Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

So, one way to look at it is, El Tupé has shaken things up no matter if he loses (and we all know he'll lose )  Conservative columnists have observed for months that if the GOP do not distance themselves from the nominee, his stain will linger on their faces.  So san anton' and I may both have occasion to rejoice:  Clinton will be in the White House, and the present nominee will be the death-knell for the Republican establishment.

[Karl Henning]

El Tupé is by a yuuuge margin the more scandalous of the two nominees, BUT CLINTON!!!!

[Madiel]

Well, just after espousing my thoughts on American attitudes towards wealth and the "evils" of redistribution, I came across this quite interesting article from The Atlantic.

"How sociopathic capitalism came to rule the world"

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/11/sociopathic-capitalism/506240/

Very much of a piece with seeing "redistributionism" as evil. It's all about winners and losers - and Trump lets everybody know in very clear terms that this is his way of thinking. He's a winner! He wins! Let's start winning again! Losing is for losers!

[drogulus]

     Kansas is still bleeding, thanks to tea party economics

     Brownback signs spectacularly punitive Kansas welfare bill

     What Brownback has done is give conservative economics a fair chance by cutting taxes on high incomes and raising taxes on low to middle income households. He has shown that regressive taxation slows the economy. What he thought it would show is that supply side taxation creates incentives to create jobs, what it did show is that high income and business tax cuts are disincentives to job creation, especially when combined with tax increases on the majority of the population that spends all or nearly all of its income.

     Businesses create jobs when they must. If you send them tax cut dollars they have less need to create them, and on the other side of the tax balance, where the customers are, the tax burden is raised. Poorer customers and richer businesses is a recipe for job noncreation, a double disincentive.

     

[zamyrabyrd]

That was precisely my point: the US of A were the dedicated pioneers of eugenics as state policy and before Sweden and Nazi Germany (in this order) followed in their steps they were the only "civilized" country that practiced it on a large scale.

With all due respect, the theory of modern eugenics first came from across the pond. It makes for interesting reading:

Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) systematized these ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of his half-cousin Charles Darwin during the 1860s and 1870s. After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton built upon Darwin's ideas whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest;* and only by changing these social policies could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity", a phrase he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common "regression towards the mean".[12]

Galton first sketched out his theory in the 1865 article "Hereditary Talent and Character", then elaborated further in his 1869 book Hereditary Genius.** He began by studying the way in which human intellectual, moral, and personality traits tended to run in families. Galton's basic argument was "genius" and "talent" were hereditary traits in humans (although neither he nor Darwin yet had a working model of this type of heredity). He concluded since one could use artificial selection to exaggerate traits in other animals, one could expect similar results when applying such models to humans. As he wrote in the introduction to Hereditary Genius:

"I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations."

Galton claimed that the less intelligent were more fertile than the more intelligent of his time. Galton did not propose any selection methods; rather, he hoped a solution would be found if social mores changed in a way that encouraged people to see the importance of breeding. He first used the word eugenic in his 1883 Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, a book in which he meant "to touch on various topics more or less connected with that of the cultivation of race, or, as we might call it, with 'eugenic' questions". He included a footnote to the word "eugenic" which read:

"That is, with questions bearing on what is termed in Greek, eugenes namely, good in stock, hereditary endowed with noble qualities. This, and the allied words, eugeneia, etc., are equally applicable to men, brutes, and plants. We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognizance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea; it is at least a neater word and a more generalized one than viriculture which I once ventured to use."

*Pre-Christian societies practiced infanticide (Post-Christian as well, one supposes).  Protection of slaves, women and the weak did not exist.  From the same article: Adolf Hitler considered Sparta to be the first "Völkisch State", and much like Ernst Haeckel before him, praised Sparta for its selective infanticide policy.

**As for "Hereditary Genius", what happened to WA Mozart's progeny, and the children of other brilliant people? This alone is the best case for nurture rather than nature. Intelligent people can be scoundrels as well. Christianity would say the worth of a human being is a God given soul. The inescapable conclusion is that eugenics and religion do not mix AT ALL!!!

[Madiel]

With all due respect, the theory of modern eugenics first came from across the pond. It makes for interesting reading:

Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) systematized these ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of his half-cousin Charles Darwin during the 1860s and 1870s. After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton built upon Darwin's ideas whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest;* and only by changing these social policies could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity", a phrase he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common "regression towards the mean".[12]

Galton first sketched out his theory in the 1865 article "Hereditary Talent and Character", then elaborated further in his 1869 book Hereditary Genius.** He began by studying the way in which human intellectual, moral, and personality traits tended to run in families. Galton's basic argument was "genius" and "talent" were hereditary traits in humans (although neither he nor Darwin yet had a working model of this type of heredity). He concluded since one could use artificial selection to exaggerate traits in other animals, one could expect similar results when applying such models to humans. As he wrote in the introduction to Hereditary Genius:

"I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations."

Galton claimed that the less intelligent were more fertile than the more intelligent of his time. Galton did not propose any selection methods; rather, he hoped a solution would be found if social mores changed in a way that encouraged people to see the importance of breeding. He first used the word eugenic in his 1883 Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, a book in which he meant "to touch on various topics more or less connected with that of the cultivation of race, or, as we might call it, with 'eugenic' questions". He included a footnote to the word "eugenic" which read:

"That is, with questions bearing on what is termed in Greek, eugenes namely, good in stock, hereditary endowed with noble qualities. This, and the allied words, eugeneia, etc., are equally applicable to men, brutes, and plants. We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognizance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea; it is at least a neater word and a more generalized one than viriculture which I once ventured to use."

*Pre-Christian societies practiced infanticide (Post-Christian as well, one supposes).  Protection of slaves, women and the weak did not exist.  From the same article: Adolf Hitler considered Sparta to be the first "Völkisch State", and much like Ernst Haeckel before him, praised Sparta for its selective infanticide policy.

**As for "Hereditary Genius", what happened to WA Mozart's progeny, and the children of other brilliant people? This alone is the best case for nurture rather than nature. Intelligent people can be scoundrels as well. Christianity would say the worth of a human being is a God given soul. The inescapable conclusion is that eugenics and religion do not mix AT ALL!!!

My, but you are good at shifting the goalposts. You went and said that it didn't matter who had the ideas, it mattered who IMPLEMENTED them. Now, when someone points out to you that it was the USA who implemented those ideas, your response is to say "ah, but the ideas came from elsewhere!".

Seriously, make up your mind. Alternatively, try reading your previous posts before contradicting yourself in an attempt to refute others.

[zamyrabyrd]

El Tupé is by a yuuuge margin the more scandalous of the two nominees, BUT CLINTON!!!!

At least DT doesn't have a body count trailing him made up of alleged suicides plus actual rape allegations, that she not only enabled but persecuted the victims.
Whatever the case, what the Clinton Foundation did in Haiti was despicable.
She already has a BAD political record.
She slept through the Benghazi massacre when the detail begging for back up.
She's backed by Saudi Arabia.
There is so much wrong with her record and the fact that she is tied to the rest of the corrupt cabal means she should just disappear into thin air and we would be all better off.
Actions speak much louder than words.

[Madiel]

Okay, after this I'm retiring for the night...

...but I found this truly fascinating. A conversation with someone who found Trump appealing for the reasons that people like sanantonio seem to find Trump appealing: he's an outsider, not part of the political class.

And then a series of very succinct points as to why that someone realised supporting Trump was a bad idea.

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/mark-cuban/

[zamyrabyrd]

My, but you are good at shifting the goalposts. You went and said that it didn't matter who had the ideas, it mattered who IMPLEMENTED them. Now, when someone points out to you that it was the USA who implemented those ideas, your response is to say "ah, but the ideas came from elsewhere!".
Seriously, make up your mind. Alternatively, try reading your previous posts before contradicting yourself in an attempt to refute others.

I didn't contradict myself, my learned friend. I might not have a law degree but I remember what I say.
Like Hillary Clinton, all I said was "What's the difference?"
Those ideas are the bastard children of Western Civ, not from Christianity but further back as I pointed out.

[Madiel]

I didn't contradict myself, my learned friend. I might not have a law degree but I remember what I say.

What you WRITE is visible to all of us.

Goodnight.

[zamyrabyrd]

What you WRITE is visible to all of us.
Goodnight.

You must be tired, mate! I wrote that it is not as important who conjured up those ideas but who implemented them. If it were Sir Whatsis or Mr. Joe Blow, it still doesn't matter.

[San Antone]

So, one way to look at it is, El Tupé has shaken things up no matter if he loses (and we all know he'll lose )  Conservative columnists have observed for months that if the GOP do not distance themselves from the nominee, his stain will linger on their faces.  So san anton' and I may both have occasion to rejoice:  Clinton will be in the White House, and the present nominee will be the death-knell for the Republican establishment.

Bernie Sanders also represents a challenge to the business-as-usual corporate influence on legislation and legislators from the Democratic side.  No matter how much you try to obfuscate the point, Clinton represents the past corrupt practices and Trump and Sanders represent an alternatvie path for the future of both parties.  Hopefully, that is. 

However, like a cornered rabid dog the despicable elements within our political system will fight with unrelenting energy and attempt to visciously protect their hold on power.

Hillary Clinton is their candidate.

[Madiel]

I wrote that it is not as important who conjured up those ideas but who implemented them. If it were Sir Whatsis or Mr. Joe Blow, it still doesn't matter.

You then provided us with a detailed description of Sir Francis Galton's work. Why? So you could waste all of our time a little more? If it doesn't matter, why did you write seven paragraphs?

[Karl Henning]

Here's a flip-side of the coin (in contrast to past claims by the El Tupé campaign that there were many people voting for him, but afraid to own up in public):

Why Won't More Republicans Privately Voting for Clinton Say So in Public?

[San Antone]

Both presidential candidates gave speeches in swing states yesterday, and the contrast was familiar. One delivered a blistering attack on the opposing candidate's personal character and later responded to a heckler's interruption with a furious rant. (Clinton)

The other gave a solid, substantive policy address, prompting a puff piece from the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, who described the candidate as "a disciplined and effective messenger giving a speech that, to my ear, was one of [this candidate's] best." (Trump)

Read the entire article HERE

[zamyrabyrd]

You then provided us with a detailed description of Sir Francis Galton's work. Why? So you could waste all of our time a little more? If it doesn't matter, why did you write seven paragraphs?

Beddy-bye!!! Again, it doesn't matter what countries started implementing eugenics as a government policy. No one is forcing you to read through but it is pertinent in light of its bastard daughter Margaret Sanger (admired by Hillary Clinton) and her so-called Planned Parenthood. Without a knowledge of some history, PP might seem like a benign organization helping women. In fact, its overt and covert policies outpace any health issues. These will clash with any residual morals or restraints. They will prevail because they have the backing of the state. This in itself is a quiet revolution but no less sinister.
Nighty-night!!!

[Florestan]

And American Christianity has somehow managed to turn the Gospel completely on its head so that wealth is a sign of God's blessing and poverty is the result of moral failings.

Blame it on Calvin, actually.

[drogulus]

     Elizabeth Warren is the best we have in the fight against corporate corrupt practices. Her influence among Dems is going to grow with HRC in the WH. Sanders could not have received the level of support he did if Warren had been in the race.

     The 'World's Wrongest Man' at it again – when does credibility evaporate?

     The article isn't just a takedown of Michael Boskin as a prognoticator, it serves as an introduction to the post-Keynesian critique of the 'shrink to grow" economics of supply side taxation and public disinvestment:

The claim is that the capacity of a currency-issuing government to net spend, that is, run fiscal deficits, is dependent on its current fiscal situation (the size and sign of the fiscal balance), and its fiscal history (embodied in its public debt).

That claim is clearly false and with it all the rest of the suppositions that are inferred from it.

The reality is that a currency-issuing government can purchase whatever is for sale in that currency whenever it so chooses, which is not the same thing as saying that it should.

The current public debt ratio and the current and previous fiscal balances (in absolute terms or relative terms) do not constrain or enhance the capacity of such a government to spend its own currency.

Such a government is never in danger of defaulting on any outstanding liabilities which remain in the non-government sector until maturity and presentation for repayment.

Such a government, through its central bank, can buy any debt that the government issues (either directly from the Treasury or indirectly in the secondary markets from the non-government sector), and, if it chooses, can keystroke that debt into oblivion.

Such a government never has to issue debt in the first place.

Such a government does not need to raise taxes in the future to 'pay back the deficit'. The deficit yesterday – an outcome of two flows (spending and taxation) is gone and does not need to be paid back.

There is one qualification that might be made. If a government has been running large deficits to support growth in the past then it might have to introduce discretionary measures to reduce net spending as the economy approaches full employment to avoid invoking an inflationary spiral.

But that point is far removed from the sort of nonsense that claims that past government deficits drain the amount of 'money' the government has to spend in the future.

     There is no candidate that supports this analysis. Warren does not, nor does Sanders.

     Bill Mitchell isn't promulgating a radical theory, he's describing operational realities with falsehoods stripped out. Liberals and conservatives may either believe the falsehoods or not and it's often hard to tell, as evidence for disbelief is fairly strong in times of emergency when operational reality overcomes orthodoxy and the government net spends out of the crisis, until it becomes safe enough to revert to Boskinism.

     

[Madiel]

Beddy-bye!!! Again, it doesn't matter what countries started implementing eugenics as a government policy. No one is forcing you to read through but it is pertinent in light of its bastard daughter Margaret Sanger (admired by Hillary Clinton) and her so-called Planned Parenthood. Without a knowledge of some history, PP might seem like a benign organization helping women. In fact, its overt and covert policies outpace any health issues. These will clash with any residual morals or restraints. They will prevail because they have the backing of the state. This in itself is a quiet revolution but no less sinister.
Nighty-night!!!

You reverse your position again (now implementation doesn't matter, what matters is smearing Clinton), and you continue to be f**king rude while doing it.

[San Antone]

Elizabeth Warren, the Prisoner of 'Powerful Interests'

The choice in this year's presidential election is tying many voters in knots—it's unethical versus unthinkable, as a friend of mine put it. But Massachusetts citizens are facing a decision that's not nearly as difficult. It's a no-brainer: Whether to allow the state's high-performing, immensely popular, mission-driven, public charter schools—now capped at 120 statewide—to replicate and expand. That's the issue in the state's second ballot measure, and the obvious answer is yes.

Yet here we are, less than a week from the election, with Question 2 slated to affect the fates of 30,000 low-income children who desperately want the education that Massachusetts charter schools have to offer, and we observe the new liberal lion of the Senate, Elizabeth Warren, conspicuously siding with its opponents.

"Many charter schools in Massachusetts are producing extraordinary results for our students and we should celebrate the hard work of those teachers and spread what's working to other schools," Sen. Warren noted in a September statement. But then she announced that she's "very concerned about what this specific proposal means for hundreds of thousands of children across our Commonwealth, especially those living in districts with tight budgets where every dime matters. Education is about creating opportunity for all our children, not about leaving many behind."

This despite Ms. Warren's longstanding support for school choice as a means to keep a child's ZIP Code from limiting opportunity.

So what happened? Why did she flip? We might apply the reasoning of Ms. Warren herself. In 2004 she talked to Bill Moyers on TV about the impact of campaign donations on (then-Senator) Hillary Clinton's decision to vote for a major bankruptcy reform bill even though Mrs. Clinton had opposed a similar bill as first lady. Mr. Moyers asked why she thought Sen. Clinton voted for it.

Ms. Warren: "As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It's a well-financed industry. You know a lot of people don't realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals. It was consumer credit products. Those are the people. The credit-card companies have been giving money, and they have influence."

Mr. Moyers: "And Mrs. Clinton was one of them as senator."

Ms. Warren: "She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency."

Mr. Moyers: "But what does this mean, though, to these people, these millions of people out there whom the politicians cavort in front of as favoring the middle class, and then are beholden to the powerful interests that undermine the middle class? What does this say about politics today?"

Ms. Warren: "You know, this is the scary part about democracy today. . . . We're talking again about the impact of money. The credit industry on this bankruptcy bill has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying. . . ."

This raises an obvious question: Does Sen. Warren regard the wealthy teachers unions as her own "constituency?" One that counts more than the middle-class and low-income families who are desperate for the high-quality education that Massachusetts charter schools offer?