Brilliant insight. Shiller basically just regurgitated Clinton News Network bullshit propaganda though.

"Shill"er. What about a protest vote against a corrupt system that ignores the needs of citizens in exchange for cowering to their donors. Hillary is basically a poster child for privilege and corruption.

You guys have no clue about her inner thoughts lmao

smoke weed every day!!

OK I have the benefit of coming back and looking at it well into our first term. What did he get right? Spending is out of control but that's been true for decades. He said manufacturing wouldn't come back but there's been growth in that sector. He said bathrooms were a serious civil rights issue. I mean come on....

I bet he is the only one in the whole room who travelled to the poor part of Providence

She is more interested in absolving HRC (and the DNC) of any responsibility for Trump's victory than in taking a sober look at how we got here and what it means in the near future.

It was nice of them to have someone without an education on the panel though.

She's an emotionally charged sockpuppet for Clinton. That's why.

No, you see all the voters magically changed their minds between the last poll, and election day, cuz reasons. I am sorry, what? Your dumb ass teaches at fucking Brown?!

the same answer I give in meetings when I have no clue what I am talking about

you should check out victor davis hanson.

It's like swimming thru razor blades.

It really is risible. Starting with "you lost, get over it k" was magnificently tone deaf. Deciding that the smart call is defending HRC personally was a mistake.

Thanks man

Legend

Depressing, how she seemed to have not a clue why Clinton lost so badly (even if the eventual result was so close). If Schiller is an example of how the Democratic "elite' and party will respond to Trump's presidency & the Republicans, there's no hope whatsoever for liberalism or the Democratic Party. Better get ready to lose to them again in 2020, and probably 2018 as well.

Couldn't agree more. After seeing the continued hubris and lack of introspection from Democrats (and not just those elected) I'm starting to understand the "ear-wig" grip neoliberalism has on this party-- one I've been a member of for 40 years. It's like trying to talk to a creationist or flat-earther-- reason just doesn't work. Maybe it's too soon, but I am not encouraged.

Anything specific that you disliked about what she said or are you just going to call her names

I specifically hated that a professor of political science regurgitated like a scripted CNN guest. Too hard to understand? Not my problem.

***** Yep. Pretty clear and self-explanatory the first time.

Yep...the fact Trump won is proof of the huge credibility problem Clinton had....and the fact people voted for Clinton because they are horrified of Trump only masks that enormous credibility problem...:-)

@@lotlievaart6823 -- To take it further,the US government is FULL of elected officials with sinister and shady pasts,Trump included,but at least he doesn't pretend to be a saint,the Dems don't seem to like people their mud doesn't stick to and now they appear to have someone in the opposite corner who enjoys the same immunity to criticism THEY'VE had for decades !

Thank you, yea the Clintons are straight evil.

even now she does not realize that it was her fault. she somehow thinks that the people own her to vote for her because she had experience.

When do you stop posting?

13:10 first monologue 34:40 second monologue

Thank you Snowman, saving my ears from Dem Est BS

@@rickylarch I think he was looking for timestamps. she had nothing to say. some of it was bordering dangerous. like becoming more engaged without a mention of understanding other point of views. the last thing we need are idiot activists. i dont mind, however, id be lying if i didnt admit thqt a little part of me enjoys watching things backfire.

… and pretty good for your American friends and the rest of the world.

I have zero doubt. The DNC had to have known it too, but defeating Trump was much less important than defeating Sanders. Trump poses no threat to what the DNC holds dear. Sexism, global warming... my ass. Those are just their "public positions."

Bernie Sold Out!

love how no Bernie bro ever notices the achile's heel of Bernie=Math!!!. When the entire wealth of billionaires in the country tallies 1.5Trillion, you cannot plan to fund 40-90T worth of change by taxing them.....so to anyone that CAN do math Bernie comes off as a willful liar. To them, they don't assume he is dumb, they assume he is deceptive. And the longer you see the performance the more deceptive morphs into evil. Most liberals, especially locally educated ones, grew up with the popular idea of a"when will you ever use this" vs math. It's not they they don't know how, it's that they don't bother to. They simply assume it must have been done, and therefore true. Bernie is more of a threat to the DNC then ever to the GOP - Trump never needed to worry about him, DNC will never allow him to win, even if he ends up convincing the majority of their base AND the GOP base. They will take the loss

3 years later, and history has not been kind to your comment, lol.

Me too

bikerjosh07 I found this guy a while ago, hes a champion.

Me too! I wanted to hear more of what Mark had to say! He's awesome! But this Wendy lady needs to go! She's a total Hillbot and taking away from the whole talk smh.

shiluxx Mark is a gem. I've listened to a lot of his stuff. He knows his shit and makes it relatable like only a good economist can.

Australian Progressive Yea, I'll definitely be listening to him a lot more from now on!

Huh. Small world. Hi, Michael.

Hi Jonathan 😊

Yes, and YOU asked for it. Who elected the Congress that approved the treaties and passed the legislation?

You want to blame anything but the Clintons?

michael mcclure You want to blame nobody but the Clintons?

After listening in full to Wendy Shiller first bit, I skipped the rest of her talk. There was no meat inside. No specific substance other than what you can get out of mainstream media.

Can't blame you for that, but I think you'll find that Blyth's insights are really worth the effort of skipping past Schiller.

Not wrong - Hillary was a flawed candidate - obvious pre-vote let alone post vote and Schiller just can not accept it??!!

She had good points? Where? I didn't hear one... I heard a bunch of parroted bullshit propaganda from the mainstream media. HRC wasn't a flawed candidate? Bernie would have lost, because the 2016 exit polls?! Completely fucking clueless!

john handcock I like your passion, keep it burning and fuel it with knowledge, because the US will need passionate people like you over the next 4-8 years. Maybe I exaggerated a bit, since I can recall only one memorable point she made. She said that since the Republicans now own the Senate, the House and the Presidency, all the failures that will come from their governance (and we know there will be many of those, lol) will be entirely theirs, and they cannot blame anyone else. Left wing people (I don't want to say democrats because they are not left leaning) should use this to their advantage. Other than that, I cannot disagree with you and that is why I said that I wished Mark Blyth could have had more time on this forum...

She's a near total Hillbot, and hence not creditable at all as any kind of authority on the subject. She also kept yammering on when I wanted to hear Blyth speak. Neither his manner or voice is abrasive the way hers was.

Schiller is encouraging us to be content with the status quo...

Ahem....Let me introduce myself!

The Lucas Critique

bikerjosh07 Thanks a million.

Just ordered what looks like an epic book by him, Austerity, which he kills. Currently reading Ha-Joon Chang's truly incredible Economics: A User's Guide. If you dig enough below the neoclassical dort, you can find some real gems out there.

I don't think you can definitively say that Bernie would have won...even if he had gotten the nomination, the Republicans could have put forth a candidate like Rubio or Kasich that would have drawn in way more moderate voters. Hindsight is 20-20, of course, but it's a lot tougher to figure out all the forces at play when these things happen simultaneously. Makes me wonder how these conversations about "inevitable" political movements would be framed differently if it had gone any other way.

I agree with your sentiment (I voted for Sanders in the primaries) but I also don't think we can ever really know for sure how these things would have played out, since those polls were taken before any of the candidates really got the attention/scrutiny that would have come in the general election. I won't deny that the current Democratic Party is very flawed, though.

Ahh, she sure as hell ain't brilliant here... Damn near everything she said was laughably wrong.

Yah, I can definitely say that Bernie would have won. Her "Argument" that bernie would have lost is the exit poll data of HRC vs Trump. Idk whether to cry or laugh at how stupid that is...

Looks like Blyth is IPE.

The year is 2021 - still interested in a transcript of the Blyth analysis of the 2016 Trump win ?? (and clueless Wendy Schiller "political scientist" also speaks). Go to the video window to the right bottom corner, you will find 3 dots. (like ... but the dots are larger) click on then select transcript. you can select, copy and past - as usual. Watson Institute have even uploaded edited subtitles / transcript. (else most videos have automatic subs / transcript enabled. If they also have the language setting right ;) the language recognition of youtube is pretty good).

I disagree with some of his points. LIke: the "gaming" of the system. The increase of productivity easily paid for all what the unions demanded in better wages (and companies preemtively increased prices so there was somewhat higher inflation - so they gamed the system in direction of inflation - but it did not harm the population, it was a side effect of a booming economy. Productivity wins (from a growing population and workforce !) outweighed wage growth (it was plus 97 % for average hourly wages adjusted for inflation. Productivity rose by 112 % in the same time: 1947 - 1970. That was a good time also for biz. But a major share of the wins went into the pockets of people who spent the money. Those increases made sure they could buy what was produced with ever more efficiency (more output). Also: we do not need "capital" (it is money/currency not capital, but never mind). Banks create most of the money that they give out in form of loans. (FIAT money). And the government _can_ directly create debt and interest free money. They only ever do that in a crisis - see QE for the banks to the tune of trillions (Blyth mentions 13 trillion EURO, I know of 4.5 trn in the U.S. (only under Obama). and 700 - 800 billion created by the Bank of England (the U.K. only has 65 million people). W/o crisis (often war) the banks protect their turf. And if direct money creation is used - they fast return to the investor friendly status quo and do not mention the former schmes anymore. The unwashed masses could be getting ideas. Plus: The rich want to be seen as indispensable as "givers" of "capital" and buyers of gov. bonds (government debt). The owners of rich fortunes ("Capital") are not needed to finance a vibrant economy.

Absolutely!