Crybaby-panderers hijack topic
A different topic was hijacked by some Crybaby Economics crusaders, who feel an impulse to tell "working class" crybabies what they want to hear, but don't have the integrity to put this forth as a topic for its own sake, which it deserves. The fact that they cannot present this topic per se for discussion, but are driven to sneak it into a different topic is an indication that their Crybaby Economics theories are false, and cannot be defended in a straightforward honest debate, but have to be slipped in under cover of darkness.
These phonies of course will not ever put this topic forth as an honest discussion, with critical questioning of the protectionist pseudopatriotic immigrant-bashing and foreign-bashing and employer-bashing rhetoric which they always have to fall back on.
(The particular posters are not identified here, so I hopefully won't be accosted with warnings from the powers-that-be accusing me of being "abusive" or "overly aggressive" or "threatening" to them. I have explained what "Crybaby Economics" is and am entitled to use this language to describe those who fit this category, as the following do.)
The topic hijacking begins from a Trumpster labor union fanatic who is pleased that his job was protected from foreign competition by demagogue Trump, who seems to be winning the popularity contest with Bernie Sanders in their rivalry to win over the populist crybaby voting bloc:
Who do you think shrank the economic pie for everyone for 30 years in the lower middle class? Hint: It began with Clinton and NAFTA.
There are 2 lies contained in this Crybaby Economics outburst:
1) The expanded trade under NAFTA increased the economic pie for ALL classes, from lowest to highest. The fact that some uncompetitive wage-earners might have had probems with it does not change the fact that the vast majority are now better off as a result, even including those who had to change to a different livelihood. That someone has to change does not mean their "economic pie" shrank overall.
2) The change referred to really began with the Reagan Administration, not Clinton. The lie that it began with Clinton is a phony attempt to try to deflect blame (CREDIT) for this away from the Republicans and to the Democrats, because this crybaby rant is a clumsy bumbling attempt to promote the Red/Trump/Republican China-bashing crusade which began mostly with Trump and which has attached itself like a parasite to the new Republican Party which has turned into a mob of pseudopatriotic xenophobic populist crybabies and crybaby-panderers in search of a new Evil Empire or Conspiracy upon which to unleash their hate.
It certainly wasn't the deplorables who shipped high value manufacturing jobs to China away from themselves.
Those jobs were NOT high-value. They could easily be done by millions of low-skilled workers in virtually any country, and those U.S. workers were easily replaceable, meaning they were LESS valuable, because that which is easily replaceable is by definition worth less because the supply of it is high rather than low. It's not your personal feelings or impulses which determines the value, but the law of supply-and-demand, and by that "law" anything in much greater supply is much lower in value. And only an idiot could lack the brain capacity to figure out why something in greater supply is lower in value (and price).
one crybaby-panderer rebuffing another:
I don't know what rock you've been living under for the last 3 decades.
But NAFTA was a Republican plan. One Republican talking point in the 1992 campaign was that Clinton wouldn't sign it. But Clinton did throw blue collar workers under the bus when . . .
No, what he did by signing NAFTA and expanding trade was to expand the U.S. economy for all consumers, giving us all more choice and increasing the living standard for all. That some blue collar workers were uncompetitive and had to change was part of that economic expansion, which benefited all Americans. Whining for a few uncompetitive ones who had to change is an example of crybaby-pandering. It's always the uncompetitive crybabies (and panderers) who complain about the evils of expanded trade = expanded competition.
No one has ever shown how expanded competition throws anyone "under the bus" except in the sense that a few uncompetitive ones have to change, for the good of the whole economy = all consumers.
. . . he didn't need their votes any more. (He did the same thing to gay people, signing DOMA and DADT) The Democrats were moving steadily to the right.
And guess what? The Big Exodus of USA manufacturing jobs and the bulk of the influx of undocumented workers happened during the Bush Administration.
Which was good for all Americans. More competition is always better for the economy, i.e., for the vast majority, i.e., for all consumers. No one can show how increased competition ever made the economy worse off. The only problem with "undocumented workers" is that they were not allowed to become documented so this good increase of workers could happen legally. The truth is that without the large number of "undocumented workers" in our economy, we'd all be worse off, because there'd be much less production and higher prices. That's the truth which the crybabies cannot face up to.
All that, plus banking deregulation, resulted in the Republican Recession of 2007.
The Dems-Repubs Recession of 2007 was due to many causes. But only the crybabies and crybaby-panderers attribute it to the increased competition due to foreign and immigrant labor. This increase in competition always benefits the economy, just as it did from the late 19th century up to the 1920s. Then the crackdown on foreign and immigrant labor triggered a negative trend which contributed to the Great Depression of the 1930s, turning what should have been another normal recession into the worst depression in history.
The Dems have abandoned the working class in favor of cultural issues and immigrants.
It's true that some of them are tired of the labor union demagoguery and their Crybaby Economics to protect the least competitive workers who need to change instead of just whining and whining forever and demanding pity. And also they recognize the contribution of immigrant workers. But this is not any abandonment of Americans, as we are all made better off by the increased competition in the economy. Even most wage-earners and poor are made better off by the improved production = increased supply. It's a lie to say that this abandons "the working class" -- it only puts some of the less competitive under greater pressure to change and improve themselves.
Pressure to change and improve does not abandon anyone. Real abandonment is to insist on keeping uncompetitive workers in low-value factory jobs, or even to artificially create more factory jobs to put them in because this is thought to be the best way to keep them off the streets. That's the real abandonment of them, not putting more pressure on them to become more competitive so consumers (= all of us) are served better.
The working class doesn’t care about pronouns, gender neutral bathrooms, or cultural appropriation. They care about keeping their jobs and limiting mass migration.
translation: they're crybabies. But no, that's a lie. It's not true that they are such uneducated thoughtless imbeciles that they cannot understand the value of improving themselves, becoming more competitive, and growing up to become better performers in the economy. Trump and Bernie Sanders are liars to imply that the workers are too stupid to change and become something more valuable than common factory workers, and that immigrants must be excluded in order to protect our uncompetitive crybaby workers who are incapable of changing.
Not too long ago even Bernie Sanders argued that mass immigration was a Koch brothers plot for cheap labor. Trump took up the mantle of protecting jobs and limiting immigration - which was Dem policy a generation ago.
translation: our workers are worthless crybabies who must be kept in their low-value factory jobs, protected against competition which would turn them into an unemployed mob of pillagers on a rampage.
In this scenario, the Koch brothers are the producers, improving the economy by seeking less costly labor = higher supply and lower prices for the benefit of all consumers. While Trump and Bernie Sanders are demagogue crybaby-panderers, i.e., self-styled heroes doing what they think is necessary to appease the crybabies so they don't turn into the rampaging mob of pillagers.
In this dichotomy of demagogues vs. competitive producers, it's the Koch brothers we need, with their instinct to improve production (and profit), not the Trump-Sanders demagogues pandering to the paranoid uncompetitive to keep them on the plantation in their uncompetitive factory jobs or protect them against foreign invaders trying to steal their jobs. What we need are not the crybabies and their demagogues, but the producers rich and poor who change as needed, according to market demand.
The Democrats moved hard to the right, starting with Slick Willy, and then the Republicans had to go even further to maintain market share.
I agree with Sanders, the Bush Administration encouraged undocumented workers to keep the cost of labor down while increasing consumption. That's perfect for corporate profits.
Correction -- it's perfect for ALL Americans = ALL consumers = the economy. Not just corporate profits. It's only Crybaby Economics which wants to demonize profit, even that which is productive for the country. When profiteers produce net benefit to all consumers, it's good that they reap those profits. It's good not only for them, but also for us all, for all consumers who benefit from the better production.
Keeping down the cost of labor is good for ALL consumers, who have to pay the cost. It is fundamental to Crybaby Economics to hate all profit, even that which is good because it rewards the producers for their improved performance. What the crybabies cannot understand is that the profit, and also the higher wage, is the reward for improved performance, not their Entitlement.
What we need is
MERIT,
not Entitlement -- for rich or poor.
Trump lied about protecting blue collar workers, and they bought it.
That's debatable. But what is certain is that the more these demagogues pander to any one class, such as "blue collar workers," the more they inflict damage onto the whole economy = all consumers who have to pay the cost for it. You cannot pander to a limited class of crybabies unless it's done at the expense of all the other classes rich and poor. And everyone is a fool who buys the false promises of these demagogues, even when they do keep their promises and give the crybabies what they demand. Because then all the rest of us have to pay the cost = lower standard of living for everyone outside the narrow class of crybabies being pandered to.
So even if the demagogue is not lying but actually makes good on those promises to the crybabies, he still is inflicting damage onto all others, including the poor, who have to pay the cost.
Same as when they voted for Clinton in 1992.
Clinton made us all better off by continuing the policy of expanded trade. 100% of Americans today are better off as a result of this (or at least 99%). Just because changes happened does not mean we're worse off. And also, the new trade laws contained defects, because these were not truly 100% free trade changes, and so whatever negative results may have followed were due to the protectionist measures which the crybabies demanded and got included in the deals that were struck.
I'm talking about the "deplorable" folks you mentioned that voted for Trump because they consider cultural and immigration issues less important than their jobs. Which I understand is many of those jobs were borderline obsolete anyway.
One grown-up statement among the above jumble of crybaby and crybaby-pandering lies which are popular among today's mindless masses who don't understand the law of supply-and-demand and the role of profit motive and competition in making the economy perform better.
These dishonest Crybaby Economics topic-hijackers are refuted in Economics 1A, and also were refuted 200+ years ago by Adam Smith, where the benefits of competition are made clear.
