Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part III Covfefe

[noxibox]

Welfare institutions do not reduce poverty, they create dependents upon the state who can then be leveraged by duplicitous politicians to undermine more and more personal freedoms as the welfare state becomes an every bigger portion of the budget.

That's your belief.

A single man used to be able to earn enough to keep an entire family, with the woman staying at home. So far as I can tell, women as a whole prefer to stay at home with the kids than to go off to work each day. But hey, screwing over both men and women economically for the sake of ensuring "equality" is all to the good, right?

It definitely suits the wealthy vested interests that have been driving down wages.

 

[rambo919]

If I had kids, this would keep me up at night. When that entire house of cards comes tumbling down, the entire world economy is going to be in for a rough ride.

You forget our own house of cards that keeps threatning to collapse more insistently every year.....

 

[Emjay]

You forget our own house of cards that keeps threatning to collapse more insistently every year.....

That's a foregone conclusion.

You will be hard pressed to see the usual Lefties in this thread making any comment on South African affairs (or anything relating to Africa). They don't give a flying ****. They care more about American politics.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

That's your belief.

LIVE | Apartheid flag judgment

Nothing better than a good circle jerk from homophobes. Do you use your left or right hand?

mybroadband.co.za

Not just mine.

 

[theratman]

That's a foregone conclusion.

You will be hard pressed to see the usual Lefties in this thread making any comment on South African affairs (or anything relating to Africa). They don't give a flying ****. They care more about American politics.

Lol, that's not the case, I've seen most of them outside of this thread in SA threads and others. Maybe with the exception of Greg.

 

[rietrot]

Trump derangement syndrome has leftists defending state rights and business rights.

But their views on statism hasn't changed. It's just bad if the other team does it.

 

[konfab]

You'll need to demonstrate that premise 1 is a fact.

Gladly.
Firstly the principles:
The first principle is that the government is made up of human beings who are just as greedy, stupid and corrupt as everyone else. Thus you can either choose to have a decentralised, fault tolerant system like a free market which can operate under such conditions or you can choose to concentrate economic power into the hands of the government and hope that they are not as greedy, stupid and corrupt as everyone else.

The second principle is that price of a good or service is a unit of information that gives the purchaser insight into all the goods and services that went into bringing the product or service in front of said purchaser. Rational economic decisions require that this information is preserved, else wise the forces of supply and demand cannot meet the needs of the consumers.


Economic freedom index (which is a measure of how little intervention in the economy the government has), is very well correlated with GDP per capita(which is a measure of how well off people are).


https://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2019/book/chapter4.pdf

China had full on state intervention in its economy. The result was 60 million people died of famine.
In the 1980s the state started winding back on its intervention. The result was the largest reduction in poverty in the world's history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

South Africa, after Apartheid implemented a relatively market friendly policy called GEAR. This policy was in effect from 1995 to 2005. As you can see there was a pretty steady increase in economic growth.


From 2005 to 2010, the ANC introduced ASGISA, which was less market friendly than GEAR and from then on, they have been introducing policy that is ever more hostile to the free market. The amount of growth you see is the result.

Some do, some don't. In the real world things often don't work the way the economic hypotheses say they will.

The hypothesis of statist intervention in the economy is that the government consists of a different species of human, one that isn't greedy and stupid, and thus they should be given all the power to make decisions on behalf of other people who are just as greedy and stupid as they are.

The theory I have posted works very well. Look at water in Cape Town with day zero for example.
On one hand you had the government controlled supply which took months to realise that there was actually a shortage and to adjust prices accordingly, and curiously enough haven't dropped them even though the dams are full.
On the other hand you had almost every single shop in Cape Town selling water and water storage systems. Now that the dams are full, you don't see as much of them.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Gladly.
Firstly the principles:
The first principle is that the government is made up of human beings who are just as greedy, stupid and corrupt as everyone else. Thus you can either choose to have a decentralised, fault tolerant system like a free market which can operate under such conditions or you can choose to concentrate economic power into the hands of the government and hope that they are not as greedy, stupid and corrupt as everyone else.

You left out violent.

Civilisation works because we figured out how to give the state a monopoly on violence. It is not the case that humans are naturally disposed to interact non-violently. That condition has been imposed upon them, decentralising the monopoly on violence would be ruinous to civilisation, and therefore that puts a hard limit on how far you can go with respect to decentralisation.

And the reason that I bring this up is because you're ignoring the degree to which the stability of the state is contingent upon the economy functioning in a way that is conducive to the perpetuation of the state. It's all fine and well to pretend that a state can as a matter of principle allow for a free market economy, but the reality is much uglier, especially when other state actors can arrange their economies such that they are able to prey upon any states dumb enough to refuse to intervene when market forces are twisted against the stability of the state (currency wars etc.). It is for this reason that America needs to rectify the trade balances between America and China as a matter of national security.

 

[konfab]

You left out violent.

Civilisation works because we figured out how to give the state a monopoly on violence. It is not the case that humans are naturally disposed to interact non-violently. That condition has been imposed upon them, decentralising the monopoly on violence would be ruinous to civilisation, and therefore that puts a hard limit on how far you can go with respect to decentralisation.

You are making the assumption that I am an anarchist or even a libertarian. I don't think I am though.

You are almost there with your argument. You are assuming human beings would exist in the state of nature as Hobbs would describe it, where it would be nasty brutal and short. This isn't realistic from an evolutionary perspective: we are social animals and we need other human beings around us to make us happy. Thus we are pre-disposed towards trying to live peacefully if we can. If you look at chimp packs, they are usually lead by leaders which are not the most violent, but the most social.

I more think along the lines of Locke, that is that people will be mostly peaceful in their day to day lives without a state. However the problem comes in with dispute resolution. Without a monopoly of force that is neutral to disputes, it is impossible to resolve conflicts peacefully.

And the reason that I bring this up is because you're ignoring the degree to which the stability of the state is contingent upon the economy functioning in a way that is conducive to the perpetuation of the state. It's all fine and well to pretend that a state can as a matter of principle allow for a free market economy, but the reality is much uglier, especially when other state actors can arrange their economies such that they are able to prey upon any states dumb enough to refuse to intervene when market forces are twisted against the stability of the state (currency wars etc.). It is for this reason that America needs to rectify the trade balances between America and China as a matter of national security.

I fully agree with you that China is not playing by the same rules of the game as everyone else. The problem is that all countries do this in some way or another. The US and EU do both of these things. There are few countries that don't do it.

The reason why the US has such an enormous trade imbalance is because of the internal policies of their central bank, which is to print as much money as they can get away with, and the rest of the world is dumb enough to believe that this paper has value.
If Trump actually had a set of balls, he would cut all spending in his government, and keep the supply of money in circulation to be exactly where it is.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

You are making the assumption that I am an anarchist or even a libertarian. I don't think I am though.

You are almost there with your argument. You are assuming human beings would exist in the state of nature as Hobbs would describe it, where it would be nasty brutal and short. This isn't realistic from an evolutionary perspective: we are social animals and we need other human beings around us to make us happy. Thus we are pre-disposed towards trying to live peacefully if we can. If you look at chimp packs, they are usually lead by leaders which are not the most violent, but the most social.

Really? In Chimp packs the most common cause of death after disease is violence from another chimp. Stating that the leaders are the most peaceful does little to detract from the fact that the system as a whole is still violent. There is no tendency towards 0 here. Especially not when greedy humans can use violence to enslave other humans.

I more think along the lines of Locke, that is that people will be mostly peaceful in their day to day lives without a state. However the problem comes in with dispute resolution. Without a monopoly of force that is neutral to disputes, it is impossible to resolve conflicts peacefully.

I think more along the lines of Nietzsche:

A deprecatory word here against the attempts, that have lately been made, to find the origin of justice on quite another basis—namely, on that of resentment. Let me whisper a word in the ear of the psychologists, if they would fain study revenge itself at close quarters: this plant blooms its prettiest at present among Anarchists and anti-Semites, a hidden flower, as it has ever been, like the violet, though, forsooth, with another perfume. And as like must necessarily emanate from like, it will not be a matter for surprise that it is just in such circles that we see the birth of endeavours (it is their old birthplace—compare above, First Essay, paragraph 14), to sanctify revenge under the name of justice (as though Justice were at bottom merely a development of the consciousness of injury), and thus with the rehabilitation of revenge to reinstate generally and collectively all the reactive emotions. I object to this last point least of all. It even seems meritorious when regarded from the standpoint of the whole problem of biology (from which standpoint the value of these emotions has up to the present been underestimated). And that to which I alone call attention, is the circumstance that it is the spirit of revenge itself, from which develops this new nuance of scientific equity (for the benefit of hate, envy, mistrust, jealousy, suspicion, rancour, revenge). This scientific "equity" stops immediately and makes way for the accents of deadly enmity and prejudice, so soon as another group of emotions comes on the scene, which in my opinion are of a much higher biological value than these reactions, and consequently have a paramount claim to the valuation and appreciation of science: I mean the really active emotions, such as personal and material ambition, and so forth. (E. Dühring, Value of Life; Course of Philosophy, and passim.) So much against this tendency in general: but as for the particular maxim of Dühring's, that the home of Justice is to be found in the sphere of the reactive feelings, our love of truth compels us drastically to invert his own proposition and to oppose to him this other maxim: the last sphere conquered by the spirit of justice is the sphere of the feeling of reaction! When it really comes about that the just man remains just even as regards his injurer (and not merely cold, moderate, reserved, indifferent: being just is always a positive state); when, in spite of the strong provocation of personal insult, contempt, and calumny, the lofty and clear objectivity of the just and judging eye (whose glance is as profound as it is gentle) is untroubled, why then we have a piece of perfection, a past master of the world—something, in fact, which it would not be wise to expect, and which should not at any rate be too easily believed. Speaking generally, there is no doubt but that even the justest individual only requires a little dose of hostility, malice, or innuendo to drive the blood into his brain and the fairness from it. The active man, the attacking, aggressive man is always a hundred degrees nearer to justice than the man who merely reacts; he certainly has no need to adopt the tactics, necessary in the case of the reacting man, of making false and biassed valuations of his object. It is, in point of fact, for this reason that the aggressive man has at all times enjoyed the stronger, bolder, more aristocratic, and also freer outlook, the better conscience. On the other hand, we already surmise who it really is that has on his conscience the invention of the "bad conscience,"—the resentful man! Finally, let man look at himself in history. In what sphere up to the present has the whole administration of law, the acutal need of law, found its earthly home? Perchance in the sphere of the reacting man? Not for a minute: rather in that of the active, strong, spontaneous, aggressive man? I deliberately defy the abovementioned agitator (who himself makes this self-confession, "the creed of revenge has run through all my works and endeavours like the red thread of Justice"), and say, that judged historically law in the world represents the very war against the reactive feelings, the very war waged on those feelings by the powers of activity and aggression, which devote some of their strength to damming and keeping within bounds this effervescence of hysterical reactivity, and to forcing it to some compromise. Everywhere where justice is practised and justice is maintained, it is to be observed that the stronger power, when confronted with the weaker powers which are inferior to it (whether they be groups, or individuals), searches for weapons to put an end to the senseless fury of resentment, while it carries on its object, partly by taking the victim of resentment out of the clutches of revenge, partly by substituting for revenge a campaign of its own against the enemies of peace and order, partly by finding, suggesting, and occasionally enforcing settlements, partly by standardising certain equivalents for injuries, to which equivalents the element of resentment is henceforth finally referred. The most drastic measure, however, taken and effectuated by the supreme power, to combat the preponderance of the feelings of spite and vindictiveness—it takes this measure as soon as it is at all strong enough to do so—is the foundation of law, the imperative declaration of what in its eyes is to be regarded as just and lawful, and what unjust and unlawful: and while, after the foundation of law, the supreme power treats the aggressive and arbitrary acts of individuals, or of whole groups, as a violation of law, and a revolt against itself, it distracts the feelings of its subjects from the immediate injury inflicted by such a violation, and thus eventually attains the very opposite result to that always desired by revenge, which sees and recognises nothing but the standpoint of the injured party. From henceforth the eye becomes trained to a more and more impersonal valuation of the deed, even the eye of the injured party himself (though this is in the final stage of all, as has been previously remarked)—on this principle "right" and "wrong" first manifest themselves after the foundation of law (and not, as Duhring maintains, only after the act of violation). To talk of intrinsic right and intrinsic wrong is absolutely nonsensical; intrinsically, an injury, an oppression, an exploitation, an annihilation can be nothing wrong, inasmuch as life is essentially (that is, in its cardinal functions) something which functions by injuring, oppressing, exploiting, and annihilating, and is absolutely inconceivable without such a character. It is necessary to make an even more serious confession:—viewed from the most advanced biological standpoint, conditions of legality can be only exceptional conditions, in that they are partial restrictions of the real life-will, which makes for power, and in that they are subordinated to the life-will's general end as particular means, that is, as means to create larger units of strength. A legal organisation, conceived of as sovereign and universal, not as a weapon in a fight of complexes of power, but as a weapon against fighting, generally something after the style of Duhring's communistic model of treating every will as equal with every other will, would be a principle hostile to life, a destroyer and dissolver of man, an outrage on the future of man, a symptom of fatigue, a secret cut to Nothingness.—

The neutrality you speak of is a secret cut to Nothingness.

1/2

 

[Gingerbeardman]

@konfab

I fully agree with you that China is not playing by the same rules of the game as everyone else. The problem is that all countries do this in some way or another. The US and EU do both of these things. There are few countries that don't do it.

Right, so a nation-state interested in the security of the state must be mindful of this and must protect their national economy from the predation of outside entities. Nasty fact of life, the microcosm reflected in the macrocosm.

The reason why the US has such an enormous trade imbalance is because of the internal policies of their central bank, which is to print as much money as they can get away with, and the rest of the world is dumb enough to believe that this paper has value.
If Trump actually had a set of balls, he would cut all spending in his government, and keep the supply of money in circulation to be exactly where it is.

No, if Trump actually had a set of balls, he'd end the Fed. I can sympathise with your desire to cut spending, but in the current race-to-the-bottom environment, such a move would simply be counter-productive.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

@konfab the distinction you draw between Locke and Hobbes is interesting for another reason...

Tabula rasa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The modern idea of the theory, however, is attributed mostly to John Locke's expression of the idea in Essay Concerning Human Understanding (he uses the term "white paper" in Book II, Chap. I, 2). In Locke's philosophy, tabula rasa was the theory that at birth the (human) mind is a "blank slate" without rules for processing data, and that data is added and rules for processing are formed solely by one's sensory experiences. The notion is central to Lockean empiricism; it serves as the starting point for Locke's subsequent explication (in Book II) of simple ideas and complex ideas. As understood by Locke, tabula rasa meant that the mind of the individual was born blank, and it also emphasized the freedom of individuals to author their own soul. Individuals are free to define the content of their character—but basic identity as a member of the human species cannot be altered. This presumption of a free, self-authored mind combined with an immutable human nature leads to the Lockean doctrine of "natural" rights. Locke's idea of tabula rasa is frequently compared with Thomas Hobbes's viewpoint of human nature, in which humans are endowed with inherent mental content—particularly with selfishness.

Either way, I think Locke's formulation has some holes in it. I can leave Nietzsche at the door if you'd prefer to argue within the confines of Enlightenment thinking.

 

[konfab]

@konfab
Right, so a nation-state interested in the security of the state must be mindful of this and must protect their national economy from the predation of outside entities. Nasty fact of life, the microcosm reflected in the macrocosm.

And what is the economy? The interactions of millions of people.
Now can you explain how that is protected by forcing their transactions cost more because of a tariff?

This is what Trump should have done, instead of putting tariffs up, simply publish a list of all the companies that do substantial amounts of imports from China with American competitors and encourage Americans to boycott them in favour of the US made products. That would ascribe a much more fair value to the cost of doing business in China than simply a tariff.

@konfab
No, if Trump actually had a set of balls, he'd end the Fed. I can sympathise with your desire to cut spending, but in the current race-to-the-bottom environment, such a move would simply be counter-productive.

Disagree, you don't need to end end the Fed. Just getting them to behave like a store of value instead of a currency manipulator would do the trick. If they did that, the US government would have to cut spending.

 

[cerebus]

Lol, that's not the case, I've seen most of them outside of this thread in SA threads and others. Maybe with the exception of Greg.

And me, but then again, I'm not South African

 

[Gingerbeardman]

And what is the economy? The interactions of millions of people.
Now can you explain how that is protected by forcing their transactions cost more because of a tariff?

It's ensuring that local economic conditions are insulated from external economic conditions. Like the way your body makes a distinction between the water that's on the inside and water on the outside.

This is what Trump should have done, instead of putting tariffs up, simply publish a list of all the companies that do substantial amounts of imports from China with American competitors and encourage Americans to boycott them in favour of the US made products. That would ascribe a much more fair value to the cost of doing business in China than simply a tariff.

I consider this tantamount to pushing on a string.

Disagree, you don't need to end end the Fed. Just getting them to behave like a store of value instead of a currency manipulator would do the trick. If they did that, the US government would have to cut spending.

Well, I half agree with you. I don't believe that the Fed can ever be made to behave like an institution that serves as a store of value. But I do think that having such an institution that serves to stabilise a national currency would be a great idea. You do realise that what you're talking about would fundamentally sink the United States as a world superpower though, right?

 

[konfab]

It's ensuring that local economic conditions are insulated from external economic conditions. Like the way your body makes a distinction between the water that's on the inside and water on the outside.

I don't think insulated is the right word. The correct term IMO is to balance out all the economic mess that the internal economic policies create, like minimum wage and unions.
Given that it is a reactive condition, the easiest route would be to make the local economic conditions as free as possible. If you want one, you need to do the other. Otherwise it is rank protectionism.

I consider this tantamount to pushing on a string.

I don't think so.

Well, I half agree with you. I don't believe that the Fed can ever be made to behave like an institution that serves as a store of value. But I do think that having such an institution that serves to stabilise a national currency would be a great idea. You do realise that what you're talking about would fundamentally sink the United States as a world superpower though, right?

I think you are wrong, the fed just needs to maintain the amount of money in circulation as to where it is. So they can print a bit off to cover for the physical loss of dollars as they get damaged etc. That is easily possible.

As for being a superpower, I don't think so. They managed to get to that status on effectively the same sort of system when they were on the gold standard. Them being a superpower is reflective on their industrial capacity for production, not how much dollars they can print.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I don't think insulated is the right word. The correct term IMO is to balance out all the economic mess that the internal economic policies create, like minimum wage and unions.
Given that it is a reactive condition, the easiest route would be to make the local economic conditions as free as possible. If you want one, you need to do the other. Otherwise it is rank protectionism.

Ok, so I'm like China, I've got 1 billion people under my thumb. You have a massive productive economy, developed over a century of the best commercialism money can buy. Instead of trying to compete with that productivity advantage, I instead force everybody to work according to near slavery conditions for a pittance, ensuring that despite all the other economic advantages you have, my goods are simply more economic for the average consumer. This produces a trade imbalance such that I sell you a never-ending stream of goods, which if you don't take independent action to counteract will wittle away your production base until all of the wealth you have is essentially repatriated to the geography under my control.

As far as I can tell, your strategy renders you geopolitically impotent against my attempts to destroy your economy so that I might prevail as hegemon.

I don't think so.

People are greedy, remember?

I think you are wrong, the fed just needs to maintain the amount of money in circulation as to where it is. So they can print a bit off to cover for the physical loss of dollars as they get damaged etc. That is easily possible.

So in other words, giving up on the petrodollar as a means of maintaining geopolitical hegemony...

As for being a superpower, I don't think so. They managed to get to that status on effectively the same sort of system when they were on the gold standard.

Because WW2 happened. America got lucky in this regard.

Them being a superpower is reflective on their industrial capacity for production, not how much dollars they can print.

Lol. No, they are a superpower because of their ability to guarantee Middle Eastern despots power in exchange for forcing everyone to buy Dollars to get oil. It's a neat arrangement that is now coming to a close one way or another, but that doesn't change the fact that the US empire's strength has been financial rather than economic for the last 50 years.

 

[konfab]

Lol. No, they are a superpower because of their ability to guarantee Middle Eastern despots power in exchange for forcing everyone to buy Dollars to get oil. It's a neat arrangement that is now coming to a close one way or another, but that doesn't change the fact that the US empire's strength has been financial rather than economic for the last 50 years.

They are a superpower because (at least they used to) have 200 million or so highly productive people.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

They are a superpower because (at least they used to) have 200 million or so highly productive people.

Yes, and between 1939 and 1945 the industrial base of the rest of the world was bombed to kingdom come, giving America a massive competitive advantage while the other countries slowly rebuilt. But nowadays the Russians and the Chinese are no longer shooting themselves in the foot because of misguided Marxist ideology, so the competitive board barely resembles the circumstances that allowed the US to take pole position in the first place.

Bretton Woods lasted from 1944 to 1973. That's the window in which the US's industrial prowess could be said to underwrite the US position as world superpower. After the US went off the gold standard it became financial imperialism instead.

Michael Hudson wrote a decent book about it:

https://michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/superimperialism.pdf

 

[rietrot]

Yes, and between 1939 and 1945 the industrial base of the rest of the world was bombed to kingdom come, giving America a massive competitive advantage while the other countries slowly rebuilt. But nowadays the Russians and the Chinese are no longer shooting themselves in the foot because of misguided Marxist ideology.

I'm not so sure about China. They can be successful if the world buys their cheap junk. Even Moa would have killed less people if the US bought the junk steel they produced under him.

They have a crazy amount of people and they aren't colonising Africa fast enough to feed all of them.