Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 21

wow the guy's password was password and he almost led a winning presidential campaign :D

I dont know how Assange decided to do an interview with this bafoon as well. He doesn't believe in in climate change or at least spreads propaganda about it. And thats just a grain of his stupidity. I don't even know how Hannity wanted to do an interview with him either, since Assange undermined USA's diplomacy, which Hannity seems to protect, guess he s trying to bring value to his work through Assange's disclosures as he punished the democrats mostly.
Anyways I'm glad Assange did the interview as his point of view actually matters.

Op Ed by Paul Krugman

On Thursday, at a rough estimate, 75,000 Americans were laid off or fired by their employers. Some of those workers will find good new jobs, but many will end up earning less, and some will remain unemployed for months or years. If that sounds terrible to you, and you’re asking what economic catastrophe just happened, the answer is, none. In fact, I’m just assuming that Thursday was a normal day in the job market. The U.S. economy is, after all, huge, employing 145 million people. It’s also ever-changing: Industries and companies rise and fall, and there are always losers as well as winners. The result is constant “churn,” with many jobs disappearing even as still more new jobs are created. In an average month, there are 1.5 million “involuntary” job separations (as opposed to voluntary quits), or 75,000 per working day. Hence my number. But why am I telling you this? To highlight the difference between real economic policy and the fake policy that has lately been taking up far too much attention in the news media. Real policy, in a nation as big and rich as America, involves large sums of money and affects broad swaths of the economy. Repealing the Affordable Care Act, which would snatch away hundreds of billions in insurance subsidies to low- and middle-income families and cause around 30 million people to lose coverage, would certainly qualify. Consider, by contrast, the story that dominated several news cycles a few weeks ago: Donald Trump’s intervention to stop Carrier from moving jobs to Mexico. Some reports say that 800 U.S. jobs were saved; others suggest that the company will simply replace workers with machines. But even accepting the most positive spin, for every worker whose job was saved in that deal, around a hundred others lost their jobs the same day. In other words, it may have sounded as if Mr. Trump was doing something substantive by intervening with Carrier, but he wasn’t. This was fake policy — a show intended to impress the rubes, not to achieve real results. The same goes for the hyping of Ford’s decision to add 700 jobs in Michigan — or for that matter, Mr. Trump’s fact-challenged denunciation of General Motors for manufacturing the Chevy Cruze in Mexico (that factory mainly serves foreign markets, not the U.S.). Did the incoming administration have anything to do with Ford’s decision? Can political pressure change G.M.’s strategy? It hardly matters: Case-by-case intervention from the top is never going to have a significant impact on a $19 trillion economy. So why are such stories occupying so much of the media’s attention? The incoming administration’s incentive to engage in fake policy is obvious: It’s the natural counterpart to fake populism. Mr. Trump won overwhelming support from white working-class voters, who believed that he was on their side. Yet his real policy agenda, aside from the looming trade war, is standard-issue modern Republicanism: huge tax cuts for billionaires and savage cuts to public programs, including those essential to many Trump voters. So what can Mr. Trump do to keep the scam going? The answer is, showy but trivial interventions that can be spun as saving a few jobs here or there. Substantively, this will never amount to more than a rounding error in a giant nation. But it may well work as a P.R. strategy, at least for a while. Bear in mind that corporations have every incentive to go along with the spin. Suppose that you’re a C.E.O. who wants to curry favor with the new administration. One thing you can do, of course, is steer business to Trump hotels and other businesses. But another thing you can do is help generate Trump-friendly headlines. Keeping a few hundred jobs in America for a couple of years is a pretty cheap form of campaign contribution; pretending that the administration persuaded you to add some jobs you actually would have added anyway is even cheaper. Still, none of this would work without the complicity of the news media. And I’m not talking about “fake news,” as big a problem as that is becoming; I’m talking about respectable, mainstream news coverage. Sorry, folks, but headlines that repeat Trump claims about jobs saved, without conveying the essential fakeness of those claims, are a betrayal of journalism. This is true even if, as often happens, the articles eventually, quite a few paragraphs in, get around to debunking the hype: many if not most readers will take the headline as validation of the claim. And it’s even worse if headlines inspired by fake policy crowd out coverage of real policy. It is, I suppose, possible that fake policy will eventually produce a media backlash — that news organizations will begin treating stunts like the Carrier episode with the ridicule they deserve. But nothing we’ve seen so far inspires optimism.

and i just won a pot but it doesn't count because the average person loses hundreds of dollars in a casino per day

Quite the shitty anology, again.

my mistake

i just won a pot but the media did too many stories about it, so i am bringing it up again 2 months later in a media story and plus the average person loses hundreds of dollars in a casino per day, plus some people don't go into a casino again for months or even years. so it doesn't count.

That was funny though, the pun on my poor writing skills that is

krugman is posting bullshit and so are you

In December, his final full month in office, the U.S. economy added a slightly disappointing 156,000 jobs. It marked the 75th consecutive month of job gains, the best on record. For all of 2016, the U.S. added over 2 million new jobs.

oh mr. krugman, you might be adding 2 million jew jobs but there are 18 million involuntary job separations per year! that would mean 18 million people lost their jobs and obama is shit right or else krugman is just spinning nonsensical bullshit like everyone else writing about poli-

here's the process:
1) the president-elect (cheaply) keeps or makes some jobs, or a branch, or plant, or company, something obviously good, before even taking office
2) whine about how it's somehow a bad thing for months
3) find someone paid to write for NYT complaining about how we're not focusing on the big issues
? what are you doing, uiCK?

Why you so emotionally attached to the US political system? You sound like those retards who where crying when Obama got elected and spewed 'hope" everywhere.

What I'm doing? Posting shit that's interesting, to me, relevant to the topic. If anyone's whining it's you, with your absurd analogies.

And for your information, Krugman had plenty of criticism towards Obama and Clinton.

>emotion

no

On January 07 2017 01:40 uiCk wrote: And for your information, Krugman had plenty of criticism towards Obama and Clinton.

that was not the point, you erudite scholar. "involuntary" job separations are not "jobs lost," it's not a number that means what either of you wants it to, krugman is either bullshitting himself or bullshitting you but the important thing is you're the one who's not realizing

create a thought and explain what's wrong with what i said, i will even break down the article to help you get it

On Thursday, at a rough estimate, 75,000 Americans were laid off or fired by their employers. Some of those workers will find good new jobs, but many will end up earning less, and some will remain unemployed for months or years.

wow, weasel words, i'm super concerned now

If that sounds terrible to you, and you’re asking what economic catastrophe just happened, the answer is, none. In fact, I’m just assuming that Thursday was a normal day in the job market.

omg wow lol i got rused well played krugman

The U.S. economy is, after all, huge, employing 145 million people. It’s also ever-changing: Industries and companies rise and fall, and there are always losers as well as winners. The result is constant “churn,” with many jobs disappearing even as still more new jobs are created. In an average month, there are 1.5 million “involuntary” job separations (as opposed to voluntary quits), or 75,000 per working day. Hence my number.

so like i said, 18 million people lost their job in a year? "SOME" of those will find good new jobs, but "MANY" will end up earning less, and "SOME" will remain unemployed, wow, super helpful information

But why am I telling you this? To highlight the difference between real economic policy and the fake policy that has lately been taking up far too much attention in the news media.

thanks for writing an article about what not to talk about in articles

Real policy, in a nation as big and rich as America, involves large sums of money and affects broad swaths of the economy. Repealing the Affordable Care Act, which would snatch away hundreds of billions in insurance subsidies to low- and middle-income families and cause around 30 million people to lose coverage, would certainly qualify.

it's a good thing everyone is insisting they are going to REPLACE it, then, and that the president-elect has stated in interviews he doesn't want there to be so much as a 1 day lapse. wonder why duffman didn't put this in the piece he took time out to write for our edification? because this is only meant to be an obnoxious zinger, coming from a guy begging us to talk about policy, heal thyself

Consider, by contrast, the story that dominated several news cycles a few weeks ago: Donald Trump’s intervention to stop Carrier from moving jobs to Mexico. Some reports say that 800 U.S. jobs were saved; others suggest that the company will simply replace workers with machines. But even accepting the most positive spin, for every worker whose job was saved in that deal, around a hundred others lost their jobs the same day.

*waves hands wildly*
AN EMPLOYEE LOSING THEIR JOB IS NOT THE SAME AS THE JOB BEING LOST

In other words, it may have sounded as if Mr. Trump was doing something substantive by intervening with Carrier, but he wasn’t. This was fake policy — a show intended to impress the rubes, not to achieve real results.

it was real, just small. something being small doesn't mean it isn't real. like for instance if i went to the casino and won a pot, even though people lose billions at casinos annually

i personally said earlier it's a waste of time talking about these things

The same goes for the hyping of Ford’s decision to add 700 jobs in Michigan — or for that matter, Mr. Trump’s fact-challenged denunciation of General Motors for manufacturing the Chevy Cruze in Mexico (that factory mainly serves foreign markets, not the U.S.).

Did the incoming administration have anything to do with Ford’s decision? Can political pressure change G.M.’s strategy? It hardly matters: Case-by-case intervention from the top is never going to have a significant impact on a $19 trillion economy.

Haha yeah, intervening with an automaker or bailing them out would never have a significant impact, therefore the government should never do anything because there isn't a single $19 trillion company. let's accept market fundamentalism and sit on our thumbs forever

So why are such stories occupying so much of the media’s attention?

it's not, he's personally writing an article about it

The incoming administration’s incentive to engage in fake policy is obvious: It’s the natural counterpart to fake populism. Mr. Trump won overwhelming support from white working-class voters, who believed that he was on their side. Yet his real policy agenda, aside from the looming trade war, is standard-issue modern Republicanism: huge tax cuts for billionaires and savage cuts to public programs, including those essential to many Trump voters.

you know whose taxes trump doesn't want to cut? nobody's. also, businesses and billionaires are different, despite what they teach at Left University
cuts to public programs is also debatable, but this is just meant to be a zinger

So what can Mr. Trump do to keep the scam going? The answer is, showy but trivial interventions that can be spun as saving a few jobs here or there. Substantively, this will never amount to more than a rounding error in a giant nation. But it may well work as a P.R. strategy, at least for a while.

look at this whining about "scams" when trump still has yet to take the oath of office. it's possible to do big things and small things at the same time. replacing ACA and reforming tax code/making it business-friendly is not incompatible with keeping a factory open somewhere. maybe wait until he's actually the president to start bitching?

Bear in mind that corporations have every incentive to go along with the spin. Suppose that you’re a C.E.O. who wants to curry favor with the new administration. One thing you can do, of course, is steer business to Trump hotels and other businesses. But another thing you can do is help generate Trump-friendly headlines. Keeping a few hundred jobs in America for a couple of years is a pretty cheap form of campaign contribution; pretending that the administration persuaded you to add some jobs you actually would have added anyway is even cheaper.

>some shit complaining about how the president-elect is already a hotel magnate and can't be bought for speaking fee peanuts

Still, none of this would work without the complicity of the news media. And I’m not talking about “fake news,” as big a problem as that is becoming; I’m talking about respectable, mainstream news coverage.

haha yeah the media needs to stop being so friendly towards trump

Sorry, folks, but headlines that repeat Trump claims about jobs saved, without conveying the essential fakeness of those claims, are a betrayal of journalism. This is true even if, as often happens, the articles eventually, quite a few paragraphs in, get around to debunking the hype: many if not most readers will take the headline as validation of the claim.

he's again only whining about "fake" because he thinks people aren't smart enough to eat up his expert analysis that 800 is a smaller number than millions

I'm confused
your beef is with fact he says there are 18 million "involuntary quits" (people getting canned) per year and that there are and additional 20 mil "hires" per year giving a 2 mil job added total , being bullshit statement?

On January 07 2017 03:18 uiCk wrote: I'm confused your beef is with fact he says there are 18 million "involuntary quits" (people getting canned) per year and that there are and additional 20 mil "hires" per year giving a 2 mil job added total , being bullshit statement?

what is this? you speak four languages and are this thick, intentionally? ignore the article about obama's jobs added, nobody said there were 20m hires

a waitress or cashier getting fired is not the same as a JOB THAT THE COUNTRY'S ECONOMY LOST. the restaurant didn't pack up and leave to go to another country. "involuntary job separations" is not a number that has any business being used in the context of keeping jobs from moving overseas except that it's useful as a huge number that sounds plausibly related to uncritical readers who eat up nonsensical heckling like that

On January 07 2017 17:06 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On January 07 2017 03:18 uiCk wrote: I'm confused your beef is with fact he says there are 18 million "involuntary quits" (people getting canned) per year and that there are and additional 20 mil "hires" per year giving a 2 mil job added total , being bullshit statement? what is this? you speak four languages and are this thick, intentionally? ignore the article about obama's jobs added, nobody said there were 20m hires

Why would I ignore it? 18mil ppl get fired, yet 2 mil jobs are gained total, which gives you 20mil hiers. There is nothing to dispute here, unless you want to dispute the methodology and truthfulness of data gathering by whatever bureau is in charge of it.

a waitress or cashier getting fired is not the same as a JOB THAT THE COUNTRY'S ECONOMY LOST. the restaurant didn't pack up and leave to go to another country. "involuntary job separations" is not a number that has any business being used in the context of keeping jobs from moving overseas except that it's useful as a huge number that sounds plausibly related to uncritical readers who eat up nonsensical heckling like that

If I understand correctly, you seem to believe that a job that moves outside of its economy, is worst then job disappearing ?

You're not very clear as to what the problem seems to be.

it's not physically possible for you to be this retarded unless it's on purpose

I guess so. I still have hard time comprehending your ideas, all I read is insults, mocking wit and shitty anologies ;(


All I understand is: 1 job 1 million jobs, it all matters. And something about the numbers / terminology being 'bullshit"

Wait... Trump wants to cut the taxes on the whole nation ?

There is no way he hurts the poorer side of the population more than the 1% if he s indeed planning to do so. Would be quite an interesting move. Media would have it easy to shift blame on him trying to make his rich buddies richer though, which would be the " logical " claim, but yet false

I get why people would think the liberal way of taxing the shit out of rich and redistributing the wealth to people in need is cool. It does work in many countries in Europe. Certainly does not seem so in the USA ( are there even social programs that work properly in the USA ? medical care which should be top2 together with education seems like a joke ) , but then again the USA is basically 50 different countries so you cant have a comparison. Freeing up wealth and letting the people decide how things go seems like a good move considering things.

On January 07 2017 17:44 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + a waitress or cashier getting fired is not the same as a JOB THAT THE COUNTRY'S ECONOMY LOST. the restaurant didn't pack up and leave to go to another country. "involuntary job separations" is not a number that has any business being used in the context of keeping jobs from moving overseas except that it's useful as a huge number that sounds plausibly related to uncritical readers who eat up nonsensical heckling like that If I understand correctly, you seem to believe that a job that moves outside of its economy, is worst then job disappearing ?

On January 07 2017 02:24 Santafairy wrote: *waves hands wildly* AN EMPLOYEE LOSING THEIR JOB IS NOT THE SAME AS THE JOB BEING LOST

just keep rereading this until you internalize it

if burger king fires a cashier nothing happened to the job, do you understand?
they still need a cashier, they hire another person

how have you not gotten it?

if you get fired from a factory for jizzing on the potato chips, they still need someone to work on the potato chip line. if someone closes a factory because they are building it in another country, then something different is happening, something that's not the same as just shifting within the labor market

there are also jobs lost that aren't firings. someone retires and their shit gets outsourced. on the other hand, some people retire and also get replaced.

what trump is doing is not related to someone getting fired from applebee's. this means that the minute duffman says "but for every person, 100 others lost their jobs in one day alone" his article goes into the dumpster

On January 07 2017 17:44 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + On January 07 2017 17:06 Santafairy wrote:   On January 07 2017 03:18 uiCk wrote: I'm confused your beef is with fact he says there are 18 million "involuntary quits" (people getting canned) per year and that there are and additional 20 mil "hires" per year giving a 2 mil job added total , being bullshit statement? what is this? you speak four languages and are this thick, intentionally? ignore the article about obama's jobs added, nobody said there were 20m hires Why would I ignore it? 18mil ppl get fired, yet 2 mil jobs are gained total, which gives you 20mil hiers. There is nothing to dispute here, unless you want to dispute the methodology and truthfulness of data gathering by whatever bureau is in charge of it.

you understand that the article about job growth under obama is a different article that i quoted, right? it's not from duffman's op ed. you've taken a completely unrelated point and now dug yourself in like you've discovered 18+2=20 and you have no idea how you got there. that's why you need to just ignore it, you confused your own self, you're not making a point or addressing any of mine with this

2 million is approximately the average annual job growth under obama (lower than clinton, reagan) in terms of the net growth of the labor force
1.5*12 is as duffman says the measured average number of involuntary job separations (people fired)
20 million is what you just assumed must be the number of people hired in a year because you're derping

THE NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED IN AN ECONOMY IS NOT THE NUMBER OF "INVOLUNTARY JOB SEPARATIONS" SUBTRACTED FROM THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE HIRED, THESE AREN'T OPPOSITES, THEY DON'T ADD UP TO EACH OTHER

I can't ignore that quote, you brought it up to make your argument (which btw u use after you tell me to ignore it)

So how you get the 2 mil figure ?
Total jobs hiers (openings filled , whatever term you want) - Total jobs loss (fired due to jizzing, lost job to Juan in tequila country, company failure) ?

On January 08 2017 00:54 uiCk wrote: I can't ignore that quote, you brought it up to make your argument (which btw u use after you tell me to ignore it)

my argument? how would you know what "argument" i'm making? all you do is post that you're confused and don't understand what's going on

the only reason i posted that number was because it was a simple, easy to understand way to demonstrate how out of place and meaningless the numbers krugman brought up are

On January 08 2017 00:54 uiCk wrote: So how you get the 2 mil figure ? Total jobs hiers (openings filled , whatever term you want) - Total jobs loss (fired due to jizzing, lost job to Juan in tequila country, company failure) ?

what do you mean how do i get it? open a newspaper and ask for the 2016 jobs report

LOL

Should get Pink Floyd to take care of the wall