Donald Trump


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Merlin,

You don't get it yet, but you will have to get it when you see it unfold.

No sense repeating myself.

Well... you are wrong. And it won't be the first time.

No proof; mere assertions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trial balloon, floated 'option,' buffet item?

20 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I doubt that anything will come out of the across-the-board 20 percent tax slash tariff notion.

I could be wrong. I don't think a punitive Mexican-origin-only tariff will be the final Trump trade policy prescription -- for the common-sense-plus reasons detailed above.

"Full-blown rigid policy frozen in time" ... is not what I think 'Mexico will pay' rhetoric is all about. What I think it is all about is balance of trade.  

 

It is about a trade deficit for the USA of about a half-trillion dollars. (next figures taken from "US Trade Deficit by Country:)

China - $599.4 billion traded with a $367 billion deficit.
Mexico - $532.1 billion with a $60.6 billion deficit.
Japan - $193.6 billion traded with a $68.6 billion deficit.
Germany - $174.8 billion traded with a $74.9 billion deficit.

Canada alone sold the USA $576.7 billion with a $15.5 billion deficit for the USA.  That is why I say Canada is lurking quietly in the woods.

Mexico will pay indirectly for any tariff imposition in several ways -- most importantly by depressing sales to the USA, since the US consumer may balk at the 'new' price inflated by an arbitrary tax.  (as Brant points out, a depreciating currency can 'cheapen' the dollar-denominated price of export goods and services. There are ripple effects and precautionary re-adjustments in the currency markets)

For some products that are sold without added processing in the USA (fruits, vegetables, other produce, finished vehicles) there can be substitutions made to one degree or another -- but if a market-share of the 'cheap' Mexican avocado or truck or medical machinery goes down, if there is less of product X available at lower prices, then the price will go up. The California avocado will be more expensive than the pre-tariff Mexican avocado.

The depressed sales will ripple backward within Mexico. Selling less to America will cause unemployment and a contraction in consumer demand.  This is I think how Mexico will "pay" third-hand for a border barrier, through diffuse economic pain. 

 

7 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Mexicans living in the US send a lot of money back to Mexico.

In the scheme of things, 'a lot' is relative. The Trump campaign had earlier toyed with restricting or hobbling remittances, of which the last figures say is around two and some billion dollars a month. This is a much more direct way of punishing Mexico ... as the remittances are estimated to be around two percent of the Mexican gross domestic product.

It will be interesting to see if that policy buffet suggestion gets spooned up again this month. 

6 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

CNBC reports today that by depreciating the peso Mexico can economically nulify a 20% tariff. This is true. However, Mexico would still "pay" for the wall.

Currency depreciation would make US goods and services less attractive to Mexicans, but the US more desirable for illegal immigration.

The Peso is above 20 to the dollar (figure from CNBC; click through to page).

peso_Dollar.png

Let's say the tariff knocks the peso to a new level over a six-month period.   The Mexican avocado was twenty bucks a box, now is at twenty-four at the wholesaler. With a Mexican dollar at a ten-percent 'fall' against the dollar, one US dollar would buy that many more pesos or peso-denominated goods. With a 'rise' against the dollar by ten percent, a hundred pesos will buy you that many more dollars.

So, which way would the peso head if an across-the-board tariff were applied? Down, down, and maybe down again -- making everything American cost more to the Mexican consumer, crimping their purchases of Made in America. 

A punitive tax on American consumption will lead to fewer Mexican goods bought by Americans, and fewer American goods bought by Mexicans. 

Let's call it a period of adjustment for the peso and the Mexicans, until the trade balance comes to favour America again.

Meanwhile, in Canada ...

TreeForest_600px.jpg

-- to the notion that punitive tariffs and their effect on Mexican currency, consumers and manufacturing will make the US more desirable for illegal immigration from within Mexico, consider that the level of 'illegal' entries and illegal residents from Mexico has been dropping since 2009.

The greatest increase of illegal border crossings is by citizens of Central America who have traversed Mexico. The crime-infested, gangland-dominated hellholes of Guatemala and El Salvador and Honduras are the main source of these people.

I say a better idea than taxing Americans for Mexico's trade deficits is to punish Mexico directly through remittances. By cutting off or making illegal or difficult the transfer of dollars to Mexico, more money is retained in the US economy for re-use. Those among the remitters who are both employed and unauthorized might also be 'flushed out' and inspected by the authorities for criminal activity, perhaps self-deport.

One of the quirks of illegal, unauthorized, undocumented (not just Mexican) residents in the USA is the practical evasion of law that allows these people to work, to earn a living, to house themselves, to be able to remit money "home."  There are ~6 million working illegal migrants/residents in the USA. Did you want them all out or what? If the least offenders can regularize their status by paying money for the privilege, then punishment (to Mexico) is paid for by the offender.

Tax or fee-penalty the bejesus out of those illegally-employed people via remittances or otherwise, retaining the option to push them through the wall once it is complete.

-- to the notion that Canada is a sloppy detainer or filter or watchman on its own borders, which country has the larger percent of its workforce undocumented? 

 

Edited by william.scherk
One thousand millions is a billion, bub.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(yawn)...

It's happening just like in The Art of the Deal.

President Trump and Mexican president speak by phone amid crisis in relations

Even Carlos Slim is showing up.

I find it funny that Trump tells you how and why he does it, then he does it, and nobody understands...

Meanwhile, he keeps doing it.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Even Carlos Slim is showing up.

What did he say? "The reclusive billionaire Carlos Slim, who rarely addresses the media, held a news conference for more than an hour to discuss the “civilizational changes” underway and to warn that a proposal to impose punitive tariffs or a tax on Mexican goods would come back to bite American consumers and make the U.S. economy less competitive."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so easy.

From Reuters today:

Tycoon Slim says Trump not 'Terminator,' sees opportunities for Mexico

From the article:

Quote

Billionaire Carlos Slim said on Friday Mexico should not fear Donald Trump, seeing opportunities for his country in the U.S. president's economic policies...

. . .

The American leader's threats to impose steep tariffs on Mexican products has ravaged the peso and spread worries about the economy, which is heavily dependent on the U.S. market.

However, Slim, who spoke out against his fellow billionaire during the U.S. election campaign but had dinner with him after the Nov. 8 victory, said Trump's policies aimed at growing the U.S. economy would boost Mexico's growth as well as provide jobs for Mexican laborers living north of the border.

. . .

He also said businesses should not be too worried if Trump's policies led to the collapse of the NAFTA free trade deal that underpins Mexico's economy, saying that under World Trade Organisation tariffs Mexico would be fine.

Or here at McClatchyDC today:

Trump may find he’s facing a master negotiator in talks with Mexico

From the article:

Quote

Carlos Slim, Mexico’s richest man and one of the wealthiest men in the world, offered Friday to help Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto negotiate with President Donald Trump.

The Mexican business tycoon made the offer to help negotiate with the American tycoon during a rare public appearance in Mexico City just before Trump told reporters in Washington that he’d spoken with Peña Nieto for an hour and the two had agreed to renegotiate many aspects of their countries’ relationship.

Slim, worth an estimated $46.5 billion, sought to comfort concerned Mexicans, calling Trump, whose worth is estimated at a mere $4.5 billion, a “grand negotiator” but not a “terminator.”

. . .

Slim both praised and criticized Trump, commending him for offering ideas to improve the U.S infrastructure, capital investment and health care. But he also said Trump was seeking to re-create a time that no longer existed.

. . .

... the two seemed to make amends after the election, even having dinner at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Florida resort.

Slim showed his negotiating prowess, repeatedly offering compliments to Trump, and encouraging Mexicans to read Trump’s book, “Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again.”

:) 

There's plenty more, but a good chunk of it is spin.

Nieto, Slim and Trump are doing what grownups in business do, they're negotiating. Imagine what the backstage must look like. (This is unlike what the press does, which is infantile spin to trick the public.)

This is the preliminary stage, so the different sides are putting out their feelers. Later they will start showing their hands.

But look how cordial everyone is to each other. No amount of spin will make them stop that cordiality or stop negotiating in the manner they have learned to get where they are.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw - Imagine if a different country decided to charge import tariffs on American goods and this "ravaged the dollar."

But Trump's 20% opening bid has already "ravaged the peso."

Here in America, that bid has not "ravaged the dollar."

Hellooooooooo...

Doesn't anyone see anything distinctive in this picture? Reality is knocking.

:)

I, for one, see a ton-load of NAFTA/wall/trade leverage and it ain't on the Mexican side.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, merjet said:

In politics it's what's done that matters to me.

Merlin,

That's odd, because from the tenor of your posts, it's mostly about what's said that you complain.

You pretend when Trump says something that he did it (or could do it--you project it as a fact), and analyze that. Sometimes I see you talk about what he actually does, but the relation I sense is waaaaaay lopsided to the talk.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Merlin,

That's odd, because from the tenor of your posts, it's mostly about what's said that you complain.

You pretend when Trump says something that he did it (or could do it--you project it as a fact), and analyze that. Sometimes I see you talk about what he actually does, but the relation I sense is waaaaaay lopsided to the talk.

Michael

You just don't get it. Other than making appointments and some executive orders, Trump and his administration hasn't done much, yet. On the other hand, Trump has talked and talked and talked and talked. Of course, that's all he did before the election. The lopsidedness is because lots more has been said than done. That's reality, not merely me.

"You pretend when Trump says something that he did it (or could do it--you project it as a fact), and analyze that."

The pot calls the kettle black.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I forgot to mention that on the American side, the Dow Jones is raging strong.

Must be because the traders haven't heard about the 20% thing yet.

They have heard. Wait. Watch how markets react if and when a 20% tariff becomes far more likely.  Smoot-Hawley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, merjet said:

I found Trump's speech quite good.   I didn't listen to it, but read it.   I suspect it reads better than it sounds.    No matter your political views, his words were powerful and persuasive. 

I agree with much of what Kelley says, but it seems like criticizing Trump for not being Adam Smith on trade is a stretch.   Of course, he's not Adam Smith on trade. 

That's a major reason for his election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, merjet said:

They have heard. Wait. Watch how markets react if and when a 20% tariff becomes far more likely.  Smoot-Hawley.

I dont have the wherewithal to keep up with Michael's withering approach and interpretive stance on what Trump says and does. 

I do sense Trump is in no way through with the negotiating. I feel the deal has more to do with what Americans will do than Mexicans.

I believe he said we will pay first (he didnt say that during the campaign).

That Trumps prosaic utterances dont disturb Michael is beyond my ability to grasp how faith intervenes on behalf of the president who has not yet carried through with his commitments other than lay down the law and hire a cabinet. Its too soon. And I am sure Trump while he knows he will get a deal has no ideas what form it will take or whether in the end it will benefit the US. But we are being strung out along a primrose path thinking it will be great. No matter what form it takes. In other words we have posturing.

Wheres the consideration for Americans and making us great again using this 20% equation?

To answer that, youd have to project what an American is willing to pay for a Mexican good that costs 20% more. What clouds that issue is the number of goods for which price increases will willingly be paid for and how that impacts the pocket books of Americans. When logically interpreted it means Americans will pay for the wall, directly at first and then indirectly later. Even if taxes are lowered and Americans on average can afford more the costs are beared by Americans willingness to spend. A bean counter, even a Mexican bean counter cannot infer how much or when those costs will obtain the level needed to pay the bill. Trump, if this plan is unchanged, should issue a list of all incoming Mexican goods so good Americans can become great through their own effort. :huh:

It was a dodgy proposal to begin with made on the campaign trail. The giant sucking sound that Perot spoke of, is it the sound of flatulence? Beano anyone? :huh:

If he lives up to his promises to build the wall but fails on who pays his overall gamble helped win him the election. A win but not a win/win.

Instead of stating precisely how he will accomplish it and how it will be good for Americans he leaves me the impression that a less sophisticated and knowledgeable person will negotiate TPP and NAFTA than he represented himself to be.

Before he spends a god damn penny of mine, it would be a good idea for the master negotiator to say what the terms of the deal are. Do linguistic kill shots ricochet? Time will tell. 

RIght now I am sure there is no final answer as to how Mexico will be forced to pay. Probably because Trump is artfully (sarcasm) negotiating the early stages. :mellow:

The best proposal to save money came from a governor willing to use idle resources called prisoners to build the wall. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PDS said:

That's a major reason for his election. 

David,

And it's the one that is always ignored by Trump's critics.

It was summed up by a catch-phrase the Tea Party used when it started soon after President Obama got elected:

"Can you hear us now?"

Apparently Trump's critics still think these people and their problems don't exist. The critics didn't listen and they still don't listen. I can't think of a better example--in action--of what the term "blank out" refers to.

So the results of Trump's presidency, as they unfold, will apparently be a mystery to them.

Expect the major theme in O-Land to be what Biddibob recently wrote on Facebook, which is that when Trump gets something wrong, it is because he is totally unprincipled, a narcissist, blah blah blah, but when he gets something right, it's due to luck (pragmatism somehow working at that moment).

Since Trump is getting, and will get, much more right than wrong, I would hate to live with a vision of the universe where everything depends on luck as the only explanation for good things happening.

:)

Even the title of David Kelley's article is "Is Trump for Real." Doesn't that mean he believes or believed Trump wasn't real?

He makes the same mistake others do. He thinks Trump sees his supporters as a collective just because Trump uses the term "American people." David doesn't understand that Trump is one of the first presidents in many many moons to see the American people as a collection of individuals. Unfortunately, I believe that's because he, like others who live among the academic elites, ignore the very individuals who supported Trump, and he ignored them as a collective.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Even  the title of David Kelley's article is "Is Trump for Real." Doesn't that mean he believes or believed Trump wasn't real?

He makes the same mistake others do. He thinks Trump sees his supporters as a collective just because Trump uses the term "American people." David doesn't understand that Trump is one of the first presidents in many many moons to see the American people as a collection of individuals. Unfortunately, I believe that's because he, like others who live among the academic elites, ignore the very individuals who supported Trump, and he ignored them as a collective.

David Kelley ends his article "Is Trump for Real" by saying:

//quote, David Kelley//  "The only power Trump or other leaders can return to 'the people' is not the power of collective choice but  the power of individual freedom. In the iconic words of 

"John Galt in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, 'Get the hell out of my way!'" //end quote//

"Get the hell out of my way!" is just what Trump is saying.

I don't know, Michael, if your explanation for the tone-deafness to the message on the part of Kelley and other prominent O'ists is correct - but I think that something is interfering with their hearing.

Ellen

Addendum:  There might be a clue in David Kelley's reference to Wynand and appealing to "the lowest common denominator" - a style thing, the lack of what I called in a post months ago "class."  The non-intellectuality seems to grate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2017 at 11:37 AM, william.scherk said:

I say a better idea than taxing Americans for Mexico's trade deficits is to punish Mexico directly through remittances.

Yeah, good luck on that buffet option making law. More likely is some broad legislative effort that contains the spell-binding concept and phrase, "border adjustment."

I get mail!

Donald Trump dot Nationbuilder dot com said:
Trump - Make America Great Again

 

William,

Our Campaign Committee, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., is still here. We will act as a beacon for our Movement of hardworking patriots who delivered a historic victory this November.

President Trump is wasting no time making America great again. America First is in action, and you deserve to know how hard the President is working for you.

Here is a look at the President's First Week:


THIS WEEK


  • Easing Regulatory Burdens

    Shortly after being sworn in, President Trump ordered federal agencies to ease the "regulatory burdens" of ObamaCare. Agencies are ordered to "waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement" of Obamacare in hopes that this order will lower the burden on individuals, families and patients as the President and the Congress work on a permanent solution to Obamacare.
  • Withdrawing from TPP

    The President wasted no time in ending the United States support of the disastrous TPP trade deal by withdrawing our country from it on Monday. President Trump called the move, "a great thing for the American workers."
  • Spurring American Jobs

    On Tuesday, President Trump re-opened the door for the Keystone and Dakota Access pipeline to be built with an executive order. Also included were related orders that would speed up the timeline on the project by streamlining the permitting process and cut through more government red tape.
  • Securing Our Borders

    President Trump is moving forward with several items that will secure our borders and keep Americans safe! He plans on stripping federal grant money to dangerous sanctuary cities, hiring 5,000 more Border Patrol agents, ending "catch-and-release" policies for illegal immigrants, and reinstating local and state immigration enforcement partnerships.

THE WEEK AHEAD


  • Remembering our Allies

    Today, British Prime Minister Theresa May will meet with President Trump. Prime Minister May appears optimistic about the visit saying, "So as we rediscover our confidence together -- as you renew your nation just as we renew ours -- we have the opportunity -- indeed the responsibility -- to renew the special relationship for this new age. We have the opportunity to lead, together, again." 
  • Protecting the Constitution

    Next Thursday President Trump is slated to announce his choice to fill the vacancy left on the Supreme Court after the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia last February. This is a highly anticipated announcement, as this new justice will shape the future of our nation by weighing into decisions that have reached the highest court.

We look forward to working with all of our supporters.

Together, our Movement is just getting started and we can Make America Great Again!

Team Trump-Pence

P.S. Don't forget there is still time to pick something up to commemorate President Trump's historic victory by visiting our Inauguration store while supplies last!

VisitStore.jpg

I am glad Canada is not on his mind.

Edited by william.scherk
Added link to sprawling saga of 'border adjustment,' at the Atlantic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen, I agree. Really, have some Objectivists forgotten about *individualism*? *rational selfishness*? I think the USA with Trump is beginning to show it is not to be presumed upon, trifled with and sponged off any longer and will look now to its own concerns, after a long period of self-sacrifice. Over here I've heard some, a thinking minority, who voiced accord with a self-interested America, needing to look after itself and its own people, and grow economically strong and more secure - and not anyone else's affair. Mostly drowned out by Lefty loud mouths who tacitly demand they must have it both ways: America, to be their usual constant target of disparagement and - at the same time - America's 'duty and service' to all takers and all-comers. Those same 'Democratic' collectivists who cannot handle the outcome of a people's Democratic vote, were vocal after Brexit also. The liberal-left's smug self-contradictions can make you livid. I think that, privately many in all parts are longing for President Trump to pull the US back, away from Europe's descent into altruism-collectivism (if they knew what that is) and be an exemplar of sanity in the world. While not becoming isolationist. For the altruist-collectivists, they ~know~ what they're losing, the US as a sacrificial victim, and that explains their emotional reactions for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, merjet said:

You just don't get it. Other than making appointments and some executive orders, Trump and his administration hasn't done much, yet. On the other hand, Trump has talked and talked and talked and talked. Of course, that's all he did before the election. The lopsidedness is because lots more has been said than done. That's reality, not merely me.

"You pretend when Trump says something that he did it (or could do it--you project it as a fact), and analyze that."

The pot calls the kettle black.

This is completely unreal. Trump's been President for not even 10 days.

--Brant

sure, tough, slogging stuff is ahead; I suppose you'll then say the next 90 days don't match the first 10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, merjet said:

They have heard. Wait. Watch how markets react if and when a 20% tariff becomes far more likely.  Smoot-Hawley.

The next year will be tough on markets as the flow of federal funds into the economy is somewhat diminishing.

I think it will be a good time to write covered calls.

The primary cause of the Great Depression was the contraction of the money supply by the Federal Reserve.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, merjet said:

You just don't get it. Other than making appointments and some executive orders, Trump and his administration hasn't done much, yet.

Merlin,

Actually, it's the contrary. You don't get it (and I'm only doing this for the reader since, from your reactions, I don't think you want to get it).

Trump has a lifetime of doing that you conveniently ignore over and over.

When he makes his 20% statement, for instance, you pretend he knows nothing of economics, that he has not spent a lifetime of doing deals (using a specific process with stages) and so on, then you criticize his statement as if it were law (or almost there).

You don't even know what he is talking about (negotiation bid). Instead, you criticize your own projection (already law or as close as it can be) and pretend your projection is what he means. Why? Because you have no idea who Trump is or why he does things. (Yeah yeah, the mainstream says he's a narcissist, a fool, yada yada yada. Believe that if you want to stay ignorant about Trump. And keep being wrong. And, eventually keep eating dust.)

If you never look at what Trump has done because you blank it out--or worse, swallow the mainstream propaganda whole, no wonder you keep treating his words as contextless facts, then going off on wrong analyses about them. At least you're not alone. 

I think many people in our culture have used this concrete-bound method of thinking so long, that's all they know how to do. When faced with reality, where they have to use their brain, or gotcha, where they can rely on parrot-learning, they go with gotcha every time.

How else to explain how they can blank out half the country or more?

By analogy:

When Ted Bundy says to a girl: "I'm going to kill you," that means one thing.
When Martin Sheen says to his son, Charlie Sheen: "I'm going to kill you," that means something else. (At least, I imagine Martin Sheen said that. More than once, too. :) )

Gotch folks will think they've won some kind of argument with Martin Sheen because he did not, in fact, kill his son. For God's sake. That sounds silly in this analogy, but it's the same process you use with criticizing Trump.

Trump saying 20% at the start of a negotiating process is different than Trump saying 20% at the end, right before signing.

Gotcha will never change the fact that time and context are fundamental inputs to give proper meaning to words. But tell that to concrete-bound folks who only know how to look at talk, not doing--and have their own immediate interests as their predominant filter for logic and reasoning to boot.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Get the hell out of my way!" is just what Trump is saying.

I don't know, Michael, if your explanation for the tone-deafness to the message on the part of Kelley and other prominent O'ists is correct - but I think that something is interfering with their hearing.

Ellen

Addendum:  There might be a clue in David Kelley's reference to Wynand and appealing to "the lowest common denominator" - a style thing, the lack of what I called in a post months ago "class."  The non-intellectuality seems to grate.

Ellen,

I'm glad you see this. It's kinda frustrating to keep explaining it to folks who don't and watch them keep brushing off the explanation--along with all those millions and tens of millions and hundreds of millions of individuals--as if none of that existed except as talking points to be stamped out by other talking points.

I agree there is a snob element involved (and it's serious), but I don't think it is the fundamental part. I think Trump's success cuts to the core of their identity. This goes deeper than disagreement. It goes to the core of what they think life means.

This is a long discussion, but I can lay out a semi-brief introduction to what I am thinking. One caveat: there are many O-Land Trump supporters. I'm only referring to the anti-Trump folks. And, it's weird, but that means most of the leadership of official Objectivist organizations and their followers.

My frame is that Trump has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations and will continue to do so (if the pattern holds, which I believe it will). But that reality does not fit the worldview of many, many people, so they deny reality itself rather than their worldview.

Let's start with meaning and what that is to people in O-Land. First, we have Rand's standing on one foot overview (and, of course, the elaboration of the philosophy indicated by that outline):

Quote

Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism

I have always felt this to be incomplete, not wrong, but incomplete. I am sure I am not alone. 

There's a book I read recently, one that takes into account neuroscience, modern psychology, etc., that throws some more elements into the mix if we are talking about what human beings are by default. Let me quote from a post I made elsewhere:

On 1/24/2017 at 4:25 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The book I refer to is The Power of Meaning: Crafting a Life That Matters by Emily Esfahani Smith written and published just recently (2017). She extols serving others as an end in itself waaaaaaay too much for my taste, but it's easy to step around it like I just did above. (Happiness and meaning are not either-or. We need both, although for some damn reason, people--especially pro-altruist people--keep trying to frame this as either-or and talk about self-abnegation and crap like that.) There is a lot of empirical evidence on the psychological benefits of feeling like one matters to others, though. She produces a good discussion of modern research on meaning in positive psychology and some neuroscience.

And, from the same post, I (very superficially) applied it to people in O-Land:

On 1/24/2017 at 4:25 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The four pillars of meaning, according to this book, are:
1. Belonging
2. Purpose
3. Storytelling
4. Transcendence

For people who follow Objectivism, they get a sense of belonging to something bigger by being part of an enlightened elite (although they bicker like cats in heat about who controls the group and what the criteria for belonging are--especially the fundies :) ), their purpose is to live their lives according to reason in a manner to attain maximum moral potential (Rand called this striving for "moral perfection") and, also, improve the lot of other humans (after all, they produce to sell to whom on the market if not other people? :) -- in O-Land this improvement of others is through practicing laissez-faire capitalism), they are heroes in the stories of their lives and their overall core story (Rand even said "man is an heroic being"), and they seek transcendence in using Rand's heroes or other similar people as role models to imitate and guide them to become better versions of themselves (Rand called this a "command to rise").

I speak from not only looking at Rand's words for a long time, but also from observing how O-Land people act online from my position of relatively small prominence.

There's an element I have constantly observed that both Rand and Smith left out. For lack of a better term, let's call it Certainty about All of Existence. Rand came close with "Objective Reality," but her idea does not include the feeling of such certainty, one no longer has to think about it. Her idea, ironically, is fundamentally tied up with discrediting mysticism (to go from the way many Objectivist use it). There's negativity and a negation of faith built right into it. (This is a long side-discussion and I don't want to get side-tracked. For now, let's just say I'm right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. :)

When you package all this together and people accept it as the true truths of all truths, you get a belief system (even if it is philosophy). Belief systems, the ones that stick around, come with believers who believe in them as "the given," or "the not to be questioned." Many, many Objectivist already think like that about the fundaments of Rand's works. They will check their premises on anything and everything of others, but they will not seriously check their Randian premises. For example, all you need to do is say "altruism" and you get a kneejerk.

However, there is another point. Certainty about All of Existence in my sense comes from study and repetition, especially from childhood on up. It is not innate. For example, "God exists" is such a certainty for Christians--and note: what they are thinking about is the Abrahamic God, not Vishnu. :) Their certainty comes from growing up and hearing the stories over and over and over, and applying the ideas to their own lives over and over and over, and praying and all the emotional reality (and neurochemicals) that entails, and so on. They live in an environment where the people important to them believe the same. When, from their perspective, they hear someone say, "God does not exist," they don't take that as a possibility. They take that as an evil statement or one from a lost soul who has not yet been saved. Now get this, they have the answer! They believe that with all their might and soul.

This works essentially the same for all belief systems.

In other words, this Certainty about All of Existence is different than say, an axiomatic concept. The agent has to operate according to an axiom to even question its existence. That comes built in whether you learn it later or not, and whether you believe it or not. Certainty about All of Existence, on the other hand, is something learned over time and accepted on such a deep level, it transforms into functioning as pre-thought. A believer on that level literally cannot conceive of life being any different.

So what happens to such a person when he is thrown for a loop by reality? When he lands in uncharted territory where the rules are different? When he no longer can peg what is happening--what he sees right in front of him--to those certainty models in his mind that, to him, represent unquestioned and unquestionable truth of how existence is?

He's at a loss and befuddled, that's what. And he will try like the dickens to make his mental model explain what he sees as he slowly comes to grip with the fact that it isn't working.

From that lens and in private, I have been humorously pegging the reaction of O-Land intelligentsia when confronted with Trump to The Five Stages of Grief. :) Think about it and think about what you have witnessed over time:

Quote

Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance

We are currently in between the Anger and Bargaining stages if Kelley's article (and other similar) is any indication. Denial about Trump lasted a long long time. I expect Depression to last, too.

:) 

But I think there is a better model that helps to explain the behavior of O-Land intelligentsia if my notion of Certainty about All of Existence is what they feel (and I believe it is based on the sheer amount of observations and interactions I have had).

Let me do Godwin's Law for a bit, but stand it on its head.

Viktor Frankl wrote a book (Man's Search for Meaning) describing life in Nazi concentration camps. He described people who were forcibly wrenched from a situation where life was working one way and thrown into an environment where everything they learned didn't work anymore. All their certainties were blown to shit as they were dehumanized item by item.

To a lesser extent, I think Frankl's process is closer to the inner state of a person hamstrung by Certainty about All of Existence (even in O-Land) than The Five Stages of Grief. I almost feel sorry for such a believer. The person watches, in horror, something like Trump's presidency evolve from the primaries and become a reality. What to believe, the mental certainty or the eyes looking at outside reality? Trump just doesn't fit the model. Life is not supposed to work that way. Existence is not supposed to work that way. Trump is not real, yet he is. So you write articles with titles like "Is Trump for Real." :) 

I'm not going to go through Frankl's entire sequence. People who discuss him tend to focus on the end part, the part about what survivors of the WWII German concentration camps went through after they were freed. I want to look at what the prisoners who arrived experienced (the ones who were not killed off or died, of course). According to Frankl, who calls this entire initial stage "shock," they passed through the following stages (note: there were smaller groups he talked about that did not act like this, but the majority who survived did):

1. Delusion of reprieve. This is a technical term in psychology for a mental state where a condemned man will believe he will be pardoned at the last minute all the way up to his execution. Frankl noticed that prisoners held this delusion from capture, through the train ride and on up to delivery at the concentration camp. 

2. Anxiety, as they saw themselves stripped, herded, etc. They worried if they and their loved ones would survive. When schnaps was available (and it was to get them to hand over what they were hiding), they got pissy drunk.

3. Humor. Oddly enough, after they got to a point where they believed they would survive (like after seeing water come from the showerheads), they made jokes about their situation. 

4. Curiosity. As their old certainties cracked, they started becoming curious about everything around them, trying to set up new certainties. I'm adding my own opinion about setting up new certainties here since I believe this is a deep-seated need in everyone, but curiosity is the phase Frankl talked about. He emphasized curiosity as a defense mechanism against unpleasant surprises as they occurred (and increased in frequency).

5. Thoughts of suicide, which Frankl said everyone entertained at one time or another, but often here.

6. Apathy.

From there, the person would either spiral down into despair and die, or find some kind of meaning to hang on to. 

Now look at how this works with O-Land luminaries and Trump. 

1. Delusion of reprieve. This corresponds to the primaries and election and even on up to Trump being sworn in. O-Land luminaries were certain he could not win and, and with each win, were certain something would take him out. Life as they understood it would not allow Trump to exist.

2. Anxiety. How many "sky is falling" things have we read from these folks between Trump's victory, the electoral college vote, and the inauguration? The prevailing emotional tone, at least in the things I have read and watched, has been anxiety (for example, Tracinski, but also, with almost all of the others I have read). 

3. Humor. I haven't seen much of this, but honestly, I have not haunted the anti-Trump O-Land forums and blogs. Also, I do not read everything the O-Land intelligentsia puts out. If I were a betting man, though, I would bet there was quite a bit of dark humor going on and all I would need to do is "seek and I shall find."

4. Curiosity. This is where an article like the one David Kelley wrote fits in. The O-Land intelligentsia are trying to figure out what the hell happened. They can't completely let go of their previous certainties, but they can't explain what they saw, either. In fact, I'm starting to see other analyses pop up in our subcommunity that are more probing and less inflammatory.

5. Thoughts of suicide. Once it all sinks in that this is reality and it isn't working the way their understanding of Objectivism says it has to, I don't think anyone we know will seriously consider killing themselves, but metaphorically, I do expect to see some old dogmas crack wide open and become abandoned, especially once prosperity starts to erupt in America. They will think about suiciding their dogmas. :) 

6. Apathy. This will not be existential apathy like in the concentration camps, but apathy in terms of being a gung-ho member of a tribe intent on saving the world. I think several O-Land luminaries will simply shift to other things as they become less enthusiastic about their current view of Objectivism.

Where they go from there--will they revise their thinking?, will they become irrationally dogmatic?, will they find meaning in something else?, will they simply walk away and give up on intellectual life?, etc.--will be up to each, of course.

Whew! That's enough for now. 

This has been a long one, but I love it when someone asks a truly intelligent question.

The one-upmanship on this thread is a pisser, so, in great hunger for substance, I guess I went a little overboard.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an addendum, Frankl wrote in Man's Search for Meaning:

Quote

... it did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us.

This is the key he came to for spiritually surviving great hardship.

This doesn't have anything to do with Trump or his O-Land critics. I just think it's a cool quote.

:) 

(Another way of saying it is nature to be commanded must be obeyed, including spiritual nature as each understands it.)

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Merlin,

Actually, it's the contrary. You don't get it (and I'm only doing this for the reader since, from your reactions, I don't think you want to get it).

Trump has a lifetime of doing that you conveniently ignore over and over.

When he makes his 20% statement, for instance, you pretend he knows nothing of economics, that he has not spent a lifetime of doing deals (using a specific process with stages) and so on, then you criticize his statement as if it were law (or almost there).

You don't even know what he is talking about (negotiation bid). Instead, you criticize your own projection (already law or as close as it can be) and pretend your projection is what he means. Why? Because you have no idea who Trump is or why he does things. (Yeah yeah, the mainstream says he's a narcissist, a fool, yada yada yada. Believe that if you want to stay ignorant about Trump. And keep being wrong. And, eventually keep eating dust.)

If you never look at what Trump has done because you blank it out--or worse, swallow the mainstream propaganda whole, no wonder you keep treating his words as contextless facts, then going off on wrong analyses about them. At least you're not alone. 

More blah, blah, blah, blah, including a lot of psychologizing hogwash.  

"Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence" (link).

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump saying 20% at the start of a negotiating process is different than Trump saying 20% at the end, right before signing.

Such brilliance!! :evil: :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

My frame is that Trump has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations and will continue to do so (if the pattern holds, which I believe it will).

Judge blocks deportation of detainees over Trump refugee order

 

Quote

The order Saturday evening capped off a chaotic first day following Trump's directive, as the administration moved to implement his order, with reports emerging of individuals being detained at a number of airports across the country.

The Department of Homeland Security said Trump's order would also apply to green card holders from the seven impacted countries.

"President Trump and his administration are right to be concerned about national security, but it’s unacceptable when even legal permanent residents are being detained or turned away at airports and ports of entry," Republican Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) said in a statement.

An administration official also said that Trump advisers had been in contact with the State Department and Department of Homeland Security for weeks prior to the issuing of his Friday order, arguing it affected a "relatively small" number of people.

"It’s important to keep in mind that no person living or residing overseas has a right to entry to the U.S.," the official said.

But backlash on Saturday to the order was swift from civil-rights groups,various Democratic officials and businesses, which condemned it as a departure from the U.S. tradition of accepting refugees and comparing it to Trump's campaign proposal to temporarily ban Muslim migrants.

[...]

"It's not a Muslim ban, but we are totally prepared," Trump told media gathered in the Oval Office on Saturday afternoon as he signed three new executive orders on lobbying, a plan to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and a reorganization of the National Security Council.
 
"It's working out very nicely. You see it in the airports, you see it all over. It's working out very nicely and we are going to have a very, very strict ban and we are going to have extreme vetting, which we should have had in this country for many years," Trump said.
 

It's working out very nicely. Canadians who share citizenship with countries on Trump ban list can't travel to U.S

Quote

'We've never had a problem with American people,' says Canadian-Iranian woman. 'We're not terrorists'
CBC News Posted: Jan 28, 2017 8:10 PM ET Last Updated: Jan 28, 2017 8:26 PM ET

 

U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order on Friday that curbs travel to the U.S. for people coming from some seven Muslim-majority countries will mean Canadians with dual citizenship with those countries will temporarily be barred from entering Canada's neighbour to the south.

In an email to CBC News, a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department said: "Beginning January 27, 2017, travellers who have nationality or dual nationality of one of these countries [Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen] will not be permitted for 90 days to enter the United States or be issued an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa."

[...]

"Those nationals or dual nationals holding valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visas will not be permitted to enter the United States during this period." 

A spokesperson for Transport Canada told CBC News via email the agency is further looking into the ban's affect on Canadians.

"We are in contact with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other partners to get more information on the impacts," said Delphine Denis.

"We will be providing further information to Canadians as available."

Canada's immigration minister born in Somalia

Canada's Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen was born in Somalia, one of the countries on Trump's ban list.

Camielle Edwards, senior special assistant for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, told CBC News, "We have no concerns about Minister Hussen's ability to travel to the United States."

Trump's order makes some exemptions for diplomats.

It also suspends entry for Syrian refugees until Trump determines that doing so is "consistent with the national interest," and freezes the country's refugee program for 120 days — though the U.S. may admit refugees on a case-by-case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now