Monday, January 23, 2017

America First

From MP America First
"First, I find this Liberal paradigm fascinating... "If you take from the rich (through taxes) to help the poor (through social spending), or if you decide not to do that, you are favoring some Americans at the expense of others." Please remember that old Conservative saying... "Poor folks don't start companies or hire people." My point being is that the best way to help the people with low incomes is to start more businesses that provide more and better jobs.

Second, for decades many Liberals have been preaching "America First". I mean just think of all the "we should be spending domestically" comments that were made. The "we should not help the people of Afghanistan and Iraq" comments. "We should reduce the military". It seems Trump is pretty aligned with the Left in this slogan." G2A

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Second, for decades many Liberals have been preaching "America First".

This is something find strange. The protectionist trade policies advocated by Trump have been traditionally a Democratic and liberal position. Much of the party has abandoned those positions in recent years for economic reasons but support for those policies remains strong in what used to be our base. Trump took advantage of that.

"America First" is most closely associated with the isolationist movement which was so strong leading up to WW II. As a political theme, it was pretty much discredited by Pearl Harbor, but now that memories of that event in American history, Trump was able to revive it. The internationalism that was a response to the two world wars of the 20th century is now in retreat as the memories of the world wars are fading away. Is this a good thing?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Trump favors bilateral over multilateral negotiations. This reflects his business experience in the Manhattan real estate market where he could always use his economic power to drive hard bargains with weak players. Whether this makes sense in the international stage where weaker players have other strong countries they can deal with and play off against the United States remains to be seen.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

"Poor folks don't start companies or hire people."

But people with disposable income buy products that companies make, thus helping a company thrive.

If the majority of the gains go to the top 1%; if more and more people lose their economic power, if the poor are unable to dig out from under the economic pressure imposed on them, then the companies falter.

The thing Conservatives don't understand is that Obama was right when he implied, "You didn't build that." We are all connected.

Joel

John said...

Hiram,
Great points. I guess we will need to see what Trump means by America First. My guess is that people are applying too much historical interpretation to it... I mean this is Trump, not some scholar with deeply held beliefs...

Joel,
If you want more better paying jobs then let's do something about it. Not keep using the inefficient government mandated wealth transfer technique.

"So are you willing to put the US workers, poor and their families first?

- Push the Illegal Workers out of the USA?
- Increase the costs of foreign made product?
- Demand accountability from our school and other public servants?
- Reduce the cost of government / taxes?
- Reduce the regulatory and other costs of operating businesses in the USA?

Trump's behaviors may frustrate me greatly, however many of his stated high level goals seem directionally correct." G2A

"We want more low end American jobs that pay better. That means:
- reduce size of this work force (ie no illegal workers)
- encourage US consumers to Buy American and pay US employees good wages
- encourage companies to build plants in US

Sorry but treating companies as enemies is costing our citizens and country far too much. And allowing Public Employees to have high job security and total compensation while they are failing to meet performance expectations is also harming most citizens. (ie higher taxes / failing support)

I agree that there is some risk in freedom, but usually the better results are worth it." G2A

Anonymous said...

My guess is that people are applying too much historical interpretation to it.

It's hard not to. America First is a famous phrase very firmly embedded in the conventional understanding of the history of the 20th century. Charles Lindbergh was a Minnesotan of course. His father was a Republican Congressman who was actually running for governor of Minnesota when he died. Lindbergh grew up in DC and was very familiar with national politics.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

""We want more low end American jobs that pay better. That means:
- reduce size of this work force (ie no illegal workers)
- encourage US consumers to Buy American and pay US employees good wages
- encourage companies to build plants in US "

Trump takes a very zero sum approach to business which he projects to economics generally. In Donald's world view, there are winners and losers, and winning comes at the expense of losing. It's the kind of view which is characteristic of someone who operates in a closed business environment such as Manhattan real estate. Manhattan isn't a growth entity, they just aren't making too much more of it. And you notice whenever Donald stepped out of that closed environments such as when he got involved in gambling business, he went broke.

This zero sum approach to economic development hasn't been widely used in a while so it's not very well understood. In modern economics, what people look for are deals where both sides benefit, where the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Now that we are pretty much rejecting that view, we will have the opportunity to learn a great deal more about the economics of protectionism, to update those Hawley Smoot analogies we have relied on for such a long time.

--Hiram

John said...

Many Americans can't tell us who the current VP is... I think they will take America First as just 2 words that mean... Deals have to benefit Americans as much or more than the other participants.

As long as the buildings can get taller, yes they are making more Manhattan. Personally I think it is the Liberals who believe in the zero sum game, just think of all their efforts to take from the successful to give to the unsuccessful instead of supporting American jobs and growth.

Anonymous said...

Many Americans can't tell us who the current VP is.

The question isn't polled but I do believe that many Americans at least in the later years of his administration could not have told you who the president of the United States. Most people have little or no idea of the basics of government, how it is organized, and what it does. Most people don't know who their congressmen or senators are. Most people, and I would include our current president among them, lack a basic knowledge of the history of the 20th century. I don't think our current president was aware of the historical connotations of the phrase "America First" when he first used it.

As for taller buildings, well buildings aren't getting taller. The building that replaced the World Trade Center is shorter and a single building. The WTC itself, was a historical artifact of a different era the day it opened. It was uneconomic because in buildings that tall, too much of the internal space had to be devoted to service functions like elevators that were too expensive and weren't revenue generating. That's why the building had a lot of vacancies and why it had governments as it's major tenants.

Taking from the rich and giving to the poor makes perfect sense from a non zero game perspective. Consider the economy of the first decade of the 21st century when the policy was reversed. So much of the money that went to the rich was simply destroyed in failed investments of one kind or another. It simply disappeared.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

This sensitivity to criticism and the way people seem so eager to take it personally is curious to me. Here is a theory. Lots of people are moral absolutists, and opposed to moral relativism. What happens when a moral absolutist is criticized? Is that an attack on that person's morality, the equivalent of calling that person immoral? Is that the logic at play here?

As a moral relativist myself, I don't have a problem with people disagreeing. I think two diametrically opposed views on a specific issue can both be moral. I have no problem with working with people whose views on moral issues are different from my own. Can a moral absolutist say or do those things?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

I watch a lot of religious programming. One of the things they say is that it is a violation of the first amendment for their tax dollars to be spent on things that violate their religion. Is it really possible to run a government dependent on tax dollars that doesn't do anything that violates anybody's religion?

--Hiram