2016 Democratic Thread

[BigSqwert]

NEW: Drumpf threw parties with cocaine and girls as young as 15

I'm sure the religious right will find an excuse to look past this. Supreme court nominees!

[StrangeSox]

The numerous stories confirmed by multiple, independent third parties about Trump being extremely creepy at best towards underaged girls have gotten surprisingly little airtime.

[StrangeSox]

Poor Greg

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/201...ot-reporting-it

 

Greg has expressed frustration towards Brownback and bafflement that he was reelected before.

 

Remember, the same guys who helped run Kansas into the ground are also the senior economic advisers to Trump!

[bmags]

Greg has expressed frustration towards Brownback and bafflement that he was reelected before.

 

Remember, the same guys who helped run Kansas into the ground are also the senior economic advisers to Trump!

 

I know that's why I posted it.

 

I am concerned that this is a reflection of the growing distrust of "numbers" and how any bad ones are rigged or should be discarded.

 

But we should trust Chinese GDP numbers, thou

[StrangeSox]

I know that's why I posted it.

 

I am concerned that this is a reflection of the growing distrust of "numbers" and how any bad ones are rigged or should be discarded.

 

But we should trust Chinese GDP numbers, thou

 

Conservative economics hasn't cared about numbers for a long time. Republicans have argued for "dynamic scoring" aka "tax cuts don't cause deficits" accounting for decades.

 

and if you go down the truly nutty path of Austrian economics (typically tied to libertarianism), they explicitly reject empiricism.

 

edited for clarity.

Edited October 25, 2016 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Conservative economics hasn't cared about numbers for a long time, and if you go down the truly nutty path of Austrian economics, they explicitly reject empiricism. Republicans have argued for "dynamic scoring" aka "tax cuts don't cause deficits" accounting for decades.

Nutty?

 

You know, I happen to know some economists, two of whom work at the Fed in DC. I've had discussions with them about Austrian vs Chicago school. There are just as many economists in that crowd who believe one as the other, and then some who are in between. These aren't politicians, these are scientists, who know a lot more about the subject than you or I do. So, just as you'd (rightly) point out we should probably listen to the scientists on climate change, I think calling one of the two major schools of economic thought "nutty" when so many experts back it is kind of ridiculous.

 

[StrangeSox]

Nutty?

 

You know, I happen to know some economists, two of whom work at the Fed in DC. I've had discussions with them about Austrian vs Chicago school. There are just as many economists in that crowd who believe one as the other, and then some who are in between. These aren't politicians, these are scientists, who know a lot more about the subject than you or I do. So, just as you'd (rightly) point out we should probably listen to the scientists on climate change, I think calling one of the two major schools of economic thought "nutty" when so many experts back it is kind of ridiculous.

 

Austrian isn't one of the two major schools. It's a fairly fringe group. The "major" schools are Chicago/freshwater (typically more supply-side, founded by UofC scholar Milton Friedman) and Coastal/Saltwater (Harvard/Kenysian etc. types, typified by Krugman, Delong etc, probably much better non-political examples but I think that gets the point across, maybe Piketty?).

 

Austrians are the group that generally reject fiat money and demand a hard gold standard and explicitly reject empirical tests of theoretical predictions. It's the mises.org and Lew Rockwell turbo-libertarian types.

 

I realize now though that my wording in response to bmags was very poor and confusing so chalk that up to another communication failure on my part!

Edited October 25, 2016 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Austrian isn't one of the two major schools. It's a fairly fringe group. The "major" schools are Chicago/freshwater (typically more supply-side, founded by UofC scholar Milton Friedman) and Coastal/Saltwater (Harvard/Kenysian etc. types, typified by Krugman, Delong etc, probably much better non-political examples but I think that gets the point across, maybe Piketty?).

 

Austrians are the group that generally reject fiat money and demand a hard gold standard and explicitly reject empirical tests of theoretical predictions. It's the mises.org and Lew Rockwell turbo-libertarian types.

 

I realize now though that my wording in response to bmags was very poor and confusing so chalk that up to another communication failure on my part!

I do not agree with your characterization of the schools of thought, at all, but that's fine. I think your dismissal of the Austrian school as fringe is not founded in reality. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it (and for the record, generally, I don't either), you've made it into some odd cartoon thing when in fact it's one of the primary schools of thought. And your statements about it being that hard-line are no more accurate than saying all Republicans are raging bigots.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I do not agree with your characterization of the schools of thought, at all, but that's fine. I think your dismissal of the Austrian school as fringe is not founded in reality. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it (and for the record, generally, I don't either), you've made it into some odd cartoon thing when in fact it's one of the primary schools of thought. And your statements about it being that hard-line are no more accurate than saying all Republicans are raging bigots.

 

What do you count as falling under the Austrian school? It's not really considered mainstream even by the people who adhere to it, and it doesn't have nearly the academic foothold that the more orthodox economic schools of thought have.

 

Either way, the mainstream split isn't between Austrian and Chicago. If anything, those two are closer than Chicago and Keynesian/saltwater and especially closer than the split between Austrian and Keynesian. Both of the bigger orthodox groups (fresh and salt water or however you might want to phrase it) have had strong criticisms for Austrian theories, and adherents to both of the former heavily outnumber those of the later.

Edited October 25, 2016 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

In the 70s, the whole theory of trickle-down/supply side economics was considered crackpot s***, but Reagan made it mainstream. I don't know if that's considered "Austrian economics" or if it's just something that gets rolled into that for convenience's sake.

[bmags]

I do not agree with your characterization of the schools of thought, at all, but that's fine. I think your dismissal of the Austrian school as fringe is not founded in reality. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it (and for the record, generally, I don't either), you've made it into some odd cartoon thing when in fact it's one of the primary schools of thought. And your statements about it being that hard-line are no more accurate than saying all Republicans are raging bigots.

 

Eh, come on. The Austrians are cranks. I can't believe you of all people could listen to their ideas on banking. It's an emotional and political movement that acts like an economics school of thought.

[bmags]

In the 70s, the whole theory of trickle-down/supply side economics was considered crackpot s***, but Reagan made it mainstream. I don't know if that's considered "Austrian economics" or if it's just something that gets rolled into that for convenience's sake.

 

it's not, that's Friedman. Austrians are the hard money cranks that at it's most charitable don't believe central banks work, but in its actual practice is against allowing banks to loan out money at all, that lowering of interest rates or stimulus lead to bad investment that cause recessions, and that despite all of the evidence their views are false, they can say it over and over again and because it's complicated they can get a following to believe it.

 

 

[bmags]

In the 70s, the whole theory of trickle-down/supply side economics was considered crackpot s***, but Reagan made it mainstream. I don't know if that's considered "Austrian economics" or if it's just something that gets rolled into that for convenience's sake.

 

It's Hayek who gets rolled into Austrian economics but that's just them trying to get legitimacy.

[StrangeSox]

it's not, that's Friedman. Austrians are the hard money cranks that at it's most charitable don't believe central banks work, but in its actual practice is against allowing banks to loan out money at all, that lowering of interest rates or stimulus lead to bad investment that cause recessions, and that despite all of the evidence their views are false, they can say it over and over again and because it's complicated they can get a following to believe it.

 

 

It's Hayek who gets rolled into Austrian economics but that's just them trying to get legitimacy.

 

 

Yeah that was Chicago and the monetarists who drove supply-side.

 

Hayek was a quasi-Austrian but probably really closer to Friedman than Mises or Rothbard. I find it deeply ironic that Hayek is notable for Road to Serfdom (among other academic work including his Nobel) but then ended up going whole-hog for Pinochet.

Edited October 25, 2016 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Eh, come on. The Austrians are cranks. I can't believe you of all people could listen to their ideas on banking. It's an emotional and political movement that acts like an economics school of thought.

I think you are missing a couple things. First, I don't agree with that school of thought - I was simply pointing out that there are plenty of economists who do, to certain degrees, and dismissing it as fringe misses the mark. Also that it's something that has a political bent, just as other thought processes around this, but that doesn't make it any less valid as part of the discussion.

 

[bmags]

I think you are missing a couple things. First, I don't agree with that school of thought - I was simply pointing out that there are plenty of economists who do, to certain degrees, and dismissing it as fringe misses the mark. Also that it's something that has a political bent, just as other thought processes around this, but that doesn't make it any less valid as part of the discussion.

 

One, I don't think it's fair to say "to certain degrees". I don't think it's helpful to act like strictly laissez-faire views on economics put one in the Austrian school of thought. It is a specific strain that refuses mathematical modeling or any real quantified justification for their philosophy or views. And it shows in the intellectual decay that has occurred in that group. No, Hayek and Friedman are not fringe economists, but the group that has pushed the austrian school on politicians like Ron Paul certainly have earned the label of fringe school of thought.

 

And good for them! When you so remove yourselves from actual policy and action you can then just claim to be right when anything goes wrong.

[StrangeSox]

...it is fringe, though. It has a comparatively small number of adherents and little to no influence on other economic schools of thought and public policy. It's hard for it to be considered a valid part of a discussion when it rejects empirical falsification of its claims and when its policy prescriptions lead to predictable and large disasters.

 

I'm still thinking we have to be talking past each other to some degree and that you're considering some economic thought or specific people as Austrian that I'm not. Otherwise I can't really grasp why you'd consider Austrian a mainstream economic school. Like I said before, it's own adherents proudly wear the heterodox label.

 

edit: largely beaten by bmags

Edited October 25, 2016 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

And good for them! When you so remove yourselves from actual policy and action you can then just claim to be right when anything goes wrong.

 

hey I thought we were talking about economics not third parties!

[NorthSideSox72]

One, I don't think it's fair to say "to certain degrees". I don't think it's helpful to act like strictly laissez-faire views on economics put one in the Austrian school of thought. It is a specific strain that refuses mathematical modeling or any real quantified justification for their philosophy or views. And it shows in the intellectual decay that has occurred in that group. No, Hayek and Friedman are not fringe economists, but the group that has pushed the austrian school on politicians like Ron Paul certainly have earned the label of fringe school of thought.

 

And good for them! When you so remove yourselves from actual policy and action you can then just claim to be right when anything goes wrong.

 

See, while I am certainly not an economist, I get the impression the bolded is just not at all true. There certainly are some people who do that, but that isn't the same as saying that's the philosophy.

 

[StrangeSox]

See, while I am certainly not an economist, I get the impression the bolded is just not at all true. There certainly are some people who do that, but that isn't the same as saying that's the philosophy.

 

No, it really is. One of its foundational tenets dating back to Mises is that its a purely deductive philosophy. They even invented their own philosophical school, praexology, to try to ground this better but it doesn't really work out so well. Austrians explicitly reject empirical mathematical modeling of the real economy and insist that theoretical deduction from axioms is the way to arrive at the right conclusions.

 

Here's somewhat prominent libertarian economist Bryan Caplan of GMU explaining his criticisms of Austrian economics, and it touches on some of what I'm saying while going both broader and deeper.

 

Human Action was one of the foundational works for Austrian economics, and the wiki page explains its premises better than I can.

Edited October 25, 2016 by StrangeSox

[caulfield12]

In the 70s, the whole theory of trickle-down/supply side economics was considered crackpot s***, but Reagan made it mainstream. I don't know if that's considered "Austrian economics" or if it's just something that gets rolled into that for convenience's sake.

 

But essentially Stockman and Friedman, yes?

 

And hasn't Stockman backed away from his beliefs about its efficacy? For most Americans, they didn't really start paying attention until Bush Senior of all people called it "voodoo economics."

[StrangeSox]

trump supporters are now chanting Nazi anti-press rhetoric at his rallies, "lugenpress"

 

[Balta1701]

trump supporters are now chanting Nazi anti-press rhetoric at his rallies, "lugenpress"

I'm actually a little conflicted now, because that's some decent historical knowledge. I didn't know that one - they've done their homework.

[StrangeSox]

Robert Mackey ✔ @RobertMackey

"Donna Brazile gives her all the questions," Trump claims again, falsely. Then adds, even more wrongly, "she got the ANSWERS to a debate!"

1:10 PM - 25 Oct 2016

 

Trump seems to think the debate is a pop quiz or something where there are correct answers.

[StrangeSox]

Clinton Voters Aren’t Just Voting Against Trump

 

Sen. Mitch McConnell and many political pundits claim that voters will have to choose a “lesser of two evils” in this election. That cliché is based on how high Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s unfavorable ratings are compared to previous candidates. But favorable ratings don’t always tell us everything, and there are strong signs that voters don’t consider Clinton to be less tolerable than past candidates. (Trump on the other hand….)

 

A simpler method for determining positive or negative support is to ask people whether their vote is affirmatively for one candidate or in protest against the other. The latest ABC News survey reveals that, in fact, Clinton’s voters feel about as positively about their candidate as any candidate’s supporters have felt about their own preferred candidate since 1980. Trump voters are less enthusiastic about him: Since 1980, no group of supporters have been less affirmative in their support for their candidate.

 

Right now, 56 percent of Clinton voters say they are mainly for her compared to just 42 percent of the same voters who say they are voting against Trump. This 56 percent is the highest it’s been all year in the ABC News poll, and it’s been steadily climbing for Clinton since July. In the same survey, only 41 percent of Trump supporters say they are voting for him, while 54 percent say they are mostly voting against Clinton. Those numbers are about the same as they’ve been all year.

 

That 56 percent of Clinton’s voters are affirmatively supporting her may not seem like a lot, but it’s about average for a presidential candidate.