American Presidential Elections 2016

[Tarne]

Have you seen all the dumbassess wearing safety pins and using the hashing #safetypin to show solidarity with "at risk" groups after the US election?

 

They did the same thing after brexit but it's more pronounced now

[Albert Tatlock]

I look forward to more llap from you at the weekend.

[woolley]

Go for it Ilap. This is the kind of stimulation the forum needs. It has become jaded with some of us long stayers saying the same things round in a circle.

[mojomonkey]

Is it just me or has the thread about the American Presidential Elections 2016 turned into one about Brexit?

 

I look forward to Llap weekend lecture series. I've heard of secret Tories but not sure how anyone can say they always considered themselves left wing and then divulge that they voted Conservative in 2010? Did he read their manifesto and be equally excited and disgusted at the same time? Having said that I think the difference between most people in terms of left and right is actually quite small. Politics in recent years has been a fight for the middle ground, it now looks like it is changing to a more clear right and left political environment. Whether that is a good or a bad thing I'm really not sure.

 

In respect of Brexit I voted to remain (largely for personal reasons) but accept that the result was to leave. I really wish they would just get on it, the uncertainty and delay is not good for anyone.

[woolley]

I wonder what PK's definition of a racist is. He seems to think there are an awful lot of them about. I don't know many people who hate other people for what they are; colour, creed or anything else. I know plenty who think that the mass multicultural social experiment is a disaster for Europe. They are not racists but they have been tagged as such by the liberal agenda to close down dissent. They simply object to feeling like foreigners in their own land. Perhaps these are the type of people that PK encountered in the care home.

[woolley]

Is it just me or has the thread about the American Presidential Elections 2016 turned into one about Brexit?

 

I look forward to Llap weekend lecture series. I've heard of secret Tories but not sure how anyone can say they always considered themselves left wing and then divulge that they voted Conservative in 2010? Did he read their manifesto and be equally excited and disgusted at the same time? Having said that I think the difference between most people in terms of left and right is actually quite small. Politics in recent years has been a fight for the middle ground, it now looks like it is changing to a more clear right and left political environment. Whether that is a good or a bad thing I'm really not sure.

I know what you mean, but I do see where Ilap is coming from. People should not really be pigeon holed as left and right because they are fallible labels.

 

Most of the current day liberals here accuse me of being right wing, although in reality I am anything but. I am a liberal in the traditional sense before all of the politically correct metropolitan trendies came along and usurped it for their own sinister purposes.

[Chinahand]

I'm pretty much a classical liberal - I'm very in favour of free trade and think open borders have hugely benefitted multiple societies over the course of history.

The Tang dynasty was a period of open trade - the height of the silk road - and its Capital, Chang'an on the site of current day Xi'an was a hugely cosmopolitan city. China's economy and society flourished in everything from Silk manufacture to poetry.

The Ming and Qing dynasties were times when the Chinese mind closed to the outside world and trade and ideas from elsewhere were rejected.

The Qing Emperor Qianlong famously told Lord Macartney:

Our Celestial Empire possesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product within its borders. There is therefore no need to import the manufactures of outside barbarians in exchange for our own produce.

 

He lead China into two centuries of decline.

 

I wonder if Trump knows anything about the Smoot Hawley tariffs from the 1930s - protectionism and government attempts to restrict trade destroyed world trade in a few short years making the depression far far worse.

 

Heck - even Ferris Bueller was taught about Smoot Hawley:

 

 

I find the idea that by restricting ideas, deliberately increasing the cost of goods just because they come from overseas and having politicians pick and choose which industries to support and protect you can improve the lot of the ordinary man ridiculous and a recipe for disaster.

 

But Trump is all for tariffs and restricting trade. History is very much against him.

 

I don't know what to say about immigration - I live in a prosperous multicultural area - medics from the sub-continent, academics from China, yanks and Europeans. You hear multiple languages on the streets. I think it is a hugely positive thing, though I admit it is only one face of immigrant Britain.

 

Should we regret the immigrant communities in Bradford, Leicester, Brick Lane and Brixton?

 

I remember in the 1980s Norman Tebbit praising our links with Poland (bit ironic now, I know!) and have had the benefit of Polish plumbers and carpenters. If people want to come here and work hard - it is a fact they pay more tax and receive less benefits than the general population - is that something to want to stop?

 

Building a wall and keeping people out has never been a way to strengthen a society, nor has stopping competition and raising prices of foreign goods with tariffs.

 

You can't keep the world out and allowing inefficiency to be protected by barriers and tariffs isn't a recipe for success.

 

Harmonising standards isn't a democratic process - no democratic process decided how an iphone would link to a PC, or a USB stick work in countries with 110 V or 240 V. It is madness to have to put a kettle through 27 different standards organizations before it can be sold throughout Europe.

 

Trump hasn't the patience to realise that.

 

I don't get his message at all - vote for me and through building walls, putting up tariffs and protectionism I will make America great again - the closing of the American mind if you ask me.

 

I hope I'm wrong - it'll be interesting seeing how it works out - and one thing that seems definitely true is that what Trump says does not match with what he does, so we'll see - but I don't see it as a positive time for politics - Trump simply can't deliver on his rhetoric, and I think it is highly likely he'll fail to give his supporters what they expect.

 

You can't turn back the clock.

[llap]

I've heard of secret Tories but not sure how anyone can say they always considered themselves left wing and then divulge that they voted Conservative in 2010? Did he read their manifesto and be equally excited and disgusted at the same time? Having said that I think the difference between most people in terms of left and right is actually quite small. Politics in recent years has been a fight for the middle ground, it now looks like it is changing to a more clear right and left political environment. Whether that is a good or a bad thing I'm really not sure.

Because they were the party who had policies to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Surely a fundamental "leftist" cause is the plight of the working class? I can think of no better thing for them than to have jobs. Labour had policies which would further shrink the economy and put more people out of work. It wasn't even a difficult decision to vote Conservative.

[mojomonkey]

 

I've heard of secret Tories but not sure how anyone can say they always considered themselves left wing and then divulge that they voted Conservative in 2010? Did he read their manifesto and be equally excited and disgusted at the same time? Having said that I think the difference between most people in terms of left and right is actually quite small. Politics in recent years has been a fight for the middle ground, it now looks like it is changing to a more clear right and left political environment. Whether that is a good or a bad thing I'm really not sure.

Because they were the party who had policies to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Surely a fundamental "leftist" cause is the plight of the working class? I can think of no better thing for them than to have jobs. Labour had policies which would further shrink the economy and put more people out of work. It wasn't even a difficult decision to vote Conservative.

 

 

I get that and I'm not criticising you for it. I presume you accept that the Conservatives are not normally known as the party of the left though.

[llap]

I'm pretty much a classical liberal

That's really a copout label to use given that classical liberalism is an 18th century political philosophy which predates the Industrial Revolution and the rise of Modern Capitalism. I don't think anyone can genuinely claim to be a classical liberal in the 21st century, unless they are living in a nuthouse and still think it's the 1700s. A lot has happened since the 1700s and the agrarian and mercantile socio-economic context in which classical liberalism came about; and numerous political philosophies have appeared as a reaction to the aforementioned historical developments. Pretty much every political philosophy in existence today claims to be the intellectual and natural successor to classical liberalism.

[llap]

 

 

I've heard of secret Tories but not sure how anyone can say they always considered themselves left wing and then divulge that they voted Conservative in 2010? Did he read their manifesto and be equally excited and disgusted at the same time? Having said that I think the difference between most people in terms of left and right is actually quite small. Politics in recent years has been a fight for the middle ground, it now looks like it is changing to a more clear right and left political environment. Whether that is a good or a bad thing I'm really not sure.

Because they were the party who had policies to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Surely a fundamental "leftist" cause is the plight of the working class? I can think of no better thing for them than to have jobs. Labour had policies which would further shrink the economy and put more people out of work. It wasn't even a difficult decision to vote Conservative.

 

 

I get that and I'm not criticising you for it. I presume you accept that the Conservatives are not normally known as the party of the left though.

 

 

I don't care about left or right, I care about working people, and the best thing for working people is to have work, which means jobs.

[mojomonkey]

 

 

 

I've heard of secret Tories but not sure how anyone can say they always considered themselves left wing and then divulge that they voted Conservative in 2010? Did he read their manifesto and be equally excited and disgusted at the same time? Having said that I think the difference between most people in terms of left and right is actually quite small. Politics in recent years has been a fight for the middle ground, it now looks like it is changing to a more clear right and left political environment. Whether that is a good or a bad thing I'm really not sure.

Because they were the party who had policies to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Surely a fundamental "leftist" cause is the plight of the working class? I can think of no better thing for them than to have jobs. Labour had policies which would further shrink the economy and put more people out of work. It wasn't even a difficult decision to vote Conservative.

I get that and I'm not criticising you for it. I presume you accept that the Conservatives are not normally known as the party of the left though.

I don't care about left or right, I care about working people, and the best thing for working people is to have work, which means jobs.

I repeat, I was not criticising you. I was responding to your earlier post where you you always considered yourself left wing. Now you say you don't care about left or right, moving the goalposts, you'd probably make a good politician. Joking aside, I think you make a good point on essentially ignoring traditional left or right tags and deciding who to vote for purely on the policies being put forward. Sadly, too many people vote for the same party time after time purely because that's what they and their family have always done.

 

I still think you'd have to accept that the Conservative party are not traditionally known as the party of the left.

[woolley]

@ Chinahand:

I find the idea that by restricting ideas, deliberately increasing the cost of goods just because they come from overseas and having politicians pick and choose which industries to support and protect you can improve the lot of the ordinary man ridiculous and a recipe for disaster.

 

But Trump is all for tariffs and restricting trade. History is very much against him.

 

I don't know what to say about immigration - I live in a prosperous multicultural area - medics from the sub-continent, academics from China, yanks and Europeans. You hear multiple languages on the streets. I think it is a hugely positive thing, though I admit it is only one face of immigrant Britain.

 

Should we regret the immigrant communities in Bradford, Leicester, Brick Lane and Brixton?

Building a wall and keeping people out has never been a way to strengthen a society, nor has stopping competition and raising prices of foreign goods with tariffs. You can't keep the world out and allowing inefficiency to be protected by barriers and tariffs isn't a recipe for success.

===================================================

So here is where I am going to be anti-right-wing. Globalisation is progress. Globalisation is wonderful. Globalisation is the future. Isn't this what THEY want you to think, China? THEY being the forces of international capitalism that have actually promoted and realised globalisation for their own massive self-interest? Shouldn't we try to dissect it to its fundamentals before we simply accept the conventional wisdom?

 

We managed to industrialise the world and progress multiple technologies for 200 years before globalisation. Standardisation of equipment demonstrably does not depend on globalisation. It's a red herring as are many of the other so-called benefits. It is a massive con trick on the population of the world.

 

All that has been achieved, if you boil it down to basics, is that capitalists have looked at where they can get everything done for the cheapest price and industrial manufacturing work once done at home has gravitated to every sweat shop economy in the world. That is what globalisation is all about, pure and simple, and the politicians were suckered (again) and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

 

So what are low paid, former manufacturing sector workers in developed economies to do in this brave new globalised world? You talk of "inefficiencies". Should people work for the same pittance as a far east worker to "compete"? Clearly that is a nonsense if you believe in a progressive society. Furthermore, are you happy that people in other parts of the world have to work in conditions and for pay that would be outlawed in the West and disdained by the very politcians who cheer on globalisation at every opportunity? Is that an enlightened and forward looking view? Is that "the future"? It would appear that it is if we continue to allow them to proceed down the path they are treading.

 

You talk against "tariffs and restricting trade" a la Trump, but such moves are not purely restrictive practices such as those we saw from the communist inspired UK unions in the 70s. They are actually perfectly coherent defensive moves against an attack on the working base of a developed, regulated economy by those who would unscrupulously exploit labour anywhere in the world to undercut the market worldwide. I could go into all kinds of regulations and capital friendly international law that has been established to guard the interests of multinational companies who take advantage of cheap labour to sell into high price economies and pocket the difference, whilst at the same time denying consumers the same advantages through restrictive regional licensing. Tesco v Levi was a famous case of regionalisation, but it goes far deeper. Technology products are made cheaply and then coded for different territories and sold expensively. In other words THEY want the benefits of cheap labour through globalisation, but they keep the benefits firmly to themselves. Globalisation is full of restrictive practices, but they are THEIR restrictive practices, so that's fine. This is the reality and there is no natural justice rationale for it whatsoever.

 

There are also other disagreeable side effects of globalisation. The concentration of financial power in fewer hands, the growth of international corporate tax evasion through offshore havens and the destruction of onshore tax bases so that once again, the little man pays more. This is without even touching on the post-industrial wastelands of once proud communities now in despair without future or hope.

 

And you wonder why people are shouting "Enough"? They know that by voting for Brexit or electing Trump they are not going to change their lives tomorrow. They even know that they will quite likely be worse off financially in the short to medium term, because they will be punished by the system and the speculators. It isn't about that at all. It's about putting down a marker. It's about throwing down the gauntlet to the smug and comfortable and it's about starting the quest of chipping away at a rotten edifice.

[Albert Tatlock]

I'll have what they're drinking.

[Chinahand]

Woolley - interesting post - lots to discuss, but when you say this:

We managed to industrialise the world and progress multiple technologies for 200 years before globalisation.

You are being profoundly ahistorical.

The Hanseatic League, the Silk Road, the development of Porcelain by Wedgewood and in Dressden, Marco Polo, The East India Company, Jardine Matheson etc etc etc etc. The central drive they had was that they were motivated to move capital, goods and people around the world in a mutually profitable enterprise.

The 18th and 19th centuries were more open to Globalisation than the 20th century which saw the closure of free movement in goods, capital and people due to nationalistic and protectionist governments - the result was economic collapse, war, and totalitarianism and the deliberate building of physical and trade walls to stop enterprising people spreading their good ideas across the world. What you are calling globalisation is the collapse of these protectionist systems in the late 20th century as they failed under their economic contradictions whether in Moscow or in Dagenham.

The result has been the creation of wealth on a huge scale as billions of people have been able to trade their comparative advantage across the world. And that hasn't been a one-sided gain - yes Chinese peasants are now far richer, but we have gained hugely from their efforts producing goods we want.

I find this continual claim that their is some evil THEY exploiting us such Erinaceous rubbish (ok that is a deliberately obscure reference, but as a typically vulpine thinker that is what I am ;-)).

The world is profoundly pluralistic - caveat emptor is one of the most important principles in life and cry babies continually want to pass the buck and make someone else responsible for their own mistakes.

There are buyers and sellers, liberal capitalism is about mutual profit and for that you need to have a non-zero sum game. Nearly all such games do have a zero-sum game component and the socialists and protectionists fixate on that component but that is to miss the point as so pithily shown by Churchill:

Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.

 

The reason we can buy wonderful 18th century Welsh dressers is down to the huge social change entrepreneurs like Wedgewood brought to Europe as he demolished Chinese protectionism 200 years ago with a cheaper product which produced a surge in trade and social change - suddenly the labouring agriculture worker could own china and wanted to display his new wealth. The same process allows us to buy iphones for 200 quid. Jack Ma and Terry Gou aren't members of some monolithic THEY and neither was Steve Jobs or Jack Welsh.

 

You can round up and shoot people like them (happened to relatives of the wife), or you can use the state to deliberately increase the price of their offerings to allow the uncompetitive to blunt their innovation (family business in the 1970s) but if you can't see the profoundly authoritarian and value destroying nature of such things I give up.

 

We benefit hugely from the amazing networks that allow us to buy clothes from Vietnam, iphones from China, and sell British expertise from microprocessor architecture to jet engines to contract and legal advice.

 

To throw the baby out with the bathwater of social problems and economic dislocation this brings is to kill the golden goose because its shit needs clearing up - god I'm crap at mixing metaphors ;-)

 

Oh woe the world isn't ending because people who look and speak differently from you move in next door. Nor is it ending because you have to retrain because you won't go and work in a factory for more than £20 quid an hour. Insisting the factory owner gets protected and subsidized so he can pay you £20 quid an hour is a path to ruin. We've been there done that and know the results. Boo hoo the Chinese are disrupting our industries - let's build a wall, stick our fingers in our ears and pretend it isn't happening. The result waste and inefficiency.

 

Woolley, do you get Ricardian Comparative advantage?

 

It is by far the most important economic result and for all it misses at a basic level it expresses a profound truth - open trade and communication increases everyone's wealth.