What Means That Trump?

Give the devil his due: I thought ‘Trumpen Proletariat’ was pretty funny.

An aside to the sword business is ISIS is carrying American rifles in so many photos.

“They have a saying in Ãœberwald: “If you don’t want the monster, don’t pull the lever.”” – Terry Pratchett, Making Money.

NR has been pulling that lever for decades. Now they get The Monster.

The monster isn’t Trump. The monster is the electorate they instructed to crave exactly what Trump is selling. “Hey, we didn’t want politicians saying that stuff out loud, they’re supposed to dog whistle it!” the NR dog whistles at it’s baying mob, who’ve slowly become addicted to 13o db level Trump Talk.

Mebbe they shouldn’t have canned The Derb. The Derb coulda bridged the gap with the Trump folks and made nice.

Muhammad Ali gave us “Rope a Dope”. How about “Thump a Trump” or “Dump a Trump”?

You have to go with the rifles you have, not with the rifles you wish you had.

@10 Trump will supply a never-ending supply of comedy gold. The best thing about Trump is that he’s sucked all the oxygen out of the campaigns of just about everyone, except Ben Carson, who is the sane one in this duo. I still remember being stung watching that clip you thoughtfully posted a few weeks back. Relying on TPM for information about GOP candidates is like relying on Sarah Palin for geography lessons. Trumps position on July 30 was pretty much the same as it is now, although that doesn’t means sensible, doable, or sane – just more or less the same. For Trump in July, undocumented immigrants 11 million or so, had to go. That’s still the case, I believe. What Trump calls ‘the good ones’ can come back in, and stay.

Krugman attacks Trump’s implied racism, and there’s no question Trump is dog-whistling for all he’s worth (which is a lot of dog-whistling). Two points: it’s not going to stop, and a substantial number of Hispanics and blacks are on the same page. Juan Williams is figures that BLM might be enough to win Trump enough black votes to win. My guess is Dr. Marshall will have Trump and the KKK side to side for the next 12 months, or longer! I blame Trig.

Meanwhile, the British government is explaining the need to drone strike its citizens.

BREAKING: new scribbled note from William Shakespeare, in margin of a draft copy of “McBeth”

“Badgers? BADGERS? I don’t need no stinking BADGERS!”

Our culture owes Shakespeare so very, very much.

Re: “Trumpen-proletariat”

I take the currency and understandability of this pun at NRO as evidence that movement conservativism is, as had often been alleged, nothing more than Marxism turned on its head and revolutionary Bolshevism for the bourgeoise. Alas… the only other people who will get their joke are all leftists.

“Donald Trump launched his presidential bid with a xenophobic bang, but now that the Summer of Trump is turning into fall, it looks like Trump is trying to turn over a new leaf.”

Speaking of plagiarism, what’s the bet that TPM’s “now that the summer of A is turning into fall, A is trying to turn over a new leaf” has been used about ten billion times in one form or another?

Goldberg really is pissed, and perhaps that explains why his writing is livelier than Marshall’s, who is a predictable snore.

I am a conservative and I agree. It is sad. On the other hand the Democratic Party just adopted a national 15 dollar an hour minimum wage policy.

So on the one hand we have a party filled with immigrant phobic ninnies, obsessed with false postures of strength, with an insane belief that deficit Financed tax cuts for Millionaire’s make you poop gold.

And on the other hand you we have a party whose slogans should be these policies destroyed Puerto Rico now let’s apply them to all of the US.

But hardy har har suck on Trump conservative losers!

I’m sorta bugged that Trump has totally messed up my certainty that Bush was the inevitable candidate, being the candidate of the GOP establishment, who always wins. Except not always. They couldn’t block Goldwater, or, was it Wendell Wilkie?
However, I’m sticking by the forecast that no matter the GOP candidate, the election goes to the Dem -presumably Hilary Clinton. It seems that the pattern in the US is schizophrenic but understandable. The Democratic party loses in the states and local elections, partly because they simply don’t have a very good ground game, and partly because the old White Republic electorate is more heavily represented in these elections. But the national turns out a much deeper and more numerous crowd, and the Dem candidate will always overwhelm the White Republic crowd.
So, in a sense, the GOP candidate for president is a side show. Given that, the most gloriously funny thing so far is not Trump, but how much of a dud Jeb Bush is turning out to be. Trump is picking on him – which is actually the way to run against a Bush. It turns out they are very victimizable. What the establishment didn’t expect was how dumb, unprepared, and uncharismatic the Jeb has turned out to be. Unlike George, who projected a likeability (I could see it, although I couldn’t feel it), Jeb just projects awkwardness and cluelessness. When he jokes about how if anybody insults his dad, that person will have to deal with him, as he did at the debate, it just makes most people realize that George H.W., who is 9000000 years old, could still ward off an attacker better than his son. The NYT political reporters are valiantly trying to raise Jeb Bush’s political corpse by composing thought piece about how he is, oh God, a real compassionate conservative. But I am figuring the establishment might have to reboot. How bout that nice Rubio kid?

Goldberg, invoking the words of a great Republican statesman in an effort to draw the starkest possible contrast to Trump:

“Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

Who in the Republican Party is more the heir of Ronald Reagan than Donald Trump? Reagan was ahead of his time, and so is Trump. But in Reagan’s day, you could pick a better Republican leader out of a hat. Is there someone out there who is prepared to argue that Jeb! is a more serious-minded individual than Trump, or would make a better president?

Chris’s link in 2 offers a very common international comparison that I think is misguided:

The Trumpists are our equivalent of Britain’s U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) and France’s National Front, both anti-immigrant, nationalist parties.

In fact, the Republican Party is the equivalent of UKIP. The author errs in setting up a comparison that puts “anti-immigrant, nationalist parties” on one side and “the Republican Party” on the other.

Ms. Allen says this, apparently intending to be taken seriously:

If the Republicans can hang on to the convictions that make them the party of Lincoln, we ought to see the party split.

Sorry, but that ship has sailed. The party didn’t split.

The Final Trump

Shakespeare is for wusses, people not nearly as far gone down the rabbit hole as we have gotten to in US politics.

You have to go Full Monty apocalypsis to understand the Final Trump.

Plume,

A too high minimum wage, fair trade policies like the Jones act, a wildly expansive civil service hiring spree, expansive entitlement payments, combined with the business cycle down turn have destroyed Puerto Rico.

A 15 dollar minimum wage is too high for NYC. It would completely eliminate the formal service economy in places like WV and MI.

Basically we just need to implement Sander’s policies and wait. Unless some one repealed the business cycle when I wasn’t looking it will only be a matter of time.

Deficit financed tax cuts for Millionaire’s will not make you poop gold and a minimum wage will not make money grow on trees.

someguy88: http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Consider-The-Source-Minimum-Wage.pdf

They couldn’t block Goldwater, or, was it Wendell Wilkie?

If Trump actually somehow wins the GOP nomination, we will probably hear a lot about Willkie. He was the only major party nominee in any election thus far who had no electoral or military experience, having instead been a businessman (like Trump!). He was also a former Democrat who had only recently changed his party affiliation, and still supported some New Deal programs. However, the similarities with Trump seem to end there, as Willkie’s dark horse nomination had everything to do with the crisis in Europe and Republicans’ reluctance to nominate an isolationist in such circumstances.

“[Wilkie] was the only major party nominee in any election thus far who had no electoral or military experience, having instead been a businessman”

Hoover had no such experience. He was an engineer and businessman. He did serve as Secretary of Commerce from 1921 to 1928.

Taft also had no electoral or military experience. He did have extensive government service, including Secretary of War, Governor-General of the Philippines and of Cuba, Solicitor General, and judge on a federal appeals court.

JimV,

So a 12 year 15% increase in the minimum wage resulted in 9% less employment and mass emigration that kept it from being worse. A 100% increase without an open border to a nation that is far richer and

JimV,

So a 12 year 15% increase in the minimum wage resulted in 9% less employment and mass emigration that kept it from being worse. A 100% increase without an open border to a nation that is far richer and 100 time more populous will get us what?

We have meet the demagogues and they are us.

Bloix and ccc,

We are all 100% sure a relationship exists between the minimum wage and employment. If no relationship exists why not set the minimum wage at $60 an hour so we can all be rich?

At the margins with small increases we really have a hard time quantifying what the relationship is. 9 0r 10 dollars is 50% less than the proposed increase, When it was 9 an hour, well eh, not a good idea, bad in parts of the nations, but the exact overall implications are not 100% clear, so whatever.

At 15 an hour the loons are clearly running the show. I would love to see the reaction if the CBO were ever to score it.

#42 – “We are all 100% sure a relationship exists between the minimum wage and employment.”

Yes, but we are not sure that the relationship is linear, or even that it has a negative slope over the full range of possible values. There may be long sections in which the slope is zero, and this may change over time as conditions change. At the very low end the slope may even be positive in some circumstances, because putting small additional amounts of money into the hands of poor working people immediately increases their spending and creates demand. This effect may be greater than the decision of some employers to discharge or not hire workers due to increased wage costs.

“At 15 an hour the loons are clearly running the show.”

The minimum wage in Australia is the equivalent of US$15.58/hr. I don’t think you can argue that Australian workers are that much more productive than US workers.

I think my number is slightly out of date.

Nevertheless, the point stands that there is nothing crazy about a $US15/hr minimum wage for a modern economy. Many countries are within the margin of error inherent in currency conversions.

John Quiggin @48
A $15/hr minimum will not solve the real problem. The very wealthy are taking up an increasing share of the economy, and a $15/hr minimum will merely redistribute the scraps.

I had totally forgotten about Pajama Boy! I got him confused with Pajamas Media!

It’s not their third yachts or actual, capitalizing, investments that need to be taken away from the owners, it’s their excess wealth that they pour into pyramid schemes that needs to be taken from them before the bubbles overinflate and burst, raining destruction down on a real economy that should have that excess wealth recycled into generating more demand, rather than continuing to inflate bubbles.

Oh, I’d periodically take away most of that excess wealth that goes into productive investments too — steep inheritance taxes, if nothing else. Someone with $50 million doesn’t eat a thousand times better than me but he has 1000x more economic power. Someone with $50 billion doesn’t eat a million times better than me but he has 1000000x as much economic power as I do. That’s the big difference between millionaires and billionaires — power — not that billionaires can buy better monocle polish.

Fortunately for the billionaires, who would otherwise be an endangered species even in a stunted democracy like the USA, most people exhibit severe scope insensitivity to wealth. Joe envies/resents a guy with income of $80,000 a year while he’s making $40k at a job that’s no easier. The feeling of unfairness doubles when he contemplates millionaires and doubles again for billionaires. The billionaire’s planetary-scale power is resented a full eight times as much as a good enough income to barely make it into the upper middle class. How many anesthesiologists or university presidents does it take to equal the power of Paul Elliott Singer? Hmm, I’m going to guess about 12. *Shakes fist at the teacher’s unions and tort lawyers who have hijacked the country*

someguy88 up a ways: Australia (my home) has a minimum wage somewhere round $A17 ph (with an additional 25% loading for casuals). I can’t be bothered working out what this is in your money, but it probably has about the same buying power as $US15.

The last time I looked, my country hadn’t burst into flames, so I’m calling bullshit on your death-and-destruction assertions.

Brett Bellmore #30: “Good lord. Like or loath him, you’d have to be utterly oblivious, and probably willfully so, to have thought in the first place that his complaint wasn’t illegal immigration.”

Trump advocates: 1. increased amount of police activity, and 2. a hardening of police tactics to deal with criminal problems, across the board. He’s won the approval of white supremacists and currently has a majority of Latinos polling against him. So it may be a long while before most Latinos will agree, with you, that they have been “utterly oblivious”. In the mean time, Trump’s policy to “round-up and deport” will be sending police to rifle through their legal lives, and to chase after their friends.

Another super-successful plain-speaking man, yesterday:

“You want everybody educated to their potential. You want people to reach their potential. That still won’t work for some people in a highly developed market system.

I mean if this were a sports-based system, you could give me a PhD in football, and I could practice eight hours a day, and I might be able to carry the water from, not onto the field, but from the locker room to the bench. There’s just some people don’t fit well into a highly skilled market-based economy.

They’re perfectly decent citizens. We’ll send them off to Afghanistan, but they are not going to command a big price.”

– Interview with Warren Buffett on Sept. 8 on Bloomberg TV

Buffett for president!

So, no, Australia does not have a minimum wage of 15 or 17 dollars an hour. After adjusting for PPP Australia has a minimum wage of 12 dollars an hour. Which is quite a bit less than 15.

Yes macro and other conditions are critical. That is kind of the point. Compare the 1960s to today. In the 60s China was having fun with the cultural revolution. Today it is the largest manufacturer in the world.

They are also critical when you compare Australia to the US. Australia is small country enjoying a massive commodities boom. The US is not.

I do not want any heads to explode but culture also matters. A lot. Australia and the US have different cultures and different populations.

The important point is that any level of output a 15 dollar minimum wage in the US will lower employment. Quite a bit. In places like WV and MI it will have even more impact. If the CBO ever scores it, I will probably, go with roughly whatever numbers they give. What about you?

No amount of wishful thinking will change that unfortunate truth. In the very best case scenario we know a relationship between employment and a minimum wage exists, we do not know exactly what it looks like, but we do know that at some minimum wage level we will increase unemployment a lot. Do we set our minimum wage 25% higher than Australia’s , a country 1/17 our size enjoying a massive commodity boom, outlier minimum?

Your very shallow priors, these priors are not philosophical or ideological based, they are hand me down cheap suit of shallow affections that serve as a faux identity statement, matter far more to you than reason or any possible public policy outcomes.

Thus Trump and a 15 dollar minimum wage. (I will admit that 15 minimum wage is a much more flattering false posture. A Trump vote. Ick.)

@39:

“Productivity per worker has tripled or quadrupled since the 197o’s, but wages are lower now than they were then.”

No, U.S. productivity has grown by about 75% since 1973, real wages by about 9%.

#63 – correction – productivity per worker has quadrupled since 1947. It’s more or less doubled since the early 1970’s.

http://houseofdebt.org/2014/03/18/the-most-important-economic-chart.html

In 1947, the minimum wage was 40 cents an hour, or $4.28 in 2015 dollars. Given the increases in productivity, we should be able to pay minimum wage workers $17/hour. Not that we’re going to. But $12/hr should be an easy reach.

@ 66:

The source is from the recent Economic Policy Institute study, which is likely what Krugman referenced:

http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

Second chart.

Per capita U.S. GDP grew during the same period by about 95%, the difference from productivity growth being likely due to the increase in the employment to population ratio, especially due to more women entering the work force. So not only have wages been relatively static, but more job hours have been extracted. Interpret those facts as you will. (FRED would be a better source likely than BLS, but I couldn’t find how to do a narrow search there; 450 irrelevant charts to my search term were too much time to waste).

I think Trump would be a less-bad President than every other declared candidate, except Bernie Sanders and, maybe, Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina (who has as much chance of becoming President as Carly Simon).

The difference between 12 and 15, on which someguy88 is now relying pretty heavily, is entirely made up by the 25 per cent loading for casuals mentioned by David Irving mentioned at 58, which compensates for things like the lack of annual leave and sick pay, conditions hardly any US minimum wage workers enjoy.

And, wrt someguys argument at 69, my son worked as a pizza delivery driver a few years back and got more than minimum wage as well as tips, though he had to use his own car. In general, plenty of service workers get more than minimum wage, especially because they get time-and-a-half on Saturdays and double time on Sundays. Despite these crushing burdens, we still manage to buy pizza here, eat out and generally defy the laws of economics on a daily basis.

@70 Great question! Unlike Clinton and the endless stream of lawyers, most readers here can’t begin to compare their own wonderful accomplishments with those of anybody who’s made 10 million dollars, 100 million dollars, much less Trump money. So, where exactly do the lawyers and academics do better than Trump. I’m absolutely able to comment on select limited number of topics. But what Trump did right and wrong on the way to building a fortune very few others can match is well beyond my commentary.

As for Clinton H.R., the last Democrat I could imagine supporting after shooting myself in the face as an Edwards supporter, check out the list of questions compiled for Her Majesty regarding her totally above board use of email, remembering that federal employees not named Clinton are prosecuted for any one of the offenses on this list:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/62195/sorry-what-hillary?mref=home

Totally believable!! At least Trump doesn’t pretend to be ‘one of us.’

@75 I fear you’re missing the point. Few here (I hope!) are suffering financially. You’re rush to categorize the wealthy, and the very wealthy, as those who ‘worship money and baubles’ seems churlish. Bill Gates and his wife certainly don’t strike me as such. Not that I’d know. I’m saying that it might be better to hold off judging Trump until we see what he actually plans to do. Perot’s bizarre business practices hinted at what his policies might be like. We simply don’t know what Trump actually wants to do besides ‘make America great again.’ I think Trump is quite wrong to claim that the government is run by imbeciles and rogues in the pocket of special interests, and then I think – wait a minute, actually I do think the government is run by imbeciles and rogues in the pocket of special interests. Then I listen to HRC, any of the GOP clowns, and think: Sanders or Trump. Flip a coin and save all the fuss.

Two things here, let’s take em one at a time:

1. “…use of hyperbole, and keep yourself in a position to walk away happy…” — ?

Problem is, there’s a huge gulf between the first part of this (happy hyperbole) and the second part (picking advisors). It’s called “getting elected.” He can’t hide his cards, as he can in dealmaking. He can’t go on for another whole year, simply promising a strong personality to get everybody’s hands out of the Washington cookie-jar. To get elected, he needs votes, and, once we move beyond the 30% of the population that defines the category of “knucklehead”, we find all people who need to know where he stands on the issues.

Well, we know where he stands on immigration (maybe)! But, consider that on most issues, nobody really knows where Trump stands, yet.

When it gets into the stratospheres of economic policy and foreign policy, where does he stand? He’s a complete cipher, a zero. Does he support increasing interest rates, or another round of QE to prop-up his bankster friends? Is he going to increase taxes on the wealthy, or let them escape again? (Kevin Drum noted that Trump is moving towards “escape”.) Is Trump now going to support the Iran deal, (another change he appears to be making), but just “enforce it better”, uh huh?

Is he in favor of a single-payer health system? He was in favor of it before: why should conservatives believe he isn’t, now? Is he Romney on steroids?

Is he going to push the Overton window to the left, or retreat rightward? Is he a Democrat or a Republican?

In other words, Trump’s still got to finesse about 10 tons of political crap that other politicians have ALREADY thought through, while he simultaneously sells his “can-do” personality in some new, more charming version which doesn’t threaten to provide us with a future of sexist sneers and bloodthirsty chatter, coming daily out of the Oval Office.

He cannot keep saying, “I will hyperbolize, and get advisors/subcontractors who can do it.” The timing is wrong: There is still a year to bluster through, until the election. He’s got to start stating policy — and after that, he’s got to smooth the ruffled feathers.

And then, he will FINALLY sound like every other politician.

And THERE’S his real problem: he is going to have to explain his coming rhetorical transition: Why do we believe him, once he has moved on, to sounding like every other politician?

So he is only going to sound worse.

One reason that experienced US politicians ALREADY sound the way they do (in addition to kissing plutocratic ass) is because they have already thought through this logical train of necessary rhetorical styles. But Trump has now unwittingly set himself up, to go through the logic visibly, while in the course of a major campaign. He doesn’t have to kiss plutocratic ass, it’s true, but it hardly matters: he still can’t avoid taking stands on policy and providing the details.

As soon as he starts doing so, his flanks will be wide open for attack. And first the attacks will come from his fellow Republican candidates, who need to chop away his base. His only defense will be his can-do managerial style, which will begin to fatigue even the Reagan idolators in the base audience.

Make America a Great Reality Show Again!

2. “who President Trump would pick for his advisors/’subcontractors'” — ?

Hoo boy, then there’s this question of “picking advisors”. I predict: As soon as his campaign starts naming names, we will see that they are going to be the SAME people who now run Washington, D.C.

Why? Because they are the only ones who know how it works. What’s Trump going to do? Pick people who AREN’T part of the network? How in hell will anything get done? Public floggings?

A good example of this was Arnold Schwarzenegger for California governor. Of course, 1. Schwarzenegger is a noted liberal on social issues, and so many Californians just fell back asleep; and 2. that was a very short campaign season. BUT it was “can-do-ism” that worked its magic upon those who voted for Schwarzenegger: They thought, in a rather similar manner to Trump’s supporters, that a financially successful movie star/real estate businessman MUST be able to ride in on a big horse, and fix things. (Well, he rode a horse through a shopping mall in “True Lies”, so of course it’s a horse, of course, of course.) And — of course — Schwarzenegger immediately rehired Gray Davis’ chief of staff.

Just as Trump must rehire people in D.C. Because there’s NOBODY ELSE who knows how to run the place.

3. If, and only if, Trump can navigate these big policy & perception problems, THEN he’s likely to face Hillary. Who isn’t a slimy sexist who makes young parents cringe and quickly shut off the TV when his face shows up.

@ 78 You may well be right. Which is why I stuck the Caron/Carson link in. Carson is everything Trump isn’t. Still, even with your very sound post the hinge upon which the entire argument turns is whether people who have seen real wages stagnate, the rich get richer, and everything generally turn to shit in the short term – outlook gloomy, can be convinced that another 4/8 years of more of the same is what people really want. It sure as shit isn’t what I want, although I’m not sure I want Sanders/Trump/ or Carson. I know is 07 I wanted anybody but O simply because I cannot support anyone who makes Dubya seem like a portrait of intellectual vigor and integrity. Two autobiographies and not much else is, I confess, grounds for immediate dismissal. I don’t care how smart Cruz actually is and apparently, like Hillary, he’s got brains out the wazoo. Don’t want either of them.

Trump has adopted enough common sense positions in the past to win a seat at the table. He’s going to win a absolute ton of negative press like few have seen before, but that may actually get him through all the ‘investigations’ of his policies but the same gang of a-holes who claim to have vetted Edwards, Weiner, O, and the rest. David Brooks? Yglesias? TPM and Instapundit accurately parrot the memes of the day and not much else.

I think the dark horse is Biden. He’s a reassuring (to some) grandpa who’s got the sympathy vote tied up. Course, you’d have to overlook his appalling record, but that’s precisely what HRC expects everyone to do. Fun times!

Kidneystones,

It’s no “accomplishment” at all to make millions, or billions. All it takes it ruthless self-interest, and the ability to work the system already set up to legalize theft. In fact, anyone who makes millions in business can only do so through theft. There is no other possible way.

They make their money by NOT paying the very workers who make their fortunes possible. They make their own fortunes by “taxing” wages to a degree no government can match. The more unpaid labor they can squeeze out of their workforce, the bigger their fortunes grow.

That’s not an “accomplishment,” unless you see legalized theft in that way.

Kidneystones #80: “…whether people who have seen real wages stagnate, the rich get richer, and everything generally turn to shit in the short term – outlook gloomy, can be convinced that another 4/8 years of more of the same is what people really want. It sure as shit isn’t what I want…”

Well this gets into the real political-economic situation, instead of the purely political-campaign discussion of Drum’s comment on Goldberg, and of Trump’s reckoning with the GOP voters and the GOP establishment.

Staying on the campaign politics, many people (particularly youngsters and extremists) are easily tricked into thinking that the next person, white hat riding on horse, is the one who can fix it. The question is, how discontent will the voters be?

Right now, the answer to that question gives a mixed prognostication — and a lot can still happen in a year. Household balance sheets are mostly repaired; consumer confidence has been trending upwards, with hitches. A recession in China may hit US exporters and threaten another financial crash, but on the other hand, a stronger dollar is going to make imports even cheaper to US consumers. Basically (barring Jeb Bush’s new budget proposal), the US is still lookin’ good for the next 20 years, compared to the rest. Thus, in a year from now, voters (on the whole) may be feeling a little better, not worse.

I think Obama is one of the smarter presidents, but as to the perceptions thereof, we can say with certainty that Obama’s job approval has been approximately 50-50 since 2010 (right now there’s a 5-point spread, against) — and that is in the face of an unprecedented daily propaganda bombardment against Obamacare and now, against the Iran deal. Most people haven’t changed their positions on who caused the financial crash and recession (i.e. George W. Bush), and half the people appear to think that Obama did okay considering the astonishing financial mess he walked into, and considering the truly unprecedented opposition from the Republicans in Congress, who set out explicitly to destroy his presidency.

On the other hand, on the real political-economic situation? I would say for myself that I don’t think anyone can change the situation (just yet). So I will, as usual, vote for whomever does better to alleviate the plight of the poorest among us all, and does so with a minimum of the free-market, tough-love fantasizing that appears even to animate some of the other commenters above.

More kidneystones:

“Trump has adopted enough common sense positions in the past to win a seat at the table. ”

On the contrary, he just took the seat, though I would say it was a megaphone, not a seat. It was there for the taking, so long as one has the funding. If you think he won it, from whom did he win it, and with which ‘common sense positions’?

I just spent the last couple of hours watching Lena Wertuller. The whores are fighting the anarchists right now whilst the fascists march in the street, even as I tap.

Colbert opened his ‘comedy’ routine with a photo of Trump and the KKK. The major news media seems to have elided any mention of Sanders as a ‘socialist’ politician. I’m loving every minute of a it and wouldn’t change a thing.

Comedy gold, we’re living it!

“Your math is off by an order of magnitude. His inheritance was valued at 70-80 million (I’ve seen higher and lower) in 1999. His networth is 7-8 billion (though a lot of this is BS, both higher and lower, as valuing the future revenue streams of his brand is not easy/accurate/relevant).”

That doesn’t seem to be the case.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/twentysixteen/2015/09/02/1-easy-way-donald-trump-could-have-been-even-richer-doing-nothing

Someguy @89,

There is no reason to raise pizza prices when wages go up. Owners of pizza shops will make far more when people can afford to buy their products.

They make money on volume sales, numbers of units. The more they sell, the more profit they accumulate. And when rank and file wages go up, pizza sales go up.

And who is more likely to buy pizza in the first place? Rich folks or the rank and file?

Beyond all of that, prices are as high as they are because most of the money is concentrated at the very top. This acts as a tax on wages AND the economy, several times over. First, with ownership suppressing wages directly, which suppresses demand. Next, with the concentration of money at the top which also suppresses demand.

One person with a billion dollars will spend a mere fraction as much in this economy as 10,000 people with the same amount to share between them. Working class and middle class folks typically spend all or nearly all of their wages now, here, in our consumerist economic system. The rich? A fraction of their comp. They sit on the rest or ship it overseas. That kills demand, including pizza sales. The rich actually take money OUT of the economy.

Nothing helps the overall economy more than breaking up large fortunes and equalizing wages to the degree possible. This radically increases demand, which will help the rich, too. But as they concentrate money in a few hands, they’re killing their own vehicle for wealth extraction . . . . and this endless process is one of the main reasons why we have recessions and depressions.

UKIP do not, as far as I can see, object to immigration as such

How far exactly do you see?

No one is fooled by Trump, least of all his supporters. Supporting Trump is more in the nature of declaring the whole game, a fraud.

That, though, has been a lure to the Republican base since Reagan. It’s a mistake to think Trump is different, he’s just more.

“No one is fooled by Trump, least of all his supporters.”

I’m curious what kind of empirical evidence you base this claim on (include study design, sample size, and key statistics).

I’m curious what kind of empirical evidence you base this claim on (include study design, sample size, and key statistics).

Trick question, right?

Survey research with people who would vote for Michelle Bachman. Fun!

Not a trick question at all. You have admirable insight (or so you claim) into the right wing psyche and I would like a piece of that.

@89
ProfQ may be too busy having breakfast or whatever to respond right now, so I’m going to jump in and have a go.

If the minimum wage is higher, the price of pizzas might be a little higher, but there are also more people who can afford to buy pizzas.

Didja think of that? I’m not an economist, but even I know that wage slaves are actually not just things to be considered as part of the production chain, but also consumers, or even better, “people”, who buy things.

JQ said: “It’s virtually impossible for us to avoid being well informed about the US (or well mis-informed if we get our news from Murdoch). By contrast, while it’s technically possible for a USA resident to follow Australian news, it’s very difficult to get the necessary background to make sense of it.”

I’m fascinated by this comment. An Australian knows a foreigner will lack the context to understand Australian news, but why does an Australian think he knows well the context of U.S. news? (Or for that matter, European news? Or news about Greece?) I’m not trying to pick on JQ here, but I find this attitude fascinating.

Z, greater exposure does not ensure greater wisdom. The Australian is at the tail end of a communication feed from the US. As JQ himself said, if the communication feed were fox news, then the Australian would be misinformed. So somewhere the Australian has to know that his particular feed provides insight to the context (rather than subtracting from it), but I don’t think you can have that unless you already know the context.

Obviously, I am a skeptic on this, perhaps intolerably.

Brett @109,

Anyone who views CNN as some kind of political opposite to Fox does not see our media as they are in reality.

CNN (Centrist News Network) is basically center-right. Fox is harder right. There are no counterparts to Fox on the left, as far as major TV networks go. And the two major American political parties are quite similar in that way. The Dems are center-right, except for a few “culture war” issues. The GOP is now hard right.

The left in America goes completely without representation in politics — other than third parties — and in the MSM.

Brett @113,

Wrong. And far from the truth. I’m proudly “far left.” I don’t even want to be “in the center.” I see the American center as “extreme” in its love of the status quo, mush, mud, do-nothingism, “dare I eat a peach” cowardice.

But being on that “far left” doesn’t mean I don’t see the whole spectrum. I do. And I see it far better than most. I was raised inside it, inside the American box, and Americans are bombarded with endless messages about that “center,” for that center, from that center. But I went outside box and studied that as well. Studied it and studied it. Most Americans never do. They get the center and that’s it. They think our A to B politics is all there is, that’s it’s actually A to Z. It’s not.

CNN and Fox are both “right wing.” The former is close to the political center. The latter is easily the most brazen party-first, ideology-first media propaganda outlet in the modern age. But they’re both in the political right.

Not every side has a media outlet with anything like Fox’s resources or commitment to the “cause”. One serious problem with the “every side” thesis in the American political media context is that only one side has a funding stream in a system owned and funded by corporate business conglomerates. CNN is just as right-wing as Fox; the differences are stylistic. MSNBC keeps its tame and synthesized “left” on a very short leash, while Joe’s ratings failures never matter. NPR and PBS are completely beholden to corporate sponsors. Koch can keep global warming off Nova for pocket change.

This state of affairs is one of the great failures of the left in the U.S. — the failure to recognize the necessity to build and fund institutions and careers. I would not blame the right for taking care of business — it is what they do.

The linked study makes a lot out of the editorial decision concerning the allocation of time and focus, but does not address ideology, per se. Partisanship in pursuit of an audience seems an adequate explanation. Partisanship is not the same as ideology, but partisanship fits the pro wrestling model.

Trump and Corbyn do represent a common phenomena, but only to a degree. Many who vote right in America are deeply unhappy with the GOP and have been for some time. Many who want to vote left in the UK have been moving away from Labour for some very good reasons for a long time. Chris Bertram’s post on Corbyn is generally very good, as are many of the comments.

Jay Cost in his excellent analysis: Why Has Trump Risen So Far So Fast http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/art-donald_1028492.html# asserts that in January Trump will have no be decimated for adopting so many positions in the past. I disagree, just as I disagree with those who assert that Corbyn’s positions, whether on the IRA, or the number of women on the front bench, are somehow going to ruin him. Corbyn was not ‘picked’ to be leader by a cabal of elites, he was elected by an influx of voters much more concerned with the future than the past. Voters, I strongly suspect, are no longer interested in gotcha type politics. The Guardian right now is running a piece on Corbyn’s failure to establish a press policy, missing the point entirely that Corbyn was elected by people who don’t want to be spun. Corbyn and Trump and Sanders supporters can live with the contradictions: Sanders support for 2nd Amendment rights, for example. Trump supporters couldn’t care less about whether he gave money to HRC, and even when pushed will, I suspect, hold their noses and pull the lever for the guy who can get shit done.

All the mud/crap that the Mail and other media outlets are certain to continue hurling at Corbyn may have the reverse effect of more sharply defining Corbyn in the voter’s minds as the man who is unafraid to appear in shorts. He’s not trying to look smart, or suggest that he has all the answers. Corbyn represents a community of people in Britain who want to put people and community first. This is who Corbyn is and there is absolutely no ambiguity, I suggest, on this key point. Corbyn, like Farage, like Trump, has a message that resonates with an under-represented constituency. I disagree with Chris Bertram, btw, on the ‘Conservatives are rubbing their hands with glee.’ Conservatives are ‘saying’ they’re delighted with Corbyn, but what else are they going to say? Chris is right to point out that Cameron still has to negotiate an EU referendum, if he expects to retain the support of his own party. Corbyn can expect to have mud flung at him every single day. Some will stick, but I strongly suspect that the attacks by a media class most ordinary voters loathe will simply endear Corbyn to his base and very well help Corbyn communicate to a wider audience. Le Monde gave him a very favorable review as the man who allowed Labour to turn the page, finally, on Tony Blair.