Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[Beet]

Warren's main problem is that her message just doesn't resonate in a good economy.  People generally don't want to hear gloomy reflections on rising corporate power when they are getting better jobs or raises and better benefits at their current job.  Her other problem is that Donald Trump is probably the worst style of Republican for her to be running against.  She already played into his hands on the fake Indian scandal, and he has retained enough populist cred to partially counter her appeal.  She's got the policy chops and the smarts, but her profound economic pessimism just isn't what the electorate is looking for right now. 

She really needed to be running against a President Cruz or Rubio in a recession.     

The economy was good in 2016 as well but that didn't stop the "economic anxiety" narrative from taking hold. Saying we can do better on the economy and that a broader group of Americans can share in prosperity isn't pessimistic.

[Rookie Yinzer]

The economic anxiety narrative was pushed because white led cable news rooms didn’t want to call out their fellow white people’s racism.

However, I do not find Warren’s message pessimistic. It’s just that the folks who would benefit the most from these policies are enamored by other candidates.

[GP270watch]

Warren's main problem is that her message just doesn't resonate in a good economy.  P

 It just came out that the richest Americans are getting much richer and the poorest are getting poorer.  It was also recently reported that millennials are falling out of the American middle class. The white/black wealth gap is growing. Only Warren has proposed the policy remedies to address all these issues.

 Trump gave a $1 trillion dollar tax cut that might end up actually being $2 trillion from what I read, to Corporations that were already doing well and the very richest Americans. How anybody can do this in a time of rising income inequality is crazy. If people are waiting for things to get much worse to vote for a candidate like Warren than they might deserve their fate.

[John Dule]

Warren's main problem is that her message just doesn't resonate in a good economy.  P

 It just came out that the richest Americans are getting much richer and the poorest are getting poorer.  It was also recently reported that millennials are falling out of the American middle class. The white/black wealth gap is growing. Only Warren has proposed the policy remedies to address all these issues.

 Trump gave a $1 trillion dollar tax cut that might end up actually being $2 trillion from what I read, to Corporations that were already doing well and the very richest Americans. How anybody can do this in a time of rising income inequality is crazy. If people are waiting for things to get much worse to vote for a candidate like Warren than they might deserve their fate.

Just out of curiosity, what do you see as the actual cause of this inequality? Do you really think it's just a matter of government policy (i.e. it's all Reagan's fault)? I'm of the opinion that a lot of this trend is truly irreversible; globalization decreases the wealth gap between countries but raises the wealth gap within countries. If you can't halt that process, all you can do is try to balance it out with flimsy, increasingly costly social welfare programs that will never be enough (and will ultimately bankrupt the country).

[Hollywood]

Being 100… I’m already asking myself whether Warren’s campaign is over? 

First, Warren is not like Clinton for the simple fact that her finance director left the campaign as a result of Warren’s decision to swear off soliciting money from wealthy donors during the primaries.  Clinton would never have sworn off money for any reason.  Despite her principles, Warren raised $6 million in the first quarter of 2019, which is lower than Bernie’s $18 million and Kamala Harris’ $12 million.  Reports indicate that party insiders aren’t willing to help her anymore, which means she can’t rely on the Democrat establishment for any support.  She doesn’t seem to want it.  However, she isn’t the only outsider candidate, as Bernie certainly owns that title.  So how does she create separation by defining her campaign and distinguishing herself from the field?

I’ve thought long and hard about possible scenarios for a Warren nomination.  I simply don’t have an answer.  There’s no way.  I’m giving her a non-zero chance.  She appeals to policy wonks, but there are plenty of policy wonks running.  It feels like her campaign can be summed up in a few short sentences: “Please like me. I have policies.  I hate Trump.  I hate him more than anyone in the world.  I’ll give you anything you want if you’ll just be my friend.  Do you want money?  Listen.  I’m desperate.  Don’t make me beg.  Okay.  I’ll beg.”

She simply has no appeal, and she doesn’t have a voter base. She’s not going to win old people.  That demographic belongs to Biden and Sanders.  She doesn’t poll well with people that no her or in her own state. The young, old, women, men, black, white, Hispanic, etc., etc., etc., don’t like her, and at best, consider her Ralph Nader.  You know.  The presidential candidate that most closely resembled air.  You knew he was there but you couldn’t see or hear him.  Her negatives are too high, and they are rising in the Democratic primary.  She’s not even the second choice of any of the candidates.  I’m told by people that she will do well in the debates, but I’ve never been impressed with her persuasive skills.  The number one issue for Democrats is “winning” and she doesn’t have the personality to assure anyone of a win.

Moreover, she’s not even comfortable in her own skin, and she’s desperate for the approval of every political-identity group.  I think we can skip over the whole Native American thing, and lying about submitting forms in which she indicated that she was a Native American.  Let’s get to the part where she promised African Americans reparations.  Do I have to say any more?  She is trying to go so far left for Democrat votes that she has essentially become unappealing to one of her strongest potential voters – old Democrats. 

Therefore, it’s over.  She might go all the way with it, but it’s done.  I’m honestly trying to find one thing that could salvage her campaign, but there isn’t anything concrete.  Whether its policy or platitudes, she doesn’t have the qualities to create that atmosphere.  That memorable moment.  She just doesn’t have “it”. 

Huh,a nearly spot on post...no kidding.

Thank you.  Some people have personalities that can carry a campaign, and Elizabeth Warren is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Her personality flaws for political campaigning permeates through her demeanor, body language, cadence, etc., and it's enough to sink her campaign.  Winning MA is a totally different animal than winning over the hearts and votes of swing state voters.  Some of them want to have a beer with their candidate (a ridiculous test for President), but I can't imagine three quarters of the country wanting to have a beer with her. 

[Beet]

Being 100… I’m already asking myself whether Warren’s campaign is over? 

First, Warren is not like Clinton for the simple fact that her finance director left the campaign as a result of Warren’s decision to swear off soliciting money from wealthy donors during the primaries.  Clinton would never have sworn off money for any reason.  Despite her principles, Warren raised $6 million in the first quarter of 2019, which is lower than Bernie’s $18 million and Kamala Harris’ $12 million.  Reports indicate that party insiders aren’t willing to help her anymore, which means she can’t rely on the Democrat establishment for any support.  She doesn’t seem to want it.  However, she isn’t the only outsider candidate, as Bernie certainly owns that title.  So how does she create separation by defining her campaign and distinguishing herself from the field?

I’ve thought long and hard about possible scenarios for a Warren nomination.  I simply don’t have an answer.  There’s no way.  I’m giving her a non-zero chance.  She appeals to policy wonks, but there are plenty of policy wonks running.  It feels like her campaign can be summed up in a few short sentences: “Please like me. I have policies.  I hate Trump.  I hate him more than anyone in the world.  I’ll give you anything you want if you’ll just be my friend.  Do you want money?  Listen.  I’m desperate.  Don’t make me beg.  Okay.  I’ll beg.”

She simply has no appeal, and she doesn’t have a voter base. She’s not going to win old people.  That demographic belongs to Biden and Sanders.  She doesn’t poll well with people that no her or in her own state. The young, old, women, men, black, white, Hispanic, etc., etc., etc., don’t like her, and at best, consider her Ralph Nader.  You know.  The presidential candidate that most closely resembled air.  You knew he was there but you couldn’t see or hear him.  Her negatives are too high, and they are rising in the Democratic primary.  She’s not even the second choice of any of the candidates.  I’m told by people that she will do well in the debates, but I’ve never been impressed with her persuasive skills.  The number one issue for Democrats is “winning” and she doesn’t have the personality to assure anyone of a win.

Moreover, she’s not even comfortable in her own skin, and she’s desperate for the approval of every political-identity group.  I think we can skip over the whole Native American thing, and lying about submitting forms in which she indicated that she was a Native American.  Let’s get to the part where she promised African Americans reparations.  Do I have to say any more?  She is trying to go so far left for Democrat votes that she has essentially become unappealing to one of her strongest potential voters – old Democrats. 

Therefore, it’s over.  She might go all the way with it, but it’s done.  I’m honestly trying to find one thing that could salvage her campaign, but there isn’t anything concrete.  Whether its policy or platitudes, she doesn’t have the qualities to create that atmosphere.  That memorable moment.  She just doesn’t have “it”. 

Huh,a nearly spot on post...no kidding.

Thank you.  Some people have personalities that can carry a campaign, and Elizabeth Warren is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Her personality flaws for political campaigning permeates through her demeanor, body language, cadence, etc., and it's enough to sink her campaign.  Winning MA is a totally different animal than winning over the hearts and votes of swing state voters.  Some of them want to have a beer with their candidate (a ridiculous test for President), but I can't imagine three quarters of the country wanting to have a beer with her. 

This is ridiculous. Did you see her town hall? She gets positive reactions from crowds everywhere she goes.

[Hollywood]

Being 100… I’m already asking myself whether Warren’s campaign is over?  

First, Warren is not like Clinton for the simple fact that her finance director left the campaign as a result of Warren’s decision to swear off soliciting money from wealthy donors during the primaries.  Clinton would never have sworn off money for any reason.  Despite her principles, Warren raised $6 million in the first quarter of 2019, which is lower than Bernie’s $18 million and Kamala Harris’ $12 million.  Reports indicate that party insiders aren’t willing to help her anymore, which means she can’t rely on the Democrat establishment for any support.  She doesn’t seem to want it.  However, she isn’t the only outsider candidate, as Bernie certainly owns that title.  So how does she create separation by defining her campaign and distinguishing herself from the field?

I’ve thought long and hard about possible scenarios for a Warren nomination.  I simply don’t have an answer.  There’s no way.  I’m giving her a non-zero chance.  She appeals to policy wonks, but there are plenty of policy wonks running.  It feels like her campaign can be summed up in a few short sentences: “Please like me. I have policies.  I hate Trump.  I hate him more than anyone in the world.  I’ll give you anything you want if you’ll just be my friend.  Do you want money?  Listen.  I’m desperate.  Don’t make me beg.  Okay.  I’ll beg.”

She simply has no appeal, and she doesn’t have a voter base. She’s not going to win old people.  That demographic belongs to Biden and Sanders.  She doesn’t poll well with people that no her or in her own state. The young, old, women, men, black, white, Hispanic, etc., etc., etc., don’t like her, and at best, consider her Ralph Nader.  You know.  The presidential candidate that most closely resembled air.  You knew he was there but you couldn’t see or hear him.  Her negatives are too high, and they are rising in the Democratic primary.  She’s not even the second choice of any of the candidates.  I’m told by people that she will do well in the debates, but I’ve never been impressed with her persuasive skills.  The number one issue for Democrats is “winning” and she doesn’t have the personality to assure anyone of a win.

Moreover, she’s not even comfortable in her own skin, and she’s desperate for the approval of every political-identity group.  I think we can skip over the whole Native American thing, and lying about submitting forms in which she indicated that she was a Native American.  Let’s get to the part where she promised African Americans reparations.  Do I have to say any more?  She is trying to go so far left for Democrat votes that she has essentially become unappealing to one of her strongest potential voters – old Democrats.  

Therefore, it’s over.  She might go all the way with it, but it’s done.  I’m honestly trying to find one thing that could salvage her campaign, but there isn’t anything concrete.  Whether its policy or platitudes, she doesn’t have the qualities to create that atmosphere.  That memorable moment.  She just doesn’t have “it”.  

Huh,a nearly spot on post...no kidding.

Thank you.  Some people have personalities that can carry a campaign, and Elizabeth Warren is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Her personality flaws for political campaigning permeates through her demeanor, body language, cadence, etc., and it's enough to sink her campaign.  Winning MA is a totally different animal than winning over the hearts and votes of swing state voters.  Some of them want to have a beer with their candidate (a ridiculous test for President), but I can't imagine three quarters of the country wanting to have a beer with her.  

This is ridiculous. Did you see her town hall? She gets positive reactions from crowds everywhere she goes.

I'm not using a crowd of Elizabeth Warren fans at a town hall as a barometer of her impact on average voters.  That would be ridiculous.  I'm only giving you my impressions of her.  If you're a fan, then keep supporting her.  

Lying Ted, crooked Hillary, little Marco, low energy, etc.  Trump is going to express what I've just written in one word, and then it's going to stick.  I can already foresee the way voters are going to react and perceive Warren. 

[Beet]

Being 100… I’m already asking myself whether Warren’s campaign is over?  

First, Warren is not like Clinton for the simple fact that her finance director left the campaign as a result of Warren’s decision to swear off soliciting money from wealthy donors during the primaries.  Clinton would never have sworn off money for any reason.  Despite her principles, Warren raised $6 million in the first quarter of 2019, which is lower than Bernie’s $18 million and Kamala Harris’ $12 million.  Reports indicate that party insiders aren’t willing to help her anymore, which means she can’t rely on the Democrat establishment for any support.  She doesn’t seem to want it.  However, she isn’t the only outsider candidate, as Bernie certainly owns that title.  So how does she create separation by defining her campaign and distinguishing herself from the field?

I’ve thought long and hard about possible scenarios for a Warren nomination.  I simply don’t have an answer.  There’s no way.  I’m giving her a non-zero chance.  She appeals to policy wonks, but there are plenty of policy wonks running.  It feels like her campaign can be summed up in a few short sentences: “Please like me. I have policies.  I hate Trump.  I hate him more than anyone in the world.  I’ll give you anything you want if you’ll just be my friend.  Do you want money?  Listen.  I’m desperate.  Don’t make me beg.  Okay.  I’ll beg.”

She simply has no appeal, and she doesn’t have a voter base. She’s not going to win old people.  That demographic belongs to Biden and Sanders.  She doesn’t poll well with people that no her or in her own state. The young, old, women, men, black, white, Hispanic, etc., etc., etc., don’t like her, and at best, consider her Ralph Nader.  You know.  The presidential candidate that most closely resembled air.  You knew he was there but you couldn’t see or hear him.  Her negatives are too high, and they are rising in the Democratic primary.  She’s not even the second choice of any of the candidates.  I’m told by people that she will do well in the debates, but I’ve never been impressed with her persuasive skills.  The number one issue for Democrats is “winning” and she doesn’t have the personality to assure anyone of a win.

Moreover, she’s not even comfortable in her own skin, and she’s desperate for the approval of every political-identity group.  I think we can skip over the whole Native American thing, and lying about submitting forms in which she indicated that she was a Native American.  Let’s get to the part where she promised African Americans reparations.  Do I have to say any more?  She is trying to go so far left for Democrat votes that she has essentially become unappealing to one of her strongest potential voters – old Democrats.  

Therefore, it’s over.  She might go all the way with it, but it’s done.  I’m honestly trying to find one thing that could salvage her campaign, but there isn’t anything concrete.  Whether its policy or platitudes, she doesn’t have the qualities to create that atmosphere.  That memorable moment.  She just doesn’t have “it”.  

Huh,a nearly spot on post...no kidding.

Thank you.  Some people have personalities that can carry a campaign, and Elizabeth Warren is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Her personality flaws for political campaigning permeates through her demeanor, body language, cadence, etc., and it's enough to sink her campaign.  Winning MA is a totally different animal than winning over the hearts and votes of swing state voters.  Some of them want to have a beer with their candidate (a ridiculous test for President), but I can't imagine three quarters of the country wanting to have a beer with her.  

This is ridiculous. Did you see her town hall? She gets positive reactions from crowds everywhere she goes.

I'm not using a crowd of Elizabeth Warren fans at a town hall as a barometer of her impact on average voters.  That would be ridiculous.  I'm only giving you my impressions of her.  If you're a fan, then keep supporting her.  

Lying Ted, crooked Hillary, little Marco, low energy, etc.  Trump is going to express what I've just written in one word, and then it's going to stick.  I can already foresee the way voters are going to react and perceive Warren. 

Trump's name calling had only worked so far because no one has used real substance against him. Even Hillary mostly campaigned on how he violated social norms. I can see some Dems repeat the same errors, but the Warren is not going make that mistake.

[GP270watch]

Just out of curiosity, what do you see as the actual cause of this inequality? Do you really think it's just a matter of government policy (i.e. it's all Reagan's fault)? I'm of the opinion that a lot of this trend is truly irreversible; globalization decreases the wealth gap between countries but raises the wealth gap within countries. If you can't halt that process, all you can do is try to balance it out with flimsy, increasingly costly social welfare programs that will never be enough (and will ultimately bankrupt the country).

 It starts with compensation and then a tax code that's written by the wealthy for the wealthy. Executive compensation has runaway from what the average worker in the same company makes. Tax rates for the wealthy have kept going down, and there are more loopholes and tax shelters for them to minimize taxes paid(sometimes paying zero) to pass their wealth down dynastically.
 The American public is also massively and utterly financially ignorant. They have fallen for lines like "taxes are punishing the wealthy". Something that if you knew basic math would be laughable to anybody who heard the statement.

[John Dule]

Just out of curiosity, what do you see as the actual cause of this inequality? Do you really think it's just a matter of government policy (i.e. it's all Reagan's fault)? I'm of the opinion that a lot of this trend is truly irreversible; globalization decreases the wealth gap between countries but raises the wealth gap within countries. If you can't halt that process, all you can do is try to balance it out with flimsy, increasingly costly social welfare programs that will never be enough (and will ultimately bankrupt the country).

 It starts with compensation and then a tax code that's written by the wealthy for the wealthy. Executive compensation has runaway from what the average worker in the same company makes. Tax rates for the wealthy have kept going down, and there are more loopholes and tax shelters for them to minimize taxes paid(sometimes paying zero) to pass their wealth down dynastically.
 The American public is also massively and utterly financially ignorant. They have fallen for lines like "taxes are punishing the wealthy". Something that if you knew basic math would be laughable to anybody who heard the statement.

Is it really just about executive compensation, though? When I see charts like this, my first thought isn't that the execs are getting paid too much.



There's a reason for this that can't just be boiled down to "billionaires are greedy" and "the government is helping them with the tax code." Why is the average worker not seeing the gains that the economy is making? I think the answer comes down to three things: Automation, globalization, and immigration. Trump would like you to believe it's solely the latter; the Democrats would like you to think it's just automation. But the truth is that:

1) Increased use of automated production lines has completely devalued the average worker in America's industrial cores.
2) The US is now competing with industrial centers in Asia, Europe, and (increasingly) Africa. If those regions remain politically stable, companies will continue to invest there. And nobody will pay Joe Smith of Michigan $15 an hour to do a job that Mtumbe in Kenya can do for 50 cents.
3) Illegal immigration brings down average wages because they don't demand health benefits, pensions, or any of the other things that "on-the-books" workers do. Companies therefore have a huge incentive to employ illegal workers.

I think Democrats have a bad habit of looking at the 50's as the rule for economic growth rather than the exception. You get people like Cenk Uygur pointing out that we had a 92% top marginal tax rate, but growth still continued-- and he says that this proves that those same policies could work again today. But he neglects to mention that half the world had been destroyed at that point. Europe was in ruins, the East was under the fist of Communism, and the rest of the world was much too politically unstable for investors to put capital in. Of course America thrived back then. We were the only country where return on investment was practically guaranteed.

[GP270watch]

In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker. Last year, CEO pay at an S&P 500 Index firm soared to an average of 361 times more than the average rank-and-file worker, or pay of $13,940,000 a year, according to an AFL-CIO’s Executive Paywatch news release today.

 Yes executive pay is one of the main problems.

 An example that also shows it's not automation, globalism, or immigration is Silicon Valley engineers. They make a great salary, are highly skilled, and work for the countries wealthiest companies. And it was discovered that those companies were colluding to depress their wages. They got a slap on the wrist for it too.


 

[izixs]

In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker. Last year, CEO pay at an S&P 500 Index firm soared to an average of 361 times more than the average rank-and-file worker, or pay of $13,940,000 a year, according to an AFL-CIO’s Executive Paywatch news release today.

 Yes executive pay is one of the main problems.

 An example that also shows it's not automation, globalism, or immigration is Silicon Valley engineers. They make a great salary, are highly skilled, and work for the countries wealthiest companies. And it was discovered that those companies were colluding to depress their wages. They got a slap on the wrist for it too.


 

Great example. Those at the top will continue to seek out ways to increase their wealth at the expense of anybody that they have to pay in order to make that wealth. Suppressing wages is the most direct means for which to do this as it doesn't require capital investments (automation), shipping costs (globalization), the hurdles of legal immigration including the bureaucratic costs (immigration), or the dangers of hiring undocument workers (immigration). To claim that all of these other options that involve their own costs, direct or indirect, are the primary reasons for the problem is asking us to pretend those who can set wages wouldn't just opt to lower them, saving them money now that becomes pure profit, if given the chance. They are factors, and in some industries much more than others, but they are not the fundamental problem at the heart of all the depression of wages: greed.

[Beet]

No, the Democrats are not saying it's automation. Blaming these problems on automation is just another way of saying "it's inevitable and you can't do anything about it." Blaming it on immigrants is just another way of saying "it's those brown people." Blaming it on globalization has some truth but who signed those trade deals in the first place? It doesn't get to the root of the problem.

Democrats (or at least Warren, Sanders, and some others) are saying it's politics. It's because the labor movement, which once gave workers power, is now decimated. It's because at some point in American history we illegalized corruption for the poor but kept it legal for the rich. We're saying that these are conscious political decisions being made in Washington and we can choose a different path with the will to do so.

[GP270watch]

Great example. Those at the top will continue to seek out ways to increase their wealth at the expense of anybody that they have to pay in order to make that wealth.

 Jack Ma also spoke to this when people try to talk about how the growth in China has hurt U.S. Workers, he calmly dismisses this with facts. Like he states look at the balance sheets of America's biggest companies and how global markets have made them wealthy. The problem is they haven't been taxed appropriately, they haven't rewarded the workers, and the US government hasn't invested in its people. We've also fought a lot of very expensive and pointless wars and had a huge military buildup.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW6zN_2SE8A

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Just out of curiosity, what do you see as the actual cause of this inequality? Do you really think it's just a matter of government policy (i.e. it's all Reagan's fault)? I'm of the opinion that a lot of this trend is truly irreversible; globalization decreases the wealth gap between countries but raises the wealth gap within countries. If you can't halt that process, all you can do is try to balance it out with flimsy, increasingly costly social welfare programs that will never be enough (and will ultimately bankrupt the country).

 It starts with compensation and then a tax code that's written by the wealthy for the wealthy. Executive compensation has runaway from what the average worker in the same company makes. Tax rates for the wealthy have kept going down, and there are more loopholes and tax shelters for them to minimize taxes paid(sometimes paying zero) to pass their wealth down dynastically.
 The American public is also massively and utterly financially ignorant. They have fallen for lines like "taxes are punishing the wealthy". Something that if you knew basic math would be laughable to anybody who heard the statement.

Is it really just about executive compensation, though? When I see charts like this, my first thought isn't that the execs are getting paid too much.



There's a reason for this that can't just be boiled down to "billionaires are greedy" and "the government is helping them with the tax code." Why is the average worker not seeing the gains that the economy is making? I think the answer comes down to three things: Automation, globalization, and immigration. Trump would like you to believe it's solely the latter; the Democrats would like you to think it's just automation. But the truth is that:

1) Increased use of automated production lines has completely devalued the average worker in America's industrial cores.
2) The US is now competing with industrial centers in Asia, Europe, and (increasingly) Africa. If those regions remain politically stable, companies will continue to invest there. And nobody will pay Joe Smith of Michigan $15 an hour to do a job that Mtumbe in Kenya can do for 50 cents.
3) Illegal immigration brings down average wages because they don't demand health benefits, pensions, or any of the other things that "on-the-books" workers do. Companies therefore have a huge incentive to employ illegal workers.

I think Democrats have a bad habit of looking at the 50's as the rule for economic growth rather than the exception. You get people like Cenk Uygur pointing out that we had a 92% top marginal tax rate, but growth still continued-- and he says that this proves that those same policies could work again today. But he neglects to mention that half the world had been destroyed at that point. Europe was in ruins, the East was under the fist of Communism, and the rest of the world was much too politically unstable for investors to put capital in. Of course America thrived back then. We were the only country where return on investment was practically guaranteed.

So you’re essentially saying we should have a race to the bottom where we attempt to match Chinese or African levels of labor standards so we can attract sh**tty paying jobs and work more of our populace to death? What a terrible idea.

[PSOL]

U.S. presidential candidate Warren wants to prevent new leases on mining and drilling on federal lands

Warren said in a post on Medium that she would sign an executive order on her first day in office for a “total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases including for drilling offshore and on public lands.”

“We must not allow corporations to pillage our public lands and leave taxpayers to clean up the mess,” she wrote.

Warren’s stance on public lands contrasts starkly with that of President Donald Trump, whose Interior Department has sped up permitting for drilling and mining on public lands as a part of the administration’s “energy dominance” agenda.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

U.S. presidential candidate Warren wants drilling, mining banned on federal lands

Warren said in a post on Medium that she would sign an executive order on her first day in office for a “total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases including for drilling offshore and on public lands.”

“We must not allow corporations to pillage our public lands and leave taxpayers to clean up the mess,” she wrote.

Warren’s stance on public lands contrasts starkly with that of President Donald Trump, whose Interior Department has sped up permitting for drilling and mining on public lands as a part of the administration’s “energy dominance” agenda.

This and a similar Daily Beast headline are really bad. She only wants to prevent new leases, not stop current ones as well. This a big difference that headlines like these ignore while trying to make her sound far more radical than she is.

[John Dule]

In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker. Last year, CEO pay at an S&P 500 Index firm soared to an average of 361 times more than the average rank-and-file worker, or pay of $13,940,000 a year, according to an AFL-CIO’s Executive Paywatch news release today.

Yes executive pay is one of the main problems.

An example that also shows it's not automation, globalism, or immigration is Silicon Valley engineers. They make a great salary, are highly skilled, and work for the countries wealthiest companies. And it was discovered that those companies were colluding to depress their wages. They got a slap on the wrist for it too.

I didn't say that executive pay wasn't a problem, but I see it more as a symptom rather than the actual catalyst. Silicon Valley engineers aren't the ones whose wages are driving these macro trends in the economy. The stagnating wages of Americans across almost every sector of the economy can't be explained away just by pointing to greedy CEO's. The key question here is "Why are Americans willing to work for less?" The answer is that their skills are no longer as valued as they once were on the global market.

No, the Democrats are not saying it's automation. Blaming these problems on automation is just another way of saying "it's inevitable and you can't do anything about it." Blaming it on immigrants is just another way of saying "it's those brown people." Blaming it on globalization has some truth but who signed those trade deals in the first place? It doesn't get to the root of the problem.

Democrats (or at least Warren, Sanders, and some others) are saying it's politics. It's because the labor movement, which once gave workers power, is now decimated. It's because at some point in American history we illegalized corruption for the poor but kept it legal for the rich. We're saying that these are conscious political decisions being made in Washington and we can choose a different path with the will to do so.

All right, not all Democrats are saying that it's automation-- but Yang is hardly the first to point to it as the key issue. During Trump's campaign, a major talking point on the left was that the immigrant boogeyman wasn't the primary cause of the Rust Belt collapse, rather, automation was. It is inevitable, and yes, there is a limit to how much we can do about it. Don't think I'm saying this to be callous or defeatist, I'm not; at the same time, I think that trying to artificially inflate wages will only serve to accelerate this process.

Companies will always try to find cheaper ways to produce their goods. Whether this is done through hiring illegal workers domestically, outsourcing low-paying jobs, or automating the work of low-skilled laborers, the result is always going to be the same. And a new labor movement brought on by Bernie or whoever will hasten this. Artificially higher wages will force companies to explore more innovative options in production-- i.e. the workers get screwed again, either with layoffs or being limited to part-time jobs.

You argue for the glory days of American unions, but you fail to look at the global context in which those labor movements existed. As I said, outsourcing was simply not an option after WWII due to the political instability of the rest of the world. Technology also hadn't reached the point of widespread automation. So companies were forced to put up with unions and labor laws in the United States, because at the end of the day, what other choice did they have? But after China opened up and Europe began to repair itself, the American worker was forced to compete with laborers in every corner of the globe.

Now, I will say that this chart indicates otherwise:



The divide between productivity and compensation emerges immediately when Nixon ends the Bretton Woods agreement and turns the US dollar into a fiat currency. What are your thoughts on this? Genuine question; I never hear it talked about these days, but the trend difference is so apparent I find it hard to discount.

So you’re essentially saying we should have a race to the bottom where we attempt to match Chinese or African levels of labor standards so we can attract sh**tty paying jobs and work more of our populace to death? What a terrible idea.

And here we find the problem with having a reasonable discussion about this. I made no policy recommendations or prescriptions whatsoever in that comment; I simply laid out what I consider to be simple, immutable facts. The response I get when I point out these issues always comes down to "So you're saying we should do nothing while people starve? What are you, heartless?!?"

So I will reiterate: I'm not saying we should just abandon the entire Midwestern white working class to Africa levels of poverty. But I am saying that the prosperity of other nations will come at a cost to ours. American wages and corporate tax rates could be high in the 1960s because we were the only game in town. Now American workers-- who, contrary to what you might think, are not imbued with some immutable uniqueness that makes them better than workers in every other country-- will have to compete with people who will see starvation wages as a gift from God. If you genuinely believe that this enormous paradigm shift is having no consequences on the American economy, I don't know what to say to you.

There is a mentality on the left that pushes for policies out of pathos, and wants the government to nebulously do """something""" to combat inequality. But bad, poorly planned policy will only make things worse. UBI will cause inflation when companies raise prices. Protectionism will inflate the prices of goods on the market and lead to resources being allocated inefficiently. Mass immigration will disrupt the economic security of people with low-paying jobs. Increased welfare payouts will balloon the debt and won't provide meaning or purpose in the lives of laid-off workers. Higher tax rates will send businesses and wealthy people out of the country. Stronger laws protecting collective bargaining will lead to more outsourcing and automation. These are real effects of policies that are actually being proposed, and I'd like to discuss them honestly instead of putting up with comments like this:

So you’re essentially saying we should have a race to the bottom where we attempt to match Chinese or African levels of labor standards so we can attract sh**tty paying jobs and work more of our populace to death? What a terrible idea.

Liberals need to learn that the American economy is not their laboratory guinea pig. Government policy that is created with the best intentions can have long-lasting, disastrous consequences. We both want the best for people; we just disagree on how to attain it. Let's have that conversation instead of assuming that the other side is deliberately trying to screw over the poor and the working class.

[Beet]

What Yang is saying has nothing to do with the argument for automation during Trump's campaign (because he is actually proposing to do something about it, which is the only reason why he gets traction talking about it), which was not coming from the left-- it was coming from centrist Democrats like Clinton. And their point was not to propose UBI, but to say essentially "throw your hands up, and there is nothing we can do except retraining." And that is why they lost. You are making the same argument, basically saying that with immigration, globalization, automation there is nothing we can do.

The actual progressive argument from people like Warren is different. People like Warren is saying that these things are not inevitable. It is not inevitable to have an immigrant underclass living in the shadows. It is not inevitable to have unbalanced trade deals where we buy lots of things from other countries but they don't buy the same from us. It is not inevitable that technology means people will be out of good paying jobs. She is saying that government policy can make a difference.

But more fundamentally than that, she is saying that labor deserves a voice in deciding whether to try policy at all. Perhaps you are right, in your argument, perhaps I am right in mine. But what does it matter if our government is not doing the bidding of the best interests of the country to begin with? Even if you win the debate, and are proven right, it will mean nothing, since the government won't follow the right course. It will follow the course of the people who paid for it.

Our position is not about policy but about power. Get corruption out of the system. Give labor an independent political voice at the table. Then see what happens. I am willing to bet that you get outcomes that are better for workers. And the only way for you to take that bet is to agree to try.

[Beet]

Also, you keep talking about workers from other countries. The postwar world was not some time of destruction and devastation for workers from other countries. It was boom times. Workers from all over the free world prospered together.

[PSOL]

Elizabeth Warren builds largest U.S. presidential campaign staff

Warren spent more than $1 million on payroll in the first quarter of 2019, more than double that of rivals such as U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris, the two who raised the most money in the first quarter.

The total does not include other payroll-related expenses. She spent about $566,000 on payroll taxes and $114,000 on health insurance.

Warren has said she intends to build a “grassroots” campaign. She has sworn off expensive fundraisers and is relying almost entirely on online donations to fund her campaign.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/JHWeissmann/status/1118182376167890947
Least surprising, Warren & Beto.

[PSOL]

Warren had 161 employees already on her staff by the end of the first quarter, according to the disclosures she filed. About half of the staff, her campaign said, are positioned in early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

By comparison, Sanders’ campaign had 86 people on its payroll by the end of the quarter, during which he spent $417,209 on salaries. Harris spent $477,108 on salaries on the 44 people she had on her payroll in the first quarter.

What's the strategy here? It's ridiculous to have twice as many employees as any other candidate running when you're polling in single digits and swearing off major donors.

It's not as if Warren's grassroots fundraising has been all that weak, but even Sanders would struggle to make payroll with that many staffers.

A larger staff means more doorknockers, organizers, and runners in her campaign to build a strong base of support.

[John Dule]

What Yang is saying has nothing to do with the argument for automation during Trump's campaign (because he is actually proposing to do something about it, which is the only reason why he gets traction talking about it), which was not coming from the left-- it was coming from centrist Democrats like Clinton. And their point was not to propose UBI, but to say essentially "throw your hands up, and there is nothing we can do except retraining." And that is why they lost. You are making the same argument, basically saying that with immigration, globalization, automation there is nothing we can do.

This is a good point about the motivation behind Yang's and Clinton's rhetoric, even though it sometimes aligned. But to reiterate, I am not taking the 'defeatist' Clinton stance. I think it is a very bad idea to reject arguments against policy proposals like Yang's as 'throwing up your hands.' It's not that I think nothing can be done, I just genuinely don't think UBI would help. In order to bolster this, I'll make two policy endorsements now (something that I want to stress I haven't done so far): A negative income tax on low earners, and abolishing the income tax for the vast majority of Americans.

The actual progressive argument from people like Warren is different. People like Warren is saying that these things are not inevitable. It is not inevitable to have an immigrant underclass living in the shadows. It is not inevitable to have unbalanced trade deals where we buy lots of things from other countries but they don't buy the same from us. It is not inevitable that technology means people will be out of good paying jobs. She is saying that government policy can make a difference.

Yeah, so again, I'm not saying that all Americans are doomed to Africa levels of poverty and we should just do nothing about it. But the trends of globalization, immigration, and automation can't be halted or reversed; I don't think they can be slowed very much either. Democrats, to this day, fail to see the fact of this, and they refuse to set realistic expectations for what policy can do. You want to get rid of the illegal immigrant underclass that's depressing wages? Well, if you deport them all, as Trump wants, it torpedoes the American economy. But if you give them citizenship, putting them on the books and forcing employers to pay them a minimum wage, that'll send jobs overseas anyway. I am open to hearing proposals, but most of what I hear from both sides is reckless top-down policy formulated by people who haven't thought through any of the ramifications of their ideas.

Also, you keep talking about workers from other countries. The postwar world was not some time of destruction and devastation for workers from other countries. It was boom times. Workers from all over the free world prospered together.

The postwar world, in which half the world was enslaved under communism and millions of people starved to death? Yeah, sounds like a great time to make overseas investments.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Warren still has a campaign going?