I first saw the news on Twitter!
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday that non-union public-sector workers who are nevertheless represented by a union for bargaining purposes cannot be required to pay union fees. Janus v. AFSCME hinged on the case of Mark Janus, a child-support specialist in Illinois who argued that he should not be forced to pay fees to his union. Existing law, as determined by the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, states that all employees must pay a fee to account for the benefits of collective bargaining that unions offer.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/scotus-rules-against-unions-in-janus-case
Very important case!
Open Thread.
update: The ruling itself is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Tidbit:
How much was the AFSCME agency fee in Illinois? “Here it was 78.06% of full union dues”. That’s a lot of money!
Sounds like “opt-in” may be required. I’m sure unions would have preferred “opt-out”. Both the state and the union are prohibitted from extracting, so there isn’t going to be some work around where the “state” makes it a rule to take the money and then hand it over to the union.
3. For these reasons, States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to sup-port the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, nei-ther an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. Pp. 48–49.
This would never have happened if unions hadn’t been completely captured by one party. They have been overtly one sided for decades. This is realistically a good thing for unions as it will force them to sell themselves and be more responsive to their customers. It’s not like a union doesn’t have any benefits it can sell to customers. The old guard will try to hang on, but their best play is to overtly represent their employees in contract negotiations. The public sector feedback loop of getting people favorable to you elected to negotiate favorable contracts didn’t serve the taxpayer well. These forces still exist.
Tom,
I have to admit I have no idea what the “best play” for unions will be. Maybe taking fewer overtly political positions (and so both spending less on them and being perceived as spending less on them) will result in more people joining the union.
Maybe the number of people who don’t join will remain the same– and many will just refuse to pay agency fees. Even if one doesn’t actually disagree with union positions on politics, that a big temptation due to pocket book issues.
I’m read the opinion of the court and am reading Kagan’s dissent now.
Anthony Kennedy is retiring. Better fill that position before Nov, ha ha.
.
They call out Illinois specifically in a few places for unions taking positions that are obvious examples of policies citizens would reasonably object to. When private sector unions are as “successful” as the Illinois public sector unions are in creating financial policy, they tend to drive the company out of business.
Off topic but SC related:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/27/supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-to-retire.html
Trump will have another pick.
[edit: Hah. Cross post Tom]
Dateline 2013. The law of unintended consequences. The NYT’s editorial board cheers Reid’s implementation of the nuclear option:
Democracy Returns to the Senate
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/democracy-returns-to-the-senate.html
.
“Republicans warned that the rule change could haunt the Democrats if they lost the White House and the Senate. But the Constitution gives presidents the right to nominate top officials in their administration and name judges, and it says nothing about the ability of a Senate minority to stop them. (The practice barely existed before the 1970s.) From now on, voters will have to understand that presidents are likely to get their way on nominations if their party controls the Senate.”
Tom
Of course. Janus is from Illinois and is a public employee of Illinois. So, discussing his specific situation and Illinois in particular is natural. Also, initially Gov. Rauner was one of the plaintiffs, but he was found not to have standing. The employees did.
Traditional swing vote is retiring….
It is interesting that the most politically charged cases were all announced at the very end of the SC term. Interesting too that most went 5/4 on strictly party line votes. If Trump gets one more nomination, the Court will be reliably conservative for some time to come. If he gets two, it will be conservative for a couple of decades, and plenty of sacred cow progressive decisions are likely going to be reversed…. including affirmative action in college and university admissions.
With justice Kennedy’s retirement, the Court will almost certainly eliminate affirmative action in college admissions. I will giggle as “progressives” and the unhinged left go bonkers. More importantly, some very unconstitutional and damaging Court decisions will be reversed..
FYI: Our HOA apparently backed down in the flag dispute. These are the silly emotionally charged issues of little consequence that occur when we don’t have a more important thing to worry about. Humans are just hard wired for conflict, big or small.
SteveF,
I would not count too much on SCOTUS reversing many decisions. Conservative judges tend to be big on stare decisis. Roberts especially, I think. Progressive are always willing to go against the past to promote the “arc of history”.
SteveF,
It may be harder to craft opinions that get everyone to sign on. The majority opinion generally prefers to have 5 people sign onto the opinion itself. Sometimes this means taking out bits to avoid having 4 sign onto the opinion and one writing a concurring opinion.
I’ve read the decision and dissent. I’m now going to have to read all the stuff about “Pickering” including the other cases. Oy.
Oh good…I was worried first amendendment rights of employees might be as narrow as Kagan claims. But maybe the law won’t turn out to be what Kagan’s dissent seems to claim. . . See eugene volokh:
http://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/27/the-janus-dissents-odd-underreading-of-g
MikeM,
“I would not count too much on SCOTUS reversing many decisions.”
.
I would. The activist court has imposed on tbe country many rulings about ‘constitutional rights’ which are as connected to the Constitution as I am connected to ballet skills. Which is to say, completely unconnected.
The environmental and social justice movements have been legislating through the judicial branch for decades, and I welcome a stop to that. Allowing CO2 limiting based on the Clean Air Act is one example, gay marriage is another. Regardless of the merits of these cases the proper route is electoral/legislative for these things. The chances of the “speech is violence” mob making it through the SC now looks dismal at best.
Strzok testified for 11 hours behind closed doors yesterday. Apparently very little newsworthy occurred. He said his texts were private and (of course) his decisions weren’t biased. He refused to answer many questions.
“In the closed door interview, Strzok was asked how Mueller reacted to the revelation of his anti-Trump texts. He said Mueller did not press him on the texts or ask him whether that showed any bias in the probe. But Mueller immediately removed him from the probe, according to the sources.”
I suspect with Kennedy’s retirement and the principle of stare decisis at play, Roberts will become the new swing vote. There is something awfully attractive to SC Justices about being the “swing vote” and I suspect that has led some to vote or write in ways they wouldn’t have if the Court didn’t have its current tendency to rule 5-4 …
Derek,
About 50% of SCOTUS decisions are 9-0 and about 20% are 5-4. I don’t know that there has been any recent change. The controversial ones are more likely to be 5-4.
The unions have two plays:
1) Get the state to mandate they be provided contacts of all workers, and deny this to outside groups who would seek to get people to quit.
2) Provide services(separate from bargaining) that make joining the union worthwhile.
Lucia: (and others) If you wish, I would be curious what you think of Trump’s performance as President up to this point. I realize you couldn’t vote for Trump or Clinton. 2 years have gone by. What do you think?
…..
Myself, I am surprised that he has strong non-liberal instincts. (Can’t call his beliefs conservative) I thought, with his NY background and past dalliances with Democrats that he might half-flip and launch liberal initiatives. To my pleasant surprise that hasn’t happened.
…..
On the other hand, I had hoped that he would grow in office. Unfortunately, he is intrinsically petty and has shown zero capability for personal growth. If he could just say something like: I realize I have made statements that could legitimately construed as being mean spirited (for instance, his statements about Mexicans), and after thinking it over and meeting more people, I realize I was wrong to do so, and I apologize, he would get roughly another 5% of the vote and would be close to unbeatable. Unfortunately, with him I think it is impossible. (For instance, why did he have to say that the Red Hen restaurant had dirty awnings — so petty)
…..
Bottom line, on my part, I believe he has done a bit better than I thought, and the Left has turned out to be much worse than I imagined it could be.
JD
JD Ohio (Comment #168823): “Myself, I am surprised that he has strong non-liberal instincts. (Can’t call his beliefs conservative) I thought, with his NY background and past dalliances with Democrats that he might half-flip and launch liberal initiatives. To my pleasant surprise that hasn’t happened.”
I did vote for Trump. I thought he might be good, but I knew Clinton would be bad. I am quite pleased 1.5 years in. I think he is a conservative, just not the same as either the big-government-big-business republicans or the ideological conservatives that were fighting for control of the party pre-Trump.
I don’t care for his style. But it seems to work. He says what he means and does what he says to a far greater degree than any other recent major politician. I will take that over style 8 days a week.
.
JD Ohio: “Bottom line, on my part, I believe he has done a bit better than I thought, and the Left has turned out to be much worse than I imagined it could be.”
The left has been much worse than I thought. I hardly thought that was possible.
JD, Trump may have a lot of liberal instincts, but I think his political analysis skills are very high. He is going where the votes are and not trying to chase after support from people who won’t vote for him with policies that would cost him his existing voters. I wonder what would have happened if liberals had praised Trump repeatedly instead of trying to get him impeached from day 1.
> he would get roughly another 5% of the vote and would be close to unbeatable.
Trump is incapable of this, but this result is impossible. Democrats are too wedded to painting Trump as racist, and at this point with that as the baseline frame, it is easy to take innocent comments and make it fit the story.
As for the awnings, I think it was a ploy to drive down the business from liberals that was sure to come. Looking at old Yelp reviews, it looks like this restaurant isn’t that great in quality, and the DC liberals might not be so satisfied with it.
JD Ohio (Comment #168823)
June 28th, 2018 at 8:01 pm
“Lucia: (and others) If you wish, I would be curious what you think of Trump’s performance as President up to this point”
I realize I’m not your intended target for this question since I believe the last time I posted here was to point Mosher towards a Gleick comment on a Huffpo article where he said he had Heartlands tax returns. I have read around 90% of the comments here over the last decade or so and I wanted to break into your guys (and woman) club. You folks are great 🙂
As a candidate Trump was a blowhard. An old school NY/NJ blowhard. I owned my own business for twenty years and dealt with those guys all the time. They’re the guys that shallow grab the first handshake so they can squeeze your fingers to act like they’re stronger than you and have the “upper” hand so to speak. That only happened once.
They’re also the blowhards that will use the ruse that they’re pulling all of their business because they found a better deal, they have a better supplier or they just don’t like you. Even though you know you hold all the cards in the negotiation.
Naturally I couldn’t vote for that. Then my wife said if I didn’t vote for Trump she’d fill out my ballot and send it in. Then my very liberal 17 year old daughter said that she’d rather not have Hillary as her first female president.
I folded and voted for the odious bastard (I’ve never admitted that to anyone outside my family). I thought at worst he’d be better than Hillary and at best he’d throw a huge wrench into Washington’s machinery. I was wrong, he did both. He’s still a blowhard NY businessman but as time goes on I remember how I dealt with those guys and every tweet, tariff and statement is through the business prism I learned long ago. It’s just the way those guys do business.
Sorry for so long a post.
JD, the Mikes,
Trump certainly has not grown personally in office, and is just as petty and impulsive as ever, which is a disappointment. His lack of self control makes his successes more difficult, and a bit hollow, even when he achieves them. Melania looks less than pleased with him. OTOH, his policies, especially in judicial appointments and in extricating the USA from bad (and even unlawful) international agreements made by Obama, have generally been better than I expected.
.
‘Progressives’ melted down in a seething rage on election night, and if anything, have grown gradually more unhinged as Obama’s lawless legacy has been in large measure undone, and judicial appointments… people who will keep the “living Constitution” (AKA no Constitution at all) from being imposed on the voters…. have been confirmed under the Reid rule in the Senate. Without that interpretation of a “living Constitution”, much of the progressive agenda is difficult or impossible to institute, hence the rage. It is not just that Trump is reversing policies which could be re-instituted by a future progressive president, he is appointing judges who will make instituting progressive policies very difficult over the next couple of decades.
.
And while the behaviors of both Trump and progressives are harmful and divisive, I have to admit there is a lot of humor value in seeing progressives bawling like a bunch of 4 years old who have been put on “time out” for bad behavior. They have had a lot of years of very bad behavior, more than worthy of a long time-out. The humor is at least partial compensation for the rest.
So far:
In the good work category:
1) Economy is doing well, employment is up.
A) regulation rollback, fantastic for some time to come
b) tax break, good.
2) North Korea situation going better than expected.
3) Supreme Court nomination, another one in the queue (although any conservative President would have done OK here).
4) Trying to deal with immigration, good.
.
In the less good category:
1) National debt still growing out of control.
2) Divisiveness? Not sure this can be laid at Trump’s feet. The people are more polarized than ever, this trend seems to have started earlier than Trump. Possibly around 2011, possibly earlier, based on the interactive data in the link.
.
I doubt I will ever enjoy listening to Trump speak, but what of that.
.
Overall, I hope he keeps the peace, helps the economy grow enough to give us some hope of outpacing our spending, and eventually gets around to shrinking government spending. We shall see.
.
I give him an A.
To add to mark’s list of good work:
5) Put our allies on notice that they need to pull their weight.
6) Withdrew from TPP, taking steps to counter China’s unfair trade practices, renegotiating NAFTA.
7) Beat ISIS, ending the bad Iran deal, moved embassy to Jerusalem.
8?) Taking steps to reform the VA. Not sure it is working.
mark bofill (Comment #168828)
“I doubt I will ever enjoy listening to Trump speak, but what of that.”
Shame.
I have heard snippets of him speaking and snippets of his campaign.
He seems unfailingly cheerful, witty, and able to energize his audience. A lot of clever stage managed props, always able to show a person with a story to tell to back his rhetoric.
Perhaps you mean you may not agree with what he says but I certainly found those little bits I have listened to more enjoyable than the average politician.
We had a Prime Minister here, a Paul Keating, who though the equivalent of a Democrat cut his opposition to shreds with his barbed and witty comments and intuitive understanding of other’s weakness and foibles.
Quite enjoying the current by play as well though doubt it will get anywhere. Smarmy Rosenstein looked quite at ease with his little jokes and deflections, quite unaware of how it might come across to others. I guess no one has had the power to tell him how shifty he appears.
Tom Scharf (Comment #168819)
“Strzok testified for 11 hours behind closed doors yesterday. Apparently very little newsworthy occurred. He said his texts were private and (of course) his decisions weren’t biased. He refused to answer many questions.”
That in itself is the most newsworthy item.
The man who said he would answer all questions backed down with the support of the FBI lawyer present to advise him.
The questions he did not answer are the hot items.
Rosenstein continually denied he knew anything about the actions of his subordinates or common knowledge events that had occurred both on his watch and off it.
How can they let him get away with this?
A special council could ask and demand the answers but he is in charge of appointing it?
Weird America.
Angech,
Shrug.
Nope. I mean ‘I doubt I will ever enjoy listening to Trump speak.’
Thanks.
angech
I can’t stand listening to Trump speak, and never will. His speaking style is annoying.
I like some outcomes of his being in office. That’s mostly because I compare outcomes he wants relative to what would have been in place with a continuation of Obama or Hilary.
But I would likely have liked any republican and a GOP dominated congress vs. Obama or Hilary.
I don’t like Trump. He’s divisive, he’s rude. He’s a pig and he’s a poor public speaker. His self-contradictory changebleness gives me whiplash. I would prefer nearly any other Republican.
If he runs against Hilary again, I’ll vote for the 3rd party candidate again.
I voted for Trump. It’s going as expected in my view. Trump is good at destruction which can be a benefit, not so good at building things. He has dismantled the worst parts of Obama’s legacy. The economy is good, ISIS is defeated, trade partners are on notice, the globalists are in full fledged panic, and there is effectively world peace. He follows his gut instincts and they have served him well. Trumpmageddon hasn’t happened, nor did I believe it would. I never bought into Presidential determinism. They are a big cog in a huge system, but only a cog.
.
I hoped he would be less of an a-hole once in office, but didn’t expect it. Trump is an idiot savant president. I grow weary of the media constantly listing all his flaws (he called Mexican rapists!) and ignoring the fundamentals. Their hyperventilating obsession with style has worn everyone down. They refuse to acknowledge this is already factored in (normalized) with Trump and isn’t news to anyone.
.
As an example I played my “CNN game” last night hours after the Maryland shooting. Switch to CNN, how long will it be before they directly accuse Trump of being complicit in the shooting. About 4 minutes. Click.
.
Trump brings out the worst in people, and he has done that with the left. Anyone who was buying into the kinder, gentler, loving, tolerant left has dropped that view. Their explanation that Trump is a uniquely evil person that requires these tactics is about half believable until those with the long view realize that this excuse was used with Bush and every Republican president.
.
To state the obvious, bringing out the worst in people isn’t what you want from a leader, but if it’s entertainment you want, then you get plenty of that.
I will second Mike M’s assertion that I prefer Trump’s in your face political style that leaves nobody second guessing what he thinks over politically correct robots that speak endlessly without saying anything.
Tom Scharf,
Trump is not uniquely evil. Those who insist everyone deem him as such seem to operate under the assumption that if the fear he might do something that’s the same as him actually doing it.
He’s done somethings I don’t like. I don’t like his travel ban. But the travel ban is certainly not the same Stalin killing his citizens or any number of things lots of other leaders have done.
Lucia,
I think you nailed it there.
angech (Comment #168830): “I have heard snippets of him speaking and snippets of his campaign. … I certainly found those little bits I have listened to more enjoyable than the average politician.”
Americans have come to expect politicians to be smooth and sound well educated, above all else, even if they have nothing to say. Indeed, we have come to expect empty words from politicians, so much so that such emptiness no longer much bothers many people. Obama was the epitome of smooth, educated sounding, and empty. Trump is the antithesis of that, as such he is jarring. People sick of the way things were respond positively to Trump, those happy with the emptiness of politicians respond with disgust.
I do not care for Trump’s informal speaking. But his formal speaking has improved a lot. His nomination acceptance speech was no better than adequate. His inaugural address was quite a bit better, and the state of the union was actually good. Has he made a formal address since? Not that I can think of.
It is amazing how much one’s perceptions are based on what one is used to. When I moved from the U.S. to Canada, I was shocked by the pettiness and nastiness of Canadian politics. But Canadians were proud of how much better their politics were than in the States. After a while I came to realize that politics in the two countries is just different and the publics are desensitized to different things.
Jerry: “As a candidate Trump was a blowhard. An old school NY/NJ blowhard. I owned my own business for twenty years and dealt with those guys all the time. They’re the guys that shallow grab the first handshake so they can squeeze your fingers to act like they’re stronger than you and have the “upper†hand so to speak. That only happened once.
They’re also the blowhards that will use the ruse that they’re pulling all of their business because they found a better deal, they have a better supplier or they just don’t like you. Even though you know you hold all the cards in the negotiation. ”
….
Thanks for the interesting perspective. My father was a small businessman in Cleveland and the people he dealt with were not like this. In fact, in the 60s someone loaned my father $40,000 and trusted my father so much that he didn’t even ask for a note. (Of course, it was paid off) I have always thought that Trump was superficial and lacking depth, but I didn’t realize it was part of a “subculture.”
….
Will add that his lawyer Cohen fits into a particular legal way of doing business. People with lots of money often hire lawyers not to win a case but to financially destroy or wear out the opposition by intentionally mucking up cases to make them very expensive. Cohen was not primarily a lawyer; rather he was mainly a bully-fixer. If I ran into this guy in practice I would hate him.
…..
That being said, I am 100% opposed to Mueller ransacking the files of Cohen on the pretext of investigating a lie on a loan application and I think that what Mueller did is one of the worst political acts in the history of the US. It sets a truly awful precedent for Presidents (and potentially members of Congress) as well as giving local prosecutors license to ransack the files of the attorneys representing defendants.
JD
Tom Scharf (Comment #168834): “Trump brings out the worst in people, and he has done that with the left. Anyone who was buying into the kinder, gentler, loving, tolerant left has dropped that view. Their explanation that Trump is a uniquely evil person that requires these tactics is about half believable until those with the long view realize that this excuse was used with Bush and every Republican president.”
I seem to recall that Obama brought out the worst in a lot of people. Come to think of it, so did Bush, Clinton, Reagan …
The difference is that Republican presidents bring out the worst in the people who control the media. I think that part of the reason they are so unhinged with respect to Trump is that they feel they have to paint him as even worse than Bush or Reagan. I don’t see where that is Trump’s fault. Yes, he says some provocative things, but they produce the same response as non-provocative things. He does give his enemies lots of rope with which to hang themselves. They are obliging.
Jerry,
Welcome.
Democratic Senate incumbents in Trump states are going to have enormous pressure on a SC nominee vote. It’s likely a good thing to hold the vote before the election. The left and media will undoubtedly market this as overturning Roe vs. Wade, their only real play. I do not look forward to hearing about abortion for months and months.
Holy Cr*p Mexico — Many in the US think that Trump is way outside of the norm — Look at Mexico: It appears that the likely incoming President (Lopez Obrador) of Mexico supports the nonpayment of electrical bills and unambiguously thinks he is above the law.
….
“The campaign has lasted for over two decades. Some 570,000 Tabascan households have racked up debts with the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) averaging 10,500 pesos ($500) each. In 2015 the CFE began another bout of cutting off non-payers. Mr López Obrador, by then head of his newly created party, the Movement for National Regeneration (Morena), summoned a brigade of vigilante electricians to reconnect them.”
….
” As mayor he refused to enforce rulings from the supreme court, including one to clear a bottling factory taken over by striking workers. He was the superior arbiter in this case, he explained, because the court lacked “social sensitivity†See https://www.economist.com/taxonomy/term/42/0%3Fpage%3D17?page=19
It appears that lots of people feel traditional political systems are way out of whack.
JD
JD Ohio (Comment #168843): “Look at Mexico: It appears that the likely incoming President (Lopez Obrador) …”
Obrador’s lead in the polls is over 20 points (3 major candidates, plurality voting). Some are characterizing him as another Chavez. He certainly says some crazy stuff that can be used to support that, but he also could be just a pandering left-of-center type.
If he is another Chavez, we are really going to need a wall.
Fake news about fake news.
Axios did a survey in which they asked: “How often do you think news sources report news they know to be fake, false or purposely misleading?”
72% of respondents said “a lot” or “sometimes” including 53% of Democrats.
The headline: “92% of Republicans think media intentionally reports fake news”.
I wonder what is wrong with the other 8% of Republicans.
https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html
“intentionally reports fake news”
.
Never let it be said I passed up an opportunity to bash the media. If you include things like only reporting anecdotal stories that supports a favored narrative then I would answer yes it is fake (narrative). Immigrants behaving badly is almost nonexistent outside of Fox, an unarmed white person being shot by police has never happened as far as I can tell. When documented errors are made by the media, it seems to miraculously always be made in a way that disfavors Trump. If the Russia story ends up with nothing, then we are living through the biggest Fake News event in history by far.
.
Why does Fox News exist? Why are they so successful? It is arguable they are filling a gap that the rest of the news over time refused to cover as their newsrooms became ideologically uniform. The rest of the news media became non-representative of the culture of their customer base and a huge opening was left for Fox. To hear it from the rest of the media Fox’s viewers are racist simpletons. I rest my case on why Fox exists. A better question is why nobody has tried to compete with Fox on their lucrative turf.
Yes, the left is dutifully walking right into the immigration trap.
NYT: How ‘Abolish ICE’ Went From Social Media to Progressive Candidates’ Rallying Cry
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/us/politics/abolish-ice-midterms-immigration.html
.
“Political strategists point out the political risk inherent in the movement: that Republicans will use it to portray Democrats as extremists who are weak on border control.”
.
Ummmm … yeah.
MikeM
This does not explain anything. I didn’t like to hear either Trump or Obama speak. Both had annoying manners of speaking.
I didn’t mind hearing Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter…..
No they didn’t.
Lucia do you have a different opinion of Trump’s speaking style here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-w47wgdhso
?
JD, I think a lot of people two years ago were thinking the likely incoming President of the United States supports the nonpayment of bills and unambiguously thinks he is above the law.
Jerry, how much of this businessman blowhard behavior are you seeing in Trump as President, and if so is it on his behalf or the country’s?
Tom Scharf (Comment #168846)
” an unarmed white person being shot by police has never happened as far as I can tell.”
Police have been shooting unarmed white people for ever, Tom.
We had an Australian white girl shot over there 2 years ago, just bringing the police officer case to court now. It happens so often it is not even news.
Angech, you misunderstood Tom.
Mike M. (Comment #168838)
“Americans have come to expect politicians to be smooth and sound well educated, above all else, even if they have nothing to say. Indeed, we have come to expect empty words from politicians,
People sick of the way things were respond positively to Trump, those happy with the emptiness of politicians respond with disgust.
I do not care for Trump’s informal speaking. But his formal speaking has improved a lot. His nomination acceptance speech was no better than adequate. His inaugural address was quite a bit better, and the state of the union was actually good.”
Well said.
MikeN,
The accent is annoying, but that’s just New York. So I try to ignore that.
Trump had a softer manner back then, so it was as bad. But that’s no longer his style on campaigns, in soundbites and so on.
Possibly, I wouldn’t have found Obama as annoying when he was in school.
I can’t imagine on whose behalf he’s a blowhard matters. Though perhaps I find it even more annoying if it’s “for his country”. I’m a citizen of my country and I’d much prefer he not be a blowhard, thank you very much.
Both had/have annoying speaking habits in office.
Softer manner, but I feel he is also speaking faster too.
“Angech, you misunderstood Tom.”
I am a bit slow at times. I did think I might have so sorry Tom.
MikeN,
I actually prefer faster paced speech. I’m not a southerner after all. 🙂
Lucia,
“I didn’t like to hear either Trump or Obama speak.”
.
Nor did I. I turn off Trump if he is on the TV… too stupid to tolerate. If he stays with the teleprompter he is barely tolerable, but he rarely does. Obama I turned off even faster than Trump. Dishonest evil is harder for me to listen to than is honest stupid. Hillary? A combination of stupid, dishonest, and evil is the worst… my hand was a blur as I reached for the remote. Fortunately, she is now a rarity on TV.
So you like Chris Matthews, and Special Report’s political grapevine.
SteveF,
I also don’t like to hear Hillary.
MikeN,
Is that conclusion starting with “so” addressed to me? If so, no. I don’t like Chris Matthews and I can’t imagine why you would conclude such a thing.
I remember slower speaking being part of the culture shock of moving to Georgia as a kid. Took getting used to. Of course at this point in my life it seems natural.
Mark,
Yep. I don’t like loud and rude (which Trump is). But s__l__l__o__o__w__w__a__h is not the opposite of either loud or rude. When I’m face with that, I just think “can you just spit it out!!!!!”
🙂 I try to adjust to my listener. I remember a fairly recent out of state contract where this caused difficulty. Early on trying to grasp the clients code base and situation and so on I slowed down more than usual. One of the people I was talking to compensated by SPEEDING UP. Ugh. Didn’t help at all.
Reading the above comments makes me wonder if part of the reason I am more tolerant of Trump is that I am (I think) fairly tolerant of different speaking styles. Other than mumbling and empty bloviating, not much bothers me. Maybe it comes from years in an academic setting dealing with a lot of ESL students.
I’m tolerant of speaking styles. But toleration isn’t the same as liking. I like some speaking styles and dislike others. I don’t like incoherent, isolated disconnected blurbs. I don’t like them even if they result in news sound bites and applause from a politician’s supporters.
I tolerate them– I’ll listen to them. Still not the same as liking.
Since we are discussing it. I have avoided listening to Trump recently, but in the past I haven’t been able to shake off the ‘salesman trying to hustle me’ feel I get from listening. I can’t remember specific elements of any examples, so I’m not sure it’s really justified. Just the feeling I get.
The question, Mark, is whether the ‘salesman trying to hustle me’ feeling is any stronger than when listening to other politicians. While Trump does not follow the currently-standard politician practices, he *is* still a politician, which I somewhat cynically equate to trying to hustle voters.
Harold, good point. I’ll think about it.
Mark, every so often Trump even says that’s what he’s doing.
Lucia, I was pointing out the super fast talkers.
I gather you are a Republican married suburban woman, and thus the prime target for Democrats along with an energized base. Let me ask you:
Are you likely to vote Democrat to impeach or block Trump?
Are you planning to vote Republicans for Congress?
Are you less interested in voting than in 2016 or 2014 or 2010?
Mark Bofill (Comment #168865): “in the past I haven’t been able to shake off the ‘salesman trying to hustle me’ feel I get from listening”.
HaroldW (Comment #168866): “The question, Mark, is whether the ‘salesman trying to hustle me’ feeling is any stronger than when listening to other politicians.”
In other words, is he a salesman trying to sell me something that perhaps I don’t need? Or a con man trying to cheat me?
During the Republican debates, I had the feeling that Trump was the latter. I was horrified when I realized he was going to win the nomination. But I gradually came to realize that he is the former, just with an unusual, grating style. And with a good product to sell.
MikeN,
I get that those are fast talkers. But I didn’t say I like all fast talkers, nor that fast talking overcomes other annoying aspects of once speech. So I don’t understand why you would say “so” I must like those people’s speech merely because they are fast talkers.
Wrong. I’m an independent.
No.
Among other things, if it turns out he’s done something worthy of impeachment, I don’t think I’ll need to vote Democrat for him to be impeached. If he hasn’t done anything worthy of impeachment, I wouldn’t vote Democrat to have him impeached unjustly. So I don’t think my vote will be affected by any consideration for or against impeachment.
As for “block” Trump, I don’t know what that even means. I rarely vote to achieve a goal I don’t even understand.
Dunno. Depends. I’ve got until November to decide.
Equally interested. I voted each of those years.
Having kicked it around, I think that I’m just conditioned to a different pattern of response behavior for politicians. I listen to a politician warily, but I listen voluntarily. I go out of my way at times to hear what they have to say. Salesmen on the other hand I just do my darndest to avoid.
Nah, that’s not what it is.
I don’t know why I don’t like listening to Trump, but that’s not it. What can I tell you. The way he speaks irritates me. If I really wanted to chase it down I’d watch a clip of him speaking. But. It’d irritate me. [So I don’t want to.]
shrug
mark bofill (Comment #168832)
Angech, Shame. Shrug.â€
Should have been more clear? I meant a shame not shame on you. Just in case taken the wrong way.
Look Trump does not appeal personally to a lot of people for multiple reasons.
Tall poppy syndrome, too rich, too ostentatious, a seeming braggart and show off.
Hard to see a genuine person under all those clothes.
But I see an underdog, desperate too be loved and admired who is being gang tackled, spat on verbally harassed abused and bullied by the press in everything he does. Over the top stuff that is extremely unfair and a now necessary and evil part of the way our free press works. Gutter journalism has become the new norm for the press, take anyone you like, onward out of place and you have city hall and your grade three eating a it’s thrown at you.
Worse because he had the above mentioned baggage in the first place it is hard for the press not to do this and deep down most of us think he actually may deserve this. Which may in turn make us dislike other things about him like his talking style.
I see instead abut of a great orator in him. Like Obama andKennedy to take some recent examples his words, devoid of his bluster, reach out and engage ordinary people in an extraordinary way.
Too bad that we are all so educated and clever that we were obviously not effected by it and cannot even begin to see and inderstand it.
Sorry , typical angech rant but maybe some small truths in there.
angech,
Certainly much of the media loathes him. I’m not sure why you think of Trump as an ‘underdog’. Maybe he was in a political sense during his campaign, but now he’s the President of the United States – arguably the most powerful man on earth. He’s long been among the richest. I don’t see a man who is desperate for love and admiration, but I’m no psychologist.
This is possible. I didn’t mean to imply this wasn’t so. All I said was, I don’t think I’ll ever enjoy listening to the man speak. My remark wasn’t intended to touch on this or any other issue. I (meaning me, nobody else) don’t think that I will ever enjoy (find pleasure in) listening to the man speak. I’m saying this, I meant to say this, this specifically and not something else.
Fair enough, although I’m neither particularly well educated or clever, certainly not by the standards of this blog. There are indeed many things I can’t begin to see or understand at any rate. Maybe that is too bad.
Thanks angech.
angech,
.
Look, it rubs me the wrong way when I make a simple statement and someone (like you in this case) comes along saying ‘perhaps you mean this completely different thing’. If I had meant some completely different thing, I’m pretty sure I’d have said words that indicated that I meant that completely different thing.
.
Now, I can’t imagine why you would intend to do this. Regardless of what you intend though and intentional or not, when you make a statement like that you are effectively either suggesting that I don’t know my own mind, or am unable to articulate what I’m thinking. At the end of the day, I don’t really much care if you think this. But since you are pursuing this point with me, I figured maybe it would save all of us some headache just to get this straight.
.
I said what I meant. It doesn’t appear to have anything to do with what you want to say. I’d suggest maybe it would be more effective or productive to make whatever point you’re trying to make without somehow entangling me with what you’re trying to say.
.
Thanks.
Although to be fair, I clearly either don’t know my own mind or am unable to articulate WHY I don’t like listening to Trump speak. So maybe you have some justification. I dunno.
angech (Comment #168873): “But I see an underdog, desperate too be loved and admired who is being gang tackled, spat on verbally harassed abused and bullied by the press in everything he does.”
A normal politician is desperate to be loved and admired and would be ground down by the incessant attacks. Trump obviously does not care except that he seems to draw energy from the attacks.
I think that Trump has an insatiable need to win. So he looks at the attacks and asks himself “How can I use this to my advantage?” Then he finds the answer and puts it into effect.
Oh my god. My apologies but this bit just penetrated and I don’t want to let this go unanswered:
I will (and have) freely admit I don’t like listening to Trump speak and I don’t really understand why. That being said, I really don’t think it’s because of some idea I may or may not have that he ‘deserves’ the treatment he’s getting from the press. I’m pretty sure I don’t think he ‘deserves’ this, although that’s not exactly the way I’d put it. A certain amount of hostile public scrutiny goes with the office, but I do think Trump Derangement Syndrome is way overblown with at least some among our media. I’ve pointed this out before, in fact here and recently.
Okay. Hopefully I’m done with this. Angech, please do not attribute motives to me without a compelling reason, if only to avoid my littering the thread with excessive response trying to clear up where I stand!
angech
Chuckle!
Let me assure you that I don’t see Trump as a tall poppy. His parents were rich and he benefited from that. But he hardly stands above others. I’m pretty sure those cutting off the heads of poppies are taking the tops of others so they don’t tower above Trump.
Trumps strikes me as a lot more like “creeping charlie”. Short. Vine like. Choking things.
Creeping Charlie, or “ground ivy” Tenacious and winning.
We have the cane toad in Australia,
and earlier on the prickly pear, as pests.
I’m not sure why you think of Trump as an ‘underdog’.
Well if you were up against the FBI, CIA [? not now}, DOJ,Obama, Mrs Clinton, the Free Press, The terminator and the rest of Hollywood gang plus Mother Teresa one might just think of a little bit of underdog status.
I would prefer women had rights over their bodies, euthanasia if decided by the person both positions I see America losing that chance with this President. I would prefer reasonable freedom of speech and thoughts, which seems to be his position. I would love Australia to have more manufacturing from our abundant resources which is his position for Americans.
All politics is about not what I want but about what compromises the majority will accept. You get good and bad from both Democrats and Republicans.
I just feel in this increasingly overcrowded world that some tough decisions will be made by Trump and others who will be far worse that follow him.
People need to fix their own homelands so that they are livable in, both population wise and economically, not to be forced to immigrate by fear starvation or warfare or , …greed.
A better life starts at home.
Now I am not against migration or travel.
I had a great desire to become American when I was 23 years old. Had the paperwork to look for a job in in the USA, had the passport.
Met the right Australian woman instead.
Have been to the states twice, will write a bit about that here one day.
angech,
Honestly, I think it’s pretty funny that you would suggest the reason people dislike a loud, brusk, rude, choppy disconnected talking style has something to do with the “gutter press”. People often don’t like this speaking style. I don’t think we need to look to political preferences or the press to figure out why some people find Trumps method of speaking annoying.
Yeah. I get you like him for some reason. Other people liked Obama and so disregarded his whining. But he whined. I laughed when Obama supproters thought he had a wonderful speaking style and I laugh at those who claim Trump does. Neither speaks well.
Oh. And New York accents are annoying. This was recognized long before Trump. Trump being president doesn’t someone magically make them not annoying.
This ruling is expected to devastate labor unions, which rely on non-member dues to stay afloat. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Gorsuch; Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan dissented
angech,
“I would prefer women had rights over their bodies, euthanasia if decided by the person both positions I see America losing that chance with this President. ”
.
I suspect you don’t fully appreciate the formal structure of government in the USA. Before Roe V Wade, some states had made abortion legal, most had not. But the clear trend was in the direction of approval in more states. Absent Roe, would all states make abortion legal? Clearly not. While the option of abortion (at least early abortion) has very strong support in many (most?) states, in others, it is opposed by a majority of voters. So, if the Supreme Court were to reverse Roe, the effect would be that some states would greatly restrict or make the procedure unlawful within those states, while the majority of states, with the vast majority of the population, would allow abortion, usually with some limitations (eg no abortions after 4 months pregnancy). What made the Roe decision bad was imposing upon states a limitation on state laws that had never before existed, was not enacted by Congress, and that was clearly not justified by any rational reading of the Constitution…. which explicitly enumerates Federal powers, and then says all other powers remain with the States and the people. Nowhere in the Constitution is there provision for the Federal Courts to synthesize ‘rights’ not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
.
Roe was simply a usurpation of state legislative power by the Court, where the majority of justices made their personal political/moral opinions Federal law (and Roe is by no means the only instance of this). This usurpation has caused endless and absolutely unnecessary conflict as states have attempted to take back their lawmaking power over abortion. I suspect the states ultimately will succeed. Women in those states will then go to other states if they want an abortion. In my pre-Roe youth, I knew women who did exactly that.
.
WRT ‘euthanasia’: Assisted suicide is already legal in some states, and illegal in others. I suspect the voters and their elected representatives can (and will) work this out at the state level. Neither Trump nor his Federal Court appointments are going to make a bit of difference. If the Supreme Court were to make another Roe-like decision, forcing all states to allow assisted suicide, the states would (of course) fight back, just as with Roe.
angech,
It’s likely Trump will nominate someone who does not want to overturn Roe V. Wade this time around. The appointment will need every single GOP senator to approve. There are two who will object to a judge seen as wanting to overturn Roe. V. Wade. Trump wants a conservative appointment. To avoid risk, he needs that before the mid-term elections. He’ll probably let his promise to over turn Roe V. Wade wait a while to fulfill even if that means it’s never fulfilled.
If mid-terms go the way he wants, he might have a chance at justice who might overturn Roe V. Wade in the following two years.
He’s actually been patient and savvy with judicial appointments. My guess is those clamoring for a strongly pro-life judge are going to need to wait.
Brown recluse,
The ruling probably won’t devastate unions. It only applies to public employees unions. It only really affects those in states that required agency fees. I think that was 21 of the 50 states. So the ruling doesn’t affect unions in 29/50 states at all.
Federal employees already didn’t pay agency fees and their unions were surviving and in fact doing fine. So it’s hard to see this as devastating unions.
At least short term, it will weaken public employees unions in the 21 states where they could force nonUnion employees to cover Union costs because they can’t get money from employees who don’t support the union enough to join. Before the ruling unions in 21 states could force those people to pay the Union money.
But unions may be able to make up for that by making themselves more attractive to employees. Or, they might manage to get Congress or States to change union laws in some way.
For example, perhaps Congress could change the law so that unions don’t need to represent non-Union members in bargaining– but in which case, they would probably also need to permit the non-Union members to bargain for themselves. It’s unlikely Unions want that change in law. The fact is Unions want to represent non-Union members rather than let those members bargain for themselves. Otherwise, management might just give nonUnion members a better deal those employees like better than management give the Unions, which would tend to make people leave the union.
There are other changes that could be made at State or Federal level. Those would take at least one session of legislation. But that’s not such a long time.
It probably will (after some time) actually help build stronger unions. They’ve been flabby and complacent while watching the percentage of unionized workers decline steadily for decades.
Having to work for a living will be good for them. Having stronger unions that actually represent workers will be good for the US.
Public employee unions are an abomination. They never should have been allowed. They certainly should never have been allowed to engage in politics at all. The excessive pay and benefits they’ve ‘negotiated’ by electing politicians who kowtow to them will result in financial disaster for state and local governments and the taxpayers that fund them.
DeWitt,
The public employee unions are both voting for, campaigning for and electing the people they negotiate with, which is … weird…I don’t think they are necessarily an abomination. But the fact that a union like AFSCME negotiates with 50 individual states while being a national organization gives it a huge amount of power at negotiating tables and in politics. That individuals who want to work for government don’t need to join and don’t need to contribute is only fair.
That said: I definitely think AFSCME will survive this and will do so easily. They may need to change how they operate a little, but I’m not going to predict whether that will be in the direction of being more or less political.
Lucia,
Right, this “detail” of overturning Roe vs. Wade meaning only that it allows states to make it illegal on a state by state basis is vitally important. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that much of our heroic fact checking media will “forget” to mention this in 98% of their upcoming articles. I have yet to see it mentioned once in articles in the last week. Realistically the worst case is you are going to have to drive out of state to get your abortion.
.
I’m pro-choice myself and would prefer to see it stay as is, but it is quite easy to see how others can see this as strictly immoral. There is no science to answer this question, it is a very difficult rights of the fetus vs rights of the mother (and a little of the father) issue. I hold nothing against people on either side of this debate.
I agree with Mr. Fuller that this will end up being a benefit to unions in the long run. Public sector unions do have corrupt incentives as seen from a taxpayer perspective.
.
I doubt that unions only having 80% of the previous income will make a large difference in the face of the unchanging incentives. What will make a difference is city bankruptcies and starved services because pensions and medical benefits are taking a much larger share of the budget. It will be a bit too late, but that will change things. Illinois/Chicago is going to be the test crucible I think. People are moving out of Illinois like it is on fire and that makes it even worse.
.
As far as I can tell the only way low skilled people are going to claw back a bigger share of the pie is by forcing it out of the high skilled workers while they kick and scream with Unions 2.0. Some of the outright dirty tricks unions were/are playing with splitting up political activity fees and putting roadblocks in for the “refund” of these fees is what I detest most about unions. It is like the mob, and is in some cases I assume. The SEIU in CA had the gall to put a “special assessment” on * all * members for a political fight in 2005. They then offered to refund that assessment to people who opted out of political activity after the election. It was a forced loan to the union. There has to be a better way.
The left has truly lost their minds. Do they want to win? Or do they just enjoy #resistance too much? On top of the previous NYT “Abolish the ICE” article.
.
NYT: How Conservatives Weaponized the First Amendment
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/politics/first-amendment-conservatives-supreme-court.html
.
NYT: The Millennial Socialists Are Coming
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/opinion/democratic-socialists-progressive-democratic-party-trump.html
.
Seriously? Anti 1st amendment, pro-socialist, abolish ICE. This is like a Trump supporter’s wet dream. The interesting part is almost no leftist politician is even speaking out against this stuff, probably for fear of the leftist mob, and incredibly Nancy Pelosi is sounding like the voice of reason. Interesting times.
I have this idea that Haidt either understands or thinks he understands the abolish ICE viewpoint. I’ve read this several times and listened to the video and must admit I’m still sort of hazy.
Here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/10/17/jonathan_haidt_the_psychological_roots_of_nationalism_vs_globalism.html
As far as I can make out (and by no means do I feel like I have this nailed down) people who are for open borders believe that all societies becoming alike in progressive values and economic prosperity [and globalism] is inevitable and just a matter of time (I think?) so.. So something. So do away with the borders I guess.
I don’t know. It’s still mostly mud to me, but maybe this will be clear to someone else if anyone else is interested in trying to understand the (apparent) madness.
On the other hand, here’s a Quora answer to the question ‘Why do people want open borders’ that is at least comprehensible to me, although I can’t say I agree.
Thanks mark. Those Quora replies make it pretty clear: The argument for open borders is basically the same as the argument for communism. IMO, a policy of open borders would be just as successful as communism.
Mike M.,
.
Well, it’s a problematic argument I think.
.
I’m born to the circumstances I’m born to. Maybe I’m taller than average. Maybe I’m smarter. Maybe my parents have more money than most. Maybe not. I’m OK with the fact that we’re born to different circumstances. I’m not interested in trying to fight the uphill battle against nature/reality to make sure we all start from exactly the same place. You can’t lift everybody up in every way. The only path to that sort of equality is to bring everybody down. It’s Harrison Bergeron down that road.
.
There are other problems with the Quora argument in my view, but I’m still developing my thoughts about them.
Mark,
One of the big problems is that it never even considers this question:
Can the “attractive” destination country remain attractive if anyone and everyone can come in and does? One problem is that above some level of immigration, it can’t.
Lucia: “One problem is that above some level of immigration, it can’t.”
I believe there are something like 780 million people in extreme poverty — which means they live on something like $1.75 per day.
JD
From what I can figure out Mark’s first link just says that we’re going to turn into Sweden or France at some point so we might as well just lay back and enjoy the ride. As much as that thought disgusts me I think he’s right, we are going to become a socialist country with huge social program debts. The best I can do is fight to keep that day as far in the future as I can. Also, If I’m reading it right that makes me a knuckle dragging Luddite in his world, I’m fine with that.
The second link is just pure unhinged emotion taking over. There is no way to even argue with someone who refuses to use any logic to form their viewpoint. Feeling that life is unfair somewhere means you should advocate that a country you aren’t even a citizen of should throw their borders wide open.
A flat earth discussion would be more entertaining than arguing with that.
lucia (Comment #168884)
“He’s actually been patient and savvy with judicial appointments.”
–
We have had experience in Australia of Governments with opposing views in the houses of review which limited Governments from getting all their policies through.
I t has usually worked to the advantage of the incumbent government in this case Trump.
The crazy policies do not get up The hard fought sensible ones do and the voters see their will frustrated but a good outcome and reelect the sods.
How you tell the Democrats to forget Trump and work on their own policies is anyone’s guess.
–
Also thanks Steve F I did not realise that some states still had bans. Does this mean women have to travel interstate? Will have to go and watch the Handmaid’s tale with my wife. I thought it was fiction.
angech,
No, there are no states with bans on abortion….. Roe V Wade eliminated those bans.
.
If Roe V Wade were overturned by a future Supreme Court, then States would again be free to pass laws restricting (or even outlawing completely) abortions within those states. If that were to happen, then women living in a state where the procedure was illegal who wanted an abortion would have to travel to a state where abortion remained legal. Which was the situation prior to Roe V Wade (1973).
.
I was not, BTW, commenting on whether or not abortion should be lawful, I was commenting about why I think the judicial activism in Roe V Wade was an error, and clearly contrary to the Constitution.
angech,
Currently, abortion is legal in all states. Some states are sparsely populated and may not have many clinics. It’s not unlikely some women drive to other states to have an abortion.
Some states do try to put up various “regulations” that act like restrictions, these cases often make it to SCOTUS getting thrown out or accepted depending on whether the restriction is more like a legitimate health concern or whether it’s more obviously motivated by a desire to prevent abortions.
On the topic of Trump Derangement Syndrome and the effects of another Supreme Court nomination, an op-ed in the New York Post writes, “The Left needs to face reality: Trump is winning”.
SteveF (Comment #168902): “No, there are no states with bans on abortion….. Roe V Wade eliminated those bans.”
No states have blanket bans on abortion. Almost all states have some restrictions on abortion, usually kicking in at 20-some weeks.
Lucia,
That’s definitely another problem, yes. Probably one of the core problems that make the whole question an important issue.
Jerry,
Yes. Haidt appeared to have been speaking to an audience he felt would already intuitively understand and sympathize with the open borders idea. Maybe this is why it seems he didn’t go into the sort of detail explaining and developing the idea that I would have liked. I was hoping I could glean some understanding regardless, but it wasn’t as fruitful as I’d hoped.
.
I’ll probably comment further on what I think is wrong with the open borders idea once I figure out how to frame it without resorting to a slew of rhetorical questions. The fact that I keep trying to articulate it that way likely means my ideas need a little more time to cook.
Huh. Better hurry up with that wall.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/01/americas/mexico-election-president-intl/index.html
mark,
Well…. I knew if we wanted a wall, we’d need to pay for it.
At least he thinks he wants to strengthen Mexico’s economy!
I guess the short of it goes like this. Countries exist to look out for their citizens. The province of a government are primarily those who are governed. I question whether it is a good idea for governments to unduly concern themselves with how other governments are conducting themselves, and consequently the liberty or tyranny that foreign people are enjoying or suffering.
.
Perhaps conditions stink in Mexico, or North Korea, or Afghanistan. Some among us believe that people born there are unjustly disadvantaged simply by virtue of the fact that they are born there. It’s not clear to me what (if anything) is the proper course of action, even assuming that this belief is correct. This is where I start to flounder in a sea of rhetorical questions. Trying to avoid doing that:
.
Perhaps what is ultimate right is for us to do nothing. Who are we to impose our judgement of the virtues or failures of other governments on the world. Or maybe this is exactly wrong.
Perhaps the right thing to do is to overthrow the Kim Jong Un’s of the world. Perhaps we should force a secular separation of church and state in the Muslim world, or barring force, act towards it with embargoes and economic force.
.
In my view, we open a heck of a can of worms once we decide that our nations are responsible for equality and justice all over the world. I doubt any of ‘us’ (industrialized Western nations) have our houses in order to the extent that we should feel confident that we are ready to go set the rest of the world’s houses in order.
.
The open borders argument hinges on this idea in my view. It’s a lazy and inconsistent application of this principle that our governments should concern themselves with the citizens of other nations. I think. Anyway. There.
Lucia, yeah. What I’m hearing from him now sounds a lot more reasonable and sane than what I was hearing earlier. Not really surprising. We will see!
.
Ugh. I hate it when my last minute edits produce grammar errors.. Oh well.
As a confirmed old socialist I can tell you that the arguments for increased immigration shouldn’t be separated from the rest of our agenda, at least if you want to understand it.
With stronger treaties, social protection a more tightly-knitted world, large scale immigration is really not as disruptive (in theory) as it is when considered in the light of a conservative policy regime such as obtains at present.
But it’s a package deal. Ya gotta want (most of) the whole agenda for it to make sense.
I want it. I might be the only person on this thread that does.
Jerry,
Too late, especially if you live in Illinois. If you add up all promises of future benefits, which should really count as debt, to current debt you get something like 3X the current GDP. It’s not going to be possible to fulfill all those promises.
Tom,
I actually/honestly would like to understand. I’m a conservative, that’s unlikely to change and I think I’m unlikely to end up agreeing with you, but still. My mental model of why people support this isn’t credible to me, and as long as I don’t understand why people support open borders I don’t feel like I can discuss the issue with them intelligently.
This being said, I understand if you don’t want to discuss it here. Hey everybody, there’s Tom the Lefty expounding on open borders; lets get him! 😉
Tom wrote: “With stronger treaties, social protection a more tightly-knitted world, large scale immigration is really not as disruptive (in theory) as it is when considered in the light of a conservative policy regime such as obtains at present.”
.
So it seems to boil down to “Fix the world so it’s similar to us and then large scale immigration won’t be an issue”? Sounds workable, with just the tiny issue of the world fixing part. I’m not sure what kind of “package deal” one country could possibly put into place to change that.
.
I too am curious about the specifics. A guy on a news forum a long time ago used to espouse open borders, but he never got around to explaining how it wouldn’t just end up dragging the host country down to the lowest common denominator as social support systems became overwhelmed. It just doesn’t seem very “sustainable”.
One thing is for sure, a plan for open borders, Medicare for all, and minimum distributed income is unworkable for obvious reasons. Central America, South America, and the Caribbean would empty out.
.
Most of the energy for open borders comes from a moral argument, thus the lack of logical arguments and the huge amount of shaming. Everything looks like a shame nail to the shame hammer lately though.
.
I’ve brought this up before but it is different fundamental viewpoints. Open borders people view the US as a global public business, a local mall, and everyone should be allowed to shop there. If malls had security forces denying entry to all undesirables it would be distasteful. Other people view the US as a home, and you can’t just barge in and take over somebody’s bedroom, you must be invited in and it is purely at the homeowner’s discretion. I’m a homeowner guy.
.
There is a lot of overlap between globalists and open borders viewpoints. They are increasing hostile to “nationalism” and want to share the (… other people’s! …) wealth. I was reading the book Sapiens and the author was a pure globalist, he said something like “as the last vestiges of nation states comes to an end” in 2014. He commented on an increasingly interconnected and interdependent global system in which borders meant little and a global government was inevitable. People who scan the skies for black UN helicopters aren’t entirely off point if you listen to globalists. Eliminating the most world suffering is the goal, even if it means increasing US citizen’s suffering. Captain Cynic see this as mostly virtue signaling. The same people allegedly want to pay more taxes, until their taxes are raised, and then they are outraged and against it for (fill in the blank) reason.
.
There are logical arguments, certainly pure free free trade should also be accompanied by pure free labor movement. Uncommonly good shoe makers should be able to go where the shoes are made most efficiently. My guess is “inter nation state socialism” will have all the same flaws “intra nation state socialism”.
Tom,
“I want it. I might be the only person on this thread that does.”
.
I strongly suspect you are correct about that. 😉
.
“.. stronger treaties, social protection a more tightly-knitted world, large scale immigration is really not as disruptive”.
.
Well, sure. If every country had similar wealth and similar politics (eg leftist global government and a relative lack of personal liberties), then there would be little motivation for migration… motivation for armed insurrection perhaps, but not migration. But global uniformity of wealth and politics is a pipe dream, just as is national uniformity of wealth and politics. There are huge cultural and historical differences which make uniformity in wealth and politics impossible.
mark bofill (Comment #168909): “The open borders argument hinges on this idea in my view. It’s a lazy and inconsistent application of this principle that our governments should concern themselves with the citizens of other nations. I think.”
I think that is largely right, but in combination with a lazy attitude that making things “fair” automatically makes things better.
.
When I was a kid, the Second Commandment really bothered me:
How terribly unfair! But it makes perfect sense if you realize that false gods are the things that lead us to evil behavior and that our actions have consequences, not just for ourselves but for others; especially for those who come after us. Viewed that way, even an atheist should be able to see the wisdom of that commandment.
.
People who live in crappy countries are suffering the consequences of the bad decisions made by their predecessors. We should offer a good example and a helping hand, but ultimately things won’t get better unless they help themselves.
Thomas William Fuller (Comment #168911): “As a confirmed old socialist I can tell you that the arguments for increased immigration shouldn’t be separated from the rest of our agenda, at least if you want to understand it.”
But is that an end result, or a subversive means to the end? Real question.
.
Fuller: “With stronger treaties, social protection a more tightly-knitted world,”
All good things. I say that as a conservative.
.
“large scale immigration is really not as disruptive (in theory)”
Not only in theory, but in practice when there is a sufficient uniformity of economic development, culture, and values. We have completely open borders between the states.
‘
Fuller: “as it is when considered in the light of a conservative policy regime such as obtains at present.”
I have absolutely no idea what that is supposed to mean.
.
Fuller: “But it’s a package deal. Ya gotta want (most of) the whole agenda for it to make sense. I want it. I might be the only person on this thread that does.”
Achieving a world where largely open borders makes sense is a grand idea. Maybe it will even happen some day. But open borders will not make that happen; more likely it will delay that.
.
This reminds me of the blunder made in the 20’s when people decided that disarmament would lead to peace, whereas it is peace that leads to disarmament.
Mike, (Comment #168917)
Yes. A related problem I had with the Quora argument was that inequity does indeed stem to some extent from parents trying to look out for their own offspring. It seemed to me that this too would be ‘unfair’ by the yardstick of that answer. To which I can only say, equity isn’t my only concern in life, it’s not even my chief concern when you get right down to it. I care a whole lot more about my kids than I do about all kids. I don’t think it’d be difficult to argue that such is my biological nature, and I’m not much interested in fighting that.
But yes. We suffer or prosper to some extent based on the decisions our parents and grandparents made. As it should be to a degree. We are selfishly interested in the well being of our kids, this helps motivate us to make responsible decisions about our society; sacrifices made today to benefit us and our descendants tomorrow. The costs of such sacrifices aren’t incurred for everybody on Earth. …This sounds good in theory anyway. Although honestly I see precious little concern for tomorrow in our society right now.
There may be some problems with this idea though. Reparation for injustices perpetrated on past generations might logically follow from this, I don’t know. Once we start down that road we’d be in for a world of hurt I think. I don’t know.
Mike M,
“People who live in crappy countries are suffering the consequences of the bad decisions made by their predecessors.”
.
That’s true, but sometimes not their predecessors decisions, their own. Many of the people who voted Hugo Chavez into office in 1999 today suffer the consequences of that foolish choice. Same thing in Germany circa 1930. Voting for evil people often leads to evil outcomes.
Mexico after electing it’s leftist President immediately implemented their view on the global stage. Mexican soccer players were instructed that every player should get an equal number of passes, and the most disadvantaged players were allowed to start as part of their affirmative soccer plan. Sadly somehow Mexico is out of the World Cup.
.
US globalists are demanding that Germany, Brazil, and other soccer powers force enough of their best players to immigrate to the US in order to make the world more just. The selfish soccer powers of the world scoffed at this request and told the US to fix its own problems. The US responded that the only reason the soccer powers are any good at soccer is because of their past oppressive soccer colonialism that deprived the US of a fair chance and the ongoing systemic soccer-ism is shameful.
.
The UN is planning on implementing a soccer busing system to allow disadvantaged US players to be near good players to pickup the magic aura of soccerness. The UN is also studying eliminating score keeping in all games and giving everyone a World Cup trophy. Calls from outside the US to just practice soccer more and start training earlier were met by accusations that the people making these claims are really just closet soccer-ists who think the US is just genetically deficient in soccer.
.
I could go on forever here. I was actually rooting for Mexico though.
I see nationalism on the rise, not in decline. Look, for example, at the EU. There are good reasons to believe that it will collapse in the next ten to twenty years. Forcing members of the EU to accept refugees from the Middle East has been a major driving force in that movement. I expect the Merkel government in Germany to fall before the end of the year.
Global open borders is just about as likely as the withering away of the state in Marxism.
Well. Here goes nothing.
As a socialist, I do not advocate for the loss of sovereignty for any state. I don’t want to see World Government.
As a socialist, I don’t want to see open borders.
As a socialist, I agree completely with MikeM above–the means are not the end and that should not be forgotten.
But also as a socialist, I believe that it is every person’s, every company’s, every government’s duty to do, not just a minimum, but everything within their power to assist those in dire need.
Not just hitting the tip jar–sacrificing hard-earned money to inefficient governments for poorly-run programs that sometimes help people who aren’t in need, because most of the money does go to the right people.
More later–specifically about immigration.
DeWitt,
Italy has refused to allow ships to land. That was harsh. But if the EU is going to make the rules for dealing with asylum seekers, the EU should shoulder the burden of dealing with them, which they were not. Evidently, Italy has gotten the EU to take some responsibility of the burden of dealing with the asylum seekers.
It should be pointed out that we are helping other countries, both directly and indirectly. The planes, medical technology, agriculture, cell phones, internet, solar generators, etc. etc. etc. etc. that are currently in use in poorer countries were not developed there and these countries paid vanishingly small amounts for its development and contributed almost nothing to the effort. It’s not magic that people aren’t still dying by the millions in China and Africa of starvation and curable diseases. The western world is “open source”. It’s not a secret how they organize their governments and run their economies. China proved how fast one can move from 3rd world to 1st world.
.
That being said it’s a struggle to be competitive in a global economy if you live in Congo even if you know the secret plan of success, or if you have a corrupt government that isn’t helping. Exactly what the world should do here is worthy of debate.
.
The real debate from the greedy capitalists is who is going to pay the bills. To me that is the first question, not the last question. This is not a debate on what are worthy goals, it is a debate on prioritization and funding. It’s very hard. There are plenty of poor people in the US who could use some help, and plenty of even poorer people outside the US. Are you going to give up Medicare for all, or free college to lift the lives of Africa?
Tom
The sad reality is that poorly run programs often benefit people who aren’t in need. (I changed “help” to benefit.)
Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to craft rules and guidelines that don’t benefit at least some people who don’t “need” the benefits. In retirement, the issue of government paying prescription drugs for seniors became a topic. My Dad was always amazed at others in his retirement community going on and on about how the “needed” help with prescription drugs because those cost “so much”.
Now it is true their prescriptions cost a lot. But Dad was dubious about whether they “needed” the benefit given that those complaining most vigorously were often Snowbirds who went out to eat every day and who sometimes owned not only two, but three homes. These were usually (a) the “main” one their kids grew up in (b) the “cabin” in a cool climate area where they took their kids when they were little and (c) the Sarasota condo where they lived 2 months of the year.
What these people would have to “give up” was one of the three homes. Often that might be the “cabin” which was mostly lent to their kids so the grand-kids could have fun in the summer.
Now, on the one hand, it’s sad for anyone to give up anything for medical reasons. But… well…. really… The money for those drugs had to come from somewhere. We know that in these particular cases, it was from poorer people to richer ones.
But writing legislation to means test is not popular since, nominally, these wealthy older people did have to pay in when they were young. (Never mind that they paid less because back then older people didn’t get prescription drugs paid for.) These people really did believe they needed and deserved the government to pick up the tab. And of course, news stories were always going to show poor older people who really were being driven into poverty by drug costs.
So writing things to actually only give to those who “need” is not easy.
Tom,
No, it doesn’t. I would estimate that less than half and probably less than 25% of government spending on poverty goes to the right people.
Youth unemployment rate in the EU.
Greece 42%
Spain 35%
Italy 32%
France 21%
Portugal 21%
US 8.7%
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/
.
If the southern states in the US had youth unemployment rates above 30% and was forced to take in millions of immigrants by unelected bureaucrats there would be riots in the streets. I’m pretty amazed how tolerant the EU is here, but there is no doubt it is contributing to social unrest in Italy and Greece with radicalized governments getting elected.
The NYT inadvertently and decisively instructs us why taxpayer subsidized public sector unions either shouldn’t exist at all, or should be banned from political engagement outside of contracts. They are post-hoc justifying the SC decision, and are asking for a new case that bans political activity based on taxpayer free speech.
.
Supreme Court Labor Decision Wasn’t Just a Loss for Unions
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/business/economy/unions-funding-political.html
.
“Some of these (progressive) groups work for immigrants and civil rights; others produce economic research; still others turn out voters or run ads in Democratic campaigns. Together, they have benefited from tens of millions of dollars a year from public-sector unions — funding now in jeopardy because of the prospective decline in union revenue.”
Thomas William Fuller, I believe is extending the socialist view of things to that of the world whereby socialist “sharing” (or expropriation depending on your political view of how that sharing through government is manifested) if good and moral for a nation must be good for the world as a whole and would imply open borders.
In an ideal libertarian world where the government does not engage in expropriation and property rights are protected immigration becomes a lesser problem vis a vis those we see currently with our mixed form of government in the US.
Of course the bigger issue with authoritarian socialist governments has not been so much that of immigration (although that is often limited severely even though there is never a big move for outsiders to enter) but rather getting out of those nations.
mark bofill (Comment #168907): “Huh. Better hurry up with that wall.”
Some of what Obrador has said is indeed worrying. But the status quo in Mexico is not working, so they desperately need change. That seems to be what got Obrador elected.
There seems to be at least some reason to expect Obrador to be a pragmatic reformer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/02/opinion/mexico-president-election-amlo-lopez-obrador.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion
Tom Fuller,
Thanks. I think you’re easing into this from a moderate perspective that I can certainly follow and even largely agree with.
I don’t demand a perfect system magically appear. I get that our institutions are approximations. It’s the best we can do. This is fine by me, particularly where I don’t have a better suggestion (I generally don’t).
I also think I’m both a reasonably empathetic person as well as a pragmatic one. To a degree, both of these things drive me to help people in need. Heck, I’ve been known to piss away time and effort trying to help hummingbirds in need. And up to a point I don’t have an issue with having to financially carry some segment of the U.S. population who can’t carry themselves; again, I don’t have a better solution.
BTW – you haven’t gotten to it yet, but for what it’s worth, I’m a supporter of reasonable immigration myself, including some reasonable humanitarian immigration.
Anyway. Thanks so far.
Quick aside – I’m not engaging with everyone who’s saying something interesting, mostly because that would be rude, clutter the thread, and probably be beyond my limited 8 bit processing ability anyway. But I’m reading and enjoying everyone’s comments, so thanks in general all.
The polarized nature of all political debate these days makes it difficult to acknowledge some obvious truths.
By any objective measure, the U.S. is not ‘full’. We have room for as many immigrants as we decide we want. Our population density is close to that of Afghanistan.
However, immigrants tend to cluster in large urban areas for a variety of reasons–safety in numbers, proximity to government services, etc. etc.
Immigrants commit crimes. However, they do it at a lower rate than native born Americans. (The same is true in almost all host nations.)
However, immigrant crime is additive, not substitutional. There are additional crimes committed because we have immigrants.
Numerous cost benefit analyses have shown that immigrants are a net economic benefit to the U.S. (Borjas’s several studies indicating otherwise are a bit of an outlier.)
However, that should not hide the fact that there are costs associated with immigration and those costs are not shared evenly throughout the host population.
If we could start a conversation based on acknowledgement of each of these ‘facts’ (I think they are facts, but we live in a world where putting quotes around the word seems appropriate) I think that people of good will could agree quickly on a plan of action.
Tom,
I basically agree. I’ll accept what you’re saying about crime as a generalization, although actual mileage in specific instances may or may not vary. I also didn’t think there was good data on this in the U.S., but maybe I just wasn’t aware of it.
To get a little more nuanced, perhaps we could agree that immigrants with a certain level of education are net economic benefit? DeWitt linked something suggesting this was the case. It seems intuitively reasonable as well. Maybe this is not the case in your view?
.
Tom, I’ve come to fear you are a terrible representative of the people I’m struggling to understand. 🙂 I think we would come to agreement pretty quickly. Unfortunately you don’t appear to be the sort I need to struggle to come to an agreement with. What would you tell the protesters who want to abolish ICE for instance. I don’t know what I’d say because I only have caricatures of where those people are coming from. Assuming there is something actually to their position..
Anyways.
Tom
I dunno..
googleing the first article I got to was this…
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-23/study-examines-immigrations-economic-costs
Which says “The answer: It’s complicated.”
The underlying link suggest that part of the reason the “benefit” appears high is when “X” moves here and earns $100, which he puts in his pocket, that $100 is considered a “benefit” to our economy. Our economy is said to “grow” because it was earned.
I think there are people already here would consider those earnings, at best, a wash. After all, the people already here didn’t get a single extra cent. Mind you, they didn’t lose one either.
On the one hand, the person who paid him probably got something out of the transaction. That thing is also tallied and perhaps if you are figuring out the benefit to already present people, only that second bit ought to count.
The $100 in the immigrants pocket is not exactly a “benefit” to people who were already here.
That said: I’d prefer to have a decent path to legal immigration. But I’m not going to just take it as a given that immigrants are a net economic benefit because I don’t think that’s entirely shown.
Example of how things are counted to decide immigration has economic “benefits”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/21/mass-immigration-costs-govt-296-billion-year-natio/
To the extent that the economic determination that the immigrants “benefit” the economy counts the $100 in earnings be an immigrant as a “benefit” to “our economy”, it’s not clear the “benefit” is to people already here. So, care would need to be taken to decide whether immigration benefits those who are already present in the country. Otherwise, that immigration will “benefit” the economy is very nearly a tautology.
(here is a link to DeWitt’s comment I referenced above)
Tom,
Illegal immigrant crime statistics and legal immigrant crime stats are not the same. Just as the cost /benefit of legal vs illegal immigrants are not equal. This has become a common strawman used by the open borders crowd. Not saying that is you, just pointing out the relevance of of those two points. Illegal crime stats really don’t exist in any reliable form but from what I’ve read they are probably pretty high because of the drug trafficking.
One other point regarding net benefit from immigration. A net benefit is not realized by all. I can’t see how an influx of low income labor will benefit existing low income workers. Maybe you can explain that to me?
Lucia, the benefit calculated on the $100 earned by the immigrant is real. Because they spend those dollars and that’s what grows GDP.
ChuckR, the crime rates break out as: Native born Americans highest, illegal immigrants second highest, legal immigrants lowest.
Mark, ICE is a relatively recent invention. I thought things worked better with Customs. I think ICE could easily be radically reformed with positive outcomes. The department I don’t like is Homeland Security… but that’s another bag of worms.
What I would tell protesters is get their flabby butts off the streets and into the voting booth.
Oh. So the idea is these people specifically don’t like ICE, but might prefer customs.
Well heck. That’s much different from being an ‘open borders’ person. If that turns out to be the case (that some substantial fraction of the abolish ICE people just don’t like ICE specifically), then maybe there is something reasonable to talk about there. I’m not sure that’s so, but it’s something to hold out hope for.
sincere thanks.
Well, the fools in town are on our side, so I don’t want to hold out too much hope, but that’s the impression I’ve gotten. Not ‘open borders,’ but something more fit for purpose than ICE.
They ought to put a blurb about it on the website.
” the crime rates break out as: Native born Americans highest, illegal immigrants second highest, legal immigrants lowest”
As I said. There are no reiiable statistics on illegal immigrant criminality.
https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime
Replying to Thomas William Fuller (Comment #168935):
It is definitely true that the U.S. is not full. But that is irrelevant. There is still a limit to the rate at which we can effectively absorb new immigrants.
.
I think it quite likely that legal immigrants commit crimes at a low rate. Illegals are a different matter. Technically, they are committing at least one crime just by being here. Even if we ignore status related matters, there seems to be some dispute on their rate of committing crimes.
Being better than the rate for native born Americans is a low bar since that is roughly doubled by our dysfunctional black communities.
There is also a matter of which crimes get counted. El Paso has a low murder rate, but a huge rate of deaths from drunk driving. So one can get different rate depending on the stats one picks.
That said, I think that crime is not a valid argument against legal immigration, not even a little bit.
.
As pointed out by others, excessive low skill, and especially illegal, immigration does economic harm.
.
The real issue is not whether we should have immigration. I think everyone here, and the overwhelming majority of Americans (Trump included) agree that we should. The real issues are who and how much.
.
ICE is not really a recent invention. It was formed by combining the internal enforcement agencies of INS and the Customs Bureau. Its predecessor in INS operated in much the same was and received the same criticisms.
There might be an argument for reforming ICE. But the “abolish ICE” crowd does not seem to have made any proposals.
Tom
Growth in GDP is not necessarily a benefit to people who are already here.
Let’s consider a “family” example.
Suppose I have a family of 4 who grow vegetables and sell them for $400/year. Or GDP is $400/year. Now, my poor starving cousin comes and joins the family. We like my ‘cuz– no problem. We give him some work. He’s inexperienced, but willing. So our family income grows to $450/year.
Our GDP “grew” $50/year. But no one in their right mind would say we benefited economically from cousin joining the family and growing $50.
You can say the $50 is “real”– it certainly was. You can say the GDP grew. Absolfreakin’ lutely. But this growth is not a “benefit” to the four of us who were already here.
That said, ‘cuz is nice and we are happy to help him out. And maybe next year, he’ll know how to deal with the crops better and perhaps out pace us. But if you count that “growth” as a “benefit” I’ll argue back that it is not an economic benefit to the first four who were already hear. In fact, if we believe in splitting the proceeds evenly, we each lost $10 /year in earnings.
I’m disappointed in you Lucia. You could have responded in haiku form.
The pie does not grow
My cousin bakes a blackbird
While my fam’ly starves
What if your cousin helps you make more money?
Thomas,
If, after the cousin arrives, the now 5 members of the family split $501, and we all split the money, each member’s take will go from $100 to $100.20. So we will benefit to the tune of $0.20.
But the point is: the growth in “GDP” in and of itself does not necessarily mean the 4 who were previously there “benefited” economically. The original 4 do not benefit financially until they see more money as a result of the arrival of the 5th. (They may like cousin, think he’s good company and be happy to help him out. But that’s not financial.)
The point of the example is to show that merely showing the family GDP “grew” doesn’t show the original 4 family members “benefited”. This is important from the point of view of immigration because for current residents, the germane question is will those of us already here benefit? GDP doesn’t tell us that because it grows by an amount that may only benefit the “new entrant”.
It may warm our hearts to benefit the new entrant, it may be the right, kind and ethical thing to do. But that’s not the same as benefitting those already here.
But you’re restricting all benefits to economic ones, in this case. (That’s not really fair of me, as we’ve all been talking dollars and cents.) Economically, many of the benefits accrue to those outside your family circle, which is why reframing this in terms of a family unit isn’t completely helpful.
We help family because we believe it’s our duty, not because we expect to gain. (And the core of my argument–of my belief system–is that I would argue that the human race is a family. And I say that even though I don’t like all the in-laws.)
When you frame the argument outside of a family reference, we see that the US GDP benefits from immigration. (It benefits more from well-managed, legal immigration, but there are slight benefits even when there is extensive illegal immigration.)
Thomas William Fuller (Comment #168950): “When you frame the argument outside of a family reference, we see that the US GDP benefits from immigration. (It benefits more from well-managed, legal immigration, but there are slight benefits even when there is extensive illegal immigration.)”
But I don’t care about the GDP as a thing in itself. I don’t see why anybody would. I care about whether people are better off or worse off. Many people here are worse off due to our current immigration situation. People who are already less well off (including many recent immigrants) have lower wages and poorer access to services that they need. The better off are more insulated, but still have higher taxes (or more public debt).
Hi Mike,
Well, one of the arguments used to oppose immigration is economic. If it is a poorly based argument, we should acknowledge it and move on to more fruitful segments of the debate on the subject.
Yes. Competition between new immigrants (legal or not) and established immigrants and the native born lowers wages due to simple supply and demand.
That is a cost. It is a real cost. Solutions to this problem are long-term and expensive (education and training, income supports, etc.)
As for the well-off, I don’t believe the costs of supporting the immigration regime are a significant part of their tax load.
The economics question does touch on things I think are important. In my view, we as a nation are already in difficulty with our government spending. When we borrow up to a trillion a year to run our country and are at least 21 trillion in debt, it becomes more important (in my view) to be careful about doing things that may expand our financial obligations. Bluntly put, if increased immigration makes this situation worse (drives us further into the red), I view that as a problem. Ultimately I think this problem [spending beyond our tax receipts] will affect all of us. It’s not unlikely in my opinion to negatively impact the whole world.
[Edit: Tom, could you would you link me evidence regarding the claim that even illegal immigration is a net plus?]
Abolish: formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution).
.
No. You can’t say “abolish the ICE” and make it part of a political platform you are running on and then say you really mean “reform the ICE” is some undefined squishy way after it proves a political disaster. The message is very clear and free of nuance. Remove it from your platform if you need to. If you want to say it is symbolic like “build a wall” then go for it, just try to hold everyone to the same standard. If you read the comments at the NYT on these abolish the ICE articles it is uniformly unpopular even among NYT readers. Many liberals said they would go as far as vote against anyone with this position, mostly it is fear of handing the election to the right by sheer stupidity.
.
FTA: ” with little to no negative effects on the overall wages or employment of native-born workers in the long term”. Which part of this quote seems very carefully worded? “in the long term”. Another way to say this is there are short term negative effects. This is also a case where the academia monoculture on immigration makes everything suspect, although I will say economics is less biased than social sciences.
.
I don’t think immigration will be decided on a population density question. There are a million deals that could be made on immigration such as DACA for the wall. The left is in a total reactionary position and offers nothing but platitudes and shame campaigns. As I have said several times, if anyone knows what the left’s position on immigration is, please tell them.
Nevermind Tom, I think I found some.
The moral view of immigration can sometimes come down to how you draw your personal tribal concentric circles. Everyone starts at family but it can diverge a lot from there.
.
Examples:
Family > Neighbors > City > State > US > World.
Family > Neighbors > Republican > US > World.
Family > Neighbors > Liberal > World.
.
There is lots of overlap and different circles for different people. I would suggest for many people that feel deeply about immigration that they skip the US circle. I’d prefer to spend any additional income and more political capital on Team USA. As in poor people of all colors that reside inside the borders. I think those who advocate for illegal immigrants while almost completely ignoring the plight of citizens are unconsciously sending a message that will fail to resonate in the voting booth.
.
This isn’t to say it isn’t worth debating, but wake me up when we get to talking about people in KY, AL, and decaying towns in the rust belt.
Mr. Scharf, I’m shocked–shocked, mind you, that the Left is less than coherent on this issue. (Not that the Right is doing any better…)
As I am to the left of the Left I can only say that I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.
And that because I love my country I want her to be just.
Merkel Reverses Long-Held Stance on Migrants in Bid to Save Her Government
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/02/world/europe/angela-merkel-migration-coalition.html
.
“Chancellor Angela Merkel, who staked her legacy on welcoming hundreds of thousands of migrants into Germany, agreed on Monday to build camps for those seeking asylum and to tighten the border with Austria to save her government.
It was a spectacular turnabout for a leader who was once seen as the standard-bearer of the liberal European order but who has come under intense pressure at home over her migration policy.”
Tom
Are you suggesting I am? I’m not. I was only responding to your claim that we should all agree that immigration is shown to have positive economic benefits. Obviously, that focuses the conversation of economic benefits.
All I’m saying is: I don’t think we must or all should agree that immigration has been shown to have positive economic benefits for current inhabitants. The claim is likely (though not certainty) true if we measure it by “GDP growth”. The problem is “GDP” growth does not properly measure whether current inhabitants (who are real people) benefit. It measures whether a somewhat inchoate thing i.e. “the economy” “grows”. But, in this case, “the economy” is not actually people and the sense in which it “grows” as measured by GDP doesn’t tell you if people’s lot improved.
GDP is not actual people. GDP can grow without any actual people benefiting economically. GDP can grow while GDP per capita falls. All you need is “more capita”.
Okay, Lucia, I agree with how you phrase it in your last comment. But I also think that can be extended to any subject, not just immigration. Trade, peace, education, the environment. Even climate change…
Things that grow the GDP don’t necessarily benefit the entire (or specific sections) of the populace. Granted.
However, it is a good proxy for the other factors that people agree are benefits… that is to say, GDP and those factors move in tandem, usually.
Thomas William Fuller (Comment #168952): “Well, one of the arguments used to oppose immigration is economic. If it is a poorly based argument, we should acknowledge it and move on to more fruitful segments of the debate on the subject.”
Who argues against immigration? There must be some, but so far as I know, nobody important. People do argue against illegal immigration and against excessive unskilled immigration. Economics are a valid part of that argument. In my opinion, the argument that is poorly based is the one that all immigration is always beneficial.
.
Fuller: “As for the well-off, I don’t believe the costs of supporting the immigration regime are a significant part of their tax load.”
I agree with mark bofill here. Almost nothing looked at in isolation is a significant part of the tax load. But the government is overburdened, as indicated by massive debt and deficits. In that context, unnecessary expenditures should not be shrugged off. Ten billion here, twenty billion there, and pretty soon we’re talking real money.
Tom,
“And that because I love my country I want her to be just.”
.
Like beauty, ‘just’ is in the eye of the beholder. I really do think the chance of political progress on immigration requires people to put aside, at least in part, their desire for ‘just solutions’, and focus on practical solutions… and that means uncomfortable compromises with people who’s idea of ‘just’ may be very different from your own. As John Kennedy noted, life is not ‘fair’. People in poor central American countries have been delt a difficult hand, but that doesn’t mean the US is obligated to admit them.
Clarification to Comment #168961: I have no objection to my tax dollars being used to provide succor to genuine refugees.
I wasn’t really after resolving our differences or persuading you Tom (or being persuaded), but I do think your position seems at least reasonable. It may be that we disagree on some questions of fact. (here is one of the sources I was looking at)
Mostly I was after getting a better understanding of what folk on the left think about open borders and abolish ICE, and you’ve certainly helped me in that regard. Not to cut short the conversation, just to express my gratitude quickly, before I forget and in advance of the possibility of the conversation deteriorating.
Thanks.
[Edit: I agree with SteveF above. I think we could probably reach a reasonable compromise if we had to, as a practical matter.]
Tom
I don’t just mean growth in GDP doesn’t benefit the entire populace. I’m saying that growth in GDP doesn’t necessarily benefit anyone at all.
For example:
if we have 100 people who make $20 a year, GDP is 2,000.
We do something that “causes” us to have a new population of 200 people who make $15 a year. GDP is $3000. GDP grew 50% . Wow!!! GDP grew!!
But on average people did not benefit. They were harmed. In fact, it’s quite possible every single freakin’ person was harmed economically speaking.
So, GDP alone is a crap metric for figuring out if “people” were benefited. It only finds out if the “economy” benefited with the “economy” meaning “whatever collectively creates GDP”.
I care about people not “whatever collectively creates GDP.
Not necessarily. And specifically, you need to show it’s a good proxy in the case of immigration, precisely because of the fact that the number of people (i.e. “capita” in “per capita”) changes. And also, because the germane question is does it benefit the people present before immigration occurs”.
Those are the people who have a reason to decide whether they want more or less immigration and the question of what happens to them matters.
Other questions also matter, but forgetting that what happens to them is important is not appropriate or fair. Plus, it gives the wrong answer to whether “immigration benefits the current population”, which, quite honestly matters a lot.
I should add:
If by “usually” you mean: when the increase in the denominator in “per capita” isn’t the cause the increase in the numerator. This is not the case with immigration. Overlooking this is a serious error with important quantitative effects. It results in errors that are incorrect to leading order.
Suggesting we overlook this effect based on “usually” is inappropriate.
Lucia, you write: “if we have 100 people who make $20 a year, GDP is 2,000.” Well, that’s actually GNP, and assumes that all transactions occur within that group of $100. Where does their money come from? Each other? From outside sources? Do any of them invest a surplus? How is their interest income calculated?
“We do something that “causes†us to have a new population of 200 people who make $15 a year. GDP is $3000. GDP grew 50% . Wow!!! GDP grew!!”
“But on average people did not benefit.” What are you saying? That the original $100 are now making $15 instead of $20? That these 200 people are new additions to the population? (In which case the GNP / GDP is actually $5,000.) They were harmed. In fact, it’s quite possible every single freakin’ person was harmed economically speaking.
It’s really difficult to discuss economic issues in terms of a family unit / tribe that is insulated from the outside world.
SteveF (Comment #168962)
“People in poor central American countries have been dealt a difficult hand, but that doesn’t mean the US is obligated to admit them.”
–
By acknowledging the difficult hand you sort of assume a tiny bit of obligation.
I mean if we did not know about it it would be OK but once we admit a wrong we pick up a tiny bit of obligation to help restore matters?
I guess that is where children keep getting thrown into photographic appeals because they tug the heart strings and obligations, if any, more.
angech,
“I mean if we did not know about it it would be OK but once we admit a wrong we pick up a tiny bit of obligation to help restore matters?”
.
There are lots of ‘wrongs’ in the world which we are powerless to change (the crazy mullahs running Iran and the crazy ‘socialist’ dictator destroying Venezuela come to mind). That does not mean as individuals we can’t try to help people. I am strongly opposed to unlawful immigration, but over the past two decades my wife and I have helped support probably a dozen very poor kids in Central America (education, one good meal per day, some holiday gifts) and many other poor kids in other countries around the world. It is not a lot of money per child, but an added $500 or $600 a year in assistance makes a huge difference for people who live on $600 a year. One young woman in Guatamala who we sponsored for many years is (I hope) finishing her last semester of dental school…. which cost me $3000 a few months back… and which I hope turns out to be a good investment. As the aphorism notes: give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish….
.
But the thing is, deciding to help people is not the same thing as forcing other less fortunate people to do the same. The porous borders crowd wants to place most of the negative consequences of unlawful immigration, including more competition for blue-collar jobs and lower wages for entry level jobs, on those US citizens least able to assume that burden. While the porous borders crowd thinks themselves morally superior, I believe they are morally inferior, and indeed, mostly blind to what is moral.
Thomas,
Ok. Instead of interpreting “make $20/year” as “earn $20/year” interpret “make $20/year” as “make products worth $20/year”. Now it’s GDP.
It doesn’t matter where the money comes from. They create these things, they can sell and trade among each other (as sales within the country would work). They can sell and trade with other families (as sales to other countries work.) Individual families can grow or shrink in size. Cousins, or even unrelated people can move fro one family to another– that’s migration.
I didn’t say the family is insulated and didn’t intend them to be. Otherwise, we really can’t have money– and so the $20 wouldn’t make sense. That’s the value in trade of the stuff they make. Sorry it might have been worded to make it sound like they were insulated.
Small unit shouldn’t matter. It just makes it clearer because we can use small numbers. If GDP works with a family, it should work equally well for family, commune, county, country and so on.
The fact is: you need to show that growing GDP means people benefit economically. And you can’t make the argument by saying “usually” where “usually” actual means “if we assume the ‘capita’ that would be in the denominator either doesn’t change or that the change in “capita” is the same for two different things we are comparing to each other”.
It is true that we usually don’t worry too much about the effect of capitalism vs. socialism on population growth when using GDP as a measure to estimate economic benefits of policies on populations. But that’s because we expect the number of people creating the GDP or the growth in that number is roughly the same in both cases in both cases.
But with inbound immigration, the increase in number of people can be the main effect. If you don’t like the “family” example, you need to come up an explanation or metric that accounts for the increase in population so as to specifically show an economic benefit to the pre-immigration population. You need to show that because that’s the relevant benefit. GDP growth simply is not.
Hi Lucia
Well, people like Matt Ridley, Tim Worstall and Paul Krugman are better equipped to make this argument than I.
The reason people use GDP at all, with all its imperfections and its supposedly hyper focus on economic growth, is that in general it performs as a good proxy for other types of growth–in educational status, health, longevity and much more. As GDP climbs, so does performance in these and other metrics. So it seems there is a close association between a rising GDP and benefits to people, whether there are 20 or 326 million. And it really pisses off the people on my side of the political spectrum, partly because they’re innumerate, but partly because they don’t want to have to rely on economic growth.
In general, GDP and immigration go up at the same time. Look at Europe the last couple of years–look at America up until 1924. Then we restricted immigration and started a trade war. Hit its peak about 1929. That worked out so well…
I hope this works:
https://migrationfiles.ucdavis.edu/uploads/rmn/files/2015/06/24/july-2015-fig-fb-usb-urates.png
Sigh… I forget how to paste an image into comments…
Tom,
“The reason people use GDP at all, with all its imperfections and its supposedly hyper focus on economic growth, is that in general it performs as a good proxy for other types of growth–in educational status, health, longevity and much more.”
.
More accurate is per capita GDP, which better evaluates economic impact as well as being a better proxy for health, longevity, etc. But even more important, at least for existing citizens, is the impact of low skill immigration on their personal quality of life. Yes, immigrants from poor countries are for certain much better off economically (and in personal safety, living conditions, and more) when they live in a wealthy country. Yes, those immigrants will add marginally to the total GDP. But they almost certainly reduce the per capita GDP, making the country on average poorer, and may (not always, but often) reduce the economic prospects for citizens with whom they compete for jobs… driving down wages for the least educated and least skilled. Relatively wealthy people (like me, and I imagine you) can gain from plenty of low skill workers who provide inexpensive services (I see who cuts the grass in Florida), but that doesn’t mean everyone gains…. they don’t.
Thomas,
Maybe they are or could. I have no problem with people using GDP for something. That doesn’t mean you can just use it to prove anything and everything. Once again, saying “in general” doesn’t do any good if used colloquially: which is to say, used to mean “in many cases of interest”.
If we are discussing something specific (i.e. immigration) in which a particular factor that does not matter in many cases, matters a lot, and that factor prevents GDP from being a useful measure of “benefit”, then the argument of what happens in “general” simply fails.
In all your comments, you are simply trying to avoid the issue that GDP will go up with “capita” if “GDP per capita” remains constant while “capita” increases as it does with immigration”. But in this case, the fact that GDP went up absolutely, positively does not mean anyone at all benefited. At the same time, GDP would be perfectly correlated with immigration.
You know math. What I describe is simple math.
You know you should be careful about correlation and causation. You know the true causal value can be hidden inside “GDP”– for example, it could be that GDP/capita is what matters, but that it just so happens that “capita” generally rises (or falls) in ways uncorrelated with improving economic situations for individual people. In which case to those who merely see GDP is “correlated” with improved other outcomes and either don’t (or refuse to) dig deeper conclude that rising GDP is “the” measure when it is not.
So: stop with this “generally” argument that fails to address the obvious fact that immigration affects the “capita” bit in the denominator of “per capita”. Because we’ll just go in circles otherwise.
I recognize it might be challenging to find a useful metric in this circumstance. It may be none exist. It may be that other people (Mat Ridley etc.) can explain it better. But none of those situations can transform GDP into a useful measure of benefit to actual people in this circumstance.
Consequently, I cannot agree to your claim that it’s been shown that immigration has “economic benefits because the “evidence” that GDP grows does not represent evidence to support this claim. If that leaves us with no evidence either way: well, those are the breaks. Sometimes, we don’t have good evidence for either claim. We don’t then just decree some non-evidence is evidence.
I’m sorry, but I can’t take the claim that restricting immigration is the only, or main cause of the massive economic disruption after WWI and the treaty of Versailles and all the trade restrictions and so on. Heck, it’s not even clear restricting immigration was “a” cause as other much more obvious causes existed and the effect of lack of immigration is swamped!
FWIW: I’m pretty sure you know trade restrictions (which occurred) and trade wars (which occurred) aren’t the same thing as immigration restrictions. Both trade restrictions and immigration often occur during a particular era — but one can certainly occur with out the other, and they do. Pointing to the economic effect of trade restrictions and attributing those effects to immigration restrictions is not an especially convincing argument for demonstrating the economic effects of immigration restrictions.
SteveF
Which I think matches my point about Tom’s “general” argument. To make the case that immigration benefits the existing residents of a country economically, he needs either to show GDP per capital computed using at least one following definitions increases:
(Definition 1) Simple GDP: GDP (of all residents) / total number of residents.
(Definition 2) Conditional GDP: GDP (of pre-immigration residents) / (number of pre-immigration residents)
The second is the better measure of economic benefits to people who are already here, but likely is not easy to find. Still: it’s the measure that matters to those trying to decide whether immigration benefits us.
The first is probably easier to find, but my guess is that GDP per capita likely decreases when immigrants are low skill. That happens because their contribution to GDP is less, on average, than that of the existing population.
Almost everyone supports allowing high skill people to immigrate.
As most the argument about immigration relates to whether we should open borders to low skill immigrants, I suspect the GDP per capita using definition based argument will tend to make it look like the hurt the economy.
But I could be wrong. If Tom brings in data to show GDP per capita increase as a result of immigration itself (and which doesn’t basically take credit for increases that would happen absent immigration) I’ll take that somewhat seriously. But heck, even if the GDP/capita number takes credit for the natural growth in GDP w/o immigration, I’ll still take it more seriously than GDP itself which will “grow” even if the current inhabitant contributes $100 a year to GDP and the new immigrant then contributes $10, creating the exciting new result of $110, which is a 10% “growth” in one year.
Hiya Lucia and SteveF
Well, that’s why they write long books about this stuff. Because life doesn’t occur in a vacuum and it is difficult to separate distinct phenomena from all the other stuff happening at the same time.
I will never be able to prove that immigration is (as I do believe) good not only good for GDP, but per capita GDP with about a five-year lag. Because other stuff, sometimes headline grabbing stuff, is always happening at the same time.
But you will find the same difficulties arguing that immigration is harmful, (although for low wage native born workers it is almost certainly true).
That’s why they invented blogs, I guess.
Thomas,
And articles on this issue do not uniformly say immigration benefits the economy. They say the situation is complicated. So: no. I’m not going to take you up on your invitation to agree that it benefits the economy when there isn’t even agreement on this point in books these people write.
I haven’t argued that.
You asked us to all agree that it has been proven beneficial. I’m telling you that I am not going to agree that it has been proven beneficial because it hasn’t been.
I’m fine with we don’t know whether it is beneficial or harmful. I’m just not going to “agree” that it has been shown one or the other.
Thomas William Fuller (Comment #168967): “It’s really difficult to discuss economic issues in terms of a family unit / tribe that is insulated from the outside world.”
Lucia’s analogy is perfectly valid to support the point she made about the distinction between total GDP and per capita GDP.
.
Thomas William Fuller (Comment #168971): “… in general it [GDP] performs as a good proxy for other types of growth–in educational status, health, longevity and much more. As GDP climbs, so does performance in these and other metrics.”
Thomas, it is very important that you understand why your statement is totally wrong.
As SteveF pointed out, it is per capita GDP that so correlates. Our present immigration regime reduces per capita GDP. As lucia points out, it is likely that to at least some extent increased per capita GDP is a result of improvements in other metrics, rather than the cause. Actually, I think they cause each other, in a virtuous cycle. That virtuous cycle is not guaranteed. Uncontrolled immigration places it at risk and imperils the well being of all in the U.S.
.
Fuller: “look at America up until 1924. Then we restricted immigration and started a trade war. Hit its peak about 1929. That worked out so well”.
I have never seen any economist suggest that immigration restrictions contributed to the depression. After WW2, we had a quarter century of the best economic times ever, especially for middle income people. Immigration was low. Then we loosened up immigration, and the middle class has been struggling.
Thanks to mark bofill for the link to an excellent piece on the economic impact of immigration. Here it is again: https://cis.org/Testimony/Fiscal-and-Economic-Impact-Immigration-United-States
It is from 2013.
The author, Steven A. Camarota, takes the time to point out why some people get different numbers.
.
Some key points:
Immigrants are 15% of workforce and increase GDP by 11%. So they reduce per capita GDP and average workforce productivity.
98% of the increased GDP goes to the immigrants. There is a $35 billion net benefit to the native born.
There is a $55 billion transfer from the native born to immigrants via taxes and government spending. This is strongly dependent on education level, well educated immigrants pay in more than they get, poorly educated immigrants get more out than they pay in, especially if they are legal [sic].
The $35 billion is a net benefit. It consists of $402 billion a year in lost wages for those in direct competition with immigrants and $437 billion in benefits in the form of increased profits, reduced prices, and increased wages for those not in competition with immigrants. I am sure these numbers are not as precise as they appear.
So for every dollar of net benefit to natives, about 12 dollars are transferred from less well off natives to better off natives. Immigration increases income inequality.
I’m out and about today so my commenting will be light. I did want to point out that net benefit doesn’t appear to factor in government budget cost. It looks like people who have some college are a net plus by this measure, but less educated folk tend to cost more than they contribute.
Edit oh never mind Mike mentioned it. Good
As I’ve pointed out before, even GDP/capita is poor measure of standard of living. What I would like to know is whether immigration raises or lowers the Purchasing Power Parity adjusted median household income. Since inflation adjusted (2000 dollar) median household income has been nearly flat since 1965, I doubt that immigration, particularly illegal immigration, has a net benefit.
https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Median%20Household%20Income.pdf
Then there’s this, which claims to show that a higher proportion of undocumented immigrants correlates to increased median income. I’d really like to see the p value for that correlation. My guess would be that it’s not significant.
http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/undocumented-immigrants-median-income
That turns out to be a by state graph, so the correlation could actually be due to undocumented immigrants being biased towards states with high median incomes rather than causing higher median income.
The p value of the slope is 0.25, i.e. not significant. The range on the slope includes zero.
Immigration is really a debate about low skilled illegal immigration, and to a lesser extent low skilled legal immigration. Obfuscating the debate with legal or high skilled immigration isn’t very interesting.
.
Which type of citizens are a drag on America’s budget? Who are the net takers? Poor unskilled, uneducated US citizens for the most part. It does not pass the smell test that poor unskilled uneducated illegal immigrants are magically a net plus for the budget and economy when the same US citizens are not, otherwise our budget would be a wonderland of surpluses. If all these poor people have “little to no negative effects … in the long term” why do we have budget deficits?
.
Education, health care, any government subsidized or assistance service. They don’t get all the benefits of a citizen but we do still have to pay for our F-22’s.
I’m really agnostic on this subject (not that you can tell from my words) but what frustrates me is all the arm waving that I’m really not being asked to make a sacrifice to allow unfettered low skilled immigration into the country for humanitarian purposes. The further point is WHO is making that sacrifice is unbalanced, it tends to be low skilled US citizens, as with free trade.
.
These low skilled citizens are making the sacrifice, being told they aren’t really making one at all, and being called xenophobic racists by the establishment as a special bonus. I mean they are RIPPING children from a crying mother’s arms! At least that’s what the people behind the gated communities are saying through their spokespeople. We’d ask them directly but they BUILT A WALL to stop that from happening.
.
If you want to make an argument that buying one less F-22 can support a lot of illegal immigrants, that is at least a real argument. “We need to do more”, and “Unfortunate people need help” are not real arguments. These are real questions:
.
How much do you want to spend on border security?
How many legal immigrants shall we accept?
How much legal review should be allowed before deportation?
Under what conditions should an illegal immigrant caught later be deported?
Under what conditions should we allow an illegal immigrant to be upgraded to a citizen if they show they are responsible citizens?
How much is a citizen willing to pay per year to support this effort?
Which other government service’s budget are you willing to reduce to increase these services?
Not meaning to distract from the discussion of immigration, but I saw this article about trying to make it easier for academics to resile from a paper’s conclusions. The article mentions that “A 2016 survey by Nature of more than 1,500 scientists found that more than 70 percent of researchers failed to successfully reproduce another researcher’s work and more than half failed to reproduce their own.”
And — not that we haven’t noticed this ourselves — a psychologist says, “People will defend their scientific claims until their death. As scientists, we should be aware that people are often wrong.â€
Well, none of this is definitive, but I hope it spurs the conversation:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/39122837/philippe-legrain-why-immigration-boosts-gdp-per-capita
https://www.americanexperiment.org/2017/08/can-increased-immigration-boost-economic-growth/
https://www.economicvoice.com/gdp-per-capita-vs-net-migration/
https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/gdp
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Spillover-Notes/Issues/2016/12/31/Impact-of-Migration-on-Income-Levels-in-Advanced-Economies-44343
It would not be difficult to find just as many links to arguments in opposition to my thesis–in fact, there are links to opposing arguments in this thread.
So I guess my argument has devolved to ‘My links are better looking than yours.’
Tom Scharf,
For me at least the order of priorities is different. I advocate humanitarian aid for moral reasons and note the happy coincidence that doing the right thing brings economic benefits (not huge and not always…)
HaroldW,
I think that’s mostly in the softer sciences like psychology. I seriously doubt that the percentage of failure to reproduce is anywhere near that high in Physics or Chemistry.
Tom,
I don’t have time to look at all of the links, but the two I did look at (economicvoice and BBC links), are, quite frankly nonsense (economic voice) and beside the point (BBC).
.
First economicvoice: The correlation between rates of immigration and per capita GDP do not tell us anything about the net impact of immigration on per capita GDP. only that 1) poor people are more likely to desire migration to a richer country,and 2) the richer a country is, the more they can afford to accept poor immigrants. If you extend the range of the graph to very poor countries, you would find (of course) that lots of people are desperate to leave those countries, and do if they can. This is so lacking in insight that I am shocked anyone would bother to make such a graph. They are reaching for the lowest level of stupid that is possible.
.
The BBC: The argument is slightly more elegant, but begs the real issue. Yes, poor immigrants may improve the lifestyle (and wealth) of wealthy people who pay less for services…. freeing time for them to be more productive overall. It is at least plausible, but at best extremely dubious, that the freeing of time for productive workers increases per capita GDP slightly by increasing the productivity of more productive workers. But that does not address the impact on distribution of wealth, which is what we have been talking about in this thread, and which is the fundamental disagreement on immigration. I have no doubt that I personally benefit from lower wages for low skill work, but I also do not doubt low skill citizens suffer from the added competition of poor immigrants (both legal and illegal). Lottery allocation of permanent residency visas, and subsequent essentially unlimited sponsorship of family members for permanent residency, impacts those citizens least able to absorb the impact. Current immigration policy seems to value the well being of poor people in other countries over the well being of lower economic class citizens.
Mr. Fuller,
I get that your advocating humanitarian treatment, can you tell us where you would draw the lines and how your position is different than open borders?
Everyone gets through who doesn’t have a previous violent offense? This is amazingly close to open borders.
Thomas William Fuller (Comment #168987): “My links are better looking than yours”.
.
The first link (BBC) seems to be a hand waving argument that low skill immigration can benefit the well off. The link that Mark provided shows the same thing, using economic models. But most of the benefit to the well off natives is a transfer from the less well off natives.
.
The second link (American Experiment) agrees with everyone here, except Fuller.
.
The third link (Economic Voice) shows that people tend to migrate from low income countries to high income countries, not the other way round. Duh.
.
The fourth link (IMF) is an abstract full of academic doublespeak. I have no idea what it says.
Tom
Precisely. And that’s why we need not all be forced to endorse your thesis as true which may be true and may be untrue.
Recall: this all started in response to this
You requested that we acknowledge this “fact”, and the way the request is worded makes it seem you are requesting that we acknowledge the notion that immigration benefits residents or something like that as a “true fact”.
Of course we can acknowledge that studies have been done and published and make all sorts of claims.
But the idea that it has been shown that immigration is a net economic benefit to non-immigrants is either (a) entirely untrue or (b) looking at a benefit that is so small as to not matter. (See Above where 98% of GDP growth due to immigrants goes the immigrants themselves. The 2% going to the non-immigrants would be a benefit– but it is sufficiently small to not matter given the actual arguments about immigration which are about the low skill workers who tend to contribute less to GDP while receiving more government assistance.
The economic argument is a very important one. That includes discussion of whether immigration as currently constituted has a net economic benefit at all, and whether changes in immigration law would result in future immigration being a net economic benefit or not. In addition to discussing the overall economic benefit or cost, we can discuss who benefits and who loses.
Since we actually don’t know the answers to the above, it would entirely irrational to all “agree” to something like the idea that immigration (of any and all types) has been shown to be a net economic benefit (under any and all circumstances.)
Certainly, it can be a net economic benefit. But it can be a cost. It all depends on how it does, who immigrates, what obligations and benefits immigrants get when they arrive and so on.
Hi Lucia
I could paste in more links, I suppose. There are numerous studies (really, really numerous) that reach the conclusion that immigration benefits the economy.
Would more links be useful?
About 37,000,000 results (0.43 seconds)
Ads
Debunking Immigration Myths | George W. Bush Institute‎
Adwww.bushcenter.org/immigration‎
America is strengthened by the contributions made by immigrants. Donate Online. Become A Member. Highlights: Provides Unique Learning Opportunities, Team Of Talented Individuals.
Content & ResourcesOur WorkStay ConnectedAbout
The Truth on Immigration | Get the facts | aijustice.org‎
Adwww.aijustice.org/‎
The truth can save lives. Non-Profit Firm. Make A Donation. Locations: Miami, Washington D.C..
Who We Are20th AnniversaryDonate
Search Results
Ten Ways Immigrants Help Build and Strengthen Our Economy …
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/…/ten-ways-immigrants-help-build-and-strengt…
Jul 12, 2012 – How do immigrants strengthen the U.S. economy? Below is our … Immigrant-owned businesses create jobs for American workers. According to …
IMMIGRATION: The Economic Benefits of Immigration | Center for …
https://clas.berkeley.edu/research/immigration-economic-benefits-immigration
… Peri of UC Davis outlines the economic benefits of immigration for the United States. … immigration laws to reflect this logic, as the proposed reform would do, …
You visited this page on 7/2/18.
How Immigration Helps U.S. Workers and the Economy – AAF
https://www.americanactionforum.org/…/immigration-helps-u-s-workers-economy/
Mar 20, 2017 – Therefore, adding foreign workers to the economy does not crowd-out … Other studies have confirmed the income benefits of immigration.
Immigration and the Economy: Pros, Cons, Impact – The Balance
https://www.thebalance.com › Investing › US Economy › Hot Topics
May 16, 2018 – Immigration is a net contributor to the economy. It increases the supply of workers, lowering wages. But it also lowers prices, benefiting …
3 Reasons Why Immigrants Are Key To Economic Growth – Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/…/3-reasons-why-immigrants-key-to-economic-growth/
Oct 2, 2016 – Immigrants are essential to economic growth in America. … an idea of how large the benefit of immigrant entrepreneurship likely is in America, …
How immigrants are enriching our economy and society | UnidosUS
https://www.unidosus.org/issues/immigration/resources/facts
Without the contributions of immigrants going into the system, it is estimated that full benefits would not be able to be paid out beyond the year 2037. The Truth …
Benefits of Immigration Outweigh the Costs | Bush Center
https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/…/benefits-of-immigration-outweigh-costs.html
When immigrants enter the labor force, they increase the productive capacity of the economy and raise GDP. Their incomes rise, but so do those of natives.
Economic Statistics Suggest Immigration Is a Boost to the U.S. …
https://www.usnews.com/…/economic-statistics-suggest-immigration-is-a-boost-to-the-…
Jul 10, 2017 – Most studies suggest the overall benefits of immigration largely … says the U.S. could do a better job of making the immigration process more …
Immigrants’ impact on the U.S. economy in 7 charts – CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com › MoneyWatch › Trending
Feb 10, 2017 – In an era of partisan rhetoric, the focus on immigrants in America tends to … refugees and undocumented immigrants, but the data does not …
How Immigration Benefits Americans And Is Key To US Leadership In …
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/how-immigration-benefits-americans-and-is-key-t…
Sep 12, 2017 – Finally, as of last week DACA faces an uncertain future; as do a series of … The extent of economic contributions by immigrants may be …
I suppose it would have looked better if I had pasted in from Google Scholar…
About 1,370,000 results (0.08 sec)
Any time
Since 2018
Since 2017
Since 2014
Custom range…
Sort by relevance
Sort by date
[PDF] aeaweb.org
The economic benefits from immigration
GJ Borjas – Journal of economic perspectives, 1995 – aeaweb.org
Natives benefit from immigration mainly because of production complementarities between
immigrant workers and other factors of production, and these benefits are larger when
immigrants are sufficiently ‘different’from the stock of native productive inputs. The available …
Cited by 1300 Related articles All 17 versions
[PDF] usc.edu
[PDF] Restriction or Legalization?: Measuring The Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform
PB Dixon, MT Rimmer – 2009 – research.create.usc.edu
This study explains the implications for the US economy of different policies toward illegal
labor, ranging from increased enforcement at the border and in the workplace to a temporary
worker program. A major finding of the study is that a program of tighter border enforcement …
Cited by 38 Related articles All 9 versions
[PDF] researchgate.net
Public opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivations
J Citrin, DP Green, C Muste… – The Journal of Politics, 1997 – journals.uchicago.edu
… Public Opinion Toward Immigration Reform: Economic Motivations 863 to more demands for
public services.”7 Prior research has treated these beliefs about the tangible costs and benefits
of immigration as indicators of economic interest (Espenshade and Calhoun 1993) …
Cited by 947 Related articles All 8 versions
[BOOK] Current and Future Effects of Mexican Immigration in California. Executive Summary. R-3365/1-CR.
KF McCarthy, RB Valdez – 1985 – ERIC
… study’s major conclusion is that widespread concerns about Mexican immigration are generally
unfounded: Mexican immigrants are not homogeneous, and they differ in their characteristics
and their effects on the state. Overall, the immigrants provide economic benefits to the …
Cited by 201 Related articles All 3 versions
[PDF] academia.edu
Economic costs, economic benefits, and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration
VM Esses, PM Brochu… – Analyses of Social Issues …, 2012 – Wiley Online Library
Perceptions of economic costs and benefits play an important role in determining attitudes
toward immigrants and immigration. The Unified Instrumental Model of Group Conflict, and
the correlational and experimental research supporting it, indicate that when immigrants are …
Cited by 30 Related articles All 7 versions
[CITATION] Raising the floor for American workers: The economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform
RAH Ojeda – 2010 – Center for American Progress
Cited by 39 Related articles
[CITATION] The economic benefits of immigration
G Peri – Berkeley Review of Latin American Studies, 2013
Cited by 15 Related articles
[PDF] knowyourvisa.com
The economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform
R Hinojosa-Ojeda – Cato J., 2012 – HeinOnline
The US government has attempted for more than two decades to put a stop to unauthorized
immigration from and through Mexico by implementing” enforcement-only” measures along
the US-Mexico border and at work sites across the country. These measures have failed to …
Cited by 31 Related articles All 13 versions
[CITATION] The Economic Benefits from Immigration
GJ Borjas – INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY OF …, 2002 – EDWARD ELGAR PUBLISHING LTD
Cited by 10 Related articles
[PDF] luys.am
[PDF] BRAIN CIRCULATION. How high-skill immigration makes everyone better off
AL Saxenian – Brookings Review, 2002 – luys.am
… The view from sending countries, by contrast, has been that the emigration of highly skilled
personnel to the United States represents a big economic loss, a “brain drain.” … But thanks to
brain circulation, high-skilled immigration increasingly benefits both sides …
Cited by 337 Related articles All 5 versions
Tom
No one would object to you advocating humanitarian aid for moral reasons. However, for some reason, you don’t seem to have tried that tack.
Instead, you’ve tried to claim open immigration results in the “happy coincidence” of providing an economic benefit to people already present. However, you haven’t shown this “happy benefit” actually occurs, and it’s not at all clear that it does occur. As those who looked at your links show: even they don’t show what you claim.
If you try the tack that fully open immigration is the moral choice, I’m sure you’ll find people who disagree with you and some of their arguments may have quite a bit of force. In the end, some of the moral argument will come down to value judgements. You are likely to discover different people have different values. So its quite likely everyone is going to disagree about what is the most “moral” policy vis. a vis. immigration.
I’d just fork on the question. Position if yes, what ever yes exactly means, position if no.
Tom, what change would you like to see to our current immigration system? I have come to think it’s not as obviously broken as media soundbites would have us believe.
I think we should return to the previous policy of allowing 1 million immigrants a year, with an emphasis on family reunification, and accepting refugees as we did with the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Hmong.
I also believe H1B visas should be expanded, students should have an opportunity to find work and have a path to citizenship and that DACA children should have a fast track to citizenship.
All dependent on fairly (no felonies) clean criminal records, of course.
Tom
I think you really need to look at your links to see if they make the case you claim. Some at least support your claim, but others are either irrelevant or are so borderline as to basically support what everyone here is telling you.
The first one you link is Borgas. I get that the title says “benefit”, and the first sentence of the abstract, which you quoted sounded promising to your thesis. But the full abstract says
http://www.nber.org/papers/w4955
That is basically such a small benefit, that tweaks one way or the other could flip it to a cost, and the paper suggest tweaking immigration policy to push the cost/benefit fully to the benefit side. That’s pretty much what people here are telling you. The “benefit” is either so small it can swing — and one of the factors that would prevent it from swining to a “cost” is controlling borders.
The abstract of second one does claim immigration is a net economic benefit. I haven’t read the paper, but at least that suggests it might support your claim if I read. Or it might end up mixed.
The third one you link says nothing about economic impact and merely tells us that most people’s opinion about immigration is not affected by their views on economic impact.
https://experts.illinois.edu/en/publications/public-opinion-toward-immigration-reform-the-role-of-economic-mot
This one:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2010/01/07/7187/raising-the-floor-for-american-workers/
Doesn’t even pretend to find the net economic effect of immigration. It compares three possible approaches that the US could have taken in 2010. Of the three possible pathways the “best” economic outcome was for this one:
So, a method that restricted immigration to labor market demand happened to do “best”.
They end up advocating
Obviously, you can bombard us with links. But it might help save us all time if you check to see whether they actually support some broad claim that immigration of any and all sorts results in economic benefits under any and all circumstances.
That seemed to be the claim you want us to accept as a true fact.
But instead, your links seem to support what everyone else is telling you they believe. As far as I can tell, everyone else here accepts that some controlled immigration can result in economic benefits to people who are here and may. But that it is also possible for uncontrolled immigration to result in economic costs, that it some times has done so for some countries.
I think most also believe that in our present circumstances, if we want to ensure immigration is a net economic benefit and not a cost, we require some degree of control of immigration to ensure the immigration remains a benefit. The links you provided support the view I and others seem to be holding.
I didn’t look at all of them– just a the first few. But those I looked at do not collectively support the view that immigration of any and all sorts (as possible under open borders) results in a net benefit under all circumstances.
Thomas,
I don’t think our emphasis should be on “family reunification” unless that’s limited to a legal resident or citizen bringing over one legal spouse and their dependent children. Those would be kids less than 18 years old, or who are dependent due to disabilities.
It’s fair to accept refugees who were our allies in wars with countries we recently bombed the crap out of. So, if that’s the standard, sure.
H1B status is for skills. I’m for more immigration for skilled workers.
Do you mean years living hear under a student visa should count toward the number required to qualify for citizenship? I’d be fine with that.
Students are allowed to work as RA’s and TA’s or take work that amounts to “training”. But student visas are supposed to be for people who are studying full time. I don’t see a good reason for expanding the types of work they can do.
https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/students-and-exchange-visitors/students-and-employment
I think DACA kids who can show they’ve been here the requisite number of years should be allowed to naturalize immediately. They should be given about 3 months to decide to do so. If they chose not to do so, they should then have to apply for green cards or go home and their right to naturalize should expire.
If they weren’t here long enough to qualify for naturalization, we should grant them a green card and let them accumulate time. When they hit the right amount of time, they should have 3 months to naturalize. If they don’t, they should go home and so on.
Political ideology on culture war subjects taints economic impacts studies. Here’s an interesting experiment. Examine what the usual suspects say about high school dropouts effect on the economy.
.
NPR: “dropouts costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue, health care, welfare and incarceration costs … 40 million Americans who never graduated from high school. That is an enormous cost for them as individuals, for the rest of society.”
.
NYT: “each new graduate confers a net benefit to taxpayers of about $127,000 over the graduate’s lifetime”
.
CBS: “Dropouts cost taxpayers more than $8 billion annually in public assistance programs … $300 billion in lost earnings every year … 60 percent of federal inmates are high school drop outs”
.
WSJ: “Cutting the number of dropouts in half would generate $45 billion annually in new tax revenue”
.
Dropping out of high school seems to be detrimental when the narrative is different. Illegal immigrant have lower levels of education:
“Among adults age 25–64, 29% of undocumented immigrants have less than a 9th grade education compared with only 2% among U.S. born adults in this age cohort. … 47% have not completed high school (compared with 8% of U.S. born adults in the same age range)”
.
Connect the dots and also add in poor language skills. Why aren’t the same nuanced arguments made for US dropouts helping the economy that are made for illegal dropouts? Because preferred narrative, or motivated reasoning.
.
The slight of hand here is that many studies will conclude that high school dropouts from Mexico are about the same as high school dropouts in the US economically, and not note that they are disproportionately uneducated. They will also say the impact is small, only 1% to 5% of the negative impacts, because they comprise a small section of the population.
I’ve heard nothing that causes me any severe anguish. Barring some really good reason not to, I’d prefer for the number of H1B immigrants to be greater than the number of unskilled / uneducated immigrants. A path to citizenship for DACA would be great; lets stop keeping those people around in limbo for propaganda purposes.
.
I would like a solution to the horrific abuses suffered by immigrants coming in through Mexico. Estimates vary regarding how many women and girls are raped along the way, or pay in sex to be smuggled in.
The simplest solution I see is better border security. If it’s harder to smuggle people in, fewer people will try. I think there are other benefits to better border security. I understand that border security costs, and maybe that’s something to talk about.
So – increased border security discourages nothing if people are released into the U.S. to await a hearing and never show up. What I mean by increased border security really amounts to changes that substantially reduce the effective number of illegals who can cross into and remain in the U.S.
mark bofill,
Maybe, maybe not. If people want to do something but it’s illegal, you create a business opportunity for organized crime. See, for example, Prohibition and the War on Drugs. Prohibition gave us organized crime on a large scale in the US. The War on Drugs has been an abject failure. As long as human beings are involved in law enforcement and aren’t paid all that much, there’s an opportunity for corruption.
DeWitt,
.
Yup, I was aware. I was hoping Tom would say that to me so I could ask him what he suggested instead.
[Edit: I wasn’t ‘hoping’. More than half expecting. If Tom thought this was fine, well, OK.]
Happy 4th everybody!
“Because I love my country I want her to be just.” T. Fuller, 1968, Berkeley protest.
I think we could come to an agreement on immigration. I think it’s irrigation that will prove to be the bigger problem.
Two rays of sunshine, or green shoots or hope or whatever.
July 3, 2018
Arizona Appellate Court Decides Hockey Stick Emails Must Be Released Despite the University’s Appeal.
–
But also Alexander Downer whom I mentioned a while ago.
Some people are just born patsies for life’s little situations.
AD is a prime example. Born with a plum in his mouth in South Australia, one time leader of the Tony Abbott Liberal Party in opposition. Part of a MI6 sponsored firm in London. Donator of 20+ million of Australian money to the Clinton foundation ad Australian ambassador to England.
If anyone can take gold and turn it into dirt, Alexander can.
He gets in touch with Papadopoulos whom he knows has been primed with a Russian story by an FBI source, gives it authenticity by virtue of his position and then ducks for cover.
Now if he was Michael Cohen he might get away with it, As it is I would advise all those associated with him to despair.
Bigtime.
mark bofill (Comment #169003): “increased border security discourages nothing if people are released into the U.S. to await a hearing and never show up. What I mean by increased border security really amounts to changes that substantially reduce the effective number of illegals who can cross into and remain in the U.S.”
Yep. Make it harder to get across the border in the first place. Make it more likely to get caught if they do get across. Make it harder to find employment and/or get government benefits if they do make it. Make sure that illegal entrants get deported. Have significant penalties (prison terms) for repeat offenders; severe penalties for coyotes and people who traffic children in an attempt to get lenient treatment.
Increase the risk enough and decrease the rewards enough and the number sneaking across the border will go way down.
Mike,
I think a perception of futility in trying to cross the border illegally could help reduce the numbers that try. I believe that reducing the numbers that try would reduce the number of victims along the way.
I could be wrong, I could always be wrong.
I do understand that there have been cases where law enforcement efforts have been inadequate to extinguish criminal enterprise in areas where there is real demand, as DeWitt points out. I’ve seen articles on exactly this issue that claim my solution wouldn’t work at all. [These are what I more than half expected Tom to reference. I was trying to broach the subject I guess one could say.]
In which case, I really am open to other suggestions. Short of letting everybody in who wants to come in to decriminalize the operation, I [DON’T] see how we can get around this problem in any event.
I believe the problems with open borders is more cultural than economic. In order for a society to work, there must be a dominant culture composed of substantial shared values. Governments and legal systems can’t work unless, a good amount of the time, people voluntarily comply with the law and accept its legitimacy. People can always dream up legalistic reasons to avoid complying with statutes. (For instance, someone can argue that truancy laws violate the slavery prohibition in the 13th Amendment.)
…..
If for instance, the US was 15% Muslim, 15% Hindu Indian and 15% Chinese, it would ungovernable. Restrictions on immigration are necessary to protect the dominant Anglo Saxon culture (that is the glue that holds the legal system together) from quickly being overwhelmed by other cultures.
…..
Two things are different today from what was present 100 years ago. First, with much improved communications, it is much easier for the foreign born to maintain their ties to their country and culture of birth. Second, it is now politically and culturally possible for the foreign born to explicitly reject American culture and tell Americans that it is their duty to adjust to the cultures of the foreign born. Because of these two changes, assimilation is much less likely today than it was 100 years ago.
…..
I will add that I see no problem with the dominant culture falling or substantially changing if that is the choice of Americans born here. In fact cultural changes are to be expected. However, I have a real problem with the idea that all cultures are equal and that it is the duty of the Americans born here to adjust to those coming here rather than the other way around. For instance, I would require all immigrants to explicitly accept Freedom of Speech (no assassinations for Mohammed cartons) and that they accept that no religion can be legally dominant. If they can’t accept basic principles such as these, they should stay where they are.
JD
M Bofill: “I think a perception of futility in trying to cross the border illegally could help reduce the numbers that try.”
The relatively recent construction of the El Paso border wall supports your position. See https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/we-already-have-a-border-wall-and-it-works/
JD
JD,
I agree with your observations about culture and the importance of shared values. I’ve been pondering this and find it difficult to identify exactly where I think the lines go between beneficial cultural.. variability I guess? and malignant differences. It seems likely to me that Americans could have a broad range of different views on this as well. At least though I think that respect for the sovereignty of our political institutions and our Constitution, as well as a desire to actually be an American citizen [ought to be required]. I think we do have a civics test and an oath of allegiance now as part of the naturalization process.
Anyway, I think that all of this is a good justification for limiting the number of immigrants per year; that the U.S. assimilate them and not the other way around.
BTW thanks for the link to the El Paso border wall.
.
[Edit: Happy Independence Day!]
mark bofill (Comment #169009): “I think a perception of futility in trying to cross the border illegally could help reduce the numbers that try. I believe that reducing the numbers that try would reduce the number of victims along the way.”
Both statements are true. Migrants endure a lot just to get to the border; they would not do that if they expect to fail. Another effect of reducing migrant traffic would be to cut off a revenue source for the cartels that are such a problem in Mexico.
.
mark bofill: “I do understand that there have been cases where law enforcement efforts have been inadequate to extinguish criminal enterprise in areas where there is real demand”
But we don’t give up on law enforcement. If we did, the result would be catastrophic. In most cases, the criminal activity is suppressed, often greatly suppressed. Elimination is a false goal.
Enforcing the border is, in many ways, quite easy. Illegal entry is a crime that by necessity takes place out in the open in a specific location. The evidence can not be hidden by the perpetrators since the perpetrators are the evidence. JD Ohio has posted a link to the effectiveness of the wall in El Paso. The wall in San Diego has also been very effective, apparently to the great benefit of Tijuana (I have lost the link).
Enforcing the border is a matter of detection and response. A wall can be an important part of that by allowing more time between the two.
From what I have read, migrant traffic across the border is extremely well controlled on the Mexican side. Not by the government, but by the cartels. We can’t use their tactics, but we have far more resources to deploy. Border control is a solvable problem.
Mike,
Yes, I was thinking this too. In the case of Prohibition, we could throw in the towel and say forget it- making this illegal was a bad idea. One could argue that this is the trend also regarding marijuana. But in my view, we have no such option with respect to border security.
Thomas Fuller,
Irrigation and justice. Well, we’re bound to have our differences. I expect the reasons you say you’re a socialist and the reasons I say I’m not aren’t inconsequential. That’s fine. I’m generally pleased to be able to talk from time to time with people who have substantial differences in viewpoint with me. There are times that my ‘bubble’ wrapping makes it hard for me to understand what assumptions on the left are different from mine (case in point, maybe abolish ice != open borders). Thanks for talking.
At least we have Europe as a guide to show us how to properly assimilate migrants. Or not, ha ha. Just imagination the apoplectic reaction if Trump came up with this idea:
.
No ghettos in 2030: Denmark’s controversial plan to get rid of immigrant neighborhoods
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/3/17525960/denmark-children-immigrant-muslim-danish-ghetto
.
“Once children turn 1, they will be required to attend daycare centers for at least 25 hours a week, where they will be taught about the Danish culture and language, including Christian holidays such as Christmas and Easter. If parents refuse to send their children, they could lose their welfare benefits.”
.
Forced cultural indoctrination, or a euphemism for such. One of the reasons many European nations are so trusting in social matters is that they are very homogeneous. As Megan McArdle says: You Can’t Have Denmark Without Danes.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-23/you-can-t-have-denmark-without-danes
In the Vox article linked by Tom, a critic says: “They want us to get more assimilated or get out. I don’t know when they will be satisfied with us.â€
In other words, if you want to live in Denmark, you will have to become Danish. What a radical idea! Good for the Danes. Maybe there is hope.
Interesting thoughts about the threats to “Anglo-Saxon culture”. Perhaps “Christian Indians” would be OK. This goes back a long way in history.
The Flight 93 MAGA psychosis is upon us and we deserve having it in the cockpit.
RB: “In the case of California [resistance] is now impossible. The Anglo-Saxon foot is already on its borders. Already the advance guard of the irresistible army of Anglo-Saxon emigration has begun to pour down upon it, armed with the plough and the rifle, and marking its trail with schools and colleges, courts and representative halls, mills and meeting-houses. A population will soon be in actual occupation of California, over which it will be idle for Mexico to dream of dominion.”
….
I doubt that you intended it this way, but your quote supports my position. Cultures that don’t, or can’t, defend themselves get overwhelmed.
JD
JD,
Yes, populations can be overwhelmed. The Breton’s were overwhelmed and now speak French not Breton. The Irish speak English (the transition evidently occurred during the potato famine.)
Evidently, “Cheddar Man” who was Iron Age English was from a population overwhelmed by people who came from the east– Europe. Pretty much none on the “Cheddar Man” population people survived.
Populations can, and have been, overwhelmed.
Recognizing populations can be overwhelmed isn’t the same as imagining an Edenic past. For all I know, the “Cheddar Man” population was vicious. Brittany doesn’t seem horribly harmed by being “frenchified” and so on.
But they were changed.
Lucia: “Recognizing populations can be overwhelmed isn’t the same as imagining an Edenic past.”
There is very little in the 1840s or 1860s that I would characterize as Edenic. It was a brutish period characterized by wars, filth, starvation and disease. That was RB’s erroneous take on my position.
I am simply saying that notwithstanding the brutish nature of Western Europe and the Anglo Saxon culture in the past, that if we look at how countries have evolved, the least worst countries tend to be Western European or Anglo Saxon. I would challenge RB or others to name one country, not of a Western European background that is reasonably prosperous, tolerant and democratic. I am also saying that Americans should explicitly try to preserve their Western European/Anglo Saxon culture, much in the same way that the French in Quebec try to preserve their culture.
I would additionally say that those foreigners who wish to come here and mostly adhere to traditional American values are welcome and that I value their contributions.
I would also add that I consider Manifest Destiny to be a load of garbage.
JD
An example of the brutish nature of the 1860s is the Irish experience in New York.
…..
“In the 1860s, almost 300,000 people lived within one square mile. Rear structures were appended and floors were added, stacked precariously one on top of another. Rooms were divided and subdivided. It was not uncommon for five families – about 20 people – to share one room that measured 12ft by 12ft and had two beds and no table or chairs. There was no ventilation or sanitation inside, and human and animal waste piled up in the courtyards outside. Swine roamed freely, and dead horses posed a major problem on the streets. The ordure and stench caused not only physical disease but what Jacob Riis, the pioneering photojournalist who recorded the slums of the city in the late 19th century, described as a “deadly moral contagionâ€. See https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/scary-tales-of-new-york-life-in-the-irish-slums-1.1335816
JD
JD Ohio,
Abrams explained that, “Despite O’Sullivan’s own Irish ancestry and the nation’s complex demographics, he imagined American forces as united in a lineage beginning in Anglo-Saxon England, which ceased to exist during the Norman Conquest in 1066,
Well… yes…. historian’s call one period “Anglo-Saxon” and later periods something else. So “Anglo-Saxon” England didn’t exist after the Normal Conquest. But …. still… you don’t see England speaking some version of French.
The fact is: Angles and Saxons were from pretty much Denmark -Norway-Sweden and environs. The Normans originated in Denmark-Norway-Sweden environs ( and were what might be considered “cousins” to the descendants of the Angles-Saxons who went to what is now England.) Tey arrived and voila! Historians call the period before 1066 “Anglo-Saxon England” and after, something else! This hardly means England isn’t of “Anglo-Saxon lineage“. And, as I pointed out, notably, the Normans didn’t convert the locals to speaking French.
An interesting feature of Normans is they tended to adopt local culture. The Vikings got to Normady and a couple of generations down were speaking a Romance-Frankish dialect. They got to England and switched to English. In the “Pale” region of Ireland, they spoke Irish. They got to Russia (which takes it’s name from “Rus” which meant people who row). Guess what? The local language in Russia did not become a germanic language. They took over Sicily. Do the sicilians speak some scandinavian dialect? No. What about the parts of greece they concquered? They don’t speak a germanic language either.
The fact is, the Norman’s taking over Anglo-Saxon England didn’t mean the previous traditions were wiped out nor that the “lineage” is gone. Heck, in the case of England, if you dressed them the same, I bet no one could have guessed who was a Norman and who was “Anglo-Saxon”. They were practically 2nd cousins by DNA!
Me too. It was a horrible idea.
JD Ohio (Comment #169021): “if we look at how countries have evolved, the least worst countries tend to be Western European or Anglo Saxon. I would challenge RB or others to name one country, not of a Western European background that is reasonably prosperous, tolerant and democratic.”
South Korea. Japan would qualify on prosperity and democracy, but tolerance is arguable. If you want a country that has achieved those things without Western European influence, I am stuck.
.
JD Ohio: “I am also saying that Americans should explicitly try to preserve their Western European/Anglo Saxon culture,”
Absolutely. Our culture is what has made us a place that people want to immigrate to.
.
JD Ohio: “much in the same way that the French in Quebec try to preserve their culture.”
I don’t think that is a good example. That is a combination of superficiality (sign laws) and separatism/nativism that is not so attractive. Much of the distinct Quebecois culture was abandoned around about the 60’s (the Quiet Revolution), to the great benefit of the Quebecois.
Perhaps the Native Indians should have put us through cultural training when they had the chance. Realistically if I moved to a completely different culture I would welcome the option to have the local community teach me about their culture so I don’t do dumb things like eat with my left hand in Malaysia or don’t spend enough time respectively studying a person’s business card in Japan. Fortunately I had “arrogant American” stamped on me like a blinking billboard so I was forgiven I assume. Making this training mandatory on condition of losing benefits is a bit aggressive.
.
Local communities should have the option to take whatever steps they feel is necessary to maintain their culture. If you don’t like it, don’t go there. I truly wish I could have done most of my international traveling over 50 years ago when the world’s cities all had distinct cultures. Now so many major international cities look similar, Generic City, Inc. Starbucks, McD, International Mall with all the same stores, etc. Most US cities are indistinguishable from each other, not a win. The “Filthy French” (as ISIS calls them, ha ha) guard their Frenchness with a passion which is probably a good thing. When I see helicopter shots during the Tour de France I always wonder “Where are all the strip malls and 7/11’s?”.
Tom Scharf
I don’t know about that. The ambiguity of the terms “local”, “community”, “felt necessary” and “culture” could lead to busybodies doing any number of ridiculous things at a level that is local in some sense.
It appears your “local community” may have “felt” they their “culture” involved preventing someone from putting too many “lawn ornaments” in the front yards. (These happened to be flags.)
I do think “locals” should have quite a bit of say in what happens in the public square. But I also think no matter what small local community might “feels” there are certain rights that should be preserved. Many of these are upheld in our Bill of Rights, and some in the Constitution.
At the same time, I do think those within national boundaries have a right to control immigration and I think maintaining some degree of support for the historic prevailing political and social positions can form part of the reason for limiting immigration. Having said that, I also recognize that often people go overboard worrying that “their culture” will be overwhelmed.
I don’t think American culture and values are at risk of being overwhelmed at prevailing rates of immigration. But I recognize they could be if rates were much higher. I’m pretty sure they would be if rates jumped by a factor of 10.
Countries — almost especially Democracies– so need some degree of cohesion with most people largely accepting outcomes of elections and agreeing that the current way of resolving disputes is acceptable. At the same time, disagreement must be allowed and people should be allowed to openly disagree.
That’s a rather American view– but if it is replaced, then, of course, American culture will no longer be what it has been. I think we ought to protect that, and I think that’s a valid reason to limit immigration to some degree.
It seems that “abolish ICE” is becoming mainstream among Democrats. The claim is that ICE uses inhumane tactics in dealing with lawbreakers. But, to the best of my limited knowledge, the methods used by ICE are not so different from those used by other law enforcement agencies; neither are the consequences (except for deportation vs. prison).
.
It appears that Trump is gaining ground with Hispanics. Maybe it is because they understand the above. Blacks are the demographic that really understands the consequences of law breaking. I find myself wondering what they think of “abolish ICE”. This could be the beginning of the end of the solidly Democrat support from those demographics.
.
I am guessing that Trump will nominate Amul Thapar to the Supreme Court. An excellent jurist whose nomination will give Asian Americans a chance to watch the Democrats attack the first Asian nominee to the court.
Before Gorsuch, the 9 SCOTUS were all either Catholic or Jewish. So…. I always look…
My guess: Yep. There is a strong tendency for those appointed to be Catholic or Jewish. 🙂
Mike M,
“South Korea. Japan would qualify on prosperity and democracy, but tolerance is arguable.”
.
The Japanese seem to me very ‘tolerant’ in some ways.. they appear to be courteous and even friendly to people from outside Japan, and willing to establish long term business relationships and friendships outside Japan. The Japanese adopt Occidental fashions, music, chain restaurants, and international businesses. But in other ways, they are extremely intolerant: you want to emigrate to Japan and become a Japanese citizen? Forget it; Japan simply does not allow significant immigration, in spite of a falling population and a potential demographic catastrophe as the fraction of retirees grows and overwhelms the capacity to support them. The few immigrants allowed citizenship are almost all Chinese, Koreans, and Taiwanese (most via marriage to Japanese citizens)…. virtually no citizens are people who do not ‘look like” Japanese. Many people of Japanese descent, even when native-born citizens of other countries, want only to marry other people of Japanese descent. In Brazil, 4th generation descendants of Japanese immigrants marry other Japanese (that is, other Brazilian citizens with no non-Japanese ancestors) ~40% of the time…. while people of “pure” Japanese descent represent only ~0.4% of the population.
Some marry non-Japanese. My nephew’s wife is first generation American. Her parents are Japanese. Still, I think you are generally correct about Japan and immigration. Japan does not want immigration.
I have no idea at what rate those of Japanese descent marry non-Japanese in the US. It may depend a bit on where they live. Hank and his wive live in New Jersey as do her parents. I don’t think there is any predominately Japanese area in New Jersey, so that could make a difference.
The other thing that can make a difference is religion which is entirely justifyable. Spouses holding different religious views can make marriage difficult. (It doesn’t have to, but it often does.)
Lucia,
“Before Gorsuch, the 9 SCOTUS were all either Catholic or Jewish. So…. I always look…”
.
I never had bothered to look… At present, five Catholics, three Jews, and one Episcopalian. Which contrasts with a US population breakdown of about:
.
Jews <2%
Catholics ~21%
Protestants ~50%
Everything else ~17%
.
One religion with <2% gets 33% of the seats, and two religious groups representing <23% of the population get 89% of the seats on the Court. That can't be allowed. Clearly the admissions department from Harvard University needs to become involved to increase diversity on the Court. 😉
If the local communities aren’t setting the cultural standards, then somebody else is. Much of the venom of cultural change comes from locals who resent having standards forced on them that they feel they have little agency to change. It’s the lack of agency more than the standards themselves. Busybodies in DC and the coasts setting cultural taxation without local representation.
.
In our case the local community forced the HOA to change its practice. This may be better seen as things working as they should, not a counter example.
.
Of course a local community could set a standard of “we will lynch anyone who doesn’t look like us” so there needs to be some overriding standards from outside the community and these will always be in conflict and will need some sane way of resolution. I don’t want the US to have cultural uniformity, how boring.
.
There are endless examples of needless conflict, somebody demanding the library remove its nativity scene in a 98% Christian town and such. The people who brings these conflicts are almost always doing this because they worry someone else might be offended, not because they were personally offended. If I was allowed to go to Mecca (I’m not…) then I don’t think I would be upset because people kept screaming at my wife to cover her hair.
.
I find that almost everyone is just trying to live their lives and are respectful of the culture of others. I don’t like people knocking on my door trying to convert me, but I just politely quickly send them along their way and feel no need to explain what the “No Soliciting” sign out front means.
Lucia,
Nearly all Japanese in Brazil are Christians, and mostly Catholic, like the rest of Brazilians. They still have a preference to marry other Japanese. Oddly enough, there have been lots of second and third generation Japanese in Brazil who have decided to “return to Japan” (which is apparently OK with Japan if they are only of Japanese descent).
.
You are right about living where there are more people of Japanese descent. In Sao Paulo, there is a small part of the city where the fraction of Japanese is much higher… maybe >20%, and the large majority of Brazilians of Japanese descent live in just two or three Brazilian states.
Tom,
“I was allowed to go to Mecca (I’m not…) then I don’t think I would be upset because people kept screaming at my wife to cover her hair.”
.
Unless you are Muslim, neither you nor your wife are allowed to visit Saudi Arabia except on a business related visa. A woman not covering her hair in Mecca would probably provoke more than screaming.
Foreign born residents in Japan: 1.5%
Foreign born residents in US: 13.0%
.
Ethnic Japanese are 98.5% of the population. Read that twice.
.
Koreans 0.5%
Chinese 0.4%
US 0.04%
Others 0.6%
.
If you want to know what if feels like being a minority, visit Japan for a few weeks. It’s a strange feeling and it makes you better appreciate how one can become racially paranoid no matter what the facts on the ground are.
Lucia: “I don’t think American culture and values are at risk of being overwhelmed at prevailing rates of immigration. But I recognize they could be if rates were much higher.”
I am not so sanguine about the level at which immigration becomes dangerous to a culture. In Birmingham England, Muslims acted to Islamicize several schools. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Horse
…..
“An investigation ordered by the government found a “sustained, co-ordinated agenda to impose segregationist attitudes and practices of a hardline, politicised strain of Sunni Islam” in several Birmingham schools. The investigation found there to be “no evidence to suggest that there is a problem with governance generally” nor any “evidence of terrorism, radicalisation or violent extremism in the schools of concern in Birmingham,” but said there was “evidence that there are a number of people, associated with each other and in positions of influence in schools and governing bodies, who espouse, sympathise with or fail to challenge extremist views.”[1] It found that a number of governors and senior teachers had been promoting a form of Islamism or Salafism.”
See also http://www.newsweek.com/are-british-muslim-schools-teaching-hatred-254835 giving many examples of Muslims emphasizing their separatedness from English society at large.
….
One very pertinent quote was:
“Now it can be argued that many, even all, the issues on which mainstream Britain and Islam differ – from the veil, through Sharia law, to gender segregation and even Halal food – concern cultural traditions and practices that are not required of observant Muslims. There is no need, so this argument runs, for them to be stumbling blocks to social harmony.
But this disregards the fact that such practices are part of life in many Muslim communities in Britain, which have remained in many ways both separate and strikingly homogeneous after two, three and even four generations. The districts of Birmingham that were the subject of the Trojan Horse/Trojan hoax letter provide a graphic illustration.”
JD
Tom,
I believe that most of the non-Japanese residents are in fact “long-term-temporary” residents, like employees at multi-national corporations, not permanent residents, and this is especially true for anyone who you could identify visually as being non-Japanese. Except for a few tourists, there is just about nobody who is not East Asian.
There is no doubt that is the way Japan wants it as well. In today’s age you have to work pretty hard to keep that level of uniformity. There are different types of ethnic Japanese that have the usual set of biases and discrimination attached, so it isn’t all harmony. Nature will find a way to discriminate…
I have been busy lately but I will take the time to post in near total disagreement with the JD post on American culture and immigration.
My disagreement is based on couple of points of which primarily is with the idea that immigrants from foreign countries (and cultures) can have a negative effect on how others (native born) carry on with their lives. The US has been historically a nation of immigrants and from a variety of cultures and nations with political systems differing from that of the US. Some came here because they were forced in their own country to restrict how they lead their lives. The relative freedoms as practiced in the US were what I suspect many of these immigrants saw more clearly and in greater appreciation than native born who had no first hand reference for comparison.
If one worries about a “foreign” culture or political ideal being imposed on one as an individual or member of a cultural group, that worry must stem from an entirely different cause than from immigrants merely being of a different cultural group or even political one for that matter. That cause would have to be in the form a political system that allows freedoms to be restricted and that restriction following from the rule of a majority that is not itself restricted by the protection of individual rights. If the worry is that the tendency for a bigger and more restrictive government would allow a cultural take-over by democratically large numbers of immigrant groups, the worry should be manifested as that against the growing powers of government and restrictions on individual choice.
I would worry much more about a well-educated group of native born Americans who have never experienced the problems many immigrants have had with their former governments and who unlike immigrants have never had to develop a work ethic in order to survive and are thus totally ignorant of the problems that come with big and powerful governments.
Interesting comments about Japan. My wife is Japanese and married to a non-asian man (me, English :), and I’ve lived here for 18 years. I live in a small town in northern Tohoku and I’m one of two Europeans in a community of 10,000. That puts me in a bit of a minority. There may be some prejudice, but if so I’m not aware of it. My neighbours and people I deal with on a daily basis are perfectly friendly. The ladies in my local convenience store are positively warm.
I’ve had no problems with immigration authorities, but my paperwork is correct and in order. I conform to community values. These are no different from those you’d find in any civilised community: obey the law, respect public and other people’s property, don’t piss people off.
On the 1st Sunday of every month (if the weather is good) there is “clean up Sunday” and everyone turns out at 06:00 to spend an hour or so on some task cleaning and tidying the sub-community. This month was weeding and brush cutting. As I was going on duty at 05:50 with my brush cutter I had a smile, a wave and a thank you from a couple of workers from the city office who’d been out allocating tasks. When was the last time you met local authority office workers on duty at that time on a Sunday?
We don’t lock our front door and we leave our vehicles with the keys in overnight. Crime is trivial. There’s no graffiti, no vandalism and almost no litter. Local youths use the station carpark opposite as a skateboard park and the schoolies like to sit spooning on the station roof. There’s never any trouble and they don’t make a mess, so no-one bothers them.
Every couple of years or so, the local authority sets up an exchange visit with an overseas group. Usually from India and I get roped in. There’s one coming up in July and I’ve been asked to make a presentation. No problem, I’m happy to help.
The majority of immigrants are asian brides. This comes about because of general migration of the young from the country to the cities, and the particular reluctance of young Japanese women to marry farmers. The brides fit in quite nicely by becoming Japanese although they do keep up their own cultural networks. The visa situation is a pain as it takes about 10 years to work up from annual to three years to a 10 year visa then permanent residency. That’s to weed out any “marriage of convenience” cases. The problem for me is that I switched from “emloyee” visa to “spouse” visa and that sent me to the back of the queue again. I’m just back to 3 years renewal.
Religion isn’t much of a problem. Most Japanese are nominally Buddhist (polytheist) and Shinto (animist) simultaneously. If you don’t like my religion, I have others.
I like it here. So do the rest of the community, otherwise they’d move elsewhere. Why irreversibly change something which works very nicely most of the time?
Seth,
I think it’s fair to say those practices in Japan would tend to change if they had a huge influx of people from countries that don’t want to spend an hour to clean up and tidy the community on “Clean up Sunday”. I probably wouldn’t want my Sunday afternoon co-opted that way. Not a problem for me as I’m not planning to move to Japan!
Things in Japan will change. The change everywhere due to many factors including changing economic circumstances, changes in technology, demographic factors, war and so on. But heavy immigration does affect the type of changes and sometimes local people do recognize that– even if the recognition is a bit unconscious.
I watch a Japanese channel on TV to which I somehow feel akin. I am particularly interested in the aging issues that it presents where certain areas of occupations like farming are aging and whole villages and towns are being depopulated with the lack of younger people remaining in the local area. On the one hand I like how the channel handles special programs dealing with science, technology and travel and how it tends to avoid contentious issues and on the other hand I am a bit uncomfortable with the conformity I sense and apparent looking for approval from the nodding of the head in the affirmative when speaking.
As a political body the nation of Japan will no doubt face sooner than other developed nations the problems of a huge government debt from fiscal policies over time that have failed to positively affect the economy as intended and an aging population that will greatly change the worker to retiree ratios and particularly so with the lack of younger immigrants in Japan. That issue in the programs on the Japanese channel I have watched never appears to get any attention.
Kenneth,
I think as a rule, television programs rarely want to face the notion that the elderly can burden the younger generation. This is done several ways.
One way is the elderly are simply invisible; this is the overwhelming majority of shows. (Did the 30 somethings in Friends have grandparents? How about in The Big Bang Theory. At most, these 30 something people have *parents* who are certainly still in their working years. )
Another way is in many shows lots of elderly are shown as 100% self-reliant and to a large extent only fairly wealthy to very wealthy elderly are shown. (An example of a “typical” pair of grandparents are those in “Gilmore Girls”. There is a grandfather in Breaking Bad. He is pretty competent and motive to make money is to help his little granddaughter. He’s dead by the end of the series, so he’ll never be a burden to his daughter-in-law! )
There are some exceptions. But the idea that the elderly are somehow a “drag” on the economy or the younger generation is not one entertainment focuses on. Honestly, it’s actually sort of hard to work in an elderly character who is failing, becoming sufficiently inactive that plot-wise they must be in the background and so on. Actors cost money, non-plot advancing scenes dilute the show. It’s not surprising that we just don’t see a lot of “background” elderly whose characters don’t do much for the plot.
There’s an elderly grandfather on The Simpsons. As I remember, he’s not exactly self reliant.
The Japanese channel I watch does not have situational programs. It is mainly news and programs about current issues in Japan and sometimes other nations. It does give a lot of time to the older generations in its programming and invariably in a positive light. That probably stems from Japan being an aging nation. The older people portrayed are usually very energetic and continuing to work.
I watch very little situational US TV programming and would not change my watching habits to watch programs involving older people.
My interest in Japan is probably from my view that it is the canary in the coal mine of nations with large debts and pension obligations and rapidly aging populations.
DeWitt,
True. There are programs with older people who don’t have full vim and vigor. I think King of Queens was one. But generally, older people just aren’t present.
My story here is not directly related to immigration but it does bear on cultural differences. It goes back to my working days when my company was doing business with a Korean firm that had a manufacturing operation across the border from California in Mexico. I dealt with a Korean who was stationed in the US with a tour of duty of 3 years as I recall. He and his family lived in La Jollo CA. He told me early in his tour of duty that it was very important for the Korean children in the families of Koreans with tours of duties in the US to avoid becoming “Americanized” because it might cause problems for them when they returned to Korea. He said they made a point for their children to speak Korean in their homes, go to Korean schools and avoid contact with American kids as much as possible.
A couple of years later I asked him how the plan of preventing their kids from becoming Americanized was working. He told me try as they may it was pretty much a failure with their kids associating with American kids and doing what American kids did. It turned out that he and other Koreans, stationed in the US with this company, mostly upped for longer tours of duty in the US. I guess whole families were being Americanized.
I found that most Koreans like the Japanese I dealt with had a very definite and somewhat rigid working culture that did not necessarily carry over into their personal lives outside of work. If I really wanted or needed to know how they felt about an issue I would ask them in private or over drinks after work. In meetings there was a lot of follow the leader or a company theme. This differentiation between meeting and bar was even more pronounced for the Americans working for Japanese companies.
KF ” The US has been historically a nation of immigrants and from a variety of cultures and nations with political systems differing from that of the US. Some came here because they were forced in their own country to restrict how they lead their lives. The relative freedoms as practiced in the US were what I suspect many of these immigrants saw more clearly and in greater appreciation than native born who had no first hand reference for comparison.”
Your statement is historically accurate, but not so much in today’s world. Pre-Internet and cheap telecommunications, people had no way of communicating with their home country and maintaining their culture. For instance, my father was Italian and spoke all Italian until age 7. He forgot it all and had zero interest (same as his 6 sisters) in visiting Italy. In fact, no one from my father’s generation knew their real name. (Am assuming it was changed at Ellis Island)
….
In my father’s time, there was a strong social and economic motivation to assimilate. I don’t see it today. In fact, what has stuck out in my mind is a Muslim woman wearing a burka and stating that she had no reason to assimilate — her rights were the same as anyone here and it is up to others to adjust to her. (I am sure you are aware of the multiple studies showing that even after being in Western countries for several generations, Muslims don’t assimilate well) What I don’t like about this attitude is that she undoubtedly comes from a violent country that is an economic mess. Instead of appreciating the differences in the US that make it a more palatable place to live, she essentially wishes to recreate the situation she left.
The Left believes that essentially we are all guests in the US and that whoever is here notwithstanding the illegality of the presence of some under Federal Statutes has equal rights. The Left’s position inevitably leads to tribalism and anarchy which we can already see occurring with the rise of “Sanctuary Cities.”
JD
JD, my main concern and point is that I want to live under a political system that allows me to live the way I choose which, of course, means that others should have the same right. The way I choose to live is more to me on an individual basis and not as one concerned about a cultural group or conformity to that group.
At one time in my working career I did have a Muslim work for me or actually he worked for a Jewish person who worked for me. At the time I worked for a Jewish person who in turn worked for a German immigrant who fought in WWII. There were no apparent inhibitions or conflicts that prevented us from working together.
KF: “my main concern and point is that I want to live under a political system that allows me to live the way I choose which, of course, means that others should have the same right. The way I choose to live is more to me on an individual basis and not as one concerned about a cultural group or conformity to that group.”
….
That is the way we all want to live. However, to have a functioning society/government we all have to obey rules we don’t like. For instance, if I want to grow plants 6 feet tall in my yard that city regulations consider to be weeds, I can’t grow the plants. In Ohio, if spouses want to lend money to each other, they can’t create an enforcible contract even if they wish to do so. If I and 6 women all want to be married we can’t do so.
….
An example of an interesting question regarding religious rights/societal norms is the collection of interest on judgments. Muslims aren’t allowed to pay or charge interest. So, if I win a judgment against a Muslim, am I entitled to the interest the law provides or does the First Amendment take precedence and prohibit Ohio from enforcing its laws that provide for interest on judgments?
…..
I realize I can’t convince you, but all I can say is that from being inside the system, I realize that the only way to have a functioning legal system and government is to have a shared dominant culture that is the foundation of the legal system. Each and every day people in functioning governments voluntarily take actions that are against their very short-term interests because they share a belief system and are acting for what they consider to be the greater good. If each individual was truly a completely independent actor, there would be chaos.
JD
KF. I take your points about aging population and government debt, but I’m not sure these issues manifest themselves in a “western” context. Bear in mind that I live in a small town in the deeply unfashionable rural north and this may not apply to Kanto or Kansai.
Firstly if I cast a 150m radius around my home (the sub-community) there are around 13 homes. Only one has a single occupant, two have two, and the rest have three or more, all of different generations. Two homes operate as fuel supply companies. One is an hotel, one is a grocery store, one is a watchmaker, one is a stationer and ours is a patisserie. The three generations work out as: about school age, working parents and retirees. The retirees typicaly run the shops or work part time as farmers and smallholders. People here live modestly so families have savings rather than debt.
(Not economist but here goes). Government borrowing is mostly from the savings of Japanese. It’s not foreign debt and unlikely to be called in. What we see is serious investment in infrastructure. Japan has gone from medieval in 1850, to 2nd world and broke by 1945 to 1st world.
The railway opposite my home is single track standard gauge, but we get a mini shinkansen (the Tsubasa). It runs as an express to Fukushima where it gets coupled to the Max Yamabiko and runs up and down the east coast at 400kph or thereabouts. I can be in central Tokyo in 3 1/2 hours rather than the 6-7 it would take me to drive. I get a reclining seat, air-con, wifi, active suspension and trolley service.
The latest section of the Tohoku Chuo (centre) Expressway outside my town opened last month. When the final section is completed in 2-3 years I’ll be able to access the entire Japanese Expressway system 3km from me.
We have reliable drinkable tap water and proper sewerage. My road has been widened, re-aligned and remade (it was narrow and dark thoroughfare from town to the station and local high school). The footpaths are heated by re-circulated groundwater. That may sound like a luxury, but we average about 9m of snow (measured as daily accumulation) every winter. The max was 18 metres in my first or second winter here. That was a learning experience. The heating prevents the snow hardpack from freezing and allows clearing. This all costs money, but the benefit is clear to all.
This is for you Lucia. In town, snow clearing (9m) works like this. If it snows more than 10cm overnight (it starts snowing in Dcember and stops in March) the snowploughs come out and push it to the side. If the snowploughs come out then the water goes on. The storm drains are inverted U shaped concrete section embedded in concrete. When the water comes on, river water is pumped up to the top of the system and into the storm drains. Every home has a hatch and you dump your snow into the hole. The water carries it away. Everyone in the community clears the gutter from the snowplough wake, plus their section of footpath. I have the added benefit of a double frontage (corner block) plus shop parking.
The water comes on at 05:30 for a 2 hour session, then lunchtime and evening for one hour. It can take more than 2 hours to clear the morning snow. I get up at 04:30 to take on a litre of tea and read the newspaper before starting. Lucia, what’s the point of having a husband if you can’t turf him out of bed to bring you tea/coffee and start the clean up?
Finally, every new building here is required to meet M9 earthquake standards and all existing public buildings are retro-fitted to meet the standard. This costs lotsa lotsa money. It’s being done and we (the taxpayers) can see that.
KF. I’ll summarise. Japan turned itself from a medieval society to a first world powerhouse in less than 150 years without benefit of natural resources. The “natural resource” is the people. That hasn’t changed. Japanese know who they are and have learned to value pluralist democracy and the rule of law. If I had to sum up Japanese in one word, it’s pragmatic. I’m not worried by demographics and debt. There’s always a way.
Seth Roentgen (Comment #169054)
Seth, thanks for the first hand information about living in a smaller town in northern Japan. What you say agrees well with the programs concerning your area of Japan that I see on the Japanese TV channel.
I agree that the Japanese are bigger savings than citizens in most other developed nations. And, yes the Japanese channel reports on the clever and maybe unique way the Japanese handle daily challenges like in your snow removal example.
The fact that the Japanese own most of their government debt and the debt is handled with the low interest rates in Japan only postpones the day of reckoning that all developed nations with huge debts and pension obligations and an aging population face. It does not avoid it. In fact the ease of borrowing in Japan would tend to make wasteful and/or unnecessary spending by the Japanese government easier to undertake. It certainly happens in the US when the Federal Reserve maintains interest rates at artificially low levels.
Hmm. Older people and television…
The median age of a broadcast or cable television viewer during the 2013-2014 TV season was 44.4 years old, a 6 percent increase in age .. The national median age was 37.8 years in 2015. Researchers say people over 65 watch three times more TV than younger adults. Yet older people enjoy their viewing far less.
For younger audiences, control over when and where they watch has driven the trend away from traditional television. Live television viewing was down 13 percent for all ages except for viewers 55 years and older, who are steadily watching their shows at their scheduled broadcast time.
CBS has the oldest audience with a median viewer of 58.7 years old. CBS, which owns the rights to most of its shows and distributes broadly across digital and cable, hasn’t seen it hurt its bottom line, however. NCIS, one of TV’s most popular shows, is considered a billion dollar franchise because it is viewed in dozens of countries, has a younger audience online, and gets money from cable licenses. Fox has the youngest broadcast audience, with a median age of 47.8 years.
IF YOU WATCH TV, YOU’RE likely to hear ageist language, see worn-out stereotypes and wonder why older characters lead such one-dimensional lives. That’s if older adults even exist, much less speak, on your favorite shows. Seniors are underrepresented on screen, behind the camera and as TV writers and producers, according to a University of Southern California study of the 72 highest-ranked TV series among U.S. viewers.
The USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism researchers evaluated two groups of TV series airing from June 2016 through May 2017. They looked at the 50 most popular series among viewers 18 to 49, and the 50 most popular for viewers 65 and older. Twenty-eight series overlapped, making it onto both lists.
For both age groups, “The Big Bang Theory,” “Bull,” “This Is Us,” “Designated Survivor,” “Chicago P.D.” and “Law & Order: SVU” were among the top 25-most-watched shows.
For viewers 65 and above, “NCIS,” “Blue Bloods,” “Madam Secretary,” “Hawaii Five-O” and “MacGyver” were among the most popular shows in the study’s time frame. In the younger group, “The Walking Dead,” “Game of Thrones,” “Empire” and “Modern Family” were some top choices.
Adults 60 and older represented less than 10 percent of speaking characters on these shows. Seniors accounted for slightly more than 8 percent of regular characters in a series. Older men were more likely than older women to be series regulars.
Of the 39 series with main senior characters, 41 percent included at least one ageist comment. Overall, demeaning language was common, both in younger characters’ comments and in self-deprecating remarks by older characters. Dialogue included wisecracks about wrinkled skin and references to failing memories.
Behind the camera, about 13 percent of show creators were 60 or older. One-quarter of directors were 60 or older. Of writers, 5 percent were seniors. Among showrunners, or executive producers, 11 percent were seniors. Shows without older writers or producers were more likely to feature an ageist comment than those with seniors in these positions.
Representations of older adults in television advertisements: Lee, et al,Journal of Aging Studies (2007). “The purpose of the present study was to examine a comprehensive set of television advertisements, across networks and times of day, to determine how older adults are portrayed. Older adults appeared in 15% of advertisements, and in those ads, older women were underrepresented relative to men, and older adults appeared less frequently on youth-oriented networks and during the evening. Older adults tended to play incidental roles in the advertisements and to promote a circumscribed, stereotyped set of products and services. Moreover, their characters portrayed overwhelmingly positive attributes and traits.”
The portrayal of older people in prime time television series: the match with gerontological evidence, Kessler et al, Ageing and Society (2004). “Empirical studies in several disciplines including sociology, psychology and communications science have investigated images of older people in the mass media, but analyses to date have failed systematically to apply gerontological concepts and to compare the portrayal of old age with ‘real-world’ evidence. A model of older people’s internal and external resources was used to assess the portrayal of older people in prime-time television drama series. Three hours of programmes broadcast over six weeks in 2001 of 32 prime-time television series on the four German networks with the largest market shares were examined. The age of 355 portrayed characters were estimated, and the socio-economic, health-related and psychological resources of the 30 characters rated as 60 years or older were assessed. Observational categories and rating dimensions were developed on the basis of the resource model. Older people were heavily under-represented, especially women and those of advanced old age. Furthermore, the representation of older people’s social participation and financial resources was overly positive. Finally, older women and men were portrayed in traditional gender roles.”
Lots’o’research about geezers and codgers.
Yep. Sometimes you need research to quantify the obvious.
But does anyone care other than those paying for and being paid for the programs and the content. No one claims that what is protrayed is representative of the real world and in fact a lot of the entertainment value comes from a release from the real world.
I even doubt that documentaries that supposedly are portraying the real world do that well and primarily because a lot of those programs have worked backwards from an agenda.
There is no doubt in mind and from observation that most of the TV programming leans very much to the left politically – and not unexpectedly given the political inclination of the writers and producers.
Most of the ageist remarks and making fun of older people that I hear come from older people. Perhaps older people have better senses of humor or are more difficult to insult – because they have heard it all before.
Kenneth,
Advertisers might care. People considering future scripts might care. How a program fits in or competes with other programs could affect how likely it is to get viewers.
Boy am I an outlier. I’m over 55 and of the shows Tom listed, the only one I watch regularly is Game of Thrones. I watched Walking Dead for a while, but it got boring, not to mention the impossibility of the biochemistry and physics of the walking dead becoming too hard to ignore. Being an analytical chemist by training, all the NCIS variations are totally absurd to start with. I also pretty much never watch shows live. I record them and watch them at my convenience. For OTA shows, I record them on a computer and edit out the commercials before watching, eliminating the need to press the skip forward button.
Of course that means that most of the shows I do like never last.
JD, I do not get the point of your comments and what they have to do individual rights or culture for that matter. You say we need a dominant culture guiding our legal system and you refer to laws that prevent borrowing between man and wife and polygamy and then you say given too much individual freedom we will have chaos. Where is all that arguing leading? That we can outlaw burkas.
lucia (Comment #169059)
I agree with your comment and I thought I covered that by reference to those paying for programs by which I meant advertisers and those being paid to make programs.
In the end though I think a survey of the programing content would not change what those paying and being paid would do in the future. They are mainly interested in what the viewer wants or what they think they want. If they do not provide programming I like I do not begrudge them – after all it is a mass media. I certainly do not want some government agency determining what is available for watching or deciding what the content should be.
DeWitt,
“Boy am I an outlier. I’m over 55 and of the shows Tom listed, the only one I watch regularly is Game of Thrones.”
.
Maybe not that much of an outlier… I have only ever seen an episode of two of them (NCIS, Law and Order, on an airplane when there were no movies available). I don’t even know what most of them are about. I have zero interest in fictional TV programming… much too stupid for my taste. I watch some news and sports, but don’t even have a television 5 months a year.
KF: ” You say we need a dominant culture guiding our legal system and you refer to laws that prevent borrowing between man and wife and polygamy and then you say given too much individual freedom we will have chaos. Where is all that arguing leading?”
….
My point is that laws do not come out of the thin air. They come out of the beliefs (ideally the shared beliefs of a large percentage of the citizenry) of citizens. For instance, without even thinking, it is natural for European Americans to assume that charging interest on judgments is reasonable. On this foundation of what is reasonable, particular laws relating to interest on judgments are enacted.
….
In a Muslim country, no one would think of charging interest on judgments. So, no laws pertaining to interest on judgments would be enacted. The larger point is that if you are Muslim living in the US, I believe you need to accept the larger culture and, in this case, accede to paying interest on a judgment. Conversely, if you are a European American living in a Muslim country, you should not expect to collect interest on a judgment.
….
My point about polygamy is the same. Originally, there was really no rational reason for the American laws outlawing polygamy. Based on the United States’ past Christian heritage, a very large amount of Americans simply considered polygamy to be wrong. Thus, Utah had to outlaw polygamy to become a state. The opposite conclusion regarding the validity of polygamy would be true in a Muslim country. Laws mainly come out of shared beliefs and not some sort of rationally thoughtful exercise.
…..
The point is that there is the unseen hand of culture that underlies all law. If there is not a shared dominant, culture, there can be no functioning law — people will always be challenging the validity of the law, on the many occasions where it violated the norms of one (in this example and context) of many competing cultures. If there is not a shared, instinctive belief system as the foundation of law, it is impossible to have law because writing up the specifics and the minutiae of every behavior that people are expected to follow is logistically impossible.
…..
As a minor side issue (to me anyway), I would oppose outlawing burkas. To me they are very similar to habits worn by nuns and serve essentially the same function. It does surprise me how comparatively reasonable outlawing the burka appears to be in Europe, where it is seriously discussed. (And may have been enacted in France.)
JD
For Seth commentary — if you so desire.
I have linked to a video posted by an American (who lives in China) and his Chinese wife visiting Tokyo, Japan. It is very complimentary. The roads are extremely clean. The people are very helpful and friendly. It is very quiet. (As opposed to China, which is very noisy) I was a little surprised in that they said that few people spoke English. I am curious what you think. Real content starts at 1:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKmEceELJ9E&list=PLGVxWL17abn5OJwAKloi8MBnCqvT7rRC_
JD
JD Ohio,
“I was a little surprised in that they said that few people spoke English.”
.
“Few” is an exaggeration… it is very, VERY few. I was hopelessly lost in Tokyo (when the subway line I was on stopped before my destination due to maintenance), and I wandered the street for half an hour before I found someone who could help me. No signs in English (or any non-Japanese language), and nobody who speaks anything but Japanese. The people at the front desk of a business oriented hotel speak some English, along with some who are involved in international business. I can perfectly well understand this…. like most Americans, very few people in Japan have any need to learn another language.
SteveF: “like most Americans, very few people in Japan have any need to learn another language.”
….
This contrasts sharply with China, where very surprisingly to me on my first visit, virtually all large buildings have an English name and a good amount of people speak English.
JD
JD Ohio (Comment #169064): “My point is that laws do not come out of the thin air. … Laws mainly come out of shared beliefs and not some sort of rationally thoughtful exercise. … If there is not a shared, instinctive belief system as the foundation of law, it is impossible to have law because writing up the specifics and the minutiae of every behavior that people are expected to follow is logistically impossible.”
Very wise. The left refuses to see that and instead likes to imagine that it is possible to design a functioning society starting from a blank piece of paper. I sometimes wonder if support for multiculturalism comes from a desire to undermine the culture; the better to replace it.
.
JD Ohio: “I would oppose outlawing burkas. To me they are very similar to habits worn by nuns and serve essentially the same function. It does surprise me how comparatively reasonable outlawing the burka appears to be in Europe, where it is seriously discussed. (And may have been enacted in France.)”
The terminology is confusing, but the burqa includes a veil. That is illegal in many European countries and in at least some Muslim countries. As it should be here. In Western culture wearing a mask is not just impolite, it is a signal that you are up to no good. Even a nun’s “veil” does not hide the face. But banning the hijab (head scarf), as is the case in French schools, is ridiculous.
Mike M.,
I don’t wonder at all. I think there’s no doubt whatsoever. The problem is that none of them agree on what should replace it. Get three far lefties together and you’ll have a dozen different completely incompatible plans.
Our legal/political system is defined by many factors of which cultures are but one, or at least as I would define culture. The merchant class as an economic matter and as noted in the following link was a large factor in shaping capitalism and the recognition of private property rights which in turn was factor in shaping our legal system.
https://mises.org/library/rise-west
Good and bad ideas and manifestations of those ideas come out of our cultures, but it is not the culture itself or its proclivities that is the final determiner in the distillation of those ideas. That process deals with the fact that any given culture does not provide all the best ideas or answers and particularly at a given period of time. My hope is that the process is handled with humankinds ability to apply reasoning to it. That western cultures do not apply it in many cases is evidenced by Marxism-Communism-Socialism, Fascism-Nazism and American slavery.
KF: The article you cited substantially supports my position. It states: “The growing individualism of Western culture, rooted in Christian doctrine, seems to have contributed significantly.2 ”
….
I would add that I consider private property rights to be related to culture, but I agree they partly sustain a legal system. On the other hand, from my experience as a lawyer, I can assure you that no legal system can function unless it is based on a shared culture. Particularly, a legal system in a large country such as the United States. Lawyers are trained to parse language, and any law can ultimately be parsed or interpreted in conjunction with other laws to reach whatever conclusion you wish.
…..
For instance, one court decision enjoining Trump’s end to DACA, stated that Trump’s reason for ending it (that it was illegal, which is obviously true) was potentially wrong and that this one judge was going to stop the ending of a clearly illegal program. If you want to reach a certain position you can always get there by manipulating the language. The glue that holds a legal system together is the underlying culture. When it fractures, the legal system fractures.
JD
KF: “That (idea) process deals with the fact that any given culture does not provide all the best ideas or answers and particularly at a given period of time.”
…..
I agree with this and in fact, cultures do evolve over time. However, to the extent that you wish to have a legal system, it must be underlaid by a shared, dominant culture. I am not saying that any culture is inherently superior to others or frozen in stone. But, to the extent that you value a viable legal system or a nation state, there must be a shared dominant culture. (That is not all powerful, but is dominant in the sense of being shared by the great majority of people.)
JD
JD, I am missing the link between culture and the legal system to which you are referring and particularly so with the comment above. I would think that you might argue that the rule of law is ingrained in our culture but that comment could well be interpreted as the rule of law is negated by rule of culture.
Kenneth,
Our society is becoming so legalistic that it is easy to lose track of how things traditionally worked and, for the most part, still do work.
You eat a meal in a restaurant, receive the check, and pay before leaving. Why do you pay? I submit that it is not because of the law, but because that is the norm in our culture. Yes, if you leave without paying you are breaking the law, but that law only backstops the cultural norm, it does not establish the norm.
I am not sure if there were any significant traffic laws before the introduction of the automobile, except perhaps in crowded cities. People just rode their horses and drove their wagons and carriages according to the cultural norms. Like pedestrians still behave today, at least as long as they stick to the sidewalk. But there were no norms for driving cars, so formal rules had to be established, leading to the welter of traffic regulations we have now. But these days most people don’t actually drive according to the traffic laws, they drive according to the established norms. Many laws are just ignored, either in degree (speed limits) or in their entirety (some jurisdictions have very strange laws on the books governing left turns).
If we actually conducted our lives according to the law, we would all need law degrees just to go to the grocery store.
Postscript to the above: Until recently much (perhaps most) of the laws in English speaking countries (i.e., Common Law countries) were never enacted by a legislature or proclaimed by a monarch. The laws were the result of hundreds of years of court decisions that in turn were based on custom.
Mike M.: ” I sometimes wonder if support for multiculturalism comes from a desire to undermine the culture; the better to replace it.”
Not for most. There are two mainstream attitudes on multiculturalism. The optimistic one and the pessimistic one. The optimistic one is reflected in the old heaven or hell stereotype joke. The pessimistic one is rather darker than the joke, but it has lots of history to back it up. They are both right.
.
In Europe, where they know something about foreigners invading, the joke has been updated:
https://ploum.net/the-european-joke/
JD I watched the video and he got it pretty right. As for speaking English, everyone studies English right through high school, but I don’t think it is taught very well. I suspect it is the same as when I learned French at school. I could read and write it, but we never spoke it.
I teach English privately and there is always some conversation even if it is scripted from a book. I’ve made up about 25 packs of picture cards and we play a version of snap. I deal 5 each, and turn over the top card in the pack. If you have that card you play it, say the word, then play another (any card). Otherwise you pick up. I think it a better way to learn vocabulary than lists of words and it works with all ages. Plus I can fix it so students beat the teacher and they like that. I also have matching text cards so we can do phonics after the picture cards. It also breaks up the lesson and keeps things light.
A few of my students have done very well and one is training to be an English teacher. One holiday he went to Tokyo Tower where he saw an American serviceman struggling with the ticket machine. Young Tom had the confidence to step up and sort him out. Look at me mum! He was glowing with pride when he told me the story. My mature students can be quite good. I’m working through Animal Farm with one. We read sections and then have a discussion, so we get a conversation going.
Tokyo really isn’t the place to find English speakers. Kyoto (I believe) is much better, but they deal with lots of tourists so the need is greater.
On cleanliness. At high school, students eat lunch in their classrooms. Then they are required to clear up and wash. After school they stack the chairs and clean the classroom every day. This is rigidly enforced. When I first came to Japan, I went skiing at my local ski jo (ski place). I stopped for lunch and there were a bunch of boarders (about 5 couples) just finishing. When they got up to leave the lads cleared the table, sorted and dumped the waste and stacked everything at the counter. That really surprised me, but for them it was situation normal.
Ledite (Comment #169076): “Not for most. There are two mainstream attitudes on multiculturalism.”
I should have made it clear that I was referring to the thought leaders of the far left; the average left-leaning person has probably not thought much about multiculturalism, but thinks it sounds fair.
.
The EU lunch story you link to is funny but superficial. It reminds me of JFK’s comment that Washington is a city with Southern efficiency and Northern hospitality. The real issue with multiculturalism is far deeper and more serious.
Seth,
I wonder if the rural / urban social divide in Japan is as stark as it is in the US / UK now? It has gotten much worse in the last decade in the US. In my view the rural citizens haven’t really changed much, it is the urban citizens that changed.
When I traveled through Japan it was obvious that they take their infrastructure very seriously. It seems to be a function over form society. After the tsunamis I was completely confident the Japanese didn’t really need any help beyond some immediate relief, they would clean up their own mess, thank you very much.
They do love their bureaucracies though, we were selling medical products and by the time they reached the patient in Japan they cost $40 where in the US the prevailing cost was $10. There were multiple levels of distributors that nobody seemed interested in streamlining for efficiency. I was there one time during high school baseball playoffs and that was certainly a huge deal.
“I even doubt that documentaries that supposedly are portraying the real world do that well and primarily because a lot of those programs have worked backwards from an agenda.”
.
This is sadly true. The first time you realize this is sometimes when you watch a documentary on a subject you know well and it is misrepresented. This blows a big hole in one’s media expectations. Nobody police’s this and it is left as an honor system. The hard part is trying to discriminate between those who are just trying to get the story right (10%), and those that are working an agenda and posing as truth seekers (90%). Frontline and Ken Burns are usually pretty good.
One must also understand the journalist’s crappy world, which is trying to break through in an ocean of content in an industry that is low paying and rewards sensationalism.
What I am having problems with in this discussion is the vague and undefined term of “our culture” and how it is differentiated in meaningful ways from other cultures. I suspect eating a meal in an establishment and paying for it is not unique to our culture and is more a human trait of cooperation.
As a libertarian I see this tendency to cooperate among human beings as being one that favors voluntary cooperation and contractual agreements among individuals over government laws and control over even minute details of human activity.
If we were a 50/50 Muslim/Christian culture then it is obvious that our system and laws would be different, some sort of compromise between cultures. Lebanon is an example, and they have lived together peacefully there for decades, ha ha.
.
“There are 18 officially recognized religious groups in Lebanon, each with its own family law legislation and set of religious courts.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon#Government_and_politics
.
I don’t think we are in danger of Sharia law anytime soon. There will always be extremists who want to create their own little empires but I think the foundations of the US system are way too deep to be corrupted in a significant way. If one wants to live in a conservative Muslim society then the US is the last place on Earth you want to live. We shall see how Europe deals with this over the next decade.
The reverse (western ideals corrupting Muslim nations) is a much bigger threat. We can count up who is occupying who the most, and whose values are penetrating whose countries, and I think the west is winning on this scorecard by a very large margin.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #169081): “What I am having problems with in this discussion is the vague and undefined term of “our culture†and how it is differentiated in meaningful ways from other cultures.”
I am puzzled. There are many overlaps between cultures, but many significant differences. Lots of those relate to marriage and family. There are differences in the acceptability of revenge/vigilantism, differences in how financial matters are handled (such as charging interest or what is acceptable in settling debts), differing expectations as to due process, differences in the formal role played by religion, and so on.
.
Kenneth Fritsch: “As a libertarian I see this tendency to cooperate among human beings as being one that favors voluntary cooperation and contractual agreements among individuals over government laws and control over even minute details of human activity.”
Maybe that is the problem. Libertarians, like socialists, seem to think there is nothing except individuals and government. But at least in the Anglosphere, community norms, tradition, etc. have been more important than either individuals or the government in determining how society functions.
KF: A book called How Democracies Die explains much of what I believe, but from a much different angle. Here is how one reviewer described it:
“it also goes beyond partisan diatribe in a couple of valuable ways.
The first is to illuminate the role of “norms” in a constitutional system. In this context, a “norm” is an unwritten standard of behavior that is followed for an extended period of time — you might think of it as describing some type of behavior that’s “normal.” US law school profs are prone to point out several such norms, none of which are in the US Constitution as written: such as that US Supreme Court justices are lawyers, that members of the military retire from active duty before joining the Cabinet, and, prior to FDR in 1940, that Presidents not run for a third term. (These sorts of norm are often called “constitutional conventions” by political scientists — not to be confused with the event in Philadelphia mentioned in the musical “Hamilton.”) Individually, though, the loss of any of these highly specific norms wouldn’t necessarily have a huge impact on the functioning of the government.
Levitsky & Ziblatt (L&Z) instead focus on some norms that are more abstract, but also more vital to the fabric of democracy. The norms of interest to them are “shared codes of conduct that become common knowledge within a particular community or society — accepted, respected and enforced by its members” (@101). Two of the most important are (i) mutual toleration, i.e. the belief that political opponents are not enemies, and (ii) institutional forbearance, i.e. “avoiding actions that, while respecting the letter of the law, obviously violate its spirit” (@106). In more specific contexts several other such norms also come up, e.g. that presidents shouldn’t undermine another coequal branch (such as the court system). Calling such norms the “guardrails of democracy,” L&Z provide one of the clearest and most convincing expositions of them that I’ve read. ”
I very much believe in his description of shared codes of conduct and their importance. I suspect the authors blame Trump for the destruction of norms, where I would blame the Left. I pretty much have nothing more to add. We may be 2 ships passing in the night. See https://www.amazon.com/How-Democracies-Die-Steven-Levitsky-ebook/dp/B071L5C5HG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1531157807&sr=8-1&keywords=levitsky+how+democracies+die&refinements=p_72%3A2661618011#customerReviews
JD
T. Scharf: “I think the foundations of the US system are way too deep to be corrupted in a significant way.”
…..
I totally disagree with this. We have sanctuary cities, Kevin De Leon (the leader of the California Senate) saying that half of his family is here illegally, and Boston currently considering how to let 220,000 non-citizens vote. Muslims try to assassinate Pam Geller for a trivial cartoon about Mohammed. California has already flipped. Others are coming.
JD
The entire Death of Democracy hyperventilating is nuts, the failure of one party to accept it lost a fair election is mostly based on its own propaganda of “curve of history” and fooling themselves into thinking they were leading somewhere others wanted to follow. They are somewhere in the seven stages of grief still. Democracy = my side winning isn’t a compelling argument, and it’s very hard to interpret it any other way. Democracy wasn’t dying during Obama’s time and that is when the right dominated at the state and local level.
.
I see a Twitterization of political debate where short acerbic put-downs are how one supposedly wins. Most people can’t stand this style and just disengage until they enter a voting booth. There is more visible polarization but it is a mile wide and an inch deep. The US doesn’t have a foreign adversary at the moment so it is turning inward. The kids are bored so they fight each other for entertainment.
.
Immigration is chaos and isn’t following any known laws in some places, but the response to that was Trump. Abolish ICE will bring 4 more years of the same. Society can set and change it’s own rules, but the only way open borders are going to happen is if it is legislated to happen and the chance of this is NIL. The backlash to this is happening in Europe as well for all to see. More than open borders the political party wants power, and that isn’t going to happen with open borders. If they want to walk into that trap, I say help them set it up and ask how else you can help them spread that message. I just have faith the US won’t walk off a cliff, perhaps my faith is mistaken. If you apply a low pass filter to politics and ignore the high frequency noise things don’t look so crazy.
There is a federal law against non-citizens voting. Surprisingly there is no prohibition by cities or states, and there is a history of this happening:
“The federal law does not prohibit non-citizens from voting in state or local elections, but no state has allowed non-citizens to vote in state elections since Arkansas became the last state to outlaw non-citizen voting in 1926.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote_in_the_United_States
.
Allowing illegals to vote today would be, shall we say, contentious.
Agreed.
Mike M.: “The EU lunch story you link to is funny but superficial. It reminds me of JFK’s comment that Washington is a city with Southern efficiency and Northern hospitality. The real issue with multiculturalism is far deeper and more serious.”
.
Exactly. The optimist’s view of multiculturalism is superficial, that we can be one big happy family despite our differences. The pessimist’s view is that the differences are not the problem, it’s the cultural attitudes. Take for example the Irish situation. For the non-Irish, it’s hard to tell the sides apart (not the policies, the people). But somehow the Irish can, like the penguins can find their mate among the crowds in Antartica. That situation was explosive.
.
Multiculturalism usually means different ethnic groups live almost segregated by choice, peacefully and apparently contentedly. At least until events trigger more events and historical injustices are remembered. For example the partition of India, a barbaric bloodbath. It can happen anywhere. Civil war. US, Lebanon, too many examples to cite.
.
Not all cultures are compatible. There have to be some values and desires in common.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169086): “The entire Death of Democracy hyperventilating is nuts, the failure of one party to accept it lost a fair election is mostly based on its own propaganda of “curve of history†and fooling themselves into thinking they were leading somewhere others wanted to follow.”
I have waiting for JD to reply to Tom on this, so I will give him a nudge. My impression was that “How Democracies Die” has nothing much to do with Trump, but instead is concerned with long term trends that, if they continue, endanger our democracy. Just because we have muddled through for 200+ years, does not mean that we are guaranteed to continue to muddle through forever. As someone (Jefferson?) once said: The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
There is nothing more entertaining than watching a sanctimonious hypocrite squirm when their cultural bible suddenly gets turned on them. I give you Canada’s GropeGate:
https://quillette.com/2018/07/10/grope-gate-and-metoos-crisis-of-legitimacy/
.
“This is about hypocrisy—not about what did or did not happen at a music festival 18 years ago. It is about ‘believing women,’ until it happens to you; about taking all allegations of sexual misconduct seriously, except if they happen to pass some arbitrary expiration date. It is about employing an unwavering zero-tolerance policy, which, in practice, ends up showing some tolerance for the man at the top.”
Mike M,
I get what you are saying, but it is dangerous to extrapolate outside an experiment’s boundaries, although it may be entertaining. I took the temperature outside this morning and this afternoon and my calculations definitively show we will all be dead in a week, ha ha. We haven’t even gotten to the point of organized violent resistance such as The Weather Underground and such. It’s a bit early to speculate on the end of times IMO.
.
Once the left regains power, and they will eventually, then the other side will start writing doomsday novellas. The cycle in US politics is a dreary monotony, one side over-promises and under-delivers, then the other side takes over. Repeat.
.
Occasionally sh** does happen. The USSR dissolved pretty quickly. WWII. Trust in institutions is down. Dinosaur killing asteroids. There are stresses on the system, but there isn’t even a viable competitor for what happens after democracy “dies”. Socialism? Totalitarianism? People should be vigilant as you say, I’m just not seeing a danger.
Tom Scharf,
I suspect we are both old enough to remember from the late 1950’s (at least). My impression is that there has been a significant gradual drift leftward, both in law and culture, and those on the left are now hysterical because that trend is (at least for now) actually reversed for the first time in half a century. I do not think the last 50+ years shows a uniform oscillation between ‘overpromises’ of left and right, but rather an oscillation between periods of no significant leftward ‘progress’ and others of rapid leftward ‘progress’ (eg, the Obama years). I won’t be writing any doomsday novellas, but nor will I accept the suggestion the left has not substantially change the country for the worse during my lifetime. I honestly fear for the freedom of future generations.
Mike M: “I have waiting for JD to reply to Tom on this, so I will give him a nudge. My impression was that “How Democracies Die†has nothing much to do with Trump, but instead is concerned with long term trends that, if they continue, endanger our democracy.”
……
Haven’t read the book. Just cited the most popular review, which was written by a professor. From his and other reviews, it does appear to be substantially about Trump. The authors share my view that norms and culture are very important, but what I can tell from the reviews, they substantially blame Trump. I, on the other hand, believe that the breakdown of norms and culture led to Trump.
….
The one similarity that I and the authors have is that we both believe that culture and resulting norms are very important to a functioning government. As (almost certainly) opposed to what the authors write, I believe that immigration of the type supported by the Democrats is a very serious threat to the US by destroying what had been shared values. Unfortunately, many people assume that the assimilation that happened in the past is somehow assured to happen again. I believe it will not because of increased communications with native countries and because of a very changed world outlook everywhere. To me those who pooh-pooh sanctuary cities and pretty much open borders are, in effect, repeating the mistake of the French when they set up the Maginot line. What worked in the past won’t work today.
…..
TScharf: “There are stresses on the system, but there isn’t even a viable competitor for what happens after democracy “diesâ€. Socialism? Totalitarianism?” To me one very serious potential threat is obvious — the break-up of the US. The country of the Northeast (US), Southeast (US), Midwest, and California associating with Mexico et cet could occur if the US continues on its tribalistic path. There is already a serious proposal to break up California into 3 states.
……
Just look at the break-up of CzechoSlovakia, Yugoslavia, Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Scotland going farther and farther from Britain.
….
Unless there is a dominant culture, I believe that tribalism and conflict inevitably takes over.
JD
JD Ohio (Comment #169094): “”From his and other reviews, it does appear to be substantially about Trump. The authors share my view that norms and culture are very important, but what I can tell from the reviews, they substantially blame Trump. I, on the other hand, believe that the breakdown of norms and culture led to Trump.”
Thanks. I’ll strike the book off my might-be-interesting list. I agree with you – no one, not even Trump, can change cultural norms overnight.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times …
.
There is nothing inherently wrong with change. Women in the workplace have significantly enhanced our standards of living. Crime is down almost 50% over the past few decades, a much smaller amount of people die in wars and child mortality. You can name almost any metric of the human condition over the past 75 years and it has gotten much better. The world isn’t ending. Most of that change is hard fought and worthwhile, some of it is experimental and maybe not so great. That doesn’t mean you can drop the tug of war rope and walk away. The constant battle over the correct path is a good thing.
.
This leftward drift has the right in its best governing position in 100 years on all levels. Supreme Court? Prez? House? Senate? Governors? State Assemblies? Donald effing Trump beat Her Majesty Hillary Clinton! Get a little perspective, the right probably runs the PTA’s in 2018. I find it ironic that the right always thinks it’s losing even when it is winning, and the left always thinks it’s winning even when they are losing.
.
How can one look at the progress our generation has made and be disappointed? Good luck matching that millennials, let me know when you have done something on the scale of the Internet or landing on the moon by using slide rules.
.
T Scharf: This policy, in essence, explains my different viewpoint. Cal Poly San Luis Obispo issued a report stating: ”
……
“In 2011, the campus was 63 percent Caucasian,†the May 2 report informs readers, “in fall of 2017, it was less than 55 percent … but there is still much work to do.â€
……
This type of racism is intrinsically divisive and getting worse. Identity politics is getting ingrained in American society and will ultimately lead to tribalism.
JD
Tom,
I agree that the world is not ending and that our democracy is not in immediate peril. I also agree with JD and Steve that there are worrying trends that must be taken seriously.
.
The far left is decidedly anti-democratic. In just a few years they have gained a remarkable amount of control over the Democratic Party and a great deal of influence over public opinion. For decades, they have been undermining the shared culture that is the glue that holds our society together. Identity politics sets the people up for divide-and-conquer. This is most definitely a very series threat to our democracy.
But it is a challenge that must be met, not the beginning of the end. At least, not unless we fail to meet the challenge. Trump gets that, and is addressing the threat. I think that is why he makes the left so crazy.
Tom Scharf,
Here is the history of control of Congress and the Presidency through January of 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidents_of_the_United_States_and_control_of_Congress
It is true that Republicans currently “control” Congress by historically thin margins, but Republicans have never held a 60 vote majority in the Senate since the early 1920’s, meaning they have never been able to institute laws and never been able to rescind existing laws, unless Senate democrats agreed. Democrats did have 60 votes (including two “independents” that always vote with the Democrats) for the first two years of the Obama Administration, the result of which was “Obamacare”.
.
The larger point is that conservatives have been in a position to resist the worst of laws progressives want most of the time since the late 1960’s, but they have rarely been able to pass laws contrary to what progressives want (the 2017 tax bill was passed with 52 votes in the Senate only because it could not be filibustered). Mr. Obama decided that ‘progress’ was more important than the law and the Constitution, entered into treaties without Senate approval, and refused to enforce immigration laws. Lawless government by fiat is indeed ‘change’, but not good change. You can count on the next Democrat in the White house to be equal to or worse than Obama… ignoring the law as suits him or her.
.
The current hysteria among progressives about Justice Kennedy’s replacement reflects a simple reality: many progressive “laws of the land” have been promulgated by progressive judges on the Supreme Court, and have no basis at all in either the Constitution or actual laws as passed by Congress. Replacement of an elderly, moderately conservative justice who often voted with progressives on the Court with a more conservative but much younger justice means that existing progressive sacred cows (like condoned discrimination in hiring and university admissions) will be at risk of reversal for at least the next decade, and that progressive lawmaking by the Court (eg forcing states to allow gay marriage) is likely to end for at least a decade. Hence all the screaming. Progressives want leftward change, and they seem not to give a hoot about laws as written or the Constitution… and that is a trend which has worsened in the last three decades.
JD,
I’m totally on board with identity politics has gotten out of control, especially in universities, and is starting to seep into other areas of society. My best adjective for it is social poison. I think it will eventually burn itself out due to its toxicity and the media will find a new shiny object to play with, but I also thought the iPhone and Twitter would fail miserably.
.
What would happen if states started holding voter referendums on public funding of the social sciences? If the leaders at universities can’t summon some courage then the voters should send a clear and unambiguous signal. If they want to spread their poison, the public shouldn’t have to pay for it.
.
This is a fine example of tyranny of a vocal minority. Every one can recite political correct dogma if asked a question, just be glad you are not a leftist for other reasons who must now recite those things or be kicked off the leftist reservation.
SteveF,
Healthcare does need to be changed, Obamacare can be condemned for failing to change things in the right way, and it was punished severely in the following election cycle. Medicare For All is going to resonate with a lot of people because it’s an attempt to solve a real problem while the right is offering up nothing but a horrible status quo. Anyone who makes $35K and is paying $10K for health insurance will vote for change, any change. Reasonable people on the left want to sideline identity politics and concentrate on healthcare and economic issues, this is how they can win.
.
Most of the left’s wins recently have been backdoored in without voter or legislative approval. Environmental and social issues. That’s why the right thought the SC was so important, and it is. It’s a huge relief for most people on the SC to be much closer to originalists than living document types. Hate speech laws are hopeless for the SJW’s on the left now. Free speech is solid as a rock.
.
I think the fight for the SC nomination is just reflexive at this point by the left and their hearts aren’t really in it. They lost this fight on Nov 8, 2016 and they know it. They will go through the motions but want to move on.
.
Fun fact: The number of SC justices can be changed. If the president wants to increase or decrease the numbers of justices, he can petition congress. If congress approves, the change can be made. Want to see the right burn down Washington DC? Try that trick.
Tom Scharf,
“The number of SC justices can be changed.”
.
Sure, it is provided for in the Constitution. Roosevelt was pushing to pack the Court in the 1930’s with enough of his political supporters to out-vote the Republicans on the Court who blocked some of his legislation on Constitutional grounds. Packing was a credible threat because Roosevelt had the votes in Congress to do it. The justices were concerned enough that a couple of them reversed course and stopped blocking Roosevelt’s laws, after which packing the Court was no longer needed. So Roosevelt got his way on how the Constitution would be interpreted by the Supreme Court, including an Orwellian reading of the “commerce clause” to include even activities that take place wholly within a single State, which the words of the Constitution clearly do not provide for. This threat of packing was perhaps the most naked political power grab since the Civil War, and fundamentally changed the scope and power of the Federal Government relative to the individual States. Absent Roosevelt’s threat of packing the Court, the USA would be a very different place today.
.
As one would expect, plenty of progressives have been calling for Court packing ever since Gorsuch was confirmed…. if Republicans hold the Senate and Trump gets another SC nomination, calls by progressives for packing the court ASAP will only grow louder. The Court will ignore them, unless progressives control the presidency, the House, and they get to 60 votes in the Senate.. at which point the Court will interpret the Constitution any way progressives demand.
Has anyone actually run the numbers on Medicare for All? The Medicare expansion under Obamacare is 90% financed by the Federal Government, which is, needless to say, running a large deficit. The costs have been higher than expected and the benefits so far are less obvious.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/09/18/obamacare-medicaid-expansion-a-lot-of-spending-of-little-value/#755288757a32
I remember when Tennessee tried to expand Medicaid some years ago, Tenncare, it was a financial disaster and was fairly quickly rolled back. But Tennessee couldn’t print its own money.
Here’s one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2018/07/09/choking-on-the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/#2c0dd9a856f3
As I expected, it’s something that sounds good in a sound bite but doesn’t seem practical once you start looking at actual costs. Medicare as currently constituted is eating into its trust fund already and is projected to have used it up by 2026.
That should have been Medicaid expansion where I said Medicare expansion under Obamacare above.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169103): “Has anyone actually run the numbers on Medicare for All?”
Some state level proposals have been costed, then dropped like hot potatoes. Vermont for sure. California also, I think. Maybe one more, Montana?
The National Health Service in the U.K. is possibly the closest thing to true single payer. It is a disaster.
@ Mike M
You may be thinking of Colorado:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ColoradoCare
Which way do you bet at 20-1 odds?
Trump gets three more Supreme Court vacancies to fill.
I submitted a comment, #169089 I think, which promptly disappeared. It didn’t say in moderation, it didn’t say anything. Whatever did happen to it? Just curious.
TScharf: “Fun fact: The number of SC justices can be changed.”
…..
Roosevelt’s failed court packing in the 1930s brings up my precise point about the necessity of shared values and a culture. Even though the court was ruling against the Democrats, a substantial number of Democrats placed principle above party and end results and opposed Roosevelt’s action. (Such as vice-president Garner and Dem Committee chair Ashurst) This would never happen today.
JD
MikeN,
Breyer and Ginsberg each have a 50% chance to live another ~9 years. However that is based on averages…. highly educated people who remain intellectually active tend to live longer. Trump, even if reelected, is only in office another 6.5 years. And I very much doubt either of them would retire unless they were severely incapacitated. So the chance Trump would get TWO more appointments seems pretty low (maybe 1 chance in 10 or 12). Getting three more appointments (eg Thomas dies or retires) makes the odds much longer… certainly more than 1:30. So if I were I betting man, I would bet Trump does NOT get three more appointments, even with a 20:1 payout on the other side of the bet.
MikeN (Comment #169107): “Which way do you bet at 20-1 odds?
Trump gets three more Supreme Court vacancies to fill.”
At 20-1, I’d be inclined bet on Trump getting three more appointments. The average interval between death or retirement is a little under three years, based on that the over/under is about two. So there should be a fair chance of three, although it is not very likely.
I expect that Ginsburg will hold out bitterly as long as Trump is in office, but she is 85. Breyer will be 80 in a few weeks. Thomas is 70 and Alito is close to that. Roberts and Sotomayer who is a diabetic are mid-60’s. Yes, the liberal justice might be disinclined to retire while Trump is in office, but the conservative justices might be inclined to step down while they can be replaced by a conservative.
Of course, it won’t happen unless Trump gets re-elected.
DeWitt, DeWitt,
Tut tut. You simply tax other people who make more money than you to fund everything. It’s magic. After you get voted into office then you blame the other side for wrecking your awesome plan by constantly bringing up that money thing.
.
The problem with medical costs is … ummmm … their costs. Medical care and education have severe cost disease problems.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost-disease/
.
“Do you think the average poor or middle-class person would rather:
a) Get modern health care
b) Get the same amount of health care as their parents’ generation, but with modern technology like ACE inhibitors, and also earn $8000 extra a year”
.
Somebody needs to explain how they are going to fix that before I vote for their magical incantations. Single payer, mandated costs controls, feds bargaining directly with pharmaceutical companies, etc. After people are done vomiting up those options, one has to move from being reactionary to providing an alternative answer. Eventually a medical industry wrecking option will necessarily be voted in. This industry is so sclerotic at this point that it is incapable of fixing itself IMO, and it is going to rue the day it didn’t respond when it could have. It’s going to happen, it literally has to happen.
Strzok today: “Let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath: not once in my 26 years of defending my nation did my personal opinions impact any official action I took”
.
“Like many people, I had and expressed personal political opinions during an extraordinary presidential election,†Mr. Strzok said. “Many contained expressions of concern for the security of our country—opinions that were not always expressed in terms I am proud of.â€
.
Yeah, right. He could have put a firewall between his feelings and acted professionally, but I’m not buying it. Judges can’t get caught saying how much they detest a defendant before a trial without repercussions.
.
Conspiracies are almost impossible to prove. Strzok could have written a memo: “I hate Trump and let’s do some illegal things to take him down” and that would be evidence. Otherwise he can always assert without evidence he acted professionally regardless of anything he said. An actual real professional would have let his bosses know he was emotionally tainted and should be put on another investigation.
.
Page refused to testify even after given a subpoena. Realistically it was the right thing as nothing good was going to come out of it. Imagine getting grilled about your infidelity and professional misconduct by politically motivated powerful people.
Tom Scharf,
The only ways to control healthcare costs are 1) a single payer system like in the UK which limits both type and amount of available care (by law)… AKA “fair” rationing, or 2) allow people to actually have skin in the game in their choices for health care.
.
The current system, where most consumers of health care have little interest in controlling cost, is doomed to lead high utilization of expensive procedures and to ballooning costs… which will ultimately bankrupt the Federal government (that is, the voters). Here is an interesting story about antibody based cancer treatments and where costs are headed: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-cancer-costs/the-cost-of-cancer-new-drugs-show-success-at-a-steep-price-idUSKBN1750FU
.
Providing individuals with normal market incentives to control health care expenditures would help to drive costs down, even in the sclerotic health care industry. If given the choice of $8,000 per year more income, but inexpensive (and limited) health insurance coverage or their current income and much less limited health insurance, I think most people would opt for the extra income.
.
Some other simple steps would help. For example, stop subsidizing employer provided health insurance by making those employer expenditures taxable income to the employee. (Same thing with other non-taxable benefits!) Those tax subsidies help high income individuals, with high marginal tax rates, afford more expensive health insurance on the tax payer’s dime, while giving minimal help to lower income individuals. Those tax subsidies fall in the range of crazy if the objective is to help poorer people afford health insurance.
Tom Scharf,
“Judges can’t get caught saying how much they detest a defendant before a trial without repercussions.”
.
Unless they are progressive judges on the Supreme Court, like Ginsberg, where they can apparently say whatever they want and get away with it.
.
Strzok is clearly not a professional, he is a lying sack of dog excrement. He should have long ago been fired.
Tom,
Page can be compelled to testify. SHe will probably take the 5th.
SteveF,
If Congress want’s to lean on someone about prescription drug prices, they should try the middlemen in the supply chain like Express Scripts rather than the drug companies. They’re making big profits while supplying little added value. There’s an article about that in today’s WSJ.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/drug-supply-chain-feels-the-trump-effect-1531301404?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
The new cancer drugs in the article you linked above are expensive to make. You have to make relatively small batches and it takes months to complete the process. A batch could go bad at any time during that process.
SteveF (Comment #169114): “The current system, where most consumers of health care have little interest in controlling cost, is doomed to lead high utilization of expensive procedures and to ballooning costs …”
Yep, and it leads to a sclerotic system in which no one has much interest in controlling costs but the powerful players are in a position to maneuver for bigger shares of the pie.
Almost everybody utilizes third party payment, thanks to government meddling. The government is the third party payer for something approaching half the population and has heavily subsidized third party payment for most of the rest. Then Obamacare makes it a legal requirement it for most of the remaining 15-20%.
.
SteveF: “Providing individuals with normal market incentives to control health care expenditures would help to drive costs down, even in the sclerotic health care industry.”
Yes, but initially only a small fraction would be utilizing that. To work, there would have to also be some means to encourage price transparency from the providers.
.
SteveF: “If given the choice of $8,000 per year more income, but inexpensive (and limited) health insurance coverage or their current income and much less limited health insurance, I think most people would opt for the extra income.”
In the long run. But in the short run, fear and unfamiliarity would be major barriers.
.
SteveF: “… stop subsidizing employer provided health insurance by making those employer expenditures taxable income to the employee.”
Without doing that, the system will probably never really change.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169117): “the middlemen in the supply chain like Express Scripts … They’re making big profits while supplying little added value”.
I’ve seen that claim, but I don’t understand it. The middlemen either provide added value of have some means of extracting rents. What gives them the power to extract rents?
DeWitt,
It is humorous that every time Amazon uses the word prescriptions in any way that stock prices for pharmacy related companies instantly drop 10%. This tells me that Amazon should definitely be allowed to sell prescription drugs. As SteveF says one of ways to put sanity back in medical costs is to stop the cost hiding exercises and force people to shop around. What is needed is a full out war plan on all areas of medical costs, and this is just one battle, but an important one.
.
The real question is how effective these new cancer drugs are. Many times they do “help” but are only adding months to a person’s lifetime. Size of the effect here is everything.
Tom Scharf,
For some people, it’s more like years than months. See, for example, Jimmy Carter. He was diagnosed with metastatic melanoma that had spread to his lungs in 2015. At the time, he thought he had weeks to live. After treatment with Keytruda, he’s still alive today. I believe the months number is a median that includes people whose response is much less than optimal. Ideally, more time will make it possible to more accurately target patients.
Median may be the best measurement if you are doing a cost / benefit analysis. If you get to an actual cure then that will increase the median.
.
Anecdotal is almost useless. Some people recover without any drugs, although I think this is really rare. Taxpayers should be paying for the best drugs that help the most people. Where exactly “Best” and “Most” lies is of course the real debate. A drug’s median (cost / extended time) with decent quality of life is one reasonable measure to start with, or improvement in 5 year survival rates. Adding a month to someone’s life who has stage 4 terminal cancer is worth something, but how much? Attempting to cure cancer of an 8 year old is worth more than an 80 year old, but once again this will come out in the median.
.
Somebody (the death panel) actually has to put a taxpayer threshold on this while everyone else looks away and pretends it isn’t happening. One can imagine that these drugs could be subsidized on a sliding scale based on their effectiveness and allow patients to make some really hard decisions using their own family’s money (queue people running to their fainting couches, the pharmaceutical industry will bus people in to faint on command).
Tom Scharf,
Yes, but they know the rate of spontaneous remission in the absence of treatment. In the case of metastatic melanoma, it’s essentially zero. That’s why Merck used it for their initial Keytruda drug trials. There was no standard treatment protocol that had any positive effect. The FDA fast tracked the drug because it was so effective in preliminary trials. Also, Jimmy Carter was not the only patient to achieve remission in the trials.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3671034/
Our government doing their hard work for the taxpayers, ha ha.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/12/gop-rep-gohmert-unloads-on-smirking-strzok-how-many-times-did-look-so-innocent-into-your-wifes-eyes-and-lie-to-her.html
.
As the hearing stretched deep into the afternoon, it broke into pandemonium when Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, invoked Mr. Strzok’s extramarital affair with Ms. Page.
.
“I can’t help but wonder when I see you looking there with a little smirk, how many times did you look so innocent into your wife’s eye and lie to her?†he said.”
.
“What does Trump support smell like?†Representative Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, the Judiciary Committee chairman, asked, referencing one message in which Mr. Strzok wrote he could “SMELL†Trump supporters in a southern Virginia Walmart.”
.
He also admitted he advocated for the change to “extremely careless” in the HRC report. So he’s an honorable patriot with some political views like everybody else with no bias and that all his unbiased actions coincidentally ran in the same direction of his political views.
Tom,
I’ve come to doubt Agent Strzok understands what bias is. I understand (and to some extent expect) his protestations that his personal opinions have never affected his professional behavior. If people [a]ffected by bias generally realized the various ways they were [a]ffected by bias, bias wouldn’t be much of an issue in our world. But saying this:
In my view, this demonstrates that the guy has lost perspective, if he ever had any.
I’ll admit I’m sick of hearing about how noble and pure the FBI think they are, how we should just apparently assume that they are beyond questioning or reproach. Maybe some of the FBI guys make a religious devotion out of their jobs, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to genuflect.
[Edit: Apparently Gowdy would agree with my claim that Strzok doesn’t understand what bias means, apparently Strzok struggled to define bias in a 10 hour deposition, story here. ]
Of course Strzok advocated for the change to extremely careless. Gross negligence in handling classified data is a criminal offense. It would be much harder to have an official investigation conclude that there was gross negligence and then claim that there was no prosecutable offense.
Of course Strzok advocated the change to the non-criminal (extremely careless) description! How could his preferred candidate become president if she was prosecuted for mis-handling classified documents? (Answer: she couldn’t.) Strzok is such a lying sack of crap that he can’t even appreciate the obvious: he and many others at FBI were horrified at the prospect of president Trump, and acted to minimize the chance of that happening. There is very good reason for essentially all upper managment at FBI to be fired, starting with Strzok.
What’s he going to say, “Yes, those texts indicate bias”. He has no choice but to look like an idiot. I’m guessing he doesn’t use the same standard when deciding to believe the suspects he investigates. I cannot believe this guy hasn’t been fired yet.
You cannot make this stuff up:
“Republican leaders plan to make Democrats put their votes where their mouths are; Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said he will bring up a vote on Democrats’ newly released “Abolish ICE†bill, the Hill’s Juliegrace Brufke first reported. The bill, proposed by three House progressives in light of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance†policy at the border, which separated more than 2,000 immigration children from their parents, would abolish ICE within a year.”
.
… and wait for it …
.
“the three Democratic co-sponsors of the bill — Reps. Mark Pocan (D-WI), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Adriano Espaillat — said they will vote no on the bill if Republicans bring it to the floor.”
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/12/17565862/house-republicans-democrats-immigration-vote-abolish-ice-bill-mark-pocan
Tom Scharf,
“I cannot believe this guy hasn’t been fired yet.”
.
You and millions of other voters. He is a dishonest clown who is unworthy of any job beyond flipping burgers… and maybe not even that. If Jeff Sessions is worth a pinch, this guy will be gone very soon.
Tom,
Actually, yes. I’d have respected that a lot more. I mean, obviously he has a personal bias. It’s OK. Lots of people do. Denying the obvious doesn’t advance his position at all.
Everybody got bias. It’s more dangerous when we delude ourselves into thinking we don’t. Guys like Strzok who are absolutely convinced that they have it under control are (IMO) the most likely to be swayed by it. They don’t examine their own motives with enough distrust.
Anyway.
Tom,
Thanks for the Vox article. It supports Tom Fuller’s contention that Abolish Ice != Open Borders:
which is something of a relief to me.
mark, Tom: “especially after … numerous ICE raids that have resulted in undocumented immigrants being deported.”
I don’t understand what’s considered to be wrong here. Certainly ICE’s main job is to handle legal immigration and border control. But are they not also supposed to look for, and prosecute, those who have entered illegally? Is it that “raids” are considered too harsh, or the deportations?
mark bofill,
“….which is something of a relief to me.”
.
I think it is good to keep in mind that the same people who call for “abolishing ICE” are supporting “sanctuary cities”, which act specifically to keep immigration laws from being enforced (eg warning illegal aliens when ICE agents will be around). Yes, they will tone down their message when it is politically expedient, but the reality is they simply do not want immigration laws enforced…. at all.
.
HaroldW,
“But are they not also supposed to look for, and prosecute, those who have entered illegally?”
Find and arrest, yes, prosecution is by the DOJ.
.
“Is it that “raids†are considered too harsh, or the deportations?”
Both. Those calling for ICE to be abolished want open borders. Which is consistent with not believing in the legitimacy of the nation state as a political structure. It’s Marx lite.
Harold,
I don’t understand exactly what the problem is either. The article says
Separate handling of organized crime, drugs, and human trafficking from immigration enforcement, sounds like.
Why? I’m not sure. It would certainly help to know that!
.
Steve,
I know. But there’s always a spectrum out there. There’s the unreasonable crazies to one end and the moderate left to the other. I don’t think the moderates who lean left support sanctuary cities or open borders. Maybe they do.
In my view, there’s an ideologically dedicated set of people on the far left who consider any means to their end justified. These people are not to be trusted. There is no point in dialog with them, listening to their viewpoints and seeking common ground, because it’s all a sham anyway. I personally know at least a couple of these types.
That’s not everybody on the left though. I try to understand if the moderate left is asking for something reasonable or (god forbid) something that actually might be a good idea. It could happen…
This is classic political doublespeak. It’s bloviating Trump style when they won’t even vote for their own bill. Not exactly adhering to the courage of their convictions.
.
They are directly appealing to the open border types, and effectively saying they won’t deport anyone who makes it across the border without getting caught unless they are arrested for a violent crime. Eliminating an agency without saying what if anything they will replace it with is lazy political pandering, or more succinctly standard US politics.
.
Some illegals cause problems, some don’t. The ones who do should be deported and the others need to act like responsible citizens. Pay taxes, educate their children, work hard, try to assimilate in US culture.
HaroldW (Comment #169133): “Certainly ICE’s main job is to handle legal immigration and border control.”
Legal immigration is the responsibility of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Border control is under Customs and Border Protection. ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is a separate agency that handles internal investigations and enforcement. So abolishing ICE, although irresponsible, is not exactly open borders.
.
HaroldW: “But are they not also supposed to look for, and prosecute, those who have entered illegally?”
Yes, all that is the responsibility of ICE, including prosecution.
.
HaroldW: “Is it that “raids†are considered too harsh, or the deportations?”
Neither. It is pure political posturing.
I had to laugh at the Vox article (Comment #169129) when they said that by voting against their own bill, the Democrats would be calling the Republicans’ bluff.
Tom,
Possibly. Could be probably. I have problems with deciding what people are effectively saying vs what they are literally saying on different levels. I think it increases polarization when we decide we already know what our political opposition really means. Why listen to what they say at all, one might conclude. For example, I can imagine folk on the left deciding that righties who are defending free speech are ‘effectively’ promoting racist views. Not productive, as far as I’m concerned.
Shrug.
mark, SteveF —
Thanks!
.
MikeM: “Legal immigration is the responsibility of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Border control is under Customs and Border Protection.”
Thanks for that correction. Perhaps I was thinking of the INS, which would mean that I’m at least 15 years out of date, as the INS ceased to exist in 2003.
I should have added this. What complicates the problem is that (I think) there really are lying, manipulating, unscrupulous activists and politicos out there. It is a waste of time and energy to talk with these. But I don’t know of a better alternative to trying to sift the grain and weevils apart manually, so to speak.
mark bofill (Comment #169138): “I have problems with deciding what people are effectively saying vs what they are literally saying on different levels. I think it increases polarization when we decide we already know what our political opposition really means. Why listen to what they say at all, one might conclude.”
Wise words. There are times when I need to remember them.
.
I suspect that “abolish ICE” is about pandering to certain pressure groups and appealing to people’s emotions while hoping that people won’t think too hard about just what “abolish ICE” means. I don’t know that, but I’d give pretty good odds on it.
I’d be quite willing to listen to proposals to reform ICE. I’ve looked for such proposals from the “abolish ICE” crowd, but they do not seem to exist. So I feel justified in concluding that it is just posturing, at least until a firm proposal is put forward.
Mike M.,
Ditto for “Medicare for All.”
mark bofill,
There is no way to really determine what they are saying. The ICE does a lot more than immigration enforcement. For example I’m guessing they still want to investigate sex trafficking. They aren’t saying “Reform ICE”, and even those that say that’s what they really mean never get around to specifying what policies they are going to change beyond “ripping children from their parent’s arms”. If you ask 10 different people with these signs what they really want you will get 10 different answers.
.
Polling shows open borders is supported by 21%, Abolish ICE is supported by 25%. I think the overlap here is near 100%.
The only useful and informative article I have seen on Kavanaugh:
https://www.popehat.com/2018/07/10/youll-hate-this-post-on-brett-kavanaugh-and-free-speech/
You guys got me there. What’s the specific proposal and why, I’m still waiting to hear that too. Also FWIW, I expect the idea that it’s just a smokescreen for open borders is probably the case in this instance. Thanks for the statistics Tom.
Thanks all.
Tom Scharf,
“Polling shows open borders is supported by 21%, Abolish ICE is supported by 25%. I think the overlap here is near 100%.”
.
Can you give a link to the polling data?
Mike M,
ICE is a law enforcement agency and part of the Department of Homeland Security. ICE does not carry out prosecutions; it has no power to bring a prosecution. ICE refers all cases to the DOJ for prosecution. At least that is what Jeff Sessions believes:
I don’t know if these were the polls Tom was referring to, but I find:
24% for open borders and 25% for abolish ICE. I don’t know anything about the overlap.
[Edit: Ahh. this one found 21% abolish ICE].
Here are the ones I used. I think these numbers are pretty consistent across different polls.
Most Americans oppose abolishing ICE
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/11/17553330/abolish-ice-poll
.
What The Latest Immigration Polls Do (And Don’t) Say
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/23/580037717/what-the-latest-immigration-polls-do-and-dont-say
.
I would guess everyone who is for open borders supports abolishing ICE, but not vice versa. This is not in the data, just a hypothesis.
SteveF (Comment #169147): “ICE is a law enforcement agency and part of the Department of Homeland Security. ICE does not carry out prosecutions; it has no power to bring a prosecution. ICE refers all cases to the DOJ for prosecution.”
Thanks, that sounds right. My source was Wikipedia; so nuances get lost or confused. I think ICE does handle civil prosecutions (Is this person subject to removal?) but would have to refer criminal prosecutions (Should this person be convicted of a felony?) to DoJ. That would explain the “now” in the quote from Sessions.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169149): “I would guess everyone who is for open borders supports abolishing ICE, but not vice versa. This is not in the data, just a hypothesis.”
I don’t think that follows, and not just because people are illogical. Even supporters of open borders typically want some controls to screen out and deport terrorists and criminals. Some agency would be required for that. Abolishing ICE is largely posturing and virtue signalling (Think of the children!) rather than policy.
Kavanaugh and the 2nd Amendment:
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/09/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment
Insurance companies tend to be pretty generous with cancer treatments, because the expected lifespan is just a few years. The new treatments have side effects, and perhaps postpone things by a few months. Ten thousand dollars a month for tablets is something they can live with. The question is will they do that if it becomes tens of thousands a month for several years?
MikeN,
All drugs have side effects. As the saying goes about drugs: Safe, Cheap, Effective, pick two.
The side effects of the biologics tend to be a lot less debilitating than standard chemotherapy. You don’t have to nearly kill the patient to kill the cancer. So the quality of life in those months (which can be years for some) is a lot better. If the cancer disappears, as in Jimmy Carter’s case, I don’t think you need to continue taking the drugs.
Tom Scharf, that Gohmert question has been made the highlight of the hearing, but it wasn’t even the most important thing Gohmert asked.
He brought up that the IC IG found Hillary’s e-mails secretly going to a third party server, and asked Strzok why they didn’t investigate. Strzok said he didn’t recall the meeting.
Page did testify behind closed doors on Friday, and the transcript might eventually be released. The Republicans said she seemed “credible” and wasn’t as smug as Strzok for whatever that is worth. If she said anything politically useful it probably would have been leaked within 5 seconds.
.
I’m still interested in how the “stop it” text was missed by the FBI and look forward to hearing about that, otherwise this exercise has run its useful course.
Tom,
” this exercise has run its useful course.”
.
Yes, save for the apparent witholding of the most damaging text by the FBI (what a surprise!), and the need to promptly fire Strzok, there is nothing more of interest. Two progressive democrats, communicating openly with each other, while investigating clear criminal acts by Hillary and desperate to find criminal acts by Trump… what could possibly go wrong? Answer: this sorry episode, where we see behind the Wizard’s curtain. A posse of progressive democrats searching for something (anything!) to charge Trump with…. what could possibly go wrong? Answer: Another sorry episode like this one, but one where we don’t get to see behind the curtain.
Watched bits of the interrogation.
Cannot see how he can attack Trump in so may ways using information gathered over the months but then say he cannot reveal in any way shape or form the sources of such information. Surely a lawyer would say either you do not say anything at all or if you do offer up a part of such information you have to show the whole trail?
–
Second it seems to the conspiracy trained mind that a sting operation was planned and put in place to hit Papadopoulos with the agency of Alexander Downer. The legal stalemate needs breaking. Both sides are hamstrung by having important players in the others camp. Rosenstein and Mueller need to go go to clear the air but if they go they face the prospect of charges fairly quickly down the line.
Do not understand Sessions. One way to break the impasse would be to appoint an investigation into the origins of the Steel dossier. The other a breakdown and confession by a key player like Lisa Page or McCabe. Cannot see Strozk folding. He is absolutely unaware of his resolute bias.
angech,
“…appoint an investigation into the origins of the Steel dossier.”
.
That is really not needed. It was clearly opposition research (digging for damaging information on an opposing political candidate) funded by Trump’s many opponents: initially by one or more of his Republican primary opponents (my guess: Jeb! Bush), then by Hillary’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, using the law firm Perkins Coie as a conduit for payments to hide their direct involvement. All this is well know and clearly documented.
.
Opposition research is very standard stuff in US politics. What is not standard is the representation of the dossier by the Hillary campaign, the DNC, and other politicians, to the FBI and DOJ as legitimate “intelligence” about Trump being compromised by the Russians. It is also not standard that the DOJ and FBI would actually pay any attention to such opposition research. Instead they used the dossier as justification to start a formal investigation into the Trump campaign via FBI informants and FISA Court warrants to wiretap US citizens, while willfully misrepresenting to the FISA Court the actual source of the dossier: opposition research funded mostly by the DNC and Hillary’s campaign.
.
IMHO, the FBI and DOJ were (and are) implacably and maliciously opposed to Trump, and individuals within the FBI and DOJ acted upon that malice in bad faith. I think many people who were at the FBI and DOJ and who were involved in starting the Trump “investigation” should be fired, if still employed, and prosecuted. But I very much doubt they will be.
SteveF,
You left the Intelligence Community off your list. They were in on it from the beginning. The Papadopolous thing has CIA/NSA written all over it.
>One way to break the impasse would be to appoint an investigation into the origins of the Steel dossier.
Sessions has a team of prosecutors at work. Much of the documents that Congress is not getting is because it is grand jury evidence.
Meanwhile people are passing the buck all over. Comey blamed Priestap in testimony to Congress. McCabe blamed Comey. Strzok passed the buck to Comey and Priestap and said they ordered him to ignore Weiner laptop and investigate Hillary. Page presumably blamed Strzok and McCabe.
Another case of police body-cams preventing another extended Michael Brown he said / she said event.
Chicago Police Fatally Shoot Man, and Then a Crowd Confronts Officers
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/07/15/us/ap-us-police-shooting-chicago.html
.
Chicago shooting: Police release bodycam footage after protests
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44844907
Magic trick, I think I know how it’s done, but can anyone explain what happened at the end?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7fnRbf8nqM
I want to make a few predictions:
.
1) In November, democrats gain control of the House by a handful of seats, and immediately start “investigating” Trump’s “collusion with Russia”. They will regret this later.
.
2) Republicans keep control of tbe Senate by a couple of seats, and tell the House Democrats not to bother with impeachment efforts.
.
3) Trump wins in 2020 by a smaller margin than 2016.
.
4) One of the SC liberals dies or is incapacitated, and Trump finishes the transformation of the Court from a supra-constitutional progressive legislature, permanently above appeal, to, well, just a court.
.
5) Hillary Clinton runs for president (yet again) but is laughted out of the primary campaign. She finally shuts up, if only because the MSM will not cover her……….. but she remains as nasty. unpleasant, and insufferable as ever.
.
Umm, I thought the origins of the Steele dossier were pretty well established. A Republican mega donor commissioned Fusion who subcontracted it out to Steele. When the Republican pulled the plug on it, Fusion approached the Clinton campaign and asked if they wanted the research continued.
Nice summit today. President Putin and his Vice President Trump put on quite a show.
Thomas,
“President Putin and his Vice President Trump put on quite a show.”
.
You are at risk of be-clowning yourself. Did you read the transcript of the press conference, or are you just guessing? (No rhetorical.)
Sorry, Steve. It was an unquestioned (and apparently unquestionable) triumph. I’m walking taller and spitting nails just from having read the transcript. And, of course, what Republicans had to say about it afterwards.
Everything President Trump does is epic. :p
SteveF: “Did you read the transcript of the press conference, or are you just guessing?’
Does someone have a link to the transcript?
Style and rhetoric are the only things that are meaningful. As an example of how fair and truth finding the media is, Trump could have told Russia’s President that he would be able to bend more to Putin’s wishes after he wins the next election, and I’m sure the media would not have hyperventilated and gone to stage 10 hysteria. Remember the “Russian Reset”, and the “1980’s called and wants their foreign policy back”? It is noted that these have been forcibly redacted from liberal history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mgQaFlo_p8
.
This event was a guaranteed hysterical reaction no matter what happened, as with the Supreme Court pick, the media went hysterical before it even happened:
.
WP: On Russian state TV, Putin has already won the summit with Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/07/15/on-russian-state-tv-putin-has-already-won-the-summit-with-trump
.
Politico: Putin Has Already Won
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/11/putin-has-already-won-218968
.
Time: No Matter What Happens in Helsinki, Putin Has Already Won
http://time.com/5333104/putin-trump-summit-helsinki-winner/
.
Vladimir Putin Has Already Won – NYMag
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/vladimir-putin-has-already-won.html
.
Reuters: For Putin, Helsinki talks with Trump a win before he even sits down
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-summit/for-putin-helsinki-talks-with-trump-a-win-before-he-even-sits-down-idUSKBN1K12EU
.
NYT (not opinion page) Just Sitting Down With Trump, Putin Comes Out Ahead
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/world/europe/trump-putin-helsinki-summit.html
MikeM,
There are many:
https://www.google.com/search?q=transcript+of+trump+putin+press+conference&oq=transcript+of+trump+putin+press+conference&aqs=chrome..69i57.17559j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Thomas,
A substantive argument is often more convincing than sarcasm.
.
Please note the several several links Tom Scharf provided from before the meeting. Based on those published articles, it’s difficult to see how there would be (or could be) anything except condemnation, no matter the actual substance of the meeting, or what was said at the press conference.
In my view the media can’t be trusted to cover Trump fairly and you can just tell by the emotional screeching today they have lost objectivity on this subject. NYT: NEWS ANALYSIS Trump’s Critics Have a New Word in Their Vocabulary: Treason
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/us/politics/trump-critics-treason-putin.html
.
The NYT is hilariously accusing him of treason. This is a front page “news analysis” by the NYT of what late night comedy hosts are saying. Treason? Did he actually like really do something I’m missing, or was it just another episode of Trump bloviating that has been happening for 2 years straight on Twitter? They have lost their minds.
Merriam Webster on treason (political context):
I think it’s a stretch to suggest President Trump is trying to overthrow the government of the US, or trying to kill or injure himself or his family. Of course, the President is not exactly a ‘sovereign’, but he is the ‘Head of State’.
.
Perhaps it’d be less of a stretch to suggest that Trump’s political enemies might be pleased to overthrow the current government, or at least Trump’s administration. I [personally] wouldn’t have gone there, using the word ‘treason’, but since Brennan’s throwing the term around, he might glance at the size of the shoe and measure his own foot before proceeding any further.
Tom Scharf,
“They have lost their minds.”
.
Which was already becoming clear in the days following November 8, 2016. The endless irrational howling just confirms what was obvious 20+ months ago.
I don’t know where you find ‘overthrowing the government’ in Trump’s press conference. They have indeed lost their minds.
mark bofill,
Cross posted.
StevwF (Comment #169164): “I want to make a few predictions:”
My counterparts to Steve’s predictions, taking into account the way the Democrats and the press are losing their minds.
.
1) In November, Republicans will keep control of the House. They might even gain seats, but I won’t predict that they will.
.
2) Republicans will keep control of the Senate with at least 55 seats, but fall short of the magic number of 60.
.
3) Trump will win in 2020 by a larger margin than 2016.
.
4) Either Alito or Thomas will step down from the supreme Court in 2019 and the other will step down during Trump’s second term, as will Breyer.
.
5) Hillary Clinton will form an exploratory committee for a presidential run in 2020, but will drop it when party insiders and major donors make it clear they won’t support her.
.
The stakes are bragging rights.
SteveF,
Of course, our [C]onstitution explicitly defines treason somewhat differently:
Here is a document which helps illuminate ‘adhering’ and ‘aid and comfort’.
Still isn’t remotely applicable.
Shrug.
The Washington Post claimed this back in February:
I was wondering what constituted an ‘Enemy’.
Much of this is the fault of we Democrats. We didn’t get out the vote. We didn’t properly place the focus on those parts of the Trump Campaign’s collusion with Russian intelligence that were already known before the election. We took the Hispanic vote for granted. We didn’t push Hillary to articulate a clear set of messages about where she wanted to take the country.
We are complicit in the election of the worst president this country has ever seen. I offer my humblest apologies on behalf of Democrats everywhere.
OK, I read a few articles on the “end of world as we know it and all Republicans should now become Democrats” and it was obvious that the media is quite convinced that the rest of the media is as outraged as they are. Since these articles failed to reveal what the outrage was really about beyond an outrage competition I was forced to actually read the transcript.
.
Trump is saying what Trump has been saying for 18 months straight. There was no collusion, and he is (childishly) defending his election as legitimate against those who wish to (childishly) undermine it using the Russian interference story. Trump was talking about collusion, the press thinks he was talking about interference.
.
He kept a very consistent “witch hunt” stance on how much he hates this investigation, only he did it in Russia, standing right beside Putin, which is apparently the crime to his critics. It should be noted that the two people on planet earth who really know the answer to this question are those two people and they should be able to give their (predictable) view. In an imaginary world where Trump is innocent his comments are not very controversial by the Trump standard.
.
This wasn’t exactly a Team USA stance on this subject, but nothing new. Presidents don’t usually criticize the US while on foreign soil, but these were direct questions from reporters and Trump was eager to answer them in the same manner he always has. Trump being Trump.
.
Putin’s comments were actually more interesting. He said some weird things about a Mr. Browder and Clinton and $400M campaign contributions earned in Russia. He said if they want to interrogate the 12 Russians, come to Russia and watch the Russians do it for them as is the standing legal arrangement. He said the US and Russia should work together where they have common interests.
None of this is the end of the world. Not even the end of America.
It’s embarrassing. Trump is a horrible combination of stupid and bad.
Robert Heinlein used to say people got the government they deserve. What I hate most about this is what it says about us.
I guess some of what it says about us is a conservative Supreme Court, a defeated ISIS, the lowest unemployment in decades including full employment, record stock market levels, lower taxes, out of the Iran deal and Paris Accords, a necessary trade war with China, globalists in an all out panic, no new wars, and the EPA being reigned in.
.
The left’s elections plans for 2018 and 2020 will be the only thing they know how to do anymore, label and shame.
Do you really think ISIS is defeated, Tom? In a year or two we all will realize that hell rhymes with Sahel.
[in response to Comment #169182]
Well, take it philosophically Tom [Fuller]. It was Obama who said this:
We’re basically the same as all the other schmucks out there; nothing to be embarrassed about in that case. And nationalism is a Trumpian folly and a Nazi type of thought anyway. I don’t see why a a leftist should trouble himself.
And how do you feel about tariffs in the 21st Century?
Are you cool with the $700 billion companies have used from their tax breaks to buy their own stock back?
And yeah, giving Putin Syria and Iran in exchange for two draft picks and a player to be named later… that’s not war, all right. It’s surrender.
Tom Fuller,
ISIS is not defeated (you can’t defeat crazy ideas), but they are much diminished.
.
WRT tarriffs: Trump failed to lay out a reasoned case for targeted tariffs, and was, I think, mistaken to issue blanket tariffs on steel and aluminum. What he gets right is that many of our largest trading partners have been taking advantage of the USA for a long time. Which is not to say the USA is above reproach… we do have some stupid duties… like sugar tariffs and the “chicken tariff” on pickup trucks. But the USA is not nearly the free trade offender that Europe, Japan, China, and a host of others are. Trump is right to criticize the worst offenders and insist on a better deal.
Regarding ISIS, I think they’re more thoroughly defeated now since having James Mattis to contend with than they would have otherwise been.
Regarding tariffs- I don’t love them. Lots of people keep predicting the tariffs will ‘screw us’. Nobody seems to be putting down hard predictions on when. So far so good? Our economy appears to be OK right now.
Companies using tax breaks to buy their own stock back, yeah, I’m good with that. Why wouldn’t I be?
I’m not clear on what you mean by ‘giving’ Putin Syria and Iran. I can’t think of any sense in which Iran could have been considered ours in any event.
Hiya Mark
Okay, rephrase it as you like–ceding to Russia the ability to be first mover in rearranging the Middle East. That any better?
I think ISIS as we know it is dead, Islamic jihad is not and will likely be here for generations in some form or another. The next overt terror organization that wishes to hold land, pretend they are a state, and export terror globally will be wise to look at Raqqa and I suspect they will find that mode of governance to be counterproductive to their goals. My guess is the next ISIS like organization will be long on rhetoric, and short on suicide attacks in the west for self preservation.
.
Trade wars aren’t good economically, but maybe politically necessary in the case of China. Free trade has produced uneven results and hurt lower skilled workers in the US. The mistake our leaders made is not caring at all, and proposing we do even more of the same. The left managed to lose the working class, big mistake.
Tom Fuller,
That is better. I’m not sure I agree, but I understand what you’re saying now. Thanks.
Tom Fuller,
WRT stock buy-backs: this happens for several reasons: 1) Distributing those monies as dividends means a portion is taken as tax… while stock buy-backs raise stock price without incurring immediate tax liability on gains. 2) Managment compensation is usually tied to increases in stock price, quite independent of what caused the price to rise…. AKA less than optimal corporate governance. 3) Managers have strong incentives to avoid risk (investment for organic growth) and bet on a sure thing (buying stock immediately raises stock price)…. more less than optimal corporate governance. Stockholders will, in the long term, recognize poor management and adjust. In the short term? Nope.
Tom Sharf, (how are you?), https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/islamic-state-has-survived-100000-bombs-and-missiles-and-is-still-very-much-active/news-story/0f62e90544bb8f89ef7b9706977349aa
Steve, IIRC that tax cut was sold as a means of spurring investment to help raise productivity and give workers a better life.
Again, IIRC, one of the main elements of the Democratic opposition to the tax cut was that it would give large corporations a large and permanent tax cut that they would use to buy stock back, instead of investing it.
I believe this is how we Democrats viewed the Trump tax cut:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ryan.png
Syria has been our adversary for a long time. From the 5 mile high view Syria reducing itself to a pile of rubble is all good news strategically to the US and Israel. It will take decades for them to become the same threat they used to be. The unintended consequences will occur but are unknown, perhaps Iran and Russia will step in to rebuild and demand allegiance for their effort and Iran being on the border of Israel will likely not end well. Iran and Russia can only do so much, their economies aren’t very large.
.
Realistically the Middle East being a clusterf*** is a constant state of being so the next President will likely just put it all in a blender and hit puree and get the same overall result. It’s hard to criticize anyone for failing here.
Thomas William Fuller (Comment #169180): “We are complicit in the election of the worst president this country has ever seen. I offer my humblest apologies on behalf of Democrats everywhere.”
Please don’t feel so bad. After all, you saved us from she who would have been the worst president in the history of the country. 🙂
.
——-
Thomas William Fuller (Comment #169184): “Do you really think ISIS is defeated, Tom?”
Tom has already answered but I will add to it. Yes, ISIS has been really defeated and yes, that is important. Islamic extremism is not about to go away. But ISIS was different from the groups that came before it and that will come in the future. The won actual battles and controlled territory. That gave them an image as “winners”, which was a very powerful re recruiting tool. Even more important, by controlling territory they could lay claim to the caliphate; that is a very powerful idea in Islamic fundamentalism.
Golly Tom Fuller.
I didn’t know Peace Studies was a thing, but I read:
I don’t know that this is exactly an unbiased news report we’re looking at. I question if Paul Rogers would agree that ISIS could ever be defeated by military force.
Tom, Here are some data regarding buybacks:
https://taxfoundation.org/not-much-ado-stock-buybacks-q1-2018-repurchases-comparable-past-years/
We do live in different worlds, Mike.
Hi Mark
Well, I don’t think this dude is a peacenik hippy like me or Paul Rogers:
https://www.thenational.ae/world/africa/morocco-foreign-minister-more-than-10-000-islamic-militants-in-africa-1.744703
Sure. https://www.newsweek.com/us-general-says-new-frontier-against-isis-africa-pentagon-weighs-more-troops-691259
I’m losing track of what’s under dispute. The blame for this can be laid squarely on my shoulders. My apologies. Let me back up.
.
Trump boasted that ISIS was done. It’s clearly not. If that’s under dispute, I concede that.
.
If we’re disputing something else, be a gent and help me get back on track. Thanks!
An Islamic Paradise, definitely worth repeating
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJDu7cKFA6M
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/world/syria/raqqa-residents-abandoned-and-forgotten
.
The Democrats were against the (fill in the blank) because Trump. If the Democrats want to run on raising taxes and reversing the Trump tax cuts, I can only say how can I help them spread the word?
Don’t worry, Mark–so many bones of contention and just us few dogs to worry at them…
How about just eliminating the corporate tax cuts and extending those of the workers?
I’m not against giving Putin everything he wants because Trump. I’m against giving him what he wants because he’s a despotic thug, murderer and a threat to this country.
Someone might want to mention this to the president…
Well, polifact rates mostly true Trump’s claim that the tax cuts led to bonuses for three million workers. Two percent of adult workers said they’d gotten a raise, bonus, or some other benefit from it. That doesn’t seem like an awful outcome to me.
.
I get what you’re saying about Putin. Maybe we’d disagree, but there are world leaders who are like that in my view. It’s not clear to me that the best policy is not to deal with them. Fidel may have been responsible for the deaths of 30-50K cubans, but it wasn’t clear that not dealing with Cuba was the best policy to continue. We deal with China, I expect I could dredge up some murderous thuggery to lay at their feet as well.
I don’t know.
TWF,
If you believe that Citizens United was incorrectly decided because corporations are not entitled to the same rights as individuals, then the corporate income tax is not justified either by the very same logic.
I think corporate income taxes are a bad idea anyway. However, I don’t much like stock buybacks at already inflated stock prices and the even more excessive management compensation that results. As SteveF says, poor corporate governance that will eventually be punished.
Tom Scharf,
China is buying significantly less US soybeans this year. US soybean prices are dropping as are midwest farmland prices and farm income. Illinois, a major soybean producing state, could be in even more trouble than they are already.
I think a poll for “Do you agree we should we give Putin everything?” would have strong bipartisan agreement to not do so. You’ll need to be more specific. We should cooperate with Russia and anyone where it is in our interests to do so. Nobody should trust Russia on anything but their are ways to cooperate in spite of that, and their only real current threat is they have lots of nukes. Russia was legitimately scary back in the USSR days, now not so much.
Mark, you do realize you wrote ‘two percent,’ don’t you?
Two percent?
That’s 2% who “said they had gotten a raise, bonus or other additional benefits due to the tax law” in addition to the approx. 80% of taxpayers who have received an ongoing tax cut.
Tom [Fuller],
Jordan Peterson likes to paraphrase Orwell as claiming ‘It’s not so much that socialists love the poor as they hate the rich’, or something to that effect.
.
To be clear, the direct benefit to the workers (bonus or raise or what all) isn’t even the primary justification in my view for the corporate tax cut. But setting this aside, all other things being equal it is indeed better in my view for 1/50’th of all adult workers to get some benefit rather than none, even if [well, especially since is how I’d put it] corporations benefit in the process.
.
I’m curious what you make of Peterson’s paraphrasing. Not so much about whether or not you think he’s properly paraphrasing Orwell so much as if you think it could be a valid observation in some cases.
I don’t hate the rich. I hate the politicians they buy.
Tom Fuller,
It’s natural we would disagree about corporations. I’m a capitalist, you’re a socialist. There’s nothing surprising or particularly interesting about our disagreement about corporations given that. We don’t really need to argue that, in my view. Unless you want to. But I don’t imagine either of us will come up with anything the other hasn’t heard before with respect to this issue.
[Edit: Thanks for your response. That’s not unreasonable]
Well, I’m not anti-capital, any more than I imagine you’re pro-poverty. As I said, there are enough bones of contention around to keep us occupied–we don’t need that one.
DeWitt,
Thanks for mentioning the soybeans. I’d missed that. Story here. So we may indeed be seeing some of the negative impacts of tariffs in the near future, my earlier remarks notwithstanding.
Tom Fuller,
No matter what corporations decided to do with repatriated profits, the repatriated profits were taxed, so at a minimum, the Federal government received additional tax revenue. I do not know how the after-tax repatriated profits were on average spent (or even if they were mostly spent), but it would be interesting research. As I noted above, corporate governance is often less than optimal… but then again, so is most any governance.
Steve, I subitted the reference earlier but it has no been published.
See
https://taxfoundation.org/not-much-ado-stock-buybacks-q1-2018-repurchases-comparable-past-years/
The data show that this year’s buybacks are not unusual.
Tom Fuller,
Honestly, you should have lead it at “we nominated Hillary”.
Of course she didn’t articulate a clear set of messages because she didn’t have a clear vision of where the country should go.
While it is suspected that there was bipartisan involvement in the Deep State campaign to take out Trump, and that this is why Senate Intelligence Committee is covering for them(Warner, Feinstein, Rubio, Graham, Burr), Steele was hired after Washington Free Beacon had dropped them and Trump was the presumptive nominee, in April 2016.
>We didn’t push Hillary to articulate a clear set of messages about where she wanted to take the country.
The last time she did that, it led to the first Republican House of Representatives in 40 years.
Tom,
I think the more clearly Hillary had articulated a message, the less likely she would have won. The reality is the country is very resistant to the kinds of programs Hillary wanted (remember her efforts to institute a single payer type national health care system in 1993). For most every public policy, what Hillary wanted was more government control and less individual control. That is the biggest reason she was rejected, not a lack of a clear message….her message was quite clear enough: anyone who disagrees with Hillary’s preferred policies is ‘deplorable’. It didn’t help that she was also blatantly dishonest and corrupt, accumulating a substantial personal fortune while spending her entire career in ‘public service’; her conflicts of interest during her ‘public service’ were many, obvious, and disqualifying.
.
Yes, I know, Trump is a lot less than honest. Fair enough. But at least his policies are not designed to broadly take away personal liberties. And yes, I know that many people honestly believe taking away personal liberties, often by means of “evolving understanding” of the US Constitution, is needed to produce ‘fair and just’ government; I just completely disagree with that notion.
.
Many votes for Trump were lesser-of-evil-hold-your-nose votes. The choices were not good. But please do not imagine a better articulation of Hillary’s vision would have helped her with those who voted for Trump.
“I think the more clearly Hillary had articulated a message, the less likely she would have won.”
.
That’s what I was thinking as well. A bigger problem for the left than the right is trying to hold together their herd of cats with disparate interests. It is likely an even bigger problem now with the activist wing trying to pull the party further left. If you don’t state anything then people tend to project what they want upon the candidate (Obama was truly a master at this, especially 2008).
.
The plan almost worked, and probably would have worked for any candidate without HRC’s baggage. One of HRC’s strengths was her analytical by the numbers campaign style which no doubt ran all those calculations, but this was also her weakness as she presented herself as barely human and entitled.
.
One thing I believe in today’s US politics is boring people lose. Being interesting and flawed and presenting authenticity is better than guarded. I think the age of the straight laced political robot is ending, good riddance. Trump has ushered in the age of overt a**hole politics for better and worse.
.
As a side note my prediction is the Democratic leadership will get what they allegedly want in the next 10 to 20 years and all the “evil” old white people in the party will be vanquished as the party’s identity politics reach their inevitable end point.
Tom Scharf
One problem with identity politics is eventually each “identity” wants to find reasons why they should be favored. Of course they don’t consider the treatment they want to be “favoritism”. They call it “fair” or “equitable”.
Evetually, a group A that hoped to promote the importance of group A being treated equitably eventually comes across group B that wants something that takes away from A.
There’s a new work out there: TERF. It seems TERS vs. Trans is a thing now. Arguments are over things like women’s bathrooms, changing rooms, battered women’s shelters and so on.
I thought that Hillary’s message was perfectly clear: Business as usual, with a laundry list of handouts to special interests. Of course, the handouts to the really special interests were covert. Articulating that message more clearly would not have helped.
.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169222): “One thing I believe in today’s US politics is boring people lose. Being interesting and flawed and presenting authenticity is better than guarded. I think the age of the straight laced political robot is ending, good riddance. Trump has ushered in the age of overt a**hole politics for better and worse.”
I don’t think that is quite true. A**hole politics is not new and is not especially popular. People want hope and change; the political robots can’t provide that. People are also fearful of real change. But the need for hope is starting to overpower the fear of change. That, rather than a desire to be entertained, is what has enabled Trump.
Getting elected may now be similar to getting noticed on Twitter, the more outlandish and confidently stated a put down is, the more popular it is. If I can only think of someone getting elected on the Twitter model … ha ha. Pocahontas, Crooked Hilary, Lying Ted, Low Energy Jeb
.
Also consider the recent losers … HRC, Gore, Romney, McCain, Kerry, Dukakis, Dole, Mondale. Boring. Maybe I’d drink a beer with McCain, but the rest seem like torture. This isn’t a perfect model, but a decent correlation.
For those as slow as I am:
TERF is an acronym for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169225): “Also consider the recent losers … HRC, Gore, Romney, McCain, Kerry, Dukakis, Dole, Mondale. Boring. Maybe I’d drink a beer with McCain, but the rest seem like torture. This isn’t a perfect model, but a decent correlation.”
Don’t forget the man on the wedding cake: Tom Dewey. He was a two time general election loser.
Tom,
Yep. I had a typo: New worD. not New worK.
I figured most people would not have heard the term. But you know goals and alliances of those involved in identity politics are going to change when the radical feminists are duke-ing it out with the trans-gender activists.
Hey wow. I hadn’t heard, thanks lucia.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelsie-brynn-jones/transexclusionary-radical-terf_b_5632332.html
The name and shame game isn’t working too well on the right anymore, so those more interested in identity politics as a power move then turn towards where it still works, inward. I genuinely have sympathy for anyone who is embroiled in an Olympics of Oppression battle. Apparently gay white men are under some pressure to be thrown off the officially persecuted list by the oppression authorities. A purity test here is whether they will only date white men.
Wow again.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/an-open-letter-to-gay-white-men-no-youre-not-allowed_us_5947f0ffe4b0f7875b83e459
The intolerant dragon who demands tolerance eats itself.
[Edit: Apparently the author has never heard of colorblind racism,
He needs to get with the program. Colorblind racism isn’t PC in this progressive day and age. Heh.]
Lucia: “One problem with identity politics is eventually each “identity†wants to find reasons why they should be favored. Of course they don’t consider the treatment they want to be “favoritismâ€. They call it “fair†or “equitableâ€.
Evetually, a group A that hoped to promote the importance of group A being treated equitably eventually comes across group B that wants something that takes away from A. ”
This dovetails, in my mind, with my argument upthread that, for there to be law, there must be a dominant, shared culture. (Not in the sense of Orwellian mandates, but rather in the sense that most people in the community recognize that grass shouldn’t be cut at 6:30 a.m. and that those who do so will be subject to substantial, mostly united, social disapproval.)
Pure identity politics of the nature now being practiced, with its intrinsic divisiveness, will ultimately lead to tribalism and eventually formal separation.
JD
Interesting technical information on how the Feds tracked the DNC hack back to Russia from the indictment.
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/18/mueller-indictment-russian-hackers/
.
Pretty conclusive, about 99% bullet proof. Smoking gun, one of the Ruskie agents screwed up once and accidentally logged on to a command/control server in Arizona without going through a VPN first, IP tracked back to Moscow office. Oops. People make mistakes. One supposes it could be a false flag intentional mistake. Also several hack related sites were paid for with the same Bitcoin account, linking them.
.
In other news, nobody told the DNC to write stupid emails that damage their own cause.
Lucia,
“There’s a new work out there: TERF.”
.
Hummm… I have a sheltered life I guess. I too had to search for a definition. So, some biologically female people (with two X chromosomes) think biologically male people (with an X and a Y) who wear the kinds of clothes most women wear, and perhaps after some estrogen ‘therapy’ to become more feminine looking, are not really women after all. Oddly enough, this doesn’t strike me as surprising. I’d even bet that this position is held by a majority of the adult women in the world.
mark bofill (Comment #169231): “Wow again. …The intolerant dragon who demands tolerance eats itself.”
I can’t keep up (not that I try too hard). Am I allowed to be into redheads, as long as I don’t specify white redheads?
Tom Scharf,
“In other news, nobody told the DNC to write stupid emails that damage their own cause.”
.
Nope. But they did anyway. So the argument is apparently: “If the voters never found out how deceitful and disreputable we were during the campaign, more people would have voted for Hillary.” .
.
Which sounds almost like they are making a case for thanking the Russians for their hacking efforts. It’s a weird argument to make.
[MikeM,]
Uhm, sure. Age, race, gender, genitalia, religion — all of those things are right out. But you can like redheads I think.
…
For now.
…
Actually I’m pretty sure you can discriminate at will against conservatives. So, so long as you stay in a homogeneous environment with other conservatives you can all discriminate and differentiate and prefer in an individualized way to your hearts content. So that’s something.
MikeM,
“Am I allowed to be into redheads, as long as I don’t specify white redheads?”
.
I think you miss the finer point here: you are not allowed to be attracted to anyone because of their physical appearance. Personal preferences in all things are to be eliminated in the progressive utopia…. you will just do as you are told.
The EU is now shaking down silicon valley with regularity. It’s apparently their piggy bank at this point.
.
Fined Google $2.7B last year, and $5.0B this year. This is a Google tax of $15 per person in the EU. The crime here is “Google requires Android device-makers to pre-install the Google search and browser apps on “practically all” devices sold in Europe”. Android is open source. For reference, Google paid $5B in taxes to the US in 2016.
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/18/630030673/eu-hits-google-with-5-billion-fine-for-pushing-apps-on-android-users
.
EU clawed back $15.5B from Apple for tax avoidance in 2016.
Fined Facebook $131M in 2016, more to come here no doubt.
Fined Qualcoom $1.2B in 2017
Fined MS $732M in 2013, $900M in 2008
Fined Intel $1B in 2009.
.
It’s not one sided:
The US fined Germany’s Deutsche Bank $14B for selling toxic mortgages.
Fined BNP $8B for violating Iran/Sudan sanctions.
SteveF,
😉
I think you’re displaying a stunning lack of sensitivity for the plight of those born ginger, as well as those who’ve always just known they were redheads trapped in blond or brunette hair follicle pigmentation schemes. Of course most forward thinking people are woke to the realization that eumelanin and pheomelanin are discredited 19’th century scientific theories perpetuated by the Ayrian hairarchy which were primarily a vehicle by which blondes could oppress, dominate and tyrannize People of Colored Hair. It’s primarily just a social construct and it’s all about power.
.
We could all benefit from walking a few steps in the shoes of people who are forced to use hair coloring product. The sense of alienation, of not belonging. The fear of rejection when roots start showing. The long term damage the chemical charade does over time to the hair.
.
uhm. Yeah. That.
mark bofill,
SteveF, what color is my hair? You saw it….
No…. my hair isn’t red. This is red
My hair is “dark brown”.
See! You’re probably socio-econo-politically hair-disadvantaged Lucia, and I bet you didn’t even realize it! I shudder to think of the years of systemic oppression due to both conscious and unconscious bias you must have stoically endured without ever being aware.
This sort of thing just needs to stop.
BTW: That’s my sister.
It must be especially bitter to be oppressed by a family member.
…
Alright, I give. Can’t drive the insanity simulation any further, my head’s going to esplode.
.
Actually FWIW and IMHO – you’ve got nice hair, if I remember your photo from the last thread properly. So so much for that.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169233): “Interesting technical information on how the Feds tracked the DNC hack back to Russia from the indictment.
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/18/mueller-indictment-russian-hackers/”
Thanks Tom. I only sorta followed it, but that looks much more convincing than the “evidence” in the original Russia-did-it story.
On the other hand, I am now much less worried about cyber warfare, at least with the Russians.
Lucia,
If someone held a knife to my neck and demanded to know your true hair color, I would have said “medium brown”. Of course, people of a certain age often choose a hair color which is not what their genes prescribed, so my neck would clearly be at risk.
mark bofill/SteveF,
Under flourescent lights, the red highlights in my hair don’t show. I usually see my own hair under incandescent or flourescent lights — not natural– and flash on cheap cameras often tend toward more blue. So I’ve always ended up with this impression that my hair is both darker than it is and not at all red.
But then… all sorts of people will describe my hair as red. Everyone in my family’s reaction is “huh”. Because red is like my sister. But based on comparison to hair swatches for dying my hair, it’s on the light end of medium brown with a tinge of red. I pick as close a match as possible so the roots aren’t too evident as it grows out. That said, as I get more grey, they are more evident. But at least I avoid having the roots contrast both due to tone difference and grey.
I should add: When I color, I use a mix of “gold” and “neutral”. I do not add any red. Having said that, when peroxide lifts, it evidently tends to bring out red because the more “blue black” pigments tend to get attacked more than the “red brown” ones. So, my hair may be more red now that I color it than before. But that’s not on purpose.
Lucia,
When I color my hair…..
.
No, strike that. If I were to color my hair, I would try to match what I had at 25… very dark brown, almost black. I always puzzle at the choices people make when they begin to turn grey, and even more so, how long they choose to color. But based on admittedly anecdotal observation, women tend to both color more often and for much longer. I’m not sure why. Everyone gets old, and there is no shame in that.
>. Maybe I’d drink a beer with McCain, but the rest seem like torture.
After listening to a Hillary rally, I don’t think that’s fair to the rest of the list.
I’ve read the transcript of the Trump-Putin press conference and have read a bunch of commentaries on it in order to try to figure out what the fuss is about.
As near as I can tell, the reaction of the establishment (both left and right) is predictable. If Trump talks tough, it’s: Oh my god, he is going to get us all blown up! If Trump makes nice, it’s: Treason!
It is especially easy to make political hay over Helsinki, since the establishment is so accustomed to aggressive virtue signalling that it now seems normal to them. So they can pretend it is abnormal for Trump to refuse to pander to the public by virtue signalling with respect to a foreign leader. What nonsense.
Trump’s foreign policy seems perfectly consistent. He approaches all foreign countries the same way, with a carrot in one hand and a stick in the other. It does not matter if it is North Korea or Germany or Russia or China. If they want the carrot, that is great. If they want the stick, he is willing to wield a big one, with intent. Their choice.
That is as it should be. But it sure seems strange.
MikeM,
I think the hysteria over Putin is greater because he is pretty well known to be a very bad guy (eg. murders his enemies in ways you expect to find in a James Bond movie), and Trump’s opponents think Trump is the same as Putin in every way that matters. Whereas Angela Merkel is a saint among progressives… she checks every politically correct box… yet Trump gives her trouble because she refuses to spend the money she promised to on Germany’s defense.
.
I think there is a very good argument to be made that Merkel has damaged and continues to damage Germany, but you won’t hear those arguments from the MSM. You will hear plenty of bad things about Putin…. and Trump, of course.
SteveF,
One word (German) for a lot of the damage Merkel has done to Germany: Energiewende. When anyone claims that renewable energy is cheap and getting cheaper, ask them why the Germans pay so much for electricity. It doesn’t do much good to have a high percentage of renewable electricity generation if it’s so expensive that everyone uses as little as possible.
Mark Bofill,
You are running a great social justice simulator, it’s divisiveness suggests it is of Russian origin? It makes me laugh when those who traffic in aggressive identity politics wring their hands over political polarization.
.
My current hair color is trending toward the null space.
Thanks Tom. It might be Russian, I don’t know. Some hacker deposited that malware in my mind, I’ve been keeping it around in a sandbox to play with for kicks. We’d need to get the feds involved if we really wanted to know the source.
Yeah, my hair too. Mostly I’m happy I still have most of it, the color doesn’t trouble me.
The house forced a vote on being in favor of officially supporting the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, it passed 244 – 35.
.
“Nadler, and 132 other Democrats, voted present on the bill, a move that allowed them to avoid taking sides.”
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/19/630260583/republicans-force-democrats-to-go-on-record-over-immigration-agency
.
The left continues to have no clue what their position on immigration is.
“The left continues to have no clue what their position on immigration is.”
I disagree. Whatever the Trump administration does or proposes to do, the Democrats are against it.
They tried the “our policy is not Trump” plan in 2016, it may or may not work next time. I predict whatever decides the 2020 election hasn’t happened yet. If Mueller comes up with nothing then advantage Trump as the media screeching will have even less influence.
.
The left have an advantage right up until the point they have to nominate a real person, then everything will change. Biden will win over Trump, the rest I’m not so sure. Voter turnout will be very high in 2020 and the left will be very motivated. Another 2.5 years of Trump-ClownCircus is going to fatigue everyone. Best case scenario for the right is the left vastly overplays their hand, which is quite possible.
.
Here’s an example of doing just that. Comey yesterday, what a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to say:
“All who believe in this country’s values must vote for Democrats this fall. Policy differences don’t matter right now. History has its eyes on us”
.
I still remain surprised a crazy person hasn’t tried to take Trump out yet. All the one year or less handicappers are wrong.
Statements like this always make me marvel. Policy is what we are doing, what we are going to do. Granted the speaker (I guess Comey) thinks it’s a crisis. So – in a crisis, what we are doing and what we are going to do doesn’t matter, seems to me to be what he’s saying. Mind boggling.
.
[So, I spoke sloppily. Differences between viewpoints on policy don’t matter. Well, they do to me. The who of policy is a lot less important than the what in my world.]
hmmpf. And the ‘eyes of history upon us’ thing. Seems to me that history generally forgets and mostly doesn’t give a hoot. The only time ‘history’ is truly unkind to someone is when they lose, as far as I can recall. Trump doesn’t appear to be losing so far.
Assuming Trump is of good health to run again, then I think Democrats’ plans will fall at the first debate. Reading Shattered, I was surprised to find that they felt Trump was winning the first debate against Hillary until she brought up the beauty queen. They saw him as calm and measured and not playing to the image they’ve presented.
What happens when you have President Trump doing the same thing?
“Policy differences don’t matter”!? I can’t even imagine how brainless someone has to be to think that. And “History has its eyes on us”?!
“Policy differences don’t matter right now.”
I’ve heard this as an old lawyer’s adage: When the law is with you, pound the law. When the facts are with you, pound the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are with you, pound the table.
I think Comey is pounding the table. On policy, the public is with Trump.
It’s just an embarrassment and counterproductive on multiple levels.
1. It’s an intellectually ridiculous position in politics.
2. Very recently the FBI has been accused of bias with some very damaging texts. This statement is as biased as it gets.
3. Many people thought the firing of Comey was illegitimate. Good luck making that argument today.
4. Comey was accused of letting Clinton off the hook, you need to back Democrats regardless of policy?
5. He might be called as a witness for an obstruction of justice charge. His judgment on what he heard will be at issue.
Mike M. said “On policy, the public is with Trump.”
Mike, I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Trump has a negative approval rating in every poll I’ve seen. I suppose the public could
agree with Trump on all his policies, yet disapprove of his performance, but I think that unlikely. Even some conservatives
disagree with him on trade policy and debt.
Re Comey’s statement, below is all of it:
‘This Republican Congress has proven incapable of fulfilling the Founders’ design that “Ambition must … counteract ambition.†All who believe in this country’s values must vote for Democrats this fall. Policy differences don’t matter right now. History has its eyes on us.’
Sounds like Comey believes Congress needs to be controlled by
Democrats as a check on Trump because a Republican Congress
wouldn’t prevent him from doing something crazy. I’m not sure
the Republicans are that weak.
Lucia,
“And “History has its eyes on usâ€?!”
.
I think some have called this sort of thing a “massiah complex”. Comey seems a bit disconnected from ground reality… but let’s face it, he has been under some stress.
Tom Scharf said “4. Comey was accused of letting Clinton off the hook, you need to back Democrats regardless of policy?”
Tom, I’m not sure what you mean, but if Comey was trying to help
Clinton he sure didn’t on the eve of the election.
On policy, some who voted from Trump may not agree with all his
policies.
DeWitt,
Sure, the green energy policy has been bad for individuals… they pay a fortune to allow industry to pay rates competative with other countries; if it were not done this way, German industry would be at a disadvantage. But the larger criticism is that Merkel’s policies have not reduced emissions: as more nuclear plants are closed, emissions rise. It’s nuts. Individuals subsidizing German industry and CO2 emissions rising!
.
I once asked a table of 5 German professionals (engineers and chemists) why German birth rates are so low. The consensus answer was: children cost too much. They had between them 4 marriages and 4 children. I wonder if absurd energy costs (electricity, gasoline, diesel, natural gas) and absurd food prices (got to protect those European farmers you know) might have something to do with very low birth rates.
OK_Max,
“On policy, some who voted from Trump may not agree with all his policies.”
.
For sure true. Some things Trump wants are either crazy or counterproductive. OTOH, just about everything Hillary wanted to do would have been damaging. There were no panaceas available in 2016. I suspect there won’t be in 2020 either.
OK_Max,
I’m not sure what “This Republican Congress has proven incapable of fulfilling the Founders’ design that “Ambition must … counteract ambition.” even means or adds any important context to the next sentence. It seems to be another Trump FutureCrime(tm) indictment, as opposed to anything real. If Comey wanted to help the Democrats he seemed to accomplish the opposite. It must be a heavy burden carrying that immense halo around on his head.
Trump was sent to Washington to blow it up because of smug self righteous people just like Comey. That act gets very tiring.
Tom, Max,
.
Oh yeah. The idea that Trump is a threat to our democracy.
I take the measure of Trump so far from what he’s done in office, I gotta tell you; he doesn’t look like he’s solid dictator material to me. I don’t think he’s got the steel for it. Let’s see:
.
1) He’s being investigated by Mueller, who answers to Rosenstein, who either answers to Sessions, Trump, or nobody. [At least on paper, Rosenstein’s a Deputy Attorney General I think, which theoretically puts him under the authority of the executive.] Trump’s maintained from day one that this is a witch hunt, yet he hasn’t shut it down. In fact, he hasn’t even fired Sessions, which is something he could certainly do. He could fire Sessions and hire somebody who doesn’t need to recuse himself.
.
2) He has no party solidly behind him. Republicans are happy to ride on his coat tails from time to time, but they are quick to turn on him when the media gets stormy. Democrats generally despise him. I’m not sure how he does among Independents, but. As Max pointed out Trump still lives in negative approval rating land. This seems a poor foundation for a dictator to build on.
.
3) Congress has thwarted him in the past, and he accepted it. He called for the repeal of Obamacare and didn’t get it. He called for an immigration reform deal that would help the DACA folk and didn’t get it. He got his tax break is the biggie so far, little else unless I’m forgetting something.
.
4) Heck, petty federal judges have stopped him with impunity. From his travel ban to stopping him from ending DACA (of all things), federal judges have spiked Trump’s wheels and – look at that. Not a one of them has mysteriously disappeared, or been locked up, or commit suicide under suspicious circumstances, or abruptly announced their plans to resign.
.
5) The press is alive and well, viva la Resistaunce 24/7, and their campaigns even make the most despised orange haired one back down from time to time, as most recently seen with the policy separating illegal immigrant parents from children. Some absolute ruler.
.
Give me a break already. A Trump dictatorship looks about as likely as a meteor strike wiping out all life on earth within the next 6 years. If that’s what Comey was talking about, well. It’s as consistently mindless as everything else he said there.
Shrug.
mark bofill (Comment #169272): “Oh yeah. The idea that Trump is a threat to our democracy. I take the measure of Trump so far from what he’s done in office, I gotta tell you; he doesn’t look like he’s solid dictator material to me. I don’t think he’s got the steel for it. Let’s see: …”
Good list. But you missed perhaps the most important of all: A dictator needs firm control of the military and the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Trump does not even seem to have tried.
Actually, Trump has plenty of steel. It looks to me like becoming a dictator goes against his principles.
Mike M,
Thanks, I think you’re right, that’s a big one that I missed.
.
Regarding lacking steel vs. principles,
When I’m trying to persuade people who I suspect dislike Trump on some point regarding him, I frame [around] the substance of my argument more critically of Trump in superficial ways than I might otherwise. It really makes no difference to the substance of my argument, just makes the meat of what I’m saying slightly more palatable. Or at least that’s the theory.
Trump the dictator, maybe that isn’t what Comey meant. The trouble seems to be Comey’s tweet was somewhat ambiguous. Maybe he meant ‘Trump is a Russian Tool’, and therefore we must all unite under the DNC banner. Maybe he meant something else.
.
Maybe he ought to plainly say whatever the heck he means, if he wants whatever he’s trying to convey to enjoy serious consideration.
mark,
Yep. Many who hate Trump tend to seriously overstate things.
Yes. The man is a piggish boar. I know there are Trump fans who want to say otherwise, but come on! This is a guy who discussed dick sizes on the campaign. His public tweets and statements veering hither and yon give me (and many) mental whiplash.
His apparent admiration of Putin is odd. But not so odd if you just look at what impresses him: It’s not a persons true character. It’s not how polished they are. It’s how “strong” they look. There’s no reason to interpret that as being bought off by Putin. It’s also not at all clear that Putin is going to “get” more from Trump than he did from other American presidents nor that he got from Hilary. (Whether we’ll get anything much useful out of Helsinki is also questionable.)
But even if whatever comes out of Helsinki is as bad as our Iran agreement, the idea that Trump has committed “Treason” is absurd. The idea that he’s going to become an dictator is even more absurd.
If anything he’s less dictatorial than Obama. Like it or not and executive eliminating executive orders and removing federal regulations created by the executive branch is absolutely not “dictatorial”. Telling the legislature that the problem with the Dreamers is theirs to solve is not “dictatorial”. He’s obeyed whatever judicial injunctions have been put in place– once again, not dictatorial.
The man’s main fault is “boorish pig”. That’s not the same as “traitor” or “dictator”.
Of course, to those who don’t like his policies, his main fault is the policies being enacted or over turned. That some (e.g. Comey) might want to now say policies don’t matter…. well… I suspect at least unconsciously, they matter a good deal to people like Comey. Policies are why he hates Trump. Otherwise, Trump would just be one boorish pig among many. You’d waste no mental energy on him.
Lots of people will continue to vote for “boorish pig” if the policies enacted by him or under him are preferable to those enacted by someone better mannered, more polished and so on. The mystery is why those who hate Trump don’t get this.
FWIW: Many of those same people voted for Bill Clinton who almost certainly was a rapist. He presented a more polished public demeanor, but his private behavior with women was at best “boorish pig” as well. But many people voted for him. Because they liked his policies.
Seems to me that it’s simply a good negotiating position to show respect for, or even “butter up”, your opponent. Putin would possibly even appreciate the backlash against Trump such comments engender. It gives them more weight.
It’s not like the argument “the only answer to your immorality is to become a liberal” hasn’t been used a thousand times by a thousand people. Have you been saved?
.
There are lots of people on both sides that can perfectly comprehend why people on the opposing side think like they do. It’s OK to understand and accept the way people think and still disagree with it. If you can’t repeat the argument of your opponent to the point where they are shaking their heads in affirmation then you have work to do. Once both sides can do this then an actual useful conversation might occur.
.
In this case Comey can’t (or won’t) do this. He cannot comprehend the motivations of his opponents. This may be common in law enforcement.
.
I understand why people would support socialism and can see capitalism as flawed. It is flawed and requires constant vigilance to keep it tamed. China runs a somewhat hybrid model that is much more successful than the likes of Venezuela et. al.
.
And … Trump. CAN”T YOU SEE HE IS FLAWED!!! Yes, he is. The simplest argument is that almost all Trump supporters would vote for sane Trump over real Trump, but a vote for HRC over real Trump is much more complicated. Would it be easier to vote for HRC is she was much more authentic, didn’t have decades of scandal, held some important conservative positions, and didn’t think half the country was deplorable? Yes it would. I just don’t value theatrics or lack thereof much in politics. Some people think theatrics is intrinsically linked to actions, I only see it as loosely correlated, especially in politics.
.
What actually happens matters more. Did anything actually happen in Helsinki? As far as I can tell nothing actually happened (as in policy enacted, etc.).
Thanks Lucia. You expressed very clearly what I was vaguely thrashing towards. In particular:
That last sentence is the interesting point to me, I was thinking about this in this car just a little while ago.
Oops late for a meeting..
lucia (Comment #169276): “The man is a piggish boar.”
I don’t know if that is true; neither do you. If he is not a piggish boar (isn’t that redundant?) he certainly plays one on TV and twitter. If he is, he is certainly capable of being otherwise when he needs to be. One or the other other is an act.
.
lucia: “This is a guy who discussed dick sizes on the campaign.”
No, that was Rubio. Trump just deflected it back at Rubio with devastating effect. The highly educated (me included) were thinking: “I can’t believe Trump did that; surely he has crossed the line”. But when the dust cleared, Rubio was lying in a crumpled heap and Trump walked away. It was an incredible piece of verbal jujitsu.
.
lucia: “His public tweets and statements veering hither and yon give me (and many) mental whiplash.”
They don’t bother me in the slightest. I just ignore them. Trump tweets for effect; to please his fans and to rile and distract his foes.
.
lucia: “His apparent admiration of Putin is odd.”
No, Trump’s “admiration” of Putin is a creation of the fake news media.
.
lucia: “But not so odd if you just look at what impresses him: It’s not a persons true character. It’s not how polished they are. It’s how ‘strong’ they look.”
Nonsense. Does he admire Xi? Or Kim? The way Trump treats people has absolutely nothing to do with his personal feelings and everything to do with his judgement of how he can get what he wants.
.
lucia: “If anything he’s less dictatorial than Obama.”
Exactly. And that matters way more than his style. At least to me.
.
lucia: “they matter a good deal to people like Comey. Policies are why he hates Trump.”
Exactly. He knows the public is with Trump on policy, so he needs to try to make the issue something else. Especially if he is planning on running in 2020 (Just a random thought, I have no idea if Comey is planning on running.)
.
lucia: “Lots of people will continue to vote for ‘boorish pig’ if the policies enacted by him or under him are preferable to those enacted by someone better mannered, more polished and so on.”
Yep. Which I why I said the public is with Trump on policy.
.
lucia: “The mystery is why those who hate Trump don’t get this.”
Aside to OK_Max: Are you listening?
I have bad news for most US conservatives, you think like the French. What a bitter pill.
Trevor Noah’s feud with France over race, identity, and Africa, explained
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/19/17590302/trevor-noah-france-french-ambassador-araud-world-cup
Tom Scharf
I don’t think it’s even arguable that the France has an aggressive vision of assimilation. The word “enfranchisement” comes from “to become a Frank”. The Frank’s view was you could become a Frank by assimilating. Views that come from the freakin’ Franks are certainly centuries old!
I should also comment
Well… France as a state does not. That is not to say that none of its citizens refer to others by their race, religion or origin. I was an exchange student and I assure you they do. Also, there is plenty of racial prejudice among French citizens. Mind you, the most I talked to claimed their views weren’t prejudice against “race”. It was disapproval of people who failed to assimilate. Ok… whatever.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169281): “I have bad news for most US conservatives, you think like the French.”
That is a half truth. The French version of assimilation is largely hypocritical and imaginary. Although France has been successful in assimilating immigrants from Europe and professionals from Africa, many immigrants (especially working class Muslims from North Africa) exist in ghettos within France but largely outside French society.
The reason seems to be that to become French, you have to become fully French and abandon almost everything of your ancestral culture: language, traditions, religion, …
The traditional and conservative view in the U.S. is in between the French version and the multiculturalism and identity politics of the left. Learn English and accept our political and judicial systems, but feel free to keep your language, religion etc.
MikeM,
I agree with MikeM. The real French way is wrong. At the same time, I don’t think the way “identity politics” works in the US is right.
The thing is: I think it’s good for individual people to retain their individual identities. I think we should not be giving identities “favored status” or having people set up competition to see who “gets” something based on identity.
Where the French go wrong is
(a) thinking a political stance of pretending identities don’t exist will erase the effects of prejudice against certain identities.
(b) thinking forcing people to give up their identities is somehow “fair” or that it will even work.
(c) thinking forcing non-French “identities” to give up their identities will get rid of prejudice. (This is a big different from (a).)
It really doesn’t work and is not a fair view in any case.
Jim’s Dad and his brother’s considered themselves “Swedish American’s”, enjoyed their traditions and celebrated them. I don’t see how they or anyone who accepts that behavior should think people can’t consider themselves “African Americans”.
There are other behaviors one can complain of. But merely having and celebrating an identity is not the same thing as “identity politics”. The French actually make the mistake of thinking they are the same.
MikeM
I don’t think adding “on TV and Twitter” makes a material difference.
And off course, I meant “boor”. 🙂
Interesting spin. They both discussed it.
MikeM
I don’t think the “public” is all on board with Trump policy.
I only said they will vote for policies they prefer. But you are concluding too much from Trump’s victory if you think Trump winning the 2016 election means the public is with Trump on policy.
Trump barely won. He didn’t get the majority of the popular vote. It’s likely that enough people prefer his policies to Hilary, and general GOP to the DEMS to make them still more likely to vote for him that they would have for Hilary. But I would not conclude the public is with Trump on policy.
It’s not even clear the GOP in Congress are with Trump on policy.
Piggish boor? How about boarish boor? I like the ring of that. Or even boring boar. Thomas Fuller says he is embarrassed by Trump. Not sure why, since I don’t see any connection between Thomas and Trump. It’s sort of like me saying I am embarrassed by Maduro (I’m not).
It’s probably somewhere in between in France. The extreme side of US identity politics considers national identity to be inherently racist / prejudiced. Patriotism has been renamed to nationalism / nativism and is becoming a dirty word to some on the left (remember when Obama stopped wearing a flag pin?). They are citizens of the world, and want to run policy based on that viewpoint. I suppose if we were voting for leader of Earth that would make more sense, until then I expect the leader of the US to run policy to the benefit of the US.
> Did anything actually happen in Helsinki?
Russia is abandoning Iran, stopping oil purchases, and will keep Iranian forces out of Syria, or at least far away from Israel.
Rubio’s advisers no doubt told him making fun of Trump would destroy his appeal. Trump loved the opportunity to go there, and end result was it showed you can’t go into the gutter with Trump, and no one else tried anything like it. And for trying it, the name Little Marco stuck.
MikeM said
lucia: “Lots of people will continue to vote for ‘boorish pig’ if the policies enacted by him or under him are preferable to those enacted by someone better mannered, more polished and so on.â€
Yep. Which I why I said the public is with Trump on policy.
.
lucia: “The mystery is why those who hate Trump don’t get this.â€
Aside to OK_Max: Are you listening?
_________
MikeM, I doubt the public want a trade war and a larger national debt, two of Trump’s policies, the second being a result of an unnecessary tax cut (why juice an economy well into a recovery ?).
And I doubt inflation and rising interest rates will be popular.
The public may be with Trump on immigration policy. I suspect the
public has an irrational fear of illegal immigrants and Trump is just
making it worse.
On N. Korea, the public should be with Trump on trying to reach a favorable agreement.
On court picks, I dunno.
OK_Max (Comment #169297): “I doubt the public want a trade war”
Of course not. There has been a massive drumbeat of conventional establishment wisdom against Trump’s policies. If Trump’s policy works, it will be popular.
It is like the tax cuts. Last fall, they were unpopular, thanks to the drumbeat of propaganda. Now they are popular, at least from what I can find.
.
OK_Max: “and a larger national debt”
That is a policy backed by all congressional Democrats and most congressional Republicans. There is probably not a lot Trump can do about it. I think that the reason is that the public supports the policies that lead to a big debt and oppose the policies that would reduce the debt,
.
OK_Max: “The public may be with Trump on immigration policy.”
Strongly so. And the Democrats are choosing to make that a big issue.
.
OK_Max: “I suspect the public has an irrational fear of illegal immigrants”
Concern about immigration is not about fear and it not irrational.
.
OK_Max: “On N. Korea, the public should be with Trump on trying to reach a favorable agreement.”
Yes. And also on beating ISIS. And on not needlessly looking for trouble with Russia. And on making our NATO partners pay something closer to their fair share.
.
Also, I think the public supports Trump on deregulation.
.
So what does the public support the Democrats on?
The U.S. used to believe in the melting pot instead of multiculturalism. In theory.
.
“Jim’s Dad and his brother’s considered themselves “Swedish American’sâ€, enjoyed their traditions and celebrated them.”
.
Ethnic groups lived in ethnically grouped areas, which is natural. More multi-unicultural than either melting pot or multicultural.
.
I’ve always wondered about the big change in attitudes on or about 1968. Vietnam, The Pill, civil rights, lots of things. The post-WW2 years were poor but optimistic. The post-Vietnam years were rich but pessimistic. Who was happiest?
.
Now I’m reading a book which puts things in a different perspective, a biography of Tom Petty by Warren Zanes.
The things that led to 1968 started in the Fifties, back when things were paternalistic, racist, misogynist, conformist, etc, compared to now. Back then, the object was to pass as “white”, to blend in, because to do otherwise was trouble. For example, to live in the suburbs was an attempt to escape from being trapped by your ethnicity. Not every family lived up to the “Father Knows Best” TV facade. Not happy. There was a huge generation gap, a culture gap, even without multiculturalism. Pride in being different wasn’t invented yet (except for Scandinavians?). Star Trek, started in 1966, probably did more for multiculturalism and changed racists attitudes more than any laws. It’s the culture that counts.
.
You may have seen the comment by the Dutch minister that multiculturalism is dead. RT has a long interview/debate video with him which has some quite interesting parts. “Do peaceful multicultural societies exist?” (I would answer “it depends on which societies, what they have in common”, but that’s not the answer to please anyone.)
https://www.rt.com/news/433827-multiculturalism-europe-rivet-serkal/
Ledite (Comment #169299): “Ethnic groups lived in ethnically grouped areas, which is natural. More multi-unicultural than either melting pot or multicultural. … Pride in being different wasn’t invented yet (except for Scandinavians?).”
.
Sure, immigrants initially live with others who share their language and culture. But historically they have gradually become part of the larger society. My grandmother never learned more than rudimentary English, but my grandfather learned English since he had to work outside the home. My dad’s oldest siblings did not speak English when they started school; but the younger siblings did since they learned from the older ones. But the language in their home was always Ukrainian. Ditto on my mom’s side, but one generation earlier. She learned Ukrainian, which she later forgot. I never learned more than a few words.
But although the language was lost in our family, we still maintained some traditions from the old country. Not pride in being different, just part of who we are, part of my heritage. But I have also always regarded Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln as part of my heritage; a much bigger part, in fact.
The problem with both multiculturalism and the the French all-or-nothing approach is that neither permits a path toward gradual assimilation. It is possible for society to tolerate some small unassimilated groups (like the Amish), but too much of that is destructive.
.
——–
Ledite: “Do peaceful multicultural societies exist?†(I would answer it depends on which societies, what they have in common).
Are their any free, peaceful, stable, multicultural societies? I think not. If there are, please educate me. Maybe India?
OK_Max
It’s rare for court picks to be important to voters. That said, in the case of the 2016 elections, I strongly suspect the prospect of conservative court picks was important, and the balance swung to Trump. The Senate not considering Merrick was a GOP political strategy. The Dem’s not fighting too hard was also a strategy. Both sides thought it would help them. It seems to have helped the GOP and hurt the Dems.
My guess is that generally, the portion of the public who cares or thinks about court picks at all does like Trump’s court picks.
Democrats as a party hate his picks. But the public includes Democrats, Republicans and everyone else (which includes Independents and other parties.) I’m pretty sure the public, in general, favors Trump’s court picks– to the extent they care.
I should add: my view may be colored by the fact that his court picks are one of the main things I do like about Trump.
What if the trade war works? Either China is forced to make major concessions or all the economics and game theory at the academy end up not being relevant to this case and time, or things are way more complex than people like to think? Or … banish the thought … the successful in the US have in fact built a self serving economy for themselves at the expense of others … and those actions are correctable. The “you can’t put the genie back in the bottle” types tend to protest a bit too vigorously, and convey they don’t relish having those theories tested.
.
I think the theories are likely correct and the trade war will probably be a net negative for almost everyone if it continues in the long term, but I am not opposed to having those theories put to the the test * for the US economy *.
.
I think there is almost a desperate attempt to prove it isn’t working before any real effects have occurred either way. It’s similar to a desperate attempt to construct Trump is a disaster. The key test is really to compare the predictions of what would happen before the the trade war / Trump happened, otherwise the advocates just move the goalposts. Expert exaggeration to further agendas has become a pandemic. Take environmentalism for example …
Ledite
Jim’s Dad’s family immigrated and moved to Virginia where there were the population of Swedes was pretty dang low. They did not live in a Swedish enclave. Such things are found in Illinois, Minn. Iowa, N and S Dakota… Virginia, not so much.
They neverthless clung to the Swedish-American identity. (FWIW: Jim’s Dad and Uncles were born in Sweden. They were naturalized after being drafted in WWII. Naturalizing in this order was not uncommon during WWII and the Korean war.)
Yep. This should certainly be permitted. IMO, the French are wrong to try to stamp it out.
lucia (Comment #169301): “My guess is that generally, the portion of the public who cares or thinks about court picks at all does like Trump’s court picks.”
I think that typically the portion of the public that cares about court picks either votes reliably Democratic or reliably Republican. 2016 was atypical in that there were a lot of conservatives (both religious and not) and establishment Republicans who were skeptical of Trump (to say the least) but who care about court picks. So that issue mattered since it helped to keep a bunch of normally reliable Republican voters in the fold. It will continue to matter in 2018 and 2020, for the same reason. But whether the majority of the public likes, or even cares about, Trump’s court picks is pretty much irrelevant.
The courts are important to stop the backdooring of the culture wars through the regulatory state and judiciary. Environmentalists have had a wink and nod system with the EPA for decades, NGO’s sue the EPA and then the EPA settles the suit (thus avoiding a judicial ruling) by creating new favorable interpretations of regulations. These guys are all on the same side.
The French are trying to stamp out non-Frenchness, they see it as a threat. They value their Frenchness (and I do love their fries at McDonalds and would hate to see that end). Freedom fries just don’t stack up. I agree it is a bit severe though, almost religious like. As the world becomes more homogenous it also becomes less interesting. There is nothing wrong with maintaining the character of your culture, and this gets interpreted as racism and prejudice unjustly sometimes.
.
What is happening in the US is a bit different. The shame police are targeting American culture, or regional US culture, for elimination. The Confederate flag and statues for example. The flag always said to me “male rural southern country pickup truck driver who owns guns and drinks lots of cheap domestic beer” and not the KKK. I don’t really miss it, but was never offended by it. It was harmless southern culture to almost everyone I think. Do I have to burn my Lynyrd Skynyrd albums now? The flag is gone, but now bitter “male rural southern country pickup truck driver who owns guns and drinks lots of cheap domestic beer” still remain.
MIkeM
Note sure about that. I vote one way sometimes; the other other times and I vote third party from time to time. I voted 3rd party in the presidential election. Jim did same. I don’t want to generalize based on me and hubby. But that’s at least two data points.
My wife was born in Paris, grew up there, got her masters at the Sorbonne.
Her parents were born in Madagascar, but her racial origin is actually mostly Indonesian / Malay.
She grew up basically unaware of the color of her skin. She didn’t experience racism until she moved to Southern Italy, on a slight basis, and later on when a guy in Portland Oregon jumped up on a bench and called her a nigger bitch.
We’re hoping to retire in France.
Tom,
I totally believe you.
When I was in France, black wasn’t the “bad” race or ethnicity. The ones I heard slammed regularly were (a) North African-Magreb, (b) East European. To a lesser extent, I heard people slam asian– especially Vietnamese.
The slamming was unapologetic. But I never heard slamming of sub-saharan type African’s nor of South-Asian looking people. So, your report is 100% consistent with the behaviors I observed in France.
lucia (Comment #169309): ” The ones I heard slammed regularly were (a) North African-Magreb, (b) East European. To a lesser extent, I heard people slam asian– especially Vietnamese.”
In the U.S. these days we think of racism as being associated with skin color. But that is just one manifestation of a broader phenomenon. From Wikipedia: “Irish racism in Victorian Britain and 19th century United States included the stereotyping of the Irish as violent and alcoholic.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment#19th_century
Racism is probably not the best term for that. But I am not sure what is (‘discrimination’ does not quite work either). But it seems the French are saying “Your racism is evil, but our racism is OK.”
lucia (Comment #169307): “Note sure about that. I vote one way sometimes; the other other times and I vote third party from time to time. I voted 3rd party in the presidential election. Jim did same. I don’t want to generalize based on me and hubby. But that’s at least two data points.”
OK. I was implicitly using “care about” to mean judicial appointments as a potential deciding factor in deciding how to vote, rather than something that you pay attention to and have an opinion on. I should have been clearer. It sounds like you and Jim care about judicial nominations in one way, but perhaps not so much in the other way.
Mike M wrote: “Irish racism in Victorian Britain and 19th century United States included the stereotyping of the Irish as violent and alcoholic.â€
.
Funny you should bring that up. Just yesterday I was talking to a veterinarian who brought up her Irish ancestry because she had recently been reconnecting with family. She was struck with their temperament and said she now understood why they were named the “fighting Irish”!
Speaking of discrimination of the Irish:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi2tubShLHcAhVFYK0KHc2FCFUQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D_TDzDJIdyfw&psig=AOvVaw2YmjSXQUFnpt0SWaTtTJiF&ust=1532291458254752
Mike M. in (Comment #169300) asks “Are their any free, peaceful, stable, multicultural societies? I think not. If there are, please educate me. Maybe India?”
_____
Singapore is the best example I can think of. About three-quarters of the population is Chinese, and most of the remainder is Malay and Indian. Singapore has a very low crime rate.
The term “multiculture” does not specify the number of cultures, the population distribution, and racial and socio-economic differences. The history of the U.S. has seen extreme examples. When the Civil War began, slaves represented about one-half the populations of South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi. Contrast that multiculture with the variety we have today in New York City
and many other large metro areas.
Japan shows us having only one culture prevents a lot of problems.
The U.S., however, does not have that option. Given multiculturism
is here to stay, what are the options?
lucia (Comment #169301) ” I’m pretty sure the public, in general, favors Trump’s court picks– to the extent they care.”
____
Maybe not on abortion.
OK_Max (Comment #169314): “Singapore is the best example I can think of. About three-quarters of the population is Chinese, and most of the remainder is Malay and Indian. Singapore has a very low crime rate.”
Peaceful and stable? So far. Free? Somewhat. It is pretty much a single party state that is rather authoritarian. Multicultural? I am not so sure. Singapore is certainly multi-ethnic, but everyone has to learn English and mono-ethnic neighborhoods (or apartment buildings) are not allowed. So it might be more melting pot than multicultural.
.
OK_Max: “The U.S., however, does not have that option. Given multiculturism is here to stay, what are the options?”
The U.S. does not have the option of being as homogeneous as Japan, but I see no reason that we can not reject multiculturalism.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169302) “I think the theories are likely correct and the trade war will probably be a net negative for almost everyone if it continues in the long term, but I am not opposed to having those theories put to the the test * for the US economy *.
_______
Putting it to test will cause some pain on both sides. If Trump keeps raising tariffs, Citizens of China likely would be hurt most(China exports more than it imports, thus has more to lose). But unless I’m wrong, American voters have more say so with their leader than Chinese voters, and may be less willing to tough it out.
OK_Max,
“Maybe not on abortion.”
.
It is not clear the Court would reverse Roe V Wade, even after Kavanaugh is confirmed.
.
But in any case, support is fairly strong for early abortions (>65% for first trimester). Second trimester support drops to about 30-35%. There is very little support for late term abortions except under extreme extenuating circumstances (non-viable child, severe birth defects, mother at risk of death, etc), and even then support is limited. The court could restrict abortion-on-demand to the first trimester without upsetting a majority of voters. My personal belief is that Roe was a poorly reasoned decision which damaged the Court and corrupted constitutional law. It also caused a lot of unnecessary political conflict. So even though I personally support access to early abortions, I think Roe should be reversed and the regulation of abortions returned to the states.
Mike M. (Comment #169316) “The U.S. does not have the option of being as homogeneous as Japan, but I see no reason that we can not reject multiculturalism.”
____
If by “reject multiculturalism,” you mean not like it, sure you can do that, but I don’t know what else.
BTW, I don’t know about the law on apartments, but Singapore has ethnic neighborhoods, and although English is official three other
languages are used. Five languages if you count Singlish as a language by itself.
SteveF (Comment #169318) “So even though I personally support access to early abortions, I think Roe should be reversed and the regulation of abortions returned to the states.”
_____
Yes, that might be a solution. Even better, county option.
OK_Max,
In Toronto there are fifteen regularly spoken languages. French is fifth on the list. Besides the ethnic neighborhoods, there’s a gay neighborhood as well. Toronto is a nice place to visit in the summer. Yonge Street, which runs through the heart of downtown, is part of a continuous road that runs all the way to Hudson Bay.
OK_Max,
“Even better, county option.”
.
Well, that is certainly a better idea than individual “sanctuary cities” voiding national immigration laws.
.
The constitutions and laws of the individual states might limit the authority of cities and counties to pass abortion regulations. Of course, there is also the smallish legal issue that the Constitution gives the Federal government authority over international policies (like immigration). While the Constitution doesn’t mention anything about abortion. It does however say that the Federal government’s powers are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution, and all other powers belong to the states or to the citizens themselves (shocking though that may be).
Tom, Max, Theories are not really being tested as what he is doing now is endorsed by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter II.
Trump called for zero tariffs in G7, and something similar in NAFTA, but it is not clear if this extends to China and others.
Sticking point in NAFTA is that other countries are using Canada and Mexico as a way around US tariffs particularly in auto sector.
It is not clear if Trump would like to place tariffs on lower wage countries like China and Mexico as he was campaigning, but for now he is calling for lowering of tariffs, and the tariffs being placed are a way to make it happen.
MikeM
To be clear: Judicial appointments are a potential deciding factor that affect my vote.
OK_Max
If you mean it’s not clear they prefer pro-life justices, I agree. But it’s also not clear that Trump is filling seats with pro-life as a major factor. I know he said he wanted pro-life during the campaign, but his choices “thing” isn’t abortion one way or the other.
Mike M. in (Comment #169300) asks “Are their any free, peaceful, stable, multicultural societies? I think not. If there are, please educate me. Maybe India?â€
.
This is a good question. Unfortunately, it depends on how you define each of those conditions, especially the ‘stable’ one.
.
Since I don’t know all the societies, and certainly not well enough to know what issues lurk unseen to outsiders, I will generalize with metaphors and stereotypes.
.
Oil and water do not mix, but they coexist. Oil and alcohol do mix, and coexist. Hydrogen and oxygen do mix, and coexist until there is a spark.
.
crows and ravens, very similar, but they don’t coexist well. Robins and sparrows, coexist. Eagles and anything, no. Something about sharing the same niche, competition for food and jobs.
.
The Galapagos has marine iguanas and land iguanas which are very similar. The land iguanas are territorial, they own a tree and wait for food to fall from it. They are not very social. The marine iguanas look for food in the ocean; because of that they are not territorial and are social.
.
Men and women, very similar mostly, except men are competitive and women are social and cooperative. They can get along because they complement each other instead of competing with each other. As I said, a stereotype not a fact. Just illustrations to justify my statement that some cultures are compatible and some are not. On a scale from Buddhist to Muslim to MS-13.
.
Real examples? Switzerland? Five cultures or one culture with five languages? Canada? Two official cultures at least, and many more immigrant cultures. Official multiculturalism. Seems stable. USA? There is a strong Red versus Blue split, bigger than any split between ethnic cultures. To take one culture as an example, the Chinese. Those immigrants were treated like slaves historically but yet are successful and not resentful and they do coexist well.
.
Counterexamples abound where multicultural coexistence ended in war. Multiculturalism is unnatural, unstable. It can be done, for some mixes of cultures, but it takes effort and old-fashioned liberal attitudes to keep it. Which is to say it is not stable.
.
One historical multicultural society is outstanding, a mix of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, under Muslim rule, although not the kind of Muslim rule we see now. It ended badly, because of the Christians. You will have heard of the Inquisition, but what went before that was probably the best example of Muslim rule ever, from a western point of view.
“From Tolerance to Tyranny: A Cautionary Tale from Fifteenth-Century Spain” by Erna Paris
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18989624-from-tolerance-to-tyranny
Excellent book. Not everyone agrees on how much tolerance there was, but she makes a good case.
Ledite (Comment #169326): “One historical multicultural society is outstanding, a mix of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, under Muslim rule, although not the kind of Muslim rule we see now. It ended badly, because of the Christians. You will have heard of the Inquisition, but what went before that was probably the best example of Muslim rule ever, from a western point of view.”
.
Jews were never more than second class citizens in Muslim ruled countries. They were often tolerated more than in Europe, but just as in Europe that tolerance could be, and often was, withdrawn. That happened several times in Moorish Spain. Christians were third class citizens. The Emirate of Granada may have been better than most; but it was certainly not a free multicultural society (at least not in the modern sense of multicultural). It did not end badly “because of Christians”.
.
By “Inquisition” I understand you to mean the Spanish Inquisition rather than the Catholic Inquisition. The former was, I think, at least in part a political tool of the Spanish Crown and was probably much less nasty than its reputation. The later was much older and still exists under the name Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. You have heard of one of its recent Prefects: Joseph Ratzinger (better known as Pope Benedict XVI).
On the Irish in England. In about 1905 my maternal grandmother (then in her teens) moved from Ireland to London. (She was one of the famous Irish families L’Estrange). She found work as a Can Can dancer with The Tiller Girls. That was essentially a marriage market for wealthy men to ogle young women with nice legs. Mission accomplished, she met and set up with a wealthy middle aged business man. The only problem was that he was already married with two daughters.
Grandma produced a son, my uncle, and 10 years later a daughter (my mother). They never married and separated after my mother’s birth. My uncle died of TB in his early 20s. Grandma then set up with uncle’s best friend, a man of her son’s age.
My point. There are many many people of Irish descent in the UK, and not all of us go in for Oirish Victimology. Weeping bitter tears into a pint of Guiness is tosspottery
Ledite (Comment #169326): “Real examples? Switzerland? Five cultures or one culture with five languages? Canada? Two official cultures at least, and many more immigrant cultures. USA? …”
.
Switzerland is multilingual, but my impression is that they have a strong common culture. I don’t know about their attitude toward immigration.
,
Canada has always been bilingual and arguably somewhat bi-cultural. When the Quebecois started to be treated more equally, Canada very nearly came apart. Seems stable now, but we will see. Traditionally, immigrants have been expected to assimilate and did assimilate, as in the U.S. Official multiculturalism is rather recent ans is more extreme than in the U.S. We shall see how it turns out. I suspect that it helps that a lot of immigrants to Canada are either from the Commonwealth (so there is already some shared culture) or China (the Chinese seem to fit in and thrive wherever they go).
.
Official multiculturalism. Seems stable. USA? There is a strong Red versus Blue split, bigger than any split between ethnic cultures. To take one culture as an example, the Chinese. Those immigrants were treated like slaves historically but yet are successful and not resentful and they do coexist well.
.
Both Switzerland and Canada have federal structures. I suspect that helps. It has certainly helped Canada deal with the French/English divide.
.
Historically, the U.S.A. has not been multicultural, excepting small groups like the Amish. That has been changing and the change is a cause for concern.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169321)
July 21st, 2018 at 6:02 pm
OK_Max,
In Toronto there are fifteen regularly spoken languages. French is fifth on the list. Besides the ethnic neighborhoods, there’s a gay neighborhood as well. Toronto is a nice place to visit in the summer. Yonge Street, which runs through the heart of downtown, is part of a continuous road that runs all the way to Hudson Bay.
______
DeWitt, Toronto is one of my favorite cities. I have visited there several times. The last time we toured by streetcar, a good and inexpensive way to see the city. If I were living outside the U.S., Toronto would be my first choice, Vancouver, my second.
Ledite: “Real examples? Switzerland? Five cultures or one culture with five languages? ”
Switzerland is a one-off, unique place. Legally, it is not a country, but a confederation of cantons. “it [Switzerland} is not a nation-state, and the Swiss are not usually considered to form a single ethnic group, but a confederacy (Eidgenossenschaft) or Willensnation (“nation of will”, “nation by choice”, that is, a consociational state), a term coined in conscious contrast to “nation” in the conventionally linguistic or ethnic sense of the term. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_people
….
In fact, people are naturalized through the Cantons and one requirement of citizenship is “the applicant be “well integrated” and “familiar with life in Switzerland”, and must have both oral and written competence in one of the national languages of Switzerland.[23] The federal law just specifies minimal requirements for naturalization, and cantons are free to introduce more stringent requirements.[24] In practice, the cantons delegate the actual procedure of naturalization to the communes. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_people
…..
If the US had a “well integrated” requirement, the Left would go crazy.
JD
JD Ohio (Comment #169331): “If the US had a “well integrated†requirement, the Left would go crazy.”
I think that Ledite’s examples are pluralism rather than multiculturalism. As JD pointed out earlier, a society needs a dominant culture that sets the norms of society. Multilingual societies do not treat all languages equally; they have official languages with special status and often a particular favored language, such as English in Singapore. A pluralistic society can have a wide variety of foods, religions, languages, etc.; but it still needs a common legal and political system a and a common basic set of values on which those are based.
But multiculturalism treats all cultures as equally valid. Such a society can not last. Lincoln was right; a house divided against itself cannot stand.
Mike M. (Comment #169327) “Jews were never more than second class citizens in Muslim ruled countries. They were often tolerated more than in Europe, but just as in Europe that tolerance could be, and often was, withdrawn. That happened several times in Moorish Spain. Christians were third class citizens. The Emirate of Granada may have been better than most; but it was certainly not a free multicultural society (at least not in the modern sense of multicultural). It did not end badly “because of Christiansâ€.”
.
Different authors put different perspectives on it. If you read the book I referenced above, I would like to hear your comments on her arguments. But I can’t repeat all of them here. All I can say is at that time it was better there than any other place in Europe and in particular, better than what came after. The Moors didn’t just tolerate the Jews, they employed them in important positions.
.
“Christians, Muslims and Jews lived together in relative harmony in medieval Spain. Then the Spanish Inquisition came along with its use of terror and racism, turning a pluralistic society into a police state”
.
“Us and Them. The in-group and the outsider. . . Distrust of the Other seems to slumber within us, ready to erupt under certain conditions of xenophobia and violence.”
.
Here is a CBC radio program with the book’s author if you prefer an audio version.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/from-tolerance-to-tyranny-1.2927840
.
I’d say the Spanish Inquisition was a bad ending, and all blame for that goes to the Christians. Germanic Christians pushed Isabella into it. The book goes into detail how that happened. And how it happens again and again.
.
(And I’d just like to put in a bad word for Franco.)
Mike M.: “A pluralistic society can have a wide variety of foods, religions, languages, etc.; but it still needs a common legal and political system a and a common basic set of values on which those are based.”
.
Agreed.
.
“But multiculturalism treats all cultures as equally valid. Such a society can not last.”
.
Again, a very good point, although I’m not sure that multicultural societies officially treat all cultures as equally valid, more likely just the official ones, or even more likely, treat all as tolerated but expected to obey the laws of the land. The problem comes from cultures which claim a higher law, ones which put their religion or cultural customs above the law.
For India, you would have to define what is stable. Any religion that gets a majority in an area can dominate the others to irritation. Violence is common.
Muslims are generally not of the radical variety in India. However, part of the reason for this is in response to a terror attack lots of Muslims get killed. The current PM was denied a visa for a long time, I think over the burning of a train car full of Muslims when he was chief minister of Gujarat. Is this stable and multicultural?
Different states speak their own languages, some have their own movie industries.
Latest WSJ/NBC 4 day poll started day before Helsinki meeting has Trump approval up 1%, ha ha. The media as opinion gatekeepers is looking pretty impotent lately. They even trotted out the “T” word”. Maybe if they just get even more hysterical?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc
Ledite (Comment #169333): “All I can say is at that time it was better there than any other place in Europe and in particular, better than what came after. The Moors didn’t just tolerate the Jews, they employed them in important positions.”
I don’t doubt that. My complaint is that it is selective. There were times when Jews were employed in important positions in Muslim countries and times when they were so employed in Christian countries. There were times when Jews in Christian countries were faced with a choice between conversion, death or exile; that also happened in Muslim countries, including Moorish Spain.
.
Ledite: “I’d say the Spanish Inquisition was a bad ending, and all blame for that goes to the Christians.”
Yes that was a bad ending. Christians have been know to do terrible things, just like atheists and the practitioners of most other religions. When you say “blame for that goes to the Christians” you are implying that it was because they were Christians. I object to that. If you were not so implying, then I think we agree.
.
Ledite (Comment #169334): “I’m not sure that multicultural societies officially treat all cultures as equally valid, more likely just the official ones, or even more likely, treat all as tolerated but expected to obey the laws of the land.”
That muddies the waters. I doubt anyone here would argue against pluralism, provided that when there is a significant conflict with the majority culture, the majority culture prevails. But although the proponents of multiculturalism often pretend that it is only such pluralism, in practice they mean something very different.
.
Ledite: “The problem comes from cultures which claim a higher law, ones which put their religion or cultural customs above the law.”
If you are referring to immigrant cultures, I agree. I think that such things must not be allowed. But the proponents of multiculturalism do not seem to agree. To that, I object.
Another problem is that it seems that multiculturalists don’t think all cultures are equal. American culture ranks near the bottom. Of course it’s not at all clear what the structure of the preferred culture would be. Nor is there any hint of a plan as to how we would get there other than the naive hope that after tearing down the culture, a better one would magically appear. In practice rather than getting a progressive utopia, you get Venezuela.
They are fundamentally against dominant cultures, and in theory would be against whoever managed to gain dominance next. In theory. I have my doubts about their devotion to this ideology if their own “no culture” culture became dominant. Strangely it is almost like this is libertarianism on a culture by culture basis rather than an individual basis. This view is very conflicted on multiple levels and it’s hard to work out how they really deal with these.
A very large study on genetics and intelligence. They found 1271 genetic variants that explain about 11% of the difference between individuals. In other words, it’s a big bunch of noise for the most part, see the accompanying chart in the article. What I find a bit humorous is how they frame their study, it is a study on “gene variants associated with years of formal education” and they only studied people of European descent, thus avoiding being Charles Murray’ed.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/07/staying-in-school-genetics/565832/
I see it as the desire to create a blank wall upon which others can paint. They believe the painting that already exists on the wall has an unfair advantage and therefore needs to be washed away, or at the very least, toned down, so others can flourish.
Tom Scharf: “They are fundamentally against dominant cultures, and in theory would be against whoever managed to gain dominance next.”
….
I disagree with this. As a tactical matter now, they say this. But if they felt they had the upper hand, they would immediately embrace a dominant culture. For instance, the transgender regs under Obama and not letting religious people have exemption from baking a cake depicting a gay wedding that violated religious beliefs.
In my view, the basic position of the Left is to screw or diminish the white man. I don’t know of one significant policy supported by the Left that benefits white men in any significant way. I always wondered why feminists were strong supporters of Muslim immigration and when I saw that Muslims vote 70% Democratic, I had my answer.
JD
JD,
Right, they create their social construct such that (… arm wave …) their culture isn’t really a culture at all, and of course they will rule with benevolent culture blindness. If there is one thing human history has taught us it is that the quest for power, the desire to maintain it, and the trend toward tyranny is universal. It’s not about selecting the correct culture, it’s about building a system that disallows dysfunctional tyrannies from being created in the first place. Assuming any group is immune to this corruption is foolish.
.
The left’s very own academia is an example of a dysfunctional cultural tyranny being created. I don’t think most people like it, but are silenced in an Orwellian way. There is no easy way to correct for this internal to academia at this point, and it’s likely going to take an external power to fix it. It’s tarnishing the entire education enterprise. If they want to continue their poisonous culture war, then the humanities and social sciences can do it without taxpayer assistance.
.
It can happen, Japan 2015:
http://time.com/4035819/japan-university-liberal-arts-humanities-social-sciences-cuts/
“More than two dozen Japanese universities have announced that they will reduce or altogether eliminate their academic programs in the humanities and social sciences, following a dictum from Tokyo to focus on disciplines that “better meet society’s needs.â€
I think this discussion of culture could do with some clear definitions of what we are really talking about when we use the term culture. I think the first 2 links below provide some definitions that might be useful. The 3rd link relates fairly well to what I see as some necessary basics for a political system in a pluralistic society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_culture
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-philosophy-and-an-ideology
http://afterthefuture.typepad.com/afterthefuture/2009/02/culture-vs-politics.html
KF: I am mostly good with the definition of political culture in your first link. I added that it “encompasses” the religious beliefs and history of a nation — not adopts in their entirety but reflects them in a substantial manner.
……
“the “set of attitudes, beliefs and sentiments that give order and meaning to a political process and which provide the underlying assumptions and rules that govern behavior in the political system”. It encompasses both the political ideals, [religious beliefs and religious history of a nation] and operating norms of a polity. Political culture is thus the manifestation of the psychological and subjective dimensions of politics. A political culture is the product of both the history of a political system and the histories of the members. ”
JD
I would like a definition or definions of multiculturism and examples of where each exists.
JD Ohio (Comment #169342)
“In my view, the basic position of the Left is to screw or diminish the white man. I don’t know of one significant policy supported by the Left that benefits white men in any significant way. I always wondered why feminists were strong supporters of Muslim immigration and when I saw that Muslims vote 70% Democratic, I had my answer.”
______
JD, I haven’t diminished myself as a white man by voting for leftist Democrats. I’m diminishing by aging, but I don’t blame politicians for that. You get shorter with age, but can get rounder to compensate if you fear being diminished.
I didn’t know feminists were pushing for Muslim immigration. If so, a reason could be to get Muslim women a better deal.
Tom Scharf,
“More than two dozen Japanese universities have announced that they will reduce or altogether eliminate their academic programs in the humanities and social sciences…”
.
You have brightened my day a bit. The mindless numb skulls on the left inevitably dominate the “qualitative fields” driving social dogma. Far better they wait tables or flip burgers than damage society.
Mike M.: Jews have been treated badly everywhere and always, and for the fakest of reasons. I can’t think of any other group which has suffered so much for so little cause. Anti-semitism is still around, although usually beneath the surface.
.
“When you say “blame for that goes to the Christians†you are implying that it was because they were Christians. I object to that. If you were not so implying, then I think we agree.”
.
I am repeated what I think Erna Paris wrote, that the reconquest of Spain was because of German Christians, with the emphasis on the German, but the Spanish Inquisition was Torquemada, Catholic. To me it seems rather unChristian. What were they thinking?
.
No group has the monopoly on good, no group has the monopoly on evil. Not all cultures are equally valid, although it would be better to say that all cultures have many aspects, some more valid than others. So we can pick out particular parts of a culture than we object to, rather than condemning the whole thing. For example, love the food, hate the arranged marriages.
.
Culture is the laws that don’t need to be written down.
The force that knows no bounds, and is capable of anything strikes again. It’s even more powerful than the Shazam towel.
Climate Change May Cause 26,000 More U.S. Suicides by 2050
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/07/high-temperatures-cause-suicide-rates-to-increase/565826/
.
Covered by CNN, USA Today, Scientific American, The Guardian (of course), MIT Technology Review, Nature, etc. I only read the one, but I’ll give good odds not a single media source covered this critically. This is the standard “linked to” science which in my advanced mental state of deterioration causes me to stop reading immediately.
Tom Scharf (#169350) –
Naturally, the extrapolation they perform uses RCP8.5, which the authors describe as “business-as-usual”.
Roger Pielke Jr:
OK_Max: “I would like a definition or definions of multiculturism and examples of where each exists.”
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism
I don’t know. Lots of countries have multiple cultures, so when do they become multicultural? The “national myth” isn’t always reality, nor does legislation make it so.
.
I thought I would look up what Canada thinks multiculturalism is. I got as far as the Wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism_in_Canada
.
Turns outs the beginnings of multiculturalism go way back, and came from the attempt to make the country officially bilingual with the recognition that a large part of the population did not have the British or French heritage.
.
The legislation doesn’t seem very radical: “recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage”. Basically, assimilation not required. “encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character”. It sounds more like cultural pluralism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_pluralism).
.
That’s part of the official definition. Optimistic. The official bumper sticker would be “Coexist”. Easy to say. What the people think multiculturalism is isn’t necessarily the same, especially for the ones who want to use that legislation or hate-speech laws to shut down criticism of their particular culture.
OK_Max,
In scientific terms the strong form of the multiculturism hypothesis would be that assimilation is actively discouraged. The weak form would be that assimilation is not actively encouraged. An example of an action that supports the weak form would be the government printing official documents in many languages.
Ledite (Comment #169352): “The legislation doesn’t seem very radical … It sounds more like cultural pluralism … The official bumper sticker would be “Coexistâ€. Easy to say. What the people think multiculturalism is …”
On paper, not objectionable. But what does it mean in practice? You might scroll down to the section on “criticisms” in the Wikipedia article for some unintended consequences.
But a better indication is provided by court cases, decisions by human rights commissions, and laws that are changed to accommodate various groups.
Most schools in Canada have zero tolerance policies on weapons. But if you are male Sikh, you can take a knife to school.
Are you allowed to carry a knife onto an airplane? You can in Canada, if you are a Sikh male. In that case, the blade is limited to 6 cm, so I suppose it is no more dangerous than, say, a box cutter.
A Sikh gentleman in Ontario decided to buy a motorcycle. He was pulled over by a cop and giving a ticket for violating the provincial motorcycle helmet law. The human rights commission ruled that he should be exempted on the grounds of his religion. Fortunately, the court disagreed, saying of course he has a right to wear a turban, but he has no absolute right to ride a motorcycle. Now the Sikh’s are lobbying to get the law changed to give them an exemption. They have succeeded in several provinces.
Should wearing the niqab or burqa trump laws requiring photo ID in some situations? Several Canadian judges have said “yes”. It has not made it to their Supreme Court yet. Trudeau says “yes”, his predecessor as Prime Minister said “no”. The status is different in different provinces. Not clear which way it will end up.
Just a few examples off the top of my head.
.
Postscript: It is my understanding that Sikhs by and large are fine citizens. But you may not know that the 7th deadliest terrorist act in history was comitted by Sikhs in Canada. https://viralknot.com/deadliest-terrorist-attacks/
A study showing a correlation between exceptionally hot days and suicide rates that are unaffected by availability of air conditioning – that is in turn concluded to be an effect of climate warming – that does not raise a red flag with reviewers and the media probably tells you more about those groups than the authors. I believe I saw where the authors did not attempt to theorize on the underlying cause of this correlation. They probably ran out of possible causes quickly and were in a hurry to publish a paper that by its conclusion they knew was going to get widespread publicity.
Anybody here willing to theorize a cause that is unaffected by access to AC – and the wide ranging normal temperature levels in a particular region studied?
It becomes apparent to me as a libertarian that the more government controls and regulates the lives of its citizens the more likely that multiculturalism will become an issue.
The more government concentrates on individual rights and freedoms the less likely there will be problems with multiculturalism or any other ism for that matter. I care much less about an ism or culture that cannot be imposed upon me.
Heat waves kill people in areas that aren’t normally very hot, or are very poor. As Kenneth say access to AC, errr … climate control, is a big factor. It’s also been theorized that access to heating brings the deaths from freezing way down.
.
It is well known that crime rates go up when it is hot. Part of this is simply because people stay inside and interact less when it is cold. A large study in Minn. showed assault rates increased up until 85F, then started dropping. Possibly the same effect, people start interacting less when it gets too hot.
THE HAZY SCIENCE OF HOT WEATHER AND VIOLENCE
https://www.wired.com/2011/07/hot-weather-violence/
.
The real problem with this type of correlation science is that different scientists in different areas will all correlate something like suicide rates to their pet study area and then you have multiple claims for the same correlation and little accountability in the media. For example an increase in suicides has been linked to the amount of sunshine.
Re Ledite (Comment #169352)
Ledite, thank you for your research and comments. Canada is an interesting example to me because I have been in Toronto and
Vancouver several times. I see Toronto as sort of medium multicultural and Vancouver as somewhat less. The best example
I could find of extreme multicultural is the country of Chad
The following info on Chad is from the CIA’s World Fact Book:
“Ethnic groups:
Sara (Ngambaye/Sara/Madjingaye/Mbaye) 30.5%, Kanembu/Bornu/Buduma 9.8%, Arab 9.7%, Wadai/Maba/Masalit/Mimi 7%, Gorane 5.8%, Masa/Musseye/Musgum 4.9%, Bulala/Medogo/Kuka 3.7%, Marba/Lele/Mesme 3.5%, Mundang 2.7%, Bidiyo/Migaama/Kenga/Dangleat 2.5%, Dadjo/Kibet/Muro 2.4%, Tupuri/Kera 2%, Gabri/Kabalaye/Nanchere/Somrai 2%, Fulani/Fulbe/Bodore 1.8%, Karo/Zime/Peve 1.3%, Baguirmi/Barma 1.2%, Zaghawa/Bideyat/Kobe 1.1%, Tama/Assongori/Mararit 1.1%, Mesmedje/Massalat/Kadjakse 0.8%, other Chadian ethnicities 3.4%, Chadians of foreign ethnicities 0.9%, foreign nationals 0.3%, unspecified 1.7% (2014-15 est.)
Languages:
French (official), Arabic (official), Sara (in south), more than 120 different languages and dialects
Religions:
Muslim 52.1%, Protestant 23.9%, Roman Catholic 20%, animist 0.3%, other Christian 0.2%, none 2.8%, unspecified 0.7% (2014-15 est.)”
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169353)
July 24th, 2018 at 8:09 am
OK_Max,
“In scientific terms the strong form of the multiculturism hypothesis would be that assimilation is actively discouraged. The weak form would be that assimilation is not actively encouraged. An example of an action that supports the weak form would be the government printing official documents in many languages.”
_______
DeWitt, that’s pretty good concise definition. It would mean Canada
has a weak form (English and French) and the U.S. maybe a little weaker (English and Spanish). The French speaking Canadians, however, live mostly in Quebec, while the Spanish speakers in the
U.S. are more spread out, making eventual assimilation more likely.
Are there places where assimilation is actively discouraged? Quebec comes to mind, but I may be wrong. Any better examples?
OK_Max,
Japan?
The strong form is sort of the reductio ad absurdum of multiculturism.
For you trade warriors, here’s something you should read:
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/-three-simple-principles-of-trade-policy_142937157317.pdf
The chapter titles are:
I A Tax on Imports is a Tax on Exports
II Businesses are Consumers Too.
III Trade Imbalances Reflect Capital Flows
On the last chapter: The most effective and possibly the only way to reduce the US trade deficit would be to reduce the US federal budget deficit, including all the currently off-the-books accounts like federal employee pensions and health care.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169360)
July 24th, 2018 at 1:38 pm
OK_Max,
Are there places where assimilation is actively discouraged?
Japan?
“The strong form is sort of the reductio ad absurdum of multiculturism.”
_____________
True, but Japanese in America seem to assimilate ok.
I wonder if there currently are cities that have several cultures and try to discourage assimilation to preserve multiculturism. I think it would be hard to accomplish if the goal was to keep each culture in
some kind of pure for.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169361)
July 24th, 2018 at 1:50 pm
For you trade warriors, here’s something you should read:
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/…..157317.pdf
“On the last chapter: The most effective and possibly the only way to reduce the US trade deficit would be to reduce the US federal budget deficit, including all the currently off-the-books accounts like federal employee pensions and health care.”
_____
DeWitt, thanks for the link to an interesting article, but your interpretation “possibly the only way” isn’t exactly what the
author said. To quote him
“If a country wants to solve the “problem” of
its trade deficit, it must reverse the international flow of
capital into its country. In many cases net foreign borrowing
can be reversed by reducing the government fiscal deficit.”
Obviously, the deficit can be reduced in two ways (1) reduce
government spending, (2) raise taxes. Both could be done at
the same time to see how much of a depression it would cause.
If Trump wants to improve our balance of trade, why did he push for the tax cut that could increase the deficit and worsen the trade balance?
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169353): “In scientific terms the strong form of the multiculturism hypothesis would be that assimilation is actively discouraged. The weak form would be that assimilation is not actively encouraged. An example of an action that supports the weak form would be the government printing official documents in many languages.”
That is a terrible definition. It says nothing about the status of minority groups. Assimilation might be discouraged because it is not allowed and the minority is discriminated against or it might be discouraged by giving the minority group special status. Those are pretty much opposites. And a country can provide a degree of recognition and support for minorities without discouraging assimilation.
OK_Max,
Did you miss the part about Trump being, shall we say, uninformed about economic fundamentals?
One could also make the case that the debt problem at all levels of government is now insoluble by anything other than default on a massive scale. The tax cut is little more than a drop in a very large bucket. Besides, the US corporate tax rate was out of line with most other developed nations.
This is Adam Smith’s case for the current Trump tariff plan:
“The second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry, is when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former. This would not give the monopoly of the borne market to domestic industry, nor turn towards a particular employment a greater share of the stock and labour of the country, than what would naturally go to it. It would only hinder any part of what would naturally go to it from being turned away by the tax into a less natural direction, and would leave the competition between foreign and domestic industry, after the tax, as nearly as possible upon the same footing as before it. In Great Britain, when any such tax is laid upon the produce of domestic industry, it is usual, at the same time, in order to stop the clamorous complaints of our merchants and manufacturers, that they will be undersold at home, to lay a much heavier duty upon the importation of all foreign goods of the same kind.”
“DeWitt Payne (Comment #169360) July 24th, 2018 at 1:38 pm
OK_Max,
Are there places where assimilation is actively discouraged?
Japan?”
Really? Precisely what evidence do you have that Japan actively discourages assimilation?
Seth Roentgen,
I don’t see any evidence of the Japanese discouraging assimilation. I see lots of evidence of them making the need for assimilation extremely rare. Cut US immigration by 99% and worries about assimilation are cut by >>99%. I am not suggesting that would ever be possible in the USA, or even desirable, but comparisons of countries with orders of magnitude different rates of immigration is not very useful.
I don’t think the issue is the trade deficit, it is the loss of low skill jobs to low wage countries. To whatever extent this is associated with the trade deficit then it matters, but I don’t really see a direct connection. The narrative that this is being done maliciously by the elite class for their own benefit isn’t being helped by their smug attitude and their support for importing low wage illegals without limit.
.
Why do I think the term smug is the correct term? Two reasons, one is that they enthusiastically continue with the same economic policies that are causing this problem when it is plainly evident it exists, the second is they make almost zero effort to explain this “brilliant” strategy and why it makes sense to the people it affects the most. Here is a rare example by the WSJ of doing this:
A Brief Introduction to Trade Economics
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-brief-introduction-to-trade-economics-1531074006
.
Once the number of people negatively affected by the perceived self serving policies gets large enough, the losers will burn the economies down rather than let it continue. What I just don’t understand is why these brilliant globalists cannot figure out that the self serving move at this time is to fix this problem before it gets dramatically worse. Brexit, yellow alert. Trump, red alert. Socialists winning elections, battle stations. Trump is probably doing the wrong things, but for the right reasons. I suggest the brilliant minds start figuring out what the right things are even if that means they need to pay 25 cents more for their latte’s.
Congratulations Comey, Strzok, McCabe, the Republicans now like the FBI less than the EPA. Yes, you read that correctly.
http://www.people-press.org/2018/07/24/growing-partisan-differences-in-views-of-the-fbi-stark-divide-over-ice/
Twitter mobs are getting the wrong people fired. It must (now) be stopped, can’t people see our side is virtuous (so the bad things people on our side said don’t count, need important context, and people change).
https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/7/24/17599132/james-gunn-fired-gamergate-guardians-of-the-galaxy
.
Hint: Really convoluted arguments tend to be really long.
.
The latest “I was given the career death penalty by the mob” story.
https://quillette.com/2018/07/23/the-public-humiliation-diet/
Tom Scharf,
“I don’t think the issue is the trade deficit, it is the loss of low skill jobs to low wage countries.”
.
Ya. Add to that calls for $15 per hour minimum wage for the USA and calls for higher benefits for the non-working poor, and you get the perfect storm of no jobs for lower skilled people, and little chance those people will ever get hired into a job where they can increase their skills and earn more. It is just stoooopid. Worse yet, it is socially destructive and hurts those people who most need a job to improve their prospects.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169370): “I don’t think the issue is the trade deficit, it is the loss of low skill jobs to low wage countries.”
Yes, that is the issue. Trump knows that and Trump voters know that.
.
Tom Scharf: “To whatever extent this is associated with the trade deficit then it matters, but I don’t really see a direct connection.”
Well, the loss of low skill jobs contribute to the trade deficit. But I suspect we would have a trade deficit in any case.
.
Tom Scharf: “The narrative that this is being done maliciously by the elite class for their own benefit isn’t being helped by their smug attitude and their support for importing low wage illegals without limit.”
It is not malicious, it is that elites just don’t care about the low skill workers. And they do not see the policies as self-serving.
.
Tom Scharf: “What I just don’t understand is why these brilliant globalists cannot figure out that the self serving move at this time is to fix this problem before it gets dramatically worse.”
Because they think their trade policies are intellectually right and benefit everyone. That is a basic tenet of the free trade religion, so it can not be questioned. Evidence is irrelevant.
On immigration, they think their policies are morally right and therefore even less subject to critical examination.
.
The elites badly need a dose of enlightened self-interest.
Ultimately the message they send is they consider American workers / illegal immigrants / low skill workers in foreign countries equally when determining policy (a global view). If a policy can benefit workers in a foreign country more than it benefits an American worker then they take a moral stance that this is the correct policy. It’s a defensible position if they would actually admit that is what they are doing, instead they implement it and have no further comment other than “trust their expertise”. You won’t get elected on the global view platform in most places in the US. In theory free trade should lift all boats, I’m just not convinced we are really operating close enough to theory, maybe we are.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169370)
July 25th, 2018 at 7:57 am
“I don’t think the issue is the trade deficit, it is the loss of low skill jobs to low wage countries.”
______
I thought it was the loss of high-paying low skill jobs in manufacturing, such as steel and automobiles. And maybe
some semi-skilled jobs also. I’m not aware of a lack of
low-paying low skill jobs. I doubt the unemployment rate
would be low if such jobs were hard to find.
I don’t know to what extent the loss of manufacturing jobs
is a result laborsaving technology rather than imports, but
I know technology can reduce the need for workers. So if we
want to have more jobs in manufacturing, we should both
raise tariffs and make laborsaving technology illegal.
SteveF (Comment #169369)
July 25th, 2018 at 6:06 am
Seth Roentgen,
“I don’t see any evidence of the Japanese discouraging assimilation. I see lots of evidence of them making the need for assimilation extremely rare. Cut US immigration by 99% and worries about assimilation are cut by >>99%.”
_____
But some countries already have lots of immigrants. Japan doesn’t.
It’s automation and offshoring, probably more automation in the US because it’s hard to compete globally paying US labor rates for high labor products. The low skill people in the US don’t care which one it is, they just look around and know the opportunities for (higher paying) low skill work is disappearing. They can’t form a union and go on strike for better benefits when the competition is offshore or is a robot. I don’t think low skill workers in the US are thanking anybody for robotic machinery at this point. We can make everyone above average in skills (good luck!) or find another way. Obsoleting a large segment of society is going to eventually cause social unrest. It’s a hard problem.
.
What is going to be rather annoying and predictable is a decade or two from now when AI starts obsoleting the educated class they will take action, and you can bet laws will be made to protect them.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169375): “In theory free trade should lift all boats, I’m just not convinced we are really operating close enough to theory, maybe we are.”
We most certainly are not operating close to theory. Trade benefits the economy by allowing resources to be shifted to more productive activities (that is, areas where we have a comparative advantage). Shifting labor to unemployment or underemployment is not more productive. So that is hurting our economy.
Automation is different with respect to the economy as a whole since it increases overall productivity as long as displaced workers can find some sort of employment, even if less productive. It can still be rough on displaced workers, but at least automation provides resources that can be used to help those workers.
Max_OK has a point about the biggest impacts of trade and automation being felt largely by well-paid semiskilled workers. But there is massive unemployment that does not show up in the labor stats because people have quit looking for work. There is also a great deal of underemployment, not visible in the unemployment rate. The really low skill workers are probably impacted more by immigration than trade or automation.
Mike M. “Tom Scharf (Comment #169375): “In theory free trade should lift all boats, I’m just not convinced we are really operating close enough to theory, maybe we are.â€
We most certainly are not operating close to theory.”
….
I think the theory is working. However, the new jobs and benefits of free trade are going to very poor countries, not US workers. Approximately 800 million people have been lifted out of extreme poverty over the last 20 years.
….
This definitely poses a legitimate political problem in the US, but it does appear that the basic theory about free trade is working.
JD
JD Ohio (Comment #169380): “I think the theory is working. However, the new jobs and benefits of free trade are going to very poor countries, not US workers. Approximately 800 million people have been lifted out of extreme poverty over the last 20 years.”
That is a good thing and trade has played a role. But in theory, free trade is supposed to benefit both trading partners. That is not happening.
I have seen claims that NAFTA has been bad for Mexico as well as the U.S. I have no idea if those claims are true.
MikeM: “But in theory, free trade is supposed to benefit both trading partners. That is not happening.”
…..
I think many people (not all) in the United States benefit from free trade. For instance, computers, phones and clothes are all cheap. Also, many foods are not cheap.
…..
Of course, there are victims of free trade in the US — as there will be with respect to any trading arrangement.
JD
Last comment should be many foods ARE cheap.
JD
JD Ohio,
I think it is over 1billion people who have risen out of extreme poverty since 2000. But your point is well taken.
.
The majority of extremely poor people live in sub-sahara Africa, where the rate of economic improvement has been lower than elsewhere. Still, there is good reason to think extreme poverty will be mostly eliminated everywhere in the next 20 years or so. I may not live to see it, but you likely will.
JD Ohio (Comment #169382): “I think many people (not all) in the United States benefit from free trade. For instance, computers, phones and clothes are all cheap. Also, many foods are not cheap.”
The question is not whether some people benefit. It is whether the nation as a whole benefits. The benefit from trade has nothing to do with prices. It comes from increasing economic output. That has not been happening this century.
Trade war with EU called off after concessions secured?
An overheated oped at CNN: Trump is taking us down the path to tyranny.
E.g., “Trump abrogated the Iran nuclear deal despite its unanimous support by the UN Security Council.” I seem to recall that Obama unilaterally entered into the deal as an “executive agreement”, choosing not to submit this as a treaty, subject to Senate ratification. Hmmm…let’s see what the author (Jeffrey Sachs) had to say about that; surely it was equally “tyrannical”. Nope, that was a “brave effort”.
My conclusion: this is just partisan posturing. Again.
HaroldW,
“Trump abrogated the Iran nuclear deal despite its unanimous support by the UN Security Council.”
.
I carefully read the Constitution and its amendments, and I can say for certain that there is absolutely no requirement the president follow the wishes of the UN Security Counsel.
.
Besides, since the USA is a permanent member of the Security Counsel, it is hard to see how the support for the scrapped Iran deal is “unanimous”. It is a nonsense article by someone who does not believe in the legitimacy of self-rule by nation-states.
.
I ignore obvious fools like Sachs. Even though he is well intended, as far as I can tell, he has never actually “done” anything productive… just continuously spouted “sustainable development” nonsense from his tenured professorships and embraced global governance. He also calls for wealth transfer to very poor countries, which is clearly NOT what holds these countries back. I doubt he would recognize the conditions needed for economic development if they jumped up and bit his hind quarters.
Free trade is something that most economists agree is beneficial to all parties involved. The term free trade should be defined as trade that exists between private parties without government interference, but unfortunately the term free trade as it is used today is most often limited to agreements that are made between governments. Those agreements do not make a particular nation a free trader since it is limited agreements with only a few nations and those agreements often allow regulations, subsidies and tariffs to be used to limit free trade.
Even limited free trade can be beneficial to the consumers of the nations involved since those consumers are paying the lower prices for their goods. Even a nation where goods are sold at lower prices abroad than at home benefit the consumers in the buying nations. Protectionist trade policies on the other hand encourage inefficiencies as was witness by the US auto makers decades ago when that US industry became uncompetitive where even with protection it was unable to compete.
The talk here about the low skilled workers losing out because of cheaper labor abroad is a bit misdirected since many jobs around the world, and including those in the US, are becoming more automated and increasing productivity which in turn will increase standards of living. Historically that does not shrink the labor market but rather requires workers with greater skills. Currently job openings in the US go unfilled because there are not enough workers with the proper skills and skill levels. That situation creates an opening for those workers who will take on training for higher skilled jobs.
When the talk is about the immigrants fulfilling low skill jobs, it is mostly jobs that non-immigrants do not want. If domestic lower skilled workers want to stay employed they must want and be able to be trained and move to where those higher skilled jobs are available, and if not, immigrants will be a source for those higher skilled jobs.
Kenneth Fritsch,
“When the talk is about the immigrants fulfilling low skill jobs, it is mostly jobs that non-immigrants do not want.”
.
More accurate is “mostly jobs that non-immigrants do not want at the wage immigrants, and especially illegal immigrants, will accept.” Training is all well and good, but continuously adding competition for the lowest skill jobs for sure depresses wages for those jobs and leads to greater unemployment for the lowest skill non-immigrant workers. Somebody is going to cut the grass in Florida; the real question is how much that service will cost.
.
You are completely correct about “free trade”… free trade just about does not exist between countries. Tariff and non-tariff barriers always remain in place to protect favored groups from import competition (eg sugar duties in the USA and Europe, other farm subsidies and duties almost everywhere, absurd Canadian duties on diary products, EC environmental and safety rules that favor local producers, duties on industrial products in most countries, etc.). The best we can hope for is negotiating lower tariff and non-tariff barriers.
Closer to reality is that low skill workers are near incapable of doing the high skill jobs, training isn’t magic. Coal miners can’t code. The things they are capable of which in the past demanded higher wages have been obsoleted to improve economic efficiency. Everyone went to high school, you know a lot of your classmates weren’t cut out for knowledge based work. If the theory works then they will find equally or more productive work at greater pay. My concern is we have increasingly bifurcated the reward system and are almost eliminating any hope for low skill workers except for the service industry. Perhaps that’s good enough.
.
Low skill work has been exported, but low skill workers are not allowed to follow it. They can’t go to China and work so the theory is broken, free labor movement is implied in free trade. I doubt a lot of US workers want to move to Mexico or China, that’s a different argument.
.
Countries need to be involved in free trade agreements to ensure competition is fair. Exporting a lot of dirty industry to China which can do it cheaper because they have lesser regulatory requirements is unfair.
HaroldW,
Nice catch on Sachs, hilarious. It’s assumed that any of the “democracy is dying” pundits had nothing to say when Obama stretched executive authority to the limit. All Presidents are going to do this. I’m all for restricting executive authority, but it’s going to need to apply to both sides. I’m crazy like that. Bringing up the UN opinion as some kind of guide for what the US should do made me literally laugh out loud.
.
Some academic groups have declared we are on the way to autocracy! Academia has lost the war by winning all the battles in my opinion. When they became such a predictable monoculture people just started ignoring them in a “well, they would say that, wouldn’t they” manner. It must drive them crazy. The ones who have integrity are simply never quoted by the media. It’s impossible to tell the difference. If you are in environmental or political journalism you know exactly what quote you will get from which academics 95% of the time.
What is the significance of Constitution’s saying that all treaties are the supreme law of the land?
I always thought treaties could be nullified by Congress or repealed. But if there is no provision within the treaty to do so, can courts invalidate these moves, and enforce them on their own?
By countries here I assume you mean national governments. Most agreements unfortunately involve protecting certain industries and businesses, i.e. crony capitalism. If the standard is tighter regulations then there would appear to be no limit to the regulations that would be extended to meet somebody’s definition of fair. The game of (over)regulation is already used to limit competition on the national level and it certainly favors big businesses (who often push for regulation) over smaller ones.
I think it is very elitist to imply that a coal miner cannot code and this somehow limits his capacity to learn. In my day I knew plenty of CEOs who could not code or even use a computer. Motivation to improve and ability to adapt are human traits that should not be underestimated. Making low skill workers feel like hopeless victims who need the government to survive makes for great plantation politics but will only make the current problem worse.
Battle stations, free trade capitalists. NPR does a puff piece on socialism. If the perception continues that the lower half of US citizens are being crapped all over by the upper half …
What You Need To Know About The Democratic Socialists Of America
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/26/630960719/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-democratic-socialists-of-america
.
“Thanks to the economic downturn of 2008, which turned the millennial generation in a significant way to the left, it made them much more open to the idea of socialism”
Kenneth Fritsch,
You start a software company from retrained coal miners and I’ll use Stanford CS graduates. Good luck. People aren’t blank slates and people in the bottom quartile of “capacity to learn” don’t obtain this capability using federal dollars. Retraining isn’t a magic wand and has so far spectacularly failed for decades.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/why-is-the-us-so-bad-at-protecting-workers-from-automation/549185/
.
What is elitist is elites constructing an economy that favors the cognitive elite and telling coal miners they just need to learn how to code even though they couldn’t pass algebra in three tries. I use coal miners as a euphemism, today’s coal miners have to operate some seriously dangerous equipment. Electricians and plumbers still make plenty of money according to my experience though.
Tom, I remember when people were citing studies that the SAT is not a predictor of college success. So if I have a group that got 600 on SAT, they are equally capable of doing well at Harvard as a group that got 1600?
What they are really saying is the SAT is not a “good” or “great” predictor of success, as in p=0.05. It still happens to be one of the best available predictors of success, especially when combined with high school grades. SAT is useful for dealing with differential grade inflation between schools. It doesn’t account for slackers who party themselves out of school or those who have a strong work ethic. It’s an endless conversation about understanding probability distribution.
By this you seem to be indicating that the more skilled jobs that the less skilled workers might take, are jobs at the level of skills of Stanford CS graduates. That is of course not the case. What is required is that the unskilled job worker whose job is being eliminated be capable of working at the some incrementally higher level. Even the Stanford graduate will require on the job training/experience in order to perform well in a new job.
Here I am not talking about your standard government sponsored training program. I saw the results of such a program firsthand when Lyndon Johnson initiated a program that my company took up not so much that they expected any success but merely for the publicity and government money involved. There were as I recall 24 trainees and they were taken primarily from intercity gangs as some kind of political stipulation. I observed these trainees as a matter of personal interest and could tell that there was really only one who was taking the training seriously and who happened to be a family man without gang affiliation. At the end of the program that family man was the only one who was retained by our company. The other 23 I assume went back to their old ways after living off the government largess for nearly a year.
My experience has always been that the properly motivated employees no matter the initial skill level of their job are capable of moving to higher level jobs. I also know that back in the day companies were funding the cost of MBA’s at major business schools for promising employees only to see these eventual graduates with MBAs, who were not worth much more to the funding company, greatly increase their salaries at other companies and not infrequently with their competitors. Thus we can see that job training at all levels can fail.
After all is said and done it is the individual who has to take responsibility for his/her adaptation to new situations, and when he/she does, the contrast of their improvement to that of the plantation politics victim is extreme. Unfortunately it is the politician in search of votes who needs the victims more than the motivated individual.
These agricultural farms that say they need guest workers from Mexico, can they just go to a homeless shelter and bring those guys in? It would probably be cheaper for the city and state too.
MikeN (Comment #169400)
You are obviously not serious about comparing a Mexican farm worker with a homeless person – I hope. If homeless people workers were the answer do you think farmers would not have tried that approach? Most homeless people chose not to work – outside of some panhandling – and for a variety of reasons.
Kenneth,
“My experience has always been that the properly motivated employees no matter the initial skill level of their job are capable of moving to higher level jobs.”
.
Of course. But the key step for less skilled workers is getting the entry level job. If recent immigrants, and especially unlawful immigrants, take that initial job, then moving to better jobs, based on job related learned skills, is out of reach. This seems to me not at all complicated. Yes, in total immigration policy is complicated, but protecting the interests of the least skilled citizens is not all that complicated: stop adding competitors for those entry level jobs.
Re the claim of jobs that only immigrants will do:
https://cis.org/Testimony/Fiscal-and-Economic-Impact-Immigration-United-States
Motivation isn’t everything, but a good attitude and motivation put you in the upper half of employees pretty quick.
.
I think everyone has come across very skilled / poorly educated people who either had bad parents, an “attitude problem” when growing up (Tom, look in the mirror, ha ha), or didn’t have the money or knowledge on how to get funding for college. Add on people who were in dire financial difficulty or medical issues beyond their control. Generally speaking these people are identified and rewarded eventually, and there should be efforts to find them and help them. These tend to be exceptions in my experience.
.
On the other side are the unskilled people who are poorly motivated and/or low cognitive ability. They might function on an assembly line and if they work the job for 20 years gain enough specific experience that they have real value to the company. Close the factory and they have almost nothing because those skills don’t transfer easily. They have to start at the bottom.
.
On the other other side are people who just don’t want to work, so there isn’t much to do here. Some people are just going to have to survive in the safety net.
I think these discussions, like some who like to predict future economic outcomes, lack the recognition that a relatively free economy is dynamic and as such makes detailed future predictions from economic models difficult. We have history to help us understand the dynamics in a general way but not with as great detail as some might think they can. Here I will refer to the future of the job market and the skill levels that might be required and the probability of those skills being met.
From a historical point of view I like to point to the case of agriculture and the farm work force. I do this with some perspective since I was born and raised on farms and I come from at least 4 generations of farmers. Farming over my life time has changed very dramatically from a labor intensive occupation that by comparison to modern farming was very inefficient and required a working force that was a significant percentage of the total US work force. Farming presents a good recent historical view of what can occur with an accelerated use of technology that reduces the work force required and requires a different set of job skills both directly in farming and supporting businesses. I do not think that this change created a permanent jobless situation nor did it lack from farmers adapting to the greater technology base required.
Manufacturing has followed a similar path and not only in the US but worldwide. I do not see any permanent jobless problems from these changes but rather great improvements in the standards of livings of most people. I think the current worries come from not being able to more exactly see how the future will play out – which is actually a sign of humankinds ability to change and adapt. If our economy were more controlled by government planning and interference the dynamic character would become much less and the future would become more readily predicted and in general stagnant if not eventually declining.
Kenneth Fritsch,
Well said. The question is will it be different this time? One can look at a booming economy and full employment and easily argue that the free market is adapting as expected. Alternately one can look at the rise of globalism and offshoring and see an entire class of jobs disappearing, not being eliminated, but instead being moved and now inaccessible. We are probably only a decade away from long haul trucking being totally automated. Education is ripe for automation, but protectionism there is severe. That said, the dystopia of only lords and servants is probably not in the cards.
Something tells me there are more than 472 occupations in the U.S. And something also tells me that for any given occupation there are some jobs that are more enticing than others.
That cis.org quote is a gooey spitball of numbers, used to draw an unsupported conclusion.
If I am a builder in the southwest US and I claim that the only people who will do roofing are illegal immigrants, citing a statistic that 87% of contruction workers are native does nothing to refute the claim.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169406)
“If our economy were more controlled by government planning and interference the dynamic character would become much less and the future would become more readily predicted and in general stagnant if not eventually declining.”
__________
Tom, I’m not sure I would agree that government planning would necessarily lead to a “stagnate” or “declining” future. China has done well with their state directed capitalism. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you meant.
MikeN (Comment #169400)
July 26th, 2018 at 5:15 pm
These agricultural farms that say they need guest workers from Mexico, can they just go to a homeless shelter and bring those guys in? It would probably be cheaper for the city and state too.
_______
I don’t know if the pay would be enough to motivate the homeless, many of whom are homeless because they don’t want to work or just can’t cope with working. Prison labor might be a possibility. Credit for reduced time in addition to earnings would be incentives (say one month reduction in sentence for each $200.00 earned. Am I suggesting something that already exists?
To help people find the recent discussion,
I moved comments after July 28 to the new thread.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2018/new-thread-3/
lucia,
I think you missed my Comment #169469 that I placed in the “empty” thread. But you did include my link to that comment.
I’mm move it!