The US Republican race

[Retroboy]

Santorum scares the hell out of me and I would have thought that he like Palin would have been marginalized some time ago. The fact that he's still kicking around after Super Tuesday makes me nervous.

If Gingrich's personal life as I've heard it is accurate, he's loathsome, and that makes me nervous.

Paul's a pipe dream that, although he has some amazing features that have captured a lot of imaginations, comes bundled with bits and pieces of crazy that make me very nervous.

Of the front-runners with a real chance, Romney is one of the most balanced but he still has more than enough govern-by-the-bible in him to make me nervous.

I'm projecting that unless there's an extreme screw-up on someone's part or momentum-changing force majeure event, none of 'em has a chance against Obama. So, by default the also-far-from-perfect Obama is the best choice for President over the next four years...?

[FriendlyFire]

Many people said that the "real" Republican candidates decided not to run this time around so that they wouldn't have to face Obama. The worst of the crisis is behind and thus Obama is retaking a (small) measure of his former bearing. Considering his prowess at marketing and speech, I wouldn't be surprised to see him lead a very successful campaign in the same vein as his first.

I don't know whether this rumor is true, but it makes some sort of sense; both weeds out the craziest Republican candidates from the list for the next time while preserving the more interesting ones.

[Kushan_Pilot]

Yeah, I was once a centrist, according to the political tests I took. Equally likely to go either way, theoretically. But this recent batch has somehow moved everything around me such that I'm not in the center anymore. In retrospect, I was a centrist at one point in time as a consequence of the power struggle, but now I'm no longer in the deceptively suggestive territory of the "undecided." I can't see how any flavor of rational intellectual/women/you-name-it would go Republican this pass, though I'm willing to listen to any theories that would make this possible (ex: the defacto situation won't be so....bronze-age myth/theocratic). I think the "risk" of going Republican in the near future, for me, has simply eliminated them as a choice. This doesn't automatically mean anyone else, it just means the rational parts of the Republican agenda (if there be any anymore) come at too high a price. The whole thing has me considering a visit to the Reason Rally.

I've heard that the government involvement of the church in England was a primary reason people realized it had to go, in a manner of speaking. I've also heard this could be a long term consequence of having such parties in democratic governments in the middle east as well - they can't blame the government if they are the government, though I'm sure they'll do something similar. The guilt and hellfire thing works terribly well . I'd be perfectly content to see these antics come and go if it means people see da craaazy and react to it, but indoctrination like that is fierce. Still, I think of the UK and parts of Europe, so I know it's possible (I'm not a historian or political scientist, though).

[Nanaki]

With this primary the Republican party has gone so far off the deep end that they will likely get another beating like they took back in 2008. Their sudden focus on social issues and foreign policy, both areas where Obama has been more or less impeccable, has not helped them either. Of course, if the economy continues to improve their only leg on Obama could very well be pulled out from under them.

However, the whole wardrum beating over the Iranian nuke program has me very worried.

[Moe]

Rather than worrying about individual people - Ron Paul is crazy, Santorum is a fundamentalist, Gingrich is an ass and so on - I would be more worried about the general trend that we're seeing here. This whole thing is becoming more and more about dogma than about facts, and defeating the other guy chiefly because as a member of the other party he is the enemy by definition. There is more money in politics than ever, and to fully experience the absurdity of this election system try explaining current events to a non-American. "Why is that Romney guy singing to old ladies?" is one of the more harmless questions you'll likely see. So what I would suggest you worry about is this trend which is likely to produce ever more crazy candidates with every new cycle.

Another problem is with the media, and a lack of attention span. It takes more time to explain and defend a good idea. Remember death panels? Clearly that was completely retarded and anyone with half a brain should have immediately seen through that as a very desperate attempt at smearing a legitimate program, but it became a thing. It takes a lot less time for someone to claim that Obamacare means that your grandma will be euthanized and that we'll all land in the poor house than it takes to roll out charts and statistics to demonstrate that these things are in fact not true. "Oil is expensive because we don't have enough. So we should drill everywhere and gas prices will drop. It'll create jobs and save the economy" is a 15 second sound bite. Refuting these falsehoods will take way longer, and people won't listen.

[Aron_DeTomado]

I wander how much of the crazy is just rhetoric, though. As I'm sure most of you will recall, everyone seemed pretty much in agreement that John McCain was pretty much GWB2.0 back in 2008. Then he lost and held a concession speech which seemed to make everyone go "wait, why wasn't his campaign that reasonable?" A contemporary example would be Romney, who seems to have changed sides on basically everything he stood for as a governor, which ironically was also what made him appealing to a lot of people. In fact, my impression was that Romney was actually rather liberal, even by metric measurements, and likely to be much less conducive to the current climate of partisanship. With a candidate like that, the GOP could have siphoned off large parts of the pro-Obama "lesser evil" demographic. As it stands, the Republicans are basically going to drive the centrists away with sheer crazy. They're not just polarising the country, they're shooting themselves in the foot as well.

[roflmao]

Paul Ryan is the only dude I'd enthusiastically vote for. But, he's not running for president. Which is why he'd make a good president. And I don't even agree with him on a lot of things, but he seems to be honest.

Rather than worrying about individual people - Ron Paul is crazy, Santorum is a fundamentalist, Gingrich is an ass and so on - I would be more worried about the general trend that we're seeing here. This whole thing is becoming more and more about dogma than about facts, and defeating the other guy chiefly because as a member of the other party he is the enemy by definition. There is more money in politics than ever, and to fully experience the absurdity of this election system try explaining current events to a non-American. "Why is that Romney guy singing to old ladies?" is one of the more harmless questions you'll likely see. So what I would suggest you worry about is this trend which is likely to produce ever more crazy candidates with every new cycle.

Yeah. This thread just proves what you are saying. Republicans aren't wrong because they have wrong ideas, it's because they are crazy. The word being used is scared, which, as we all know, is so incredibly objective.

[Demonic Spoon]

A contemporary example would be Romney, who seems to have changed sides on basically everything he stood for as a governor, which ironically was also what made him appealing to a lot of people. In fact, my impression was that Romney was actually rather liberal, even by metric measurements, and likely to be much less conducive to the current climate of partisanship. With a candidate like that, the GOP could have siphoned off large parts of the pro-Obama "lesser evil" demographic.

Romney was governor of Massachusetts, a very liberal state. He's running in the Republican primary now, where a large percentage of the people voting are going to be people who..well, would vote for Santorum. As far as I can tell, Romney isn't moderate, he is whatever he thinks would be most politically expedient at the time.

[Starblade]

As terrible as these primaries have been, I must admit I've taken delight in the Republican party devouring itself and watching the Tea Party backfire on them so amazingly. That, and it coming out that yes, Fox News literally takes talking points directly from the GOP. I look forward to the insanity ramping up as the months pass.

Republicans aren't wrong because they have wrong ideas, it's because they are crazy.

What are your thoughts on Republican candidate Newt Gringrich's Moonbase and Potential State By 2020 plan?

I'd almost be more worried about Romney than any of the others, honestly.

I would argue that of all the terrible candidates, Romney is the least terrible because you know that basically all he's for is making himself more money and being president. I don't think he really gives a shit about anything else. Santorum and Ron Paul are True Believers in their own ideologies, Santorum was really fucked up by his family issues, he used to be a lot more left-wing in his views, especially on reproductive rights and Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul, but Romney just wants the rich (him) to get richer. Gingrich is weird, though. A lot of his views are almost futurist, like his moonbases, but then you remember the rest of his political career he spent as a giant manbaby.

[roflmao]

@Starblade
Misguided. But I don't see that as any less misguided than Obama's protectionist ideas. Or his belief that he can "fix" the economy. It's amusing. Not really a sign of mental insanity however. I think Obama is a well-intentioned and very smart man, probably smarter than myself.

What do you think of the idea that earthquakes like the one in Haiti or disasters like 9/11 can drive economic growth?


Look, it's quite simple. The more you call the other side irrational is always a sign of your own irrationality. The more you believe the other side is crazy, the more likely you are to be. There's this pesky phenomenon called confirmation bias. It's been pretty well researched, and all the evidence points out that the more you believe others are irrational, the real one who is irrational is yourself.

[Retroboy]

Agree with the comment about emotions and short attention spans being the principal driver behind leadership decisions being the more worrisome trend, but it's covered in part by the condition that led to the current state where four arguable nut-bars end up as the front-runners in the Republican party. There's something that systemically wrong when a rational "centrist" or moderate isn't in the mix at this point as a decent alternative.

As it stands, the Republicans are basically going to drive the centrists away with sheer crazy. They're not just polarising the country, they're shooting themselves in the foot as well.

I'm wondering what the reward is for people that become an almost-member of the ticket on the national stage. Now that Romney and Santorum are household names, will they "win" even if they "lose"? Could they simply not care that they're crazy, honestly believe the tripe they're pushing is best for the country, not give a damn about whether they take the Republican party down with them, and effectively are about as perfectly selfish as you could get?

The state of US politics is scary, honestly.

[Starblade]

Misguided. But I don't see that as any less misguided than Obama's protectionist ideas. Or his belief that he can "fix" the economy.

So you feel the US economy is beyond repair as well as any attempts at improving it being on par with literally sending 50,000 colonists to the moon and turning it into the 51st state in 8 years (being zero, as you do not believe he can fix it). In a broken economy. And the best you can call that is "misguided"? Or do you just believe that only Obama cannot fix it? Why not him, specifically? Do you believe any of the other candidates have plans that would (within eight years, obviously, it could go to shit afterwards but Moon Base Newt would already be up there in that time frame)? Does it involve Gingrich's idea to bring back child labor in the US?

It's been pretty well researched, and all the evidence points out that the more you believe others are irrational, the real one who is irrational is yourself.

I notice you brought that up and then explained it to me despite me never mentioning it. I wonder what that says.

[roflmao]

@Starblade:
No. I just don't think the president can fix it. I don't think one man can drive it. The economy isn't a class you master in college, and there isn't "a person" that can implement a few policies and just solve the scenario we're in. Here, since you're taking cheap shots, let me take one of my own:

Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack -- like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression -- could even do some economic good.

Yeah, that's right. Keynesians actually believe that destruction can create wealth. Krugman actually believes that 9/11 was good for the economy. Clearly Haiti isn't booming with prosperity because their earthquake wasn't big enough! And it's precisely this line of reasoning (that destroying things creates more!) that provided the basis for Obama's sitmulus bills.

How's that for crazy?

I find it hard to swallow, but no, I don't think Paul Krugman or Obama are crazy despite the fact that they believe that you can create wealth by destroying it.

(And yes, this is a very low blow, but just trying to show you how easy it is to lose objectivity by caricaturizing those with a differing opinion from yours).

Having said all of that. Gingrich's ideas on moon exploration are, indeed, pretty stupid. I hope he doesn't win.

[Nanaki]

Yeah, that's right. Keynesians actually believe that destruction can create wealth. Krugman actually believes that 9/11 was good for the economy. Clearly Haiti isn't booming with prosperity because their earthquake wasn't big enough! And it's precisely this line of reasoning (that destroying things creates more!) that provided the basis for Obama's sitmulus bills.

Better than the trickle-down economists who believe that if you make the rich, richer, that they will benevolently provide for their workers and consumers instead of pocketing the cash and buying a fourteenth home.

But you know what is even funnier? That you are only given the choices between trickle-down economics and Keynesianism.

[Starblade]

No. I just don't think the president can fix it. I don't think one man can drive it.

He has an administration you know, and that the economy shaped over years by different ones. I know everyone says "Obama did this" or "Bush did that!" but really it's a bunch of people and they refer to the president alone when they really should be mentioning his cabinet, or his administration, or some department. The president isn't a king.

Though I admit I kind of do want to see Gingrich win just to see if he would actually try for the moon base.

How's that for crazy?

I know very little about competing economic theories but I genuinely want to hear you argue the US did not come out as an economic powerhouse after the Great Depression. Also I'm pretty sure there's more to that theory than that.

http://versatile1.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/no-u1.jpg

No image macros. Roflmao's actually posting. Do the same.

e: By the way everyone what do you think the odds are that we're going to get a brokered convention? I've heard it come up from time to time.

[roflmao]

@Starblade:
Agreed. People give the president too much credit, for bad or good things alike. But not even an elite team of people can "fix" the economy. It's too complex. It's just too much to handle.

Look, we could go back and forth all day pointing out the insanely stupid things X, Y, or Z person has said or done. And yes, it's worth noting that people do stupid things. Even insanely smart people say and do insanely stupid things. But anyone who stoops down to the level of taking low blows as I did by mocking some sections of Keynesian macroeconomics, and as you did by mocking Gingrich's genuinely weird and rather dumb ideas on space exploration, contributes to the problem of politics being ruled by dogma instead of objectivity.

I'm not saying you can't criticize Gingrich for his ideas on space exploration. He genuinely deserves criticism there. A lot of it. But resorting to the eyebrow raising moments of different candidates to categorize an entire party as being crazy is dogmatic in its very nature.

There are a lot of genuinely smart Democrats and Republicans. Our political process portrays all these issues as black and white, when the different policies proposed are really a question about trade offs. There's a lot of truth in different right-wing opinions and different left-wing opinions. It's only until people start respecting the political opinions of those they disagree with that America's political process will return to objectivity.

With all that said. The current Republican line-up really blows. It's sad. I'm considering not even voting .

That's a wrap and all I really want to say.

e: I didn't respond to this section of your post:

I know very little about competing economic theories but I genuinely want to hear you argue the US did not come out as an economic powerhouse after the Great Depression. Also I'm pretty sure there's more to that theory than that.

Yes. My comments about destruction creating wealth was a low blow. There's definitely more to the theory, but the aspect is certainly there. I don't quite understand your point about the Great Depression though. Are you saying the Great Depression actually made our economy stronger in the long run? Some of the Keynesians who support the whole destruction creates wealth narrative believe that WW2 brought us out of the depression, but I haven't seen any of them argue that the depression itself was good for economic growth.

[Aron_DeTomado]

Now that Romney and Santorum are household names, will they "win" even if they "lose"?

This is certainly the case for Santorum, since he is a Senator. Votes are the currency of politics, and Santorum will be probably able to sell endorsements for primaries and cosponsorships for bills at a much higher price than before.

Re: Insanity, I don't think it is fair to say that all of the candidates are crazy. Romney is obviously just an opportunistic careerist rather than a full blown lunatic, and while a lot of people may think Ron Paul is crazy I'd wager it is more in a mad scientist sort of way than a Sara Palin sort of way. That said, there is certainly a dominance of crazy in the Republican party. This becomes more evident if we look at the drop-outs: Perry, Cain, Bachman. I think the major problem is that the fiscal conservatives have largely been sidelined by the religious fundies.

[Nanaki]

@Starblade:
But resorting to the eyebrow raising moments of different candidates to categorize an entire party as being crazy is dogmatic in its very nature.

The problem is that none of the 'non-crazy' Republicans are running for president.

Also, my biggest distate for the Republican party is that they are full of shit. Their policies are directly responsible for a huge chunk of the current debt (hello Bush Tax Cuts) and honestly the Democrats are inept as hell to be letting Republicans get away with blaming them for the massive debt.

This becomes more evident if we look at the drop-outs: Perry, Cain, Bachman. I think the major problem is that the fiscal conservatives have largely been sidelined by the religious fundies.

Bachmann and Perry were religious fundies. Cain is, like Romney, an opportunist. The only true 'Fiscal Conservative' in the entire GOP lineup is Ron Paul, and honestly Paul does see a lot more reality than most of the lineup, he actually acknowleges that in order to tackle the deficit you need to actually consider raising taxes and cutting US Military spending.

[Starblade]

I'm considering not even voting .

You should vote, but instead of voting along party lines vote for someone you actually like. Look at a third party candidate! That's what I'm doing. I think Obama was pretty shitty and the Republicans are even worse.

As for the Great Depression it was in your quote (it compared 9/11 to the Great Depression) and from one of the lowest points in US history came what the US is going to get closest to a golden age.

To put it briefly--though I'm sure someone will accuse me of making accusations with no backing for it

Proposition 8 should be enough proof for it, really.

[Aron_DeTomado]

Wasn't it the LDS Church that coopted the boyscouts? I believe that is why they ban LGBT and atheist people from membership. As far as political entrism is concerned, you don't get much more overt than that.

[PetarB]

In Australia, those of us who care watch the Republican nominations shake our heads with bewilderment. The fact that at various stages someone with Rick Santorum's nutcase beliefs could be seriously considered for President of the United States boggles our minds. What has happened to America? And this is the country that doesn't want nukes in hands of 'religious fundamentalists'....?

As Han Solo once said: 'Good luck, you're gonna need it.'

[Nanaki]

In Australia, those of us who care watch the Republican nominations shake our heads with bewilderment. The fact that at various stages someone with Rick Santorum's nutcase beliefs could be seriously considered for President of the United States boggles our minds. What has happened to America? And this is the country that doesn't want nukes in hands of 'religious fundamentalists'....?

The religious fundies have always held a disproportionate amount of power in the Republican party compared to their true numbers and political strength. However nationally they are quite weak.

[Black]

This thread is no longer about mormons if you wish to debate the Church of LDS you can do it in PM.

[Aron_DeTomado]

I think Newt Gingrich is a member of the Church of PMS. Can we talk about that?

[Moe]

...getting back to the actual question, the over the top displays of religiosity and devoutness are scary as hell. Several candidates have indicated that they believe that their god told them to run, which means one of two things: either they're flat out lying to get the religious vote, which speaks volumes about their character, or they're hearing voices which makes them actually insane. It goes beyond that though - of the remaining four candidates, Romney and Gingrich accept evolution as valid, while the other two actually believe in creationism. Huntsman was the only one who accepted the scientific consensus on global warming.

While these two issues alone have direct consequences, I'm more worried about the indirect implications, namely that these people are prepared to divorce themselves from reason and reality in favor of their preferred interpretation of their holy texts. The thought that someone is willfully ignoring facts because they don't fit their world view is worrying. It is equally as worrying that they don't understand how science works. While everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, regardless of how crazy it is, believing in batshit crazy things should automatically disqualify one from becoming the de facto leader of the free world.

[roflmao]

It doesn't mean they're hearing voices, Moe. Anyone with the slightest amount of contact with Christians should know that "God told me" is used metaphorically almost all the time. It generally means that they heard some sermon that compelled them, or read something that resonated deeply inside of them. Second, do you really think you don't willfully ignore inconvenient facts yourself? I'm sorry, but we all do it. That's not some sort of religious only phenomenon, it means being human. If you want to give it an evolutionary spin then you should check out argumentative theory of reasoning.

Example: The economic consensus is that protectionism is a pretty stupid thing, yet that doesn't stop our president from thinking that we need to promote american manufacturing by imposing tariffs on foreign inputs. Of all the things where economists disagree, this is one that has unanimous agreement. So yes, our president is kind of ignorant here. He willfully ignores what the community of experts has to say. He just sets objectivity to the side since it doesn't fit his world view. Do you really think that's a sign of bat-shit craziness though? I guess it's a somewhat disturbing that so many people can be so misinformed on what's just a matter of empirical fact, but scary as hell pushes it too far.

What is it, exactly, in terms of policies, that are you so afraid of?

[Moe]

There's a difference between a vague "I think god wants me to do X" (which to a non-Christian would probably be "the universe wants me to do X" or "fate wants me to do X") and "God told me to run for president". The latter is pretty definitive. And if you're actually going to make that part of interviews and stump speeches, it's more than just a vague metaphoric statement.

Yeah, I occasionally ignore inconvenient facts myself. Two things here though. First, I don't do that in my professional life, I do it in my private life. Doing it professionally would be a disaster. There's a huge difference between say ignoring facts because you're trying to salvage a relationship that is beyond repair, and ignoring data because it doesn't fit my model. Second, I'm not the one running for president. These guys want to lead an entire nation, their actions will directly and indirectly impact hundreds of millions of citizens and, given the status of the US in global politics and economics, billions of people around the world. So yeah, I'm going to hold them to a much higher standard. And I'm sorry, but if they actually choose to believe a story involving talking snakes over scientific fact, facts I might add that even the Catholic church does not dispute, then I have to wonder what else these guys are going to ignore.

I'm not worried because of specific policies, I'm worried because the president is a very influential person. And if this person tells people it's ok to disregard fact because it doesn't fit with your personal world view, rather than changing said view, if science can be disregarded whenever convenient, then that person is doing a massive disservice to the nation. You brought up protectionism. American jobs being moved overseas is a big problem. Innovation stops that, because if you're the only one who knows how to do something, you can't move those jobs somewhere else. The only way to compete with countries that have a lower standard of living and no minimum wage laws is to stay ahead of them technologically, and how on earth is that going to happen when smart people are being vilified as elitists and the very basic principles of science are thrown away in the name of religious freedom?

And if someone is willing and almost eager to go down that route, how can I trust that person not to make horrible decisions based on their religion? The transvaginal ultrasound debacle is a prime example. Here, a medically unnecessary, invasive procedure is being forced upon people against their will. This has nothing to do with science, or economics, or healthcare, or even common sense - this is nothing but religious dogma turned into bills and laws. In a nutshell, I'm worried that these candidates will let their religion influence policy and decisions.

[Mac_Bug]

roflmao I'm not sure if you actually believe in that argument, for one thing you are over simplifying the issue here by shoehorning us into the false dichotomy of either accepting complete free trade or complete protectionism. The reason why tariffs are often imposed on foreign imports are because said imports are often subsidized by foreign governments, and/or failure to do so would conceivably lead to the collapse of the local industry whose consequences in the intermediate term (read: beyond term of office) that far outweighs the gains of getting something for a buck cheaper. The average US worker could possibly do anything better than the average Mexican, but the entire concept of comparative advantage means Mexicans don't have to be better at something - Americans just have to be better off doing something else. In the ideal world one person would grow potatoes while another raise cattle and free trade would mean both are better off, but you're ignoring all other factors such as the resulting economic dependency / national security issues.

also people should be aware that even when Democrats win they barely have the popular vote, sometimes the winner doesn't even have that.

[Retroboy]

...believing in batshit crazy things should automatically disqualify one from becoming the de facto leader of the free world.

A point: considering how much effort it is to get and hold the job, and how risky to personal life and limb it can be in addition, aren't the people that seek the position 'batshit crazy' by default? (That was only partially tongue in cheek)
===================================
Are there any neutral press sources (oxymoron, I know, but bear with me) that are actually doing their job and pointing out this poor-field-of-candidates issue?

[Starblade]

Example: The economic consensus is that protectionism is a pretty stupid thing, yet that doesn't stop our president from thinking that we need to promote american manufacturing by imposing tariffs on foreign inputs. Of all the things where economists disagree, this is one that has unanimous agreement. So yes, our president is kind of ignorant here. He willfully ignores what the community of experts has to say.

This would be a good part to start posting links and sources so this thread can really get going fyi.

[Aron_DeTomado]

Retro: Actually, yes, that is an argument applicable to most public offices. At least it is in the sense that politicians are by definition irrational, but what we're talking about here is lunacy - something on a whole new level beyond the regular mad ordinary politicians have to be.

Roflmao: If you want to gauge Obamas sanity you have to take his rhetoric into account, and his rhetoric is much more reasonable than his actions. This means that he is either being used by his inner circle as a useful idiot, or he has a hidden agenda. Both of these mean he is inappropriate as President, but neither implies insanity in the same way we see it in the GOP.

[Stripe7]

Santorum sounds to me like the West's version of the Taliban mullahs.

[OhJohnNo]

@Retroboy: I do think it takes a very special kind of person to want to control a country full of millions of people - as you and Moe delicately put it, the "batshit crazy" (possibly megalomaniacal) kind. These republican candidates just have a bit more of it, and are being a bit more open about it, than most politicians.

I do believe that this is the only year where every single Republican candidate has been quoted on FSTDT, otherwise known as "that website where batshit people crazy are mocked". It's quite scary that these people actually have a chance of getting into power in a country as big as the U.S.

[Nanaki]

Santorum sounds to me like the West's version of the Taliban mullahs.

Thats because he pretty much is. Well, not so much the West's version of the mullahs, but Christianity's version. It is kind of humerous how fiercely Islamic fundamentalism is denounced here in the west, yet Christian fundamentalism is not only given a free pass, it is acutally promoted in some circles here.

[roflmao]

87% of economists think barriers to trade are wrong. 90% believe outsourcing shouldn't be prevented.

@Mac_Bug: I know, right? Here, I got an idea: Texas has a lower minimum wage and cost of living than California. They can clearly employ labor at a much cheaper cost, giving them an advantage over California. To help California, the economically rational decision would be for California to impose tariffs on imported goods from Texas to promote Californian workers. But this is a type of protectionism that no one supports. Protectionists only oppose trade among countries, but think countries themselves should engage in free trade. It's a complete contradiction.

But, here, let me give you a bit of credit. Theoretically, retaliatory trade subsidies should work, but the problem is that they're practically impossible to employ. What should be subsidized, what shouldn't? What is a legitimate subsidy, and what is an illegitimate subsidy? Aren't government expenditures on infrastructure a subsidy? Doesn't the fact that the U.S. spends 40% more per capita on infrastructure than Beijing unfairly tilts the playing field in favor of American producers? Don't Government guarantees of student loans for engineering students give us access to more educated workers? Doesn't having the most powerful navy give an unfair subsidy to American exporters who can enjoy protection from pirates?

The consensus of experts views your position as wrong. Sorry, but you're just ignoring them to support a theoretical mercantilist narrative that is supported by no empirical evidence. (It just worked so well in the 18th century for Europe!). All the prosperous countries in the world employ relatively free trade. Almost everyone who studies the field disagrees with you.


If you're worried about some sort of crisis by suddenly retracting all these subsidies, fair enough. I don't see any evidence that that will actually happen, but if it puts you at rest, why not retract the subsidies slowly? Over a 5 year period, reduce the amount of subsidies these companies receive every month until it hits 0.

[Nanaki]

87% of economists think barriers to trade are wrong. 90% believe outsourcing shouldn't be prevented.

Considering that the Financial industry is one of the biggest beneficiaries of free trade and outsourcing, does this come as any suprise to you?

The consensus of experts views your position as wrong. Sorry, but you're just ignoring them to support a theoretical mercantilist narrative that is supported by no empirical evidence. (It just worked so well in the 18th century for Europe!). All the prosperous countries in the world employ relatively free trade. Almost everyone who studies the field disagrees with you.

Reading that report, it seems like theres no correllation to even assume causation, with booming economies both being 'free' and 'not free' and just as equally telling there are 'free' countries that are for all intents and purposes third-world shitholes, and just glancing through the 'map' I can see an egregous error that paints Kongisberg (now Kaliningrad) as red, yet the rest of Russia is yellow. When a work is not even internally consistant and contains errors like that, I have to question the authenticity of it.

PS: Also, it paints the Indonesian side of New Guinea as green, yet the rest of Indonesia is yellow. This shit is sloppy.

[roflmao]

Sigh. I'll let you know that the Fraser institute is an extremely well respected think tank, and this is a very well researched document. You're right that we're just talking about correlation, not causation. But the correlation is so incredibly strong that you can't just dismiss it because you don't like it. How do you know there aren't special trade barriers on Kaliningrad that don't apply to the rest of Russia? It's plausible, probably more likely than a misprint.

[Nanaki]

Except that it ranks entire countries, and neither Kaliningrad (Russia) nor West New Guinea (Indonesia) are mentioned anywhere in the article. I also did some research into both areas and neither of them mention any special 'trade barriers'.

extremely well respected think tank

I have a very low opinion of think tanks, as the very mention of 'Think tank' translates to 'Special interests whom reads through statistics all day to find any that corellate with the agenda they are trying to push'

[roflmao]

Oh, I forgot this.

You brought up protectionism. American jobs being moved overseas is a big problem. Innovation stops that, because if you're the only one who knows how to do something, you can't move those jobs somewhere else. The only way to compete with countries that have a lower standard of living and no minimum wage laws is to stay ahead of them technologically, and how on earth is that going to happen when smart people are being vilified as elitists and the very basic principles of science are thrown away in the name of religious freedom.

Okay, so the idea that monopoly power on production is marvelous has been debunked since the 1850's. Now, you're entitled to your opinion. But, if you're going to promote the commendable idea that we should trust the experts, and that someone who doesn't is bat-shit crazy, then you should know that 90 percent of the experts on this subject think you're wrong. Not even Krugman or Stiglitz would defend this.

A lot of protectionist ideas come from an "us vs them" mentality. "American jobs" vs "Chinese jobs." When analyzing the effects of job movement inside of countries it dawns on everyone why protectionism is kind of dumb. Do you really think that jobs being moved from California to Texas is something that should be of worry to the Californians? Do you think that California should ramp up innovation to protect themselves from Texas? Do you think America would be a better nation if protectionism was practiced between the different states of the republic?

[Demonic Spoon]

Considering that the Financial industry is one of the biggest beneficiaries of free trade and outsourcing, does this come as any suprise to you?

The Financial industry is not the primary employer of economists. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics...

Economists held about 14,600 jobs in 2008. Government employed 53 percent of economists, in a wide range of agencies, with 31 percent in Federal Government and 22 percent in State and local government. The remaining jobs were spread throughout private industry, particularly in scientific research and development services and management, scientific, and technical consulting services. A number of economists combine a full-time job in government, academia, or business with part-time or consulting work in another setting.

...And aside from that, you're arguing that economists aren't qualified to speak on how the economy works. If they aren't, who is?

A lot of protectionist ideas come from an "us vs them" mentality. "American jobs" vs "Chinese jobs." When analyzing the effects of this job movement inside of countries it dawns on everyone why protectionism is kind of dumb. Do you really think that jobs being moved from California to Texas is something that should be of worry to the Californians? Do you think that California should ramp up innovation to protect themselves from Texas?

A lot of places already do this to some extent. In state/local politics there's lots of talk of bringing 'jobs into this state', and there are tax breaks given (often targeted to specific industries or even companies) as incentives for them to set up shop in one state over another.

[Kirjava]

I'm gonna bring up the whole, "The only reason economists exist is to make astronomers look good," if only because roflmao agreed with it last time and now he seems to be putting a lot of faith in their expertise...

Also I don't think Moe was advocating protectionism- I think his point was that if the current breed of prominent Republicans get their way, the climate they would like to foster will prevent the alternative to protectionism being a viable possibility, because the Bible-bashing brand of Republicanism is hostile to science, learning and intellecutualism.

[Maximus Decimus]

The Financial industry is not the primary employer of economists. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics...

Very true. As someone who works in the financial/business industry, a lot of my peers find little credibility in the theories and teachings of economists. Indeed the impression I got from economic theory classes was the asinine notion that perfect free market capitalism with no intervention/government involvement would result in the best possible equilibrium. Free trade and globalization has benefited the ruling elite far more than the middle class. Many economics degrees here in Canada are bachelor of arts degrees. They would have a hard time meeting the application requirements of the business industry.

Also, think tanks do not make credible scholarly sources.

[roflmao]

@Kirjava: Got to make distinctions. Taking astronomers as an example, you could reasonably say that they're less scientific than physicists. It would be very dumb, however, to make the argument that the world is flat because astronomers aren't as scientific as physicists.

While economists get it wrong frequently, they're sure as heck more likely to be right than a non-economist. My main beef with macro economists is their faith in their ability to predict what's going to happen. Since the economy is an incredibly complex phenomenon, it's almost impossible to come up with realistic predictions using macroeconomics, yet a large percentage of economists think they can. Incidentally, when it comes to macroeconomics, there is very little of a consensus. You'll have a Friedman on one side and the polar opposite Stiglitz on the other.

A perfect analogy is environmental science. I have a lot of disdain for the field since their predictions on the depletion of natural resources have been flat out wrong time and time again, but if 97% of them agree that man made global warming is an issue, I'm going to listen.

So when economists do unanimously agree, you really should listen to what they're saying. Free trade is historically verifiable, easy to confirm, and undeniably a good thing. There's just so much evidence out there. Just so much. Protectionism is really the intelligent design of economics.

Also I don't think Moe was advocating protectionism- I think his point was that if the current breed of prominent Republicans get their way, the climate they would like to foster will prevent the alternative to protectionism being a viable possibility, because the Bible-bashing brand of Republicanism is hostile to science, learning and intellecutualism.

I really like this article. When you come to analyze different policy positions, you can construct a plausible argument that Democrats are more scientifically oriented than Republicans, but by vastly less than Moe suggests. The left's concerns with nuclear power plants and food engineering, for example, are pretty unscientific.

It's also worth noting that Santorum is a protectionist, heh.

[Starblade]

Taking astronomers as an example, you could reasonably say that they're less scientific than physicists.

I'm staying out of the economic discussion, but what is this? Are you confusing astronomers and the field of astronomy for astrologers?

[roflmao]

No I'm not confusing the two, and I'd stay out of any discussion about astronomy because I'm pretty ignorant there, so it's very probable that I'm saying bullshit by calling astronomers "less scientific" than physicists. Here's what I was thinking of:

Astronomers say that our enormous universe is expanding at an incredible rate. Since they're the experts, I'm sure as heck going to believe what they say. But, surely you cannot verify the idea that the universe is expanding or that it is infinitely big in the same way you can verify the durability of a ceramic cup of coffee using physics? I don't know. Maybe you can and I'm simply not aware of the way astronomers prove these theories? But, from an uninformed perspective, it seems less empirically verifiable.

But, once again, I know only the basics of physics and astronomy, so don't take what I say at face value .

[Aron_DeTomado]

Johan Norberg's In Defense of Global Capitalism has a fairly comprehensive, well sourced, and easy to understand section on the merits of free trade over protectionism. If I can find my copy of it, I'll see if any of the sources are available online.

I still think the strongest argument is the arbitrary scaling roflmao brought up, though. Why would you accept protectionism between USA and Mexico, but not between North Carolina and South Carolina, Charlotte and Raleigh, Copper Mountain Boulevard and Ardrey Kell Road, or between the Smiths and the Anderssons? Why is the nation-state the smallest unit in protectionist theory? The choice becomes especially arbitrary in cases like the US, where we are actually dealing with a union of numerous member-states.

Edit: Rofl, are you trying to get at the idea that astronomers have larger error margins than phycisists, like how biologists have larger error margins than biochemists? Because I think that is a more fair and accurate (and less controversial) way of putting it than saying they are less scientific.

[roflmao]

Yeah, exactly. Saying "less scientific" was an outstandingly poor choice of words, because I'm not saying they don't apply the scientific method or anything of that sort. Just that they're more likely to be wrong since it's a field where the theory-law ratio is higher than in physics. Or, as you said, margin of error is higher.

Which is why the "economists only exist to make astronomers look good." saying exists. It's damning economists, but also damning (to a lesser degree) astronomers with faint praise. And it's also a hilarious phrase, heh.

[Nanaki]

...And aside from that, you're arguing that economists aren't qualified to speak on how the economy works. If they aren't, who is?

Nobody. The economy is basically based on the whims of people, and trying to predict and model that is akin to trying to develop psychohistory (from the Foundation series) as a real science.

I still think the strongest argument is the arbitrary scaling roflmao brought up, though. Why would you accept protectionism between USA and Mexico, but not between North Carolina and South Carolina, Charlotte and Raleigh, Copper Mountain Boulevard and Ardrey Kell Road, or between the Smiths and the Anderssons? Why is the nation-state the smallest unit in protectionist theory? The choice becomes especially arbitrary in cases like the US, where we are actually dealing with a union of numerous member-states.

Except we already, in the present world, see a great deal of protectionism between US States, as well as deliberate attempts to subsidize industries into moving into their states. My personal opinion on protectionism is that it has its merits and demerits, and that, in the grand scheme of things where the whole neo laissezfaire thing that economists have been peddling since the 80s has fallen apart and basically put Capitalism in an existential crisis, I think alternative views and their merits and demerits seriously need to be considered instead of this bullshit "Our current policy is fine, nevermind the worst financial crisis since the great depression" that economists are still peddling.

[roflmao]

You've got to draw distinctions, Nanaki. There's a great deal of economists that reject laissez faire but support free trade, they are not one and the same. Laissez faire is the idea that unregulated markets achieve the best social outcome, which is a wholeheartedly different thing from free trade, and in general has much less support among economists.

You could argue that markets need to be regulated because of negative externalities. You could argue that the financial crisis was caused by too much deregulation. These are both interesting subjects that are up for debate. Protectionism and mercantilism, however, are really just falsehoods. It was popular back in the 1700s, and since then, pretty much everyone has rejected the ideas because everyone supports the idea that specialization, comparative advantage, and cooperation is what leads to economic prosperity.

I'd even draw a distinction between free trade and globalization. A nuanced position could draw distinctions between tariffs and foreign investment that are worth exploring.

Bottom line: I'd have more respect for the narrative of the left being scientifically oriented if they just rejected protectionism. It would give the argument a lot more credibility. But as long as our President keeps up this nonsense, I'm not buying the "we're for science" line.

[Infidelicious]

Nation States are the smallest unit in which taxation is possible without "impeding" free trade. The United States can't tax Mexican workers, or Mexican companies without tariffs. The Nation State is providing security, and transportation maintenance, it's only compensation is taxation. The nation state benefits far more through the taxation of the workers at the place of production, the company that owns the place of production; the workers at the place of distribution, and the company that owns the place that distributes the product. As opposed to simply through the later half.

Trying to make parallels between interstate and intercity commerce and free trade between nation states ignores the simple fact that in one case the nation state benefits from the entirety of the production process, and from the employment of it's citizens. In the other it does not. You can claim that free trade is more productive; but trying to say that protectionism at the Nation State level is arbitrary is ridiculous.