urbanSTL

well we already stop EVERYONE from buying a tank or a rocket so not allowing people on no fly list to buy guns seems minor..

The no fly list is an extrajudicial process for banning plane tickets from brown people who borrow too many chemistry books at the library, with no legal recourse to combat the arbitrary choices made by list managers.

pat wrote:

Her support on policies like NAFTA and soon TTP are things that help seed up the decline of the mind-west and rust belt while contradicting the nations wealth on the cost. I don't agree with a lot of the words trump uses but the nation can't keep on electing the same people are expecting different results.

So what results are you expecting with Trump? If its any one thing of a multitude of things that Trump has promised, that could be kicking 11 million Hispanics (somehow), building a wall, banning Muslims, ripping up NAFTA/TPP, defaulting on our national debt, letting North Korea have nukes, and more. Which of those results are better than the status quo?

Ripping up NAFTA/TPP, presumably. Personally I think the problem is not with free trade but with how the benefits are distributed (i.e., to the wealthy 0.1% ownership class at the expense of workers). If we taxed businessmen and distributed the wealth to workers, offsetting the reduced wages, workers would actually be better off. But the capitalists promised to grow the pie, and then took 99% of the larger pie for themselves while the workers got crumbs. So the question is whether we can agree on a fairer way to split the larger pie, so that everyone is better off, or do we go back to sharing the smaller pie?

I tend to agree with you. I think you have to keep trade relationships like NAFTA and TPP. IMO, the benefit for economies (on the whole) and foreign relationships is too important to not do them. The problem with these trade deals (and I think with globalization in general) is like you said, the benefits go to the share holders of these companies, not the everyday employee. Some employees lose their jobs to cheaper workers but there isn't a good system in place to retrain those folks to transition them into another industry. I don't think its good for us to be isolationist.

Trade is complicated by the fact that protectionism may be more politically viable than wealth transfers or social safety nets. I prefer worker empowerment to protection, but protection might be the only available option.

https://www.RockAgainstTheTPP.org

The tour starts July 23rd in Denver headlined by Tom Morello formerly of Rage Against the Machine. This outfit calls TPP "a massive, secretive deal that poses a serious threat to human rights, the environment, and your Internet freedom."

Meanwhile, President Obama thinks TPP is one of his legacy achievements.

And gun sales are booming in the homosexual community.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/16 ... aftermath/

Things are getting interesting. I like it.

pat wrote:

Her support on policies like NAFTA and soon TTP are things that help seed up the decline of the mind-west and rust belt while contradicting the nations wealth on the cost. I don't agree with a lot of the words trump uses but the nation can't keep on electing the same people are expecting different results.

So what results are you expecting with Trump? If its any one thing of a multitude of things that Trump has promised, that could be kicking 11 million Hispanics (somehow), building a wall, banning Muslims, ripping up NAFTA/TPP, defaulting on our national debt, letting North Korea have nukes, and more. Which of those results are better than the status quo?

To address some of the points here:
Illegal immigrants IMO provide a benefit to border states. I don't know if there have been studies but I would say at least farming and construction is unfairly advantageous versus other states. If we are going to let them stay, lets let them work openly. I would love to pay someone $4 an hour with no taxes and insurance. There may also be costs with extra policing and services provided to the illegals. The wall thing, while a bit silly, could be done. Several countries in Europe recently put up fences in order to keep migrants out and surprisingly it has been effective. Banning migration from certain countries would be a good foreign policy move. We actively fight these terrorist organizations yet have normal relations with the theocracies that control them. I don't agree with the current administration's policy of destabilizing countries after promising to get out of the then current wars, and I believe that Hillary will continue on that Path. Why are we still involved with Turkey? Let's make an ally out of Russia. I'm not a fan of the free trade agreements because they pick the industries which will be winners and losers. Small businesses are the major tool for class mobility and a major employer in this country but we have terrible policy towards them. I am mostly talking about manufacturing since it is relevant to the St Louis region. I'm sure east coast Banking loves them.

flipz wrote:I'm not a fan of the free trade agreements because they pick the industries which will be winners and losers.

I'm going to pick on this logic a little bit. The very fact we can choose to do something or not means that we're picking winners and losers, whether we choose to expand free trade, rip up NAFTA, or do nothing at all.

I am mostly talking about manufacturing since it is relevant to the St Louis region. I'm sure east coast Banking loves them.

Some manufacturing jobs are lost due to agreements like NAFTA. But far, far, far more of those jobs have been lost to technology (robots). So I think its a bit of a red herring to say the NAFTA/TPP/etc. are that harmful to manufacturing jobs.

pat wrote:

I am mostly talking about manufacturing since it is relevant to the St Louis region. I'm sure east coast Banking loves them.

Some manufacturing jobs are lost due to agreements like NAFTA. But far, far, far more of those jobs have been lost to technology (robots). So I think its a bit of a red herring to say the NAFTA/TPP/etc. are that harmful to manufacturing jobs.

You have any data on that? Depends on what exactly is being talked about eg making screws vs more complex machines. Manufacturing of complex machines relies heavily on human input even with the use of CNC type machinery. I haven't read up on it but believe that the Chinese government subsidizes raw materials. Anecdotal but I work in manufacturing and will often find finished parts from china cheaper than I would be able to buy the materials for it here.

Then you have the whole idea of retaining the skills and environment that makes manufacturing here possible. You need access to a lot of different processes and skills to be able to effectively compete. Not many countries are able to do that.

flipz wrote: You have any data on that?

Well, domestic manufacturing output has been increasing steadily since WWII. On that basis you wouldn't really suspect any shift in manufacturing overseas. If manufacturing output is consistent, but jobs are decreasing, that implies the cause is technology moreso than trade.

Edit: Technically should say that the cause is increasing productivity, not necessarily technology.

MarkHaversham wrote:

flipz wrote: You have any data on that?

Well, domestic manufacturing output has been increasing steadily since WWII. On that basis you wouldn't really suspect any shift in manufacturing overseas. If manufacturing output is consistent, but jobs are decreasing, that implies the cause is technology moreso than trade.

Edit: Technically should say that the cause is increasing productivity, not necessarily technology.

Yes but how is that measured? Our population has more than doubled and world population tripled since then. We live more wasteful lives and have more things than ever. While I don't think that we could maintain our % share of world output after WW2, I would think that we could be doing a lot more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... ct_of_2009

This is interesting to take a quick look at, seven years later.

flipz wrote:Our population has more than doubled and world population tripled since then.

Our population has doubled, but our productivity has quadrupled.

leeharveyawesome wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... ct_of_2009

This is interesting to take a quick look at, seven years later.

It stopped the free fall. If it was bigger, let's say doubled in size, maybe it could have started the swing back up faster

President Obama's approval rating has edged above 50% for the first time in years this past week. I for one will be sad to see our beautiful President go, even if I will be more than glad to vote for Clinton in November.

MarkHaversham wrote:Personally I think the problem is not with free trade but with how the benefits are distributed (i.e., to the wealthy 0.1% ownership class at the expense of workers). If we taxed businessmen and distributed the wealth to workers, offsetting the reduced wages, workers would actually be better off. But the capitalists promised to grow the pie, and then took 99% of the larger pie for themselves while the workers got crumbs. So the question is whether we can agree on a fairer way to split the larger pie, so that everyone is better off, or do we go back to sharing the smaller pie?

That's kind of where I am. Free trade generally creates significantly more value than it takes away, but under our current system, that value is all going to a small cabal of wealthy people.

The Bernie and Trump campaigns were warnings of what lies ahead. The Brexit vote is yet another harbinger of what is yet to come if things don't change soon. In 2016, Americans' revolution was at the voting booth. In 2020, it may be in the streets.

Look at chief wana dubie pulling nearly 10%

^Dubie vs Blunt would have made for an incredible race in the general.

Go Dubie go!!

Amendments and propositions on the ballot in Nov

http://www.sos.mo.gov/petitions/2016BallotMeasures

Income inequality has to be an unstated factor as well. Campaign finance reform is more important when a single large donor has as much dough to donate as a billion small donors. I don't think it's an accident to see the craziness follow a rise in inequality.

Clinton is currently ahead by so much that Missouri has potentially drifted into the toss-up category. I doubt we will be getting allocated resources, but it is extremely interesting that she is moving mostly out of Colorado and Virginia and into Arizona and Georgia as she has pulled ahead.