Mises is the Ron Paul faction of the party. Super racist with a solid mix of fascism. It's nothing like the libertarian definition most people think of, they very much want government to have strong control over people's lives.

Having thought more about the $10k with means testing--I am wondering if I missed a few things politically.

First, I am terminally online, so I am highly overexposed to people who are very angry and who have $100,000+ in debt (who else has time to tweet all day :-)) So I think that I might be missing the response of the working class people for whom $10,000 of relief from their community college loans really will be a tangible positive.

Second, I was thinking too logically about the means testing. It struck me as adding bureaucratic expense and complication just for the sake of knocking out 3% or so (that's the number I heard) of the outlier cases who don't really need the relief. It will probably cost more to add the bureaucracy to keep them from getting the money than it would to just give them the money.

But that's not thinking politically. If they didn't means test it, then the GOP would find some guy in debt for his puppetry degree or whatever who then won the lottery but would still be getting $10,000 of taxpayer money to fund his transgender puppet shows or whatever. And he'd become the face of debt forgiveness.

So, politically, maybe this wasn't as bad of a compromise as I had initially thought.

(Note--I am still not talking about whether this is good or bad policy overall. In a world with a non-dysfunctional Congress, there would be a comprehensive solution that focused on solving the roots of the problem instead of the temporary band-aid that you can get with an EO)

Personal feelings aside, I agree that the $10K for everyone is almost clinically designed to have the worst possible effect for Team Biden. Gets 100% of the attack from opponents as stupid, wasteful, reckless, unjust... and already hearing that most of the ardent online advocates are already screaming for his head because "bitch, pay me more." Dems gonna Dem.

Nothing like complaining about a handout, I guess.

Full disclosure: I got divorced about 3 years ago. My son who was in college bore the brunt of that decision and had to take out about 10k in student loans to finish school. He was the only one of my children whose education I wasn't able to completely finance.

So I'm grateful for this if it goes through. It relieves some of my parental guilt for not sticking with my ex until he was out of school.

As an aside, he did move in with me for the last two years of college. I wouldn't trade that time for anything. While I don't recommend getting divorced, if you can live with your adult son as "just a couple of single dudes" for a couple of years, it's an experience worth having. Now that he's a working stiff living on his own, I miss his company terribly. :)

I am against student loan forgiveness. Frankly, I'm not even sure what the argument for it is. However, I would be OK with forgiving interest but retaining the original principal to be paid back because years of compounding debt is obviously crippling and goes well beyond what the borrower originally expected to pay back. To me, that's a fair compromise, and I wouldn't have an issue with some sort of program to ensure well below -market interest rate student loans be made available.

College isn't for everyone. Someone deciding to borrow $150K to go to school for a degree that would likely not allow them to pay off their debt for decades is simply a bad decision. It's basically gambling too much money on a longshot with a bad return. I'm not sure what makes this different from any other bad decision resulting in heavy debt.

I'd also like to see something done about bloated college costs but ideally, the market should be driving some of these $50-60K a year private schools out of business.

One major difference (speaking as someone who also opposes blanket debt forgiveness) is that student loans generally aren't dischargeable in bankruptcy.

I'm not entirely opposed to making them dischargeable via bankruptcy (I generally believe people deserve second chances) but at the same time we need to restrict the loans that we're handing out in order to keep this problem from continuing. Perhaps restrict how much we'll give for a degree based on the median earnings of people who have earned that degree. That's one of the things that has me most disappointed. We're trying to clean up the mess while the pipe is still leaking.

We need to have college be free. Invest in education and we'll stop having people that shoot themselves in the groin going to the toilet

If we go by this "college isn't for everyone" mantra and those people stop attending, we will get absolutely crushed in the future global marketplace. If you measure percentage of population with degrees, our number has stayed flat over the last 4 decades, whereas China is growing rapidly. We need to figure out how to get more people to go to college.

If you can't add fractions by the time you graduate from high school, then college probably isn't for you.

I'd like to see student loans made available only from the Fed and also made no-interest. Yes, with inflation, the goverment will lose money, but I consider that part of an overall investment in education. However, it needs to be a part of an overhaul on how we do post-secondary education in this country.

In addition, there should be some forgiveness programs if you do some sort of service job. For instance, I got a loan from the State of Maine when I went off to undergraudate that could be discharged if, after graduation, I taught back in Maine public schools for 4 years or 2 in a rural area.


The shortage of qualified workers for jobs that don't require a college degree (e.g. most of the "trades") speaks to this. I'd love to see the Fed pay for a system of trade schools (that would include additional stuff like financial literacy) as well as a system of 4-year state universities. Of course, the challenge with the latter is that a number of those state universities have added on a lot of additional costs (e.g. fancy dorms) to keep up, competitively, with private schools. I don't know how you rachet that back down.


While I agree with the sentiment, the tool feels too blunt. Not to turn this into a "what is a degree worth", but it feels like this type of conversation always ends up with a general devaluation of, say, an English or History degree, when the value of any degree really comes down to how the student uses/applies it. For instance, I have a PolySci/History degree and make considerably more than most Americans with STEM degrees.


Only about 30% of Germans acquire 4-year university degrees, compared to ~60-70% of Americans, but Germany has a well-developed system of effectively trade schools as I describe above. You can argue about whether Germans are competitive on the world stage, but I think they are. And these aren't just plumbers & electricians. I've worked with a lot of Germans in my current and past companies who didn't have University degrees but nonetheless had well-paid white collar jobs in finance, R&D, quality, manufacturing, even engineering.


But like a lot of things with the United States, the current system has a lot of inertia. The above I've described is kind of "best case", but I hold no illusions that we could actually change all of that.

I feel personally attacked.

Where do you get that 60%-70% of Americans have 4 year degrees?

Quick googling suggests that it's more like 35%.

Where do you get that 60-70% of Americans number? It's not even close to that. We are in the high 30s to low 40s.

And I'd be fine with trade schools if they worked anything like they do in Germany. Our trade system is a joke, often expensive and filled with corruption. And here if you decide to switch careers, your trade certificate means shit, whereas a Bachelor's is more transferable. In Germany, you can take comfort in the fact of zero tuition if you need to learn a new trade or degree.

If you want to amend my statement to "We need more people to get Bachelor's degrees or state of the art Vocational degrees through a government program that directly places you into an internship", then go for it.

No we won't. Don't understimate the number of people who do stupid things *knowing* they are stupid. See: smokers for a very prevalent and obvious example. People don't smoke because they somehow think it's healthy to do so.

I wonder if anyone has ever done a study comparing smokers to education level....would be interesting and anecdotally I would say the less educated one is the more likely they are to smoke.

Total sidetrack but a guy with a mullet in a wife beater bought a carton of Parliaments in front of me at quick check and it was $111. I was like, WTF!

College isn't for everyone.

What needs to end is the absurd number of entry level jobs that "require" a college education. The country has bought into this idea that you need a college degree for a good career - hell, damn near any career. The number of professions where this is actually true is quite limited. The number of professions where college teaches you anything that applies to reality is even more limited.

Give me a self taught, motivated person who can think creatively any day of the week. And no, I don't believe that colleges encourage creative, critical thinking anymore. I don't believe that's been the case for a long, long time.

HR and corporate drones have pushed this idea of needing a degree to get hired. So, people drown themselves in debt to get hired, and shock, find they are completely unprepared for real work, except for having a piece of paper. Tuition goes up, because colleges aren't stupid and realize "hey, the world says you need college, we can jack up our prices! Whaddya gonna do, not go?"

So, we're in an endless cycle. Companies says you need a piece of paper, colleges provide a piece of paper at a price they can set, legalized loan sharks are happy to see you get into debt for that piece of paper.

Sure, college isn't for "everyone", but I think it's for more people than are currently going and it's certainly for more people than those who can get it without a loan.

My main point is that in a global marketplace, countries with higher educational attainment are going to be more successful. We need to figure out how we can be successful in that kind of environment.

I'm actually pro-people-that-shoot-themselves-in-the-groin-going-to-the-toilet.

It helps with the population problem.

ETA:

I will add that caveat that I am against government handouts for people who shoot themselves in the groin going to the toilet.

Ah, you're right. I was looking at an enrollment number, not an attainment number.

For attainment of college degree or equivalent, Germany's in the mid/high-20s, while the U.S. is in the mid(ish)-40s: List of countries by tertiary education attainment - Wikipedia


Agreed. I did say we'd need some sort of complete (and probably unlikely) overhaul.


Consider my statement amended.

The difference to me is that we allow a 17/18/19-year-old kid to make that decision for that kind of money. No bank, car dealer, CC company, etc. is going to give them anywhere near that amount of credit, but the government does, and, yeah, it can't be discharged in bankruptcy. In principle, I've got no problem with *something* that allows these folks a second chance. The devil, of course, is in the details. As mentioned above, I'm extremely uncomfortable with just writing off 10 grand for young physicians who happen to make a little under the threshold, but clearly received great value for their loan and are easily able to pay it back. That's an entirely different situation to me, though, than a kid who grew up without great parental guidance and got talked into a huge student loan by an unscrupulous college recruiter.

I see it the same as home ownership. I know we've been beaten to death with "this is the path to the American dream," but you don't need to go to college or own a home to achieve success.

That's a big difference. In many businesses, there's a "satisfaction guaranteed" model for physical products, but it's less the case for services or other non-tangible goods.

We've stopped seeing the government as the sum of the people. When the government spends money, it's all of us spending money. I have a real problem with the image of people who worked hard, but didn't have the opportunity to go to college paying for these failed (or not failed, but difficult to pay off) loans.

How in the world did a college education become so expensive? My wife is a professor at a regional campus for a mid-major (just received tenure a couple of months ago) and one of the things she takes a lot of pride in is that it's affordable. Her students mostly don't need loans to finish. If they choose the right major for them, they're starting adult life in great shape.

What people often don't see when examining this issue is that the places with the highest percentage of students with crushing debt are generating debt in graduate school at major private universities. I think Columbia's non-science graduate programs top the list, if I remember the article I read about this not that long ago. They get that grad degree, owe six-figures, and the jobs they're qualified to take earn $30k. That's not a good decision. No bank would make that loan. And $10k isn't even going to make a big difference. The young adults who are screwed aren't $10k worth of screwed.

But those same universities have billion-dollar endowments. That's where the loan guarantees should come from. The universities, not the government. If you're selling your services as worth $50k per year to 21-year-old college grads, and you know the major they've chosen is going to lead them into a long, long debt... you're committing fraud. And the taxpayers shouldn't bail that out any more than they should have bailed out the banks that played games with risky home loans and caused that crisis not that long ago.

At some point, these universities started looking at their bottom line as an entertainment company does rather than as educational institutions. So you got administrative bloat, a focus on "academic" products and majors that have nothing to do with the world outside of the bubble. And that mindset metastasized. If we bail them out, it's only going to get worse.

Because Reagan massively cut college funding in the 80's to help the banks and rich people. Meanwhile, a bunch of states led by his acolytes followed suit. There were more cuts during the Great Recession too.

I think people make the whole thing more confusing than it is. A generation of people got to go to college for next to nothing because the government funded it. When those people got their degrees, they said "fuck you, got mine" and massively cut funding. College is more expensive today because the government wants it that way.

For reference:

Purdue University Tuition & Expenses
In-state tuition and fees. $9,992. (2021-22)
Out-of-state tuition and fees. $28,794. (2021-22)
Room and board. $10,030. (2021-22)

At least that's been held steady for the past decade or so. (And yes...out-of-state tuition. I know. Neither kid really wanted to go to Maryland. Eventually we got some knocked off through band and high GPA scholarships. Before that, it was "you can thank us for the privilege of attending.")

Yeah, I really don't understand people's stance on this. The reason we invested heavily into college after WW2 is because we needed skilled workers. Our economy grew by leaps and bounds because of it. We became a global superpower and quality of life improved for just about everyone. It was one of the greatest decisions this country has ever made.

You can also make the argument that college is good for other things. We know it grows the economy. But college-educated people commit less crime and need less government assistance. Their kids follow suit. You can probably make a case it pays for itself in the long run if you factor in quality of life (I like living in areas with less crime).

And then there is the argument for less debt. If you aren't burdened by paying off a massive loan for 20-30 years, maybe you do buy a home, car, other things. Maybe you remodel your kitchen or start a business. Maybe you have a kid (isn't low birth rate a concern for some people?). Debt is such a terrible drain on economic growth.

I get why some are politically motivated to fight against education. Some count on low educated voters. But I'd argue it would improve the life for everyone in this country far more than most other measures we take.

I think that's true in the same way that telegraphs were once a great idea and essential for faster communication and no longer are.

The nation or nations that win the future global marketplace will not, in my opinion, be the ones that are great at 4-year college degrees. They will be the ones that are great at continuing to improve the knowledge and skills of the workforce throughout their careers and lives. Technology and information changes so fast that traditional college is increasingly going to be less relevant. Information is also available more freely and rapidly than it was in the 1950s.

What worked three generations ago is not necessarily the next plan for the next three generations.

I think it's for fewer people than are currently going. 100% agree with you on the second paragraph and the importance of education. Where we differ is what that looks like in the Information Age.

I just paid over $50 to fill up my Ford Focus. If Democrats don't get the price of gas down they are going to get absolutely hosed this fall.

I'm pretty sure the leadership of that party would be fine with no longer being in power.

There is zero evidence that lowering the education in your country will lead to better lives (higher living standards, less crime, stronger economy, etc). There is a long history showing that higher education levels lead to quite a bit of good.

I also don't think education needs to translate over to your career. Pursuing knowledge is a good goal for society and has positive impact beyond your job. I'm reading a biography on Thomas Jefferson not because I plan to become a history teacher, but because I think it's good to broaden my understanding of the world and people who shaped it.

100% agree. Where we disagree is on what form that should take.

I think that's true. I think it's also not generally the Democrats fault that gas prices have gone up. This political reality is a symptom of a dysfunctional electorate.

People in the US are complaining about gas prices that Europe paid 20 years ago. Gas was $2.20 a liter in Canada two weeks ago. If the Dems were really on it they'd create a pandemic or some shit to lower gas prices and kill off all the Qanon members. Or did they already do that?

They could pressure the Saudis to produce more oil instead of being their little bitch.

There's only so much the government can do. It is a free market (sort of) and we are at the mercy of companies and foreign governments. But a lot of these problems were seen long ago and people like Biden (and Dem leadership) ignored them when they had the power to change it.

Not gas price specifically but inflation in general (of which gas prices is a subset). Yes, I do think the Dems (well, really the Biden administration) can be blamed for it. Not a 100% but enough for me (and the voting electorate) to hold them accountable.

The Fed screwed the pooch here in not recognizing this was a real problem vs "transitory". And I still don't buy the argument another $1.8T (or whatever the final proposal was going to be) that went down in flames would have helped vs hurt the fight against inflation.

Yup. Europe seems to be the highest in general.

Gasoline prices around the world, 30-May-2022 | GlobalPetrolPrices.com

Biden could find his testicles, call up the Saudis and say "no more weapons or support till you increase your oil production".

The Fed is explicitly and intentionally not a partisan institution. It would have done the same thing under a different president.

I agree that more spending is unlikely to have helped the inflation situation. I also think the inflation was mostly going to happen regardless of what spending was adopted or wasn't. There simply wasn't nearly enough spending to make a significant difference there one way or another. Market disruptions due to the pandemic were going to cause aftershocks regardless of the president. The war in Ukraine by one of the top 3 oil producers on the planet was going to have an impact regardless of the president.

There's a lot Biden has done that I haven't approved of, but I think it's just silly to blame inflation on him. I've yet to hear to of a single concrete step people think he should have done differently which is likely to have made a significant difference. It's just the usual 'blame whoever is in charge when bad things happen deal', divorced from actual actions they took to cause the situation.

Biden deserves blame for a lot of things but $11 trillion in "quantitative easing" isn't one.

Sure its non-partisan but we know there were reach outs right and there is coordination? Yellen is former Fed chair (I'm sure she has Powell's direct number and the other governors), Powell was looking to be re-nominated etc. Yellen said inflation was transitory (and I remember breathing a sigh of relief then).

I guess it depends on how you think the US should fight inflation to make a "concrete step ... to have made a significant difference". There is not a single step, there are a series of things he could have done or tried.

So what is the root of inflation (which started even before the Ukrainian war)? Plenty of articles and points. Each has a way for Biden to have addressed it (or tried to). Bottom line, whatever he did (or did not do) failed and we are where we are.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/bus...rits-rcna16156
What is causing inflation and how to fix it, explained to the extent possible - Vox

Should Biden be blamed for all of that. Definitely not. But it seems you are giving him a completely free pass, after 1.5 years, which is illogical to me.

How exactly did Biden cause the inflation in Europe? Are you basically saying the president of the United States controls and is the blame for the whole world's economy?
It is on par with blaming gas prices on the shutting down on Keystone XL. Gas prices are high across the globe (even worse than the Umited State) and we are supposed to believe one pipeline that would have been a trickle in the the world supply would have made the difference? We are talking about at best a couple of pennies a gallon versus 100% increase in price.


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I think its fair to question if Biden's actions or inactions caused inflation in Europe. I'm not really sure other than Western European economies are tied with US and also rest of the world (e.g. Western Europe listens & reacts to the Fed also) so surely there is some effect. Specifically on European gas prices, I think we can conclude much of that is because of the Ukrainian war.

My point is could Biden have lessened inflation in the US. 20-20 hindsight is great and do not blame it all on Biden. But does he get a free pass? I'm saying no.

I've read both articles and have no idea how you came to this conclusion about them. It's not at all what they say to my understanding.

Well he invaded Ukraine and then as leader of all the European countries decided to sanction Russian energy. Then he went back in a time machine and made sure the EU didn't diversify their energy for the past 20 years and were heavily reliant on Russia. Finally, the virus he sent around the world that we are coming out of leading to huge increases in demand are his fault too.

Let's recap and make sure we are talking about the same thing.

1) You are contending that Biden should not be blamed for our current inflation because he couldn't have done anything
2) I contend he does have some, not all, of the blame with his actions or inactions
3) The articles I posted identified what many believe are the causes of inflation
4) Hence, there are actions (or inactions) that Biden did/could have done

Let's look at the articles. Again in no way Biden should be blamed for everything but he does share blame.

First article


Second article


Fiscal policy is in the domain of Biden & Congress. Monetary policy is more Fed. Per earlier post, I do believe Presidents/administration try to influence monetary policy (e.g. the Fed) regardless of partisanship or not. Considering Yellen's past and closeness to the Fed, I don't see how they've not tried coordinating.

Did the $1.9T plan that passed add to inflation? Could the excess demand that was generated because people had more money have been lessened. Something was necessary but could it have been smaller and more targeted and broken up into smaller pieces?

The Ukraine war happened on his watch. Could he have done something to have stopped it. A line in the sand where US would get involved by significant military weapons and not boots on the ground (e.g. the transfer of Mig fighter jets and like).

Yellen believing the inflation was transitory. Could she have raised the red flag earlier and maybe Fed would have raised interest rates earlier and quicker? I guess its debatable if a recession is better than inflation but my guess is recession is better than "sustained" inflation (which is what it looks like right now).

There is no doubt the pandemic caused chaos and contributed to some inflation. The supply and things clogged at US ports was something I read about a while ago. Could Biden have done more to ease supply line constraints? Could Biden have done more to get more people vaccinated? (On this point, I say yes. Back to my older postings, when I see more ED commercials than campaign to get vaccinated and here's why, something is wrong. And keep in mind a large number of the unvaccinated are minorities and not just white Trumpers).

Oil prices. Could he being doing more e.g. stop being a bitch for SA?

And a bonus thought not mentioned directly in the articles ...

The high demand for workers right now even with near/full employment. Yup, open up the flood gates for highly qualified workers (and guest worker programs) assuming security considerations are accounted for. Anything significant on the legal & illegal immigration front from Biden since being elected? Other than proposal making/giving a path to citizenship for 11M illegals (who are already in the country), basically crickets. There is obviously a political price he'll have to pay. Easy to say but maybe he should have spent his political capital on holistic immigration reform vs the second failed (or was it third) rescue plan.


Here's a question for you. In current day, with 20-20 hindsight, a perfect crystal ball - do you believe that Biden would have done anything differently last year re: inflation?

Sure.

1) I wouldn't say nothing. I would say very little. This is not just about Biden. In general I think 90-95% of the economy is beyond the president's control. Not just the current president. Any president. Congress controls spending, taxation, etc. The president can make proposals, indicate what he's willing to sign, and so on but the majority of even what the government does is not within the president's control, and there's a lot that is about market forces and beyond the ability of the government - within the strictures of a free society - to control. Then I would also say that the Federal Reserve is it's own entity entirely and it's also not right to blame (or credit) the current administration with what *they* do either for the most part.

2) I think we're far enough apart to say we disagree here.

I don't think 4) follows from 3). It's entirely possible for there to be causes that are beyond Biden's ability to significantly affect (see my statement above). It is also entirely possible for there to be things he could have done but which would likely/possibly cause even worse consequences.


I don't know. Unlike you, I thought Yellen was blowing sunshine up our collective behinds with the 'transitory' comment - I thought then and still do that it was your basic political BS minimalization of the issue rhetoric. So I think maybe they change the messaging sooner?


I don't agree. I mean I'm sure it's there on some level, but there are many cases in which past presidents have been quite unhappy with the Fed and disagreeing with it's moves on interest rates etc. I'm not saying there's no influence, I'm saying it's much closer to being independent than being just an arm of the executive taking orders from the POTUS. Based on that, I blame Jay Powell almost exclusvely for any Fed missteps, not Joe Biden.

Looking at the specifics of the articles, and their proposed causes:

** Supply Chain Issues - I see no serious proposal in either article or elsewhere regarding how Biden could have made this a lot better. I think the idea of more vaccination boosting it along is A) mostly not the real issue and B) not something more PSAs would really move the needle on. People who are unvaccinated are not unvaccinated because they are waiting for the government to make a better case. They are largely unvaccinated because they don't see a need for it, don't trust what the government has said about it, etc. And the supply chain issue has a lot more to do with The Great Resignation and people just flat-out leaving the work force.

** Interest Rates - As noted in one of the articles at least, raising interest rates is a catch 22 because it increases inflation in some sectors of the economy. I'm inclined to think Powell moved too slowly here and still is. I'm also inclined to think it's very possible for going more aggressively could have made the situation worse, not better. It's definitely not a 'should have done this and we'd have been fine' thing.

** Ukraine War - We've talked about it a lot on this forum. I don't think this war is Biden's fault. I think boots on the ground, with the requisite consequences, is the only way to have stopped Putin, and he still might have invaded. That conclusion seems evident to me based on his behavior pre and post-invasion. You are also the one who was saying we should stay in the background and have the EU take the lead. Is that still your position? It seems incompatible with saying Biden should have done more.

** Immigration Reform - As you mention, not an item in either article but you did raise it. Let's assume that happened. One, we have no good reason to think that it would fare any better - it would almost certainly fare worse in terms of political viability and getting it passed - than Build Back Better. But let's assume it did happen. It would still take many years to have even a marginal effect on the labor market. It takes years to implement and even start having an impact. We wouldn't even be close to seeing that now if it passed on day one of the Biden administration.

** Pandemic Stimulus - There are certainly differences here that could have been done. But 1.9 trillion simply isn't close to enough to cause this kind of shift in an economy of this size. And there are the consequences of not doing it as well. The consensus on this board is that it wasn't nearly enough. He and some Senators, esp. those in Georgia, were elected to a significant degree on promises to take these actions. It's a very natural electoral thing to want a candidate to do something, then blame them for the consequences of those actions, but it's not a basis for logical/sound evaluation of their job performance. There's no question demand was artificially increased without a corresponding increase in supply. I guarantee you thought the voters mad right now about inflation would be mad about a recession in which the government didn't do enough. I see no reasonable way to conclude that reaction wouldn't be worse. There are aspects about the stimulus/relief bills I didn't like. I'd definitely take them as they were over doing nothing, and again Congress is the majority holder of blame here. Biden can't sign what they don't pass.

** Oil Prices - I don't know enough about the politics vis a vis Saudi Arabia. I do know it's not a real good idea to piss them off overly - others I'm sure know more about where that line is - and the problems with oil prices we're seeing now are going to be seen as the good old days probably a couple decades for now. We're getting a very, very small taste of what a global oil shortage will look like, and it's coming. What I need on this, from you or Rainmaker or whoever, is something more specific than 'Biden should do more'. Do what, specifically? And if that action is particularly strong, do we risk that OPEC decides, for example, that they are willing to pay the hit and just cut off our supply entirely for a couple weeks or a month to teach us a lesson about minding our own business? The bottom line is we are dependent on them and will be for the forseeable future no matter what we do. We can limit that dependence, but even that takes decades to implement.

I don't give Biden a high grade on inflation. I don't give him a grade of any significant on inflation at all, because it's an issue that is simply almost entirely out of the realm of the president's control. I didn't blame Obama, Dubya, or Trump for gas prices - or give them credit for them either. . It's just not part of their job.

Yellen did a pretty good job during her term. So yeah, I believed her. I had some doubts but thought she & Powell had all the data, experience, other input etc. I'm not sure when I stopped believing her but there was a point when other pundits chimed in and differed with her, ultimately hitting a critical mass, and resulting her her much delayed mea culpa 1-2 weeks ago.

So I thought she made a mistake. You think she & Biden made a political calculus to BS/lie to us. That old adage (paraphrased) if you don't recognize/accept you have a problem, you aren't going to fix it. If I'm right, that is part of the problem of where we are. If you are right, that's even worse but the (some) fault still lies with Biden & Yellen.


To me, making a better case is to show them the need and create trust. So its the same.


Fair enough. Let me amend to say Biden should have pushed western allies to take the lead in pressure and threats, and reassure them that US will be right behind if needed.


I disagree. There is plenty we can do now and also prime the pipeline.

On foreign students, lets assume we divide that 1.075 by 4 (years) and we are talking about approx 250K of workers every year. I don't know what the true incremental number is but the effort to get a green card to work is significant deterrence for many US companies. Definitely increase guest workers and temp work permits too. But yes, there will be a political price to pay ... but that's what the GOP were worried about also when it was their turn.

Get rid of backlog, make it easier for foreign students to live and work here permanently, increase guest worker program for those jobs citizens don’t want and publicize the new era of immigration. There will be a significant uptick in applications because, we know, regardless of all the problems we have, the US is by far the place people want to immigrate to. (And for those that complain and cant see how fortunate they are to live here legally, feel free to leave for the Nordics and give your slot to others less fortunate)

Quote:

Presently, USCIS indicates that there is a backlog of 182,450 employment-based I-485 applications and 740,569 total EAD applications. In addition, there is a backlog of 487,027 naturalization applications.

Quote:

During the 2019-2020 school year, approximately 1,075,496 foreign-born students were enrolled at U.S. colleges and universities, representing 4.6% of the total U.S. student population. Students come to the U.S. from roughly 200 different countries, though more than half are from China and India.

Both articles I quoted allude to the stimulus being a factor. Yes, there is debate as to how much (fair enough) but I wouldn't eliminate it all together. Toss in the 2nd (or 3rd?) stimulus that Manchin stopped, I don't hear alot of advocates for that now. Arguably, Manchin made the right decision.


This is a fair question on what we could realistically do. We are so mired in ME politics and there are so many geopolitical implications. However, I do not think it will take decades assuming there is a political will to substantially free ourselves from ME.

What we need is time to do it while EVs become the vehicle of choice. We import most of our oil from Canada but that isn't the right heavy crude we need for our transportation.

So tossing out a possibility since we have that previously stated crystal ball with 20-20 hindsight, I would have made serious overtures to Venezuela. We've essentially given up changing Venezuela so, knowing what we know now, make friends with Maduro.

Definitely up the ante (the carrot) for auto maker and consumers to buy EV. Right now new EVs have X quota and after that, consumers don't get the tax credit. I'm not sure the rationale but if we want to speed things up, let's not have any quota. I'm sure there are a bunch of other ways to ramp this up if government wants to play a role. Will have to sell it as in national and strategic interest.

****

Yes, all fun theoretical speculations and ponderings. Just my 2 cents.

I think people see this differently than what is the reality. We already produce enough oil that we meet our own consumption. The problem is we export a large amount of oil because the global price. We need the OPEC to sell more oil so prices drop, not to provide us oil. The US is never going to provide enough oil for our own consumption AND for the rest of the world. So in essence, we are not dependent on OPEC for oil. We are dependent on them to keep oil prices down.

There are things he could have done, including the Saudi Arabia thing you mention. But the rest of this seems like you are calling for a command economy, something we just don't have.

Another problem is, the price of oil can't go down too far or else American oil producers lose money. Get down to 50 a barrel and lower and we won't be self sufficient because it will no longer be profitable to produce much of our oil.

A reminder that when the Saudis and Russians had a spat, oil prices cratered because the Saudis overproduced oil. Trump stepped in and told them to cut back on supply because the price for oil was becoming too cheap.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...-idUSKBN22C1V4

Now you can make the case that Biden should be doing the same thing but in reverse.

Even though US is a net exporter we don’t make enough of the heavy crude that we need, hence our frenemies in the ME.

It’ll be nice when Musk is a trillionaire and we are dependent on rare earth materials vs oil :)

It's not the same. You're drastically underestimating the number of people who don't believe what the government tells them because it is the government who said it. It's about the source for them, not the quality of the argument. They believe there's a track record, and in many cases there is, of them being lied to by their leaders. There is no short-term way for the government to create trust. Decades at a minimum of honorable statesmanship would be required before you could even think about cracking through that wall. When you see representatives with integrity being pushed out of office, it creates the opposite effect. That's where we are.


Look at how world opinion shifted on Russia, and when. The bottom line is nobody in Europe wanted to take any significant action until after the invasion. The whole thing of leadership is you have to be there well ahead of time. What Biden said ahead of time was stronger than what the EU was willing to say at that point, and of course it's easier for him to say it when they have much more skin in the game economically. It's just as possible, and I think likelier, that pushing harder at that stage would have alienated them.

I still would have liked to see it, but if we are the ones pushing than we are the ones leading. Not leading ourselves means accepting whatever they decided to do even if it's not what we want.


Things like getting rid of backlog can't be done at the snap of a finger. You need to build up infrastructure for that, hire more beauracrats and train them, etc. Again, this takes years. These types of changes are ones you make as part of a long-term policy or strategy. They aren't band-aids and can't be applied as such.

The bottom line to me is that there's too much of treating the President like they are Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. If there's a situation where the president isn't using the immigration apparatus properly or federal lands are being mismanaged or things of that nature, or they appoint incompetent unqualified people to the Fed, those things would all be their fault. I don't see any of that happening here. There's a lot I don't like about Powell but he's very qualified and was approved with overwhelming bipartisan support.

And not just U.S. oil producers. Our entire transportation industry is predicated on low fuel prices. When prices rise, all those costs get passed on as much as they can into the supply chain.

I mean, most of American infrastructure that underpins the U.S. economy only really makes sense if you look at it through the lens of "refined petroleum is cheap". This, of course, makes perfect sense since most of it was developed during a multi-decade run of low oil prices.

Forget what we could have done in response to the high prices 15 years ago, how about the high prices 50 years ago? Imagine if we had committed to more efficiency and research into renewables then? But noooooooo....

Canada makes of the bulk of those exports. SA barely makes up 8%. Heck, we bought more from Russia than SA. Again, we are way more dependent on the global price were OPEC makes a huge difference than we are on actual oil imports from those countries.

Let's be clear...the current leadership will take the blame if anything changes. It doesn't matter if it was his fault or not. Because that particular group will bitch about nothing getting done to fix any problem, but the second anything at all is done, they simply hate on it and call it a failure.

It's not like he suggested injecting light or bleach into the body, or you know, did something positive like stare directly into a solar eclipse without eye protection. None of those things douchebag did may have actually hurt anyone, but you know, stuff like failing to protect all citizens of the country by making conscious choices to create violent situations and then stoke that fire, or you know, inciting a riot to directly attack the Capitol for the sole purpose of staying in power. They got people killed, but those are the sorts of things that are meant to be swept aside as a simple misunderstanding, or an overreaction.

Extremism is a huge threat to the country. Unless it can be brought to heel it will destroy the country we grew up with. While there are extremists on both sides, and both are giant pains in the ass, it's the group to the right that is the actual, real and existential threat.

With gerrymandering getting the supreme court seal of approval I'm not sure there's a path to mitigating it. We're going to continue to get extremist candidates that will stoke extremist ideas.

There is no analog to Gosar, Boebert, & Greene likewise serving at the national level for Democrats, in either policy, temperament, or willingness to parrot truly vile conspiracy theories.

Just wanted to say I completely agree with you on this, which is a big part of why climate change, the future of energy, etc. are everyone's problem. These types of disruptions affect the world.

Extremists on the left in this country are just moderates around the world.

Is Boris Johnson getting voted out by his own party today? If he is, who is his replacement? Hopefully not someone worse.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

One of the biggest problems with American politics is that conservatives won. But it is an ideology based on the myth of conservatives being oppressed.

So they had nowhere to go but further and further to the right just to try and get people to keep objecting to them.

The extreme left in this country are violent anarchists. They do not have any representation within government. Even Communists don't really exist here, nor a National Socialist party. The next step right are Democratic Socialists who are more akin to Swedish lawmakers than scary extremists.

The new far right has more in common with the ayatollah and government of Iran than traditional democracy.

The Taliban have a Secretary of Virtue and Vice. That sounds exactly like something Desantis would love to have.

That is the difference. It isn't that we don't have far left folks in this country. It is that they are completely shut out of government. They are fringe, and both parties reject them.

I remember when I use to have an ongoing debate on here about whether Dems should root for and embolden the far right because they'd marginalize the Republican party and be easier to beat in elections.

Hell I remember the glee when Trump was a candidate, then the nominee, even when he was elected and with every dumb thing he did. Death of the Republican Party was a common refrain on this board and elsewhere.

Maybe it always was, but especially in the social media age politics is nothing more than my team vs yours. The more your team is losing and my team is doing things that piss your team off, the better we are.

I think a lot of people, myself included, underestimated the desire a significant number of people in this country have to see others suffer. That's really what's driving the GOP right now. They want those they see as the enemy, and the enemy is anyone that isn't in 100% agreement with them, suffer.

Read an interesting article this morning that the crux of the gas price issue is not oil prices, but refining capacity. Given the amount of time and money it takes to reopen a refinery since COVID, they've been slow to come back.

My first thought - prices continue to climb and we think it's bad now, what happens if a tropical system or two through Texas or Louisiana takes a few refineries offline for a couple weeks?

They will blame Biden and say he should have nuked the hurricane..

People just think of gas differently in this country.

I've seen a couple people posting along the lines of "Thanks to Biden's gas prices, my husband is now bicycling to work!"

And my thought is, well, yeah. You are responding to the increasing price of a commodity by consuming less of it. That's how things work. The price of beef goes up, you buy more chicken. The price of chicken goes up, you buy more beef.

But people just don't think that way about gas. They consider it a human right for gas to be < $2.00/gal. and anything more than that is an affront to existence.

That's a huge problem for Biden b/c this isn't a problem that he can solve.

Yeah, I saw some interviews on the NBC nightly news and people were saying things like, "I don't usually bother with politics but I'm starting to pay attention because gas prices are ridiculous."

It's very consistent with the way most people act on gas prices though.The thing that's nuts is people will drive across town to save like 5 cents a gallon, which is maybe a dollars worth of savings for most vehicles, yet not think twice about all the perishable food they throw out weekly that costs multiples of what they go out of their way to save on gas.

I think you can use this for most things that require change. Which was part of my point earlier. Take health insurance. Anything that might make it better, might also change how we think about how it works, or how we adjust how we pay for it. I think the answer you can give with gas is simply to say, that's how capitalism works. It's supply and demand, just the way you like it, isn't it?

It feels a bit callous to say. I get that the people who most affected are the ones living paycheck to paycheck, and there's more and more people in the country doing that, but shouldn't capitalism fix that? Lead to innovation and new development? Job change, higher wages? Ultimately, things will change, and I think that process scares people, because it leads to the unknown and nobody likes the unknown. It goes against our need to have any legitimate control over our lives.

Why would capitalism fix that? A central tenet of capitalism is the market pricing of wage labor. Yes, capitalism can create innovation and with it higher-paying jobs, but that doesn't necessarily trickle-down to labor mobility (people moving en masse from lower-paid to higher-paid jobs) or any across-the-board rise of wages.

The other way capitalism might enrich people living paycheck to paycheck would be through their ownership of stock (e.g. "means of production") but most people who live paycheck to paycheck don't own stock.

Simply that it's pricing based on supply and demand. Total free market capitalists don't want high gas prices. They don't want to deal with what the results of supply and demand actually mean. They want cheap gas, whatever it takes to achieve that. So pointing out that with higher prices, they are actually getting what they want. Prices rise with lower supply and strong demand. Isn't that what they want? That's the point I was trying to make. Sorry if it was unclear.

Capitalism should, in theory, see wage rise as business compete for the best workers. In our version of capitalism most companies would rather hire whoever will accept their shit wages and quality is often ignored.

Agree 100% with your post.

@PilotMan - OK, that makes sense. I slightly misinterpreted your original post.

Refining has always been the issue. Even at full capacity, we can't refine all the oil we have available on this continent. It's why the idea of Keystone XL fixing our energy problems was comical. The pipeline was meant to send oil to the gulf so it could be exported to other countries.

Regardless of who is doing the talking, the goal is the same. Build trust, confidence and show the need.

You point out the holdouts don't trust the government. How about get someone they trust to reach out to them. You've got alot of blacks & hispanics that are not yet vaccinated. Asians lead the way, hispanics and whites are within 2 points, and blacks are significantly below.

I'm going to guess their distrust of the government is different from why Trumper's distrust the government. Find the levers to pull to gain trust. I'll repeat, when I see more ED commercials and ads (in 2021 and early 2022) than "lets get with the program and here's why", it tells me the US government really isn't that competent and/or serious and/or has given up.

See fig 2 Latest Data on COVID-19 Vaccinations by Race/Ethnicity | KFF

This is fair. My contention is the US should not be leading the way in European conflicts but should be supporting. Although Trump started the friction on "do more", European countries in NATO were not there yet.

However, it does seem they are much further along now with the Russian aggression. So for next time, Biden should let them lead with the big stick (or carrot).


FWIW, I've worked in Fortune 500 companies implementing sophisticated systems and redesigning processes. All this brings change and therefore the need for change management to show those impacted why this is good for them overall (e.g. per our other discussion, get vaccinated and here's why).

I'm sharing this with you because I do believe these backlogs can be done in < 12 months if there is a will, support from higher ups, and of course financial backing. Bring in a hands-on consulting firm (not McKinsey and such which does high level analysis), spend a month to do the analysis on where the hold up is, another month to figure out how to remove many of those blockers (or come up with temporary measures) with higher up support, and then do what needs to be done.

This includes outsourcing 80% of the work to companies that can better scale up (and are more motivated) and leave the 20% of real decision making to key INS officials. I'm pretty darn sure if there is enough money involved, plenty of hands on consulting firms that are used to doing some of the most difficult process fixes (e.g. initial Obamacare rollout etc.) will get it done. It won't be perfect but better something new now than do the same old thing.

The real question is - regardless of your belief that it cannot be done, if it can be done in < 12 months (and evidence of relief even more sooner) do you believe this can move the needle? I do.

I had no problems with with Yellen or Powell as I thought that pair had all the experience and knowledge to take care of the economy. However, using the prior caveat 20-20 hindsight, it's obvious they miscalculated.

You answered you didn't know if Biden would have changed things even with 20-20 hindsight. I'm pretty sure Yellen would have tried to change things (through action or inaction or words) with 20-20 hindsight.

TBH I don't think people are thinking it's a human right for < $2. I think the problem is they think there is a group of people/countries/companies that are purposely manipulating oil prices and Biden should be protecting them from this.

But yeah, US gas prices are relatively cheap compared to ROW. If this helps push the adoption of EVs even quicker, I'm all for it even though there will be serious pain for many along the way.

I guess this means the Defund the Police won't be supported by the citizens of SF and LA? Abolishing the police has always been a weird goal of BLM, better to re-train and have more accountability.

Anyone who ever advanced abolishing police is a fucking idiot and using the phrasing of defund is equally ignorant. (Yes I know what it means, but present it correctly)

I am 100% on board with purging departments of the bad elements, and channeling more resources to increased training (mediation tactics, non-lethal restraint techniques, I.E Jiu Jitsu, etc) and providing more (and mandatory) behavioral health support for officers. In addition, there should be mandatory down time periods where officers are taken off the streets for periods of time, similar to how soldiers are cycled in and out of combat zones.

I have posted about it in other threads, it is one of the hardest jobs in this country and resources should be channeled to helping officers perform it better, because the overwhelming majority care about their job and want to do it well.

Yep. Using the word "defund" just gave Republicans an easy scare tactic to motivate their base. "Reform" would have been much better.

100%

Except many liberals really did want to defund the police, not simply reform it.

Many still support getting rid of the police.

Fixed that for you.

Examples?

About the only elected official that I can think of that called for ending the police was Rashida Tlaib, but she quickly backed away from the statement. No one is really going to get any traction on ending the police force, it is just used as a right-wing talking point.

I will stand corrected if you can give me an example of one single major government agency or program that has seen this scale of change occur in a 12-month period within the last 50 years. Government is not a business.

The basic issue here IMO is that government is that politics is the art of the possible. It doesn't matter what would be good in a vacuum if it's not something that could be passed and enacted within the relevant timeframe. To me it's just self-evident looking at the political reality around what has happened with the infrastructure bills and Build Back Better and then try to imagine some idealized version of immigration form getting passed and put in on a warp-speed timeframe.

I think an increase in immigration could change the situation some, again over a longer timeframe, but to get the right mix of people that way government would have to predict ahead of time what industries are going to need people and in what amounts, and be competent and flexible enough to adjust in that way. That's a recipe for disaster, it's not the kind of thing governments are good at. You can definitely put Biden's priorities in what kind of bills to try to put forward and not focusing on immigration in that 5-10% impact I mentioned before, but cycling back to the original point here I think it would be quite a ridiculous thing to base a vote for someone else on. After all there's no other candidate out there pushing for it, so it's something everyone else would be equally wrong on. There just wasn't anyone on the national stage calling for this, and there's a reason for that, so if Biden was wrong here so was pretty much everyone else.

In terms of the PR campaign, I understand what you are saying and I think it is a fair point. I just don't think there's anything at all that can be done to reach certain segments of the population. There are elements where there are no 'right levers' to find and push. You can't control everyone. I also think to the extent that there's a fear of going back to work or whatever at this point, it's a fear totally divorced from reality. I think it we could snap our fingers right now and make everyone vaccinated it would not make much difference. I also think there are going to be holdouts to pretty much anything. Advertising doesn't make everyone buy something no matter how good or cheap the product is.

Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police

My wife and I talked about this, again, just the other day. Reform would've been better. She brought up a good point, though. How much of the Defund the Police noise was from activists and how much was from the media, counter activists, and any other group that wanted to speak against the agenda of reform?

It is behind a paywall, but you're gonna have to do better than one opinion piece when throwing around the words "many liberals" Or define many. 70 million people voted for Biden. 1% of 1% of those is 70K people. I consider that a lot but in the scheme of things it isn't.

I don't know of any government agency or program that will fit your criteria. The best I can think of is the mess that was the Obamacare enrollment screwup. Government brought in Accenture to fix it. $90M+ and 1 year later, all done.

But that is the point. I've caveated my discussions in an earlier quote. Government cannot reform itself well, it needs to bring in outside parties.




I agree government is not good at this. We need private sector to help.


I don't disagree, there does not seem to be political will on either side to do a holistic immigration reform. Other for Dreamers, I've not seen much from Biden or Kamala.


The time to do this was right after vaccinations became available. So this is on Trump and also Biden. But I expected Biden to have done better in change management.

It is true that advertising doesn't make everyone buy something no matter how good or cheap the product is. But advertising does work. Change management is more than advertising, it's more communicating your message on what is happening, why its happening, why you benefit etc. through whatever means including ads.

The poll below is not on 100% defund the police but decrease the police funding. I think the % are big enough to say there was a good amount of support for decrease.

Americans’ support for more police spending in their area is growing | Pew Research Center

Most people I've seen calling for cuts to police spending want to see less money spent on equipping our police like the military so we get mental health experts on scenes and expand other types of policing than what we're doing now. So, in short, more money on things that have been proven to be effective and less on escalation.

That chart really means nothing. Spending less isn't the same as abolishing, and I couldn't find number of respondents. Sample size matters. Not to mention it shouldn't come as a surprise it is higher with blacks and asians, they police haven't exactly been an ally to them.

I guess to summarize my feelings, it doesn't make sense to me that the same people are sent to respond to domestic violence, armed robberies, traffic violations, evictions, school shootings, and trespassing.

Less spend less on current policing, narrow their scope, and get people less likely to escalate situations that don't require escalation for other things.

No, it really isn't. It's a high-paying job that requires no skill and has next to no accountability. Resources have been channeled into law enforcement for decades with little to nothing to show for it.