Analytics

Sunday, April 7, 2019

Post #4055 Social Media Edition

I published an edition yesterday, but there was a residual amount of material I did not include into an already long post. So here I address the residual material and recent updates:

Facebook

Red-original comment; blue-clipped content of others.

comment 4/26/16

Political whores think they are entitled to plunder the property of others. As if a plurality of votes constitutes moral authority: steal from the other guys' pockets.

Mitt Romney on Trump 3/3/16

Below are Mitt Romney's full remarks on Donald Trump and the 2016 presidential race, as prepared for delivery. Romney delivered his remarks at the University of Utah.
I am not here to announce my candidacy for office. I am not going to endorse a candidate today. Instead, I would like to offer my perspective on the nominating process of my party. In 1964, days before the presidential election which, incidentally, we lost, Ronald Reagan went on national television and challenged America saying that it was a "Time for Choosing." He saw two paths for America, one that embraced conservative principles dedicated to lifting people out of poverty and helping create opportunity for all, and the other, an oppressive government that would lead America down a darker, less free path. I'm no Ronald Reagan and this is a different moment but I believe with all my heart and soul that we face another time for choosing, one that will have profound consequences for the Republican Party and more importantly, for the country.
Story Continued Below

 I say this in part because of my conviction that America is poised to lead the world for another century. Our technology engines, our innovation dynamic, and the ambition and skill of our people will propel our economy and raise our standard of living. America will remain as it is today, the envy of the world.
Warren Buffett was 100% right when he said last week that "the babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history."
That doesn't mean we don't have real problems and serious challenges. At home, poverty persists and wages are stagnant. The horrific massacres of Paris and San Bernardino, the nuclear ambitions of the Iranian mullahs, the aggressions of Putin, the growing assertiveness of China and the nuclear tests of North Korea confirm that we live in troubled and dangerous times.
But if we make the right choices, America's future will be even better than our past and better than our present.
On the other hand, if we make improvident choices, the bright horizon I foresee will never materialize. Let me put it plainly, if we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished.
Let me explain why.
First, the economy: If Donald Trump's plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into a prolonged recession.
A few examples: His proposed 35% tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war that would raise prices for consumers, kill export jobs, and lead entrepreneurs and businesses to flee America. His tax plan, in combination with his refusal to reform entitlements and to honestly address spending would balloon the deficit and the national debt. So even as Donald Trump has offered very few specific economic plans, what little he has said is enough to know that he would be very bad for American workers and for American families.
But wait, you say, isn't he a huge business success that knows what he's talking about? No he isn't. His bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who worked for them. He inherited his business, he didn't create it. And what ever happened to Trump Airlines? How about Trump University? And then there's Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage? A business genius he is not.
Now not every policy Donald Trump has floated is bad. He wants to repeal and replace Obamacare. He wants to bring jobs home from China and Japan. But his prescriptions to do these things are flimsy at best. At the last debate, all he could remember about his healthcare plan was to remove insurance boundaries between states. Successfully bringing jobs home requires serious policy and reforms that make America the place businesses want to plant and grow. You can't punish business into doing the things you want. Frankly, the only serious policy proposals that deal with the broad range of national challenges we confront, come today from Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich. One of these men should be our nominee.
I know that some people want the race to be over. They look at history and say a trend like Mr. Trump's isn't going to be stopped.
Perhaps. But the rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign. If the other candidates can find common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism. Given the current delegate selection process, this means that I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.
Let me turn to national security and the safety of our homes and loved ones. Trump's bombast is already alarming our allies and fueling the enmity of our enemies. Insulting all Muslims will keep many of them from fully engaging with us in the urgent fight against ISIS. And for what purpose? Muslim terrorists would only have to lie about their religion to enter the country.
What he said on “60 Minutes” about Syria and ISIS has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the campaign season: Let ISIS take out Assad, he said, and then we can pick up the remnants. Think about that: Let the most dangerous terror organization the world has ever known take over a country? This is recklessness in the extreme.
Donald Trump tells us that he is very, very smart. I'm afraid that when it comes to foreign policy he is very, very not smart.
I am far from the first to conclude that Donald Trump lacks the temperament of be president. After all, this is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter's questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity.
Donald Trump says he admires Vladimir Putin, while has called George W. Bush a liar. That is a twisted example of evil trumping good.
There is dark irony in his boasts of his sexual exploits during the Vietnam War while John McCain, whom he has mocked, was imprisoned and tortured.
Dishonesty is Trump's hallmark: He claimed that he had spoken clearly and boldly against going into Iraq. Wrong, he spoke in favor of invading Iraq. He said he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9/11. Wrong, he saw no such thing. He imagined it. His is not the temperament of a stable, thoughtful leader. His imagination must not be married to real power.
The President of the United States has long been the leader of the free world. The president and yes the nominees of the country's great parties help define America to billions of people. All of them bear the responsibility of being an example for our children and grandchildren.
Think of Donald Trump's personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics. We have long referred to him as "The Donald." He is the only person in America to whom we have added an article before his name. It wasn't because he had attributes we admired.
Now imagine your children and your grandchildren acting the way he does. Will you welcome that? Haven't we seen before what happens when people in prominent positions fail the basic responsibility of honorable conduct? We have, and it always injures our families and our country.
Watch how he responds to my speech today. Will he talk about our policy differences or will he attack me with every imaginable low road insult? This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president.
Trump relishes any poll that reflects what he thinks of himself. But polls are also saying that he will lose to Hillary Clinton.
On Hillary Clinton's watch at the State Department, America's interests were diminished in every corner of the world. She compromised our national secrets, dissembled to the families of the slain, and jettisoned her most profound beliefs to gain presidential power.
For the last three decades, the Clintons have lived at the intersection of money and politics, trading their political influence to enrich their personal finances. They embody the term “crony capitalism.” It disgusts the American people and causes them to lose faith in our political process.
A person so untrustworthy and dishonest as Hillary Clinton must not become president. But a Trump nomination enables her victory. The audio and video of the infamous Tapper-Trump exchange on the Ku Klux Klan will play a hundred thousand times on cable and who knows how many million times on social media.
There are a number of people who claim that Mr. Trump is a con man, a fake. There is indeed evidence of that. Mr. Trump has changed his positions not just over the years, but over the course of the campaign, and on the Ku Klux Klan, daily for three days in a row.
We will only really know if he is the real deal or a phony if he releases his tax returns and the tape of his interview with the New York Times. I predict that there are more bombshells in his tax returns. I predict that he doesn't give much if anything to the disabled and to our veterans. I predict that he told the New York Times that his immigration talk is just that: talk. And I predict that despite his promise to do so, first made over a year ago, he will never ever release his tax returns. Never. Not the returns under audit, not even the returns that are no longer being audited. He has too much to hide. Nor will he authorize the Times to release the tapes. If I'm right, you will have all the proof you need to know that Donald Trump is a phony.
Attacking me as he surely will won't prove him any less of a phony. It's entirely in his hands to prove me wrong. All he has to do is to release his back taxes like he promised he would, and let us hear what he said behind closed doors to the New York Times.
Ronald Reagan used to quote a Scottish philosopher who predicted that democracies and civilizations couldn't last more than about 200 years. John Adams wrote this: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." I believe that America has proven these dire predictions wrong for two reasons.
First, we have been blessed with great presidents, with giants among us. Men of character, integrity and selflessness have led our nation from its very beginning. None were perfect: each surely made mistakes. But in every case, they acted out of the desire to do what was right for America and for freedom.
The second reason is because we are blessed with a great people, people who at every critical moment of choosing have put the interests of the country above their own.
These two things are related: our presidents time and again have called on us to rise to the occasion. John F. Kennedy asked us to consider what we could do for our country. Lincoln drew upon the better angels of our nature to save the union.
I understand the anger Americans feel today. In the past, our presidents have channeled that anger, and forged it into resolve, into endurance and high purpose, and into the will to defeat the enemies of freedom. Our anger was transformed into energy directed for good.
Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants, he calls for the use of torture and for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.
Here's what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.
His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.
America has greatness ahead. This is a time for choosing. God bless us to choose a nominee who will make that vision a reality.
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/full-transcript-mitt-romneys-remarks-on-donald-trump-and-the-2016-race-220176#ixzz41rU85L6w

 Justin Amash (1/13/16)

Who is President Barack Obama and what does he stand for? I used to think I knew, but after seven years of an unprincipled, meandering presidency, I'm not sure that even he knows.
When President Obama first ran for office, he promised "hope" and "change." As a Republican who didn't vote for him, I nonetheless believed he might right some of the wrongs of the Bush administration. Instead, he has further concentrated power in the executive branch and eroded our rights.
The president's failings provide an opportunity for Republicans to grow our party, but to do so, we must genuinely stand for limited, constitutional government. That means spending less time on the excuse that we don't control every part of government and more time persuading others to join us on sound policy. More important, it means fully advocating for liberty—not just economic liberty but also personal liberty—for all people.
We must uphold the Rule of Law by ending cronyism and corporate welfare. Every person deserves equal protection under the law, and no corporation, group, or individual should receive special treatment under the law.
We must protect civil liberties and stop the surveillance abuses that violate our privacy, and we must defend the rights of all people to speak and worship freely.
We must reform our justice system to combat overcriminalization, and we must ensure that every person accused of wrongdoing receives due process and, if found guilty, fair sentencing.
We must pursue a rational, conservative foreign policy—focused on defending Americans, not bravado and rash interventionism. Our sons and daughters never should be sent to war without congressional approval.
In short, Republicans must embrace the fundamental principles of limited government that we profess to hold. I am honored to be leading the Republican Party in this direction, and I am grateful to the people I represent for their continuing trust.

 Reason comment 11/11/15

Ronald A Guillemette Scapegoating people having to work around an essentially broken down temporary work permit process is unconscionable. Prohibitions are bad public policy, period, whether we are talking about alcohol, drugs, or migrant labor. The restrictions on immigration since WWI (or in the case of Asian immigrants, even earlier) are unconscionable and un-American betrayals of the American dream. Immigration, whether high- or low-skilled, contributes win-win to the American economy. We should not be build boondoggle walls when what we need is a full restoration of nondiscriminatory liberalized immigration which was a cornerstone of this country's becoming the biggest economy in world history.

We Are Capitalists post on trade 11/29/15

Routinely, we're asked to explain if trade deficits are something to be alarmed about. The truth is, trade deficits themselves aren't necessarily good OR bad. You need to know other information, first, to know if a particular trade deficit is a net positive or a net negative. The explanation below isn't necessarily simple, but if you're interested, follow along.
Lets start with the basics. A 'Trade Deficit' is a negative balance of trade. It means a country is importing more than it's exporting. [a] What concerns people about this is that it means domestic currency is leaving the country. At face value that sounds bad, as though it were akin to giving your money to your neighbor. But this concern is unnecessary for several reasons:
• THOUGHT EXPERIMENT:
Before we get too technical, let's start with a thought experiment. Imagine you and your family live on a farm and sell meat/produce to a local grocery store. For the sake of argument, let's equate your farm to a small nation trading with a foreign nation (the super market). Lets say you regularly earn $2,000 a month by doing this, but the work is very labor intensive and your family's quality of life is below average. Then, let's say a neighbor offers you a job at his office, where you could earn $3,000 a month. You first go to the grocery store and advise them that they'd need to pay you $3,000 a month if they wished to keep receiving your supply of goods. They turn you down since they can find similar goods elsewhere. Because of this, you opt to take the office job and stop farming. Up until now, you've always had a trade surplus with the super market. You've always sold them more goods than they've sold you. That relationship didn't harm you OR the super market, by the way, but it's about to change. So what happens now? With your paychecks, you begin to spend more money at the supermarket since you're no longer farming your own food. Over time, you develop a trade deficit with the grocery store RATHER than a trade surplus. They now sell more goods to you than you do to them. Every single month, this trade deficit continues to grow. Does this mean something alarming is happening, however? Does this mean you're getting "poorer"? As it turns out, no. Since you're now earning $3,000 a month instead of $2,000, your family's quality of life has increased substantially. Your work day is less physically strenuous, your benefits are better, and your increased income has allowed you to save for your children's college education. Keep in mind, this is all happening despite you having a growing trade deficit with the super market. The point is, the trade deficit didn't harm your quality of life because it's not the physical presence of currency which betters your life but the goods or services you've received in exchange. You'd be a fool to try and feed your child a plate of money, fashion clothing out of cash, or drink a cup of blended currency. Parting ways with it is NOT necessarily a bad a thing, so long as what you're getting in return improves your life. In fact, the U.S. has had a trade deficit every year, with the exception of 2 years, since 1971. [b]
• FOREIGN INVESTMENT:
Foreign investment is the hidden side of this issue and is absolutely KEY in understanding how and when a trade deficit can be beneficial to an economy. As author Sabri Ben-Achour from Market Place explains, "Trade deficits actually have as much to do with international investment and debt as they do with importing and exporting. ...Investors need U.S. dollars to buy U.S. assets: treasury bills, real estate, stocks, bonds, etc. After all, the NASDAQ doesn’t take Euros, so foreign investors need dollars to park their money in the U.S. and make a profit. ...We buy goods from the world, the world invests in us." [c]
This invisible connection between foreign investment and trade deficits happens to work in the United States' favor since, to the vast majority of the world, our economy is seen as one of the safest places to invest. Per the 2014 report on foreign investment, "Globally, annual foreign direct investment inflows totaled $1.45 trillion in 2013, a nine percent increase from 2012. ...For the second year in a row, A.T. Kearney’s FDI Confidence Index ranked the United States as the world's top market in 2014. UNCTAD’s WIR predicts that global FDI could rise to $1.6 trillion in 2014 and possibly reach $1.8 trillion by 2016. Cash holdings estimated at $4.5 trillion also remain high among the world’s 5,000 largest multinational companies. More foreign direct investment dollars flowed to the United States last year (2013) than to any other single country in the world. International investment in the U.S. market topped other large markets, including China, Russia, Hong Kong, and Brazil." [d] As you can see, because we are seen as the world's best place to invest, by flooding the world with our currency (via a trade deficit), we are fueling their desire to send that money right back to us in the form of capital investment. While this means that jobs related to manufacturing gradually move overseas, it means that even MORE (non-export related) jobs are created in the aftermath. This is why, since the 70's, the U.S. job market merely shifted, rather than vanished.
• HISTORY:
As mentioned above, we've had a trade deficit nearly every year since 1971. In fact, since the 70's, if you cross reference the Current Account Balance [e] and Direct Foreign Investment [f], you'll see that - for the most part - increases to one are offset by decreases to the other, and vice versa. This was particularly true prior to the aftermath of the '08 recession. "During the 26-year period from 1973 to 2009, the U.S.' current account deficit (measured as a percentage of GDP) grew during 15 of those years and shrank during 11 of them. The nation's economy, measured by real GDP growth, performed better during the years of rising trade deficits than it did when the deficit was shrinking. The average rate of economic growth was 3.2% during the rising deficit years, compared to 2.3% during the shrinking deficit years. ...Furthermore, GDP is not the only economic indicator that has historically improved in the U.S. as trade deficits have risen. Unemployment fell by an average of 0.4% during years with a growing trade deficit and rose by 0.4% in those years when the trade deficit shrank. ...Analysts point to inexpensive capital, consumer confidence and low inflation as beneficial byproducts of trade deficits, particularly in the U.S. The strong U.S. dollar enables the country to obtain capital more cheaply from abroad than can be produced domestically. Once obtained, that capital is used by domestic firms and manufacturers to grow, expand, and develop new innovations and technologies. [g]
• EXAMPLE OF WHEN IT'S GOOD:
Norway is a great example of when a trade deficit and subsequent investment is beneficial. "In the 1960s, rich petroleum deposits were discovered in the North Sea. ...Getting to these valuable oil and gas deposits required large and repeated investments in infrastructure, such as off-shore oil platforms, transport pipelines, ships, and helicopters. Norway also needed to develop a knowledge of exploration and extraction to precisely locate and exploit these resources. At the time of these discoveries, Norway lacked the equipment and expertise to take advantage of the opportunity." [h] Norway NEEDED foreign investment to fuel the operations, so they ran a trade deficit as to leave their currency with foreigners and attract foreign investment. It worked. From 1969 to 1977, Norwegian investment grew substantially, "financed in part by a series of almost continual trade deficits." [h] Once the oil revenue began to flow, however, Norway began running persistent trade surpluses and has ever since.
• EXAMPLE OF WHEN IT'S BAD:
An example of a trade deficit that was bad, however, is Greece. Remember, the entire idea behind a foreign investor returning currency to its native country is only beneficial if it's being used to grow the economy. In the United States, that's largely what happens. However, with Greece, investors "were pouring money in to purchase government debt." This isn't the same as funneling cash into a corporation as to help it expand. All it does is purchase an I.O.U. from a government, meaning the government has to come up with a way to pay it back plus interest. In the case of Greece, "the government accumulated large debts—so large, in fact, that they couldn’t repay them.” [c]
• THE CRITIC'S CONTRADICTORY STANCE:
Before concluding, it's necessary to caution people away from inadvertently adopting a contradictory stance regarding our trade deficit with China. Most people, by now, are aware that China manipulates its currency to try and boost its exports. In the U.S., this means consumers receive imported goods a bit cheaper than they'd otherwise cost. There are many within the U.S. who see this manipulation and blame it for the exodus of American manufacturing jobs. They exclaim, very passionately, that something must be done to punish China for this maneuver. Here's the contradiction, however. Many, if not most, of these same critics also understand the detriments of inflation. They correctly reference it as potentially harmful to a nation. Yet, when China adopts inflationary policies, they ask why we aren't "punishing them" for doing so. We must be consistent here. If you want China to be punished, and if you believe inflationary policies are harmful in the long run, then you must realize that China is already punishing itself. We receive cheaper goods and foreign capital investment at the expense of their country's eroded purchasing power. In other words, if you want to punish them, let them keep doing what they're doing.
• CONCLUSION:
As Senior Economist George Alessandria of the Philadelphia Fed explains, "Trade deficits have benefits. They shift worldwide production to its most productive locations, and they allow individuals to smooth out their consumption over the business cycle." [h] While these benefits may dissipate if a country ceases to be a good investment opportunity, the U.S. is in no danger of that. We remain one of the most attractive places in the world to invest. Influxes in foreign investment have freed our markets to develop in MANY directions, expanding the range of career opportunities available to our people, unlike China whose workers are mostly tethered to manufacturing opportunities. Therefore, so long as we remain an attractive investment opportunity to foreign investors, our trade deficit is actually a net benefit.
--------------------
Sources:
[a]
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trade_deficit.asp
[b]
https://www.census.gov/fore…/statistics/historical/gands.pdf
[c]
http://www.marketplace.org/…/trade-deficits-arent-good-or-b…
[d]
http://www.ofii.org/sites/default/files/FDIUS2014.pdf
[e]
US. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Balance on Current Account
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BOPBCA/, November 29, 2015.
[f]
Direct Foreign Investment in Reporting Country for the United States
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fre…/series/BPFADI03USA637N/, November 29, 2015.
[g]
http://www.investopedia.com/…/why-do-some-analysts-argue-tr…
[h]
https://philadelphiafed.org/…/br_q1-2007-1_trade-deficit.pdf

Twitter














































































Posted by at
Labels: , , ,