Is the plan to let Biden secure the nomination then replace him with ??????

[CampingJosh]

So basically you want the US to support global welfare

Exactly the opposite. Artificially limiting competition in the market is welfare for Americans.

 

[Tombs]

Weren't we all supposed to hate this plan when it was nanny-state government, running up the national debt, etc.? I don't remember reading any positive mention of Yang anywhere on INGO when this was his idea.

I've always been in support of Yang's concept. Granted I've been supporting the same thing since long before yang mentioned it.

I'd like to see all other social safety nets eliminated if we end up keeping it though. Let people fail if they want to fail, but share the wealth of the nation with its citizens.
No more need for a healthcare plan, no more need for medicare, no more need for social security, no more need for unemployment.

It's also blind to race or status.

Makes more sense than pumping trillions into private banks and corporations.

 

[Twangbanger]

...How have people watched the 2016 election cycle, seen Trump win the nomination (and the presidency) while clearly not the choice of party insiders, and and then four years later returned to the conspiracy theory that party insiders control the nomination process and the primaries are just for show?

I'm more interested in understanding how you've watched the past two Democrat primaries, without becoming acquainted with the anti-democratic concept of "Superdelegates." (Hint: Democrats have them, Republicans don't, and they are transparently and explicitly intended as an insurance policy against voters "getting it wrong" and nominating someone the Party doesn't want).

...The U.S. gets to buy products from around the world in a currency that is made up. Seriously, the Federal Reserve has created nearly $2,000,000,000,000 so far this year. Those are dollars that did not previously exist.

Whoo! Our Central Bank makes up money! Break out the Champagne and let ring the Chimes of Liberty...

...There's not a lot of market expansion still to come in the U.S. People here are already in the market. But a decent wage being common in India (to pull just one example) would increase the market for manufactured products way beyond anything the U.S. could do if we were a closed system. Everyone gets richer together.

Their median per capita income grows from $2k to $5k; ours grows from $25k to $33k. Yeah, they do better as a percentage, but it's silly to think that somehow makes us worse off or that we're being taken advantage of.

Since the policies of globalism took full effect, American personal income has been flat:

Whether you wish to accept or see the fact or not, free trade, although not a bad thing at all by itself, has had a tremendous negative effect on the standard of living of certain Americans in certain areas as a direct result of trade deals in the past quarter-century. The argument of whether it's an overall net-positive is a difficult one to resolve on a holistic level. But free trade advocates have spent the past 25 years only telling one side of the story. We've been inundated with the "positives," while the existence of "negatives" has been denied. Now that Trump has been elected, finally, we've gotten a begrudging acceptance from trade advocates that a downside does, in fact, exist, having been forced into this admission by the successful election of someone they despise.

...I think it is in the best interests of U.S. workers that low-skill, low-wage jobs are exported. I think there's more benefit in (for example) clothing costing 1/4 as much as it would if it was more here than there would be benefit in having kept those jobs here for a few more decades only to still lose most of those jobs to automation.

There are actually two types of manufacturing decline in any developed economy. The first is the inevitable long-term secular kind, the type involving "buggy whips" becoming obsolete to make way for the automobile and et cetera - what we would call "technological progress." It can result from innovation in the product itself, or in the manner in which that product is manufactured. This is a net positive for people over time, because the buggy whip people eventually get jobs in auto parts plants, productivity rises, and the standard of living and wages go up. This is the "automation" category you reference; manual labor gradually giving way to robots over time. I say "gradually," because robots cost a lot of money, and these investments have to be financially justified over time, as the workforce (engineers mostly) learn to make good use of the technology. It is not a financial slam-dunk to just buy all that technology at once. The laborers lose their jobs slowly, and the surrounding community has time to adjust, as they lose laborers, but gain job roles like robot application engineers and programmers. This is the upward push in wages and productivity that pushes the standard of living higher. It is a good thing, and it has been happening continuously ever since the first manufacturing plants came into existence. It keeps the manufacturing plants in the country, by making them more efficient (compare for example, the export-based manufacturing model employed successfully by countries like Germany). In so doing, one often-missed positive effect is that you are keeping the jobs of all the Engineers, Programmers, Supervisors, IT people, Logistics experts, Maintenance people, Finance/Accountants/Payables, Purchasing agents, Sales people, and all the other white-collar workers who are needed to keep a manufacturing plant going.

The second type of manufacturing decline throws all those people (plus the laborers) out with the bath water, and is what Trump and others have been focusing on the last 25 years: rapid job loss due to political agreements. In this type of job loss, we are not talking about technological progress (or the general term "automation" that you lump all job losses into). We're not getting any productivity improvement. We are simply shutting down plants in America, and moving them to other places where people will work for less. Factories disappear, towns are decimated, and net-productivity is subtracted from one country and added to another country's bottom line. Ironically, part of the reason the people in those other countries are willing to work for less, is because they've been oppressed for decades by governments that either deny their basic human rights, or are de-facto puppet regimes of drug cartels and other organized crime. When you transfer jobs in this manner, the American standard of living shown in the graph flattens out and even goes backwards for some people, because you are subtracting productivity out of the American economy by shutting down plants, and moving that productivity into someone else's country. Every plant that goes away is a unit of manufacturing productivity that is aborted, a slew of robots that will never be purchased, and a contribution to standard of living that will never be gained. There is no technological progress or productivity improvement, only "race to the bottom" economies squeezed from the supply chain. Yes, all of us get some cheaper items this way. But others lose their entire livelihoods, and go from producers to dependents, collecting unemployment, disability, and the miscellaneous "Proletarian Alms Bag" of benefits which is always promised by free-trade proponents. These workers go from pulling the wagon, to riding in the wagon. The American worker is in effect placed into direct competition with workers who have been oppressed, and perversely, much of the resulting economic gains accrue to their oppressors, as they buttress and secure their regimes with the benefits of economic growth and stability. As a final slap in the face, their chokehold on citizens' freedom in those countries all too often remains intact, and the sacrifice of American jobs ends up making negligible difference in those foreign citizens' level of freedom and self-determination. The Communist Party is happy to let people move from dirt floor to cramped apartment floor, as long as it remains in control.

I can go on, but I suspect it may be pointless with you. I remember you from the "Let's Fill the Country with Refugees" thread. You sound like you've read all the Chamber of Commerce pamphlets on "free trade advocacy," but are really just cherry-picking your talking points to support your objective ,which is a utopian uplift of the world's poor (at the expense, in this case, of Americans in the bottom half of the income scale). You probably have never worked in a manufacturing plant, and don't care to know the first thing about it. You take manufacturing job losses of all kinds, and lump them all together under the generic category of "automation," to make the job losses appear to be the result of the inevitable advance of technological progress. Which is precisely what the Trade Lobbyists, Wall Street Banks, currency traders, think tanks, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Wall Street Journal editorial board want everyone to think is the cause of those job losses - while they spend millions lobbying for the next trade agreement, to squeeze even more standard of living out of the next three industries, the next hundred towns, the next million people.

Everyone understands automation is inevitable. That's why Globalists want you to believe this is all about "automation," not trade agreements. If it's all about "automation," it's all Adam Smith's Invisible Hand and old C-Span videos of Milton Friedman that nobody can argue with. But - if it's about trade agreements - that is not something that's inevitable. That's something that ordinary people can actually change with the outcome of elections.

The victims (because that's what they are) of trade agreements are not losing their jobs to robots. They are losing them to Mexicans and Chinese. The powerful interests putting so much money behind defeating Trump are banking that people like you will not care enough to discern the difference.
​

​

 

[Twangbanger]

So, let's update our predictions folks: when is Biden going to step aside?

Any takers?

 

[CampingJosh]

So, let's update our predictions folks: when is Biden going to step aside?

Any takers?

Despite his claims, I don't think he'll run for reelection in 2024. But I also doubt that he fails to serve out this term.

 

[jsx1043]

So, let's update our predictions folks: when is Biden going to step aside?

Any takers?

Current theory: Sometime between March and May of 2023.

Ten years of pResident Harris.

 

[BugI02]

I think progressivism will want to keep their doddering, less threatening front man through the midterms at least. If, as I expect, Republicans retake control of both chambers than the way will be open to put him out to pasture. I would expect a 'president' Harris to go even harder at the left wing wet dream wishlist in an attempt to buy enough votes to make a difference in '24

The Republican presidential candidate will be a very important choice, and of course I hope it is Trump or Trump adjacent

 

[jwamplerusa]

I think I predicted around January 2022 (may have to dig back and look). I think I will stick with that for now.

Although to be honest, if Biden continues some of his current antics, the communists may have no choice but to 25 th amendment him.

I do think Kamala's vulture like background appearances are getting more than a little creepy.

If they are forced to replace him, I think it works in the favor of those who support the Constitution for the 2022 midterms. Creepy Joe is a good front to mask the Marxist and worse supported by the Democrat Party platform. Removing that camouflage would be a good thing.