Obama on Small-Town Pennsylvania...

[Person Man]

People get bitter when things are bad. And?

[Person Man]

It all apparently causes them to like guns. If the folks were not bitter, they would favor gun control like Obama does.

No, it causes them to place more obscure issues like gun control and gay marriage ahead of their economic interests.

I mean, when you lose so much control of your life you get pretty ...lets face it... desperate to have control over SOMETHING.

[Person Man]

Are people trying to deny it isn't good to have reasonable jobs in the United States? Sure, we want cheap stuff and our Sonys and V-dubs, and they are on sale now, but can we buy them? What these big business conservatives don't understand is that it doesn't matter how stuff there is to buy or by how much growth there is if you personally don't see a dime of it and cannot buy any of the neat stuff for sale. I mean, if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? I guess it does if you mean via osmosis whilst watching VH1 or Celebrity Cribs and sometimes Bloomberg. Yes. It's great that our jobs are done cheaper and more easily by other people, but we actually have make some collective sacrifices so that we have jobs that no one else in the world can do. In order to do that, we will have spend much more money on infrastructure, research, education, business incubation and yes, redistribute tax credits from older industries, like oil, electronics and heave machinery to newer industries such as solar, wind, hydrogen, atomic energies, artificial intellegence (though we may miss the boat on it), space development and medical research (even if it means giving more to "Big Pharma", but if they play fair, there's no reason why we shouldn't reward them). Then again, this probably means raising taxes, especially if the war in Iraq continues, albeit for a fixed amount of time.

[Person Man]

This was the lead political story on the local news here.  Obama's comments an Hillary's (and McCain's) response. 

Well, this is straight talk, whether or not people are listening will be heard.

[Person Man]

Mr Diamond, one cannot improve the overall standard of living, except by increasing the skills of those who work. So yes, education and good work habits are job one (that is why we need a total revamping of our secondary school system, particularly in non elite zip codes). A more robust poaching of the best and brightest from abroad will be an interim palliative, but not a long term one. The rest is all counterproductive. It over the longer term, will degrade economic well being, not enhance it. The harsh mistress of comparative economic advantage must rule. The alternative is economic failure, and relative penury, vis a vis those who respect the mistress.  Politicians beyond the realm suggested, and mere driftwood in a rapid stream as it were, helpless and useless, except to do damage.

I don't know how developing our own new industries would hurt the economy. This just seems like big business conservativism trying to sound smart, which it doesn't. I mean, sure the opposite worked a long time ago, but that was when we had a strong infrastructure and people could actually afford to buy more stuff. Now more stuff is being sold and no one can buy it. I mean seriously, what good does it do if all this hocus-pocus comparative advantage mistress bull crap do if it doesn't actually help most it? Modern economics has devolved into a pseudo science, much like the legal science of the late 19th century. The persumptions you are talking about just don't work out. Sure. You pretty much you have to respect the mistress in your wet dreams. In fact, I would say that modern economics is right in the fact that you can't ignore what people really want to do across the world, then again, economics has become non-scientific as it gives total faith into unproven hypothesis and rejects any idea that there can be a greater force in nature than osmosis.  Sure. Comparitive advantage can't be ignored, people will subliminally sabatoge anything given to them....but is it best to suppress it, forego economic change until we can finally take advantage of her again?

I mean, can't we make this great, magical circle of choice work FOR us for a change? I mean, the 4 tigers have done it this way and the moral of the story simply is that comparative advantage is only good if you are the one that has the comparitive advanatage of the unit that produces the best welfare for your constituents. It appears that you know how business works, but don't know how to actually do business.  

And just how do you suppose the economy "shifts" in these towns?  By lowering taxes and deregulating the economy?  Obviously not.. we tried that and these places, which had been stagnating, went into freefall.

They went into free fall when there was never a need for steel.  The deregulation worked, but kids moved away.  Some got retraining and went into technolgical jobs.  Johnstown biggest employer is an expanding healthcare system, and various other, more technical industries.  It changed; it wasn't a steel town anymore.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The economy changed and it didn't change the attitudes or the value system of the people; that is what Obama doesn't understand.  He seems clueless.

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. The small cities of Pennsylvania's comparitive advantage changed from a higher-paying industry to lower-paying industries. My in-laws told me that they once knew of steel workers that made 85,000 a grand. Some of these service jobs you talk about make less than half of that....and those who did so left the area to get technical jobs in the boom towns of the sun belt (where values are slowly changing) The economy has changed, but not for the better. People still have older values because they still have not reaped the benefits of a global economy in the way that people in the Sun Belt or cities have. I mean, there's more jobs and more money, but people aren't seeing more money for themselves, therefore they try to control token issues that they can control. It's pretty simple. You know you are a hack, or at least mildly autistic, when a small statement like this makes you want to make a YouTube about what Obama said or makes you angry/not vote for him.

[Person Man]

In chaos, people search for something to control.

A friend of mine had a rough home life, and she developed anorexia as a relief because it was something she could control.

The thing here is that the areas were just as religious during the manufacturing period as after.

Yeah, but there were issues that they could of done well with before the loss in manufacturing jobs. Now, religion is the only thing they have to control. 

[Person Man]

Never said that. Again, there's nothing inherently wrong or inferior about voting on those issues; Obama's statement was just one of fact, that when people feel no hope on issues like the economy, they turn to others. It's our fault as Democrats as much as anything for allowing those bread and butter issues to fall off people's radar screens.

Nym, please explain how guns and religion are related to to the decline of manufacturing in PA?

They're not. They're just issues people can actually win on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In wading through the bridgework about you dislike of the art of economics, I think I see the nub of your thesis. The US should go through periodic bouts of protectionism, so that the vulnerable can do some weight lifting, and muscle up, before having to get back into the dog eat dog global ring. Alas, the evidence is what happens is that the safety net causes coach potato behavior, and the muscles atrophy even more, until there comes a point that there is no fight left in the corpus; it's all adipose. Sometime adverting to empirical experience is useful. Protectionist regimes, even if meant to be temporary, ever caused an increase in economic fitness.

So it just comes down to calling the average worker lazy? This is why economics is bad science. It's based on generalizations, elitism and psuedo psychology.  We see what you priorities are. ...and temporary protectionist regimes WORK.... Why can't you buy a thing made in America anymore? Its because most things comes from countries that used my method.

I think its funny both Clinton and McCain are calling Obama the elitist when both candidates probably have more money and more wealth than Obama could ever imagine having. What a load

Elitism isn't just based on wealth.

True, it's also based on your parents' privilege and the educational opportunities that go along with it.

McCain is the son and grandson of Admirals, and grew up with a lot of privilige. HOWEVER, he has certainly put his life on the line for his country. He doesn't come across as elitiest to me.

Hillary was born into a rich family, and has been in the circles of power her entire adult life. If anyone in this three way is elitist. its her. Bill goes a long way in removing that stain from her, probably one of the biggest assets he brings to the table for his wife.

Does that make Cleland and Kerry populist?

[Person Man]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This one is a little more than "regret."  It tells us something of his ideology.

What would that be, pragmatic progressivism?

Dave

Try regressive to atavistic.  He's talking about an issue of 25-35 years ago.  You might to took at the Billy Joel song Allentown (written in 1982).

It started 25 years ago, but those places are still losing population.

They are losing population because the local jobs are not there (though that is changing).  There are not hoards of unemployed.  What you generally have now is an older population (that is dying off).

You're splitting hairs now. Obama didn't say there are hordes of unemployed.

No, what he has been complaining about stated in the late 1970's.  In terms of population, some of the major drops were in the 1970-80 and the peek year was 1950.  Pittsburgh's big drop was in the 1970's, as was Phila's and some NE cities actually experienced growth in terms of population. 

http://www.demographia.com/db-city1970sloss.htm

IIRC, Johnstown, PA topped out in about 1960 and I think had it's major years of decline were 1970-1990.

Obama just got it wrong on so many levels. 

Then again, he just got it in wrong in Jimmy John's world, someone who could one day make the Anti-Bush crowd look extremely reasonable.

[Person Man]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This one is a little more than "regret."  It tells us something of his ideology.

What would that be, pragmatic progressivism?

Dave

Try regressive to atavistic.  He's talking about an issue of 25-35 years ago.  You might to took at the Billy Joel song Allentown (written in 1982).

It started 25 years ago, but those places are still losing population.

They are losing population because the local jobs are not there (though that is changing).  There are not hoards of unemployed.  What you generally have now is an older population (that is dying off).

You're splitting hairs now. Obama didn't say there are hordes of unemployed.

No, what he has been complaining about stated in the late 1970's.  In terms of population, some of the major drops were in the 1970-80 and the peek year was 1950.  Pittsburgh's big drop was in the 1970's, as was Phila's and some NE cities actually experienced growth in terms of population. 

http://www.demographia.com/db-city1970sloss.htm

IIRC, Johnstown, PA topped out in about 1960 and I think had it's major years of decline were 1970-1990.

Obama just got it wrong on so many levels. 

Then again, he just got it in wrong in Jimmy John's world, someone who could one day make the Anti-Bush crowd look extremely reasonable.

No, Obama got it wrong in the real world, one he doesn't understand.  The world he describes was party real, in the 1970's and early 1980's, but not today.

So, that's why Pennsylvania lost 10% of its congressional seats in the 2000 census.

[Person Man]

If someone were to argue this:

"Viewed in the context of voting patterns, assuming that affluent suburban voters are self-loathing hypocrites seems accurate to me. What else explains the bizarre and apparently contradictory electoral record of these places post-Watergate than the fact that affluence has failed to bring these people the happiness that these people clearly feel is their birthright? Clearly the lack of the happiness that they feel entitled to has made them bitter and this is reflected in the petulant voting patterns of such areas over the past three decades"

Would you resent it?

Yes, I would, if I had other issues that I cared deeply about.
[/quote]

I hear that all the time from conservatives, what's your point?

Maybe everyone is bitter...

[Person Man]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This one is a little more than "regret."  It tells us something of his ideology.

What would that be, pragmatic progressivism?

Dave

Try regressive to atavistic.  He's talking about an issue of 25-35 years ago.  You might to took at the Billy Joel song Allentown (written in 1982).

It started 25 years ago, but those places are still losing population.

They are losing population because the local jobs are not there (though that is changing).  There are not hoards of unemployed.  What you generally have now is an older population (that is dying off).

You're splitting hairs now. Obama didn't say there are hordes of unemployed.

No, what he has been complaining about stated in the late 1970's.  In terms of population, some of the major drops were in the 1970-80 and the peek year was 1950.  Pittsburgh's big drop was in the 1970's, as was Phila's and some NE cities actually experienced growth in terms of population. 

http://www.demographia.com/db-city1970sloss.htm

IIRC, Johnstown, PA topped out in about 1960 and I think had it's major years of decline were 1970-1990.

Obama just got it wrong on so many levels. 

Then again, he just got it in wrong in Jimmy John's world, someone who could one day make the Anti-Bush crowd look extremely reasonable.

No, Obama got it wrong in the real world, one he doesn't understand.  The world he describes was party real, in the 1970's and early 1980's, but not today.

So, that's why Pennsylvania lost 10% of its congressional seats in the 2000 census.

You idiot.  The population still gained about 400,000, it just gained more slowly than the other states.  If you are a large state and want to keep seats you better gain people hand-over-fist to do so, or you are gonna start losing.

As for the cities here, JJ is right, most of the population loss now isn't real loss so much as it is people moving to the suburbs.  In the 70's and 80's people were moving away all together.

Yeah, but isn't the fact that its not growing as fast as everyone else an issue. Crist....and now you are devolving to name calling? Yup, this anti-Obama cultism is a threat to our well being.

[Person Man]

I would like to redirect this entire conversation to the more broad issue that Obama tried to answer.

Why are non-economic issues more important than economic ones?
Why does it seem that only now that they are?

[Person Man]

Hey, McCain was said to be lenient to spies as an Air Force Officer in Vietnam.

Then again, why have we made our own idiosyncracies everything about us?

[Person Man]

Or, what we could do is to work through International Community to ensure that our unique products are sold. The Kyoto treaty would do wonders at that. We can cap everyone's emissions and sell our technologies to keep them productive and if they don't sign on, we can play the international security card and levy high tariffs on them until they accept the treaty and buy our technology.

[Person Man]

I am just not going to engage is this rhetorical bridgework thingy with you snowguy716. Play with someone else on that. But here is a little thought for you. Perhaps where the US has a comparative advantage is less in manufacturing widgets these days, and more in inventing and offering intangible goods, like services, and designs, and trade secret thingies, and stuff subject to copyright, and the like. But hey, Boeing still sells planes, and highly complex stuff that you can tough and feel is one area where the US is still quite competitive, although of course much of the value added even there, is in the intangible value added in those hunks of aluminum.

...but do we want that comparable advantage? Or, if we do, how can we it into a comparable advantage that involves jobs that people want?

That's the goal, Torie. The goal is to make the global trade system bring jobs that people want to our shores.

Your claim about the ephemeral products is extremely dubious, Torie, but even if it were accurate, it means that the only way for the US to receive the benefits of 'trade' in these 'ideas' is to forcibly impose itself and its 'legal system' upon other countries.  Before just a half-decade ago most Asian countries ignored such nonsense as 'copy-write' or 'patent'.  Some still due, humanely, in the area of drugs.

But aside from this point about the source of profit (force), it is worth noting that the 'information economy' about which you fantasize, even if it were real, would only provide incomes to a tiny elite.  Thus government action will be needed to redistribute, otherwise the vast majority will suffer (a condition they should not accept, politically, though perversely they always have).

The one thing that I agree with you in this article is that we have forgotten what American exceptionalism really is. It's not to believe that you are excellent, but to actually be excellent.

[Person Man]

Exactly. Those industrial jobs are not coming back! No President, I don't care if they are Republican or Democrat, could've stopped the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs. If they had, we'd have much higher prices and less economic growth today.

What does growth mean if not everyone sees it, then again, the jobs that are going away aren't going bach. Then again, we just need to find a new industry that the rest of the world depends on. Americans need to think of a new industry and invest greatly in it.

What's funny about this is that the "problem" of not having enough low-paying jobs and too many high-paying ones will solve itself once China and India become sufficiently industrialized. By that time Americans will get all those precious jobs with long working hours in mines or cleaning toilets or whatever. Enjoy the ride of being on the better end of the global economy while it lasts...

We might end up there (long after I am dead, but whatever), if the US educational system except for the elite continues to suck, and the US does not continue to poach the best and brightest to make up for some of it. However, Europe has the same problem, much of it. I have read that educational standards in Germany have taken a dump. That place will be hurting big time in due course. It may well be that in the end, the Asians will indeed rule, if they maintain their discipline and work ethic, and respect for education, as a generalization. They certainly seem to have a comparative advantage (that term again) in California these days, as American transplants. Their ranks are dominating our elite educational institutions.

Hey, what is with the Finns? They start school at 7 years of age, and max out on test scores as number one or two in the world, in just everything, verbal, science, math, you name it.

The Finnish basically still adhere to the traditional Scandinavian school system which is highly egalitarian but with strong discipline and high demands on all pupils througout elementary education (instead of dividing pupils up into elite groups and low-performance groups). In Sweden the egalitarian aspect is still around but not the rest. Germany does extremely early dividing into different education forms which I think helps explains why they do so badly.

That' could be an interesting idea. Perhaps we should abolish the entire "gifted" program.

What's funny about this is that the "problem" of not having enough low-paying jobs and too many high-paying ones will solve itself once China and India become sufficiently industrialized. By that time Americans will get all those precious jobs with long working hours in mines or cleaning toilets or whatever. Enjoy the ride of being on the better end of the global economy while it lasts...

One thing that I saw in College and fell in love with was Japanese leap-frog economics. This will allow for America to retain its superpower status while allowing the 3rd world to industrialize. The idea is that you develop new industries in the core world and ship off the older jobs to the peripheral world.

[Person Man]

Obama seems to be talking about an economy as it was 35 years ago.  That is called being out of touch.

Or maybe you are trying to defend your own credibility as it is the generals and you are trying to solidify your case for Micky C.

[Person Man]

We can't continue to buy products from countries with no respect for the environment or human rights.. of course they can produce stuff cheaper than we can!  They can dump their sludge in the river and make 8 year olds do it... how are we supposed to compete with that?

It's not about competing on individual markets.  Even if a country produces at 1/1000th of the level of efficiency and cost effectiveness as our country, we will STILL be able to mutually benefit from trade.

Look:
United States can make 500 superconductors or 500 shirts in a day/month/whatever
China can produce 1 superconductor or 100 shirts

US is much more efficient at both items.  But China has a comparative advantage at making shirts while the US has a comparative advantage at making superconductors.  We both make what we're good at and trade for the other, resulting in a maximization of our happiness!  Even if the US only wants shirts and China only wants superconductors, they would still make what they're good at.

Fair trade is important regarding some things, but it's not as big of a deal as you depict it.  For example, I wouldn't want African countries to enter a vicious cycle to see who can lower workplace safety the most in certain markets (mining) but that isn't really what you're talking about..

That's how it works in an idealistic world.. straight out of textbook economics 101.

But what has happened in the U.S. is that through neglecting our education, health care, and infrastructure systems, we are losing our comparative advantage at producing superconductors while China is becoming better and better at producing T-Shirts AND superconductors because it can do so much more cheaply.. so, China gains more than the U.S. and the U.S. actually starts to slide backwards..

And then voters compound the problem by getting all in a tizzy and voting to further cut education, health care, and infrastructure funding because their incomes aren't rising and they blame it all on taxes.

Yes, it's a vicious cycle... if only the free market worked like it's supposed to!

Yeah I know it's straight out of an intro to econ class because the benefits from free trade ARE simple economics.  Even if China becomes better at producing both than the US (say, switch the numbers around) *we still have a comparative advantage at one.*  The US is never going to find its future in an industrial economy like one can find in Western Pennsylvania because the rest of the world is comparatively better at doing what they do compared to everything else than the United States (we're really bloody good at chemicals & aircraft while the rest of the world isn't, for example).  I was just answering your earlier question as to why US workers are less efficient.  It's not that we're less efficient, it's just has to do with the relative price of our products since we're so awesome and producing many other service-oriented, highly-specialized, and investment-heavy things.

...and that's what we should emphasize. Unfortunately at this point, there isn't enough jobs in the areas that we are good at. ...and the other side of comparitive advantage is that we might get better at lower-paying things compared to others.

[Person Man]

Somehow that has changed in most people. I am guessing the role of government in the minds of most people has change from a forum to address your grievances to a vehicle of engineering the "common good".

[Person Man]

snowguy716, in cashing in your health care chip, are you suggesting the US is suffering the competitive blues, because our workers are sicker than those germ free Chinese stud workers or what?  So many thoughts, so little time.

Maybe our workers are sicker than those in Western Europe?

[Person Man]

Obama seems to be talking about an economy as it was 35 years ago.  That is called being out of touch.

Or maybe you are trying to defend your own credibility as it is the generals and you are trying to solidify your case for Micky C.

No, there are enough links on this tread, and enough reporting, to show that Obama was wrong even on the econimic aspect of the statement.  Obamality, not reality.

Oh great. In McWorld, Pennsylvania is this vibrant, fast-growth economically strong state. I think the fact that it is not keeping up with the rest of the country and is losing seats fast is case enough.

[Person Man]

snowguy716, in cashing in your health care chip, are you suggesting the US is suffering the competitive blues, because our workers are sicker than those germ free Chinese stud workers or what?  So many thoughts, so little time.

Maybe our workers are sicker than those in Western Europe?

Time for you to do some research and find out!  Get on it!

Do you have the reasearch?

Better yet, Maybe we should compare non-stigmatized Americans to Europeans in Britian, Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Holland, Denmank and Germany.

I would include Portugual and Norway, but they seem to be too much of mavericks in the Euro-Confederacy.

[Person Man]

The fun continues...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D901A22G3&show_article=1
 
Obama Turns Table on Clinton
Apr 13 08:07 PM US/Eastern
By BETH FOUHY
Associated Press Writer

STEELTON, Penn. (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama lashed out Sunday at rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, mocking her sudden vocal support for gun rights and saying he understands the concerns of working class people.
"She knows better. Shame on her. Shame on her," Obama told an audience at a union hall here.

The Illinois senator has spent two days on the defensive after comments he made at a San Francisco fundraiser suggesting working class people are bitter about their economic circumstances and "cling to guns and religion" as a result. Clinton has pounded him for the remarks, calling him "elitist and divisive."

After reiterating his regret for his choice of words, Obama turned the tables on Clinton—mocking, among other things, her sudden fealty to the rights of gun owners.

"She is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsman, how she values the second amendment. She's talking like she's Annie Oakley," Obama said, invoking the famed female sharpshooter immortalized in the musical "Anne Get Your Gun."

Obama continued, saying "Hillary Clinton is out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday. She's packing a six-shooter. Come on, she knows better. That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton."
Personally, I have no idea how anyone could shoot a duck with a six-shooter, but maybe things changed since I last went hunting.

I like the new confrontational Obama.

He will need to be that way....thank goodness he is only on the defense. If this keeps up until November, he could fare better than the likes of Dukakis, Gore and Kerry, who either didn't respond to attacks or tried to downplay them. What Obama is showing is that his opponent's ideas about the world and him are respectable ideas and that he will rebut them.

[Person Man]

Obama seems to be talking about an economy as it was 35 years ago.  That is called being out of touch.

Or maybe you are trying to defend your own credibility as it is the generals and you are trying to solidify your case for Micky C.

No, there are enough links on this tread, and enough reporting, to show that Obama was wrong even on the econimic aspect of the statement.  Obamality, not reality.

Oh great. In McWorld, Pennsylvania is this vibrant, fast-growth economically strong state. I think the fact that it is not keeping up with the rest of the country and is losing seats fast is case enough.

No, but it has been shown that PA has grown and that unemployment is lower.  Not perfect, but not "bitter" either.

It's on the news again, with Obama's Annie Oakley comment.  Retro again.  More Obamality.

Unemployment is low, but where is it compared to the national average and what is the median wage?

[Person Man]

Obama seems to be talking about an economy as it was 35 years ago.  That is called being out of touch.

Or maybe you are trying to defend your own credibility as it is the generals and you are trying to solidify your case for Micky C.

No, there are enough links on this tread, and enough reporting, to show that Obama was wrong even on the econimic aspect of the statement.  Obamality, not reality.

Oh great. In McWorld, Pennsylvania is this vibrant, fast-growth economically strong state. I think the fact that it is not keeping up with the rest of the country and is losing seats fast is case enough.

No, but it has been shown that PA has grown and that unemployment is lower.  Not perfect, but not "bitter" either.

It's on the news again, with Obama's Annie Oakley comment.  Retro again.  More Obamality.

Unemployment is low, but where is it compared to the national average and what is the median wage?

How is PA's state specific economic freedom index as opposed to the national average, and what is the state of its local institutional environment (labor regulations, minimum wage, licensing requirements, etc)?

Taking in to account PA's relative economic freedom and institutional situation, their employment and wage levels as about what one would expect.

What does that have to do with the situation? Jobs get replaced, with not as good jobs. Those with good jobs don't live in small towns. I really don't know what the hacks on this forum is on, but I know from my in-laws that Ohio/Pennsylvania still hasn't recovered from the 70s-80s.