PDA

View Full Version : BiPartisan Effort to Reform Trump


Vlerchan
November 12th, 2016, 03:02 PM
This thread is here for the specific purpose of discussing Trump's policy positions. There will be two rules to this thread:
Just to demonstrate bipartisan intent, those participating in this thread should cite two policies of Trumps that they like, and then two policies of Trump that they dislike. If Trump supporters can't decide on a policy of Trump's they disliked, then they can cite a policy of Clinton's they liked. If Clinton supporters can't cite a policy of Trump's they like, then they could cite a policy of Clinton's they dislike. I would really appreciate if people didn't take advantage of these exceptions.
There will be no use of the word 'sexist' or 'racist' or 'misogynist', in particular, but there should be no referring to Trump's temperament in general. The single intention of this thread is to discuss policy. For those of you for whom Trump cannot be separated from his temperament: as a reminder, that's the single constant for the next four years - his policies (probably) aren't.
I will go first.
I like that Trump is going to reduce the tax on repatriated profits in particular and corporation tax in general - I like that Trump is going to deregulate a number of sectors that aren't related to the environment or the financial-sector.
I dislike that Trump is going to eliminate environmental regulations - in fact: I dislike that Trump isn't going to increase them - I dislike Trump's trade-skepticism in general.

I'll start the discussion with infrastructure spending since it is bipartisan - i.e. Clinton and Sanders and Trump all support it. Just so people are aware, it's fine if you start a parallel discussion about another policy. I am just going to copy-and-paste a criticism from another thread for infrastructure.

At a time of historically high unemployment and and capital under-utilisation [a massive infrastructure programme was useful]. Not at a point where there are emerging shortages in the construction sector and unemployment - otherwise - is quite low. If there was a time to invest in infrastructure it was 2008 - 2012. Engage in it now - all likelihood - it is just going to create incentives for people to train to work in a sector that won't be able to support their numbers in the long-run**.

I'm not claiming there won't be productivity returns but it's dubious that the gains of such a programme will begin to outweigh the [costs]. Talk in markets is that this will feed inflation more than it feeds growth.

---

*-ish: I have never seen studies of the German Depression-era stimulus but there's open questions about whether it restored growth in the use (see: C. Romer 1990, etc.).

** If you want to just help working class people out train them up to work in the mid- to high-skill labour shortages that are emerging in the manufacturing sector.

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3454715&postcount=45

In other words, there's better ways to spend money - especially if it is going to increase the national debt.

StoppingTom
November 12th, 2016, 03:39 PM
I like:
-Imposing term limits on Congress members
-5 year ban on former Congressmen becoming lobbyists

Dislike:
-Instating the Keystone Pipeline
-Diverting money from the UN's climate change programs (I understand that it's purportedly going to infrastructure, but climate is too big of a problem to defund right now.)

Vlerchan
November 12th, 2016, 04:02 PM
Imposing term limits on Congress members
Is there any states in the US where this happens to those in the state-legislature? If I recall correct from a paper I read last year - term limits on governors just made them much less likely to act in the public's interest in their final term. The reason I'm unwilling to support this is because we aren't aware of the consequences empirically and the consequences theoretically don't seem great - would prefer it was tested in a state first.

For example, considering the impact on governors, it might be even more dangerous with legislators in Washington. If they believe that they are going to be out of a job in four to eight years time then would there not be a certain effort made to impress upon future employers - Industry: as lobbyists. This is mitigated by the bad on Congresspeople becoming lobbyists but the odds of a self-interested Congress passing both - let alone one - are slim. Nevertheless, even if they can't go on to lobby they would become exceptionally valuable staffers - imposing themselves on legislative developments irrespective.

The sense I get from this proposal is also that the experience that politicians gain from working as politicians is negative (or at least non-positive). There are probably some returns on experience: one becomes more intimate with a certain portfolio and thus is better at legislating in that area.

StoppingTom
November 12th, 2016, 04:08 PM
Is there any states in the US where this happens to those in the state-legislature? If I recall correct from a paper I read last year - term limits on governors just made them much less likely to act in the public's interest in their final term. The reason I'm unwilling to support this is because we aren't aware of the consequences empirically and the consequences theoretically don't seem great - would prefer it was tested in a state first.

For example, considering the impact on governors, it might be even more dangerous with legislators in Washington. If they believe that they are going to be out of a job in four to eight years time then would there not be a certain effort made to impress upon future employers - Industry: as lobbyists. This is mitigated by the bad on Congresspeople becoming lobbyists but the odds of a self-interested Congress passing both - let alone one - are slim. Nevertheless, even if they can't go on to lobby they would become exceptionally valuable staffers - imposing themselves on legislative developments irrespective.

The sense I get from this proposal is also that the experience that politicians gain from working as politicians is negative (or at least non-positive). There are probably some returns on experience: one becomes more intimate with a certain portfolio and thus is better at legislating in that area.

I see what you mean, and for the fairness of argument I can't speak on local government, but the alternative argument in favor of this is that there are people in Congress and have been there for an obnoxiously long time (therefore becoming out of touch with their constituents), and people are too uninformed on Congressional campaigns and candidates to vote them out when they should be (i.e those Congressmen responsible for gridlock)

phuckphace
November 12th, 2016, 04:22 PM
like:


I share your enthusiasm (perhaps that's too generous of a word, feel free to correct) for reducing corporate taxation and the repatriation of foreign-held funds - it's my hope that this combined with the following point will encourage businesses to loosen their purse strings and offer more hours and benefits to those who sorely need them (i.e. me).

repeal of the ACA. this is not likely to be very well-received here, but the ACA proved to be a heavy burden on the middle class, many of whom saw their premiums go up, not to mention giving corporations all the excuse they needed to slash hours and benefits for workers. I think this is an opportunity to craft an alternative that makes prices transparent and opening up the healthcare industry to competition.


dislike:

eliminating environmental regulations. this may not turn out to be as bad as it looks due to existing regs being somewhat of a Rube Goldberg bureaucracy that wastes money and resources, with a lack of transparency that in turn is ripe for regulatory capture - nevertheless, I'm very nervous about this and will remain so until I see signs of a better solution being crafted to replace it. corporations cannot be trusted to protect the environment voluntarily, and I think it's extremely irresponsible on Trump's part to gamble with a "Wild West" approach to the environment.

deregulating the financial sector, nope nope nope motherfucking NOPE. Dodd-Frank is probably useless because Obama, but once again if you're going to repeal something that supposedly keeps them in line, you've gotta have something sensible to put in its place. I would like to see a solution that exposes them directly to the risks that they create, and removes the insulation they have from their actions. that's to say that they should be forced to wear the legal equivalent of nooses around their necks with the other end tied to the economy - they have the freedom to invest within clearly defined ethical boundaries, but when the economy drops, the nooses snap tight instantly.

bonus:


I agree with Clinton that there is a sore need for universal healthcare, offered alongside the aforementioned competition-based private system. it's undeniable that a publicly-funded safety net for the disadvantaged is one major factor in improving the economic condition of our citizens.

Vlerchan
November 12th, 2016, 04:25 PM
[...] but the alternative argument in favor of this is that there are people in Congress and have been there for an obnoxiously long time (therefore becoming out of touch with their constituents) and people are too uninformed on Congressional campaigns and candidates to vote them out when they should be (i.e those Congressmen responsible for gridlock) [...]
I'm not sure if the specific argument about gridlock holds since it seems to relate more to the intensity of partisanship than anything else.

But - granted that the public are ignorant of Congressional campaigns and thus Congress aren't being held accountable - it would be welfare-enhancing IFF we could determine that this system leads to a situation where there is more out-of-touch candidates than is in Congress, otherwise. Because this is highly uncertain (i.e. it all depends on what the returns on experience are), it is the reason I think we should be looking to experiments in the state-senates first - and even then they might not be directly generalisable for multiple reasons.

I nonetheless remain sceptical that the returns on experience are, as is implicit in this argument, negative.

[...] many of whom saw their premiums go up [...]
How do you feel about Trump looking as if he might retain parts of the AMA, such as the bit that stops insurance companies refusing people for their preexisting conditions (intuitively this seems as if it might be the costliest part).

[...] existing regs being somewhat of a Rube Goldberg bureaucracy that wastes money and resources, with a lack of transparency that in turn is ripe for regulatory capture [...]
This I agree with. Regulation, in and of itself, adds deadweight loss even when it achieves the same purpose of taxation.

---

That Washington State voted down taxes is also the reason that we need to get more Conservatives on board with fighting Climate Change.

deregulating the financial sector, nope nope nope motherfucking NOPE.
On the brightside, my reserve wage when I leave college will probably be significantly enhanced. Plebs can socialise my losses.

phuckphace
November 12th, 2016, 04:43 PM
How do you feel about Trump looking as if he might retain parts of the AMA, such as the bit that stops insurance companies refusing people for their preexisting conditions (intuitively this seems as if it might be the costliest part).

do not want, I think the whole thing needs to go.

as you can tell, I've become significantly more open to the idea of...sigh...market solutions since I first joined. part of this is "taking what I can get", and the other part is that pretty much anything would be better than what we have now.

On the brightside, my reserve wage when I leave college will probably be significantly enhanced. Plebs can socialise my losses.

feel free to spread the wealth, fam. my Paypal is [email protected]

PlasmaHam
November 12th, 2016, 05:55 PM
I like the intent of this thread, it will certainly help with the huge divide that has formed after this election. Let people find some common ground with others.

Okay, so two policies I particularly like of our new orange leader:

1. Gun Control, or lack of:
Trump has repeatedly said that he fully supports the Second Amendment, and I know he has NRA endorsement. I could argue that the Second Amendment is our most important, as it safeguards the others. But anyways, Trump supports gun rights and carry laws, which is good by me.

2. Tough against Crime:
One thing that has particularly annoyed me about the Obama administration is it's turning a blind eye to domestic crime. The only time you do see Obama take action is in the off-chance that a black criminal was shot by police. Trump and his no-nonsense attitude and policies look like they will diminish domestic crime, and I see him quelling race-related crimes.

Two policies I don't like from lord Trump:

1. Punishment and tariffs on factories and businesses leaving the USA:

Trump has stated before that he would impose punishments upon American businesses that leave the USA. The most obvious example of this is the supposed 30% tariff upon Ford vehicles if they moved a major factory to Mexico. I will admit that I was initially in support of this, but I have come to see the error in that thinking. If Ford is able to run a factory cheaper in Mexico, then the runoff from that will result in American jobs, as well as cheaper vehicles to the consumer. Such a punishment like that upon Ford will ruin its market stance, and will result in lost of American jobs as foreign companies fill in that void. Trump should instead focus on incentives and making it cheaper to run factories in America, not punishing people for leaving.


2. Increased security over privacy:
Trump has repeated said that he supports the Patriot Act and wants to reinstate many parts of it. He also shown support for internet surveillance and forms of torture upon enemies. I am very much a privacy over security guy, and it does worry me when Trump is basically the opposite.

I am very curious of what others will say about our Trumpiness. Especially people who don't support Trump.

phuckphace
November 12th, 2016, 10:20 PM
PlasmaHam

Reagan's administration introduced a tariff specifically aimed at protecting the last American manufacturer of motorcycles, Harley-Davidson, and it saved them from going out of business as they were being undercut by Japanese manufacturers. of course grorious Nippon cried a big puddle of anime tears about it, and made sure to let us know that we're baka gaijin, but people who wanted to buy Suzuki continued to do so and people who wanted a Harley still had the opportunity to buy a Harley.

tl;dr tariffs work and are good for American jobs and industry, which is exactly why multinational firms cry about them so much.

Vlerchan
November 13th, 2016, 06:13 AM
Trump and his no-nonsense attitude and policies look like they will diminish domestic crime, and I see him quelling race-related crimes.
Should this not be the role of state- and municipal-government? I would have thought there was something unholy about the federal government contributing increasing amounts to your security.

Trump should instead focus on incentives and making it cheaper to run factories in America, not punishing people for leaving.
Interestingly, what Trump is attempting now is exactly what they tried in Venezuela. It didn't work.

Reagan's administration introduced a tariff specifically aimed at protecting the last American manufacturer of motorcycles, Harley-Davidson, and it saved them from going out of business as they were being undercut by Japanese manufacturers. of course grorious Nippon cried a big puddle of anime tears about it, and made sure to let us know that we're baka gaijin, but people who wanted to buy Suzuki continued to do so and people who wanted a Harley still had the opportunity to buy a Harley.
The tariffs counted for little in this instance. European firms could still export their motorcycles to the United States and in a lot of instances Japanese firms just dropped the cp of their 700 and 750 motorcycles to 699 to get around the tariff. The difference was made when Reagan was forced to devalue to currency relative to the Yen and Deutchmark (Yes - Regan was a currency manipulator) after the Plaza Accords, 1985.

Nevertheless, it is unclear that a short-term (four year) tariff on Harley-Davidson can be compared to the Import-substitution Industrialization being implied as being viable here. That's because the losses on such a programme then to materialize in the long-run where it is possible for firms to stop needing to pursue productivity enhancements: institutions that foster competition are also degraded and there's a general increase in rent-seeking behavior across the economy.

You can see this as it happened in Latin America between 1950 and 1970 in particular, but Harley-Davidson is still actually a good example of this: It was effectively protected for years since European and Japanese manufacturing was bombed to complete and utter shit: it grew complacent and when industry regained a footing in Europe and Japan it had a difficult time competing.

The fact most of the jobs that you would historically be associating with manufacturing have also been automated: real output per person has doubled since the 1980s (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PRS30006163) and real output itself has almost doubled (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS?utm_source=series_page&utm_medium=related_content&utm_term=related_resources&utm_campaign=categories) too despite there being about 35% fewer jobs in the manufacturing sector: what does that tell us? But here's the most interesting bit, the manufacturing unemployment rate actually tracks below the general civilian unemployment rate (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU04032232): there's emerging shortages*.

---

Reminder about Reagan: Dem Amnesty is modeled after his own amnesty programme for illegal immigrants.

* There also isn't enough research done to come away with a clear picture, but a significant amount of the job losses in manufacturing in the Mid-west and New England can be explained by firms shifting production to another, more productive plant, elsewhere in the United States. In some cases, that is probably because the those areas simply lacks the skills that are needed to run a modern manufacturing plant.

feel free to spread the wealth, fam. my Paypal is [email protected]
Sorry man, but the market has spoken and I don't want to distort your long-run outcomes.

You'll thank me in the future when your labor is placed optimally.

Porpoise101
November 14th, 2016, 05:12 PM
My turn

Things I like:

Increased spending on infrastructure: Out here in Michigan we need it. Our bridges, ports, and interstates are subpar. Additionally, I would think that flood protection systems will pay themselves off because of the damage they prevent.
Potential for campaign finance reform: This is looking dimmer and dimmer, but on the campaign trail he promised to reform this in a way that limits special interests.


Things I dislike:

His Probable Appointments: So far he has named the RNC head to be his Chief of Staff, the head of Breitbart as his Chief Strategist, and a climate denier to be a prospective EPA head. Clinton would have probably put in political appointees, but I am not sure if they would be this bad honestly.
Anti-Environment: He wants to pull us out of the Paris deal and the new addendum which was negotiated recently. He also wants to 'bring back coal' but I doubt that is even possible.

Vlerchan
November 15th, 2016, 01:35 PM
His Probable Appointments: So far he has named the RNC head to be his Chief of Staff, the head of Breitbart as his Chief Strategist, and a climate denier to be a prospective EPA head. Clinton would have probably put in political appointees, but I am not sure if they would be this bad honestly.
The best (worst?) seems as if it has still to come. Sarah - "You betcha" - Palin as Secretary of the Interior. Ben - I'll defund liberal universities* - Carson** as Secretary of Education. And one of a number of NeoCons - who are fortunate enough to have backed the Iraq war and retained their good judgment - as Secretary of State.

Part of me - having kept up with the austrianisation of Republican discussion of monetary policy - is fully expecting a Goldbug for FED.

He also wants to 'bring back coal' but I doubt that is even possible.
I'm of the same opinion.

I also found out this morning that the renewable energy sector hires more than coal and gas - the top ten states for employment in renewable energy are all Republican states - and the fast growing job-type in the United States is Wind Turbine Technician.

So I have - in fact - grown a bit more optimistic about environmental policy under Trump's administration.

---

* I swear this entire election is intent to deny me an international education. When universities are defunded it's PhD stipends that are eliminated first.

** Just found out that he is unlikely to accept if offered the role.

Porpoise101
November 15th, 2016, 04:49 PM
The best (worst?) seems as if it has still to come. Sarah - "You betcha" - Palin as Secretary of the Interior.

So I have - in fact - grown a bit more optimistic about environmental policy under Trump's administration.
The Secretary of the Interior reminded me about his position about public land and how we should allow fossil fuel drilling on our federal and state lands without much restriction. It kinda makes me feel a little sick, but also appreciative that I have visited and seen the beauty of the nation's parks and wildlife refuges before they get squandered. It's also weird that the 100th year of the National Parks Service may have yielded something that may hurt them a lot.

On the topic of an international education: I have considered moving elsewhere because university tuition is extremely expensive here. Even the in-state tuition of the University of Michigan for example is higher than some foreign institutions. I think the weird thing about public universities, such as U of M, is that they were often established by the federal government but are mostly funded by states. Something seems a little off about that in my opinion.

Dames
November 21st, 2016, 12:46 PM
If only they would actually read this post then america might not be in such bad shape :p