Hard News: Be careful what you wish for
77 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
peter mclennan, in reply to
Just "Not my leader" is fine.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Aidan: Correct. There is a secondary market for the debt, so it gets sold for whatever price it'll get (and hence the buyer gets a better yield: yield = coupon/price). If secondary market yields rise then sure, the US will need to either pay a higher coupon on new debt, or drive yields down by doing QE (buying and cancelling its own debt).
The idea that the Chinese can just bang on the door and demand their cash back is naive and wrong. (and what's actually happening is that China is draining down their foreign exchange reserves to maintain an artificially high CNY parity).
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
The idea that the Chinese can just bang on the door and demand their cash back is naive and wrong.
Thanks, I'm getting a free education here...
-
Aidan, in reply to
Krugman's article has the important caveat that we're in a period of substantial excess savings. If that situation were to change then it might be different. Not much sign of that though.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
Krugman’s article has the important caveat that we’re in a period of substantial excess savings.
I’m curious where these savings are coming from. Is it mostly the ‘1%’ looking for places to park their loot? Oil barons? Russian oligarchs? Baby-boomer pension funds?
Because most western governments are borrowing, and most people around the world don’t seem awash in money (or there’d be far more spending and economic growth) and a lot of countries (like us – and the US) have negative trade balances. -
Alfie, in reply to
What was the overall turnout %?
The turnout rate was 55.6% – meaning 44.4% of eligible US voters couldn’t be arsed.
The Elections Project site is down at the moment so this info comes via Vox.
-
Paul Campbell, in reply to
I’m a currently very depressed American who is (bizarrely) looking like a bit of a genius for living overseas for the past 19 years (14 here in NZ). I have no plans to return there.
My (american) partner's reaction this morning was "we don't ever have to go back do we", followed by a "but my Mom lives there"
If Hillary doesn't rush out and use the rest of her money to build a giant bully pulpit for Elizabeth Warren I'll be really pissed - if ever there was a time to have people able to speak truth to power it is now
-
-
The Simpsons predicted President Trump 16 years ago as ‘a warning to America it was going insane'''. In an episode called Bart to The Future, the Simpsons predicted (16 years ago) 'the tycoon would become leader of the free world'
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
One place is Apple: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/02/apple-cash-mountain-grows
-
Hans Versluys, in reply to
Re: the presidential vote graph, Kerry got 3m fewer votes than GWB in 2004. It's not that clear on that graph.
-
History in the making and the recording and keeping thereof...
At a tangent to the current discussion, but of interest to all who want history to be kept in a meaningful way.
Archives New Zealand has extended the closing day for submissions on its:Archives 2057 Discussion Document
Archives New Zealand needs to plan for the long term to ensure that the record of government is available to New Zealanders now and in the future. Your input will help Archives develop a long-term strategy.
Update: Comments are now open until 5pm on 14 November 2016.https://www.govt.nz/browse/engaging-with-government/consultations-have-your-say/archives-2057/
So now the US Election is over you'll all have a few spare days to cogitate and contribute.
I know there will be many reading this who have strong ideas about data storage, and retrieval, in the modern world - they are going to need all the intelligent input they can get!The year 2057 will mark 100 years since the establishment of New Zealand’s national archive institution through the Archives Act 1957.
While that seems a long time away, Archives New Zealand needs to be focused on the long term to ensure the record of government is available for New Zealanders now and in the future. Our performance as a regulator today has a major impact on government’s information assets into the future. Full, accurate, trustworthy and accessible records are necessary for government to be held accountable.Archives' roles, now and in the future
Currently we have a role as a regulator of the Public Records Act 2005; a custodian role to care for and protect the records we hold; and a facilitating role around access to the information we hold. We are also expected to have a leadership role in the wider archival sector. Our infrastructure and its contents (e.g. holdings, buildings, technology) must be maintained, fit for purpose and well positioned for the future.
In 2016, the majority of records being created are 'born-digital' (Information created in a digital format) but there is still a long tail of physical records to be transferred to Archives New Zealand. By 2057, digital will have been the primary format for customers (regulated parties and users) for some time, so we know now that we will have to operate differently.
Right now, the presenting problem is that government information systems have moved into the born-digital era without a coherent framework for preservation and accessibility. Digital information that is not correctly saved and filed the moment it is created, may be lost to the future or only accessed later at a high cost.
Digital preservation considerations also need to be applied to records from creation, otherwise the ability to access the material into the future is at risk. With the pace of technology change, the future arrives quickly. Archives New Zealand along with others in the Department of Internal Affairs, is well positioned to show strong leadership across the information management system.
This discussion document examines trends and insights that impact the decisions we need to start making but it will not attempt to predict the new technologies that may be available.
We are assuming a continuation of our role to care for, and preserve, the physical holdings in our custody. We are also assuming the core role of regulator of the record of government will continue. However, neither role will look the same in 2057.Time to get cracking if we want the future to learn from the past...
-
keeaa, in reply to
States that passed voting restrictions saw decreased turnout, flipped to Trump
-
Gareth, in reply to
Well, to an extent me too - but the bigger point that China will relish a US led by Trump stands, because the two countries are (more or less) inextricably linked. As the Brexiteers are finding out for the UK and EU...
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
...couldn’t be arsed.
A friend was sitting next to one the the handful of US sciencetypes at a conference dinner last night at a NZ venue.
The tablemate was a staunch Republican, who couldn't in all conscience, bring himself to vote Trump.
Hillary no option a she is (for many reasons) perceived as a she devil.So he abstained.
This Republican was as distressed at the outcome as his Democrat countrymen also attending the conference.
-
Be careful what you wish for, indeed. I suppose this is going to be just one of a long string of changes.
EDIT: Actually on a second look this link is from late September, so I guess there's still potential he won't follow through.
Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition
Donald Trump has selected one of the best-known climate skeptics to lead his U.S. EPA transition team, according to two sources close to the campaign. Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, is spearheading Trump’s transition plans for EPA, the sources said.
[--snip--]
Ebell is a well-known and polarizing figure in the energy and environment realm. His participation in the EPA transition signals that the Trump team is looking to drastically reshape the climate policies the agency has pursued under the Obama administration. Ebell’s role is likely to infuriate environmentalists and Democrats but buoy critics of Obama’s climate rules.
Ebell, who was dubbed an “elegant nerd” and a “policy wonk” by Vanity Fair, is known for his prolific writings that question what he calls climate change “alarmism.” He appears frequently in the media and before Congress. He’s also chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a group of nonprofits that “question global warming alarmism and oppose energy-rationing policies.”
Ebell appears to relish criticism from the left.
-
Exit poll data visualised by NY Times shows which groups voted for Trump.
-
This graph tells part of the story - by @yanagiz but I spotted it in the tweet linked below. Literally 3m+ Dem voters didn't actually vote depending on which election you look at.
Looks like people have so little faith in the system that they just didn't get out there. Perhaps lulled into a false sense of security by the thought that Clinton was picked to win by a margin.
I had breakfast today with a voter from North Carolina who voted for Trump. He claimed not to like Trump in any way but his key reason was the feeling of the middle class being ignored by Washington. The usual things - jobs being shipped overseas, people exploiting welfare. Obamacare for him increased his healthcare costs and level at which he and his family could benefit.
Even after a couple of hours I still couldn't get to the bottom of it but he doesn't see this election as the usual contest between Republican & Dems but something else. More a giant protest vote against Washington.
He sees his countries politics as corrupt and was willing to take a chance on wildcard to see if that change will happen. However he readily admits government is in the pocket of lobby groups. Kind of holding his nose and voting for the lesser of two evils in his view.
This backgrounder from an unlikely source has relevance globally. Its the inequality factor in my view that links the Brexit and this result.
How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind
He makes several points "Everyone Lashes Out When They Don't Have A Voice" and the city / country divide - comparisons are a bit laboured but it was a a countervailing view that we din't hear much about at all.
-
Sacha, in reply to
there's still potential he won't follow through
he has.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Exit poll data visualised by NY Times shows which groups voted for Trump.
That's fascinating – especially the minorities graphic. Demonstrates that Hispanics have not historically gone hugely Democratic. That's a more recent trend. Again, I'm left thinking was a remarkable candidate Obama has been. He didn't quite create a new normal, but the Dems have the Latino vote in a way they really did not in 2004.
-
Jason Kemp, in reply to
Hi Greg,
10m fewer voters?
On the bar chart version I found the difference between this election and 2012 looks to be around 6m less votes – so a huge decline. This time ( 59,915,938 votes) don't know actual number of 2012 but looks close to 66m.
-
Again, discussing turnout without reference to local factors does not tell us much. In New Zealand a turnout of 50% means people sitting in draughty primary schools twiddling their thumbs while waiting for the locals to take a few seconds out of their day. We practically drag voters in off the street. It couldn't be any easier to participate, and that is by non-partisan design.
In the USA it is the opposite. People not voting is "good", in the eyes of many who are supposedly charged with enabling the election. Depending on the jurisdiction, there are obstacles to voting threat we would not tolerate - or perhaps we would, and our turnout would plummet. So let's take care with the "lazy" label, it's ... well, lazy.
-
izogi, in reply to
People not voting is "good", in the eyes of many who are supposedly charged with enabling the election Depending on the jurisdiction, there are obstacles to voting threat we would not tolerate - or perhaps we would
Would it require much constitutional change in the USA for the Federal Government to take control of running its own national elections, or at least setting and enforcing stricter standards?
I get that each state likes to do its own thing, and I guess it may also have historic roots back to when it'd not be logistically practical to run a combined process over an entire country that size, but to me it's often seem a very outdated way of running an election.
I can see logic in blocking other types of advances (like electronic voting), but I can't see logic in enforcing a system that causes voters to be treated overtly differently depending on where they are within the Federal jurisdiction whilst voting for a Federal government.
-
Andrew Voerman, in reply to
For the life of me, I don't know why Obama didn't proceed with the Supreme Court appointment. He had time. What a disaster.
Wasn't his choice, was it? Senate controls whether or not to give him a hearing, and the Republicans decided they wouldn't in an election year.
-
David Hood, in reply to
Would it require much constitutional change in the USA for the Federal Government to take control of running its own national elections, or at least setting and enforcing stricter standards?
Yes. It would take massive constitutional change, you need a constitutional amendment. The power to choose the members of the electoral college is vest in the state legislators (technically elections are optional, if it was state law that the state legislator appointed them, then that is what that state could do).
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html
The only electoral system change with any hope of eventually happening is the National Popular Vote compact between states- and even that is drawing on the fact that states can do what they like to appoint electors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Post your response…
This topic is closed.