The Inflation Reduction Act
How does everything we've learned from "philosophy" apply to the US reconciliation bill, which in my view should currently be the biggest political story in the world?
This bill was developed by Bernie Sanders, who now serves as the Senate Budget Committee Chairman. It's a very important bill for this country, in my view, especially the crucial provisions for climate change mitigation. It's getting some attention, but not nearly enough.
Those unfamiliar with the details should take the time to read up on it.
The question I have is this: given how critical this moment is, what can be done to help it become reality? If, after years of study in philosophy, we haven't developed any ideas on these matters, then I say yet again that "philosophy" is an almost complete waste of time -- just one more escapist distraction, one more hobby, one more sedative. Nothing serious— just more reading.
I think we can learn from Plato and Aristotle, Rousseau and Hume. But they're all dead — and the issues we face today require us to think them through ourselves, applying what we've learned to specific problems and questions unique to our time.
So I offer a kind of test question: is this worth the philosopher "getting involved" in? Meaning becoming politically engaged for? If not this, what -- if anything?
Or do some still believe that activism, politics, and topical issues are below the man of thinking?
[Edit: originally titled “The US 3.5 Trillion Reconciliation Bill.”]
This bill was developed by Bernie Sanders, who now serves as the Senate Budget Committee Chairman. It's a very important bill for this country, in my view, especially the crucial provisions for climate change mitigation. It's getting some attention, but not nearly enough.
Those unfamiliar with the details should take the time to read up on it.
The question I have is this: given how critical this moment is, what can be done to help it become reality? If, after years of study in philosophy, we haven't developed any ideas on these matters, then I say yet again that "philosophy" is an almost complete waste of time -- just one more escapist distraction, one more hobby, one more sedative. Nothing serious— just more reading.
I think we can learn from Plato and Aristotle, Rousseau and Hume. But they're all dead — and the issues we face today require us to think them through ourselves, applying what we've learned to specific problems and questions unique to our time.
So I offer a kind of test question: is this worth the philosopher "getting involved" in? Meaning becoming politically engaged for? If not this, what -- if anything?
Or do some still believe that activism, politics, and topical issues are below the man of thinking?
[Edit: originally titled “The US 3.5 Trillion Reconciliation Bill.”]
Comments (464)
I agree -- in which case, everyone should be reading much more Aristotle, Nietzsche, and Marx; in other words, thinkers that (in my view) put some fire under your ass and get you to look at the real world around you and your effect on it.
Certainly not. I would be happy to vote for Joe Manchin for president should he be the democratic nominee in 2024. I seem to recall that Tocqueville made a comment to the effect that once a majority finds it can vote itself privilege and money democracy is in deep trouble. Of course his notions of democracy were varied. $3.5 trillion is excessive. Merely inflationary at best.
Actually it’s not nearly enough.
Vote for Joe Manchin? Again— if this is an example of where studying philosophy leads us, then it’s completely useless.
Do you understand why conservatives are resistant to reinforcing a social safety net?
Yes.
Why?
Many reasons. I could repeat what some of their claims are, like what’s being claimed now (inflation, socialism, handouts, dependency, jacking the deficit) or I could tell you what I see as the real reason for why they say what they say — which is more interesting.
But you’re one who’s shown no interest in good faith conversation— so I won’t pretend to have one here.
I'm not sure how you got that impression, but you're wrong.
Then why this line of argumentation? Do you really assume I’m completely oblivious to the claims of conservatives regarding social spending? I find that disingenuous. If you have something to say, or something you disagree with, just state it. I have no interest in games.
I don't have to check but I know of no philosopher who's also a politician.
I was thinking of the bigger picture, the one that goes beyond the US and has its roots in the Carter/Reagan era. Notice that a lot of the staunchest conservatives were shaped by those events. A war was waged against labor unions and Washington withdrew its interest in Main St and directed it at Wall St. It was the advent of "Greed is good."
Since then, the principles behind that shift have been demonstrated to be clearly flawed because if the events of 2008-2009.
Mark Blyth says that should have been the trigger for system reboot. If it had, we wouldn't be wondering if Washington might do something to help Americans right now.
We would be coming out of a massive global economic catastrophe, struggling to build back something that makes sense. Probably something profoundly socialist.
So we're in a sort of limbo now. Reaganomics failed, but we're just ignoring that because the effects of the failure were postponed.
Conservatives who speak out against shoring up the positions of Americans are repeating these flawed principles because they're rewriting 2008 as a simple bump in the road, business as usual, when it really wasn't. But then, their own party has now been invaded by people who deeply distrust Washington. Poetically speaking, the Republican party is now the embittered voice of Main St. The Wendy Brown quote I put in your other thread explained that.
The situation is 10 times more bizarre than just: conservatives are assholes.
And in regard to my seeming disingenuous, I think that reflects my experience with you: you're incredibly aggressive. You need to find balance by joining people who are less aggressive and more interested in understanding. That's how it looks to me anyway.
I didn’t say become a politician, I said become politically engaged.
Yes— liberals are assholes too. But this isn’t the extent of my analysis, as anyone familiar with what I wrote knows. Nearly everything you said here we’re in agreement on — so what’s the problem?
Quoting frank
Fair enough.
No problem. It's just that whatever progress we make will be met by mindless retaliation. The real problem is the underlying lack of sanity. That won't change until we get that system reset.
In the meantime, help who we can help. Wouldn't that mean focusing locally?
Ok but there must be a very good reason there are no philosopher politicians. Just like there are no Jain terrorists, it must mean something, no?
I’m sure it does. I think that might not be such a great thing, however. I think it says far more about politics than about “philosophers.”
Regardless, nearly every politician out there is carrying around in their little heads the political and economic philosophy of some past thinker — whether we consider them philosophers or not doesn’t matter. They’re still the ones holding the levers of power. They and the business community.
Yes, almost always. So are we doing locally to help this pass?
All billionaires should be forced to reduce their capital with 99%. ALL of them. In ALL countries. All factories producing shit should be closed. All energy obligatory to be produced with aid of the Sun. All energy should be stored in hydrogen. All so-called important scientific experiments should be banned. Except CERN, all sites should close. Only one rocket per year should be launched. For maintaining satellites or puting communication based ones in orbit. All atomic weapons to be dismantled. All test animals should be freed (it's a shame for people to use them and collect prizes for their abuse). The Amazone area should be fenced and left alone. No one is allowed to have more than two childre. Etc. The costs for this are paid of that 99%.
It's beneficial for the planet. The Nature that's still on it. As I stated, the capital of the superrich should be reduced with 99%. By force of law. It's our only chance of survival.
That's not going to happen and it would be disastrous if someone had the power to make it happen, which nobody does.
Here's a thought. If you take people who refuse to vote in elections (the voter turnout is never 100%) as those who eschew engaging in politics then, consider the fact that dead people can't vote. Non-voters = dead persons.
The people. The old has to go to give way to the new.
I really don’t see the relevance of this remark.
Forget that I mentioned it.
Write your senators. Explain why it's important to you. Use the letter as the beginnings of a campaign for local office like councilman or whatever they call it where you are. Run, get elected, help people.
So, this thread is not about discussing the bill, rather doing all one can to assure its passage. OK
This thread presupposes a modicum of rationality, yes. Those part of the death cult, who wish to do nothing about climate change -- and in fact don't even recognize climate change as the problem of our time, have plenty of other venues to voice their backward ideas.
How about seeing the forest from the trees here?
This all is simply a way to sustain the economy by more debt financing. It's basically a stop gap measure to keep a failed financial system afloat. The reasons for the spending are simply political rhetoric as everybody understands that ten years time goes well further than this administration. Politicians just give the most benign sounding reasons for the bill, then will typically haggle over the pork in the usual way.
It's similar theater as the debt-ceiling debate. Sure, perhaps the bill can get dragged on for some time, but sooner or later that spending bill, any spending bill, has to be put out. Otherwise the markets will crash.
The political reasoning: if markets crash > economic recession > very unhappy voters > democrats lose the next elections. That's the real motivation here.
What has to be understood that this will continue until a severe crisis happens. It is intended to be so. And the hope is that happens only after ten years or so.
https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/242953247_1237429456762092_8383267347924983476_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=Xa6WZfHbbqgAX872XKM&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=a9c5ad0e3397bf09ac2be8b2d7dfc834&oe=6152AE89
(US Today)
So I gather that the 1% of taxpayers then make 2,38 trillion dollars annually, right?
Well, just the budget deficit this year is somewhere like 2,3 trillion, hence NEARLY ALL of their income would go just to cover what is now put on the tab or monetized. That is before additional spending... And of course, try taking all the income away of every hundredth taxpayer.
Meh. That's not a problem. At the height of our greatness we had a marginal tax rate of some 90% with a butt-load of exemptions (directed toward investment, jobs, or infrastructure). Then we reduced the rate to 20 some % but left all the exemptions (and then some) in place. So the 1% doesn't pay shit.
Plus, taxes don't pay but a small fraction of our debt/deficit. We are the world bank (that is so long as the heavy-hitters trade on the petrodollar, and not barter or use some other form of currency; if they do that, we just sanction them or invade them). So, we just print money. That's what we've been doing all along. Besides, if the Democrats pay off the debt, the Republicans will just run it up again.
The goal here is to keep the proletariat from rising up and lopping the heads off of the 1%; and to teach the 1% that they can't get something for nothing.
If a guy says "I don't work for my money; my money works for me" then shouldn't his money, as an employee, a worker, have to pay withholdings and other taxes like the rest of the working stiffs? Maybe his money should unionize against him and demand better working conditions. After all, if a corporation can have personality, why shouldn't a dollar? I demand dollars get more dollars for their labor! Dollars of the world unite!
P.S. Let's make it the 10% instead of the 1%. Just for kicks.
I don’t think you’re referring to the reconciliation bill. What I’m talking about includes measures for child care, climate change, and many other provisions that would be good for this country.
True, it involves debt. But the 350 billion a year is nothing next to the 700 billion we spend on military contracts. Apparently we can afford that every year.
I don’t buy this sudden interest in the debt. The debt isn’t the problem. This bill also pays for itself in multiple ways. But even if it didn’t, given that borrowing is essentially free right now, it’s the best time to spend some money on things that matter, especially climate change.
And that's my basic point. (Yet do note that your not the World Bank, your the biggest customer for the World. The US isn't financing the World.)
A large part of the US government spending is based on acquiring more debt (or to print money) perpetually. It's perpetual. There isn't any solution to this. No solution, no change, until a financial crisis. And it's silly for some to remind that the debt was as huge during WW2, but it was paid back, because that was totally different: consumption was cut, for example no private automobiles were produced and the whole economy was put to war footing that ended when the war ended. But now the deficit spending is about totally ordinary spending at normal times.
But as you said (just like Dick Cheney), deficits don't matter. Just note that the speed is increasing and the deficits are getting larger...
Quoting James Riley
Likely Robert Reich is correct. But then, the show is continuing the same way under Biden too. Nothing will stop it now, especially after large direct money transfers to US citizens is becoming the new norm.
But it doesn't matter!
It can be infrastructure spending, spending to thwart the climate change, spending on health care or education. It doesn't matter.
You see, you have to understand how the US works. You have the most expensive health care system in the World that still performs extremely poorly by OECD-country standards when the whole population is taken into account. You have the most expensive education system, that indeed has the best universities around (the Ivy-league and so on), yet overall performance of the system is, again, poor. And it's very expensive. Something is simply wrong when you don't get the best effective service for the most money.
Shoveling money to a broken system won't help, because thanks to the political system you cannot make structural changes that could improve the basic situation. You could have free higher education, universal health care and likely have it cost LESS. But that simply won't happen. There isn't that political will.
Since you can just print the money (and the US is doing it now as other countries aren't buying that debt), nothing will change. There simply is no motivation for change.
And it continues the same way when Republicans are in power, only on steroids' with a large dose of denial.
Quoting ssu
It will be fun to try trickle up instead of trickle down, though, for a change. They say a rising tide lifts all boats. But raising boats in an emerging market from 30 cents and hour to 40, lowers the boats in the U.S. to unemployment and the federal tit. Sure, everyone can now afford a cheap piece of plastic Chinese shit, but that is not raising the boat. Besides, can't those who "generate wealth" just go generate some more? They don't need us peons to pay their way like we do now. Better they actually start working so all that printed money can trickle up.
It does matter. Free community college, free child care, having Medicare cover eye classes and hearing aids, extending the child tax credit, creating thousands of charging stations, subsidizing clean energy, funding the IRS, etc etc— these are all very beneficial for the majority of Americans and the planet.
Throwing money around doesn’t solve everything, but it’s a start. It’s better than doing nothing.
Your worrying about the debt is misguided, even if these proposals didn’t pay for themselves (which they do). If we can spend 700 billion a year on the military, we can spend 350 billion a year on families and the environment.
The Fed is printing money to buy government bonds, but also corporate debt. If we closed loopholes, prevented stock buybacks, nationalized the banks that needed bailouts, taxed the wealthy at higher rates, ended the stepped up basis, implemented a wealth tax, increased capital gains taxes, ended tax havens, allowed Medicare to negotiate drug prices, cut military expenditures, etc— there would be no deficit. The Fed will be tapering by next year anyway, it seems.
All of this is completely reasonable and doable. It’ll happen, but it’ll take time. In the meanwhile, to use the excuse of “we can’t afford it” is just nonsense. Of course we can afford it.
The is a genuinely bipartisan policy. Of course where the spending goes differs a lot. Or how actually prudent an administration is.
Quoting James Riley
When a global pandemic hit and people were forced to close shop for a while, it's understandable. The real issue comes when the pandemic is over (or is the new normal).
Again this is far more a policy and legal matter than something that could be solved by more spending. Think of universal health care that costs less than in present US. That would mean that also doctors would get a lot less. US Doctors are now paid the most in the World. The unfortunate issue is that there are too many who benefit from the current system and they have too much lobbying power. Overhaul of the system is a huge task.
Quoting Xtrix
That would be the case. Yet I think you would simply need totally different political parties than the two you have now. I simply don't see it happening. And think Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism was partly right of how things are done. Of course it's not pre-planned as Klein naturally makes it to be (with the worst intentions, as usual). Only when the option to do as before simply isn't there, when the World hits a severe crisis, then drastic reforms will be made. But not before.
What those reforms will be in the end depends on the people: will they accept what the elite gives them or doesn't.
I'll be honest, I'm ready to roll the dice. I'm ready to turn leadership over to women, and the younger generation, and minorities, and try something entirely new. And every time I see one of the old guard chiming in, I want to tell him to take a fucking seat. Do they have knowledge and wisdom to share? Yes. But I don't want to hear a bunch of mia culpa BS if it's designed to perpetuate and save recalcitrant old asses. Too late, MFrs, stand down.
I do realize they may not go peacefully and they hold a lot of power, but that is where our wisdom can aid the new guard in dealing with the old guard. And yes, I'm open to cooperation and cooler heads than mine, but I won't stand in the way of the change I'd like to see, even if it personally feels a little awkward or uncomfortable.
"Here's the reigns, bitches! Have fun!"
They should get paid more. But there is a giant sucking sound between Doctor and patient: That is the health insurance industry. Every time I see a giant sky-scraper with 30 floors, I envision each floor containing a hundred or more cubicles occupied by people getting $60k or more per year to stamp "Denied" or "Approved" on a piece of paper. And that's just the minions. And they are all working in the best interest of shareholders. They should all be in the unemployment line with the buggy whip workers.
I consider these policies as well. It’s legislation, not simply budget proposals. As you know, they have to make it appear related to the budget to pass reconciliation, but these are real policies being enacted.
Well, you would love the leftist-centrist administration here that we have, dubbed by the opposition "the Lipstick administration":
(Prime Minister and the leader of the Social Democrats in the middle. Other ministers in the picture are party leaders also:)
Having looked at the history of the so-called "infrastructure bill" or the earlier stimulus packages, I would look at where the money really goes in the end.
Up-and-comers, the squad:
Damn. Imagine getting to look at these women all the time as opposed to Mitch McConnell and Joe Biden. That alone makes it preferable.
Yet then there's the reality:
How about trying to change these statistics in the next elections? No seriously, this is a clear sign of the parties being out of touch of the people and quite complacent in sharing the power in the US.
Quoting Xtrix
American political parties should note that, actually. The hilarious issue is now that all the party leaders in the administration coalition are women, all the party leaders in the opposition are men.
I try. I don't try my best, but I try. At least somewhat. Actually, not enough. But I try.
On the other hand, we have young dummies too, like Lauren Boebert and Margorie Taylor Green.
So I guess we can agree that one's genitals aren't the most important reason to pick a politician. Far more is what the politician believes in and what he or she does.
That is true. However, I think there is an "on balance" argument. Or a "generally speaking" argument. This would incline me toward women since they really haven't been in charge since forever. Same with minorities and same with youth.
Boebert is a buffoon, as is Greene. The former is undeniably beautiful— so that factored into electability as well.
I hate myself for this, but I can’t feeling a slight attraction to Greene as well. Ugh. I imagine that played a role for Georgia male voters.
But give me AOC any day over all of them.
That’ll be it for my (probably) sexist analysis.
Yeah, we were treated to her walking resolutely across a grassy hill top with her breasts and figure prominently displayed. Kind of like Sarah Palin.
Oh well, I feel like I am running afoul of what AOC would have me do, which is to drop my typical male focus on sex/appearances and instead try to keep my eye on substance. It is distracting, though. Fucking biology! :death:
I think there'll be a compromise but what kind of compromise depends on the leverage that progressives have. There are currently no negotiations going on between progressives and moderates (King Manchin has refused to give an offer based on reports of what he will be willing to give so there's no compromise possible), and right now we're just seeing both sides flex and doing public posturing (which may explain why the progressives blocked the iron dome funding just recently). So much as there have been negotiations, it was through Joe Biden but it's funny how the democrats aren't talking with one another right now despite the big roadblock being their inability to come to a deal.
I think that things will (hopefully) change once the Sept 27th vote happens since moderates seem to be thinking that the bipartisan bill will pass in spite of the progressives promises to block it, either with republican support, or progressives caving. This is why I think Manchin and Sinema are not even coming to the table right now, to keep the reconciliation bill from making any progress so that it doesn't pass before the bipartisan one. The whole "strategic pause" comment made immediately after Pelosi agreed to the date for the bipartisan bill vote was no coincidence IMO. If it passes somehow anyways, then we could be looking at a $1.5 trillion reconciliation bill (the topline number Manchin said he'd be willing to support allegedly). If it fails, then we could see the bill be $2.5 trillion (a basic compromise between the $1.5 and $3.5 trillion). I don't think that the $3.5 trillion has any chance of passing. The bill will be watered down, but by how much is the question.
America can afford elevating everyone to the middle-class, even if not willing to "work for a living". And it can't afford not to. Impoverishing America so some of us can have cheap servants and compliant labor will be our undoing. Maybe it's arguable there is an inalienable right to feather your own nest and invest in your children's future, but the public sector has at least as fundamental a responsibility to see to it that this does not aggregate into an insurmountable system of exclusion and suppression. Of course all Americans should realize the same outcome for the same investment of talent initiative and effort. How many times do we hear that the key to success in America is (aside from education) "networking". Just another word for corruption and nepotism. An excuse for rationing opportunities.
Maybe it's time to bite the bullet and tell Manchin he'll face a primary challenger. He might still win, but not the general. Democrats will lose the Senate anyway if they don't get that damn vote.
Publicly, the issue is the cost. Privately, the issue is what it will do, particularly with regard to taxes.
I fear you're right there.
Actually plain looking women politicians seem far more competent as there has to be a reason why they have climb the political ladder. Same is for the minorities: have they done something or have they been picked as to get the quota. The target group for young female politicians isn't actually middle aged men ogling at their looks, but the older generation of voters who finally decide they ought to give their vote for a younger generation. And why not to give the vote for that nice looking energetic young woman!
(The Iron Lady at the start of her political career. A woman leader who usually is totally forgotten when the issue of women and power is debated. Because...some actually didn't like her politics. Which in a way is good that she is judged by her politics, not by being a woman.)
(Another successful politician that obviously didn't get the vote because of her looks.)
Golda Meir may have been attractive in her younger years...
Who knew that Thatcher was so cute back then.
I guess as I get older, the range of women deemed attractive expands greatly. Why is that?
My prediction is it'll be pared back to 1.7 or so. The minority party (Republicans) wins again, even when they're not in power. Although there's a possibility I'm being too optimistic.
Settling for crumbs yet again, all because a couple "moderate" assholes don't want to nix the filibuster and pass some real legislation. It's infuriating.
You know, the president has the power of the veto, but even that can be overridden. For years now McConnell has exercised a veto power without the possibility of an override. Power never asserted in the Constitution. But I doubt even Manchin expects to exert that kind of power. He'll settle for less than all he's "demanding". If he ever says what the hell it is he does really want. Sounds like what he really wants is attention. So it's really a question of how much notoriety will satisfy him. Maybe someone can make him notorious. Once he asserts explicit demands he'll draw fire. I'm sure he knows this, but he's playing a game that has limits.
It may well be (I'm hopeful) that he's posturing, dragging this out as long as possible so the papers make it clear he's fighting the good fight, and then last minute he'll compromise and declare victory. But it seems he's much more in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry and cares much more about Republican voters than Democrat ones -- which is idiotic.
I think that’s a good start.
Reading this list, all I can think is: Yeah!, Let's do it!
What it leaves out is that once and for all America is to make itself a nation, as opposed to a federation of local warlords (which is what the Roman Republic was, and which the founders of the Republic so shamefully used as its model). The idea of states rights was always meant to make the federal government shill to the subordination of local populations to the authority if its prominent men. But in a democracy there are, properly speaking, no state's rights. States don't have rights, they have responsibilities and authority pursuant to and limited by those responsibilities. Anything more is not only undemocratic, it constitutes an attack on the reality, as well as the idea, of democracy
Civilian Climate Corps? Hundreds of thousands in this Corps?
What does it do? Would it do something that is already done with something other?
Or is this a rehash of the work relief program Civilian Conservation Corps given a new name?
Quoting Xtrix
Sounds interesting, what is the actual plan?
These things are not below the philosopher at all, but neither are they philosophical questions...at least questions fit for "hard philosophy", maybe appropriate for "social philosophy", though. The philosopher is a man or woman with ideas and values outside the realm of pure philosophy, pure metaphysics, and he or she should be able to participate in such political debate and other areas of life without having to feel debased.
That having been said, the instant bill is garbage, as it includes provisions for the growth of deficits by over the next decade. This is not what is needed by the American government. Rather what is needed is the exercise of fiscal self-control, and keeping spending within the budget dictated by tax revenues. Deficit spending has caused the U.S. to experience the greatest national debt ever imagined, and still growing... A lack of self control, in governments as in individuals, can but lead to disaster, in my view.
Too late. I say throw caution to the wind. Debt shmedt. Or, as we used to say, fuck around fuck around soon you won't be around. Republicans can go suck a dick. Besides, tax revenue has never funded the U.S. The U.S. rides on the world's use of the dollar and we have the printer.
That reminds me, as a "troubled youth" I went to Job Corps CCC, got a trade as a welder and a GED. I learned how to fight and how to work with others.
It also reminds me that some of the best, long-standing, still-extant, and beautiful structures I've ever seen out west were built by FDR's CCC.
Hopefully we have the ability to claw-back and rebuild America and make her great again, like she once was when the marginal tax rate was 90% and people had a sense of civic duty; back when self-interest was enlightened, per Adam Smith. But yeah, if we melt down in the alternative, we can only hope they have to pay the piper too.
I don't like deficit spending by Republicans any more than by Democrats. In my view, both parties are utterly corrupted, and all but worthless to us. These two identifiers have become no more than ways to choose your poison, in my view.
Quoting James Riley
This only works so long as the dollar is used and trusted by the world. One big fuck-up, one default, and that could easily go out the window. Don't forget, the "American century" is well in the rear view mirror, now; now there is fiscal competition for us.
Hence my desire to throw caution to the wind. They did.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Let 'er rip! You know, like Covid. For someone who doesn't give a fuck you sure seem worried about the economy. But as one wag recently said, this exercise has taught us that we are not an economy, we are a community. He may be wrong, but if so, it's only because it's too late, thanks to those who focus on the economy.
Haha, that's only because I'm stuck here for the time being. The thought of joblessness, bread lines, and all that shit kind of sucks, so I don't particularly want to see our fearless leaders completely fuck things up.
Quoting James Riley
Sure, but we have an economy upon which our welfare is dependent. Venezuela is a community as well, (if you can really call a large, modern, diverse nation-state "a community", anyways), but the economy is all fucked up. I don't think either of us would want to live there right now.
That brings up a question I've had for some time. Maybe you can answer it. For a while there, the overwhelming majority of people knocking on the U.S. southern border were from "allied" countries. Not so many from socialist countries. That made me go hmmmm? Why would that be? It's not like the socialist countries were locking their people in and the "allies" were letting their people go.
Then I wondered if U.S. alphabet agencies were down there stirring the pot and fucking with the socialist economies. Riling up and funding agent provocateurs and calling them "freedom fighters." Were these countries failing on their own, due to inherent problems with socialism, or did it have something to do with sanctions, embargoes and/or pot-stirring? And then, with our allies, how much do we prop them up and try to take pressure off their juntas by doing the whole Peace Corps-type operations in their countries?
Oh, and are these stupid questions? If not, why isn't the U.S. 4th estate asking them?
I wonder how well Venuzuala would be doing if it got the same treatment as our junta allies?
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/11/993976948/reaching-back-to-the-new-deal-biden-proposes-a-civilian-climate-corps
https://www.sunrisemovement.org/theory-of-change/the-ccc-explained/
It is a kind of homage to the New Deal, yes.
So I assume you were against the 2017 tax cuts? I assume you're against the $7 trillion defense budget over the same period of time?
Funny how talk of deficits and the national debt only get pushed by media, and then echoed by people on the internet, when anything that's good for the country is proposed. Never any money for that. Plenty of money for tax cuts for the rich, fossil fuel subsidies, and trillions for wars and defense budgets. Just a reflection of priorities, I guess.
The debt is not a problem at all. The bill proposes pays for itself, but there are also tax proposals for the corporate sector and super-wealthy that also cover the cost. So there's really no excuse.
This is what's in the bill -- which has majority support from the people, incidentally:
This position is now obsolete. May have been valid 10 years ago -- not anymore. Things have changed. The Republicans have gone off the rails. As bad as some Democrats are, the differences in policies are stark. Take climate change as the easy example. What do the parties say about it, and what do they propose to do about it? One party says it doesn't exist and want to take us over the edge (or just delay and do nothing), the other party acknowledges it exists and has modest proposals like what's in the reconciliation bill.
That's a big difference. There are many others.
The Republicans spend their deficits on tax cuts for their rich constituents -- the corporate sector. For war, for the military, etc. The Democrats are proposing to spend it on child care, free community college, medicare covering hearing aids and eyeglasses, and climate mitigation programs. If you can't see the differences there, and simply consider it all a big "wash," then you haven't been paying attention.
:100: I used to be a two-party hater. I even wrote myself in because I could not stomach either side. But now there is a distinction with a relevant difference.
This is exactly the type of thing that I resent my government doing; my government too often sticks my American nose in where it doesn't belong. Frankly, I feel the same about Iraq and Afghanistan, save for bringing some pain (killing a few people...mostly the Taliban which sheltered Bin Laden, and of course breaking some shit) to the Afghanis as strictly a punishment, a chastisement in the wake of 9/11 (maybe for two or three months or so, but then get the heck out of there). Generally, I do not pay those in my government for being busybodies all over the world, though, and can't understand where they get off so doing.
Quoting Xtrix
What gave you cause to seemingly put words into my mouth? No, I don't want tax cuts for the rich, I want tax cuts for everybody, right across the spectrum, and for the federal government to shrink by about 40 percent, and state governments by nearly as much. Don't entertain the idea that I am a Republican, or a wacky nationalistic "Trumpist"/"Trumpite", or whatever you might choose to call it. Rather, like @180 Proof and others on the site, I am a libertarian (in actuality, an anarchist who despises the state, but begrudgingly admits that we need it in the present technological climate). I personally envision the best world as one without government or nation states, or being more realistic, as one with as little government as possible. The size of our government doesn't bother you? The fact that it constitutes over one third of our outsized GDP? It does more than bother me, it frightens me...a gigantic monstrous abstraction claiming power over my liberty and even my life. Governments in general frighten me, as I view them to be working in no interest but their own, which is typical organizational behavior. No worry that the government debt to GDP ratio is over 100 percent? You know what happens if I do that? The folks at Equifax, Experian and TransUnion put asterisks next to my name.
True, but need the government be so large to do this? I don't have any figures immediately available, but all the same, I'm not thinking that the portion of the federal budget dedicated to corporate oversight is particularly large. Rather, I think all the pork is elsewhere.
So yet another small-government libertarian type -- fine. Even worse than Republicans.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Yes, because government is not the solution to our problems...government *is* the problem. Right?
Quoting Michael Zwingli
No. What concerns me is who the government serves. If it served the people, I favor that. If it serves corporations and the wealthiest Americans -- which it does -- I don't favor it. That's what we should be changing, not the existence of the government. Ditto for corporate governance -- do we say we want smaller corporations? Perhaps. Better to look at who the corporations serve: the employees, the community it's in, the customers? Or does it serve the shareholders and top executives (which is actually the case)? I'd be in favor of the former; I'm not in favor of the latter.
Talk about shrinking the government, cutting taxes, de-regulating industries to "get the government out of our lives," is a complete and utter joke. We've been living under the policies that come out of such claims for 40 years. People see the results. What it has amounted to is the socializing of the corporate sector (bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks, legislation, self-regulation) and the privatizing of profits. That's all it's been. All under the banner of libertarian-type, neoliberal bullshit.
Sorry if I'm underwhelmed by this position.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Yeah yeah, I've heard all the slogans. Government is the problem. We get it.
So your take on corporations is what, exactly? They should be shrunk too, right? By at least 40%? Does Exxon and the fossil fuel industry generally, who knew of climate change in the 1970s but continued on anyway, lobbying and propagandizing to sow doubt and hamstring any governmental action, frighten you as well? It should -- far more than the government, in fact. Since the corporate sector own the government, and mostly both political parties, are they not also the "problem"? Or are they the solution? Because if it's not government, which is at least partially democratic, what is the solution? The problems don't just go away -- decisions still have to be made.
I anticipate the answer: something about the free enterprise system, the wonders of free markets, etc. Hayak, Friedman, Sowell, Rand, etc. Laissez-faire capitalism as the magic bullet.
All a complete sham.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Describes big business very well. That must really frighten you -- assuming you're actually consistent.
Quoting Wayfarer
Absolutely right. I wrote the above before seeing this, but you said it more concisely than myself.
And not even then. When concentrations of wealth and power want something, they get it. This has been studied very well by Thomas Ferguson and others -- the higher up the income scale, the more you get what you want. Corporations buy off these politicians, and thus the government. They have huge influence through campaign finance (now unlimited thanks to Citizens United) and K street (lobbying), to say nothing of their media (which they own, and which politicians need).
Our efforts at reform should be directed here. Not with claims about big bad government -- which at least we have some say over. Unlike the corporation, where we have ZERO say -- as citizens or employees. There's no vote for your boss. There's no say in where the profits go. They're little totalitarian governments that you can rent yourself to -- and which libertarians have done more to support than almost any other group. All in the name of "freedom" and "individuality" and "liberty," of course.
Libertarian socialist ...
They, corporations, do frighten me as well. I'm no lover of the corporate concept...just more power-seeking abstraction, as I see it.
Quoting Xtrix
Yep, but that's all politicians, liberals as well as conservatives. Look, when you come right down to it, all of our polls are filthy...it's human nature to tend to being corrupted and using your position to your own personal benefit. I view it as more loathsome, as uglier in liberals though, because of the duplicity involved, what with all their moralizing while corruptly lining their own nest. This started early. Thomas Jefferson was probably the prototype for duplicity in an American liberal politician.
Since there are very few principled men, there are very few principled politicians. The last of our presidents who appeared to be a man of principle was, indeed, (that liberal democrat) James Carter, and all he got for it was the ridicule of being regarded as a "country bumpkin" (apparently he was not duplicitous enough to inspire credulity in us.)
Quoting 180 Proof
Fair enough. I tend to left libertarianism as well, since a check is needed on those with power and wealth.
Fine. But this analysis is fluff. Do we really prefer climate deniers who want to "make coal great again," claiming it's a "Chinese hoax," or do we want someone who acknowledges climate change and does something about it (albeit way too little, like Obama)? Yes, I can't stand Obama, but was he a better president on this issue than Trump? Without question.
There's also the influence that Bernie Sanders and the progressive wing is having on the Democratic establishment and even Joe Biden, which is a very good thing indeed. If anyone is still "on the fence" about this, I don't know what more they need.
If you prefer blatantly corrupt corporatists like the Republicans, who smile as they give away a trillion dollars to the corporate sector, jacking up the debt, all while claiming they care about working families (as they try desperately to take away their healthcare), then you're simply a Republican at heart, whatever claims you want to make about being a libertarian and hating "both sides."
No neutral observer with his head screwed on right would ever prefer the Republicans to Democrats, at this point -- however distasteful they may find Democrats (as I do too, especially establishment/DNC/Obama-Clinton ones). It's simply insanity, in my view.
First thing the Trump administration did was to overturn the Dodds Frank Act which was specifically aimed at preventing the corporate malfeasance that created the GFC. Great friends of business, those Republicans.
I wonder if your libertaianism doesn't extend to wanting the government to interfere with the interference by others in your life, like your boss, your bank, your neighbor's dog?
What's not about "faction"?
Fine, let's leave labels aside. Do we agree that our government should do something about climate change, as the science community is telling us needs to happen?
If so, as I assume, then there's simply no question as to which political party is more susceptible to being pushed to do something about this issue. We know it's not Republicans, because as a party they either reject it outright as even a problem, have it low on their priorities, or argue nothing should be done about it -- there's almost no climate plan in any major Republican candidate since John McCain in 2008. This is stupid on every count, including financially and electorally. The younger generation, including young conservatives, count this as a major issue in their lives and will vote according.
Absolutely. Since this slide towards the end of the Quarternary Glaciacion (the climactic period within which we have existed for the past two and one half million years) and into a possible greenhouse period, we can't very well just turn our backs and shrug. The primary mandate of a national government is the protection of it's populace from harm both direct and indirect. The current climactic prognosis certainly has the potential to cause great indirect harm to the populations of every nation on Earth, and so falls within the purview of government interest.
For my part, I suspect that it might be already "too late" to reverse the trend. The climate of our planet has been alternating between ice ages and greenhouse periods for the past three plus billion years, and it's not going to stop just because a species of up-jumped monkeys holds an autocentric view of the universe. The Quarternary has appeared to be winding down, to be nearing the end of it's life cycle, anyways, and human action since the start of the industrial revolution has given the global climate a stiff nudge towards that transition. This won't necessarily mean curtains for humanity, though it definitely will for some species...the polar bears are undoubtedly done for. The Earth will not turn into Arrakis from the "Dune" franchise, with sandworms and all, but the climate will probably be on average warmer and drier for one or two million years, with more hot and dry periods alternating with less hot and dry periods, just as in the Quarternary which has had glacial periods (ice ages) and interglacial periods. Human population levels will decrease (this is not a bad thing), mostly as a result of secondary factors such as wars over water in the drier parts of the earth. The Earth itself, though, will just keep rollin' along, and a couple million years down the road, will begin to enter another glacial period, which if we survive that long as a species, will be called by humans the Quintary Glaciation. Not to worry, though, apart from the extinction of polar bears, even our grandchildren ×10 won't see any of the truly bad effects of this eventuality. Pardon the pun, but these types of climactic changes occur at a 'glacial pace'.
Despite all this, I agree with you that we have an obligation to act. Because the agency of mankind has been instrumental in seeming to hasten the end of the Quarternary Glaciacion, it seems incumbent upon us as a species to mitigate, as far as possible, the effects of our own action.
The progressives seem to be standing their ground, which is a great thing to see. How long will it last?
Will the Democrats get the reconciliation bill passed? I'm not sure at this point. But one thing that has to be included, for climate change, is the CEPP provision. Mr. Coal, Manchin, will be lobbied to take this out -- so his corporate masters will probably get their way. But If that can get through somehow, that's a good start.
From David Brooks of The NY Times.
I wonder how the proposed desalinization plants for coastal California will be powered?
I wonder how the making of concrete and steel will be powered?
If renewables can be used, they should be. That’s not feasible for everything.
Evraz steel mill in southern Colorado is constructing a massive array of solar panels to be the first steel mill in North America to incorporate solar power. This is nothing short of amazing. It's about fifteen miles from where I live.
Fantastic. The technology is progressing all the time, and I’m hopeful about some of it. But whether it’ll be enough is a question.
Would have been great if we were in this situation 20 or 30 years ago. But now—?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/28/business/jamie-dimon-jpmorgan-us-default/?iid=ob_mobile_article_footer_expansion
Only a few I can think of. Bacon, Saint Augustine if you count Bishops, which I think you can. Marcus Aurelius obviously, the equivalent of a US presidential writing philosophy. I believe Abelard had some serious secular responsibilities at some points.
Good to know. Thanks for correcting me. Theologians aren't actually philosophers but if we must treat them as such, their focus was on religion and religion has been, for the most part, antithetical to philosophy:
[quote=Anthony Gottlieb]Having pricked its finger on Christian theology, philosophy fell asleep for about a thousand years until awakened by the kiss of Descartes.[/quote]
I feel like that's a very myopic quote. Plato and Aristotle didn't start being forgotten with the rise of Christianity; the process began soon after Aristotle's death. Stoicism and Epicureanism would come to overshadow them soon after, and while both certainly made contributions to philosophy and logic, I think it's fair to say things actually took a step back through antiquity. Plato doesn't come roaring back until he is reintroduced in a religious context himself, with Plotonius as a grand theologian / scholar. Point being, philosophy had already pricked it's finger back in the time of Alexander and only woke up in fits and starts. Hence most philosophy surveys barely skimming the years between Aristotle and Plotonius, then going back to sleep until Decartes- but that's centuries before the rise of Christianity.
Plato's work itself is also filled with wacky theology, but that doesn't detract from his philosophy. By the same token, it was priests and monks, with their obsession with nominalism versus realism who began seriously unpacking Plato and Aristotle in the West again. Not to mention that they can hardly be seen as zealots given the wide spread influence of Averroestic deism in the academy. In any event, no scholasticism, no Decartes, no Renaissance, and no industrial revolution. The germs of thought and intellectual systems that would become the sea change in Western philosophy that would spur on the Enlightenment and scientific method all started up in the high middle ages with Ockham, the other Bacon , Duns Scotus, Erasmus, etc.
Potentially a great thing. It's 50/50 that they in fact pass absolutely nothing as progressives vote down the infrastructure bill and then can't get the rest through the Senate. I would say it is trending towards more likely that they get nothing, in which case it is more likely than not that Biden will have no major legislative achievements in his term, as I highly doubt the Democrats hold on to their razor thin margins in 2022.
In retrospect, letting Progressives pack their wish list into the House bill was a mistake, since it seems to have given them the sense that they can make policy with just 25% of the seats in the legislature by threatening to tank everything, and what is more likely is that they get nothing.
But this is less of a problem for true believer progressives because the worse things get for the people, the closer some glorious revolution is to coming, where a great utopia will be swept in by popular discontent. In reality, it will increase destablization and make everyone's lives more shit.
The Democrats are at risk of proving they share Republicans inability to actually govern due to their own unrealistic base.
I suppose so but why would anyone in his right mind say such a thing unless...there's a grain of truth in it.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Plato & Aristotle would probably have preferred to stay dead than be resurrected in Christian theology. Perhaps not! Who wouldn't like one's words, ideas, teachings rise to such prominence, even if only among closed-minded folks?
To be fair, as regards the relationship between philosophy and religion, the outcome was a win-win: philosophy received some degree of patronage and survived long enough to make a comeback and religion acquired some semblance of rationality.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Now there's a guy who has a place in the modern world (Ockham's razor). So, not all doom and gloom. Great!
You think a coin flip? You may be right -- but I hope you're wrong. Maybe I'm too hopeful.
I think it's far more likely it'll be a watered down bill. However, there's an option the progressives could attempt, that the Wall Street Journal editorial page has picked up on (so you know it must be threatening): since all the talk is about the number "3.5 trillion," they could simply cut the time from 10 years to 5 years, and keep the same amount of annual funding: $350 billion dollars.
I think that is the absolute best move possible: it satisfies what these pathetic "moderates" have been screaming for, and bakes in real policies which, after 5 years of implementation, will then be hard to overturn mid-stream once the public is accustomed to them. Much like Obamacare -- despite that being pretty crappy. Still a popular program years later.
Fine, but what are you basing this on, exactly?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
It's not only the progressives -- these are policies that Biden supports and that most of the Democratic party supports as well. The progressives are the only ones playing hardball, however -- and that's simply a good thing. It's about time they do. They've played it very smart, and I think there's a good chance they prevail by getting something passed (less than $3.5 trillion, but something).
You seem to have an anti-progressive bent. I think that's a mistake.
I only have an anti-progressive bent in that they frustrate me because I tend to agree with their policies, but then their political execution in enacting them is usually terrible. They also tend to greatly over estimate their own support, leading to rhetoric and maximalist positions (a good example is the push to abolish talented and gifted programs from public schools, which is misguided and horrendously unpopular) that cost the elections.
I find it likely that Democrats lose the House and Senate because:
1. That historically happens during mid terms.
2. It is even more likely to happen if the country is doing poorly, which it most certainly will be due to heavy drags on the economy.
3. Biden's approval rating is absolute bottom barrel. It is worse than Trump's during the same week of his Presidency, and this was the week of Charlottesville and the news of Manafort's Russian corruption ties, which tanked his polls. It's worse than it looks because Biden's approval rating is -17 in Arizona, and similarly bad in every swing state, with his remaining support concentrated in electorally meaningless places.
And I get it, the country is in crisis and we have a dotard mumbling off in his speeches unable to wrangle his party in his second meaningful vote (and the first, the stimulus, was a softball). Not great for turnout.
I don’t see this. The policies they’re proposing are very popular indeed.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
By next year, I think the economy will be doing fine. I don’t see much evidence that it’ll be in the tank.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
That’s just not true. Biden is doing better than this time in the Trump presidency, by a decent amount. Although it’s still a downturn for him. If COVID dissipates and the economy starts looking better, and the bills get passed, I think he’s in decent shape. Afghanistan was a disaster, but it’ll be forgotten by next year.
But it is true, he fairs worse with independents than Trump did during a major crisis for him: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/04/bidens-polling-numbers-are-even-worse-than-they-appear/
No. You didn’t say approval rating among independents, you said approval rating.
If he’s behind with independents, that’s not a huge surprise.
Just for the record, the statistics here:
So @Xtrix is right, even if Joke Biden has taken a tumble. What for me is surprising that sometime nearly 50% approved Trump. But then it went down again...
It brings to mind Smedley Darlington Butler "War is a Racket" speech. Nothing has changed.
Death knell.
Might as well say goodbye to each other, because some asshole from West Virginia cares more about money than the future of his grandkids — and the human species.
That's the difference between the left and the right. The right presents their elected representatives with substantial, credible threats of physical violence to them or their families if they don't vote the way Trump would have them vote. Thus, even if they disagree with Trump, or have an ounce of independence or honor, they stick with him. That's why so many are on board. They are afraid. Very afraid. It's not because they actually agree with him. Some do, but not all. And the right knows who is waivering, so they muscle them.
The left won't do that to Manchin or Sinema.
Agree. This is really bad. It’s about as bad as when the Australian conservatives disemboweled our working effective carbon tax for political reasons, but it’s on a much larger scale because it’s the US.
Is it really going to take violence to get people to listen? Maybe the right has the correct tactic, like you mentioned. Their representatives are so terrified that they'll go along with any ol' batshit crazy thing -- "The election was stolen," "Trump is a great leader," etc. Whatever the mob wants (which the establishment themselves created, remember, through years of neoliberal policies and through their media), they'll more or less get at this point.
But these proposals of the democrats are going to directly impact corporate power, and so they're pushing back much harder. Whereas with Republicans, it's just crazy bullshit -- you never see them proposing raising taxes or more regulations or anything like that.
Yeah, they don't have to pay for their spending. They run the deficit up, ruin America, turn it over to the Ds to clean up, rinse, repeat. D's are like the dutiful housewife. So what incentive do the Rs have to act responsibly? They go low and we tie our hands behind our backs.
Quoting Xtrix
Works for them. Word on the street was indeed these men and women were receiving threats of physical violence against themselves or their families. And they don't run to John Law because the threat included a prohibition against that, too.
The left doesn't have it in them to do that. Besides, most of them forfeited their trump card that made any threat a substantial or credible one. They are left with sticking flowers in the muzzles of the right and praying.
I think the left does have a breaking point, but it will be too late. Hitler's victims had a breaking point, too. But they waited too long and got on the trains anyway. After all, no one could be *that* evil, could they? It's just puffing, right?
That's what the Republican senators Sinema and Manchin are essentially saying, as well. So all kinds of proposals have been put forward: raise the corporate tax rate -- that's out. So the Dems propose a wealth tax -- that's out. So they narrow it down and propose a billionaire's tax -- and now that's likely out. They want to give the IRS more power to collect taxes due from tax cheats like the very wealthy and corporations -- that's out.
So in other words: we don't have the money to pay for this, because we reject any proposals to pay for it -- and because we can't pay for it (thanks to us), we can't accept it, and it has to either be pared down or cut outright.
Meanwhile, we spend $7 trillion dollars on defense contracts over the same period. But $3.5 trillion is unacceptable. Imagine that for a moment.
So it's not a matter of money in the first place -- or the debt, or the deficit. It's about not wanting these POPULAR programs to pass in the first place. Why? Because these senators are BOUGHT by special interests like the fossil fuel industry (Manchin) and Big Pharma (Sinema). So obvious a 2nd grader could understand it.
Maybe the human species deserves to die off?
Perhaps. But if we go, I'd like to go fighting at least.
As a summary:
* $6 trillion originally proposed.
* Trimmed to $3.5 trillion (over ten years). That's $350 billion a year. We spent $700 billion on defense contracts a year.
* Now down to $1.75 trillion, and being watered down even further.
Some of the ways to pay for it (which aren't even necessary, but which the Prime Minister cares about):
* Raising taxes on the corporate sector and the wealthy. -- That's out. Blocked by Manchin and Sinema.
* A billionaire's tax. -- That's out. Blocked by Manchin and Sinema.
* More money to the IRS to go after tax cheats. -- That's out. Blocked by Manchin and Sinema.
The world is currently on fire, and will get worse every for for decades. This is literally our last best chance to accomplish anything about it. So, regarding climate:
* A clean energy program, advocated for by climate scientists the world over. -- That's out. Blocked by Manchin.
* A carbon tax, advocated by thousands of economists on the left and right. -- That's out. Blocked by Manchin.
* Legislation for plugging methane leaks. -- That's out. Blocked by Manchin.
* Currently $550 billion proposed for tax incentives. -- That'll be out soon, just give it time. It'll be blocked by Manchin (or greatly reduced).
Manchin is owned by the fossil fuel industry.
So there you have it, folks.
Maybe insurrection isn't that bad after all. I think I get it now.
Yeah, but the left doesn't have what it takes, and they forfeited their right to compel compliance with their demands. Now they must pray that the rule of law actually rules. :rofl: But if the honorable men in law enforcement lack courage or ability, then the left has relegated itself to begging for scraps. There you go, Michelle, that's what happens when you "go high."
Or, we could ask ourselves: "What would the so-called "patriots" do if a Republican politician failed to tow the line?" and then we could do that. But then, all of a sudden, you'd see law enforcement go into action. Because we are a soft target.
I'm looking at you, FBI and Merrick Garland. Rule of law?????? Show me.
Joe Manchin is laughing all the way to the bank. Him and Mitch McConnel know a sucker when they see one.
https://www.investopedia.com/here-s-what-s-in-the-usd1-trillion-infrastructure-bill-passed-by-the-senate-5196817
It is unbelievably depressing. Like a fifth columnist brought into the Democratic Party to wreck it from the inside. So you have the GOP, utterly corrupted, evil, and a threat to the democratic order, and the Democratic Party, who can't even govern themselves, let alone the country. It's deeply broken. :cry:
"Wreck the democratic party from the inside". My God, the fact that anyone has bought into the idea that things are not going exactly to plan is even more depressing than the manufactured drama itself. You are the very guarantors of this kind of thing perpetuating over and over again, till infinity.
"Manchin is owned by the fossil fuel industry" - yeah Manchin is owned by the fossil fuel industry, uh huh, the rest of them are green eco-warriors held back by the forces of Manchin darkness. Frankly Manchin is the only honest one among them all - along with Sinema of course.
Manchin is real piece of shit.
Who gives a fuck if your laughing all the way to the bank if your daughter and/or grandkids are totally fucked. Because, baring a massive change, they will be.
:100:
Indeed. I get livid. I follow a FB group called "Iron Snowflake." Mostly tweets and memes and whatnot from the progressive perspective. Here and there I see some one-liners and other succinct points that are just cutting. I wonder why these points are not addressed by the MSM? Are they not true? I wonder if I'm just in some echo chamber like a conservative Q idiot listening to Joe Rogan and whatnot. Maybe I'm wrapped up in confirmation bias, etc. So I do a little research. I find things like you point out about Manchin. I want to grab the evening news fucks by the neck and shake their ass and ask "What about this, you stupid POS!" It makes me think they are so desirous of a fight that they keep the division at 50-50 because it's good for their ratings. If they told the truth, the division would be about 90-10.
End rant.
I haven't said that nor implied it. But they are willing to vote for the bill, and have stated so publicly -- including the CEPP. It's worth mentioning that Manchin makes 500K from coal dividends annually and is #1 in the senate for fossil fuel contributions received -- quite an achievement. Doesn't make him the only "bad guy," and doesn't absolve the rest of Democratic party -- and certainly doesn't mean the rest are "eco-warriors." But certainly a very different situation from Sanders or Markey or Coons or Duckworth, etc.
If we want to be serious about this, it's worth following closely, to see where we need to work. If we want to pretend there aren't differences between Republicans and Democrats, or pretend that all Democrats are the same, etc., then we might as well give up and stay home -- it's hopeless. I have no interest in doing so, but you're welcome to it.
Quoting Wayfarer
But not surprising.
Quoting Manuel
Yeah. It's not even the greed or corruption -- that's obvious. But do we have to bring the planet and future generations down as well? Can't you find someone else's bribes to take?
Quoting James Riley
Always worth asking. It comes down, in the end, to who we choose to listen to, critical thinking, and judgment. That comes from years of practice, and can't even be taught formally (in my view).
Of course they are. What matters is the result. They will vote for the bill and have stated so publically because the likes of Manchin will not. And then people like you, fed your little dose of psuedo-hope, like the morphine addicted rat pulling at the lever, continue beliving that the democratic party is being compromised by exogenous forces, rather than coordinating to get the best possible results for their corporate sponsors at every point.
At what point, after decade long "failures", does it begin to seem to someone that maybe none of these are failures at all? What state of wretchedness does one have to be in to stop perpetuating their own being held hostage? It's like an abusive relationship: "he'll do better next time I swear!". Girl, he won't.
Who did you have in mind, exactly? Tester? Who else? Who else is hiding behind Manchin? Possibly a handful. But the majority of Democrats supported the CEPP, and for good reason. Do you believe it a coincidence that the person fighting the hardest against it happens to be the biggest recipient of fossil fuel contributions? Or does this question not matter when you're interested only in making sweeping (and easy) generalizations?
Quoting StreetlightX
Is this what I believe?
You're right in one respect: I am hopeful. But I don't see an alternative. If you're correct, and it's all hopeless -- fine. We'll find out one way or another. In the mean time, I'll choose to keep doing as much as I can.
Quoting StreetlightX
Man, wake the fuck up. You're not the only cynic here.
No - in fact, it makes Manchin all the better for dupes to train their hate at. And him all the more happy to receive the utterly ineffectual hate, for which he will probably be paid even more. And the democrats the happiest of all, getting to play a oh-woe-is-me card as if they are victims rather than accomplices. Everyone - but people not paid by corporate money - wins.
Quoting Xtrix
....to perpetuate the hand-fed narrative designed to keep you invested in a malicious organization?
As for this psychological twaddle about hope and cynicism: I have hope because I believe not utterly everyone will buy into democrat bullshit. I am utterly brimming with hope that people are not so utterly, incredibly, indelibly moronic that they actually think the problem is people like Manchin and Sinema rather than the entire democratic party apparatus, rotten from Joe Biden to AOC. The only cynics are those who look at the existing state of affairs and think: there can be no other possible way. People who believe in the fabricated drama of democratic party facades so as to better perpetuate its complete capture by corporate interests do not have a monopoly on hope. In fact they toxify it.
Yeah. That's the problem. There's plenty of ways to laugh all the way to the bank - sometimes people fall for dupes, and well, somebody ends up winning.
Not here. This money will be meaningless in too short a time. Shame Democrats couldn't get 4 seats or more in the senate, would've made a difference in the bill.
Now we face the prospects of the damn Republicans tearing the WORLD apart for money. It's bloody difficult when only one party does a little for the people, and the other one nothing but destroy.
Interesting times...
There’s nothing to be “duped” about. I’m talking about a specific program which he fought against, for obvious reasons. There are other interests in play. Sinema, for example, has fought against negotiating drug prices, for obvious reasons.
The climate program was sensible, and it was destroyed by fossil fuel interests. Yes, most democrats are bought by corporate interests — no kidding. Not all corporate interests are fossil fuel interests.
Quoting StreetlightX
Wonderful. No one on the thread, least of all me, has argued the democrats (or Biden) are our saviors, haven’t been bought off by corporate interests, aren’t motivated by money and power, or any of the other utterly obvious points you seem so reluctant to believe anyone but you has discovered.
So your hope is a reality. If you refuse to see it, that’s your business. Now what? Stay home? Tear it all down? Give us your plan. I’m genuinely curious. But it has to be more than absolutely trivial points about capitalism and political duopoly.
Until that’s given, I’ll continue pushing for better policies in the world we have, which unfortunately is a two-party system largely owned by corporate interests in a state capitalist system, with the ultimate goal of destroying capitalism AND the state (which is way, way off and will almost certainly not happen in our lifetimes).
If you have better suggestions in the meantime, I’m all ears.
The Republican Party has now gone completely off the rails. The moderate Republicans (the Democratic Party) are all that’s left. But there are also plenty of signs of progress compared to even 15 years ago— adolescent cynicism aside.
And if it wasn't Sinema, and it wasn't Manchin, it would be someone else. And they too would have some nicely distinguishing feature that just so happens out of pure and absolute coincidence to block exactly what was on the table at exactly that point in time. It will be such a mystery how this keeps happening! Foiled again! Next time, he will be better, the battered woman says.
Quoting Xtrix
The first step is to stop perpetuating harm by buying into these spoon-fed narratives. This is, as liberals like to endlessly yarn about, harm minimization. It is an active harm to continue to act as if the democrats are not against any sense of progress by matter of design. It provides cover and provides a guarantee that they will continue to be a wholly corporate owned party that occasionally will rename a street in honor of BLM. The narrative you buy into and feed - which the democrats in turn have fed you themselves - is itself a harm. What you 'push for,' actively makes things worse, by enabling worse conditions. It is not, despite the fantasies dipped down to you from above, some kind of rear-guard, protective action.
You, and people like you, are enablers. Drug dealers of toxic, unrealizeable hope. Wittingly or not.
Yes, the only substantive issue on this topic is the pace of change - which is quick, granted, given what we used to have, but still not quick enough.
We gotta keep looking (and pushing) at the bright side, yes, cynicism only guarantees the worst possible situation as it just leads either to apathy or to pointless rage, in which one rails against everything while the world keeps humming along.
When a senator who receives the most money from fossil fuel, gets 500K in coal dividends, and is from West Virginia, vehemently opposes a sensible climate proposal— there’s no mystery to that at all.
Quoting StreetlightX
For the CEPP program—who, exactly? Not Sinema— she’s bought by a different special interest. Perhaps Tester, being from Montana. But be specific— who do you have in mind? Markey? Bernie? King?
Or we can keep it to the easy realm of “they’re all the same”, and can therefore avoid the burdensome task of understanding something slightly more complicated.
Quoting StreetlightX
Which I already mentioned was the hope that’s been realized. The narrative for which you speak is not what I believe. So with that out of the way…
Quoting StreetlightX
Right. Agreed…
Quoting StreetlightX
I buy into no such narrative. You won’t find it in anything I’ve written in the last two years on this forum. I think the person stuck on this narrative is yourself, frankly, as it’s the easiest strawman to attack. If you need to paint me as a DNC apologist, again that’s your own business.
Quoting StreetlightX
Well let’s be specific. What I am especially pushing for is action on climate change. The CEPP program was a good one — though not by any means sufficient. You don’t have to take my word for it, simply read what others are saying about it — choose any credible source you like.
Okay, so that’s something worth getting into law. Without pushing for this now, who knows when the next chance will be for anything close to meaningful at the federal level. So we should all pressure our elected officials to pass this — many ways to do so.
It’s failed, and that’s disappointing. If it passed, would it have made things worse? There are other provisions in the bill, as well — $550 billion for various climate initiatives, none of which would be a reality if it weren’t for activism, and certainly not if Trump got a second term. Is this “worse”?
If pushing for these policies makes things worse, in the end, then that would be terrible indeed. So again I ask: assuming this is true, that I’ve bought into a “spoon fed narrative” and that what I push for makes things worse, what is your plan? What’s the alternative I’m missing in terms of action?
I’m still all ears.
Which is also very easy. What’s hard is organizing with others, taking collective action, protesting in the streets (which I hate), using the courts, registering voters, educating people, raising money, corresponding with state and local leaders, getting involved in local government, sitting on boards, crafting proposals, creating petitions and referenda, etc.
Much easier to be cynical. This way you can appear to be above all the silly “activism”— with the added benefit of having to do nothing except sit on your ass, read books, and write some comments on the Internet. Political hobbyism 101.
Feels great; accomplishes nothing. For those living in the real world, and want to do something — however small — the best thing to do is ignore such people. They don’t have a single solution in their heads anyway.
What kind of question is this in response to what I wrote? "Yes, fine, I am enabling and making things worse by actively perpetuating harm, but what else would you have me do???". It's not a serious question. Your sincerity is fake. As for not buying into the narrative, of course you do. You - and you're not alone of course, you're a statistic - peddle the idea that the chief impediment to progress is not the democratic party as such, but just a couple of rogue elements here and there which can be brought to heel with some activism here and there. Never mind that Biden broke practically every promise he made going into the election bar pulling out of Afghanistan - they still got this. Again, this stuff is not 'failure', 'unfortunate' fifty-offs. It is deliberate.
People speak of Biden being "forced to water-down" this or that bill. Please. He does it with joy.
Quoting Xtrix
It's disappointing to those who had any expectation it would be allowed to pass by the democrats at all. I keep telling you, and you keep displacing the issue. This very vocabulary is the problem. The democratic party is a hostile agent, and until you treat them as such, you are an apologist. The choice is not - despite your disingenuous and self-serving characterization - of 'doing something' vs. 'not doing something'. It is between enabling harm and disabling it.
And what exactly was the rhetorical strategy here? "I know the democratic party has been completely bought out and fails at every progressive measure it tries to enact, but as countervailing evidence, consider this bill that failed on account of the democratic party having been bought out and never getting anything done". Well gee, guess you got me dead to rights.
70 years of rightward drift of which democrats have been exemplary lubricants and people have the gall to think it is 'adolescent' to call out this utter bullshit for what it is and to ask that people stop lapping up the orchestrated cycles. If I'm 'cynical' then people like you are Sisyphean nihilists. The democratic party is the Auschwitz of American political hope. It is where hope is sent to be liquidated under the guise of making a better world. My problem isn't that 'I don't have hope'. The problem is that I think more highly of hope than the hopeless vulgarization of tying its significance to an apparatus full of corporate hacks. Anyone who tells anyone else that unless they believe in the democratic party, they 'lack hope', can walk into the ocean and never come back out of sheer embarrassment.
Don't you dare lecture me about hope and cynicism when your version of watered-down, mud-brown hope is putting trust in a proven apparatus of decade-long failure that is nothing more than a group of plutocratic arse-kissers and yes-men. Go gaslight someone else with democratic piss passed off as poor-quality chardonnay that you get mad that people don't want to drink.
Typical leftists.
Ok. You and Xtrix are in the same side, though. Whatever you want to call it.
The EU is also run by neoliberal principles, so maybe there's no leftism in the world?
You mean your non-answer to a question I’ve repeated twice.
Quoting StreetlightX
No.
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
You figured this all out already. Well done.
Quoting StreetlightX
So it was inevitable that the CEPP program wouldn’t pass — so why bother? Stupid activists.
Quoting StreetlightX
No, you keep repeating lazy, easy, obvious claims about the corruption of the Democratic Party, as if you’ve stumbled upon a grand insight.
Quoting StreetlightX
Riveting.
As if I haven’t been saying this for years.
Quoting StreetlightX
Yeah you’re really doing God’s work. What I was asking for, sincerely, is a plan of action given the situation. We know democrats are bought by corporate interests, and not on our side — indeed. So given this situation, what is to be done?
Apparently to keep railing about how democrats are a hostile entity, and vocabulary. Yes, that is adolescent (pardon the accuracy).
Quoting StreetlightX
Agreed.
I’ve never once suggested that.
Quoting StreetlightX
No lectures. A fairly simple question which you evidently can’t answer. All the smoke that’s been blown doesn’t change it.
Still can't answer a simple question, as I suspected. Why? Because it's much easier to posture about truisms while sitting on your ass doing nothing.
The CEPP program was a sensible one. There was a lot of activism involved, especially by younger people (the Sunrise Movement, etc), to even get these proposals considered. That, according to you, was a misguided waste of time, because no one except an apologist/cheerleader for the democratic party would believe there was any chance of it passing. What a fantastic message.
For those following along, notice how convenient this is. Take action and you're delusional, because nothing will change -- what needs to change is our beliefs.
I say: let's assume the beliefs are changed, now what?
Not a word. More repeating of the same lines. "Fraud." "Apologist." "Cheerleader." Yeah, yeah. Typical diversion from those who haven't the slightest clue as to how to proceed, have no solutions or plans (because that would entail real work), and would rather posture.
You're the biggest fraud here without realizing it. Go read more Zizek.
If only the Sunrise Movement was as hopeless and lazy as you. Stupid kids.
Talk about "substance" from a guy who couldn't answer a simple question of action. What a shocker.
Your posturing is fantastic, though. We're all very impressed.
Almost as good as democratic posturing. I couldn't possibly hope to match.
"True. So what should be done?"
"What kind of question is that?"
lol
:lol:
Can't wait till this thread gets back on track with liberals being mad at Manchin and Sinema.
Let's all go to sleep -- it's hopeless. Try any action, and you're a democrat apologist.
Maybe logic works differently in Australia.
Quoting Xtrix
You were saying something about comprehension...
If only I could see the big picture, like you. Then I could sit on my ass doing nothing as well.
It would be better, for you and others like you, in particular, to do nothing. Then the democratic party would not be provided with the cover of legitimacy that you so lovingly supply as they deliberately wreck things. The conditions for perpetual decay would be eased. Your doing nothing would be a net positive in the world.
I realize you literally cannot comprehend this point, but it's worth a try.
Because I'm a democratic operative/apologist who's perpetuating harm and giving cover to the party. As opposed to you and the actions you take, which are definitely there but not worth discussing with a democrat operative like me.
:yawn:
Eyyy. Took a while but we got there. Proud of you :blush:
:kiss:
Nothing, of course, is exactly what you have been doing. Much to the delight of the democrats.
No, they’re at where they are on the environment because of activism— which is a far better place than we’d be under Trump, who you were helping get re-elected.
There has been progress made. The democrats are not the republicans. Not all democrats are bought by corporate interests, and of the majority who are — there are different interests in play, not simply big oil.
I know you don’t like nuance, so you can skip all this.
Quoting Xtrix
Correct. I don't flag carry for them, yet I'm (gasp) still able to recognize obvious political realties which I realize are too hard for you. Hence why you couldn't answer questions about which senators you had in mind who would "take Manchin and Sinema's place" (I gave you one possibility myself) and why you cannot name a single thing you've done to change anything whatsoever -- while denying your fatalism, of course. I can imagine you in the 60s: "That Democratic apologist MLK being duped into believing anything will change."
You have "hope" that people will see through the straw man you've created to represent me, and I've yet to see anyone as big a failure at helping people do so than you. You're driving them to hopelessness and apathy.
Stop pretending to care about anything other than your own political hobbyism. In the meantime the real work, as always, will be conducted by those who aren't stuck in intellectual adolescence.
"Democrats as evil as Republicans." "Trump evil as Biden." Always riveting (and predictable) analysis.
With all the smoke you blow, you couldn't even make the simplest of choices in the 2020 election. And still won't admit there's any difference between Trump and Biden. That about says it all for me.
The result of all the Zizek reading I guess. A pseudo-intellectual's intellectual.
I hear Jordan Peterson saying things along your lines. Probably more on your level. Check him out.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting Xtrix
Plenty of things to be done, and which I will continue to do.
But it must be nice using nihilism as a cover for sitting at home jerking off to Zizek.
"Biden’s shameful surrender stems from the fundamental approach he adopted towards this struggle. Instead of seeking to pile as much pressure as possible on the right wing holdouts within his own party, Biden voiced only the mildest of criticism. Biden remarked at a public event in Baltimore last week, “Joe [Manchin] is not a bad guy. He’s a friend.” And Biden did indeed treat Manchin like a friend, agreeing to his demands to cut from the budget a wide range of programs that would have provided major relief to workers.
...The Biden administration is heavily emphasizing that over $500 billion is allocated in his new framework for climate change related measures. But the majority of this would be spent in the form of tax credits that big corporations would be best positioned to take advantage of, and other subsidies aimed at bolstering “green” capitalists. It is unclear how much of this would actually make its way to concrete actions to reduce carbon emissions.
...Biden and the rest of the Democratic Party had many tools at their disposal to force Manchin and Sinema to reverse their disgusting, anti-worker stand. They could have cut them off from campaign funds, removed them from their committee assignments, refused to consider any legislation they propose, supported primary challenges, or called for mass actions to add to the pressure. But instead they could barely muster the courage to even criticize the right wing duo in the media."
--
Huh would you look at that. Biden's green acheivement will have been to effect a giant wealth transfer of public money to corporations under the cover of environmentalism. This must have been what some people meant about "where they are on the environment". Who could have seen this coming? It's almost like he did the same thing as the plutocrat genital sucking democrat before him. And the one before him. My gosh, it's like this is the one thing the democrats are able to get done, ever. Also increasing funding to cops that kill minorities but who cares about that lol they wore kente scarves that one time. "Activism" lol. "Get stuff [wealth transfers] done" lol. "Hope" [for donors] lol. Clowns.
Strangely enough, the response from the Dems have been pretty calm. Jayapal has just stated that she and the progressives plan to vote for the BIF anyways and they feel optimistic that the BBB will pass with assurances from Biden. The White House response has been similarly hopeful.
So what should we make of all this? Is Manchin just putting up a show to make himself look like some fiscally conservative politician? Perhaps he's given the progressives private assurances that he will support the bill. Otherwise I can't imagine them caving so easily and so quickly but that is what it looks like from the outside.
A fun thought experiment to try on: for a month, treat the democrats (all the democrats, the entire party, not just one or two of them) as though they are a party actively hostile to progressive change. One that actively seeks to make things worse, on behalf of their corporate sponsors. You might surprise yourself with how often you will stop being 'surprised' and 'unable to imagine them caving so easily' and start seeing it as a normal pattern of behaviour that is totally in line with what they do on a day to day basis. Measure the democrats on a purely outcome-based metric, and bracket their self-stylings and the ways in which they portray themselves. Just for a month. See what happens to one's sense of constant surprise at their so-called 'failures'. Perhaps they will begin to look like what they are - achievements. Expect the worst from them and watch how those expectations will be fulfilled, rather than thwarted.
The delay is probably them looking for additional mechanisms to funnel taxpayer money into corporate hands.
Only those who do nothing except jerk off Zizek, apparently. How special you are.
The progressive caucus has surprised me so far. If they cave and vote on the “bipartisan” bill, that’ll be disappointing. I don’t see indications of that happening yet. Manchin seems pretty riled up about it, because he wants that bill passed so he can gut the BBB bill more or kill it completely.
The BBB bill has already been destroyed, of course, so it barely matters at this point.
Yeah, we know about your favorite hobby, beyond political hobbyism. Thanks for clarification. Very witty.
Yes, let’s live in a fantasy world without nuance or evidence, where every senator is bought by the same interests and all operate on the same principles.
This from a guy who sees everything so clearly that he actively helped Trump get re-elected. After all, what difference would it have made?
Biggest fraud on the forum.
Hey I'm not the democratic party don't be mean.
If only I could live in your fantasy world. Then I could excuse myself for doing nothing too. :ok:
Jayapal has already signalled she's gonna continue with the plan to get a vote on the BIF and they'll take a "leap of faith" on Biden's word that he will get his vote in the end.
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1455246896847589376
Personally I think it's probably more to it than that since they did not seem shaken at all in their resolve from this morning when it looked like the BBB was on a path to a vote this week. I mean Manchin isn't Sinema. At least they can talk to him.
I think this is misreading what Jayapal is saying. She's willing to vote on both, and is leaving the convincing of Manchin to Biden. She says she's not in direct contact with Manchin.
To overlook what the CPC is doing right now is insanity. In reality, it's a very positive sign indeed. If I could snap my fingers and get rid of nearly everyone in congress, congress itself, capitalism itself, etc., I would. But that's not a reality. I think it a good idea to understand what's going on, beyond Twitter slogans.
Well, we'll see what happens this week since their plan for a vote on both bills (in the House) apparently hasn't changed.
"Democrats' $1.75 trillion economic and climate bill could end up delivering a tax cut for the richest 5% of Americans, a new analysis finds. Although it wasn't addressed in the framework, some observers expect the package will eventually include a repeal of the $10,000 cap on the federal deduction for state and local taxes, known as SALT. Some Democrats have said they won't vote for the legislation without action on the SALT cap, which has been a particular issue in California, New York, New Jersey and other high-tax states. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found in an analysis released Friday that repealing the SALT cap would more than offset the planned tax hikes on the rich.
"A two-year SALT cap repeal -- if included -- would reduce taxes on the top 5% of earners by over $70 billion" in fiscal 2023, the CRFB said. After factoring in the planned tax hikes on the rich, the package would translate to a $30 billion net direct tax cut for those in the top 5% when the SALT cap repeal is in effect, the analysis said.... More than 96% of the benefits from a SALT cap repeal would go to the highest-income 20% of households, according to a 2018 analysis from the Tax Policy Center. "
Ahhh the hope, the hope is overwhelming what are we going to do with all this democratic hope ahhhh help drowning in all the hope we need MoRe AcTiViSsmmmm
Indeed. Organizing, collective action, etc. The alternative which you present -- doing nothing -- is a good option if you're a simpleton.
:lol:
What to do? Break that cycle, and more importantly, break it from the left (the democrats are not a left party - they are a conservative party, just FYI). If that means not voting, so be it. People like Xtrix will try to hold you hostage and gaslight you: if you don't vote for the democrats, the republicans will come into power. But it's farce. If you vote for the democrats, the republicans will come into power anyway, because the function of the democratic party is defuse left energy (which the republican party can't do), and then, one that's done, actively pave the way for republican victories after that. That's their objective role in American political life. They're the rear-guard of republican political power.
Far more interesting that anything the Democrats have been doing is workers strikes all over the US. Capitalism is a wage relation, and it is over wages and workplace rights that anything will be won. Discuss your wages with your fellow workers. Join your union. Build networks of worker solidarity. Never hate on the poor or the uneducated, not matter how silly their antics can be. Power is always the enemy. Know that bosses are not your friends. Keep yourself informed. Refuse, at all costs, the fake distinction between liberal and conservative. Educate yourself, and, just casually, those around you when the opportunity arises. Also for the love of God never call yourself an activist. An activist is someone too non-committal and pussy to call themselves a socialist outright. Hitler's brownshirts were activists. 'Activism' is liberal code for: ineffective tinkerer of the status quo.
Maybe pick a couple of books - Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal! is probably one of the better antidotes to Blue MAGA people like Xtrix. Or even something like Red State Revolt, which shows how worker movements can and do flourish in so-called red states. Or even Chris Hedges, who is a nice popular writer on these topics: https://www.amazon.com/America-Farewell-Tour-Chris-Hedges/dp/1501152688/
Hi John. A word of advice:
If you ever come across someone pretending to be non-partisan in regards to a two-party fight, and yet they claim one of the parties is a shill for the other, that person is a shill for the party they did not attack.
This is another one of the genius tactics of division used by the likes of Putin and his fascist Republican bitches.
That's your PSA for today. Be wary my friend.
There’s no way to govern coherently with a legislative program that represents a one-sided compromise between the preferences of liberal voters and those of major corporations. This model of so-called compromise was hardly invented by the likes of Manchin or Sinema. It’s also the one embraced by Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and virtually every other major figure or grandee in the Democratic Party’s upper ranks.
In a big way, the Left’s critique in 2016 and 2020 wasn’t just that a new, more ambitious, and more ideologically coherent program was urgently needed. It was also that the Democratic Party is structurally unable to deliver even many of the softly progressive measures its leaders periodically claim to want — and that, by extension, an administration headed by a figure like Joe Biden was almost certain to yield a very predictable result.[/quote]
https://jacobinmag.com/2021/11/joe-biden-democratic-party-elections-presidency-the-left-predicted
An article after my own heart :heart:
Become an activist. Educate yourself and others, organize with others. Identify programs you want and push for them. This is done all the time, if you look around. It was especially prevalent in the 60s, and much of the progress we see today comes from exactly those movements. One example today is the climate change movement -- the Sunrise Movement and one I'm involved with, 350.org (founded by Bill McKibben) -- where pressure from below is pushing more and more candidates to propose ambitious legislation. This is currently happening too slowly and will either entirely fail or get whittled down to nothing, predictably, but that's missing the point. (Ask yourself what climate provisions would have even been on the table under a Trump administration?) The point is to continuously create and push for programs you want, on the national, state, and local level. Anyone who wants to deny activism as the essential part of progress should simply be ignored.
As for voting: there are two political parties in the United States. As Noam Chomsky has mentioned, and I agree with, an activist should take two minutes to see which candidate is worse, and vote against that candidate -- then get back to the important work of educating and organizing. Voting is important, but hardly any more important than those two minutes. You should do it, then move on. Not voting, or voting third party in a swing state, is helping the worse candidate succeed -- period. That's just arithmetic. Idealists and purists simply cannot understand this, so there's no use arguing over it. But the choice is a simple one. It's not an endorsement of the Democratic party, or Joe Biden. It's a vote against the Republican party, who are even worse. Those who want to claim the Republicans and Democrats are the same are, likewise, deluding themselves.
Quoting John McMannis
Start locally. There's far too much time and energy spent on national politics, where an individual can do very little. You can do much more at the local and state level. But it's not only local politics/government worth focusing on -- it's also the corporate interests that essentially own and direct much of the government. Real power today lies not only in political power but in economic power, and the heart of that is the corporation -- because that's where the real money flows (and money talks). If you work for a corporation, or even a smaller company, get to know how they work -- understand the administrative structure of boards of directors and executives. You mentioned elsewhere that you had been approached by a coworker to start a union -- as I said, that's an excellent idea. Educate yourself about how to unionize.
Most importantly is to talk with other people. It's next to impossible to do it all yourself, especially when there are plenty of other responsibilities one has in life. This idea of individualism is foisted upon us to keep us isolated. This is why there's such a sense of hopelessness, because even though people recognize the problems they feel they can't do anything about it, being just one person. This is by design. The most powerful people on earth are not individualists, they're socialists. They coordinate with their class all the time to maintain their power, and they always look after each other. The middle and working classes have been conditioned to fear and hate their own members, but they can do the same. Don't let yourself be pulled into this demonizing of collectivism, nor be fooled by the illusion of connection pushed by social media companies. There's a real world out there, with real people, and it's worth joining.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
:cheer: :fire: :100: Emphasis added.
thanks for the thoughtful response. So if what you say is true, then it seems pointless to vote for either party. Seems like I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't. I'm basically an independent voter when I do vote, which has only been a few years and my first time was for Obama in 2012 but I didn't feel anything changed. Then we got Trump who I really don't like much although I don't know about his policies. It seemed things became more polarized after obama so it does seem like you're right. But I do think that it's better in other ways to have biden in office even though not much seems to be happening. Maybe that just makes it worse, I don't know. It's really confusing to me. I think this is why a lot of people don't vote haha
Quoting StreetlightX
Why? This seems a lot harder than voting and stuff, to me anyway. If I could vote for a different CEO I would, but that's not how it works. If I ask for more money, they can just can my ass. I live in a right to work state, so they're not big fans of workplace rights and unions. I guess I could just quit if I really hated it, but it's hard to get other work.
Quoting StreetlightX
Thanks, I think this is good advice and I'm going to make it a goal to read up on things more and talk to others about it. That seems to be the advice I'm getting from a lot of people. I never identify as conservative or liberal and don't even like talking politics much because I don't know that much about it. What's some good news sources in your view?
Quoting StreetlightX
Damn. I never thought of it that way. I have always admired Martin Luther king and people like that. A lot is made of greta Thuneberg these days too and I think she's a cool person. I always considered these examples of activism but maybe it does stay on the surface of things without knowing it, or maybe having the wrong goals. Or maybe they're not activists in the sense you mean but are still active? Is it more the label you don't like or do you think Greta and Jane Fonda and people like that are just full of it?
Quoting StreetlightX
Hey thanks, I have heard of Chris Hedges but not the others. I'll check them out for sure!
Do you mean like what Streetlightx said or something else? Are you saying he is a shill for the republican party because he attacked the democrats? this is a confusing issue for me. I feel like Democrats align more with my values and say things I agree with more. Bernie sanders is a good guy I think and what he was saying in 2016 and 2020. Elizebeth warren too. Mayor Pete and Andrew Yang seemed like they had interesting ideas too although I don't follow them closely. Most of what Trump was talking about seemed lacking in substance. But maybe it's better to let the republicans take over so that people fight back against it? I don't really know.
Geez. I like what you're saying but what if activism is just a phony thing that doesn't really accomplish anything? Not saying I believe that but what if?
Quoting Xtrix
Is this in reference to the other response I got from street light? Because he is saying the opposite almost. What if we just take away the word activism and just say fighting and organizing and stuff, like you're saying. I think you both agree with that but cal it different things.
Quoting Xtrix This does make sense to me. In other words just vote against Trump or people like him but don't make a big deal about it and don't pretend that joe biden is so great? That's kind of where I am at in how I feel about them but yet pretty pessimistic about anything big changing in my life.
Quoting Xtrix
I'll definitely take this advice. Any suggestions on how best to get involved locally or how to break into the conversation with people about this stuff? It's not so easy for me.
Yes and yes.
Quoting John McMannis
I used to think that the best way to turn a Republican was to give him what he prayed for. But that was working under the mistaken idea that people would learn and not double down. You see them dying of Covid in the hospital saying Covid is a hoax and they don't have it. Another example is Trump. We kept saying the bar could not get any lower and then "boom!" it dropped. That happened for five years and it's still happening. Now we are numb to it and there has been a complete reset to a new baseline where January 6th was just a bunch of tourists. :roll:
That's fair! It's both confusing and not, in that if you do a little digging, it's not too hard to figure out where things stand with everyone. But alot of mainstream sources are not very good, and keep the important issues out of the limelight, which makes that "digging" a far tougher exercise than it ought to be. As for voting or not voting, you should absolutely make your own mind up. But don't be allow yourself to be blackmailed with the idea that you have to vote for the democrats because if you don't, the republicans will get into power. Anyway, someone came up with a handy-dandy graphic that's well worth posting:
Only problem with this image is that it makes it seem that the democrats only work to block things. That's not true. They get things done. Like handing enormous sums of public money to private interests.
It is alot harder. And it's been made so it is that way. But it's also alot more effective! Check out what is happening with the John Deere strikers atm - their industrial action secured almost double the way raises they were being offered, and they're still striking for more. Or else look at the successes of the Chicago teacher's strike. Hard work in, good results out.
Obviously not everyone is in the position to take industrial action. And the very fact that industrial action is mass action speaks to how hard it is for any one person, alone, to get things done. Alot of the work involves preparation and getting your principles in order so that when occasions arise, you do make the right choices. That seemingly 'wild' ideas like striking dont't seem so wild, if it ever comes to that. And cultivating solidarity and class consciousness with others like yourself in your community. You won't change the world by yourself. And that's OK. To find joy in a world geared towards making you miserable is a radical act. Joy and self-care is radical. Moreso if its shared. Also, it took literal centuries to end Feudalism. We will win because our timescales are geographic!
Liberals like our blue MAGA friends in this thread have a time-horizon of whatever next big political conference is coming up, organized by the powers that be as they ferry themselves there in jets and private cars.
I have a time horizon of 10-20 years, in which we need to transform both the energy sector and agriculture if we want to survive. We don’t have 100 years to end neo-feudalism. If you’re not factoring that in you’re simply not serious.
True, having democrats or progressives in office may accomplish nothing or even make things worse. If that’s the case, we’re toast. So it’s hopeless.
But the reality is we live in a two-party system that won’t change in our lifetime. Unfortunately we have to vote against one or the other. Republicans want to drill more and deny climate change is real— that’s worth voting against. Very simple stuff, and says absolutely nothing about being in favor of the Democratic Party.
Your lack of imagination is not an indictment on hope.
Then again, hope, like prayer, is not a strategy.
I agree. But, like I said, prayer, like hope, is not a strategy. What might be even worse than either, is if your pretense to objection to planetary death is actually a ruse and you are trying to aid those who kill the planet.
I typed up the following some time ago and was going to ask this question of . But I see his post count isn't much longer than mine, so I don't know if he can even answer it. Further, I also got to the point where I don't really care enough about you or your opinions to spend too much time ruminating on the answer. But since I had, some days ago, wondered about it enough type it up, I'll just toss it out there, stream of consciousness:
I used to be an opponent of the two-party system (actually writing myself in for lack of a better alternative) and I still am. However, I can see the benefit that a party provides. If some guy or gal were pulled off the street and made POTUS, they’d be overwhelmed by the professional pols on each side, not to mention a bureaucracy that often seems to stand on its own. So a party can fill appointments, run interference, caution and guide an innocent babe who was tossed into a fire of conniving and deceit. The supply their own party expert conniving and deceit. Any other option and the babe gets eaten alive. That is where party comes in.
Stepping back, on the outside of the U.S. looking in, it seems easy to take pot shots at those who participate in the U.S. system. Objectively, it’s possible those pot shots are warranted and good critique. However, before putting too much stock in the opinions of such a sniper, it would be interesting to know if that sniper is indeed the objective player he pretends to be.
The only way to answer this question is to look back at their history and see if they were equally as accurate and sustained in their fire when the opposite party was in power in the U.S. If not, then it seems clear, they are just another party-player trying to sew division and weakness within the party at which they are currently shooting.
Serious question: Was StreetlightX around during the Trump Administration, doling it out objectively then, like he pretends to be doing now, while Biden tries to herd cats? Or is he really just working Putin’s game of disrupting civic, civil, progressive, anti-fascist sentiment?
I would ask him, but I am currently vetting him, to decide if he is what he purports to be.
The idea that the U.S. has some real and substantial problems, and that the two parties are indistinguishable from a certain perspective, has merit. But if those problems and the lack of distinction are simply tools being used to further undermine and divide, without the offer of a viable, constructive criticism, then it’s easier to flush him down the toilet.
So I ask, what this StreetlightX running around poking holes like this when Trump and company were running the show? I’d like to know, but not bad enough to go back and read all his posts from years ago.
Should I flush him down the toilet, or concern myself with his drivel?
I stipulated to that. But like I intimated, digging through 5 years of posts is not my thing. I just thought if someone had been familiar with you all that time, they could toss in their two cents.
Quoting StreetlightX
I addressed that too, but apparently you missed it. Hence my query.
Quoting StreetlightX
Okay. Like I told another member, you will be tossed in with the company you keep. Guilt by association. Especially when you don't put any distance between yourself and Putin or the fascist racist Republicans who's water you carry.
Then there's nothing we can do but hope. But that's not the case. Plenty is being done and has been done.
Quoting John McMannis
We can use any word we like, it makes no difference. What matters is educating, organizing with others, and acting collectively. Look at the civil rights movement or the environmental movement or the anti-war movement. Look at women's rights and gay rights. Whether we call this "activism" or not is irrelevant. I see no problem with the word myself.
Quoting John McMannis
Right -- we should all prevent the worst from happening, at minimum. It takes almost no time. Then we should get back to the real work. I understand the pessimism, but that shouldn't be a preventative for fighting. Not fighting guarantees the worst.
Quoting John McMannis
I can give you suggestions from my own life if that's helpful. Just send me a message if you're interested.
Quoting StreetlightX
On climate change, Republicans say it's a hoax, Democrats say it's a problem. The Biden administration has appointed a Native American as secretary of interior, for example -- a very good move. They've re-established National monuments and regulations weakened under Trump, and put a moratorium on drilling on public lands. None of this goes far enough, but compare to the Trump administration when Scott Pruitt, an oil lobbyist, was the head of the EPA and Ryan Zinke, a former board member of a pipeline company, was head of the Interior.
If you are listening to climate scientists, and truly see no difference between the administrations, you're simply not serious. Any public pressure was completely useless in the Trump administration -- they went the opposite way. If you want to pretend that it's not worthwhile to vote against climate deniers when scientists say we have 10-20 years to turn things around, that's your problem. And indeed a lack of not just imagination, but logic.
The two parties are not indistinguishable. They're bought off and pressured by different interests and constituents. It's true almost all are corporatists, but there are different industries at play. The fossil fuel companies pour far more money into the Republican party, and their media networks, think tanks, lobbying groups, and presence in business and law schools are well documented. The Koch brothers have been especially influential.
They're simply the opposite direction of most of where we want to be in the United States. The Democrats, while also neoliberal capitalists, have a different set of strategies. They are owned by a different segment of the corporate world -- namely, the financial industry (Wall Street). These people are starting to get nervous about the effects of climate change, and so the Democrats are allowed to pay lip service to it. They propose things like the Green New Deal, which is a good start; they're able to run progressive candidates and are having success with them. The party has been pushed left, beyond a doubt. They will continue to be pushed left. Whether it's done in time is the question. But in the meantime, we keep not only pushing but creating the conditions for change at a grassroots level (which is why Bernie was able to take off).
It's easy to sit back and say it's all hopeless, that nothing will change, and that there aren't any solutions. Much harder to propose alternatives -- which is why you'll hear absolutely none from Street or any other idealist. No specificity, no details -- because those are too hard. Much easier to keep it general, because this way you don't have to look into things.
But the entire issue is trivial: vote against the worst party and the worst candidates, and move on with the hard work of organizing, educating, supporting more progressive candidates, engaging in local and state politics and economics, etc. All else is cynical, superficial, adolescent nonsense that comes from reading too many books and sitting on your ass too long.
Yeah, if I'm going to roll with anyone I'll roll with you and not Street. I smell something bad on that side of the street.
Unfortunately I'm as bad a role model and as immature as he is in terms of communication, so I don't claim any wisdom in that respect. The points are make should be so trivial it's astonishing they even have to be written. But that's the harm of over-thinking things, I suppose.
We all are, now that politics has been placed over facts, science and the rule of law. So I pick the side that does not pretend to be neutral while they only rip down only one side. I figure them as a shill for the side they ignore. That, in my opinion, is dishonorable, dishonest and cowardly.
In fairness, I don't think he's a shill for the Republicans. He'll claim I'm a shill for the Democrats. What doesn't seem to be understood is that one can see the corruption and the corporate stranglehold on the two-party system in the US, and yet still recognize minor differences which, in a superpower, are relevant. I mention climate change as one example, but there are plenty of others. It's also within the Democratic party that we find a Bernie Sanders or an AOC, which is encouraging.
Yeah, but I don't seem him going after the Republicans, while you don't give the Democrats a pass. That was my original question: has he ever given them equal time with what he would have a reader believe is his objective, two-edged sword? I haven't seen it. But then again, I don't pay him too much attention. In fact, I've given him too much oxygen already. On to something else . . .
The question is:. can you accept that American democracy has been subverted to create a super wealthy class? Can you accept that the US military has been used to cement this same anti-egalitarian approach throughout the world?
Did you even know that when you drink cheap coffee, you're imbibing the fruits of hard nosed exploitation connected to the same principles?
When I say "accept", I mean can you engage the subverted system in front of you and try to work within it to help those who can be helped? And put off the revolution until tomorrow?
If so, then support Biden and continue on.
If you've paid any attention to what I've said about plutocracy, etc. then you know the answers to those questions. On the other hand, I don't suspect you've hung on all my pearls of wisdom like you should have. There are 2.3k of them to date. That would be a big ask :lol:
Quoting frank
I can, but I'm cautious about working at cross-purposes to my goal. Also, my "those who can be helped" are usually not human, though humans benefit as a result. Sometimes against their will.
Quoting frank
I can, but I'm old. I won't resist if I see the young and energetic start their work.
Quoting frank
Thanks for the permission. :wink:
I don't think you understood anything I said. :up:
Likewise, I'm sure. :up:
Could be. I just told you that it doesn't really matter much who you vote for, not wrt fundamentals.
If you really understood that, then why are you up in arms about Republicans? Like they're the problem?
I'm not being hyperbolic. I understand that there's a lot of that in social media, so truth isn't a priority in most of what people say. Just to help clarify. I'm speaking as straight as I can.
Ooohh wooooow a native American wooooow yeah gosh pack it up boys, the planet is fixed job done. Take your identity politics and shove it so far up your - ok, moratorium hey?
[Quote]The new president quickly announced a moratorium on the sale of drilling leases while the Interior Department conducted a review of the federal oil and gas program. But in the meantime, Biden’s Interior Department has been approving drilling permits for previously sold leases at a fast clip. It approved more than 2,100 permits in his first six months, a pace that surpasses monthly approvals during most of Trump’s presidency, according to the AP. [/quote]
https://grist-org.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/grist.org/regulation/whats-the-status-of-bidens-promise-to-phase-out-drilling-on-public-lands/amp
CEPP is dead - anyone with half a brain could see that coming - , and what looks to make it through is tax cuts for the rich and "green subsidies" - read: wealth tranfer - for corporations. Your shitty fucking democrat party is a shitty fucking party and supporting them will kill this planet but you get to feel good about the fact that you think you've "done something" when what you "done" is help shore up legitimacy for a bunch of fucking rats determined to end life on this planet for the profits of their masters and handlers. Oh and let's not forget handing your shitty fucking country back to the Republicans on a silver platter, but only after completely murdering any left energy in its cot - i.e. it's most important function in American political life.
You cannot pretend to care about this planet while supporting democrats. These things are mutually exclusive.
That's the issue, though, isn't it? What are the fundamentals? I didn't vote for Hillary because she wouldn't release her Goldman Sachs transcripts, and she struck me as a Mitch McConnel: Conniving. But doesn't mean there is no daylight between them on other issues.
Quoting frank
Because they are the problem. Them and Manchin and Sinema. But to get down into the weeds on this (and I've said this many times before, though it's understandable you don't stalk me and read all I write), the Republicans no longer exist (in my mind). When they threw the last true conservative Republican under the bus (Liz Cheney), they forever bound themselves, irrevocably, to Trump (and if she stays in the party, so will she). And Trump places no daylight between himself and fascist white nationalist racists. Long story short, Republicans are now Trumpsters and I find Trump to be an un-American traitor to our fundamental principles outlined in our organic documents, as well as being the preeminent liar, coward and dishonorable, self-absorbed huckster.
Quoting frank
Neither am I.
Quoting frank
Same here. :up:
Here's an idea I was tossing around in my brain pan while I was out working today: The Republican (Trump) Party is akin to a man in a patriarchal society. The Democrat Party is akin to a woman in a patriarchal society. Now, there honestly is nothing inherently wrong with that, in and of itself. It can be a beautiful thing. But when we acknowledge that every individual (man and woman) is different, then we can ask ourselves: In the current iteration of the relationship, what kind of man and what kind of woman are we looking at? I see an abusive POS in a wife-beater tee shirt, beer in hand, telling the bitch to make him a sandwich. I also see a wife who doesn't like it but doesn't know what to do. Maybe if she just tries to understand him, make him a sandwich, be a good wife . . . Maybe she can change him. After all, she's simply trying to take care of the family. But apparently he knows better.
And she might look for a better man. But the best that men could come up with is Trump. The rest are his lieutenants.
I have my ideas of what she should do. But she won't.
They’re not doing nearly enough, and for obvious and predictable reasons. The alternative is the Trump administration and Republicans— which is an absolute guarantee of the worst happening. It’s not the same. Given that there are only two parties, there’s a choice: decide who is worse, given your objectives, and vote against the worst. The Republicans are worse. That’s not an endorsement of Democrats. It’s also not an endorsement of the two party system.
This is only a hard choice for those who do nothing, and have bought into the establishment propaganda about the importance of voting — as if that’s the only power we have. In that case— sure, don’t vote. Or vote third party. Or write in a candidate. That’ll teach them!
And it doesn't help if they have someone undermining their efforts by trashing them, while giving the other side a pass.
https://xlauren-mx.medium.com/after-what-happened-in-buffalo-i-dont-want-to-hear-vote-blue-no-matter-who-again-765745b21eb1
Pelosi is pushing for a vote on the “bipartisan” bill tonight. Both bills were supposed to be voted on together, with the BBB first, which is already a cave by the CPC. The “moderates” are now saying they don’t want to do that until the CBO gives more information about the BBB’s cost. :lol:
So let’s see if the progressives vote for this or not. I’m betting they will, completing the cave.
Yup. CPC should tank both bills and the debt increase next month. Tell both Joes: "Two can play at this game. Bye Biden."
Burn it all down. D's had their chance to tank the filibuster and get the whole enchilada. But they decided to make Mitch McConnel and Joe Manchin a sandwich. Good little wives, hoping their husband will change.
Right— you’ve said the democrats are worse, which is also very cute.
Voting is a minor decision. Vote against climate deniers and move on. Simple.
Ok. So not the democrats then? Got it.
Also that he is pushing OPEC to increase oil production while lecturing the world about emissions reductions. Which is a shock to no one.
You say this like it's a defense. Which, of course, it is. Shill.
The democrats aren’t deniers, because their main financiers are not big oil, but Wall Street. But they don’t care about the environment; sometimes their voters do. So they drag their feet on any action, predictably. All this has been very well documented and is very well known.
Quoting StreetlightX
A defense of what?
They don't 'drag their feet'. They actively make things worse. This idea of a 'reluctant'/'feet dragging' dem party as opposed to an outright malicious one needs to die.
I really don't think so. We have very different perspectives on the whole thing. So yes, we talk past one another.
I think to say Democrats are worse— or less responsive to demands of their voters, is just being blinded by hatred and frustration.
Democarts are not just "less responsive to their voters" - they actively go out of their way to make sure their voters are irrelevant: https://xlauren-mx.medium.com/after-what-happened-in-buffalo-i-dont-want-to-hear-vote-blue-no-matter-who-again-765745b21eb1
The democrats are 'responsive' alright - they do the exact opposite and subvert the will of voters.
:up: We have very different perspectives on some fundamental issues. I knew that when you refuse to distinguish between your patients. It's like giving an alcoholic a liver or a smoker some lungs because they signed up first. Whatever. Different perspectives indeed.
Some of them. Not Bernie. Not Markey. Not Warren. Not on this issue, anyway.
Every member of the Republican Party wants to not only do “active harm,” but accelerate it to the extreme— because they’re owned by fossil fuel interests.
We have two parties, so that’s the choice.
Distinctions without a difference at level of results. This is democratic apologetics, sold to you by the democratic party and reproduced by you and the likes of you verbatim.
So in your view they’re worse than Republicans on climate change. So I assume you would vote Republican— or help them get elected by not voting at all.
Ask environmentalists about the response they get from Republicans.
Sorry, but Bernie getting no results vs. “actively making things worse“ is indeed a clear distinction.
Idk what's worse. A party that is transparently shit on climate change, or a party that is semi-transparently shit on climate change, pretends not to be, and then helps secure victories for the party that is transparently shit on climate change, while staving off any actual change from the left on behalf of both?
Then you’re simply not paying attention. Ask any environmentalist if they’d prefer communicating with Bernie or James Inhofe about climate change.
If you’re referring to drilling on public lands, I already acknowledged that— I also added to the list.
What I was demonstrating before about the interior department and the moratorium or national monuments (which you ignored) isn’t that it was wonderful, but that the Republicans wouldn’t have done either, and in fact transparently moved in the opposite direction.
Your 'acknowledgment' - like democratic "acknowledgements" of BLM - are equally meaningless. You may as well be on here with Earth equivalent of a kente scarf.
If this is the message, it’s pure nihilism. I’ve offered plenty of opportunities to present an alternative plan. All that’s been offered is “we need to break out of thinking democrats are better” or something to that effect. In other words: nothing whatever.
Ooh. I'm gonna have to drop you off my radar.
.
Plenty can be done— party politics (and voting) is minor: vote against the leaders that make it harder to enact change. The rest is the hard work that’s done all the time— and which you continually ignore in favor of…criticizing party politics.
:up: Apparently you can draw some distinctions. :razz:
That was precisely my question about you. :rofl: Self own.
Yes, and yet here you are! That's my point, DOH! That is why you are suspected to be a shill for the Republicans/Putin, ragging on those who don't need to be ragged on, all while pretending to neutrality/objectivity/outsider/non-partisan status. You are indeed partisan, working for the Republicans and Putin.
No, plenty can be done, and one should take five minutes out of one's time and vote against the greater impediment to one's objectives. You apparently think that's the Democratic party, or perhaps that both parties are an equal impediment. Have the courage to say so clearly, so that everyone can see all the good reading countless books does.
Establishment propaganda sure works wonders.
Quoting StreetlightX
???
So, the republican party functions as one-half of a two-part cycle whose overall effect is to ruin lives for everyone.
???
Quoting Xtrix
3 Supreme Court picks and 54 appellate judgeships later -- the decisions of which all citizens have to live with for the next 30 years -- and still the choice to push a button against Trump is too difficult. Imagine.
You can't blame me. I had to say it for you. You never say shit about the Republicans, hence the borne-out suspicions that you are a shill for them.
Lmao now you've changed the subject entirely.
Yeah such a mystery why I'm only discussing the party in power right now. Sherlock was a stretch, I guess.
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
That's encouraging advice. I guess I shouldn't worry so much about the news and focus more on my job and things I can actually do something about. makes sense.
That's why I looked for you putting some distance between you and the Trumpsters, but crickets. So, rather than have me Sherlock-up and dig through five years of shit to find all the times you took the Republicans down, just give me a hint to prove your alleged outsider, objective view of these two feuding kids.
No, the subject is which party, if any, one should vote against. You pushed against voting against Trump in '16 and '20. One result, among many, was what I mentioned: a transformed appellate court and Supreme Court, which will make it all the more harder to pass legislation even if we could -- for the next 30/40 years. Excellent logic, as always.
Yes this is my fault and not a fuck-up democratic party lmao.
I voted for Biden in 2020, and yeah it was more because I really disliked what Trump was saying and quite frankly a lot of his supporters. But I'm an independent. Biden seems like a nice guy and everything and was talking about healing the country and stuff, but I never really bought it. I just didn't like trump haha.
Quoting Xtrix
Makes sense I think.
I mentioned logic.
And there you have it, folks. StreetlightX is a Republican shill and has been outed in public. You can't trust a word he says about having some kind of outsiders, objective view when it comes to this. He wants to sew division and hatred among Americans because it works to satisfy a white nationalist agenda. The only question now is: Is it about the money, or does he actually believe in Trump's agenda? Hmmm. I guess it doesn't matter.
Fair enough. But it's good to decide based on policies as well.
Quoting John McMannis
Yeah, pretty basic stuff. Now try explaining this to your buddy.
I agree -- the Democratic party should be much more progressive. That's why it's important to support Bernie and other progressive candidates. Now compare this to the Republican party -- who among them is like a Bernie or AOC? Ted Cruz? Taylor-Green? I wonder if you could name one.
Ah, never mind.
What? What buddy?
@StreetlightX - but that was tongue-in-cheek. I would also take offense.
"We need to support ineffective candidates that do nothing and are undermined by their own party apparatus and whose end result is to entrench the cycle of Republican victories while pulling the country to the right".
Maybe not. Maybe not vote for Joe "we need a strong Republican party" Biden. Joe "I wrote the Patriot Act" Biden. Joe "more oil platforms than the Republicans" Biden.
And ensure the Republican party gets into office. Like in '16, which led to 3 Supreme Court appointments which will determine American life for the next 40 years. Thankfully more people didn't follow that "logic" in '20.
"But Biden is even worse and ensures the cycle of Republican blah blah blah."
Yeah, vote for Putin's bitch, Trump. :lol: How does it feel to be so transparent? Like the Republican party? The scary part is, it works with the stupid people and there are a lot of them. Proud, even! :roll:
Same same. I just choose not to suppport the party that staves off all efforts to stop this from happening. And I think others should be free to do the same without the political blackmail.
Seems like none of you guys really like each other much, so I don't want to get in the middle.
What efforts? DOH! :rofl: What single thing have you done to stop the Republican party from getting into office? What party (if not the Democrats) has done anything to stop the Republican party from getting into office? You've walked yourself into a corner and slapped yourself. Your shill is showing.
Which in a two-party system, means working against efforts to stop it from happening.
"Red button leads to disaster. But I won't push the blue button."
Incredible logic. I wonder what most union organizers, environmentalists, and civil rights groups think about this.
Solution: do nothing. Don't vote. Ensure the worst happens -- so this way you feel better.
Right, so, working against the democratic party. Got it.
Quoting Xtrix
Nah, I would rather not support the democratic party.
He doesn't like me because I've outed him and exposed his cover. I don't like him because he's a shill for the Republican party, trying to sew division and hatred among Americans. People like him are doing a good job, and here we are.
And thus helping the worst party get into office. I guess that'll change the two-party system!
So now the democrats are the worst party. Got it. If you believe that, then you're right: vote Republican.
As distinct from literally supporting the two-party system.
Imagine being this confused.
Yes, you want a one party system. We get that. Fascists white nationalist want a one party system. You know, like your boy Putin has.
I guess those who hold jobs support capitalism, as well. Oh if only I could live in idealistic fantasy.
Ok.
It seems to me that the real difference is just whether we should vote at all, right? Street says no because both parties are corrupt and that is supporting the system, and Xrix says we should vote for the party that will be less in the way of our goals. Am I right about this or way off?
Both parties, in cahoots with one another. I realize this is really hard to get your head around because you're basically an abuse victim with Stockholm syndrome, but sometimes you have to go hard with trauma victims.
Not just voting. I think both parties ought to be actively opposed and called out at every point. I'm not against voting. Vote how you like. But be aware of what it is you're voting for, and the effects it will have. I'm about dispelling illusions that people like to tell themselves.
So now it's back to both parties being an equal impediment. The solution being...? Not to vote, I presume.
I'm sorry you can't make simple distinctions -- I realize this would be too difficult. Given you don't live here, I guess it's not worth putting any thought into.
Quoting StreetlightX
I'll keep quoting this so long as you need dude. Take your time. I'll even type slow for you. I'm a big supporter of helping people with learning disabilities.
How heroic. You forgot to mention: "Called out and equated."
Quoting StreetlightX
Wonderful. What about the illusion of "both parties are the same"?
Right, so an equal impediment, as I said. There is no better or worse in this case, thus no reason to vote for or against either party.
Brilliant analysis.
There is definitely worse - which is perpetuating a by-now 60 or so year cycle.
I must have missed that. It could be that is his position. I have missed things in the past. But notwithstanding my best efforts, I can't get him to say anything bad about the Trump (used to be Republican) Party. So far it's been all "Democrats bad. Democrats help Republicans." I don't think he's saying "don't vote" but even if he is, that is what Republicans want. That is why Republicans try to stop the vote in blue areas while encouraging it in red areas. The Democrat's don't do that. Democrats are all about getting out the vote, all votes. They both gerrymander, but Democrats want everyone to vote. Because the majority of Americans are Democrats. The will of the people is undermined by Republicans and their shills.
Yes, you're correct. The different being that he feels both parties are two sides of the same coin, and I think that's silly and based on a very, very shallow understanding of reality -- which is why I mentioned courts, which is one significant example of how one party's rise to power has very damaging effects to progress indeed -- for decades.
Yes yes, we all get it. You're against the two-party system. Good, now sit on the sidelines and stop supporting it. This way you can feel good about yourself.
Nope. I'm against supporting people who ruin lives, and more than that, ensuring they get to do so.
But isn't voting supporting a corrupt system by participating in it? I'm a little confused there. Seems like it's a crappy position to be in either way.
Quoting Xtrix
Your point here is that voting does not necessarily mean you support the two party political system in the US, right? I think this is a good point and that maybe Street agrees in some way?
Quoting James Riley
From what I understand, I think he is saying that both are bad.
Quoting Xtrix
It depends on what your values are though, like you said. maybe you two don't see eye to eye on goals?
Me too, which is why I voted against Trump. Who was far worse than Biden -- a point I realize you can't understand.
It is absolutely a crappy position. But it is one engineered by the parties themselves. I'm not offering easy solutions. I don't think there are. People are going to get hurt. People are getting hurt. But I do think that what needs to not be done is to continue letting these parties put people in crappy positions.
It's an absolutely trivial point that a 10 year old can understand. Provided they haven't spent years reading Zizek and other intellectual frauds, living in an idealist fantasy world.
... to support people who ruin lives and ensure they get to do so.
Not easy solutions -- zero solutions.
I think capitalism should be dismantled. Participating in it is perpetuating it. There, I feel better now.
By voting against Trump. Voting against Trump is not supporting Biden. But when there are two choices, it just so happens that to vote against Trump means pushing a blue button. Being against homelessness and destitution means getting a job, in this system. That's not supporting wage slavery and capitalism.
I'll repeat this many times if you need it.
"Voting for Biden is not supporting Biden".
And supposing my paraphrasing is not exactly right, which it is, this lowest-common-denominator hostage-taking crap is exactly the problem.
Well I agree with that, yeah. I admit I do still vote though, and I voted Biden. I wouldn't say I'm a big fan of his or anything, it was more of that I thought trump was even worse. Maybe that was foolish in the end but I don't know how to go about proving it either way haha.
Quoting Xtrix
Well I'm probably at a 10 year old level with this stuff anyway. I don't know who Zizek is but I just googled him. Why do you say he's a fraud?
Exactly right. "Getting a job is not supporting capitalism." It's being against poverty. At least in the economic reality in the United States. Likewise, the political reality of the United States -- a two-party system -- is equally a reality. But we can live in fantasies if we like -- easy to do from thousands of miles away.
Yes, capitalism does force people to make terrible choices. Unfortunately, living in a purist fantasy doesn't change the reality of needing money to eat and live.
Also, @John McMannis, what do you think of being a supporter of a person who ruins lives? Considering you voted against Trump, as you said, this is the only possible conclusion. :roll:
You know the function of politics right? To change reality? And no, not voting for Biden - or whatever phony corporate shill they put in his place - will not leave people homeless and starving. So you can leave this non-sequitur in the bin where you found it.
I wouldn't say I'm a big supporter or anything like I said I just didn't like Trump. But I think I see what you're getting at.
Indeed. Perhaps Marx shouldn't have studied at the British Museum...
Quoting StreetlightX
:rofl:
True -- and voting for Biden (or getting a job) doesn't necessarily make one a supporter (or a capitalist or, to shift to the above example, a supporter of British imperialism).
I'm sorry you struggle with this.
So do you, StreetlightX. You are all about that land raping.
Yes, what I'm getting at is the silly, childish, black-and-white "logic" of @StreetlightX. According to him, we're both perpetuators of an evil system and supporters of Joe Biden.
I guess voting against Hitler would have meant one was a great supporter of Ernst Thälmann.
I do? News to me -- and contrary to everything I've written for the last two years on this very forum. But if you say so! Who am I to argue about my own beliefs?
Quoting StreetlightX
:broken:
That hurts right here. And this works. This works.
Lmao "Vote for Biden vote for Biden" is about the entire content of your posting history. If you can't even get that right, no wonder you can't get literally anything else either.
Voting against Trump is certainly a survival tactic, yes. I'm very glad to have taken the five minutes to do so.
Me and Noam Chomsky. I'm happy to be in such company. Apparently that's all he's done fro the last 60 years as well. :rofl:
You stick with Zizek.
Chomsky can't even get linguistics right, to think he can get politics right.
"Same action." lol
Two tracks. One goes off a cliff. The other goes through a dilapidated bridge that's likely to crumble. You're on a moving train.
Directing the train to the bridge means you're in support of that choice -- not against going off a cliff.
Incredible.
:rofl:
Says some guy on the internet about the founder of modern linguistics. (Because of the Piraha of course! lol)
Yes, we know your position -- we're going off the cliff either way, so stay home, don't vote. :ok:
I recently outed you as a Trump/Putin supporter, but this post of yours reminds me of when I outed you quite some time ago as the guy who thinks being a critic must mean he has critical thinking skills. :lol: I think you are both a Trump chump and a guy who thinks he's all that.
Well he's read Dan Everett, so there goes Chomsky!
It's all good. I see you are busy here. Chomsky is a personal issue to me, so I couldn't resist a comment.
You have plenty to argue here anyway.
I would say "I can't believe this guy" (meaning the audacity; I never did believe his crap) but I actually can believe it. His type are a dime a dozen and he has a future with Faux News Network. His efforts work on the confused who don't want to invest the time in spotting a charlatan. But for him to think he's special the way he obviously does is just so Trumpian. A chip off the old block. :roll:
Eh, it's just typical angry, immature internet drivel. I'm just having fun and so's he I'm sure. Who gives a shit.
If only Trump were in office...a conservative Supreme Court for 40 years wasn't quite damaging enough. Clinton's picks would have probably been just as bad though...
"Instead of taxing billionaires, we'll put a tax on things that ordinary people use all the time".
[tweet]https://twitter.com/schwarz/status/1456596048072396806[/tweet]
"A NEW VERSION of the Build Back Better Act that the House Rules Committee released Wednesday was amended to protect tax avoidance schemes used by the ultrawealthy in their estate planning. The updated legislation made up the revenue lost by going light on those billionaires by expanding tobacco taxes to additional nicotine products, replacing a tax that was highly progressive with one that is highly regressive."
Looks like the progressives will cave. No surprise. Oops, I mean I'm very surprised -- only Streetlight truly gets it.
Just more proof that voting against Trump was a stupid choice. :gasp:
That's a good way to look at it. I outed him so he won't have fun with me any more. :cry: :roll:
Well, I suppose this is why we are in philosophy forum, to argue till' we're blue in the face.
It only gets bad when we start arguing about trees existing or not. We're not there yet.
My google fu sucks. Do you know where I can find out who those six were?
Edit to add: Found it: https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2021/roll368.xml
And what's this I hear about a $2t tax cut for the rich getting tossed in there?
That was gonna be the story regardless of how this day went. The progressives have already signaled that they were gonna give up the hostage a few days ago, meaning that Manchin will get to craft the final bill. That dynamic ultimately hasn't changed.
The thing that annoys me though is how even passing the BBB in the House was a mess. A handful of moderates moved the goalposts last minute (as in literally 3 days ago) and demanded a CBO score which is an impossible ask completely stalling any momentum the Dems had coming out of the Tuesday elections. Somehow Pelosi was able to rein in the SALT people, and the immigration crew, but not the CBO gang, which just tells me that even if the CBO score comes out and the bill was made deficit neutral, the holdouts would find some other excuse not to support the bill.
I mean I could be wrong, but that's just the impression I get coming out of this. I trust the moderates even less now and having the progressives give up their leverage to these people when they're pulling off dumb stunts like this hurts more than it already does.
But you are not wrong.
I’ve pretty much given up on this bill even passing, even in its stripped down version. The progressives caved (all but 6), and Manchin will now use inflation as the problem du jour to indefinitely table the bill.
But figured I’d leave the above as a reminder.
How many think this bill passes- in any form? What percentage?
I say there’s maybe an 8% chance at this point, and will be so watered down and devoid of anything significant that it’ll be useless even in the miracle situation where it does pass.
Thoughts?
I'd say 50/50 depending on whether Manchin is acting in good faith or not. Progressives are gonna cave to whatever he wants like they always have and after today's news, the bill is gonna be watered down even more to fit his demands of narrowing the scope of the bill. Though to be fair, I kind of blame the progressives in part for insisting on doing more for less when leadership wanted to focus on fewer programs, though Manchin and Sinema insisting on an arbitrary lower number forced that as well.
Recap:
As a reminder: Manchin has received the most money — of any Senator, Republican or Democrat — from the fossil fuel industry.
Yep. Turns out Manchin never wanted anything in the first place if he's gonna close the door on even talks about a bill which meets his remaining demands. He slow walked this for 6 months, while making increasingly more ridiculous demands that were all met, just to come out and kill the bill anyways.
Really makes me question the point of the Dems winning the Georgia runoffs if what we're gonna get from all this was a bipartisan bill that could've passed anyways.
I didn't think there was a great chance at the initial bill, but figured it would be watered down and pass. I wasn't expecting nothing whatsoever, honestly. But I'm sure many in the DNC are happy -- they pushed Biden through, and he ended up winning, so now we can have four years of status quo. Still better than Trump, but that's really not saying much. At least Trump energized the left to a degree.
So much for national politics. Time to get back to the grassroots level anyway. We're probably long out of time, in terms of the climate disaster that's already happening and will inevitably become worse, if not destroy the human species altogether, but there's little else we can do at this point.
Probably, you are correct. Desalinization itself will require huge amounts of dependable energy. I think the human race will adapt. But it won't be pretty.
Honestly I have more faith that Elon Musk will come in and save the day and I wish I were joking.
Quoting jgill
And I'm sure that politicians like Joe Manchin will be there to block any such efforts when that happens.
Nah, He’ll be there with the rest of the congregation of the church of capitalism saying nice words and completely undermining every real effort to change anything.
Fuck Elon Musk.
According to Psaki, Manchin "promised to continue conversations in the days ahead, and to work with us to reach that common ground."
"If his comments on FOX and written statement indicate an end to that effort, they represent a sudden and inexplicable reversal in his position, and a breach of his commitments to the President and the Senator's colleagues in the House and Senate," Psaki said.[/quote]
He seems like a double agent. If Trump’s a RINO, Manchin’s a DINO.
But of course, if you print so much money, you will get inflation. And finally that has happened. Inflation. Finally, MMT doesn't look so smart now. And old school economics is looking to be correct (again).
(is it off to the races here?)
More than the spending on WW2 by the US in todays dollars. The Fed has gone down the rabbit hole where there's no turning back. 40% of dollars now created out of thin air in the last year and a half.
I think there is brewing a real economic and monetary crisis here. Good luck if you can hold on to your wealth (if you have any) as the next 10-15 can be hard.
That’s not why we have inflation. We have inflation because of the supply chain. The Fed has been printing money galore since 2009.
There is no 'brewing' economic and monetary crisis. The world economy has been in crisis for more than a decade now. It's only 'brewing' for those who are comfortable and benefiting from the misery of those who have been in unending crisis for years. 'Brewing' just means: it's finally going effect those who haven't deigned to look down in some time.
Holy fuck batten down the hatches inflation has hit everyone. Inflation. The dreaded "I-word". I'm crying and screaming. Inflation. I'm in fetal position and shitting my pants. Inflation. I'm calling my mom and telling her I love her. Inflation. The car's on fire and there's no driver at the wheel and the sewers are all muddied with a thousand lonely suicides. Inflation. And a dark wind blows. Inflation. The government is corrupt. Inflation. And we're on so many drugs. Inflation. With the radio on and the curtains drawn. Inflation. We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine and the machine is bleeding to death. Inflation. The sun has fallen down and the billboards are all leering and the flags are all dead at the top of their poles. Inflation. It went like this: Inflation. The buildings tumbled in on themselves. Inflation. Mothers clutching babies picked through the rubble and pulled out their hair. Inflation. The skyline was beautiful on fire. Inflation. All twisted metal stretching upwards. Inflation. Everything washed in a thin orange haze. Inflation. I said: "kiss me, you're beautiful - These are truly the last days of not inflation" You grabbed my hand and we fell into it like a daydream or a fever. Inflation. We woke up one morning and fell a little further down - For sure it's the valley of death I open up my wallet and it's full of blood because of inflation.
So how long are you going to believe the official "supply chain" argument?
Quoting Xtrix
First, no, not in this way. The alphabet soup of programs they went through wasn't at this level and intensity AND the money basically went to uphold the banks, which sat on the money like Scrooge McDuck. Banks sitting on money doesn't create inflation. Or basically just creates asset inflation, which isn't so bad as people don't have to buy assets (but they do have to buy food).
Now the money is going directly to consumers, which does put the money into circulation. Yes, incredible isn't it! Sure, those who have debt and have invested it in something that holds value are going to be the winners. Part of those are ordinary people, but it's the rich who profit most from this. Worse are those who have fixed income like pensioners.
That is actually true. Perhaps better to say that things could get even worse.
Quoting StreetlightX
Nah. Those who have it the worse now will be the ones hit the hardest in the future too, if we have another crisis (on top of the current long one).
Quoting Maw
:smile:
Well, there was this argument of MMT going around that especially the US government can spend more than they think without spurring runaway inflation. (I'd call it the Cheney-rule: "deficits don't matter".) That deflation is our main problem. But I guess if things stay as now, it's great for the wealthy class with those negative real interest rates.
Yes, it isn't the only problem and surely isn't the biggest problem facing us (when you have things like a pandemic and climate change...)
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2021/05/09/inflation-and-financial-risk/
Inflation is a yawn that is being used by neolib wreckers to further institute cuts and hurt the poor.
We'll see.
Especially about this line:
I guess the question is how long is something 'transitory'.
Especially the idea that the spending will end during 2022 is hilarious. :snicker:
But it's nice to see that you believe in what the Federal Reserve is forecasting!
Oh, they have such great history of accuracy in predicting what will happen. :blush:
How long are you going to believe in monetarism?
Quoting ssu
It most certainly was. They went through several rounds of QE, which at that point hadn't been done before. No one even knew what it was. Whatever "alphabet soup" of programs you're talking about, there is a difference: last March the Fed started buying corporate debt as well. That too is unprecedented, but hardly any more shocking than what was done in '09.
Quoting ssu
Interesting that you're willing to get into the weeds on the 2009 actions, but fail to do so now.
The Fed is still propping up banks and corporations to this day. They're hostage to the banks, and are a backstop for them. And contrary to your implication, inflation was predicted back in 2009 -- and never came. So why now? It's obvious why -- and it's not because of monetary policy. Like you said, that money didn't raise the economy -- it raised markets. If you want to argue that the current housing market boom (which is likely another bubble) is largely because of the Fed, or the stock market, or the bond market -- that's probably right.
The rest is because of the coronavirus and fiscal policy. Spending habits changed for a year, away from services (like travel, haircuts, gyms, restaurants, massages, etc) and towards goods (Pelotins, toilet paper, furniture, kitchenware). The vaccines rolled out a year ago, Biden came into office, the numbers started to come down, vaccination rates were at a good pace, states started opening up again, and there was optimism about the future. That was winter and spring. Consumer habits then changed once again, especially with traveling -- we saw this around June and July. Combine this with the supply chain problems, and companies having to raise pay and incentives for angry, worn out workers (which only means they raise their prices, because God forbid it cuts into their already enormous profits), and there's no surprise some items are increasing in price. Families were also sitting on more money than a couple years ago.
It's gasoline that people mainly care about. When prices for gas go up, as they have, people think that's inflation. So there's widespread panic about it, especially when the media talks up the CPI numbers (which most people have no clue about) and half the country are eager to jump on any news that seems negative because they want Biden to fail (odd that these same people don't talk about how GREAT the economy is, since the stock market is still setting records...). In any case, gasoline prices have nothing to do with monetary policy. That's a supply and demand issue -- there's far more demand, and less supply (which is why Biden was begging OPEC to pump more).
You look at the backup at the ports, particularly in LA, and take the rest into account, and it's fairly obvious: this is a COVID related issue. We went through a major shock with lockdowns in March of 2020. Yes, Wall Street panicked, stocks plunged, and the Fed was there to rescue them yet again. That certainly caused inflation -- it inflated stocks, corporate profits, and CEO compensation. Good for them. But to confuse this with the prices of chicken, bread, and gas is just nonsense.
Quoting ssu
The Fed has nothing to do with the fiscal policy of last year or this year. Nothing. I have no idea what you're talking about, and I suspect you don't either. See above.
Uhh... I do believe in economic history. Been a believer for a long time.
And btw it's not just monetarism, it's classical economics going back to Adam Smith. And basically what also Keynes says:
So these ideas just to be "monetarist" is wrong.
Quoting Xtrix
Oh like nobody knew who the "little green men" were that occupied Crimea. QE is just a fancy way to avoid terms like money printing or debt monetization.
Quoting Xtrix
Alphabet soup refers to TAF, CPFF, TSLF, PDCF, etc. which you can read from The Alphabet Soup Explained: An Analysis of the Special Lending Facilities at the Federal Reserve . It's basically how QE rounds were implemented. And I think they have for a long time bought corporate debt and were directly involved in helping other entities than banks.
About the financial crisis of 2008-2009:
So when you have a banking crisis, give money to McDonalds.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm not at all contradicting this!!! The financial crisis of 2008-2009 never went away. This is extremely important to understand just why the situation could be a bit sinister.
Quoting Xtrix
I think we agree on this, so I'm not contradicting you. The whole thing basically propped up the speculative bubble from not bursting...which actually would be the way free markets would correct the situation, if there would be free markets. The banks didn't lend, people saved, stock market went down, that is what people saw as the deflation era.
Quoting Xtrix
Yeah, do you remember that not long ago we had negative oil futures prices in the US? Tells how great the [s]markets[/s] casino is in predicting the future.
I do admit that thanks to the covid pandemic lockdowns have created supply chain problems, but those really, just as with toilet paper or masks, do get solved. They do get fixed and do go away. As we agree, the financial crisis never went away and the stock market was boosted by monetary policy. And this is why this is far more serious than just supply chain problems or a temporary bout of inflation.
First of all, let's look at the forecasts and then the reality:
Here's a forecast done in 2014 how the next six years will be. Notice the idea of the financial crisis being a one off event and then it's back to "smooth sailing with moderate deficits".
In 2020 and this year the deficits to GDP were well over 10% last year over 3 trillion, I think somewhere 13% or so, hence they don't fit in the above graph. Now comes the crucial question:
Do you think this spending is totally abnormal and can be lowered? Or the economy will hugely improve? On the contrary. If the pandemic worsened the situation, the overall situation was already bleek.
Quoting Xtrix
Isn't the actor who is the biggest buyer of US government debt a major player here? I think so. The Federal Reserve is already the biggest owner of Treasury debt. Not China.
China owns about 1,0 trillion dollars of US treasury debt. The Fed, now a quadruple amount from that.
Yes, the Federal Reserve is the biggest player buying the debt. And is monetizing the debt, which can be said to be an important part of fiscal policy.
They did not buy corporate debt prior to March 23rd 2020, so far as I know. This was done via the PMCCF and the SMCCF, both created at that time.
What you're talking about are loan programs. It sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but there's a real difference -- and we can get into it further if you'd like. But my point was that this was one major difference between 2008/9 and 2020. The financial sector was heavily leveraged and corporate debt had skyrocketed prior to the shutdowns, which is why another round of QE didn't work and these newer programs were created.
Here's the Fed statement:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20200323a.htm
And from Brookings:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/fed-response-to-covid19/
All of this has very little to do with inflation, which was the initial subject.
Quoting ssu
Well yes, of course. If what you're really arguing is that the Fed has a major impact on the economy, who could disagree? What I'm arguing against is your statement that the Fed's monetary policy (printing more money) is what has caused inflation, when a much simpler explanation exists: the COVID pandemic -- which in turn triggered disruption in consumer spending, supply chain problems, and fiscal policy. The Fed purchasing trillions in treasuries and corporate bonds have little to do with the prices of gas and chicken.
Quoting ssu
That's not true. The biggest owner of treasuries is social security. The Fed owns a great deal.
But again, I don't see the relevance. The Fed does buy treasury bonds, yes. But they always have. Buying corporate debt is different -- but none of this has much to do with inflation we're seeing this year.
OK, let's concentrate first at the most important issue. The obvious question is the following: when is a central bank doing the basic thing which it has been created for and when is a central bank issuing money to pay for government expenses, printing money like in Zimbabwe?
This is an important thing to get clear...as obviously NO central bank will admit that they are financing government debt with money printing. Just as no central bank will ever admit that if there's an economic problem, they will pump up the competitiveness of the export sector by devaluating the currency. These two things are never admitted, but I hope you do understand that these things do happen. When looking at central bank statements, they will never admit this. But central banks providing money for governments for wars and stuff is a historical fact, which one cannot disagree with (and I think you agree with me on this).
So, the federal reserve owning US treasuries isn't itself a problem the US dollar plays a dominant role in the currency system, the US economy as being so big isn't export oriented hence there simply isn't a reason for the Federal Reserve to have it's assets in large foreign currency holdings. The old Finnish central bank (now part of the ECB) didn't have it assets just in Finnish government treasuries for obvious reasons.
Yet here is the obvious difference: if the central bank would just focus on monetary issues, there would be no need to expand the balance sheet of the bank rapidly. Now if there is a financial crisis and the threat of run on the banks, then naturally the central bank can take of the bad loans from the bank and reorganize the banking system to be more healthy. The bad loans are in option given to a "bad bank" that will look to minimize the losses (this option wasn't done in the US, but for example in the Nordic countries it was done so as not back then to tarnish the balance sheet of the various small central banks).
So let's look at that balance sheet of the Federal Reserve:
The 2008 financial crisis and it's aftermath can be seen here clearly. Before the balance sheet was small, because why not? There was trust in the system. Few years ago the Fed was on the path to decrease it's balance sheet afterwards, but then COVID-19 happened. The stock market tanked, but the came again the Fed to say the rich people. And then with COVID-19 it wasn't only the rich.
What effects this has for the stockmarket can be seen smartly from these to graphs shown together:
And then let's look in side to see what has made the Fed balance sheet to explode. We find it's the buying of US treasuries.
Now you might argue that the Fed just happened to come and swoop up US treasuries from the open market from participants holding treasuries. Not so. If so, there would be a decrease in the holdings of other holders as you can see here:
From above, you can see the Fed is a the largest buyer of the new debt.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, biggest buyer but not (yet) biggest owner, so I stand corrected here. Thanks for the correction.
Ok, we should then look what it means when social security owns US treasuries. First a question: If I write check to myself for a 1 million dollars (saying the SSU will pay me 1 million dollars), am I more wealthy? No. If I put earn somehow 1 million and then write a check saying SSU will pay me 1 million dollars, that's just a reminder for myself I have the money. With the Social Security Trust fund one has to remember that it is basically an accounting thing, but that doesn't mean it's fiction. But the role is different.
I think the following explains article explains this well:
Which takes us back to the fundamental question: the US is uncapable of doing anything else than deficit spending and now it's own central bank has had to buy a huge share of that new debt. Furthermore: nothing, absolutely nothing will happen before there is a huge crisis. The Republicans spent as there's no tomorrow (let's remember that it was Dick Cheney who said "deficits don't matter") and so do the Democrats. The Republicans just bitch about the issue when they are in opposition, and hence leftist people think I'm a Republican if even talk about the same issue.
The whole fucking system is built on these cards. It can blow up some day. And then we all have some expedient narrative fed to our tribe that it was the fault of the people in the other side of the political spectrum.
Of course. I still don't see the relevance.
The US central bank, the Fed, lowers and raises the federal funds rate through mostly through bond purchasing -- treasury notes, bills, and bonds. Treasuries are issued by the treasury to make up the difference between revenue (mostly taxes) and spending. So the Fed buying treasuries is, in a sense, funding all kinds of government spending. That's buying government debt. They themselves are a part of the government, of course, but they're given this special privilege. They pay for this by "printing money," which is now done by creating numbers on a computer.
All of this I assume you know very well. But the original issue was about inflation. The Fed is in charge of monetary policy, which plays a role in inflation -- no doubt about it. But Friedman's thesis, that inflation is "everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon" just doesn't seem to apply everywhere and always. I gave the example of gas prices. I suppose that can in some way be connected to the money supply, but a much more simple explanation exists. That was the point.
Quoting ssu
I don't think I'm disagreeing. But remember not long ago there was a surplus, not a deficit. It's not impossible. The debt isn't even that big a problem, for many reasons. But even if it were, there's two things you can do: cut spending or raise taxes, or both. But then the issue becomes: where? Where do we raise taxes and where do we cut spending? The Republicans are itching to cut social security and medicare and turn them over to private hands -- no surprise there. The Democrats want to "tax the rich," which is on the right track, but then have no problem shelling out a grotesque $778 billion in defense spending. Meanwhile their "proposals" never come to fruition on taxes. Bernie and Warren had wealth tax proposals which were decent and modest, but there's no chance of that. Yellen has been pushing for a 15% minimum global corporate tax -- but that'll most likely go nowhere too.
So if neither party will allow more taxes on the ultra rich and the corporations, and neither are willing to cut what needs to be cut (defense spending), of course there will be a deficit every year and the national debt will continue to climb.
They're all capitalists, through and through. And it's capitalism that is crushing us and will, in all probability, be terminal for us. The Fed plays a large role in all of that, no doubt -- but it's not completely their fault.
There you said it yourself.
Quoting Xtrix
Technically they aren't. (That's the norm with central banks, actually) Remember it was the Wall Street banks who created the Fed, even if then the law was passed by Congress. Meeting at Jekyll Island in 1910 and all that.
Quoting Xtrix
When there a speculative bubble that has burst, the deflationary effects can easily overwhelm any actions central bank makes for the moment.
And I'll reiterate, this idea isn't something just from Friedman as the monetarist go to specific directions with their theories, but basically what already Adam Smith and Maynard Keynes noted. So this isn't a purely monetarist view here.
Quoting Xtrix
When? During the Clinton era? More of a technical one as with changes to Social Security (and it's famous Trust Fund) you can get a surplus:
Actually the above is a good example how the system works. But of course, the problem is that aging of the population doesn't mean good for the Social Security Trust Fund, even if the demographic situation of the US isn't as bleak as it is here.
Quoting Xtrix
Before the crisis, it isn't. Just like a "nobody" can see a speculative bubble until is bursts and all the excesses of the "strong new economy" are exposed. It's all based on faith and hence there isn't any real indicator when the faith bubble will burst.
Quoting Xtrix
I agree. Let's forget the political rhetoric here. Basically the two parties just want to spend on different issues (or easy the tax burden of the super rich) and the Republicans have their sanctimonious lies about taking seriously the deficit issue. We should put the rhetoric aside and look how the two parties operate.
How they operate is that they simply will continue with the same old ways until we have a crisis. That's how things happen. I think Naomi Klein in her book "the Shock Doctrine" pictures this falsely thinking that government deliberately create crises to then push through their liberal agenda. They might resort to some ideological agendas too, but the clear fact is that they don't want the crisis to happen intentionally. I'm sure if there is a dollar crisis or whatever they call it, some will argue that it was done on purpose by "insert here the people who you think are bad".
Quoting Xtrix
Likely it isn't so terminal. Just look at us now in the midst of global pandemic where millions have died an the World has been locked down in spectacular ways. Things go on.
Same will be if (or when) this crisis really blows up. People will just loose a lot of money. There will be many more unemployed. Political turmoil. And some people will profit especially in the long run. But life, and also capitalism, will go on. (So no need to worry that people won't have that to bitch about in the future).
"Technically" they're both public and private, but that's really just silliness. They're a government agency. Here I agree with Friedman.
Quoting ssu
Smith and Keynes never stated that inflation is always a result of changes in the money supply, which is what the claim was initially. The Fed controls the money supply.
Quoting ssu
Yes. I believe it was 1998 or around there.
Quoting ssu
Yes indeed.
Quoting ssu
I was talking there about climate change. But it applies equally well to nuclear weapons and pandemics as well. How we respond when a virus comes around that's both highly transmissible and highly deadly, which is inevitably going to happen, is the real story. If COVID is a trial run, it's not looking good on that front either.
Again, it's hard to see the connection, but one important thing behind it all is essentially greed, the desire for more and more money and power, and the adherence to the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind" (Adam Smith) of "all for ourselves and nothing for other people" -- or "gain wealth, forgetting all but self."
As long as we keep behaving as if this is what we believe (whether we profess it or not), it will indeed be terminal.
Indeed they weren't monetarists, but they did understand that just printing more money to cover expenses of the government will create inflation. Keynes of course did naturally see uses for things like debt financing, but the how not to run a central bank was obvious for a person that acted as a director of the Bank of England. Of course his theories for inflation ran into problems with stagflation, which only shows that there isn't one simple phenomenon or process for rising prices. After all, if prices rise because of larger demand or smaller production, that isn't inflation but ordinary way how markets should work.
Quoting Xtrix
Greed and ignorance of one's own role. Like having the attitude that problems are for others to solve... like the government. The basic problem is that actors that don't understand that there actions have large consequences.
I think the worst case scenario is where you have a clueless elite that simply doesn't understand it's role in a society, that it's them, the ruling class, that ought to take the initiative to correct the problems. Or at least, give way for others to solve them. At worst this elite is just fearful of it's own commoners, hiding behind walls and sending all the money to outside safe havens without investing anything in their own society.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manchin-schumer-climate-deal_n_62e1a677e4b07f83766bafbb
Fingers crossed that this reconciliation bill finally, at long last, passes. We desperately need some legislation on climate.
Finally, some good fucking news. I can't wait to never hear the name Manchin ever again.
Absolutely. This reversal really stunned me.
Actually it's more of a reversal of a reversal (since Manchin blocked his very own bill two weeks ago), but whatever, I'll take it.
Yes. It's funny -- the thread was created a year ago and its title is incredibly obsolete, but it goes to show how far this has come.
To recap for those who aren't following this story: the reconciliation bill (reconciliation being the budgetary process that avoids a senate filibuster -- meaning the Democrats can pass it without any Republican support) was initially $3.5 trillion; it was whittled down to $1.1 trillion or so, then CEPP provision was removed to please Manchin, then Manchin sunk the entire bill right before Christmas of '21. There was talk about rescuing parts of it throughout 2022, and they appeared to be going well -- and then he sunk that too two weeks ago. Shouldn't have been a huge shock, given that he's a coal magnate.
But this reversal really is a shock. I was not expecting this at all. Will it pass? Depends on (a) whether it meets the requirements of reconciliation, which is determined by the senate parliamentarian, (b) if all other Democrats, especially Sinema, agree to vote for it, and (c) if the House has the votes to pass it (there could be some Democratic holdouts over state tax deduction rules).
If I were a betting man, I'd give it a 70% chance of passing. Whether in its current form, I'm not so sure.
No it was way more complicated than that. Manchin killed the last bill because he had concerns about the fact that it didn't tax the rich enough and that he didn't like the temporary programs (in particular the Child Tax Credit, which was only extended for 1 year because of a compromise deal with him because he didn't like it). At least that what he told a WV radio show host back in December.
Then after months of saying he's willing to continue talking and ignoring people's requests to restart negotiations to instead tell people that those negotiations aren't happening, he laid out a climate, drug price, and deficit reduction bill that he said he wanted to pass. This would be funded by tax increases, and according to him the deficit reduction was the "best way" to fight inflation. This was what he urged the Democrats to do in response to inflation.
Then two more months pass and when it looked like talks were restarting in May on that very bill Manchin wanted everyone to pass, Manchin out of the blue sidelined those talks for bipartisan climate talks with people who don't believe in climate change. The only thing bipartisan agreement he managed to get was for both sides, Democrats and Republicans, to come into the same room and agree that this was all pointless. That shaved off an entire month off the clock when Democrats were urging Manchin that there wasn't much time left, and set the stage for the time crunch we saw in July.
And just when it looked like things were finally about to come to an agreement, Manchin suddenly had a realization that because of concerns about inflation he cannot do the tax increases in the bill which would've hindered the deficit reduction funding in the bill which would've, according to Manchin's own metrics, hindered fighting inflation. In exchange he was willing to do a temporary health care bill instead, because if the BBB bill negotiations taught us anything, he was perfectly fine with that.
And now he's kind of reversed that last position. I suppose somebody came up to him and told him that it was his own inflation fighting bill and he came to his senses. Either that or because the Democrats played the Republicans (a rare instance) because they threatened to block the CHIPs bill from passing if they realized that the Democrats were trying to cut the deficit. I mean, they just blocked veteran's aid because of it so yeah.
All in all, Manchin is a fucking nightmare to negotiate with. But he was the reason why the bill was kept up for so long and given the state of most of the congressional Democrats, then I imagine they're willing to just take what he's offering them. The only wildcard is Sinema who seems to love holding corrupt shitty positions and not telling anyone about it. Then again the bill was designed around her strict tax demands, she's stated she won't change her position in this new round of negotiations months ago, and she apparently seems to genuinely care about the climate stuff in BBB. Then again she's also a diva so who knows.
A much better synopsis, yes.
The more I look at it, the less great this bill looks for climate. I'd like to think it's still a win, but if it is it's a small one. The provisions about oil and gas leasing on public lands are just absolutely horrific and morally repugnant.
I kind of knew that already going in since Manchin was calling for it for months. Progressives have largely accepted the poison pill in favor of the long term goal. Plus they may be more okay with the oil and gas leasing given the current situation with global gas supplies. Everyone knew that they were dealing with a coal baron from West Virginia, which was why they killed the CEPP. If there's anyone who you should thank for the clean energy tax provisions it's Ron Wyden who's been so on top of this whole thing that he approached Manchin about this very deal 8 years ago when Obama was still president. He's even keeping regular conversations with Sinema on taxes since he's probably aware of the current situation regarding getting her support.
Alot of experts still think that this will significantly cut down climate emissions so I'll take it.
I see that as well...and honestly, as pathetic as this sounds, I just want to be happy about this for a couple days.
Quoting ssu
Well, it has been seven months from this exchange. All only a supply chain problem, still?
Of course there are many reasons for the inflation, the effects of the pandemic, the war and both previous fiscal and monetary policy. But as the US is now in recession, it's interesting to see what the Fed will actually do from here onwards.
Let's see how much inflation reduction that bill is going to create.
I didn’t say “only,” but it’s the main driver in my view. Yes, that still holds— fairly obvious, in fact. You raise this now as if you’ve been vindicated when the money supply has decreased as the Fed has tightened policy. You’d think that would bring inflation down — but hasn’t. It will probably send us into recession— but that’s about it.
The Fed can do nothing about oil and gas supplies. Nothing. And it’s this that’s driving inflation so high.
It also does nothing about monopoly power and price gouging, which is also happening. Hence why big oil just posted record profits. Billions of dollars that go from customers being gouged to shareholders’ pockets. There’s absolutely no good reason for that whatsoever. It’s stupidity and greed.
Quoting ssu
The Fed will continue lowering rates until we hit recession. They have only limited options. I imagine inflation will come down a little in the next few months, but overall what happens will largely be contingent on what Russia, China, and the corporate monopolies do.
Someone showed me a segment the comedian John Oliver did on inflation. A surprisingly good analysis, actually.
Well, just look at how high the Fed had to raise the interest rates in the 80's for the inflation to ease off. Real interest rates were back then positive. Now positive real interest rates would be a disaster and that's the basic problem.
Quoting Xtrix
You are right. And that's why actually the Russian linking their ruble to commodities (that you have to use rubles to buy their resources) made the ruble so strong.
Yet high oil prices are like an applied handbrake to the economy. The recession is the cure for it... assuming a recession is tolerated in an election year. Copper prices are a classic indicator for future economic activity and copper prices took a dip.
Quoting Xtrix
Uh, I think you meant raising. Technically we are in a recession. Two quarters of negative growth just happened.
The last bit is typically added now to near every story about this. :smirk:
So let's see how solid inflation-fighter the Fed will be.
Looks like she’s nixing the carrier interest credit in favor of a buyback excise tax of 1%. Not bad.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/04/us/politics/sinema-inflation-reduction-act.html
Currently they’re in “vote-o-rama” — more ridiculousness. But it should pass soon.
Regarding climate:
This bill will apparently get us close— but still isn’t enough. Question is: does this over or under estimate the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act?
With the additions of fossil fuel leasing, it’s hard to say.
We need to spend about 3% of GDP to really fight global warming. That’s about $700 billion a year. (US GDP is about 23 trillion).
That’s about what we spend on the pentagon every year (viz., corporate America— Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc., which mostly goes to shareholders and CEOs) — in other words, straight to the pockets of the 0.01%. Nice taxpayer gifts to the rich, who in turn give the bloated military more planes they don’t need.
This bill spends $38.5 billion a year instead. Which is an absolute joke. It’s about 6% of what we should be spending. The gimmick is that they stretch it out over ten years and say it’s “385 billion” that they’re spending. Funny how they don’t do this with the military. If they did, we spend 7.5 trillion on the military.
Military: $7,500,000,000,000.
Climate: $385,000,000,000.
The suggestion that this bill gets us to 40% from 2005 level emissions is interesting. If true, it goes only to show how much we’re failing to do so much more. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
[also posted on climate thread as it’s relevant there as well.]
After following this all day, your post was the first I heard it passed. :lol:
I’m guessing it passes the house now. I’m shocked this happened at all. Shows the impact of people pushing for it.
Or — this was Manchin’s plan all along: keep whittling it down over time, keep saying no, get everyone thinking it’s dead — then, when you let that linger, come back and give scraps and have everyone forget that they’re being fucked: that it’s nowhere close to the original $6 trillion, which was already too little. In the end we get 400 billion. A drop in the bucket.
A nice psychological trick. Similar to the “low-balling” technique of haggling.
I don’t know if this was all deliberate, but I’m suspicious. This isn’t a great bill. Still, I can’t help being glad they got something.
Cutting emissions by 40% is better than 27%. That’s reason to be glad. Not nearly enough, but it’s a start.
By no means am I advocating complacency because of this bill. But even this small step wouldn’t have happened without real work. Real work that really isn’t possible if one resigns oneself to defeatism.
I really can’t see how anyone whose read anything I’ve written on here for three years can claim I have trust in the political system— or, for that matter, am an “optimist.”
I believe in the power of real people doing real work, especially in solidarity. Which is why I’ve said, repeatedly, that the organizing should continue. I also don’t relegate possible actions exclusively to pressuring governments. I embrace a diversity of tactics.
So I’m not sure what you’re driving at, but it’s at least misplaced.
:grin: Good one!
Oh well, must be like the new definition for a recession: when the old definition was two quarters of negative growth back-to-back and when it happened, you just define the term in a new way. Voters won't notice anything, I guess.
They still do say that the old definition is a "common practical" definition though.
Next I guess is to change the definition of inflation.
And no, you can't fight inflation by injecting more money into the economy. That's also propaganda.
According to Manchin, reducing the deficit is the "best way" to fight inflation. Why else do you think the bill has $300 billion in net deficit reduction instead of literally anything else?
I mean, there are some aspects of the bill like the drug price negotiation stuff that would help reduce costs. Also the bill is tied to more oil and gas drilling so if you're one of those people who think a pipeline will slash gas prices then that may do something for you. There are some people who say that this will reduce pressure on the Fed in raising rates, but I'm not an economist.
Yes, I guess it's a giant conspiracy. My advice: stop wasting time on stupidity.
The bill probably won't do anything about inflation. It's a silly label created so that Joe Manchin can save face.
Inflation isn't important and isn't a problem. What's important is doing something about climate change. This bill takes a few baby steps in that direction.
Well, lets see how much the net deficit will be reduced.
Usually in recessions the deficits don't come down.
Well, if inflation would be calculated as it was in 1980, the US would be now experiencing 15% inflation. But that's not dangerous...only several years of this high inflation will be.
And climate change? At least we are burning coal in record numbers, going off from nuclear power, so that obviously is the path we have decided to be on.
So if you want to tackle climate change, then I guess hope for a severe economic depression. Especially in China as they are totally on a league of their own when it comes to the use of coal. China's share of coal use is half. The other half is the rest of the world. If I sound to gloomy, there is at least this nice statistic from the EU:
(Now the stats may be different as Germany has opted to use more coal and not nuclear energy.)
Not too gloomy. It's going to be a very difficult path indeed.
I didn't know Poland accounted for that much coal use. Guess that should be the focus.
The EU is turning to coal temporarily, and that's bad in the short run. But it'll be better in the longer run, in my view. The war will likely push them to develop renewables even faster, if only to avoid dependence on Russia. But that's in the longer run. This regression is unfortunate in the meantime. But I cut them some slack for it given the circumstances.
P.S. I'm poor! :grin:
Tell that to my fellow senior citizens on fixed incomes. :roll:
There should be assistance to senior citizens. My advice is for them to stop voting Republican. In any case, inflation is temporary. Climate change is existential.
I suppose it's better that they're literally under water or burned in a wildfire?
It doesn't need to be hyperinflation. Just look what couple years of (actual) double digit inflation will do. I think we will have stagflation, just as during the 1970's. The war in Ukraine has quite similar effects as did the Yom Kippur war and the Oil Embargo after that. And as the workforce is shrinking, there is a reason for wage inflation to continue. After all, now in the US there is low unemployment. It's all a central bank play: either it's a recession or double digit inflation. Likely they deny everything, hope that people don't notice the inflation and with their actions will just prolong the stagflation.
Even if from last May 2022, Nouriel Roubini makes the case for stagflation quite well in my view and his message is quite current:
You do understand that assisting ordinary people (by printing a lot of money) was partly the cause of the inflation now?
Just giving money to people will just keep the inflation going.
Emphasis on “partly.” In my view it accounts for very little, but it’s telling that you want to highlight this “part” over and over again — rather than COVID or the war. Why exactly I’m not sure, but it’s a right-wing talking point and cover for desired austerity.
If you don't personally lose your job (or your wealth). Otherwise recession and even economic depressions can be great!
What they surely aren't are these kind of "end of the World" events. Recessions or the oddity of stagflation and other economic "disasters" are quite normal.
Quoting Xtrix
To make economics part of the "culture war" is what I think will happen. People will come to learn economic words to be dog whistles and just to mention them, you are put in one political camp. And totally forget (if not even understand) that when it comes to the US, both Republicans and Democrats have had, when in power, the same economic policies. Even if the parties desperately try to mask it otherwise (which people, unfortunately, believe).
It was Trump who started the massive wealth transfers to people that finally started the inflation way before Putin attacked Ukraine. With an unprecedented two trillion. But of course, now the Republicans don't remember it.
Let's remember what Trump gave:
That wasn't "very little", when you remember that there are over 330 million Americans.
But if you genuinely think the problem of inflation can be dealt with giving more assistance (which is basically printed money) to the people who will use it, then I assume Joe Biden will be happy with you.
If you genuinely think that inflation is caused, in this case, by giving working people more money, then the neoliberals will be very happy with you indeed.
Inflation is global, and we know why. It’s not because the US gave people more money. Nor the ECB. But if that’s the story you want to latch onto, that’s your choice. Again, having people believe this is wonderful for the ruling class. What a shame you perpetuate it.
Really?
You really think that the ECB multiplying the monetary base many times over won't in the end create inflation?
(Euro area (changing composition), Eurosystem reporting sector - Base money)
(see ECB stats)
Or you genuinely think that enlarging the monetary base by the Federal Reserve and giving those trillions to people who did spend the money wouldn't also matter?
Especially when this was started by the Trump administration, you think it's just a right-wing talking point? (Yeah, it might be, because just as the right-wing talking point is that Biden lost Afghanistan (which totally disregards the surrender that Trump made), I guess they can talk that this inflation was just caused by the Biden administration. (Which it obviously wasn't)
Sorry, but nobody is talking about the Modern Monetary Theory now in economic circles. For obvious reasons.
And this accounts for inflation in Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Argentina, Canada, South Africa, and India?
No. The reason you see inflation everywhere is due to factors that have nothing — zero — to do with monetary policy.
But by all means keep emphasizing US fiscal policy. This way we can punish the true culprits: working people.
On par with Reagan’s welfare queen myth.
Quoting ssu
Yes. Beyond that, it’s also narrow. It accounts for some inflation, sure. No one has denied that. How much? Some have put the estimate as accounting for less than 10%. But even if it’s higher, it’s not the main driver. What’s leading the charge are energy prices, which has a ripple effect. We know why energy prices are up— around the world. It’s not because of the central banks, nor fiscal policy — and certainly not of the Fed or Congress.
Quoting ssu
Neither am I.
Partly yes, because the dollar is used globally. Inflation is exported to other countries:
See How does the United States export inflation?
Naturally other governments have their own monetary and fiscal policies too. Hence they are totally capable of messing their economy all by themselves too. But it's a global economy, still.
Quoting Xtrix
This is simply wrong.
Please just watch the following, just to give one example. It describes clearly what I'm trying to say and just what happened, what were the consequences of both monetary and fiscal policy. And yes, there have been other reasons for supply shocks too. And it's not from Fox News, it's from CNBC.
Quoting Xtrix
What then do you think the reason is? Partly it is that we haven't invested in the industry as we have anticipated we would be using alternative energy resources. Yet oil prices started to climb from 2020, far earlier than February 24th this year.
Let's just remember what the definition for inflation is: a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money.
What we are going to see (and are seeing) is stagflation.
Quoting Xtrix
Those will already be punished by stagflation. It's the workers arguing for higher salaries (because of higher expenses) that are the last in the line, yet that is political rhetoric to make them the culprits for inflation.
You see, if that assistance given to people would come from taxes, that wouldn't be so inflationary. What makes it truly inflationary is when that assistance is paid off by de facto money printing.
No. The ECB has essentially nothing to do with it.
Quoting ssu
No, it isn’t. Monetary policy of the US does not lead to inflation in all the countries mentioned. They’ve had low rates for years — no inflation. The reason for global inflation has many factors— but the biggest is COVID and the war, and their impacts on supply/demand and especially energy.
The Fed’s policies move asset prices. That’s it. Fiscal policy— the government giving it checks, etc. — has some effect, sure. But it does not account for the higher prices of oil and gas.
Quoting ssu
See above.
If you argue that inflation doesn't export itself in a globalized world, you are simply going against the facts. The global economy has had low inflation and low interest rates for many years. Before the financial sector and the central banks caused asset inflation. The COVID response was different: the money went actually to the real economy.
Quoting Xtrix
Umm, I think you have not studied economics.
I guess it would be far better to talk with you about the labour movement or climate change. I do like to debate issues with you and don't want to be irritating or condescending. So I'll give you an example of just why monetary policy and fiscal handouts do effect things like price of oil.
So imagine a President decides to give every American (that's 330 million of them) a million bucks. To go spend and get the economy moving. 330 million times a million is 330,000,000,000,000, which is simply 330 trillion. As the monetary base has been grown by trillions, so it's totally possible to increase some hundreds of times.
First question: Do you think that some Americans would go and buy something with this 1 million they just got? Or would they all put it into a bank account or store it somewhere for a rainy day and go on just as they had before?
Second question: If we agree that at least some would spend a lot more than before, do you think that their increased spending would create "supply chain issues" or not?
Third question: As the million dollars is given to all Americans, I would assume there are some reckless 18-year old American males that would want to buy a Ferrari with their money. Ferrari makes about 8 400 cars annually and now an "ordinary" new Ferrari costs from 250 000 to 600 000 dollars (some have an even bigger price tag). Now, do you think that the price of new Ferrari's would stay at a quarter of a million? Or would the dealerships increase their prices due to the demand and the fact they cannot increase their production?
If you agree that actually Ferrari prices would be higher than what they are now (because every American got a million bucks), then the fourth question:
Why wouldn't this show also in fuel prices? Is oil price somehow immune here?
Of course it does. Which is why we see it all around the world. When you have an unprecedented global event, like COVID, there's no reason not to think in a globalized world that inflation wouldn't spread. Ditto with Russian oil sanctions and supply disruptions.
Quoting ssu
Since the housing bubble and QE, there has been extremely low rates and no inflation. The Fed would have continued this trend had it not been for inflation. They kept rates ultra low for too long. I was talking about this last summer before inflation was even an issue. But raising rates will do next to nothing except lower what they are able to raise: stocks, bonds, housing. They can do nothing about Ukraine or supply chain shocks or COVID lockdowns or China's Zero Covid policies. If we're waiting around for the Fed to cause a recession to lower inflation, we just aren't paying attention to reality.
Quoting ssu
And I don't think you've studied reality. Again, my advice is to put down the theories and look around. It's tempting to want to attribute everything to a single cause -- like, say, the money supply -- but again, REALITY has a way of throwing such things off course.
We had QE, low rates, and fiscal stimulus in 2009 as well. People were screaming about inflation -- and there was none -- except in the asset classes I mentioned above. The Fed now does the same thing, assets hit a super bubble, and there's also inflation -- and people say "See, it's because there's too much money -- it's monetary policy!" No, it isn't. It's COVID and war. The unprecedented FISCAL stimulus (giving real people checks) had a small effect, too. To scream that inflation is due mostly to fiscal policy is wrong; to argue it's monetary policy is even more wrong.
Yes, regardless of what Milton Friedman says.
Quoting ssu
What's irritating is that you're not listening.
Quoting ssu
Without even reading further, I didn't say they don't effect the price of oil. I said the Fed can do nothing about the war in Ukraine or supply shocks -- which is obvious. The fiscal money has an effect on demand -- and there was indeed pent-up demand after the lockdowns. To argue this is the main driver of inflation is wrong.
Quoting ssu
The argument being what, exactly? That giving people some extra money is what caused the oil prices to go up? You know very well that's not true.
Fiscal policy has an effect on demand -- but a much bigger effect were the lockdowns. Look at the change in behavior from 2020 to 2022. Even if people had the same amount of money as before, there would be high demand for services over goods in 2021/22. There were SOME supply problems in 2020 (toilet paper, paper towels, masks, etc) for a little while -- which had nothing to do with monetary or fiscal policy -- and they quickly caught up with demand. Prices of lumbar rose, etc. Basic supply/demand. What does this have to do with monetary policy?
Since the money went to create asset inflation. (And with this we seem to agree on)
Quoting Xtrix
Ok, think about this for a moment. Why do you forget that this has also an effect on the consumer? If his/her interest on the mortrage or on other loans go up, it will have an effect on his/her other spending.
Quoting Xtrix
But the Fed can cause a recession, if it would raise interest rates to be higher than the current inflation, right?
Quoting Xtrix
I'm not doing that. Actually you are... with saying things like:
Quoting Xtrix
Which is really bizarre. If you'd follow what Roubini or CNBC documentary or me actually say, it's about both monetary policy and events like Russo-Ukrainian war. And monetary policy here is actually linked to the COVID response.
Quoting Xtrix
Then I'll stop. Hope you have the time to clarify the above.
We’ve established there are multiple factors. Monetary policy is a minor one— especially around the globe. You want to emphasize it over the others — and that’s nutty, in my view. Besides, you seem to be talking more about fiscal policy, which is different.
If you want to minimize the role of the central banks, be my guest. But that's nutty in this World, in my view.
Quoting Xtrix
You should understand the link that monetary and fiscal policy have, which is simple and obvious.
If the government cannot cover it's expenses by tax revenues, it can turn to the central bank, which either buys government bonds to finance this or simply prints more money to cover the expenses. And no government usually admits doing this.
Hopefully you understand this link between monetary and fiscal policy.
Even in the face of an unprecedented global pandemic, supply disruptions, and war? Then it’s dogma.
Quoting ssu
That’s only partly true. The government does issue bonds, yes. The Fed owns a fraction of that debt — a fraction. We’ve been through that before. So there’s a thin connection between the central bank and congress— but that’s it. The rest are bought by foreign countries or by other government departments, like social security.
But regardless, fiscal policy is NOT monetary policy. The checks sent out to real people — which was much more than in 2009 — was not the decision of the Fed. It was a decision by congress, and sent through the treasury. The Fed doesn’t send stimulus checks. The Fed handles MONETARY POLICY, which is entirely different from FISCAL POLICY. Being clear on this is helpful. Blurring the lines like you’re doing, and then justifying it by stating that the Fed buys treasuries, is pure confusion.
The bottom line here is that inflation isn’t simple. It’s due to multiple factors. You choose to harp almost exclusively on monetary policy. Ask yourself why that might be.
Fraction means also a bit, little. Yes, there are others holding the debt.
However:
The Federal Reserve is the largest single owner of US treasuries. Japan owns "just" 1,2 trillion $ of US treasuries and China has smaller holdings of the debt. And notice what has happened:
Quoting Xtrix
A "thin connection" counted in trillions. :snicker:
Quoting Xtrix
And what is so hard for you in understanding a sentence like above: " the U.S. Federal Reserve has significantly ramped up its holdings of Treasury securities as part of a broader effort to counteract the economic impact of the public health emergency."
Sorry, but in this case, monetary policy and fiscal policy have gone hand in hand, even if you don't believe it.
Reconciliation Bill would have been a better name, but if Americans worry about inflation, the name has to be Inflation Reduction Act.
No, it isn’t.
Quoting ssu
Yes, so by your standard theres a connection between fiscal policy and China, mutual funds, and social security. Because they all buy bonds. For that matter, I’M connected to fiscal policy, since I own bonds. Fine. So what? Is this serious?
Quoting ssu
What about it? When have I once denied that the Fed purchases treasuries? That’s a tool of the Fed.
You seem to think the Fed prints money and that’s what the Congress uses to send checks. Well, for the fraction of the debt that’s bought by the Fed in the open market, that’s true. And?
Really? Tell me just what single owner is bigger?
Quoting Xtrix
Actually, yes. Technicalities aside (actual paper money wasn't printed).
Last year (2021) the US federal government collected $4.05 trillion in revenue. It spent $6.82 trillion. Hence the federal government spent $2.77 trillion more than it collected, resulting in a deficit and new debt.
Who do you think bought that new debt? Who suddenly had a lot more US treasury securities? Think.
Social security. By a great deal, I believe.
Quoting ssu
But like I said, this is pretty misleading. In fact the Fed has only a fraction of the debt, and mostly buys bonds from financial institutions — like banks — and not directly from the treasury.
Quoting ssu
Lots of people and institutions buy the debt, in fact. Banks buy trillions in bonds. They also issue their own bonds (corporate bonds). The Fed can buy both from the banks (and individuals) on the open market, like everyone else. The only difference is that the Fed can create (“print”) money. That’s what they’ve done.
It’s more accurate to say that the Fed owns the debt of banks and corporations. They’re given money in exchange for those bonds— money that’s created out of thin air.
But the Fed doesn’t directly buy the deficit. That’s nonsense. Nor do they indirectly buy most of it. Rather, they indirectly buy SOME of it, along with corporate debt. They do this as part of monetary policy.
I’m sorry that it’s more complicated than you want to believe. You might as well accuse the SSA of being “hand in hand” with Congress. Kind of absurd, in my view, but not completely false.
Wrong. Please know the reality.
Social Security Trust Fund currently holds about $2.9 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities. (See Congressional Research Service report June 2022)
And the future of this isn't so rosy.
Not in the quantity now they would have had to. The simple fact is that the Federal Reserve was the largest buyer of this huge increase in debt until the start of this year. You simply cannot deny that.
But of course, the largest buyer just buys SOME of the debt as there indeed are others buying the debt too. :smirk:
Ah, I see where the problem was. Looking at the chart, “US investors” are by far the biggest owners of debt— but they’re not a single entity. Social security is also counted as a single entity; I had assumed all governmental purchases (mutual and retirement funds, etc.)
Fair enough— so the Fed, as a single entity, owns more debt than any individual governmental institution or individual country. Still, doesn’t change the point.
Quoting ssu
Well, individually yes. But look at your chart — individual investors and foreign holders bought more.
Anyway — I’d let go of monetarism. It simply doesn’t explain inflation, except at the margins. At least in this case. It’s not without some truth, but I don’t see how one can look at war and COVID and conclude that the main driver is monetary policy — other than attachment to the theory, dogmatism, or a desire for neat and simple answers. Ultimately it’s a cover for neoliberalism and austerity, as we’re seeing right now. And the working class will be the ones you pay, as usual. All under the name of liberty.
There's one thing to know about schools of economic thought: they all have a point. Taken as an ideology is wrong. Yet they have, be it Keynesianism, monetarism, the Austrian school or anything else, have a point and make a reasonable argument about some aspects of the economy. A huge naive error is made when someone thinks that one school is "wrong" and the other one is "right". Yes, they are indeed political, hence the old name for economics, political economy, is far more accurate. But one shouldn't put on political blinders, even MMT can be reasonable and it's supporters did admit that inflation can happen. So "letting go" of some economic school of thought isn't the way, one should look at what the different schools all say together.
Quoting Xtrix
The main driver is the response to COVID, which 2020-2021 prevented the "man-made" recession when people were forced to stay home.
The issue basically is when monetary policy is used to as fiscal policy, be it in Argentina, Belarus or Zimbabwe. Hyperinflation happens when people lose trust in their currency (and their government and central bank). That isn't happening in the US. Yet the dramatic response to COVID had huge undeniable effects: the persistently loose monetary policies with excessively stimulative fiscal policies and a rapid accumulation of household savings during the pandemic led to pent-up demand once economies reopened.
We have to remember that giving such if small sounding amount to people (By Trump administration) had huge effects, because many Americans live hand to mouth.
But there were the consequences for this:
I guess your argument is that this won't matter, that it was an one time thing. Perhaps we don't see COVID lockdowns, but do notice that basically every third dollar the Government spent last year. That's a huge gap. Think that they can tighten it now?
You can have wealth distribution and transfer payments from the rich to the poor, when that is done by tax revenue. But when basically all expenditure is done in such large way by new debt, it will have consequences.
In my view they will continue on the famous lines of Dick Cheney that "Deficits don't matter" until the system brakes. Because a crisis is the only case when something is done. Something on the lines of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine. Of course, this is likely a thing that will take years.