mattiasNYC said:
JR,
I can't make sense of your position on a broader level.
Since it is still a work in process I am still forming it.
- You seem to advocate capitalism, and as part of that advocacy you argue that it brings up the quality of life for those at the bottom internationally
Actually it is capitalism, markets, and free trade, where capital pursues the highest return that has raised many 3 rd world workers out of poverty. This was good for them (and us if we are banking good karma), not so good for US workers who must now compete globally.
This is the way too short answer... the real threat to labor is robots and automation. Several states raised minimum wage rates thinking that will somehow solve the problem. Instead it will result in less entry level jobs for kids, and even more automation.
- You vote for a candidate who vowed to tear apart the very global trade agreements that supposedly spurred said quality of life increase
For the record Hillary also flipped against the TPP no doubt trying to appeal to Bernie voters.
Yes, I disagree with both of them. I remain hopeful Trump will moderate his positions as he gets educated about world markets The US public also benefits from lower cost goods. Hillary should know better as her husband is connected to NAFTA.
As I've shared before I have disagreements with Trump, but not as important as my disagreements with Hillary.
- Why is it that you and others want less government and advocate people pull themselves up by the boot straps and work to be profitable, yet it's the very same fly-over group that's the poorest and gets the most support from the government....
Pretty much the difference between giving a man a fish and teaching him to fish. From my perspective is looks like the current administration has been pretty effectively making young people more dependent on government with too easy student loans and promises of free college. In my judgement teaching the youth to depend on government for everything will not end well.
I suppose I'm just not seeing a clear principle at work here. Nationalist protectionism seems to be fine while at the same time globalization is too. But really all that modern liberal trade (not socialist) does is widen the market to include areas with cheap labor and cheap natural resources. Why doesn't the same arguments apply locally that apply internationally?
I am not in favor of the populism trend sweeping the world but recognize that winning elections is about being in tune with the wants of the most voters.
And if influence due to wealth is ok, why aren't we on the coasts who are more educated and wealthier allowed a more proportional vote? After all, it's our money flowing to the flyover states....
I never said that... I am in favor of keeping big money out of politics "if" and when we at the same time reduce the influence of public unions on elections. On that topic, why in the world do government workers need to be unionized? To protect them from us the public? The public unions are not dealing at arms length with their employers (too much opportunity for back scratching).
Voting for a candidate does not mean full agreement, just a comparison vs the other candidate. Trump was my lesser evil.
It is perhaps interesting how Trumps detractors take every utterance of his literally. Trump is not the lawyer of those two who carefully parsed her every word. Trump routinely started speaking before putting his brain in gear. We'll see if President Trump is the old blowhard reality TV star, or the presidential Trump who emerged in the later days of his campaign.
I am not smart enough to predict the future but hope for the better latter Trump. Who will hopefully learn from people with government and international experience he can surround himself with. I don't see how he can possibly do worse than the last 8 years, but no doubt opinions vary about that too.
JR
