Will Trump be Re-elected?

[moda0306]

Although he's still being coy about it, the news yesterday was that Biden will be jumping into the race soon. From what I see of the democratic candidates I think he's the only one that can beat Trump and unless some things change before the election I think he probably WILL beat Trump. On a positive note, he's also the democratic candidate that scares me the least.

My preferred democratic candidate however is Bernie Sanders, but only because AOC isn't old enough yet. This is because I'd like to see a real debate in prime time about whether or not the time has come for America to embrace Marxism.

The idea that Bernie's version of "Socialism" = Marxism is ridiculous. High-tax welfare-state mixed capitalism ISN'T communism/socialism in the Marxist sense.

Marxism would see workers seizing and owning the means of production and abolishing private property and absentee "rent-seeking" forms of ownership.

That-said, one need-not be a "Marxist" or even a Bernie-crat to discuss things in terms of capital vs labor, which I think is sorely missed in our public and more-so our social discussions.

[jacksonM]

Although he's still being coy about it, the news yesterday was that Biden will be jumping into the race soon. From what I see of the democratic candidates I think he's the only one that can beat Trump and unless some things change before the election I think he probably WILL beat Trump. On a positive note, he's also the democratic candidate that scares me the least.

My preferred democratic candidate however is Bernie Sanders, but only because AOC isn't old enough yet. This is because I'd like to see a real debate in prime time about whether or not the time has come for America to embrace Marxism.

The idea that Bernie's version of "Socialism" = Marxism is ridiculous. High-tax welfare-state mixed capitalism ISN'T communism/socialism in the Marxist sense.

Marxism would see workers seizing and owning the means of production and abolishing private property and absentee "rent-seeking" forms of ownership.

That-said, one need-not be a "Marxist" or even a Bernie-crat to discuss things in terms of capital vs labor, which I think is sorely missed in our public and more-so our social discussions.

He's an avowed socialist who once praised Castro and still angrily preaches the kind of class hatred that is common to Marxism. In my opinion, if it looks like a duck and talks like a duck it's a duck.

[Maddy]

Today's young people seizing the means of production? To do what with it?

[sophie]

Hey insuranceguy, no offense taken.

I feel like I've already made the case for universal healthcare, so I'll skip the response for now. Just one quick comment: if you had one onerous administrative task to do many times a day, but that task involved up to 50 different forms, sets of rules, procedures etc that varied case to case requiring a huge administrative layer to sort through, what would happen if those were reduced to just one form with a markedly simpler procedure?

re trains, they are absolutely more cost-efficient and convenient than air travel, especially for shorter routes. Trains have minimal security, easier/quicker to get to stations and you can show up just minutes in advance, more comfortable en-route with more seat space and no restrictions on getting up and walking around. I take the train to DC all the time and I wouldn't go by air if you paid me. There are tons of mid-distance routes like this that are ripe for train travel. Air is the only way to go when you're crossing the continent, but even distances of ~1000 miles are doable by train. I'd do overnight sleeper car to Chicago in a heartbeat, you leave in the evening and show up in the AM all rested and ready to go, as opposed to having to blow much of the day prior flying in to stay at a hotel overnight. You just don't realize what a PITA air travel is until you've experienced the alternative. Get yourself a Eurail pass and check it out.

Then there's the little known fact that air travel is much more heavily government-subsidized than Amtrak is. Airports, airport security & the TSA, the air traffic control system, the network of navigation aids, the FAA - only a small slice of that is funded from ticket fees. It's hard to imagine any private company being able to build and maintain such a system on its own. And what about the interstate highway system, you have any problems with that??? That's also heavily subsidized. Maintaining and running transportation systems is just plain a necessary function of government - and one that I'm happy to pay for.

Here's just one of many articles on this topic - you can surely find more:

http://allaboardohio.org/2012/09/21/roa ... -attacked/

[dualstow]

High speed rail is a standout. If it would really cost less than 4 trillion to lay down a national network of passenger rail track and buy high speed trains, then we should be doing this already. The only intercity passenger rail track in existence in the US right now is the Northeast Corridor (Boston to Richmond). All else is freight track, which is why train travel on every other route is so ridiculously slow. This is a national embarrassment, and could save us all a pile of $$ if fixed (air travel is much more expensive to run than train travel, plus much less convenient).

I remember reading this (because I pasted it) in the WSJ on the slow Chicago-St Louis line.

“To build the kind of infrastructure that is stand-alone—that is, just for high-speed passenger rail—it is just absurdly expensive and just takes years and years and years to get through the permitting and environmental process,”

“Land acquisition alone [would] take half a decade”

That's not to say we shouldn't do it. I love the idea, but...

[InsuranceGuy]

Just one quick comment: if you had one onerous administrative task to do many times a day, but that task involved up to 50 different forms, sets of rules, procedures etc that varied case to case requiring a huge administrative layer to sort through, what would happen if those were reduced to just one form with a markedly simpler procedure?

I can see how having to use different forms and rules would be frustrating and require more administration. This costs private insurance companies money too, at some point it seems this will have to be standardized to cut costs and/or compete with whatever Amazon/Berkshire Hathaway/Chase (Haven) come up with. Even if that isn't enough the governnment could mandate consistence (it hurt to type that). I just don't want the federal government making my healthcare decisions any more than I want my employer doing so.

I see the point on trains, I oversimplified the issue. I actually didn't realize there was so much subsidization for the airlines, yet another gripe I now have. My worry is that spending all that money for a high speed rail and then it is no better maintained than any of our other train systems and it ends up being heavily subsidized to keep it going.

I guess the crux of my problem with a lot of these issues is that if the government is going to do something that could be done by a private company it should be forced to pay for the costs of running that program. The postage should cover the post office costs instead of the post office losing billions year after year etc. Since this hasn't been the case I have a hard time getting on board with them spending more on new projects when the projects they currently have are falling apart and we have to dip into taxpayer funds or print more money.

Also, to your point we need to end corporate welfare. No more subsidizing airlines, farmers, green energy, etc. It's one thing to offer research grants, but it's another to subsidize profits for free market players.

[Xan]

re trains, they are absolutely more cost-efficient and convenient than air travel, especially for shorter routes. Trains have minimal security, easier/quicker to get to stations and you can show up just minutes in advance, more comfortable en-route with more seat space and no restrictions on getting up and walking around. I take the train to DC all the time and I wouldn't go by air if you paid me. There are tons of mid-distance routes like this that are ripe for train travel. Air is the only way to go when you're crossing the continent, but even distances of ~1000 miles are doable by train. I'd do overnight sleeper car to Chicago in a heartbeat, you leave in the evening and show up in the AM all rested and ready to go, as opposed to having to blow much of the day prior flying in to stay at a hotel overnight. You just don't realize what a PITA air travel is until you've experienced the alternative. Get yourself a Eurail pass and check it out.

There's frequent talk (but not a whole lot else, from what I can tell) about having a triangular-ish set of high-speed rail among DFW, Houston, and San Antonio / Austin. Being intrastate, it could perhaps be free of federal interference. Seems like there would be a lot of demand for that, if it could be done well.

[jhogue]

Sophie,
This may sound a bit harsh, but were you asleep for 8 years of Obama rule by executive fiat?

1. Obama got $1 trillion for so-called infrastructure projects in his first year in office. Did he build out the existing high speed rail network (eg., the “shovel ready” Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC corridor?) No.

2. In his acceptance speech on election night, I remember Obama claimed that now was the hour to heal the environment by renovating the power grid with environmentally friendly technology. Did that happen? Not really.

3. His signature accomplishment was passing Obamacare. To get it passed, he repeatedly assured his fellow citizens that “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” How has that worked out?

So, why should anyone old enough to remember the Obama years sign up for the Green New Deal after that demonstrated record of fraud and failure?

[stuper1]

Any other Victor Davis Hanson fans here? He has a new book out called "The Case for Trump" discussing why Trump should get re-elected. I heard him interviewed on a podcast yesterday discussing the book. He seems like a thoughtful conservative. He doesn't like Trump's bombast, but he likes a lot of his policies. He lives in a farming region that could be described as low-rent (about 15 miles from me, who also lives in a low-rent area), and he seems to understand the frustrations of the lower class voters who elected Trump.

Hanson has his own podcast called The Classicist if anyone is interested.

[Kbg]

I’ve no idea about cost effectiveness between rail and air but I do believe if rail was so Advantageous there would be more of it in the US. I think a huge aspect is population density. Got me why there isn’t significant passenger rail in more densely populated areas, but where I live distances between large metro areas are measured in hundreds of miles and trains are not going to compete well against air when the distances are that large. I’ve often considered taking Amtrak to visit in laws. However, I could literally probably fly back and forth 10-12 times round trip time wise for one round trip by train. The other reason is connecting transportation networks...lack thereof.

But I do find amusement in the fact those who tend left want rail and then all you have to do is look how CA high speed rail was essentially killed by state regulators or liberal mayors for a host of environmental, constituency and plain old not in my back yard protests.

I will agree European and Japanese rail is quite nice but when you get off a train you can get elsewhere...in most of the US that is absolutely not the case.

This post isn’t pro or anti rail, just pointing out a more rural perspective on why rail hasn’t been successful (which is pretty close to why rail started dying off big time in the early 60s)

A parallel is electric cars...it appears they are going to replace gas and diesel eventually but it’s slow going because there isn’t sufficient supporting infrastructure.

[sophie]

Sophie,
This may sound a bit harsh, but were you asleep for 8 years of Obama rule by executive fiat?

1. Obama got $1 trillion for so-called infrastructure projects in his first year in office. Did he build out the existing high speed rail network (eg., the “shovel ready” Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC corridor?) No.

2. In his acceptance speech on election night, I remember Obama claimed that now was the hour to heal the environment by renovating the power grid with environmentally friendly technology. Did that happen? Not really.

3. His signature accomplishment was passing Obamacare. To get it passed, he repeatedly assured his fellow citizens that “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” How has that worked out?

So, why should anyone old enough to remember the Obama years sign up for the Green New Deal after that demonstrated record of fraud and failure?

Yes, I believe I said that these points of the Green New Deal did not originate with AOC, but in fact are long-standing goals. Obama didn't accomplish them, true, but it was for a variety of reasons that had nothing to do with the worthiness of these projects.

Dualstow &KBG: yes, the land right of way and towns imposing ridiculous speed limits on trains are indeed obstacles that would have to be dealt with. For right of way, what about at least laying passenger rail tracks parallel to existing freight tracks? And for the local town issue, a simple federal law perhaps combined with better safety measures at rail/road intersections, would take care of that. note also that "half a decade" is actually a pretty short amount of time for a major public works project.

I guess I view transportation systems as a public service (e.g. like the court system or water/sewer systems) that fundamentally can't be privatized. If your position is that all transportation systems should be privatized, then that means you must be for privatizing the courts, water treatment plants, city/town sewer systems etc. Rome was successful in large part because of its road system, aqueducts and sewers. Our business can't magically operate without those things either. This is why we have a government: to set the stage for businesses to succeed.

[moda0306]

Any other Victor Davis Hanson fans here? He has a new book out called "The Case for Trump" discussing why Trump should get re-elected. I heard him interviewed on a podcast yesterday discussing the book. He seems like a thoughtful conservative. He doesn't like Trump's bombast, but he likes a lot of his policies. He lives in a farming region that could be described as low-rent (about 15 miles from me, who also lives in a low-rent area), and he seems to understand the frustrations of the lower class voters who elected Trump.

Hanson has his own podcast called The Classicist if anyone is interested.

I think I saw this guy being a Vietnam slaughter apologist on the "rag" that is Prager U. Not even sure why I watched that garbage, but I wasn't impressed.

I've also seen him discuss other issues from a conservative standpoint since then.

As much as I am fascinated by Herbert Hoover and respect the hell out of him (one of my favorite Presidents... which isn't saying much, but he's one hell of a dude), I find anyone the Hoover Institution to put out to be just a standard conservative war-mongering pile of useless and pompous analysis.