American Politics

[D Cups]

The creampuff crybabies are fading away but not fast enough IMHO. Cheers.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/de...inority-party/

[Wimble]

A good editorial is backed up with supporting facts. Yes, editorials may not tell both sides, but then a lot of so called "straight reporting" these days fail to tell both sides. CNN's election night coverage is a perfect example of biased "straight news".

Did you bother to read the WSJ editiorial.

Cannot read the WSJ unless you have a subscription. The interesting issue now is the First Amendment rights. WSJ editor got in trouble about a month ago by asking for objectivity. I got a red card for my Thai post, somewhat expected. Always thought those rights were only for US citizens on US soil. Now it appears there are more imperialistic views of those rights from the US, even though they are getting trampled in the US.

[Member #4698]

I believe the operative term here is "editorial. " The edifying purpose of editorials is to reinforce the thinking of like-minded people, and usually not to educate people with different perspectives. And please be clear that the WSJ's ideological take on the world is rarely consistent with the Democratic Party. So, is there some actual news here?

A good editorial is backed up with supporting facts. Yes, editorials may not tell both sides, but then a lot of so called "straight reporting" these days fail to tell both sides. CNN's election night coverage is a perfect example of biased "straight news".

Did you bother to read the WSJ editiorial. There is a very interesting insight into Cory Booker's motivations. I will quote it here:

"As recently as May 2016, Mr. Booker delivered an impassioned speech at the AFC's annual policy summit in Washington. He boasted about how Newark had been named by the Brookings Institution "the number four city in the country for offering parents real school choice. ".

He described the school-choice cause this way: "We are the last generation, fighting the last big battle to make true on thatthat a child born anywhere in America, from any parents, a child no matter what their race or religion or socio-economic status should have that pathway, should have that equal opportunity, and there is nothing more fundamental to that than education. That is the great liberation. ".

Some liberator. On Tuesday Mr. Booker voted no on Mrs. DeVos.

His calculation is simple. Mr. Booker is angling to run for President in 2020, and to have any chance at the Democratic nomination he needs the unions' blessing. He knows that a large chunk of both the party's delegates and campaign funding comes from the teachers unions, and so he had to repent his school-choice apostasy. ".

The last paragraph is editorial opinion. The 1st two paragraphs are fact. Look, if you don't see the unhealty relationship between the National Teacher's Union and the Democratic Party there is not much I can say to you. The fact is that American union run public schools in the inner cities are a disfunctional disgrace. If they were not we would not be having this conversation. The Dems have no ideas on how to improve things except to throw more money at the problem. At least the Republicans and Mrs. Devos have some new ideas. Why not let them try to improve things? As Trump says, "what have you got to lose?"

So what is wrong with injecting a little competition into the dysfunctional system and allowing charter schools? Please tell me why low income parents should not have a choice in where to send their kids for an education? Just like democrat politicians send their kids to expensive private schools if that is what the parents want or feel their children need. The only rational explanation why Dems fight this is because if school choice were to be succesful it would kill the golden goose. Union dues. I hope Mrs. DeVos will be successful. You should hope she is succesful too! To repeat: the current state of public eduication in the USA is a disgrace and a growing danger to our Democracy.

[Soapy Smith]

I have a hunch you were refering to Betsy DeVos when you made the above comments. So for your viewing entertainment and possible edification, here is a link to a recent WSJ editorial on Betsy entitled, "The Real Democratic Party, Why not a single Senate Democrat voted for Betsy DeVos."

I believe the operative term here is "editorial. " The edifying purpose of editorials is to reinforce the thinking of like-minded people, and usually not to educate people with different perspectives. And please be clear that the WSJ's ideological take on the world is rarely consistent with the Democratic Party. So, is there some actual news here?

[Omega 3]

Read an interesting article today (dated 1-15-17) at Alex Jones' Infowars, entitled "Will the CIA Assassinate Trump?" A year ago, I would have dismissed outright such an article, and even the site. Now, however, after the enormously bizarre events of the past few months, am no longer so sure.

Some effort recently has been made to discredit Infowars as a fake news site. Brings to mind the saying, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you. " Ha ha.

Actually, find the Washington Post recently to be more of a fake news site. Blatantly biased and unfair reporting (brings to mind The Philippine Daily Inquirer here) and discredited "news" articles, especially regarding WaPo reporting of alleged Russian activities in the USA. See recent commentaries by Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept.

Surprisingly, John Brennan has been publicly belligerent and antagonistic, even to the point of outright arrogance. Is there really a "shadow" or "deep state" government, which thrives on the huge profits of endless conflicts and perpetual war, running things in the USA?

If so, will there be tangible and adverse consequences for the Philippines and its President, as well as for the US, and its President, in 2017?

Just one man's thoughts and questions.

OM.

[Amavida]

Whew, D30 is giving the world a preview of what US foreign policy would look like under a Trump administration. Most likely, the demographics (women, college educated, minorities) will prevent this from happening.

Perhaps Stein may be a dark horse in this race to the bottom?

[Jack Burton]

... this place which attracts so little in the way of DFI. The fact is that existing regulatory frameworks that discourage investment would have to be dismantled before lopsided trade agreements become a real problem here.

GE.

I dunno. I find mongering to be a bit one-sided, depending on who needs it more. And certainly direct "investment" is one-sided if I let it, of the "I will gladly pay you the second Tuesday of next week for Jolibees today". But I'm not a wimp, and don't do business with Whempies.

[Random99]

Whew, D30 is giving the world a preview of what US foreign policy would look like under a Trump administration. Most likely, the demographics (women, college educated, minorities) will prevent this from happening.

[Engine Driver]

However, given that this country makes very little that the rest of the world actually wants..

GE.

Hey not so fast, what about Cebu dried mangoes? Famous all over the world!

[GoodEnough]

I agree with you here. My point is that trade deals that don't demand immediate reciprocity by all concerned are bad deals. I have no objection to a Thai-built transmission in a Spanish-assembled SEAT car provided Thailand has opened its market to the products of Spain (which would be under a Thai-EU trade deal). I have no sympathy for "Please wait a decade or two for us to catch up. " You want access now? So do we.

I don't either, and I agree with your assessment. However, given that this country makes very little that the rest of the world actually wants--aside from OFWs--it's not really germane to this place which attracts so little in the way of DFI. The fact is that existing regulatory frameworks that discourage investment would have to be dismantled before lopsided trade agreements become a real problem here.

GE.

[Hutsori]

I forgot to mention the complication of accurately calculating "value added. " Many products "imported" by the US and Europe in fact contain components exported from the US and Europe for assembly in a second or third country. So how do we treat the exports and subsequent re-imports of assembled goods? I have no idea. The Philippines for example assembles, but does not manufacture small electrical goods. Since such goods are assembled from components manufactured and designed elsewhere should they count fully as exports from the Philippines? Supply chains have become multinational and perhaps the notion of country of origin is no longer relevant.

GE.

I agree with you here. My point is that trade deals that don't demand immediate reciprocity by all concerned are bad deals. I have no objection to a Thai-built transmission in a Spanish-assembled SEAT car provided Thailand has opened its market to the products of Spain (which would be under a Thai-EU trade deal). I have no sympathy for "Please wait a decade or two for us to catch up. " You want access now? So do we.

[Hutsori]

Competing Economic theories not withstanding, the simple truth for me is that blue collar manufacturing jobs are never going to return to the US or to the West in general, and it's a reality that politicians dare not mention.

Yet, Germany. We may think of Porsches and petrochemicals, yet it's also a pen and pencil superpower. I'll also mention that Korea today is a high-wage nation with plenty of manufacturing jobs. I recall reading a few years ago Korea's autoworkers earn more per hour than American UAW union members. How? Because it's not simply wages that determine success or failure. Germany has done very well for itself with innovative engineering. (A problem for its trade and competiveness is when a nation demands technology transfer.) The other important factor is productivity measured by the cost per unit.

To say manufacturing jobs are never going to return is defeatist. And evidence shows that this is not entirely true. Recovery becomes more difficult when the loss of know-how lasts for decades. Seasoned mentors in factories count for a lot.

I'll add it also takes a bit of nationalism. Citroen, Renault, and Peugeot survive because French consumers choose to buy French.

These are the top 10 selling car models on Q1 2016.

1 Renault Clio IV.

2 Peugeot 208.

3 Peugeot 308 II.

4 Renault Captur.

5 Peugeot 2008.

6 Citroen C3 II.

7 Dacia Sandero.

8 Volkswagen Polo.

9 Citroen C4 II Picasso.

10 Renault Twingo III.

Who here is thinking "Dacia?" Eight French models, one German, and one Romanian (owned by Renault). I used France as the example because its marques are not renown for engineering excellence like Germany and Japan's. In Italy, six of the top 10 are Italian marques. If you look throughout Europe the top selling models are dominated by the European marques, and the US / Japanese models are often made in the UK.

Here are the top 10 selling models in the US for Q2 2016.

1 Toyota Camry.

2 Honda Civic.

3 Toyota Corolla.

4 Nissan Altima.

5 Honda Accord.

6 Ford Fusion.

7 Hyundai Elantra.

8 Nissan Sentra.

9 Ford Focus.

10 Chevrolet Cruze.

Presumably some of the foreign models were assembled in the US, and the Cruze may be made outside the states since it started life as a Holden and later made by Daewoo (owned by GM).

Does Japanese engineering suddenly fall apart in Europe?

The days when those armed with a high school diploma could find decently paid work are simply gone for the most part. Global trade, and the free flow of capital are realities that aren't going to change much regardless of protectionist rhetoric, and the only country that appears to get this (or at least the only one I've been able to identify) is Singapore.

Other than chicken and rice, what does Singapore make? It's a regional hub for services. When one doesn't manufacture there's not much demand for protection. It's only recently that the state is self-sufficient in potable water, and that's due to reclaimed water. I'm not criticising the effort, merely pointing out that the people's we-have-to-import-to-eat-and-drink concern has a great influence on how they perceive things and adjust to the world. Their survival literally depends on it.

The US spends less as a percentage of GDP than other OECD countries on the retraining of workers displaced by automation or foreign competition, and I guess it's easier for politicians to make empty promises than to actually spend money to do something about helping workers to acquire relevant skills.

It's a criticism, but to what end? The US retrains footwear makers to what jobs? Steel making? Auto assembly? Coding another wastebook? (To digress for a moment, I read a fascinating account of how instagram, with a few dozen employees, helped put tens of thousands of people out of work.) If the foreign markets are closed to those items, and the US keeps increasing its imports of steel and cars, is the retraining ineffective? Twenty years ago people were told to re-educate themselves in IT and the service sector. Yet, I shift my accounting, software development, and many kinds of other back-office functions to India and the Philippines. Countries like France, Italy, and Germany are better protected because their languages are not global. How many Indian paralegals speak Italian? One of my girls is a lawyer. All she does is research US legal cases for US law firms. After years of doing this she knows New York laws, and those of a few other states too, better than Filipino ones. Another girl is an accountant. In her 4 years on the job she has looked at US accounts exclusively.

I have no opposition to retraining, but it needs to have a payoff, and ideally one that's viable for several years. But when Beijing demands US and European companies open their research and development centres in China the know-how is being transferred. Having lost the expertise the UK can no longer build nuclear power plants on its own; France and China have been hired to do so.

Conversely, this week's "Economist" ran a series of articles on globalisation and provided some real data on the benefits to the United States of its 20+ bilateral trade deals. By and large these benefits do not accrue to those without at least college degrees. But for me this argues for a better trained, more technically sophisticated workforce.

We have to keep in mind in the US about 40 per cent of the population have uni degrees and Germany is about 28 per cent. Is Germany mistaken not training more? BTW, German tertiary education is free. Sadly for many of these US degree holders, they chose the wrong subjects. I suppose they learn how to manage debt. And this is happening in the UK, too. "Give everyone an advanced education," is too broad. It needs to be focussed in subjects that create production, wealth, tax revenue, and build communities. Social activist with a blog who works for clicks and plays ukelele at open mic night in Williamsburg, NYC isn't that career. And day after day the US and UK must keep importing medical workers. Something is amiss. The plot has been lost.

As others have pointed out, the Philippines plays such a small role in global trade that it remains largely unaffected by movement of capital and FDI. It's problems are mostly rooted in the fact that its protectionist trade and business laws are designed to restrict the inflow of foreign investment and they've certainly achieved that goal. I've heard nothing public from the new President about this subject.

Yet Korea and Taiwan were very closed to FDI and inbound trade for decades. They erected protectionist barriers everywhere. And it wasn't just the government. Buy a foreign car and someone would scrape a key on it. Children were taught in school to admonish their mums who bought foreign food. The press would continually run campaigns against "overconsumption", and all the items "causing social problems" were foreign made. Korea used to jail people for smoking foreign cigarettes. This wasn't an anti-smoking campaign because domestic cigarettes were lawful; in fact, they were made by a government-owned company. The governments directed investments into the means of production ("We're going to build wealth") and the companies were forced to look overseas for business. Korea's billionaires are the families of Samsung, LG, Hyundai, etc. The Philippines' billionaires are in retail, food & beverage, and real estate. And gambling.

[GoodEnough]

We are in agreement Huts. The backlash has begun as voters accept they have been duped by neoliberal ideology. Unfortunately their choice is the established elite or right wing nutters.

I forgot to mention the complication of accurately calculating "value added. " Many products "imported" by the US and Europe in fact contain components exported from the US and Europe for assembly in a second or third country. So how do we treat the exports and subsequent re-imports of assembled goods? I have no idea. The Philippines for example assembles, but does not manufacture small electrical goods. Since such goods are assembled from components manufactured and designed elsewhere should they count fully as exports from the Philippines? Supply chains have become multinational and perhaps the notion of country of origin is no longer relevant.

GE.

[Amavida]

By exporting its cars to developed markets like the US, Hyundai was claiming they were good enough to compete. Yet at the same it demanded and received protection in the home market because it was too weak to compete. Does this make any sense? Sure, in the world of double standards.

That's the monster GATT / WTO created. China is following the export-oriented economic develop model because it works. Look at Japan and Korea.

Trade with immediate reciprocity is fair. Each side makes some sacrifices whilst achieving some gains. The trade regime created by GATT / WTO didn't establish this. "You open now, I'll open later. " A developing county could delay opening the market to develop new industries whilst its powerhouse industries were allowed unfettered access to shatter the foreign competitors.

If people are going to embrace "free trade" then make sure the word "free" is legitimate and accurate.

We are in agreement Huts. The backlash has begun as voters accept they have been duped by neoliberal ideology. Unfortunately their choice is the established elite or right wing nutters.

[GoodEnough]

SCMP not pulling punches.

http://m.scmp.com/business/article/2...ampaign=buffer

Well, everything that comes out of his mouth, to the extent anyone can re-interpret it into standard English is pretty much nonsense. On the other hand, I just read the article which is pretty much of an ideological polemic without much substance either.

Competing Economic theories not withstanding, the simple truth for me is that blue collar manufacturing jobs are never going to return to the US or to the West in general, and it's a reality that politicians dare not mention. The days when those armed with a high school diploma could find decently paid work are simply gone for the most part. Global trade, and the free flow of capital are realities that aren't going to change much regardless of protectionist rhetoric, and the only country that appears to get this (or at least the only one I've been able to identify) is Singapore. The US spends less as a percentage of GDP than other OECD countries on the retraining of workers displaced by automation or foreign competition, and I guess it's easier for politicians to make empty promises than to actually spend money to do something about helping workers to acquire relevant skills.

Yes, at Hutsori points out, the GATT and WTO probably provide an unfair competitive advantage to "developing" economies, but the former are also realities that aren't going anywhere soon. Conversely, this week's "Economist" ran a series of articles on globalisation and provided some real data on the benefits to the United States of its 20+ bilateral trade deals. By and large these benefits do not accrue to those without at least college degrees. But for me this argues for a better trained, more technically sophisticated workforce.

As others have pointed out, the Philippines plays such a small role in global trade that it remains largely unaffected by movement of capital and FDI. It's problems are mostly rooted in the fact that its protectionist trade and business laws are designed to restrict the inflow of foreign investment and they've certainly achieved that goal. I've heard nothing public from the new President about this subject.

GE.