Philosophy Now Forum

Welcome.

The aim is cultivating previously untapped and/or perhaps the once considered - but long since forgotten - political sensibilities of the participants... including myself. To be clear; "political sensibility" is the ability to understand another person's political thought/belief. To be clearer; political thought/belief is thought/belief about what ought and/or ought not be done by the government of a nation. It is drawing mental correlations between the politic events one finds themselves within(between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception) and/or themselves. That is what all political thought/belief has in common. The aforementioned political event may be as simple as discussing political hot topics. My focus here is American politics, but common sense arguments reveal things that are universally extant within all political thought/belief systems, thus they are rightfully applicable to all political thought/belief, regardless of individual particulars. Given this much, well-rounded political sensibility allows one to understand not only what another thinks/believes about political subject matters but what those thought/beliefs are grounded upon.

Acquiring new political sensibility requires thinking political things anew; coming to new terms about political events. This kind of metacognitive endeavor is not for the faint of heart. Thinking anything anew is not an easy task. It requires being able to temporarily set aside some important aspects of one's own pre-existing thought/belief in order to understand another's. Doing that first requires identifying one's own political thought/belief and that depends upon identifying one's own thought/belief. I mean, it's common sense that one cannot know what one's political thought/belief are and/or consist of if they do not first know what thought/belief consists of. Unfortunately, many - if not most - folk have a gross (mis)understanding of thought/belief.

Because understanding other political viewpoints requires being able to set aside one's own thought/belief on matters, I must warn the reader here that it is imperative to draw and maintain the meaningful distinction between pre-existing thought/belief and some commonly employed talk about "preconceptions". The latter(preconceptions) always consists entirely of the former(thought/belief), but not the other way around. Thought/belief is necessarily prior to preconception in the same manner that apples are prior to anything consisting of apples. A preconception is an operative concept within a worldview, and as such both are something that the mind and body 'constructs' together(scare-quotes intentional); a frame of reference. Putting our world-view to use is exactly what we're doing when we talk about the events that we find ourselves in. It is a baseline for understanding the events that one finds themselves within. We all have one, and we all use it everyday. We adopt our initial baseline(worldview) via initial language acquisition.

That is true of everyone, regardless of subjective particulars; in every culture, and in every nation. That's more than enough to adequately reject objections and/or points that use "preconceived notions" as though it is an unacceptable thing, in and of itself. Thinking that way(placing oppositional points of view into the category of 'preconception') is itself putting a preconceived notion to work, and as such it is self-defeating; untenable. It shows a gross (mis)conception of thought/belief is at work. That said, not all thought/belief is on equal ground in every way, and the same holds good for preconceived notions(portions of one's worldview).

There are crucial considerations to be had here...

Just as it is the case that we all adopt our first worldview, we also all adopt our very first political thought/belief. We do so as a result of having no choice in the matter while it's happening. We adopt it by virtue of not being able to doubt it. Doubting is doubting the truth of something or other, and as such doubting is always thought/belief based. We doubt whether this or that thought/belief and/or statement thereof is true, is the case, is the way it is, is the way things are, is the way things were, etc. We doubt 'X' if we have formed and hold pre-existing thought/belief that places the truth of 'X' in question in some way, shape, or form. Doubt is thought/belief based.

When one is first learning language, s/he is learning what things are called, how to act in certain situations, and how to get what they want. So, if one has no experience with taking an account of the world and/or themselves, s/he will have no basis upon which to rest doubt regarding the veracity and/or reliability of what they're being taught. A child amidst initial language acquisition is not going to doubt what it's being taught, for it cannot. That capacity requires pre-existing thought/belief about the world and/or ourselves, and that baseline(initial/original) is precisely what's being created at the time.

That is - again - true of all language users. All religions. All families. All nations. All people known throughout history. Everyone adopts their first worldview. No one is capable of doubting it while in the midst of learning it. We find here that political thought/belief rests it's laurels upon an almost entirely adopted basis, and as a result all people are on equal footing in this sense. Understanding that much is necessary for understanding another's thought/belief.

Setting aside one's own political thought/belief not only allows but is required in order for one to understand another political viewpoint, particularly the one(s) contrary to our own. There are plenty of those. Political sensibility demands understanding another's worldview. Understanding is expanded by considering different viewpoints. Viewpoints consist of thought/belief. So, understanding a different viewpoint is had by seeking out the operative thought/belief that it consists of. All thought/belief consists entirely of mental correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or the agent's own state of mind(emotional attitude). Understanding another political viewpoint requires drawing the same correlations between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or oneself. Two folk understand a political hot topic in the same way when, and only when, they draw the same or close enough mental correlations between the linguistic concepts and/or themselves.

That is political sensibility. Let's cultivate some regarding the recent American election...

We(nearly all major news outlets) had some things horribly wrong. Our political beliefs were wrong. They informed our expectations, and we were caught off-guard. We had mistakenly presupposed truth. Our open recognition of being wrong is much more than just an admission of being mistaken, much more than having a much needed reality-check. It can also be used to assist us in correcting our own worldview. A careful examination of when, where, why, and how we went wrong shows the false thought/belief. It's a very long list. For starters...

We were wrong about Trump supporters. We were in approaching Trump's language the way we did, and still do. We were wrong in not listening to enough people. We were wrong in characterizing oppositional viewpoints and the people who share them in negative ways. We were/are wrong regarding lot's of different things. However, we are also entirely capable of fixing it. We fix our worldview by virtue of allowing it to evolve in light of the undeniable. We must admit that we were wrong. We held false thought/belief. We need to identify and/or locate the false thought/belief and remove them. I call that unlearning.

True thought/belief is imperative to successfully navigate the world. In much the same vein, without true political thought/belief one cannot improve upon their own political worldview. Truth is inextricably entwined within all thought/belief and/or statements thereof. We cannot understand anything at all without correctly presupposing truth somewhere along the line. Language presupposes it. All language. Meaning presupposes it. All meaning. Correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content. But I digress...

Improving political sensibility requires understanding what certain things mean to another. That, in turn, requires understanding how words/events effect/affect another person. To understand another in the most complete kind of way, we must feel their emotion. We know another's emotion when we witness it. We feel it when we're able to envision ourselves having their experience, placing ourselves in their shoes. Empathy.

Emotion and emotional states of mind are irrevocable elementary constituents of all rudimentary thought/belief. Thought/belief is accrued and as such complex thought/belief is built upon the simple. What the simple consists of so too does the complex. Thus, our emotional state of mind is an irrevocable elementary constituent of complex thought/belief. Political thought/belief and statements thereof are of this more complex variety. Emotion is inextricably entwined with language and thus within all political notions. This brings me to another point:Anyone who holds emotion in a forbidden light when it comes to political reasoning is working from a gross (mis)conception of thought/belief. If there's any doubt about this, then think about it another way...

Words do not have intonation and/or body language. People do. Intonation displays a speaker's emotional content and/or attitude. Intonation is imperative to meaning. Meaning imperative to understanding. Thus, emotional content is imperative to understanding what's being said. This is readily supported by virtue of considering what the Speech Act Theorists have shed light upon. For those unfamiliar with particular 'school of thought' there are simple examples to understand which prove that emotion is crucial, irrevocably so, to knowing what another means. For example, when one says "Hand me that", it could be chock full of different emotion(s) and mean several different things as a result. I mean we can all imagine that simple phrase being emphasized in a number of different ways while it's being stated, and having quite different meanings as a direct result of that emotional emphasis(display of speaker's attitude).

Another example showing emotion's importance to meaning reveals itself clearly anytime a single word and/or mention of an idea invokes an entirely different state of mind within the listener. Those examples are not able to be quantified, nor need they be. They are undeniable evidence of exactly how emotion is inseparable from thought/belief, including but not limited to, political thought/belief. Im addition it shows that thought/belief has efficacy. So let's put all this on the ground...

The recent American election caught many off-guard. Simply put:Reality did not match expectations. Now, we find all sorts of different folk looking to make sense of it all. When I watch major news outlets on tv or online, I'm quite disappointed with the current focuses. The left is still like a deer in headlights, except it's now becoming more and more de-sensitized to the aforementioned and quite unexpected surprise. They still seem to have little or no clue regarding what took place and how/why. The cries. The anguish. The poor and rich alike crying in disappointment. Famous Hollywood movie stars emoting in surprising and previously unseen ways. Women in plain confusion as they try to adjust their own thought/belief to the undeniable reality. Someone they think/believe is racist, bigoted, and misogynistic is the president elect.

Reality has a deadly right uppercut...

I personally loathe a two party system. It forces folk to choose from only two options, and those two options are never satisfying to those who aren't brainwashed into just rooting for a political side, as if it were like a favorite sports team. So, rather than focus upon the left versus the right, let us look at a couple of relevant aspects which weren't being taken into proper consideration by either of the parties or major media news sources... hence we had such surprising results. First we need to review our thought/belief regarding what constitutes being a Trump supporter and why the level of support was so much higher than expected and/or thought/believed to be(there's much to be gleaned there folks, like it or not).

The common (mis)conception of the Trump supporter was/is that they are nothing more than a bunch of racist, misogynistic, uneducated, bigoted people. This general overview is based upon the fact that they are not appalled at Trump's language and are full of hatred, ill feelings, and/or ill-will towards some other group of people. To this last bit I would readily agree:They certainly are a bunch of disgruntled people. But the groups being hated are most certainly not all categorized by race/ethnicity/religion alone. Hating a group of people does not make you a racist. It makes you a hater. Being a hater is not necessarily bad. So, it is ill-advised to call someone a racist just because they are a hater. Hating a group of people is necessary for being a racist, but it is not enough. It takes more. That said, the Trump supporter was far too commonly categorized as "a racist", or uneducated, or backwards, or whatever... and then nothing more was considered about who else they are or may be. That "racist" label displayed much too shallow an understanding, and hindsight's 20/20. None-the-less, not all Trump supporters are racist, and it's crucial to nix that thought/belief should we have/hold it. Some are:Not all.

Others see this fact(that some Trump supporters are racist) as an unfortunate but necessary one, as it were. A fact which is required, or at least seems to be so, in order to rid our nation of what they deem as a much bigger problem(s) with the nation(governmental corruption which they believe to be the root cause of their unnecessary inability to live life comfortably). The same can be rightfully said about the Trump supporters who are misogynist and bigoted.

Racists, misogynists, and bigots being happy with who's president isn't unethical, immoral, and it certainly cannot be said to be unlawful without stripping away certain self-directional capabilities of all of us. Racists can like non-racist leaders. Racists can vote. The same is true of misogynists and bigots. Freedom of thought/belief. Get over the fact that racists, misogynists, and bigots exist. As long as freedom lasts, so too will the freedom to like and/or dislike whomever one may choose for whatever reason they deem worthy. The election did not turn upon the racist, misogynistic, and bigoted vote, regardless of the amount of attention that was given to the idea. These ideas were given way too much of the wrong kind of attention, and that was something that the election turned upon.

The fact that racists, sexist, and bigoted people supported Trump was and is still being given the wrong kind of attention. Again, hindsight's 20/20. Racists, sexists, and bigoted people being happy with a person does not make the person equivalent to them. These people were happy with Trump. He said things that they found meaningful. He said things that they could come to acceptable terms with. He said things - a lots of them - that required filling in the blanks, so to speak. Trump spoke in such general ambiguous terms, and doing so increases the likelihood of the listener filling in the blanks. To wit:"Make America Great Again" is a slogan that equally applies to anyone and everyone who used to think/believe that America is a great country. The meaningful content of the slogan is filled in by each and every individual who hears and likes/agrees with it. I mean, what counts as being great depends upon who you ask. Thus, lots of people can find meaning within and thus be moved by that slogan. More notably however, is the brute fact that many of those people having conflicting ideas of what counts as America being great again. However, there is an underlying commonality between many if not most of the supporters in manufacturing and/or building trades as well as coal miners. Those folk have suffered quantifiable harm at the hands of administration after administration, regardless of political party. That part wasn't revealed. That part wasn't admitted. That part wasn't part of the political discourse.

The election turned upon precisely that part.

The fact that Trump would not denounce a potential voter(or group thereof) simply because they exercise their freedom to like/dislike whomever they please doesn't necessarily say much at all about Trump. Does a candidate denounce all potential voters simply because they have strong disagreements? Of course not. The fact that racists, sexists, and bigots liked Trump does not make Trump a racist, sexist, or bigot.

Are natural born American voters allowed to like whomever they want for whatever reason they want? Of course. Is an American citizen forbidden to dislike? Of course not. You'll have that. You'll have racism, sexism, and all sorts of other social discord. Freedom gives social discord a place to both... live... and die(if utilized). Forbiddance alone will not end racist, bigoted, and/or sexist thought. When we're talking about all of the changes that are necessary in order to end up in the best possible place... collectively... regarding thee things in the US, calling a bunch of folks "racist" or "sexist" or "bigoted" who are not is never a good idea. Calling a bunch of folks these names who were otherwise on the fence about what to do at election time is foolish, for it carries with it the burden of being right.

Trump's language turns heads. It is considered unacceptable by many people for many reasons. Some folk take it as indisputable evidence which proves that he is racist, misogynistic, and bigoted. On my view, it is simply inadequate for drawing such conclusions. While the way one speaks can certainly be an indicator that s/he devalues other races, genders, and/or those with other sexual personal preferences, tastes, and likes/dislikes, the sheer amount of language necessary for justifiably drawing that conclusion can be immense and is determined solely by what the person actually thinks/believes. Of course, there are certain things that can be said which remove all doubt, however, I'm not at all convinced that Trump has said such things. Now this topic has been hashed out on numerous occasions by numerous different people, however, I've yet to see it be parsed in a way that adds to our understanding the overall effect/affect that his words have had. They have perpetuated an ill-conceived narrative which is ill-equipped to address the actual problems. A review is on order...

During his announcement speech, he talked about Mexicans and how 'they' send over their worst. I'm supposing here that Trump was referring to the Mexican government or some other group who was sending Mexicans across the border, and much ado was made over that aspect. He amplified this by saying that 'they' do not send over their best. He continued on to say that the Mexicans that come and/or are sent here are rapists, murderers, and drug dealers. Then he contradicted his own failure to properly quantify his claim by saying that he was sure that "some" are good people. What he did was fail to say "some" were rapists, murderers, and what have you. When one says "Mexicans" without further qualification, it is taken to mean all Mexicans.

Not all Mexicans are illegal. Not all illegals are rapists and murderers. Not all rapists and murderers are illegal. Aside from drug dealers, drug runners, and sex slaves, no one is being sent over. Not all Mexicans are sent here. It doesn't end there, but that was used as reason by far too many to brush aside Trump's announcement speech as being ignorant and uninformed... unworthy of attention. It was deemed "racist" and those who deemed it as such assumed that anyone who didn't see it like that was endorsing a racist viewpoint. Unfortunately, those who walked away thinking/believing that also often walked away thinking/believing that anyone who disagreed suffered from the same. Big mistake. Huge.

Trump's talk was far too sloppy and simple, but it served as confirmation bias for many Americans who have strong negative feelings about Mexicans and their role in some problem or another. While the imagined problems are not all the same, the ill-conceived common 'enemy' is. Trump did not create this enemy. His language used it and thus perpetuated it. He neglected to properly address the actual problems and thus the actual events that led up to the negative feelings and imagined problems. He may or may not have a grasp on them.

There are very real socio-economic problems facing many less fortunate Americans, particularly those Americans whose lives depend(ed) upon being able to find employment that includes health insurance, retirement opportunity, and a wage that allows a comfortable lifestyle. Those opportunities were not always unheard of. They were once far more common. Those were the good jobs people wanted as opposed to just a job. They allowed one to become better off financially that they started off being. They were a means of mobility. Those people were the less fortunate Americans; those who had minimal education and/or minimal cognitive ability:Those who weren't always 'booksmart', but were good with their hands, had pride in their workmanship, and/or themselves and weren't opposed to working hard for the rewards thereof. Those folk's opportunity were largely in the building trades and/or manufacturing sectors. They have been quantifiably harmed by administration after administration, congress after congress, regardless of political party. Immigration and trade policies have decimated their hope by eliminating opportunity. Those policies were introduced and/or implemented by both parties throughout the last 40 to 50 years. Narratives involving those efforts are most often presented as a positive thing in positive light, with cheers for both sides working together, setting aside the differences and getting things done. Getting things done isn't good in and of itself. We have to get the right sorts of things done. The policies are the problem. Those who crafted and supported them are responsible. It wasn't Mexicans.

Regarding the immigration laws aspect...

There are untold numbers of undocumented workers, many Mexican, in the building trades and manufacturing sectors. Because an undocumented worker has little to no legal recourse against poor employment conditions, s/he is much easier to take advantage of by employers whose sole motive is profit. Because illegals cost far far less, the same employers will use them. Because the immigration laws are not properly enforced, that very situation is a common one, and it has caused quantifiable harm to American workers and their families. American workers would have those jobs. American workers would have more spendable income and the economy would be more robust as a result of more money being in the hands of more Americans. In addition, the building trades(particularly private housing and commercial construction) work in a hierarchy which fosters the ability of an entire workforce of undocumented workers to displace what would have otherwise been American workers. In such situations, just like the manufacturing scenario, if profit is the sole motive, then margin is increased by virtue of reducing cost. Undocumented workers cost much less. Since the laws aren't properly enforced, this happens without recourse or fear thereof, and causes quantifiable harm to not only those American workers and their families, but the American economy on a whole. American based businesses suffer as well, for they have less potential customers. This goes to show that illegal immigration and undocumented peoples, including but not limited to Mexicans, is a problem that has direct negative socio-economic affects/effects upon American lives. However, not all negative American sentiment towards Mexicans and Mexico result from the above. Some have nothing to do with people coming here and taking jobs, but rather the jobs being taken elsewhere.

Regarding the trade policies aspect...

Economic policy, particularly regarding 'free' trade, has changed the socio-economic landscape and in doing so it has severely minimized a very large swathe of American people's opportunity to work hard and live comfortably. Trade policies have cost American workers their jobs. This is not unknown either. In fact, there are funds allocated within those policies that are intended to be used in order to provide new job training for folk who congress knows will lose their job as a result of the policy! By virtue of those workers not having as much spendable income, the American economy has suffered in the same ways mentioned in the above paragraph. It has also placed the American Dream out of reach for many, perhaps most of these folk. NAFTA is one such agreement. Wrongly so, many Americans have/hold negative thought/belief about Mexico and/or Mexicans as a result of the actual consequences that NAFTA had/has upon them directly. I say wrongly so because NAFTA and all it's negative affects/effects upon American workers is the direct responsibility of the elected officials who crafted, supported, and implemented the legislation. It wasn't Mexicans.

After all that talk about 'unlearning' myths, I am left to wonder where you researched the below...

creativesoul wrote:
Regarding the trade policies aspect...

Economic policy, particularly regarding 'free' trade, has changed the socio-economic landscape and in doing so it has severely minimized a very large swathe of American people's opportunity to work hard and live comfortably. Trade policies have cost American workers their jobs. This is not unknown either. In fact, there are funds allocated within those policies that are intended to be used in order to provide new job training for folk who congress knows will lose their job as a result of the policy! By virtue of those workers not having as much spendable income, the American economy has suffered in the same ways mentioned in the above paragraph. It has also placed the American Dream out of reach for many, perhaps most of these folk. NAFTA is one such agreement. Wrongly so, many Americans have/hold negative thought/belief about Mexico and/or Mexicans as a result of the actual consequences that NAFTA had/has upon them directly. I say wrongly so because NAFTA and all it's negative affects/effects upon American workers is the direct responsibility of the elected officials who crafted, supported, and implemented the legislation. It wasn't Mexicans.

Did you compare the share of GDP that Sweden and Denmark devote to worker retraining programs compared to the USA?

Have you taken any of the economic literature assessing the impact of trade into account? There may be more to the matter than mere preservation of well paid jobs doing assembly work that adds only a small percentage of the value of the finished product.

This unlearning process might not be great. If you want to look for a serious issue, consider the role of expert mistrust in your current politics (and ours in Europe too tbh).

About half of Americans appear to believe that experts aren't telling them the truth about climate and pollution.

You, along with most of the philosophers here (from what I can see), and most voters everywhere, don't understand a word that actual experts write about trade, and don't believe their conclusions. Your new president has adopted as his main economics adviser a man who is visibly useless at the whole thing. without really drawing much negative comment outside of the actual industry.

In America, and in much of Europe, we are all currently beholden to demonstrably false beliefs about the impact of migrants on jobs and wages.
Likewise, when housing gets expensive anywhere from San Francisco to Berlin, we often make the well known mistake of trying to fix that with rent controls.

And in all those places we also complain about our schools without paying any attention to experts in education whose solutions are intolerable to both left and right.

So I suggest that in this unlearning process, where you learn to see things from the position of an idealogical enemy, you try to keep an eye out for those with expertise who are wishing a plague on both your houses. Perhaps left and right alike should be held to one additional standard - if you guys want to reject everything the experts say on a subject, you should have to appeal to something beyond the truthiness of "Trade policies have cost American workers their jobs. This is not unknown either."

FlashDangerpants wrote:After all that talk about 'unlearning' myths, I am left to wonder where you researched the below...

creativesoul wrote:
Regarding the trade policies aspect...

Economic policy, particularly regarding 'free' trade, has changed the socio-economic landscape and in doing so it has severely minimized a very large swathe of American people's opportunity to work hard and live comfortably. Trade policies have cost American workers their jobs. This is not unknown either. In fact, there are funds allocated within those policies that are intended to be used in order to provide new job training for folk who congress knows will lose their job as a result of the policy! By virtue of those workers not having as much spendable income, the American economy has suffered in the same ways mentioned in the above paragraph. It has also placed the American Dream out of reach for many, perhaps most of these folk. NAFTA is one such agreement. Wrongly so, many Americans have/hold negative thought/belief about Mexico and/or Mexicans as a result of the actual consequences that NAFTA had/has upon them directly. I say wrongly so because NAFTA and all it's negative affects/effects upon American workers is the direct responsibility of the elected officials who crafted, supported, and implemented the legislation. It wasn't Mexicans.

Did you compare the share of GDP that Sweden and Denmark devote to worker retraining programs compared to the USA?

I have not. Does that comparison show an actual wage/benefit comparison between jobs lost and jobs created?

Have you taken any of the economic literature assessing the impact of trade into account? There may be more to the matter than mere preservation of well paid jobs doing assembly work that adds only a small percentage of the value of the finished product.

Focusing upon the amount of added value that any particular step within a manufacturing process adds to the overall value of the finished product neglects to take into account all of the benefits that well paid jobs offer a nation's economy.

There can be no doubt that there's much more to the matter than preservation of well paid jobs. In fact, one of the motivating factors in outsourcing such jobs is the elimination thereof. Furthermore, a very careful look at who crafted the legislation shows that there's quite a bit more to the matter.

This unlearning process might not be great.

Identifying and removing falsehood from one's thought/belief system is always great for those who are capable of doing so.

If you want to look for a serious issue, consider the role of expert mistrust in your current politics (and ours in Europe too tbh).

About half of Americans appear to believe that experts aren't telling them the truth about climate and pollution.

Indeed. There most certainly is an overwhelming number of American citizens who aren't sure who to believe about what. Everyone knows there are problems. The public doesn't know who's responsible, but they do know things need fixed. That's precisely what happens when the Noble Lie runs rampant, dishonesty is the norm, monetary corruption accepted, and public/political discourse is dominated by conceptual schemes that are innately incapable of discriminating between what's true and what's not.

You, along with most of the philosophers here (from what I can see), and most voters everywhere, don't understand a word that actual experts write about trade, and don't believe their conclusions.

Fair enough, I suppose. It would be rather interesting for me to see how you've arrived at such certainty regarding my understanding and/or cognitive ability.

Your new president has adopted as his main economics adviser a man who is visibly useless at the whole thing. without really drawing much negative comment outside of the actual industry.

He's not my president. I voted for Bernie Sanders.

I'm not here to defend Trump or his choices or his supporters. To quite the contrary, I'm here to shed some much needed light upon the real life American situations which led to Trump's rise. Part of that involves a very large swathe of political pundits being completely out of touch with a very large swathe of American people.

In America, and in much of Europe, we are all currently beholden to demonstrably false beliefs about the impact of migrants on jobs and wages.

Can you elaborate?

And in all those places we also complain about our schools without paying any attention to experts in education whose solutions are intolerable to both left and right.

I'm curious. What, exactly, makes one an expert in education?

...So I suggest that in this unlearning process, where you learn to see things from the position of an idealogical enemy, you try to keep an eye out for those with expertise who are wishing a plague on both your houses. Perhaps left and right alike should be held to one additional standard - if you guys want to reject everything the experts say on a subject, you should have to appeal to something beyond the truthiness of "Trade policies have cost American workers their jobs. This is not unknown either."

You've gotten unlearning wrong. You're conflating it with political sensibility. The former is the removal of falsehood from one's own world-view. The latter is understanding an oppositional political viewpoint.

creativesoul wrote:There are very real socio-economic problems facing many less fortunate Americans, particularly those Americans whose lives depend(ed) upon being able to find employment that includes health insurance, retirement opportunity, and a wage that allows a comfortable lifestyle.

Sorry, but the USA should not be a public soup kitchen. There is no such thing as a bad job, or they wouldn't pay you for it. You might not like the job, the pay, the benefits, the working conditions, the chance for advancement or the location, but it's not a bad job by definition. It's a good job or they wouldn't pay you for it. The problem is the lack of a free market. The problem is government control of jobs and production. The problem is minimum wage. The problem is government-mandated benefits. The problem is tariffs and restrictions on international trade. This is the position of the AEP.

bobevenson wrote:

creativesoul wrote:There are very real socio-economic problems facing many less fortunate Americans, particularly those Americans whose lives depend(ed) upon being able to find employment that includes health insurance, retirement opportunity, and a wage that allows a comfortable lifestyle.

Sorry, but the USA should not be a public soup kitchen. There is no such thing as a bad job, or they wouldn't pay you for it.You might not like the job, the pay, the benefits, the working conditions, the chance for advancement or the location, but it's not a bad job by definition. It's a good job or they wouldn't pay you for it.

Nonsense. Being paid is not equivalent to being good.

The problem is the lack of a free market. The problem is government control of jobs and production. The problem is minimum wage. The problem is government-mandated benefits. The problem is tariffs and restrictions on international trade. This is the position of the AEP.

The AEP is a purely imaginary entity. That is, it exists entirely within your own imagination, and it's wrong on many levels.

There is no such thing as a free market. It is, always has been and will always be, subject to rules. Rules influence. That which is not free from influence is not free.

The government doesn't control jobs and/or production except with subsidies(paying people/corporations to not produce).

Labor laws, minimum wage, and other government mandated benefits was/were enacted as a direct result of rich folk(employers, corporations) not caring about poor folk(workers) and being able to write their own rules about how poor folk(workers) ought be treated.

One who does not care about another has no business having that kind of power over them.

creativesoul wrote:[quote="FlashDangerpants"

Did you compare the share of GDP that Sweden and Denmark devote to worker retraining programs compared to the USA?

I have not. Does that comparison show an actual wage/benefit comparison between jobs lost and jobs created? [/quote]
That wouldn't make any sense. The comparison you request is between uncountable things at an arbitrary point in time.
The data would show that the USA spends far less than the OECD average on retraining.
You can see a chart here it's not terribly up to date.
This spending is designed to help those who lose their jobs through automation and offshoring to gain new skills that are relevant in the jobs market to replace old ones which sadly but inevitably are not.

creativesoul wrote:

Have you taken any of the economic literature assessing the impact of trade into account? There may be more to the matter than mere preservation of well paid jobs doing assembly work that adds only a small percentage of the value of the finished product.

Focusing upon the amount of added value that any particular step within a manufacturing process adds to the overall value of the finished product neglects to take into account all of the benefits that well paid jobs offer a nation's economy.

There can be no doubt that there's much more to the matter than preservation of well paid jobs. In fact, one of the motivating factors in outsourcing such jobs is the elimination thereof. Furthermore, a very careful look at who crafted the legislation shows that there's quite a bit more to the matter.

Trying to retain low value-add work at high pay demonstrates a profound failure to understand the concept of productivity and its role in economic progress. See also Comparative Advantage.

creativesoul wrote:

This unlearning process might not be great.

Identifying and removing falsehood from one's thought/belief system is always great for those who are capable of doing so.

You need to have a little think about that.

creativesoul wrote:

If you want to look for a serious issue, consider the role of expert mistrust in your current politics (and ours in Europe too tbh).

About half of Americans appear to believe that experts aren't telling them the truth about climate and pollution.

Indeed. There most certainly is an overwhelming number of American citizens who aren't sure who to believe about what. Everyone knows there are problems. The public doesn't know who's responsible, but they do know things need fixed. That's precisely what happens when the Noble Lie runs rampant, dishonesty is the norm, monetary corruption accepted, and public/political discourse is dominated by conceptual schemes that are innately incapable of discriminating between what's true and what's not.

This is just dereliction of duty. There is plenty of easily available information. The overwhelming verdict of an absurd majority of the thousands of relevant scientists is perfectly well known. Anyone who thinks they have been denied the information by powers-that-be is a hopeless basket case. There comes a time when lazy people have no excuse other than their own failings.

creativesoul wrote:

You, along with most of the philosophers here (from what I can see), and most voters everywhere, don't understand a word that actual experts write about trade, and don't believe their conclusions.

Fair enough, I suppose. It would be rather interesting for me to see how you've arrived at such certainty regarding my understanding and/or cognitive ability.

Your comments on NAFTA demonstrate quite easily that you have no interest in experts explaining economics. There is no scope for doubt in this matter.

The fact that in multiple threads hereabouts, Bob has shown himself to understand the basic concepts of trade better than people clearly less insane than he, demonstrates that this is not some unique issue on this forum.

creativesoul wrote:

Your new president has adopted as his main economics adviser a man who is visibly useless at the whole thing. without really drawing much negative comment outside of the actual industry.

He's not my president. I voted for Bernie Sanders.

Erm. Well on Jan 20th Bernie isn't going to magically become your president. "not my president" is a bumper sticker, not an electoral fact.

creativesoul wrote:I'm not here to defend Trump or his choices or his supporters. To quite the contrary, I'm here to shed some much needed light upon the real life American situations which led to Trump's rise. Part of that involves a very large swathe of political pundits being completely out of touch with a very large swathe of American people.

Well, the bad news is that that large swathe of the American people have lost sight of some facts. They are ones you can't wish away, and the attempt to do so will typically end in unwanted consequences that inevitably harm the poor, particularly those with high school or lower educations. So understanding that stuff matters, and I therefore suggest that taking expert information seriously is a decent idea.

I don't understand why people are so resistant to what is surely a basic, common sense observation.

creativesoul wrote:

In America, and in much of Europe, we are all currently beholden to demonstrably false beliefs about the impact of migrants on jobs and wages.

Can you elaborate?

Yes. It is abundantly well documented that there is no merit to the lump of labor objection to immigration, yet people in every rich nation are convinced that immigrants steal their jobs and bid down wages across the board. An annoying number of studies have looked for these effects and at most, there may be a small bidding down effect on the last wave of not entirely integrated immigrants in low skilled labour by the next. But even that is at the limit of statistical significance, and the effect does not appear to be lasting.

creativesoul wrote:

And in all those places we also complain about our schools without paying any attention to experts in education whose solutions are intolerable to both left and right.

I'm curious. What, exactly, makes one an expert in education?

I think I will say that extensively studying a phenomenon is probably the usual way to become an expert in that thing, no?

Education itself is the subject of a great deal of academic study. It is one of the world's most important industries. It employs an awful lot of people and the product affects all of our lives. It's studied in great depth by practitioners of many disciplines including but by no means limited to sociologists, multiple branches of psychology, economists etc. I'm sure some bastard will have written some philosophy of it. You can enrol for a BA (Hons) Education Studies here if you wish to become an expert for yourself.

creativesoul wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

creativesoul wrote:There are very real socio-economic problems facing many less fortunate Americans, particularly those Americans whose lives depend(ed) upon being able to find employment that includes health insurance, retirement opportunity, and a wage that allows a comfortable lifestyle.

Sorry, but the USA should not be a public soup kitchen. There is no such thing as a bad job, or they wouldn't pay you for it.You might not like the job, the pay, the benefits, the working conditions, the chance for advancement or the location, but it's not a bad job by definition. It's a good job or they wouldn't pay you for it.

Nonsense. Being paid is not equivalent to being good.

The problem is the lack of a free market. The problem is government control of jobs and production. The problem is minimum wage. The problem is government-mandated benefits. The problem is tariffs and restrictions on international trade. This is the position of the AEP.

The AEP is a purely imaginary entity. That is, it exists entirely within your own imagination, and it's wrong on many levels.

There is no such thing as a free market. It is, always has been and will always be, subject to rules. Rules influence. That which is not free from influence is not free.

The government doesn't control jobs and/or production except with subsidies(paying people/corporations to not produce).

Labor laws, minimum wage, and other government mandated benefits was/were enacted as a direct result of rich folk(employers, corporations) not caring about poor folk(workers) and being able to write their own rules about how poor folk(workers) ought be treated.

One who does not care about another has no business having that kind of power over them.

You're an economic idiot on so many levels, the main level being that you don't know what an economic jerk you are. You don't have the slightest understanding of free-market economics, so there's no point in even discussing the subject with you. And minimum wage, Jesus Christ, you don't have an inkling of how this has destroyed so many lives, put so many people out of work, and represented an incredible misallocation of resources. And as far as your stupid comments about the AEP, it merely emphasizes your inability to conceptualize.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Did you compare the share of GDP that Sweden and Denmark devote to worker retraining programs compared to the USA?

I have not. Does that comparison show an actual wage/benefit comparison between jobs lost and jobs created?

That wouldn't make any sense. The comparison you request is between uncountable things at an arbitrary point in time.

It makes perfect sense.

The comparison is between actual jobs shipped overseas and the replacement jobs. What the people once earned compared to what they now earn. All of that is known and/or knowable.

The number of American and/or multinational corporations that were once producing within the US while employing US workers that have since moved production outside of the US is most certainly quantifiable. The number of jobs each company moved is quantifiable. The actual wage/benefit package of those jobs is also known, even if it is known only by the corporation atm. In addition, the number of US and/or multinational corporations which have began production elsewhere as a result of trade laws that would have otherwise been American jobs is also quantifiable. Last, but not least, the difference between what the new employees earn as compared to American ones is also known. That is, the cost comparison is available, and it includes the fact that the company is no longer obligated to abide by American regulations, whether they be labor or environmental...

The irony of your attempting to chastize me regarding respecting expert opinions on climate.

The data would show that the USA spends far less than the OECD average on retraining.

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

This spending is designed to help those who lose their jobs through automation and offshoring to gain new skills that are relevant in the jobs market to replace old ones which sadly but inevitably are not.

I understand what the money is allocated for and why. It's the notion of inevitability that is a matter of contention. American companies moving American jobs elsewhere was not and is not inevitable. Multi-national corporations aren't inevitable. The fate of the average American worker, as it stands due to trade policies and profit as the sole motive, was not inevitable. That's bullshit.

Trying to retain low value-add work at high pay demonstrates a profound failure to understand the concept of productivity and its role in economic progress.

Drivel.

Productivity measures efficiency. Efficiency has nothing to do with economic progress. Progress, economic or otherwise, is wholly measured by whether or not we are better off than we once were. Not all change is progress.

flash wrote:
I think I will say that extensively studying a phenomenon is probably the usual way to become an expert in that thing, no?

Extensively studying a phenomenon makes one an expert?

No. Takes more than that. All sorts of people extensively study the same phenomenon and yet still disagree on their area of 'expertise'.

bobevenson wrote:
You're an economic idiot on so many levels, the main level being that you don't know what an economic jerk you are. You don't have the slightest understanding of free-market economics, so there's no point in even discussing the subject with you. And minimum wage, Jesus Christ, you don't have an inkling of how this has destroyed so many lives, put so many people out of work, and represented an incredible misallocation of resources. And as far as your stupid comments about the AEP, it merely emphasizes your inability to conceptualize.

Brilliantly formulated counter. Such precision.

And what´s the emotion behind the counter ?

The emotional message is predominant here.

We can only grasp it emotionally ourselves.

If the tone of the voice were availabe it would make the correct grasping more precise.

creativesoul wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:Trying to retain low value-add work at high pay demonstrates a profound failure to understand the concept of productivity and its role in economic progress.

Drivel.

Productivity measures efficiency. Efficiency has nothing to do with economic progress. Progress, economic or otherwise, is wholly measured by whether or not we are better off than we once were. Not all change is progress.

So, back to my point. I didn't make that up, I am merely relaying what economists have to say on the matter.

You have the same respect for expert testimony in this matter that climate science deniers have in their thing.

The phrase "Efficiency has nothing to do with economic progress" is basically equivalent to "It's snowing in March, global warming is a lie!". You must have no grasp of the subject to be able to use those words in that order, and no respect for the work of people who research these things.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:Trying to retain low value-add work at high pay demonstrates a profound failure to understand the concept of productivity and its role in economic progress.

Drivel.

Productivity measures efficiency. Efficiency has nothing to do with economic progress. Progress, economic or otherwise, is wholly measured by whether or not we are better off than we once were. Not all change is progress.

So, back to my point. I didn't make that up, I am merely relaying what economists have to say on the matter.

Well, you most certainly made up the idea that I've purportedly demonstrated a profound failure to understand the concept of productivity. You also made up what's immediately below in the quote...

You have the same respect for expert testimony in this matter that climate science deniers have in their thing.

Economists do not say either of those things. You did, and you're mistaken.

The phrase "Efficiency has nothing to do with economic progress" is basically equivalent to "It's snowing in March, global warming is a lie!". You must have no grasp of the subject to be able to use those words in that order, and no respect for the work of people who research these things.

Well, no... My phrase is nothing like what you suggest here, though your suggestion is certainly plausible/possible given what you know. I mean, I can understand exactly how and/or why you could arrive at such a conclusion. It's most certainly a possible one, just not the only possible one. Now, I will readily admit that that claim was very loosely written, meaning that it could have had any number of different meanings and thus any number of different valid interpretations. You've selected the one consistent with the preconceptions you've been working from(that I know nothing at all about free market economics and that I do not respect 'expert' opinions on that matter).

You're mistaken on both counts. I was bringing into question the very notion of "economic progress". I'm telling you that when many economic concepts are carefully scrutinized, we find that they're based upon a primary motive that fosters unethical/immoral thought/belief and/or behaviours. That is to say when profit is the sole motive, damn what's right, damn what's good, damn what's sustainable, damn what's best for the American people. It's business... nothing personal.

We'll get there, but first a discussion on what counts as "economic progress" is on order...

If you would, spell it out for me, as clearly and concisely as you can, and I'll grant your terms and work from there.

duszek wrote:And what´s the emotion behind the counter ?

The emotional message is predominant here.

We can only grasp it emotionally ourselves.

If the tone of the voice were availabe it would make the correct grasping more precise.

I'm supposing that this is directed at me. I'm further supposing that the first question is asking me what emotion(s) I have while being engaged in this topic, or something like that. Emotion is inextricably entwined with meaning/language use. That said...

I try to be as disinterested as possible. That is only to say that I attempt to understand the same events in as many ways as I can(within reason, of course). When it is the case that there are competing but equally valid explanations, it is helpful to look at explanatory power and the amount of unprovable assumptions.

Intonation may or may not help one grasp how I'm using the words. I mean, there is always the possibility of a listener misattributing meaning as well as a reader. The listener just has more to work with, and intonation is imperative to certain utterances.

When profit is the sole motive, then for the love of money one will forsake all else.