U.S. Election Day 2010

[Callie]

It's that time again in the United States. The 2010 midterm elections are here, complete with disgruntled voters, nasty attack ads, rallying comedians, and the like.

 

First, I've included a poll inquiring of your political affiliation. If you are not a U.S. citizen, or you are a U.S. citizen who is not eligible to vote, choose the option with "Not eligible to vote" in parenthesis.

 

Second, if you voted in the election, mention some of the people you voted for in your state. Be sure to mention any interesting ballot questions. Don't worry if we don't know the names of people running in your statewide elections.

 

Finally, for those of you living outside of the United States, feel free to poke fun at our political system and voice your own opinions.

 

Oh, and let's be civil. Thank you!

 

Edit: And yeah, spelling error in the poll. Stupid UBB doesn't let you review polls!

-------

 

Me (I live in Reno, Nevada):

 

Political Affiliation: Libertarian

 

United States Senator: None of These Candidates

[incumbent: Harry Reid, DEM, Senate Majority Leader]

 

Representative in Congress District 2: Russell Best (Independent American)

[incumbent: Dean Heller, REP]

 

Governor: Arthur Forest Lampitt Jr. (Libertarian)

[incumbent: Jim Gibbons, REP, defeated in primary]

 

Lieutenant Governor: None of These Candidates

[incumbent: Brian Krolicki, REP]

 

Secretary of State: Ross Miller (Democrat, Incumbent)

[incumbent: Ross Miller, DEM]

 

State Treasurer: Steven E. Martin (Republican)

[incumbent: Kate Marshall, DEM]

 

State Controller: Barry Herr (Republican)

[incumbent: Kim R. Wallin, DEM]

 

Attorney General: Travis Barrick (Republican)

[incumbent: Catherine Cortez Masto, DEM]

 

Nevada Question 4 (Shall the law be changed to allow for eminent domain?): No

[Khoth]

So you have to vote for eight people? How much knowledge do voters have about them all? You seem to have quite a spread of parties on your chosen options, which suggests that you have a position on more individual candidates than I could ever care about.

[Callie]

There were 27 offices up for election and 6 questions on my ballot, but I didn't mention all of them. Voters don't have to vote for a candidate for every single office.

 

The knowledge voters have about candidates would depend on the voter. The ballot lists each candidate's political affiliation, but everything else is left to the voter to research and whatnot.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Happy birthday Excalibur.

 

As far as politics, I dislike voting on party lines (or at least, I will dislike it in 2 years, when I can vote). Unfortunately, this means that I'll have to actually care and look into the politics of each candidate. Because we all know how accurate the commercials for them are.

 

That said, thank whatever spirit guides you that the campaign commercials are over!

[Callie]

Originally Posted By: Master1

That said, thank whatever spirit guides you that the campaign commercials are over!

Only for about a year...then Republican candidates will start campaigning for the presidential primary.

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Master1

As far as politics, I dislike voting on party lines (or at least, I will dislike it in 2 years, when I can vote). Unfortunately, this means that I'll have to actually care and look into the politics of each candidate. Because we all know how accurate the commercials for them are.

I was having this conversation with a friend of mine today. The two-party system has plenty of flaws, but when you get down to it, voting party lines is what the majority of well-informed voters do anyway. I researched all the candidates running in my district in PA. This year, the vote was just for US representative, one of our senators, and governor. Funnily enough, as is most often the case, the candidates I agreed with the most were Democrats. Although, if Arlen Spector had stayed a Republican and made it through the primaries, I would have voted for him. That is, however, the only instance that I have ever been inclined to vote Republican. Individual candidates matter a great deal during primary elections, but when it comes to the general election, the party line is usually pretty reliable.

[Dantius]

I arrived early at my polling place and got the Chicago Special: Vote once, get 10 free.

 

That said, I got saddled with really poor choices this year. It usually came down to either incompetent fools or insane wingnuts (both labels apply to both sides equally), so several of the votes for less important positions came down to "who has phoned me to tell me to vote for them the least". And yes, I did keep a tally. I also tallied attack ads.

 

Have I mentioned I really hate how campaigning works now?

[keira]

. Sadly, these idiots are in large numbers.

 

I have a feeling that by the end of today, I will be either mildly disappointed by the American people or vastly disappointed.

[Student of Trinity]

I only recently realized that democracy is not even supposed to be about ensuring good government. All democracy is really supposed to be good for is preventing really terrible government.

 

So upholding democracy is like buying health insurance. You throw away a lot of money and normally you get nothing for it, but if something does go badly wrong, you'll be awfully glad you threw that money where you did.

 

Now that I realize this, I don't get quite so mad about dumb politicians and dumber electorates. That's the premium you have to pay.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

I only recently realized that democracy is not even supposed to be about ensuring good government. All democracy is really supposed to be good for is preventing really terrible government.

So upholding democracy is like buying health insurance. You throw away a lot of money and normally you get nothing for it, but if something does go badly wrong, you'll be awfully glad you threw that money where you did.

Now that I realize this, I don't get quite so mad about dumb politicians and dumber electorates. That's the premium you have to pay.

Well, according to Hamilton and Madison, democracy gets better the more people that participate, so clearly the best thing we can do to insure democracy is to invade other large countries, annex them, and force them to vote. I expect perfect democracy to be attained once all seven billion people on the planet are ruled by one government

And no, I see no way this could possibly go wrong.

[Alorael at Large]

Democracy gets better as more informed people get involved. Democracy in action works by getting as many uninformed people as possible dragooned into supporting one side or another, so it turns into a PR war. That's not ideal, but it's workable. Then again, it also results in possible government paralysis, as we've seen in the past two years. Excessive inaction is less frequently dangerous than decisively wrong action, but it can be disastrous as well.

 

—Alorael, who voted as a straight down the ticket Democrat. He wasn't especially outraged at any of those choices, and they were all clearly more in line with his politics than the alternatives.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Sylae Corell

Edit Reason: Okay Admin peoples, I understand that asking people if they wanted beastiality blocked was a bad thing...but srsly, it's been, like, half a year. Srsly,

Did you do what Dikiyoba said you had to do the last time this came up?

[BainIhrno]

While I'm disappointed that the Republicans took the House, I'm proud to say that my candidate won in my district. Voted for Joe Donnelly (D-IN). Unfortunately, Ellsworth lost. However, I'm still looking with great interest at the PA race, Sestak may win!

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Well, according to Hamilton and Madison, democracy gets better the more people that participate, so clearly the best thing we can do to insure democracy is to invade other large countries, annex them, and force them to vote. I expect perfect democracy to be attained once all seven billion people on the planet are ruled by one government

And no, I see no way this could possibly go wrong.

Annex China and India, more people for less work, and then we can be a minority in our own country.

[Sudanna]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Well, according to Hamilton and Madison, democracy gets better the more people that participate, so clearly the best thing we can do to insure democracy is to invade other large countries, annex them, and force them to vote. I expect perfect democracy to be attained once all seven billion people on the planet are ruled by one government

And no, I see no way this could possibly go wrong.

Annex China and India, more people for less work, and then we can be a minority in our own country.

And whose country would that be?

[Aoslare]

What SoT said.

 

Nonetheless, I refuse to support a bread-and-circuses tradition by participating in it.

[keira]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Originally Posted By: Sylae Corell

Edit Reason: Okay Admin peoples, I understand that asking people if they wanted beastiality blocked was a bad thing...but srsly, it's been, like, half a year. Srsly,

Did you do what Dikiyoba said you had to do the last time this came up?

Probably not

In related news, I think the next two years in US politics is going to be one huge pissing match between the Republicans and the President. Don't expect much to get done.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

What SoT said.

Nonetheless, I refuse to support a bread-and-circuses tradition by participating in it.

See, I can see that mentality of applying to lots of things, like organized sports and games and the Internet. But not ever to politics, especially seeing that the who point of the bread and circuses comment was to say that instead of politics, people turned to shallow hedonism and self-gratification.

[Enraged Slith]

I didn't vote. I think most politicians are full of crap, and I didn't want to remove any honest workers from their position by voting for a straight ticket. My vote wouldn't have mattered anyway, since I would have just thrown it away on the Democrats.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Sylae Corell

Probably not

Then I'm thinking the moderators are not at fault here.

Anyway, you're now good to go.

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

So upholding democracy is like buying health insurance. You throw away a lot of money and normally you get nothing for it, but if something does go badly wrong, you'll be awfully glad you threw that money where you did.

...either this is a terrible metaphor, or Dikiyoba should become an anarchist.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

I refuse to support a bread-and-circuses tradition by participating in it.

A tradition better honored in the breach than the observance, I might add.

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

I didn't vote. I think most politicians are full of crap, and I didn't want to remove any honest workers from their position by voting for a straight ticket. My vote wouldn't have mattered anyway, since I would have just thrown it away on the Democrats.

That's no excuse, even though my opinion of politicians is similar to yours. In close elections, your vote will make a difference. And you don't have to vote on a straight ticket; I certainly don't (I voted for candidates from at least three or four parties).

[Kelandon]

I voted almost straight party line for Democrats. There was one fairly inconsequential office in which there was apparently a non-traditional, fairly amazing Republican, so I cast one vote for a Republican (this may be the first time I've ever done this). I voted a straight NO on all local measures and mostly NO on California propositions. I have to say, casting as many votes as I did today is wrong. Asking voters to learn about as many candidates and laws as I was asked to learn about -- when, in some cases, no reliable information on any of them is available via Google -- undermines our democracy.

[Oge]

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

I didn't vote. I think most politicians are full of crap, and I didn't want to remove any honest workers from their position by voting for a straight ticket. My vote wouldn't have mattered anyway, since I would have just thrown it away on the Democrats.

Dear Enraged Slith,

Thank you.

Love,
The GOP

P.S. Bonus points if you're a minority. <3

[Enraged Slith]

Originally Posted By: The Mystic

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

I refuse to support a bread-and-circuses tradition by participating in it.

A tradition better honored in the breach than the observance, I might add.

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

I didn't vote. I think most politicians are full of crap, and I didn't want to remove any honest workers from their position by voting for a straight ticket. My vote wouldn't have mattered anyway, since I would have just thrown it away on the Democrats.

That's no excuse, even though my opinion of politicians is similar to yours. In close elections, your vote will make a difference. And you don't have to vote on a straight ticket; I certainly don't (I voted for candidates from at least three or four parties).

That's a whole lot of research just to cast a measly single vote for damage control. I might agree with you if I believed that the majority of the voting population was well-informed, but, from what I've seen and read, this is clearly not the case.

[Enraged Slith]

Originally Posted By: Oge

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

I didn't vote. I think most politicians are full of crap, and I didn't want to remove any honest workers from their position by voting for a straight ticket. My vote wouldn't have mattered anyway, since I would have just thrown it away on the Democrats.

Dear Enraged Slith,

Thank you.

Love,
The GOP

P.S. Bonus points if you're a minority. <3

I already received my signed photo from ol' bubba Dubya.

[Dintiradan]

Your vote is just a drop in the bucket, but the only way buckets are filled is drop by drop.

 

Besides, voting isn't the only part of the democratic process. I'd argue that it isn't even the most important part. Writing a letter or asking questions at a public forum has got to be worth much, much more than a tick on a piece of paper.

 

By the way, what's with these Californian propositions? Are they referendums or plebiscites? Do the questions deal with changing California's constitution (or whatever it is states have), or are they just regular laws? Basically, what determines whether or not something will appear on the Californian ballot?

[Student of Trinity]

The problem with democracy as a system for setting public policy is so basic, it's mathematical. It's called the discursive dilemma, and it's best illustrated with a simple example.

 

Suppose an electorate is composed of three roughly equal blocks of rational, principled voters. Suppose the basic problem is that the government budget won't balance. There are three issues to be decided:

1) Should we raise taxes?

2) Should we raise the deficit?

3) Should we maintain services?

 

So block A believes we should not raise taxes, not raise the deficit, and so not maintain services. Block B believes we should not raise taxes, but rather raise the deficit, in order to maintain services. And block C wants to raise taxes instead of the deficit, in order to maintain services.

 

All three of these platforms are principled and rational. But the majority vote on all three issues is clear and decisive: by a roughly two-to-one margin, this is an electorate that collectively wants to not raise taxes, not raise the deficit, but yet still maintain services.

 

That's an unprincipled and irrational program, which can't possibly work in practice. And no major block of voters actually endorses it. Nonetheless it is the collective will, as expressed by majority vote. Worse, it leaves no genuinely democratic way to choose among the possible rational programs, given the distribution of opinions.

 

The moral is that given sufficiently complex issues and opinion spectra, democracy can simply fail to deliver a rational policy, EVEN IF all the participants in the process are perfectly honest and rational. And 'sufficiently complex' can start as low as a three-way split on three points, as illustrated above. In a large and diverse modern nation that faces many complex problems, that's a threshold that is very easily surpassed.

 

A strong two-party system can in principle go a long way to resolving this kind of dilemma; but it does so precisely by imposing the non-democratic rule of party discipline. And the problem can still always come up within each party, as different wings of the party diverge in their views.

[Jerakeen]

Two huge and appalling (to me) threats to democracy in the US: unlimited corportate cash, and gerrymandering.

 

How can these things be allowed?

 

Yes, I know about Citizens United; what I don't understand is why there hasn't been more of an uproar about it. Like riots in the streets.

 

And letting state parties essentially rig congressional elections seems to be a fine old tradition in the States. There are other ways to go about redistricting.

[tehpineapple]

All that matters is that Sharon Angle lost. And now to see if she takes up arms in revolt.

[Jerakeen]

Gotta love them second amendment remedies. Because you know if Democrats win that means there was rampant voter fraud. (voter fraud = minorities voting)

 

Still, the overall outcome is probably enough of a bloodbath to satisfy the right. They can declare victory. Now we'll see what they do with it.

 

 

Edit: Post #333

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: The Turtle Moves

Two huge and appalling (to me) threats to democracy in the US: unlimited corportate cash, and gerrymandering.

How can these things be allowed?

With the corporate cash (which, by the way, is not unlimited; I checked), don't forget the golden rule: He who has the most gold makes the rules.

And as for gerrymandering, that's almost as old as democracy itself, and seems to be the standard practice in any representative form of government. It's only fairly recently that the practice got that name.

Quote:

And letting state parties essentially rig congressional elections seems to be a fine old tradition in the States. There are other ways to go about redistricting.

Again, this is nothing new, and not just in the U.S. As I just said above, redistricting to favor one's political party (aka gerrymandering) has been around nearly forever.

[Callie]

A lot of states already allowed the kind of spending legalized by Citizens United. If new spending had an effect on the election, it was minimal. Besides, we can see from the California gubernatorial and senate elections that it doesn't matter how much money you spend if voters don't like you.

[Khoth]

Not everywhere is as blatant as the US when it comes to gerrymandering. You won't find anything in the UK quite like this:

[Kelandon]

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

By the way, what's with these Californian propositions? Are they referendums or plebiscites? Do the questions deal with changing California's constitution (or whatever it is states have), or are they just regular laws? Basically, what determines whether or not something will appear on the Californian ballot?

I believe that they can be either initiatives (started by non-politicians) or referendums (not referenda; I refuse — started by politicians). The questions can be constitutional or not. Basically, if you have a lot of money and pay to collect a lot of signatures, you can put whatever you want on the California ballot, and then the courts have to figure out whether it's legal or not.

Since this can be done both at the state and local levels — and since we have to approve certain judges as well — it means that I cast something in the neighborhood of 50 votes yesterday. There were 9 California props and I think something like 6 or 7 Berkeley/Alameda County measures, and an obscene number of minor offices.

[Aoslare]

Originally Posted By: The Turtle Moves

Two huge and appalling (to me) threats to democracy in the US: unlimited corportate cash, and gerrymandering.

How can these things be allowed?

Yes, I know about Citizens United; what I don't understand is why there hasn't been more of an uproar about it. Like riots in the streets.

And letting state parties essentially rig congressional elections seems to be a fine old tradition in the States. There are other ways to go about redistricting.

There is a long tradition of political corruption in the U.S. Political "machines" aren't nearly as effective as they once were (even, and perhaps especially in Chicago) but they can still impact things: witness Harry Reid pulling out the remnants of the NV machine to help him squeak a victory out (in a race between two pretty unlikeable people). Or look at the efforts to suppress black votes in Ohio in 2004, or the shenanigans that accompanied the unconventional, non-majority elections of John Quincy Adams in 1824, Hayes in 1876 (the election shenanigans directly resulted in the early demise of Reconstruction!), and Bush in 2000, or the Teapot Dome and Watergate scandals.

The CRAZIEST thing about this election was the Alaska senate race. Bureaucratic mix-ups and an intra-party feud led to two Republican candidates running, with the _incumbent_ as a write-in candidate. She raised massive amounts of money from corporations, plasted the airwaves with the spelling of her name, and after several legal battles in the last week and some behind-the-scenes manuevering by said incumbent's senator father, won the right to have people hand out extra sheets of paper listing the names of all write-in candidates. This seems unlikely to influence anyone's vote until you consider the environment: you walk into a polling place, where all political paraphernalia is banned, register, pick up a ballot... and an extra sheet of paper advertising the spelling of one candidate's name! A little suggestive if you ask me.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Sorry for the late response, but some of us have school during the day.

Originally Posted By: Tyranicus

Individual candidates matter a great deal during primary elections, but when it comes to the general election, the party line is usually pretty reliable.

I understand what you're saying. However, I know far too many people who say that they will always vote for a particular party regardless of who wins that party's nomination.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

The CRAZIEST thing about this election was the Alaska senate race. Bureaucratic mix-ups and an intra-party feud led to two Republican candidates running, with the _incumbent_ as a write-in candidate. She raised massive amounts of money from corporations, plasted the airwaves with the spelling of her name, and after several legal battles in the last week and some behind-the-scenes manuevering by said incumbent's senator father, won the right to have people hand out extra sheets of paper listing the names of all write-in candidates. This seems unlikely to influence anyone's vote until you consider the environment: you walk into a polling place, where all political paraphernalia is banned, register, pick up a ballot... and an extra sheet of paper advertising the spelling of one candidate's name! A little suggestive if you ask me.

That resulted from a legal ruling over whether write-ins would be accepted with a misspelled candidate's name. When you have an uncommon name, they were asking how wrong it could be and still be counted.

[Android]

Some proeminent people in US politics seem like they would not mind dragging their nation down a path similar to the one a certain European nation took, starting circa 1930.

 

 

But then again I am a very pessimistic personality, and furthermore I don't in reality know much about American politics, expect what little I read in US medias on the internet.

[Synergy]

Consider the amount of waste that occurs in dualistic (duelistic) politics. Much more is achieved through collaboration and cooperation than through competition. Yet A vs. B politics has for quite some time been perpetual and predictable. To solve the unprecedented crises of this century, I think we're going to have to find a common vision and get on with being one nation working together and get over this left versus right mindset. Right now, we're really shooting ourselves in the foot with all the focus on opposing and sabotaging the other party's efforts. America is obsessed with competition and has taken it to an unhealthy extreme. Observe our reality television for a discomforting look at how much we worship fighting each other tooth and nail for a prize.

 

-S-

[Lilith]

a one-party system does seem to be working pretty well for china

[Alorael at Large]

It works well for China. It works less well for some Chinese.

 

—Alorael, who on the other hand thinks it would be nice to get a real choice between more than two parties, and maybe primaries that rely on more than just electability. Putting candidates as close together on the political compass shouldn't be a priority.

[Randomizer]

go with the multiparty system as in italy. they will eventually form a government that will last out the decade.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Ook ook ook

It works well for China. It works less well for some Chinese.

Yes, but the "some Chinese" it does not work well for are are subset of "things that we don't care about", because they are not the Chinese who hold billions (is it trillions now?) in US bonds.

Woo self-interest!

[Alorael at Large]

They're relevant if we're considering the hypothetical switch to a one-party system in other countries. I, for one, do not welcome our overlords. Unless, of course, they share my political views and have high levels of competence and diligence.

 

—Alorael, who can forgive a lot of faults for sufficient levels of competence and diligence. Human rights abuses may not be among them yet, but politics are all about compromise.

[Student of Trinity]

India is a parliamentary democracy far larger than any of the states in which that system evolved. I wonder whether the system really scales. I'm not sure I could tell yet, though, even if I knew a lot more about India.

 

I'm a little confused about Chinese fiscal policy, but I'm wondering whether they aren't just being good Communists, and redistributing wealth within their own country. The story is that by buying western bonds at high prices, the Chinese government is artificially lowering the value of its own currency, and thus the effective prices of exported Chinese goods. The Chinese government is thus subsidizing its export industries.

 

But if we assume that the money the Chinese government uses to buy western bonds comes from taxes or profits of state-owned enterprises, and that this tax and profit money does really represent some solid economic products in China, then it would seem that any "unfair" competitive benefits that Chinese firms are enjoying, because of their "artificially low" currency, have simply been duly paid for. And they have been paid for disproportionately by the most successful Chinese companies, because these pay the most taxes or, if state-owned, yield the most profits.

 

So what's really happening is that some of the profits that the most successful Chinese enterprises could have been investing in further growth are instead going to the state, either directly or in taxes, to be used to buy western bonds, in order to subsidize all Chinese enterprises equally. Or at least all export enterprises.

 

That's classic Communist wealth redistribution, but using global free market economics, as represented in currency markets and export pricing, instead of having Party functionaries go around the country distributing bags of money. I think everybody knows there are a lot of smart people in China, but I'm thinking, maybe some of the ones running this currency suppression scheme are actually both smart and principled.

 

And maybe the scheme is unfair and wicked and everything, or maybe we just don't like it. But maybe it's actually good and moral, a kind of workfare system where the rising tide really does lift all boats. It's just targeted specifically to help weaker export businesses — who are arguably the 'deserving poor'. All modern countries do a lot of subsidizing. I think it's probably impossible, in fact, to distinguish subsidy from infrastructure.

 

Maybe this renminbi game will also trap Chinese export industries in inefficiency, by artificially supporting inefficient enterprises. So maybe it will be bad for China in the long run. But like the man said: in the long run, we're all dead.

[wz. As]

That's a very interesting analysis, SoT. Can I read more about it somewhere? Is it yours?

 

All I've seen about it in the US media (which isn't much — I pretty much just read the NY Times) is negative, which is not surprising. But your analysis makes sense. (In fact, how else could they finance all the western bonds they're buying? Borrowing from somewhere else? I don't know enough about global economics.)

[Student of Trinity]

That is my analysis — so it may well be utter crap. I'm a physicist, Jim, not an economist. I'm used to the reassuring fact that if anything is confusing in physics, one can in principle always just go right back to first principles and figure it all out. It might be hard or take time, but it can be done. Economics both fascinates and horrifies me, though, because in economics I'm not sure there even are any first principles.

 

There are first facts, but they are many and incoherent. The bottom level reality for economics is all the people in the world, eating and working and piling up stuff, or whatever they do. It's understandable that economists like to simplify their game by taking for granted some set of higher level constructs. We do that in physics, too, and we're only dealing with electrons and such — simple little creatures that never eat, sleep, or watch YouTube.

 

But in physics we can always in principle shift back down from the higher level language, and work on the lower level instead. For instance, it's already hard enough to explain how airplanes fly, using the laws of fluid dynamics. (There are pat little explanations given even in kids' books, but they tend to fall apart completely after a few pointed questions.) But if you're a perverse character like me, you can always make the game even harder, by insisting on an explanation of aerodynamic lift in terms of air molecules bouncing off wings. And I'm confident that such an explanation does exist (though actually I have yet to find it).

 

I have the same tendency in economics to ask for the more basic reality underneath whatever explanation I've been given. But I have less faith that such an explanation will necessarily jibe with the higher level story. I often suspect that it may instead overthrow the higher level story completely.

 

International currency trading is one of the toughest issues for this kind of thing, because it's such a long way down before you get to actual goods and workers doing actual things. Nonetheless I can't help asking what it 'really means' that China is 'artificially debasing' its currency. It seems to me that the truest answer will be about the daily lives of factory workers in China and consumers in America. And it's not obvious to me that this ground level reality will really fit the hero-and-villain story we've been told on the higher economic plane.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

That is my analysis — so it may well be utter crap. I'm a physicist, Jim, not an economist.

But as a physicist you are used to dealing with chaos theory.
Economics is all math if you can properly define the system and conditions. However for now it is pretty generalized for most systems.

[Dintiradan]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

Economics is all math if you can properly define the system and conditions.

Well, hey, physics is all math too, if you simulate every particle in the system. Pretty simple to do, right?

[msazad]

Student of Trinity's analysis is basically solid. My main objection is that workfare isn't a redistribution of wealth, much less communism. The Chinese state is obsessed about controlling the populace and wary of discontent.

Obviously hero-and-villian stories are BS. The US could take advantage of China's export-oriented growth game. To the mercantilist mind, China's policy is bad for the US. But mercantilism died long ago. And the US isn't even exporting precious metals to China, only worthless dollars.

 

See this for all manner of economic cleverness: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/international_trade/

And check the Wikipedia for "mercantilism".