Aggressively Uninformed » CheapBot

From the chats

CheapBot — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 21:47:20 +0000

this really is the kind of constitutional bullshit I hate the most, and I guess its not the constitution’s fault, so I shouldn’t exclusively blame it but come ON
wow
Texas is going to get hilarious
if by hilarious you mean gutting health and education spending, yes.

no, I think it’s still going to be hilarious
why?
they’re going to have to face that they aren’t collecting enough money for the things they want. I don’t think they’re going to make the cuts you’re thinking
if they were open to cutting them, then they would have been cut already
so do you think they’ll cut some other shit, or what?
there’s nothing else to cut
so if you don’t think they’ll make the cuts, then what?
zack: you really think they’ll raise taxes?
oh man, that’d be amazing
I think so
those legislators would be writing their death warrants
they will be if they cut those services too
also, people can leave the state of Texas
it’s not like the federal government cutting health and education, they’re doing it to themselves
if the people of texas want representatives the turn the state into a wasteland I’m inclined to let them
yeah, it is pretty amusing
I acknowledge your buzzkill point in that innocent people will be caught up in the mess
but the only alternative to that is, what? That the texas governance style is correct and it all works?
alternative to what? my belief is that they’re wrong and due to various pathologies in the way government is constructed, they will react by making the problem worse
there’s less money to go around, what’s going to happen is they’ll engineer things so the brunt of the cuts fall on the poor
I agree
I’m rewatching it now, but Rick Perry was on DS a couple of months ago, does anyone recall what he had to say about the issues
apparently nothing
harveyj, do you think there will be an upheaval in Texas politics once they’re reduced to making hard decisions?
Gallup has Obama above 50% approval
29
i don’t remember how that works
apparently that’s not how
I’m glad you thought that crap was worth saving
yes and also we should try for more content
you should also say something on the subject
nah
it will be some interesting wrangling, that’s for sure

From the chats

CheapBot — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 21:17:34 +0000

< Zack> as a general question, unrelated to China policy at the moment since the question seems quite a bit bigger than that, should we be trying to engineer our economy to support more domestic manufacturing?
< Diapadion> I’m gonna go with no
you know, we usually try to explain our opinions in this channel
Conventional theory is that trying to do such a thing can only make the world economy less efficient and reduces resources for everyone.
hee hee
yeah, I agree with those points
and I don’t think that it will help with the immgration issues as well
don’t think what will help?
trying to push tward more manufacturing in our economy
The thing that I’m trying to work into this conventional view is the robustness of the economy. It seems like as an economic system gets more efficient it also becomes more fragile.
hmmm
yes, I could deifnitely see that
which is also two sided, that fragility is a strong deterrant from war
as shown from the fact that we’re scared to death of pissing off China
more succeptible to exploitation within the ecnomies, I think
care to elaborate?
shit
it might have flown the coop, but I had it in my head for a few min
I’m also worred about ‘race to the bottom’ economically. The things that free markets optimize aren’t exactly in line what we want to optimize as a society. We try to fix this domestically with regulation, but that doesn’t work on the world stage.
oh, I think I remembered
Normally we would say that as other economies progress in standard of living they will come into line with what we want domestically.
because its so fragile, the workers in the ecnomoy could easily be exploited in order to keep the system afloat. They could more simply be forced to do whatever is necessary for “the greater good” and not have escape options.
like a bank bailout?
potentially, I was thinkin on a more individual level though
ok
I’m worried about the transient effects of large economies like India and China coming online having a severe negative impact on our system. Assuming free trade with them it’s economically impossible to produce most goods domestically. Our economy is increasingly pushed toward high-tech advancement, finance, and entertainment.
that probably wouldn’t be good on the human rights side, but transnational business seems to be the way to go
troubling though it may be, I can’t think of a way to stop it
In combination with this, there’s no reason that these new players who are still in the growth transient can’t also be doing these high end things too. It seems like our economic position in the world winks out existance in this transition period unless we lower our standard of living to theirs.
*maybe* if we really guarded our educational system and trade secrets etc, but that’ll never be very successful of an endeavor
It seems like protectionism would be the a way to make this transition less violent, where we can lower our standard of living a little bit on our own terms. Our goods are are less efficiently produced, but we stay in existance economically.
IDLE gatorade shopping
wait, what’s the problem here?
I’m trying to understand the effects of protectionism
“developing” GDPs have been growing at 10% annually for a while, while developed gdps have kept growing
I guess what I’m wondering is, why should we be economically relevant when someone else can do what we do at a lower cost?
The reason someone else would be able to do everything we do at a lower cost would be because they’re in a high growth period where they have some highly developed economic sectors in combination with low standard of living / low regulation sectors at the same time.
It seems like the growth transient is a very dangerous period for us
nobody el
er
nobody can do what we do
what do we do then?
continue leading the global economy?
> Our economy is increasingly pushed toward high-tech advancement, finance, and entertainment
what’s wrong with this?
also you should add medicine and education as sectors we’re world leaders in
I don’t see any reason why we’re the leader in those fields except for timing
in addition, as discussed prior we’re not actually shrinking in terms of manufacturing output
also access to capital, a stable legal and financial system, an educated workforce, and network effects
I’d like to come to some sort of reasoning as to why we’re the leader in those fields and how we can stay there. Is it impossible to grow high tech only in our kind of environment?
not to mention that most of those are self-reinforcing
yes, I agree with all your points, I just have a lot of nagging doubt about it as I watch China push Japan around with the rare earth metals embargo
if someone tries to push us like that, how can we push back if those parts of our economy don’t even exist
the upstarts seem much more resilient because they can tell us to fuck off with all our tech and finance and keep rolling
the rare earth embargo seems to be about access to a limited natural resource
my impression is that we have a good deal of rare eath reserves
it’s just not economically feasable to have the industry here
and the ramp-up time is on the order of ten years
that’s certainly the conventional wisdom, but I think it’s slowly changing
at least with high tech
shrug, economies adjust to supply shocks
the first thing that would happen in response to a severe rare earth metal shortage would be a price spike
which would all of the sudden make mining economically feasible
see also: gold
a lot of mining operations are gearing back up in the US
which is nice, because it means my sister stays employed
but these industries are so capital intensive that getting caught with our pants down means we could be economically runied
ruined
then we bomb china and take their mines
and I’m offering some protectionism to hedge against that fragility, where the discussion started
what’s the worst that could happen?
your whole argument seems to be predicated on the chinese being willing to create a second great depression via trade war/embargoes
first of all, i don’t think any embargo would pose an existential threat to the US economy
second of all, i don’t see anyone, especially a trade partner as major as china, willing to cut off their nose to spit us
spite
the prediction I’m offering is that we’re not a major player in 20 years because we don’t do anything inherently special, yet we have all sorts of special demands for standard of living
and I’m trying to figure out what it is that makes us so special as to be where we are now, so we can continue that
or, if we aren’t special, how we can deal with that transition to being a minor player in the world
why do you think our financial, business, and political institutions are easily replicable?
we’ve spent a trillion dollars trying to replicate them in a nation a tenth of the size and fucked it up royally
i reject the entire premise
I see them as replaceable because I don’t see the American people as inherently superior in any way.
(..and substitute my own!)
there’s a big difference between people and institutions
yeah, we’ve got ~200 years on most other countries
so your argument is that these institutions take long enough to build that we don’t need to artifically dampen these shocks with protective measures?
it sounds like you’re basing this on rejecting the notion of “We’re America! Everyone loves us because we’re so free and great!”
I guess I can buy that
(talking to harveyj)
there’s something about how the environment for American business is different from the rest of the world that I don’t understand yet
like an implied security/reliability?
that combined with a drive for innovation that doesn’t seem to exist elsewhere
less corruption, access to capital, access to skilled labor
corrpution could be a bigger deal than I give credit to
harveyj: ==, + stability and generally low levels of regulation
in that case, should we be trying to make our regulatory environment more european? It may make more sense to go the other direction
i thought our current state was fine
(I realize I have no idea what ‘the other direction’ is)
or is this meant as a preventive measure for when China overshadows us and doesn’t need us anymore?
does current state include our shithole of a health insurance system?
I don’t really know, I don’t think there’s a need to worry about getting overshadowed if we’re able to continue competing at what we’re good at. I definitely buy into the arugment that a rising tide raises all ships.

From the chats

CheapBot — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 23:39:41 +0000

gerrymandering, marginalization of third parties
would it really solve the third-party problem?
not in small states
so in CA, TX, and NY you might get a seat or two
yeah
and vermont >_>
ha
personally i’m not that sure third parties are actually that marginalized
i do think it would help with regards to districting
it would eliminate districting
which would be awesome
exactly
does this screw, e.g., upstate new york?
depending on how the vote works, it might not matter
(my assumption being that upstate New York should be screwed with regard to congressional representation)
currently they have some 9-10 districts
NY-20 through NY-29, i think?
would such a change happen as a popular vote or by district in NY?
?
if the new york DNC and RNC nominate a bunch of NYC people to their slate, do upstaters have recourse?
i suppose a regional party could form and win some seats
why would they want to do that?
the “Up Yours Party”
I’m talking about the vote to change how reps are elected
if they wanted to commit electoral suicide
vs. the “Whaddayagondoboutit Party”?
Zack: my understanding is it’d be the same as passing any state law
it would be a little dumb, perhaps
or maybe amending the state constitution
which would mean that it’s actually possible
but then again, would it really?
what are upstaters going to do about it?
complain?
Legion: go ahead, throooow your vote away!
Don’t blame me, I voted for Crist
Aerion: DNC does this, RNC nominates two upstaters, RNC gets 30% of NYC, 80% upstate
splits the delegation
where does the RNC put the upstaters on its candidate slate?
at the top? (then there’s no incentive to vote for them because they’ll be elected anyway)
i mean, i suppose it’s not a stable equilibrium
mmmmm
but it does seem like somebody could get disenfranchised accidentally
this is assuming a model where upstaters necessarily vote heavily other upstaters?
yeah
well, it’s really a model where upstaters always complain about nyc
fuck, i’m from CT, and we do that
fuckin’ yankees
wicked pissah
harveyj: should we do this on the blag?
yes

From the chats

CheapBot — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:02:14 +0000

we also need to talk about this government shutdown business
looking at how republican obsturctionism has been viewed by the
public over the past two years I see it going extremely badly for
democrats
the formula is really simple, refuse to pass a budget unless
democrats make some key concessions
the concessions can be anything they want, repeal health care
mandate, make Pelosi pledge to vote republican forever, tax cut
extension
talk up how democrats won’t even make some little compromise in
order to save your social security checks
and watch the democrats completely fail at messaging like usual
what about this plan doesn’t work?
currently dems are perceived as having 100% of the power when
they really have about 66%
after the election they’ll be perceived as having 50% of the
power when they really have about 50%
coalitions are really easy to hold together when there’s no incentive to break them
that becomes not the case as soon as the republicans take a majority
you’re attributing dems’ failures to lack of messaging instead of shitty fundamentals
as soon as republicans take power the shitty fundamentals are going to reflect on them too
especially if they push us into a double dip
won’t it all be perceived as Obama in charge?
one would think? but in 94 it wasn’t
i think because the media loves to set up “power divided” memes
it’s going to be really clear that it’s obama v. somebody

Cheap Thought

CheapBot — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:32:24 +0000

Someone ask Sarah Palin if we should ban the NRA from Oklahoma City

Cheap Thought

CheapBot — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:48:01 +0000

* Aerion makes a cheap shot about John Boehner rooting for the Dutch team

Cheap Thought

CheapBot — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:54:26 +0000

I want a tracking poll question like, “Do you agree, disagree, strongly agree, or strongly disagree with the following statement: Barack Obama gets shit done.”

Cheap Thought

CheapBot — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:00:39 +0000

Every time you hear ‘eye of the tiger’ over a golf montage in the next fortnight, drink!

Cheap Thought

CheapBot — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:10:40 +0000

I admire the irony of small-state senators complaining about anything being “undemocratic”.