https:/www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/28/this-one-anecdote-perfectly-explains-how-donald-trump-is-hijacking-the-gop
…Trump is succeeding in part because he’s offering economically struggling GOP voters something more than the promise that free markets and limited government contain the keys to their economic salvation.
…As the Times piece reports, Republicans are realizing that the GOP elite donor agenda can no longer be sold to GOP voters…
…Last March, GOP lawmakers met privately to figure out how to sell the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, which GOP elites support, to Republican voters who were suspicious of it:
… For help, the lawmakers turned to Frank Luntz
… Few issues were now as dangerous to them as trade, Mr. Luntz told the lawmakers… Many Americans did not believe that the economic benefits of trade deals trickled down to their neighborhoods. They did not care if free trade provided them with cheaper socks and cellphones. Most believed free trade benefited other countries, not their own.
… “I told them to stop calling it free trade, and start calling it American trade,” Mr. Luntz said in an interview. “American businesses, American services — American, American, American!”
… But GOP voters don’t appear to believe this messaging any longer, if they ever did…
… Not even clever Luntzian messaging may be able to bail them out this time. Trump is peddling a scam, but at least it’s a new scam.”
Vanity Fair – Nate Silver Explains How Everyone Got Trump Wrong. (He really doesn’t explain anything, but we’ll ignore that minor point.)
Methinks he doesn’t understand the concept of a “black swan.” Or that someone like Trump isn’t unique in American politics. Once he appeared on the scene, regardless if one chooses to label him a black swan or not, Silver and the other pundits had no explanation for his popularity and put him in the category of a Herman Cain that would implode all on his own and soon enough. For that to happen, there had to be a safe and semi-acceptable choice to retreat to. That was missing this time around and the GOP has already gone through Walker, Jeb?, and Rubio to fill that role and now are down to Kasich.
Billmon:
Listening to the POTUS channel on XM this afternoon, it sounds like the party bosses are doubling down on Cruz instead of Kasich. I’m amazed that they are pushing the man said to be roundly hated by his fellow Republican Senators.
They probably figured out that Kasich is an even harder sell than Rubio, and perhaps after testing discovered that Cruz is easy enough to blackmail into compliance with their wishes. Or all of that is thrown out there for public distraction from what they really decided some time ago.
LOL Cruz is WORSE than Trump, imo. His grandiosity is gonna trample any “handlers.”
Kind of like a choice between strychnine and arsenic.
The options for the GOP elites at this point suck and doubt they’re actually considering which one would be worse if elected. More like which loser does the least damage to down-ticket races. Polling released to the public has included the second choice of Cruz and Kasich supporters should their first choice drop out and Trump keeps coming out on top of such a rematches. Would be very surprised if internal polling hasn’t been done on the second choice of Trump supporters and it might not look as bad for the GOP as the Cruz out scenario.
Considering that they loathe Cruz, would find it surprising if they haven’t taken a pound of his flesh for any of them to get on board with him and just in case by some weird fluke he actually won in November. heh — get someone the elites like at the bottom of the ticket and as soon as they’re sworn in, release something that forces Cruz to resign.
I’ll take cyanide. It has that pleasant Almond taste.
○ This one anecdote perfectly explains how Donald Trump is hijacking the GOP | WaPo |
[-explains-ho w-donald-] There is an error in word “how”
“Trump: We need somebody to take our jobs back from China”
Says it all. But I do think that Democratic voters are mindless enough to believe that while Clinton backed TPP before, she now opposes it and in late summer they will believe that she was always for it and it’s g-o-o-d.
A dozen years ago it was “we need to rescue all our oil that was inadvertently trapped below the sands in Irag.”
At least rightwingers are finally figuring out where all “our” jobs went, but haven’t gotten to the point of understanding that repatriating them means wages comparable to those in China.
Party over. And ‘trickle-down’ about as popular as it sounds too. All the chickens returning to roost.
Elites don’t get it. They live in a polarised bubble. They’re also basically bad managers when it comes to sociology, town planning and economics in the first place; unable to gauge even their own self-interest.
When they realise the ‘tax cuts for the wealthy floats all boats’ narrative is parrot dead there will be even more panic and irrational behaviour.
Harper’s – Thomas Frank – Nor A Lender Be
The “liberal” version of GWB’s “policy” that everybody needed to become an entrepreneur. That’s who “they” will fix income/wealth inequality.
Billmon:
Yes, that is a Hillary and Chelsea Clinton word of choice: empower, empowerment. Empower us more than we already are and we will empower you: ‘It’s not personal.’
parrot dead, very nice
Well, the pressure is ramping up to pass TPP. Dean Baker spoofs(?) the latest NYT placed story.
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/nafta-and-auto-jobs-would-importing-doctors-from-mexico-increas
e-demand-for-doctors-in-the-u-s
The Times piece…http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/business/economy/nafta-may-have-saved-many-autoworkers-jobs.html
Not sure the analogy using doctors imported from Mexico is apt because medical care in the US defies normal supply-demand economics. An example that has been cited as real, if there a four cardiologists serving a community and a new cardiologist opens shop, the average billings for all five exceeds the average of the original four.
Yes, because we deliberately restrict the resource–surgeons. Who only take a certain number of patients.
We use licensing regulations, essentially quotas, to limit the importing of doctors, dentists and lawyers. To guarantee they are never in excess to the demand.
Cardiologists aren’t surgeons, but limiting the supply of doctors (mostly accomplished through the med school limitations) is how that profession has maintained its high income status (rationalized in many ways, once because of the extensive ed/training requirements and now b/c of all the debt incurred to obtain all that ed). However, my example was about what happens when the supply is increased. It’s like this — 4 docs each earn $X, add a fifth doc and the 5 docs now each earn $X+. Not sure if it’s a short-term blip or sustainable over the long-term.
iirc from the last time I looked at doc pay (a few years ago, cardiology wasn’t #2. And the preferred specialty among med students at that time was radiology which seemed to have been #1 or #2. So, perhaps the marketplace has responded normally to that increased supply of radiologists.
A lot of variables to play with, but if we concentrate on demand alone, it stands to reason that the area was underserved by four. Adding a fifth allowed more of that demand to be filled, and the other four could have decided to take a few more patients to preempt any anticipated losses that did not actually occur.
It can take awhile in some areas to find and get enrolled with a doctor. Actual appointments can take time, too, if not an acute case.
But surely if supply was saturated, it would be hard to maintain prices. Unless fixed.
Lots of painters doesn’t make Picasso prices come down at auction. Supply and Demand only work on interchangeable goods.
If someone offers to donate half his pay to the Treasury, would that make you more likely to vote for him as President?
You don’t really need a Picasso for most care, do you?
At least a Rubens.
I would wager medical tourism to Cuba will take off like a rocket. They have very well-respected doctors and are very close. Our doctors will be screaming for protection.
https://www.ted.com/talks/gail_reed_where_to_train_the_world_s_doctors_cuba/transcript?language=en
I’ve known a few people of means that chose their doctors by price. They are all dead now and they died before the national averages of their time. Wise people don’t look for doctor bargains or pills from the internet.
Not sure what your point is. Wealthy people that go for bargain priced doctors and meds die younger than their peers? That the more money one spends on medical care, the longer one lives? If that were true, the average American would be living close to twice as long as the average Brit.
My point is cheap is not the deciding factor in selecting a doctor. OTOH is I look at the ads and store A has bananas at 39 cents a pound and store b is 49, I’m certainly going to store A. But if Doctor A costs me a $50 copay but Doctor B isn’t in network, so her costs me a $100 co-pay, I’m not rushing off to Doctor A. I’m more likely to switch insurance companies.
Republicans like to cast everything at a market. My point is some goods aren’t market determined. And even if they were, they have to be identical goods to be solely determined by price.
Still not getting it. What’s wrong with Doctor A? And what makes Doctor B preferable? And since you’re only using a patient co-pay figure for in-network and out-of-network that says nothing about what A and B charge. A may be the more expensive doc.
In Sweden we have a public health care system, so I don’t have to evaluate doctors on price.
Therefore I am not sure if it is true when it comes to doctors, but in many markets (for example electronics) higher price can signal higher quality (as well as status – cough Apple cough – but lets stick with quality for now). And if it is a doctor you don’t see that often, actually evaluating the quality is hard, so higher price can signal a better quality.
Or better bedside manner that attracts more customers.
Where exactly are the posted prices for US doctors. Until you get a bill, you rarely know in advance except for chronic conditions.
Guess opponents have given up any hope of stopping it here and are taking their message to Canada and EU in hopes that full exposure can stop it there.
TPP ‘worst trade deal ever,’ says Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/joseph-stiglitz-tpp-1.3515452
Signatures are being collected in the Netherlands to petition the government for a referendum on TTIP. A citizen initiative. I’m very interested to see where this goes—maybe big. Hope so.
Is why I am somewhat sorry to see Trump disappearing from the Rep debate–it’s all becoming process…
Cruz will not be campaigning on that economic issue, imo.
And neither will Hillary.