Patterico's Pontifications

3/28/2016

Hot Take: Kiveling Snoward Hears the Petition of the Candlemakers

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:51 am

“We’re gonna build a dome,” the candidate said. “It’s going to be a big, beautiful dome.” Later, the candidate confided to me that when his rallies get a little slow, he mentions the dome, and everybody goes crazy.

The candidate, Kiveling Snoward, was once discounted as a joke. But this hot take will show that Snoward appeals to a disaffected group of blue-collar workers: the candlemakers, whose distress over the cheap light offered by the sun has found expression in Mr. Snoward’s promise to build a dome to block out its rays. For years, the GOP had ignored the entreaties of the candlemakers, whose complaints about the sun’s inexpensive light had fallen on deaf ears.

Now they are paying a steep political price.

One of those candlemakers is Freddie Bastiat, the author of a petition that went viral on social media in recent months, and inspired Snoward’s dome:

We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of American industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us.

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull’s-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

Some experts, including every single economist on the planet, expressed opposition to the notion of a dome. “Why would you eliminate cheap light to create artificial demand for inferior light that takes time, energy, and resources to produce?” asked Frilton Meedman, an economist renowned for his free-market thinking. “Let’s pretend a genie came along and told all Americans that they could snap their fingers and have the best possible big-screen TV for free. Not just an inexpensive one. Absolutely for free. And if it breaks, they snap their fingers and the broken one disappears and a new one appears. This would put television manufacturers and repairmen out of work, for a time, of course. That’s the nature of capitalism! When cheaper alternatives emerge, those who provide unwanted or overly expensive products have to improve or find something else to do. The same goes for blocking out the sun, a totally free source of light and energy. It’s insanity! Would anyone really suggest that we should reject free or inexpensive goods, just because some workers would be temporarily displaced?”

“Hell yeah I’d suggest that!” said a worker in a television plant. “This kinda pointy-headed stuff is why I’m voting for Snoward! Make America Great Again!”

Mr. Bastiat was similarly unmoved. “I get so inspired when I hear Mr. Snoward say: “We’re gonna build that dome, and the machines that build it are gonna be solar-powered!”

195 Responses to “Hot Take: Kiveling Snoward Hears the Petition of the Candlemakers”

  1. Unfortunately, this is an appeal to logic, which is doomed to fail. Far too many, today, are wont to see someone else suffer rather than themselves just succeed.

    MrScience_ (a3c947)

  2. i like candles but this electric diffuser is my new favorite thing it makes different colors plus it diffuses the essential oils

    i hope Mr. Trump prevails in his epic battle against an ossified and sclerotic ruling class of elite piddlepoops

    there are some people what are doing sarcasm on him though, and this worries me

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  3. #1 MrScience wrote, “Far too many, today, are wont to see someone else suffer rather than themselves just succeed.”

    Yes, we call them ‘Democrats’ and ‘Jihadists.’ (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  4. Reagan once said something like: Liberals believe if it moves: tax it, if it keeps moving: regulate it, and if it stops moving: subsidize it. It’s time to subsidize the candlemakers of America!. Or as they are lovingly know as today, The International Brotherhood of Candlemakers, Buggy Whip Manufacturers and Whale Oil Merchants.

    Imam Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6)

  5. It’s not just Snoward’s yuuuge dome, it’s also the fact he promises to make the sun pay for it. The man is a certified cretin genius.

    Rick Ballard (d73667)

  6. Demagogues have to demagogue. It’s what they do.

    navyvet (c33501)

  7. Turmp’s supporters aren’t all blue collar, most of us can read and sign our names, and a few of us have actually been to college, and we still have the right to vote. So, looking down your nose at us and making silly jokes isn’t about to persuade us of much of anything but that you hold us in contempt.

    Think about it, you’re doing more than enough to persuade us that you’re no different from the blind and malicious fools who elected Barack Obama and are now dividing the conservative movement in ways that can’t be reconciled in this election cycle, and may well result in a permanent schism within the GOP.

    You’ve made it quite clear you don’t consider the GOP’s tent big enough for the both us. So, quite a few of us will take ourselves, our money, and our votes to places we can openly voice our opinions without being hounded with insults and catcalls. Others will stay and fight to kick your sorry dictatorial asses out of the tent, and unfortunately some of us will just stay home on election day and grind our axes.

    ropelight (03f634)

  8. There isn’t one damned thing about Trump that is Conservative. But there is one hell of a lot about Trump that is exactly like Obama. And idiot conspiracy theorists, whether they can read or not, cannot be convinced of anything.

    By the way, I’m blue collar, been blue collar my entire life, and was National Honor Society in High School with a partial academic (ACADEMIC) scholarship to a private Christian College, so your “not all of us are blue collar, some of us can read” crap is perfectly typical of your snide arse, bicth.

    John Hitchcock (6fc49f)

  9. Say it an they will come.

    ropelight (03f634)

  10. Mr. Cruz would be a reasonable alternative to Mr. Trump but i don’t think he has what it takes to win in November cause he’s so poopy

    congrats on National Honor Society though that’s really good

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  11. Maybe President Ted Cruz can cut government regulations and eliminate complicated laws so that the barriers to entry in the practice of law becomes so low that anyone can do it.

    At the very least lawyers should be able to train their lower cost replacements.

    pinandpuller (928ad9)

  12. It’s not a silly joke, ropelight. It’s an analogy that makes a good point.

    DRJ (15874d)

  13. ropelight, there’s something very MAD magazine-like about a billionaire populist who has a private jet (along with a former nude supermodel wife 25 years his junior) who promises to fight elitism and “the establishment.”
    And there’s something very troubling that people fall for that promise.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  14. The world has changed a lot since 1821. When Bastiat developed his theory, the Third World places which were enriching the merchants of the European super-powers were colonies or tributaries. Not an ascendant super-power building itself up economically and militarily, and looking to dominate them and eventually supplant them economically and militarily. For one thing.

    If we still had the industries we sent to China, like we did in the ’60s when civil service jobs went begging because the factories paid more, we would not be complaining about immigration. We would be begging Mexicans to come up here to work in them. For another thing.

    We still have a large population of American citizens that we need to find work for. Well-paying, productive, fulfilling work. Not workfare make-work. If for no other reason than to keep them from voting for loons like Trump and Sanders. For yet a third thing.

    And shut up, pudandpuller. Your snide drive-byes contribute nothing to the discussion.

    nk (dbc370)

  15. And no, wanting to turn back the clock to 1960 in America is not the same as wanting to turn it back to 1821 in France.

    nk (dbc370)

  16. Mr Science and I seem to agree that what motivates some Trump voters is getting even.

    DRJ (15874d)

  17. the important thing is not to elect Hillary cause she’s nasty

    and also she’s a criminal

    this is a toxic combination of qualities

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  18. In fairness, though, I suspect many Trump voters don’t see a way they can succeed.

    DRJ (15874d)

  19. I’ve been saying that since day one, ropelight. There is no good to come from alienating another candidates supporters, none. In fact people have done such a good job of chastising Trump supporters I’d be surprised if any of them would vote the Party any longer. BTW, I think Trump plans for Mexico to pay for the wall by ending the $292 million we send them in aid each year. Seems we’re supposed to support Mexicans both here and in Mexico.

    Imam Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6)

  20. Sure DRJ, Kiveling Snoward isn’t a joke, it an analogy that makes a good point.

    ropelight (03f634)

  21. @14 nk

    If you don’t like my comments then build your own dome.

    And what’s wrong with revisiting the protectionism of the practice of law?

    I think we all understand having certain restrictions on the practice of medicine because the complexity of life is not man-made.

    But the complexity of law is man-made.

    pinandpuller (928ad9)

  22. Sigh. Patterico, Dana, JVW, JD, what you do is your business, but I see no need for you to waste your time drafting and posting coherent posts. You can just start a thread by posting one word: Trump.

    nk (dbc370)

  23. I’m with pinandpuller on this. And you can throw out teacher “certification” requirements for employment in public schools. We create monstrosities, teachers colleges (now “universities”,) run by Marxists and anarchists, and then mandate that their graduates must be hired to teach our children.

    The outcome was predictable.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  24. Yes, Hoagie, your voice, almost alone on your side, has been one pleading for sanity, but the ears and minds of the fevered mob have been closed to all reason (which is no match for passion) while at the same time accusing others of their own shortcomings.

    Consider the unbridled hatred flowing from John Hitchcock’s malignant soul, and remember that not long ago we 3 were simpatico. It’s enough to make me wonder if I ever really knew the man at all.

    ropelight (03f634)

  25. Yes, pinandpuller, the practice of law is over-protectionistic but not in the examination and licensing requirements. In the requirement of law degrees from law schools. Those were enacted in the early 1900s to keep Jews from becoming lawyers. Before that, you could study law usually by clerking with a practicing lawyer, like you could learn any other trade by study and apprentice, and then submit to an examination by the jurisdiction where you wanted to practice.

    The examination and licensing requirements are necessary for the protection of the public in the same way as food-handling regulations are necessary for the protection of Chipotle customers.

    nk (dbc370)

  26. DRJ, your comment at 3/28/2016 @ 9:06 am is an example of wishful thinking. Trump is the front runner and has captured the most delegates and has won more primaries. I assure you Trump’s supporters don’t share your view. We see a proven winner gathering momentum and headed for a 1st ballot victory. There is no persuasive evidence to the contrary, only the self-seductive daydreams of Cruz’s cabal of true believers.

    ropelight (03f634)

  27. Yes, it is everyone else’s fault, ropelight.
    #NoSelfAwareness

    JD (34f761)

  28. Happyfeet – you like polling. Can you show us even one that shows Trumpkins beating Hillary? Or how he might turn his worst negatives in the history of polling around?

    JD (34f761)

  29. Frilton Meedman is the greatest economic genius in the world besides Somas Thowell.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  30. NK,

    It’s interesting to attempt to discern the propaganda intent of the NYT thumb sucker. I use the Battleground Poll from last spring for a reasonable determination of demographic split percentages and the “blue collar white male” can’t account for half of Snoward’s support, even at 100% pro-Snoward levels rather than the roughly 50% pro-Snoward level he actually enjoys. I know the NYT depends upon its subscriber base having to remove their shoes when dealing with higher basic arithmetic but this paint an unflattering picture by the numbers effort is lame even by NYT lack of standards.

    Rick Ballard (d73667)

  31. Yes. The NYT may have been the antithesis to the Hearst style of yellow journalism at one time, but it’s now just as big a polemical rag. The paper of making up the record.

    nk (dbc370)

  32. BTW, pindandpuller (notice I’m using your handle properly twice in a row), this is how you snide and stay on topic:

    I thought China was supposed to be the Middle Kingdom, in between Heaven and Earth, not in the heavens itself.

    nk (dbc370)

  33. @22 nk

    Isaac Hayes played a character on The Rockford Files called Gandalph Fitch.

    One quote I remember from him was.”Mostly people do what I say.”

    Seeing as how we are strangers on the internet and I’m not,”accosting you in your own dojo,” why even waste a sentence trying to insult me and shut me down? Does that work anywhere?

    I obviously don’t agree with everything here. A lot of people don’t agree with me. Who cares?

    I come to read other’s opinions and creative insults. If you and the Colonel wishto continue the mock rap battles that’s great.

    But telling someone to shut up looks like impotence and weakness to me.

    As I’ve said before,”but what do I know?”.

    pinandpuller (928ad9)

  34. We’re all trolls, now.

    felipe (56556d)

  35. We used to be Devo.

    felipe (56556d)

  36. Mr. JD I think Mr. The Donald is doing well given the barrage of negative media he’s getting from all directions

    Mr. Cruz hasn’t been subjected to anything similar and in fact he kinda benefits from the negative coverage Mr. Trump’s been receiving

    I think the charmless Mr. Cruz would be in a real pickle if he actually got nominated and people starting doing on him like they done on Mr. Trump

    so my feels is that Mr. Trump is just a much more inclusive candidate than Mr. Cruz (see article linkered above) and is a better candidate for the general than Mr. Cruz, who is very highly selective about who he wants to vote for him

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  37. Well, yes, the girls I’d see at Women’s Court were much more “inclusive” than the girls next door.

    nk (dbc370)

  38. But if you want to engage JD on topic, ask him if there would be a Harley-Davidson company to sell him a motorcycle today if not for the tariffs of the ’80s on Japanese bikes over 700ccs.

    nk (dbc370)

  39. the important thing is I can’t deal with no Hillary

    that’s just not on the agenda

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  40. It’s rather difficult to argue against the fact the Snoward Unicorn electorate is infinitely more inclusive than the real electorate. It’s also infinitely bigger. It may even be able to fly.

    Rick Ballard (d73667)

  41. @25 nk

    I honestly rarely take offense at trash talking, and I hope you take any from me in the spirit of which it was intended. It spurs my creativity.

    I know generally why certain professions have licenses and whatnot. I’m not saying your viewpoint or the reason for the status quo isn’t valid.

    But wouldn’t a true Free Marketer say that the free market would take care of unlicensed lawyers who give bad advice?

    One comment I heard the other day that made me look at things a little differently had to do with dropping all economic borders. I hadn’t really looked at trade in that way before.

    So in closing, thank you for exposing my ignorance with the actinic brilliance of your fiery intellect.

    pinandpuller (c16705)

  42. i heart free trade a lot – way more than Mr. Trump who’s at best ambivalent about it

    but whatever you can’t cover the sun with one finger

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  43. ac·tin·ic

    adjective

    * (of light or lighting) able to cause photochemical reactions, as in photography, through having a significant short wavelength or ultraviolet component.

    * relating to or caused by actinic light.

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  44. We’re guys, we talk rough.

    As for the free market and lawyers, it might work better than with doctors. A doctor’s mistakes are buried six feet under; a lawyer’s mistakes are hung six feet high. But it’s kind of tough on both of the clients for the sake of some economic theory. We don’t live in a theoretical world.

    nk (dbc370)

  45. Mr Happyfeet,

    The polls show Hillary wiping the floor with The Mr Donald in November. That means Hillary gets to be the Decider-in-Chief.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  46. Cruz Supporter is 100% right.

    If you’re going to say the most important thing is beating Hillary because she’s nasty and lawless, it makes no sense whatsoever to support Trump, either on the practical level, as she will crush the unlikable Trump, or on a moral level, as Trump is nastier and less lawful than (even) Hillary is.

    Either way, plan for tough times.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  47. The tariff made Harley’s worse, the days of AMF ownership and horrible quality. Harley regained it’s reputation by returning competing on quality not price.

    SPQR (4dc23c)

  48. Sorry, that satire sucked.

    Yeah, Trump must be stopped. But the logical implication of the satire is support for open borders immigration and unregulated trade. Fine in theory, but a fast track to losing the American Republic.

    You don’t beat Trump by belittling legitimate issues that energize his appeal. That strikes me as a losing strategy and a petulant childish reaction.

    Brad (74d84e)

  49. No, the 45% tariffs on imported motorcycles over 700ccs I’m talking about were enacted in 1983. Willie G. Davidson and partners had acquired Harley from AMF in 1981. It is true that AMF had run the company to the ground and tarnished the brand even with diehards, and Willie G. Davidson brought it back up. But he asked for and got help from Reagan.

    nk (dbc370)

  50. You don’t beat Trump by belittling legitimate issues that energize his appeal. That strikes me as a losing strategy and a petulant childish reaction.

    Brad (74d84e) — 3/28/2016 @ 11:04 am

    You’re right. I think some of Trump’s critics, myself included, actually see the problems as so serious that they are irritated that Trump is considered an answer to them. He’s not going to fix immigration… he’ll flip like a burnt pancake. He’s not going to improve our global trade situation and has business experience akin to Paris Hilton.

    But those issues are serious. The frustration has festered for a long time. As DRJ says, a lot of Trump’s fans just want revenge. They see this primary as a trainwreck for the GOP and that’s enough for them. That we actually started the season with several great choices, which was a rare opportunity, means little to them. The GOP deserves it, but I don’t think that’s good enough.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  51. What?

    mark johnson (fcabef)

  52. vengeance is mine sayeth the pikachu

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  53. Hillary goes 0 for 3 against the socialist but she’s unbeatable.

    You know what. IN a general election she don’t get superdelegates to drag her across the finish line, against the will of the public.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  54. And you can all stfu about Hillary beating Trump in polls.

    By what you laughably call logic you should all be backing Kasich. The New York Times and Washington Post polls say John is the GOP’s only hope.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  55. Check this out. Fidel Castro blasts Obama’s Cuba trip and instantly is awarded membership in the GOP by the French Press (see the caption under the photo).

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  56. And you can all stfu about Hillary beating Trump in polls.

    Or we could keep talking about them. Hillary has always crushed Trump because people do not like him. They see this spoiled, dishonest degenerate and they just don’t like him. Sure, there’s a solid core of TV watching low infos who buy his Chinese suits and VHS college classes and they think he’s a self made billionaire. The rest of America finds him repulsive. They see that he traded in the mother of his kids for a woman the age and appearance of his daughter and they shudder in disgust.

    In particular, women find the little man repulsive. Sure, the supermodel that daddy’s money buys Trump acts like she likes him, but in your heart of hearts you know she doesn’t. She’s just watching the years tick by on the calendar until the wrinkles start to appear.

    I’m not kidding when I say Hillary would make a better president. I think she would be awful but that’s still better than Trump. He would lose 40+ states. Trump is Hillary’s only path to the white house.

    Cruz is the most conservative candidate who can win. He has the experience. He has the integrity. He is not the polished TV personality… to Trump’s guys this is actually a minus! I like that he’s a stubborn nerd who won’t give the corrupt what they want, who the corrupt resent bitterly.

    The GOP has a rare chance to set right what went wrong in 1964. Or we can just burn the GOP down to the ground, which I grant they deserve, but before you tear something down you need a plan for what comes after. I love this country too much to just hope for the SMOD.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  57. Hillary goes 0 for 3 against the socialist but she’s unbeatable.

    She’s one of the weakest candidates in DNC history.

    Sanders would beat Trump too. Dukakis would beat Trump.

    Will you admit you were mistaken when Hillary defeats Trump? That you helped Hillary win? I will be almost as much as fault, as I’ll vote for Hillary over Trump, but let’s be honest… nominating Trump is reason Hillary’s going to win. So it’s probably more your fault than mine.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  58. Oh no. Team Kasich is running out of money, pulling ads out of Wisconsin markets.

    There goes the cattle ranch.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  59. So much for polls huh?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  60. “So, looking down your nose at us and making silly jokes isn’t about to persuade us of much of anything but that you hold us in contempt.”

    – ropelight

    I can only speak for myself, but I do hold you in contempt and will not try to “persuade” you of anything else. You support a nascent fascist.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  61. He’s not going to improve our global trade situation and has business experience akin to Paris Hilton.

    Out of curiosity, have the Hiltons (I assume not Paris) ever filed for bankruptcy?

    JP (bd5dd9)

  62. Mr. Trump is not a fascist

    i would know

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  63. Sanders would beat Trump too. Dukakis would beat Trump.

    That’s ridiculous, Dustin. Now you’re just throwing stuff out there to hear yourself type.

    I will be almost as much as fault, as I’ll vote for Hillary over Trump, but let’s be honest… nominating Trump is reason Hillary’s going to win. So it’s probably more your fault than mine.

    This is where the Trump derangement syndrome gets crazy. YOU will vote for Hillary over Trump but it’s people like ropelight that will get Hillary elected? Huh??? Wha….? So if Cruz wins the primary but loses the general to Hillary whose fault will that be? Knowing full well ropelight WILL vote for Cruz.

    Imam Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6)

  64. Liviticus, your contempt is a flower in my garden, an esteemed boon I intend to nurture and exhibit on special occasions.

    ropelight (03f634)

  65. Ted Cruz sent $500k to the Make America Awesome Pac according to Tom Sullivan.

    I bet that’s more money that GQ paid for the Melania photo shoot in the first place.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  66. Some of you owe me an apology. No hurry. I wasn’t taking notes or making a list.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  67. “Liviticus, your contempt is a flower in my garden, an esteemed boon I intend to nurture and exhibit on special occasions.”

    – ropelight

    I’ll exhibit it regularly, trust me.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  68. If I were Cruz I’d be looking into my recently signed on GOPe “allies”. Some of them seem bent on sinking his ship from the inside – that is assuming Cruz didn’t subcontract the Melania ads directly.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  69. but I do hold you in contempt

    So you feel ropelight is beneath consideration, worthless and deserving of scorn, Levidicus? What was your bubble score again? 44? Now it seems too high. Wouldn’t that be considered “bigoted”? You know, holding an obstinate belief in the superiority of your own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others?

    Imam Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6)

  70. and trump knows just where to touch you and he knows just what to prove

    he knows when to pull you closer and he knows when to let you loose

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  71. An apology for what, papertiger? Do you think we forgot that DRJ proved you a liar about the $500,000 in the Ted Cruz thread? We’re not Trump.

    nk (dbc370)

  72. I’ll exhibit it regularly, trust me.

    Wow. Now your elitist condescension is competing with your bigotry for first place.

    Imam Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6)

  73. That’s ridiculous, Dustin. Now you’re just throwing stuff out there to hear yourself type.

    I actually have a very quiet keyboard.

    This is where the Trump derangement syndrome gets crazy.

    I believe in being honest. Despite voting for Republicans for as long as I’ve voted, and despite being frustrated with the establishment, I sincerely believe that Trump would be worse for our country than Hillary. I realize that Hillary would be a bad president too.

    Nominating Trump forces my hand. I would much rather elect a conservative, a person with integrity, and someone who is a champion of our rights. I would much rather elect a leader who would stand up to cronies rather than buy politicians.

    So if Cruz wins the primary but loses the general to Hillary whose fault will that be? Knowing full well ropelight WILL vote for Cruz.

    Imam Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 3/28/2016 @ 12:14 pm

    Well, Cruz would win that election.

    I like ropelight, but his support for Cruz is not enough for me to support Trump. Trump is closer to a socialist than he is to my politics. His behavior is thuggish and I just cannot vote for him. Give me a ballot with his name on it, and I’ll actively vote against him. I’m just laying this out. The polls show there are obviously millions of people like me. If you know this is true, and you do, you can insult us all day, but you’re still going to lose the election.

    If you and Ropelight are sincere, and support Cruz over Hillary, why are you creating the conditions that make Hillary the winner?

    Huh??? Wha….?

    This is the kind of argument I would expect to hear from a child.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  74. “Wouldn’t that be considered “bigoted”? You know, holding an obstinate belief in the superiority of your own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others?”

    – Hoagie

    The fact that you don’t know the difference between assessing an individual and assessing a group is what allows you to make asinine remarks about “the browning of America” and be baffled when other people call you bigoted. That’s your problem, not mine.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  75. Trump and his followers are interesting. Most of them love it when Trump is incredibly nasty. They have no problem with Trump retweeting ugly pictures of Cruz’s wife and comparing them to pictures of his wife’s stripping in magazines. Then, someone provides a sober discussion of how they can’t follow a man like this, and Trump’s fans suddenly are incredibly sensitive. They were OK with incredible nastiness at the same time they are demanding apologies for meek stuff.

    I’m biased too so I don’t judge. But it’s interesting. It’s the kind of stuff that happens in Palestine when people are outraged about a fence but cool with lobbing missiles into Kindergartens. America has become, with all due respect, dumber. I blame our culture and our public education system. I dont say this to look down on Trump’s fans. If you read my comments you’ll see I actually think their outrage is justified, but totally short sighted in application.

    Trump’s fans simultaneously brag about how they are glad we do not support Trump, how they think it’s great that Trump ‘knows how to upset us’, while they are angry that we say we don’t support him. Trump’s fans think they can tear their way down to the top. They cannot.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  76. Dustin, America doesn’t shudder at Trumps marital career, particularly not his 1992 divorce from Ivanka.

    That’s probably the silliest assertion I have EVER seen you make.

    SarahW (67599f)

  77. Not all professions have this kind of problems. Some of them insulated themselves pretty carefully. One of them, which writes, mediates and interprets all the laws, goes so far as to put up several barriers to competition, both foreign and domestic.

    They start with having a state guild. To enter the guild you have to be a legal resident*, you have to attend an approved course of study at an approved school, and then you have to pass a guild-administered test. After that you have to follow guild rules and pay guild dues.

    Some guild members go so far as to work for government, which makes them even harder to replace or compete with.

    Just sayin’

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  78. * except in California.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  79. There is always one typo.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  80. Sarah, you’re mistaken.

    Women in particular find Trump repulsive in a way they do not about other Republican candidates. Some speculation is required but I think it’s because of two things. One of Trump’s major media breakthroughs was him bragging in tabloids about how the women he cheated on his wife with provided good sex. That’s actually one of the few things I knew about him as I didn’t watch NBC’s reality shows. Trump followed this up by being very hostile to women in journalism for things Trump had no real issue with from men.

    70% of women have a negative opinion of Trump.
    21% have a positive opinion of him.

    That’s amazing. Cruz, who is much more conservative on social issues like abortion, polls much better than Trump with women. That’s proof the reason women reject Trump is not political or based on any particular policy. It’s personal and specific to Trump, and I think it’s quite reasonable to say the extremely repulsive behavior Trump boasts about has something to do with how an extreme number of people find Trump repulsive.

    Trump has disrespected women, including the mother of his children, in a way that everyone has seen. His fans think this had no impact and they also deny the very apparent impact. Sarah, I do not know if you support Trump, but if you do you should reconsider as he will lose to Hillary.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  81. You don’t have to be a legal resident to be a barber in California?

    nk (dbc370)

  82. Dustin

    I’m just curious as to why you wouldn’t just vote third party, write in or skip it?

    If you want to vote Hillary at least get a pack of cigarettes out of it like a real democrat.

    pinandpuller (0845e7)

  83. Sarah, you confused Trump’s daughter with his wife. Trump has made jokes that make me wonder if he has too.

    This divorce is ancient history by political standards, but it was truly horrific, and was saturating america’s magazines:

    Trump sat down for an interview with Esquire, where he infamously remarked, “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of [expletive],” he told Esquire in 1991.
    During the heated divorce proceeding, Ivana accused Trump of “rape,” as revealed in the 1993 book Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump.
    According to Harry Hurt III’s book, Trump confronted his then-wife after undergoing an agonizing scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot. He’d used the plastic surgeon based on Ivana’s recommendation, and was none too happy about it.
    “Your fucking doctor has ruined me!” Trump cried. He then, according to Lost Tycoon, proceeded to engage in a “violent assault” against Ivana, holding back her arms, pulling out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, tearing off her clothes, and unzipping his pants.
    “Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified… It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.’”

    This stuff is why Trump doesn’t hesitate to bash Cruz’s marriage. What does Trump have to lose? Cruz can’t respond in any way, as Trump is probably worse than anything you could say about him. And while Trump’s wife recanted on some of this stuff, in a settlement where she got a lot of money, I think a lot of American women still have it in the back of their heads. There is a reason why they hate him, 70% to 21%. That reason is why Hillary will be our next president if we nominate Trump.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  84. You have to be a legal resident to generally engage in a business. It’s really complicated otherwise. But you don’t have to be a legal resident to be a lawyer in California.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  85. I’m just curious as to why you wouldn’t just vote third party, write in or skip it?

    That’s a great question, and I’ve considered this. But I am sincere in thinking Trump must not be president. I do not wish to dilute the impact of my vote by half by merely withholding my vote. I double the impact by voting against Trump. This is exactly the same reason I voted for Romney. I disliked Romney but felt Obama was so bad that I needed to vote against him.

    I urge conservatives to vote against Trump.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  86. That “Illegal Alien Licensed As Attorney” was so National Enquirer level mouth-breather hogus-bogus. There are international lawyers who are permanently licensed in multiple countries and licensed pro hac vice in still more, if they meet the respective countries’ requirements for admission to the bar.

    nk (dbc370)

  87. Women may find Trump repulsive. I may have some personal impressions that fit this general theme. However, his present status of divorced but presently married for eleven years with a ten-year old and a provder and protector of many others who turned out, (or who are turning out) very well is not any core of that distaste. I wasn’t even thirty when his first marriage ended, more than three decades ago, and I doubt there are too many women dwelling on his eleven year- marriage that has produced a fine-looking,well-behaved now ten-year-old son in abject horror.

    SarahW (67599f)

  88. The idea of free TVs isn’t even a good analogy. Let’s take something real, like iPhones, which are all made in China.

    Why are they made in China? Well the assembly workers are cheap, but how many assembly workers do you need? The process of electronic assembly is, or can be, largely automated. Perhaps the workers are so cheap that automation costs would be higher, and they actually assemble the damn things by hand, but I doubt it — the error rate would be too high even if you shot workers for mistakes. So, they probably put the clamshells together and package up the boxes. MAYBE they put some boards together, but again that could be trivially automated.

    So, all this could be done in the USA at negligible impact as labor costs are a small part of the assembly process.

    Maybe it’s the parts suppliers being in China? Again, there is a high degree of automation possible in electronics component assembly, and desired in most cases for the same reasons. Certainly integrated circuits are not built by hand, and the workers there are few but very highly trained. Some of this is already done in the USA.

    So, why does Apple do all this in China? Not because of labor costs. Either because they can be environmental hooligans, or because they want to sell in Chinese markets and are kowtowing to Chinese demands regarding local content and employment.

    So, it isn’t price, it isn’t principle and it isn’t free trade. It’s that the Chinese market is larger and, perhaps, the business environment is kinder to them.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  89. Brad,

    The satire doesn’t apply to immigration, though I see why you would think so. The argument would apply to immigration too if we had a free market (no welfare) except that immigration involves non-economic issues too. I’m just talking about China.

    Ropelight,

    The spoonerized Trump name is not a shot at you but at the sniveling coward Trump.

    Nk,

    I think tomorrow I will do the one-word Trump post.

    Pinandpuller,

    I agree about deregulating lawyers although it is funny to me that you obviously assume I don’t. I think insurance companies would end up requiring the same stuff the state bar does for malpractice insurance.

    Patterico (b2603f)

  90. The satire is about protectionism and CHI-NAH

    Patterico (b2603f)

  91. Frilton Meedman told us we can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    Patterico (b2603f)

  92. And as a satire on protectionism and tariffs it makes a point nobody has really tried to address almost 100 comments in. Because the point is sound.

    Patterico (b2603f)

  93. Also following links helps people understand posts sometimes or at least adds value

    Patterico (b2603f)

  94. More on #89.

    Since the real problem that Apple has is likely TAXES, not labor costs, any plan that made corporate taxes much lower would be far more likely to “bring jobs back home” than any capitalist-bashing rhetoric or domestic-content laws.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  95. I wonder what the reaction would be if H1-B visas were issued for lawyers willing to work for “legal consulting firms” for $35/hr. Because that is what is happening in other professional fields.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  96. Rev Hoagie

    How about we call you know who “Three Pentateuch”?

    pinandpuller (c16705)

  97. Apple wants to make good deals

    be like Trump!

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  98. “I wonder what the reaction would be if H1-B visas were issued for lawyers willing to work for “legal consulting firms” for $35/hr.”

    – Kevin M

    That works out to about $70k a year before taxes (35 x 40 x 50). I have plenty of lawyer friends in NM who make about 15-25k less than that per year, working for the PD/DA or in small private firms. The cost of living is significantly lower here, but you wouldn’t have to go the H1-B route to pay that kinda money – you’d have plenty of well-trained locals willing to do the work themselves.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  99. “the important thing is I can’t deal with no Hillary”

    So you push the one candidate that consistently trails her in almost all polling, universally?

    JD (34f761)

  100. “The spoonerized Trump name is not a shot at you but at the sniveling coward Trump.”

    – Patterico

    You’re wasting your breath clarifying the difference. The idiots that like Trump like him because (by some sick and ridiculous self-exaggeration) they see themselves in Trump. A shot at Trump is a shot at them, whether you mean it to be or not.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  101. Nk – AMF and partnering with the Italians was a dark era. Protectionist pricing makes no difference to me – as I don’t buy mine based on price, but value, aesthetics, sound, etc … Never once considered a metric.

    JD (34f761)

  102. Trump better have my money
    If Trump don’t gonna tell ‘im bounce like a bunny
    I don’t give a fu*k bout what that clown talking
    He ain’t got the cash tell that chump to get walking

    Colonel Haiku (63965c)

  103. The most worrying thing about Trump as president is that his fans would never see their mistake even after Mexico tested a hydrogen bomb and Canada and the EU closed their borders to us.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  104. The cost of living is significantly lower here, but you wouldn’t have to go the H1-B route to pay that kinda money – you’d have plenty of well-trained locals willing to do the work themselves.

    And they’d say think right up to the point they got outsourced like the IT folks are getting.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  105. *say that

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  106. Well, it was your hypothetical, not mine. You set the imaginary unpalatable wage – I’m saying lawyers in New Mexico would work for that wage in a heartbeat.

    Of course, that wage could be lower, so I take your point – but I am not particularly concerned by it.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  107. Patterico

    I don’t know that I assumed that you were against deregulation of lawyers but I might have leaned that way. I’m glad though.

    I’m just here for the dick jokes and sass.

    pinandpuller (c16705)

  108. The fact that you don’t know the difference between assessing an individual and assessing a group is what allows you to make asinine remarks about “the browning of America” and be baffled when other people call you bigoted. That’s your problem, not mine.

    The fact that you operate like a PC Nazi to shut down any speech you don’t like shows me how asinine an elitist fool like you can be. Grow up. That topic is about the demographic changes to America is going through and the social, legal and cultural changes it brings. But to you it’s a “trigger warning” so you start your snowflake PC ranting about bigots, racists or islamophobes.

    I don’t know what my statement has to do with the elitist and bigoted way you treat ropelight either. I’m used to being around guys like you who look down on other people full of condescension, arrogance and a sense of self importance. I call them “leftists”. What did you get on the bubble test? 44? Seems like a 4 would be more like it. I’m glad that’s not your problem though, because your “to do” list of problems is already legion you can’t handle any more.

    But I am honored you remembered my statement even if it’s beyond your understanding. And I am happy to live rent free in your head. Thanks. Tell your shrink I said hello.

    Imam Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6)

  109. Patterico

    If the barrier for entry into the legal profession was lower, would Antonio Villaraigosa have done less damage to society?

    pinandpuller (0845e7)

  110. “But I am honored you remembered my statement even if it’s beyond your understanding.”

    – Hoagie

    I definitely remember it. I’m gonna make sure that others remember it, too.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  111. Patterico, it was unquestioningly clear to me on first reading that you were referring to Donald Trump. It never crossed my mind until I read your comment @1:22pm that it was possible to conclude otherwise.

    ropelight (03f634)

  112. Every good con man needs a shill. Trump has tens of thousands.

    The shill is the guy who pretends to be part of the audience, but who’s actually in league with the con man.

    The Trumpkins who comment here are, mostly, just shills. Don’t confuse them with the vastly larger, vastly more heterogenous group of people who have voted, or are still likely to vote, for Trump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  113. I’m sorry but pretending that the opposition to the invasion of illegal aliens is solely based on people who don’t want cheap labor is willfully ignorant, intellectually dishonest, or just plain idiotic.

    Here’s an ACTUAL quote from Milton Freidman: “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state”

    Trump may be a tool… but that doesn’t mean you should compete with him!

    Captain Obvious (14cc4d)

  114. The reason it matters is: I have contempt for shills. I have pity and concern for mere suckers, and some of them may yet be redeemed.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  115. “Frilton Meedman told us we can’t have open borders and a welfare state.”

    – Patterico @ 92

    “Here’s an ACTUAL quote from Milton Freidman: “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state””

    – Captain Obvious @114

    Leviticus (efada1)

  116. I’m sorry but pretending that the opposition to the invasion of illegal aliens is solely based on people who don’t want cheap labor is willfully ignorant, intellectually dishonest, or just plain idiotic.

    It is SO OBVIOUS that Patterico is on record as being against said invasion for some of those other reasons.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  117. Patterico is making the libertarian argument that if some foreigners want to give us some free stuff, we should take it. IF some local folks have to find other work, so be it, the stuff is still free and there are plenty of other things to do.

    The argument breaks down when “free” becomes “slightly cheaper”, “some” becomes “most” and the number of “other things to do” with the same education or training diminishes towards zero. When it is your own countrymen and politicians furthering this decline, and the rate incr3eases and surrounds you, the Friedman quote mutates to:

    “You can’t have both rapid change and free elections.”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  118. I doubt there are too many women dwelling on his eleven year- marriage that has produced a fine-looking,well-behaved now ten-year-old son in abject horror.

    SarahW (67599f) — 3/28/2016 @ 1:15 pm

    About 70% of them are dwelling on something. I don’t understand what Trump’s current marriage and son have to do with it. He did say that nasty quote I posted above. Trump doesn’t care about betraying and humiliating the mother of his kids if it means he gets “a sweet piece of &**.” His words, not mine. His current wife, the nude centerfold one, is still attractive (and as young as the daughter Ivanka). Maybe if Trump stays with her when she’s an aged woman that will mean something, but she’s a quarter century younger than him and he may not last that long.

    Trump is physically unattractive, overweight, with odd hair. He’s very unpleasant and as a matter of public record treats his family very poorly. When he parades his trophy wife around, do you really think it escapes women that he left the mother of his kids for her in a sensationalist manner? You doubt they notice, but then it’s up to you to explain how women reject Trump the way black voters reject David Duke.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  119. Admitting he contradicts himself is not an exculpation of being ridiculous, but proof of it. The point of this extended metaphor ascribing motivations he knows to be false would be …?

    See, making an argument the opposite of what you’ve stated “on the record” is called “hypocrisy”, which is another area of Trump’s expertise that does not demand competition.

    Captain Obvious (14cc4d)

  120. An Open Letter to Trump Voters from His Top Strategist-Turned-Defector, written by former Trump campaign insider Stephanie Cegielski, is subtitled: “I respect Trump’s fans. That’s why I can no longer support the man himself.”

    Here’s the opening three paragraphs of an extremely detailed first-hand account:

    Even Trump’s most trusted advisors didn’t expect him to fare this well.

    Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it.

    The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12% and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50%. His candidacy was a protest candidacy.

    Cegielski explains her — and the candidate’s — astonishment as his polling numbers continued to rise despite his most outrageous statements and conduct, and then observes:

    I don’t think even Trump thought he would get this far. And I don’t even know that he wanted to, which is perhaps the scariest prospect of all.

    He certainly was never prepared or equipped to go all the way to the White House, but his ego has now taken over the driver’s seat, and nothing else matters. The Donald does not fail. The Donald does not have any weakness. The Donald is his own biggest enemy.

    She goes on to assert (italics hers):

    Trump never intended to be the candidate. But his pride is too out of control to stop him now.

    You can give Trump the biggest gift possible if you are a Trump supporter: stop supporting him.

    He doesn’t want the White House. He just wants to be able to say that he could have run the White House. He’s achieved that already and then some. If there is any question, take it from someone who was recruited to help the candidate succeed, and initially very much wanted him to do so.

    The hard truth is: Trump only cares about Trump.

    Fascinating reading. The Trumpkins will howl.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  121. Captain Obvious,

    Which presidential candidate has employed illegals for their cheap labor?

    Which of them condemned Romney for being too conservative on illegal immigration?

    A vote for Trump is a vote for amnesty. I know he has made some extreme remarks about muslims and he was slow to distance himself from the KKK support, but that’s for headlines. He’s a New York values democrat.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  122. Patterico likes Charles Murry. Let him explain Mr Trump (and Sen Sanders):

    If you are dismayed by Trumpism, don’t kid yourself that it will fade away if Donald Trump fails to win the Republican nomination. Trumpism is an expression of the legitimate anger that many Americans feel about the course that the country has taken, and its appearance was predictable. It is the endgame of a process that has been going on for a half-century: America’s divestment of its historic national identity.

    While the new upper class was seceding from the mainstream, a new lower class was emerging from within the white working class, and it has played a key role in creating the environment in which Trumpism has flourished.

    Work and marriage have been central to American civic culture since the founding, and this held true for the white working class into the 1960s. Almost all of the adult men were working or looking for work, and almost all of them were married.

    Then things started to change. For white working-class men in their 30s and 40s—what should be the prime decades for working and raising a family—participation in the labor force dropped from 96% in 1968 to 79% in 2015. Over that same period, the portion of these men who were married dropped from 86% to 52%. (The numbers for nonwhite working-class males show declines as well, though not as steep and not as continuous.)

    These are stunning changes, and they are visible across the country. In today’s average white working-class neighborhood, about one out of five men in the prime of life isn’t even looking for work; they are living off girlfriends, siblings or parents, on disability, or else subsisting on off-the-books or criminal income. Almost half aren’t married, with all the collateral social problems that go with large numbers of unattached males.

    During the same half-century, American corporations exported millions of manufacturing jobs, which were among the best-paying working-class jobs. They were and are predominantly men’s jobs. In both 1968 and 2015, 70% of manufacturing jobs were held by males.

    During the same half-century, the federal government allowed the immigration, legal and illegal, of tens of millions of competitors for the remaining working-class jobs. Apart from agriculture, many of those jobs involve the construction trades or crafts. They too were and are predominantly men’s jobs: 77% in 1968 and 84% in 2015.

    There is really too much to excerpt.

    Suffice it to say that the elites, left and right, have combined to create the perfect storm of dissatisfaction in the middle class. Donald Trump is a terribly flawed messenger, but the message should not be ignored.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  123. what

    what kind of fool

    tears trump apart

    leaving us pain and sorrow

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  124. Dustin,

    Which presidential candidate did I endorse?

    Which of them have I just implied is a tool and a hypocrite?

    Competing with Trump’s vices is not virtue. I know reading comprehension can be difficult, but it prevents reacting with a complete non-sequitur. Literacy is an All-American value.

    Captain Obvious (14cc4d)

  125. Captain Obvious, when you were criticizing my literacy, you didn’t notice I said nothing about who you supported or endorsed. I noticed you did not answer my question. Let me ask you another question you may also not answer: who do you endorse, and why?

    The point of this extended metaphor ascribing motivations he knows to be false would be …?

    The point is to convince anyone voting for Trump because they oppose amnesty to vote for Cruz, who actually opposes amnesty.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  126. CO, when the blood rises and the TDS takes hold they get flighty.

    ropelight (03f634)

  127. Trump is on record as supporting amnesty “for the good ones.”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  128. is this the onion or other vegetable,

    http://www.xojane.com/issues/religious-freedom-bills-georgia

    narciso (732bc0)

  129. Why such hate? I poin out the obvios.Any litersl reading of the Islamimic texts will geveal the say exactly what I say the reveal. I don’t pretend to be a theologian so I don’t claim the obvious readind is correct. But it is the obvious reading.

    Bring the h8red. Bring it. Righr here. Not going anywhere.

    Steve57 (08b8c6)

  130. Which I guess is the Mexicans who aren’t rapists.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  131. still daling with whith the tiny fonts. Sorry.

    Steve57 (08b8c6)

  132. Ropelight, can you answer the questions that Mr Obvious is unable to answer?

    Which presidential candidate has employed illegals? Mr Obvious says to ask this question is a non-sequitur, which is a fancy word indeed. But while you guys are calling me flighty and stupid I’m still wondering why my question was so hard to answer.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  133. still daling with whith the tiny fonts. Sorry.

    Control-SCROLL-MOUSE-UP

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  134. she seems to have been agnostic about trump, since september,

    https://twitter.com/SCegielskiPR

    narciso (732bc0)

  135. Bravo Patterico.

    pinandpuller, real free traders support the repeal of all occupational entry barriers, including for lawyers and doctors.

    nk, employing Americans at a high wage to do what Mexicans were doing for a low wage is “workfare make-work”. It’s exactly the same as firing some gofer who makes $30K and employing your son-in-law at $60K to do the same work on the theory that you’re going to end up supporting him anyway so you may as well get some use out of him. Even if you think it’s a good idea, don’t pretend it’s not what it is.

    Kevin M, the argument does not breaks down. “Slightly cheaper” means partly free. Changing “some into “most” or even “all” doesn’t affect it at all. And if the number of “other things to do” with the same education or training diminishes towards zero then forget the education and training. There’s always something one country’s workers can do relatively better and cheaper than anyone else. It doesn’t have to be absolutely better and cheaper, just relatively. That’s the doctrine of comparative advantage.

    Brad, unregulated trade is absolutely what it’s about. Immigration must be controlled, but not for economic reasons. All immigration controls must be justified on security grounds, not economic ones, because security is the only legitimate function of government. Government exists to protect us from murderers, rapists, terrorists, and other violent criminals who are currently streaming over the border without anything to stop them. If we could reliably identify would-be immigrants who are not dangerous criminals and are only coming to work and support their families then we should let them in without limit. The problem is that we can’t read their minds so we can’t know in advance who would be a good worker and who would be a gangster.

    If you can’t have open immigration and a welfare state that’s an argument against the welfare state, not against open immigration, or as open as security considerations will allow.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  136. Dustin,

    You addressed me, by name, and attempted to convince me that Trump is for amnesty.
    This may be true, but as I wrote, a complete non-sequitur. The CONTEXT of your post implied you were trying to convince ME. Implying I needed convincing. I don’t. CONTEXT is a big part of what reading comprehension is all about, and if you understood it, you wouldn’t have addressed me at all. Another part of reading comprehension is recognizing a rhetorical question. Did you really just complain I won’t answer your contextually irrelevant rhetorical questions? Don’t answer that, just read more carefully.

    The original post will convince a grand total of ZERO Trump supporters to change sides, as it is the equivalent of asking them if they’ve stop beating their wives. THAT is my problem with it, that it is INEFFECTIVE. You don’t convince people by ignoring their true motivations, pretending they’re all just economic illiterates, and then calling them stupid for the ideas that they don’t actually hold. It might fool a few people who already oppose Trump that Trump supporters are dumb, but no actual Trump supporters, who rightly won’t believe you telling them what they believe over their own minds.
    Lying about people, like being a tool, and a hypocrite, are not areas where we should be trying to outdo Trump.
    The moral of the story is if you want to convince anyone about anything, whether it’s me OR a Trump supporter, MAKE VALID ARGUMENTS THAT ADDRESS THE ACTUAL POINTS RAISED.

    Captain Obvious (14cc4d)

  137. Sure Dustin, I’ll answer your question. I don’t know how many candidates have employed illegals. Your question assumes it’s only one, but there may have been several, I just don’t know for sure.

    However, Donald Trump hires hundreds of seasonable employees from many different countries. I know various interested parties, the individual governments where Trump’s properties are located, various labor unions, do gooder organizations, and current political opponents are on the lookout for infractions of the labor laws. Again, I don’t know for sure but it’s highly likely that undocumented aliens in the US illegally do work in Trump associated enterprises. I’d be surprised if they didn’t.

    I also wouldn’t be surprised if Carly Fieorina hasn’t employed an illegal alien in some domestic capacity or in one or more of HP’s factories. Same with Ted Cruz or John Kasich or JEB Bush or Marco Rubio. I’m not accusing anyone here, I just sayin’ I wouldn’t be surprised.

    I hope that satisfies you Dustin. It never was that the question was hard to answer, the problem was that it was a stupid question.

    ropelight (03f634)

  138. If you can’t have open immigration and a welfare state that’s an argument against the welfare state, not against open immigration

    False. I always have to laugh when I see this specious argument. The two are not divorceable. You can’t get rid of the welfare state AFTER amnestying a supermajority of new voters dependent upon the welfare state. You CAN open the borders AFTER dismantling the welfare state… but that will lead to an influx of voters who will immediately reinstitute the welfare state. If you oppose the welfare state, you MUST oppose open borders.

    Captain Obvious (14cc4d)

  139. Captain Obvious,

    Thank you for your reply. I particularly appreciate the allcaps, which makes some of your words even easier to read!

    I answered your question, explaining the relevance of amnesty.

    CONTEXT is a big part of what reading comprehension is all about, and if you understood it, you wouldn’t have addressed me at all.

    You seem really upset, and I don’t understand the reason. I never suggested you were a Trump supporter. I barely address Trump supporters at all. I don’t know who you or Sarah support.

    I did notice that I asked you who you support and why, and you didn’t answer. This is very strange when you consider you seem to be outraged that who you support is not known. You’ve put a lot of words in my mouth that I did not say, explaining all the ‘obvious implications’ of simply asking you which presidential candidate employed illegals, yet you think condemning this post carries no implications. At any rate, I don’t really think this post was about amnesty specifically. I just think that’s one of the main arguments Trump has used, and it’s worth noting he’s the problem with immigration rather than the solution. Even if you agree with me, this is interesting to talk about. Your tone suggests this kind of conversation isn’t what you’re here for, but that doesn’t mean I can’t ask you questions.

    I also asked you which presidential candidate has employed illegals, and you did not answer. Can you answer my two questions, please?

    The original post will convince a grand total of ZERO Trump supporters to change sides,

    A lot of people like you, meaning people who get really mad on the internet, think this internet stuff is actual political activism. It isn’t. It’s entertainment. You could lighten up a bit. And then answer my questions.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  140. I hope that satisfies you Dustin. It never was that the question was hard to answer, the problem was that it was a stupid question.

    ropelight (03f634)

    Ropelight, you didn’t answer the question. You said it was easy to answer, and then accused Ted Cruz of employing illegals because you don’t know who employed illegals. Then said you’re not accusing him of employing illegals but he could have employed them.

    I think the answer is that Donald Trump has employed illegals.

    Donald Trump hires hundreds of seasonable employees from many different countries. I know various interested parties, the individual governments where Trump’s properties are located, various labor unions, do gooder organizations, and current political opponents are on the lookout for infractions of the labor laws.

    This is not an answer at all, yet I think the degree of spin suggests you want to say the truth. Your candidate, Donald Trump, is the only candidate who has employed illegals. Ted Cruz has not.

    You mentioned Jeb, Carly, and Marco. They aren’t even running for president. Trump is competing against Cruz and Kasich right now.

    Ropelight, can you answer my question? The answer to a question of ‘WHO’ is to provide the name, if you know of the name. We’ve both been around here for a while, and I respect your intelligence and integrity enough to know you could totally answer this one.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  141. I want everyone to succeed, ropelight.

    I think Trump appeals to people who agree with him but are afraid to say the things he says. Haven’t you said that before?

    DRJ (15874d)

  142. #143, DRJ, no, I don’t recall saying anything like that. I don’t agree with everything Donald Trump says, nor can I ever recall agreeing with everything anyone I’ve ever known, watched, listened to, or read about said. Part, the majority, or almost all, but never everything. And that includes Aristotle, Plato, Ronald Reagan, the Pope, the US Constitution, and the King James Bible.

    ropelight (03f634)

  143. Dustin,

    You answered a rhetorical question. Given I JUST wrote you need recognize rhetorical questions, you still have a bit of work to do on the reading comprehension.

    I am not outraged that “who I support is not known.” If I’d cared for you to know, I’d have told you. But it’s cute you’d put words in my mouth to claim I’m putting words in your mouth.

    As I wrote before “I won’t answer your contextually irrelevant rhetorical questions.” Again, reading comprehension. Sorry, but as hilarious as this exchange has been for me, I’m just not interested in pursuing whatever tangents you had in mind so that you can misread everything including my mood.

    ropelight gets it.

    Captain Obvious (14cc4d)

  144. Beldar–

    Interesting. IN 1992, when Perot challenged Bush and the presumptive Democrat (Clinton), protesting the widening deficits under the elder Bush, he found himself leading the race, and suddenly qualified for the ballot in every state. He really had not expected that — he only wanted to shake things up and get “balancing the budget” onto the agenda, but he struck a nerve (a nerve that Gingrich tapped in 1994).

    And Perot panicked and invented a reason to get out. Then a few months later he got back in but the magic was gone — he now seemed too erratic to many, and some of his supporters had moved on.

    Now, Trump has the tiger’s tail, must know that he’d inadequate to the task but his ego won’t let him back down. His dad probably told him he’d never amount to anything, or some such.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  145. With the way that the Trumpkins avoid answering questions, there’s almost a Nancy Pelosi “we have to pass the bill in order to find out what’s in it” kind of deal.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  146. “Trump Will Tear Us Apart”

    When choices bite hard
    And energy runs low
    The resentment rides high
    But poll numbers won’t grow
    Some are changing their ways, taking different roads
    Then Trump, Trump will tear us apart again
    Trump, Trump will tear us apart again

    Why’s revenge best served cold?
    And why’s the exchange been so snide?
    Is our thinking that flawed?
    Our respect runs so dry
    Yet for some there’s appeal
    Makes some break down and cry
    And Trump, Trump will tear us apart again
    Trump, Trump will tear us apart again

    Colonel Haiku (63965c)

  147. trump!

    trump will keep us together

    ted divides us forever

    happyfeet (831175)

  148. Colonel, is that from the SOB Ballads, or is it from the Captain and Tennille’s Love Will Keep US Together?

    ropelight (03f634)

  149. #140 Exactly right.

    The mystery is why that seems so unobvious to so many.

    Brad (74d84e)

  150. ropelight,
    Since you’re someone who’s supporting a billionaire on his third marriage, perhaps you should be more skeptical about the idea that “Love Will Keep Us Together.”
    Or maybe The Mr Donald can only stay in love with a woman as long as she’s an ex-model under the age of 50.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  151. I understand you don’t agree with everything Trump says, but I thought you felt he says things people are afraid to say — things that are politically incorrect. If I misunderstood or if that wasn’t you, please tell me why you like Trump.

    DRJ (15874d)

  152. You can’t get rid of the welfare state AFTER amnestying a supermajority of new voters dependent upon the welfare state.

    I’m always amazed at the argument that Mexicans come here for the welfare benefits AND that they take all the jobs. Sh1t howdy, but which one are you jealous of?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  153. #93 Really? No one? Because I did.

    And more directly…

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-27/don-t-blame-americans-for-blaming-china

    It’s fashionable for columnists to write “I was wrong” pieces, and if this work by Autor et al holds, this will go down as one of the four things I was most mistaken about: the Iraq War, the severity of the financial crisis that followed Lehman’s collapse, the rise of Donald Trump, and now, China trade. It’s been obvious for a while that China has played some role (though not the biggest) in the decline of labor-market opportunities for workers without a college diploma. But the authors suggest that the effect is both bigger, and longer lasting, than I would have predicted. Nor has much seemed to help the adjustment: workers are less mobile than expected, domestic American industries less able to absorb the surplus, particularly among the lower-skilled workers whose human capital was job- and industry-specific.

    Free traders — and I include myself — have often sounded too glib about the offsetting benefits of cheap imports. Cheap imports are great. But people value work, and the ability to build some sort of reasonably predictable, stable economic future, more than they do cheap flat-panel televisions. With effects this large, the cost to people who are forced into economic precariousness by permanent labor market changes is larger in human welfare terms than the benefits of affordable electronics.

    Brad (74d84e)

  154. I thought I did too. Even with one real live example — Reagan’s “Ride So That Harley-Davidson Will Live” tariff.

    nk (dbc370)

  155. Ropelight, ropelight candlelight
    Doin’ the Donald and doin’ him right
    In the evenin’
    He’s pretty pleasin’

    Donald Trump, Rope’s his biggest fan
    Dropping to his knees out in Donaldland
    And he’s sucking
    And Donald’s just yukking

    And he spun and he lied and they tangled
    He sings and he moves like teh Bangles
    Floatin’ up to heaven above
    It looks like Ropelight Lo-uh-uh-uh-uh-ove

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  156. #155 I should have put quotation marks around that excerpt from the Megan McArdle article. Sorry.

    Brad (74d84e)

  157. oh god she’s such a phony baloney pooper

    i lost all respect for Megan McArdle’s tawdry low-rent butt when she made like Jonathan Gruber totally like deserves the benefit of the doubt cause of they’re totally like supertight twitterbuds or something and he’s been like super-nice to her

    happyfeet (831175)

  158. oh my goodness there aren’t even enough horses for someone to have a horse in that race Mr. nk

    FBI poofterboys vs. poncey appletrash

    this is not a pay per view event

    happyfeet (831175)

  159. Can we stop dumping on McArdle for considering Obama in 2008 when Trump supported Obama in 2008?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  160. I fully expect Apple to demand to know how the FBI broke into their iPhone, and to sue everyone for copyright infringement.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  161. actually he fundraised for maverick, he did slobber on him subsequently, like a st. bernard, on an arctic rescue, she made a policy recommendation for obama, based on what I don’t recall,

    narciso (732bc0)

  162. Patterico likes Charles Murr[a]y. Let him explain Mr Trump (and Sen Sanders):

    I do — and I am aware that, while he thinks the Sniveling Coward (SC) is a terrible, awful human being, and would never vote for the SC, he thinks that Trumpism is a legitimate protest against the working class being left behind.

    I almost had the article be a think piece written by Marles Churry. But I didn’t want to be mean. I really like him.

    I think the post really makes the point about why this concern is misplaced. It would be fantastic if anyone actually wanted to discuss the idea that is at the heart of the post. Anyone up for it?

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  163. not me was long day

    happyfeet (831175)

  164. Murray has seen that welfare reform, that he championed in losing ground, has not aided the citizens of fishtown, as he put in coming apart, he does believe that less government is the solution, but try selling it to the people in those devastated communities,

    narciso (732bc0)

  165. Free traders — and I include myself — have often sounded too glib about the offsetting benefits of cheap imports. Cheap imports are great. But people value work, and the ability to build some sort of reasonably predictable, stable economic future, more than they do cheap flat-panel televisions. With effects this large, the cost to people who are forced into economic precariousness by permanent labor market changes is larger in human welfare terms than the benefits of affordable electronics.

    Ah. This is, in essence, the Murray argument. Rather than make assertions, I will argue again by analogy.

    What if I said this?

    Free traders — and I include myself — have often sounded too glib about the offsetting benefits of the invention of the combustion engine. Motorized transportation is great. But people value work, and the people who manufacture the horse and buggy are hurting. They value the ability to build some sort of reasonably predictable, stable economic future, more than they do cheap automobiles. With effects this large, the cost to people who are forced into economic precariousness by the permanent labor market changes caused by the introduction of the automobile is larger in human welfare terms than the benefits of Mr. Ford’s Model T.

    Or, if you want to argue that this argument is obviously wrong because of the obvious benefits of motorized transportion (although it’s more so with hindsight than it would have been at the time) then how about taking an example like my TV example from the post — only make it something cheaper, like $10 electronic calculators. A genie comes along and gives every person in the country who needs one a $10 calculator, for free. Everyone thus saves $10 — a piddling amount. Yet a company whose prosperity depends on manufacturing, transporting, or selling these calculator might take a big hit. Indeed, people could lose their jobs. What is that compared to $10?

    And indeed, this is the sort of thinking that brings us sugar subsidies. Right? Consumers might spend a paltry 15 cents per pound more on sugar, and yet the benefit to sugar industries is worth millions. And that arguably means jobs.

    Except, as I have explained before, there are ripple effects from the price of sugar being raised that go beyond a minor inconvenience to the housewife in the grocery store. Candy companies often relocate across a border, taking jobs with them, due to the cost of sugar as a capital good. The ripple effects are enormous. The subsidies are inefficient. But a Marco Rubio can rationalize them in just the way you have, Brad.

    The thing is, all these additions to our cost of living add up. You can isolate any one and make it sound unimportant, but the net benefit to America of cheap goods from China has been enormous — and the main people who notice it are the poor.

    So, with respect, the Trumpian argument is bullshit. But you really have to think about it, and analyze it, to see why.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  166. Murray has seen that welfare reform, that he championed in losing ground, has not aided the citizens of fishtown, as he put in coming apart, he does believe that less government is the solution, but try selling it to the people in those devastated communities,

    Yup. That is exactly the problem. Free trade is good for all people in the long run. But most people, especially uneducated people, are too ignorant to know this.

    And their votes count just as much as the vote of a trained economist, who will oppose tariffs every single time.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  167. I’d only be repeating myself. Rather my Comment #14
    Money isn’t everything.
    There’s also America’s position vis a vis other nations to think about (especially China); avoiding economic stagnation; and keeping the masses content.
    I could add that those cheap imported goods are going to go up in price sooner rather than later, and we should not get out of the habit of working and producing because when the vacation is over we will have to again.

    nk (dbc370)

  168. Trump is physically unattractive, overweight, with odd hair. He’s very unpleasant and as a matter of public record treats his family very poorly. When he parades his trophy wife around, do you really think it escapes women that he left the mother of his kids for her in a sensationalist manner?

    Dustin, he didn’t leave “the mother of his kids” for her. He didn’t even leave that other mother of his other kid for her. He had been divorced from Marla Maples for more than five years (and separated for two years before that) before he married the current mother of his youngest son. Contrary to your assertion a our poor family relations, he gets on well with his children and they are quick to acknowledge how they have benefitted from his encouragement and support. His grandchildren adore him. As unfit as he is to be president, that’s a weak line of attack.

    He’s not much to look at, the hair and skin and voice almost clownish, but he’s a well known “character” in that regard. His kids are good looking, and at least he bothers to wear clothes that fit. His great good fortune, if looks are in the balance, is the state of the competition on surface matters like that.

    SarahW (67599f)

  169. SarahW,

    I think Dustin was talking about Trump, Marla Maples and Ivana, the mother of 3 of his kids.

    DRJ (15874d)

  170. I should have said I think Dustin was confusing the first and second wives with the second and third wives. Confusion is common when you have multiple wives.

    DRJ (15874d)

  171. BobStewartatHome (a52abe) — 3/28/2016 @ 9:28 am

    And you can throw out teacher “certification” requirements for employment in public schools.

    They actually degrade the natural ability to teach, so much so that it takes four or five yeasr out of college for someone to become a good teacher.

    And I think there’s research that proves that. (Not the four or five years, although maybe that’s also true, but the degrading)

    Sammy Finkelman (0c6103)

  172. He’d look a lot better without that stupid haircut. My hair had grown out to over four inches in the winter so I went and got an undercut. Like this: http://www.menshairstyleguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/brad-pitt-undercut-hairstyle.jpg But I didn’t look like that. I looked liked this: http://baselineimages.s3.amazonaws.com/images/156070/156070_full.jpg (minus the whiskers)

    nk (dbc370)

  173. #168 “… but the net benefit to America of cheap goods from China has been enormous — and the main people who notice it are the poor”

    I wish I had just left the link to the article. Instead of “arguing again”, I wish you had just read the article. Since you missed the whole damned point.

    The point was not against free trade. The point was not for trying to wave a magic wand to undo the damage that trade with China has done. The point was admitting that the free traders fucked up with China. That this one time the anti-free traders were more right than wrong, that the negative disruptions of China free trade have been deeper and longer lasting than any of the economists predicted would happen.

    Yet I’m supposedly “rationalizing”?

    I’m anti-Trump. I always have been. My favorite candidate since New Hampshire has been Ted Cruz.

    But the ugly ‘dome’ satire stinks of desperation and defeat, and increases my fear Trump will win.

    Brad (74d84e)

  174. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-28/listen-to-the-victims-of-the-free-market

    I’ll let free-trader McArdle say the last word for me. I find her opinions refreshingly empirical.

    Good night and good luck.

    Brad (74d84e)

  175. DRJ, yes, Trump is known for raising important issues others fear to express openly.

    ropelight (c1ab69)

  176. #178 ropelight,

    I think the reason that many of us are afraid to publicly express some of Donald Trump’s opinions is because we fear sounding like a fool.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  177. We talk about stable, secure jobs like those just grow on trees and they are some kind of inalienable right that we are illegitimately being deprived of.

    But security and stability is very expensive. You can easily put a price on it. You can convert an unstable job into a stable one by adding a “stability insurance” policy to it. When you take the job, the policy will pay your salary and benefits until retirement if your job disappears to do foreign trade or technological innovation.

    So how much would such a policy cost? One way to price it might be, take the percentage decrease of employment in your field for your age bracket. Calculate how much money would be required to fund his salary and benefits to retirement.

    Suppose we got a guy, starts this career at 22. Assuming he retires at 66, and the insurance company backing his stability policy can get 5% on their money, and that every year this industry loses 2% of jobs for people his age, then the size of that premium is going to be about 35% of his salary and benefits.

    Stability and security is expensive. Who’s going to pay for it?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  178. Theoretical economists. We tax them at 105%. They’re so smart, they won’t have any trouble coming up with the money.

    nk (dbc370)

  179. @nk:They’re so smart, they won’t have any trouble coming up with the money.

    Slightly less brainy that Bernie Sanders saying he’s going to get free college and free healthcare out of taxing only “the rich”.

    Everybody can find a reason why the world owes them a living. It’s just basic fairness, right? After all, I work hard, right? It’s not fair to pay me less than what I deserve, right? What would people do without the people in my sector? Without farmers, who can eat? Without oil production, who can farm? Without steel, who can extract oil? Without finance, who can build and insure a steel plant?

    We can’t all make a living picking each other’s pockets. The net benefit would have to be zero. You think the government should pick the winners and losers, by depriving consumers of their free choice. Well, you are also a consumer as well as a producer. You will deprive yourself, not only of your money but of your freedom. That would be fine if the consequences were limited to just you, but they won’t be.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  180. You’re model does not take into account all the relevant variables while trying to compensate for low-probability ones. In other words, you’re disregarding too much reality and chasing too many phantom straw men. Please see my comments #14 and 170. Those are my arguments. I, personally, consider them more compelling than yours. We live in a real world, not a theoretical economist’s model.

    nk (dbc370)

  181. #176 –

    I’m anti-Trump. I always have been. My favorite candidate since New Hampshire has been Ted Cruz.

    But the ugly ‘dome’ satire stinks of desperation and defeat, and increases my fear Trump will win.
    Brad (74d84e) — 3/29/2016 @ 12:45 am

    This exactly.

    Captain Obvious (cb3656)

  182. If you want to hear 9 minutes of Donald Trump and a radio talk show host going back and forth about free trade, with neither actually able to do much besides make assertions and contradict each other, you can listen here from 2:20 to about 11:20.

    http://www.newstalk1130.com/media/play/26853717

    It went a little like this:

    Talk show host: We don’t have much unemployment in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is 4th largest in the Midwest in manufacturing jobs.

    Donald Trump: That doesn’t mean much.

    Talk show host: Jobs won’t come back. Textiles are gone.

    Donald Trump: They will come back. Cell phones should be made in America.

    Talk show host: When wages are 80 cents an hour they can’t compete here.

    Donald Trump: It’s currency manipulation.

    Talk show host: Prices will go up.

    Donald Trump: That’s OK. People will also have more income, so it is a wash.

    Talk show host: There’s also automation and robotics.

    Donald Trump: Yeah, that’s true, but currency manipulation and trade is more important.

    Nobody brought in any new facts.

    Sammy Finkelman (0c6103)

  183. nk (dbc370) — 3/28/2016 @ 7:49 pm

    I could add that those cheap imported goods are going to go up in price sooner rather than later, and we should not get out of the habit of working and producing because when the vacation is over we will have to again.

    This is an antitrust reason, which is quite legitimate, and important, if true. It’s also a strategic reason.

    This is an argument for maintaining production lines, and maybe subsidizing some factories, perhaps through tax credits, and/or exemptions from the estate tax.

    And then there’s the quality issue.

    Sammy Finkelman (0c6103)

  184. @nk: Those are my arguments.

    You made none. You made a list of demands without any outline of how all of it is to be paid for, or what the bad effects on everyone else are going to be. You claim that we sent whole industries to China and that is 100% false–which is probably why you could provide no examples.

    I understand that people like stable, secure, well-paid jobs. They also like free health care, low taxes, long vacations and big houses. Why are they entitled to any of these things?

    The winners and losers of free trade are determined by the outcome of voluntary exchanges. Sometimes people “lose” through no fault of their own, true. But the only alternative to free trade is determining winners and losers through the favor of the powerful and the threats of the gunmen loyal to them. You’ve decided that some people are entitled to a share in the labor of others and you are willing to extract it at gunpoint.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  185. @Sammy Finkelman:And then there’s the quality issue.

    We love to tell ourselves that the Chinese produce shoddy goods and that’s why they are cheap. That is a lie. However, if Americans care only about price and nothing about quality, then why are American industries ignoring what the market demands? Shouldn’t they produce the shoddy inferior goods that Americans evidently prefer?

    The Big 3 automakers lost market share to Germany and Japan in the 1970s and 1980s because they wouldn’t make the cars consumers wanted to buy.

    This is an antitrust reason, which is quite legitimate, and important, if true.

    It’s not true. The cartoon version of foreign trade is that evil foreigners undercut us with shoddy goods and currency tricks and slave labor, so that our industries completely disappear. Which has never actually happened. Phase two of this diabolical plan is that they will suddenly jack up the price, and this also has never happened.

    There is always some competitive advantage domestic industries have, even though market share decreases the industry doesn’t disappear entirely–at least no one can provide me with an example. There are customers who might want higher quality, or a shorter supply chain, or a better legal environment than China has, or who just want to do business in English.

    It is exactly the story the SJW tell about big box stores in small towns.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  186. Brad,

    Didn’t want to respond to the specific points and analogies that I took time to expound on? There’s no requirement that you do. But why so huffy?

    McArdle’s piece, and others like it, accuse free-marketeers of wanting to fix everything with more deregulation. Well, guess what? That’s the answer? I’ll leave the impossible task of selling it to an audience that doesn’t want to be convinced to others. But: you have a problem with freedom to move from job to job? Look to the things that make it difficult to fire people, like all the sex and race discrimination laws and other regulations. When regulations are the problem, don’t get on my case for saying regulations are the problem.

    McArdle wants to “construct” an economy that gives blue-collar workers jobs. No intellectual or group of intellectuals can “construct” an economy, period.

    I meant to post this last night, sorry.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  187. SF> And then there’s the quality issue.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 3/29/2016 @ 3:09 pm

    We love to tell ourselves that the Chinese produce shoddy goods and that’s why they are cheap. That is a lie.

    In large part that statement is right. They are not shoddy because they are cheap. They are shoddy on purpose!

    The government of China does not want quality. They want things to last just long enough so they can stand the shipping, and last long enough after the boxes are opened so people don’t come back right away too complain. Say two weeks. Six weeks of normal use.

    Radios, calculators, break. You name it, it doesn’t last. Batteries don’t have much of a charge. And people buy more. Clothing tears. And they hope people buy more.

    Now if each company in China was on its own, this wouldn’t happen. But the government centrally directs it. China is a dictatorship, swinging a little bit between different degrees of control.

    Everything in the economy is centrally, and secretly, controlled behnd the scenes. They can issue orders to banks and so on, that wind up getting passed down to individual companies.

    The government of China doesn’t care if one factory or one company doesn’t have repeat business. It wants a rise in net exports.

    I believe a lot of it is not cutting corners. Some of the corner cutting saves minuscule sums of money. It’s not the money. It’s not some independently arrived at universal business practice. It’s that the government wants the lowest possible quality that won’t stop sales, so that there will be a large amount of ordering of replacements. This helps the country’s exports as a whole, but it doesn’t help the individual companies, because if an individual company produced good quality goods, it would start to do more business than the others.

    There must be a special agency in the Chinese government charged with developing ways to make goods not last too long, but not too little, either. I think it’s all carefully designed so that the goods don’t become bad too soon, before being sold, or too late. That sometimes fails, of course.

    In China a lot is secret and this is probably one of China’s big secrets. Someone could probably get many years in prison, or even executed, for talking about it.

    The Big 3 automakers lost market share to Germany and Japan in the 1970s and 1980s because they wouldn’t make the cars consumers wanted to buy.

    That was on purpose, too. It was called planned obsolescence, and was very widely practiced by General Motors and other companies in the 1950s (although there was a way to make the cars last as has been proven in Cuba in the half century since)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

    However, if Americans care only about price and nothing about quality, then why are American industries ignoring what the market demands?

    People care about price, but it is not that they don’t care about quality. People don’t discover the bad quality of Chinese goods until it is too late. They’ve already bought it.

    Shouldn’t they produce the shoddy inferior goods that Americans evidently prefer?

    The difference between Chinese and other country’s goods is this: It is not in the interest of an individual company to produce poor quality goods – or at any rate not every company doesn’t care about quality.

    You need to have an near monopoly for that. But, that’s what you really have in China. For a country interested in exports, planned obsolescence, on a scale of weeks and months, not years as with cars, it is good.

    Now someone can get reasonably good quality out of China, if they check. But it will only be as good as their tests. The Chinese manufaturing needs to be watched. They will make good quality items or up to standard at the beginning, and then try to reduce the quality slowly. The reduction in quality is not the result of trying to save pennies. It’s the goal because this increases net exports for the entire country.

    SF: This is an antitrust reason, which is quite legitimate, and important, if true.

    It’s not true. The cartoon version of foreign trade is that evil foreigners undercut us with shoddy goods and currency tricks and slave labor, so that our industries completely disappear. Which has never actually happened. Phase two of this diabolical plan is that they will suddenly jack up the price, and this also has never happened.

    It happened with rare earths, but it basically doesn’t happen, that’s right. They can get a near monopoly, but they don’t jack up the price. Just reduce the quality.

    There is always some competitive advantage domestic industries have, even though market share decreases the industry doesn’t disappear entirely–at least no one can provide me with an example. There are customers who might want higher quality, or a shorter supply chain, or a better legal environment than China has, or who just want to do business in English.

    Only environmental regulations seem to totally cause a business to disappear.

    Sammy Finkelman (0c6103)

  188. Planned obsolescence also existed in the United States with consumer goods. Lightbulbs. You may have heard about a lightbulb that’s been burning since 1903 or 1901.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a13220/the-worlds-longest-burning-light-bulb-has-shone-for-110-years-17441176/

    There’s a few of them.

    There’s areason this is so very unusual.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

    The cartel is an important step in the history of the global economy because it engaged in large-scale planned obsolescence. It reduced competition in the light bulb industry for almost twenty years, and has been accused of preventing technological advances that would have produced longer-lasting light bulbs….Members’ bulbs were regularly tested and fines were levied for bulbs that lasted more than 1000 hours. A 1929 table lists exactly how many Swiss francs had to be paid, depending on the exceeding hours of lifetime.[3] This was not public knowledge at the time, and the cartel could point to standardization of light bulbs as an alternative rationale for the organization.

    Sammy Finkelman (0c6103)

  189. TIL, Erle Stanley Gardner, the creator of Perry Mason, was a practicing attorney before he turned to writing. (A competent and civic-minded one too. He undertook and won a case for a Chinese man at a time when the Chinese were pariahs with the result that he became the attorney for the entire Chinese population of Oxnard.) The significant thing is that he did not even go to college, let alone law school. High school graduate. He read law on his own and clerked at a law office for his legal education, before sitting for the bar exam in California.

    nk (dbc370)

  190. #192, interesting story. I think you should be able to read law on your own and if you pass the bar then you pass the bar. Most attorneys of course don’t care for that idea. Its called rentseeking.

    Mark Johnson (1cbe93)

  191. It was the case until the 1920s or so. The law school requirement was put in place to keep immigrants (read Jews) out of the practice of law. When I was licensed in 1982, Florida did not have a law-school requirement, just a clerkship for some years; and California did not require “accredited” law schools as a prerequisite for the bar exam. I don’t know if it’s still the case.

    nk (dbc370)

  192. France just took the amateur vs. professional debate to a new extreme. It will penalize men who spurn amateurs and avail themselves of the services of professionals. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/world/europe/to-discourage-prostitution-france-passes-bill-that-penalizes-clients.html?_r=0

    nk (dbc370)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5458 secs.