What I Learned from Plain English

[Vol8188]

Much like Sessions and the AL town with the Tyson plant, the xenophobes are lying about another town they hold up as an example of immigration gone wrong.

Trump claimed Charleroi is overrun by gangs as it's getting destroyed by African and Haitian illegal immigration under Kamala. The reality is it was a sad, dying city revived by immigrants, and this started under Trump. They are largely legal and there is no spike in crime.

One townsperson claimed the Haitian market had a "no whites" sign. The truth was they had a sign that said, "Asian, African, and Caribbean food." People were offended that it didn't include American, and that's how fragile the xenophobes can be.

Paraphrasing, It's ridiculous to say that Haitians are ruining this town. At worst, you can complain they are taking it.

This Small Pennsylvania Town Explains the 2024 Election

Derek is joined by The Atlantic’s George Packer to take a look at the history of Charleroi, Pennsylvania, and how that history contains within it the story of the 2024 election

www.theringer.com

The evidence provided in this dialogue is that they interviewed a Haitian immigrant and he said the place was better than when he first got there.

Solid!

 

[n_huffhines]

Some interesting, loosely related discussion at the end.

It used to be blue collar white males in towns like this were reliable D voters, but D's don't know how to talk to them. They have been made to feel like they are toxic. Biden could literally get a guy in this demo a union raise and they're still not gonna vote D because of the culture war. It's interesting that this came from the guest, who is not the same person who made a similar point in the thread OP.

The host then made the point that part of this is social media. He talked about how he and his wife have a ton in common, but if you scroll through their social media feeds it would seem like they don't have anything in common. He tied this into the idea that social media is making the culture war worse because our SM consumption is putting us in much bigger silos than what the real world does.

 

[Vol8188]

Biden could literally get a guy in this demo a union raise and they're still not gonna vote D because of the culture war.

Disparaging the views of everyone that disagrees with you as “the culture war” is a major part of that problem.

I’m not sure why you’re surprised that people vote for things other than “who will give me the most money”. That’s a good thing

 

[n_huffhines]

The evidence provided in this dialogue is that they interviewed a Haitian immigrant and he said the place was better than when he first got there.

Solid!

He talked about the economic and population decline, among other things. You are such a waste of time.

 

[n_huffhines]

i think he said 2,000 immigrants. So the poulation would have been down 60% in 20 years without them. It's only down b 1/8

 

[Vol8188]

He talked about the economic and population decline, among other things. You are such a waste of time.

Without any data showing economic improvement nor an improvement in crime data. Or did I overlook something?

 

[Vol8188]

View attachment 693201

Wow. Bringing in immigrants increases population. How did you discovery this hidden truth?

The town may have improved. But you seem to be focusing on the wrong thing.

Yes, Huff. Immigrants increase population. That’s not the question people are asking. No one is saying “hey, that town with all the immigrant…is their population up?”

 

[n_huffhines]

Without any data showing economic improvement nor an improvement in crime data. Or did I overlook something?

He said "no spike in crime." Quoting town officials.

Imagine thinking 2,000 people added to your dying town doesn't grow the economy.

Pretend you are a propery owner....would you like to see your city go from 5,000 population to 2,000? Imagine what a 60% decline in population does to property value.

This is simple math on the economics stuff.

You are such a waste of time.

 

[n_huffhines]

Wow. Bringing in immigrants increases population. How did you discovery this hidden truth?

The town may have improved. But you seem to be focusing on the wrong thing.

Yes, Huff. Immigrants increase population. That’s not the question people are asking. No one is saying “hey, that town with all the immigrant…is their population up?”

It's about this town, not every town. This town was completely dying. I'm showing how dire the situation was.

You'd rather have a ghost town than immigrants.

 

[Vol8188]

He said "no spike in crime." Quoting town officials.

Imagine thinking 2,000 people added to your dying town doesn't grow the economy.

Pretend you are a propery owner....would you like to see your city go from 5,000 population to 2,000? Imagine what a 60% decline in population does to property value.

This is simple math on the economics stuff.

You are such a waste of time.

The data (the crime data) would be better than a random quote from a politician.

And the line “imagine thinking 2,000 people added to your economy doesn’t grow the economy”, is one of your dumbest lines yet. The question is never “will the total numbers increase”, but rather “will the per capita numbers increase”.

Increasing property value alone on a population that is likely primarily elderly people (that’s typically who is left over when small towns die), is still not a great argument.

I full support more immigration and I actually believe immigration improves, not harms, communities when done properly. But arguments of “the total economy will grow!”, “property values will go up”, “a random Haitian guy said it’s great”, or even worse “the total population will increase”….are possibly the worst arguments you could make for why it’s a net positive

 

[Vol8188]

It's about this town, not every town. This town was completely dying. I'm showing how dire the situation was.

You'd rather have a ghost town than immigrants.

You don’t know that the trend would have continued. Many areas experience similar declines and then level off. Harlan KY and surrounding areas would be examples of that. Eventually the economic incentives to stay (cheaper homes/taxes, ability to purchase more land, lack of population in general) will balance out to were it favors x number of people to stay.

So, no. I’m not convinced this town would just be completely empty if not for the magic of government intervention. That’s an insanely rare thing (probably not even a thing) on the East Coast

 

[C-south]

He said "no spike in crime." Quoting town officials.

Imagine thinking 2,000 people added to your dying town doesn't grow the economy.

Pretend you are a propery owner....would you like to see your city go from 5,000 population to 2,000? Imagine what a 60% decline in population does to property value.

This is simple math on the economics stuff.

You are such a waste of time.

2000 people that depend on the taxpayers dime doesn’t make life better for the taxpayer. Simple math.

 

[Vol8188]

2000 people that depend on the taxpayers dime doesn’t make life better for the taxpayer. Simple math.

But hey, their property taxes went up. And now there’s more people!

 

[C-south]

But hey, their property taxes went up. And now there’s more people!

Yep. The value of your property went up as well. Now you can sell it and not afford anywhere to live.

 

[Vol8188]

@n_huffhines when listening to their argument about how this was going to be a “ghost town”….did you ever look into the size of the surrounding area?

Meaning, the county itself has over 200k people. If there’s a county of over 200k, unless this area is insanely isolated (like a 2 hour ferry ride to get to the other areas in the county), it would seem the odds of this town ever shrinking significantly lower than around 4K were incredibly slim.

 

[C-south]

@n_huffhines when listening to their argument about how this was going to be a “ghost town”….did you ever look into the size of the surrounding area?

Meaning, the county itself has over 200k people. If there’s a county of over 200k, unless this area is insanely isolated (like a 2 hour ferry ride to get to the other areas in the county), it would seem the odds of this town ever shrinking significantly lower than around 4K were incredibly slim.

You know how huff loves him some illegal invaders.

 

[n_huffhines]

You know how huff loves him some illegal invaders.

They're not illegal. You guys would rather traffic in lies than make things better.

If it's so bad, why can't you guys tell the truth? There are immigrants everywhere. Why can't these shining examples of mass immigration gone wrong ever actually prove the point? Can't they find one city that has been ruined? There's gotta be one, right?

I'm dealing with people who are seriously arguing they'd rather devalue their home than pay higher property taxes.

IDK what it's like in that county, but my home has increased by over 200k in 6 years ("fkn Californians moving in!!!") and I hardly notice the difference in my property tax.

 

[Vol8188]

They're not illegal. You guys would rather traffic in lies than make things better.

If it's so bad, why can't you guys tell the truth? There are immigrants everywhere. Why can't these shining examples of mass immigration gone wrong ever actually prove the point? Can't they find one city that has been ruined? There's gotta be one.

They're not illegal. You guys would rather traffic in lies than make things better.

If it's so bad, why can't you guys tell the truth? There are immigrants everywhere. Why can't these shining examples of mass immigration gone wrong ever actually prove the point? Can't they find one city that has been ruined? There's gotta be one, right?

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/09/eric-adams-new-york-migrants-cost-00110472

 

[n_huffhines]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/09/eric-adams-new-york-migrants-cost-00110472

So your thesis is that immigrants ruined NY? Not bad government? Is NYC even ruined? He's talking about 4% of their budget.

 

[Vol8188]

So your thesis is that immigrants ruined NY? Not bad government? Is NYC even ruined?

Sure, the ultimate issue is policy. But the ultimate issue is always policy, regardless of the domain.

You can’t have both open borders and a giant welfare magnet. You have two massively contradictory policies.

But this is one example of mass immigration gone wrong. Did it completely destroy the city? No. Did it have a massive cost to the city and the citizens? 100%. And those not the appropriate questions to ask? Or does it only count if the city is absolute rubble?

 

[n_huffhines]

 

[Weezy]

I listened to the latest on Energy. I’d go so far to say this independent analyst is a solar lobbyist more so than analyst. Because they bring up problems like interconnection and the conclusion is that there’s no reason to not allow more solar connections. And I suspect he knows better. They should have brought in someone to provide counterpoints if you really wanted to leave more educated.

The reason they block interconnection is that grid level storage does not exist. Supply must match demand with electricity. And they don’t need the power, solar, that they are offering to sell. In high solar penetration areas, electricity prices can go negative due to over supply and subsidies. That will kill baseload power that has to pay to offload their electricity. And right now the expectation is 99.999% availability for electricity. So the only way to address that problem is to raise prices to keep that generation online for periods where solar and wind are producing nothing, and most utilities aren’t allowed to do that.

Also they concluded nuclear doesn’t follow Moore’s law, but then steered far away from it at the end. I think nuclear like most technology would folllow Moore’s law but we turned it over to regulators and governments, and now we’ve entered a period where we can’t build any major capital project, and lost all construction knowledge for those plants.

 

[n_huffhines]

Some notes on this episode:

1st term, Trump waited months to announce an investigation into Chinese trade practices, and after a year enacted a tariff on $34B worth of stuff. The effective average tariff rate only rose by 1.5%.

In his 2nd term, after two months we have a $1T tariff. Effective average tariff rate up by 5% at the time of recording (so I don't think that counts 4/2).

The guest's explanation of the Mar-a-Lago Accord (the plan details he's gathered from Stephen Mirren, Scott Besant):

- Trump beats the world down with tariffs to force them to the negotiating table.
- When they're begging for reprieve, Trump will invite the world leaders to Mar-a-Lago where he will present them with terms.
- They will agree to coordinate to weaken the dollar to strengthen their own currencies, which will make American goods more cheap to sell abroad. Countries with current surpluses with the US (Germany, China) would have no choice that makes sense but to invest the dollars they hold in American businesses and manufacturing.
- All countries will be required to swap the debt they hold with "Century Bonds" which is essentially free financing to the US for 100 years.

One big problem with this plan is that we don't even know if Trump truly supports it. Trump has never mentioned it by name. It seems the plan may be just something retrofitted to Trump's actions and comments trying to make it into a salient economic plan. Trump recently threatened a country for trying to weaken the dollar, which is weird if we think his plan is to weaken the dollar.

The other guest basically explains that if you can control all the other countries like this in order to get this result, then the economics of it do actually make sense. But the assumption that you have this kind of bargaining power to make the world accept these terms is where this thing goes entirely wrong. Also, a strong dollar vs. weak dollar has pros and cons. One of the cons of a weak dollar is that borrowing becomes relatively more expensive, hence the need for the Century Bonds (that I don't think the world is going to accept). Will Trump even accept these terms if they do?

The one guest talks about how this weak-dollar push was more popular during the recovery. Unemployment was high, wages were not growing, aggregate demand was bad, etc. Weakening the dollar can help with all of that, but the problem with still pursuing this solution is all of these things have been getting better without weakening the dollar. People are unhappy right now about prices, and a weaker dollar would make everything more expensive.

In Mirren's paper he emphasizes the importance of getting complete capitulation from the rest of the world, and now that we're in this mess, we're just not seeing any.

"There is a path by which these policies can be implemented without material adverse consequences, but it is narrow" - Mirren

I find that use of "narrow" very telling. At least some of the admin is willing to acknowledge how crazy difficult this gambit is. Any of you that subscribe to the idea that the government is not good at central planning anything, let alone something this complex requiring full international cooperation, should have red flags and horns going off.

They made some other interesting points, like the economy is a tanker and the economic data likely won't show tons of pain in the immediate future. They also talked about how "uncertainty is cancer to an economy" and the uncertainty may do more damage than the actual tariffs.

 

[n_huffhines]

Trump/Republicans are right that the science apparatus needed some re-working, but all we got is chaotic destruction.

Research suggests for every $1 the Federal Government invest in the sciences, GDP grows by $5.

Only 21% of Americans support cutting biomedical research.

Restricting immigration + cutting the funding for training our domestic scientists sets up to lose talent to the rest of the world, including to rivals like China.

Developing medical technologies here means America has much more control over how these technologies operate.

The NIH has its fingerprints all over basically every important medical discovery of the last 80 years.

We're looking at cutting 40% of NIH and 50% of NSF, including research into Cancer, Diabetes (Trump people should care about that one), and Alzheimer's. 100 clinical trials in progress getting axed. We don't recover the money spent. Everything invested up to this point is lost.

We wouldn't just be losing these projects, we'd be losing future projects, future scientists, and threatening our status as a world-leader in this field.

The motive behind some of these cuts has nothing to do with science, they're just politically motivated (Harvard and hiring practices, Columbia and Israel/Palestine). Yup....we're de-funding American science because of butthurt over Israel.

We went out of our way as a country to put a layer of separation between research funding and the government. It wasn't the easiest thing to set up, it took a lot of infrastructure on the university level. It successfully worked for 80 years, but now $ is directly tied to political action. Welcome to Trump 2.0.

The free market argument (which Trump likely couldn't verbalize) is that we should just let venture capitalists fund everything, but they typically only fund research when there is a product in mind. They don't do anything higher up the research funnel. On top of that, it's not how we're built and the free market isn't ready to take over. This transition shouldn't be done abruptly.

And what are the savings to the federal government? $15B.

 

[LouderVol]

Trump/Republicans are right that the science apparatus needed some re-working, but all we got is chaotic destruction.

Research suggests for every $1 the Federal Government invest in the sciences, GDP grows by $5.

Only 21% of Americans support cutting biomedical research.

Restricting immigration + cutting the funding for training our domestic scientists sets up to lose talent to the rest of the world, including to rivals like China.

Developing medical technologies here means America has much more control over how these technologies operate.

The NIH has its fingerprints all over basically every important medical discovery of the last 80 years.

We're looking at cutting 40% of NIH and 50% of NSF, including research into Cancer, Diabetes (Trump people should care about that one), and Alzheimer's. 100 clinical trials in progress getting axed. We don't recover the money spent. Everything invested up to this point is lost.

We wouldn't just be losing these projects, we'd be losing future projects, future scientists, and threatening our status as a world-leader in this field.

The motive behind some of these cuts has nothing to do with science, they're just politically motivated (Harvard and hiring practices, Columbia and Israel/Palestine). Yup....we're de-funding American science because of butthurt over Israel.

We went out of our way as a country to put a layer of separation between research funding and the government. It wasn't the easiest thing to set up, it took a lot of infrastructure on the university level. It successfully worked for 80 years, but now $ is directly tied to political action. Welcome to Trump 2.0.

The free market argument (which Trump likely couldn't verbalize) is that we should just let venture capitalists fund everything, but they typically only fund research when there is a product in mind. They don't do anything higher up the research funnel. On top of that, it's not how we're built and the free market isn't ready to take over. This transition shouldn't be done abruptly.

And what are the savings to the federal government? $15B.

I think there is definitely some truth to the idea that America first now, is going to create issues for America in the long run. even if we achieved some sort of more isolationist utopia. the issue with the current set up is the pendulum was too far left, now the only way Trump tries to correct is to go too far right. the issue is it doesn't bring balance, it just creates new issues on the other side, instead of fixing anything.

like most things politicians touch it starts out with some short term goal that people can get behind, but then there are long term issues that aren't planned for. Not that anyone could address every issue, but it would be nice to know they are thinking about some of the big/obvious ones.

brain drain from lack of funding will be a big issue.

relying on venture capitalism to fund things, is how we ended up with Big Pharma that only treats issues to begin with. no way they are ever going to actually help CURE people.

the immediate jump is another issue. I have thought Trump needed to phase out/phase in things, instead of relying on immediate cuts, and then going "oh crap" and undoing a chunk of the work.

I would point out that most of the universities getting funding were getting funding for political reasons. it was just never brought to task as an issue, so it seems worse than it actually is, because we are just now seeing it become a partisan issue. but these places were getting funding because they played ball with DC.