The Economist: America's Nightmare, Bernie Sanders Nominee

Tariffs are anathema to free markets. Free markets have never existed, but we pretend. Tariffs take away the pretense. Americans just love their slogans. Tariffs can be seen as a tax on American consumers.
 
Nordberg said:
Tariffs are anathema to free markets. Free markets have never existed, but we pretend. Tariffs take away the pretense. Americans just love their slogans. Tariffs can be seen as a tax on American consumers.
Click to expand...

That's right, free markets and free trade (except for maybe the beginning of time) have never existed but the terms are still used to express an ideal. The multiple managed trade deals we have as a country don't meet the technical definition of free trade but are generally referred to as such. To classical liberals, Trump and Sanders do not support what we call free trade.
 
cawacko said:
No disrespect man, and I'm not telling you what to believe or support, but there was nothing about the trade war, tariffs and farm subsidies that was free trade. You can claim it was needed policy and that is your right. But it's not free trade. And there were many conservatives/libertarians who have voiced that opinion throughout. There's a reason there was this certain overlap of support between a segment of Bernie & Trump supporters and it was over trade. Both are against traditional free trade and trade agreements.

And that's why The Economist, a classical liberal magazine, has spoken out against Trump and Sanders on this.
Click to expand...
makes no sense. unless you mean by "free trade agreement" monstrosities like the TPP?
It's like a disconnect for you guys. you hear "tariffs" and freak out -but they are only temporary leverage to force China into free trade without the violations they have with the WTO, and the IP theft as well as improve balance of payments.

Even Chuck Shumer is for this. working Americans are tired of China malign trade practices.

Like I mentioned "free trade" is globalist nonsense where they don't give a rats ass about China forcing J.Venture agreement s to share IP. Yes there is a similarity between Bernie and Trump in that regards

Same with NAFTA 2 (USMCA) it raised Mexican auto wages ( reducing outsourcing) and cut China out of the supply chains with it's 70% made in NAFTA countries parts requirements, and opened up Canadian trade.
For some reason you guys are against what is in the best interests of the USA,and even NAFTA countries.

I honestly think it's a Pavlovian reaction -no disrespect meant on this either
 
cawacko said:
That's right, you don't need my permission to do anything. But don't lie either. Limiting legal immigration and reducing visas like we're dong is not a response to open borders and sanctuary cities. It's a choice we've made and the repercussions are, just like the trade war, retarding economic growth.
Click to expand...
Curious as to which limits you speak of?
 
cawacko said:
This week's cover shows a picture of Bernie and Trump along with the heading "America's Nightmare: Could It Come To This?" The magazine has always been against Trump but interesting how strongly they come out against Sanders. And for those who argue "the world's" opinion is important in how we vote "the world" does not seem to be backing Sanders.




America’s nightmare

Bernie Sanders, nominee

The senator from Vermont would present America with a terrible choice


Sometimes people wake from a bad dream only to discover that they are still asleep and that the nightmare goes on. This is the prospect facing America if, as seems increasingly likely, the Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders as the person to rouse America from President Donald Trump’s first term. Mr Sanders won the primary in New Hampshire, almost won in Iowa, trounced his rivals in Nevada and is polling well in South Carolina. Come Super Tuesday next week, in which 14 states including California and Texas allot delegates, he could amass a large enough lead to make himself almost impossible to catch.

Moderate Democrats worry that nominating Mr Sanders would cost them the election. This newspaper worries that forcing Americans to decide between him and Mr Trump would result in an appalling choice with no good outcome. It will surprise nobody that we disagree with a self-described democratic socialist over economics, but that is just the start. Because Mr Sanders is so convinced that he is morally right, he has a dangerous tendency to put ends before means. And, in a country where Mr Trump has whipped up politics into a frenzy of loathing, Mr Sanders’s election would feed the hatred.

On economics Mr Sanders is misunderstood. He is not a cuddly Scandinavian social democrat who would let companies do their thing and then tax them to build a better world. Instead, he believes American capitalism is rapacious and needs to be radically weakened. He puts Jeremy Corbyn to shame, proposing to take 20% of the equity of companies and hand it over to workers, to introduce a federal jobs-guarantee and to require companies to qualify for a federal charter obliging them to act for all stakeholders in ways that he could define. On trade, Mr Sanders is at least as hostile to open markets as Mr Trump is. He seeks to double government spending, without being able to show how he would pay for it. When unemployment is at a record low and nominal wages in the bottom quarter of the jobs market are growing by 4.6%, his call for a revolution in the economy is an epically poor prescription for what ails America.

In putting ends before means, Mr Sanders displays the intolerance of a Righteous Man. He embraces perfectly reasonable causes like reducing poverty, universal health care and decarbonising the economy, and then insists on the most unreasonable extremes in the policies he sets out to achieve them (see article). He would ban private health insurance (not even Britain, devoted to its National Health Service, goes that far). He wants to cut billionaires’ wealth in half over 15 years. A sensible ecologist would tax fracking for the greenhouse gases it produces. To Mr Sanders that smacks of a dirty compromise: he would ban it outright.

Sometimes even the ends are sacrificed to Mr Sanders’s need to be righteous. Making university cost-free for students is a self-defeating way to alleviate poverty, because most of the subsidy would go to people who are, or will be, relatively wealthy. Decriminalising border-crossing and breaking up Immigration and Customs Enforcement would abdicate one of the state’s first duties. Banning nuclear energy would stand in the way of his goal to create a zero-carbon economy.

So keenly does Mr Sanders fight his wicked rivals at home, that he often sympathises with their enemies abroad. He has shown a habit of indulging autocrats in Cuba and Nicaragua, so long as the regime in question claims to be pursuing socialism. He is sceptical about America wielding power overseas, partly from an honourable conviction that military adventures do more harm than good. But it also reflects his contempt for the power-wielders in the Washington establishment.

Last is the effect of a President Sanders on America’s political culture. The country’s political divisions helped make Mr Trump’s candidacy possible. They are now enabling Mr Sanders’s rise. The party’s leftist activists find his revolution thrilling. They have always believed that their man would triumph if only the neoliberal Democratic Party elite would stop keeping him down. His supporters seem to reserve almost as much hatred for his Democratic opponents as they do for Republicans.

This speaks to Mr Sanders’s political style. When faced with someone who disagrees with him, his instinct is to spot an establishment conspiracy, or to declare that his opponent is confused and will be put straight by one of his political sermons. When asked how he would persuade Congress to eliminate private health insurance (something which 60% of Americans oppose), Mr Sanders replies that he would hold rallies in the states of recalcitrant senators until they relented.

A presidency in which Mr Sanders travelled around the country holding rallies for a far-left programme that he could not get through Congress would widen America’s divisions. It would frustrate his supporters, because the president’s policies would be stymied by Congress or the courts. On the right, which has long been fed a diet of socialist bogeymen, the spectacle of an actual socialist in the White House would generate even greater fury. Mr Sanders would test the proposition that partisanship cannot get any more bitter.

The mainstream three-quarters of Democrats have begun to tell themselves that Mr Sanders would not be so bad. Some point out that he would not be able to do many of the things he promises. This excuse-making, with its implication that Mr Sanders should be taken seriously but not literally, sounds worryingly familiar. Mr Trump has shown that control of the regulatory state, plus presidential powers over trade and over foreign policy, give a president plenty of room for manoeuvre. His first term suggests that it is unwise to dismiss what a man seeking power says he wants to do with it.

Enter Sandersman

If Mr Sanders becomes the Democratic nominee, America will have to choose in November between a corrupt, divisive, right-wing populist, who scorns the rule of law and the constitution, and a sanctimonious, divisive, left-wing populist, who blames a cabal of billionaires and businesses for everything that is wrong with the world. All this when the country is as peaceful and prosperous as at any time in its history. It is hard to think of a worse choice. Wake up, America!


https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/02/27/bernie-sanders-nominee
Click to expand...

Funny how the 1% is scared to death of Bernie, but the working-class in Europe says these policies have worked for them.
 
cawacko said:
That's right, free markets and free trade (except for maybe the beginning of time) have never existed but the terms are still used to express an ideal. The multiple managed trade deals we have as a country don't meet the technical definition of free trade but are generally referred to as such. To classical liberals, Trump and Sanders do not support what we call free trade.
Click to expand...
?

You mean NAFTA 2 and such? why are trading blocks not free trade?
 
StoneByStone said:
Funny how the 1% is scared to death of Bernie, but the working-class in Europe says these policies have worked for them.
Click to expand...

I thought this paragraph addresses that pretty well, especially the first sentence:

""On economics Mr Sanders is misunderstood. He is not a cuddly Scandinavian social democrat who would let companies do their thing and then tax them to build a better world. Instead, he believes American capitalism is rapacious and needs to be radically weakened. He puts Jeremy Corbyn to shame, proposing to take 20% of the equity of companies and hand it over to workers, to introduce a federal jobs-guarantee and to require companies to qualify for a federal charter obliging them to act for all stakeholders in ways that he could define. On trade, Mr Sanders is at least as hostile to open markets as Mr Trump is. He seeks to double government spending, without being able to show how he would pay for it. When unemployment is at a record low and nominal wages in the bottom quarter of the jobs market are growing by 4.6%, his call for a revolution in the economy is an epically poor prescription for what ails America.""
 
cawacko said:
I thought this paragraph addresses that pretty well, especially the first sentence:

""On economics Mr Sanders is misunderstood. He is not a cuddly Scandinavian social democrat who would let companies do their thing and then tax them to build a better world. Instead, he believes American capitalism is rapacious and needs to be radically weakened.
Click to expand...

That's just not true. In fact, Bernie has been criticized often by Socialists who see him as a fake because he doesn't want to nationalize every company in America. Yes, he wants more regulations, but that's not Marxism, that's not ending the free market, and that's not going to destroy the country.
He does want the workers to have a share in private companies, but we already have that. If public ownership of this degree is truly Marxist, then we've already been Marxist for decades.
I've been honest in saying that I want to end anti-discrimination laws for private companies. But I accept that it's not so simple because the public is already funding private companies through taxes, which is why companies aren't allowed to discriminate. Now, if you want to end this system, fine. But it's not new, it's not something Bernie would be responsible for.

Again, look to the working-class people of Europe. They like their healthcare, they don't feel that they've lost their freedom, and they live better than Americans.
 
cawacko said:
I thought this paragraph addresses that pretty well, especially the first sentence:

""On economics Mr Sanders is misunderstood. He is not a cuddly Scandinavian social democrat who would let companies do their thing and then tax them to build a better world. Instead, he believes American capitalism is rapacious and needs to be radically weakened. He puts Jeremy Corbyn to shame, proposing to take 20% of the equity of companies and hand it over to workers, to introduce a federal jobs-guarantee and to require companies to qualify for a federal charter obliging them to act for all stakeholders in ways that he could define. On trade, Mr Sanders is at least as hostile to open markets as Mr Trump is. He seeks to double government spending, without being able to show how he would pay for it. When unemployment is at a record low and nominal wages in the bottom quarter of the jobs market are growing by 4.6%, his call for a revolution in the economy is an epically poor prescription for what ails America.""
Click to expand...

I view it as a 'revolution' between the 50% of Americans that are Shareholders, and the 50% of Americans that aren't Shareholders.
I'm sure you view things through the lens of a Shareholder and are content with your money making you money. While the non-Shareholders have no stake in the Economy other than getting up everyday 'till the Land' so to speak.
 
anatta said:
makes no sense. unless you mean by "free trade agreement" monstrosities like the TPP?
It's like a disconnect for you guys. you hear "tariffs" and freak out -but they are only temporary leverage to force China into free trade without the violations they have with the WTO, and the IP theft as well as improve balance of payments.

Even Chuck Shumer is for this. working Americans are tired of China malign trade practices.

Like I mentioned "free trade" is globalist nonsense where they don't give a rats ass about China forcing J.Venture agreement s to share IP. Yes there is a similarity between Bernie and Trump in that regards

Same with NAFTA 2 (USMCA) it raised Mexican auto wages ( reducing outsourcing) and cut China out of the supply chains with it's 70% made in NAFTA countries parts requirements, and opened up Canadian trade.
For some reason you guys are against what is in the best interests of the USA,and even NAFTA countries.

I honestly think it's a Pavlovian reaction -no disrespect meant on this either
Click to expand...

Without getting into the weeds, the general consensus from those I've read is that China needs to be dealt with but not the way we've been doing it. And the result has been a slowing of economic growth and uncertainty for businesses that killed momentum the economy did have.
 
I expect the Shareholding Class to use every Narrative they can think of to maintain their grip on "the Means of Production".



StoneByStone said:
That's just not true. In fact, Bernie has been criticized often by Socialists who see him as a fake because he doesn't want to nationalize every company in America. Yes, he wants more regulations, but that's not Marxism, that's not ending the free market, and that's not going to destroy the country.
He does want the workers to have a share in private companies, but we already have that. If public ownership of this degree is truly Marxist, then we've already been Marxist for decades.
I've been honest in saying that I want to end anti-discrimination laws for private companies. But I accept that it's not so simple because the public is already funding private companies through taxes, which is why companies aren't allowed to discriminate. Now, if you want to end this system, fine. But it's not new, it's not something Bernie would be responsible for.

Again, look to the working-class people of Europe. They like their healthcare, they don't feel that they've lost their freedom, and they live better than Americans.
Click to expand...
 
Darth Omar said:
The OP writer wants rid of Trump even as, in his own words “the country is as peaceful and prosperous as it has ever been” lol.

And Bernie wants to burn it all to the ground.
Click to expand...
The Economist hates Trump but the article sounds very much like an underhanded endorsement for him. We all know it's not PC to be for Trump. Never has been. The Economist has to remain PC.
 
cawacko said:
Without getting into the weeds, the general consensus from those I've read is that China needs to be dealt with but not the way we've been doing it. And the result has been a slowing of economic growth and uncertainty for businesses that killed momentum the economy did have.
Click to expand...
GDP hasn't slowed because of tariffs -that's a false premise. GDP picked up because of de-regs. and tax cuts for 2017-2018 There wasn't even inflation cause by Chinese tariffs! 2019 was still 2.3% GDP growth. So Trumps policies have increased GDP

The Corona virus is of course gonna hurt economic activity -early reports I heard had China GDP growth flat!

But if you have some ideas other then tariffs to force China to negotiate a bilateral agreement outside the WTO
( because WTO violations are unenforcable) I'm all ears.

I assume then you are OK with NAFTA 2 (USMCA) ?
 
Rightys are running against a label not Bernie. Bernie is a mainstream politician in most of his votes. He is not going to install socialism. It does not exist except in school textbooks. Bernie wants workers to have more input and better treatment. The wealthy hate that. They spent decades getting a plutocracy in place. They will not give it up easily.
Go ahead rightys keep voting against your own interests because you cannot understand the truth. The billionaires do not have your interests in mind. They want more and more money and power and you vote for it. Rightys are susceptible to propaganda and conmen. They can not learn. They actually think Trump cares about them. How stupid. he will wreck Social security and make healthcare worse. You like that.
 
Stone said:
Bernie will be a curse on the working class. He will slowly over time turn them from semi free people into total slaves.

1... Bernie will most likely get screwed out of the nomination

2...Even if he did get the nomination he would most likely be crushed by Trump

3... In the unlikely event that over half the country were to suddenly become braindead and he were to actually win the election............ It will not stand. All bets would be off. Boogaloo time.

4... Zero shot of him ever taking office.
Click to expand...

You hope
 
anatta said:
GDP hasn't slowed because of tariffs -that's a false premise. GDP picked up because of de-reg.s and tax cuts for 2017-2018 There wasn't even inflation cause by Chinese tariffs!
The Corona virus is of course gonna hurt economic activity -early reports I heard had China GDP growth flat!

But if you have some ideas other then tariffs to force China to negotiate a bilateral agreement outside the WTO ( because WTO violations are unenforcable) I'm all ears.

I assume then you are OK with NAFTA 2 (USMCA) ?
Click to expand...

You could talk to them. They are accessible to a president. Trump tried to bully them like he tries to everyone else. They don't play that. The trade balance that Trump fixed according to him, went up 25 percent. Not doing such a good job, is he?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top