Primaire des ânes 2020

[Johnnieboy]

il y a 3 minutes, calypso13 a dit :

Il parle de Trump je pense. Beaucoup de gens plus ou moins libéraux qui ont voté pour lui se défendaient, entre autre, en disant qu'il était assez isolationiste.

Ah, parce que quelqu'un a pensé pendant une seule seconde que l'on pouvait faire confiance à ce que disait cet énergumène ?

[calypso13]

Suffisamment pour qu'il soit élu. J'étais pas encore sur le forum à l'époque, mais je suis sûr que certains Liborgiens en sont coupable aussi

[Johnnieboy]

il y a 9 minutes, calypso13 a dit :

Suffisamment pour qu'il soit élu. J'étais pas encore sur le forum à l'époque, mais je suis sûr que certains Liborgiens en sont coupable aussi

Sur lib.org, pas trop je pense.

[Rincevent]

Il y a 2 heures, Johnnieboy a dit :

Sur lib.org, pas trop je pense.

Probablement parce qu'il y a nettement moins d'isolationnistes étroits en ces lieux (ce qui est heureux).

[Johnnieboy]

Il y a 11 heures, Rincevent a dit :

Probablement parce qu'il y a nettement moins d'isolationnistes étroits en ces lieux (ce qui est heureux).

 

 

Moins d’idiots crédules, plutôt.

[Nigel]

 Bah il me semble que déjà à l'époque, on expliquait qu'il n'avait jamais été isolationniste. 

 

 Ceci dit, c'est le premier président américain depuis longtemps qui n'a pas démarré une nouvelle guerre, il me semble. 

[Zagor]

il y a 43 minutes, Nigel a dit :

 

 Ceci dit, c'est le premier président américain depuis longtemps qui n'a pas démarré une nouvelle guerre, il me semble. 

 

Obama n’a pas demarre de guerre il me semble. La Libye c’est Sarkozy et Cameron qui en sont a l’origine. Et la Syrie, les americains n’ont pas commencé  les hostilités. Certes, il n’a pas calme ces conflits.

 

J’ai un doute pour Bill Clinton, je crois que comme la Libye d’Obama il a suivi les europeens en Yougoslavie. ( on a tendance a oublier que les neoconservateurs et faucons sont tres present en Europe et particulierement en France)

 

Et Reagan, je n’ai pas souvenir de guerre ouverte sous son mandat ( ce qui avait d’ailleurs refroidi les néoconservateurs qui etaient de son cote au debut).

[Neomatix]

ily a 7 minutes, Zagor a dit :

Obama n’a pas demarre de guerre il me semble.

A part en Somalie, en Syrie, en Libye, au Yemen, etc.

ily a 7 minutes, Zagor a dit :

La Libyec’est Sarkozy et Cameron qui en sont a l’origine. Et la Syrie, les americainsn’ont pas commencé  leshostilités. Certes, iln’a pas calmecesconflits.

 

En Libye ce sont les américains qui ont commencé les hostilités, pas les anglais ni les français.  La Syrie c'est vraiment le bordel mais c'est bien les Etats Unis qui ont mené l'offensive de l'OTAN.

ily a 7 minutes, Zagor a dit :

Et Reagan, jen’ai pas souvenir de guerreouverte sous son mandat( cequiavaitd’ailleursrefroidi les néoconservateursquietaient de son coteau debut).

Urgent Fury

[Rincevent]

il y a une heure, Neomatix a dit :

Urgent Fury

Oui, c'était le temps béni où les guerres ne duraient qu'une semaine.

[Zagor]

J'ai l'impression que la shitstorm autour de Tulsi Gabbard/Russie prend de l'ampleur.

 

Pour que Sanders vienne à la défendre:

 

Intéressant de voir la légion de complotistes qui lui répond.

[Adrian]

Devant les difficultés de Biden Bloomberg pourrait se présenter !

 

Bloomberg makes preparations for 2020 run

 

Citation

Bloomberg's money also could further sharpen the existing divisions in the field between the left-wing, populist candidates and more moderate, pragmatic ones. While advisers to Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg declined to comment on Bloomberg's entry, Sanders' team reacted with near glee at the potential contrast he would offer.

"More billionaires seeking more political power surely isn't the change American needs," said Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir. Sanders himself weighed in on Twitter, saying "[t]he billionaire class is scared and they should be scared."

Democratic strategist and longtime Barack Obama aide David Axelrod said concerns about Biden clearly contributed to Bloomberg's change of heart.

“There’s no question that Bloomberg’s calculus was that Biden was occupying a space, and the fact that he’s getting in is a clear indication that he’s not convinced Biden has the wherewithal to carry that torch," Axelrod said. "So yeah, I don’t think this is a positive development for Joe Biden."

 

Imaginez si Sanders (voir même Warren) gagne les primaires et que les "centristes" du parti démocrate lancent un candidat à la présidentielle ...

[Fagotto]

Sanders s'est fait doublé par Warren j'ai l'impression.

Warren semble trop radicale, mais bon on pensait la même chose de Trump.

Je crois pas au 3e candidat genre Bloomberg, les bases Rep et les bases Dem sont trop fortes pour lui laisser une place, mais bon tout est possible.

[Tramp]

Et puis on n’apparait pas comme ça sur les bulletins de vote aux US quand on est pas le candidat d’un des deux partis. 

[Carl Barks]

L'idée n'est pas qu'il se lance en indépendant, mais qu'il rejoigne la campagne démocrate au dernier moment, si j'ai bien compris. En gros, prendre la place de Biden qui est en perte de vitesse.

[Zagor]

Juste un rappel, les candidats en tête des primaires un an avant les éléctions ne sont pas toujours les gagnants de celles-ci:

Rappelez vous qu'en 2015, tout le monde pensait à un match Jeb Bush vs Clinton (qui gagnerait la primaire sans difficulté). Et on fini avec Bush qui fait un score de merde et une primaire républicaine entre Trump et Cruz vs Hillary qui doit affronter un Sanders plus populaire que prévu.

Donc c'est un peu tôt pour voir Warren candidate démocrate.

Surtout que Biden remonte:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/

 

[Rincevent]

il y a 56 minutes, Zagor a dit :

Juste un rappel, les candidats en tête des primaires un an avant les éléctions ne sont pas toujours les gagnants de celles-ci:

Rappelez vous qu'en 2015, tout le monde pensait à un match Jeb Bush vs Clinton (qui gagnerait la primaire sans difficulté). Et on fini avec Bush qui fait un score de merde et une primaire républicaine entre Trump et Cruz vs Hillary qui doit affronter un Sanders plus populaire que prévu.

Donc c'est un peu tôt pour voir Warren candidate démocrate.

Surtout que Biden remonte:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/

 

Et personne n'imaginait qu'Obama avait la moindre chance de l'emporter avant qu'Oprah ne s'engage à ses côtés fin Novembre 2007.

[Tipiak]

(je savais pas trop où poster ça mais vu que c'est un sondage US...)

 

Surprise : les gens qui ont une préférence temporelle pour le futur ont nettement tendance à être plus riche que ceux qui ont une préférence temporelle pour le présent.

 

 

Surprise bis : les gens qui ont une préférence temporelle pour le futur ont nettement tendance à être plus favorable au capitalisme et opposé au socialisme que ceux qui ont une préférence temporelle pour le présent.

 

 

Il y a pas mal de trucs intéressants dans le sondage.

 

https://www.cato.org/publications/survey-reports/what-americans-think-about-poverty-wealth-work

 

(télécharger le "Crosstab ... Survey" pour voir les données brutes comme sur la deuxième image)

 

Edit : ah j'ai trouvé, c'est le topic Articles d'hivers intéressants que je cherchais... 

[cedric.org]

150 biyons, c'est pas cher.

 

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/12/bernie-sanders-vows-to-break-up-huge-isps-and-regulate-broadband-prices/?comments=1

 

Il FAUT nationaliser, parce que, euh, parce que ça a été créé par le public, donc, euh, voila! File-moi ta thune.

[Carl Barks]

Intéressante analyse sur Elizabeth Warren comme héritière de gauche du Public Choice: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/12/elizabeth-socialist-understand-capitalism-pro-market-leftist/

Ca ne me fait certainement pas adhérer à son programme mais ça me convainc qu'elle vaudrait bien mieux qu'un Sanders au pouvoir.

Après, on pourrait sûrement autant de Benoît Hamon en ne retenant que sa loi consommation (qui, ma foi, n'était pas remplie que de bêtises).

[Mégille]

Révélation

Socialists Will Never Understand Elizabeth Warren

The Democratic candidate is part of a long intellectual tradition that’s gone forgotten in the West: pro-market leftism.

By Henry Farrell

| December 12, 2019, 10:12 AM

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, right, pats Sen. Bernie Sanders on the back after Sanders spoke at a news conference on the Social Security system in Washington on Feb. 16, 2017. Win McNamee/Getty Images

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s politics seem like a tangle of contradictions. She wants free markets, but also wants to tax billionaires’ capital. Her enemies on the right claim that she is a socialist, but Warren describes herself as “capitalist to my bones.”

Warren’s politics are so confusing because we have forgotten that a pro-capitalist left is even possible. For a long time, political debate in the United States has been a fight between conservatives and libertarians on the right, who favored the market, and socialists and liberals on the left, who favored the government.

It has been clear since 2016 that the traditional coalition of the right was breaking up. Conservatives such as U.S. President Donald Trump are no fans of open trade and free markets, and even favor social protections so long as they benefit their white supporters. Now, the left is changing too.

Warren is reviving a pro-market left that has been neglected for decades, by drawing on a surprising resource: public choice economics. This economic theory is reviled by many on the left, who have claimed that it is a Koch-funded intellectual conspiracy designed to destroy democracy. Yet there is a left version of public choice economics too, associated with thinkers such as the late Mancur Olson. Like Olson, Warren is not a socialist but a left-wing capitalist, who wants to use public choice ideas to cleanse both markets and the state of their corruption.

---

Public choice economics has big influence and a bad name. It is a school of economic thought that has at different times been associated with scholars at the University of Rochester, Virginia Tech, and George Mason University. Public choice came into being in fervent opposition to the mainstream of economics, which was dominated by scholars such as Paul Samuelson.

Samuelson, in his famous and influential textbooks, saw a clear role for government in regulating markets. Public choice scholars vehemently disagreed. For political and theoretical reasons, they instead saw government as a fountain of corruption. Public choice economists argued that government regulations were the product of special interest groups that had “captured” the power of the state, to cripple rivals and squeeze money from citizens and consumers. Regulations were not made in the public interest, but instead were designed to bilk ordinary citizens.

Perhaps the most influential version of public choice was known as law and economics. For decades, conservative foundations supported seminars that taught judges and legal academics the principles of public choice economics. Attendees were taught that harsh sentences would deter future crime, that government regulation should be treated with profound skepticism, and that antitrust enforcement had worse consequences than the monopolies it was supposed to correct. As statistical research by Elliott Ash, Daniel L. Chen, and Suresh Naidu has shown, these seminars played a crucial role in shifting American courts to the right.

Warren was one of the young legal academics who attended these seminars, and was largely convinced by the arguments. Her early work on bankruptcy law started from public choice principles, and displayed a deep skepticism of intervention.

The conventional story is that as Warren moved from the right to the left, she abandoned the public choice way of thinking about the world, in favor of a more traditional left-wing radicalism. A more accurate take might be that she didn’t abandon public choice, but instead remained committed to its free-market ideals, while reversing some of its valences. Her work as an academic was aimed at combating special interests, showing how the financial industry had shaped bankruptcy reforms so that they boosted lenders’ profits at borrowers’ expense. Notably, she applied public choice theory to explain some aspects of public choice, showing how financial interests had funded scholarly centers which provided a patina of genteel respectability to industry’s preferred positions.

Now, Warren wants to to wash away the filth that has built up over decades to clog the workings of American capitalism. Financial rules that have been designed by lobbyists need to be torn up. Vast inequalities of wealth, which provide the rich with disproportionate political and economic power, need to be reversed. Intellectual property rules, which make it so that farmers no longer really own the seeds they sow or the machinery they use to plant them, need to be abolished. For Warren, the problem with modern American capitalism is that it is not nearly capitalist enough. It has been captured by special interests, which are strangling competition.

Read More

Socialism’s Biggest Hero Is a Bourgeois British Capitalist

John Maynard Keynes felt little solidarity for workers and inspired a century of establishment economics. The West’s revived socialists have adopted him as their own anyway.

Argument |

Geoff Mann

---

It is hard to see how deeply Warren’s program is rooted in public choice ideas, because public choice has come to be the target of left-wing conspiracy theories. A recent popular history book, which qualified as a finalist for the National Book Award, depicts public choice as a kind of stealth intellectual weapons program, developed by economist James Buchanan to provide Chilean President Augusto Pinochet with the justification for his dictatorial constitution, and the Koch brothers with the tools to dismantle American democracy.

For sure, the mainstream of public choice is strongly libertarian, and the development of the approach was funded by conservative individuals and foundations. What left-wing paranoia overlooks is that there has always been a significant left-wing current of public choice, and even a potent left-wing radicalism buried deep within public choice waiting to be uncovered. The free-market ideal is a situation in which no actor has economic power over any other. As many of Warren’s proposals demonstrate, trying to achieve this ideal can animate a radical program for reform.

Warren’s ideas have a close family resemblance to those of Olson, a celebrated public choice theorist. (Perhaps she has read him; perhaps she has just reached similar conclusions from similar starting points.) Olson, like other public choice scholars, worried about the power of interest groups. He famously developed a theory of collective action that shows how narrowly focused interest groups can dominate politics, because they can organize more cheaply and reap great benefits by setting rules and creating monopolies at the expense of the ordinary public. This means that government programs often actively harm the poor rather than helping them.

However, Olson also castigated libertarian economists for their “monodiabolism” and “almost utopian lack of concern about other problems” so long as the government was chained down. He argued that the government was not the only source of economic power: Business special interests would corrupt markets even if the government did not help them.

The result, according to Olson, was that societies, economies, and political systems became increasingly encrusted with special-interest politics as the decades passed. Countries benefited economically from great upheavals such as wars and social revolutions, which tore interest groups from their privileged perches and sent them tumbling into the abyss.

Olson wanted to open up both politics and the economy to greater competition, equalizing power relations as much as possible between the many and the few. He argued that under some circumstances, powerful trade unions could benefit the economy. When unions and business groups were sufficiently big that they represented a substantial percentage of workers or business as a whole, they would be less likely to seek special benefits at the expense of the many, and more likely to prioritize the good of the whole. Olson also believed strongly in the benefits of open trade, not just because it led to standard economic efficiencies, but because it made it harder for interest groups to capture government and markets. Northern European economies such as Denmark, which combine powerful trade unions with a strong commitment to free markets, represent Olsonian politics in action.

---

Warren shares far more intellectual DNA with Mancur Olson and his colleagues than with traditional socialism. However, there are important differences. Olson wrote his key work in the 1980s, before the globalization boom. His arguments for free trade depend on the assumption that open borders will disempower special interests.

As economists such as Dani Rodrik and political scientists such as Susan Sell have shown, this hasn’t quite worked out as Olson expected. Free trade agreements have become a magnet for special interest groups, who want to cement their preferences in international agreements that are incredibly hard to reverse. The U.S. “fast track” approach to trade negotiations makes it harder for Congress to demand change, but allows industry lobbyists to shape the administration’s negotiating stance. Investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms provide business with a friendly forum where they can target government rules that hurt their economic interests. All of this helps explain why Warren is skeptical of arguments for the general benefits of free-trade agreements: they aren’t nearly so general as economists claim.

Close attention to Warren’s public choice influences reveals both her radicalism and its limits. Like Olson, she is committed to the notion that making capitalism work for citizens will require changes that border on the revolutionary. The sweeping proposals she makes for changes to America’s gross economic inequality, its economic relations with the rest of the world, its approach to antitrust legislation, and its tolerance of sleazy relationships among politicians, regulators, and industry are all aimed at creating a major upheaval. Where she proposes major state action, as in her “Medicare for All” plans, it is to supplant market institutions that aren’t working, and are so embedded in interest group power dynamics that they are incapable of reform.

Yet this is a distinctly capitalist variety of radicalism. Socialists will inevitably be disappointed in the limits to her arguments. Warren’s ideal is markets that work as they should, in contrast to the socialist belief that some forms of power are inherent within markets themselves. Not only Marxists, but economists such as Thomas Piketty, have suggested that the market system is rigged in ways that will inevitably favor capital over the long run. The fixes that Warren proposes will at most dampen down these tendencies rather than remove them.

If Warren wins, she will not only disappoint socialists. Her proposals may end up being too radical for Congress, but not nearly radical enough to tackle challenges such as climate change, which will require a rapid and dramatic transformation of the global economy if catastrophe is to be averted. Libertarians and mainstream public choice scholars will attack her from a different vantage point, arguing that she is both too skeptical about existing market structures and too trusting of the machineries of the state that she hopes to use to remedy them. State efforts to reform markets can easily turn into protectionism.

What Warren offers, then, is neither a socialist or deep green alternative to capitalism, nor a public choice justification for why regulators ought to leave it alone. The bet she is making is that capitalism can solve the major problems that the United States faces, so long as the government tackles inequality and defangs the special interests that have parasitized the political and economic systems. Like all such bets, it is a risky one, but one that might transform the U.S. model of capitalism if it succeeds.

 

Henry Farrell is a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

View

 

Ne faites pas attention à moi, je ne fais que copier-coller l'article ici pour contourner le pseudo paywall. Intéressant, en effet.

[Ultimex]

En contrepoint :

https://reason.com/2019/09/10/elizabeth-warrens-plans-dont-add-up/

[Cthulhu]

Joe Rogan endorse Bernie

 

https://reason.com/2020/01/24/as-progressive-twitter-erupts-at-joe-rogan-endorsing-bernie-sanders-a-reminder-elizabeth-warrens-sexism-gambit-backfired/

[Boz]

Ce troll de génie !

[Cthulhu]

Pour avoir écouté le JRE podcast avec Bernie, ce n'est pas un troll.

[Adrian]

Les américains sont vraiment nuls en élections.

[Cthulhu]

C'est un shit show de grande classe cette primaire en Iowa. Je suis impressionné par la capacité des Dems à s'enfoncer de plus en plus. Et il leur reste presque un an à tenir, ça va finir en feu d'artifice.

[Adrian]

 

[Cthulhu]

Buttigieg qui gagne le caucus devant Bernie qui était favori...alors que sa campagne a donné de l'argent à la boite qui a développé l'application de vote électronique. Ah, et la boite en question s'appelle Shadow, ça ne s'invente pas.

 

 

 

 

[Vilfredo]

[Zehlaie]

Entre le pile ou face, des résultats partiels tombant au compte-gouttes, une entité shadow, des recomptes à la main et j'en passe.

Ils auraient probablement mieux fait de demander à facebook, Cambridge Analytica ou les bots russes les résultats du vote.