No, I did NOT insert my own biases. You say “An oil price projection doesn’t have anything to do with any of those issues.” You say Exxon will not put a bias in their own favor into their oil price projection? Of course they will!
Apparently you didn’t understand my point. The POINT was that not all economic work involves variables that can be affected by organizational bias. A pricing model is one of them; it’s primary variables involve population and usage growth forecasts, neither of which the oil company has any control over.
You are right in that really every party has their biases (except scientists!…), and the truth might be somewhere in between.
Don’t exempt scientists. They are subject to a host of biases, largely because they are human beings.
That Sanders agrees with Navarro makes total sense, both are lunatics.
On the matter of global trade, in the past year, many of the economists who previously write Navarro off are grudgingly admitting that they’ve “overlooked something” (which is econospeak for “I was wrong”). Economists were in general agreement that global trade is economically beneficial for all; nobody debates that. What Navarro has focused on is the fairness of that trade and how unfair trade routes profits disproportionately to the (a) cheater, and (b) the upper income groups. Primarily, of course, China, which is a global cheat which nobody disputes.
That part Navarro is centrist on. Where is gets controversial is his proposition that until China behaves responsibly, all global trade is unfair, because of China’s size, but also because exchange rates between counterparties are so dependent on larger currencies (dollar, yuan, yen, and euro). Time will tell.
About “ major industrialists are “the swamp””. Sorry, I am a major industrialist myself. They only have one single interest: make tons of money with as few workers (and worker rights) as possible. And not in a fair way at all.
I didn’t disagree with that. Hence my description of the relationship as “terse”. But the fact remains that the corporation must prosper in order for both the employee and the nation (taxation receipts being dependent on corporate profits) to prosper. We are in a symbiotic relationship. If government burdens the corporation, they burden the corporations employees, and burden themselves.
Especially the banks (ters from Goldman Sachs. Which are running the government now by the way).
Always do. Lloyd Blankfein was all teed up if Clinton had won. Even Obama could only get through four years without turning to Wall Street for his Treasury secretary.
You say the industrialists “get paid for it based on the value it provides.” A good example is a certain Donald Trump who received 1 US BILLION$ in tax credits for a 1 US BILLION$ bankruptcy. Where is the value? This is textbook capitalist behaviour. He screwed thousands of people. And thats exactly the sort of things those types of capitalists do. (There are also the good ones, like Buffett and Gates, but that’s not the ones the snakeoil liar cooperates with).
Let’s make sure that you understand that I don’t consider Trump a paragon of business acumen. He supplements his own errors with knowledge on how to work the political system. However, I don’t consider him a “textbook capitalist” in any way. He’s an outlier. Most corporations pay their bills, understand that employees have value, and don’t nearly play as loose with the rules as Trump does.
Wow, here you say it yourself!: “ You can’t sell widgets to people who have no money.” But they are increasing prices of consumer goods by 10–20 %. They are increasing healthcare costs for many by thousands of dollars (to decrease the taxes for the upper 1%). And take healthcare away from the ones who need it the most. They send them to death. And I am speaking about thousands of people.
If you want me to discuss health care, which I am more than happy to do, first you have to acknowledge that the ACA is in a death spiral that will take it completely out of the picture in 3–5 years. If you think the ACA is a going concern, then there’s no use in discussing the matter.
And serious economic institutes forecast massive job losses through Navarros and Trump’s lunacities.
They forecast massive job losses if blanket tariffs and trade wars take place. That’s not currently on the table. There are no proposals for blanket tariffs or anything that would lead to a global trade war. Let’s not indulge in hypotheticals.
What’s your estimate, how many less tourists will come to the USA because of the extreme border vetting and Muslim Bans?
None. The ban is for 90 days only.
That costs 10 thousands of jobs already.
That certainly didn’t appear in the job statistics released today.
By the way, are you aware that Obama gave a country to the snakeoil salesman, which has technically FULL employment (just 5% jobless)?? It is technically impossible to reduce joblessness further… (if you know economics, then you must be aware of it).
Yes. The problem is with GDP, which shows that the “full employment” was achieved with jobs that ….aren’t very productive. Hence, the emphasis has not been on just “jobs”, but on “good paying jobs”. Nobody doubts the ability of Burger King to generate employment. What we need is employment that is higher on the value chain.
BTW, the technically-impossible-to-reduce-joblessness-further rate was reduced further today. Full employment is different than baseline unemployment, which is probably around 2%.
Regarding Sessions: The “official record” is the only thing that counts. (“Oh, if it’s a written question, then I may lie, because that was not in the hearings. So I never really officially lied!” Is this criminal or just disgusting?)
Nobody lied. Period. We have the transcripts, and at the very least, there is ambiguity between the question and the answer. Ambiguity is not a lie. Thus, your rationalization is moot.
The CIA/FBI thinks Trump’s team might have ordered the Hillary Hacks from the Russians. If this is proven, then they all go to jail (including the snakeoil salesman, who received billions from dubious Russian Oligarchs with ties to Putin, to build his ugly buildings which always fight with bankruptcy).
I doubt there’s jail time in any of that, but you’re correct that it would lead to impeachment and the replacement of anyone shown to be involved. And I would certainly support that impeachment.
You give Sessions the benefit of the doubt. But as a citizen I don’t want to elect politicians whose trustworthiness can only be examined by lawyers. I only like upright straight truthful honest empathic humans.
Never seen a politician like that. They always say something to get elected and/or get something passed, and then claim that the situation changed or that they “evolved”. Obama probably gained several million votes he wouldn’t have otherwise gotten had he not declared support for DOMA, which he then walked back later, for example.
Out of all the situations like this I can think of over the last forty years, the dustup over Sessions is one of the most trivial.