The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, SenEDDtor Missile said:

When you put it that way, maybe that's precisely why hatred and vengeance are so popular despite forgiveness being the ultimately better route. Maybe some people just subconsciously want something to control their thoughts, to make their own hateful actions not their own, so they DON'T have to take any responsibility for their own decisions. Responsibility, even when it's the right thing to do, is scary.

Quite possibly.

Though there's also an illusion of control.

My mother relishes cursing out my father, cursing out his girlfriend, and otherwise devoting a considerable amount of energy to hating on him.

Since she sees herself as a former victim of emotional and financial abuse, I assume she feels this is a step in being a strong, independent divorcee.

Me? I'm just "no, not at all. You claim you're free of him, but the way he is constantly in your thoughts means you are still under his control, even as you claim you are not. He rules you even if he does not command you."

Hatred gives power to the powerless. But it is illusory power.

Speaking as a theist? That is rather like being poor and religious in that regard. Your mind has the ability to give you something when you have nothing.

2 minutes ago, KHCast said:

Personally for me, I take the eye for eye mentality.

I'll resist the urge to say the quote.

2 minutes ago, KHCast said:

To me, a Nazi or white supremacist, person cemented in their ignorance/hatred or desire for oppression, doesn’t intend to see me as a human or equal, well sorry, expecting me to sympathize and play optimist for them, isn’t gonna roll. They don’t really deserve that in my eyes. 

Look over the whole post rather than isolating that one part. There's a reason to avoid dehumanization even when a person is a complete shitstain beyond optimism or empathy about the person themselves.

[KHCast]

2 hours ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

I kind of pity people who will slam a figure because they supported this or that morally questionable policy.

 

2 hours ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Also, on hatred: the most effective revenge is actually forgiveness. Because when you forgive, that person no longer has any control over your thoughts. Any decisions you make going forward are entirely your own

I very well see your point on this. I still personally find myself disagreeing overall even though I see your point and think it definitely is a fair conclusion for you to come to. There legitimate and reasonable reason to “slam” someone for their support or policy, and there’s fair reason to not do it even if they find themselves on the other side of the spectrum politically. It’s all to me situational, but I’m not the kind to easily forgive someone that’s done immense wrong to me I guess, so clearly there’s gonna be a conflict of disagreement between us here

 

my simple point is I’m not gonna give much of a shit about a person or be inclined to sympathize or give them a sliver of my care, when they’re intending harm to me whether that physical or through legislation. I really don’t care if “they had a hard life and that made them a person that hates Jews.” That I need to “Just understand where they come from” lots of people go through shit and aren’t racist, bigots, violently hateful towards women, etc. what they went through is by no means justification and that just feels like enabling even to a degree. You’re still ultimately choosing to become a racist. You’re choosing to hate poor. You’re choosing a lot of these hateful lifestyles 

39 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

There's a reason to avoid dehumanization

For the record, I’m not encouraging this “treat them like animals” mentality that results in mobs chasing and murdering. Eye for an eye, was a bad term to use. I’m encouraging the mentality of not giving these people free passes, unneeded optimism that enables them to continue to inflict harm and fear. Giving them equal podium. Sympathizing for them when they’re hateful actions, that they themselves are responsible for, are to blame 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

How about don’t demand sympathy and refuse to give it in return?

Eye for an eye, as destructive as it can be at its worse, does have benign merits but it can cause problems that you might not like. Don’t get me wrong, because I do sympathize with the mentality, but it’s important to realize the cons as much as the pros when subscribing to such a thing—I am perfectly in favor of violence when all other options have been exhausted or when it clear from the start peaceful diplomacy isn’t going to work, and I still maintain that belief, but I remember when Ogilvie made a point that it risks creating martyrs that might worsen things.

I suppose the best way to look at it is to be pragmatic in your actions and mindset—something which white supremacists aren’t exactly capable of, otherwise they wouldn’t be white supremacists.

Too much wrath, greed, and pride and being to lazy to put any critical thought to things can get in the way—probably why they’re among the seven deadly sins.

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

I’m not the kind to easily forgive someone that’s done immense wrong to me I guess, so clearly there’s gonna be a conflict of disagreement between us here

I think you're assuming forgiveness means you have to kiss and hold hands.

It just means you're not holding a grudge.

Nor does it mean pacifism and inaction; you may not hold a grudge over past actions, but you're still capable of interfering with future actions.

There are many cases of civil rights leaders becoming friends with former white supremacists. But notice the "former." The friendship could only happen after the person had recanted their views and converted to the new cause. No grudge was borne, because it was all in the past.

Quote

I really don’t care if “they had a hard life and that made them a person that hates Jews.” That I need to “Just understand where they come from” lots of people go through shit and aren’t racist, bigots, violently hateful towards women, etc. what they went through is by no means justification and that just feels like enabling even to a degree.

All people are wired differently, though. It's nice to think of it all as completely personal choice, but let's be real here, some people have more self-control, reasoning etc. than others. We are more at the mercy of our brain chemistry than we would like.

It's not enabling them so much as encouraging analysis. I can understand the rationale for a riot. There is most often some sort of injustice that prompts one. That doesn't mean I think the riot was a good idea. But it does mean I should look at the underlying causes and see if there's a way to prevent such things from happening again.

Do you think the rioters are evil, because they yielded to aggression when so many others did not? Or did the violent and non-violent alike have a common cause for frustration, and expressed it in different ways?

Quote

You’re still ultimately choosing to become a racist. You’re choosing to hate poor. You’re choosing a lot of these hateful lifestyles 

Yes, and that's why they're still valid targets of resistance as long as they're engaging in such behavior. There's a difference between "understanding" and "agreeing."

Quote

enables them to continue to inflict harm and fear. Giving them equal podium.

That is not at all what I'm suggesting. Understanding does not preclude resistance. No more than the love for my racist family members precludes me from resisting their racism.

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm’s Servant said:

Eye for an eye, as destructive as it can be at its worse, does have benign merits but it can cause problems that you might not like. Don’t get me wrong, because I do sympathize with the mentality, but it’s important to realize the cons as much as the pros when subscribing to such a thing—I am perfectly in favor of violence when all other options have been exhausted or when it clear from the start peaceful diplomacy isn’t going to work, and I still maintain that belief, but I remember when Ogilvie made a point that it risks creating martyrs that might worsen things.

Basically.

You know what made the Mongols and Arabs great powers in their time?

A guy came in, saw the feuding families, rounded all their leaders up, and said, "Okay. I don't care who started this conflict, you're stopping it, or I'll execute you and put someone in charge of your clan who will stop it. These clan wars are over. That's it." While this is a case of using violence as a means to obtain a goal, note the key detail here: they used the threat of it to make everyone else stop actually doing it. They didn't ask who started what, they just said enough was enough. Even if your clan was the victim in it all, you would be classed as an aggressor if you started shit back up.

Someone must eventually make the first move if a cycle of violence and oppression will be stopped. And the first move does not mean complete relinquishing of resistance, just accepting there are some practices you're not going to reciprocate.

And while it's tempting to say the dominant, oppressive faction should be the one to make the first move... let's remember their capacity for reprisal is a lot greater than that of the oppressed. That is why the oppressed need to make the first move.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

 

7 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Basically.

You know what made the Mongols and Arabs great powers in their time?

A guy came in, saw the feuding families, rounded all their leaders up, and said, "Okay. I don't care who started this conflict, you're stopping it, or I'll execute you and put someone in charge of your clan who will stop it. These clan wars are over. That's it." While this is a case of using violence as a means to obtain a goal, note the key detail here: they used the threat of it to make everyone else stop actually doing it. They didn't ask who started what, they just said enough was enough. Even if your clan was the victim in it all, you would be classed as an aggressor if you started shit back up.

Might explain why I really love Ghengis Khan and the Mongol Empire.

Don’t know too much about the Arab empires beyond the Mongols FUBARing them hardcore.

 

[Bowbowis]

I say greet them with and open heart and a firm hand. People can change and I'll be the first to offer forgiveness, though not necessarily absolution, to those who see the error of their ways, and to try and push them to that revelation if they haven't made it themselves. However, until such a time as they express remorse for their actions, I will grant them no sympathy and cede to them no ground.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

You people are WAY more forgiving than I am. Everything about the past 2 years has worn away my ability to forgive anyone who aligns with Trump and his cronies. I mean I'll try if I really have to, but it's hard not to feel an intense boiling pit of rage in my stomach everytime the GOP comes up, or feel cynicism and distrust towards someone who chooses to break away from the GOP.

[KHCast]

Fair points @Bergamo (Ogilvie) Still guess I’m just not that much of a forgiving person. Like I know the story about that holocaust survivor meeting the Nazi that detained and caused her so much grief, him asking for forgiveness and her giving him it, and don’t get me wrong I admire that and all. If people are willing to change and ask out if being educated and realizing the shit they’ve been associating with and supporting, I’d be down to be open to their supposed change and giving them a chance. I’m not all hateful and that lost in my hope for people. If they aren’t however wanting to change, and intend to keep their feet planted on these values of theirs, well, that’s when I’m not going to expect much from you and more than likely maintain that “you’re a piece of shit” mentality about you.

I’m definitely not trying to act like my view on this is the only right one. Everyone’s philosophy on these kind of topics is bound to be different. 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

56 minutes ago, SenEDDtor Missile said:

You people are WAY more forgiving than I am.

The hell I am.

I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a forgiving person—not so much that I’ll never forgive than it simply being a tall order.

I’ll put as much effort into forgiving as the person being forgiven puts effort into repentance, but beyond that I at the very least try to understand—and oftimes my understanding of things can skew towards a negative perspective.

For example, sometimes racism is something forcefed to someone who doesn’t know better and only believes because that’s what they’re taught, and that one is easier to forgive. But a lot of times it’s because a lot of grown-ass people know better and are being selfish, entitled asses, and that isn’t something I’m obliged to forgive.

 

[RedFox99]

Apparently the shooter yesterday, David Katz, was part of an anti-trump group: 

 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

That “Chuck NASCAR Nellis” needs to be abandoned on a deserted island with his logic...and I’m being mild when I say that.

In other news, another reason for gun control.

[Bowbowis]

43 minutes ago, RedFox99 said:

Apparently the shooter yesterday, David Katz, was part of an anti-trump group: 

 

The article he's citing comes from a website which literally has the slogan "We report the truth - And leave the Russia-Collusion fairy tale to the Conspiracy media" plastered on it's banner. Suffice it to say we're not dealing with the most credible of news outlets here.

[KHCast]

That and the tweet in question is clearly biased, and leaves no proof of his claim that most mass shooters are democrats, so this entire situation I find skeptical 

[SenEDDtor Missile]

11 minutes ago, KHCast said:

That and the tweet in question is clearly biased, and leaves no proof of his claim that most mass shooters are democrats, so this entire situation I find skeptical 

Based off memory alone, quite of a few of the shooters in the past few years tend to fit a GOP member profile if anything.

so projecting basically.

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/27/politics/north-carolina-gerrymandering-court/index.html

North Carolina's Supreme Court has thrown out a gerrymandered map. The GOP holds 10 of the state's 13 seats, but it is expected redistricting would give the Democrats several more seats.

The North Carolina GOP has the state seats (also gerrymandered) to impeach and remove judges in the state, however, so it'll be interesting to see where this goes. They've basically been quietly threatening to remove judges who oppose their agenda.

The case will likely go before the Supreme Court but it is extremely unlikely the Court will hear it since it's so close to election time. It remains to be seen if they just let the decision stand or take the time to issue a stay of the ruling.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/27/politics/mexico-us-trade-deal/index.html

A trade deal has been reached with Mexico to raise the quota of automobile parts that must be produced in the US or Mexico. It also requires more money be paid to auto workers.

It still has to be approved by Congress, and Mexico wants to get Canada in on the agreement even as Trump insists he wants to eliminate NAFTA in favor of separate deals with Canada and Mexico (that is, he wants to weaken their combined bargaining power).

On 8/26/2018 at 5:20 PM, Conquering Storm’s Servant said:

Might explain why I really love Ghengis Khan and the Mongol Empire.

Don’t know too much about the Arab empires beyond the Mongols FUBARing them hardcore.

Same basic principle as Mongolia. For generations the Arab peninsula was the site of many clan wars in a perpetual cycle of violence. Then Muhammad rolled in and unified everyone beneath his banner, and said there would be no more clan warfare because all Muslims were equal before God regardless of what family they came from.

One of his dying wishes is commonly said to be he wanted there to be no more clan favoritism or warfare, and for all Muslims to remain unified as a community.

Needless to say most of his disciples plugged their ears when he said that.

On 8/26/2018 at 5:43 PM, SenEDDtor Missile said:

it's hard not to feel an intense boiling pit of rage in my stomach everytime the GOP comes up

When Aristotle discussed the issue of virtue, he gave only a blueprint. He also said it is extremely difficult to achieve. It's a goal rather than something one would be perfect at.

Consider how many needless massacres could have been avoided if people held forgiveness of a rival group to a higher standard. If it is not personal virtue a person is after, they can still embrace the idea of taming those darker emotions because in the end, it makes us all better off.

On 8/26/2018 at 6:12 PM, KHCast said:

@Bergamo (Ogilvie)If they aren’t however wanting to change, and intend to keep their feet planted on these values of theirs, well, that’s when I’m not going to expect much from you and more than likely maintain that “you’re a piece of shit” mentality about you.

Well, that's the idea here. You are still right to oppose the person, but it can cause more harm than it's worth to let hatred consume your thoughts. It clouds judgment and ultimately wastes mental energy that could be spent on other things.

If I see a Nazi, I will oppose them. But I am more opposing the idea than the person. Compare how the use of force for self-defense is not irrevocable, but conditional on the other person presenting an immediate, inescapable threat; the moment they are incapacitated or otherwise neutralized, the right to use that force evaporates. So, if they change, we can work on building something better. If they don't, the opposition continues unabated.

6 hours ago, RedFox99 said:

Apparently the shooter yesterday, David Katz, was part of an anti-trump group:

4 hours ago, SenEDDtor Missile said:

Based off memory alone, quite of a few of the shooters in the past few years tend to fit a GOP member profile if anything.

so projecting basically.

After the Southern strategy, a lot of Southern Democrats stayed Democrats even though they voted with the GOP on practically everything. Being a Democrat was part of their family identity, and it was only as they died or retired that the South became a fully Republican bastion.

So let's assume for a moment mass shooters tended to be Democrats more often.

Look at the age profile. A lot of them are younger people. Younger people tend to be Democrats. Arguably even if they're not really that liberal, even. The social group tends to put pressure to be a Democrat, just as it puts pressure to keep your religious beliefs more discrete.

In addition, there are more Democrats in general. This is a legacy of the Democratic monopoly on power that lasted really up until the 1990s. You're going to see a lot more Democrats, especially since these mass shootings tend to happen in more urbanized areas, which, again, have more Democrats.

He may as well say the majority of shooters are white guys. Though there's some better evidence of causation there.

[KHCast]

Causation that’s typically associated with white privilege, racism, and/or white men feeling under attack all mixed with lack of thoroughly diagnosing them with mental  illness issues. I mean it’s obvious among that demographic there’s a lot of,usually unwarranted, anger and fear towards everyone else(“our kind is under attack!”, “they’re taking our jobs!”, “white people matter too!”, Nazi’s coming back, the KKK becoming louder, etc)as well as violent tendencies throughout history among that group as a result of their privileged position within society and their numbers against everyone else. There’s a reason white straight men are typically the ones doing this vs any other group. Also the big shooters in question from this year iirc were typically republican or trump supporters, and/or harbored bigoted views 

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/politics/trump-evangelicals-midterms/index.html

For all the smugness Trump has been treating the midterms with, he's suddenly running scared to evangelicals for help. He's engaging in fearmongering, saying that if Democrats win, Antifa will engage in violence against Christians.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/politics/jeff-sessions-mcconnell/index.html

Senate GOP leaders have begun openly talking of replacing Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. Mitch McConnell has said he opposes this. Since he's the Majority leader, it would be a bad idea for Senators to go against him.   

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/24/17772818/florida-primary-elections-2018-governor-desantis-putnam-graham

Florida and Arizona are holding their primaries for Governor and Senator today; as two of the states most likely to flip from red to blue this year, it's an interesting race.

So far, polls have closed in Arizona and the indication is the further right, Trump-backed candidate will win the race. That could possibly push the Governor's race towards the Democrats, but the Senate race remains an even split between the current Governor and incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson.

20 hours ago, KHCast said:

Causation that’s typically associated with white privilege, racism, and/or white men feeling under attack all mixed with lack of thoroughly diagnosing them with mental  illness issues. I mean it’s obvious among that demographic there’s a lot of,usually unwarranted, anger and fear towards everyone else(“our kind is under attack!”, “they’re taking our jobs!”, “white people matter too!”, Nazi’s coming back, the KKK becoming louder, etc)as well as violent tendencies throughout history among that group as a result of their privileged position within society and their numbers against everyone else. There’s a reason white straight men are typically the ones doing this vs any other group. Also the big shooters in question from this year iirc were typically republican or trump supporters, and/or harbored bigoted views 

We should also focus in particular on the male aspect.

Science has found there are enormous benefits to mental health from intimate (and platonic) contact with others, even of the same sex. Toxic social norms have made it so it is acceptable for women to give and show affection regardless of sex (though there is that shitty view a lot of guys have that a lady can't be friends with another man besides her partner), but with men, a lot of the opportunity for affectionate contact is cut off. This warps the mind and is going to encourage aggressive, toxic behavior.

[Myst]

Excellent news. Stuff like this is why Trump is getting my vote in 2020. 

[Candescence]

11 hours ago, Myst said:

Excellent news. Stuff like this is why Trump is getting my vote in 2020. 

Or it could just be in spite of his attempts to unintentionally wreck the economy and it was already on track to happen due to inheriting a good economy from Obama. Just saying, mate.

Edit: Also, wages aren't increasing with inflation, which means regular folk won't see the benefits of an improving economy. Of course, GOP and Trump don't want people to have better wages, but the Dems are actively working to increase the minimum wage nationwide, amongst other things.

[Meta77]

I heard someone on a radio show call in to say that some thing. Granted ytimp had the mouth of a 5 year old on xbox live but yo day he inherited a good economy. Obama was in 8 years and never once have I've seen stocks do so well.  what would cause it to only do well two years after he left ?

Also a lot of things on wages. If they ste raised them all wages should be raised. Should they not. When nurses makes 15 a hour and a McDonalds worker wants min set to that than the nurses wage should be raised. In turn products base prices would raise over time to account for increases in wealth meaning you can pay more for a product now. At least thats what they teach in grade school atm

 

[Patticus]

2 hours ago, Meta77 said:

I heard someone on a radio show call in to say that some thing. Granted ytimp had the mouth of a 5 year old on xbox live but yo day he inherited a good economy. Obama was in 8 years and never once have I've seen stocks do so well.  what would cause it to only do well two years after he left ?

Long-term economic trends. While Trump's policies are by now having an effect, let's not forget the tattered economy Obama inherited, and the fact that by the end of his tenure, the economy was already doing quite well, having undergone a record breaking (IIRC?) job creation streak. Let's also not forget that the GOP, during his term, worked against the economy, hampering its recovery, and now that they're in power, all their talk of fiscal responsibility has been conveniently forgotten, with the deficit on track to doubling thanks to them.

In short, from an economic perspective in 2018, it wouldn't matter all that much who won in 2016, because all of them would have inherited a recovering economy, and be it a Bush, Cruz, Sanders or Clinton administration, the economy would look roughly the same today.

Now, the further out you go from 2016, the more the different possible economies of Bush, Clinton et al diverge, and the more those presidents can claim credit for that. Trump, likewise, if he wins a second term, and his economy only gets better and better (unlikely in my view, but let's pretend it does), will be able to credibly lay claim to the credit for that. However, I see the seeds of the next financial catastrophe being planted now, and it looks a lot like 2008. When the housing bubble will burst again is anyone's guess, but it will, eventually, and Trump will have to take at least part of the blame for failing to address systemic and regulatory issues allowing it to happen.

[Meta77]

1 hour ago, Patticus said:

Long-term economic trends. While Trump's policies are by now having an effect, let's not forget the tattered economy Obama inherited, and the fact that by the end of his tenure, the economy was already doing quite well, having undergone a record breaking (IIRC?) job creation streak. Let's also not forget that the GOP, during his term, worked against the economy, hampering its recovery, and now that they're in power, all their talk of fiscal responsibility has been conveniently forgotten, with the deficit on track to doubling thanks to them.

In short, from an economic perspective in 2018, it wouldn't matter all that much who won in 2016, because all of them would have inherited a recovering economy, and be it a Bush, Cruz, Sanders or Clinton administration, the economy would look roughly the same today.

Now, the further out you go from 2016, the more the different possible economies of Bush, Clinton et al diverge, and the more those presidents can claim credit for that. Trump, likewise, if he wins a second term, and his economy only gets better and better (unlikely in my view, but let's pretend it does), will be able to credibly lay claim to the credit for that. However, I see the seeds of the next financial catastrophe being planted now, and it looks a lot like 2008. When the housing bubble will burst again is anyone's guess, but it will, eventually, and Trump will have to take at least part of the blame for failing to address systemic and regulatory issues allowing it to happen.

What makes you say there will be another catastrophe in the market?

[Tani Coyote]

20 hours ago, Myst said:

Stuff like this is why Trump is getting my vote in 2020. 

And I assume he will lose your vote if it goes down horribly...?

Either way, I'm going to love if the economy crashes in the next 2 years and he's blasting "KAG" from all his rallies.

Or how any crash will be blamed on Democrats even though for the most part growth and contraction are independent of what the party in power is up to.

5 hours ago, Meta77 said:

I heard someone on a radio show call in to say that some thing. Granted ytimp had the mouth of a 5 year old on xbox live but yo day he inherited a good economy. Obama was in 8 years and never once have I've seen stocks do so well.

You must not have paid very good attention. Look at the trend. While it looks like the slope has inclined upward a little since Trump took office, it's not like he's some miracle worker.

5 hours ago, Meta77 said:

Should they not. When nurses makes 15 a hour and a McDonalds worker wants min set to that than the nurses wage should be raised.

The point of a minimum wage is to flatten inequality, not grow it.

Now you may ask "but if a nurse makes the same as a McDonald's employee, where's the incentive to become a nurse?!" and I think this is where it's key to remember there are incentives to work besides raw pay.

Let's think about the gender gap for a moment. There's actually a contributing factor that isn't related to discrimination on the part of employers: women will often take lower-paying jobs because the job sounds more appealing (admittedly, this is rooted in a gendered family structure that guides them towards lower paid care work but let's not miss the point here). A person with a math degree can aim for a six digit job... or go and become a schoolteacher. There are costs and benefits to work besides the paycheck.

In America in particular, people tend to follow what they're interested in for careers, not the paycheck. This is why we have so many Liberal Arts majors. We're not going to see a deficit of nurses, teachers, or other professionals just because people flipping burgers and cleaning bathrooms are making enough to pay their rent.

5 hours ago, Meta77 said:

At least thats what they teach in grade school atm

If that was true (which I'm pretty sure it isn't), that would be wrong.

Higher wages do not necessarily equate to higher prices, because CEOs are not automatons who make calculations like that. A lot of CEOs are content to absorb the wage increase or extract more productivity from workers to compensate. It's nice to think of CEOs as mavericks who are making their every move planning huge profits but a lot of them just want the emotional benefits of being their own boss. People go with the defaults. If the default is a higher wage, many will be happy to pay it.

Here, let me speak as a guy who has run a company for 5 years: I don't magically increase my prices when my costs go up. When I raise my prices, it's typically because competition has dried up, my item is selling fast, and I realize I can squeeze more out of my customers. When my costs have gone up, I've typically just absorbed them, because competition has forced me to keep the...

Ah, competition.

And that's why the minimum wage will not magically soar prices. Because for that to happen, all companies need to be price fixing (which is illegal).

It's rather interesting how free marketeers lose their faith in free markets' ability to keep prices low the moment employers are asked to pay their people wages that aren't shit.

1 hour ago, Meta77 said:

What makes you say there will be another catastrophe in the market?

Presumably the cycles. More or less, there's a contraction every 10 years or so.

[Patticus]

2 hours ago, Meta77 said:

What makes you say there will be another catastrophe in the market?

For one, the boom and bust nature of the economy makes another recession more or less inevitable. I remember when Gordon Brown, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Tony Blair years, declared Boom & Bust to have died. It seemed like the good times would never end, but boy howdy, did they ever...

It doesn't have to be another huge crash, but the issues that caused the last one either haven't been fixed, or they're in the process of being undone (see: Dodd Frank). I work in the automotive sector, so I overhear conversations about auto finance stuff from time to time - and I've noticed that the term "subprime" comes up in conversation regularly. If you recall from '08, it was the Subprime Mortgage Crisis that burst the housing bubble (IIRC anyway). Now, cars and houses are very different beasts, but they're two of the most expensive things an average citizen can buy, and the auto industry suffered dearly in the Great Recession. Hearing the term subprime a lot indicates to me in a real world setting in my own life that those same forces that created the last crisis are still in play.

And then there was this recent CNN article. It bears reading, so please don't dismiss it just because it's CNN.

Quote

Housing and rates are worrying some economists that a recession is looming.

"One of the biggest concerns is the housing market," said Lindsey Piegza, chief economist for Stifel, on CNNMoney's "Markets Now" live show Wednesday. "It's throwing up a very large red flag and suggests maybe this 4% growth we saw in the second quarter is not sustainable."

Home sales have declined in four of the past five months as housing prices have grown -- but paychecks have remained stagnant. Many people can't afford to buy homes, and those who can are taking on a lot of debt to get into them.

Piegza says that echoes what happened right before the Great Recession in 2008.

"We're not there yet, but this is what led us to the housing crash," she said.

How could this happen again? Piegza believes that a decade of rock-bottom interest rates helped people forget about the dangers of borrowing too much.

"I don't know if we learned our lesson from the Great Recession," she said. "We are going back to a lot of the easy lending that we used to see."

Although Piegza said a recession isn't necessarily imminent -- especially after quarterly growth just came in at the fastest pace in almost four years -- there are signs of waning momentum in the economy.

Interest rates, for example, are starting to become a bad omen.

The Federal Reserve, which is finishing up its two-day meeting Wednesday, is expected to raise its target rate two more times this year. Higher rates have boosted short-term US Treasury bond rates. But the longer-term bond rates haven't risen along with the shorter-term rates, because investors are growing wary about the economy over the long haul.

With two more interest rate hikes planned, the Fed could boost short-term rates higher than long-term ones, inverting the so-called yield curve. An inverted yield curve has preceded every recession in modern history.

"We could easily be there by the end of the year," Piegza said. "I think we'll see pressure on the longer end by the end of the year, but the Fed will still be raising rates on the short end."

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has said that he is not concerned about an inverted yield curve. Piegza strongly disagrees.

"It is a predictive measure of a recession," she said.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/01/investing/markets-now-lindsey-piegza/index.html

It could be some years before another such crash, but the warning signs are all there. There's a lot of time left to avert disaster, but Donald "Can't Get A Loan From US Banks" Trump doesn't strike me as a financially capable person on a good day, so I don't trust him to take the kind of action required to prevent another 2008.

[Tani Coyote]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/404423-first-post-primary-poll-shows-gillum-leading-desantis-by-5-in-florida

Despite running on a platform of Medicare for all, abolition of ICE, and not having seen early support in the primaries (though he won in a major upset victory for progressives), Democratic candidate for Governor of Florida Andrew Gillum looks to be a serious contender for the office. He leads his very pro-Trump opponent by five points in the first poll, and he absolutely destroys DeSantis in polls among independents.

The race is still too close, but this is very heartening news for anyone who had eyes on Florida given its central place in determining the future of the House and Electoral College. If Gillum has long coattails, it is probably the amendment to restore voting rights to over a million Floridians will pass as well, which would likely push the state into the Democratic Party's grasp for many elections to come. And if that happens, we are sure to see a lot of the GOP suddenly be very in favor of replacing the Electoral College with a popular vote.

It is unlikely for the state legislature to flip Dem as well, but it may be possible to work out some compromise to expand Medicaid. If Florida expands Medicaid, Obamacare repeal talk is going to become increasingly a bad idea.