United States Politics Thread 47

[rotting bones]

You can claim anything you want about an untested pie-in-the-sky future, but socialist regimes to date are not known for efficiency. You can decree low prices all you like; then you get shortages.

Don't get me wrong; I want a far more left-wing economy. But here you are just declaring that your perfect system will be perfect.



As noted by the notorious socialist Adam Smith.

I use the same reasoning economists use. The only difference is that I'm not throwing anyone under the bus. Mainstream economists mainly care about a line going up. I mainly care about the lives of real people.

The problem with prices going down is then you end up in a deflationary spiral. Note, however, that prices going down once Trump's insane tariffs are stopped would hurt no one, as the extra money is being siphoned off rather than actually being conveyed to sellers.

Deflation is a problem when goods are produced for profit. I'm saying they should be produced by vote.

[malloc]

The problem with prices going down is then you end up in a deflationary spiral. Note, however, that prices going down once Trump's insane tariffs are stopped would hurt no one, as the extra money is being siphoned off rather than actually being conveyed to sellers.

Quite honestly, I never quite understood the concept of a deflationary spiral. Perhaps it works differently for other people, but I have always bought things when I needed them, regardless of the specific price at the time. It would hardly make sense for me to put off buying food and therefore starve to death even if waiting a few months or years would theoretically save some money. That said, most of my purchases over the years have been physical necessities like food or legal requirements like paying rent on time every month. Presumably people with enough money for substantial luxury purchases would forgo spending to a much larger extent if that would demonstrably save them money. Nonetheless that is quite alien to my experience.

[rotting bones]

The problem with prices going down is then you end up in a deflationary spiral. Note, however, that prices going down once Trump's insane tariffs are stopped would hurt no one, as the extra money is being siphoned off rather than actually being conveyed to sellers.

Quite honestly, I never quite understood the concept of a deflationary spiral. Perhaps it works differently for other people, but I have always bought things when I needed them, regardless of the specific price at the time. It would hardly make sense for me to put off buying food and therefore starve to death even if waiting a few months or years would theoretically save some money. That said, most of my purchases over the years have been physical necessities like food or legal requirements like paying rent on time every month. Presumably people with enough money for substantial luxury purchases would forgo spending to a much larger extent if that would demonstrably save them money. Nonetheless that is quite alien to my experience.

When goods are produced for profit, when prices are down, businesses can't make a profit by producing goods, so they hold onto their money instead of investing in production.

Subsidizing businesses by vote subverts this problem entirely. The reason why capitalists don't want government intervention is that they think it takes away the freedom of individuals, i.e. rich people.

[rotting bones]

Just to be clear, they can't make a profit because they can't charge customers higher amounts because the prices are down. The lack of production leads to scarcity in a capitalist economy.

None of this matters if the government produces the goods because the people want them. This leads to zero bad results because money is not real. The result is what capitalists call names like the "nanny state".

Honestly, the best way to understand the world is, whenever a liberal says "individual", substitute it with "rich person". The bedrock of liberal theory doesn't care about anyone else.

[Raphael]

On the last point, I think you're misinterpreting the pundits. Absolutely no one says "The key thing is to woo a group numbering 4% of the population."

I know that pundits don't consciously want to focus on 4 percent. I was snarking about how pundits love to talk about the importance of reaching centrists, and then it turns out centrists might perhaps be just 4 percent of the voters.

It's a matter of simple observation that there is a large group of people who move between parties; that's why we can see a twenty-point swing between elections. The pundits actually talk about an "Independent/Other" group that makes up 35% of the population. Similarly Gallup finds 34% of voters identifying as "moderate".

Now, this fellow also finds 38% of the public not clearly aligned with conservatives or liberals. I'd be highly surprised if we're not talking about the same people.

But are these people really moderates or centrists or something like that? If they're mainly concerned about everyday life issues, they might be reached by messages anywhere from very left-wing to very right-wing - if they think those messages are about improving matters on everyday life issues.

[zompist]

It's a matter of simple observation that there is a large group of people who move between parties; that's why we can see a twenty-point swing between elections. The pundits actually talk about an "Independent/Other" group that makes up 35% of the population. Similarly Gallup finds 34% of voters identifying as "moderate".

Now, this fellow also finds 38% of the public not clearly aligned with conservatives or liberals. I'd be highly surprised if we're not talking about the same people.

But are these people really moderates or centrists or something like that? If they're mainly concerned about everyday life issues, they might be reached by messages anywhere from very left-wing to very right-wing - if they think those messages are about improving matters on everyday life issues.

I think you have to put his information together with what we know from other polls-- e.g. the first I cited, which finds that only 4% of voters don't lean toward one party or the other.

Now, pollsters' framing affects their results-- e.g. if you ask if people are conservative/moderate/liberal, you don't find out if they would prefer to identify as libertarian, socialist, or whatever. Still, this business of "leaning Dem/Rep" isn't just made up, it can be tested by asking how people voted.

If the free-form answers are hard to pin down ideologically (which is what this guy is saying), then it's hard to believe that they're zealous members of either base. It'd most likely come out in their answer.

So my best interpretation is that his "affordability" block is divided, probably quite evenly, into "affordability/leans Republican" and "affordability/leans Democrat".

[zompist]

Interesting article on Salon, showing that Charlie Kirk's death, far from uniting the right and allowing attacks on progressives, it's caused huge infighting on the right, including some wackazoid open antisemitism.

[Raphael]

So my best interpretation is that his "affordability" block is divided, probably quite evenly, into "affordability/leans Republican" and "affordability/leans Democrat".

Fair point.

Interesting article on Salon, showing that Charlie Kirk's death, far from uniting the right and allowing attacks on progressives, it's caused huge infighting on the right, including some wackazoid open antisemitism.

I haven't read the article, but I heard similar things from various other places.

[Raphael]

Kinda interesting youtube video from a channel called "How Money Works", and related blog post by JohnScalzi, on a development where apparently, more and more quite rich people think they don't have enough money:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la3gsUisWqw

https://whatever.scalzi.com/2025/11/28/ ... ch-people/

[malloc]

Kinda interesting youtube video from a channel called "How Money Works", and related blog post by JohnScalzi, on a development where apparently, more and more quite rich people think they don't have enough money:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la3gsUisWqw

https://whatever.scalzi.com/2025/11/28/ ... ch-people/

"It's just so hard nowadays. I promised my son gold trim on the yacht I was getting him for Christmas but it looks like I will have to settle for silver. Silver, goddammit! Mamdani is sending us back to the stone age."

[rotting bones]

What does it matter? How will things will get better in my lifetime when the right keeps doing whatever it wants, and the consensus on the "left" is apparently that we are never trying anything new?

[MacAnDàil]

We don't under capitalism. We do under socialism.

You can claim anything you want about an untested pie-in-the-sky future, but socialist regimes to date are not known for efficiency. You can decree low prices all you like; then you get shortages.

Don't get me wrong; I want a far more left-wing economy. But here you are just declaring that your perfect system will be perfect.

Honestly, I'm not sure oligopolists don't want a market crash.

As noted by the notorious socialist Adam Smith.

I use the same reasoning economists use. The only difference is that I'm not throwing anyone under the bus. Mainstream economists mainly care about a line going up. I mainly care about the lives of real people.

What do you mean by mainstream economists? Does that include Nobel Prize winners like Esther Duflo and Amartya Sen?

[Travis B.]

You can claim anything you want about an untested pie-in-the-sky future, but socialist regimes to date are not known for efficiency. You can decree low prices all you like; then you get shortages.

Don't get me wrong; I want a far more left-wing economy. But here you are just declaring that your perfect system will be perfect.



As noted by the notorious socialist Adam Smith.

I use the same reasoning economists use. The only difference is that I'm not throwing anyone under the bus. Mainstream economists mainly care about a line going up. I mainly care about the lives of real people.

What do you mean by mainstream economists? Does that include Nobel Prize winners like Esther Duflo and Amartya Sen?

Obviously rotting bones doesn't mean Esther Duflo and Amartya Sen...

[Raphael]

Obviously rotting bones doesn't mean Esther Duflo and Amartya Sen...

I'm not sure what's obvious about that.

[Travis B.]

Obviously rotting bones doesn't mean Esther Duflo and Amartya Sen...

I'm not sure what's obvious about that.

When people complain about 'mainstream economists' they typically don't have people like Duflo and Sen on the brain.

[Raphael]

Obviously rotting bones doesn't mean Esther Duflo and Amartya Sen...

I'm not sure what's obvious about that.

When people complain about 'mainstream economists' they typically don't have people like Duflo and Sen on the brain.

Perhaps, but in that case they might want to choose their words more carefully.

[Raphael]

Interesting blog post by Nathan Goldwag. It does not say what you might think it says if you only read the title and know nothing about the author: https://nathangoldwag.wordpress.com/202 ... rlie-kirk/

[rotting bones]

What do you mean by mainstream economists?

In the past, I have explained what I mean by mainstream economics. I'm referring to Econ 101 and anyone who agrees with applying it to real world problems as is.

Does that include Nobel Prize winners like Esther Duflo and Amartya Sen?

Google it and see for yourself: Amartya Sen mainstream economics

If I said anything contrary to the facts, post it here.

Perhaps, but in that case they might want to choose their words more carefully.

Words are inherently ambiguous. I can't predict in advance what a general audience might misunderstand. Trying to anticipate every clarification in advance is likely to produce a lawyer-like wall of text. That's assuming it works, and it's not clear that it ever will. I speak from experience, having wasted decades on the ZBB trying to come up with phrasings that hostile readers cannot claim to have misunderstood.

[Ares Land]

Interesting blog post by Nathan Goldwag. It does not say what you might think it says if you only read the title and know nothing about the author: https://nathangoldwag.wordpress.com/202 ... rlie-kirk/

Very interesting! Though I wonder if ruthlessness and self-confidence are in the nature of left-wing politics.
Some left-wing tendancies are ruthless and self-confident... They may not be the example we want to follow.

[zompist]

Though I wonder if ruthlessness and self-confidence are in the nature of left-wing politics.
Some left-wing tendancies are ruthless and self-confident... They may not be the example we want to follow.

Depends on the time and place. Surely someone's studied this, but neither left or right rewards doing the same thing all the time. GOP voters today want an asshole, but one who's their asshole. But that wasn't always the case: people liked Reagan because (while implementing nasty policies) he seemed nice. Democrats wanted someone calm in 2008, arguably today they want a fighter.