any case, Democrats and fellow lefties must stop wallowing in the political victim role and start putting in the work to figure out how to energize the base and win over independents, moderates, and apathetic voters. Their votes are there for the taking in every state…yes, even in the dark red ones! 90+ million voting-eligible Americans don’t even vote!!!

Hi, Capco! Do you know the source and the date for that graphic? I’m surprised to see the Democratic Party positioned to the left of the Western world’s median party line. The voter base of the Democrats may be moving left, but the party leadership under Obama, Hillary, and Biden has been a continuation of the slow rightward drift since the 1990’s (at least on the meat-and-potatoes issues in economics, health care, environment, and foreign policy). On the European side of my surprise, I must be mentally stuck in the era before politicians like Marine Le Pen were considered serious political candidates. European politics shifted sharply to the right during the Syrian Civil War refugee crisis. Maybe I have been too slow to realize just how large and enduring the shift has been. What complicates this graphic are big policy issues that don’t fit so neatly into the simple left-right political spectrum anymore (namely economic nationalism versus free trade globalism). Also, some of the recent major losses for the European left (Jeremy Corbyn the most notable) can be attributed to candidate personality weaknesses and political strategy blunders more so than to unfavorable leftist policies. I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you type, so I’m curious to know what you consider your political ideological orientation to be? My own is Revisionist Marxism, somewhere on that red “social democracy” rectangular region of the image you posted…somewhere between AOC and Tulsi Gabbard (who, incidentally, are now squabbling with each other over ballot harvesting voter fraud…I’m taking Tulsi’s side). Cinga, I highlighted the text where I believe you went wrong in your thinking. A lot of important nuances are lost when you try to force the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum onto a one-dimensional line. Consider splitting public policy issues into two dimensions: all of the economic freedom ones and then all of the personal freedom ones. A common mistake people make when thinking along the traditional left-right 1-D spectrum is that they place too much weight on the economic freedom issues and overlook the civil liberties stuff. It’s a very understandable mistake because we Americans now take for granted the full list of civil rights victories that have been achieved for women, minorities, non-Christians, and LGBTQ over the past generation. But we can’t forget the unresolved left-wing libertarian issues like police brutality, protest/civil disobedience rights, immigrant human rights, drug legalization, animal rights, capital punishment, euthanasia, and whistleblower protections…or right-wing libertarian ones like gun rights and internet neutrality/censorship/first amendment stuff…or poorly defined ones like abortion and affirmative action. So once we move from a 1-D line to a 2-D square, I hope the distinctions between socialism and fascism become a bit more clear. Socialism doesn’t technically address the personal freedoms, but it’s traditionally associated with a generally more libertarian perspective on these matters. Fascism is authoritarian on both the economic and personal freedoms, although the government’s economic intrusion is different in nature from that of socialism with respect to how ownership of the means of production is organized. When you apply these distinctions to Hitler’s historical “accomplishments” as a political leader, you will see that he ruled as a quintessential fascist and not at all like a socialist. In fact, Hitler thought of workers as inherently inferior to business owners and not to be trusted with large shares of responsibility. The use of the “socialist” label in the “Nazi” title was hollow, done solely for political strategic gain in Germany between 1918-1933. “Actions speak louder than words” is the apt maxim here. Hitler can say to historians that he is a socialist…just like I can say to TSW posters that I am everyone’s favorite GMFB host!! My biggest frustration with modern American political discourse is how sloppy we all tend to be with political labels, including “socialism” and “fascism.” I’m guilty of this, too, from time to time! Words should have specific meanings and political labels should have specific definitions. Political labels should be applied with historical context in mind. Is Trump actually a fascist? Well he certainly dabbles in strongly worded law-and-order rhetoric and nebulous racial dog whistling, but compared to early twentieth century European politics? In practice, I’d say of course not! Political labels should also have well-understood demarcations among policy gradations. Much of what gets called “socialism” these days can be more accurately described as “mixed economies.” Referring to Biden, Harris, Pelosi, and Schumer as “socialists” is cringeworthy to me (they are “liberals”). Referring to AOC or Bernie as “socialists” is still problematic because they are proponents of mixed economies, but it’s acceptable enough to me because a nationalized health care industry would represent a significant chunk of our total economy. For my final point before turning my attention to the Bills game, I encourage everyone to challenge the common association of authoritarianism with tyranny and libertarianism with freedom. With either authoritarianism or statism or totalitarianism, I’m referring to a simple definition of more government control, while with libertarianism I mean less government control. When you take that 1-D line of yours and keep moving from authoritarianism toward libertarianism, you will escape government tyranny but will then approach another type of tyrannical dystopia called “corporate tyranny.” The American libertarian movement (and therefore most of the PPP forum) aggressively denies the manifold losses of economic freedom under corporate tyranny (dissolution of unions, no minimum wage laws, no child labor laws, monopolies, crony capitalism, all types of market failures, etc.), so let’s focus on another type of freedom that is near and dear to my heart. Let’s try expanding that 1-D line into a 5-D hyperdimensional public policy cube (lol…all my wonderful readers are hating on me now…) featuring economic issues, personal/cultural freedom issues, foreign policy, political rights, and environmental issues. I’m very libertarian on the middle three, but the devilish little eco-socialist in me wants everyone to focus on that environmental “dimension.” More government control in this domain can irrationally limit economic growth, but it can also INCREASE our individual ENVIRONMENTAL freedoms from corporate tyranny by protecting our health and property and financial resources from all the negative economic externalities (i.e. pollution) that companies otherwise get away with under free-market capitalism. There are other types of tyranny besides the corporate one, of course, with which government can help rectify. Religious tyranny played a dominant role for much of recorded human history, but its effect has (mostly) receded for the West with the help of government (and scientific reasoning). I would also generalize the word “tyranny” a bit to include genetic tyranny, biological/physical limit tyranny, random life misfortune tyranny…government CAN have a positive role in some aspects of these domains, but yeah…it’s complicated…

The latest on NuNu is that she is recovering well at a local rescue farm and now has an excellent chance of not having to be euthanized. The local Chicago news picture, though, that I saw of NuNu lying on the ground with her bandaged legs is pretty heartbreaking. She did suffer some permanent damage to her body. Of course I don’t have anything positive to say regarding Adam Hollingsworth a.k.a. “Dreadhead Cowboy.” He has been charged with a felony for aggravated animal cruelty and is expected to serve a non-trivial amount of time in jail because of prior felonies. I don’t even remember what specific cause this was for…census taking? BLM? Inner city child safety? All important causes, but now completely overshadowed by his despicable mix of stupidity and psychopathy. And all the social media idiots defending him can suck Josh Allen cantaloupe-sized balls, too. In honor of NuNu and other abused animals, this October month I must entreat you to watch two notable documentaries (Earthlings-90 min long, Dominion-120 min long) for free on YouTube. A fair warning is that most people find the video footage extremely difficult to watch, but it’s important to watch it unfiltered. Also look into the Anonymous for the Voiceless international organization. Aside from animal rights political activism, the best way to end all forms of animal abuse is to go fully vegan. You can always start out with a modest reduction of meat, dairy, and egg consumption and see how you feel. Or just try going full vegan for a week or two. Please consider it for your own health if not for the animals!! FWIW, I’ve been steady at about 19 BMI with perfect vital sign numbers ever since I went 100% vegan years ago…with, like, very minimal effort too.

Hi 3rdnlng, yes this is a very important topic that I should review in some depth. My summarized thoughts on the California wildfires topic are that the political right seems overly focused on forest management, the political left seems appropriately focused on climate management, the far right for some reason is fixated on Antifa arsonist management, and I wish everyone would spend a lot more time discussing suburban development management. Have decades of negligent forest management played a role in this year’s wildfires? Absolutely, but only to some extent. Clearing dead wood, implementing controlled burns, creating strategic break lines in forests, trimming branches around electric power lines, and allowing natural fires to run their course during prior decades would have all mitigated the overall crisis in many locations. But in terms of both cost and manpower, it is highly impractical (33 million acres of forest in the state, about 10% of which has currently burned this season) to think these efforts alone could have reduced the wildfire spread and minimized the wildfire risk to levels that Californians would have found tolerable. Climate change, whether man-made or natural, is undoubtedly the root cause of the abnormally strong wildfires this year. California’s measurable drought seasons have lengthened and become drier, warmer, and windier over the years. Statewide vapour-pressure deficits this summer were at all-time highs. August was also the hottest month on record in California. Changes like these have enabled bark beetles to proliferate in larger regions and in additional ways compared to the recent past. So many more tree deaths from the greater desiccation and from the increased bark beetle damage have created a lot more flammable dry wood than was previously found within the forests just decades ago. To be clear, the dramatically increased wildfire activity in California, Washington, and Oregon is not conclusive proof one way or the other of MAN-MADE global climate change. However, the severity of these regional fires and droughts (5 of 10 worst fires ever recorded in California are happening right now), the speed at which these regional changes are happening, and similarly observed wildfire strengthening in other parts of the world like Russia and Australia are all perfectly in line with anthropogenic climate change predictions made in the late 80’s (most prominent: James Hansen Senate testimony in June 1988). Trump has made several specific comments recently on the California wildfires that demand immediate correction. He keeps blaming liberal politicians and radical environmentalists within the state for forest mismanagement, but about 55% of California’s forests are federal land and about 40% are private, with only about 5% the responsibility of the state. Trump has also pointed out that Texas and parts of Europe have managed to avoid such crazy wildfires, thus proving definitively in his mind that it’s a unique California forest management issue and not a MMGW one. The problem with his logic here is that…well…Texas and Europe inherently have different climates than California, they have very different forest habitat compositions, and this does nothing whatsoever to disprove man-made global warming since no one has ever argued that its effects get applied evenly throughout the planet. Furthermore, I believe Trump referenced an infamous graph from the USDA Forest Service which showed that total annual U.S. burned forest acreage during the 1930’s was multiple times higher than today. The biggest problem with that graph is that the data didn’t distinguish forest wildfires from grassland/range fires or incendiary (i.e., known to be deliberately planned) fires prior to the 1960’s. I really don’t know what else to say to MMGW skeptics since there is never going to be a “smoking gun” piece of evidence in support of (or against) this scientific subfield. This isn’t like proving the law of gravity. At some later point in time, the accumulating evidence of its veracity (or falsehood) will have to outweigh the urge to prove the other political side wrong. I won’t get into any of the Antifa arson allegations. Even if we had definitive proof of them starting so many of these fires, it’s kinda irrelevant to the topic. We’re not discussing the INSTIGATION of the wildfires (be it lightning or human-related activity), but rather the SPREAD of these conflagrations. I assume that I already lost most of the PPP audience with these previous paragraphs, but now here is where I start to lose everyone! The more fundamental problem is unrestrained suburban development, along with its corollary of inadequate urban planning and the much broader corollary of unrestrained capitalism within the context of rapid population growth. My general problems with sprawling suburbia are the amount of habitat destruction they wreak, in terms of total space, as well as the incredible space-inefficient strain they put on our energy grid and on our fossil fuel demands. I would like to see a constructive dialogue on how to make concentrated urban living more palatable, but…yeah…that’s not gonna happen in the year 2020 with the pandemic and the rioting. So let’s return to the specific topic of California. Mother Nature appears to be insisting that this many people shouldn’t be living there. As if this wasn’t apparent enough during the time of Mulholland’s water wars, it’s especially apparent now that suburban boundaries are intruding deeply inland and encroaching into shrublands, pine forests, and all types of forestry ready to burn naturally during California’s lengthy dry seasons. I could go scorched earth (pun intended) on the environmental consequences of laissez-faire capitalism tonight, but I won’t…I’ll only mention that environmental issues (including housing development zones) are way too important and complex for their currently insufficient regulation/oversight and probably shouldn’t be left up to purely democratically elected politicians, either. So at the national level, that is why I’d like to break up the executive branch into smaller branches via the (admittedly difficult) constitutional amendment process. I’d leave some of the 15 executive departments exclusively for the President (Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, Veterans Affairs), but I’d like to siphon off some of the other executive departments’ responsibilities for a fourth “environment branch” (parts of the Interior, Agriculture, Transportation, Energy, HUD, HHS) as well as for a fifth “economics branch” (parts of the Treasury, Commerce, Labor, Education, and maybe even State to pair with the Federal Reserve). For these environment and economics branches, right now I’m thinking primarily along the lines of a panel of tsars a la the Supreme Court, but with term limits. My aforementioned solution would also apply at the state level, of course, under the same federalist system that the three familiar branches currently enjoy. Any disagreements here? No? Wow, really?! Good! Remember: the best solution doesn’t have to be a perfect one or even a good one, but the least crappy one. In addition to the West Coast wildfires topic, the links in your post allude to a bunch of other environmental topics that I covered in the Global Warming Hoax thread (pages 324-334 from April through July). So I won’t be redundant on these positions: man-made climate change is real, solar renewables are good, wind renewables are overrated, fracking is very bad, fossil fuel subsidies should be removed, fossil fuel-motivated American interventionist foreign policy is terrible, many irrational environmentalists push counterproductive bureaucratic regulations, and most Democratic politicians like Pelosi and Newsom and Obama are major climate change hypocrites. The one exception that I don’t think I ever covered is the urban heat island effect on weather stations. For those unfamiliar with the concept, this is the warming effect on weather station instrumentation from the absorbed/re-emitted heat of nearby concrete, asphalt, and bricks. There have been numerous studies of this effect, the most comprehensive being the famous NASA GISS paper published in 2001 which should be easy to find online. Included in it are cross-analyses of temperature data over a 30-year period, using station data both from recently industrialized areas and from still isolated ones. The measured urban heat island effect turns out to be pretty small and practically negligible when seen in full temperature plots. The measured effect is consistent for weather stations throughout the world, including some of the most rapidly industrialized places in China. The specific technique used to isolate and account for these discrepancies in the data is also described in (painful) detail in the paper. One of your three posted internet links references a challenge to this landmark paper from known MMGW skeptic, Anthony Watts, at his “Watts Up With That” website. Watts cherry-picks isolated regional data anomalies here to disprove a global trend, but unfortunately for him, the anomalies he cites at certain U.S. weather stations were debunked years ago as signal processing quirks from diurnal temperature range variations. Climate change skeptics still fixated on the urban heat island issue need to explain the observed temperature changes in the most remote weather stations of the Northern Hemisphere (Russia, Greenland, Canada, Alaska) where the global warming effect is most pronounced. They also need to explain all of the ocean warming data…

I’m a total stats nerd and still a huge believer in the powers of football analytics, but you must use these powers responsibly! FiveThirtyEight did not do so in a variety of ways. I shall highlight the two big ones: 1. The experience of the QB matters: It makes little sense to discuss performance regressions to means when you’re looking at the first 31 games of a young QB’s professional career. This is especially true for a QB prospect like Josh Allen who was so green that most draft prospects initially recommended he sit and watch for his entire first two seasons. These types of statistical analyses are perfectly fine for veteran QB’s, but not for ones on their rookie contract who didn’t come from big college programs and who entered the league with so many question marks surrounding throwing mechanics and decision-making. 2. The players around the QB matter: Between this season and last, it’s already quite obvious how big of a difference a true #1 WR has on the rest of an offense. Diggs opens up so much more space for the other receivers and the backfield, too. And now let’s look back further a year to 2018. Allen and Dawkins are the only 2018 starters on offense still playing for the Bills. The other 9? Vlad Ducasse, Russell Bodine, John Miller, Jordan Mills, Charles Clay, a broken-down McCoy, Kelvin Benjamin, Zay Jones, and Robert Foster. I rest my case.

Meh. While it’s undoubtedly a tough schedule, I’m sticking with my initial prediction of a 12-4 division title and a #3 AFC playoff seed. I’ll leave the losses to KC, New England (away), and Tennessee alone and then flip my fourth loss from injury-riddled SF to Seattle instead. Las Vegas, Arizona, Pittsburgh, New England (home), and SF will all be difficult games. Those teams are thinking the same thing about the Bills, however. The Bills are exceptionally strong on both offense and defense. The only question marks for me involve the running game (o-line juggling, fumbles, Moss as a rookie) and the current strategic weaknesses of the defense due to recent injuries (Milano, Edmunds, Norman) and to not having a normal preseason routine. MAYBE Beane will need to add a free agent to replace Lotulelei or an extra veteran pass rusher, but otherwise I believe all the answers to their problems are located within their locker room. I’ll also go ahead and predict the playoffs. The Bills beat New England in round 1, Baltimore in round 2, KC in round 3, and GB in round 4. Yeah, that’s right. I SAID IT. I’m bold and brash like that. Can you folks handle me?!

Yay! BullBuchanan, I knew I’d finally run into someone at PPP who is ideologically to my left. If you’re looking for suitable Democrats in 2024, don’t hold your breath. For one thing, we could all be stuck with Kamala for up to 12 years. The best the Dems would offer you at the national level is a remodeled Newsom, possibly Warren, or possibly Sherrod Brown. There’s a tiny chance that Andrew Yang could break through if you’re big on UBI. AOC could theoretically always break out because she’ll just barely meet the age requirement in 2024, but the DNC wouldn’t let that happen and I don’t personally trust AOC enough to lead the progressive left movement, anyway. Keep developing her in the House to replace current Speaker, Cruella de Vil. Maybe Pramila Jayapal or Ro Khanna? The problem, however, is that all of these people I mentioned will shift heavily toward the center and sell out the progressive base in order to get nominated. Such is the inherent nature of the Democratic Party and the power of corporate campaign donations. That is why I hope you will join me in a mass left-wing defection to third parties! The Democratic Party can’t be reformed internally and must be pressured from the outside. Honestly…the whole party needs to be burned down to the ground a la 1850’s Whigs if we ever want to kill off America’s Sixth Party System and begin the Seventh that is inclusive of progressive policies. I recommend Nick Brana’s Movement for a People’s Party. They’re building a fairly standard social democrat platform, but a serious socialist like yourself will probably like it enough. It’s where all the coolest Bernie Bros and Bernie Bras are congregating after November! Many among the always rebellious West Coast + So Cal crew seem to have already defected. The Midwest and Northeast folks are slowly reconsidering, too, as long as they can simultaneously support Justice Democrat types like The Squad, Cori Bush, and Jamaal Bowman. I’m guessing that Nina Turner and Jesse Ventura would be the most likely 2024 People’s Party ticket at the moment. I adore Nina. She is my absolute favorite politician in America right now, and Jesse would be great to pull over many of the populists on the right. Ugh…it appears that the ghosts of Democratic primaries past have revisited us. This is neither the best time nor the best place, but I must interject. The will of Deranged Rhinos’s Rule #2 compels me!! So let’s quickly review all the complaints with Bernie Sanders the person: 1. Commie sympathizer: yes, Bernie extolled some of its virtues during his early life and during his formative political years in Vermont. He was willing to buck conventional wisdom and explore ideas that were unpopular and dangerous to have during the Cold War era. He was looking for an economic system that was both ethical and practical. By 1990, he had settled on that region of the socialist spectrum between democratic socialism and social democracy. Throughout the 21st century, he has legislated like a social democrat. 2. 1988 honeymoon in USSR: critics of this should first read Bernie’s own personal account (i.e. not from a right-wing website) of why he went on the trip, what he experienced, and what he learned there which shaped his later political beliefs. 3. Misogynist: complete nonsense made up from somewhere within the DNC (Hillary?) and eventually passed through the Warren campaign. Bernie only ran in 2016 because Warren herself refused to run, despite HIS insistence. 4. 1972 group rape fantasy essay: frigging hilarious AND kind of hot…I mean what hippie girl DOESN’T want her innocence to be stolen like a billionaire’s wallet from a group of strapping young socialists (maybe all with Cole Beasley’s hair too?!)? 5. Owning 3 homes and possessing ~$2.25 million net worth: Bernie is a 79-year old man who has been earning 6-figure salaries as a Congressman for 3 decades, in addition to sales from the “Our Revolution” book in 2016. This isn’t even remotely a controversy, nor is it incongruent with his political economic philosophy since he’s a social democrat. 6. Fidel Castro flattery: this is only a controversy for people who struggle to understand nuance or who have closed minds. Bernie said that there are still a couple good things we could take away from that awful regime, namely a large literacy program and universal health care coverage. I like Adolf Hitler’s vegetarianism and thought he had a pretty neat mustache. DEAL WITH IT. 7. Putin supplication: this is a very fair point, but that would be because of the spinelessness Bernie has shown when dealing with the DNC during the past 5 years. Bernie Russiagated with the best of ‘em for the past several years, so how cozy would Putin really be with Bernie? Also, Russia hasn’t been a communist country since like 1992, so there’s nothing anymore for Bernie to sympathize with over there. While in Congress, I believe he has had committee assignments that gave him access to top national security intel. So if people want to Russiagate back at Bernie in the same way people did with other patriotic Americans like Tulsi Gabbard, then fine. But they are suggesting acts of treason punishable by death. I’d be a little more careful throwing around accusations like that if I were these people. 8. Family/wife/personal financial corruption via Bernie’s public service: There are two sides to all these stories, and I don’t really care anymore because I moved on from Bernie and I’ve typed enough for today. But for the people who somehow think of Bernie as a corrupt self-serving politician…let’s compare with YOUR politician(s) of choice! Joe Biden?! Donald Trump?! Just say you don’t like Bernie because you don’t like his policies and leave it at that, please.

I came to discuss flaws with the SBA’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), but it looks like I entered the wrong place. No big deal. DR does raise a good point. No doubt we are on the verge of a historically contentious November election, so this forum should be proactive and anticipate a deluge of new people arriving in October. I have two simple recommendations. The first would be to nominate and choose two moderators by vote: one politically left-leaning, the other politically right-leaning, both level-headed, and both regular forum users. Both moderators would have to agree on any decision to suspend or ban a user before the decision could be executed. My second recommendation would be to create a PPP user guide for new and visiting members and then pin it to the top of the first page. The user guide could include a PPP roster for regular members with basic info about their political orientation, who they’re voting for in November, or any special political “areas of expertise” they’d like to share. You have 100+ blocked?! Why so prickly, Pete? Sometimes people have bad posting days/weeks/months. Even proven internet trolls often post something funny or provide useful links for alternative points of view to which you might have otherwise never been exposed. Also, the answer to your 1990’s Bills question has to be Bruce Smith. Putting him in a 4-3 system opposite Hughes would be enough to elevate Frazier’s defense to 1985 Bears and 2000 Ravens status. If you have me on your triple-digit ignore list, however, I guess you’re not reading this golden little nugget of football insight… Yes, there is definitely a bit of a right-wing “circle-jerk” (ew…) aspect to this place. That’s kind of inevitable when you have about a 3-to-1 ratio of conservatives to liberals and sometimes an even larger ratio for posts. I’m not suggesting we create a special sub-forum safe space for us left-wingers, but more people on the right need to be aware of the intimidating pile-on effect that can occur when the points of view are so lopsided in number. Also, WAAAY too many people on the political right are not following DR’s “show your work” demand, either! If you disagree with the previous sentence, please reconsider your confirmation bias. Threads sometimes become inundated with one-liner stereotypes of “libtards,” cliched representations of leftist ideology, and other miscellaneous pablum…followed by double-digit like/awesome/thank you rep boosts for these remarks, doled out like Oprah Winfrey cars. Any leftist rebuttals are then lucky to receive a couple collective skeptical/meh/confused/mocking laugh emojis worth of attention at best. This could indicate a number of different things, of course, but it could be that most right-wingers aren’t bothering to read or comprehend the rebuttals…or they have the users blocked altogether? I insist on knowing more about the dark history and seedy underbelly of PPP! Is this like Pizzagate or QAnon or HBO’s True Detective Season 1 type of activity? As for your comment about the one-sided nature of PPP: one problem could be that some of my fellow TSW lefties (not thinking of anyone in particular!) are too cowardly or too lazy to defend our political positions. Instead of debating endlessly on the main board whether Josh Allen is really awesome or just really good, on occasion I say put on your big boy pants or your adult female leggings, step on down from the safe confines of TSW, and enter the Dante’s Circle-esque arena of discourse that is PPP!!! Too many of us liberals use our professed “liberalism” as some passive virtue-signaling status-symboling poseur badge to indicate that we’re one of the “good people,” but then don’t actually DO ANYTHING to advance what we purport to care about (tolerance of others, personal freedoms, helping the poor, saving the environment, bringing about world peace, fighting corruption, puppy dogs, rainbows, etc.). Merely voting for Biden/Harris doesn’t count as good enough. NOT EVEN CLOSE. We must engage and persuade whenever possible and appropriate in our lives. If we can’t influence the ever-so-obstinate regular members at PPP, we must also keep in mind the lurkers, independents, occasional visitors, and political neophytes who visit the forum. And any call for shutting down PPP is, as always, a really bad look for the political left. This Orwellian cancel culture dystopian nonsense from “our team” needs to stop. Those that don’t like PPP can continue exercising their First Amendment freedom not to visit it. Those that like PPP can continue visiting and using the ignore function as they so choose (though I don’t recommend using it except in very extreme circumstances). EDIT: a couple spelling errors.

Trump winning the Nobel Peace Prize would be the best thing to happen to our country! The inevitable meltdown on the political left is sorely needed because Democrats need to come to grips with their hypocrisy in defending Obama’s largely disgraceful foreign policy record. Maybe something as absurd as this would be the catalyst for a total paradigm shift in American post-Cold War foreign policy. Our country deserves a political party that is genuinely dovish, favors multilateral diplomacy over heavy-handed unilateral ones, doesn’t take a hardline stance in support of sanctions and embargos, is willing to restrain the military-industrial complex, and is completely against all forms of regime change (full invasions AND sponsored coups). That political party needs to be on the left. I hope you find the time later to reply in your thread, TYTT. An anarcho-capitalist (or minarcho-capitalist?) perspective would be welcome here. No modern era American president deserves it. Not even Jimmy Carter. The Nobel Peace Prize should be reserved for individuals whose actions are motivated almost entirely by desires for peace and for protections of human rights. American foreign policy is mostly about controlling oil, gaining access to mineral resources, preserving international trade hegemony, increasing MIC profits, and (allegedly) improving national security. Anyone who earnestly disagrees with this statement has been indoctrinated with too much American moral exceptionalism propaganda. I could locate a bunch of places around the world where a limited American military presence might conceivably enhance peace and preserve human rights (hint: many of them are in Africa), but our presidents and military leaders choose not to intervene because there’s no benefit for the reasons listed above. Also, there is absolutely doubt that the world is safer now than 4 years ago!!! I doubt it, over half of America doubts it, most of Europe and the UN doubts it, and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (who control the Doomsday Clock) doubt it. Why? Well let’s take the singular issue of Iran. Trump has taken a dangerously aggressive and provocative stance on this country. We don’t know how the complex Middle East political landscape will fully play out in time as a result of withdrawing from JCPOA (which was essentially the only thing about the Obama tenure that I liked…that and Cuba relations), but we do know that Iran will effectively never trust the United States again and that this greatly limits future diplomatic options (killing Soleimani also didn’t help). Trump has done nothing to fix the problem after two years, instead opting for hard sanctions that have badly hurt the Iranian people (not very peaceful and humane…). Yep, sadly. Trump is outpacing Obama’s drone war efforts by over 4 times the number of strikes, though I don’t know in which countries they are occurring. I do know that the cumulative US drone war program has taken place in 7 countries (Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan) since its inauguration under Bush #43. What’s most alarming is that Trump has removed all mandatory disclosure rules for civilian casualty reports that were put in place during the Obama era. He has given himself carte blanche over an anti-terrorism program without any quality control over blowback effects. As I hope we all know, unaccountable drone warfare is so dangerous because it entices our presidents to recklessly magnify their anti-terrorism “tough guy” roles without having to face any public criticism since it’s not putting American troops in danger. Trump is too myopic and narcissistic to think about the long-term repercussions of this program on American security. For every terrorist a drone kills, how many more are we breeding from the collateral damage? I’m super disappointed in all of our politicians (even Tulsi Gabbard…insert cry emoji) and all of America for rarely questioning the morality or the long-term strategic sense of these drone strikes. These are not sufficient reasons to justify Trump winning the award, unless we’re making a comparative analysis with the foreign policy of a previous winner (Obama, 2009). Many of these commonly touted successes are a bit exaggerated and also a bit premature in their declared victories. Let us address each point, one by one, shall we? Yes we shall: 1. No new wars: yes, I’m relieved and thankful that Trump has not treated our military personnel like pawns in stupid regime change wars. But not being a neocon is such a low standard! I just can’t get over the Venezuelan coup efforts, the drone strikes, or the Soleimani assassination that could have easily sparked a world war over a couple misunderstandings. 2. North Korea: I take no issue whatsoever with Trump’s open diplomacy with Kim Jong Un, but I don’t feel it has moved the needle much toward either freedom for DPRK’s citizens or toward nuclear warfare. 3. Ending the War in Afghanistan: I’ll believe it when I finally see it! It’s so depressing that I have no real memory of a time when our troops weren’t there. Trump has had 4 years to fully withdraw troops like he promised and still hasn’t done so. According to Trump, it’ll happen soon after we re-elect him. How convenient. 4. Israel-UAE Deal: more peace in the Middle East is always a good thing, but the deal does nothing to address the fundamental issue of Palestine which continues to plague all diplomatic relationships throughout the region. The same goes for the efforts to dismantle Hezbollah and Hamas. Any US president unwilling to hold Israel to the high ethical standards that we should have for all Western democracies and who doesn’t apply the necessary financial and diplomatic pressures to coax Israel toward these standards is only operating along the periphery of long-term Middle East peace. No one can even begin to change the hearts and minds of Middle Eastern Muslims until our vassal state of Israel addresses human rights and political freedoms for Palestinians. 5. War on Terror: similar problem as above. Dismantling ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria and elsewhere are fine, but the underlying problem of radical Islamic terrorism isn’t being addressed. Negligible pressure is being applied on our ally, Saudi Arabia, for their predominant role in breeding terrorism. The large presence of US troops throughout Islamic lands is a major source of Muslim discontent and wouldn’t be even remotely tolerated if the situations were reversed. And once again, I must insist that drone strikes killing innocent civilians isn’t helping.

What likely makes Professor Lichtman’s test so good in its predictive power is that it accounts for such a broad range of factors that might possibly play a role in a presidential election. It has its obvious limitations, however. Many of his listed 13 “keys” are subjective in nature and without specific enough parameters. Not having any weighting system for the different criteria doesn’t make sense to me, either. I take issue with the OP’s answer for #6. Without having calculated or looked at the numbers, I imagine that the mean of real per-capita economic growth (GDP) from this 2017-2020 term is lower than the 2009-2016 terms solely due to the year 2020 lowering the average. But even if it’s not, “key” #6 is supposed to be an assessment of the long-term health of the economy. Our federal government’s GROSSLY INADEQUATE intervention between July and likely through October (for political reasons on the left, for ideological reasons on the right) likely ensures that we will be entering an economic depression around January when the home eviction crisis accelerates. The permanent job loss trends I last looked at are pacing toward depression-level numbers. I lost track of how many consecutive weeks we’ve had of over 800,000 new unemployment claims (remember that the pre-pandemic historical record was about 700,000!). About 30 million Americans are currently in the unemployment insurance system, and who knows how many more SHOULD be in one? So many more painful numbers I could cite… We’ve been seeing since June the economic recovery bifurcate between the “haves” and “have nots.” To put it another way, Kudlow’s V-shaped recovery is only a thing if you rotate the V 90 degrees clockwise. At some point businesses will face the reality that there aren’t enough consumers with enough money to spend. If the stock market realizes this and crashes before November 3, I’d want to add a special large weight to the FALSE in factor #6. I also somewhat disagree with the OP on #12, which is about Trump’s “charisma.” I would argue that to many, he most definitely has it and definitely does when compared to Biden. How much can our snake oil salesman-in-chief lie, deflect, and blame his way out of a pandemic and economic calamity? Potentially a lot, I’d say! And running against an opponent who doesn’t know where he is during the late afternoons only helps Trump’s case. I want to add a special category #14 for a black swan-like health crisis, but I guess you could incorporate Covid-19 partly into category #8 (social unrest) and partly into category #9 (major scandal). The social unrest component comes from the disruption that the pandemic is having on people’s daily lives, especially the effect it is having on education this fall. The major scandal component comes from the fact that Trump grossly mismanaged and underplayed the health crisis during the crucial weeks of February and March (not to mention his lack of adequate preparation for a pandemic leading up to 2020). So notice that with factor #6 and factor #12 in limbo, Trump is barely hovering below Prof. Lichtman’s dreaded 6 FALSES pass/fail demarcation line at 4 to 6 FALSES. This kind of verifies what I’ve been saying here for a while now. Trump needs either the economy to get better or he needs to BS his way out of the economic/health disaster in order to win. Now if only we could quantify Trump’s ability to BS…if only we had some sort of POLLING DATA to work with…hmmm…

Thanks for the poll updates, Tiberius! It looks like Trump is starting to lose control of Michigan and Wisconsin. Trump now needs to hold all of Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio at a minimum. These are places where Biden’s lead still likely falls within the polling statistical margin of error. But then Trump must additionally somehow figure out Pennsylvania. Biden’s campaign team knows this, I bet, which explains why we’ve heard a lot of pro-fracking rhetoric from Joe lately. They’re trying to erode some of Trump’s support in Pennsyltucky. Well said, BullBuchanan! This right here is the most important observation one can make of modern American politics. I would even feel reasonably comfortable pushing the time period forward by one or two decades: “Democrats are basically 1990’s-2000’s era Republicans.” Trump Derangement Syndrome and PC politics are convenient distractions from the realities of the same neoliberal corporate establishment owning both parties. And yes, the neoliberals (using the broader 1980’s Chilean definition) AND the Deep State have sufficient control over Trump too! While it’s obviously not quite the perfectly copacetic arrangement that it would be with Biden/Harris, enough puppet strings are attached. Some foreign policy examples: Guaido support, expansion of Obama’s drone strike program, Yemeni Civil War intervention on behalf of Saudi Arabia, saber-rattling toward Iran, rollercoaster ride of actual troop numbers in Afghanistan between Obama’s final months and now, lots of troops still in Iraq and Syria, 2020 Patriot Act extension, pardoning hardball with whistleblower patriots like Snowden and Assange, support of annual MIC budget expansions, etc… No need for me to cover all the domestic economic examples. The vast majority of libertarian voters will still very enthusiastically vote for Trump this November. Need I say more? Nope. No need. Taro T, don’t take my November 3 Biden victory prediction too much to heart! That was mostly just a reflection of the current status of the EC layout, as I see it, and not so much a look into the future. I always hate making early election predictions because of all the variables we can’t realistically foresee. I predicted Bernie winning the 2020 Dem primaries right before Obama’s suspected Super Tuesday behind-the-scenes machinations. I predicted Trump winning the 2020 presidency in March before Covid-19 took over. We still have over 7 weeks left for surprises, and I do not look favorably upon either Biden’s voter enthusiasm polling numbers or his economic trust polling numbers. I believe the polls are telling the truth that a majority of Americans are unhappy with Trump and with the current state of affairs and do prefer “generic other guys.” The question is whether or not this dissatisfaction will translate into actual votes when the “generic other guys” come into cognitive focus and are realized to be Biden and Harris? I dunno. No idea. I expect Covid-19 and the economy to weigh more heavily in the election than the riots because of all the evidence backing the theory that people’s votes are usually based more on how they may be personally affected, rather than on how the world at large may be affected. This characterization is even more accurate for independent voters, i.e. the ones who may comprise the remaining undecideds at this late date. I wish this were not the case, given my intense passion for environmental issues and foreign policy issues, but such is reality. While the riots are clearly awful, morally reprehensible, and devastating to the people and businesses that reside in these specific urban areas, they only directly affect a tiny percentage of Americans. That said…perception is reality. If the economy and Covid-19 somehow stabilize and/or people FEEL it has stabilized, then the riots covered daily in the news WILL take center stage and I’d agree with you then that voters will tend to lean toward the perceived law-and-order president that is Donald Trump (Biden and Harris would be, too, but ugh…another topic for another day…). I can also concede that much of the left-wing anti-police rhetoric is despicable and that most Americans (urban, suburban, rural…middle class, working class, poor) are directly affected by police force funding. The narrative of Republicans voting in-person and Democrats voting by mail has plenty of truth behind it. Democrats fear Covid-19 at much higher percentages than Republicans do, which perfectly explains why Dem voters are commonly polled to be about twice as likely to opt for the mail-in ballot route. I believe absentee ballots are more popular as well among Democrat voters than Republican voters, mostly due to college students and in spite of all the military abroad ballots. So given the expected closeness of the presidential race that we typically see these days, the most likely outcome is Trump having a lead the night of November 3, but then Biden making some form of comeback days later after all the mail-in ballots and absentee ballots are fully counted. There would be nothing conspiratorial or nefarious about such a development. It would match the most probable future reality. Now as for ballot harvesting integrity concerns raised over Democrats…well this presents an inconvenient can’t-win situation for the political left, no? If Trump wins, then it must prove that polls are fake. But if Trump loses, then it must be because of secret manufacturing of mail-in votes. At some point in the months ahead, everyone will have to accept whatever results and peacefully move on, for the sake of the country. And WHAT IN THE WORLD would make anyone believe that the GOP themselves are filled with such morally upstanding people who are consistently above the fray of election integrity transgressions?! These are the same people who have perfected the art of minority/poor/college student voter suppression and who actively undermine third party voices! Bear in mind that I am merely pointing out hypocrisies and NOT exonerating the Democratic establishment in any way whatsoever. Hopefully we already have in place some sort of mutually agreed upon electoral oversight infrastructure. Not only was I witness to the years of Russiagating just like everyone else, but I was also a 2016+2020 Bernie campaign volunteer! I know what these horrible people are capable of doing. I could share so many thoughts and stories using a thousand more words (I still haven’t gotten over the large Dem primary exit poll discrepancies throughout numerous states), but I see that I’m already 9 paragraphs deep, so here’s a slightly amusing picture instead:

BUMP!!!! Voting ends at 4pm today. Bills versus Packers. Old school AFC versus old school NFC. Small town Great Lakes East versus small town Great Lakes West. Wings versus cheese.** Good versus evil. Light versus dark. Yang versus yin. Cheech versus Chong. However you may look at the opponent, just please VOTE! And hurry! The Queen City needs you. **- A vegan proselytizing digression: I must officially discourage consumption of both and leave you with a classic Marv Levy quote: “When I was twelve, I went hunting with my father and we shot a bird. He was laying there and something struck me. Why do we call this fun to kill this creature who was as happy as I was when I woke up this morning?” Hard to argue with someone like Marv Levy, right? Super Bowl XXV strategy aside… So please look further into the truth behind the meat and dairy industries and reconsider your food choices. And PM me for more info or tips. Thank you.

Polls! Yes I love this topic. My many frenetic thoughts after briefly scanning the pages of this thread: 1. Question for conspiracy theorists: Okay, so all the polls are biased to make Biden look good and Trump look bad. Why, exactly? To make Trump voters feel despondent, thereby suppressing their vote…that’s the argument being presented. But couldn’t that logic work in the reverse direction, too? Biden voters see a big lead, get complacent, and don’t bother putting in the effort to vote since they assume their vote isn’t needed? Meanwhile, Trump voters see an election emergency and do all they can to show up and close the voting lead gap? Does anyone have voter data that can corroborate the psychology behind any of these game theory strategies??? 2. Polling accuracy concerns: It’s possible that some of the polls are continuing to undersample voters without a college education, similarly to what happened Midwest statewide in 2016. There’s also the issue of Trump voters lying to pollsters partly out of spite, partly out of fear of retribution or embarrassment for holding political views that the left has demonized (racists, fascists, misogynists, xenophobes, and so on). And then you have the ever-so-mercurial “independent voter.” Oh yeah…and how can I forget all the vague candidate favorability polls that are not coupled with more relevant voter enthusiasm questions? Ok, so all of this uncertainty can be isolated and factored out using historical polling data as precedent. But THE BIGGEST and entirely new issue is going to be the inevitable election integrity failures due to Covid-19 mail-in ballot shenanigans. Those poor polling statisticians will have no choice but to lower their confidence level percentages, raise the error margins, and endure months of public rebuke. 3. Pollster reputations: NBC/WSJ, ABC/WP, CBS News, and Fox News comprise the gold standard for me. Emerson and Monmouth are excellent too. Fox News polls I find to be the most “fair and balanced” of them all, ironically. I’d place Morning Consult, NPR/PBS, CNBC, The Hill, and YouGov in the “meh” pile. Rasmussen polls seem consistently unreliable and only there to boost GOP self-esteem, going back at least to the 2012 Romney blunder if not earlier. Dunno about the other ones at RealClearPolitics. For the skeptics and haters: remember that it’s routine practice to greatly undersample independents (whose votes mostly cancel each other out for the two main parties) and to sample in ways that won’t perfectly match voter registration. Why? Well remember that pollsters are (allegedly) in the business of getting good results that match actual outcomes on election day, NOT in getting the most “fair” registration-based representation. Or to put it another way, likely voters are more important than registered voters. 4. Swing state debate: Everyone here (I hope) knows that it is the electoral college and not the popular vote that decides a presidential election, so that means we should be focusing on the far more important individual swing state polls…even though the national polls still do matter up to specific thresholds. Biden has a comfortable national lead, but the swing states are tightening! I recommend paying close attention to the usual 6 battleground suspects, in this order of importance: Florida, the Midwest cluster (Michigan and then Pennsylvania and then Wisconsin), North Carolina, and Arizona. Ohio, Minnesota, and Nevada are also important demographic bellwether states for me. So that’s 217 EC votes for the Dems, 186 for the Reps, and 135 in 9 swing states. Everyone has their own list of swing states, but those are mine (I have Biden winning 279 to 259 at the moment...taking MN, WI, MI, PA, NV and Trump taking FL, NC, AZ, OH…flipping either MI or PA wins it for Trump, so things are crazy close!). Florida is a political “choke point” for Trump. I know of no viable path for him if he doesn’t win it. I’d also be shocked if Texas and Georgia are seriously in play. If they are, then the GOP has much bigger concerns than the 2020 election. Random trivia: did you know the Republicans have only won the popular vote once since 1988? That occurred during a GOP incumbency election (2004) against an uninspiring Dem candidate (John Kerry) at a time of national crisis (War on Terror/Iraq War). Hmmm… 5. Legislative branch loneliness: Hey, let’s also not forget to track all the extremely important Senate races in this thread! There are 35 seats up this year, 11 of which I’d say are in realistic play for both sides (AL, AZ, CO, GA x 2, IA, KS, ME, MI, MT, NC). That gives the Dems a narrow 45-44 lead to briefly enjoy, when counting Angus King and Bernie with the Dems. I have the Reps holding the 117th Senate at 51-49 for now, but of course these races are WAY too close to be making any serious predictions in early September. There are also quite a few individual House battles that I find interesting, even though the Dems will hold the House for sure. The most interesting one to me that I recommend we follow: Queen Nancy versus progressive challenger, Shahid Buttar. The Pelosi name brand has proven to be quite toxic recently (see: Joe Kennedy endorsement), so I suppose anything can happen now? Such an upset would dramatically alter the trajectory of the Democratic Party and the country…for very much the better IMO. 6. Specialty poll medley: let’s also monitor any and all polls for candidate enthusiasm, chronologically comparative polling data between Biden and 2016 Hillary, polls for black males (differentiated by age, ideally), polls for Latinos (differentiated by geography, ideally), polls for the “yutes” (My Cousin Vinny reference), and polls for Boomers of every stripe! I believe Biden could be in trouble with the first five, but Trump may be in trouble with the last one (especially the female suburban ones). Any Boomer data is super important to me. If you give me good Boomer data, then I will tell you who wins the November election with great confidence! Maybe. I think. 7. Special emphasis on October polls: September polls matter a bit more now than in previous elections because of all the early voting, but they still don’t matter too much. Nothing matters much until “Basement” Biden passes the first debate test on September 29. Afterward, the fate of the economy plus any potential second-wave spread of Covid-19 through schools will determine…well…EVERYTHING (insert Gary Oldman gif here…The Professional reference…yes, I like old movies). EDIT: I whittled down the competitive Senate seats from 18 to 11.

The Pro Football Hall of Fame honors “contributors” as well as players and coaches. You may feel that Joe Namath doesn’t belong in it strictly based on his achievements as a QB, but then you’re ignoring an entire separate category of criteria. The AFL was arguably the most important development in pro football history, and Namath was arguably the most important individual in that development. You can make a fair case against Namath based on QB accomplishments, as long as you’re doing so by comparing him with his contemporaries. This is especially important when comparing passer ratings and career production well into one’s 30’s. Namath wasn’t quite as accomplished as Len Dawson and only marginally more so than Kemp, but he still managed to rank 10th in career passing yards and 14th in career TD’s at the time of his retirement in 1977. I would love to hear more on this subject plus all things AFL from those who followed the league in real-time. A separate thread for “AFL Stories” would also be lovely. How do the mid-60’s Bills match up with other historical pro football dynasties? Would they sneak into your top-25 all-time? And was anyone here alive to have watched the AAFC Bills?? Just thought I’d ask. Or the original All-Americans? If so, please include your diet (vegan?) and exercise regimen (hot yoga?) in your post.

I am MORE invested in this season than ever before! I have never experienced the Bills winning a division title, hosting a playoff game, winning a playoff game, or playing in an AFC Championship game. They finally constructed a team that has a realistic shot at achieving all of this. It’s definitely a little sad to know that the Bills won’t be playing this year in front of their typical home game crowds. But I also can’t think of a more poetically beautiful season for the Buffalo red, white, and blue to win its first Super Bowl than during the year of Covid-19...and 100 years after the Staley Swindle, no less! America loves its Cinderella stories with likeable characters (players). Maybe America NEEDS the Bills to lift its spirits from the mess that has been 2020? I won’t get into any of the political stuff here. I respect everyone’s right to boycott the NFL as much as I respect everyone’s right to support BLM in the manner that they feel is warranted. Just remember that life is short and often mostly painful. If following professional football brings you joy and a bit of relief in your life, then that alone could be a worthy reason to keep watching. Just my stupid opinion.

THREAD BUMP for perhaps the most important thing happening in my life right now, which is kinda sad but whatever. We are in a MUST WIN scenario, people!!! Voting closes tomorrow afternoon at 2:30pm. To quote legendary Wall of Famer, Lou Saban: “You can get it done, you can get it done. And what’s more, you GOTTA get it done.” My brief analysis of the final 4: I’m super happy that the Titans aren’t around this year to sully the competition. The Bills, Packers, Chiefs, and Saints all deserve to be in the conversation for top NFL fan bases, although I would personally rank the Steelers and Browns slightly ahead of the Chiefs and Saints. I suppose the Broncos and Eagles also deserve to be in the mix for the title. Don’t you DARE suggest the Cowboys, Giants, or Patriots. I will slap you if you do so. By the way, this final 4 bracket reminds me of yet another reason why Buffalo versus KC is ready to be the next great NFL rivalry. Passionate fan bases and excellent tailgates to go along with a great history as classic AFL rivals and as early 90’s AFC rivals during the Levy/Kelly/Schottenheimer/(93-94) Montana era. I like the new dynamic of McDermott the protege versus Reid the mentor, as well as Allen the humble hard-working small-town hero versus Mahomes the flashy QB the Bills passed over in the 2017 draft.

Oh I definitely DENY, in a wacky-waving-inflatable-arms-flailing-tube-man visual kind of way!! The absence of universal suffrage codifies power of the few and inevitably leads to plutocratic oligarchies and societal uprisings. Okay…technically you could avoid the latter with a strong enough power grip from the former…but I’d much rather gather all the rational adults in the room and find common ground on the freeloader dilemma. Some of y’all seem overly fixated on tyranny of the majority issues with democracies and republics, at the exclusion of tyranny of the minority dynamics. I absolutely DENY, for all 3 categories given. The early U.S. automatically fails the social stability test on account of all the disenfranchised black slaves, Native Americans, females, and non-landowning (i.e. non-wealthy) non-WASP males. Most economic historians agree that the laissez-faire boom/bust cycles of the early Industrial Age were longer and more painful than any experienced in modern (post-Great Depression) American history. And in terms of political stability, why would anyone ever think the early US political history was more idyllic? They were still trying to iron out all the messy fundamental Constitution questions back then that we take for granted today, like the Tenth Amendment interpretation, the role of the Supreme Court, the need for a central bank…just to name a few. Oh yeah, let’s not forget all the Whiskey Rebellions, Hamilton-Burr duels, Hatfield-McCoy skirmishes, and Wild West lawlessness back then. If y’all think the contemporary political skies are falling on a daily basis, it might be because you are tuned in to mass media at unhealthy levels? Find a hobby! Try looking into knitting or Vinyasa yoga. Very therapeutic. Too girly? Fine. Then just get ready for the new Bills season! But there’s nothing sensible about exclusively regressive tax structures! Why was the Sixteenth Amendment ratified in the first place? What was the socioeconomic climate like during the Gilded Age? Why did all those left-wing populist third parties keep popping up in the early twentieth century? I see that many here are struggling with the free-rider market failure problem. I recommend trying to approach this from a data-driven economics perspective and not from a philosophical one. Just try it for a bit and see what happens (random aside: I was once similarly stubbornly against quinoa dishes…until I tried a few of them and learned how to add the proper amount of cooking water. Now I love ‘em and am enjoying an exotic leftover quinoa breakfast of sorts as I type! The moral of this story is to not be afraid to try new things). Before we even entertain a policy of ceasing all taxes on productivity, we first need to push our so-called Judeo-Christian society to live up to its Judeo-Christian ideals of voluntary community service and compassion for the downtrodden. But human nature is what it is, which is why I prefer practical data-driven economics over theoretical philosophizing…the realities of human behavior are already accounted for in the data! Yay! No need to waste one’s own time like some wanna-be Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau.

No, GunnerBill, you don’t want that!!! Don’t forget the Fitz Curse and what it would mean for Josh’s health! But I understand the sentiment. Fitzy + Buffalo = perfection. Hopefully he eventually reaches the playoffs before retirement. 15 seasons so far, 39th in career passing yards, and 38th in career TD’s. What a career! Our thoughts and prayers go out to the bearded Harvard gunslinger and his family.

Hi GG, I will attempt to address every point you touched upon in your post, minus the Obamanomics stuff because I’m not particularly motivated to defend neoliberalism. But I promise to eventually look over the earliest pages of this thread, as you suggested, on the Obama versus Trump economic policy debate. My focus today is on the current recession, with a little bit of economic philosophy mixed in and hopefully also a more in-depth segue into the federal unemployment benefit extension (FUBE) confusion. I’m already at the estimated daily caffeine limit (300 mg) for my body weight (110 lb), so LET’S DO THIS. Wooooooooo!!! 1. General criticisms of economic libertarianism: 1-A. Government stimulation of economy: I agree that government should stay out of the private market’s way in most instances, but to think that the government has no role in directly stimulating production and quickly creating jobs would be absurd and dangerous. This narrative runs contrary to all the excellent historical evidence we’ve seen since WW2, for example, of governments initially pulling economies out of recessions as private markets flounder. In fact, let’s go all the way back to 1790 to include all 47 estimated recessions in US history. The best data we can gather on them shows an obvious reduction in the severity and duration of recessions as our country has moved further away from its laissez faire capitalistic roots. 1-B. Government regulations: We risk speaking over and around each other here because of overgeneralizations. But without listing and explicating every regulation imaginable in painful detail, I’ll say that many of them are frivolous, some useful, and some essential despite whatever limitations they may place on short-term economic growth. Regarding the latter, I’m moving to the clear political left of Trump on many regulations that have to do with finance/banking, real estate, workers’ collective bargaining, monopolies/mergers, environment, and energy. One example of a regulation I like but libertarians hate is Glass-Steagall, whose absence perfectly captured the economic milieu that led to the Great Recession…sigh… 1-C. Random libertarian pet peeves of mine: A big one is how they consistently and willfully confuse short-term speculation-based economies with long-term investment-based ones. Many of them tend to approach all forms of investing like cocaine-addicted Gordon Gekko-style day traders, hating on any attempts to curb investment risk that putatively slows capital gains…with the resulting market instability from investors’ collective psychological rollercoasters of trust/distrust leading to long-term sub-optimal economic growth. Libertarians also frustrate me with their blind spots for the role of consumer spending in generating macroeconomic growth, for the negative effects that wealth concentration at the top have on society’s institutions of power, and for the hypocrisy in loving both privatized profits and socialized losses at the top echelons of business. Oh yeah, and many often insist that government programs never work…as they elect unqualified politicians that do everything they can to undermine and sabotage said government programs. Oh yeah, and some libertarians keep confusing marginal tax rates with effective tax rates whenever the progressive tax code fearmongering routine goes on repeat… Very frustrating. Ugh. 2. Miscellaneous issues related to the current economic crisis: 2-A. Opening up the economy: When I say fully opening up the economy ASAP isn’t a “panacea,” I’m using the “cure-all” definition of the word and not a “cure-some” one. Even if social distancing measures were to somehow be fully relaxed in all service industries, consumer behavior is not going to return to normal any time soon. Anyone thinking otherwise is delusional (IMHO) and not paying attention to the health component, the job losses, the housing crisis, the food insecurity crisis, and the general economic anxiety for a large majority of Americans who were living paycheck to paycheck BEFORE the coronavirus began. Continued government stimulus is needed for both American consumers and for the small businesses to keep everything afloat for at least a few months longer. Companies that survive will undoubtedly restructure operations as a result of the pandemic, which will be to the detriment of workers and will further hinder economic recovery. So expect more political calls for government intervention beyond the fall season, too, in the form of living wages (yes!) and permanent UBI’s (meh.). 2-B. The health factor: To be fair, we can’t say for sure that blue states are playing a deliberate game of economic chicken and focused only on defeating Trump. Much of the reticence to fully open businesses and schools may very well have to do with genuine health concerns. The political right tends to downplay the health aspect to an extent that is out of proportion with the overall population, where something like two-thirds of polled Americans are still very worried about catching Covid-19, three-fourths support mandatory mask-wearing, and a majority are angry at the government’s handling of the pandemic and believe it’s only going to get worse this fall. 2-C. Cuomo and de Blasio: Both have performed abysmally at their jobs and should not seek reelection. Even before their blunders with the pandemic health emergency and the police protests, we had serious issues with NYS and NYC budgetary mismanagement. The two have taken polar opposite positions on the financial crisis. While Cuomo has met regularly with the wealthy NYC elite to reassure them that their taxes won’t be raised, de Blasio has emphasized the 22 thousand NYC public employees that will have to be laid off this fall. My compromise solution during a pandemic would be tough mutual sacrifices on all sides: partial federal bailout with conditions, state/city budget streamlining, and slight tax raises on the rich. But this is America…so expect the federal government and the wealthy elite taxpayers to completely win this argument. Massive public layoffs and cuts to public services will ensue, further tanking the precarious local economy…and national economy too, since NYC is kind of a big deal. I’m sure MMT purists are arguing that the smartest solution would be a 100% federal government bailout, on account of our nation’s monetary sovereignty. 2-D. The departing NYC coffers: No surprise whatsoever that the wealthy NYC elite can’t be bothered to lift half a finger during a health crisis while the working class of the city get destroyed! The dullards can nibble on their cake crumbs while waiting for their job-creating superiors to allow their generosity to slowly trickle down… I say let the uber-wealthy go ahead and flee to their glorious “tax havens” of northern NJ, Suffolk Co, Westchester, Hudson Valley, and Connecticut. Such decadent behavior on the eve of a long-overdue political revolution only expedites the transition process. Muhahaha! While I agree that state and local taxes are higher than they need to be for everyone in NYS and NYC, federal taxes are also way too low on the highest income brackets (I’d go from 37% marginal to 50%...there are scholarly arguments being made for 65-70%). So long as the federal taxes are abnormally low, the rich should temporarily pay a little more at the local and state level with some form of a sunset tax hike. Because of all the tax discrepancies between U.S. regions, the easiest way to manage irksome tax haven issues during unusual economic crises like this one may have to come at the federal level. Enforce creative region-dependent income and corporate tax laws, close off tax loopholes, and restrict geographical market access for the wealthy and for companies who refuse to play fair. 2-E. Trump’s August 8th executive orders: I’d love to hear more from those who similarly feel that Trump “continues to insert himself in the weeds of economic policy,” specifically relating to Trump’s most recent executive orders. The four orders overall seemed woefully insufficient to me, relative to the magnitude of the economic crisis…more symbolic than substantive. The student loan payment suspensions were good, but they don’t account for private student loans. The eviction moratorium was excellent in principle, even though it’s not legally enforceable and only pushes a lump sum of payments months into the future. The temporary payroll tax cut/deferral was ok in theory, but probably overrated in macroeconomic impact and sketchy in terms of how it might affect social security funding long-term. I’ll get to the complicated $400+ unemployment benefits issue in a minute. What about a second round of $1200 stimulus? Or extensions of PPP support for small businesses, with as many as 40% of the nation-wide pre-pandemic number rumored to be in danger of permanently disappearing beyond Labor Day? Thoughts on Bernie’s proposed but rejected 60% tax on the specific wealth gains from billionaires during the pandemic, which would have generated ~$425 billion in revenue? Yes, I realize these all are issues more appropriate for Congress, with the Senate mysteriously adjourning through early September… But my questions reference the spirit of how various economic efforts may help, not the political logistics. 3. Analysis of the August 8th federal unemployment benefits extension (FUBE): 3-A. Extension details: So the $600 weekly federal bump from CARES expired at the end of July. Then Trump signed an executive order to extend but reduce to $300 weekly, plus an option for each state to determine an additional $100 weekly bump of their own contribution. This translates to a $15-per-hour wage boost dropping to either a $7.50 or $10 hourly wage boost. What complicates matters a bit is the confusing coordination needed between the federal government and the state unemployment offices in order to make the executive order work. It’s such a mess that many people will only receive these benefits retroactively, possibly not until after the extension expires near the middle of September. Hey, and you know what didn’t help?! Years of habitually underfunding unemployment offices so to deliberately frustrate citizens using the services. Perverse mind games meant to incentivize people to find work. Disgraceful. 3-B. The uncertain macroeconomic impact: According to the July 2020 JPMorgan Chase Institute study, average spending during the pandemic dropped by 10% for those employed and rose by 22% for those receiving the CARES Act’s $600+ (FYI: those going on normal unemployment benefits usually decrease their spending by 7%). The spending increase effect was most pronounced for the lowest wage workers. We have about 32 million people believed to be receiving unemployment benefits at the moment, with the normal US labor force capacity at about 160 million…that’s 20% of the workforce using FUBE! So the spending habits of those receiving unemployment benefits is significant to the overall economy and very likely has been stabilizing total consumer spending this year. The only issue I have with the study is that they can’t separate the collective effects of the $1200 stimulus checks, student loan suspensions, and rent forbearances from the unemployment benefits…however, the line charts clearly show huge jumps in consumer spending from 2 weeks before the CARES benefits first kicked in to 1 week after. Also, household spending fell by 20% for those individuals who experienced large delays in receiving the original fed unemployment benefits. So my conclusion: there’s a good case to be made here that ANY reduction from the original $600+ weekly will mean BAD NEWS for gross economic consumption, given the fact that new US unemployment claims of ~1 million minimum each week are being made 22 weeks into the crisis and that Covid-19 is still very much with us. 3-C. The contentious job search incentivization question: To what extent are the FUBE’s disincentivizing people from seeking employment? My short answer: FAULTY QUESTION because the number of people looking for jobs is currently at a MUCH bigger number than the number of job openings. The official U-3 unemployment rate is about 10%, with the true unemployment rate closer to about 19%. According to BLS (Bureau of Labor Stats), the recent job growth rate has significantly slowed and permanent/long-term job losses have substantially increased. Goldman Sachs research findings have led them to make very dire job growth/job loss predictions through all of next year. Now granted, I imagine that excessive FUBE’s are very well creating disincentives for people who despise their dead-end jobs and find zero fulfillment from them. I could detour into a lengthy debate here about living wages, but I won’t! In an ideal world, the FUBE’s would have been distributed according to costs of living variations by state/locality, regional pandemic spreads and pandemic responses, various job nuances and worker stipulations and caveats, etc… but that was never practical (FWIW: a right-wing source is making a claim I’m unable to confirm that 5 out of 6 who received the original CARES UB made more from the benefits than they would have otherwise normally made). The point is that we shouldn’t turn national economic public policy for the many into a morality play on laziness for the few, especially during a time of emergency. Too many individuals and families are just trying to pay their bills, so I don’t appreciate privileged DC politicians far removed from the economic destruction NOT compensating people for their inability to fully return to work…when THE POLITICIANS are the ones who forced the people to stop working in the first place during a health calamity. Ok, done! Y’all still there…? I hope SoCal Deek doesn’t see this monstrosity hahaha…

Interesting perspective, KRC. My opinions derive from a bunch of news articles over the years that have reported on Amazon workplace conditions (plus an amusing South Park episode...no, just kidding). I don’t believe these articles ever made comparisons with the workplace conditions of other e-commerce businesses, so I trust you when you say they are very similar. However, this then raises the question of how the markedly fast-paced nature of distribution/fulfillment centers in the e-commerce industry compare to warehouse labor conditions in other industries? From your personal experiences, do you think special labor laws and unions are needed for them? Also, any thoughts on the Chris Smalls Staten Island Amazon protest? As for government price controls, I insist that they are safe and necessary in very limited situations. So what are these limited situations? Temporary emergencies (food shortages, some types of hyperinflationary circumstances, etc.), systemic market failures (living wage price floors for labor, price ceilings for isolated oligopolistic housing markets, etc.), and competition in already heavily price-controlled markets (global pharmaceutical products, etc.) are three categories of examples. And what do I mean by “necessary?” I’m usually referring to ethical dilemmas, which often overlap with sub-optimal market performances. And what do I mean by “safe?” This one gets tricky…but I’m referring to cases where we have an excellent understanding of the demand for the goods/services/job openings, and a central authority (like in a nationalized industry) can readily control the supply as needed. The trickiness comes about when we can’t easily quantify or forecast the demand, or when the “proper” equilibrium prices for the labor and the materials going into the final product that we aim to control are equally uncertain. It’s when you add too many layers of price controls that you very quickly end up with something akin to the horribly inefficient national market of the 1980’s Soviet Union, which was a direct consequence of all the multiplying product surpluses and shortages. I’m all about data-driven economic decision theory, so I’m also open to alternatives to price controls such as the government providing direct economic stimulus to the people, UBI implementations, market regulations, or creative uses of tax laws and subsidizations. Black markets and other such complications tend to pop up with any of these types of government-mandated market distortions, but choosing instead to do nothing is not normally an option on the table for me...mainly on ethical grounds. I refuse to deify the will of the private markets. 1. Working 40 hours per week doesn’t mean a low-skilled worker should be paid “well,” per se, but it does mean he/she should be paid at a level ever so slightly above subsistence for his/her region’s cost of living standards. There’s quite a bit of obvious subjectivity in how our society and how legislators choose to define this level, of course, but I think you get the principle of it all. No one should have to work OT or a second job above a full-time one in order to meet the subsistence threshold. Many people, such as single moms, can’t logistically do so even if they have the energy and willpower. If an employer can’t provide a living wage, then they should not bother hiring in the first place. I don’t ever want our society to regress toward the quasi-slave labor era of the early Industrial Age. If the private market is persistent in its inability to create jobs for these low-skilled workers, then I would turn to the creation of government employment options as a last resort. 2. Economists are the ones who define market failures, though there is some ambiguity here depending on the school of thought. We also have experts in specific industries and fields whose jobs are to flag market failures. I think everybody seems to agree on non-competitive markets, market information asymmetries, negative externalities, all types of public goods, and chaotic consumer demand as areas where market failures can occur. The Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, all of our elected politicians, and the American people (in theory) ultimately decide what are market failures and how to handle them. Government’s market interventions always distort the market, for better or worse, and can absolutely lead to serious market failures. The alternative choice of taking no action at all, however, is often intolerable. We use historical precedent and quality economic data to guide government market intervention. Sometimes a bit of guess work is involved (see: CARES Act’s federal unemployment benefit extension debate). The housing crisis that led to the Great Recession is a lot more complicated than a “government = bad, private markets = good” reasoning, but yes I agree that government played a major negative role. I STRONGLY disagree with you when you say that markets don’t fail in the long run! Market failures can last indefinitely or for as long as the causes remain. Too many examples to cite, but my inner eco-socialist can’t help but mention the environmental destruction and resource depletion that unrestrained capitalism creates. Jared Diamond, among many, would argue that this is the biggest reason for why civilizations collapse. My inner Marxist must also emphatically challenge any notion of free markets inherently tending to long-term Pareto efficiencies, given the past 40 years of neoliberalism in relation to the mid-twentieth century…as if Pareto efficiencies are worth aspiring to anyway from a moral point of view…or as if Pareto efficiencies can even be reached since there’s no such thing as a perfect market without any of the market failures I described above. And I would be remiss to not mention Somalia as the most extreme contemporary example of long-term market failures in the absence of government intervention. But even if market failures were to theoretically always self-correct in the long run, we can potentially avoid a lot of human misery along the way by entertaining the possibility of early or preemptive government intervention. Um actually…characterizing me as a bookworm with little real-world experience is pretty accurate...so good call, hahaha! You should be proud of your successful team management experience in the private sector, but I still don’t see how that experience makes you better positioned than others here to adjudicate the Amazon labor union issue (or any macroeconomic theory)? Recall that I agreed with you earlier that labor unions aren’t necessary for a large variety of work situations such as your own. But you’re incorrectly extrapolating your positive management experiences onto all other work environments in all other industries. Are you against all labor unions in principle? What about all that historical bad stuff that precipitated the passing of the 1935 NLRA? Our work experiences (or lack thereof) often shape our political orientations, but they often create political blind spots as well. Maybe our disparate politics would converge if we began having similar work experiences? No matter…labor rights situations relate to human ethics, so any thoughtful person is already fully equipped to analyze them (given enough information and enough comparative labor cases) independent of work experience. And in sort of the opposite way, rigorous academic training in macroeconomic theory precludes most of us from tackling complex labor theory at the level that only professional economists can attain (who often never spent a day of their working adult lives outside the ivory tower).