n/t.

That, and I loved Idiocracy.

But Bernie and Hillary should both let it go.

That's about it though.

Second acts in presidential politics just don't happen anymore!

I passed on voting .....

... not saying he's the best, but when Trump fails to address the grievances of the working class, Bernie will seem like a very good option, even if he's 80 years old.

What people forget about limiting Free Trade is that it makes things much more expensive. When things people want to buy get so expensive due to limitations on trade that will make people mad and they will remember why they liked trade back in the day.

Here's a little reminder...back in 1981 when it cost over $1200 to get a VCR.



Just to make it clear... $1389.88 in 1981 is the equivalent of $3,696.09 today according to the inflation calculator here:
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Rate_Calculator.asp

The price of a VCR in 1981 does not illustrate how prices go when trade is restricted. What your example illustrates is that when VCR'S were new to the market they were very expensive. They were new to the market due to being a new technology available for home consumers, NOT due to trade restrictions. This pattern of pricing new technology on the market has been repeated in pretty much every electronic for sale since then that I have priced and can think of, from my first PC up to my latest flat screen teevee, which was a quarter the price of my first one.

And the first Blue Ray player was $1000 in 2006. In 1981 that would be the equivalent of $450.89...or about 3 times LESS for brand new technology than it cost for technology 4 years old.

And I think that movie came with a lot of those players.

.


I know union guys who are pro-Union to the max, but buy all their shit from Amazon or Chinese resellers because it's cheaper. When I mention that their actions are the very things that drives companies to offshore jobs, they make the case that their purchases are really going to matter, their needs are more important.


Multiple that by 5 million and there's that sucking sound to Mexico, to pay Nabisco workers $3 a day.


.

The jobs are already gone and they are not coming back. Instead of limiting free trade there needs to be innovation to develop new industries. Otherwise the cost of goods is going to be so high that people will not be able to afford them and then they will be angry over that.

.


I took a global emerging economies course over the summer.

China is kicking US and EU ass right now because we are pushing for Millennial Development Goals to prop up global income.


The EU and US goes to a country and lays down all kinds of trade requirements. Sales are company-based, for the most part and the company can cancel contracts whenever they want. China says, "Hey, Brazil! Fuck dealing with the US, if you deal with us, we'll give you a 25 year guaranteed contract, with built in price increases -AND- we won't hold you to any labor, environmental, banking, etc. requirements that the other countries are pushing." In another 2 years, China will be the major trading partner with 1/2 of Central and South American countries--forsaking the US.

China acts as a mercantile nation, they don't deal on an individual business level, they deal on an entire country need level. They are positioning themselves for the next 3 decades ahead. They have over a million square miles of African croplands... (who knew there was that much?) and almost as much in other nations combined.


If TPP were to pass, China is the only country not signing onto it. Why not?

Because when all of the Pacific Rim countries are locked in with specialized trade agreements that force social needs and demands to audits, inspections, regulations, etc... China will do what they did in the Americas, and say "Hey, Indonesia! Fuck the U.S., trade with us and we'll lock you in for 25 years and we won't hold you to any other demands!" They will have cornered the market.



Now, how China is like Wal*Mart (besides all the Chinese stuff Wal*Mart sells):

Wal*Mart pays low wages so labor is forced to subsidie their income by going on public assistance. This is something that most businesses can not get away with. When a new Wal*Mart moves into an area, they sell goods below the area or even below costs, as the other store pick up that loss. Local companies go out of business because people flock to the cheap stuff. As more and more people lose wages, as the local economy depresses, more people are force to shop at Wal*Mart--further accellerating the economic decline and bolstering Wal*Mart's profits.

China is that as a mercantile nation, they buy raw goods from a country, say Ecuador. Ship it over to China and return with a finished product that sells for less than what the US or EU provides. Since the pay is lower, and as more and more people are forced to buy cheaper Chinese goods, that gives China employment while putting Ecuadorians out of work--further driving demand for cheap Chinese goods.



Now, I'm leaving out a whole pile, such as how US Aid and World Bank are agents to make countries dependent on the US.

But, your plan sounds good in theory, but lacks in the implementation phase, because as the delays in ramping up industry occurs, more jobs are lost. The billionaires are offshoring their money in Luxembourg to dodge US taxes, as the US is now seen as a declining economy. They are positioning themselves for the next markets that are starting to emerge--which is NOT the US.



And, with many corporations, if there is a publicly traded stock, the board members can be sued if they do not look out for the shareholders. This means, if there is an option to offshore, they are legally bound to assess those options.

Nothing will change unless that exposure is removed from corporate board decisions. And, we all know that the major shareholders want to see returns over the commodified costs of labor.

.

But always have strong opinions on. Not enough people look at long term impacts because they want instant gratification. I haven't done enough research to have an informed opinion about TPP, so I don't say a lot about it. The one thing I know that is pretty universal is that the more you limit trade the more you pay for things, and in some cases A LOT more.

Our party has like 70 million people in it or something, I'm sure all of them were "just busy". Amazing how no one stepped forward to run against Hillary, except O'Malley and then Sanders at the last minute- Sanders of course not being a member of our party, as we are constantly reminded.

Why, it's almost the sort of automatic field-clearing deference one would expect for an incumbent. Really interesting.

Well, I'm sure it was just a coincidence.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "the last minute" regarding Sanders. He announced his candidacy pretty early on.

Biden is the only one who possibly could have beaten Clinton, but I'm not sure Biden would have done well enough with the base.

For Hillary.

Sanders didnt have to pay attention because he has always operated outside the orbit of the DNC.

I think Warren might have given Hillary a run for her money. I suspect there was very strong pressure put on her not to run. That is just one example. The GOP had 14 candidates at one point. You cant tell me there were no other options on our side.

Personally between Biden and HRC I would have voted for Hillary in the primary anyway, because Im not a fan of Biden's track record as a drug warrior. But I think he might have done better in the GE.

I was pointing out that you missed a couple names.

Of course there were people unwilling to run against Clinton. She was supremely qualified, highly endorsed and had a well-developed campaign infrastructure (based on having run before, name recognition, having a large staff, etc.).

But she didn't, and it's entirely possible that the sort of bubble-ensconced insularity that accompanies the belief that a candidate is entitled to no real competition for the nomination, also led to some serious strategic blindness in the general election.

Speak for yourself. One or two relatively reasonable candidates and a bunch of attention whores.

Sure, great idea.

There were at least 5 candidates.

The facts completely refute your argument.

Any person afraid to run, or pressured not to, would be a weak person who shouldn't have ran for the highest office in the world.

People ran, Hillary won the primary, anybody who didn't win is because the voters didn't want them. Just like Hillary lost the GE, it's on the candidates themselves. Don't blame Hillary because others didn't run, it's their choice.

if you say so.

Few people wanted to waste their time. She and President Obama cleared a pretty stacked line up in 2008 of prominent party figures. And it's not just her. Second place finishers have come back multiple times and won their primary. Reagan, McCain, and Romney were all beneficiaries of having previously laid the ground game, connecting with voters in a previous primary, and getting the national recognition that comes with running. Remember the circus that Romney had to run with? His 2 "serious" contenders were a drugged up Rick Perry and a guy that just got finish working for Obama. No one wasted their time/money running against him.

Hell, if Bernie were a long time Dem and maybe younger, he could probably come back in 2020 and run with a bunch of also-rans. And no that is not a knock on Bernie's status as an Independent. I just don't see people that backed Clinton in 2016 rallying around him as opposed to a Booker/Gillibrand/Harris/Franken/Klobuchar nor do I see potential contenders showing him any deference. If Trump screws up as much as it seems like he will, the Dem 2020 primary will be very crowded.

doesn't really work anymore.

Look at the field where a major party nominated the consensus pick for "the next in line"- McCain, Romney, Bob Dole, Al Gore, and Hillary. Hasn't worked out very well. Last time the expected De Facto status quo heir actually won the GE was Poppy Bush, to my mind.

bigtime.

Personally, I'd like to see more leadership coming from outside the orbit of East Coast Baby Boomers. I think Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris are two to watch.

After that though... it's someone else's turn.

Look, I like him, I thought some of his campaign statements were spot-on perfect, but he's not exactly electrifying. Maybe in 4 years he'll amp it up, but...

except for O'Malley or Sanders

Is right here:




If you can smell what the Dems are cooking!!!

n/t.

But he holds rather moderate views. I think we can win him over and have a center-left candidate that gets votes from supporters of both parties.

Likely a pipe dream, but what the hell!

He wasn't the enemy and none of the other candidates, whatever else you could say about them, would have dealt with the issues he raised.

Bernie is blameless in the defeat. He did all he could to help Hillary.

Revisionist history is revisionist.

I accept that Bernie wasn't nominated and I campaigned for Hillary in the fall. I'm not obligated to accept the argument that his candidacy shouldn't even have happened.

all kidding aside, and someone who liked Bernie more than Hillary, I think (and thought) that it was a reasonable requirement, that a candidate for president on the ticket, actually be a member of the party - that said, i cant resist a cheap shot.

(great article of clothing to have, in case a time machine sends you back to a fraternity party in 1981)

only Hillary and Bernie shouldn't seek the nomination.

Hillary, because she's had her chances.

Bernie, because he's not a Democrat.

I think that Martin O'Malley should have the opportunity to run again, if he so chooses.

Sid

He didn't get much of a hearing anyway. The other two will be too old in 2020. Clinton won't try. I couldn't begin to imagine what the other one will do. I know that I won't vote for him regardless.

Only because MOM could move the party in the right direction. I'd prefer that Sanders and Clinton not run, but would support whoever our candidate is at the time.

...they all have the right to run. I do hope Bernie becomes an "official" Democrat, in any case. I will enthusiastically the nominee!

as the ones this year had an open court slam dunk, but got the wrong basket. US citizens just have to take voting more serious or we are going to wind up another 3rd world country.

There just has to be some young, energetic Democrats that are qualified for the Presidency. Hillary was my choice, but she did not seem to fight back when she should have. She was no Obama when it came to public speaking. That is what cost her by not building a large lead that could not be overcome. In the present USA, ideas are secondary to presentation. You know that's correct. Sort of like the Gore campaign that sort of disappeared for a while.

If Sanders wants to run, he needs to join the Democratic party

The other two, I would be quite content to never hear their names spoken again.