Does anyone care about the economy?

[McParadigm]

Either way I think it’s clear that the normal rules don’t apply to this guy electorally.

I don’t agree with this, either.

He remains historically popular with his own party, but not because his party can’t be drawn away from him. Instead, the Republican Party has lost 10% of its membership in the last two years. His behavior is so isolating that frustrated conservatives no longer recognize the party that some worked for, for their entire lives.

If America was 100 people, 25 of them would currently be Republicans, of which 24 would view him favorably. Of the other 75 people, only 14 or so would have a favorable opinion. Those 14 would mostly fall under “tepid support.“ Meanwhile, the entire rest of the population has a vastly disproportionate passionate dislike.

His party has suffered in every single special election since he arrived, not always losing but never managing remotely healthy numbers. Republicans in office are retiring in record numbers in part because of the internal polling they have access to. All of this in spite of a solid economy and the fact that the most watched news channel in America has openly turned itself into a propaganda machine specifically for him. Every topic he touches changes the narrative in the opposite direction. Immigration, the ACA, and abortion all have record levels of support right now, apparently resultant purely from his standing against them.

I don’t see any metric by which Donald Trump appears to be anything but a drag on his party, and his own potential for success.

[elliseamos]

Thanks, 4/5 & McP, I was mostly wondering about inflation, int. rates, and jobs. The political stuff seems too early to tell, but then I realize it's practically August and we vote in about 90 days.

[Bi_3]

Thanks, 4/5 & McP, I was mostly wondering about inflation, int. rates, and jobs. The political stuff seems too early to tell, but then I realize it's practically August and we vote in about 90 days.

Don't worry, the moment this is revised down the lamestream media will spend hours a day explaining it and how Trump had nothing to do with any positive elements of anything, anytime, anywhere.

[elliseamos]

Thanks, 4/5 & McP, I was mostly wondering about inflation, int. rates, and jobs. The political stuff seems too early to tell, but then I realize it's practically August and we vote in about 90 days.

Don't worry, the moment this is revised down the lamestream media will spend hours a day explaining it and how Trump had nothing to do with any positive elements of anything, anytime, anywhere.

Take it to the alternate reality thread.

[Bi_3]

Thanks, 4/5 & McP, I was mostly wondering about inflation, int. rates, and jobs. The political stuff seems too early to tell, but then I realize it's practically August and we vote in about 90 days.

Don't worry, the moment this is revised down the lamestream media will spend hours a day explaining it and how Trump had nothing to do with any positive elements of anything, anytime, anywhere.

Take it to the alternate reality thread.

I can select the data that confirms my biases with the best of ‘em.

[digster]

The report itself credits a lot of the change to an international trade binge ahead of tariffs. Next quarter may pay for this one’s bump.

All I know is that this is the kind of economic performance that gets politicians re-elected.

I’m skeptical that this will help much. 2002 was a shit economy but a terrorism-centered election. Result: big incumbent party victories. 2014 had even better economic numbers than this, but a public mostly fixated on other things. Result: major incumbent party losses. This is another year where non-economic topics seem likely to be insurmountably noisier and forefront.

Also, historically the economy ranked first on voter’s polled topics. Health care replaced that, and has stayed at the top, for over a year now. Meanwhile, a lot of industries (including farmers) are sweating losses due to tariffs that a GDP figure doesn’t do anything to alleviate.

The Obama administration did a pretty awful job controlling the narrative of the economy for basically the entirety of the his term, so I don’t know how much 2014 applies to this year. A staggering amount of people still seem to think that Trump knows what he’s doing economically when all he did is inherent an economy that had finally recovered.

I’ve read the same speculation about this quarter having outsized numbers as firms tried to get stuff done before the trade war kicks in, but we’ll have to see. Either way I think it’s clear that the normal rules don’t apply to this guy electorally.

It's fairly anecdotal evidence, but Republicans seemed to have basically abandoned running on their tax cuts, and seem to be giving short shrift to the economy in general in their messaging; most special election campaigns, if they ever featured the tax cuts as a central part of of their messaging, seems to end by talking about immigration, the wall and MS-13. Maybe those candidates are getting bad information, but there does seem to be an overarching sense that the economy isn't selling as it should, or at least that it's the other stuff that's keeping people at the party.

I think one of the most common threads of Trump's presidency is that it's all about the short term political sugar rush; it shows up in his foreign policy when he decides to hold a summit before doing any of the diplomatic work that would precede it, and it's when they hype up the economic numbers for an individual quarter. I think preceding administrations would have been wary to tout an individual quarter's numbers, because they might have been worried the next quarter would make them look like chumps (it'd be interesting to see how the media and the Obama administration covered when the economy broke 4% during his term).

I think it's still not clear what happens when he keeps doing everything for short-term gain; yeah, he gets a bump from a summit with Kim Jong-Un, but as far as public perception goes, that handshake is as good as it's going to get. Now, even if the diplomatic efforts are successful, it's likely to be story after story for years to come about how North Korea is not doing what the Trump administration wants them to do. It could be similar with the economy, particularly if there is a downturn.

[elliseamos]

Thanks, 4/5 & McP, I was mostly wondering about inflation, int. rates, and jobs. The political stuff seems too early to tell, but then I realize it's practically August and we vote in about 90 days.

Don't worry, the moment this is revised down the lamestream media will spend hours a day explaining it and how Trump had nothing to do with any positive elements of anything, anytime, anywhere.

Take it to the alternate reality thread.

I can select the data that confirms my biases with the best of ‘em.

No, really, gtfo with nonsense, BI. "Lamestream"? I specifically said non/a-political for this reason.

[4/5]

Either way I think it’s clear that the normal rules don’t apply to this guy electorally.

I don’t agree with this, either.

He remains historically popular with his own party, but not because his party can’t be drawn away from him. Instead, the Republican Party has lost 10% of its membership in the last two years. His behavior is so isolating that frustrated conservatives no longer recognize the party that some worked for, for their entire lives.

If America was 100 people, 25 of them would currently be Republicans, of which 24 would view him favorably. Of the other 75 people, only 14 or so would have a favorable opinion. Those 14 would mostly fall under “tepid support.“ Meanwhile, the entire rest of the population has a vastly disproportionate passionate dislike.

His party has suffered in every single special election since he arrived, not always losing but never managing remotely healthy numbers. Republicans in office are retiring in record numbers in part because of the internal polling they have access to. All of this in spite of a solid economy and the fact that the most watched news channel in America has openly turned itself into a propaganda machine specifically for him. Every topic he touches changes the narrative in the opposite direction. Immigration, the ACA, and abortion all have record levels of support right now, apparently resultant purely from his standing against them.

I don’t see any metric by which Donald Trump appears to be anything but a drag on his party, and his own potential for success.

I don't disagree with any of this. But he's a guy who won the presidency after doing about 2,500,000 things that would have ENDED any other candidate. So the normal shorthand metrics we use to predict elections like the health of the economy are far less relevant with him an office. That's really all I meant. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing for him and the GOP this November remains to be seen.

[4/5]

The economy grew at 5.1 and 4.9% in the second and third quarters of 2014 and then the Democrats got waxed in the midterms. Maybe the economy-as-a-predictor thing isn't so strong after all.

[Bi_3]

"Enter Senator Elizabeth Warren and her proposed Accountable Capitalism Act. It is straight out of Atlas Shrugged. She proposes to regulate corporations with gross revenues of $1 billion or more, requiring them to obtain a federal corporate charter as a “United States corporation”. They would be regulated by a bureaucracy under the Office of United States Corporations. These corporations must be operated to “create a general public benefit” and must consider how its profit making activities affect not only their shareholders, but their employees, suppliers, “community and societal factors”, and the local and global environment. At least 40% of its board of directors must be elected by its workers. If they wish to support a political candidate, they must have approval of 75% of the board."

This has got to be fake news.

[Electromatic]

"Enter Senator Elizabeth Warren and her proposed Accountable Capitalism Act. It is straight out of Atlas Shrugged. She proposes to regulate corporations with gross revenues of $1 billion or more, requiring them to obtain a federal corporate charter as a “United States corporation”. They would be regulated by a bureaucracy under the Office of United States Corporations. These corporations must be operated to “create a general public benefit” and must consider how its profit making activities affect not only their shareholders, but their employees, suppliers, “community and societal factors”, and the local and global environment. At least 40% of its board of directors must be elected by its workers. If they wish to support a political candidate, they must have approval of 75% of the board."

This has got to be fake news.

Sounds like she might enjoy business in China more.

[96583UP]

"Enter Senator Elizabeth Warren and her proposed Accountable Capitalism Act. It is straight out of Atlas Shrugged. She proposes to regulate corporations with gross revenues of $1 billion or more, requiring them to obtain a federal corporate charter as a “United States corporation”. They would be regulated by a bureaucracy under the Office of United States Corporations. These corporations must be operated to “create a general public benefit” and must consider how its profit making activities affect not only their shareholders, but their employees, suppliers, “community and societal factors”, and the local and global environment. At least 40% of its board of directors must be elected by its workers. If they wish to support a political candidate, they must have approval of 75% of the board."

This has got to be fake news.

Sounds like she might enjoy business in 1960s China more.

ftfy

[4/5]

Nah, that's modern China.

[Rob]

The Elizabeth Warren proposal is pretty standard fare on the left (the "I don't care for neo-liberalism" left). Large Corps in Germany require employees on the board.

https://www.worker-participation.eu/Nat ... sentation2

Arrangements for employee representation at board level in the 28 EU countries plus Norway can be divided into three groups. There is a group of ten countries where there is no board level representation and a further group of six, where board level representation is limited to state-owned or privatised companies. However, the biggest group of 13 states provides for employees to be represented on the boards of private companies, once they have reached a certain size. These thresholds vary greatly as do other elements of the national arrangements.

I am not saying these specific ideas would be good/work well for America, but this stuff isn't limited to communist/old hardcore socialist places. I find it interesting that Warren is presenting herself as a capitalist who "believes in markets right down to her toes," rather than the usual leftist argument that capitalism itself is the problem. Let's see how well she can sell that.

And one more thing - it has seemed to me for a while that neo-liberalism itself is not a bad thing to most people on the left. I think it's more the view by some on the left that the neo-liberal solution should be the compromise, not what is presented as the initial proposal. The "full loaf/half loaf" argument. Warren's bill has no chance of succeeding as is, which I'm sure she knows, but it is either going to be disregarded by the rest of the left (which I find doubtful in this era) or it will be seen as something that is pretty common on the republican side - present the ideal and negotiate down. Too many Dems in my lifetime bring to the table these solutions that have the compromise (as they see it) baked into it already, which seems like a good way to get your idea watered down to the point where it's not going to help much.

[4/5]

According to a Brookings Institute paper, by 2020 50% of the world's population will be middle class. It states that as of December 2016 3.2 billion people were already part of the middle class.

That is incredible.

I know it's somewhat off topic since we're talking about American middle class, but I think it's another great reminder that the biggest beneficiaries of market economies have far and away been the poor. It's much sexier to write headlines about wealth gaps and the alleged concentration of wealth, but sometimes it's good to remember that we are living in a time of unparalleled prosperity in human history.

The constituency of capitalism has always been the poor. "It's a race to the bottom!" say the Bernie Sanders of the world, completely incapable of understanding that that is precisely capitalism's virtue.

can you expand on this for me please?

I’m doing my few mins on the bike at the end of my workout so I’m going to give you links rn but basically we’re in the midst of the greatest era of global economic growth in human history. In1960 over half of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty, and now we’re on pace to see half the world being in the middle class by 2020. Global poverty is down dramatically since 1980. Over a billion people in East Asia alone have escaped poverty in that time period. The vast majority of this growth is do to the opening of markets and industrialization.

Yes, the super rich also benefit from globalization, technology, and markets. But I’d argue that most of them are going from comfortable or rich to wealthy, which is definitely something. But the poor are going from a Dark Ages standard of living and essentially time traveling to the 20th century. I think we have a tendency to focus on the rich getting richer (which is true) but then draw the incorrect conclusion that the poor are also getting poorer, which is absolutely NOT the case whatsoever.

I couldn’t care less about the rich. They’re going to be good no matter what we do at this point. The reason I believe so strongly in markets is because I believe it’s the path out of poverty.

(Burned 34 calories during this post)

[Dscans]

According to a Brookings Institute paper, by 2020 50% of the world's population will be middle class. It states that as of December 2016 3.2 billion people were already part of the middle class.

That is incredible.

I know it's somewhat off topic since we're talking about American middle class, but I think it's another great reminder that the biggest beneficiaries of market economies have far and away been the poor. It's much sexier to write headlines about wealth gaps and the alleged concentration of wealth, but sometimes it's good to remember that we are living in a time of unparalleled prosperity in human history.

The constituency of capitalism has always been the poor. "It's a race to the bottom!" say the Bernie Sanders of the world, completely incapable of understanding that that is precisely capitalism's virtue.

can you expand on this for me please?

I’m doing my few mins on the bike at the end of my workout so I’m going to give you links rn but basically we’re in the midst of the greatest era of global economic growth in human history. In1960 over half of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty, and now we’re on pace to see half the world being in the middle class by 2020. Global poverty is down dramatically since 1980. Over a billion people in East Asia alone have escaped poverty in that time period. The vast majority of this growth is do to the opening of markets and industrialization.

Yes, the super rich also benefit from globalization, technology, and markets. But I’d argue that most of them are going from comfortable or rich to wealthy, which is definitely something. But the poor are going from a Dark Ages standard of living and essentially time traveling to the 20th century. I think we have a tendency to focus on the rich getting richer (which is true) but then draw the incorrect conclusion that the poor are also getting poorer, which is absolutely NOT the case whatsoever.

I couldn’t care less about the rich. They’re going to be good no matter what we do at this point. The reason I believe so strongly in markets is because I believe it’s the path out of poverty.

(Burned 34 calories during this post)

I agree with you. From a wealth standpoint, I think all classes are better off than they were 50 years ago. However, have you read the SSC post on cost disease? http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/co ... t-disease/

The cost of living (housing/rent, healthcare, tuition) is rising so fast that I think many people are actually worse off. And I'm not sure why. It's almost like markets aren't operating as efficiently as they could be.

[96583UP]

Nah, that's modern China.

link?

[Rob]

According to a Brookings Institute paper, by 2020 50% of the world's population will be middle class. It states that as of December 2016 3.2 billion people were already part of the middle class.

That is incredible.

I know it's somewhat off topic since we're talking about American middle class, but I think it's another great reminder that the biggest beneficiaries of market economies have far and away been the poor. It's much sexier to write headlines about wealth gaps and the alleged concentration of wealth, but sometimes it's good to remember that we are living in a time of unparalleled prosperity in human history.

The constituency of capitalism has always been the poor. "It's a race to the bottom!" say the Bernie Sanders of the world, completely incapable of understanding that that is precisely capitalism's virtue.

I agree that capitalism has generally produced a rising tide throughout the world. Worldwide, the last 20-25 years have been great, relative to history. But what the Bernie Sanders (and Donald Trumps) of the world do seem to understand is that the political will needed to sustain it is diminishing. China & India alone seem to account for most of this rise (and in India's case it seems as much to do with affirmative action to deal with their caste system). A capitalism that moves from distributing wealth/production nationally to globally is obviously going to produce "losers" in the old centers. "Losers" who have the right to vote and are more interested in how capitalism is working for them rather than people in other countries. The center left/3rd way seems to have some decent ideas, but the Dem party has not lived up to its worker focused mantra over the years. And the center right is good at highlighting the virtues of capitalism, but just seems incredibly resistant to dealing with its shortfalls. I do not buy the idea that the farther right/left are gaining momentum in the old centers of capitalism because the system is working well.

[---]

i like you, rob

[4/5]

I do not buy the idea that the farther right/left are gaining momentum in the old centers of capitalism because the system is working well.

Putting aside explanations like xenophobia and rising nationalism and focusing only on economic explanations, I think it's the rate of economic change that's the biggest factor. This is partially due to globalization, but is much more impacted by technological innovation and automation. The lowest skilled workers are most likely to be negatively affected by this and it's happening at such a fast race that it's very difficult for them to respond effectively. While the U.S. is far from unfettered capitalism, I would still maintain that in the grand scheme of things, our market economy, such as it is, is working relatively well despite the best intentions of politicians and the disruptions being felt today will lead to higher standards of living now and in the future, especially for the children of today's displaced workers. But that doesn't matter when today's politicians blame markets for everything and offer up government solutions to save them from capitalism. That's something socialists of all parties can unite behind.