“The Great Wall of China is 13,000 miles long!”
— Donald Trump, 6:25PM Central time, 10/28/2015
’nuff said. Just one of the “facts” flying around…
(Actual length: 5500 miles, so just off by a factor of 2.4)
More on walls here.
“The Great Wall of China is 13,000 miles long!”
— Donald Trump, 6:25PM Central time, 10/28/2015
’nuff said. Just one of the “facts” flying around…
(Actual length: 5500 miles, so just off by a factor of 2.4)
More on walls here.
Menzie,
I’ve think I’ve made it clear that I’m not a Trump supporter. However, I think Trump was referring to the length of the Great Wall as originally built as opposed to its length today. According to China’s State Administration of Cultural Heritage, archeological evidence suggests that as built the Great Wall was 13,170 miles long.
Trump already made this statement on the O’Reilly factor so it’s not really new.
Rick Stryker: I guess it all hinges on what your definition of “is” … is. If he’d said “was”, I guess then it would make more sense.
Menzie,
What the Donald actually said was:
“They built the great wall of China. That’s 13,000 miles.”
I think it’s clear from context that he meant the length as actually built.
I’m not sure why you are focused on his length statement, which actually seems to be correct. The real lunacy came next when he said:
“We can do a wall. We’re going to have a big, fat beautiful door right in the middle of the wall. We’re going to have people come in, but they’re coming in legally. And Mexico’s going to pay for the wall because Mexico — I love the Mexican people; I respect the Mexican leaders — but the leaders are much sharper, smarter and more cunning than our leaders.”
So, we’re going to have a fabulous door right in the middle of the Great Wall of America. You only get to walk through that splendid door if you are legal. And Mexico will pay for it? Is this a Presidential debate of a Monty Python skit?
Rick Stryker: Well, my understanding is that construction took place over hundreds of years, over different periods, and that at no time were there extant 13,000 miles of standing walls. So if he wants to say 13K miles, I guess that’s kind of right…
Additional nuance here…
What you call lunacy, many on the right think is a great goal (that’s what it is — a goal, not a statement of supposed fact). Whether it’s feasible is another matter.
Yes, that’s right. According to Rasmussen 70% of Republicans favor building a wall on the Southern border. But this idea, while more heavily favored by Republicans, also has support from the center and left. 57% of independents and 30% Democrats also favor building the wall.
I think it’s feasible to build a wall of some kind of course but I don’t think it’s feasible to build a wall that can effectively keep people out. And even if you could build such a wall, I think it’s a very bad policy.
We all have metaphorical “walls” around our resources and wealth. A literal boarder wall is something that you consider when your neighbor continues to violate your boundaries and take your resources and wealth.
Now, you can argue that over several generations, illegal immigration adds to the wealth of the nation, but initially the opposite is true. The real issues are 1) the disrespect of U.S. laws and sovereignty, 2) the disparate impact on southern border states, and 3) the societal disruption from unabated influx of unvetted individuals who are neither prepared for nor willing to assimilate into the general population either out of fear or principle.
A somewhat dated CBO study failed to grasp the overall impact: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
ABC News cited a figure of $100 billion per year cost: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/illegal-immigrants-cost-us-100-billion-year-group/story?id=10699317
Other sources claim illegal immigration is a net wash or benefit, fiscally.
Given the uncertainty of the financial burden/benefit of illegal immigration, perhaps it is best to focus on the social/legal aspects and consider what uncontrolled migration means to the working/functioning basis of this country. Lax enforcement of immigration means 1) government is not doing its job and 2) the uncertain results of this dereliction creates social and political schisms that are unnecessary and detrimental.
A “wall” may be literal or metaphorical, but enforcement of U.S. territorial boundaries is a basic duty of those in whom our national security and law enforcement is entrusted. Refusal to enforce such is legal dereliction and grounds for impeachment.
We all have metaphorical “walls” around our resources and wealth. A literal boarder wall is something that you consider when your neighbor continues to violate your boundaries and take your resources and wealth.
Now, you can argue that over several generations, illegal immigration adds to the wealth of the nation, but initially the opposite seems to be true. The real issues are 1) the disrespect of U.S. laws and sovereignty, 2) the disparate impact on southern border states, and 3) the societal disruption from unabated influx of unvetted individuals who are neither prepared for nor willing to assimilate into the general population either out of fear or principle.
A somewhat dated CBO study failed to grasp the overall impact: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
ABC News cited a figure of $100 billion per year cost: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/illegal-immigrants-cost-us-100-billion-year-group/story?id=10699317
Other sources claim illegal immigration is a net wash or benefit, fiscally.
Given the uncertainty of the financial burden/benefit of illegal immigration, perhaps it is best to focus on the social/legal aspects and consider what uncontrolled migration means to the working/functioning basis of this country. Lax enforcement of immigration means 1) government is not doing its job and 2) the uncertain results of this dereliction creates social and political schisms that are unnecessary and detrimental.
A “wall” may be literal or metaphorical, but enforcement of U.S. territorial boundaries is a basic duty of those in whom our national security and law enforcement is entrusted. Refusal to enforce such is legal dereliction and grounds for impeachment.
Bruce Hall: So, it would seem to me, a reasonable question using your criteria, is how many of the past presidents we should have impeached…My guess — all of ’em!!! I’m sure there are some in Congress who would agree with you.
Rick,
I actually think Trump is the (stealth) Republican establishment candidate. He supports government handouts to Wall Street; he supports Kelo; he supports higher taxes for the “rich” (the wealthy don’t have much income only those attempting to get wealthy); and I could go on. I haven’t see a Republican candidate polling this high embrace so many Democrat ideas since Richard Nixon.
The Donald is a corporate-state Democrazy trying to save the Republifascists from themselves so that Dame Hilbillary can be selected as the first woman CEO of the militarist-imperialist, rentier-socialist corporate-state. She’s wanted the job so long, she deserves to wear the purple toga/robe and laurel wreath more than anyone.
What better fate than to become USSA POTUS at this particular point in the progressive decadence of Imperium Americanum.
Ricardo,
I think people think of Trump as the anti-establishment candidate, which is his appeal. Trump has almost no support from the Republican establishment, which will make it difficult if not impossible for him to get the nomination. I’m not sure that Richard Nixon could succeed in today’s Republican party.
I would think Trump’s very odd mix of views will also mean that his chance of being the nominee is very low. Politicians succeed to the extent that they can bundle together a series of positions that will allow them to build a winning coalition. But how many members of the Republican base want to build a wall on the Southern border, liberalize concealed carry permits (as Trump seemed to imply in the debate), raise taxes on the rich, and install a single payer health care system? I think the voters really aren’t paying much attention to what he actually says he believes right now and just want to protest.
Ironically, people support Trump because they are tired of the politicians. But Trump is probably the best politician on the stage. Who knows if he is serious about the wall but I doubt very much he really means it. As an experienced reality tv star, he has looked at the polls and knows how to make a few startling statements that people will approve of if they are not paying much attention. But like the best politicians, you can’t tell what Trump sincerely believes about anything. He has positioned himself so that people can believe what they want to believe about him. When pressed for details, Trump never gives any. O’reilly repeatedly pressed Trump to explain how he will get Mexico to pay for the wall and his answer seemed to be that he’s the Donald and he gets what he wants, you’ll see.
And how many states did Obama say the US had?
58 states I believe
China’s credit and fixed investment bubbles as a share of GDP are the largest in world history; that is, with the possible equivalent exception of The Great Wall and the Egyptian pyramids.
All bubbles burst, and the largest bubbles burst spectacularly. Therefore, China is at risk of the greatest debt-deflationary collapse in world history, the effects of which will likely spread to SE Asia, Oz, NZ, and Africa.
BC…care to go out on a limb and put a timeline on this? I agree with you, btw.
Davis, the bubble has been bursting for a while. That this is a global end-game process, not “an event”, it will likely play out over many years, perhaps decades.
I want to hear more about that 14% growth. Did I hear that right?
Forget the Great Trump Wall. Ted Wants the GOLD STANDARD!
Cruz says that not only should the Fed stop “juicing” the economy but we need “sound” money “ideally” based on a gold standard.
And don’t forget that Ted is a Princeton and Harvard Law grad so obviously a genius.
What good is “sound” money when the result is lower real income?
Sure, the dollar is worth less, but the additional dollars more than make up for it.
The Fed creates and destroys money to help smooth-out business cycles to promote sustainable growth, which is optimal growth.
Economic boom/bust cycles (not to be confused with asset booms and busts) are inefficient both in the boom and bust phases.
Monetary policy has become much more flexible to deal with suboptimal growth, since we went off the gold standard.
You can thank the Fed later for the faster real growth.
Thank the TBTE banks, the owners of the Fed, and FRB for the unprecedented debt to wages and GDP during the “Great Moderation”, a situation that has left us with total net annual flows to the financial sector equaling total annual US output in perpetuity. There can be no real growth per capita after net flows to the financial/financialized sectors.
But a classical gold standard as an alternative is laughable.
Too much household debt was caused by lax lending standards set by Congress, along with other poor policies from Washington politicians, including too-big-to-fail.
Of course, an economic downturn causes more loan defaults. Some people shouldn’t have been able to borrow and others shouldn’t have been able to borrow so much.
And, too much government debt was caused by too much government spending and too low tax rates in expansions.
If you believe the financial sector is as big as the economy, then you should be for a bigger financial sector.
“Menzie Chinn Post author
October 29, 2015 at 6:22 am
Bruce Hall: So, it would seem to me, a reasonable question using your criteria, is how many of the past presidents we should have impeached…My guess — all of ’em!!! I’m sure there are some in Congress who would agree with you.”
Menzie,
I think the difference is that the current president (and perhaps the prior one) has taken specific actions to not enforce immigration laws. I would hope you agree that there is a difference between doing a poor job of enforcement and actively undermining enforcement. Closer to home, if you did not regularly show up prepared for the classes you were supposed to teach, you would be brought on the carpet to discuss corrective actions. But if you showed up and then simply refused to teach, you might well be fired.
Bruce Hall: Well, there are lots of laws. For instance, I’m thinking of President Jackson and refusal to implement Supreme Court decision in Worcester vs. Georgia. I’m for retro-active impeachment! Are you on-board?
Heavens forbid if we should, for instance, impeach on grounds of dereliction of duty…e.g., PDB of 6 August 2001.
Menzie, we both know that impeachment is a rare and almost impossible action. Nevertheless, one can still point out that actions/deliberate inaction could be impeachable offenses.
Joseph Schumpter wrote about “creative destruction” that invigorated an economy. But I’m not sure that unbridled migration of poor, uneducated people into a relatively mature society provides the same benefits. More than likely, it leads to mere “disruption”. I think the experiment for that is occurring now in Europe and we will see the results of that within a decade.
The illegal migration into the U.S. has created a “shadow citizenry” that is disruptive legally and societally, not to mention the obvious… politically. A blind eye was turned to this phenomenon as long as these migrants remained in the shadows, but with the advent of migrant protagonists and migrant “rights”, the spotlight is shining too brightly to ignore the situation and the disruption to our society.
Bruce Hall: Seems to me failure to take action to prevent a terrorist attack on American soil is better grounds for impeachment. I hope you agree.
Just so everyone knows, I am referring to this declassified document.
Menzie Agreed.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-bill-clinton-osama-bin-laden-20140801-story.html
So when the American population makes bad, risky and costly strategic decisions, would you propose impeaching the American people?
Erik Poole: I thought We the People elected our representatives (including the president). Hence, the process of impeachment. We don’t impeach ourselves. Kinda weird question…
Menzie Chinn: Of course it is a weird question to those who refuse to take responsibility for bad ‘democratic decisions’.
Apparently both you and Bruce Hall believe that you can solve US security challenges through counter-terrorism measures.
Yet on the issues that incite attacks on US civilian targets, both of you remain absolutely silent. As long as you believe that secure economic property rights should be allocated on partisan, sectarian or even racist criteria, you and your fellow citizens will remain righteous targets. As long as you continue to kill more civilians than the ‘terrorists’ do, you will remain righteous targets and just like diminishing returns that lead to so-called liquidity traps, some of you will die.
If I understand correctly, the ‘War on Terror’ has affected how even the smartest Americans perceive security issues.
All this to say, stop finger-pointing and take some responsibility for bad outcomes.
Erik Poole: Now I really don’t understand what you’re getting at. If you are saying we should criticize the American people for poor choices, I’m in agreement. My point is it was weird to have the House of Representatives take a vote on impeaching the American people, and the Senate then to decide on impeachment.
Bad decisions, well, I’ve had plenty to say on this topic. Do you care to “revise and extend” your previous comments?
I hear “There are 73,000 pages in the tax code..”
And Obamacare kills 470,000 small businesses every year.
They are all crooks. Think of them like cockroaches. If you find one, get it. Excusing bad behavior by saying they all do it is horrible logic. I think failure to go after the bankers, instead rescuing them, was an impeachable offense. No doubt Eric Holder and Obama will be on many boards of directors in a few years.
The Power Elite top 0.001% need politicians to be crooks. They need individuals who are overly ambitious, sociopathic narcissists whom they can blackmail, bribe, and appeal to vanity and delusions of grandeur.
No person who believes himself/herself worthy to be the CEO of the imperial corporate-state ought to have the job.
Are walls the only public infrastructure the Republicans favor?
rd, for-profit prisons paid for with public funds. Do they count? It’s a growth sector, so should we not be encouraging unlawful activities in order to grow the market for revenues and profits?
Crime pays . . . the owners of for-profit prisons.
What better mass-social control than a profitable one?
PP4POTUS2016
“Reagan deregulated trucking and the airlines.”
Actually, it was Jimmy Carter.
“92% of the jobs lost during Barack Obama’s first term belonged to women.”
The fastest-growing employment since the 1970s-80s occurred in health care, education, gov’t, financial services, and retail. 65-85% of jobs were for females, i.e., feminization of the economy as a result of deindustrialization and financialization of the economy since US peak oil production per capita in 1970.
Now these sectors make up 54% equivalent of GDP and are among the least productive sector, thereby constituting a net cost to the rest of the private sector.
These sectors have to grow for the economy to grow; however, if they grow, the rest of the economy cannot grow. Catch-22.
Health care is “least productive”????
I guess you have never been sick. If you get cancer, stroke or a heart attack, that “health care” sector is about the most productive and important in the whole world.
Donald Trump’s “wall” is appealing to the frustration of voters who believe their government operates under the Blackwhite Principle:
“…this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.”
Perhaps nowhere is this principle more aptly demonstrated than the DHS:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/10/dhs-tries-halting-deportation-of-illegal-aliens-ethnically-profiled-by-cops/
Jeb! does not want it to be. Guess, the Georges forced him to run. Each of his words and each of his moves tell “I do not want to be candidate, and I do not want to be President, and I do not want to fight with this idiot Trump and I do not want to see this snake Fiorina, and i just want to go home to be happy again”.
The leftover is Trump, no other card in the game.
If Hillarys campaign change from “mommy for the average Joe” to “fighter mommy, aka some kind of left-wing Ronnie Reagan” is working out, our next POTUS will be Hillary. BTW Axelrod is back, and “fighter mommy” could fit Hillary well. Could turn out to be a clever move by Axelrod. Will see.
Anyway, Jeb!, go home. Better you excel in being an accountant, or librarian, or university lecturer at best, teaching anthropological studies.
13 Keys to the Presidency. If six or more turn against the Democrats, the Republican candidate wins. Keys against: (1) Party Mandate: The incumbent party does not hold more Congressional seats; (2) Contest: A serious one for the incumbent party nomination is underway; (3) Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is not the sitting president; (4) Policy change: No major domestic policy change this term; (5) Foreign/military success : None achieved this term; (6) Incumbent charisma: Neither Clinton nor Sanders has charisma; (7) Challenger charisma: Trump charismatic, no others.
Created in 1981, the 13 Keys method correctly predicted each and every presidential election victor since – and around a year or more in advance. Even if Trump is not the Republican candidate, the 13 Keys method predicts a Republican victory. Trump’s charisma simply ices it for the Republicans. His charisma is an overlooked reason for why he is the front running challenger. JFK, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama had charisma and won on it. I used this method to make the correct call every election since its inception.
It ought to be apparent that sniping at Trump, as this post does, has the tendency to backfire given the mood of the country in which a majority are worse off than at the last cycle peak. Hope and Change may have resonated in 2008. Yet Great Again now resonates even more against the failure of Hope and Change.
“We have 400,000 small businesses forming every year in this country….The bad news is, we have 470,000 going out of business every year. And why? They cite Obamacare.”
Yet, another Great Moment in Presidential Debates.
“It is absolutely absurd to say that I had any kind of a relationship with them [Mannatech].”
Half of the countries in Europe are building walls right now. They don’t keep everyone out, but they do mitigate immigration.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3205724/How-65-countries-erected-security-walls-borders.html
Cultural cohesion is required for optimal economic strength. The video graphic below does not enhance Europe cultural cohesion.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-refugee-crisis-captured-in-one-staggering-animated-graphic-2015-10-28
Counter Ted Cruz, I offer one Ben Franklin, who is busy spinning in his grave over what is happening to this Republic due to the Conservative Movement.
” Thus much by way of Apology for this present Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity o/ a Paper Currency. And if any Thing I shall say, may be a Means of fixing a Subject that is now the chief Concern of my Countrymen, in a clearer Light, I shall have the Satisfaction of thinking my Time and Pains well employed.
To proceed, then,
There is a certain proportionate Quantity of Money requisite to carry on the Trade of a Country freely and currently; More than which would be of no Advantage in Trade, and Less, if much less, exceedingly detrimental to it. …”http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1701-1750/benjamin-franklin-a-modest-enquiry-into-the-nature-and-necessity-of-paper-currency.php
I think of organizing “Liberals for reclaiming the founding fathers as the liberals and radicals they were.”i
Another thing about walls, unless there are men with guns (or before guns, swords, spears, and arrows) willing to shoot on them, they usually are not much good. The Great Wall of China did not work.
Their is no question their wall was an impediment to invading armies and made it more difficult for looters to return with spoils.
PP4POTUS2016:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHYQ0XiMB34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn69wP-jD2Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9do8A15AWU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-2u40Tv9D0
“Rumors of the worst kind. True rumors.”
Cassandra returns! Her archetype infusing the spirit of BC, she spells out the future. Sadly, though, over millennia mankind has not learnt what the ancient Greeks already knew. The sophists and Pharisees that populate this site laugh. Use the word clown for a legitimate presidential candidate who has accomplished, has built, and does see. They take no heed of her warnings. Plug their ears with beeswax and academic chants. So they neither see nor hear of the economic calamity fast closing upon us …
The walls are not ancient of China. They are modern of debt. Towering so skyward the sun does not reach the floor of this box canyon. That corrupt bought and paid for politicians, officials, and academics have led us into …
This from the Washington Post is priceless: “Barely 1 in 100 will rise, as Carson did, all the way to the top 1 percent.”
Barely.
Heh.
The most insane thing is that he seems to not just miss a few thousand years of technological progress but also miss the strategic differences between China back then, and US now.
China had a landlocked problem with armed invaders on horses, at a time when a 30 ft high wall with armed guards was all it would take to hold them back. In modern US the people crossing illegally do not need to bring horses and weapons, just their own little bodies. So they can cross the border by boats, tunnels, airplanes, even turist visa, or via Canada. The fact that they go by foot over the border, is simply because that is currently the most cost effective way for them. On the other hand those smuggling drugs cannot afford a 50% catch rate, so they are using other approaches. If the wall actually works, some other way will become the most cost effective. Just like with the drugs; as long as there is a demand for illegal workers, there will be a supply. Entry is a set cost and driving that cost up will simply mean that the illegals will have to stay longer in the US to recover it. These are basic “business 101” concepts that apparently are evading Trumph. Apparently this clown can neither think nor analyze a problem and the +/- of all its potential solutions.
a major problem with the illegal immigration situation is the large number of employers who are willing to break the law and hire an illegal worker. lots of froth at the mouth focused on the immigrants themselves. too bad that anger is also not directed at the us citizens who are directly breaking the law. those folks are completely missing from the equation. why is there more anger directed at the immigrant who is trying to make a better life than the employer who intentionally breaks the law to increase profit?
Baffling,
A major problem is that employers must walk the fine line between not hiring illegals and not being able to ask the citizenship/immigration status of prospective employees.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/09/doj-accuses-u-s-biz-of-discrimination-for-requiring-proof-of-work-eligibility/
bruce,
” “The department’s investigation found that the company required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility,” the DOJ claims.
all the company needs to do is ask the same question to all the employees or prospective employees. the rules say you are to verify status. by picking and choosing, you are effectively applying a discriminatory approach. that is why the business is in trouble. simply follow the rules, they are not too hard. i have provided proper documentation multiple times in my career. no big deal.
Just another “cost of doing business” in the Federal States of America: https://www.formi9.com/Law.aspx
Yup, a very fine line.
bruce, did you actually read the document? there is very little cost to doing business here. as i said, i have gone through the process several times myself. it is only a cost if you want to make it a cost. if you file the paperwork (very little effort there), make an honest effort to view documents showing you are legal, you are basically in the clear. you only get in trouble if you do not examine the documents, or knowingly employ somebody considered illegal. as standard practice, many employers spend far more time and money on background checks resulting from their own due diligence, not required by this law. you need to find another issue to complain about.
Couldn’t you do something meaningful and systemic? Even in politics, how is a one liner mistake supposed to mean anything? It’s like the isolated Walker-sniping factoids. Make some general argument about how you want more transfer programs, not less, or whatever your beliefs are. Are you really so politically indifferent that you would choose a President based on quiz show performance? (e.g. electing Bill Buckley [when he was alive], even though your politics are so different?) I doubt it.
Of course, the politics gets boring when there is so much economic stuff to discuss instead. And waxing Bentsen here, “I knew Milton and you’re no Milton Freidman”.
[I didn’t actually know him, but couldn’t pass up the gibe. Oh…and he’s not just a free markets popularize. Check out his article in the big blue Tukey-edited book that is a homage to Hotelling. Thing is full of serious hard math and all. Dude could bring it with linear algebra, stats, diffyQs.]