There are of course plenty of kooks out there (like Alex Jones and his followers) who miss the point completely, but some of the anger and anguish coming from that direction seems genuine, even if it's misdirected at actually credible institutions like the NYT. (Not that NYT doesn't share some blame in propping up the establishment, but their elitism (which is not that egregious) is mostly a problem of monoculture, not politically reactionary ideals.)
What happened with the 2008 financial crisis is that a lot of people woke up to the idea that the very fabric of a large part of the US was a kind of conspiracy of wealthy elite versus everyone else, and this feeling was confirmed when almost nobody was punished for causing the largest economic upheaval in many decades. It came at a time when a wave of globalization made it apparent to people that "the American dream" was becoming pretty unrealistic.
At the same time, this apparent conspiracy is sufficiently elusive that it's hard for people to assemble in opposition to it, because who and what do you attack? Most people don't even understand how any of it works. Occupy Wall Street tried and failed because it didn't have a specific goal it could reach. It didn't surprise me that Trump was elected, because it was the one thing an ordinary person could do that could change anything (or at least feel like changing anything). For the worse, it turns out, but still.
I've often thought of a Trump voter as akin to a Bernie Madoff investor. Madoff's investors were promised, and at least for a time, were delivered great returns. Trump supporters have been told that their good paying jobs will be restored, the government will be fixed, and a whole host of conservative ideals will be implemented, all immediately. Madoff's investors were unwilling to critically examine their investments, because that would be looking a gift horse in the mouth. Trump supporters seem willing to overlook any logistical concern with achieving Trump's plans, because the promised outcome is everything they've ever wanted, and must be preserved.
In both cases, a judgement has been made that the payoff is so irresistible, that any critic can be easily dismissed as someone who doesn't want the "mark" to receive what they believe they are about to receive.
In this context it is understandable why Trump supporters are so keen to accept a single correlation as causation, instead of cautiously evaluating why assertions might not be true. It is human nature to desire positive change in one's life. The more significant or positive that change, and more imminent that change appears, the less likely a person is to balance their emotional response with logical examination.
They were both outsider candidates, promising to fix Washington politics. Both made outrageously unrealistic promises, and had strong campaign slogans evocative of building a better future. "Make America Great Again" and "Hope and Change" / "Yes We Can" both hold very similar promise.
The last person to build a slogan on quiet good governance was George W. Bush with "Compassionate Conservativism" back in 2000. Promising significant change seems to be the path to success these days.
and so what seems especially insane to me about this election is that our president is indisputably part of that particular elite. he is, much more than HRC's early 90s inner-city bogeyman, the super-predator that his own constituents should fear.
> For example, racist bias of the kind exerted upon African-American citizens since the days of slavery is a kind of social, systemic, tacit conspiracy.
yes, just want to agree with that and say thanks for pointing out a fact that many still try to gloss over or deny.
There is plenty of criticism of mainstream media done by people who cite all their sources and have intellectually honest arguments. Don't conflate the absence of unfettered trust in the media with flat-earthers. Skepticism is healthy.
I'm on my phone now so I can't find the best examples but just take a look: https://twitter.com/kevinwglass/status/818465909996134400
> [Republicans are] going to blow up the deficit mainly by cutting taxes on the wealthy. ... Meanwhile, it will make the rich richer, even as cuts in social spending make the poor poorer and undermine security for the middle class. But that, of course, is the intention. [emphasis added]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/opinion/deficits-matter-a...
And as that tweet pointed out, he's now arguing that deficits matter (conveniently, at the same time Republicans took power), while just a few months ago, predicting Hillary would win, he argued that deficits don't matter.
> The good news is that elite discourse seems, finally, to be moving in the right direction. Five years ago the Beltway crowd was fixated on debt and deficits as the great evils. Today, not so much.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/time-to-borrow.ht...
Has the economy really changed so much in a few months - or have only the politics changed?
The conclusion on Krugman is as follows:
> To my knowledge Krugman has not addressed his overt partisanship. Until he does so, it is difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt. Krugman has changed his tune in a significant way regarding the budget deficit when the White House has changed party.
> Now, government borrowing can still be justified if it serves an important purpose: Interest rates are still very low, and borrowing at those low rates to invest in much-needed infrastructure is still a very good idea, both because it would raise productivity and because it would provide a bit of insurance against future downturns.
Krugman has every right to express his political views, but it should be clear that he's doing so.
No, we know that some investments in infrastructure give a good return on investment. Some don't (bridge to nowhere, for example). The problem is that Congress can take useless make-work pork-barrel trash, and label it "investment in infrastructure". Don't automatically believe the labels that Congress applies to bills; they often are political smoke screens.
Note well: There is real infrastructure investment that is needed, and will give a good return. All the more reason to reject the waste - we need the money for real things; don't waste it on pork.
Not saying that is definitely the case at any particular tax level, but it's not as easy as looking at the individual cases.
Any sources/links/examples?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/05/ireland-attrac...
> A major draw for US firms is Ireland’s low 12.5% corporation tax rate and numerous controversial tax breaks. The government has promised to phase out the latter.
> The corporate tax rate, which remains a sacrosanct part of Irish industrial policy, has been so successful in wooing US investment that the country’s neighbours across the border want it too. The Northern Ireland assembly passed legislation this week allowing for corporation tax powers to be devolved, with politicians at Stormont aiming for a similar rate.
I have however not seen any proof that it benefits the country other than employment (how are the salaries?).
If you look at tax revenue as percent of GDP it's almost had a freefall [1], which could be okay if the GDP is high enough.
In direct numbers however Ireland as of 2014 was not even back to 2007 levels in tax revenue (pre economic crisis) [2], and ignoring inflation. And only counting corporation tax, not even back to 2002 levels.
[1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS?locati...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_tax_in_the_Republi...
Both of your observations address the latter, while I made the former.
Looking straight at GDP (even if it's a blunt instrument), Ireland hasn't reaped a lot of rewards there either [1].
And their growth over the past few years appears to be back to pre-crisis speed.
That page allows displaying both on the same graph (compare to "US GDP") and when placed by side by side it's easy to see that Ireland has grown at least twice as quickly since 1995.
I highly recommend watching the whole thing.
Most conspiracy theories start with a false premise to which logic is then applied -often correctly. A trivial example popular among geeky music lovers is that instruments and whole compositions sound better tuned to 432Hz rather than the more common 440Hz. Much effort i devoted to showing why 432 is more numerically interesting than 440, and since 99% of music is about the juxtaposition of numerically interesting frequency rations, the arguments are superficially quite convincing, especially from an aesthetic point of view.
Where it falls down is right at the beginning - not in the idea that 432 is an interesting number (it is) but in the idea that 432 cycles per second is important. People tend to forget that the second is a pretty arbitrary time division; we're just used to think about time as a fact because it is convenient in everyday life. Pro musicians and sound engineers are constantly thinking about frequencies to the quantity of a second comed to seem as real as the pull of earth's gravity to an aerospace engineer.
In my experience, the longer the argument between an initial false premise and the conclusion, the more firmly the proponent will resist attacks on the theory, perhaps because it has required a higher initial investment of work to validate all the logical steps.
Obviously I don't believe this and I find it hard to empathize with these folks. I spent the holidays listening to my cousin tell me how naive I was for believing what I read in the New York Times, then rant for hours about how mass shootings are all staged hoaxes.