|
One of the biggest problems is that the super duper ultra rich have their hands on most of the world's levers and real solutions involve them sharing more of the pie. They hate that.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
Munkeymon posted:So they don't care but are still trying something that's politically feasible, unlike naked redistribution, just not enough in your opinion? Plenty of things like "tax the rich" and "raise the minimum wage right now" are politically feasible, and if the Democrats were more than the party of action-less rhetoric, they could easily do those things in states and cities across the country where they have legislative power. Both those positions, which help address economic inequality, are massively popular with the population and voters. However: ToxicSlurpee posted:One of the biggest problems is that the super duper ultra rich have their hands on most of the world's levers and real solutions involve them sharing more of the pie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Also it's very easy to look at income inequality and miss wealth inequality. Wealth moves across borders easier than income, making it harder to tax. Also wealth is much whiter than income, making going after it less politically palatable. But it's wealth inequality that has such devastating outcomes. If you have wealth you don't need income to live very well, but if you have income without wealth, you're one bad turn from the poorhouse. Donald Trump and a guy sleeping in his car might have equivalent income but vastly different amounts of wealth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:It is not so much that anyone thought they would unpeg the krone from the Euro, but the fact that Denmark unilaterally could unpeg whenever they feel like it makes it a strictly better store of value to large investors, and thus can have lower rates to reflect this difference. In addition, there are fewer physical DKK in the world than Euros, making cash hording even more difficult, and therefore lower negative rates more possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:They're trying things that won't fix the problem, knowing they won't fix the problem, and not seeming like they would do more but for political realities. So yes, I think it's fair to say they don't particularly care Right, so they actually are acting like they're trying, just not in a way you'd like which is? Uranium Phoenix posted:Plenty of things like "tax the rich" and "raise the minimum wage right now" are politically feasible, and if the Democrats were more than the party of action-less rhetoric, they could easily do those things in states and cities across the country where they have legislative power. They are. Here, let me just punch that into google for you https://www.google.com/search?q=ordinance+raising+minimum+wage&tbm=nws
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:They are. Here, let me just punch that into google for you https://www.google.com/search?q=ordinance+raising+minimum+wage&tbm=nws I actually know quite a bit about the minimum wage increases that have happened, but thanks for linking me to Google instead of making an actual argument. In Seattle, the Democrats fought against the minimum wage increase until it was clear that they either needed to pass it via the council or it would go to a referendum, and even then they passed a watered-down version that phased it in over several years. A few other places Democrats have actually blocked minimum wage increases. In others, they passed slow phase-in versions that have exceptions. The people leading the way on raising the minimum wage were activists outside the party, fast food workers, and socialists. The Democrats could have done any of that poo poo for years anywhere they had power, and they still could--but instead, minimum wage increases are only happening slowly in a few places.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Also it's very easy to look at income inequality and miss wealth inequality. Wealth moves across borders easier than income, making it harder to tax. Also wealth is much whiter than income, making going after it less politically palatable. But it's wealth inequality that has such devastating outcomes. If you have wealth you don't need income to live very well, but if you have income without wealth, you're one bad turn from the poorhouse. Donald Trump and a guy sleeping in his car might have equivalent income but vastly different amounts of wealth. There's only a few ways to fix wealth inequality (socializing the means of production, a 100% estate tax over a certain amount, a wealth tax) and none of them are palatable to liberals because intergenerational accumulation of wealth is literally what capitalism is designed to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
rscott posted:There's only a few ways to fix wealth inequality (socializing the means of production, a 100% estate tax over a certain amount, a wealth tax) and none of them are palatable to liberals because intergenerational accumulation of wealth is literally what capitalism is designed to do. Kinda, the endgame of capitalism is effectively transitioning back into feudalism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:I actually know quite a bit about the minimum wage increases that have happened, but thanks for linking me to Google instead of making an actual argument. In Seattle, the Democrats fought against the minimum wage increase until it was clear that they either needed to pass it via the council or it would go to a referendum, and even then they passed a watered-down version that phased it in over several years. A few other places Democrats have actually blocked minimum wage increases. In others, they passed slow phase-in versions that have exceptions. The people leading the way on raising the minimum wage were activists outside the party, fast food workers, and socialists. The Democrats could have done any of that poo poo for years anywhere they had power, and they still could--but instead, minimum wage increases are only happening slowly in a few places. You said they didn't do anything and I pointed out that they have/are doing things. Maybe make less broad generalizations in the future if you want a more specific response? Yes, phased-in increases are the sane and reasonable way to do a minimum wage increase and complaining about that, along with the bizarre insinuation that fast food workers aren't Democrats, leads me to assume you're just leftist virtue signaling here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:You said they didn't do anything and I pointed out that they have/are doing things. Maybe make less broad generalizations in the future if you want a more specific response? There's actually no reason to phase in minimum wage increases over years or decades, especially given how stagnant wages have been for decades. The fast food workers who started going on strike demanding wage increases initially had literally no establishment support, which is distinct from the Democratic party helping them. "Leftist virtue signaling" seems to be your way avoiding a relevant critique of the actions of the Democratic party and their elected politicians, who could pass many progressive laws if they wanted to, but are not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That sounds like a different conclusion than most of the articles I can find (and what we've been told in the media over the last few years), but then those aren't always the most reliable. Do you have a link to a more thorough explanation? This was around the time that nominal interest rates first started going negative, and everyone was questioning whether such a thing could last for any significant length of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Kinda, the endgame of capitalism is effectively transitioning back into feudalism. So wait, the endgame of the very system that tore down feudalism is to transition back into feudalism?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:There's actually no reason to phase in minimum wage increases over years or decades, especially given how stagnant wages have been for decades. The fast food workers who started going on strike demanding wage increases initially had literally no establishment support, which is distinct from the Democratic party helping them. "Leftist virtue signaling" seems to be your way avoiding a relevant critique of the actions of the Democratic party and their elected politicians, who could pass many progressive laws if they wanted to, but are not. There is a reason. Sharply increasing labor costs all at once would be a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_(economics) and those are generally something you want to avoid or at least make as small as is feasible. Constituents have to demand things of their representatives in government in order to get those things. Saying "well they should ~just know~ the people wanted/needed the thing" is idealistic nonsense, but so is assuming there's nothing wrong with forcing the local economy to absorb a big, one-time increase in labor costs, so maybe it's more a problem of idealistic ignorance than leftist virtue signaling. Yes, I know Democrats could be more progressive in general, but I also try to keep my expectations realistic and remember that the reality on the ground is that nothing big/significant can happen all at once without significant negative consequences.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Right, so they actually are acting like they're trying, just not in a way you'd like which is? icantfindaname posted:They're trying things that won't fix the problem, knowing they won't fix the problem, and not seeming like they would do more but for political realities. So yes, I think it's fair to say they don't particularly care try reading my post again also lol at this Munkeymon posted:leftist virtue signaling Munkeymon posted:leftist virtue signaling
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:try reading my post again Yeah, I get that they're not doing what you want them to do, but you're not saying what that actually is, which isn't helpful. Just sitting there saying "WRONG IDIOT UGH" every time anyone trys to fix a prorblem isn't constructive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:There is a reason. Sharply increasing labor costs all at once would be a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_(economics) and those are generally something you want to avoid or at least make as small as is feasible. Thanks for the wikipedia link to a general economic concept instead of, you know, a study or something. I'm glad you've characterized increasing wages above the poverty line in less than 6 years as "idealistic ignorance." The workers suffering grinding poverty as the cost of living rapidly increases no doubt understand they're not allowed to get too uppity, as improving their lives on a shorter timescale is just so unrealistic. Polls have repeatedly found that raising the minimum wage is immensely popular, and that's been true for multiple decades. Expecting politicians and major political parties to know basic polling data is idealistic nonsense? You don't get the Democrats to push progressive legislation by lowering your expectations and accepting their excuses for inaction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Thanks for the wikipedia link to a general economic concept instead of, you know, a study or something. I'm glad you've characterized increasing wages above the poverty line in less than 6 years as "idealistic ignorance." The workers suffering grinding poverty as the cost of living rapidly increases no doubt understand they're not allowed to get too uppity, as improving their lives on a shorter timescale is just so unrealistic. Well it is, so I'm not sure what else you want. I guess I could invent a time machine to go back and get minimum wage pegged to inflation and have the poverty line re-defined, but then when would I get around to killing Hitler, stalin, Pol Pot, etc? They'll just have to take comfort in the fact that their situations should improve because they agitated and got a law passed instead of passively waiting for ~something~ to happen. No, polling obviously isn't enough if you bother paying any attention to what polls well versus what actually gets legislated. You have to pester them incessantly. It's not ideal, but it is the way things work. You also don't get everything you want when you want it. Please try to keep that in mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:I can only phone post for now, so it's a bit difficult to search for sources, but I do recall a blog post from Krugman from a few years ago that compared the interest rates of Finland and Denmark. They are quite similar economies in nearly all respects, except that Finland is on the Euro while Denmark has the krone which they've pegged to the Euro (but could decide at any time to allow it to float, if they want). The differences in interest rates could therefore be considered to be attributable to Denmark's ability to "exit" the Euro at will, while Finland could not. Just the ability, and not necessarily an expectation of actually doing it, was sufficient.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
e_angst posted:So wait, the endgame of the very system that tore down feudalism is to transition back into feudalism? Capitalism the way people claim it works now does not exist and never has. What has actually existed is economic imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:There's actually no reason to phase in minimum wage increases over years or decades, especially given how stagnant wages have been for decades. The fast food workers who started going on strike demanding wage increases initially had literally no establishment support, which is distinct from the Democratic party helping them. "Leftist virtue signaling" seems to be your way avoiding a relevant critique of the actions of the Democratic party and their elected politicians, who could pass many progressive laws if they wanted to, but are not. Counterpoint: in industries with low margins and high labor costs (e.g. fast food, grocery stores) it could result in very swift price increases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Counterpoint: in industries with low margins and high labor costs (e.g. fast food, grocery stores) it could result in very swift price increases. If you think fast food has bad margins I have bad news for you. If memory serves a lot of it is "franchise fees" which basically means every McDonald's is required to pay a large bag of money to the company every year just to exist. The other thing is that across the board in like every American business executives and their nepotosmed in relatives are ridiculously overpaid, which is an expense on the books. Well gawrsh, I'd just love to not pay starvation wages but my son saw the boat I keep my boats on and wants one too. Consider things like the fact that the guy who owns papa John's owns so many cars he has a multi floor garage with a car elevator. It's Hollywood accounting top to bottom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
e_angst posted:So wait, the endgame of the very system that tore down feudalism is to transition back into feudalism? Well that's a matter of debate, traditional liberal thinkers like Adam Smith clearly had an understanding that there are limitations to private ownership that need to be respected to maintain a capitalist system. In the Wealth of Nations he argues that you should let the invisible hand do its thing but keep a watch on wealth concentration and lack of competition less the system collapse unto itself. Then we have more recent thinkers like Robert Nozick who in Anarchy, State and Utopia declares that private ownership is at the core of being free and that the state only exists to protect that freedom. Property is an exentension of the body and as such redistribution of any kind is tantamount to depriving an individual of its limbs and is unacceptable except when necessary for the state to upphold and protect private ownership and voluntary agreements. One of these systems has naive notions about the viability of free markets, and the other creates a system of inheritance which over generations can only concentrate wealth and offset the role of the state as anything but muscle to protect that wealth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
john stuart mill thought the natural end state of liberal society was an economy composed to anarchist collectives
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If you think fast food has bad margins I have bad news for you. If memory serves a lot of it is "franchise fees" which basically means every McDonald's is required to pay a large bag of money to the company every year just to exist. Minimum wage increases may indeed cause price increases, but then there is the question of what else do you at this point? A minimum wage is on of the few ways to adjust income levels that local governments in the US has and in all honesty, prices have increased since 2009. If you don't raise the minimum wage, you are effectively allow it to decline in real terms. Education isn't necessarily going to be an answer and neither is labor mobility (both are supply side fixes anyway). An a GMI/Mincome in the US is completely pie in the sky, hell it is near impossible to raise food stamp funding at this point either. Moreover a country like the US which has a trade deficit of around 2.5-3% of GDP per year needs to address inequality more than a country with balanced trade.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
The more money people have the more money they have to spend. Odd how doing it via tax breaks is a-OK but doing it in a manner that benefits the poor more than the rich is so abhorrent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:There is a reason. Sharply increasing labor costs all at once would be a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_(economics) and those are generally something you want to avoid or at least make as small as is feasible. The idealistic non-sense here is your asinine civics101 vision of US government and party politics where the only thing holding back the Democrats from implementing more substantive efforts to raise wages is because their constituents haven't been sufficiently vocal. The Democrats easily could have put more effort into passing card check legislation which the organized labour movement really wanted (and needed) to have implemented. Organized labour is a crucial democratic constituency, they are well organized enough to pass make their demands heard, and they were traditionally an instrumental part of the institutional support for the welfare state the the Democrats were intermittently constructing from the 1930s to the 1970s. One could make a similar point about charter schools. They are massively unpopular with key democratic constituents and if anything hurt the long term viability of the Democratic party by hurting teachers unions. We could go through a list of other policies like trade or entitlement reform where significant parts of the Democratic establishment commit time, energy and political capital to carry out policies that their core constituencies don't support or even actively oppose. Politicians are more concerned about their donors than their constituents, and on top of this they come from the same schools and they cycle in and out of the same workplaces as the ultra-wealthy lobbyist and business class so it's hardly surprising they broadly share the same economic vision and agenda. If you want to believe they're only opposed to the minimum wage out of technocratic concerns about creating an economic shock you can keep telling yourself that but they weirdly didn't seem all that concerned about the economic shock caused by trade deals they've supported. Why it's almost as though the Democrats selectively care about economic shocks that hurt large businesses while remaining largely indifferent toward policies which strip collective bargaining, throw people off welfare or otherwise strip away the economic and social rights that an older generation of liberals spend decades constructing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Minimum wage increases may indeed cause price increases, but then there is the question of what else do you at this point? A minimum wage is on of the few ways to adjust income levels that local governments in the US has and in all honesty, prices have increased since 2009. If you don't raise the minimum wage, you are effectively allow it to decline in real terms. Education isn't necessarily going to be an answer and neither is labor mobility (both are supply side fixes anyway). An a GMI/Mincome in the US is completely pie in the sky, hell it is near impossible to raise food stamp funding at this point either. The problem is that people frequently argue that any minimum wage increase at all will like triple the cost of a big mac when really even $15/hour will make them a few cents more expensive at most. Definitely not the economy-ending doom and gloom that people scream about. Which is why it's so god awful that people are arguing against paying a living wage; as has been said time and time again wages are stagnating, production is up, and spending power is down. Instead of the awesome utopia we were promised 30 years ago we're being shoved into a horrifying pit of poverty. It goes back to what I was saying before, really; even though Democrats at least pay lip service to things like income inequality the simple fact is that money buys elections in America. Neither party is going to go against the people with money simply because they're the ones that make the decisions. What they've decided on is not fixing problems but voting themselves more money because gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
The owner of the company I work for has probably maxed out his contributions to the Democratic party this year and still dicked everyone who works for him on a raise this year while dropping several hundred grand minimum on a newer king air. We can pretend that Clinton is above reproach and isn't influenced by the typical classist rear end in a top hat with a bunch of money to throw around but the lower levels of the party absolutely are, and that's largely where your bench is coming from. That winds up leaving the national party only candidates sympathetic to a decidedly centrist economic policy to choose from, unless they bring in people like Elizabeth Warren from the academic and technocratic side.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The problem is that people frequently argue that any minimum wage increase at all will like triple the cost of a big mac when really even $15/hour will make them a few cents more expensive at most. Definitely not the economy-ending doom and gloom that people scream about. Well, to be frank, the Soviets may have kept us honest. That the propaganda war that played out during the Cold War most likely forced to steer the US on a more reformist course and that the high-living standards of the post-war era were ultimately both a combination of the war itself (which knocked out pretty much everyone except the US) and the fact most business leaders realized they couldn't push the US public too far. The US was also wealthy enough it could afford to have significant trade deficits with Japan and Western Europe (both on or near the "frontline" of the Cold War) without significantly effecting its own economy. For the most part, this compromise worked and allied countries rebuilt while the standard of living in the US was high enough there was little chance for turmoil. The Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam tested the system but didn't crack it. However by the 1980s it was clear the Soviets had weakened ,and by the 1990s they were gone and there wasn't any sort of ideological challenger to the US. Since that point it has very clear the direction has been toward declining real wages and evaporating worker rights. While wages have been stagnating before the 1990s, it was during the early 1990s when wages between the top quintile and the rest of society clearly diverged.  To be perfectly honest, I don't think anything is going to really change unless there is a internal or external threat to the way business is done. Putin's alliance with the populist right seems the closest thing to a challenge but even then it is still very much embedded in very much the same economic system as the rest of the world and doesn't offer any realistic long term alternative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:To be perfectly honest, I don't think anything is going to really change unless there is a internal or external threat to the way business is done. Putin's alliance with the populist right seems the closest thing to a challenge but even then it is still very much embedded in very much the same economic system as the rest of the world and doesn't offer any realistic long term alternative. The internal challenge is already brewing; as wages stagnate and more and more people end up being poor (at this point a majority of Americans are considered "poor") the middle class is going to contract. With white people increasingly becoming not a majority (and, well, more white people being poor) they can't just vote themselves above everybody else anymore, which means the rich can't use racism to divide the nation. They'll have to find something else (which is why I think they've thrown so much money into the GOP, really). However, things are bad enough for enough people that it's going to get very, very hard to keep doing that for long. One of the reasons pre-80's America actually worked was because enough people were doing well enough that they weren't willing to rock the boat all that much. As more and more Americans struggle harder and harder just to get by you can bet your rear end they're going to start rocking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The idealistic non-sense here is your asinine civics101 vision of US government and party politics where the only thing holding back the Democrats from implementing more substantive efforts to raise wages is because their constituents haven't been sufficiently vocal. If it's bad enough and goes on long enough people revolt. Republicans just told the establishment screw themselves complete with the establishment throwing a public hissyfit back. But, it turns out there was poo poo they can do when voters oust them and pick someone completely out of their control.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The internal challenge is already brewing; as wages stagnate and more and more people end up being poor (at this point a majority of Americans are considered "poor") the middle class is going to contract. With white people increasingly becoming not a majority (and, well, more white people being poor) they can't just vote themselves above everybody else anymore, which means the rich can't use racism to divide the nation. They'll have to find something else (which is why I think they've thrown so much money into the GOP, really). The problem is turning that rising internal discontent (which I think is real) into anything that can threaten the way things are done. As for formal political change, I am rather doubtful it is going to be possible especially after each party re-doubles their efforts to stamp out inter-party dissent. Also, the identity/race issue is going be an factor that will likely continue to be used to divide "have-nots" against each other even with changing demographics. If anything I could see the next decade consisting of both parties doubling down on wedge-issues/identity politics because neither one wants to address the elephant in the room. You may have more people in the streets but there is still going to be a segment of the population that is loyal to the "old system" in both parties. Neither party actually wants to reform in the system in any meaningful way and almost certainly won't until they have absolutely no other choice. There doesn't be any solution on the horizon probably until eventually a "bloody Sunday" type event happens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Democrats and Republicans are the good cop, bad cop of capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The problem is turning that rising internal discontent (which I think is real) into anything that can threaten the way things are done. As for formal political change, I am rather doubtful it is going to be possible especially after each party re-doubles their efforts to stamp out inter-party dissent. Also, the identity/race issue is going be an factor that will likely continue to be used to divide "have-nots" against each other even with changing demographics. What do you mean by reform? Trump is what reform is going to look like. The current political dysfunction traces back to the voters who are effectively demanding it. The establishment may deserve it, but the response stands to make things worse. The problem is that a well functioning state requires institutional coherence. It needs insiders and establishment and tradition (such as: appoint the Supreme Court nominee even if you can legally stop it and want to). Our problem is that a functioning democratic state may be at odds with the modern notion of democracy which downplays all those things in favor of voter individualism. Or maybe this is a periodic rough patch that will die with the aging white Americans who are primarily feeding it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Hoping for some really great heists and heist movies to come outta this
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The idealistic non-sense here is your asinine civics101 vision of US government and party politics where the only thing holding back the Democrats from implementing more substantive efforts to raise wages is because their constituents haven't been sufficiently vocal. Yeah, people with money are overrepresented. No poo poo. Thanks for that insight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:If it's bad enough and goes on long enough people revolt. Republicans just told the establishment screw themselves complete with the establishment throwing a public hissyfit back. But, it turns out there was poo poo they can do when voters oust them and pick someone completely out of their control. Having money or control over media outlets or otherwise commanding influence is no guarantee of getting the outcomes that you expect. Being rich and powerful is sort of an entrance fee to US politics -- you won't have much influence without those things -- but it doesn't guarantee you'll get the outcomes you wanted. And even a seemingly stable situation like the GOP being dominated by an alliance of business money and Christian evangelism can blow apart very suddenly, which is what we've been watching since the end of the second Bush administration. This isn't a great analogy but you could compare money in politics to gravity. It exerts a constant and powerful pull over everything but under the right circumstances you can still get yourself into the air and even stay there for a while. Also, while Trump is a disaster for the GOP in the short term his success also reflects how effectively the political centre has been moved rightward since World War II. Behind the year-to-year struggle between the Republicans and Democrats or between workers and bosses there has also been a long running ideological contest over how capitalism and free enterprise are viewed by the public. Go back to the late 1940s and you'll find a business class that was exceedingly anxious about the perceived left-wing sentiments of the population. That anxiety reached a fever pitch in the 1970s when major business magnates started to think capitalism as a system might be in danger (however silly that fear seems in retrospect). A lot of resources have been invested in changing the broad ideological coordinates of American public life (I'm thinking here about major businesses hosting 'World Fairs' about the bright future capitalism would bring or business interests bankrolling Milton Friedman's TV show or numerous other examples of propagandizing outside the narrow realm of year-to-year electoral politics). This helps explain why the revolt against globalism and Wall Street among white blue collar Americans is being channeled into the doomed candidacy of a big business tycoon who promises to kick start the economy through deregulation. So while Trump is a short-term disaster for the GOP leadership, the fact that the revolt against the GOP establishment is taking this particular form is arguably a marker of their long term success. The white working class is safely isolated from the rest of the population and thus politically inert. The political operatives most dependent on the success of the GOP will suffer but the larger movement conservative project of destroying the labour movement and trying to shutdown any European-style social democratic policies continues to yield some success. Munkeymon posted:Yeah, people with money are overrepresented. No poo poo. Thanks for that insight. You accused someone else of being idealistic and then spouted this none-nonsensical civics 101 bullshit about how constituents just need to make their voices heard. And to try and make yourself sound smarter you dropped some references to avoiding economic shocks while conveniently ignoring that the Democratic party has been perfectly happy to ignore economic shocks that don't impact (or even assist) their donor base. The point isn't that the rich are over represented (though they are) but rather that how interest groups or political constituencies actually influence Washington is way more context dependent and complicated than the stupid-yet-condescending post you made would imply.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Helsing posted:You accused someone else of being idealistic and then spouted this none-nonsensical civics 101 bullshit about how constituents just need to make their voices heard. And to try and make yourself sound smarter you dropped some references to avoiding economic shocks while conveniently ignoring that the Democratic party has been perfectly happy to ignore economic shocks that don't impact (or even assist) their donor base. I was basically describing lobbying - quite possibly one of the least idealistic activities in our system  I was also talking about lobbying local and state politicians, not nationally, and yeah, I was also being flip because "I don't see why we can't just increase the base cost of labor by 30%+ right loving now" is an absurd position economically and quite possibly politically suicidal, depending on the area. And to be clear, I'm just talking about the 'right loving now' part. Spread that out over a few years and it's a good idea whose time has hopefully come.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:And to be clear, I'm just talking about the 'right loving now' part. Spread that out over a few years and it's a good idea whose time has hopefully come. This is one of the main issues I always had in my economics grad - the double standard. Ask your standard run-of-the-mill "Mankiw is all you need for intro" professor about those issues and he can wax poetic on the necessity and the benefit of a shock application when it goes to the benefit of capital, but the other way is just an abominable heresy. Even though we have historical account and proof of the damage that such an approach can cause in a country. Even the language betrays a wrong idea about the subject. "Shock increase of labor costs" is, basically and most of the times, a burst of real wage growth above the expected, which is actually fairly loving awesome for any economy, leveraging a good deal of demand-led growth. But of course, you may argue, I am being ideological. Which is exactly the point. Time and time again, for decades now, a lot has been said about how destructive it would be to "imprudently" raise wages, while "imprudently" diminishing progressive taxation, cutting social spending and shutting down capital controls have been touted and practiced as forward-thinking measures that will benefit the whole of society, which is patently untrue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
Transmetropolitan posted:This is one of the main issues I always had in my economics grad - the double standard. Ask your standard run-of-the-mill "Mankiw is all you need for intro" professor about those issues and he can wax poetic on the necessity and the benefit of a shock application when it goes to the benefit of capital, but the other way is just an abominable heresy. Even though we have historical account and proof of the damage that such an approach can cause in a country. Am I an outlier in that I hesitate to support shocks to capital as well? (See: stimulus packages).
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:34
|
|