Trump Part 9

[vuk]

matthew.

i didn't mean to belittle the flint story or deny the importance of exposing that whole debacle. of course that needs to be done. what i tried to express, albeit in too much of a hurry, was that, in the context of how "mainstream" news is generally presented, it amounts to little more than a dramatic anecdote in the big scheme of things instead of another big piece of evidence pointing to massive systemic problems. other people, like thomas frank and chris hedges are routinely able to make these broader connections and it's why i find them more interesting as journalists, though the latter can be a bit too literary and preachy at times.


vuk.

 

[vuk]

max.

again, you are infusing your critique with speculations about motives and group actions resulting from a sort of premeditated collusion. none of that is necessary and all it achieves is opening the door for ad hominem criticism. IMO, it is enough point out the statistics, so to speak, or emphasis of coverage, in addition to outright deceptions, whether intentional or not. the particular reasons guiding the actions of journalists, their bosses or those they sell advertizing to may be interesting to speculate about over a drink to two with a friend, but are not at all required to make the case there are big problems or biases in the system. actually, they stand in the way of reaching these conclusions, because these inference of personal misconduct are pretty much impossible to know, let alone prove.

the same can be said of the influence corporate lobbying on "western" politics. focusing on the apparent conflict of interest of this or that representative is like trying to enforce community morality through the gossip of prying housewives. it leads one down the road of thinking that the problem is the occasional case when ethical boundaries are violated or a bad/corrupt apple falls into the political mix, instead of questioning why we allow the lobbying and private campaign financing at all.

as you know, i consider almost everyone to be a fascist or conservative (in the bad sense of that word) when it comes to these things. there is a pervasive bourgeois nostalgia and belief that our democracies and institutions are fundamentally good, correct or inevitable. we don't dare to re-think them. most of us are awful little authoritarians when it comes to evaluating our nations, just like our sports teams/rules or parents.


vuk.

 

[sean99]

there is a pervasive bourgeois nostalgia and belief that our democracies and institutions are fundamentally good, correct or inevitable. we don't dare to re-think them. most of us are awful little authoritarians when it comes to evaluating our nations, just like our sports teams/rules or parents.
vuk.

I'm not sure that's accurate. I think instead most people recognize that our societies are deeply flawed, but over long periods of time tend to be moving in a better direction, and that gradual change is more likely to bring a better long term outcome than sudden disruptive change.

 

[Yank]

And if you don't think Flint is great journalism then, well, I don't know what to say. Again she followed a story that was then not popular and kept at it (and still does) leading to exposure of the people responsible (some of whom are now facing criminal charges) and real help for the actual people affected by the disaster. That's poor, black people not MSNBC watching liberal elites who watch her corporate paymasters adverts.

Her film "Hubris" about the Bush Administration and the events leading up to the Iraq invasion is also excellent.

 

[vuk]

I'm not sure that's accurate. I think instead most people recognize that our societies are deeply flawed, but over long periods of time tend to be moving in a better direction, and that gradual change is more likely to bring a better long term outcome than sudden disruptive change.

sean.

i know i am probably a minority here, but i am not a big fan of looking at historical trends and precedents. to me, this mainly adds bias and confusion, rather than insight. that said, if i play along for a bit, in my lifetime, i have seen society move in a really bad direction of selfishness, economic inequality, cultural frivolity, political corruption and environmental destruction.

that's just me though and i don't know about "most people", as you say. do you mean most people on this forum? most people in iraq? most people in the world?



vuk.

 

[fay spook]

i know i am probably a minority here, but i am not a big fan of looking and historical trends and precedents. to me, this mainly adds bias and confusion, rather than insight. that said, if i play along for a bit, in my lifetime, i have seen society move in a really bad direction of selfishness, economic inequality, cultural frivolity, political corruption and environmental destruction.

But if you did look back into history you will see that most generations share your views of the directions we are heading. Perhaps fewer concerns about environmental destruction. I get some of this from talking to my grandmother when she was alive, she was born in the 1800s (very late 1800s). Have a look backwards and forwards, its a good thing.

 

[vuk]

But if you did look back into history you will see that most generations share your views of the directions we are heading.

can you show me the scientific data for this and tell me how people were sampled for the research?

also, if you are correct, this contradicts what sean is claiming.


vuk.

p.s. i am not saying we should be ignorant of history, just careful in over-reaching with observations / parallels.

 

[fay spook]

can you show me the scientific data for this and tell me how people were sampled for the research?

also, if you are correct, this contradicts what sean is claiming.


vuk.

Same as you in this example. One person. But do look at documentaries from back in the day and you will see this point echoed many times.

 

[vuk]

Same as you in this example. One person. But do look at documentaries from back in the day and you will see this point echoed many times.

i'm having trouble understanding. documentaries from the late 1800s? which point being echoed? what is "this" example?



vuk.

 

[merlin]

They have a very small economy and it's almost entirely made from the export of natural resources and they don't do much of anything else of significance. This (relatively) small amount of export is barely matched by imports because they just don't have the level of economic activity they should have given all those resources. Basically most people can't afford to buy much in the way of foreign goods.


Overall the Russian economy is slightly smaller than New York's.

Thanks Matthew,

It's just that I see so many in Asia on holiday happily spending. I believe over a million holiday in Thailand for instance every year, and spend three times what uk tourists do.

Is it possible, again I am only guessing, that the UK economy is based on the availability of personal debt or is that also available in countries like Russia? I'm amazed at the difference in national "current accounts" between the uk and Russia. It just seems the UK borrows far more.

 

[fay spook]

This is all very simple, I will play a straight bat back.

You say you aren't a fan of looking back but if you do and play along you see things going down hill.

I say the view that things are going down hill has been repeated across history. I gave an example of talking to my grandmother who was born in the 1800s (thats some time ago).

I said look at documentaries from back in the day, not from the 1800s. I have a reasonable idea about film and its history. It did exist in the late 1800s but I am sure you might struggle to view one and it won't have sound. Have a look at some from the 30's- 50's.

Your view was based on your opinion and I gave the view of one person, my grandmother, for SOME of my views.

The point is the point you were making.

Research. Have a read of Great Expectations to give yourself an idea. Not scientific but entertaining. I am out for a while so could I indulge you to look yourself and see if you can find views across the years that says people think the world is going down the pan?

See, its not tricky. (Imagine a world where we did look at history and saw that invading Afghanistan was not good............or tinkering in the Gulf)

 

[vuk]

I say the view that things are going down hill has been repeated across history

yes, i am familiar with that common saying and also with the stereotypic 18th century english novel character who is resistant to social or technological change. we even have it downton abbey and one of woody allen's worst , but most popular, films. to jump from that concept to dismissing economic and environmental decline since the 70s because people and fictional characters have always been complaining about how things just aren't as good anymore is a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

See, its not tricky. (Imagine a world where we did look at history and saw that invading Afghanistan was not good............or tinkering in the Gulf

we have had so many military interventions in the 20th century that you can actually reach a valid statistical conclusion as to why they are bad or don't work as intended. you can also avoid these things from a very simple moral perspective that doesn't require any looking back.


vuk.

 

[matthewr]

Is it possible, again I am only guessing, that the UK economy is based on the availability of personal debt or is that also available in countries like Russia?

No that's not the role debt plays in the economy. It is true that Osborne foolishly encouraged more personal debt (at a time when much of the UK was balance sheet constrained) because he had made a calamitous error with his Austerity policy and he couldn't reverse this for political reasons. But our economy really is that big and successful and what should have happened instead of restarting a housing and personal credit boom was the government should have invested to fill the gap.

But basically the Russian economy is a basket case for the reasons I outlined earlier. This shouldn't be a surprise -- if your economy is based on massive natural resources and then you give all those resources to a handful of mega-rich, corrupt gangsters it will always end badly for the wider population.

 

[sean99]

sean.

i know i am probably a minority here, but i am not a big fan of looking at historical trends and precedents. to me, this mainly adds bias and confusion, rather than insight. that said, if i play along for a bit, in my lifetime, i have seen society move in a really bad direction of selfishness, economic inequality, cultural frivolity, political corruption and environmental destruction.

that's just me though and i don't know about "most people", as you say. do you mean most people on this forum? most people in iraq? most people in the world?

vuk.

Western society has been getting more unequal for the last 40 years, but globally extreme poverty and infant mortality are significantly lower than 30 years ago. Although there is still a long way to go racism and sexism are lower (watch some 1970s television if you don't believe me), homophobia is greatly reduced, gay marriage is legal in many countries. The environment is still under extreme threat but it is now recognized and pollution is greatly reduced across the developed world (no burning rivers or love canal incidents). Recycling, solar, wind and electric vehicles are mainstream.

Things may not be great now in many respects, but I'm hard pressed to think of a time in history when they were better, especially for the developing world. Of course you can cherry pick examples of regression, but globally I think the trend is positive, albeit at a frustratingly slow pace, and with backward steps (particularly when the right wing takes control).

 

[NeilR]

It's just that I see so many in Asia on holiday happily spending. I believe over a million holiday in Thailand for instance every year, and spend three times what uk tourists do.

Those will be the corrupt gangsters and related hangers on, not the general population!

I saw quite a few overweight middle aged Russians with their young trophy wives at the resort we were at in Thailand last year throwing money around. Not a good look.

 

[merlin]

To be fair, I know the ones you mean and I often feel it's my duty to push them back into the sea.

Having said that, it's over a million of them and I had the pleasure of spending a couple of weeks with a delightful couple from Outside Moscow earlier in the year and they were everything the stereotypical Russian tourist is not thought of as being.

Genuinely lovely people. Very proud of their country and keen to offer full hospitality should I venture over there in the future. An open invitation. I can't really comment as I've not been there but I do wonder how distorted our view of the Country is by ignorance and a reliance on Western Media.

Maybe our resident Rusky Max could be more objective

 

[PsB]

To be fair, I know the ones you mean and I often feel it's my duty to push them back into the sea.

Having said that, it's over a million of them and I had the pleasure of spending a couple of weeks with a delightful couple from Outside Moscow earlier in the year and they were everything the stereotypical Russian tourist is not thought of as being.

Genuinely lovely people. Very proud of their country and keen to offer full hospitality should I venture over there in the future. An open invitation. I can't really comment as I've not been there but I do wonder how distorted our view of the Country is by ignorance and a reliance on Western Media.

Maybe our resident Rusky Max could be more objective

merlin,
There are millions of lovely Russian people. There is also a growing middle class. This doesn't detract from the fact that the Russian economy shares many unfortunate characteristics with third world/ emerging economies. Those exports curves you shared correlate rather well with the price of oil in recent years. Sanctions probably don't help, but the effect is dwarfed by oil and gas prices going down the tube.
http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil.aspx?timeframe=10y

 

[PsB]

Anyway, none of this detracts from the fact that Trump's bright son seems to have provided the smoking gun that has been missing. Rather than have the NYT publish his string of e-mails (Fake News!!!!) setting up the meeting with the Russian lawyer, he finally decided to release it himself, after trying to spin the story for several days (she wanted to talk about adoptions, etc.)
Even better, favourite son-in-law Kuschner was at the meeting too. With Manafort. 3 of Trump's heavy hitters, right in the middle of the campaign. And Trump started tweeting about Hillary e-mails the same day. Perfect.

 

[vuk]

Western society has been getting more unequal for the last 40 years, but globally extreme poverty and infant mortality are significantly lower than 30 years ago. Although there is still a long way to go racism and sexism are lower (watch some 1970s television if you don't believe me), homophobia is greatly reduced, gay marriage is legal in many countries. The environment is still under extreme threat but it is now recognized and pollution is greatly reduced across the developed world (no burning rivers or love canal incidents). Recycling, solar, wind and electric vehicles are mainstream.

Things may not be great now in many respects, but I'm hard pressed to think of a time in history when they were better, especially for the developing world. Of course you can cherry pick examples of regression, but globally I think the trend is positive, albeit at a frustratingly slow pace, and with backward steps (particularly when the right wing takes control).

sean.

i am reminded of the one about the beauty pageant contestant who, when asked bout her life ambitions, replies: "to bring peace to the middle east and start my own hair salon". (my bulgarian office mate back in grad school had a slightly different version that went: "end world hunger and work on my tan)

you are correct that gains in the 3rd world are a rather different story (on some measures),, but you're not really addressing the environmental catastrophe we are seeing unfold or the economic inequality that's taking us back to a very ancient time. stacking gay marriage on the other side of the scale doesn't quite tally it all up.

as for the regressive right, that's really what we've had since reagan.


vuk.

 

[merlin]

Thanks again Matthew. I know you are right. As a layman however I can't get my head around positive balance of trade allied to a lack of national or personal debt is an economic basket case and a large trade deficit allied to enormous levels of personal and national debt is a successful economy.

I'm stuck thinking that the latter is unsustainable whereas the former can continue ad infinitum relatively speaking, and absolute levels of imports can be improved by massively increasing governmental and personal debt and in turn creating a trade deficit to similar levels as seen over here?