I see that the same Salon article caught James Taranto’s interest as it did mine. He makes an interesting observation:
It seems to us he, like most Democrats, is overconfident about the general election. We wouldn’t say she’s a sure loser, or even that Trump or Cruz would be likelier than not to defeat her. But victory is far from a sure thing.
Her reaction to the Black Lives Matter pressure is one reason to think there may be trouble ahead. Fox News notes that she told the Sharpton conference: “White Americans need to do a much better job of listening. . . . We need to recognize our privilege and practice humility.â€
You can see why she’d say such a thing. Black voters have been her bulwark against Sanders in the primaries, and she needs them to turn out in large numbers in November, as they did for Barack Obama four and eight years ago. But she can’t win with black votes alone, and a message like “white Americans . . . need to recognize our privilege†may alienate other voters she also needs.
That highlights the careful balancing act Sec. Clinton is performing. She’s running based on her husband’s record without embracing it and running on President Obama’s record without fully embracing that, either. She needs to tailor her messages to the specific audiences in the Democratic coalition. As with any highwire act, it’s a long way down.
And it’s always easier when you’re preaching to the choir.
Heh. The candidate, to quote MR, of principle.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/15/hillary-clintons-flip-flopping-has-now-reached-epic-proportions/
God be with the GLTrans community should public perception sway, and she has to “devolve” back into a callous, homophobic, uh, er, you know, Republican. Yeah, that’s it.
And for all you economics fans. Just the careing ones, though.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/15/poll-67-would-rather-pay-50-for-foreign-goods-than-85-for-the-same-goods-made-in-america/
Well blow me over. But what about the caring?? Yer-anner, I rest my case. Where does Hillary stand? I guess that depends. Is it Thursday or Friday? Find me her pollster……
Guarneri:
Yes, thank God we have Trump whose positions are. . . wait, what are they again? Well, he’s quite certain that his hands are YUUUGE. Then there’s Cruz whose core positions have not changed since 1860, so yeah, that’s great, very consistently wrong. Your previous candidate, Mr. Romney, is now working to destroy your party’s frontrunner.
If your party were not disintegrating into a mud-wrestling match between a fascist strongman and a religious fanatic you could probably beat Hillary. But the contradictions, lies and absurd fantasies at the heart of the GOP are all-too-clear now. You know who despises your party, Drew? The Democrats. Also Independents. And also Republicans. It’s a trifecta of contempt for the GOP! Yay?
American workers might have a different opinion if they understood what was happening. The dollar that they use to purchase the imported good is used to create more dollars. These newly created dollars will be used to pay the workers that still have jobs, but the dollar will now be have a diluted value.
The workers will be getting poorer while the rich are getting richer, and because each dollar is leverages multiples of that single dollar, the rich get faster at a much faster rate. It is only a winning game for people with money or who use money to make money.
The reason rich investors preach the wondrous benefits of importing cheap goods is because it benefits them. When the do-gooder is benefitting from his/her do-gooding, you would do best to start looking for the scam. Otherwise, the do-gooder is an idiot being used by somebody else.
What a stupid poll. No one I know of, not even Trump, is advocating for a 70% tariff. As the article notes, let’s make a fair comparison. People who support free trade claim that we might lose some jobs, and the new jobs might pay less, but it is worth it since the goods we buy will cost less. Suppose that if given a choice, people would rather forego the cheaper stuff from China and have more jobs, or at least better paying ones instead. They could then decide how they want to spend their money.
Really, this is just a variation on a common libertarian/conservative argument. They often argue that rather than government deciding how we should spend our money, we should let people decide how they want to use their own money. In this case the free traders are deciding that everyone should prefer service sector jobs and cheaper clothes from China. Of course, it is just a coincidence that the investor class comes out way ahead also with their preferred plan.
Steve
MR is back to needing his usual straw man to avoid being pointless. And steve needs to go to extremes to avoid the obvious, which is that people will vote their pocketbook even for small sums. Ever look at the value of clipped coupons as a percent of purchase price? The dickering for a few hundred bucks over a car purchase? Driving considerable distances to get to a Wal-Mart? You’ve worked in a subsidized industry too long, steve.
But hey, maybe when people make $15/hr they’ll quit searching for deals and buying on price. (snicker)
The choirs is always easy yet the wise pastor also pays attention to the congregation’s squirming and sudden interest in the church bulletin. Whether Clinton can do that in 2016 remains to be seen.
Who’d a thunk it?
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/16/california-clothing-manufacturers-fleeing-minimum-wage-hike/
“…The LA Times also interviewed Felix Seo, the owner of Joompy. He produces custom clothing and used to do a brisk trade in SoCal, but said that the cost to sew a single dress is going from $5.00 to $6.50 and his, “customer doesn’t want to pay that, so I can’t sell it anymore. .
This must not be really happening. I’m surrounded by economic giants telling me it isn’t so…..
One problem with the minimum wage is that many small and medium businesses are caught in the middle of the dollar dilution cycle. They did not start it. They do not benefit from it. Potentially, it has the same negative issues as their workers, but the minimum wage forces them to fill in the gap between the face value and nominal value of the dollars they use as wages.
The minimum wage is an especially insidious regulation. In a thriving economy, a reasonable rate could be tolerated, but in a withering one, it cannot. It may not be a first order self-reinforcing negative feedback loop, but it is a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. It contributes to the worsening conditions that require it to be raised. In an expanding economy, it can be absorbed.
Of course, why the minimum wage needs to be raised in a thriving economy is the $24,000.00 question. The greatest economy is world history is somehow producing the poor getting poorer so fast they need outsized minimum wage increases, but it is probably racist to notice such things.