Political AMA

Author: Tejretics

Posts

Total: 53
Topic's author
#31
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@spacetime
Who are your top three picks for the next U.S. president?
They all suck. I wish someone like Greg Mankiw or Christina Romer -- who, yes, disagree on a lot of things, but also agree on a surprising number of things, though they'd run for different political parties -- ran for office. And appointed some solid people on foreign policy as well. 

If there was someone with positions pretty close to Mankiw's running for the Republicans, I'd support the GOP almost immediately. 

What is your least favorite policy position of the Democratic party?
The far-left Democrats who've now become pretty mainstream on the House, I disagree with about how high taxes to be, I disagree about single-payer healthcare (I think), I disagree about Glass-Steagall legislation, I disagree about universal free education, and I disagree about Basic Jobs. I think my least favorite policy position of the Democrats is their opposition to free trade, though -- even Hillary Clinton flip-flopped on the Trans-Pacific Partnership due to pressure from other Democrats, and Obama could only afford to become pro-free trade after getting into office.

Is there anything you agree with the Republican party on?
Yep. School vouchers, the abolition of agricultural subsidies, raising the retirement age, and free trade are big ones. On other issues divided along partisan lines, I'm entirely undecided, such as whether to lower income and corporate taxes, or whether to abolish the minimum wage. 

What is the #1 worst thing Trump has done so far?
That's hard -- perhaps leaving the Paris Agreement or the Iran nuclear deal? Or significant portions of the tax bill? Or the sudden announcement to leave Syria, that even noninterventionists like Jim Mattis and Stephen Walt criticized? He hasn't done much, to be honest, in the sense that he didn't take office in the wake of a significant crisis or a major terrorist attack and failed to pass some big stuff, such as the healthcare plan. I suppose -- on the whole -- his appointments might be the worst, in my view; the good ones (e.g., Jim Mattis, Rex Tillerson) left, the good ones who are left (e.g., Jerome Powell) are people Trump already hates but can't fire, I quite dislike Brett Kavanaugh (though Neil Gorsuch isn't that bad). 

Is there anything Trump has done so far that you support?
Probably something, just can't think of it now.

I agree with his political positions on school vouchers, campaign finance reform, infrastructure spending (though I'd probably spend less than he would), allowing Medicare to negotiate directly with prescription-drug companies.

Is there any major U.S. political figure who you think would make a worse president than Trump? Who? Why?
Ron Paul would reinstate the gold standard, audit or even democratize the Fed entirely, and do some other absolutely crazy things. Ted Cruz's positions on healthcare, welfare reform, etc. are ones I disagree with much more strongly than Trump. In general, I think Trump isn't as destructive as he could be because he isn't very popular/very good at getting things done. 

On a 1-10 scale, how racist is the United States? 1 is the utopian ideal of zero racism. 10 is the height of the Jim Crow era.
Depending on whether you define racism based on intent or consequence, 4 or 5.

Do you think it's possible to create enough well-paying jobs for everyone who wants to work? 
In the US? I think so; if I'm not wrong, many economists think the US is pretty close to full employment now and is on a good trajectory. I think these would mostly be private jobs rather than jobs created by government spending. As far as fiscal policy goes, I don't know very much about Basic Jobs guarantees, but Paul Krugman and Scott Alexander both have pretty good -- and different -- criticisms of them.

Is it immoral to work for a company whose product is a net detriment to society?
Probably not, at least on an individual level, if you're replaceable. 

Why do you keep asking for my opinions on stuff? I literally don't know anything.
I think you're pretty knowledgeable, have a lot of epistemic humility and willingness to change your opinions, and actively try to form opinions. Your perspective is always interesting to hear. 
Topic's author
#32
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@spacetime
Who are your top three picks for the next U.S. president?
None of these is realistic, but my picks would be Jack Lew, Jason Furman, and Larry Summers -- I don't agree with them on many things, and I dislike Summers in general, but I think they're (1) very intelligent and generally have good policies and (2) have worked in Washington bureaucracy and have some understanding/experience of politics. 

I'm being very unrealistic. In terms of politicians who're actually likely to run, I'd say Joe Biden is probably at the top of the list, but I have a stunning lack of knowledge on foreign policy issues and I'm not sure I agree with him on most foreign policy-related things. I'm also wary of Democrats facing political pressure to adopt more and more extreme leftist policies. I'll stick with a Democrat, though, mainly because of criminal justice reform, animal welfare, combating human-caused climate change, and social issues (which I'm less unsure of than economic ones). After Biden, it's probably Kamala Harris or Cory Booker. I'm not ardently opposed to someone like Rubio, Kasich, or Bush (Jeb) either.

The tl;dr is I dislike most politicians. 
#33
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@spacetime
What is the #1 worst thing Trump has done so far?

1} Pretend he has the moral integrity to run for president of USA,

2} encourage Putin to destroy USA political systems,

3} encourage Kim Young Pooh to be the great world leader, that he is not,

4} lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie and more lies before breakfest,

5} obstructed USA justice system in many ways,

6} gave $25. 501c(3) donation --minimal amount-- to get his son into boyscouts,

7} used 501c(3s) repeatly in unlawful operations,

8} repeately claimed Obama was not USA citizen and never acknowledge the truth in these regards,

9} encourages violence and bulling others at his rallys, tweets and other public presentations,

10} cronism in using presidential platform to aid/profit in his familys busingess dealings,

11} had his interpreter delete and not convey any of the conversation between himself and Putin,

12} hired M Flynn even after Obama told him not too,

13} hired Jeff Sessions,

14} fired Jim Comey "because of the Russia thing",

And those are off the top of my head. I'm sure the list could go on for a few days.  :--( Sad




#34
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@Tejretics
I disagree about single-payer healthcare (I think)
What would your ideal healthcare system look like? I dislike the idea of socialized healthcare, but I haven't seen any viable alternative so far.

In the US? I think so; if I'm not wrong, many economists think the US is pretty close to full employment now and is on a good trajectory.
I know there are enough jobs for everyone. I was asking if there are enough *well-paying* jobs for everyone. Considering that roughly 40% of all jobs in the U.S. pay less than $15 an hour, I'm not sure how much "full employment" really matters. The reason I ask is that it has massive implications on welfare policy. If there are enough well-paying jobs for everyone, then the goal of the welfare state should be simply to help people find and fill those jobs; it should provide nothing more than temporary financial assistance and access to educational resources. However, if there's a fundamental shortage of well-paying jobs, then the welfare state must be expanded and restructured to serve as a source of permanent financial support for those who can't support themselves; that might involve implementing something like universal basic income, and it would probably result in severe social disintegration over time.

I'm being very unrealistic. In terms of politicians who're actually likely to run
Yeah... I'm gonna go ahead and predict that Kamala Harris wins the Democratic nomination. Which sucks cuz she's probably my least favorite Democrat.

I have a stunning lack of knowledge on foreign policy issues
Honestly, I don't know much about foreign policy either. It just seems to me that a lot of the "bipartisan consensus" on foreign policy doesn't actually advance U.S. national security interests in any meaningful way, possibly even undermining those interests by inflicting gratuitous harm on the rest of the world. What are your general inclinations regarding foreign policy? You've made a lot of threads asking others about their views, but never really shared your own.

I think you're pretty knowledgeable, have a lot of epistemic humility and willingness to change your opinions, and actively try to form opinions. Your perspective is always interesting to hear. 
Aww thanks, buddy <3
Topic's author
#35
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@spacetime
What would your ideal healthcare system look like? I dislike the idea of socialized healthcare, but I haven't seen any viable alternative so far.
In the US, perhaps the Singapore model (https://slate.com/business/2013/10/singapore-health-care-what-do-conservatives-like-about-it.html) or perhaps a slightly less free-market version of Scott Sumner's proposed model (http://www.themoneyillusion.com/universal-health-care-wont-improve-health-but-i-support-it/). Alternatively, just expanding Obamacare -- reforms similar to the ones you used to support in your earlier blog -- by (1) allowing Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, (2) setting up a public option, (3) putting in place tougher antitrust legislation, and (4) gradually expanding Medicaid coverage. I'm not sure if any of this would work, and I think a single-payer system would probably be better if the only objective was increasing access to healthcare, but I'm too worried about the opportunity cost and about ensuring that the quality of public healthcare is good.

If there was some sensible way to phase into a socialized model after lowering costs significantly (which would also mean less of a cost by the government) or phase into a French-type mixed system of universal healthcare, I'd support it. I'm not too knowledgeable about this, but I haven't seen good phase-in proposals. 

Topic's author
#36
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@spacetime
Considering that roughly 40% of all jobs in the U.S. pay less than $15 an hour, I'm not sure how much "full employment" really matters.
I think the solution would be measures to improve labor productivity to increase wages and wage subsidies until labor productivity increases to the point where most people are earning living wages. I'm not sure, though.

I think I oppose UBIs; it seems to me that a sufficiently high UBI -- rather than a means-tested solution -- would require placing distortively high income taxes, and while those would be compensated for, the amount of compensation would not be tied to work done, meaning productivity-effects of income taxes would still apply; however, I haven't looked at the empirical research and am just reasoning from what introductory-textbook economic models would have me believe.

What do you think about raising the minimum wage? It doesn't seem to me like an issue that'll be resolved among economists anytime soon. 

Topic's author
#37
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@spacetime
I'm not sure how the automation of labor would affect this dynamic. Maybe Gates's proposal of a “robot tax” on corporations would work? 
#38
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@Tejretics
Alternatively, just expanding Obamacare -- reforms similar to the ones you used to support in your earlier blog  -- by (1) allowing Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, (2) setting up a public option, (3) putting in place tougher antitrust legislation, and (4) gradually expanding Medicaid coverage. 
A lot of that sounds like it's designed to move towards a single-payer system, by increasing the number of people being covered by the government.

 I'm not sure if any of this would work, and I think a single-payer system would probably be better if the only objective was increasing access to healthcare, but I'm too worried about the opportunity cost and about ensuring that the quality of public healthcare is good.
I think a lot of the "high quality" of American healthcare is superfluous. Yeah, receiving medical care tends to be a much more pleasant experience in the U.S. (if you can pay for it) than in other countries, but according to most metrics, our healthcare system produces worse public health outcomes than most of the single-payer countries. The fact is that a lack of affordability/access is far more damaging than a lack of quality. 

I think I oppose UBIs; it seems to me that a sufficiently high UBI -- rather than a means-tested solution -- would require placing distortively high income taxes
I agree. If we were to pursue large-scale income redistribution, my preferred mechanism would be negative income taxation. There would be a base stipend of $15,000, and it would have a 15% phase-out rate  (i.e. you lose 15 cents of stipend income for every additional dollar of earned income -- the stipend would reach $0 at $100,000 earned income). But I'm not sure if I actually support the idea of large-scale income redistribution. If it's possible to make employment the primary source of sustenance, then I'd definitely prefer that instead. 

What do you think about raising the minimum wage? It doesn't seem to me like an issue that'll be resolved among economists anytime soon. 
It should be raised to a "living wage". I don't think its true that businesses would necessarily end up hiring fewer workers. Higher revenues from increased consumer demand would at least partially mitigate the higher labor costs. And there are plenty of pro-business policies we could pursue to further mitigate labor costs, like corporate tax cuts, deregulation, and single-payer healthcare.

Topic's author
#39
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@spacetime
It should be raised to a "living wage". I don't think its true that businesses would necessarily end up hiring fewer workers. Higher revenues from increased consumer demand would at least partially mitigate the higher labor costs. And there are plenty of pro-business policies we could pursue to further mitigate labor costs, like corporate tax cuts, deregulation, and single-payer healthcare.
I'm unsure about both corporate tax cuts and single-payer healthcare, but I think we should implement unemployment-minimizing policies anyway -- and not just to substitute for jobs lost due to a minimum wage. I think it's true that businesses would hire fewer workers at the point of $15/hour; for me, the question is whether that is offset by the increase in living standards created. On boosting aggregate demand, I'm not entirely convinced, particularly given that sudden upward pushes in AD could just be offset by central banks. There's another argument -- in favor of a minimum wage -- to be made from the perspective of efficiency. All of these are legitimate arguments, but I think the unemployment created by a minimum wage as high as $15/hour would probably outweigh; most pro-minimum wage economists oppose proposals that are that high, from what I recall. 

But yeah, not super-knowledgeable about this either.

#40
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@Tejretics
Even if a $15 minimum wage were to cause a significant decline in low-wage employment (which I remain skeptical of), it's not like the displaced workers would have nowhere to go. There's a massive shortage of skilled labor in the U.S. -- a well-designed education / retraining system could help transition those workers into jobs that pay much more than $15 an hour. Regardless of minimum wage, developing such a system needs to be the U.S. government's top priority, in order to address all the labor displacement that will inevitably be caused by automation and globalization.

You said you don't support universal free education. Why is that?
Topic's author
#41
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@spacetime
You said you don't support universal free education. Why is that?
Actually, on thinking a bit harder, I'm undecided.

Scott Alexander has an interesting post on this, but I'm not sure I agree: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies/


#42
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@Tejretics
Oh, I agree with him on that 100%. When I say "universal free education," I don't mean just funneling more money into the current system. America's higher education system is utter garbage. It should be burnt to the ground and replaced with something else. But that "something else" needs to be publicly financed in order to ensure universal access. Government funding isn't the problem in and of itself -- the problem is what's being funded.

College doesn't need to provide a "well-rounded" education. That's what the K-12 system is for -- teaching students everything they need to know to be generally educated citizens of the country (and it totally fails at that, btw... but that's a separate conversation). College should be about nothing more than teaching occupational skills as quickly and inexpensively as possible. As Scott pointed out, even the most specialized occupations can be taught within a couple years. Less specialized occupations can be taught within a matter of weeks. I studied my own college degree plan, and I found that it would take me a single semester to take all the courses I truly need for my intended line of work (logistics management).

The government should coordinate directly with employers to craft new vocational certification programs for all the most in-demand occupations. Regular degree programs should be stripped of all their funding, and the freed-up funds should go towards the new certification programs (with stringent regulations on what the money can be spent on, i.e. no administrative bullshit, no unnecessary amenities). It should be illegal for employers to require a regular degree.
#43
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Tejretics
Topic's author
#44
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@spacetime
Who would you ideally like to be US president?

Of the current likely candidates or people who've expressed interest in running, who would you support?

Also, what would your preferred healthcare system in the US look like?
#45
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@Tejretics
That's weird, I thought this was your AMA :P

Who would you ideally like to be US president?
Tucker Carlson. He has a healthy skepticism of laissez-faire economics (without taking it too far as many Democrats do). He has non-interventionist instincts on foreign policy. He's one of the only mainstream figures who's willing to talk about the negative sociological impacts of immigration. And of course, he fully rejects identity politics. That's everything I'm looking for in a presidential candidate.

Of the current likely candidates or people who've expressed interest in running, who would you support?
I was a fan of Richard Ojeda (the only Democrat who didn't seem obsessed with identity politics), but he dropped out, so I guess that leaves me with Trump.

Also, what would your preferred healthcare system in the US look like?
Socialized healthcare, Norwegian-style. It's the most simple, efficient, and reliable way to ensure universal healthcare access.
Topic's author
#46
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@spacetime
Tucker Carlson. He has a healthy skepticism of laissez-faire economics (without taking it too far as many Democrats do). He has non-interventionist instincts on foreign policy. He's one of the only mainstream figures who's willing to talk about the negative sociological impacts of immigration. And of course, he fully rejects identity politics. That's everything I'm looking for in a presidential candidate.
The extent of my knowledge of Carlson is that he used to be on Crossfire and is on the famous video of Jon Stewart appearing on Crossfire. Seems like an ordinary conservative, perhaps more reasonable than some others, though his support for Donald Trump surprises me.

I was a fan of Richard Ojeda (the only Democrat who didn't seem obsessed with identity politics), but he dropped out, so I guess that leaves me with Trump.
Thoughts on Andrew Yang?

Why do you support Trump over Biden? I think I'd support even Sanders over Trump. 
#47
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tejretics
The thinking person would support the brain damaged slug in Trumps garden over Trump
#48
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
Thoughts on Andrew Yang?
I like him as a person. But the centerpiece of the platform is UBI, which I don't support anymore. 

Why do you support Trump over Biden? I think I'd support even Sanders over Trump. 
I would support virtually any Democrat over Trump... but only if they reject identity politics. Democrats (on balance) tend to have better policies than Republicans, so I wish I could vote for them. But I view identity politics as a cultural cancer that poses a serious threat to domestic social stability. It's just as dangerous as wage stagnation, healthcare unaffordability, or climate change. Identity politics is a deal-breaker for me. 

Biden has shown some hopeful signs, but I'm just gonna wait and see for now. Sanders is basically all-in on identity politics, which is very annoying because I know that wasn't always the case. Even as recently as 2016, he was much less obsessed with it than he is now.
Topic's author
#49
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@spacetime
I like him as a person. But the centerpiece of the platform is UBI, which I don't support anymore. 
I oppose a UBI as well, but I think it'd probably be better than the status quo, and I don't think its net effect is negative, I just think there are better ways to structure the welfare system.

Apart from the UBI, Yang seems pretty smart, though I'm not sure I agree with him on everything. I'm interested in learning more about him. 

I reckon I'd support Biden if he ran, mainly because I am entirely unsure about foreign policy issues in general and my political opinions, therefore, are primarily formed based on environmental, economic (this includes microeconomics-ish social issues, such as drugs, healthcare, and education), and criminal justice policy. 

#50
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@Tejretics
I oppose a UBI as well, but I think it'd probably be better than the status quo, and I don't think its net effect is negative, I just think there are better ways to structure the welfare system.
I think it might be one of the worst possible approaches to welfare policy. If the goal is to get every working-age American into a well-paying job (and I do think that's possible... for now, at least), then the welfare system should be geared towards facilitating that goal. UBI would actively undermine that goal by rendering employment unnecessary, and it would eat up the entire federal budget in the process. I won't support UBI or any other mass-redistribution mechanism until it becomes clear that the economy can no longer generate enough well-paying jobs to sustain the workforce.

7 days later

Topic's author
#51
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@spacetime
What are your thoughts on 16K's responses to you here, on work incentives? https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Basic-Income/1/

Also, Scott Alexander compares unconditional cash transfers to job guarantees; a lot of his analysis responds to your premise that we should try to get everyone into decent-paying jobs and that should be the goal of the welfare system. https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic-jobs-against-hijacking-utopia/

I'm undecided about this issue, to be clear.
#52
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@Tejretics
What are your thoughts on 16K's responses to you here, on work incentives? https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Basic-Income/1/
I'm too sleep deprived to read through a 16K debate right now.

Also, Scott Alexander compares unconditional cash transfers to job guarantees; a lot of his analysis responds to your premise that we should try to get everyone into decent-paying jobs and that should be the goal of the welfare system. https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic-jobs-against-hijacking-utopia/
It's a very persuasive critique of the "universal employment" model... there is definitely a substantial portion of the population that simply lacks the capacity to hold down a well-paying job. That alone makes it very difficult to continue believing in the idea of universal employment. And then there's also my previously stated concern that the economy might not be able to generate enough well-paying jobs for everyone anyways.

I'm undecided about this issue, to be clear.
Now I am too :(
#53
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Tejretics
When the dollar eventually collapses, will soy boys turn to cannibalism or vainly attempt to attack the well armed prepper populace?