|
|
Post by Fiddler on Nov 16, 2024 15:40:41 GMT
Nah, don't believe you.
By your definition Trump is the establishment placing the establishment in important positions. And everything people call woke isn't woke.
I mean you really broke yourself here.
.. that he couldn't even get them to do what he wanted when he was the fucking president.
Would that be to inject disinfectant to treat Covid, to nuke the hurricanes or to ‘take the guns first’ and ‘go through due process second’..?
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,475
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 18:18:24 GMT
Of course. But then there's also things like this. So readers don't get trapped into the bubble leftists have the past few years and think "McKinsey donating heavily to GOP midterm efforts" is any more meaningful than you acknowledge it is. Pete Buttigieg's campaign donors include top McKinsey employees - The Guardian - Jan 27, 2020Forty employees have contributed to the former mayor’s campaign as experts say his ties have ‘cast a shadow of questions’
There's a reason McKinsey donated to Republicans in the midterm efforts you're highlighting. Trump wasn't on the ballot.
Look how things shook out in 2024:
$304k to Kamala.
$10k to Trump? haha
19 democrat senators donated to, only 4 republicans?
60 House Democrats ... 9 Republicans?
Are they supporting the establishment do you think?
Yeah they've got establishment in their blood. The current crop ain't many world shakers. And as was made pretty evident in the article I shared above ... the family is pretty unhappy with Timothy. Who was never involved in politics at all until 2017 as a donor to anti establishment candidates including RFK Jr. I found it interesting how often he was called brilliant and an "analytical" mind quoted by family members describing his reclusive nature in that article, didn't you?
Could you clarify what you're driving at here? It seems like you started making a policy point then diverged into political talking points.
Which diverging policy goals should we take a look at?
Tariffs maybe?
Queshank
Regarding the subject of policy and my reasons for saying the GOP has completely abandoned the working class, see the following post. libertynewsforum.boards.net/thread/22472/another?page=1&scrollTo=438139
That's not what I'm referring to. I'm well aware of the widely disseminated talking points you're emphasizing in that post. Ironically ones that the establishment has been hyperventilating about and the exact reason McKinsey has been supporting Democrats.
Considering you're acknowledging in your prior post the Democrats have completely abandoned the working class too ... I'm not sure where we go from there.
You're only providing half the clarification I'm asking about. The "establishment" who sees to lose the most off poorer ROIs on their overseas investments making claims about how this will hurt the working class doesn't really bifurcate the "establishment" and the "anti establishment" does it? You seem to be arguing that Trump is both anti establishment AND anti ... anti establishment.
That's where I'm seeking clarification.
Queshank
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,475
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 18:22:04 GMT
.. that he couldn't even get them to do what he wanted when he was the fucking president.
Would that be to inject disinfectant to treat Covid, to nuke the hurricanes or to ‘take the guns first’ and ‘go through due process second’..?
I'm talking about the things people voted for him to do that the bureaucracy rallied against and blocked at every turn that led to Trump's triumphant return in an election year less beset with fearmongering about civilization destroying flu bugs.
And it seems like a good time to point out my argument I've been making the past 8 years given the fact that 2024 has forced (intelligent) leftists to understand something. (I'm well aware the dumb ones are still "America is racist and misogynist waaaaaah waaaaaaaah")
Keep letting the borders fester and you're going to get way worse than a carnival barking assclown as president.
Queshank
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,475
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 18:22:47 GMT
How much influence does Timothy Melon have on our government and our lives compared to McKinsey?
LMAO.. So NOW you're concerned with proportions..
Q's Clue: They've been there all along.. You've just been too busy being right (wink, wink) to notice them..
I'm the one who always focuses on proportions Fiddler. It's why I think you're dumb as a rock when you start ignoring your tribe to make that argument.
Queshank
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,475
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 18:24:41 GMT
/facepalm
Lookit you fucking up junior high school level civics.
Checks and balances aren't about each branch "checking" itself. They're about the 3 coequal branches of government balancing and checking each other.
Hey .. I notice you kept dodging that bit about how Schedule F is actually based on an act of congress that wasn't being followed. Maybe you just need more education on civics in general?
Queshank
Good lord what a surface level thinking to deflect.
That would be your post asking if I don't believe in checks and balances because I don't think unelected bureaucrats (not part of checks and balances) should be able to block the democratic process and "stymie" duly elected officials agendas.
That's what fascism actually looks like. And it's what you all have been throwing your support behind for the past 8 years.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 16, 2024 18:36:12 GMT
That's not what I'm referring to. I'm well aware of the widely disseminated talking points you're emphasizing in that post. Ironically ones that the establishment has been hyperventilating about and the exact reason McKinsey has been supporting Democrats.
Considering you're acknowledging in your prior post the Democrats have completely abandoned the working class too ... I'm not sure where we go from there.
You're only providing half the clarification I'm asking about. The "establishment" who sees to lose the most off poorer ROIs on their overseas investments making claims about how this will hurt the working class doesn't really bifurcate the "establishment" and the "anti establishment" does it? You seem to be arguing that Trump is both anti establishment AND anti ... anti establishment.
That's where I'm seeking clarification.
Queshank
I think it's odd to simply ignore the policy differences between the two parties when discussing which is more pro-working class. These policy differences cannot be reduced to mere talking points. There are real differences here and their impact is relatively uncontroversial. We know regressive taxes exist as something separate from progressive. And so on. The uncertainty you are feeling with regard to where we go from here, owing to the fact that we both agree the Democrats have abandoned the working class, centers on the question of which party leftists ought to use as a vehicle to course correct. You would say the GOP is the best vehicle for leftism going forward, and I would say that's crazy, it's really the Democratic party. And I would point to the policy post I just linked you to as the argument for that belief. Regarding the passage above where you seek clarification, I will need more clarification on the question, because I am unsure what you are asking. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,475
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 18:40:00 GMT
That's not what I'm referring to. I'm well aware of the widely disseminated talking points you're emphasizing in that post. Ironically ones that the establishment has been hyperventilating about and the exact reason McKinsey has been supporting Democrats.
Considering you're acknowledging in your prior post the Democrats have completely abandoned the working class too ... I'm not sure where we go from there.
You're only providing half the clarification I'm asking about. The "establishment" who sees to lose the most off poorer ROIs on their overseas investments making claims about how this will hurt the working class doesn't really bifurcate the "establishment" and the "anti establishment" does it? You seem to be arguing that Trump is both anti establishment AND anti ... anti establishment.
That's where I'm seeking clarification.
Queshank
I think it's odd to simply ignore the policy differences between the two parties when discussing which is more pro-working class. These policy differences cannot be reduced to mere talking points. There are real differences here and their impact is relatively uncontroversial. We know regressive taxes exist as something separate from progressive. And so on.
We're not discussing which is more pro working class tho.
We're discussing which is anti establishment.
You trying to wrestle it into a "pro working class" discussion in is what is muddying the issue. Being pro working class != anti establishment. These are different topics.
The fact that an anti tariff agenda is what the establishment wants and supports ... seems like the only relevant data point you're bringing to the discussion.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 16, 2024 18:58:27 GMT
I think it's odd to simply ignore the policy differences between the two parties when discussing which is more pro-working class. These policy differences cannot be reduced to mere talking points. There are real differences here and their impact is relatively uncontroversial. We know regressive taxes exist as something separate from progressive. And so on.
We're not discussing which is more pro working class tho.
We're discussing which is anti establishment.
You trying to wrestle it into a "pro working class" discussion in is what is muddying the issue. Being pro working class != anti establishment. These are different topics.
The fact that an anti tariff agenda is what the establishment wants and supports ... seems like the only relevant data point you're bringing to the discussion.
Queshank
If the establishment has adopted a working class ethic, then something magical has happened and we no longer have anything to rebel against. In reality, the establishment has reasons for opposing a big protective tariff that go beyond be pro-worker. It's in *everyone's* interest to oppose this policy agenda. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,475
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 19:18:49 GMT
We're not discussing which is more pro working class tho.
We're discussing which is anti establishment.
You trying to wrestle it into a "pro working class" discussion in is what is muddying the issue. Being pro working class != anti establishment. These are different topics.
The fact that an anti tariff agenda is what the establishment wants and supports ... seems like the only relevant data point you're bringing to the discussion.
Queshank
If the establishment has adopted a working class ethic, then something magical has happened and we no longer have anything to rebel against.
This makes no sense. Because it's a mutable stance that can be adjusted by simply deciding what is best for the working class ... for them. A trait I've noticed rising among my leftist brethren as they morphed into authoritarians and that I've heard you echo often.
For example: I've heard a lot of leftists argue that what's best for the working class is a $15 an hour minimum wage for part time workers in fast food joints. I don't think the working class agrees.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 16, 2024 19:20:42 GMT
If the establishment has adopted a working class ethic, then something magical has happened and we no longer have anything to rebel against.
This makes no sense. Because it's a mutable stance that can be adjusted by simply deciding what is best for the working class ... for them. A trait I've noticed rising among my leftist brethren as they morphed into authoritarians and that I've heard you echo often.
Queshank
That's because you've reduced political economy and policy consequences to mere opinion, implicitly arguing that regressive policies might just be progressive after all, or in the working class interest. It's like "we just don't know." I find that humorous. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,475
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 19:23:23 GMT
This makes no sense. Because it's a mutable stance that can be adjusted by simply deciding what is best for the working class ... for them. A trait I've noticed rising among my leftist brethren as they morphed into authoritarians and that I've heard you echo often.
Queshank
That's because you've reduced political economy and policy consequences to mere opinion, implicitly arguing that regressive policies might just be progressive after all, or in the working class interest. It's like "we just don't know." I find that humorous.
I haven't argued in favor of tariffs bud. Simply argued that I find economists employed at banking institutions that cater to the wealthy's opinions unconvincing.
And highlighting that it's interesting how many leftists are convinced by economists employed at banking institutions that cater to the wealthy's opinions. Strange choices leftists use in their appeals to authority since Trump glided onto the scene. Intelligence bureaus? The Dept of Homeland Security? Goldman Sachs? But I've changed 
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 16, 2024 19:27:07 GMT
That's because you've reduced political economy and policy consequences to mere opinion, implicitly arguing that regressive policies might just be progressive after all, or in the working class interest. It's like "we just don't know." I find that humorous.
I haven't argued in favor of tariffs bud. Simply argued that I find economists employed at banking institutions that cater to the wealthy's opinions unconvincing.
And highlighting that it's interesting how many leftists are convinced by economists employed at banking institutions that cater to the wealthy's opinions. Strange choices leftists use in their appeals to authority since Trump glided onto the scene. Intelligence bureaus? The Dept of Homeland Security? Goldman Sachs? But I've changed
Queshank
I think it's humorous to suggest we were neutral on these questions until Goldman made a statement. Bro, I was doing Hecksher-Ohlin model math over a decade ago and Goldman wasn't part of the discussion. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,475
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 19:31:24 GMT
I haven't argued in favor of tariffs bud. Simply argued that I find economists employed at banking institutions that cater to the wealthy's opinions unconvincing.
And highlighting that it's interesting how many leftists are convinced by economists employed at banking institutions that cater to the wealthy's opinions. Strange choices leftists use in their appeals to authority since Trump glided onto the scene. Intelligence bureaus? The Dept of Homeland Security? Goldman Sachs? But I've changed
Queshank
I think it's humorous to suggest we were neutral on these questions until Goldman made a statement. Bro, I was doing Hecksher-Ohlin model math over a decade ago and Goldman wasn't part of the discussion.
And I think it's humorous that about 15 years after we established "economics is a religion" .. and I believe you acknowledged you saw my point ... you still don't know to scoff at people who say "we know" when it comes to a soft science that tries to examine a living breathing .. "animal spirits" influenced .. organism with millions of variables changing in real time.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 16, 2024 19:35:03 GMT
I think it's humorous to suggest we were neutral on these questions until Goldman made a statement. Bro, I was doing Hecksher-Ohlin model math over a decade ago and Goldman wasn't part of the discussion.
And I think it's humorous that about 15 years after we established "economics is a religion" .. and I believe you acknowledged you saw my point ... you still don't know to scoff at people who say "we know" when it comes to a soft science that tries to examine a living breathing .. "animal spirits" influenced .. organism with millions of variables changing in real time.
Queshank
It does have a religious component (which is enlarged with the more a priori untestable assumptions) but that doesn't mean we know nothing about nothing. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,475
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 19:36:00 GMT
And I think it's humorous that about 15 years after we established "economics is a religion" .. and I believe you acknowledged you saw my point ... you still don't know to scoff at people who say "we know" when it comes to a soft science that tries to examine a living breathing .. "animal spirits" influenced .. organism with millions of variables changing in real time.
Queshank
It does have a religious component but that doesn't mean we know nothing about nothing.
Well obviously.
I mean we *know* the experts keep being wrong.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 16, 2024 19:37:46 GMT
It does have a religious component but that doesn't mean we know nothing about nothing.
Well obviously.
I mean we *know* the experts keep being wrong.
Queshank
Not completely. And it depends on the experts. The more there is expert consensus, the more you can trust the conclusion. It just so happens I was involved in a very crank, minority version of the discipline. But there were some elements that even the cranks would agree with the mainstream on. Stuff like protective tariffs and their regressive and harmful nature. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,475
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 19:39:51 GMT
Well obviously.
I mean we *know* the experts keep being wrong.
Queshank
Not completely. And it depends on the experts. The more there is expert consensus, the more you can trust the conclusion. It just so happens I was involved in a very crank, minority version of the discipline. But there were some elements that even the cranks would agree with the mainstream on. Stuff like protective tariffs and their regressive and harmful nature.
Here's my stance on tariffs.
You know the threats Trump has been making are the opening for negotiations and a bargaining tool right?
If there's expert consensus that tariffs are all bad, why did the Biden administration keep all of Trump's tariffs and in fact expand some of them?
The reason is because just "it's good for the economy!" is a myopic view of the use of tariffs in foreign policy.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 16, 2024 19:44:55 GMT
Not completely. And it depends on the experts. The more there is expert consensus, the more you can trust the conclusion. It just so happens I was involved in a very crank, minority version of the discipline. But there were some elements that even the cranks would agree with the mainstream on. Stuff like protective tariffs and their regressive and harmful nature.
Here's my stance on tariffs.
You know the threats Trump has been making are the opening for negotiations and a bargaining tool right?
If there's expert consensus that tariffs are all bad, why did the Biden administration keep all of Trump's tariffs and in fact expand some of them?
The reason is because just "it's good for the economy!" is a myopic view of the use of tariffs in foreign policy.
Queshank
There's expert consensus that protective tariffs do more harm than good. Perhaps there are targeted tariffs that make sense from a national security stand point, or an infant industry standpoint. That's open for debate and expert consensus ranges. But the subject of across the board protective tariffs to spur growth is roundly seen as proven wrong. Tariffs are a cost we pay in terms of living standards and growth, the only question is if the non-monetary benefit is worth it. Trump sells the idea that an across the board tariff would be an economic spur, not a cost we pay. He is selling the idea to replace the income tax with tariffs. That's not a national sec argument. It is a gilded age argument. |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,475
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 16, 2024 19:51:20 GMT
Here's my stance on tariffs.
You know the threats Trump has been making are the opening for negotiations and a bargaining tool right?
If there's expert consensus that tariffs are all bad, why did the Biden administration keep all of Trump's tariffs and in fact expand some of them?
The reason is because just "it's good for the economy!" is a myopic view of the use of tariffs in foreign policy.
Queshank
There's expert consensus that protective tariffs do more harm than good. Perhaps there are targeted tariffs that make sense from a national security stand point, or an infant industry standpoint. That's open for debate and expert consensus ranges. But the subject of across the board protective tariffs to spur growth is roundly seen as proven wrong. Tariffs are a cost we pay in terms of living standards and growth, the only question is if the non-monetary benefit is worth it. Trump sells the idea that an across the board tariff would be an economic spur, not a cost we pay. He is selling the idea to replace the income tax with tariffs. That's not a national sec argument. It is a gilded age argument.
And again, if you can't see based on Trump's constant rhetoric and what he literally says that don't get picked up by carefully curated and edited news reports ... is that his rhetoric on tariffs is a negotiating position ... I don't know what to tell you.
But I will ask you something cuz autreyu brought it up the other day.
You support the party that wants to raise corporate taxes.
What's the difference? If China doesn't pay tariffs (and they do eat the cost on some of it ... kind of like how oil companies eat the cost on some of the gas taxes as I used to show on the boards a looong time ago.) ... do corporations pay taxes? Now I'm blurring the two threads we're talking in but I wasn't kidding I"m gonna be away this weekend. I gotta go man but I appreciate the conversation. I'm open to more talk, less performative board theatre if you are.
But I have to say .. you just can't help yourself doubling down on the gilded age rhetoric, even after you tacitly acknowledge we're literally living in a gilded age can you?
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Nov 16, 2024 20:00:37 GMT
There's expert consensus that protective tariffs do more harm than good. Perhaps there are targeted tariffs that make sense from a national security stand point, or an infant industry standpoint. That's open for debate and expert consensus ranges. But the subject of across the board protective tariffs to spur growth is roundly seen as proven wrong. Tariffs are a cost we pay in terms of living standards and growth, the only question is if the non-monetary benefit is worth it. Trump sells the idea that an across the board tariff would be an economic spur, not a cost we pay. He is selling the idea to replace the income tax with tariffs. That's not a national sec argument. It is a gilded age argument.
And again, if you can't see based on Trump's constant rhetoric and what he literally says that don't get picked up by carefully curated and edited news reports ... is that his rhetoric on tariffs is a negotiating position ... I don't know what to tell you.
But I will ask you something cuz autreyu brought it up the other day.
You support the party that wants to raise corporate taxes.
What's the difference? If China doesn't pay tariffs (and they do eat the cost on some of it ... kind of like how oil companies eat the cost on some of the gas taxes as I used to show on the boards a looong time ago.) ... do corporations pay taxes? Now I'm blurring the two threads we're talking in but I wasn't kidding I"m gonna be away this weekend. I gotta go man but I appreciate the conversation. I'm open to more talk, less performative board theatre if you are.
But I have to say .. you just can't help yourself doubling down on the gilded age rhetoric, even after you tacitly acknowledge we're literally living in a gilded age can you?
Queshank
If Trump really has a plan to keep things as they are or to reduce tariffs, or to raise taxes on the wealthy, and his arguments suggesting the opposite are all just an act, then great, I'll support those policies if and when I see them. Re corporate taxes, I agree they will be passed on down the supply chain and will raise prices. I am okay with that because that's the price we pay for civilization. I'd rather pay more in taxes and enjoy a solvent system with generous transfers than have a low tax regime in a mad max world. I know, a little hyperbole, but I stand by the general idea. I do believe that the gilded age was created (in part) through a regressive tax system and that when we ended that system and replaced it with an income tax, things improved in terms of wealth inequality. I also think that this progressive tax system has been chipped away over the years, bit by bit, in order to move the needle toward regressive taxation but within the structure of a progressive tax system. I also agree we are living in a second gilded age. I believe some of the causation explaining that can be found in the tax code, and the way in which the Democrats have joined the GOP to favor capital. But I also think there can be other factors pushing us in that direction, whether in the financial regulations, or the lack of Sherman Act enforcement, or the decline in unionization, and no doubt an endless number of other factors. I am not trying to make a mono-causal argument but I also recognize that we aren't going to make this inequality situation any better by switching to a regressive tax structure. That would be pouring gas on the fire. I enjoyed the convo too. Enjoy yourself. |
|
