Archive for September 2016
Trade deals and the debate
As you know from reading this blog, the real story is that the need for human labor is shrinking, because computerization, automation, and other technological advances are able to create more product with fewer human workers.
There is also the issue of how much stuff we need. More food than we need to eat only makes us fat (and low-cost food explains the so-called “obesity epidemic” a lot more than the ridiculous idea that poor people are fat because they can’t afford to buy “healthy” food). One modern high-definition TV showing the greatest new TV series like Game of Thrones is far better than a dozen CRT TVs from the 1970s showing only the kind of dreck that was on TV in the 1970s.
There is a surplus of labor that is only able to do physical work like working on a farm or in a factory, while only a small number of high-IQ people are needed to create better agricultural technology and new television shows.
Neither Hillary nor Trump addressed this issue. Both, at least publicly, and probably privately as well (because politicians have little imagination), believe in the conventional idea that most people should have a job that is a voluntary contract between a private employer and the employee, with the rest working for the government. While there is disagreement between Republicans and Democrats about the percentage of people who should be working for the government, it’s actually a pretty narrow disagreement.
Additionally, SWPLs believe in the idea that a self-actualizing career is the most important goal in life, and you can’t have a self-actualizing career without the sort of labor market described above (although it’s one with few winners because the number of high-quality self-actualizing jobs is small compared to the total number of jobs).
Within this framework, Trump’s ideas on trade make more sense, because he wants to keep jobs in the United States while the Democrats, as well as other Republicans who hate Trump, support the globalization that is sending such jobs overseas. Economists, who also believe in the sort of labor market described above, furthermore believe that globalization will result in more value created for everyone, and they mock Trump’s zero-sum thinking. But in fact, because the need for human labor is shrinking, Trump’s zero-sum approach to jobs is actually more correct. It’s more correct until we can develop a new economy that’s not based on the type of labor markets described above.
A day after the debate
I agree with the Scott Adams interpretation.
Although the debate was a blown opportunity for Trump to bring up key topics like immigration and show his unflappability in the face of Hillary’s taunting, the debate was not at all a disaster for Trump.
1. Trump did not appear to be a crazy maniac who will start a nuclear war or an Adolf Hitler or the Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan, which is what everyone has been saying about him.
2. The weird condescending smirk that Hillary had on her face for almost the entire debate surely caused people to dislike her more than they already did. It certainly did not look presidential. Margaret Thatcher didn’t do that.
Online opt-in polls vs traditional polls
All of the online voluntary opt-in polls show a big win for Trump, even at sites where you wouldn’t expect the readers to be pro-Trump.
Traditional polls like PPP poll show a big win for Hillary.
What this means is that Trump supporters are more passionate about showing their support on the internet. I don’t think anyone except extreme leftists got excited about Hillary’s debate performance.
map wrote in a comment:
This debate does remind me of the debate between Dick Cheney and John Edwards, not in its similarities, but in its differences. The debate style being taught is to never answer your opponent’s charges or defend against your opponents accusations. You always talk around the points being made to address the audience. This is what Dick Cheney did and he argued rings around John Edwards.
Hillary Clinton was doing the same thing to Donald Trump. That’s why she was so smug and grinning like a Cheshire cat. She really thinks she “got” Donald Trump because he was not prepared like Dick Cheney.
I think that’s pretty good analysis. Trump “lost” because he defended himself instead of ignoring the accusations and talking about other stuff.
Post-debate analysis
This is a tough one for me. Seeing Hillary smirking and lying about Trump’s record makes me get so mad at her, it’s hard for me to evaluate. Of course the talking heads on mainstream media are saying that Trump lost the debate. But it should be noted that Trump is the only one who get applause from the audience, on three occasions.
I don’t think this debate is going to change the polls. Trump was not able to put it away. On the other hand, the average undecided voter with an IQ of 100 is not going to interpret the debate the same way as the Trump-hating news media.
But yes, Lester Hold and Hillary steered to debate to bring up topics like Trump’s taxes, climate change, birtherism, while avoiding any significant talk about Hillary’s emails. Yet it should be noted that one of the applause points of the evening was when Trump said he’d release his taxes when Hillary releases the 33,000 missing emails. And they kept immigration, Trump’s strongest issue, entirely out of the debate.
At the Drudge website, the online poll shows that 90.37% think that Trump won the debate. Of course that reflects the bias of Drudge’s readers
Pre-debate
Monday night’s debate is going to be HUGE. They are expecting a mass audience of 100 million viewers.
Opportunities for Trump:
1. This is Trump’s chance to actually speak directly to voters instead of having the biased media who hates him report on what he’s doing. What the media calls “racist” will sound like common sense to most voters without the liberal news media filter.
2. Hillary could have a health episode during the debate.
Dangers for Trump:
1. Biased moderators who will be out to get him.
2. Hillary has been preparing for this debate a lot more than Trump. She will be prepared with all sorts of traps for him. She will have a greater knowledge of policy and international affairs and will be able to make Trump look stupid and unprepared.
Beta-male rage, not jihad
According to WND: “There are reports the assailant may have known two of the women – possibly an ex-girlfriend and her grandmother.”
Mall shooting
Mass murderer on the loose. Do you think he looks Arabic?
UPDATE
So it turns out that Arcan Cetin is an immigrant from Turkey, an Islamic country. They said he was “Hispanic,” but he’s Middle Eastern so I was a lot more correct here than the police.
However, it looks like the motive may still be beta-male rage and not jihad. A subtlety which will be lost on most people. Another mass killing by a Muslim is a good omen for Trump.
And pictures of him as a fat kid who liked guns, indicating this may be beta-male rage and not jihad.
Ted Cruz endorses Donald Trump
1. Cruz has seen the light with respect to the Supreme Court. As liberal Constitutional Law professor, better known among actual lawyers as the guy who does the BAR/BRI lectures, Erwin Chemerimsky himself said, “if Hillary Clinton is elected president in November, a liberal majority may dominate the court for decades to come.” No True Conservative could vote in such a way to let that happen.
2. Cruz realizes that Trump has a good chance of winning, and it’s to his benefit to be on the winning side.
Black Lives Matter riots in Charlotte
I previously predicted that there wouldn’t be any Black Lives Matters riots before the election because “the elites will keep them on a leash until after the election.” However, it looks like I was wrong about that. I guess that once you let loose the hounds, you lose control of them.
This should help Trump.
Lion of the Blogosphere 