Election 2016

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 8:48 am

What the actual fuck does "technocrat" even mean if not the M:tA thing?

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:29 am

Grek wrote:What the actual fuck does "technocrat" even mean if not the M:tA thing?

It's supposed to mean one or two things (either non-elected experts and technical people who exert influence on the government, or the actual ruling individuals in a government that apportions power based on expertise), but I'm using it to mean a highly specific (in political agenda) version of the first, in the form of professional economists and governmental hangers on and media drivers who, without specifically running for office, direct and influence the direction of public policy.

So your employees of news companies, or your chairs of parties, or your economists who tell people all about how lowering taxes is the greatest thing, or arguably lobbyists, as opposed to senator mcvoteypants.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 10:46 am

Nominally, technocracy refers to the political philosophy that offices should be filled by experts in fields related to the office. I have never actually seen it used that way. In practice, it tends to be a sneer word for the sorts of people who insisted that the eurocrisis meant countries had to hand over the reins of fiscal policy to largely unelected "experts" in Brussels who would advocate for wildly harmful policies for blatantly corrupt reasons - i.e. people who use the pretense of responsible decision-making in order to guide policy in an entirely exploitative manner.

The political commentariat's embrace of Paul Ryan as a "level-headed numbers guy" would be a comparable example in the U.S. So would the Fed's insistence on raising rates as soon as humanly possible, despite almost literally zero negative consequences of raising slightly too late and another motherfucking recession for raising too soon. The fact is that our pundits and politicians live in this weird fucking false consensus bubble which consistently pushes for center-right economics. Basically all mainstream political commentary - even on the left - comes from the assumption that progressives are probably mostly wrong and shouldn't really be indulged unless the sky is falling. When people start throwing around technocrat, they are generally expressing their displeasure with that bubble and the disproportionate influence it has over our political discourse. That bubble is basically the reason progressive has been a dirty word for so long even on the left.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:20 pm

Grek wrote:What the actual fuck does "technocrat" even mean if not the M:tA thing?

Technocrats are people who hold power because they have applied for jobs and received promotions. This is as opposed to people who have achieved their position based on being elected (or appointed directly by someone who was) or seizing power by force.

Most of the people in the civil service are technocrats. The people who design your traffic intersections are technocrats. The people who manage postal routes and bus schedules are technocrats. The people who regulate everything from industrial pollution to lending schemes are technocrats. Generally the heads of agencies have some sort of direct or indirect democratic mandate, and everyone else just has a job that they submitted a resume for.

And so it isn't really surprising that the actual progressive agenda involves creating a lot more technocrats. On the most basic level, it's a way to expand the economy through the power of government to simply create jobs by literally creating jobs. You declare that the government will start providing a service and then you hire a bunch of technocrats to provide that service. Bam! Economy grown. But on the more minutiae oriented end of the spectrum, all of the things in the progressive agenda from researching renewable energy sources to providing outreach to disabled children require bureaucracy to run. And the people who have power in those bureaucracies are going to be technocrats of one flavor or another.

Is technocracy perfect? Hellz no! Democratic oversight is still terribly important as a check against corruption. But remember that during this endless economic crisis that on the technocratic central bank end of the spectrum we've been having arguments about how stimulatory the central banks should be with their monetary policy, while on the democratic national governments end of the spectrum we've been having arguments about how contractionary the governments should be with their fiscal policy. The whole "family budget" argument makes intuitive sense to voters, and democratic governments across the world have brutalized their people with various completely unnecessary austerity. And the people of those countries have spent most of the last 8 years voting for those policies enthusiastically. Meanwhile, the "great mistake" of the ECB was to temporarily raise the reference rate from 2 poinst below the historical average to 1.5 points below the historical average (currently, it is almost 3 points below, with lower numbers being more expansionary and therefore better in a persistently depressed economy).

DSM ranting about how much he hates technocracy in general and central bank technocracy in particular would seem really weird for a self proclaimed leftist. At least, it would be if you didn't remember that DSM is literally indistinguishable from someone who was paid actual money by the Koch brothers to concern troll leftists by making "left wing" arguments for far right positions. Once you remember that, then the fact that he makes common cause with Rand Fucking Paul in his attempt to replace the technocratic central banks of this world with people directly accountable to Paul "the worst thing that a country can do to its citizens than debase its currency" Ryan makes perfect sense.

Next up, DSM makes the "totally honestly leftist" case for repealing Obamacare and ending the Estate Tax!

-Username17

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 8:33 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:DSM ranting about how much he hates technocracy in general and central bank technocracy in particular would seem really weird for a self proclaimed leftist.

FrankTrollman, 2012 wrote:Well, European Technocrats love the meme that the confidence fairy will take over. It lets them do absolutely anything and dismiss any objections from anyone. When a Technocrat announces that the well of debt financing for governments has run dry and the only way forward is austerity and technocratic governance, they certainly aren't basing any of that on serious analysis. They're pretty much just masturbating. This is what they've been dreaming of saying their whole fucking life.

Oh look, it's Frank Trollman ranting against a vague, ill-defined class of European technocrats, and just expecting everyone to understand he is referring to the pundit and policy hanger-on class's obsession with fiscal stupidity - juxtaposed with Frank Trollman four years later insisting that anyone who wants to say mean things about technocrats be very very careful to distinguish legitimate technocracy from crankocracy.

It's almost like the standards for nuance and clarity change based entirely on whether or not FrankTrollman thinks changing them can score him easy points in internet arguments. But that would make him a hypocritical shitburger. That couldn't possibly be true, could it?

FrankTrollman wrote:central bank technocracy in particular

My criticisms of the central bank - right down to the "disproportionately influenced by a circle of insiders whose consensus inexplicably differs from that of academia's" - are straight out of Krugman's mouth. Every single one of those is a different article, and yet each is also still from the first page of my first search attempt. I didn't even look at his columns; just his blog.

If you are not prepared to accept that Krugman is probably one of the world's leading experts on monetary policy and one of the most qualified individuals to discuss the state of the field and the state of the policies, then fuck off. You're obviously not qualified to tell anyone what progressives can and cannot say about the fed.

Frank, you've turned into an ill-informed tone trolling shithead.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:05 pm

Oh look, DSM is taking quotes from various real leftists about how certain things could be better to argue for far right positions of tearing those things down altogether. Again. Yawn.

-Username17

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:10 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Oh look, DSM is taking quotes from various real leftists about how certain things could be better to argue for far right positions of tearing those things down altogether. Again. Yawn.

-Username17

Oh look, Frank is lying about how all leftists who aren't jumping for joy at center-right policies but are only grimly accepting them while advocating for better are really just evil monsters bent on destroying the left because everyone knows that qualified support for the lesser evil while advocating for good is exactly the same as being Hitler.

I'd say again, but I think still fits better, since he hasn't made a single post not doing exactly that in months.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:33 pm

Hahaha what? No, I did not call for the dissolution of the Fed. That is not a thing that ever happened.

You have a bone to pick with me over the whole "hey, the EU is kind of destroying a couple countries in some sort of horrifying display of borderline neocolonialism, what should we do about that" debate. Sure, whatever. I think you're a fucking idiot too. But when I want to tell you what a fucking idiot I think you are, I look at the stupid shit you say, and not all the stupid shit you haven't said but would make my job easier if you had. And even though you are under no obligation to extend the same courtesy to me, if that's how these conversations are going to go from now on you are definitely going to want to get better at it because holy shit what. Where did that even fucking come from? "The Fed is operating on some warped insider consensus that makes them more likely to err on the side of the financial sector's interests despite a very real risk to job and wage growth" looks exactly not at all like "I'M JUST SO ANGRY I COULD ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE!"

Fuck off.

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 10:12 pm

Just fuck already, goddamn.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:08 pm

So, why is Trump doubling down on running his campaign just like the primary? Doesn't he realize that what made him appealing to one branch of the Republican Party is pushing him farther away from everyone else?

angelfromanotherpin · Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:32 pm

The current theory is that Trump has no intention of winning. He enjoys having his ego stroked by getting a lot of media attention and chanting at rallies, and his campaign strategy is about having that happen a lot, rather than any actual election purposes. Being president involves actual work, so his plan is to milk the campaign for a santa sack of cash and drop out of the race so he can technically not have 'lost,' then probably use the cash to start his own media franchise.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:47 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:The current theory is that Trump has no intention of winning. He enjoys having his ego stroked by getting a lot of media attention and chanting at rallies, and his campaign strategy is about having that happen a lot, rather than any actual election purposes. Being president involves actual work, so his plan is to milk the campaign for a santa sack of cash and drop out of the race so he can technically not have 'lost,' then probably use the cash to start his own media franchise.

I suspect he will just lose and declare that Clinton cheated, so he didn't really lose. He's already building the groundwork, IE, I could only lose Penn if they cheat.

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:23 am

Mask_De_H wrote:Just fuck already, goddamn.

Agreed. I will even pay for the condoms and lube.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:21 am

RobbyPants wrote:So, why is Trump doubling down on running his campaign just like the primary? Doesn't he realize that what made him appealing to one branch of the Republican Party is pushing him farther away from everyone else?

Trump is amazingly narcissistic and shockingly incurious. He doesn't read things and doesn't investigate important issues that he does not understand. He surrounds himself with yes men and has adulatory rallies of people chanting his name.

I'm pretty sure it's totally as simple as that the RNC kept telling him that he was losing and needed to do things he didn't want to do, while Breitbart kept telling him he was winning and totally awesome. So rather than admit he was wrong about a thing, he simply fired people who told him bad news and hired a new group of people who were telling him that everything is fine.

The Trump reality only contains facts where Trump is awesome. The best, even. With Trump doing worse and worse in our reality, Trump will have to retreat farther and farther from it.

-Username17

Blasted · Post by **Blasted** » Fri Aug 19, 2016 6:23 am

FrankTrollman wrote: Trump is amazingly narcissistic and shockingly incurious. He doesn't read things and doesn't investigate important issues that he does not understand. He surrounds himself with yes men and has adulatory rallies of people chanting his name.
...

The Trump reality only contains facts where Trump is awesome. The best, even. With Trump doing worse and worse in our reality, Trump will have to retreat farther and farther from it.

He sounds disturbingly like many of the absolute monarchs who would become the harbingers of revolution. Now it looks like Trump isn't going to get to play president, I'd love to see what might have happened if he had.

Blade · Post by **Blade** » Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:30 am

Here in France where things are a bit less bi-partisan, the leaders and voters of the smallers parties always overestimate their chances. The structure of the election campaign makes it hard to get outside of your bubble and when you're surrounded all day with thousands of people telling you you're right, you're the best and you're going to win, it's getting difficult to realize that the polls that give you 5% of the voters are correct.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:16 pm

Trump expresses regret of saying wrong things. Of course, he doesn't specify what those things were. He probably didn't want to say "everything from the past 14 months".

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:53 pm

And Manafort is out. Just yesterday I listened to an NPR interview with a top aide regarding the addition of the Breitbart guy to the team and that aide cited Manafort's presence as rebuttal when asked to comment on that most top members have no campaign experience. Nice.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:35 pm

RobbyPants wrote:So, why is Trump doubling down on running his campaign just like the primary? Doesn't he realize that what made him appealing to one branch of the Republican Party is pushing him farther away from everyone else?

There was an NPR segment where an analyst suggested that he wants to win, but he wants to win as Trump and not as "Mitt Romney". I think Trump's personal behavior is the culprit, because sometimes he says things I would expect out of every other Republican candidate, and then other times he's completely unhinged. It doesn't seem like there's an overarching strategy here.

maglag · Post by **maglag** » Fri Aug 19, 2016 9:54 pm

Mitt Romney failed. Trying to be moderate white richness candidate simply didn't work. Because you automatically lose 47% of the population's support and stuff.

The Trump will rally all the racists and gun maniacs from the USA out of hiding for ultimate victory or die get rich(er) trying.

Hadanelith · Post by **Hadanelith** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:32 pm

Somebody did an analysis of Trump's tweets, and realized that there's a pretty clear pattern. The tweets posted from the Android phone? Actual, unfiltered Trump. The tweets from an iPhone? Clearly created by someone else in his campaign. The shit from the Android is the bizarre, frequently incomprehensible ramblings, and the stuff from the iPhone is all measured, coherent, and clearly tagged. This may be a significant part of why Trump appears so bipolar.

spongeknight · Post by **spongeknight** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 4:01 pm

Apparently Trump just pulled ahead in the polls according to the Los Angeles Times: http://cesrusc.org/election/

Don't know how that stacks up to other polls since I don't follow polls very much, but I'd assume it has something to do with Trump's visit to Louisiana and subsequent "high moral ground" over Obama and Hillary who didn't go.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 4:19 pm

I wouldn't write much into it at this point. First, the poll uses the same pool so it'd be important to track how well the poll follows other polls. If they have selection bias, that's going to be compounded day after day. If it has been moving with other polls (and it looks like it probably has) for this result not to be an outlier you'd want to see it reflected in other polls as well.

It's also a National Poll. While those have value, the electoral college determines the winner. If for every state one candidate wins is by .5% but every state they lose is by 100%, they can still win the election with approximately 25% of the popular vote. Polls from battleground states have been favorable to Clinton lately.

One data point doesn't make a trend. I haven't seen anything from Trump that I think would indicate a real change in the nature of thr racem

maglag · Post by **maglag** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 4:59 pm

Millions upon millions of people in the USA stand ready to kill and die for the Trump.

All is right in the world.

Windjammer · Post by **Windjammer** » Sun Aug 21, 2016 6:54 pm

I've mostly given up on polls sites* except for one. That site is run by Nate Silver, who's a sort of "pollsters' pollster" and correctly called 2012.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -forecast/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-u ... -forecast/

* [edit] Though you don't have to. If a poll makes you curious, check whether it has historically been reliable or not:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/