Bernie Sanders
So there's now too many opinion pieces to count which are essentially trashing Sanders, with a handful coming to his defense. I'm glad to see the coverage, but the negative-to-positive ratio is striking (and predictable). There are still so many anxious people and nay-sayers, all over the media and even within this forum. So here's one brief argument for why everyone on the fence should join in.
We can all agree that:
1) Americans are tired of being saddled by debt.
2) They're tired of carrying student loans that never go away.
3) They're tired of having to use credit cards for emergencies and going bankrupt for health expenses even when they have insurance.
4) They're tired of working increasingly precarious jobs with stagnant wages that don't cover the cost of a decent life.
5) They recognize that the economy is rigged for the wealthiest people.
Given the historical decline in the quality of life in the neoliberal era, capped by a huge recession -- they have continually elected candidates who have promised to change it all. Obama promised it on the "left." Trump promised it on the right. And...nothing has changed. As usual. The two major legislative achievements, respectively: Obamacare and corporate tax cuts.
Bernie, in contrast, is in a league of his own, farther left than Clinton or Obama and touting the "socialist" label boldly and proudly. He comes directly out of the Occupy movement as Trump came out of the Tea Party movement. The parallels are remarkable, but the difference is that he's the real deal and Trump is a charlatan (which was obvious from the beginning -- at least for anyone not getting their opinions from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh).
So this is the only option left. It's the one that hasn't been tried. It should have been tried in 2016 but wasn't. Why? The answer is worth keeping in mind.
The answer is because the DNC and moderates were supposedly concerned with electability. When Clinton won the nomination, they declared (despite the clear intervention in her favor) that Sanders' support just "wasn't there" and that we must "listen to the will of the people -- Hillary won fair and square." She lost the election, of course.
Which brings us to the present. Now Sanders has the votes, and what are the same people saying? "He's not electable -- let's ignore the people." But this time it's only them that should be ignored.
Let's not make the same mistake again. Bernie has the potential to be the next FDR, but only if we start changing our minds.
All of that said, in closing, here's something from Mr. Dylan for those centrists and moderates still doubtful, nervous, and hesitant:
"Your old road is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand."
We can all agree that:
1) Americans are tired of being saddled by debt.
2) They're tired of carrying student loans that never go away.
3) They're tired of having to use credit cards for emergencies and going bankrupt for health expenses even when they have insurance.
4) They're tired of working increasingly precarious jobs with stagnant wages that don't cover the cost of a decent life.
5) They recognize that the economy is rigged for the wealthiest people.
Given the historical decline in the quality of life in the neoliberal era, capped by a huge recession -- they have continually elected candidates who have promised to change it all. Obama promised it on the "left." Trump promised it on the right. And...nothing has changed. As usual. The two major legislative achievements, respectively: Obamacare and corporate tax cuts.
Bernie, in contrast, is in a league of his own, farther left than Clinton or Obama and touting the "socialist" label boldly and proudly. He comes directly out of the Occupy movement as Trump came out of the Tea Party movement. The parallels are remarkable, but the difference is that he's the real deal and Trump is a charlatan (which was obvious from the beginning -- at least for anyone not getting their opinions from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh).
So this is the only option left. It's the one that hasn't been tried. It should have been tried in 2016 but wasn't. Why? The answer is worth keeping in mind.
The answer is because the DNC and moderates were supposedly concerned with electability. When Clinton won the nomination, they declared (despite the clear intervention in her favor) that Sanders' support just "wasn't there" and that we must "listen to the will of the people -- Hillary won fair and square." She lost the election, of course.
Which brings us to the present. Now Sanders has the votes, and what are the same people saying? "He's not electable -- let's ignore the people." But this time it's only them that should be ignored.
Let's not make the same mistake again. Bernie has the potential to be the next FDR, but only if we start changing our minds.
All of that said, in closing, here's something from Mr. Dylan for those centrists and moderates still doubtful, nervous, and hesitant:
"Your old road is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand."
Comments (840)
Do you honestly think Sanders will be able to fulfill his promises, or is that beside the point - i.e. you just want someone with the right set of concerns?
It will be an uphill battle without the Senate and state legislators. The establishment media will probably continue to attack on all fronts, etc. So no, I don't think every aspect of the agenda will be implemented. And that's too bad, as it would be good for the country right now.
So you're right, it is beside the point to a degree. But on the other hand, there's plenty he WILL be able to achieve with just executive orders alone. He'll have the pulpit to discuss things with the American public, it'll create much-needed debate over policies that matter, etc.
There's simply no alternative at this point. Trump isn't even a consideration for any rational human being.
That's my take. The president alone doesn't, and shouldn't, have the power to make changes like this themselves. So legislative and judicial seats are ultimately way more people than the presidency. But the president sets the agenda for their entire party, so having a president like Bernie being in charge is a useful first step toward change in the right direction.
Bernie already has opened the door for a whole new set of ideas and talking points and politicians to enter the field. Even if he can't do as much as we hope he might, he's paving the way for change.
2016 he was the only one suggesting taxing the wealthy and socializing healthcare. Now we've got almost all the dems running agreeing with the basics of both those ideas. And look at the new politicians like AOC.
For decades we've been told to be more "moderate" with our positions and politicians, because the repubs won't like us otherwise and that has very simply backfired. Big time.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, Bernie is unelectable. Would you agree that would be a good reason to nominate someone who IS electable? My point is that you need to consider the consequences of your choice - and it's possible that your choice will result in 4 more years of Trump.
That's a fair point. If Bernie were unelectable, my own opinion is that I would put up someone who could beat Trump instead, if it were guaranteed. I'm not 100% on that, however. There's arguments that can be made.
But the fact is, Sanders looks pretty good in a match-up against Trump. It's true that Biden was polling better in some key states, but he was polling better nationally too not long ago and has taken a huge dive. A lot of that was simple name recognition and association with Obama.
Since we don't have a magic ball, and since the only evidence we have looks good -- there's simply no reason not to nominate the best candidate. Especially if you add to the mix the chance that NOT nominating him could be a more likely disaster for the Democrats.
That's a very important point. I've been trying to make this point as well. It bears repeating over and over again. In many ways, he's already won - in this respect.
Exactly -- assuming the democrats don't take the Senate. Then again, even if they DO it may still be hard to pass anything, given the moderate vote.
I will vote for whoever is not Trump in the end. And if the American people, including some so-called moderate dems, would rather vote for Trump over Bernie, I guess America gets what it deserves.
But we simply can't keep pushing these corporate Dinos who keep slowly turning America into a Third World country. It's not sustainable.
Well everyone keeps supposing that...when is someone actually going to make the argument? Why is he unelectable?
Quoting Relativist
What makes them (who?) more electable than Bernie?
Quoting Relativist
I thought it was clear that if Dems show up in significant numbers and all vote for the same person, they will beat trump. So are you saying some of the Dems won't show up at the polls, or they will show but will vote trump, if Bernie is nominated? That would make them Super-hypocrites after all the crap they gave the Bernie bros last time.
Surely if Bernie is just dismissed again, that will hurt the Democrat vote as well?
Perfect :up:
America has drifted right over the last few decades, mainly because of corporate manipulation of the media (think: Fox. Reagan would be dismissed as 'liberal' by a lot of current Republicans.) So Bernie Sanders, who wants free public health care and higher education, the forgiveness of student loans, and paying for all of this by taxing wealthy corporations, is going to be mercilessly skewered as communist and 'anti-growth' by the Republicans. It's not true, but one of the sad facts about Trumpworld is that facts don't matter. .
Don't forget, the 'Affordable Care Act' was described as communist by the right. It's far less ambitious than Sander's plan.
It's worth reading this cnn story https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/24/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-2020/index.html
which features this quote:
And that's from a Democratic think tank!
Bernie Sanders is openly calling for a political revolution. For those who believe him, it's exhilarating, but it's not going to win over the political center.
If Ralph Nader hadn't run against Gore, America wouldn't have had W.
Most Western countries have seen the problems Sanders is talking about and addressed them or at least are in the process of addressing them, America is lagging behind in so many regards and something should change.
My only concern with Sanders comes less with him and rather the people and movement he aligns himself with. The far left in America seems just as concerned with practical changes as they are with their various hateful ideologies. He's been mixed with BLM, The young turks, Alexandra ocasio-cortez and other far left-wing, ridiculous people/organisations. Instead of just being a reasonable, humanistic candidate with a belief in furthering economic redistribution. Throwing around the term of "democratic socialism" doesn't really help either.
The other criticism seems to be that his promises, much like what Trump offers, are just good-sounding (to the supporters) ideas with no real substance. Sanders doesn't know exactly what things cost or how to pay for it in ways which should actually get passed legislatively.
I really like Andrew Yang as a candidate but doesn't seem like there's much of a shot for him.
All Bernie has ever been is a politician. What has he ever built? What has he ever ran? What has he ever done? We’re going to put a man like that in charge of the world’s greatest economy and military. That’s something people will have to contend with.
Would rather a construction worker than another lawyer.
Quoting Tzeentch
This and since we're not constrained by the ridiculous inward-focused MSM in the USA we're actually aware of different possibilities for social and political organisation. Sanders is broadening the political landscape allowing for more diverse views to be at least debated and discussed. That at the very least is progress.
I put together an IKEA bunk bed the other day. Bet Bernie couldn't do that. Vote for me!
Trump absolutely HAS TO BE DEFEATED...and if Bernie is the guy the Democrats select, HE MUST BE THE GUY WHO DEFEATS HIM.
I was such a person. During the last election...and up until just a few weeks ago, I was an "Anyone but Bernie" person.
Things can change quickly, but if Bernie continues down the path he is on, he will be the nominee...and I will support him with every ounce of strength I can muster.
I hope all of you out there can, too.
Dumpertrumper,
I think your dad filed for bankruptcy numerous times. And he was found guilty of defrauding people from his fake University, that also went defunkt.
Put in another quarter and try again. LOL
The one quality that is needed in a President is good judgment. Regardless of background, our job as voters is to discern whether or not a candidate indeed has good judgment. No specific background (CEO, college professor, politician, reality TV star...) establishes that the candidate has good judgment, nor does it establish he has poor judgment.
Only in politics do we suggest extensive experience doing the job somehow makes you less able to do the job than someone with no experience.
Well... Maybe the same prejudice happens with teachers, too.
A little activism, a little voting in the senate. He certainly has enough experience making a living off the tax-payer dollar, but not much else.
I don't think you have a very good grasp on what politicians do all day...
You understand the day-to-day of a US senator? I’d love to hear about it if you wish to correct me.
Quoting NOS4A2
is a mischaracterisation. Why don't you prove this is the case with your apparent in depth understanding of what senators do, which level of knowledge you expect from others?
Guess who fought hard against them at the time, sometimes being the only nay?
That is the kind of person needed.
Was Bernie an activist? Yes. Is Bernie a Senator? Yes. How is that a mischaracterization?
Honestly, aside from abortion rights and gun laws... there's little to no difference between the left and right as far as American politics goes... Bernie has been saying so for decades. Both sides have erred on the side of huge corporate interests. Both sides have decimated public protections. As I said ad nauseum... Trump is not the problem, he is a symptom thereof.
Bernie's ability to draw a clean line in the sand will result in increased numbers of support, even from those who currently believe the bullshit being bandied about. National coverage of him speaking on the fly, such as in debates, will change minds and increase his support. As his coverage has increased, so too has his support. That's why Clinton refused to debate.
It's not a quick fix, and he knows it.
It's not like some big, mysterious secret:
https://www.politicalsciencecareer.com/senator.html
https://www.adn.com/politics/2019/08/18/a-day-in-the-life-of-a-united-states-senator-lisa-murkowski/
But, counter question: if, as you say, the work of a politician is so easy and simple, why would we need someone qualified in something totally different to do the job of "a little activism, a little voting"? Or... do you think the Potus is the one single person in the entire U.S. government who has anything to actually do?
First, I wouldn’t say it is simple—there are not too many people who could be a politician—just that it doesn’t require any sort of life experience. I agree with Arthur Miller that a politician is a glorified actor. He needs to be able to speak in front of crowds, to the press, to constituents. He needs to read speeches and engage in the pomp of diplomacy, often on stages and in front of cameras. I don’t think that it is simple, only that it is often a form of fakery. I think Bernie, though, walks the line between genuine and fakery.
I think it depends on the president and what her voters expect of her. One can delegate her duties to an entire army of unelected bureaucrats and advisors or she can attempt to do the work herself.
But, considering Pinocchio would make a better president than Trump, I guess that is not a rousing endorsement.
I don't consider any of those ridiculous.
Quoting Judaka
Yeah yeah, that's been said a million times. Anyone who already believes it's a negative will continue believing it, and would label him or anyone else a socialist anyway. So it really doesn't matter. Those who are curious may learn something about a political philosophy that they didn't think existed, as it's been wrapped up in propaganda for decades.
Well he's been consistently on the right side of history for 40 years, fighting for working people.
True, it's not as glamorous as inheriting millions of dollars, bankrupting multiple businesses, and becoming a reality TV star. But not everyone can be a very stable genius with the best words.
Very glad to hear it. I agree -- there really doesn't seem to be an alternative. I didn't like Clinton at all, but I voted for her. People who don't like Bernie can at least do that.
Bernie is definitely my choice. I think he means well. I think his election would serve as a good lesson to Americans who have their minds set on socialism and a welfare state.
Or on reality.
No he hasn’t. He’s an avowed socialist. One can simply observe the failed states of that ideology throughout history.
Damn right.
Such a common statement -- and essentially meaningless. So Scandinavian countries have failed? Of course not. But if you define socialism as policies that fail, then you get your answer in one step. No need to check history -- which you haven't done anyway. Or even the current state of affairs, for that matter.
As a matter of fact, tell the United States socialism has failed -- also a socialist country, just mainly for the rich. Social security, medicare, medicaid, the Post Office, the VA -- all failed socialist programs.
Also, labeling oneself a socialist has nothing to do with being on the right side of history, which Bernie has indeed been. Simplemindedly wiping out what he's done -- like being against the Iraq War, to name one thing -- because he uses the label "Democratic Socialist" is just that, simpleminded. And embarrassing to read.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYmlzB7AIWM
Common question. Here's the answer, in detail:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/
It’s a common argument to pretend welfare states are socialist, and to pretend tax-payer funded services are the same. But it was Bismarck, a conservative anti-socialist, who instituted the first social health insurance system. And he arguably did it in spite of socialism. As for post offices, they became tax-funded under Charles 1st, long before socialism was a fart in someone’s mind. Taxes have been a part of human life since time immemorial.
I don’t doubt Bernie’s sense of justice, but being against wars and bigotry is easy. What I worry about is how he plans to implement his policies and the costs. It’s true, his policies nowadays are definitely different than his more radical days when he wanted to nationalize everything, but it still reeks of the big government, high-tax reforms we’ve been getting for the better part of a century.
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
This speaks more to the utter insanity of contemporary American conservatives than it does to anything else.
American and European conservatives differ in many respects. They are often more liberal in the classical sense, more Christian, more republican, more individualistic, less beholden to monarchy and the gentry, for example. Bernie’s brand of socialism is more social democratic, though the terms are already so watered down and abused to be of any use.
Do we even sort-of expect Presidents to live up to their campaign promises? I mean, none of them do.
Aren't people voting for Bernie because of the direction they HOPE it puts the country on? It is about sending a message, not actually believing the USA will be just like Denmark in 3 years.
And why are you acting like Dems need to win more Republican votes? Those who are NOT anti-Trump at this point cannot be won over. For everyone who claims to be anti-trump and yet strongly imply they won't vote for Bernie, I can only say they must be rather OK with Trump. Around here, (the phil forum) I have not heard any single Bernie supporter say they will not vote for Biden or Bloomberg (despite being seriously opposed to Bloomberg), but there seems to be some strong implication that the moderates will not vote for Bernie.
Quoting Wayfarer
Surely it is clear by now that many "democrat think tanks" are more anti-Bernie than they are anti-Trump (economics is everything - and being american we all know which "economics" is right :roll:). But I still believe these numbers are somewhat accurate. But based on what I said above, you can probably tell that even if I think those numbers are 100% accurate, it doesn't change my vote. Estimates like that assume when people elect Bernie for President that they also elect two thirds of both houses of congress and EVERY state congress. And these people can't just be democrats, they would have to be full on Bernie style believers. Oh, and don't forget we need a few dead supreme court justices (although I suppose if democratic socialists control every congress in the country, then they can just raise the number of supreme court justices).
Quoting Wayfarer
I guess so. A revolution unlike any in history. Where people just vote slightly different. If we look at European countries that Bernie would count as models, are they so different as to require a revolution to get there?
Quoting Wayfarer
Huh? When Bernie loses the Dem nomination then runs as an independent, start that line of complaint. It has no business here as we decide which democrat candidate to run. Currently, I am far more concerned that the moderate dems are going to be the ones to hand the election to Trump.
Well, that's the problem for me, Sanders will be a difficult sell for anyone who isn't at least left-leaning if not an outright radical provided he continues to play ball with people and groups that are literal memes outside those circles.
Context matters.
That’s the kind of cynicism that everyone else here is showing. Ironic, considering how Sanders is running for the Idealist Party.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Right, because they can’t vote for Sanders.
Like I said, I would *love* to see Sanders win. I would gladly eat my words or parade around the city with a sandwich board saying WRONG ABOUT SANDERS. So, get in touch later. ;-)
Common, yes. Correct? Sure -- but only using your definition of socialism.
I'll be less nuanced: your claim that socialism has "always failed" is flat wrong, on any measure. Either acknowledge that or the only response you deserve is: "OK, boomer."
Quoting NOS4A2
To argue Bismark was socialist or not is completely irrelevant, considering you haven't provided a definition of "socialism" and have, in fact, made sweeping, ridiculous claims about it -- which already reveals your indoctrination and poor sense of history.
Speaking of poor sense of history: the "Post Office" was not created by Charles 1st. If you're referring to England's Royal Mail, which is far different in every aspect to the USPS, then you mean Henry VIII. Also, it wasn't "tax-funded" under Charles 1st. Far from it.
I know it's usually pretty easy to get away with ignorant statements in your own circle, but try to be more careful in this forum, OK?
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, you and millions of others. That's why it's worth putting in the effort to educate yourself about it, which you refuse to do.
True, and yet you say:
Quoting NOS4A2
So tell us: how are you defining "socialism"? And please inform us why Denmark and Sweden (among others) are failed states.
Excellent point. I think you're exactly right: for millions of Americans, it's not the details. I don't think many people are all that informed. They voted for Obama because he was a charismatic guy, they voted for Trump because they liked a "tough guy" saying things they couldn't say and to piss off the "liberals," they voted for Bush because he was a guy they wanted to have a beer with, etc. If they like the person and they like what he or she says, then that's usually enough. I think Bernie does very well on both counts.
I always use the common definition: social control of the means of production. A socialist state is a state that explicitly seeks to achieve this end. Here’s a list of such states:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
The Nordic system is not socialist. Sweden, for example, had to introduce drastic austerity measures and neoliberal reforms during the 90s to get the economy it has today.
There is no one "common" definition.
"Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Dictionaries record usage, not how a word should be defined.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Definition
But my definition nonetheless coincides with the first one.
it’s true, the word has little meaning anymore.
Do you still contend that “Denmark and Sweden (among others) are failed states”?
Usage (eventually, if usage sticks) determines how a word should be defined.
Good. So now you must realize the stupidity of your original statement? Unless, of course, China, Russia and India are failed states?
Quoting NOS4A2
Ohh, I see. Great -- so then Bernie's policies aren't socialism either. Good to know. So you shouldn't have a problem bringing these clearly non-socialist countries' policies to the US.
I never even hinted at such proposition.
I asked specifically for your own definition. You quoted the dictionary. So who's falling into the fallacy you cite?
Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's interesting you say this, yet you use it in a negative sense in reference to Bernie Sanders' policies -- which aren't unlike Canada, Denmark, etc. Then you say these countries aren't socialist.
So Sanders' proposals are socialist, and socialism (although a meaningless term) "never works," you cite the dictionary and list a Wikipedia article on socialist states, including China (which has greater GDP growth than the US). So China's policies have failed?
You're just confused. Stop using "socialism," and look at the proposals on their now merits. Universal healthcare, free public college, student debt relief, doing something about climate change, etc. These aren't radical Communist ideas. Your dating yourself if you think so.
He’s not confused, this is just how he plays his game.
You did, by linking Sanders' proposals with "socialism," and going on to say that "socialism" never works. So either Sanders' proposals are more in line with China and India, or else they're like Denmark and Sweden and thus NOT socialism.
Your entire worldview reeks of Cold War paranoia.
Exactly right. While Trump has increased the average american's interest in politics (finding that silver lining where I can), it does not mean that people are willing to do serious policy research. Just that they are willing to spend some of their entertainment hours listening to people give their opinions on politics (all 24 hour new stations).
So I find it very weird when people say someone is un-electable due to their economic policies. Oh, people understand economics now do they?!? They all just point to whatever current or historical example proves their point, and ignore every example that is counter to their argument (the smart ones, the less informed don't even know about the counter examples and just eat up each example as 100% proof they are right).
No, I do have a problem bringing those policies to the US. But mostly I have a problem with Bernie’s statist policies, which differ in many respect to the countries he holds as exemplars. The corporate tax rates in Denmark or Sweden are not that high, but Bernie wants to raise it to 35%. Denmark and Sweden don’t have government-mandated minimum wage; Bernie wants government-mandated minimum wage. His Green New Deal is the thing nightmares are made out of.
Of course they can. The worry is that they won't; that Biden or Bloomberg are closer to Trump than they are to Bernie (I think that that's actually true; there is a huge overlap between the two mainstream parties, and the right wing of the Democrats is closer to the right wing of the Republicans than it is to its own left wing), so people who prefer that kind of candidate would prefer Trump over Bernie.
The thing is, it's not moderate Democrat voters who prefer right-wing Democrats over Bernie, it's establishment Democrat leadership, who presume to speak for moderate Democrat voters, who do. The voters themselves overwhelmingly favor the policis that Bernie pushes, sometimes even when they identify as "conservative". People just don't know what labels mean, and everybody wants to think of themselves as "moderate" and "independent"; but most of those people who think of themselves that way like the things Bernie is proposing, even if they say they don't like "socialism" or the "left wing", etc.
You forgot Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Cambodia, many of which are failed states or in the process of failing. Iraq, Sudan, Libya. Syria. It’s true that China has developed an economically-viable brand of Socialism, but it’s too totalitarian and mercantilist to last.
Denmark and Sweden have very strong unions with high membership and the collective employment agreements contain minimum wages that are binding on all employees regardless of union membership. Companies cannot go around these unions. So even these countries have effective minimum wages they simply come about in a different way.
Denmark does have minimum wage laws for foreign employees.
Collective bargaining isn’t the same as government-enforced minimum wage laws, is it?
There's a good Atlantic article about this under "political hobbyism." Very interesting. Very scary, too.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
So very true. It's the same with listening to people go on about climate change. Why is it that just because in their free time they take a slight interest in politics (when they get home from work and not watching "Dancing With The Stars" or the NFL), and hear some talking point from their favorite opinion columnist, talk show host, comedian, or radio commentator, that they feel entitled to spout nonsense online (and in person)?
They would NEVER do this otherwise, in any other domain. You don't hear people claiming to know anything about the latest in physics, for example. Yet if it's been "politicized" and thus included in their daily diet of news consumption/addiction, then suddenly they feel confident in their sudden expertise.
What about a simple "I don't know," or "tell me more about that"? I think it's because, sadly, MOST of this repeating of an opinion that Rush Limbaugh formulated often passes as intelligent, and most people don't even know enough or follow things closely enough to know that it's complete nonsense. So these people get away with it, over and over, in their own social circles and social media bubbles, reinforcing what they believe and convinced that they have a lock on truth and knowledge -- when in reality, they're parroting propaganda.
This happens on the left as well, of course. But the hilarious part is that BOTH sides will accuse the other of this phenomenon -- and both are correct. Yet they can never see it in themselves or from their own "tribe." It's staggering. I think this is another reason to try and discourage people from labeling themselves "liberal" or "conservative," it turns politics into spectator sports, something Americans are all too comfortable with: sitting on the sofa or in a stadium, cheering on a team, and feeling like they're actually a part of any of it -- as the NFL goes makes millions of dollars off of them.
A little long winded. I digress.
Quoting Xtrix
:clap:
Somebody needs to STFU. :shade:
The corporate tax rate was much higher in another socialist country I can think of...called the United States. We had a pretty good economy back then, too.
Denmark has much higher real wages than the US, whose real wages have stagnated since the 70s.
The rest can be ignored -- you're talking nonsense again and I'm tired of correcting you. I won't even bother to have you elaborate, lest you cite Wikipedia and the dictionary again or, worse, your own memory (Charles the 1st created the post office, after all.) :roll:
Summing up:
Bernie's policies aren't socialism.
You have no clue what socialism is.
His policies are both popular and logical.
God you're pathetic.
Love the Limbaugh talking points, though.
I agree.
There’s no need to get salty, comrade.
True. Although it's equally true there "no need to be idiotic."
But when you make no effort to understand the words you're using, repeating conservative talk radio canards, repeatedly mischaracterizing what others are saying...yeah, I eventually lose interest, and respect.
The world is a complex place. "Socialism" has a long history, at least to the Enlightenment and classical liberalism. There have been many branches, some statist some anti-statist. There have been countries who claim to be socialist or communist to appeal to the people, there are countries that have equated both ideologies with evil. Propaganda abounds. But if you study history, you find that since the industrial revolution, most countries have had economies that work essentially for the powerful and "responsible" class of men, whatever they claim to be. Most economies are "mixed" in the sense of having a large degree of state intervention along with privatization and "free markets," etc.
This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue, or even liberal or conservative. Try to look beyond these categories, as they're fairly devoid of meaning as well. "Socialism" is no exception.
If you want to discuss Sanders' policies seriously, fine. So far you've said nothing except parrot tired, long-refuted lines that I hear all the time when I put on Fox News. It's cheap, it's easy, and it's exactly what we're getting at here and here. Stop being one of these clowns. Otherwise, don't be surprised when you're (correctly) called pathetic.
But Bernie himself says he's socialist. He says he's against authoritarian communism, which is how the right will try and paint him, but there's no question that he's socialist. Free public health, free public higher education, and forgiveness of student debt, paid for by higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations - those are his policies, and they are socialist. He openly is calling for a political revolution in favour of the majority against corporatism. All strength to him, if he can convert the US of A into Scandanavian-style democratic socialism, then it would be indeed one of the greatest ballot-box revolutions in history.
Corporate tax rates were above 45% from just after WW2 until Reagan. Even then they were around 35% until 3 years ago. And America had a stronger economy relative to the world in those days so a high corporate tax rate must be a good thing??
I actually think it is way more complicated than that (in fact, when corporate taxes were at 35%, the EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate was below 20%). So raising the corporate tax rate back to where it was 3 years ago (which was EFFECTIVELY the same as it is today) does not seem to be a big issue??
No, he says he's a Democratic Socialist. But that means almost nothing outside the context of his proposals. HIs policies aren't socialist (according to our friend), since they're clearly in line with other countries like Canada, Britain, Germany, the Nordic countries, etc.
Quoting Wayfarer
The word "socialist" is meaningless. Until it's defined you're simply talking nonsense. This is exactly the point I made earlier. If you want to tell us what you mean by socialism, go right ahead.
It's true that those are Sanders' policies. It's also true that he describes himself as a Democratic Socialist. Thus, all we really know is that, to Bernie Sanders, "democratic socialist" means exactly these policies. Fine, so let's look at the policies and ask if they make sense.
Turns out, they do. They're also popular. They'd be very good for the country. If you want to discuss the details about how it's paid for, great. But let's stop wasting time being hung up on this "socialism" nonsense -- because no one knows what the hell they're talking about. It's like the word "God." Seems like it has meaning, but in the end it's so amorphous as to be completely empty. It ends up being a bit of a Rorschach test, telling us more about the psychology of the person who sees "evil" or "good," etc. Most people who associate it only with failed states, Stalin, Mao, etc., probably grew up during the Cold War, for example.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yeah, so? That could make him a kind of Communist, Anarchist, Marxist, or someone without any label whatsoever who simply recognizes the state of affairs and what needs to be done.
Again, let's move beyond meaningless labeling. Who cares.
I spelled it out, and got a wall of blather in return. You're not being objective. Bernie Sanders is an avowed, self-declared, democratic socialist, and the meaning is as clear as day. Over and out.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I think NOS4A2 doesn't care much about any of these details. He'll move on to the next Limbaugh talking point like "socialism always fails (even though the word is meaningless)", wonderful historical facts like "Charles I created the Post Office," or else put on his Nostradamus hat and foresee the collapse of the Chinese economy because they're too "mercantile."
I wouldn't put in much more effort.
No, you didn't. You said he was a socialist (not true) and then that his policies are socialist (without defining what socialism is).
So again, I repeat:
1) Bernie is a self-described Democratic Socialist. What does that mean and how is it different from "socialism"? Good question, and worth talking about.
2) His policies are popular and are similar to other countries around the world, like single-payer healthcare. To say this is "socialist" is essentially like saying high schools and libraries are socialist too. You agree with that or not? Trick question, since you haven't defined socialism.
The meaning is as clear as day. OK, then define it for us all: what's "socialism"? And what's "Democratic socialism"?
Or run away instead. Probably the best move for you.
"...Wall Street became big-government socialists and begged for the largest federal bailout in American history — over $1 trillion from the Treasury and even more from the Federal Reserve. But it’s not just Wall Street that loves socialism — when it works for them. It is the norm across the entire corporate world.”
Sorry about that Frank, here's the full quote:
In 2008, after their greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior created the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression, with millions of Americans losing their jobs, their homes and their life savings, Wall Street’s religious adherence to unfettered capitalism suddenly came to an end,” Sanders said Wednesday. “Overnight, Wall Street became big-government socialists and begged for the largest federal bailout in American history — over $1 trillion from the Treasury and even more from the Federal Reserve. But it’s not just Wall Street that loves socialism — when it works for them. It is the norm across the entire corporate world.”
Plus Obama forced the banks to take money to create a sense of health.
Bernie tells half truths.
Assuming you are a far-right winger, you should be happy then, yes?
Here's the thing, the trick is to distribute socialism equitably, no?
No use debating something who can't deal with the obvious. Sanders himself says he's socialist, there's no need for me or anyone here to define it. SO, not running away, moving on to something useful.
I dont have a wing. If Wall St CEOs showed up to Congress asking for money, they wouldn't have received it.
It's a bad example, and I would ditch that line of reasoning. If we create a social safety net and distribute wealth, it shouldn't be because rich people are protected. We should do it because it's just and good.
Bernie is an avowed socialist. Straight from the horse’s mouth. That was my only point. You don’t have to look at the countless other leaders and states who have claimed the same, but because there is always a trail of death and tyranny behind them should at least be cause for scepticism when someone once again picks up the mantle. I doubt your equivocations would occur if Bernie called himself a fascist, for instance.
Why does it only seem to be right-wing manchildren who use this new slang?
Fair enough, point well taken. I wish both sides viewed it that way. Unfortunately they would probably view it as too idealistic. ( Albeit what I meant by saying equitable is treating like cases likely and different cases differently.)
Nonetheless you would think a God-fearing nation such as the USA would hold true to those ideals/that ideology.
Instead we have two extremes; one for the rich and one for the poor.
The policies he promotes are what get called "socialist" in America.
Those policies actually fit the technical definition of social democracy (which is not a kind of socialism), not democratic socialism, or any kind of socialism. They have nothing to do with capital being owned by those who use it, they just provide a band-aid over the worst excesses of capitalism.
But most Americans don't know or care about that. They just hear something called "socialism" (which other Americans do to policies like Bernie's) and think it's authoritarian. So Bernie prefaces it with "democratic" to be clear that he's not authoritarian in promoting the things Americans call "socialist".
It's the practical way to communicate his stance to the average American, even if it's technically incorrect.
I can’t help thinking that a society that could elect, and in all likelihood re-elect, Trump, may not be sufficient developed for increased socialism.
That was interesting. There is a lot in there I agree with. But they go much farther than I...I just want a more interested voter (not just interested in having their opinions agreed with). They want everyone to actually engage with their community. I am way too socially uncomfortable for that sort of behavior :grimace: But I can appreciate its usefulness and support those actions when I can. I can admit that I would definitely count as a "hobbyist" based on their description.
Quoting Xtrix
I was about to entirely agree, but then I thought of sports. I think most people think they could coach their favorite team better than the current manager (except Liverpool FC, everyone loves Klopp).
I agree that people don't do it with things like physics, but only if it stays academic. As soon as it is political, all opinions are equal (READING YOUR POST A BIT FURTHER, I THINK THIS WAS EXACTLY YOUR POINT). And this idea (all opinions are equal) is only being drilled in more in our schools these days.
Quoting Xtrix
Sounds right to me.
Quoting Xtrix
Ugh, indeed. And with the dawn of social media, each person spewing out their opinion is "evidence" for the next ignoramus.
Quoting Xtrix
Indeed. I have friends that I am happy vote similar to myself, but they have not thought their position through any more than the "deplorables" they rant against.
Quoting Xtrix
I want to laugh and agree (in fact, mentally, I did both), but I probably have some blind spots of my own, so I won't be too vocal :smile:.
Quoting Xtrix
Haha, dang. I have spent the 5-10 years trying to convince my parents to do just that (not too successful).
Quoting Xtrix
Well as someone who tends to get too long almost every post, no problem. And thanks for the article.
Quoting Xtrix
Fair enough. I do try to ignore most of it, but every now and then it is pretty easy to do a quick refutation, so it feels worth the minor effort. And yes, admitting that the meaning of socialism is unclear while maintaining that it is terrible, seems outside the realm of reason...so probably not a point worth engaging with.
I discuss this phenomenon and its relationship to the origin of religion in my essay On Academics, Education, and the Institutes of Knowledge. On my view, these kinds of “truther” bubbles are formally identical to cults, which in turn are formally identical to small, unpopular religions.
You should simply learn something from Social Democracy. The 'Democratic Socialist' is just a spin to make it new and American. Good way for example would be read a bit of history about the UK Labour party and the times when it has been in power.
Or read about Francois Mitterrand and how long he ruled France and the French Socialist Party.
Social Democrats are totally different from Marxist-(Leninists). They don't want to stop capitalism. Their idea is only to milk it a bit more and have this "socialism-lite". And if you listen to Bernie, that is exactly what he's up to.
Quoting Wayfarer
Wait, cynicism? You mean reality? I had no goal there, other than to remind you of a fact. Do you disagree? Hoover promised "a chicken in every pot". These "promises" are not really meant to be taken literally.
Quoting Wayfarer
"Idealist party" contains the word "ideal", which is pretty much "not real" by definition...unless you can point me toward perfection? Reminds me of what I said about a "direction" for the country, not some sudden massive change.
Quoting Wayfarer
Of course they can. They are making strong implications that they won't. Otherwise, why the fear that he won't beat Trump? People aren't actually counting on swaying Republican voters, right? (yes, yes, Bloomberg and Klobuchar are trying to do exactly that - but do you really think either of them would beat trump? if so why?)
Quoting Wayfarer
I thought it was clear by now (correct me where wrong) that if there is a very high voter turnout, the Democrats win. Typically, Republicans actually show up to vote at higher rates. Do you really think Biden or Bloomberg are going to see high voter turnout? I am not saying Bernie is better, but it seems ridiculous to suggest that any of the other Democrat candidates will inspire more Democrats to show up and vote. Who are you suggesting is the candidate (or really you seem to be implying candidates plural) that will have more support than Bernie? Bernie will DEFINITELY get people to show up to vote that will otherwise just sit at home (and I am fairly comfortable to say he will get far more typical no-shows to vote). The question is how many moderate Dems will not show up if Bernie is the candidate?
And just to point out, Bloomberg would be the one candidate I would actually consider NOT voting for (I probably still would to at least send the message that I disagree with the direction of the last 4 years - but I would have lost hope that our country wants to be being anything better than a haven for the super wealthy). He seems the perfect choice for those who like everything about Trump, except that he is fat and Republican.
Why is it only pantywaists who are offended by it?
:up:
FeelTheBern.
I do not think that Sanders would approve of the manner in which you argue in support of his platform. To be fair, I'm sure he'd scold me as well...
It's primary season, and the DNC does not want Sanders. When he wins outright, he'll remove their wiggle room, and they will not let their dislike of Sanders get in the way of their dislike of Trump. The more one actually listens to Sanders... the more sense it all makes. It's the second hand accounts, and opinons based upon insufficient information that will all be overcome after carefully listening to Sander's propositions and reasoning.
No one who was caught off-guard by underestimating voter turnout or Trump's ability to secure enough support to beat Clinton will allow that shit to happen again, assuming that their worldview is much the same as it was four years back. Give Sanders the national spotlight. Place him on stage with Donald John Trump, and watch school start for all those willing to learn.
The most pleasant slaughter that one may ever see.
I cannot wait.
:wink:
Surely you're not really portraying Sanders in negative light... right?
That would show everyone what the swamp looks like... that case would be one in which the swamp would prefer Trump(who claimed to have the goal of 'draining' it) over Bernie who knows exactly what needs fixing and how to go about getting it done...
Hopefully there are not enough corrupt politicians left in the DNC.
It's a slow and methodical change. Draw a line in the sand with the people on one side, and huge corporations, multi-national companies, and the mega-wealthy on the other. Make elected official choose.
Remember who chose against the good of the overwhelming majority in the next elections. Remove them. Ad infinitum. Eventually, every American will be in a much better position to live the American dream, because there will be many more elected officials doing their job and upholding the sworn duty to act on behalf of what's best for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Bernie has long known that this is a slow process, but he also knew what to do in order to get it kickstarted.
I agree that Sanders makes sense, that his arguments are sound, that he's honest and principled. The same was said about Corbyn. But he's openly calling for a political revolution, a transformation of the political culture in America, and I can't see it prevailing. Again, happy to be proven wrong, if he wins in November I will gladly eat my words, but I can't get on the Bernie bandwagon.
No, it was Wall Street. It was the financial institutions -- the same ones that put millions of dollars into Obama's campaign. They received a slap on the wrist from Obama, not surprisingly.
The Chairman of the Fed and the Treasury Secretary asking for a bail-out doesn't make sense. There may have been a debate about whether or not the government SHOULD intervene, and there was real debate about that, but that's a different discussion. It was the Fed and Treasury that needed bailing out.
Indeed. I don't see sufficient electoral college majorities voting for a democratic socialist -- any kind of politician who would wear the tag of socialist of any stripe, really. I'm Pro Sanders. But even if he were elected (which isn't an impossibility), without a solid democratic majority in both the House and Senate, he will be unable to pass so much as the time of day.
The Republican refusal to consider Judge Garland for the SCOTUS wasn't directed at Barack Obama; it was directed toward fixing a long-term conservative majority--which they have achieved. (Supreme Inequality by Cohen traces the determined 50 year shift away from the much more humane Warren Court (which came to an end early in the Nixon presidency with the appointment of the conservative Burger) to a pro-property, pro-business, anti-poor, anti civil rights expansion, etc. court. If Sanders gets elected, the Republicans will do their damndest to make sure the court stays conservative.
It's essential that Trump be defeated, and I don't see anyone in a position to do better than Sanders.
I'm going to vote for the kind of president I believe we should have; if The People vote otherwise, so much the worse.
No, running away. And rightfully so. Why? Because it's a very complicated issue and extremely hard to pin down -- and that's exactly my point.
So long as it's true that "God" or "socialism" or "liberal" or any other word you use is open to a large range of interpretation, and since in this domain (politics) it's important to be as clear and precise as we can be (because the stakes for the country and world are very large), we cannot just throw words around and say "Ah, you know what I mean - it's obvious." It isn't obvious. You and I have a vastly different concept of "socialism," to take an immediate example. It's therefore worth discussing what we're talking about when we use the word to see if statements about this "entity" is reasonable and accurate or not.
I hold the following: all that's meant by "Democratic Socialism" is New Deal-type policies with the following aims:: (1) creating a society that works better for working and middle class people -- the 80+% of us. (2) Creating a fairer distribution of wealth. (3) Guaranteeing free healthcare and education, both (and especially the former) being seen as a human right.
I do NOT interpret the word to mean Communism, or the State "owning the means of production." I consider it simply the above policies with said goals. Now it's questionable I (or we) should even call it "socialism", given socialism's long and negative history in this country. That's an interesting topic, but one we can't even have if by "socialism" you mean something radically different than what I mean. At that point we're talking passed one another.
Let's at least be very clear: Bernie is an avowed "Democratic Socialist." It sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but it happens to matter in this case. Why? Because Bernie, as anyone would expect, does not identify with the state owning the means of production or any Soviet-type government. He's not in favor of dictatorship or authoritarianism. What Bernie means is a label for New Deal style policies. That's all. Given that, any way you feel about socialism, its history and track record, is already moot -- why? Because that's not what Bernie is talking about. That's precisely why he adds the "democratic" part, to differentiate from Russian and Cuba and others.
That being said, your assessment of the history of socialism is itself a little strange. Of course there's been a trail of death and tyranny. But that's any form of government, ideology, religion, etc. That's capitalism too -- FAR more deadly than socialism. The countries who have professed to be capitalists are responsible for huge atrocities for centuries now. But doing a body count is a silly way to proceed anyway.
Lastly, I'm not "equivocating" anything. I'm saying Bernie should be judged based on his policies and proposals, almost all of which have majority support in this country. They're therefore not "radical" or socialist pipe dreams. They are what's done in many countries in the world. They're also richt in line with our own history: the FDR era, through Eisenhower and even Nixon. So getting caught up in a label is useless -- just look at the policies, and you'll see what Bernie means by "Democratic Socialism." Don't agree with the policies? Fine, then give a sensible argument for why they don't work. Waving your hand and saying "it's socialist"isn't an argument.
I think swinging the country in the direction of a new New Deal is a very smart choice and very much needed, after years of neoliberal policy -- the results we see all around us. If you really feel we're (the working and middle classes) better off now than we were in the 50s and 60s under New Deal policies, that's a debate worth having.
You're on to a much deeper issue, which is that even Bernie's policies don't go far enough. But since Bernie himself is considered so extreme, it's very hard to have that conversation. It's more worthwhile to fight for his policies. But when you say "band-aid," you're exactly right. That's what the New Deal, laws and regualtions of the 60s, etc., were really doing. They rearranged the rules, made the game less tilted, but continue to play the game nonetheless.
The real, long-term and overarching goal should be the destruction of capitalism altogether. I advocate for anarcho-syndicalism pro tem. Then I would argue in the space opened by Nietzsche regarding the distant future. But as you can see, we'd be getting into a more academic and philosophical discussion rather than a political one grounded in the real world of current affairs.
Still, your point is an important one and worth keeping in mind.
What do you make of Krugman's position vs. Wolff's? I'll link below, if you're interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6J3ROV4IPc
And me as well. We're in the same boat, really. I don't go out giving talks or anything. But among friends, family, friends-of-friends, coworkers, and even sometimes strangers, I like having those conversations. Not to mention online. I would like to be more involved in an organization where I actually work with others in pursuit of political goals. The Sunrise Movement and other large, national organizations and movements is interesting and all of that, but I think I'd be more comfortable locally -- and that's kind of the point of the article anyway, in the sense that this is where everything starts.
But you're absolutely right: being interested, informed, and willing to have the conversations with other people in a rational way, are all necessary. Even THAT would be sufficient to change things, too, because in that case we'd be voting very differently. Unfortunately we're being indoctrinated in all kinds of ways, and having our consent "manufactured," to a large degree. How to overcome this is an interesting topic.
Basically, yes.
Alright before we begin this discussion I'll just let you know that I would really never vote for Bernie. I'm just interested in the actual contents of his beliefs. From what I know - off the top of my head - he's said favorable things about Castro and the USSR, and he favored nationalizing.... some industry in the 1980s and doing so in a manner without even compensating the leaders of those industries.
Again, not looking for a debate here just an honest picture of what Bernie believes. Something intuitively strikes me as a wrong here when you try to cast him as an FDR style Democrat (who I still dislike) when he's explicitly used the terms democratic socialist.
Baden, can we talk about issues which are actually relevant in 2020 as opposed to Nixon bombing Cambodia which was like.... 1972ish? Or Reagan funding the Sandinistas in the 1980s? I mean I'm fine with having a discussion about it, but it's just not that relevant to the issues to the 2020 elections.
What's relevant to now is the utter stupidity and hypocrisy of objecting to Sanders on the basis he once said something good about Castro. It's contemptibly idiotic on just about every level imaginable.
It's not just that.
In any case I'm on the other side of the political spectrum than Sanders so it's no surprise I wouldn't vote for him (although I do favor his more liberal drug policies).
I was just talking to Xtrix about getting an honest picture of his views purely out of interest.
See above.
If there is no socialism in Bernie then why does he call himself a democratic socialist? It boggles the mind. He's either wrong or he's a socialist. So which is it? And adding "democratic" to the term socialism doesn’t make me feel any better, any more than adding “democratic” to the People's Republic of Korea.
But call Bernie what you want. I’ve already stated his policies reek of the big government, high-tax reforms we’ve been getting for the better part of a century.
Why would we need another New Deal if the first one was so great? The government’s power was greatly increased and that has not subsided. We still have social security, Fannie Mae, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the National Labor Relations Board, federal agricultural subsidies.
[b]"We fell in love.”
"He likes me, I like him. Some people say I shouldn’t like him. Why shouldn’t I like him?”
"He's... a real leader."[/b]
B... But Sanders once said Castro raised literacy levels! :scream:
I give up.
They both sound mostly correct and not in contradiction to me. The places I see them disagreeing are on whether Bernie's use of the term socialism is politically expedient (they both seem to agree that he's actually not, though Wolff points out that his use of it is in line with an existing sense of it, but to my knowledge that sense is only used by ignorant American capitalists, not self-identified socialists); what is "centrist" or not; and whether Bernie's Medicare-for-All plan is the best plan.
On the first issue of whether Bernie's use of the term socialism is politically expedient, I'm ambivalent about it. Republicans would call him "socialist" anyway, they would call any policies like his "socialist", and because they control the propaganda machine, that's what increasingly many Americans think "socialism" is, and increasingly think is actually a good thing not a bad thing. So it seems like just pragmatic identification with the label people use to mean what he is for, to me. It does come with a bunch of pejorative baggage, but since the label would be applied to him anyway, I don't really see the harm (and maybe even some benefit) in owning the word. Reclaiming it if you will. "We're here, we're 'socialist', get used to it."
On the second issue, "centrism" is relative to one's Overton window, and they clearly have different ones. The mainstream American Overton window is from Republicans on the right to establishment Democratic party leadership on the left, so within that window, establishment Democrats are left, and "centrists" are somewhere between them and Republicans. By that framing, Krugman is clearly "far left". But there are plenty of views even further left than that, that have long since been popular in Europe and are increasingly popular in America today, and from that point of view Krugman and establishment Democrats are "centrist". I personally consider even that further-left viewpoint "centrist", in a good way -- there is still further left than that that one could go, but that would be too far left -- but even from that far-widened-to-the-left Overton window I think in, I kinda dislike this attacking of establishment Democrats and "centrists" from the left. I'm a big-tent kind of guy, and I think anyone to the left of the current center of power should be on the same side for so long as it takes to pull that center of power leftward, and only as people in that big tent start to fall right of the new center of power should they be attacked from those further left of them.
As for Medicare For All, I am fine with Bernie's proposal, but I don't think he's going to get it done exactly as he wants it (because other politicians will stand in the way and at best some kind of compromise will be made), and I don't think it's the ideal solution either, either pragmatically or ideologically. I'm a kind of libertarian socialist, so while I'm okay with a limited state putting limits on capitalism to pro tem, I prefer to keep as much choice in the hands of people as possible while doing so. My ideal health care solution (for within the present political system, not in my utopian world) would be to give everyone a stipend of however much Medicare costs per person, charge all Medicare users that much to be on the program (so those who are currently on it see no net change), and allow anyone to buy into it with that stipend, or to spend that on an alternative if they really want; and then make Medicare good enough that most people wouldn't want to, if it's not already. Halfway between a public option and Medicare-for-All, I guess, because private insurance is not banned and nobody has to buy into Medicare, but everyone receives public funding for their insurance and anybody can buy into Medicare. Possibly make Medicare the default, with easy opt-out, so everybody who currently has no insurance just automatically gets Medicare for free, but anybody who really wants to keep their current insurance can opt out of that and spend their stipend on their current insurance instead.
Quoting Baden
Quoting Baden
You're clueless.
Well that all sounds reasonable and I certainly hope you are right. I suppose I appreciate the optimism either way :smile: And no matter what a person's political beliefs are, a Trump vs Sanders debate should sound like a lot of fun :grin:
And this is of course a huge problem which, even without global warming to worry about, will saddle the next generations of citizens with problems.
Running winning candidates isn't enough (though that is necessary). Several basic reforms are needed:
One, the members of the Supreme Court need to be rotated more often -- which means ending life-time appointments. Fixed terms would solve part of the problem. The court IS POLITICAL. It has to be knocked off its pseudo-august pedestal.
Two, eliminate the Electoral College. I realize it has a point, but direct election by the citizenry works for all the other elected positions.
Three, we need a genuine working class party -- not slightly more and slightly less conservative parties serving the interest of the ruling class.
Four, campaign financing must be socialized. Having someone with $30-40 billion dollars financing his own campaign (Bloomberg) and others scrounging for pocket change is obviously a crooked game. The conservative court laid down Citizens United for a ruling class reason. Citizens United needs to be undone.
We need to repair the gross economic inequalities which prevail in the United States. (Other countries will have to deal with their inequalities.). This means taxing wealth at a high rate. Maybe it should be enshrined in the constitution, so it can't be changed easily. The wealthy stayed wealthy even during periods of high taxation.
I far prefer local pushes to get the vote out over things like The Sunrise Movement (despite me agreeing with their overall aims). Large federal lobbying pushes require resources that the masses don't have access to, so they always seem to only represent a tiny fraction of the population (I understand lobbying is supposedly VERY democratic, but it just seems to limit the power of my vote so...?). While I agree with the Sunrise Movement's goals, they are using methods similar to the NRA or whatever the hell Grover Norquist's no tax increase organization is called.
Quoting Xtrix
:up:
As far as I can tell, @Wayfarer's argument is that America has moved so far right over the last few decades, that they don't want this. I tend to disagree, and would point out that most people under 40 don't seem to have an automatic problem because the word "socialism" was mentioned (hell Tucker Carlson was getting in trouble for advocating socialist ideas).
If (probably a big if) Bernie wins, does that imply that the Democrat party could become an actual force for the working class? (again, I suppose FDR was on the right track)
Quoting Bitter Crank
Sounds wonderful, but there will need to be a massive change to the supreme court's view of things. It is amazing to look at the 1940s through 1960s compared to today. WAY higher taxes on the top bracket, and WAY fewer complaints about taxes being too high...then one guy scribbles on a napkin and suddenly....?!?! I am with FDR, 100% tax on everything over $25,000 (in his day...I think that is more like $500,000 today) - "No person should try, or be allowed, to get rich out of this program; and the principle of tax payment in accordance with ability to pay should be constantly before our eyes to guide our legislation." - FDR speech to Congress in 1941, seems like a different country :grimace:
A solution to this problem that I’ve thought up before that would be easier to implement constitutionally and probably a lot easier to sell to the politicians who would have to implement it: every presidential term is guaranteed one Supreme Court appointment (and if the Senate doesn’t approve any such appointment by the end of a term, the court itself chooses its pick of the President’s various nominees). Justices still remain seated for life (or their voluntary retirement).
This would gradually increase the number of justices, yes, but in an orderly and controlled way, not starting a fight between parties for who can inflate the court the fastest to maintain their political edge; and only up to a limit naturally set by the age of the appointees. This would result in judges that are still unbeholden to political popularity, and a court that continues to be a steady rudder not constantly changing with the political winds, but also make the court gradually change with the political evolution of the country, with a range of justices to each reflecting one small period of the country’s political mood from some time in living memory.
Do you think it's a relevant difference if Trump is saying these statements while trying to negotiate with Kim as opposed to, say, if he were passing a historical judgment years later on someone?
There is a discontinuity in the extent to which the small ruling class has moved rightward and the extent to which the masses of ordinary people have moved rightward.
Rank and file are more liberal than the ruling class. Naturally [s]they[/s] we are more liberal; [s]they[/s] we have far less to lose from economic democratization, and far more to gain.
Trump would have gotten one appointment instead of the two he's had so far, so we'd actually be down to a size of eight right now on account of that, 4 liberal 4 conservative.
Obama would have gotten two, which he did.
GWB would have gotten two, which he did.
Clinton would have gotten two, which he did.
GHWB would have gotten one, and we currently have one of the two he appointed still with us, so we might have been down to a size of seven at some point on account of that, with one fewer conservative.
Reagan would have gotten two, instead of the four he did, so we might have been down to a size of five at some point on account of that, with cumulatively four fewer conservatives.
Carter would have gotten one, instead of the zero he did, so we wouldn't have been down to five but only six at some point under Reagan, with one more liberal and still cumulatively four fewer conservatives.
Ford would have gotten one, which he did.
Nixon would have gotten one, instead of the four he did, so we might have been down to a size of three at some point on account of that, with cumulatively seven fewer conservatives and one more liberal.
Johnson would have gotten one, instead of the two he did, so we might have been down to a size of two at some point on account of that, with cumulatively seven fewer conservatives.
JFK would have gotten one, instead of the two he did, so we might have been down to a size of one at some point on account of that, with cumulatively one fewer liberal and seven fewer conservatives.
Eisenhower would have gotten two, instead of the five he did, so we might have been down to a size of... er... negative three, with cumulatively one fewer liberal and ten fewer conservatives...
Yeah, looking back on how this would have worked out historically makes me think that maybe each presidential term should get two nominees, not just one, to make sure that the Supreme Court doesn't wither away and die. Have an appointment every Presidential and Midterm election, so each appointment coincides with a different President/Congress combination. Also then the court balance adjusts more quickly with the times, but still with plenty of past inertia to keep it stable.
So GHWB would have gotten two, as he did, only one of whom survives to this day.
Clinton would have gotten four, instead of two.
GWB would have gotten four, instead of two.
Obama would have gotten four, instead of two.
And Trump would have gotten two, as he has.
So we would currently (assuming none of the newer appointees would have died or retired in the meanwhile) have a Supreme Court size of fifteen, with seven conservatives and eight liberals, had we always used this system.
And man, looking back over the court history to compile this post... Republicans have gotten damn lucky with happening to be in office right as a bunch of justices were dying off, going back for decades and decades, even before they started outright stealing them like Mitch and Trump did. I mean look at those cumulative differentials... things have been tilted as much as +9 toward the conservative side since Eisenhower.
Adam Cohen, in his new book SUPREME INEQUALITY, points out that elderly conservative judges have been a bit more strategic in resigning during Republican presidencies. I"m taking his word for it. But take Ginzburg: I'm happy with her being on the court, but she may well not make it through a second Trump term.
Nixon sabotaged Johnson's Abe Fortas appointment with a smear campaign which led to his resignation from the court. The loss of Fortas (liberal) and the gain of Burger (conservative) tipped the court from liberal (under Warren) to conservative, under Berger and subsequent chief-justice appointments.
:up:
Even so, you're both right and wrong. The Fed and banks didn't do anything else than what they informally agreed on. Who asked for the bail out was a formality.
There is no formal procedure for violating the principle of moral hazard. The Chairman of the Fed and the Secrerary of the Treasury were attempting to avoid a massive economic collapse following the failure of financial services companies.
The banking system was nationalized to thaw a credit freeze.
None of that was socialism for the rich.
The 2020 US presidential election is not a foregone conclusion. To quite the contrary, I know many folk have a strong yet inexplicable disdain for the US government. Every poor and every less fortunate person in the US knows that US governmental policies have caused demonstrable and quantifiable harm to themselves and/or their loved ones. Very few know how it happened and who is responsible for it.
It's been both parties over the last fifty or so years.
The revolution is one of how we - as American citizens - ought think about things like our government and what it's doing. It's a frame of mind focused upon what's important to the overwhelming majority of Americans, and as such it's one that needs cultivated over a long enough time period. It's one based upon shedding some much need light upon systemic monetary political corruption at the highest levels of American government.
It's been long enough. There's more than enough evidence for Sanders to make the common sense case to those who are willing to listen. There are some people you just can't reach. Those are not the focus.
Sanders speaks to a very broad range of people across the board of ethnic diversity. Americans come that way, you see. Sanders speaks to all poor people, all those who have struggled, all those who have been taken advantage of by predatory lending practices, which are now legal as a result of the sheer demolition of antitrust laws in America. Sanders knows how these things came to happen.
True and by all accounts they succeeded but at what cost in the long run? And I'm not talking about the immediate financial burden carried by tax payers for this specific bailout but because we know this will happen again and again. The moral hazard, e.g. the risks banks are willing to take because they will be bailed out, remains the same or has even increased. A typical "first as tragedy then as farce" and the farcical nature of these bailouts will only increase over time.
We've already seen (just in the US):
1. Franklin National Bank failing in 1964;
2. First Pennsulvania Bank failing in 1980;
3. Contintental Illinois Bank failing in 1984 (too big to fail mentioned for the first time);
4. Bank of New England failing in 1991;
5. the national banking crsis of the 80s (1600 banks failed and 1300 savings and loan banks);
The thing is Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers followed the same patterns where assets grew at incredible rates funded by short-term borrowing (with ridiculous maturity mismatch as a result).
Same pattern but different market circumstances exacerbated the failures in 2008. Money market funds provided better returns from the 80s onwards than those available on savings accounts, because those were set by the Fed at the time, so the set rate was rescinded. The growth of those funds fueled demand for short-term corporate commercial paper, which lowered the long term revolving lines of credits existing between banks and corporates.
Junk bonds started to finance M&A and longterm borrowing needs for corporates, further lowering income for the traditional banking model.
Add to that the various asset-backed securitisation and the role of banks changed from ultimate lender to an intermediary making money from loan origination fees, underwriting fees (for securitasation) and lona-servicing fees. Banks thought they had no risk on poor quality loans except, of ourse, that the riskier loans generated higher fees and were more profitable.
The increased competition of capital markets to provide funding as opposed to banks resulted in the slow but steady repeal or easing of various aspects of the Glass-Steagall act. During the 80s, banks were allowed to enter the following more riskier businesses:
- to own retail brokerage subsidiaries;
- to own and trade in a holding company proprietary account any form of equity, debt, or derivative security;
- to underwrite municipal securities; and to underwrite corporate securities.
The result: only a small percentage of income originates from loans to US corporates and instead investment banking, prop trading, morgtage and loan origination and processsing fees drive profits for banks. The banking model changed.
Then there's the derivatives business they entered into and in particular the Credit Default Swap (CDS), that were sold as "insurance". But it isn't insurance. If you buy insurance, you can only insure the event once and the insurance will only pay out actual loss and give insurance only to a person who has an insurable interest. The insurance has an obligation to only insure amounts for which it has sufficient reserves to cover estimated probabilities of loss. Anybody can buy a CDS (no insurable interest needed), the person writing the CDS has no limit on how much it can write (no reserves to cover estimated losses) and it can be more than the underlying value of expected loss. So at it's peak the CDS market was 60 trillion USD; 10 times the size of the value of default.
Add to the above the extraordinary consolidation of the past three decades and the incredibly increase in banking assets. In 1995 the combined assets of the six largest banks equaled 20% of US GDP, in 2009 that was more than 60%.
[quote=Richard Fisher, President, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas]It is a fantastical notion to expect that having once pulled poorly run, systemically threatened firms out of the fire, government won’t do it again, no matter how many times and how loudly it says it won’t.[/quote]
And the reason for these consolidations was not because bigger banks make better banks but because of the greater profitability for too-big-to-fail banks due to the implicit government guarantee. This reduces borrowing rates by 78 bps on average, which saved the 18 largest banks about 34 billion USD a year. (See: The Value of the “Too Big to Fail” Big Bank Subsidy)
It doesn't benefit consumers. It doesn't benefit tax payers. It does benefit stockholders and bank executives. So yeah, "socialism for the rich" seems a pretty good shorthand for the above. But no matter, that is probably just semantics. I think we can agree, leaving aside the term socialism, that some did the deciding (politicians, lobby groups & executives) but others did the risking (tax payers).
That at least would've wiped out stock and bond holder value. Although they'd probably have court cases for years to establish the "just compensation" in such an event.
In that case, there's plenty of information available to you. If you're genuinely interested. Saying "favorable things" abut Cuba and the USSR is untrue. He's said favorable things about programs that help the working class and poor -- literacy programs, etc. That's not saying favorable things about the standard American ideas about the governments and leaders of either country.
Bernie essentially wants to nationalize healthcare, yes. That's no secret. There's plenty of debate to be had there.
One cause... anti-trust laws being eviscerated and certain other consumer protection measures being reversed in the guise of de-regulation, an idea long since being argued for. As if all regulation is to be avoided, or is bad. It's often argued that too much regulation harms American businesses by virtue of increasing the financial burden that must be shouldered by a small business owner in America. It purportedly makes it impossible to afford to own and operate a smal business in America.
Another cause... the brainwashing of Americans into believing that regulations are a bad thing stemming from too big a government. Small government is an idea that the American electorate has bought hook, line, and sinker. It's an empty slogan used as a disguise. Not all regulation is bad or harmful to American small business owners. Some regulations are consumer protection measures. Others are necessary in order to maintain as free a society as is humanly possible given the differences in American world-views.
It should be illegal for someone to act as though they are offering a service to a consumer despite the fact that that service was designed in a way that that person would be placed in immediate financial danger and/or duress. Sometimes they're designed in such a way as to keep borrowers in debt - under legal financial obligation - to the lender for the majority of or even the entire rest of their natural born lives.
Antitrust laws are and aways were designed to stop that sort of thing from happening.
They worked. They were repealed and/or replaced with laws that did not. They stopped working either by intentional revocation or inferior replacement. Those were specifically designed out of the need to protect consumers from unethical, immoral business practices! That's a part of the government's job... to protect the citizens from living in such circumstances. We ought be able to trust the people we depend upon for our livelihood, for the necessities of American life, especially if we do not get to choose. If that choice is made for us, the chosen individual(s) must be trustworthy.
The 2008 financial crash is an exemplar of many many people being quantifiably harmed - being ruined in an actual visceral sense - as a direct consequence of how others had previously paved the road. The road crew consisted of real estate agents, lenders, and underwriters; at least at the ground level(the actual beginning of the implementation). The legislative roads were paved by the repeal of Glass Steagall and other atritrust laws and consumer protection measures that had already been taken as a result of the aforementioned malpractices. The repeal and removal of these consumer protection measures the increased number of financial instruments designed by those looking to make themselves rich by disguising high risk loans that were knowingly going to suffer the fate of borrower default. These financial instruments were carefully designed to meet the new less stringent legal standards. Those who knew the loans were very likely to be defaulted on cleverly disguised them as safe investment opportunities and sold them to yet another group of unsuspecting consumers. These junk loans reaped handsome immediate financial rewards for the designers as well as all those implementing the design.
Why and how can this happen?
After knowingly convincing the otherwise trusting would be home-owners that they were getting a good deal; one that they can afford; one that they meet the regulatory guidelines for, the mortgage companies(brokers) sold the mortgages based upon profits that were projected to be 'earned' by the compound interest rates of the mortgages. Traditionally, these types of instruments(mortgage backed securities) are low risk as a result of consisting of conforming mortgages. Those in question were not, but sold as if they were. These were sold to a variety of people from those investing in a 401k or an IRA through anyone else who depended upon the projected profit of loan as a result of the compound interest rates.
One problem, of course, is that many if not most of the problem mortgages were at a low fixed interest rate for a temporary time period. That rate was subject to change after a timeframe had passed. This change was a substantial financial increase in consumer costs in all cases. The borrowers debt level would raise substantially at the very moment that the higher rate took effect. The increase in the debt to income ratio would then be feasibly impossible for the borrower to maintain satisfying the financial obligation/agreement. All else being equal, these people could not afford the payment if and when it increased to the rate clearly stated in the truth in lending document.
So, why did such mortgages meet the new legal and consumer protection standards implemented in lieu of Glass Steagall?
The initial rate.
Why were they doomed to fail? Two reasons. One...
The adjustable arm rate was simply unaffordable for the borrower when and if it ever took effect; if it were ever executed. The buyers were often assured that that rate would not take effect if the payments were made on time regularly, because prior to the rate increase the borrower could easily re-finance to a lower rate. The house would be worth more as well, etc.
That promise was broken more often than it was kept.
Two...
Not one of these so-called service providers involved had a personal vested interest in the satisfaction of the loans themselves. Rather, some had a vested interest in their failure! Others were paid upfront. Elizabeth Warren shed some astounding light upon the matter underwriting the worldwide market crash of '08. She's been long since working on the issue of stagnant wages and a steep decline in the happiness of American homes dues to jobs losses and other socio-economically based problems.
Many of these people were also being negatively impacted by the exponential loss in good paying jobs available for them in their hometown area. Some of the borrowers were not only about to suffer great loss at work, they were also about to be quite unpleasantly surprised by the cascade of unfortunate events about to unfold as a result of suddenly losing their home as well as their financial livelihood/well-being.
Life changed in negative ways that were not expected for many through no real fault of their own aside from trusting the wrong people.
The actual quantity and the sheer scope of less fortunate communities increased exponentially when good paying manufacturing jobs left American shores as a means to lessen labor costs and increase profit margin(s). This sequence of events was a means to finacially reward the business owners at the direct and indirect expense of all Americans, not just those who earned their livelihood and were happy doing so in the building trades and/or manufacturing sectors.
I want remind people of that all too common narrative about taxes and big government being bad...
Small community oriented family operated and owned storefronts and businesses all across America have taken direct hits, knock-out blows, and other insurmountable problems as a direct result of allowing huge businesses to sell in the American marketplace despite the fact that they treat their workers in ways that are illegal in the States.
The actual cost of cheap goods and services cannot be properly determined by the purchase price alone.
The average ratio of Americans who are naturally inclined to be good at making things with their hands and do or would enjoy doing so has not decreased at all. The legislation that has been passed which fostered the conditions for American companies to move nearly all operations off American shores needs corrected because the sheer number of good paying American jobs with good benefits available for the average everyday worker is in sharp decline as a direct result.
Huge corporations, including both American and foreign owned ones, are allowed to implement business practices that make it impossible for small business owners to compete. They are also allowed to keep the average workweek at a part time level so they do not have to share the healthcare costs of the workers.
Ahem... and Walmart is not alone here.
The price of cheap goods is much higher than terms of retail cost can account for.
Every American can relate to a marketplace that is chock full 'o low quality inferior products. Things that break far sooner than they ought. Inferior grade low quality products result in more garbage in the world, less good paying jobs, and less successful small businesses. In the end, less available high quality products.
Walmart and other companies do not offer workers enough pay or insurance for part time. The workers are paid so low that they qualify for government assistance.
That's corporate welfare... socialism for the wealthiest corporations on earth.
And I would ask : why are you so hung up on labels? Look at the policies and debate those -- the rest is meaningless, including whether he's a socialist. That said, he's a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. That's not socialism in your sense. It's to differentiate from exactly that sense, of "the state owning the means of production." Because the word "socialist" is in there does not make it socialism in your sense. There were "National Socialists" too, remember. Who cares?
Does medicare for all, free college and universities, etc., make sense or not? Let's assume we can pay for them and that it gets through congress and survives challenges at the Supreme Court -- do they make sense? I would argue yes, they do. I think they'd be very good for working and middle class people like myself, like you, and like everyone we know. We've seen the results of the neoliberal period, and it's simply not working or sustainable anymore.
It's a bit like being an American football player now involves wearing different equipment than 80 years ago. Still football players, just not the same equipment.
The problem is not the name or what Bernie stands for. It's the idea you have in your head regarding what counts as being a football player and what Bernie stands for.
The fix?
Fucking shut up and listen to the man.
What high tax reforms of the last 50 years, exactly? Since 1970 the trend has been exactly the opposite. The neoliberal era has not favored high taxes, ESPECIALLY not on corporations. So your sense history is strange indeed.
Quoting NOS4A2
It has. Since the 1970s, as a matter of fact. Remember that the 1960s was a very threatening time for those in favor of maintaining the status quo, and there was a reaction. That reaction -- neoliberalism -- is the era we've been living in since. It's only now starting to crumble. To argue neoliberal policies are anything like the New Deal is absurd. Since Reagan, the mantra has been "getting big government out of our lives," which is a popular thing to say. But the state has remained a large corporate welfare one. That's certainly big government, but not for the people -- it's rigged for big business and the wealthiest Americans, in every sense.
And while it's true we still have social security, look at the proposals of the Republicans like McConnell and even the latest Trump spending budget proposals. They want to cut social security (and medicare). They're coming for "entitlements" to pay for their big tax cuts to the wealthy.
They're giving it all to themselves, right before our eyes, and yet you argue in favor of them. I can't honestly go on talking with you without acknowledging this feeling of perplexity. Do you not count yourself among the working and middle class? You're part of the wealthiest 1%? Do you not believe in classes or the huge gap between the richest people and the vast majority of Americans (including yourself)?
Do you acknowledge the possibility that misinformation and years of propaganda has maybe had an influence on why you believe and say the things you do? What are your news sources? From where do you get your facts and figures -- if any? Who are you listening to? I'm genuinely curious. You don't seem like a crazy person ranting things online.
Has Cold War era thinking had an effect on you? I suspect you're probably in your 50s or 60s, am I wrong?
Not to digress into psychological or personal factors (which is especially difficult online), but it's relevant in this case. Let me remind you, too: I'm not a liberal and not a democrat and not a socialist. That'll be hard for you to believe, I think, but it's true. So things I say are not from a "blue team always right" point of view at all, as you may be used to. Try to look passed that and really listen. Make the attempt to understand my position at least, and at that point we can have a meaningful discussion about whether my position is correct or not. If you can't at mininum get that right, we're just talking different languages.
...as user fees.
Thoughtful, insightful, well-written, and intelligent post. Thank you for taking the time to write that. It is much appreciated. Nice blend of a critique of recent (and extremely relevant) history, law, politics, etc. Exactly the level-headed approach that is helpful, imho.
I’m onboard the Sanders “freedom flotilla”, lol. And if like Spartacus, he is forced to turn on Rome itself in an attempt to free himself and his fellow outcasts and slaves, then he has my support. Emperor Nero is quietly quaking in his toga, despite his bluster and bravado and a torrent of arrogant “tweet-aganda”. (Please excuse the melodramatics).
Is it a risk? Definitely! Getting out of bed is risky. Driving a car is risky. Is it worth the risk? Even the risk of Trump 2.0? Yes. To me it is. Even as a protest, however feeble and ignored. Maybe the young shepherd David was given better odds versus Goliath. Not sure, exactly. However, there is a chance (a fighting chance) that the populist ocean tide that Trump has risen on has turned, and will swamp his fleet. (Don’t cry for him, though. He can retire in January to his mansion with Evita and the rest of his royal family, while the rest of us eat cake. Then we can all chuckle at his increasingly bizarre ranting tweets, as he relishes his role as political pundit and gadfly).
Certainly, I am still learning about the intricacies of the present situation, and many events leading up to it. The 2008 financial crash is most definitely NOT ancient and academic history, as you pointed out. The general conditions and symptoms that allowed it were medicated, but not changed or remedied in any significant way. Maybe it’s too late to swerve the Titanic away from the iceberg. The first step is to realize that we can’t plow through this one like before. And then get the foot off the accelerator... so to speak.
Oh yes, exactly! There are so many issues like this that have reached meltdown level, that it is near impossible to get a visual on the situation. Even for those sympathetic to “the cause”. The mind boggles at the immensity of it all... Maybe that is why some cannot bear to open their heart to the suffering...
:up: Thanks for this post. Keep it coming...
It’s like pointing out Hitler made good roads, and therefor “it’s unfair to simply say everything is bad“. It’s just a stupid comment.
Then again, I’m not sure why everyone is upset about it.
:up: This sounds most reasonable. It has my vote, for whatever it may be worth...
That's not an argument.
There were many conservatives -- including Ann Coulter -- speaking out AGAINST a bailout, who believe exactly that: that it was indeed "socialism" (from their perspective this means essentially "giving taxpayer dollars to") for the financial industry, which triggered the collapse.
So if you don't like that definition of socialism, fine. Then in that case using a comparable amount of taxpayer money to give people healthcare, or wipe out student debt, isn't "socialism"?
The bail-outs were as much "socialism" as anything else. Why a person like you defends taxpayer money (yours and mine) going to tax cuts that mainly favor corporate America and bailouts for Goldman Sachs, white at the same time coming down hard on Bernie Sanders for wanting to spend money on programs that empirically help the working and middle class, is perplexing to me. Do you not count yourself as working or middle class? If you do, you must see what's going on in this country. You're living it.
I think for those of us not completely deluded by party identity, we recognize that indeed nothing significant has changed for us, that the rich keep getting richer, and that we're still saddled with a ton of debt because we chose (and were encouraged to choose) an education, or a career in a non-profit industry, or simply have a dwelling and raise a family -- none of which was very difficult in prior generations.
This Sanders campaign really is beginning to feel like an important part of history, as a kind of non-violent revolution (or at least referendum and warning) to the worst aspects of un-checked capitalism -- a reaction against neoliberal political philosophy.
The next step will be running an anarchist, if Bernie doesn't get it. Because this economy isn't working and can't be sustained even if it were. It's going to crash, we're already overdo. Maybe it'll be a big one like 2008. And this will mean, after not electing Bernie, that people won't just want FDR style fixes. They'll want to overthrow the entire system.
Sure. A part of me is with you (and Wolff) in de-stigmatizing the word and not being so afraid of giving the "other side" ammunition. On the other hand, I wonder if it truly is "socialism" at all. Bernie doesn't talk about completely eradicating the basis of our state-capitalist system, i.e., private ownership and profit. It's true he rails against neoliberalism and its policies, but if he's truly just a New Dealer like FDR was, then he's advocating a return to policies which only tweaked the system to work a little better for the middle and working classes. It didn't abolish it altogether, as socialist philosophy -- in many variations -- actually argues for, in favor of a community and worker-run economy. I think both the State and Capitalism in many ways remains intact with Bernie.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I see what you mean. Placing people on a continuum is useful for ease of discussion, but it's hard to pin down exactly what it means.
We're discussing, essentially, political philosophy. When it comes down to it, all of this talk is conducted in the context of a philosophy -- by which I mean a system of beliefs and assumptions about basic issues and fundamental questions. This system of beliefs and values shapes how we interpret and interact with the world. It manifests in our opinions in various domains; in the political domain it's especially on display in a striking way: there is now clear fracturing and transformation going on in both parties which has been driven by the support of millions of people who are no longer constricted by the standard dogma and ideology. They all want something different. They're pushing beyond certain artificial limits. So before we determine what the "middle" or "center" is, we have to have an idea of where the boundaries of left and right are.
What is the "left"-most ideology, in other words? Is it captured by whatever it is that defines "socialism"? What about the tenets of anarchism? Communism? Marxism? It's true that most of these labels are scary ones for many Americans but, as you mentioned, this is mostly an emotional response and not based on any real understanding of the history or philosophy of these political systems of beliefs and ideas. Those demographics are changing, as you know, as more Cold War era people are getting older. (I myself wasn't quite old enough to be fully indoctrinated by Cold War propaganda, but even I am reluctant to use the words or label myself that way.)
It's good that this is all changing, but my point is that with this change should come a paradigm shift in a way, which includes re-calibrating the whole "left-center-right" picture with its implied limits.
These limits have been manufactured in the media for years, so it won't be easy. Bernie has crossed and continues to cross these artificial lines, scaring people on the establishment "right" and perplexing those on the establishment "left" precisely because both are in agreement with this underlying picture of things. So they say: How can a socialist be this popular and doing this well? We said the same thing about Trump, too, only replacing "socialist" with "populist" (if you believe his rhetoric) and, more accurately, "narcissist."
So you can answer that question for yourself, but for me I would like to define the "left" as any ideology with the goal of creating a truly democratic society where the government and business are run by communities and workers. In the socialist-anarchist tradition.
Oh absolutely, in any sense of "socialism" used by academics or self-identified socialists, which calls for the elimination of capitalism at least (there's debate about the relation to state), Bernie's not really a socialist. Wolff's point seems to be that there isn't unanimous agreement about what "socialist" means, and to most Americans, it means what Bernie is for, so him using that label in that context isn't so atrocious.
I do wonder if Bernie himself is knowingly using it only in such a context, and is aware of the differences between actual socialism and his what-Americans-call socialism.
Quoting Xtrix
I mostly agree. I mean you saw my own political spectrum I posted before. To me, left is in the direction toward greater equality and liberty, and right is the direction toward greater hierarchy and authority. I do think there is such a thing as too far in each of those ways, though; it's just much much farther than anyone would ever consider, because it's obviously unworkable.
Absolute maximal liberty would mean nobody had any claims against anyone... including, say, punching you in the face. Slightly to the right of that would allow for self-enforced claims against some limited things like that. The truly centrist position on that would allow for some kind of institutional enforcement of such reasonable claims, a government, without granting it any monopoly on powers that are denied to other people, so no state. More to the right of that would be a state of some kind, but limited in some ways. The farthest to the right would be an unlimited state.
Absolute maximal equality, at least in an economic sense, would mean not even personal possessions of the kinds that most socialists support; even your toothbrush isn't yours, everything is public property and nobody can be excluded from using anything as they please. Slightly to the right of that would be the kinds of possessions, but not private property, that most socialists support. The truly centrist position on that, I think, would be a system that allows for private property, but prevents capitalism; that stops owning more property from being a way of acquiring more and more property from those who started out owning less. More the right of that would be capitalism of some kind, but limited in some ways. The farthest to the right would be unlimited capitalism.
Bernie is like... 15-20% right of true center, on that scale. But that in turn is almost 25% left of center in the limited-state-and-capitalism framework that has moderate Democrats at its center. And that in turn is almost 50% further left than far left on the parochial scale American media pundits seem to think in, by which those moderate Democrats are "far left".
Well that depends. Maybe it would work in the future, and so as an ideal is not silly -- but practically speaking, wouldn't fly right now-- given our current political, moral, religious, and philosophical state. (And by "our" I mean the United States, complete with its Puritanical and Protestant influences and strong indoctrination system).
On your figure, for example, the "No property or possessions" and "no self-defense" does indeed seem pretty extreme even to me. But perhaps it's not unworkable in the future. I don't think such a system should be considered the ultimate form of liberty and equality, however. An argument can be made in this case, of course.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Here it's useful to define some terms. What's the difference between "government" and "state"? I see them as essentially the same thing, although reserving "state" (or even government) for the Federal government isn't unreasonable.
I don't mind violence and hierarchy, provided the use of violence can be justified and the structure of authority legitimated.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Exactly, and I think it's especially important that people like you and I don't get sucked into the belief that Sanders is even all that "left" or all that radical, especially if you're a student of history and knowledgeable of countries outside the US. Rather, it's worth keeping in mind that although it's exciting that Bernie is breaking through and transforming the party and the national dialogue, he's still not all that radical or even all that "socialist" -- so it's good to talk about it in the midst of media bombardment, general naysaying, and general ignorance.
The usual political science definition of a state is a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force. I put "legitimate" in scare quotes, even though it usually isn't, because I think that begs some questions about what use of force is legitimate or not. I'm fine with that definition if we take "legitimate" as meaning "seen as rightful by the people in general", so a state is a social entity that society thinks deserves a monopoly on the use of force. But I much prefer to say a state is just a monopoly on the use of force, and leave legitimacy aside.
In contrast, a government is just a social institute that... well, does the things you expect a government to do, to facilitate a functioning society, most especially defending people from each other and the society from outside attackers (as if the latter isn't just a subset of the former; the society and the outside attackers are all just people), but other things too possibly... and doesn't have or claim a monopoly on that.
I think of it like the difference between a church and a school. Both of them are, very broadly speaking, there to "tell you what's true", but their approach to that is very different. I elaborate on this analogy extensively in my essay On Politics, Governance, and the Institutes of Justice if you're interested in seeing my whole ideal government and political philosophy.
Quoting Benkei
Nails it :100: :clap:
It is playing into the hands of those who misunderstand socialism. Accepting their definition and using it against them may score some points, but it does seem like a poor long-term choice.
I will check it out, thanks.
A well informed electorate is imperative to any and all free and fair elections, particularly when we're talking about a representative republic with democratic traditions.
Knowingly misleading the public is fraud of the very worst kind, especially if the public trusts that what you say is both believed by you and true.
That's why.
This is excellent. The control and manipulation of information is the biggest factor in why people actively vote against their interests as working and middle-class people, in this country. We don't have a gun pointed at our heads or live under the threat of being imprisoned for what we say. There's almost "too much freedom," so those in power have to care about what people think and believe, and use the media (which they own) as a tool to shape (or 'manufacture') the public's opinions.
Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" argued this years ago, back in 1988. It's just as relevant now, although the difference being the rise of the Internet. Although it can do a lot of good, it's also been hugely destructive in the sense of spreading misinformation and creating information bubbles. It's also very vulnerable to outside forces, as was seen in the '16 election and Russia's attempts at swinging it.
That's a pointed underestimation of the ignorance-plague currently impestilating the US. I follow two Trump pages on Facebook. This ignorance is epidemic. Millions have been taken in, and not just sweet old ladies.
No one. Elections don’t occur on social media.
What we’re seeing is the democratization of information. People no longer run to the gatekeepers of the media, and that scares them. Their fight against “fake news” is little different than China’s fight against “fake news” nearly a decade ago, which ultimately led to more censorship and state control.
Probably the same type of people that choose their car insurance based on television commercials...oh, and of course those who throw food away as soon as it reaches the "best by" date...oh, and the anti-vaxers...this is sort of fun, I wonder how many I could come up with, haha (and would I eventually hit one that reveals my own gullibility? :yikes:)
Quoting Pfhorrest
Oooh, my parents don't do social media much, but my dad will definitely believe anything his friends tell him (no matter how glaring their lack of expertise is). My mom is a bit more critical of new info.
So what kind of personality profile is this? Is there a difference between this kind of willful manipulation and the plain old self-imposed limitations of what sources and opinions we wish to follow? If its the former, are these subtle lies or outeageous ones? If its outrageous ones, I ask again, what is the personality profile of this hapless non critically discerning person?
Plenty of repeat business on Fox news... and some out of the president's own mouth.
Quoting Xtrix
I have several Chomsky books. He's prone to take things a bit farther than I.
I think that there's less of a huge goal based conspiracy of uber wealthy people calling all the shots and more small shots being called over a long time period that have had disasterous results on the overwhelming majority of Americans.
All politics is manufacturing consent though. That much is certain.
So people who like higher quality foods?
:rofl:
The only choices available were all against their interests.... Not sure if that can be attested to control and manipulation of information or just plain ole untrustworthy insincere political leadership.
Here in the UK, the populists most certainly did manipulate the information and media, including social media and persuaded two specific constituencies to vote leave in the EU referendum. So clearly voting against their interests. The unfortunate thing is that it is probably irreversible now.
Somewhat yes.
For example I happen to be in a country where the traditional right-wing liberal / libertarian political parties don't exist: all of the so-called right-wing parties are staunch defenders of the welfare state and have the objective of a strong government. American libertarianism simply doesn't exist. Yet many would be interested in it here too. Unlikely not a large group, but still. Especially many of the expats that have moved to the US are totally in love with the do-it-yourself libertarianism and the lightness of the government.
Yet about the issue of referring to what "the people" want:
One has to understand that there isn't or hasn't never been "the people" with one agenda, one World-view. Perhaps totalitarian dictatorships excluded. One part or segment of the "the people", the voters, can indeed have no representation and can have nobody talking from their viewpoint and furthering their views. Yet this doesn't mean that there wouldn't be among "the people" totally different opinions.
Every popular movement will always say they represent the "true people" who have been silenced / forgotten and they themselves know these real people. Where it becomes extremely annoying and quite condescending is when some have the view that some people are "wrong" in their views, so wrong that they "vote against their real interests". Really? they are just so stupid or what? And the person saying this isn't???
And if there are various usages of the one term?
Then we have to live with a variety of (at times contradictory) definitions, or come up with a new word.
All our talk about "socialism," without some kind of qualification, is meaningless.
So does Chomsky.
Yes, it's ambiguous at least.
I doubt it. It doesn't seem like it has much effect, and if it does it's in ways that really aren't measurable. I never questioned whether Russia interfered, for example, but really never bought the narrative that the interference helped Trump in any way.
Maybe, but Chomsky never argues for conspiracies. That's a very common misunderstanding. It's not what I'm saying either.
That's a good point. Remember too that the biggest voting bloc in the US is "non-voters." I think this is precisely for the reason you mentioned: no real choice. The two party system in this country is odd -- we don't even have a labor party, which is common in the others. It's two factions of the business class, and has been for a long time.
But I was talking mostly about those who DO still care and still vote. In that case, propaganda is very important. But it does indeed apply even to keeping a two-party system in tact. The media paints a picture of "left" and "right," especially on social issues, but never operates on the assumption that this system is strange and never reflects the needs and interests of the majority of Americans.
This is another reason why Bernie is different. Although running in the democratic party, he's sui genesis different than others and is running a campaign unlike any other in 100 years just based on fundraising alone.
Not every popular movement says that, and certainly not Bernie's. What's said is that the majority of Americans support various policies -- 90% or so want universal background checks on guns, nearly 70% want either universal healthcare or a public option, etc. To point out that there's many people in this country with a lot of different interests and needs isn't saying anything at all. It's obvious and almost childish to point out.
I'm also not saying people are voting against their "real" interests. You added that. Try listening to other people without projecting -- you learn a lot more.
People do indeed vote against their interests. Not their "real" interests in the sense you mean -- like I know what their "real" interests are and they stupidly vote against them. They themselves acknowledge they would benefit from certain policies, like extending medicare, but vote for politicians that refuse to implement such policies. That's voting against one's interests. And they have their reasons, too: they're willing to stomach a candidate they don't even like for other reasons. What are these "other reasons"? Usually social issues like abortion, guns, immigration, religion, anti-liberalism, being anti-"elites," etc. This is what is seen when you talk to people, and it shows up in the polls as well. Most of it is complete nonsense, yet they vote on the basis of it.
So the question then becomes: why do they care so much about these particular issues that they're willing to vote for someone they dislike and who in many other ways are against their interests?
That's exactly where the media come in. When it's beaten into your head for 30 years that immigrants are destroying the country, that liberals want to secularize everything and take God and prayer out of schools, that the government is trying to disarm us gradually so we can't defend ourselves when they come for us, etc. Then yes, it's easy to see why people vote against their interests.
Re the ignorance epidemic in the US:
5WPR Survey Reveals 38% of Beer-Drinking Americans Wouldn't Buy Corona Now
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/5wpr-survey-reveals-38-of-beer-drinking-americans-wouldnt-buy-corona-now-301012225.html
I hope this is fake news, but I'm afraid it isn't.
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting Xtrix
Set some time aside to read the comments on the Trump Facebook page. They believe anything they want to believe. Anything.
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/
So in the end your saying voters are voters are voting against their interests and say about the reasons that "most of it is complete nonsense". Couldn't be more condescending, because I assume you don't think that you yourself are voting like this.
Of course people have to take the whole package when the vote for one candidate. And even if they would agree on with something, some other things can make them not to go with the candidate. And just to say this would be just "complete nonsense" may not so be true.
If there's one thing that I would see as a "cautionary red light" about Bernie is that one of his economics advisors is Stephanie Kelton who is a strong proponent of MMT, Modern Monetary Theory, the view basically that government debt doesn't matter, see for example article The Economist Who Believes The Government Should just Print More Money. Personally I'm not so convinced about MMT, especially as for other countries the old rules of the game do seem to matter.
Bernie seems to be old school politician and of course she (Kelton) is just an advisor, but it may be a tempting way forward to keep the campaign promises. The GOP won't give any room for Bernie, of course. Hence likely there will be strong opposition to raising taxes and hence to pay with more debt is quite obvious answer when your advisors take the same stance of Dick Cheney that "deficits don't matter". Yes, debt doesn't matter... until it does is my view.
The Atlantic Article
Not fake, per se, but misleading.
Thanks.
That may look like voting against your own interests to some, but that's because they are projecting their own "big issues" on those that voted differently. Obviously, if you are more community-minded and think social justice is very important, it looks like Trump voters voted against their own interests. And they did by that specific standard but it would be wrong to think they voted irrationally. They still voted in favour of other personal interests.
Now, if the political landscape would offer more policy combinations, that would include for instance, "lower taxes but in favour of abortion" you'd see people would actually be capable to truly vote in accordance with their interests. So don't blame the voters, blame the system.
Your argument works for the pro-life side of things.
But voting for lower taxes against social programs such as universal healthcare is precisely an example of such voters going against their own interests.
This means voters do not vote against their interest, but that they prioritise their interests and vote accordingly. What you do is project your own priorities on them and then don't understand their voting behaviour (how can they not see that lower taxes and no universal healthcare is bad for them!). Answer: they don't think it's as important as wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It's not ignorant, stupid or irrational to do so.
No, I understood your argument fully. I'm saying that it only applies to certain issues, and that you listed one in which it is a rational decision, and one in which it isn't.
Just because they believe lower taxes are better for them doesn't mean it isn't an irrational belief and therefore an irrational vote.
There are a lot of assumptions underlying your conclusion it is irrational to believe lower taxes are better. You can disagree with these people, but you cannot claim someone holding that position is irrational.
No one is saying that millionaires would be voting against their own interests by voting against healthcare.
Understanding why someone is voting for something and understanding that this vote is irrational are not only not incompatible, they necessarily go together. It is because I understand why people are against taxes that I know it's against their own interests and irrational.
I think calling people to their faces irrational might alienate them and be just undiplomatic all around. But I don't think laying out why X is not in their best interest but Y is does or should alienate anyone. People who do feel alienated by that (i.e., by a rational presentation of the other view) are opting out of the conversation from the get-go and thus lost causes.
If you were a single person household.
Yes.
This is a good constructive comment, with which I agree with, Benkei.
And I actually do blame the system: the fixed duopoly landscape doesn't create the fear of losing the voters. Evidentially after at least 8 years likely the voters will be so fed up of the current party that they will swing to the other one. So you just can sit out the opposition time in a think tank or in the private sector ready to go back in four or eight years.
A two party, two agenda choice simply cannot represent all the various views and mixes of opinions people have as you stated. A two option race makes people usually to pick the less bad option. And typically in the US if the economy is doing OK, the advantage is to the ruling administration. Yet now the political field is so polarized, it's hard to tell how it will end. Thinking that people are simply irrational, uninformed and hence vote against their interests is in my view condescending. Yet that doesn't mean that totally absurd mudslinging won't have an impact.
Being pro-life is generally a whole, consistent worldview.
Being against taxes and healthcare tends to run into inconsistencies and contradictions the moment you look closely at it.
I don’t get how it is against my interests to vote for lower taxes when I am interested in paying less taxes.
Depends why you want lower taxes.
Because I prefer to pay less money to the government.
Because.....?
Because it’s my money, not theirs.
And right there you've shown you don't even understand what taxes and the government are and what their purpose is.
That’s not true. I just don’t get how it is against my interests to vote for lower taxes when I am interested in paying less taxes.
Still waiting for a good reason on your end.
Because you cannot defend your claim.
Defend against what? :rofl:
Why won’t you lay out why X is not in my best interest but Y is? Are you opting out of the conversation, and thus a lost cause?
To continue the conversation I asked what your reason for X is. You haven't offered me anything aside from versions of "because I don't wanna."
There are some reasonably irreducible claims, but "I don't want to pay taxes" is not one of them.
So, if that's your entire reasoning, I rest my case on the irrationality of your position.
That’s not what I said, but I doubt accuracy is paramount here. It’s my money; I earned it; I know best what to do with it. It’s really that simple. If you cannot explain how that is irrational or don’t want to answer or cannot say how that is against my best interest, that’s fine, but just know that I was genuinely curious.
So you're sticking with "because I just don't wanna."
Well, when you have an argument, get back to me.
But this is a blatant straw man. I clearly did not say that. I suppose evasions and dodging is the best approach given the sheer emptiness of your claims.
Sorry you feel that way.
Still waiting for an actual argument.
I'm beginning to get the impression that the claim "people vote against their own interests" is always levied against people who vote differently than the claimant. He voted differently than me, therefor he voted against his own interests. I could easily claim the same of you, for example. So I think it's more of a condescending accusation rather than useful comment.
What is lacking here is the question how much would you pay for things like just to take on example, a working police and judicial system? Or put it another way, how much ought to be paid for you to move to Mexico or Honduras where basically the legal system doesn't work? Tax rates are lower in both countries, so I guess you wouldn't have to be paid much.
Certainly as little as is required. But absent any sort of audit of where the tax money goes I fear that the question of how much tax money is required for a working police and judicial system is a difficult one.
:wink: let the games begin
Quoting Benkei
1. If the trickle-down effect worked at all (which is what I think your first idea there is alluding to) then America would already have solved poverty and have a flourishing middle class, because we do have most of the money globally. While wages have gone up for the 1% however and they have received countless tax cuts, for decades the wages of workers have been stagnant and their costs of living have gone up.
2. Your scenario sounds cushy on the face of it. But bam, your wife gets pregnant with a special needs child and/or you get a permanent, costly, and disabling disease and/or the market crashes and/or you simply get fired because of down-sizing/you were replaced by a robot/you were replaced by someone younger.... Etc etc etc. None of these things are entirely in your control, and all of them mean you're just one step away from financial hardship or even ruin. The social safety net is there to make sure that even if tragedy happens to you, you won't become destitute. Only if you're so rich that you can afford any and all of those disasters, would it make sense to say taxes aren't in your interest.
But then there's also just the average day math. You have health insurance, but how much does it cost you over a year or a lifetime? How much would you have to pay in taxes for the same thing but better (because you'd be guaranteed coverage)? You'll pay less overall with universal healthcare, because you're not paying the salaries of millionaire and billionaire corporate execs.
Which do currently exist and are open and available to the public, just fyi.
This also helps to stabilize the economy and reduce the severity of downturns.
This may be true but I doubt you can track your own dollars to their final destination, for instance whether you are funding healthcare or the droning of children overseas.
I don't really see why or how in the world the destination of the total versus the individual dollars makes a difference.
Theoretically, it would matter to someone who wants to know what sorts of things her hard-earned dollars are funding.
You're contributing to the total.
Interesting to note, when you pay for private insurance (or really anything in the private sector) you get even less information.
Also interesting to note, if you did want that info available, you'd have to be willing to pay the higher taxes for such a complicated demand.
Your money goes somewhere, certainly, but someone else gets to decide exactly where. For all you know you could be funding children in cages.
You're funding the total of it.
These are all insurable events that don't require government involvement. I've got insurance except for becoming jobless but with my skill set that will be when hell freezes over. Why should I pay taxes for those people who go destitute because they failed to take out insurance? Where's the fairness in that?
Quoting Artemis
Imagine how much worse things would be if a lot of money would've been wasted on taxes and ineffectual government programs? That wages are stagnant are a reality of supply and demand. With the loose immigration, sanctuary cities and whatnot it is no wonder that workers wages are stagnating as supply continues to increase. Close the borders, stop doling out green cards and this will solve itself.
Quoting Artemis
No country covers all types of care, or care at any price. So guaranteed coverage is really a lie. Government tends to be far less efficient in allocating resources and the US litigious society makes healthcare expensive due to insurance cost and administrative overhead.
Furthermore, the best healthcare in the world is available in the US, because hospitals compete with each other driving up quality. Countries with universal healthcare have fixed maximum rates for medical personnel because otherwise their system would be as expensive as the USA and this stifles innovation.
Haha, yes...and believe that at 11:59pm the food is "high quality" but 2 minutes later it is no longer of the same "high quality" because of a date stamped on the box.
Dang, seems difficult to nail down. It seems to be completely natural (the tendency to accept opinions we agree with, without being critical), so it almost seems we should be looking at the small percent of people that value critical assessment (in nearly all cases, most seem to value it occasionally).
Quoting schopenhauer1
I would think the "willful manipulation" is a natural result. People take advantage of people's tendencies. Similar to online advertising lining up with my history of searches and purchases. There is also probably a fair amount of non-willful manipulation. Just algorithms sharing opinions I am likely to agree with...this just has the negative effect of making my opinions FEEL more accurate.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I would think some subtle, some outrageous, and many that the speaker (or poster/ or re-poster) actually believed to be true (so not lies, just wrong).
Quoting schopenhauer1
As you can tell from above, I am unsure, but one common thread between these "hapless" individuals would seem to be persistent ignorance. Notice this does not mean uneducated, although, often, that is a start. It is more about a lack of desire to continue learning, or even worse, no need to learn because they know all the important bits :roll:.
Most of the people who are quick to accept the outrageous lies are EXACTLY the type of person who never fact checks anything. I am sure you know the type (they are everywhere)...they actually get mad when I use google to confirm what they are saying. They view it as an insult, and assume I think they are lying. On the other hand, I get excited when people get their phone out to fact check my words. "Wow, you are actually interested, great! Odds are my facts and figures are merely estimates based on memory so thank you, let's make sure."
I don't think that you understand the question. The question isn't not just about audits, tax payer money being poorly handled or somebody stealing the money. The question is if the judicial system exists at all, if there is a justice state. Or if there are just a bunch of competing gangs pretending to be the "government institutions".
You see the question is if you can trust the police at the first place. For many Westerners this might sound completely strange, but is reality in many places. What if the police just stops you and you have to pay them a small amount to avoid being put into a jail cell for a night, for let's say that you look too gringo to them or your car is too flashy. Or what if I would just bribe a judge to get a paper that says your house is actually my property and come with a gang of heavily armed police and throw you and your family out from your house. When ownership of property is 'negotiable' in this way, the risk of even owning a house are quite high.
As you hopefully have noticed, if a thing like the judicial system doesn't work, you actually don't have those liberties and rights that the American Republic and the vast majority of Republics and Constitutional Monarchies are built on. Liberia might have had a copy of the Constitution of the US one, but that didn't mean much when the country plunged into chaos of the first Liberian Civil War.
If you pay private insurance, you're paying more than you would with taxes with less coverage. You can get covered for everything I mentioned and more for less $$$ overall when you choose a socialized system.
Actually, America has a much poorer healthcare system than other countries with socialized healthcare systems. We rank 55th globally for maternal health outcomes.... Behind Russia! Our sworn mortal enemy! (Jk)
America likes to pretend it and its basically unfettered capitalism with almost zero social safety net are the holy grail for innovation, but in reality, we're really scrambling to stay in the world leadership for that.
The top two are Switzerland and Sweden, which both have heavily socialist democratic governments.
I get what you're saying, and I agree. The arrangement between state and citizen needs to be just.
That's why I don't think one can trust the police in particular, and the government in general, because any state that makes the plunder of its citizens legal is at the outset unjust. When a state has the wholesale power to both defend man and his property from plunder while at the same time plundering man and his property for the benefit of the government and legislators, we have by its very organization an unjust arrangement. And people will abuse their power. That's why it needs to be reduced, in my opinion.
Bernie is 100% electable. Attention just has to be drawn more to what the government has given the public(like the touchscreen, Elon Musk, the roads they drive on to get to their jobs, the Intellectual Property laws the wealthy use to stifle their competition etc.) than what the wealthy have 'given' the people, through never ending subsidies the government gave the wealthy to begin with.
Touche.
:wink:
Of course. But given that's true, how can we possibly point to Russian misinformation specifically as the cause, or significant factor in, Trump's getting elected? Given other voting patterns, it doesn't seem likely.
Most of the social issues are fabricated nonsense, yes. I don't blame the people necessarily, I place a greater amount of blame, as I stated, on the media, which have conditioned them to care about this nonsense. They do it on the left, too, all the time. This isn't a left/right thing.
Quoting Benkei
That's not true. As I said above, this is coming from the voters themselves. First, most know they have little choice, and are forced into choosing between two people they don't even like and who have very little connection to their lives or needs. Second, if they vote anyway, they vote for irrational reasons -- guns, immigration, abortion, etc. You can claim, of course, that this is in fact rational and simply reflects a different set of priorities as mine, but when you factor in the influence of media and polling trends it's hard to believe. While I'm sure people care about guns and abortion and immigration, the fact that they care at all -- and especially the importance they place on them -- is largely shaped by propaganda. That goes for the "left" as well. There's plenty of documentation about this; shaping public opinion is a big business.
They precisely did vote irrationally. They vote against their interests (irrationally) when one person's policies would have had an empirically demonstrable positive effect on your community and the other exactly the opposite, yet you vote for him or her anyway. I'm talking about specific communities, but the argument can be made nationally as well.
If you can't see why, when given a choice -- even if it's a choice between two things you don't like -- you choose not the least damaging to yourself and your country, but for the more damaging candidate, I don't know what to say exactly. Sounds like you're arguing that electing Donald Trump was a rational choice. The rational choice was Clinton. This is apart from party loyalty. Any rational observer, if they are rational, would have chosen Clinton as she was the least damaging. This shouldn't even be controversial. To paint the picture that people just have different priorities and opinions and it's all a wash and all rational is weak indeed. This isn't about party bias. It's a factual claim. If you need to have that discussion I'm happy to, but it should be taken for granted.
The real question is simply why people do that. It's not because they're stupid -- there are other factors involved. Again, see Manufacturing Consent and Strangers in Their Own Land. Very interesting indeed. To argue the electorate, or the "market" for that matter, consists of informed people making rational choices is simply incorrect.
"Blame" is the wrong word to use, so I retract that. But even when using the word, my emphasis has been exactly the opposite: I don't "blame" voters at all. In fact, I'm interested in why they make irrational choices. Do I say "You people are stupid"? No, I don't say that. It is indeed the "system" but also the media. Education plays a role as well, of course.
By voting for Clinton, there were plenty of interests not included in her proposals. I had to hold my nose. It's quite true that the two-party system is a joke, and I don't think anyone would argue against that.
If someone voted, hypothetically, for a man who stated he would most likely use nuclear weapons and did so because he was pro-choice, would that be rational? After all, it's that person's priorities. They like chocolate, I like vanilla. It's a wash. Both just as rational.
Nonsense.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to this idea if we're only talking economics, but if we're talking social or foreign policy issues (within reason no one is talking about nuking the world) I don't quite get it. In any case, many of the actual community issues are left up to the town or the state rather than federal government.
Yes, you can.
When you say "believe lower taxes are better," you're being imprecise. "Better" is meaningless without a context. Better for whom and for what?
If all the evidence shows that lowing taxes will help you and your community, and you give this proper priority, then to vote against lowering taxes is irrational. Why you made this irrational choice is interesting and what we're trying to figure out. It does not make you stupid, but it does mean you made a choice against your stated interests and hence an irrational one. That usually means: a choice based on emotion, whim, feelings, or ignorance. By "ignorance" in this case I mean simply being uninformed. That's often not the "fault"of the person making the choice. People vote for religious reasons based on the Bible, they vote one way because their family does so or their friends are doing it, or because they have been indoctrinated in some fashion.
There are all kinds of reasons and causes that explain why an irrational choice was made. But let's start by agreeing that there is such a thing. By your argument, there isn't.
You know what best to do with it, that's fine. Then are you against taxes altogether? Why not keep all of it, ideally, since you know how best to use it?
If that's not the case, and you simply prefer paying less, then why? Is it too much of a burden, or do you not agree with where the money goes?
What if by lowering state taxes, there's less revenue and cuts need to be made to social services, education, infrastructure, etc. Are those things not a priority for you? Should it all be privatized, in that case?
What if it's proven to you that raising taxes would have improved your life dramatically, and by voting for lower taxes you ended up screwing yourself over. Were you simply wrong, or were you irrational?
It's not intended to be condescending. I'm exploring the factors that account for irrational choices. They're made all the time. Conservative minded people do not have a monopoly on it, nor did I claim that. And it's not simply "you don't agree with me, therefore you're irrational."
People make irrational choices all the time, for many reasons. If you decide on a goal and to your best ability, given the available evidence, make a choice which you've concluded is in service of that goal, then you're being rational. There's always a chance you're wrong, of course. Mistakes happen, etc.
I agree.
It may be a more productive discussion if you would just lay out the problematic beliefs that many Americans have in a way that will compel those capable of looking at things anew, to do so. There are a wealth of common misconceptions and (mis)understandings that a very large swathe of everyday working class Americans and small business owners alike maintain and/or believe to be the case.
What counts as "the rational choice" is always and forever more determined solely and exclusively by virtue of what the individual already believes to be the case.
The rational choice is whatever the person believes to be the case? I don't really follow you here. Are you arguing, therefore, that either choice was rational if the person making the choice believed it to be?
What if the conservative's goal is "preserve traditional marriage" or "have more money in my pocket by paying less taxes." How are their decisions irrational?
Having money is absolutely an end in itself. Money can provide security and freedom. Any working adult should be able to recognize this.
No, the rational choice is not merely whatever the person believes to be the case. The rational choice is whatever choice follows from those beliefs. If I may I'd like to further elaborate, since it seems needed...
What counts as the rational choice is entirely dependent upon the belief system of the agent doing the choosing. When one is rational, one is consistent, one is 'logical; and in being so one makes decisions based upon their own belief about the way things are.
All individuals will make decisions about which of two choices is best based their pre-existing belief system(world-view). Rational ones will choose what makes the most sense according to what they already believe, and irrational ones will choose what does not make the most sense according to they already believe.
What counts as a rational decision is all about forming, having, and/or holding beliefs that are consistent or amenable with and/or to one another(coherency). It's not about making decisions based upon true belief.
Quoting Xtrix
Not exactly. Either choice is, was, and will always be a rational one, if and only if, it followed from what they already believed to be the case. When someone makes a choice that makes perfect sense in light of many or most of their pre-existing beliefs, then they are involved in rational thinking. That's just how it works.
Being rational is all about being consistent in speech and behaviour and avoiding self-contradiction. Perhaps the following will help make my point clear...
If someone thought that getting rid of career politicians like Hillary Clinton was better than having someone like Trump in office, then it would be perfectly consistent and thus rational for them to vote Trump.
If someone thought that getting rid of career politicians like Clinton was not as important as not allowing someone like Trump to hold the highly esteemed office of the presidency of The United States of America, then it would be perfectly consistent and thus rational for them to vote Clinton.
How is your hypothetical income so high and savings so low? What are you hypothetically blowing all your hypothetical money on?
If someone believed that the government was corrupted by monetary influences and that Clinton is, was, and has been one of the ones reaping tremendous monetary personal benefit from those practices, at the expense of themselves, and that such people need to be removed nearly all costs, in addition to also believing that Donald Trump was not and would not become one of those people, then the rational choice for them is, was, and will be Trump.
Funny question for someone who lives in Ojai.
So $100k is definitely well above the usual kind of average (about twice the median). My point though is that only $8k in savings is tiny for that kind of income. I had saved that much after about five years of making leas than a quarter of that income, and now have several times that after about seven years (since I last went flat broke) of making around half of that. And I live in a very expensive area, although I live way below market rates for that area.
Mortgage makes up about 33%.
Upkeep House 2.5%
Gas, water, light, phones is another 5%,
all insurances, including health insurance 5%
Car and petrol 4%
Daycare kids 3%
4 Holidays a year 17-20%
Food 10%
Clothing and birthday gifts 10%
We also just build an extension to the house and bought a lot of furniture,so the buffer is lower than I'd have it normally.
Probably the main difference is that I don't need to save for my pension from my disposable income. So I really only need savings to replace stuff if it breaks.
There's a difference between the quality of healthcare available and the number of people that can afford it. If people don't take out insurance and can't afford healthcare out of pocket then that's not my problem. That the majority of americans make stupid choices by not getting insurance, or waiting with it until they have a pre-existing condition, doesn't mean I should pay for those bad decisions; your statistics are therefore meaningless. I might pay more for my insurance but I have access to the best healthcare the world has to offer.
That really depends on what metric. Most high tech? USA. Most patents filed? USA.
According to what I've found upper middle class income for a family is between 100k-350k, but we're also paying much, much less in taxes then you are. I think for your income tax bracket on a federal basis you'd be paying 24% and some states have no income tax. I only pull around 50k from my job but I wouldn't be surprised if our after-tax take home pay was similar (I take home around $4k/month) but I pay very little in taxes when April rolls around.
You (the American Benkei) are benefitting from the social safety net. All American hospitals are dependent on Medicare funding. Your local hospital likely wouldnt be there if not for Medicare.
Contemporary American healthcare came into existence after WW2, heavily funded publicly and privately. What's happened is that the private funding has shrunk as America de-industrialized and companies offer less in terms of benefits.
Though 91 percent of Americans have health insurance, that reduction in benefits means we're all more dependent on the federal government to secure our healthcare infrastructure.
The question isn't so much where he falls on the political spectrum when compared to much of Europe. It's where he falls on the spectrum in the US and how far away he is from the center in the US. He is quite far in the sense that America is a very conservative country in the scheme of things with relatively minor variations in political ideologies.
All of this is to concede much of what many say of America, which is that there has always been minimal choice among candidates. Assuming that true, it isn't bizarre at all that some would find larger variations from the center than expected to be a radical departure, and one would expect those trying to win an election to point out that their opponent is a radical. It's the theory of relativity I guess. A radical is determined by where you stand.
I think I pay around 25% to 30%. It's hard to know after state, federal, local, and sales tax and it's so complicated. I pay a high school grad at a strip mall place to do my tax returns. He tries different numbers in the program until we get it like we like. My charitable deductions vary depending upon what I say my old junk was worth that I took down to the Goodwill. Some years I'm quite the philanthropist according to my tax returns.
Speaking of charity, I give I think $10 a month to a philosophy forum, or maybe it's $5. I don't really remember. When you're big money like me, you don't have time to watch every penny.
What decisions?
It's useless to talk about things like this in too general terms. I'm not advocating for an algorithm or a rule that will work in any given situation, which is why I try using specific examples. So regarding what I was saying earlier, if "preserve traditional marriage" is a goal of theirs, fine. We can argue about why they have this goal, as I want to do and in which there's interesting research about, but what's more important is:
1) The manufactured irrationality of their hierarchy. Meaning sacrificing all other values, which are in themselves (or collectively) of greater importance and greater benefit, for one value -- like transgender bathroom rights or traditional marriage or anything like that -- because you "feel" like it, is not only a mistake but an irrational choice. (To argue the 9/11 hijackers were acting irrationally, despite them clearly placing ultimate importance on and acting on one particular goal, isn't improper.)
2) The fact that even their choices made for their stated goals often have the opposite effect. By this I mean: polling will indicate that healthcare is a top concern, that people are aware that medicare expansion would directly improve their healthcare, yet they vote for a candidate who does not want to expand medicare because he promises less gun restriction, strict immigration laws, and perserving traditional marriage. That's still irrational. Most of the time, however, it's simply because someone has an "R" or a "D" next to their names.
To discuss Democrats -- they act irrationally too, when they're given a choice of two candidates and opt for one of them based solely on "electability."
Irrationality abounds.
A choice that follows from "those beliefs" is a rational choice. Any beliefs?
Quoting creativesoul
I think this does have something to do with rationality, yes, although I'm not sure about "true belief." If decisions are made in pursuit of some goal because you have determined, based on available evidence and information, that this is the best way of achieving your goal, then that's rational -- in my view.
It could turn out that you've made a blunder, that your premises were false, that you overlooked something, etc. -- in which case the question becomes whether that was avoidable or not, about effort, about intention, etc. Or that there simply wasn't enough information. I would still count the choice as a rational one, because at the time it was.
If a decision was determined to be the best -- or even "believed" to be the correct one given your goal -- but was based simply on things like intuition, gut feeling, emotion, whim, habit, reaction, reflex, etc. -- it's irrational. That's not using reason to make decisions, it's using other factors. I assume you agree with this?
_________
As a digression, I want to be clear about one thing: I'm not some kind of Ayn Rand-esque "rationalist." I think we use what's called reason and logic very rarely, in fact. And that this is generally a good thing.
We're usually doing things in the world, and if you look at what we do (including thinking), much of it is "default." Stop and take a look some time (it's getting less likely to observe these days, as we're overstimulated 24/7). This is the realm of automaticity, habit, custom, etc., in which we all seem to live most of the time.
The point, to me, is to get that "irrational" and habitual aspect in line with, or used in the service of, one's goals and ultimate plans for one's life, decided rationally. Human action can be cultivated and shaped, as is well known, and we see the results in the great masters of various skills and domains. None of this implies we walk around in a theoretical or "rational" state or anything like that. We're only philosophers and scientists some of the time.
But I do indeed digress.
Not to me. Just because a decision is internally consistent with one's belief system does not make the decision, nor the belief system itself, rational.
Quoting creativesoul
I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with you. Like I said above, it's really not a matter of consistency.
A child believes he can fly and jumps out a window. The action was consistent with his worldview and his beliefs and, thus, rational. According to you.
Devils advocacy aside for a moment, would you prefer the current American model, all things being equal? The tax rate would be about half of wherever you are.
I saw the bills and the total in two years would've bankrupted me twice over. I didn't pay anything though as this was fully covered by insurance. I took 40 hours of paid care leave and called in sick the first few days, which is accepted in the Netherlands - it's assumed stress in such an event means you cannot work anyways.
Later in the year I agreed to take every other Wednesday off and work the other Wednesday from home to allow my wife some time off from taking care of the kids.
What would this have looked like in the US system?
The cost of insurance and what it covers depends on factors like the size of the subscriber network, employer contribution, age, etc. For extensive medical care it's likely there would be deductibles, copays, and coverage limits, even for good plans.
In regard to paid leave...
Say, a decision to vote for or support a certain candidate.
You seem to be advocating for a different position (or at least very much expanding) on what you were saying earlier. Here you say:
So, in the case of a proponent of traditional marriage he votes for a candidate who supports that and donates to that cause he'd be rational by that definition, but now you're saying that's not enough and that those goals are in question.
I feel like you're on solid ground with your first view. It basically takes the form "If X, then Y" with maybe Y having support of empirical data or logic. What you're supporting here is Kant's hypothetical imperative. Don't question the goal, only the means. Unless maybe the goal is in service to some higher goal. It might not be in the conservative's case though; some things (or some value) could be seen as ends in themselves.
You're talking about weighing values here, right? If you look at moral psychology liberals tend to highly value care and fairness while conservatives tend to place relatively equal weight on care, fairness, loyalty, sanctity, and respecting authority (this is from Haidt's research.)
Frankly, I don't see any easy way to resolve this. I mean don't get me wrong there there are insane religious extremists who would really highly value, say, sanctity and in group loyalty but I have no idea how I would go about convincing them that it's "rational" to adopt a more balanced view when their beliefs are tied up in their scriptures and weird psychological quirks. I just don't know.
I would tend not to use the word "irrational" to describe the 9/11 hijackers. They had a goal and they accomplished it well.
This is fair. It ties back to the hypothetical imperative mentioned earlier. If your goal is A, and B has been empirically shown to be detrimental to A then choosing to go with B is irrational all else being equal.
You've touched, I think, on the heart of the issue. But again, I don't accept the idea that because neither you nor I have a foolproof way of convincing people to change their minds or that they're being irrational, that this somehow makes us wrong in our assessment that they are being irrational (in the sense I meant above).
I don't think that truth, moral or otherwise, is always equal. I do believe there are many truths, just as there are many philosophies, religions, and scientific theories throughout history. There's perspective and interpretation, etc. But it is possible to judge these things concretely. They stick around for long enough and exert the influence they do in the world to this very day (Aristotle, Jesus, Newton, etc) because there's something fundamentally right about all of them. Other perspectives and variations, less so or completely bogus. The question in the latter case becomes, Why do people believe weird things?
That, ultimately, is what I was getting at. You and I, and hopefully others, who show up for this conversation, on this forum, with the assumption that many people are acting irrationally, against their interests, can then have a more fruitful conversation -- cooperatively trying to figure out that question. If we get too stuck on words, the project can't get off the ground. I don't think it's wrong to engage in the philosophy, of course, especially given this is a philosophy forum, but given we're in a political thread it has the potential to slow things down to a crawl.
Why do conservatives vote against their own (economic) interests? I add "economic" so we don't get caught up in social issues, which I realize is often used as justification for voting Republican but which is precisely why I believe they're being irrational, as I maintain that it is precisely these social issues that have been manufactured through years of manipulation and propaganda. While there had to be some sentiment already there, the media has been used in the service of drawing out and intensifying these sentiments.
Look at the current Republican coalition. Their demographics are: older people, Whites, males, evangelicals, gun rights advocates, pro-life advocates, etc. Breaking each demographic down, one could trace much of this to values and morals based on religious beliefs, specifically a Protestant Christian philosophy of which the US is unique. Our Puritanical heritage remains today. But it's also -- and there's much overlap -- racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia and, increasingly, anti-intellectualism. Above all else, a great deal of the voting, I suspect, and certainly behavior, is a result of absolute hatred for liberals. Liberals are now seen as the enemy: anti-American, anti-Christian. Homosexual atheists who want to open the country to everyone else and create a communistic dystopia.
The Republican establishment has, over the last 40 years or so (maybe more if you count the roots of this in Barry Goldwater), have adapted their agenda to bring in these groups. Reagan and Bush were pro-choice, remember.
Through their media -- talk radio and Fox News -- they've shaped the minds of millions of Americans to the point we see today. It's extremely dangerous.
Yes, I'd like the discussion to progress so I try to stay concise with my answers. The reason we can have a fruitful conversation is for a few reasons: a) We're hopefully both hoping to discuss the issue and flush out the other person's ideas as opposed to challenging them on every aspect and just hoping to beat them (i.e. we are engaging in good faith.) Another reason we're able to have the conversation is that we both share common assumptions.
Ok, my issue is more when people use "rationality" as a sledgehammer which ties in with my next comment.
Well, I start with the idea that people are inherently situated (i.e. we're not disembodied minds capable of viewing the world perfectly rationally except in rare circumstances.) I believe that we're molded by our own unique psychological characteristics to a considerable extent, and for that reason I am extremely wary about me - with my own weird psychological quirks and weird experiences - laying down that phrase "irrational" on others when rationality, by its very nature, is universal. It would basically be me claiming that I can stand outside my own body and experiences so it's a very strong claim.
Some people just love things that I don't. I recently talked to a guy that loved drag racing. Is that irrational given the risk? You tell me (I personally think it's insane but I don't know the kind of pleasure he gets from it.) Personally, I love poker and I've been playing for a while which also entails a degree of risk. Am I irrational? I had a friend who grew up poor his entire life and had finally attained some degree of financial stability blow his savings on an expensive car. Am I - who grew up in a very different environment - going to label his action "irrational?" Yes, financially, I think we would both agree that the action was irrational but from his perspective owning a nice car finally means one "made it" or had attained a certain status - something that I wouldn't be conscious of owing to my class upbringing. He wasn't only considering the financial implications of the action when he bought it. When decisions start cutting across domains things can get very muddy.
If you have a more full proof, all-encompassing method of determining which goals are rational then let me know.
:cheer:
You do understand that with this kind of spending you are in the elite when viewed globally? 4 Holidays a year is worth 17-20% of your your income? Who do spend 17-20% on holidays in the World globally speaking?
In the World, the highest income quintile spends on food 8,2%, so you quite are very close to them if not in them. When you add up those Holiday expenditures etc. you are quite likely in that highest quintile.
You should accept that you are in the Global Elite as, well, as I am. We can talk about how well the welfare state take cares about of our children, but we are among the elite in the global perspective.
Well if you look at life expectancy we are WAY down the list. Cuba is still beating the USA (I think we spend 10 times what they do). Although healthcare can't take all the blame, the way we prove our freedom by getting super fat probably contributes.
Quoting praxis
Damn. If I was planning to have children I would not be raising them in this country :groan:
Born and raised a proud American, I must ... agree.
Nope, you do not. For example, part of the reason for such dismal maternal health outcomes is lack of access, yes. But, even when you take that out of the equation, women in America die at higher rates as do their babies, and have general more health risks. Part of this is due to a capitalistic healthcare system. For example, Doctors being much more willing to conduct costly surgeries like c-sections often when they are unnecessary and pose a greater risk to the mother and baby than a natural birth would.
But even if it were true that you could in theory have the best healthcare in the world if you were just rich enough... your family income of 100k does not put you in the "just rich enough" category. Your insurance has specific providers that are in and out of network and very likely, if you decide to go out of network for a better doctor or treatment, the insurance will not cover it. If you need brain surgery, you could easily pay an entire year of your salary--which is many times more than the dismal savings you have.
Even IF you stay in network, you still have to pay a deductible and the co-pays and whatever the insurance company kind of willie-nillie decides is "elective." Like if your doc tells you your best survival/chance of not being permanently disabled is guaranteed with surgery X and the company decides that actually surgery Y is all they are okay with... or surgery X is okay, but minus elements a, b, and c.
So then, not only have you been paying through the nose all these years for this "wonderful" private insurance, but they won't cover everything you need, you still go into debt, AND they're trying to dictate your medical care to you. Absolutely none of this is rationally "in your interest."
Quoting Benkei
The overall metric shows Sweden and Switzerland win. And they have higher standards of living! What good is being third in innovation, or even first, if we're not even in the top 10 for overall quality of life?
https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
If money is good because of the other things it provides, it's not an end in itself, first of all.
Second, the freedom and security of any working adult should be inherently guaranteed and not be dependent on their relative wealth.
Medicaid is pretty generous and it starts as soon as a woman knows she's pregnant. Why do say "lack of access"?
I think part of the problem is drug abuse and environmental toxins. IOW it's problems that exist upstream of pregnancy.
But everyone is not on Medicaid. For one, it's administered by the states, and some states have meagre funding, others are much better funded. Compare New York with Mississippi. Plus, insurance costs a lot of money when you are on your own (as far as coverage is concerned) or are in a small employee group.
"Lifestyle" is a significant obstacle. The "fried fish belt" of the southeast US feeds too much fat and too much fire-grilled red meat into the population resulting in higher rates of cancer and obesity. Add to that too much smoking, drinking, obesity, high blood pressure, etc., and it's no wonder they don't live as long as people in Hawaii and Minnesota. Good medical care for lifestyle diseases (smoking, drinking, obesity, drugs, etc.) can only accomplish so much, For one thing, the patient has to present a willing subject for improvement, diagnosis, and timely treatment, which tends not to happen with chronically unhealthy people.
Then too, some people who should and do know better and are otherwise healthy harbor 'superstitions' about their health. They don't get timely inoculations for their children or don't follow instructions for taking antibiotics. They don't like to go to the doctor, preferring quakopractors who adjust their backs. They give out reasonably good advice to other people ("see the doctor about that") but then don't do the same thing for themselves.
I had throat cancer surgery a few weeks ago, the long-term consequence of smoking, drinking, and sex (it was HPV linked -- which kind of cancer happens to be more curable). I did reform around 30 years ago, but the long term consequences finally came due (at 73). I turned myself over to a surgeon early on, and presumably have good prospects. But still, in my youth I smoked and drank too much.
Like the fried fish belters not regretting tasty fried catfish, I don't regret the nights in the bars and the many, many partners I had -- but, nonetheless, lifestyle choices affect my health.
@Benkei mentioned insurance; I've spent a small fortune on insurance at times when I wasn't otherwise covered, and so haven't neglected chronic medical problems like glaucoma, which if neglected will lead to blindness. Medicare and the part B supplement costs about 15% of my monthly fixed income. Not everyone is able to do that. I was lucky to have enough cash on hand when I needed to cough up the sometimes absurd premiums (like a cobra payment of $1200 a month for a year) -- so far, anyway.
Capitalism is one of the two roots of our health problem (lifestyle is the other one). Attached to American Health Care, like a big ugly glioblastoma on the brain, is the parasitical profit-making health insurance and intermediary administration companies. Americans have been brainwashed by the capitalists into fearing single-payer insurance (aka, medicare for all).
True. It's generous where I am, so I'm being myopic. But where Medicaid sucks, there are other private resources like Planned Parenthood. If a pregnant woman looks, she'll probably find resources for prenatal care, and no emergency room would turn aside a woman who's about to deliver.
If there's a lack of access, it's out in the community blocking women from the help that's waiting.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Are you better now? Can you talk?
Here's one explanation.
So of course drug users and their babies deserve bad health outcomes. S/
Here, healthcare is free for kids under 18 with no own risk. Adults have a 875 EUR a year own risk unless it's a chronic condition or if it's a visit to the GP - which is always free. They fulfil a "gate watcher" function and will send you to specialists if needed. You can never go directly to a specialist, except the physiotherapist. After that there's no co-payments or deductibles or whatever.
There's a basic insurance that's government mandated, provided for by for-profit insurance companies and prices negotiated by them with health care providers. The insurance for that is at its cheapest at around 85 EUR per month per person. You can top that off with private plans for dental care, alternative medicine, extra physiotherapy etc. etc.
The basic insurance doesn't cover everything but I've never had a situation I had discussions about coverage with my insurance company until actually this year. But that concerned one of the private plans for alternative medicine (don't ask, it's not for me but the wifey).
Initiated the discussion in good faith, exited with a shrug.
Ciao!
There are for specific types of cancer better resources here than elsewhere, I'll grant us that. Of course, providing you can pay for it all. Other specific cancers have better outcomes in other countries.
I used to live in a socialist democracy myself. So it was really a rude awakening moving here and suddenly hear people discuss not just the medical need to visit the ER in some situations, but whether they could afford it.
The advantage of the high tech machine is that the various devices that are on the ends of the robot's digits are illuminated and include camera pick up, so the surgeon actually has a much better view of the internal surgical field than would otherwise be available.
Is this a positive medical development, or simply an expensive frill, which adds unnecessarily to the cost of medical care? I'm not in a position to say. The surgeon said he could do the surgery without the robot, but that the outcomes were better with it. Makes sense to me. The robot is steadier, doesn't get tired, can be finely 'tuned' by a computer assist (which is needed in brain surgery using a robotic device), and so on.
I had a fantasy of the surgical robot getting loose and stalking humans in the hospital hallways, over-powering them, and forcing its favorite surgical procedures on them.
If it keeps you out of ICU with bleeding and infection from accidental nicks from the surgeon's big fat hands, it's saving money.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Wonder how it picks its favorite.
One of the reasons why branded drug prices are so high in the US is that, in effect, the US helps subsidize the rest of the world's global drug research and development costs. Through compulsory licensing a foreign government can threaten to invalidate an American drug company's patent in order to issue a generic. The company must choose to lower prices for much less profit, or get no profit at all. I'm not sure if this is true of medical tech, but given that published patents in medical technology in the US far exceeds that of any country (by hundreds of thousands), I suspect it is true of this facet of the industry. So there is a sort of parasitic relationship here as well. Perhaps the rest of the world have been brainwashed into reviling the American system when they should instead be thankful for it.
Good luck on your health battle. It sounds like you're in good hands.
You are technically right here, but in society money is what will actually provide these things and come to think of it I can't think of any other ways of attaining freedom and security. Money is intimately connected with the two.
It's nice that you believe that but we're talking about the world as it is. When american taxpayers have more money in their pockets after taxes that helps them attain freedom and security.
When Europeans have adequate health care and education provided to ALL of their citizens that helps them attain freedom and security.
Am I right? Or are you? Or are we both right from some perspective? Obviously, it must be the last one, which makes statements like this entirely worthless...right?
Personally, I would pretty much always go for financial independence over having slim savings despite good public services. I understand public services are good, but the freedom provided when you have enough money to retire and then some is much preferable IMO. I favor placing my own financial future first and foremost into my own hands as opposed to hoping the government with its services can provide for me.
You mean in the hands of your employer, the market, and the corporations from which you buy the goods for your "freedom and security."
Thinking it's all in your own hands and only yours is pretty naive, no matter which system you choose.
If we're talking savings and investment then I can pretty much go with where ever I want. I can choose to risk it in the market or not. I could keep it all in a savings account or my mattress or a safe. I could bury it.
With enough money you don't need to rely on an employer.
I take risks. I don't determine the outcome of these risks, but I choose to take them. I deal as best as I can with the hand that I am dealt.
Oh, right, I forgot that being an instant billionaire is a choice everyone just has to make. How does that work? Pray at night and then wake up in a mansion or are you old-fashioned and play the lottery?
You don't need to be a billionaire. Think much, much smaller. You don't even need a million to start feeling the effects.
So what if only 70% of the population can achieve that? What if only 10% of the population can achieve that?
I would estimate that no more than 40% of Americans retire with "and then some". What do you think the percentage is? There are very few extremely financially responsible people out there like @Pfhorrest. (someone who can retire and then some off of a median income). If most people are NOT financially responsible it seems unfair (and wrong?) to suggest that everyone should be.
I'm not sure you have a good grasp on how long money will stretch in this economy...
In the past seven years since I last went flat broke, I have saved up about two years worth of my current living expenses. At that rate, if nothing catastrophic ruins my life again, and I keep living how I live now in this tiny trailer, by myself, never getting married, then I could retire at 65 with about ten years expenses saved up. But I hope to live past 75, so...
(This is reinforcing your point, not arguing against it).
I'm entirely aware. I'm just a single guy with no kids in a medium cost of living area. I'm entirely familiar with my monthly expenses. Obviously if you're a single mom with 3-4 kids it's a completely different ball game. Children can absolutely drive someone into poverty; they're massively expensive.
Well, I was trying to use you as a rare example of someone who could comfortably retire off of a normal income, so I appreciate your clarification that this is still going to be a challenge (and agree that makes my point stronger). I have actually been amazed reading your financial situation in other threads. I am confident that less than 10% of people in this country are anywhere near as a financially careful. I thought I kept my spending low, but you showed me it could be lower (although I haven't found a deal on rent yet). And this all leads to me being rather perplexed when someone asks "why don't people just save up for a comfortable retirement?"
Have they been paying into social security (I hope so). Have they been paying into a 401k? How about a roth ira? I don't have statistics on this at the moment. If someone retires with 0 in savings that's not the fault of capitalism or the evil system (there are some rare possible exceptions....)
Lets be very clear what I'm saying here: I am not saying that everything is hunky dory and that life is totally fair. This isn't an argument about capitalism, all I am saying is that financial responsibility is your responsibility first and foremost. If you don't take ownership of it, it will take ownership of you.
I've already had a talk like this with Pfhorrest and I refuse to hold him up as a perfect example of personal fiscal responsibility. I've already had this discussion with him and I don't feel like rehashing it. He's doing somethings fine but he can certainly improve.
Everyone should absolutely be financially responsible just like everyone shouldn't drink and drive... this holds true even if some people have a really hard time with it. Fiscal responsibility is a basic requirement of adulthood and it's a shame they don't really teach it in school. They only exception would be if you're extremely wealthy.
It totally is if they can’t find a high enough income or low enough living expenses to live more than check to check. Which apparently most Americans can’t. And the power to determine the pay and rent and interest that affects that situation is far more in the hands of the wealth people who own the businesses and housing and money than the poor people who need to work at and live in and borrow them.
I have little sympathy for people who can see a problem coming, oh, 40-50 years in the future and not do anything about it. If you don't take care of your life that's not my problem. Get a side hustle. Get a better job. Train as a welder or an electrician. Move to a cheaper area. It's not someone's fault for being into poverty, but it is their fault if they die poor. Plenty of people don't care to try to advance. Not my problem.
And the fact that the greatest predictor of a child’s future wealth is the wealth of their parents doesn’t contradict that at all?
Good. I certainly meant to portray your position as admirable.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Indeed. I am in Orange County. The NIMBYism is rampant.
Prediction isn't fate, and you're ultimately responsible for yourself. I hate to say this, but if all else fails just join the military (preferably Air Force). I work with a ton of people from poor backgrounds who thanks to their job will be middle class.
EDIT: I should also mention that there is no risk of dying in most Air Force jobs these days. My field doesn't even get deployed.
This is very interesting... seems a bit too shallow though. There's too much being left out of the discussion here. Real things. Everyday circumstances. Real life for poor people.
One cannot learn about X unless X is a part of one's life. I think that you grossly underestimate the sheer differences in everyday thought of those who've been born into struggle, and those who've not.
What's familiar comes first. Children learn what they live... that's the reality. If one is struggling on paper even to pay bills and provide food for the family despite working full time or several part time jobs(as is more common nowadays), then they may face a difficult choice between food and bills. These people do not have the luxury of even considering a different lifestyle...
I would bet the farm that wealthy people spend far far more money on frivolous items than poor people do. Fiscal responsibility you say???
:brow:
A five thousand dollar mistake can ruin a poor up-and-coming entrepreneur. Not so much a rich one. All else being equal.
And THE FACT that MOST people are NOT financially responsible doesn't affect that opinion at all?
You seem to support Social Security, which exists exactly because the government realized that people would NOT be financially responsible unless they are forced.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
It is not about him being a perfect example. It is about the fact that he is FAR more responsible than most.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Uh, they would never teach that in school because it would slow the economy as people buy less stuff...right?
Indeed. That's quite true, and it did not even cross my mind upon reading it...
I'm reminded of what Bush Jr. said immediately after 9/11. Spend... spend... spend... like nothing happened.
Do poor people have access to the internet? Can they watch Dave Ramsey? Is there a library near them? I don't know, but given economics is invariably thread into life and always a factor you'd think people would be a bit more interested in it. I just don't buy the argument that poor people can't possibly educate themselves on fiscal responsibility. I've seen plenty of them do it. I work with plenty of them.
Yes, because they can actually afford to and it's just not a problem for them. Rich people have other problems (I'd be happy to discuss these; the rich still have things that can ruin them.) Fiscal responsibility can still be a problem for rich people if they overspend, they would just have to overspend on big ticket items. Fiscal responsibility when it comes to everyday items (coffee, groceries, etc.) is a much more relevant issue for the poor or middle class.
Not at all. It would be like if drunk driving rates were to skyrocket in this country and you saw me getting into my car drunk; could I just tell you: "well MOST people drive drunk, it's fine!"
You can literally educate yourself for free on this topic. There's a billion resources and it's vastly relevant to your life if you're not already rich and you're concerned about your financial well-being.
As a rule I don't really believe in paternalism and I feel that money could be better invested elsewhere. I don't want to turn this into a discussion about social security though. You will (hopefully) be getting paid it out though.
I honestly don't even know about this. I've already had this discussion with him and given him several suggestions. I gave him a podcast to listen to about the topic of real estate investment and he refused to listen to it. I don't know how his financial responsibility compares to the rest of the country. He's doing somethings right and somethings he could be doing better.
Yeah, maybe, I don't know. I don't know why schools don't teach certain subjects, but regardless its still something you should be familiar with.
-lacking wealth increases expenses
(you have to service debts on the borrowing you have to do to continue operating)
- having wealth increases revenues
(you receive returns on the investments you can put that wealth into).
Individual people and families are no different in that respect. Poverty costs you money on an ongoing basis. Wealth gains you money on an ongoing basis.
So those who start our poor have to struggle all the harder just to stay where they are wealth-wise, while those who start out richer can afford to fuck up constantly and still stay where they are wealth-wise.
Two people who are equally fiscally responsible, but differ drastically in wealth, will see drastically different outcomes, because the poorer one gets an automatic negative on their balance sheet just for being poor, and the richer one gets an automatic positive just for being rich.
And as the gap between the rich and poor increases, fewer and fewer people are capable of performing at the requisite levels of fiscal responsibility necessary to overcome their wealth disadvantage, and fewer and fewer people get the luxury of being able to make reasonable mistakes in the course of their life and still expect to get to keep living it with reasonable human dignity.
All else being equal, people should be responsible for themselves, sure. But the problem that all else is not equal. It's an enormous, nigh-impossible uphill battle to get from the poverty most people are born into up to a truly middle class position (where returns on investment cancel out servicing debts, so your changes in wealth are truly down to your own actions), and then an increasingly downhill ride to work from that position up to staggering wealth.
Poverty is expensive; I get that. I get that there are added costs there. You'll never find me defending modern banking practices which charge overdraft fees which disproportionately target the poor. Yet, you still see plenty of people overcome poverty. I know you saw my last post.
Wealth does not automatically generate more wealth though and I don't know where this idea comes from. It certainly can sometimes, but it's not automatic. Who do you think got hit the hardest these past few days with the stock market? The poor don't really have money in stocks, the rich got soaked with the recent stock market crash. Certainly if we're talking investment we're talking risk. If we're talking business we're also talking a huge amount of risk: most start ups fail. It's really no easy task to do even if you have decent starting capital. I think something like 90% of start ups fail within the first few years.
I'm much more comfortable talking about investment here because it's something I do regularly and read up about. I guarantee you that wealth invested does not automatically mean more wealth. The more risk you're willing to take on the higher the prospective returns.
One thing you consistently have a hard time grasping is risk and you speak in huge generalities (as is characteristic of you) when you just say that wealth generates more wealth. It might generate you more wealth; it can also crash and you can lose money like you never thought was possible.
You can literally join the military from a poor family and become middle class. By middle class I am going by income levels and lifestyle (home ownership is high among members of the armed forces), which is how middle class is generally defined.
The more wealth you have, the more risk you can afford to take.
If there is some gamble you can take where for 49% of the time you lose everything and 51% of the time you win a million times what you put in, and you've got enough cash to take that bet over and over again thousands of times, losing as much as you need to to get that big win, then you're virtually guaranteed to come out ahead. But if you can only afford to lose once and then you don't have anything to gamble with at all anymore, that's an awful bet.
A huge chunk of my net worth is in stocks. I lost thousands of dollars overnight, several days in a row, this week. And I don't care, because I don't need that money immediately, I can afford to wait for the market to recover, and the drop wasn't even enough to undo the unearned gains I've made from having that money invested for just a few years now. I guarantee you that billionaires are even less worried about it than I am. While someone who really needed that money soon... probably shouldn't have had it somewhere risky like stocks, and so wouldn't have been making those kinds of returns on it if they were doing the smart thing and not risking it, and would have just lost something they can't afford to lose if they had been desperate and reckless enough to risk it anyway.
Thank you, now you're speaking my language. I agree!
This bet is insanely good. In fact, you could be losing 99% of the time and winning 1% but its still a bet you should absolutely be taking if that pay out is 1,000,000x. That said if there was that 99% chance of ruin you should not be throwing your entire portfolio at it whether that portfolio is large or small.
The mistake you're making here is that you're seemingly supposing that the poor (or middle class person, maybe?) must throw their entire portfolio at this investment. If the poor person only had 1k to invest and if they lose they go broke, they could only allocate, say, 5% or 10% of their portfolio to riskier investments which promise higher rewards. You don't need to buy a whole stock or a whole bitcoin.
1,000,000x returns are kind of unheard of though.... for the sake of discussion lets just say a riskier investment could return 10x or 100x and have a high risk of ruin. For such investments whether you're dealing with a $100 portfolio or a $10,000,000 portfolio you should generally only allocate a smaller % of your total portfolio.
tl;dr: You're making it sound like we're at a roulette table where the table minimum is like $10k when this is not the case.
That's a good mentality.
Yes, the poor are generally not able to take advantage of the stock market which is a shame even if it does sometimes lose money. This is where some like Dave Ramsey or a financial advisor would come in and take a good hard look at what this person is doing and what their life circumstances are and how these can be improved. It is unfortunate though that those without money cannot take advantage of the market. There's a billion questions I could ask about this though: Is this person working? Are they addicted to drugs? Are they financially irresponsible? What kind of lifestyle choices have they made that have got them here? Every situation is unique. Maybe they're in the process of training or schooling for a better job. Nobody feels bad for med students who will be graduating soon.
Okay great. And you said earlier that more risk comes with greater rewards. Combine those two things then: the more wealth you have, the more risk you can afford to take, and so the greater rewards you can reap. Mentioning that risk is a factor in the middle there doesn't change the basic connection of more wealth to greater rewards... and less wealth to greater costs, conversely. Which was my original point. The involvement of risk doesn't negate any of that.
You do know that you are here praising the virtues of the government as an employer, the role of the public sector.
And this is a very American thing: that the armed forces gives these kinds of opportunities, gives the ability to study etc. isn't hardly mentioned as an example of that evil socialism/statism/welfare state. Anarcho-libertarians often ridicule government employees, but very seldom do they ridicule the men and women in uniform. The reason is obvious.
Perhaps the way it goes is that an unabashed leftie like Bernie Sanders isn't the correct messenger for these kinds of issues. Someone like Eisenhower would be.
Irrelevant.
Do you have access to microbes? Then why haven't you discovered all the possible medicinal uses involving them?
As if having access to the internet is adequate and/or sufficient enough all by itself for changing one's initial worldview in such permanent a way that they not only know how to dig themselves out of the unfortunate circumstances that they've found themselves in, but that they also have the confidence/willpower to do it.
You seem to be neglecting the most important elements necessary for an individual and/or family, and/or community of individuals to get themselves out of the situation that they find themselves in.
Ridiculous.
Is it possible to go from poor to rich just the way things are now?
Sure, but those are the exceptions and - while they are improvements to days long gone - they remain just the beginning of lasting changes that are needed. The changes that transcend the generations... a spanning across multiple generations. And you actually suggested access to the internet?
Access to the internet? Really?
:roll:
As if further re-enforcing one's pre-existing thought and belief is the fix?
The magical cure of, by, and for itself.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
The internet, Dave Ramsey, and public libraries as a miracle blend...
The ready made smoothie of economic information. Don't miss out! Get yours while you still can. Supplies are limited.
The simple path out of the poor house. More of what the poor already have. Hmmm...
When exactly is that supposed to begin working, and perhaps more importantly, when can we realistically expect to see the resulting improvements? I mean, it has yet to have happened, despite all of those things already being readily available to many if not most.
Must take more than just your magical elixir: The guarantee that sounds good to all who do not understand.
As if those three questions lead to all the answers of how to correct the tremendous wealth gap, and in doing so help those who find themselves at a significant disadvantage through no fault of their own to be able to take the time to digest all of the information necessary in order to have both, the knowledge and the ability to implement that knowledge. In addition, let us not forget, unless one get's very lucky, they must also possess and/or cultivate the inner confidence required for not giving up, the steel necessary for marching onward, the courage to continue on pulling one up by one's own bootstraps despite knowing and/or believing that one will fail in all sorts of ways...
Along with the courage to take new unfamiliar courses comes the unexpected. Poor people do not have mommy and daddy to catch them when they fall... fiscally speaking that is. Poor people do not have what it takes. No one is poor by voluntary choice alone.
Look... :smirk:
The economic smoothie... the magical blend... that you've offered here quite simply cannot fix what needs fixed in the extremely real and ongoing everyday plight of poor people.
The first step is to identify the problem(s). They are multiple. The second step is to identify the source of the problem. The third is to collaborate in order to fix the problem, which includes binding the hands(so to speak) of everyone who played an active role in crafting, implementing, and/or subsequently benefitting from pieces of legislation that were directly responsible for the financial collapse of the world.
As if talking about one's economic savvy is all that goes into understanding how we've gotten to the place where we are, which is soo far from where we ought be as a representative republic with democratic traditions.
Interested in what...
:brow:
Your magical elixir that amounts to nothing more than access to information?
Either you fail to recognize the stark differences between the real life everyday socio-economic circumstances of poor people as compared to rich people , or you fail to properly consider the inevitable effects/affects thereof... all of which are entirely out of the control of hypothetical individual under our considerations.
You clearly do not recognize the latter, otherwise you'd fucking know better than to blame poor discouraged downtrodden people for being poor discourages downtrodden people.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
It's good that you choose to not 'buy that argument', for it's a non-sequitur, and thus not one that I'm offering. It most certainly does not follow from the position I do argue from and/or for.
Something to think about... carefully...
What counts as being fiscally responsible depends entirely upon individual particular circumstances.You're mistakenly presupposing that there are no poor people who qualify as being financially responsible.
Let me ask you a direct and very pointed question...
How many financial mistakes can an individual make and still count as being fiscally responsible?
You do realize, don't you, that a multimillion dollar idea often does not legally belong to the person who came up with it as a result of the current US labor laws? I think, that there are two exceptions to that. There were only two states the last time I checked, but that's been some time ago.
The point being whether the inventor actually receives substantial financial reward is at the sole discretion of the corporation and/or company they are gainfully employed by.
Basic employment agreements. Standard. Par for the course. In order to even be able to take a job, one must sign away their own intellectual property rights.
Now these cases are not the norm... but, they do arise. Each case is one less person digging themselves out of the hole, despite the fact that they've done nothing wrong. That window is legally nailed shut by a series of unjust precedents. In the rare event that these things happen, there is no legal recourse for the inventor... there very well ought be.
That's a person chip on the shoulder...
:smirk:
America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, but those opportunities have been systemically reduced for all the less fortunate people.
And don't give me the excuse of robotic technology replacing human workers. Those jobs create others and do not replace all humans. Technology is not necessarily at odds with everyday American in the ways that directly concern me.
There is no excuse for dismantling the entire blue collar sector. The results have been disastrous.
There are a swathe of Americans who would directly benefit from concerted efforts to re-invest in America by virtue of re-investing in everyday Americans. Not to mention the fact that the current state of American infrastructure is downright dangerous in some ways. Re-invest in everyday average Americans.
Go green!
Buy shit that lasts.
Yes, I've been employed by them for over 5 years now. I work alongside plenty of Americans who come from pretty considerable poverty. You'll never see me advocating America dismantle its state or its military.
There are costs though. There's a loss of freedom. You may find yourself dependent on the system and the paycheck (but not necessarily so, I have seen financially responsible people avoid this.) Some of the medical care is suspect. I'm 100% transparent about my experience in the military.
Someone's first responsibility to themselves. I'll 100% stand by someone joining the military to get out of poverty.
you can associate greater wealth with greater numerical gains just like you can associate greater wealth with greater numerical loss. it's two sides of the same coin and to ignore one side isn't right. at the end of the day though it's up to the portfolio owner how much risk they're is prepared to take on. i know plenty of well off people who take very little risk.
i don't necessarily associate less wealth to greater costs, but i do acknowledge that poverty has costs. if by costs you mean investment losses this is definitely not the case.
First of all, your math still wouldn't add up to less than millions for the security you're talking about.
But that aside, it's striking to me that your idea of "freedom" comes with such a narrow view of how one ought to live. If your version of freedom is that one has to do shape one's life in this predetermined way, make all these specific lifestyle choices, and invest money such and such particulars... That doesn't sound much like freedom to me. In fact, it sounds to me like even the people living in the DDR had more freedom than you do.
You might talk about how sure, one can take other risks, yada yada, but then you fall back on the "right" choices people have to make in order to survive in your world.
You want to know why you should pay taxes for others? Well, why should the majority pay private companies through the nose and suffer nevertheless because their personal circumstances don't match your bachelorhood ideal of life?
The real issue is if the ways to get out of povetry diminish or grow.
In our meritocratic World education is the important way for upward social mobility. If there are no stipends, no way for even a very talented pupil to get into the best schools, then there is a huge problem. If the only route is joining the armed forces...that cannot be good.
Yet if the education you get is so bad and the whole environment is against learning, then one can ask if the problems are typical to Third World countries. It's telling when the English teacher simply cannot speak correct English, or if the teacher simply isn't there in school. Or the class size is something like 80 to 100 in lower or middle school. That's how it is in many poor countries. There's no way an ordinary child will get from their to a highly respected Masters degree.
Hence the gap with the poor and the rich will remain.
That’s a good point. And as a corollary, military and military force is rarely applauded by statists, socialists and big government types in my experience. There is somewhat of a schism there.
Yeah, those government employees don't make it to the leftist list of nice things that the state gives.
Anyway, the existence of armed forces and how they are formed and organized in basically every nation state shows that not all what is truly collective is ideologically leftist. The fixation on the individual and on his or her rights and freedoms hides this truth.
In some cases within the individualist tradition individual rights extend to collective organization, for instance in Bastiat.
So I do not think it is entirely contradictory.
I suspect the DNC (which is a private company) establishment has a lot to lose, and does not want to end up like the GOP in the Trump era with its Nevertrumpers—irrelevant. Biden is a sock-puppet who can’t even remember what state he’s in, and his son is currently under congressional and DOJ investigation. So I do not think they are in it to win the presidency. I think they are doing this for the sole reason of defeating Bernie.
That's not how the steps we just walked through work out.
I’m self-employed/retired. If you want financial advice, let me know.
You're a volunteer? :grimace:
No need for the mealy-mouthed question. Are you trying to accuse me of something?
Fascinating analysis.
It's philosophy. Rolling the shit up the hill, spitting in the wind...
We should discuss the topic.
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
- the Man
I’m not a fan of nihilism. I believe in argument and disputation for its own sake.
Bernie is a great focus for debate. He is the embodiment of a form of American socialism that is on the rise, and we are watching historical movement unfold before our very eyes. The very least we should do is talk about it.
We have been. There's nothing you could add that would make the ashes in the mouths of Bernie fans taste any worse.
The root of it is pure idealism: the notion that we have the world in our hands and with a little intelligence and compassion we could do it right.
You cant make a broken heart any worse.
I don’t seek debate to influence others. I do it for myself, to better my own thinking on these matters.
That reminds me of Oscar Wilde, “ A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at”.
But we should remember that quite often the search for Utopia is ultimately a futile and dangerous one. It necessitates the sleep of reason.
I'm not saying you have complete financial independence at that level, but you have a really nice cushion and more freedom than people who are living paycheck to paycheck. If someone has $250k of liquid assets and their monthly expenses are $4k they could literally spend years doing nothing.
My version of freedom (financial independence) allows to spend and use that money however you want. I'm not telling you that you should do anything. Sit in your house and smoke weed all day for all I care. Go travel. But if you want - and only if you're actually interested in having this freedom - you should tend to try to be fiscally responsible.
A poor person who spends $30/week on starbucks coffee is harming their financial future. A rich person who does the same is not. Again, not my rules, just the reality of the game we're in.
This isn't my world. I don't make the rules. If you want to spend all your money on time shares or expensive cars or whatever I don't care, but don't go railing about how evil capitalism is when you come up short paying the bills or find that you can't retire as early as you thought you could.
If someone has $100 in the S&P and someone else has $1,000,000 in the S&P who do you think suffered more pain this week? Who do you think had the bigger loss? It's all about exposure. If you're taking on more risk you'll reap bigger rewards and suffered bigger losses.
If someone only has upside risk and no personal downside risk something is very, very wrong. I'm thinking here of bankers in 2008.
Since the discussion is about whether the rules should be changed, your back-stepping doesn't make much sense in the context of this thread.
You asked why the taxpayer would want more money in their pocket. I gave my answer: Freedom.
You're a moving target. It may feel like that means you're getting somewhere in the conversation, but it just suggests you can't really defend a position.
Since I've shown that the tax-payer does not actually have more freedom, in fact has less freedom, in most circumstances under a purely capitalist system, your argument makes no sense. And all you had to say when I pointed that discrepency out was basically "bummer, but I don't make the rules"....
So do you have an actual argument or not?
Say there is a simple gambling game where a coin is flipped, and if you get heads you win something, but if you get tails you lose everything. Winnings and the weighting of the coin are such that if you keep playing over a long enough time scale, you're statistically guaranteed to come out ahead. Odds of winning * winnings > odds of losing * losses. I don't care about the actual numbers, plug in your own, the point is just that it's a game that you should definitely play if you can afford to stay in it long enough.
But each play costs $1,000. To your average Joe who probably has at most that much in the bank, playing this game would be a terrible way to spend his money. He'll probably lose everything very quickly, and have to borrow money to keep living so as to keep making money to keep playing long enough to start coming out ahead, all the while he's servicing those debts and so sinking even deeper into the hole. This is why it's a bad idea for average Joe's to go into businesses for themselves: while some startups can be the path to a lucrative new life, most of them fail and cost their founders everything.
But venture capitalists can afford to keep investing in startups over and over and over until they hit the jackpot with the one who makes it big, since they can afford to eat the losses in the meanwhile. Likewise, to a multibillionaire that coin game is a safe investment. Maybe not the best investment, depending on the exact numbers and the alternatives available, but they could park a bunch of money in playing that game and reasonably expect to gradually make some returns on it eventually.
Risks that don't have odds like that (odds of winning * winnings > odds of losing * losses) are definitionally bad investments, and it is inadvisable for anyone to be putting money into them. But though risks that do have odds like that are definitionally good investments, it's much less personally risky for someone with enough money to put into them to wait and see the statistics average out to that positive return, than it is for someone who might only be able to stay in a few rounds.
Seriously, this is basic investment stuff. If you're going to need your money back soon, and can't afford to wait for the market to recover, don't put it in risky investments that go up and down a lot, even if they are relatively safe in the long term. Consequently, those who have enough money that they're not going to need all of it back soon can afford to put a bunch of it into long-term investments and wait out the downs much better than those who need everything they have right now to pay the rent in a month. So people with lots of money can afford to weather the risk and wait out the short-term downturns and reap the long-term profits, while those who don't, can't, at least not without borrowing, which cancels out their long-term profits with long-term debt servicing.
This is why I mentioned myself with this week's market downturn. I can afford to not care about the downturn, because if it doesn't come back up for a couple of months, I'll be fine. I'm only investing money I won't need for a very long time. Someone who's life is counting on having more money in their brokerage account at the end of this month than at the start of it, on the other hand, might be fucked.
A clear example of the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer is found in predatory lending, which pretty much all banks are involved with, btw. With low-risk, someone with 10k to spare could get a high return. Low-income and desperate borrowers pay a ridiculously high-interest rate.
My analysis of the root flaw of capitalism could be phrased as "all lending (at interest) is predatory". There are degrees, of course, what we normally call predatory lending is just such an egregious case that we can't help but see what's going on there. But fundamentally all lending at interest (and rent more generally, as interest is just rent on money) is of the same qualitative character: those who have wealth to spare can profit at the expense of those who need to borrow it just to keep going.
Where is this low risk high return for $10k?
I've mentioned this before: There is no minimum cost to enter stocks or cryptocurrency. You could throw $5 into an extremely high risk one.
Investing in start ups is a different game, I'll agree with you there.
You're treating investment like it's a blackjack table with a $20k minimum or something and despite being a good deal a loss means losing everything. This isn't how normal investments operate. Maybe this is how start-up investment is.... I don't know. I don't invest in start ups. I do know that venture capitalism definitely does require expertise and remember my start up fact from last post: Something like 90% of start ups go broke within the first few years. You could easily invest in 10 or 20 start ups and they all fail. It's not statistically an inevitability that all of the start ups you invest in will earn you money in the long-run. You could just go broke (and plenty of VCs do lose money.)
I am not defending the current financial system either. I hate the accredited investor system which gives higher net worth individuals investment access to riskier, early-stage investments deemed "too risky" for normal folks. I think the rationale here is paternalism, but in any case I'm against it.
I don't even care about reforming the system anymore; it's beyond redemption. Burn it down. It's outrageous that banks and other companies charge so much for remittances.
That's why I'm into crypto, if you can't tell. We're building our own system. You're welcome to join us. Plenty of risk and no minimums, I guarantee it.
Payday lenders have low losses and high profits (34%+ return on investment).
Exactly. I think in this case, both are true. I assert it for myself and bring myself to take as a given that you do as well, until proven otherwise.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Not necessarily "outside," no. Rather to observe phenomenologically -- objectively, is possible but rare indeed. So you're right, it is universally available to human beings. The fact that most of us don't use this "mode of our being" (rationality) all that often in our lives isn't even a "bad" thing, either. By extension, irrationality is really free from moral judgment also; it's simply a fact -- after all, it's where most of us dwell most of the time, for "better" for "worse" (value judgments based only in terms of our stated goals).
If I ever come down hard on irrational behavior, it's probably because I'm doing so in the context of political action (or inaction) where it's very important to make the correct choices given a goal or goals, which are in turn are born out of a certain system of beliefs and values. Especially true at this point in human history.
In a way, it is this "system of beliefs and values" -- call it a philosophy, theory, framework, worldview, analysis, interpretation, etc. -- I assume we all hold.
I do this for two reasons: 1) I assume my fellow interlocutors are themselves rational and 2) because we all profess the same values, at heart.
Even if someone is conversing with me that holds an apparently antagonistic worldview, it's been my experience that there are commonalities even here, which usually reside somewhere in the person's semantic system -- in other words, using different words to express the same truth. -- all other differences aside, there's almost always this commonality, down to even "pathological" levels. No man is truly without a philosophy or religion.
To name "two" examples: ideas about being and human being (or human "nature"). Concepts like God, Allah, Brahman, spirit, soul, Ahura Mazda, or whatever, have all described "being" in a sense, interpreting it and our place "in" it or "of" it. In my view, it's all various interpretations, conceptualizations, and semantics. The words, meanings, definitions, descriptions, etc., certainly do matter and are all very interesting in their differences, but all roughly getting at the same truth. (I do not believe this makes everything equally supported, useful, "correct," "right," or "good," necessarily -- those are value judgments based on our own perspective.)
That's a lot of words, but it feel getting to the bedrock frees us up for more pragmatic considerations, like "What do we do about it?"
Lenders or renters may give more than they receive in order to help others, make a fair trade, or take advantage of those in a weaker position.
You seem to be claiming that lending is inherently predatory in nature.
Depends on your hierarchy of values; your priorities. If poker is a top value of yours, then giving it the according amount of care, time, energy, and attention is perfectly rational. I think ultimately we all want to be "happy" (a pop-culture type word, but good enough for now), so hopefully poker plays some kind of role in your life towards that ultimate end, or maybe you consider it an end in itself. Either way, nothing irrational about that. (Incidentally, I played poker professionally for 1 year, 6 months at home and 6 months actually living in the casino [given where I lived, there was no way to make a living or progress in bankroll without putting in more hours, and that required moving there]. I think there's actually many parallels between poker and life.)
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You answered your own question: yes, it is. Unless, of course, he believes it's the right choice to own a car for status but have no money for anything else. You've also identified why he's acting irrationally: he's acting out of an emotional need for status because of deprivation of youth. This happens often in psychology -- a person growing up "food insecure" will often, as adults, gorge themselves when food is available, long after the insecurity is there. There's all kinds of things like that, and it's studied in psychology. But whether or not it's rational is fairly easy to see, given my (and others') definition of rationality.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Ratonality, in terms of the state of a human being I like calling the "theoretical," and when discussing action it's based on goals. Goals are based on values and beliefs, which is a matter of ethics and morals. Here we get into the related issue of "will," "desire," "care," and general motivation. It's also leads to the question of "What is good?" or "What is the good life"?
All very interesting. So it's a good question, and we could pursue that if you like. I still feel, though, that it's a diversion, but if you feel it'd be illuminating in some way I'm happy to talk about it. Full disclosure: I'm influenced heavily by the thinking of Nietzsche in this case.
If, however, for the sake of political discussion, we simply assume the standard thing that most people in this country would say, something like "I want to be happy" when pressed about what their greatest good and ultimate end is, then we can talk about whether an act is rational or moral in this context (political action).
I just caught this. Let me add my $0.02.
All that planning is fine and good, provided that your saving for old age isn't at the expense of your present happiness. I suspect that that may be the case, but correct me if I'm misreading you.
If you're sacrificing or postponing some high value of yours simply because you're scared to be broke or homeless, I think a better balance is needed.
However, if you manage to do everything else you want to do, while also saving a bit of money, then I'm envious indeed! I have no savings for the future, no 401K, nothing. I don't have health insurance, and for years I had no car insurance (my car was fully paid, now I finance so I am required to have it). Maybe this is all very "risky," I don't know. I guess I figure there's social security and medicare, or else family and friends, and I'm confident in my resourcefulness. I don't require much materialistically in order to live well. That may change when I'm an older or elderly man, I don't know. Plenty of government help you can get, and if you live within your means that's generally good enough. If not, and I end up going bankrupt or accumulating a lot of debt that I'll never pay off, so be it. What do you make of this? Does this seem crazy to you?
This is terrible philosophy, and very damaging. Think through what you're saying. You know there are plenty of examples of people who simply don't get the opportunities or resources that other people do. There's a reason rich people serve less time in jail than poor people (white or black), get into the "best" schools, get higher paying jobs, etc. To argue this is all merit-based, simply a matter of proper work ethic or motivation, is simply not true.
Class matters. More so than race, even. Throughout history, those who are in a more powerful class --whether in the aristocratic or noble or monarchic or cleric or warrior or Brahmin class -- simply live in a different world than those of a less powerful class. The idea that you can "move upwards" is an illusion. It's like arguing the exception proves the rule.
I said exactly that, yes. And note the words "at interest", which are very important. Lending interest-free is certainly helpful behavior. Lending at interest is a transaction where someone who started out with more than they needed (enough to let someone borrow some) ends up with more than they started with, and someone who started out with less than they needed (requiring them to borrow something from someone else) ends up with even less than they started with. That is inherently exploitative of the poor by the rich.
Quoting Xtrix
I am sacrificing and postponing major things to safeguard my future, yes. Mostly, I'm living in a much smaller space than many people would accept, and consequently can't live with the woman who would be my wife if only we could live together.
I have been, for half a decade or so now, trying to live a bit more balanced than I used to, when I was much poorer (though even then, I was apparently still making a median income). Not only do I not cut every single corner like I used to do anymore. (Aforementioned girlfriend used to complain how I had no trash can in my bathroom, because I had one in the room right next door, so it seemed a waste of money to buy a whole other little trash can just to spare walking six feet to throw something away). I also let myself enjoy little luxuries that make life more enjoyable now and only make a tiny dent in my long-term savings plan, like... getting my car washed.
But things that would consume my entire future, like renting an apartment big enough for two, I can't bring myself to do, because ...
Quoting Xtrix
...I don't want to call you crazy, because I feel more sympathy than anything else toward you, but yeah that seems crazy to me. I know plenty of elderly people who never saved for retirement (not that I'm faulting them for it like Carlos would, many many people simply can't) and they're suffering immensely because of it. My own mother foremost among them. She survives at all only because there are government programs that can help her out, and even then barely so, and is always on the brink of homelessness. I'm not so sure I can even count on those to still exist when I'm here age, since the rich are constantly trying to destroy them.
I used to be of the mindset that I was fine not worrying about money, going broke was no big deal, etc, back when all going broke meant was not eating for a while, because I had a free roof over my head (the roof my the tool shed next to my dad's trailer, but still). Ever since that got taken away, my top priority became to get back to a place where I could stop worrying about money like that again, where going broke wouldn't mean I would lose absolutely everything, because if I didn't constantly pay someone else for a right to exist somewhere, I would lose any right to exist anywhere. That seems like it should be the most basic of things a human being is entitled to, but apparently we're expected to fight our entire lives just to try to attain it and even then it may all be for nothing.
It's not all merit based and it's not all based on hard work. But you know what? Hard work couldn't hurt.
Absolutely.
Then why do I - someone who is enlisted military - work around plenty of people who were born into poverty and are now middle class and able to afford homes? Some service members own several homes. This is just not true.
People are just a helpless bunch, aren't they?
That doesn't make it "fine". However, if 70% of the population was drinking and driving I would think it ridiculous to think I am going to solve (even partially) that problem by saying, "hey, why don't all you people stop drunk driving and act right!"
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
:rofl: well f*ck you too :razz:
Thanks for the financial tips. If becoming a wealthy mo fo in the top 1% ever become a life goal of mine, I will remember to check out this thread :up:
That's beside the point. The point is that someone who only has $5 safely saved up ("safely" as in money that they don't need to keep out of risky investments because they're going to need it soon) isn't going to be able to put as much money into risky, rewarding investments as someone who has $1000 safely saved up, never mind someone with $10,000 or $100,000 safely saved up. This whole side-track into risk has gotten us away from the main point, which is that having money gives you a means to make money, so the more you have the more you can make the faster. (And conversely, and more problematically, lacking money costs money, in the same way).
Yes, there is risk involved there, in the sense that high-reward investment will involve a lot of short-term ups and downs along the way toward gradual long-term gains. But that nominal risk only becomes actual, genuine risk if you're going to have to cash out on those investments at a time when they might be down; if you can just wait for them to come back up, then there's no actual risk there. I "lost thousands of dollars" this week, temporarily, on paper, but I have next to zero doubt that that will be undone in time, probably not even very much time on the scales I care about, so I'm not actually in danger, at risk, of any kind of suffering on account of this week's market fluctuations. People who have lots of money are the ones who can afford to weather those ups and downs, because they have so much in excess of what they're going to need any time soon that they can let it safely sit there. Those who don't have much in the way of that excess either can't invest as much (if they're being smart), or else expose themselves to genuine risk by putting money on the line that they're going to need back soon when it might not be there.
You are mistakenly assuming that the destitute have the money, the knowledge, the method, the ability to implement, and the time it takes in order to do all these things...
Here in the UK the privelidged classes are of the opinion that the poor choose to be poor, it's a lifestyle choice. If they don't like it well they can get one of their rich daddy's friends to give them a job, or set up a business making face masks for example. It must be their choice, or they would do something about it.
Now we have a rip roaring right wing Tory government, they say it out loud. It's time to punish the poor, for holding us back.
And what if they are born with flat feet, so the army doesn't want them?
I was watching a documentary last night about a specialist children's hospital. There was a child born helpless with numerous serious health conditions. The specialist team had worked tirelessly for a number of years to keep her alive, with a good quality of life. This must have cost millions, her parents where poor. They didn't have to pay anything towards her care. Everyone there was working and living in a nurturing loving lifestyle, in which money didn't figure.
Will she find a proper job when she grows up, to pay the healthcare bill? And what if she is too lazy to do the work?
Nonsense. It’s basically an exchange of value (including future value), which as I’ve explained can be generous from the lender side, fair, or exploitive. Whatever capitalistic incentives may lead to exploitation aren’t inherent in lending itself.
Some obvious differences between rich and poor people increasing inequality:
1. When borrowing money a rich person, all else being equal, has a higher credit rating and therefore pays less interest because the risk component of the spread is lower. They therefore save at a higher rate or if they invest the loan it will provide a better return. In other words, each loan can be better leveraged by a rich person than a poor person;
2. Rich people can afford better housing, which means they pay less in upkeep and heating;
3. Their houses are in better neighborhoods so there's less crime, resulting in less damage to our theft of property;
4. Houses in better neighbourhoods have better roads and public transport connections and are closer to work. Poor people pay more for commuting;
5. Poor people (in the USA) can't afford the same education or healthcare, which is obviously detrimental for the ability to (continue) to generate income.
Less obvious but very interesting: people have a maximum "bandwidth" of stuff they can think about. Once you're in poverty, it's incredibly hard to plan long term because you're too busy surviving. Choices that may seem irrational from the outside are in fact very rational as a poor person. One anecdote I remember is how in a poor family, someone made extra money and ended up spending everything on a new TV. That sounds stupid, until you realise everyone in the family is strapped for cash and likely to spend the money on other things. Buying the TV, "saves" the money for the person who bought the TV. That is all to say, when in poverty your thinking changes. Expecting the types of decisions that will get you out of poverty becomes totally unrealistic.
So if you know someone in poverty, the best way to help them is to relieve their need to think about their finances. Doing their shopping for them after working out a budget, means they get time to think about other things and can manage planning ahead again.
"Nuh uh" isn't an argument. You're just stated your disagreement, not said anything to refute my explanation of how interest (not just lending) is necessarily exploitative.
If I lent you a sum of money for low enough interest you could make a profit by simply investing it. Is that a simple enough example of non-exploitive lending with interest? With a little imagination I’m sure you could think of many other non-exploitive lending scenarios that charge interest.
The basic principle you don’t seem to appreciate is that a borrower can produce something of greater value with the borrowed capital.
I’m not so sure about that (though I might be misinterpreting what you’re saying here), because according to this study by the world bank, over 87% of people who were asked how they escaped poverty said they did so through “individual initiative”, whether by finding jobs, starting businesses or migrating. Compare this with those who said it was government (3.4%), or NGOs (0.3%) Of course, that isn’t to say they are not affected by economic downturns, health problems and so on.
Sure, they may be lying due to pride or boastfulness, but I think it is deeply infantilizing and patronizing to argue that the choices of these people had little to do with their escape from poverty.
That's a textbook case of survivorship bias. You're looking at how many people who did escape poverty did so through individual initiative. What we're wondering is how many people who try to escape poverty via individual initiative succeed.
How many lottery winners played the lottery? How many lottery players won the lottery? Very different questions.
Also, people don't generally escape poverty due to government action, but rather are prevented from falling into poverty by the structure of their society, including its government. The kind of people who governments help keep afloat aren't people who would be described as having "escaped poverty".
Sorry, I was responding to the claim that “personal choices have very little to do with socio-economic (upward) mobility”, not “how many people who try to escape poverty via individual initiative succeed”.
The classical capitalist view that poverty is not a social problem but an individual one has been dead in the water for about three decades now but political ideology takes long to die. Obviously a lot of people benefit in the short term from not emancipating poor people. In the long run it doesn't make economic sense though.
Lucky for you, flat feet are no longer disqualifying. Even if a condition is disqualifying you can get a waiver (as I did.) The military is only one option. Will trade school disqualify you for having flat feet?
People with disabilities are in a different category. They can get government assistance and we can't expect them do the same things that abled people would do. One of the people I went to school with has Williams Syndrome which means he has an IQ of maybe around 60ish. He's very friendly and he does work part time at a community center or something along those lines. Obviously we can't hold the same expectations for these people as someone else who is able.
I wouldn't expect me simply saying "hey, stop drunk driving!" to solve the problem, but it still is one's responsibility not to do that. Personal finance is more of a personal thing, and I don't know your situation, but for me it's been very relevant.
We can talk about vague, abstract notions like responsibility all day, but for me it was simply having an experience where in college I had a brush with poverty. I very clearly remember not having money for a sandwich and the guy behind the counter was nice enough to give it to me for free. My bank account was drained due to automatic charges which I simply didn't really care enough (or know how) to monitor and I kept wondering what happened to everything. I don't ever want to be in that situation again.
That doesn't tell why they would be better neighborhoods. Or that with lower income you would automatically have worse neighborhoods.
This isn't so straight forward. For example, I lived earlier in my life in a very upscale neighborhood with the highest real estate prices in Finland. It also was also one of the places where most crime happened in Helsinki: the city center. Unlike American cities, here the downtown is a sought after place. There is crime (by Finnish standards): typically it's the young people coming there to party or to hang around that keep the police busy. This tells just how much of these issues are just in people's minds: basically statistically the City center was as bad (or good) as the so-called problematic parts of Helsinki, but that didn't matter the people that lived there. Lot of young couples with children were totally happy to live there, especially if they had had their own childhood in the city center. They were cavalier about parked cars being sometimes vandalized on the street. It was just something that occasionally happened, even if the 16 years I lived there my car was OK (perhaps the reason was my home was on the other side of the street from a police station).
I already offered an extreme example of predatory lending, that of payday loans.
Especially, when thinking if some city/neighborhood is "safe".
How safe is Manhattan compared to Amsterdam, compared to Chicago, Malmö or Mexico City?
According to selectorate theory it makes political sense in an autocracy, and that’s why democracy tends to be favorable for the masses.
Despite that, over 87% of people reported that “individual initiative” is what helped them escape poverty. So like you said, the fact that we're still arguing this is either because of people not informing themselves or the ideological barriers that come with being born and raised in Europe.
That’s a false analogy. 87% of people who were asked how they escaped poverty said they did so through “individual initiative”. Your claim that “there is a wealth of research how personal choices have very little to do with socio-economic (upward) mobility” is contradicted by those statements. Perhaps you can reach into that “wealth of research” to prove otherwise. I’m quite open to hearing it.
Around only 56 years ago the civil rights act was helpful. 100% of those who were discriminated against and escaped poverty prior to the act could legitimately claim that individual initiative helped them escape poverty.
Then your aim is propaganda, nothing besides.
That's a good way to look at it.
I agree, joining the armed forces shouldn't be the go-to solution. My generation was often told growing up to get an education and you'll be fine. I'm a millennial by the way, and I don't think this vision imparted by our parents has really panned out. We're saddled with student debt and many of us have degrees which aren't particularly useful for the real world.
There are plenty of scholarships, by the way. There are also state schools which offer a heavily discounted price to in-state students (and these schools are often quite decent.) If you're looking at a private college it can be quite expensive (think around $50k/year USD if not more) and it's questionable how much it's worth it at this point especially if someone is going for, say, art history. Someone could be spending $200k over 4 years for an art history degree, and this often means going into debt.
Personally, I think people should work with their strengths. I have a few friends who are quieter guys and good students and they do fine as engineers. I know other who, while okay students, are much more charismatic and have been doing well as salespeople. School shouldn't break the bank. There's also trade school, but in practice many of the upper middle class wouldn't want to send their child there out of pride. It's totally a pride thing.
There is no gradual long term gain most of the time with riskier assets. This is especially the case the riskier you go - look at how many small cap altcoins (cryptocurrencies) just crash in value and go to 0. Same thing with penny stocks. Even if you invest in like 100 penny stocks there's absolutely no guarantee you're going to end up "winning big." This isn't how it works.
There is a likely long term gain with the S&P, but that is over like a 30 year time period. If you're going to go picking individual stocks or crypto you can lose a considerable amount of your investment. There is no long term prize for holding. There's only your belief that there is one.
In any case I still do invest in the S&P. I believe in the long-term value proposition and I would like for poorer families to build up an emergency fund and have that excess capital to where they can afford to take on some risk and put money in the stock market and pile it away for the long term. This is way different from telling them to invest in penny stocks or random cryptocurrencies though.
Actually, having just skimmed the world bank study that you link to, it appears you're being somewhat misleading. The study supports the importance of both initiative and opportunity for upward mobility.
Given this information, is it then true or false that “personal choices have very little to do with socio-economic (upward) mobility”?
I merely took issue with your absurd claim, which you used as a springboard to launch snark against “people not informing themselves or the ideological barriers that come with being born and raised in the US”. If you can’t handle it, why dish it out?
As the world bank study supports, that depends on opportunity.
A prisoner can escape their confinement and validly claim that it was 100% their individual initiative that allowed them to escape. The ease of their escape would, of course, depend on the available opportunities.
It was a true or false question, but I get why you wouldn’t want to contradict your fellow travellers, especially right after accusing their opponents of being misleading.
I never said nor implied that “initiative” was the only reason people were able escape poverty. I never said nor implied “initiative” always works. I was only disputing the claim that “personal choices have very little to do with socio-economic (upward) mobility”. I don’t know why you accuse me of being misleading, unless you are accusing others to mislead.
But no one prisoner can claim that is was 100% opportunity or conditions that made him escape. Initiative is primary to opportunity. Without initiative, conditions and opportunity are wasted.
If you do not want to defend your claims or prove something from your “wealth of research” I get it. I wasn’t even sure I was fully understanding your point. But it was a bold and insulting claim that was befitting a little pushback. I’m sure not everyone hates to see truth collide with error, so no I will not shut up. No one is forcing you to respond.
Your view is clearly biased. Didn't you read the world bank study?
All by itself too... no other forces were at work... it's all individual initiative...
:roll:
I believe that’s the point, maintaining the status quo, or better still, Making America Great Again (pre civil rights act).
A return to normalcy...
:gasp:
All you and your fellow travellers can do is imply that the people who reported on these questions are lying. But perhaps their claims are sincere while yours are mistaken.
All normal... and legal.
No Joe.
Let us not return to normal.
Red Herring...
It's not about the person's sincerity. We could grant that every person said exactly what they believe. We could grant that it was all true.
It would be more accurate to say that every person participating in a survey agreed to it's wording about the importance of "personal initiative". Regardless...
We could grant it all, and still discard it as irrelevant information, because that's exactly what it is.
Every person who pulled themselves up out of poverty could believe that personal initiative played an irrevocable role in their doing so, and they could all be right. However, if any of them believe that that's all it took... Well, let's just say that they ought consider themselves lucky, because we all know better.
Personal want, desire, drive, and/or initiative - all by itself - is not enough, and that was the point. The speaker's sincerity was never in question for me, for it has nothing to do with that. It's about whether or not personal initiative is enough. It's about whether or not that's all it takes. It's not, but some participants have argued such things...
Way too broad a brushstroke, and shows a clear lack of knowledge regarding what all it takes. One must want it...
Sure...
...but it takes quite a bit more than that to actually pull oneself up by one's own bootstraps, especially after being born into generational poverty. That's all. I suspect you agree.
P.S.
I've not forgotten that you offered - as evidence no less - a piece of pure unadulterated propaganda in support of some bullshit false equivalence you draw between Bernie, his ideas, and 'failed regimes' that have been given the "socialist" or "communist" branding.
As if the words "socialist" and "communist" magically makes your rhetoric true.
They don't.
Apologies, looks like I was arguing with the wrong person.
My point was only that accepting that money lending isn't necessarily exploitative doesn't get us far in understanding the way it is used to exploited vulnerable people. The adding of value to the capital borrowed only really happens in business borrowing, in which a sober financial calculation is made. Whereas personal borrowing tends to be more to do with a remedy for poor financial planning, or issues around poverty.
Why don't you agree with folk on occasion and discuss the issues themselves, rather than this false them and us reactionary rhetoric?
You remind me of Dick Dastardly in The whacky Races.
Or is this all part of the Trumpian divide and rule rhetoric?
I don’t know the statistics but I would guess mortgages and credit card debt comprise the bulk of personal borrowing in the US.
I don’t call people names and compare them to cartoon characters. That’s the bag of you and your fellow travellers, who opine about character and divisiveness out of one side of the mouth while engaging in snark and ridicule out the other. Politics is all about division. If you cannot handle an opposing opinion it’s probably not for you.
Discard the voices of the poor as irrelevant, eh? Then what is relevant? The claims of some life-long politician who has lived off tax-payer dollars the majority of his life? Some other member of the professional-managerial class, perhaps? These people do not care about the poor; they use the poor.
Punshhh has a point, you make a caricature of yourself with this kind of crap. Like a wind-up troll doll set to auto repeat.
Are you unwilling or simply incapable of addressing anything I argue? If it’s not ad hominem, it’s straw men and false accusations. I wonder if you actually think it works or if it is merely an opportunity to display your bona fides to those trapped within your bubble.
The problem people have with you is that you're intellectually dishonest because you give the impression of being a paid troll. Which is a not unreasonable assumption for someone who comes on here every day almost exclusively to spout Trumpian propaganda. Especially someone who's not American and should have little skin in the game. So, expect to be treated with the contempt you most likely deserve.
Coming from one who did not address the point I made, offered red herring instead, accused me of calling poor people liars even after I clarified the aforementioned point, as well as topping it all of with yet another false accusation...
Allow me to hold a mirror up for you...
Well, I am American. The problem is you believe, without evidence, that I’m a paid troll. This is the impression that you take, invent, fantasize, not that I give.
I love political discourse. I’m here to abide by the rules and to discuss politics with what I mistakenly believed were people capable of having such discussions. But from the get go I’ve been unfairly treated with hostility and contempt. That’s fine, I can take it and I will hit back.
Those were not voices of the poor.
Say things that aren't true, eh???
Perhaps I misunderstood, but when you said “we could grant it all, and still discard it as irrelevant information, because that's exactly what it is”, I believed you meant it. But if I was wrong I apologize.
Credit card companies are allowed to charge upwards of 30% interest for the remaining life of the loan if the borrower is late just once. That is predatory lending, especially given the way compound interest accrues and is satisfied.
I reserve judgement on your motives and potential remuneration. But yes, someone who comes on here and writes thousands of posts proselytizing the gospel of Trump does give that impression. And the impression would be the same no matter who you were supporting. It goes beyond credibility that you just like the guy enough to make this much effort to lie for him day in day out.
Ok.
Let's try again...
That survey was and still is irrelevant, for all the reasons I've mentioned that have went neglected.
Another thing...
The survey is not equal to any voice, particularly poor people's voices, because remember...
No poor people were surveyed.
:yikes:
So, I can reject the survey for all the reasons I've given, and still not be discarding voices of the poor.
You my friend are either insincere or mistaken.
In my defense I have hundred more mentions than I do comments, meaning I get thousands of emails notifying me of people commenting to me.
I get it. I’m not welcome here. I can take a hint.
You shouldn't feel pity for me, I'm quite happy with my choices. They're deliberate.
What strikes me as sad, however, is this:
Quoting Pfhorrest
If by "major things" you mean things that are very important to you, but you choose to sacrifice for something less important, than that's crazy. But I assume this isn't the case, and that you have rationally concluded that saving money is of greater importance than getting married and living with your girlfriend. In which case I just don't agree. I've come to the opposite conclusion. While you're young enough, healthy enough, strong enough, resourceful enough, etc., to live your life, you should. It doesn't mean being reckless -- I believe in living within your means and not creating problems for yourself. But to postpone things like relationships and projects simply to make your life a little easier when you're older is crazy. Why is living a long time of greater value than living for fully for a short time?And this is not to say one shouldn't' plan ahead and all that, but not at the price of the important things in your youth. Life then becomes work and sacrifice and grind during your 20s and 30s and 40s, when you're at peak creative and physical strength, and a life full of ease and regret later on.
Worth considering. I wouldn't tell anyone how to live, but the logic behind these choices -- and the general sentiment behind them -- is not something I understand or agree with.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I didn't read this before responding above, but I'll let it stay as I wrote it.
Your choices make much more sense now. Were you poor growing up? I always considered my family as poor, or at least working class, but maybe we would have been considered middle class. In any case, it really does change one's entire perception of life and work. I can't fully empathize with your rationale, perhaps, as I didn't experience the same level of insecurity.
Now you can go back to crafting and maintaining the predominant Republican worldview...
:wink:
A tool.
You serve a purpose, which is to stimulate debate and to some extent keep the opposing side on their toes. I don't believe you believe even half the stuff you say, but, whatever, Trump supporters are few and far between on these boards so we might as well have you.
How is that a defense? It could indicate trolling behavior.
Stick around.
Going from working class to middle class may be considered "upward mobility," I suppose. But, like I said, that's really an illusion. You have as much power in this country as myself or a janitor.
In fact it's interesting you mention the military -- it's a fairly good deal for a lot of poor kids who can't afford or don't want to go the college route and who can't find a decent job. I know plenty of people who did just that. I'm sure you feel proud about it, to the point where you can now look down on the people making less money than you or not taken care of by the government as you are, as simply weak and lazy and stupid. It's a very self-serving position: I got to where I am because of hard work and merit, and anyone else can as well if they weren't so lazy and didn't choose to be coddled. It's an old conservative/capitalist mantra. I'd recommend seriously questioning that assessment of things.
I also, like you, know many people who have worked their way up from poverty to own a home and get a good-paying job, etc. But all of us are in the same class. In fact, we do not know anyone who isn't. They exist, but they aren't us. It's kind of funny, in fact, that you think you've moved from one class to the other, and the this entitles you to give lectures about poor and working class ambition.
Hopefully someone is paying him. I hate to think he’s getting all butthurt for nothing.
Joining the ranks of the military requires having one's life be put at risk by the personal beliefs of the commander in chief...
I wonder what those enlistment numbers look like nowadays.
The armed services have helped many, no doubt. I've a long line of veterans in my own family, not all of whom glorify it.
I think it's a her...
Could be wrong, but the uncanny resemblance between the word choices here and a certain campaign manager's word choices... the only successful female one... is just that... uncanny.
Well since you yourself are one of these "people," do you consider yourself helpless? OK then, neither to they. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm dealing with facts, on which we presumably agree: one group of people do not have access to the same resources and do not get the same opportunities as another group of people. You, for example, will never be a general or a CEO. Never.
There are all kinds of gradations, but it's true. When discussing the wealthiest people -- the people with real power in this country -- this "group" now includes nearly everyone, including you. So while you may feel very proud with your position, remember that you are still one of the 80% - sorry to break it to you. Thus to pick on the percentile below you is like a guy living off of $900 disability checks lecturing a homeless guy about his lack of work ethic.
Exactly right.
You can turn that off, just fyi.
That's because you give us softballs. Some bright children could notice and correct where you've gone wrong, hence why you get so many mentions and responses -- because it's open to so many.
Incidentally, that should tell you something about your beliefs. Are you open to changing some of them, or do you hold them as objective absolutes?
It’s a little hard to consider that predatory when payday lenders, for instance, charge over ten times that interest rate and knowingly target those in a desperate position.
It's a little hard to consider a person a murderer for killing just one person when some people murder hundreds and the bar for what counts as being a murderer is set by the worst actual examples...
That's a matter of degree, praxis. They are all predatory.
But yes... the payday loan places are predatory lending at some of it's worst. Legal loan sharks... without the threat of personal violence.
Okay, I'll have to tell some of my co-workers that their move out of poverty and section 8 housing and food stamps into the actual middle class is all just an "illusion." The home they own and the stability they now have means zero because they're not a billionaire able to influence politics and buy senators.
Do you tell overweight people who just ran their first 5k that their time wasn't great?
Even a 1% percenter will never have the wealth that Bloomberg does. How much actual political power do you think someone with, say, $10M has in the grand scheme of things? Tell it Martin Shkreli and Harvey Weinstein (who both had more than $10M).
Yes, on my free time I enjoy walking around in uniform and telling homeless people to "get a job" and minimum wage earners to "work harder." It's really great fun.
The military was a last ditch effort for me, so now I'm not some flag waving working class conservative. I honestly don't even care what people do or how much they earn, but if someone is going to do nothing to even attempt to get their situation in order and then blame the system on it I'm so done with them.
If someone is able to foresee a problem 40-50 years away and proceeds to ignore it and then finds themselves in dire straits, well, maybe look to yourself first before blaming the entire system.
I think people would vote for legislation that restricted the worst payday lending practices, even though it might restrict the “freedom” of some to be predators.
I would never want to be a general, have you ever seen one come to a military base? They have zero privacy. They need a caravan of security and other high ranking officers around them at all times. God, what a terrible life.
You're also probably right that I'll never be a CEO of some big company, but who cares about working at a big company? The beautiful thing about this economy is that you can be your own boss. It's entirely within the realm of possibility to start your own business where you can be your own CEO.
I'm also a bit of a mover and a shaker, by the way. My salary is not my only form of income. I'm a semi-professional poker player (live near a casino), pretty decent investor/trader, and churning credit cards has netted me a few extra grand here and there. But I suppose none of this stability "really" matters because I'll never be a fortune 500 CEO or a billionaire. Your attitude contributes to your problem. Wealth isn't made in a day, it's often made through generations. Just upping yourself by one class and being able to raise your children in that class is a huge accomplishment. It's sad that you don't see this.
Here is the relevant part of your response. It's exactly this sentiment that's wrong. It's in the same group as the old "Welfare Queen" belief, which still persists. Why? Because this is very rare. You can always find outliers to justify your general attitude, but it ignores the wider and much more important data.
But yes, I'm done with those people too. I'm not arguing in favor of gaming the system or capable (but lazy) people wanting a free ride. I'm sure that happens. But again, look at the numbers. And even if the numbers aren't all that clear, it's hard to argue that it's a common occurrence. If that's all you see, it's because that's all you want to see. And it's that fact that I'm talking about -- the attitude or belief held prior to approaching a subject. How did it develop, etc. It's what I was talking about before with irrationality.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
"If."
No. It's not a matter of wanting. It will never happen, period. Ever. End of story. Whether you want it or not. I may have wanted to play in the NBA, but I wasn't tall enough. People seem fine with things like that, but when it comes to the American Dream of "if you just work hard enough, sky's the limit," we all have to become delusional.
Yes, some people get out of poverty. Some people win the lottery. That's not the point. Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yeah, and those grapes they eat are probably sour anyway.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
"Probably right." I love this. I guess you're a true believer in the American dream. Fine. Don't let me disillusion you if it makes you happy. But in my view, it's a complete delusion. And when used to justify the condemnation of others for their poverty, it's harmful.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yeah, I guess the guy struggling to feed his kids by working three jobs also doesn't "really" matter because he hasn't yet bought a house, joined the military, etc., like some others who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps with good ol'-fashioned hard work.
It's funny you get defensive and start justifying yourself with a list of your perceived accomplishments. That was precisely the reason for saying what I did. I don't consider you a loser because you're not a CEO, nor do I think it's because you haven't worked hard enough, nor do I think it's because you couldn't do the job or don't have the intelligence or work ethic, etc. You see the relevance?
Maybe if you worked harder, you could up it even more. I'm so done with people like you who "blame the system" for where you are.
The above is satire. But my point is this: you'll never be a CEO not because you don't work hard enough or don't "want" it, etc. It's the same reason kids you are more than capable of getting into Havard don't get accepted but a "legacy" kid will. Is that just a matter of merit and hard work, too?
You can't possibly believe this isn't a rigged economy in many ways. You can't possibly NOT see that rich people get preferential treatment from the judicial system, etc. It's simply a matter of statistics. OK, so once you admit that, the question becomes how prevalent it is. Turns out, very much so. More than I ever thought when I was a teenager believing precisely as you do, that anyone who blamed other people or the "system" was like the kid who always blamed his bad shots on the rim. But then I really looked around, listened to people's stories, surveyed the data, etc., and quickly realized my assumptions were dead wrong.
So I don't approach this as a victim and, in fact, I'm very happy with where I am. Likewise with living in this country. To criticize this economy and this country does not mean I hate it or I feel I'm a victim. It's acknowledging reality, of which there's overwhelming evidence that shows it's almost all tilted to the wealthy and the powerful. Which shouldn't be surpassing to anyone who's studied history or who puts down their indoctrination and looks around honestly.
Escaping poverty is very rare? I don't think so.
"Recent research has uncovered striking racial differences in the likelihood of upward mobility (Corcoran & Matsudaira, 2005; Isaacs, 2007; Kearney, 2006; Mazumder, 2005). An analysis of data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) revealed that 42% of Blacks born in the bottom tenth of the income distribution remained in the same income bracket as adults. Only 17% of Whites showed this same pattern."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4108157/
Even with this racial inequality you still have most blacks escaping this situation.
I'm not talking about going from poor to rich. Going from poor to lower middle class is a huge accomplishment.
I'm interested in longitudinal studies which follow individuals across time here.
That issue is retirement. Shouldn't be too hard to recognize. If someone is earning decent money and does not save any of it and wakes up at age 65 one day and is annoyed that they have to keep working then I'm sorry but you've made your own bed.
It's not just about hard work. You're putting up an easy, naive target here that no one really believes.
I'm being 100% honest I would not want the job.
Then why has my family done it? Why did I grow up around people who also did it? Apparently none of us exist in your world.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
No, Welfare queens and other outlier examples, which are used to justify cutting funding and a general hatred towards the poor, are rare. I put the entire context in -- in case it was an accident that you left it out.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Sure. What's your point?
I'm sure plenty of people do it, as I've stated before. Many more try very hard and fail to do so. This doesn't say anything about the economy being rigged for the wealthy, who own and control it. It's like saying we're a democracy because we get the option to push a button every four years, and if you criticize it you're "anti-democracy."
The bottom line is to drop the capitalist indoctrination in which we're all raised. That includes notions of an "American dream" and "rugged individualism."
This discussion isn't about welfare queens. I never mentioned that term or said that poor people are abusing the welfare system. I'm solely concerned with economic mobility and I cited data which stated that only 1 in 5 white people who grew up in the bottom 10% actually stayed as adults and 42% of blacks do. Sure, like winning the lottery.
Financial responsibility is first and foremost a personal responsibility.
I just can't believe you when you say that the American dream is a myth or like winning the lottery when I grew up in a neighborhood where most people were maybe 1st or 2nd generation immigration who came over to the US with not much money and yet here we are in a decent neighborhood. You make out economic mobility to be a myth when I just don't think that's the case.
I think I saw a box of tissues in the lounge.
Are you saying that people are poor because they are not financially responsible?
Not necessarily, but this is the case for some people.
I'm a political cartoonist, or hadn't you noticed? This is the only time I have used satire in referring to you.
Politics is not about division, it's about running the country in a way which avoids corruption and despotism. The fact that politics in the US has become about division is a failure of politics in the US.
Well, you are talking to people on a Philosophy Forum, so I think a lot of people are familiar with the juxtaposition "what is interesting" / "what is good for your career and future income" when picking subjects to study.
What people many times forget is that a university degree, with the exception of a medical or legal degree, seldom open a path for certain jobs, it's more of the show that you are intelligent enough to innovate, think and handle more advance issues.
And in the end most important thing we often forget (when only looking at education) is that it's the actual training that you get in work life that truly defines one career. And there either the economy works or it doesn't. Government programs have little say in this: it genuinely gives only the supporting institutions, but in a free market capitalist system isn't the major player. When there isn't that working private sector and functioning economy, even an OK education system, low corruption etc. doesn't solve the problem. I think in the West and especially in the US one can understand this difference easily: just carve out the "rust belt" or the poor places from the economic hubs.
And this in fact important to understand especially in the case of social democracy (or Democratic Socialism in Bernie's case). Yes, people can make the argument for the welfare state. It has it's positive effects. Universal Health Care is nice and so is free education up to the university level. Absolute povetry and widescale crime can be eradicated. However, the economy has to work, it has to have the ability to create that tax income for the government. Because socialism in the Marxist-Leninist way doesn't work! It ruins the economy and creates in the end in the best case a stagnant backward economy with few incentives and a multitude of problems. At worst it create a catastrophe, just like in Venezuela.
The real problem with social democrats is not that they are out to destroy capitalism, those are the marxists, but that they stay ignorant of the economic reality and in their idealogical agenda start making it difficult for the economy to perform and do this rather unintentionally. Once that vibrant economy is choked off, then the real problems emerge only afterwards.
Glad to read that you are on the mend! And that you didn’t need radiation or chemo... :smile: :up:
Quoting Bitter Crank
:rofl: Coming soon to a theater... or hospital... near you! (I’m thinking maybe Patrick Stewart as the voice of the surgery-happy CGI robot. Or Judy Dench. Maybe the robot can have an automatic-type weapon that shoots horrendously overpriced and jagged prescription pills?).
Where do I say that in the above quotation? I'll repeat: plenty of people do it.
Now look at the second sentence, because it's here that the issue lies. Given your use of standard talking points about personal responsibility, hard work, upward mobility, excuses, and "blaming the system," it seems to me you believe we're not in fact living in a rigged economy and plutocracy, and that systemic biases either don't exist or are minimal. If this isn't your position, you're certainly not acknowledging or highlighting these factors. And they are real and powerful.
Yes, and for many others it isn't. They work very hard and are still screwed. To highlight and rail on one and not the other, particularly when there's far more evidence to support the latter, exposes your own prejudices.
When you say "rigged" I think casino games. I don't believe that there is a council of evil billionaires at the top who spend their time trying to keep poor people poor. I do believe that certain laws and regulations work against the poor though.
Obviously some people have advantages and others have disadvantages. Come to think of it, even if the system were 100% meritocratic I think a strong case could be made that it would still be unfair. After all, it's no one's fault if one were to have a learning disability or autism.
Remember when we were talking about having a productive conversation? I feel like this isn't it. I'm happy to steer the convo into my productive waters though.
Ah, ok. Thank you. Yes, that comes to mind for me as well and definitely has that connotation, but in this context I don't mean a conspiracy or anything as dramatic or blatant as rigging a Roulette table or slot machine or something like that.
When I use "rigged" I mean legislation and policies (e.g. deregulation) that get proposed and passed based not on what the majority of people are demanding, but what serves the interests of only a small portion of society -- call them the plutocratic class or the "the wealthy elites." That's not to say that the population at large don't get some of what they want, as they still have the power of the vote and the politicians know that, but if you watch the values and interests of the classes (the top .01% vs 20% vs 80%), it's the donor class -- those who can afford to spend extra money on campaign contributions, sometimes very large -- which gets closer to 100% of what they want. As you go up the amount scale, you find a stronger correlation.
This is exactly what we would expect, too, given that those who get elected are those with the funds to buy advertising, hire consultation and staff, rent a campaign office, etc. The more powerful the positions, the more money is usually required. And most of them aren't millionaires or billionaires, although most of them come from wealthier backgrounds who could afford to attend Harvard and Yale.
If the money to become a senator is large, the only people who have the means to meet that amount of money are "special interest groups," and this in turn can buy a seat at the table and a sympathetic ear for lobbyists. Lobbyists are representatives of the special interest that contributed money to the campaign. The larger the contribution, the more important it is to listen to what they want.
All of this is basic and obvious. Takes no genius to figure out. So how is any of this related to what's meant by a "rigged economy"?
Well, did you know lobbyists and lawyers of corporations can write bills? What would you expect to find within those bills?
Very favorable terms. What legislation would we expect to come out of this lobbying from the corporate (big business) world? Exactly what we see in both party's administrations: favorable trade deals (NAFTA under Clinton), tax cuts (Reagan, Bush II and Trump), deregulation (Trump, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Obama), bailouts, maintaining the status quo, large subsidies (grants -- free money given to big business to help keep their prices low, particularly in agriculture and energy), union busting, corporate personhood, unlimited corporate spending, etc. The last few were favorable court rulings, but just as relevant as they deal with laws as well.
Look at the consequences of these policies. It's been around 40 years or so, since Reagan and the beginning of the "neoliberal" era, and had run though every administration. We're living with the results.
If you are OK with all of this because you happen to be happy where you are in life right now, or had a run of luck, or were born into a family that was fairly well-off, etc., then it's worth remembering how interconnected we are (and everything is) in today's world. The coronavirus spread is a good topical example. I don't like the hysteria, of course, but even give all these precautions it still spreads. Look at the economic domino effect as well.
The same is true of ideas, of environmental degradation, of nuclear radiation, of popular movements. They can be good or bad, but there's no running away to a desert island or burying yourself in your personal life anymore. We're at a time when we're being forced to become global-minded. You can choose to ignore it or sit it out, I suppose. I have done and continue to do too much of that. But I'm reminded every day that there is a world outside my room, filled with all kinds of people just like me. To at least acknowledge that fact is a start.
I needed to lay it all out like this, because there's no sense going back and forth with snippets.
One thing you should remember. The US has also done well. That it has avoided the ugly side of socialism has it's positive side too. Don't think that things couldn't be worse! They surely could.
The following graph is interesting when it shows one country that has chosen the most reckless, most destructive economic policies thanks to populism and that is Argentina. Just look at how prosperous it was in 1909. Argentina was far wealthier than my country, for example. (The Chinese economic ascent only starts in the time frame.)
This comparison is unjust. Sanders is by all means not fixated of nationalizing everything in the market. Only some more regulation and much needed higher taxes on the ultra-rich. His policies should lead to higher GDP growth in the long term if that's the only thing that matters to Joe or Sandy.
Furthermore, I'm tired of having the stigma of privatized prisons in the US. This is something spawned out of some lunacy and needs to stop.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/08/politics/jesse-jackson-bernie-sanders-endorsement/index.html
Wait you actually think this?
It's a definite possibility. And I'm not the only one who thinks that. Plenty of political commentators have made the same point.
Just say no to drugs.
I'm honestly curious who these commentators are
You can enter "Hillary presidential speculation" into Google and get dozens more similar links. Have you not noticed that she's all over the airwaves lately? New documentary out? Bill making blowjob excuses? You see this and it never occurs to you that she's positioning herself for a brokered convention?
https://nypost.com/2020/03/07/democrats-hunt-for-trump-slayer-may-lead-to-hillary-clinton-comeback-goodwin/
https://www.newsweek.com/dick-morris-hillary-clinton-presidential-run-1468035
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/whos-driving-the-clinton-2020-rumor-mill
https://www.foxnews.com/media/hillary-clintons-the-only-one-who-can-end-2020-campaign-speculation-brazile
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/25/politics/hillary-clinton-2020/index.html
Your counterargument doesn't make the point, because I've made the distinction quite clear between social democrats and true marxist-leninists and I've said multiple times that Sanders is a social democrat.
What Bernie wants is classic social democratic goals, universal healthcare, free education and to tax the wealthy more than others. And raise taxes. And create a lot of new regulation and fees and taxes. A lot of red tape from rules from diversifying corporate boards to worker participation and requirements for stakeholder charters. All kinds of new programs and laws that companies have to make. Just massive amounts of red tape.
That is the socialist part Bernie's program. And of course that there is absolutely nothing about keeping the US economy going. How to keep the US competitive. The only thing is that Green New Deal will create jobs and free trade has to be curbed. And that's basically it with Bernie. Just like with social democrats all over, the economy and the private sector is more of this nuisance, that can and ought to be milked as much it can be because it's inherently bad and wrong I guess.
Damn these are some super duper serious commentators!
I'm only responding because your remark is so disingenuous as to make me wonder why you bothered.
Someone asked me for references to support an opinion I expressed. I found them some references. Now you're unhappy I posted references.
Whatever dude. I admit it's a slow Sunday. I'm watching the XFL game. For a jonesing fan of the NFL this is like a heroin addict making do with an aspirin.
I'm unsure where your getting the idea that Bernie is setting up companies to failure due to red tape???
Can you actually support this with some evidence?
Universal healthcare is cheaper than what we got already. So, he's actually simplifying things there. Education should be free, I think? The benefits are found in higher employment and efficiency or productivity. Human capital stands above the debt imposed on the government, yes?
Tax laws will be simplified and loopholes closed.
I mean, if your going to attack his program then at least address the policies and logic and not some pejorative term such as woo-me "socialism".
Laws written by unelected officials. People who are knowingly writing pieces of legislation which err on the side of major corporations' profit margins, and in doing so against everyday Americans...
Speeches as well are written by people who are not a candidate/public official.
These sorts of things are wrong on all sorts of levels.
The notion that Hillary will be selected by a brokered convention is OPINION.
So even though you are trying (and failing) to say something snarky and clever, your analogy is wrong from the getgo. @Maw asked for references to OPINOINS about Hillary preparing to be nominated at a brokered convention. I supplied several of the opinions. The point you're trying to make isn't there.
You also said that was your "prediction" and shared op-eds from random if not outright shoddy political commentators, mostly I should add, from October 2019, but you haven't provided any substance behind this prediction of yours.
Like when the smart people said Trump could never win. You lack imagination. And an underappreciation of Hillary's all-consuming ambition.
Much less red tape is being created than is definitely being stripped away...
So...
If red tape is bad... Bernie's policies are more good than current convention.
You'll have to do better than that.
That seems to be a reasonable report.
Click bait is unacceptable if it knowingly and deliberately misleads the American electorate. A free and fair election must have a well informed electorate. Allowing mis and disinformation to rule the public airwaves is...
...grounds for revolution.
Clinton somehow becoming the democratic nominee as a result of a brokered convention would be as well.
Don't be surprised if that revolution does not take "no" for an answer when it comes to having the best government policies regarding good healthcare. Those policies will have the direct and unmediated result of all Americans having good healthcare not just 'available' to them - we've heard that schtick before - but also used at one's own discretion.
Freedom and liberty regarding the important choices about one's own healthcare.
What a fucking novel idea.
Americans are not idiots. They are criminally governed.
Government is a necessary evil. It takes funding to operate. The American government was designed to operate on tax revenue. The United States federal government is the body of people tasked with the sole aim of using that revenue for acting on behalf of all Americans whenever and each time it is possible to do so. Taxes are to be spent on paying politicians who are acting on behalf of all Americans whenever it is possible to do so. The result of their doing so is an improvement in the overall quality of American life.
We do not have that.
Therefore, all the pieces of legislation that led up to where we are now, need to be corrected, and those who voted for them at the time, or argue in their favor today, ought be removed from public office.
The authors of those pieces of legislation ought be made readily available to the American public during these political revelations. The unmasking...
No elected official will publicly nationally admit to acting on behalf of a corporation instead of the overwhelming majority of everyday American people despite knowing of the irreparable harm that would result. Plenty have done it. These are the people that need to be removed from public office, for they are clearly guilty of dereliction of sworn duty. They are not alone.
Taxes are necessary to run an effective government of the people, for the people, and by the people. The United States of America has precisely such a government. When more Americans require being helped along, the American government is required to do more in order to help them along.
Increasing the taxes on the wealthiest Americans and others who do business in the American marketplace is a necessary and just step in the process of making sure Americans get the healthcare they ought.
Bernie Sanders may indeed raise taxes as a means to implement the healthcare policy he's forwarding. Taxes are not bad in and of themselves. The increase in personal income tax will be more than offset by the individual savings in healthcare itself. That is true for the overwhelming majority. The decrease in health care expenses will exceed the increase in personal income tax for those currently with average healthcare costs. The net result is a savings. The result is healthcare for everyone and a bigger paycheck for the everyday American who needs and deserves... fair pay, good healthcare, and the peace of mind knowing that unfortunate health circumstances will not put one in the poor house, or keep one financially obligated to pay huge sums of money for the rest of one's life in order to receive necessary emergency medical treatment.
It's a disgrace.
Obamacare did not fix the problem. Rather, it just made it more complex. In Obama's defense, the actual bill was significantly different than the one originally introduced. It was a step in the right direction. Now it's time to get it right.
Yes. America’s “infrastructure” is its PEOPLE. That is primary and undeniable. Then secondarily: its roads, bridges, power grids, and other physical structures. America’s main infrastructure, the people, are on the verge of collapse, imho. The American people (tired, angry, overworked, sick, under-appreciated, under-represented, etc) are a rusted-out bridge about to fall down. Surprising to some perhaps, the young know this better than most.
Quoting Shawn
:up: Definitely! That racist, classist money grab has gone on too damn long. It is an authoritatian capitalist nightmare. But unfortunately, it is a nightmare that is too easy to ignore if you are not specifically affected by it. That is perhaps why it has hardly been mentioned in the debates.
You're projecting, again. Notice I didn't say the US was doing good or bad. I said we're living with the consequences.
Now when you say the "US has done well," you're not saying much at all. First you have to clarify what you mean by the US. If by the US you mean PEOPLE of the US, then no, we haven't done "well" at all by historical standards. We've declined. If by the US you mean the corporate sector, then yes things are amazing indeed -- no question. They'll probably continue getting better, too.
Saying things can get worse is fatuous. Things can always get worse.
Notice that the media isn't picking this endorsement up as much as Harris, Booker, etc.
Quoting fishfry
No, it isn't. You keep making statements like this and you lose a little credibility each time. I don't believe it's because you're stupid; I'd prefer to believe you do some kind of critical thinking about these topics.
Asking yourself some questions is helpful. Remember that the DNC are full of real people making real, calculated decisions. Do we think it's even remotely likely that -- out of the blue -- they nominate Hillary Clinton? Really think about it.
Quoting ssu
What good is an economy if you're under water? Or dead? Or having to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on environmental disasters? It's true that the Green New Deal will create jobs, but even if infinite growth isn't in our future, it'll still save us money and lives and help mitigate the yearly disasters we're already seeing.
You really ought to get your priorities straight. Talk about GDP or debt or stocks or anything else is completely useless if we're heading towards disaster. If you don't believe me, take a look at how something like the coronavirus is effecting the markets. That's peanuts compared to the upcoming wildfires, floods, sea rise, mass migrations, and food and water shortages.
Exactly right.
Sometimes it's OK to just say "Yeah, that was silly." This is an online forum - no need to save face. Why go on defending the indefensible? Because I can't get myself to believe you actually believe what you're saying. You're smarter than that.
You're obviously correct. This is a very scary phenomenon, too. The question is: How do we deal with it when we see it, and in what way?
Why is it that someone else's being wrong brings out this childish behavior in us? Is it that it's an online forum? Because I'm often the same way, and it's never done me any good.
:)
Or write too much anyway.
Getting Jesse Jackson’s blessing is simply huge for Sanders. No two ways about it. Forget “beating Trump” (and the whole giant health care issue) for just a moment... let’s say the entire election is between Biden and Bernie. Bernie seems to have plans and intentions that would help the working class (“poor”) and African-Americans far better than Joe Biden. Not really even close, imo.
I don’t see HRC anywhere near the election. She might scare voters away. Where I see her showing up possibly is on Biden’s cabinet. She serves a few years as Secretary of Something or other. Then retires and writes of her triumphant return in her memoirs. Can’t wait! :yawn:
You should start with his campaign pages and really read through all of his agenda thoroughly at:
Bernie Sanders on the issues
There's just 34 issues (if I counted them right). And everyone of them has a lot than just one issue.
You can start from counting how many new issues has a medium size corporation have to deal in Bernie-land if everything Bernie wants would go through. Start from the Green New Deal, go through workplace democracy, check Real Wall Street reform and it's effects, then plunge into Jobs for all and Fair trade agenda a see what they will force your company to do. Finally, your ready to face "Corporate Accountability and Democracy" and look how you will have to share profits, boardroom decisions with workers / labor unions and diversify your corporate board. After all, Bernie wants that "Every employee should be guaranteed the right to vote at work, and have a voice in setting their pay, regardless of the kind or size of company or firm they work for."
So uh... that's social democracy in the purest form for you.
What effects? You think that market going down is a source of trouble? Perhaps you should read what you write yourself.
Climate change? How wouldn't the climate change discussion be something else than talking about the economy, if it's fossil fuel you want to replace? It is especially about how to organize the economy, how to make the change happen.
Let's take just an example. In the Green New Deal Bernie says:
Fine. But how? Those are...deadlines.
Deadlines like Sweden decided in the 1980's with great fanfare to abolish nuclear energy use in the middle of the 1990's (a decade or so) and then when that time limit was achieved, was producing more with nuclear energy than when the decision was first done. So the real issue would be how to get there. That's where you have to do something with the economy.
Uh..do what?
I'm just telling that Bernie is a Social Democrat in all his heart. That all above is social democracy.
Because Americans have never actually experienced what is Western social democracy like, it's really like this (the above). High minded ambitious agenda's that in truth create a lot of red tape, because the agenda is promoted and executed by government boards manned by administration officials (picked by social democrats) and stakeholders (close to social democrats) and the few unfortunate industry representative to write down lofty goals that will be forgotten when the next administration changes...
Change comes through THE COMMITTEE!!!
You can't be serious, can you?
The idea is self governing, not central management imposed and kept in check by apparatchiks within the workforce...
Who else would it be than apparatchniks of the workforce sitting in boardroom with the owners? And if you think about it, actually, it has to be people that do understand a lot more than the specific work at counter or the factory line.
This part we do know in the Nordic countries where the system has been built up for a hundred years or so.
So, the alternative is to stick with the fascist structure of central management imposed by the chiefs, CEO, COO, etc.?
Now you've lost me. Central management is a way to coordinate a large network where people simply cannot all come to sit down on a table and have a coffee and decide what everybody is going to do. Large cooperatives also have central management, so what is your point?
In western social democracy companies and corporations are left alone. The exceptions are what is in the administration's agenda + existing regulation, taxation and supervision. They simply have to comply with the regulation imposed on them. Otherwise, they can make all the money they want, assuming they do pay their taxes. Modern social democracy doesn't even want to nationalize corporations. Only some strategic companies might fall into the category of where nationalization is looked positively.
I'm just pointing out the similarities between how central management is handled within a company or regulation imposes it to be handled in a certain way.
What's wrong with letting the shareholders with the largest stake to deal with profits and maintaining their positions from making decisions from within the company?
At no point does the government have to intervene or make decisions for individuals from within the company...
Oh it does! Bernie has a long list on what he plans to meddle in the decisions of corporations.
Just listen to Bernie:
And now feel the Bern:
You got that, Shawn? It's all about unions.
And we haven't come to Corporate Accountability and Democracy part yet.
That's even more of the true unadulterated Bernie.
What's wrong with fairness all of a sudden?
Quoting Shawn
With the Bernie option, workers getting a salary (and either choosing the job or not) isn't enough.
I don't have a problem with labor unions. I assume you do need them. But also there is a point in having free markets too.
And of course strengthening the labour unions IS quite universal in the DNC.
Just look what Joe Biden says on his website:
What effects? The Dow just had it's worst day since 2008. Yes, the market going down is a source of trouble. Remember -- we share the burden when things fail. We do not, however, share in the profits. This isn't hard to see or understand.
Quoting ssu
We're talking priorities. Economic growth, as you highlighted, should be very low on the list, in any rational world, when facing an existential threat. How much is too much when you're heading for disaster?
The economic question has been answered. The Green New Deal will create many jobs, and will also cost a lot of money. Trillions of dollars. It will also save us money in the long run. The details can be hammered out, but let's at least first admit something MAJOR must be done, and quickly. If you can't admit that, there's no sense talking to you. If you can, and you simply don't agree with the proposal, then by all means come up with something better.
Quoting ssu
OK. And your suggestions are what? If you believe in them, fight for them. Otherwise you're simply dead wood -- an obstacle, and I would recommend simply getting out of the way. Perhaps get together with others who believe nothing can or should be done.
Wallows seems a bit too young to fully grasp how important the right to organize is in the states. No offense meant... at all Wallows.
:smile:
So...
That looks like a great plan to empower the everyday worker... a bit of freedom and liberty for working Americans. A reversal of so many policies that have resulted in so many Americans no longer being able to find a good place to work for their entire lives...
Oh, I know... what a horrible idea huh? Dependable workers who care about their job, because it's a good one to have. Used to be a lot of those... not now.
Pension, health benefits, and all that? Who needs it huh? I mean, why not continue to allow huge corporations to breach the contract of those who have already kept their end of the deal. Fuck 'em huh? They're old anyway... they don't need the pension plan that they worked their entire lives for...
No... to quite the contrary, we should keep letting corporations cut pension benefits in order to put the savings from those cuts into the hands of the shareholders...
Take money from those who will reinvest it by virtue of buying things and give it to those who do not.
What a great fucking idea. A robust economy requires having lots of people spend lots of money on everyday goods and services. Regular working class people spend money. Shareholders do not. Investors do not. Corporations do not.
:roll:
That's a perfect list of things to do.
Ding ding ding ding...
We have a winner!
:smile:
Do you know who Robert Reich is?
Free markets?
What the fuck is that? The markets are manipulated to the extreme by all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. There is no such thing as a free market. The primary focus switching to shareholder profits is the primary reason that corporations exploit common workers in the US and across the globe.
Profits for shareholders(most of whom are already fairly well off)... the welfare line for workers... no healthcare benefits... corporate welfare. Socialism for corporations. The government and tax revenue affords the workers some semblance of healthcare, while the corporation rakes in record level profits as a result of exploiting workers.
When profit alone is the sole motive, it comes at the direct expense of everything else.
Ding ding ding. Winner!
It's an abstraction, an ideal that people refuse to let go of. Usually used to justify the neoliberal agenda (i.e., giving everything away to private power, thus into the hands of a very small ruling class).
Again I point to Chomsky's "Free Market fantasies" lecture.
https://chomsky.info/19960413/
(Chomsky)
No.
But you should, just for a while before assuming anything, just look at what for example Biden is saying on the same issues. And try to spot the difference.
Quoting creativesoul
Yes.
Have you seen American Factory? Listening or reading Reich's comments/books is one thing, looking at how the Chinese are horrified of the idea of labor unions (when mentioned by a politician at the opening ceremony) and how union involvement is put down is even more telling about the situation of the US worker.
I get that. But I also get that there's a fine line between Biden's and Sanders' proposals. Would you spot the difference or just go with your gut feeling?
Quoting creativesoul
A thing that even Sweden has it's economy based upon. A free market is one where voluntary exchange and the laws of supply and demand provide the sole basis for the economic system. Yet for that to work, there have to be institutions and rules that are enforced by a legal system, a government. And with that comes the fact that some issues aren't so well taken care of by free markets. Things aren't a juxtaposition between free market capitalism and non-capitalist socialism, but this simplistic position is how things are portrayed.
To quote Robert Reich: "Contrary to Karl Marx, there is nothing about capitalism that leads inexorably to mounting economic insecurity and widening inequality."
There are no free markets. Not in Sweden either. And you're not seeing it because you've grown up with a certain mode of production for quite some time now. But prior to more or less 1860 (and some exemptions of course, such as the East India Company!):
1. Corporate status is natural to the state. Hence, any government institution, whether central, regional, or local, should automatically be incorporated from inception.
2. State permission is required for the incorporation of private institutions.
3. The incorporation of private nonprofit organizations is awarded when parliament (we assume a democracy) judges their goals to be serving some area of public interest.
4. The incorporation of private business firms is awarded when parliament judges them to be pursuing the public interest within a certain limited public domain.
5. The charter explicitly states the area of public interest for which incorporation is approved, from which private corporations deviate on penalty of having their corporate status revoked.
6. Incorporated institutions are obliged to have an open door and open book policy so that the public (in particular, private journalists and state officials) can check whether their activities conform with the public interest to which their charter restricts them. Thus, some degree of privacy needs to be given up in order to acquire the public characteristic of incorporation, which is again just a matter of not granting rights without accompanying obligations. The fact that modern business corporations are also obliged to issue publicly accessible financial statements is partly a legacy of this principle.
7. Incorporation is conceded for a limited period only and the merits of each case are to be reviewed periodically.
The corrolary to this was also that a profit motive was not a "public interest" and therefore not admissable.
So no, a free market would've been the unincorporated world of partnerships. Even then, judges and governments have caused structural effects in markets due to limited liability, duty of care, EH&S, minimum wage etc.
Sorry, but we do use the definition and the word "free market" / "free market system" to describe a present system.
Quoting Benkei
?
And Before 1860 it was according to you more "free market"? That gives it quite a short time as I remember Adam Smith being against mercantilism and the last vestiges of feudalism in his country. And the East India Company was chartered by the English Monarch to have monopoly in trade, so bit confused just what your idea of "free markets" is?
Agreed.
I don't think so. Biden's aren't Biden's. Bernie's are Bernie's.
I personally know people who worked at Delphi. That was the GM plant that closed in Dayton Oh. Yes, I've seen the show, and I've also been aware of the differences between work cultures for much longer than that.
What's the point of the mention?
Against patents as well... but no one strictly adheres to Smith. He's more of an imaginary God for those who peddle capitalism. The founding fathers were against capitalists. They've no loyalty to country or countryman. That's proven true.
And people use "Communist" to describe Sanders. Does not make it either true, nor sensible. Makes it propaganda.
Let's try to agree on the definitions.
Free market system is an economic system in which prices are determined by competition between businesses, supply and demand in the market. Prices are determined using the market mechanism. Do not confuse this with the theoretical term in economics of a perfect market. This also doesn't say anything about the role of the government, only that it doesn't interfere so much that there wouldn't be the market mechanism at all defining the prices, but the government (or another entity) just fixing the prices itself. Governments and public sector can have either a large or a little role, but that's beside the point to the definition. Or just how efficient and well working the markets are.
If you are thinking of the effects of actual large companies, well, that is then Oligopolistic competition, which in reality is the way global markets usually now tend to be formed. Yet even if oligopolies rule the World, they do it using the free market system.
In terms you're using I would say every economy in the world is a mixture of elements from free markets and command economies. To say the Netherlands or Finland are (unqualified) free market economies is simply incorrect.
Campaign promises are indeed one thing. But one should notice what even Biden says about labor unions in his campaign.
Then the actual legislation that the politician has pushed through is something else to be looked upon. Promises are one thing, actual policy decisions another.
Quoting creativesoul
It's a great example of just how much the American workplace differs from others in this issue. And do notice that China naturally has it's one labour union, which is part of the government.
Quoting creativesoul
Well so is Marx for others. Yet both should be taken for what they truly say and meant, not what people just think they stand for as icons.
Quoting creativesoul
I would disagree.
In a large workplace that workers use collective bargaining is I think totally reasonable. It's not about the employer being good or bad. It simply just makes sense. Above all, labor unions ought not to be thought as an ideological vehicle for the left, they can be totally unpolitical also. I've always given the example of the officer corps of the Finnish Armed Forces: 98% of all active officers belong to one labor union formed in 1918 and trust me, those guys genuinely aren't pinkos. Never have been and never will be.
(90th birthday ceremony of one Labor union. Notice that the union members are using their uniforms in the event. No red flags btw.)
Quoting creativesoul
And the term "fascist" is used as a similar derogative for right wing politicians. Yet I've tried to explain that there is a definition in economics to free markets, which I explained to Benkei above.
Personal decisions are huge. I shouldn't have to explain this. If you have children that's a huge burden especially as an unmarried, single parent. In fact, that's probably the biggest predictor of poverty. Do you know how much raising a child costs? Around $250k from cradle to the time they're 18. Now lets just throw in 3 kids.
My approach is to examine the micro before we approach the macro.
I'm going by brookings institute here - a left wing institute.
Top 3 predictors of poverty:
1. Graduating from high school.
2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.
3. Having a full-time job.
If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class.
https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20120127/OPINION/801258741
It's really quite a good article.
The "Success Sequence" is a bunch of nonsense actually.
Your red button under Bernie is an surprise ruining aunt scenario.
He clearly doesn't know what he is doing in the world, maybe on paper. Trump's fore features are better suited.
It should be clear that having children - especially many of them - before one is financially stable should be avoided if your priority is to avoid poverty. I don't know how you can argue against that. Same thing with high school education.
So, what prevented them with coming up with the rule: Don't have children. Period? Oh, I know, that would conflict with conservative ideology, which is what this is obviously really about.
The study was done by brookings institute... it's a left wing think tank.
And not having children would save you a ton of money obviously, but that's a tall order for a lot of people, so if you're planning on having children (which most people are) it makes sense to say at least wait until you're financially secure.
Is "Don't have children" then leftist ideology? I don't think it is.
Besides, people are having less children later, which I guess is understandable when both in the family usually study longer, both go to work and start a family later than their grandparents.
Depends on what we mean by "middle class" and "poverty." It can be as misleading as the unemployment statistic.
Yes, by some agreed income cutoff, following those three things probably does make it less likely that you fall below that cutoff.
Personal responsibility and choices you make in life are indeed important. You don't "need to explain this" because no one is arguing against it. You continue to devise Scarcrows.
The point I'm making is a simple one: your emphasis, when looking at class, poverty, income, etc., tends to be the personal responsibility of the poor and working classes. You place the onus on them while largely ignoring (but not denying) the role of the system in which they live, learn and grow. But that's a very narrow analysis.
Did slaves have some personal responsibility? Sure. They could have tried to escape, tried an uprising, killed themselves, etc. The factory girls of the 1800s -- they had personal choices too.
Everyone has some responsibility for their lives. Today's wage slaves, like yourself, have many options and choices. As do I. Others are less fortunate not only in the class they were born into, but in the social and material environments in which they developed, the time they got to dedicate to educating themselves, the availability and affordability of healthcare, libraries, etc.
and so on. In some parts of some states, there are things called "food deserts" and "pharmacy deserts" and, if you don't have a car, you're stuck.
If you're raised in severe poverty, can't focus in school and so drop out, have parents that are abusive drug addicts, surrounded by gang violence and police discrimination, etc., do you have a level of personal responsibility? Absolutely. Even here. And it's also important to say, because it's not about convincing people they're helpless or that they're victims. But again, these factors aren't simply "excuses" either.
You get my point, I hope. There are multifarious, complex reasons for why people live the way they do. A major predictor of teenager pregnancy is level of education. As education increases, unwanted pregnancies go down. That pertains to #2 on your list, for example.
So in that case, should it be any wonder that those with less educational resources have higher rates of unwanted teenage pregnancy? Should we, as fellow citizens -- if we care at all -- simply say it's a matter of choice and personal responsibility, case closed? Or do we have an obligation to at least improve the environment and institutions?
I feel we do have that obligation, and that's it's in our rational self-interest to care about these problems. The world is connected, and as trite as it sounds "We're all in it together." This can't be more true these days. What happens in poor inner city communities, or what happens in Wuhan, China, may seem easy to ignore or easy to dismiss with superficial analyses and platitudes about personal choice, but as we see over and over again, we end up paying a price as well -- whether in tax dollars or contagion.
The fact that you minimize these other factors is itself revealing of your psychology. That was my point.
The reason why I do this is because microeconomic and personal decisions (say, regarding addiction for instance) affect everyone. They do so in often a direct and concrete way. There is also way, way more consensus on personal finance. The choices are an every day thing, and everyone must deal with them. This is just how I view things. I find it odd when people immediately point to complex, big picture items which may only affect some small part of the population in an unclear way and point that that above all else.
I absolutely acknowledge that some people are dealt bad hands. In this case their goal isn't to become rich... it's to survive. Maybe by the time they're an adult they could make it to the lower middle or middle class but note that if it's not a priority for them then it's not a priority... that's perfectly fine. Not everyone defines success with wealth and that's fine. I'm not here to push the idea that wealth = success across the board.
I am not saying that everybody is directly responsible for their own poverty. I'm not even saying that people are morally obliged to try to climb out of it/that poor people are morally inferior. I'm just saying that if you're seriously looking to help people it helps to first focus on individual life choices and decisions and then we can move onto systemic factors.
I will acknowledge systemic factors, by the way. But there is many of these and instead of trying to, I don't know... ban charging interest or something ridiculous like that which would have enormous economy-wide effects... maybe instead focus on the small and gradually build up.
In the case of inner city schools the issue is complex. It's not just a simple matter of giving them more money. Is there gang violence in the area? Could these kids even afford to go to college if they made it? What is their parents role in their life? With China we have even less actual control when we live in the US. We might have some nice ideas about what they should do but our actual ability to enact change is not high.
Ron Haskins: The guy who wrote the study:
"Beginning in 1986, he spent 14 years on the staff of the House Ways and Means Committee and was subsequently appointed to be the Senior Advisor to President Bush for Welfare Policy.... Haskins previously co-chaired the Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission appointed by Speaker Paul Ryan."
https://www.brookings.edu/experts/ron-haskins/
A conservative, and not just any conservative, an activist anti-welfare conservative who wrote, amongst other things, a book called "Work Over Welfare".
I'll just charitably assume you were ignorant of all that when you tried to pass this off as left-wing.
American conservatives are not allowed tell people not to have children or not to get married. It goes against Family values™. Hence why this is ideologically-loaded garbage.
(My rules for staying out of poverty:
1) Don't have children
2) Don't get married.
It's that easy.)
"Brookings states that its staff "represent diverse points of view" and describes itself as non-partisan, and various media outlets have alternately described Brookings as "conservative", "centrist" or "liberal".
...
As a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, Brookings describes itself as independent and non-partisan. A 2005 academic study by UCLA concluded it was "centrist" because it was referenced as an authority almost equally by both conservative and liberal politicians in congressional records from 1993 to 2002."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution
I'll put that down to ignorance as well.
If you wait until you can afford children, you'll never have them
Sure, then go have 3 kids when you're a single mom working as a part time barista. Those are tomorrow's problems anyways.
I'm obviously not saying you need 250k in the bank right then and there.
If you bothered to read the article I shared you'd see that having a full-time job does most of the work here. Unfortunately, even a full-time job doesn't guarantee anything. Despite record employment rate, 44% of full-time workers are in low-wage jobs, with a median annual earning of slightly lower than $18K. Here's a Brookings Institute report on that. Graduating High School is largely irrelevant since the High School dropout rates are extremely low. Waiting until you are over 21 to get married and have children is also superfluous.
The fact that America's healthcare system cannot properly respond to this (and because the half-assed response it is preparing to deliver is going to cost us out the uninsured wazoo), wouldn't nationalizing healthcare and shoring up our priorities (i.e: not private profit) and cutting out the insurance middle man be a good thing?
And yet, here we sit, getting ready to thrust a daily-gaff-generating machine who reliably promises to do right by corporations, into the ring against the ultimate clown-foil (the clown who wound up being preferable to Hillary to one to many delegates) who seems to have worse of a chance than Hillary herself...
Sure, why not? Let's cut medicare, medicaid, and all other social security "entitlement" programs for that matter... Food stamps are theft. Let's bootstrap this bitch or what-have you. No malarkey! Man the grammar phones! Stop the tickers! Did you know he worked with Obama?
There's no reason to get mad. You've spent a lot of time and energy talking about the brookings institute when my main point all along is just that people should wait to have kids.... presumably until they're a little more financially secure. Is this point really that offensive?
This isn't about ideology either. I'm asking you a direct question.
If money's their aim, they should never have kids, never marry, and never hire Hanover to do their taxes. But no, the point you just made isn't objectionable to me.
I don't think even Biden can stop the Biden juggernaut now. And he's winning fair and square, so no complaints. It's bizarre considering he's barely awake most of the time. But there you go.
I think this is questionable. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but kids will often help support you in old age and can certainly help build family wealth in the long term. A marriage can also potentially help cement a second stream of income or at the very least free up time for one of the partners as the other focuses on the chores or raising kids. Of course both of these things can go wrong too.
I agree you shouldn't have kids outside a committed relationship, but the financial concerns aren't my primary concerns.
It's still too early to call. Not even half of the delegates have been awarded, even after tonight. The media is pushing the snowball along as fast as they can possibly run. No surprise really, given the financial loyalties.
However, if Biden does win the nomination, the only way he attracts Sanders' supporters is nominating him for vp, but he won't do it. Biden will not rock the financial sectors' boat, nor will he rock the corporate one, nor will he rock the pharmaceutical one. Par for the course of the last fifty or so years, regardless of the party.
Meh...
The poorest and most unfortunate citizens/people are fucked yet once again. Four more years. And they evidently believe that Biden is better for them that Sanders. Unbelievable ignorance of the relevant facts...
Many thought Obama acted on their behalf too. Sanders needs to come out swinging and showing these people that they've been misled... sorely misled. Not sure if he would, or if all the evidence proving that would change their minds even if it was presented to them in a clear and concise way...
:yikes:
The cost might not be your primary concern, but for a single parent or two parents working low wage, dead end jobs paying for daycare and all those little expenses can add up. There is a significant cost and it's felt more and more the closer you are to the edge.
A significant chunk of those without a high school education are immigrants who moved here. We're not just counting high school drop outs in that figure.
I'm also not entirely sure if I'm hearing you right when you say that waiting until 21 to get married and have a kid is "superfluous." Are you saying teenage pregnancy is not a problem? The overarching idea here - and this really shouldn't be particularly contentious - is that people should wait until they're older and more financially secure (and ideally married as well) - before they commit to having children. Even 21 seems very young to me.
18k/year is a bit more doable when you're childless.
I think it is much better put that in this nation one ought not have to choose between having a loving family and making a living.
Or as a society you can try to protect kids from the inevitable bad choices assume parents make.
There are communities of people who could, would, and ought be able to come together as a team in order to take steps that increase the overall wellbeing of the nation.
Money has left worker hands and found it's way to shareholders'.
Hard to shine at the five and dime when the five and dime is a place that very few - if any - would be proud to work. If the five and dime shared the profits in real terms, then one would be stoked to secure a position there, and rightfully so.
There was once a day when a lineage of hard working dedicated people could build comfortable lives without needing to depend upon financial 'services' that are sold to the public couched in terms of good financial decision making - by those who know better - and all of that for quite a hefty service charge to boot.
That is a public disservice in my book.
There was once a day that one could save what they earned, and it would be enough. Those days are long gone by, if one is poor and trusts all those who are supposed to be providing a public service.
What a shithole of a society.
Well, some things definitely need to change. Doesn't look like enough American people know what that looks like.
:sad:
I hope they prove me wrong. It would be quite a pleasant surprise.
'Artificial demand'.
Another public disservice. The whole economy thing is completely beside the point I'm now making, well aside from the economy not being a reliable indicator for the overall quality of American lives.
American people ought be able to put their natural talents and skills to good use by virtue of helping in some small way to provide a public service to the community at large while simultaneously earning a decent living. There are necessary tasks to perform which could utilize a wide swathe of different talents and skill sets.
We create the socioeconomic landscape, and there is no excuse for not providing one that realizes the best outcomes for the overwhelming majority of Americans.
None.
There is no excuse for allowing anyone to wield the sort of power over American citizens that is being wielded by those who have no intent or goal of doing what's best for everyday American citizens.
None.
Power over people is acquired in only one of two ways. It's either usurped or granted by consent. If the consent was manufactured by an insincere speaker, then it much better qualifies as usurpation.
American people have had their own power to cast a well informed vote taken from them by many people across the board on so many different levels for a very very long time. Each and every media outlet that has secured the rights to have public discourse about public elections ought have the solemn responsibility of accurately reporting what's happened and/or is happening.
The stark reality is that they all have a restricted freedom to discuss daily events using a particular narrative flavor. Some of them do not even write their own script. Others are like lemmings.
Another public disservice.
Melissa Harris Perry refused to be a mouthpiece. She paid for her freedom of speech with her very own financial livelihood.
Disservices.
People talking about the economy as though it is a reliable indicator for the quality of your average American Joe's life and/or livelihood. It's not.
Disservices.
Rather strange rules, Baden.
How about:
1) study in school and get an education
2) find work and work
3) if there aren't job opportunities in your neighborhood, move
4) save & invest
What is so wrong about being in a stable relationship and having children? It's being single that truly sucks, not having a spouse and offspring in your life.
I was being somewhat tongue in cheek there.
There's been a lot of general blah di blah in the news about how Biden versus Sanders compares regarding electibility against Trump.
This recent Newsweek article suggests that they're actually pretty much tied in that regard (less than a point difference being well within the margin of error):
https://www-newsweek-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.newsweek.com/what-polls-say-about-donald-trump-vs-joe-biden-election-1491230?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15839338809752&_ct=1583933891072&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fwhat-polls-say-about-donald-trump-vs-joe-biden-election-1491230
It's how I view things too, Carlos. But, as you know, it's only one part of an important issue. The other part is to ask what effect the environment has on individual choices and responsibility. The environment includes: housing, income, access to healthcare, education, food, etc., and the quality of these resources, filtering systems, laws, discrimination, tax codes, judicial bias (if you're rich, it's a slap on the wrist; if you're poor [whether white or black] you get 10 years), drug polices (and others) that disproportionately effect poor and minority communities, and on and on.
These are all very real factors as well, some glaringly obvious just in the statistics alone.
I'm sure you recognize all of this. What exposes what I believe to be your faulty assumptions is the way you emphasize one side of the equation while minimizing the other side, which is at least equally as important. In my view, if you spent a little more time looking into this other side, you'll find that the game we're playing isn't equal or fair but, in fact, tilted in many ways towards certain groups.
And let me be clear: this should NOT be justification for victimization, infantilization, and helplessness. "The system made me do it!" is not a slogan I endorse. But I also acknowledge that the game is, in fact, tilted.
The article also notes that national polls are misleading. The most relevant polls are those of battleground states.
Bernie has two electibility problems:
1) he's dependent on a high turnout from his base. This has not occurred in the primaries, so there's not much reason to think it would occur in the general election.
2) his policies are strongly appealing to some, but strongly repelling to others. Those who are repelled will be motivated to vote against him. This is akin to Hillary- a lot of people simply didn't like her, so they voted against her ( as opposed to voting FOR Trump). That phenomenon isn't clear in the polls that have been conducted.
The tone is sometimes hard to get through the internet.
(Especially when there are several anti-natalism threads on the forum.)
Biden has an electibilty problem list as long as my arm.
:rofl:
Dementia, for one.
I don't see how the perception that he has dementia would affect any votes, since the case can be made for Trump as well. For example, see this.
Trump may be insane, but he doesn't have dementia.
Teenage pregnancy is at record lows so not, it's not really relevant vis-à-vis poverty
I'm glad you made that excellent point! Why would anyone vote for a guy with dementia when we can instead give the crazy guy 4 more years?
Do you have a child? Would you like them getting pregnant at 17? Clearly since this is a non-issue you should be fine with it.
"He's so crazy it might just work!"
VS
"I feel bad for the tired, weak old guy who can't remember how he started a sentence by the time he gets to the end of it."
This is where the shit and brain emojis would have come in handy
I can tell none of this matters to you and it's entirely theoretical. Try coming back to the issue when an issue like this actually matters in reality.
The people who believe "He's so crazy it might just work!" will vote for Trump in any case. I'm not sure that goes much beyond his base. Some others are looking for an alternative to the crazy one, and will rationalize the alleged mental incapacity of the alternative. For example this Republican.
Another flaw in your theory: why have Democrats (so far) voted for the candidate with dementia rather than the one who has neither dementia nor craziness?
ok lemme know when that happens!
Bernie has one electability problem...
Enough people are saying the same things and in doing so are perpetuating a fraud. Knowingly or unknowingly... it doesn't matter. Netiher is acceptable. Both are reprehensible.
What's stopping Bernie?
Common misconceptions.
A free and fair election must have a well informed electorate.
Elections are far away.
Don't confuse the charade of a political party picking it's candidate to actual elections.
Quoting Benkei
Yet usually a modern "mixed economy" has at it's base a free market system and then a public sector. Not that the "free market" is an unofficial illegal black market. This point about mixed economies have to be understood especially when Americans think of European welfare states like Sweden (or Finland and Netherlands).
The point is actually important to understand especially when talking about modern social democracy and the agenda of politicians like Bernie Sanders. The agenda and objectives are nowhere close to a traditional Marxist-Leninist of the 20th Centur,y that was out there to do away with capitalism.
I'm not asking about the nationwide prevalence as compared to 30 years ago. I was asking if it happens is it a problem for that particular family? Similarly, when people marry younger those marriages tend not to last and divorce can be very expensive especially when there's kids. I'm in the military so we deal with these issues of young men wanting to get married super young and have kids extremely often and we advise them to hold off and get their finances in order as has been the advice for decades if not centuries now.
It's a whoke The Emperor Has No Clothes thing. The news has been working hard to sell us the theory that Biden is more electible, and that voting for Sanders would mean a Trump win.
Therefore lots of people are voting for Biden in part because they think other people want to vote for Biden. It snowballs from there with each primary.
The post about the history of the corporation illustrates that the very "licensing" by government of corporations is a "command economy" measure that greatly affects the structure of the market. The most obvious one is that it affects market power. But so do the perpetual character of a corporation, its size and singular profit purpose.
We have too-big-to-fail banks (since the 80s) that actually get cheaper financing because of an implicit guarantee. We have corporations that are trying to buy a monopoly to then capitalise on that monopoly (see for instance: justeat and uber). There's no competition on "quality" in such cases. They just have such a ridiculous amount of capital they undercut the competition until it's dead and then cash in.
Yes, the theory that Biden is more electable has been pushed, including by me. I'm not lying; I actually believe it and I explained why. The only counters I saw were: a) the difference in electability was small ; b) Sanders inspires more passion, and this would induce more voter turnout.
(a) doesn't actually dispute it. (b) has not ben borne out in the primaries. There is no evidence that Bernie passion resulted in higher turnouts - even among his base.
Perhaps it would be better to talk about "free market mechanism" than free market or free market system. That they are intertwined, sure, it can be so.
A good example is the real estate market. The prices are set by supple and demand, yet an official, city planner etc. can decide just to what purpose can the land be used, is it farmland or can you build a shopping center in the plot. Changes a lot the value of the real estate, yet the price you get is set by the market. (That is the government doesn't decide to buy it and defines the price)
B) see my previous post.
Common misconceptions.
Bernie Sanders needs to clearly enumerate and demarcate the fact that Biden and Trump have both played key roles, in different circumstances mind you - but key roles nonetheless - in causing unacceptable, unnecessary, and quantifiable harm to average everyday Americans.
For different reasons, to different ends, both are guilty of having done so. Where was/is Bernie on those matters?
Obama did what he did to help some poor people be able to have the medical treatments and preventative care that every American ought be entitled to, simply by virtue of being an American. He did what he could. I'm being more than fair here.
He also got thrown into a pre-fueled fire and as a result bailed out the banks so that the economy did not finish collapsing in on itself, as a direct result of far too much trust being placed into something that is just not trustworthy, reliable, and/or strong enough to be used as a pillar...
Obviously.
Good pillars... effective pillars... do not collapse in on themselves by virtue of their own doing.
Funny enough, those who weakened the pillars knowingly did not feel the weight of the economic collapse. I did not have negative effects/affects upon them. To quite the contrary, the collapse worked directly to their own financial benefit.
They profited directly from the swathe of victims directly effected/affected by a public disservice. This happened during the initial implementation of certain financial instruments, by mortgage brokers, real estate agents and underwriter by making people feel safe about a loan that they could not afford according to the actual terms in the agreement.
Making someone feel safe about a loan that they cannot afford as it is written is a tremendous disservice to that person and anyone else who feels the aftermath. Those in charge of that part of the service knew that this was the case.
So, brokers sold them to others who then gathered them all under one umbrella... each cleverly disguised as safe low risk investments, and they then sold them to yet even more unsuspecting consumers... again. This time the fraud took the form of a low risk safe means to invest for retirement.
Here again, the public disservice providers profited immediately.
Hot potato with some who quite simply could not feel the heat.
Some of those reaping huge financial rewards from the crash of '08 also weakened the economic pillars of American society by design. Others played a role in effectively implementing the design. Some knew. Others may not have. None of them personally felt the weight of the collapse that they themselves played a key role in causing. None of them could be held legally responsible.
Public disservice does not even begin to appropriately describe this situation.
Look at the public record of their opinions on important matters... the actions that resulted in disaster for working class Americans, without good enough reason for doing so. These are the sorts of considerations that will show a proven track record of being on the right side of history... or not.
If Bernie does that, who will this convince to vote for him? Might this not actually repel as many from voting for him? e.g. why would a moderate independent vote for him? It's a crap shoot - there's no way to know how those opposing factors will add up.
You made an eloquent case for voting against both Biden and Trump. Does that also mean that there's no relevant difference between Trump and Biden.? My opinion is that 4 more years of Trump is the worst possible outcome. Consequently, I want the guy most likely to beat him. Full disclosure: I'm skeptical that Bernie would actually make any significant changes. Congress will not vote for Medicare for all and they will not make college free. One could realistically expect some incremental changes, but only if Dems control both houses. Similar incremental change would occur with any Dem as President along with both houses. Consequently, I forsee no big benefit to Bernie over Biden, and that's why I am more concerned with electibility.
So you consider a weak, obviously mentally impaired, candidate who will be mauled in the debates against Trump to be more electable than one of the best speakers around who could fight him on his own populist ground? Yes, the name "Biden" is more electable in theory, but this is what you're putting up. And it's only going to get worse.
So, @Artemis is bang on. The electability argument is going to look very foolish come November.
If Sanders is one of the best speakers around, and that makes a meaningful difference in terms of votes why hasn't Bernie run away with votes in the primaries?
If the appearance of mental impairment puts people off from voting for him, why has Biden done so well in the primaries?
One last time: because people think other people are going to vote for him.
So make the case for Bernie- show why we should consider him more electable. No need to tell me how much you like him, or why. Explain the broad appeal you think he has. As I said before, the only rationale anyone has given me so far is that he'll bring out the vote, but if that's the case, why wasn't there greater turnout from his key demographic- young voters?
Just because they sound like they could be true, doesn't mean they are. As the polling against Trump shows....
Quoting Relativist
He's the most popular senator in America.
https://politicalwire.com/2020/01/16/sanders-is-most-popular-senator/
His policies are also the ones that most Americans support. Again, the argument most democrats, moderates, and independents tout against him or his policies is that they don't think the rest of America wants them--leading right back to my Emperor theory--so they think they can't be done as much as they personally are in favor of them.
A lot can happen.
Yet I think what really will play for the Presidential candidate of the DNC is the oncoming coronavirus-recession.
Absolutely. It's all very relative to the economic context.
Of course, but it makes it a reasonable belief. I'm awaiting reasons to believe it false. This isn't one:
Quoting Artemis
The metric cited is popularity with his constituents. Sure, he's a shoe-in to win Vermont. This has no bearing on whether he can win Florida or Michigan.
Quoting Artemis
Will you vote for Trump if Biden is the nominee?
My guess is that everyone who supports Medicare-for-All is going to vote Democrat, no matter who is the candidate.
Because voters have been convinced that he can't win and isn't "electable." They want to beat Trump and want to put up the best chance of that, even if it's someone they don't necessarily agree with or are particularly enthusiastic about. The media and the DNC made a last-ditch effort to run with Biden's ONE victory in South Carolina, and it paid off -- to even their surprise.
So they stopped Bernie again. Good for them. All that proves is that they're sleazier than the RNC (or more effective?). Rather than get behind a "socialist", they'd prefer a milquetoast, uninspiring, cognitively declining bore.
I don't even blame the "moderate" voters or the black voters for this, because when all the experts, thought leaders, party leaders, and media pundits are saying the same thing -- it's hard to believe Sanders is the correct choice. Despite the fact that he has been and continues to do well against Trump and in key swing states in polling.
Polls show democratic voters are more in line with Sanders' policies. National polls show Sanders' ideas have majorities. He had the enthusiasm and the younger voters. He had won several states and was polling well in the others, and there was a Hail Mary that connected. That's what happened, in my view.
Ohhhhh boy. I'm just gonna refer you right back to my original post in which I showed that Biden and Bernie are TIED as to who will vote for them over Trump.
I'm sorry, but it really seems like you just don't want to understand what several people (so, phew, it's not just me!) here have been telling you.
I am one of them, and I see good reasons to think it's true, and haven't seen good reasons to think otherwise. Got any?
Yes, the ones I mentioned. Based on the only evidence we have -- not pundit speculation and "gut feelings" -- is polling, when it comes to "electability." That's the hard data. What does it say? Take a look for yourself -- I mentioned some of them: he leads Trump in a heads-up matchup, including in key swing states. Biden in many cases does as well, sometimes more sometimes less, but that's beside the point.
Bernie also has a more enthusiastic base, the younger vote (by far), and majority-supported positions. The Democratic party agree more with Bernie on his proposals. Etc.
We can discuss details as well -- the moderates, African americans, and the elderly have come out more for Biden, for example. But this would all be missing my point: the argument about "electability." There was no reason for this fear three weeks ago, there's no reason for it now.
In fact, in terms of "gut feelings" -- I would argue there's much more reason to think Biden looks far weaker against Trump, and that we're repeating 2016 once again. We'll see it on full display on Sunday's debate, too.
By "original post" are you referring to the one where you referenced the Newsweek article? It doesn't address the topic of who has a better chance betwee Biden and Bernie. Sure, Biden has vulnerabilities. It's an exaggeration to claim he has dementia, so if want to make a case you should avoid hyperbole. Bernie has liabilities too, and I've seen no acknowledgment. His liabilities are the polarizing nature of his policies. I wonder if you simply don't want to believe that, because of your passion for his policies. Bernie's policies turn more people off than does Biden's. Either of them can get the strong anti-Trump vote, so I calculate a net loss for Bernie.
[B]Here's the ultimate test for Bernie supporters: will you vote for Trump if Biden is the nominee?[/b] If no, then what makes you so sure others will do exactly that?
The thought of a career corporate sycophant getting elected over the only candidate with wide spread grass-root support is repulsive, and the notion of a "fuck you" Trump vote does cross my mind...
Some say that Hillary's gender caused reduced voter turnout, but in my own political calculus it was her corporate status quo grubbing lack of moral and ideological scruples that made the prospect so repulsive (i.e: she is so out of touch with regular people she couldn't even pander correctly).
Biden is more of the same, just less intelligent. And isn't that exactly what establishment sponsors would like? A weak panderer who wins hearts and minds while happily making contradictory promises to corporate donors in wine cellars? Why not elect an actual house-cat who signs all documents and looks cute in holiday photos?
Yes, there will be fuck you Trump votes from Bernie supporters by the thousands if Biden wins the nomination. I would prefer Bernie say fuck it and run independently just to finally destroy the present incarnation of the "Democratic" party. If had a vote, it would be for a third party candidate. Some would call this a vote splitting betrayal, but the two party system (specifically their incorrigibly self-serving behavior) has created a lose lose situation.
So much to unpack here... IF I felt like going back in circles again... Which I don't.
Cast your vote here.
Here's why I think Biden has a better chance to beat Trump than does Sanders:
1) The vast majority of Bernie supporters will vote for Biden, so few of those votes will be lost (I'm testing this with the poll I posted).
2) Biden's moderate policies will attract more anti-Trump independents and Republicans
3) Sanders policies will scare Republicans, and Republican-leaning independents - increasing their turnout (I'm not criticizing the policies, just noting that this backlash should be expected);
4) The enthusiasm of Bernie's base was expected to drive high turnout, but this was didn't happen in the primaries, so there's no reason to think it will occur in the general.
5) This is possible, but not certain: Biden is very popular with black voters, and therefore they may turn out in greater numbers if he's the nominee. Expect Obama to help a lot.
Here's the counters I've received:
1) Biden has dementia, and people will prefer a crazy man to one with dementia
2) Bernie is very popular in Vermont (he's tops in the Senate for popularity among constituents).
3) Most people want medicare for all
4) Bernie's unique qualities (not status quo, real solutions, not half measures) will attract votes.
5) Biden has liabilities that will be exploited by Trump (e.g. dementia; his record).
Let me know if I left anything out.
I thought it was for American registered voters only?
Well, since you asked...
You left out all of the most important stuff. Which candidate actually has a good grasp upon the root problems(actual legislation over the last fifty or so years) that have caused so so many poor Americans to become disillusioned with government altogether?
Not Trump. Not Biden.
Bernie.
Which candidate was on the right side of history in the moment?
Not Trump. Not biden.
Bernie.
Which candidate acknowledges these problems and is willing to do everything it takes to get them corrected... even if it is a long road?
Not Trump. Not Biden.
Bernie.
Which candidate can explain these problems and their solutions to everyday Americans in clear and understandable terms?
Not Trump. Not Biden.
Bernie.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Oh, Jesus fucking Christ...
So, your argument is that because doing the right things will scare too many Republicans who do not want to do the right things, that we ought not do the right things...
WTF???
Six huge conglomerates own the media... all of it. All of them would have lower profit margins if Bernie is elected. None of them want him elected.
They do not care which person gets elected, as long as they continue acting in the best interest of huge multinational corporations as both sides of the American political aisle have been doing for fifty years.
The concerted attack against Bernie is nothing but rhetorical drivel and propaganda. A spread of mis and disinformation. A fraud being perpetuated against the American people.
Anyone and everyone who wants to know what has actually been going on in the American government for the last fifty years that has caused the quality of everyday average American lives to plummet the way that it has.
Do you want someone like Trump who has no concern whatsoever beyond his own image and wealth? Do you want someone like Biden who does not have a clue how to fix all the problems facing the people he has convinced to vote for him? Not a clue.
Clueless Joe.
Neither of them have a clue, or if they do, they keep it a secret. They certainly do not put it into words, and offer real solutions...
[b]
You're giving a list of the things Bernie supporters love about Bernie. It seems to me that you think these things are so wonderful, that surely many people will see it as you do and vote for him. I'm not saying they AREN'T wonderful, but what evidence is there that those items will bring in votes that Biden won't get?
I'm not saying that at all. I'm just counting votes, and you're mistaking that for being anti-Bernie or anti-Bernie ideas, or campaigning for Biden
No matter how much Bernie supporters love his ideas, and no matter how right they may be, they each provide a maximum of 1 vote. You
Bullshit!
You offered a very long list of fucking irrelevency , and then you had the audacity to ask what you had missed.
I fucking answered by talking about what's relevant. How about this...
Bernie runs as an independent and during the national debates clearly makes the case regarding how both parties have caused everyday average Americans harm by virtue of acting upon the best interest of corporations when their interests conflicted with the average everyday American's.
When faced with the choice between what's best for corporations and what's best for American citizens, they chose to err on the side of the corporations.
To be honest, there's little to no difference between the two parties when it concerns policies that have been implemented that resulted in disaster for an unacceptably overwhelming number of American families.
Bernie was right at the time.
It would also go a long way in showing Americans exactly why he has been railroaded. For who he is ans what he stands for. He stands poised with enough knowledge ready at hand to accurately inform the American people of the harm caused to them by both parties. He'll do so in clear understandable terms. They will then begin to really understand what the fuck has happened such that there are very few opportunities for having good healthcare, good benefits, good paying jobs, and thus the chance at a comfortable good life.
Imagine that.
Both parties.
Enough people would come to know what they ought to have long since already known, just by watching the conversation happen in real time.
In other words...Bernie supporters. You really aren't grasping what I'm saying. I'm not judging Bernie, or his desired policies. I'm counting votes. Bernie supporters are already counted, and so far - there haven't been enough of them.
I get it: you want people to vote for Bernie. It's too late for me, the Texas primary is over. Do what you can to get that message out to voters in the states that haven't yet had their primaries. If the choice is as obvious as you believe it to be, then it shouldn't be a problem.
If anyone and everyone who wants to know what the fuck happened to American opportunity for the average everyday American counts as a Bernie supporter.
:meh:
Care to address what I actually wrote? I mean, I know your personal straw targets are easy kills, but come on man...
"The choice" presupposes knowing about the available choices.
What you seem to have signficant difficulty getting through your thick skull is that enough people will choose Bernie, when and if enough people are permitted hear him speak about the last fifty years.
The electability problem is that that is not being allowed to happen!
I agree my list is irrelevant to your choice of whom to vote for.
Quoting creativesoul
He can certainly do that, and it will guarantee Trump another 4 years.
None of this has anything to do with the issue I was defending: that Biden has a better chance of beating Trump than Sanders. Perhaps Bernie is the best possible person for the Presidency - I haven't disputed that. As I said, I'm just counting votes. The count is relevant to anyone who believes removing Trump is of paramount importance. Since you'd embrace a 3rd party run for Bernie, it sounds like you consider Biden and Trump as equally bad. That's your privilege. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.
You haven't addressed what I wrote, and I don't care to debate who's the best person for the Presidency. I'm primarily concerned with who's the worst.
There still seems to be some sort of comprehension problem(s) on your part. Do you not understand what I'm saying?
Try this...
Your list is irrelevant to what needs discussed. Bernie is all about what needs to be discussed. You asked what was missing from your list of personal concerns.
I answered... all the important stuff.
What an odd thing to say given the context...
:brow:
What are you doing here then?
Another popular belief. Given third party showings in the past, if all else is equal, your concerns would be warranted. Who could forget Ross Perot?
They are not warranted, for...
All else is not equal.
Let the American people hear them and their explanation of what's wrong in America...
I was discussing electability. Did you overlook this statement? --
Quoting Relativist
In doing so, they will have created a more well informed electorate.
I admire your optimism.
Not doing so is a tremendous public disservice.
Right off the top.
Knowing the facts requires Sanders/Warren on the national stage for the sole purpose of show and tell. They both know what they are talking about.
A free and fair election must include a well-informed electorate.
Big fucking deal.
Anyone remember plagiarism Joe?
Everyone will.
Clueless Joe.
Nothing was done with the information.
The people did not see it. They ought.
Until it is deemed safe to have so many people in the same place. Until it is safe to cast a vote... Until then...
National debate after national debate after national debate...
Let Bernie speak!
Nah. That's not important enough to funnel into the brains of American society. Scare 'em and keep 'em in the dark...
Meanwhile advertising costs are through the roof.
How else do you think so many different satellites could be tuned in to and repeating the same narrative? It's a huge problem when so many are talking about all the wrong stuff and in all the wrong ways... wrong, that is... if we want to correct disastrous mistakes than can be corrected.
The fact that so few have so much power is one of those mistakes long since in need of being corrected.
It's funny that you mention that, because just this morning, I mentioned to my wife, "I bet Trump postpones the election due to the coronal virus". I was half joking, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if this comes to pass.
The groundwork has been laid to convince enough people.
There is no higher power given to the freedom of speech, for whomever sits on the board, be they American or otherwise, in addition to anyone else who has their ear... you know, those that they have business arrangements with and/or financial ties to... again, be they American or otherwise...
:brow:
Trump is not the problem! He is a symptom thereof. The problem is and has been that the American government is chock full of corruption. Trump seized on that overly simplistic and popular true belief, and convinced - somehow - enough people that he was not corrupt because he did not need the money.
All the bricks in the road of corruption that led directly to Trump look just like pieces of legislation. Some missing. Some in place.
Bernie can enumerate them. He was around during much of it. Tremendously outnumbered, but around... and on the right side of history while it was actually happening.
Clueless plagiarism Joe as the underdog?
Please.
Riding the coattails called "normalcy" and "getting things done". What's normal ought not be in many instances, and not just anything will do as far as getting things done. The right things need to get done.
That begins with a well informed electorate.
Look into Jared Kushner's influence in foreign affairs. That is prima facie evidence that the people do not realize what all the government has been up to...
What Jared is doing is perfectly legal.
What's wrong is that that is a conflict of interest between what's best for Jared and what's best for everyday average Americans. Jared is not an elected official. He serves on a personal level in a private capacity at the behest of one Donald John Trump.
Trump is not the problem. Rather, he is a symptom thereof. He is the inevitable consequence of a corrupted American government.
:up: (for this and for your other comments) Testify brother! (or sister!)...
I am (like you) tired of this reactionary, defensive position of “electability”. Which is both cowardly and complete bullshit. The DNC and its investors CLEARLY never had the slightest interest in Bernie Sanders rocking their yacht. They have got a good thing going, even playing second fiddle, and are not going to let some Old Testament prophet reincarnation or “Angry Old Man” screw it up. They would rather lose the WH to their crony Chump, than win with Sanders. In common parlance... NeverBernie. Well... forget that.
So when Bernie is denied the nomination, I truly hope he runs as an independent. And totally fvcks “the system” and everything else up. Including people’s minds. Maybe the virus shutdown (as unfortunate and tragic as it is) will give people time to really take stock of the situation and their lives.
Let it all hang out Bernie! No more pussyfooting. No more playing the Dumocrats hypocritical game, as a “yes man” for Neo-Libral almighty dollar power. Retool your message to show that you are the only true alternative to more status quo. Which is a choice between orange tapioca and beige tapioca. (Tapioca tainted with date-rape drugs so they can get their way.)
(If this perhaps sounds angry or bitter... this ain’t nothing! Compared to upheaval, riots, and looting... this is a polite kiss on the cheek. THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE USA IS ITS PEOPLE... AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS ROTTING. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. I am pacifist, so I’d prefer an equitable and peaceful solution. Though I’m guessing that the Pharaoh won’t budge until the plague hits his family. And this is about more than the virus, to be clear).
And Bernie... if you don’t win this time, then you cleared a path for someone else like you next time. Go out with a bang that will make a difference, and be a mentor to the new progressives.
Big picture, small moves.
Likely? No. Possible? Most definitely. Biden's not going to make it. They can't hide his cognitive decline much longer. They have to either replace him at the convention, or he has to pick a VP who would have credibility as president. Michelle Obama's been mentioned, as has Hillary. I'm sure if you follow political news you've seen the same speculations I have.
You think cognitively impaired Joe is going all the way? That the hope you're going with? The Dems HAVE to have an alternative. Hillary is in the mix.
I couldn't find what this is referring to.
Why do you think Hillary specifically declined to endorse cognitively impaired Joe a few days ago? She knows the Dems will be looking for an actual candidate soon. They can't hide Joe forever.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hillary-clinton-says-she-wont-endorse-anytime-soon-1282664
And where would I get such a crazy idea that Hillary still wants to be president? From She Who Must Not Be Indicted herself.
'I never say never': Hillary Clinton refuses to close the door on a 2020 presidential run
Vice president isn't so important, but Biden should really get the progressives with him.
(And think of how scared that would make Republicans if Joe has health problems.)
Only way Biden will get anyone under the age of 60 to vote for him.
Even if that's true, it's far from saying he's "unelectable." But it happens that it's precisely the opposite: most people love his policies. Even the most controversial, and the one that's garnered the most attention, Medicare for All, has a slight majority support.
Bernie has plenty of liabilities -- like black voters, moderates, etc. He's got to address that. But as I said, if they weren't being told by their own party that he's "unelectable," they would vote differently. They're being told to vote for Biden, essentially, on the grounds that Bernie is unelectable. Which was originally the point -- you said you felt the same way and saw nothing to contradict that belief. I think everyone here, including myself, has provided plenty of evidence to the contrary. Which you've ignored.
So who's really putting on blinders here?
You ignored my response to you, which mentioned -- and I repeat -- that the only hard data we have (this does NOT include your "feelings"-based analysis of who has the better chance) shows that Bernie beats Trump, sometimes more than Biden, sometimes less. The question was about the electability of Bernie, which is in large part what the argument of the DNC was. That's shown over and over to be nonsense. The DNC simply wants to choose their person, and that was long ago made for Biden.
Side note: the fact that Bernie even came as close as he did is a shocker, given the party he was running in didn't support him. Worth keeping in mind.
But if it's Biden, fine. Maybe he wins, maybe not. He's got as good a chance as Clinton, I suppose. Hopefully he's smarter about his campaigning, hits the swing states more, capitalizes on his likability and Obama's association, and starts appealing to younger and more progressive voters.
You believe the DNC is conspiring against Bernie by disseminating the notion that Bernie isn't as electable. What evidence do you have of this? Bernie's electability was an issue during the debates. Candidates like Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Steier, and Bloomberg made an issue of it. Trump has signalled a preference to run against Bernie- and it's not because he likes a challenge. So it's not some novel fiction that was invented as a last ditch effort to stop Bernie. It was made an issue early on. I think it's right and I gave my reasons for it. That shows I decided it on my own and that I'm not just parrotting a DNC official as a tactic to hurt Bernie's chances. I'm not anti-Bernie; I'd prefer him over Biden. But that preference doesn't blind me to what I consider the obvious.
Given that I formed my own opinion, and that it seems a reasonable opinion, I'm not all surprised others have drawn the same conclusion. Why can't you accept that possibility? You don't have to agree that Biden is more electable to recognize that it's not an unreasonable opinion. Given that, there's no good reasons to imagine a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies do happen, but most conspiracy theories prove to be fantasy.
I'm leaning towards liking the idea of Bernie running as an independent, if for no other reason than to have the chance to allow the American people to hear Bernie's ideas from his own mouth. I'm not at all convinced that that would fuck the system up, nor is that a worthwhile goal in and of itself. The political system needs corrected.
Correcting is fixing a system that is already fucked up.
All of whom immediately endorsed Biden after securing just about the same amount of delegates as Bernie found himself behind after super tuesday... or thursday if you're sleepy clueless Joe. A planned and coordinated attack could not have been performed any better.
Proof?
Look at the number of nationally televised debates that the DNC has always had when there is a close primary... before Sanders I mean. Compare those numbers to the amount of times Sanders was allowed to talk in front of a national audience in a debate that is supposed to be designed for explicitly that purpose.
Seriously... look at those numbers. Sanders support always increases after such events... There's very good reason for that. Hence, the lack of allowing him to be in a debate on national television when the viewer numbers are known to be high. That is intentional. Keeping Bernie from being heard by the American people is a politically motivated action.
Look at the coverage. Listen to the fearmongering regarding Bernie. Listen to how Bernie is portrayed.
Listen...
Switch stations...
Listen again...
Go back through history...
Listen...
Do you really think that all those different mouthpieces are repeating what a well informed electorate is saying? Of course not. They are rather - to quite the contrary - feeding disinformation into the electorate as a means to discourage people about Sanders. Much of it is downright false.
It's fraud. A tremendous public disservice.
Actually I don't. Not as people anyway...
The third party run would result in a Bernie presidency... as long as enough people were permitted and encouraged to actually watch and listen to what Bernie has to say to combat all of the misinformation...
I trust that enough people have enough common sense... that enough poor people are willing... that enough Americans will know truth when they hear it, particularly about how their lives have changed for the worse at the hands of the establishment. Everyone knows that that's happened. Very few know why and/or how. Everybody directly effected/affected would like to...
That's a guarantee.
I'm leaning more and more towards liking this idea of third party run...
I just want to see the man get a chance to speak to the American people on the stage along with Biden and Trump. I think enough people would think about it quite a bit differently, if they were certain that one of them was speaking sincerely, 'truly'(making true statements), and on behalf of everyday average Americans.
Bernie does that, and he is very polite... perhaps too polite... about calling falsehoods out when they rear their head.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
What do you think would happen?
Hey Benkei! Three possible winners.
May I ask what grounds your prediction?
But there are a lot of people not core supporters. They will think their Democratic neighbour is going to vote Biden regardless and they will think then if I vote Bernie I will raise the chances of winning for Trump (because my neighbour doesn't have balls) and to avoid that I will also vote for Biden.
The converse for so-so Biden voters holds true as well. The only way it might not happen is when the core support for either Biden or Bernie is insignificant and the strategic voting fear goes only one way. Since we know it doesn't and core support for either candidate is significant, in every case it will result in a divided democratic vote, offering the presidency on a silver platter to Trump.
What if over sixty percent of eligible American voters could identify with the problems Bernie sheds much needed light upon? What if a much higher number than that really want to know what happened to all the good paying lifetime jobs/careers that used to be part and parcel to American life itself? What if nearly everyone becomes acquainted with the relevant facts of the matter?
What if they were shown?
A Sanders/Warren show and tell?
What if those conditions were to arise?
Which makes perfect sense if they truly believed a moderate had a better chance than Bernie, and they accepted the fact that they couldn't be the one.
Trump's promises were appealing to some: a wall paid for by Mexico, a Muslim ban, tax cuts, replacing NAFTA, withdrawing from the Iran deal, and most important of all: judges who would strike down Roe v Wade.
Trump delivered on all those (more or less). So the people who liked those policies then, love Trump more than ever. That's his base (roughly 35% of the electorate), and they aren't going anywhere. I bring this up to remind everyone that just because you and I like Bernie's policies doesn't imply they appeal to everyone. They won't appeal to Trump's base, and it's irrelevant whether they appeal to the (roughly 35% of the electorate) who will vote for any Democrat. The war will be won by battling for that middle. That's true regardless of who the Democratic candidate is.
We could spend a billion years on each one of these topics. The one that stuck out at me the most drug policies which I do have sympathy for. I've always been against the war on drugs and I do believe it disproportionately affects minorities and the poor. Yes, legislation can certainly cause damage.
When it comes to housing and income there is still a personal factor. I understand this is not the case with children, but when people buy houses there's a ton of decisions there that can either be made well or poorly. Income can also be changed. I don't feel like you're in disagreement with any of what I've said here, so I'll just go ahead and reiterate my point:
If we're looking to actually help individuals our focus should tend to be on microeconomic decisions as opposed to macroeconomic ones. If you're a financial advisor and a struggling person comes into your office it makes more sense to have them write up a budget and analyze their goals than to blame NAFTA or deregulation. I'm not discounting these... but again, start with the small first and then work your way up. Do not gloss over the small and immediately resort to the big when analyzing individuals.
Oh of course it is but so is life itself. There's no "system" on earth that's fair and I don't quite know what fair would look like. Sure, I'm with you that the war on drugs is unfair. Lets scrap it. But on a deeper level life itself absent any system whatsoever is horribly unfair. I think this could be an interesting point of discussion; what do you do with this fact concerning the unfairness of life itself?
Of course you could very well be right. So could I. But, as you know, we settled things with the available information, with evidence. We can both speculate all day, I'm sure -- but that's like two people playing a game and neither knowing the probabilities of various outcomes.
In our case, I'm not basing my opinion on what I feel or believe on this particular topic (electability), but what the data actually says. Polling is that data -- it's the best data we have. If you want to talk about polling accuracy, history, statistics, etc., then that's a different topic.
But if you do agree it's the best evidence we have thus far (at least pertaining to the question of whether Bernie is "electable" in the sense of beating Donald Trump -- of being elected President), then you clearly see that Bernie is, in fact, electable.
You may claim that it's the voters who have decided, and that's really the best evidence. This is where I disagreed. But I'm only correct if, in fact, this "electability" issue is true. Much of the polling seems to suggest that it is -- i.e., that most Democratic voters were voting for who had the "better chance of beating Trump." Now "better chance" may be different than "who's electable" -- maybe these voters see that both Bernie and Biden poll well against Trump, and are thus electable, but Biden does better. If that's the case, that's a reasonable position if the polling in fact suggests it (and some of it does, particularly in Florida -- a very key state -- and Pennsylvania, although I hope someone corrects me if this has changed). But that's not what the DNC, media pundits, editorials, and even yourself seem to be emphasizing.
I've never proposed any conspiracy theories. You attributed that to me. What the DNC has done I suppose could be considered conspiracy, but in my mind that involves a group of people plotting things out secretly. The DNC has been very honest and vocal about their opposition to Bernie, and have stated their reasons. That's really not a conspiracy.
In terms of accepting the possibility of your position, see my prior response. It's not about whether it COULD be correct -- sure it could. But the rationale behind your decision or your position is very important. If based on clear reasoning and evidence, I have no problem with it even if it turns out to be wrong. But I think in your case the evidence is being ignored for a more speculative and "instincts"-based justification.
And I think you represent, unfortunately, a large group of like-minded individuals. I think it's a really big mistake, and I think it's a result of what's essentially DNC and media propaganda, not objective reasoning. But I hope the outcome turns out to be favorable anyway, even if the reasoning is, in my judgment, faulty.
Ok, but then the point is trivial - and I don't mean that disparagingly.
Yes, of course it's more helpful to give people concrete advice for their specific (microeconomic) problems. Also, like I said before, there's no sense in me giving lectures about macroeconomics or history or class struggles to someone who simply needs a job. My efforts would be much better spent helping him look for and find a job, in that case.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Why scrap it? -- life is just unfair, and that's the way it is. No?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I'll have to pull a Socrates and pick on the word "fair," in this case. You're sounding a bit like Thomas Hobbes to me, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
I'd like to think that humans are fundamentally good, and I see a lot of evidence that suggests this. That we're sociable creatures, that we care for one another, that we wish to live good lives, etc. Of course, there's plenty of evidence that suggests the opposite, too.
But regardless, we're discussing politics, which is something we've created, not a factual claim about life itself. Within that specific domain, I just don't think we can observe unfair policies, laws, etc., and say "well lots of things are unfair." Sure, that's true, but no less true than it's simply unfair. All that means is that we have got to currently navigate a human-created, unfair system. We should do it with strength, hard work, courage, etc. -- not whining, not using the unfairness as an excuse to be lazy and victimized, but nevertheless with a clear understanding that the game has, in fact, been rigged.
We play anyway. There's not much of a choice, in my view. Nor is there much of a choice to play it rationally and aggressively. But by keeping this unfairness in mind, and understanding it clearly, we perhaps can change the game itself from the inside or, perhaps, eventually create an entirely new game altogether.
What evidence am I ignoring? I haven't ignored the polling, I just don't think a raw reading of the polls tells the whole story - note how variable they are. This suggests a higher degree of error in them than the statistical analysis suggests. I'll give you more background on my position.
The 1st general election I voted in was 1972. I was a big-time fan of George McGovern. He was very liberal, and very popular among young voters like me. We believed he would change the course America was on. I was so enamored of his message that I was convinced he could win. Nixon trounced him election 520 to 17 electoral votes. There are parallels to Bernie: appeal to the young; ideologically far from the center. And supporters who think with their hearts instead of their heads.
It's hard for an extremist to win on either side (and I don't use the term pejoratively). Goldwater was an extremist Conservative, and he got trounced. I think it's because most people fear the unknown, and radical change entails lots of unknowns. I've heard from political scientists who back this up. This is the coventional wisdom. It could be wrong, but it makes no sense to dismiss it on the basis of wishful thinking - and I see lots of that in Bernie supporters (that comes out in some of the post in this thread).
Finally, I live in Texas, and worked for an oil company 33 years. Consequently I know a lot of Republicans. Some of them aren't happy with Trump, but they're downright scared of Bernie. Most consider Biden safe and acceptable. This is consistent with what I've read and heard from never-Trumper Republicans in the news. I've heard no Republicans express the converse view, that they could live with Bernie, but not Biden.
And of course he actually hasn't delivered, but that doesn't matter. He has done enough to infuriate the liberals, which Trump voter absolutely love. And his "non-presidential" way of joking keeps them smiling. Above all, any criticism can be shrugged off as TDS.
Which of those items did he not deliver on at least in a qualified way? To be clear, I'm not a fan of the deliverables.
But of course, people can say that the Democrats didn't let him to do it. Just like the reason given for Obama not to have closed GITMO. And anyway, who cares about the facts? And at least he makes the impression that things are done. Many politicians even don't do so much.
I'm not sure what you mean by this...
Are you saying that those conditions will not be realized?
I figured out the election.
What do you think of Trump dumping Pence and choosing ... Bernie! Right now the left is angry that the DNC has schemed to prop up Joe Biden in order to "coalesce" around cognitively impaired Joe. And the same people who were themselves calling him that just a few weeks ago, are now pretending to be outraged that I would dare call him that. Why, it's just like those vile health smears on Hillary in 2106. Yeah till the day they had to throw her in the back of a van like a sack of potatoes.
So where do the Bernie bros go? Some will stay home, some will vote for Trump, some will hold their nose and vote for sleepy Joe. What if Trump dumps Pence -- which he should anyway, Pence has a very weird and creepy vibe and adds no value to the administration at all -- and picks Bernie. And explains it: "Yes we disagree on specifics, but we both know things in this country have to change! And we are listening to the people!"
I say that ticket wins fifty states.
You're such a fan of my outlandish ideas that I thought I'd run this by you. What do you think?
By the way Whoopi Goldberg just said Hillary should run as Joe's VP. I am curious as to why you think my idea is so outlandish when Hillary's name is in the news every single day, usually linked to speculation about her either being VP or stepping in when Biden inevitably needs to be replaced. I can agree with you that this is an unlikely scenario. But for you to say my idea is so ridiculous as to be unworthy of consideration ... I don't get that. It's a perfectly respectable opinion all over the media, certainly not original with me. My Bernie idea is original.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/she-would-be-brilliant-whoopi-goldberg-says-hillary-clinton-should-be-vice-president
I wouldn't consider personal finance trivial. When I hear trivial I think obvious and easy. I think it requires discipline and rejecting materialism. I also think it requires resourcefulness and being able to squeeze extra income sources out of places that many people wouldn't think to go to. It allows one to map out and be conscious/take control of their own future.
I may have been unclear; I'm not just "on board" with all unfairness. In the case of the war on drugs I believe the government is overstepping its bounds. A lot of technological advancement isn't "fair" - workers get put out of work, but ultimately it is for the better. The war on drugs is just overwhelmingly negative... the only people who "win" I guess would be the agencies that receive federal funding, but "the people" certainly don't. At least the consumers win when we get lower prices as a result of better technology and other jobs are created elsewhere.
I mean human life. This point should be pretty uncontentious - some of us have full, wonderful lives and others have short and terrible lives. Even if you were to put people in some sort of utopia I'd still consider this a facet of human existence... you would still have miserable people. You will always have miserable people unless your utopia involves drugging people up until they're zombies. There's always winners and losers in society. I'm not judging the losers; I'm just stating how it is.
This is fine, with the exception that you need to be careful in cases where you disenfranchise one group to empower another. I'm fine with making plenty of things more fair, but we just need to talk about the specifics and how its implemented.
I do notice this though: People tend to push for equality in areas where they're disenfranchised. If genetic scientists were able to come up with a way to control human height or good looks who do you think would be pushing for equality in that area? Probably short and ugly people. People tend to be interested in equalizing the playing field in areas where they're disadvantaged and then they ignore other ones where they're fine. However, equalizing all playing field just isn't a remotely reasonable option (my reference point here is disability communities.)
Politics, additionally, does have the potential to touch every domain of human affairs. This is of course not what the founding fathers had in mind, but we both know this idea has been demonstrated.
Bernie would not accept. Trump has been part of the political corruption on both sides of it... the buyer and the seller of public policy.
During the Clinton era, the DNC prided itself upon the notion of black(low income) people being able to purchase their own homes. The American Dream for everybody!!! The Clinton administration 'reached across the aisle' and repealed Glass Steagall allowing the financial industry to sow and cultivate the seeds of the the '08 crash which devastated so many of those hopeful home owners. In addition, the DNC also took public assistance from those who needed it most, and perpetuated the movement of everyday average American good jobs(opportunities) overseas.
All supported by the notion of centrists/moderates "getting things done".
The results... more inferior low quality choices... disservices, cheap goods, and low pay, low quality employment. Yay globalism!!! Go Hillary. Go Biden. Way to get things done! Way to be the ones to reach across the aisle!
Etc.
That's exactly why Bernie has said on numerous occasions that he saw very little difference between the two parties. They have both enacted legislation that caused unnecessary demonstrable financial harm to the most vulnerable Americans, as well as the overwhelming majority.
The DNC has caused tremendous harm to black Americans. Let us not forget the three strikes and your out(in prison) for misdemeanor(now legal) marijuana charges.
Yet this is the only reliable evidence we have. Do you admit this or not?
Looking at polling aggregates is important. Yes, there is variation and margins of error. But overall, polling is very predictive and accurate. What do you really understand about polling? Do you understand the process behind it? The statistics behind it? If you do, then you'll realize how important they are. In that case, why the qualifications and skepticism about certain polls and not others? Notice Trump is doing the same thing: a poll comes out that's somewhat favorable to him, he'll tout it. If not, he'll point out how inaccurate polling is, and will give specific examples (his favorite, of course, is the 2016 election).
Polling isn't the only evidence, but when it comes to elections it's the best singe piece of evidence we have. Quoting Relativist
I'm sure you're aware that this comparison has also been made in the media, many times. Before even getting into it, is this historical fact (and parallels) MORE important that polling data, or less? Again, I would argue FAR LESS. Why? Well look at the polling in 1972. What did the polls say. Not "what did enthusiastic, young-spirited, idealistic liberals" think and feel, but what did the data show? Did they take good polls back then? Did they have statistical tools? Turns out, they did. So what did the polls say? I'll let you look them up yourself, if you're interested in doing so. Don't take my word for it.
But assuming my claim is true about polls AND your comparison is also assumed to be accurate in that there are striking parallels (which I agree with, BTW) to McGovern's and Bernie's campaigns, what would our prediction be? We already know the outcome, of course, but that's beside the point. I would conclude that any kind of "landslide" victory would show up in polling prior to it happening -- if polling is worth anything at all, it should at least do that. Turns out, it did. Again, you can look up the numbers yourself -- this isn't controversial.
So McGovern was Bernie in 1972, with polling indicating he would lose handily to a popular incumbent.
Switch gears to 2020, where polling indicates Bernie slightly ahead of Trump, averaging 5 percentage points. Maybe 3 polls show Trump winning, by no more than 5 points, in over six months and, in fact, show only Bernie winning since late January.
Biden averages 6.4 percentage points.
Republicans are much more likely to say "the polling is biased," Bernie people will perhaps say the same thing because he's not polling as well as Biden is nationally. But they are what they are. Do we argue that every credible polling source -- Pew, Gallop, major newspapers, etc., when taken as an average, are all biased? No. It's the best information we have.
Quoting Relativist
Sorry, but this is anecdotal.
That's the reality.
Prior to placing any value, any confidence, or basing any belief upon polling results, there are some questions that need to be answered.
What were the exact questions asked and in what order and/or context? How were the participants chosen?
That would explain the push for Biden and the attempt to portray Bernie as 'unelectable'...
One thing that doesn't seem to be measurable is voter turnout. e.g. Turnout by African Americans was the difference in Obama winning and Hillary losing. On this measure, Biden's popularity with blacks is important.
Bigot.
Not just poor people either. Everyone pays at the pump.
Biden is much less of a threat to your own personal well-being...
Since oil has dropped to well under 50 dollars a barrel... when do you figure the exploited people get to see a real savings at the pump?
What about all those fuel surcharges five or ten years back? You know, the ones used to jack up all the travel, and shipping costs because the price of oil was well over a hundred dollars a barrel? The airlines used it as a reason to charge for luggage. When do we see the savings return since those circumstances no longer hold???
I know all of these circumstances are not personally due to you... they are however, directly tied to the industry you work in. The culture... oil industry... goes quite a ways in explaining why you've been arguing what you have been about electability. Biden or Trump is better for your industry than Bernie.
Bernie is better for average everyday American people...
Nevermind all the environmental issues...
Bigot?
That's funny. I may be a lot of things, and accused of being even more, but that's the first time I've ever been accused of bigotry. Shows me that your reasoning skills are lacking on the matter. It's not that I'm intolerant of your opinion on the matter. To quite the contrary, I can perfectly understand why and how you would believe what you do.
I'm intolerant of the public disservices, misinformation, and propaganda that helped forge it.
Quoting fishfry
Ugh. Come on.
That's not what I said.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Sounds good to me. And I myself am not particularly worried about the 0.01% of the population who will be "disenfranchised."
No, the reality is that polling is and has been very accurate indeed. There are bad polling sources, but the credible ones have been consistent for decades. We're talking here about presidential elections.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-are-all-right/
Yes, because you assume that the company that employed me (note the past tense; I'm retired) defines my political deology. Here's some other things about me:
I grew up poor. My dad was a cook in a diner, my mom was a grocery store clerk. I was able to go to college because my father was over 65, and at the time, there was a social security benefit for children of retirees if they were in college (Reagan killed this BTW). I knew college was my way out of poverty, so I took advantage of my opportunity and got a degree in a field that was well-paying. The job opportunities in Houston are predominantly in the oil business. I have no regrets. The object of the game was to get out of poverty. I did. What's wrong with that? Is that not part of your vision?
I never forgot where I came from, and how I got out of it: government assistance, and I'm both angered and saddened that the opportunities available to me to climb out of poverty have disappeared. Cost of college and health care are barriers that keep the poor chained to their circumstances.
Quoting creativesoul
I have given my honest analysis. I may be wrong. Xtrix provided some cogent reasons to think I might be. You have just been an asshole.
Yes, and please do.
You're right about turnout -- that's harder to predict. My "hunch" tells me that enthusiasm matters, but that doesn't seem to be panning out for Bernie with younger voters (who he wins 80% or so of).
Are you denying that what I wrote is true?
I assumed nothing of the sort. To quite the contrary, that was a conclusion... your being employed by the oil industry explained all the common misconceptions that were grounding your opinion regarding electability. It made perfect sense how and why one would believe what you do...
...according to your participation here..
There is enough footage to stitch together the big picture...
Leaders need good judgment.
Biden showed a lack thereof during the debate tonight when he did not recognize that one can point out something good in another foreign government without condoning everything about it. This tied to another... his accusing Bernie of using a republican talking point(canard). The tie is one of double standards. Joe's narrative regarding Cuba closely resembled the earlier piece of propaganda put forth here by the vampire.
Biden's record shows that he judged incorrectly during key times on key pieces of legislation. Joe is part of the problem... and has been.
Good leaders are right at the time. Joe had to come around to it later.
Joe talks all about what he's gonna do to help eliminate/resolve problems that he himself helped to create by virtue of being wrong at the time. He says he's going to do something to correct his own mistakes of past...
Nothing at all wrong with that. Not sure why you would think otherwise.
Quoting Relativist
We share the same concerns here.
Of that... I very well may be guilty. Hard to tell in this medium.
I thought I made it clear that my issue is not you personally... but rather... my issue is how and why you've come to believe what you have. Public disservices... commonly held false beliefs...
This website shows the importance of the most populous swing states. It shows there to be 12 combinations of these states that can result in a Trump win. So I examined the most recent polls from those states. It indeed shows Biden has a better chance to beat Trump than Bernie (details below). You convinced me to focus solely on the polls, and they indeed show Biden has a better chance. Can you now accept that?
[Url=https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/florida/]Florida[/url] (29 electoral votes) Trump beats both, but Biden (49-51) has a more realistic chance than Bernie (47-53). Florida is a must win for Trump (Florida is in 11 of the 12 winning combinations for Trump), so it's a big deal to have a chance there.
[Url=https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/pennsylvania/]Pennsylvania[/url] (20 electoral votes)- polls are mixed as to who wins, but all polls show Biden winning by a higher margin than Bernie, or losing by a lower margin. 7 of the 12 Republican win scenarios depend on Pennsylvania; it's winnable, but not a sure thing.
[Url=https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/]Michigan[/url] (16 electoral votes) lots of polls; some show advantage for Bernie, some for Biden. Michigan is in 8 of the 12 combinations for a Trump win.
[Url=https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/]North Carolina[/url] (15 electoral votes). Trump wins some polls, loses others. Biden wins by greater margin than Bernie, or loses by a smaller margin. (NC is in 7 of the 12 Trump winning combinations). Winnable, but not a sure thing.
[Url=https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/]Arizona[/url] (11 electoral votes) Biden has better margin than Bernie in 2 of the 3 recent polls.
[Url=https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/]Wisconsin[/url](10 electoral votes) Negligible difference between Bernie and Biden.
Quoting creativesoul
I'm arguing that what you said, given the context, has misleading implications. The discussion was centered on presidential elections. Making general comments about polling is fine, but why announce general skepticism and the importance of questioning them given this specific context? What is the implication there? We know how well the presidential polls have faired -- they have a long history, plenty of good scholarship on them.
So I guess the real question is ere you denying what *I* said was true? If not, your comment is fairly trivial and poorly timed.
Of course, as I have from the beginning. I said from the beginning that that was a very reasonable position to take. But that was not what the narrative was when Bernie looked like he was winning the nomination, and not what you claimed either. You said you agreed that Bernie wasn't electable, which is what the DNC was pushing all along and which, as has been shown, is nonsense. This may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but it's not a trivial distinction. To say Bernie was "unelectable" implies he would lose to Trump which, when you look at the only good evidence we have, clearly isn't true. To say Biden is 1% ahead of Bernie in national polls, and voting for him because of it, is a very different position.
Quoting Relativist
Very true.
By the way, it's more helpful (I think) to look at polling averages, as they do fluctuate.
Given this, Trump leads Florida over Biden by 1.3%.
Biden leads Trump in PA by 3.8%, Michigan by 4.8%, North Carolina 3.4%, Arizona 3.8%.
They're tied in Wisconsin.
That's not bad, so far. I'd like those to be much, much higher, but at least it's competitive. Also, surprisingly, in Texas, Trump is up on average 2.6%. That's really big news for the Democrats.
Joe should focus on Pennsylvania and Michigan, especially, and then Florida. If he puts in time in AZ and NC, then I think he has a good shot of winning, given Trump's unpopularity. But you never know what happens between now and November. So far, this coronavirus response is not helping him. His base won't leave him, but independents will. And they're the ones who swung the election.
On the other hand, if someone's top priority is to move toward a more just social system, one might choose to take more risk and vote for Bernie. I'm not going to tell them it's wrong to take that risk, but I would like them to be aware that they ARE taking that risk.
Coronavirus is costing the global economy trillions of dollars. It has the potential to throw us into a prolonged recession (especially if covid-19 sticks around as a seasonal illness). In short, the economy is being decimated.
Now... My assertion: who is this going to affect the most? You would think that trillions in losses would be hitting the wealthiest the most, but because the costs are somewhat spread out, it is imposing the same absolute costs on roughly everyone (the cost of temporary shut down and medical expense). Therefore, in the short term, those most seriously impacted will be those who are already the most impoverished (anyone living paycheck to paycheck, and below), while anyone with established wealth can happily ride things out until the economy normalizes.
Small businesses will be crushed by this, eventual evictions of families will ensue due to missed payments. Basic quality of life necessities will be sacrificed or missed by many individuals...
And when stocks are at their lowest when we finally turn the corner on the covid, those who were strong enough to survive the squeeze will be left to buy or claim the sudden influx of business and market-share of their failed competitors.
In a nut shell, the rich are going to get relatively and absolutely richer as a result of coronavirus, due to the mere happenstance of economic inequality (not as a result of creating value for society). What makes this appalling to me is that it's the average middle class and below schmucks paying the actual price, while private corporations lap up the blood and sweat as pure profit (even my local grocery store seems to have jacked prices...).
How far can we stretch the social contract upholding this reality before it gets ripped apart?
You would need to be able to call the bottom, which is easier said than done. There's nothing quite like "buying the bottom" only to have things drop another 15-20%. I also think it takes some guts to deploy capital after, say, the dow has been bleeding for 3-4 months.
I'll tell you my strategy - wait until covids cases maybe worldwide (or at least in the US) have started to decrease for 3 days or so then maybe jump back in.
So, I think some rich are gonna get wrecked and some will do well if they're able to time things perfectly. I don't have the exact breakdown nor do I quite know what you're referring to as rich.
Free markets first appeared around the time of the Bronze Age Collapse. It's speculated that they appeared because of the loss of kingly hubs, but they may have also been a factor in the collapse because people who depend on a market don't depend on kings.
The same thing happened again in Europe around the time of the Crusades. European organization was like a multitude of little beehives. The transition out of this to the rebirth of cities was a result of the rebirth of trade and marketeers.
We live along a progression past the eclipse of the European aristocracy. Yet there's still a beehive-like character to our world. It's just not kings at the hub. It's capitalists.
I don't think there is any social contract that's being stretched.
We can also look at things from the operational side of business; how many small businesses are going to shutter as a result? (if you appreciate gutsy investment, small business entrepreneurs face ridiculous odds and create value directly even wen they fail). Unless they provide a covid-relevant service, they may not make it through the next few months. I suspect Amazon is going to benefit immensely from this.
The other side of the flipping coin you've impressed is actually the failure itself; it wasn't that we actually ever needed kings, it's that we were either to escape the direct (usually force based) control they exerted (maybe because of markets, or maybe because the king's power system collapsed). We still have a system that enforces a particularly lord like way of things (Bezos is bona fide global Baron).
If necessary, we can conceptualize the social contract strictly as the set of sentiments and agreements that holds back social chaos or revolution. To progress we must adapt these agreements, else sooner or later circumstances will find a critical exception.
Sure. I disagree with it for a number of reasons, but it's a respectable position.
Quoting Relativist
Yes, and there's an argument to be made there. But as you saw, Bernie is very close with Biden in national polls and fairs well in battleground states as well. So it is a little riskier, but not by much. Now you have to ask: How popular are the proposals? What are the odds that they're implemented, and does it matter? And how much better for the country is this set of policies over the other?
Then there's the fair argument about the 2018 midterms, where only the more "moderate" candidates won in the swing districts, and where the "progressives" (or those closer to Sanders in proposals) all lost. Thus, how would Sanders effect down-ballot races? But to me that's really just an argument for people not turning out if Bernie were the nominee, to voting third party because they're so turned off by him or his policies. I see it far more likely that it's Sanders' supporters who stay home or vote third party, unfortunately.
If someone shows up to vote for someone as progressive as Sanders, then by their argument the moderate democrats would stay home and it wouldn't effect down-ballot races at all. I think the Democratic voters are motivated enough to vote for almost anyone over Trump, so if either Biden or Sanders lose some portion, so be it. It's either gonna be a wash, or the Sanders people will stay home in higher percentage. Now the question becomes, on top of that, who do we think turns out the most NEW voters? Who taps into the biggest voting bloc in the country (the non-voters)? The Sanders camp argues that he would, and there's good reason to believe it: he does overwhelmingly well with younger voters. And they're an active bunch, even if they're not yet voting in the numbers they should vote in. They're also the future of the party and the country. What do THEY want? What excites them?
These are all questions to ask. This isn't the easiest thing to figure out, but analyzing the demographics and projections are very important. The Republican party recognizes this, in fact. That's why they try subtle (and not-so-subtle) tactics to suppress minority voters and overall voter turnout.
I do believe you're right. There's a very volatile populist trend right now, though -- on both left and right. So the government (republicans and democrats) may actually come together to fight it, because a recession causes a lot of popular uprising, and the last one is still in our memory. People will be coming for them, and they know it. So watch for mild aid packages and other half measures to keep a decent amount of people covered. The working class poor will suffer the most, as always.
Wealth de-concentrates during depressions. We haven't had one in a while, so I'd easily believe we're at a peak.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
We're all one conglomerate, that's what I'm trying to explain. Kings don't succeed because they're controlling people. They succeed because the societies they rule are robust. A human society is like a large living organism and the king is a critical component. There actually isn't anything in the animal world that compares to human societies. The size and complexity of even a little township is beyond what any other animal can do. Now consider what the USA is. Before you claim that it's broken, first consider how it's engineered in the first place.
In order to do that, I think you'll have to stop worrying about fairness for a second, and look at how it evolved.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Social chaos isn't being held back. We are expressing our potential through human governments.
You know that you can also do this? I do this and I wouldn't really consider myself either unless I'm my own "portfolio manager."
This is questionable. Traditional financial wisdom advises against timing the market, and instead riding out the storm. Of course in this case we may just need to make an exception (personally, I have sold most of my holdings). In any case, over the past few decades fund managers have not generally speaking outperformed the S&P.
I feel like we need to define "affected" here a little better. On one hand, the wealthy have lost more than the poor in dollar terms this past week by far. Generally speaking, it seems like people are getting knocked down a peg - so everyone becomes less wealthy. On the very bottom of the social ladder you have the homeless who probably aren't affected by this very much at all. But above them are the poor who are now in a serious situation and threatened with homelessness. The middle class now risk becoming poor in a recession and the wealthy may risk becoming middle class or less wealthy.
If the rich are trying to time the market then they have more to gain and also more to lose if they mistime it. I think if everything were to crash we'd all be more equal, relatively speaking. You would just have a ton of wealth destroyed and everyone would be poor. Even if a rich person did time the market well who would buy his products?
Well, that's certainly understandable. No. I'm not denying that presidential polling is accurate. Rather, I'm wondering to what extent the polling is itself influenced by virtue of the participant selection process and the framing of the questions... which, in turn, makes me wonder to what extent the actual election is influenced by the same. Nothing trivial about that at all... given both, the timing and the context...
Would different questions being asked change both outcomes, the poll and the election?
I think it could and often does. Group think. Indoctrination. Etc. I think Jung called it the collective conscious, or words to that affect/effect. That's a legitimate vein of thought...especially in this context. I think you'd agree.
By the way, you were right. After I reread our exchanges, I definitely did come off as being an asshole...
My apologies.
:flower:
Too kind. I may have told myself to fuck off!
:wink:
I'm a little angrier than usual nowadays. Again, my apologies. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
The participant selection process and framing of the questions. Yes, very legitimate questions about polling. Gallup has plenty of information about the process, the randomness of sampling, sampling sizes, statistical analyses, etc. Remember that it is important for business and politicians to have a clear understanding on where the public is. It really matters, and thus it's important that they get it right. Turns out, they often do.
Quoting creativesoul
This wasn't directed at me, but I can relate. You're not alone. The more important an issue is, the more emotional control (especially anger) we have to exercise so that our logic and ability to listen/learn isn't obstructed.
The differences between Bernie and Biden are numerically small in the battleground states, but in my mind, the significance is magnified by the context: Trump can win each one of those states. If he wins the 3 biggest (Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan), he will win the election. He won those 3 in 2016. This makes me more nervous than does the coronavirus. Despite the low probability I will die if I get it, I'm taking the recommended precautions (social distancing, hand-washing, etc). Analogously, I'm taking precautions against Trump's being reelected.
Of course. So you'll take the 1%. That's fine...I just don't happen to agree with it. I think Bernie's policies are so much better for the country, particularly on climate change, that it's worth taking that minor risk.
Does it manifest as symptom or as a cure?
And what happens when the depression ends?
I'm willing to be educated here, but it's not easy to draw analogies to historical events (things can go both ways...).
It seems like you're saying wealth aggregates until shit hits the fan and the distribution becomes untenable (maybe its called a depression).
Are you with me on the subject of wealth redistribution then? I've been arguing for UBI for years...
What necessities should I sacrifice in order to roll dice on wall-street?
What are the least essential vitamins I wonder...
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
If there wasn't gain to be had on average, nobody would be investing whatsoever. Outperforming the S&P isn't required. If performance is in the black then wealth will concentrate merely because most people have no position to begin with.
Am I missing something? One kind of concentration I'm worried about in this case is the bargaining power that businesses (and therefore workers) themselves lose during the recession (those that become more dependent on investment capital to adapt and outlast competition). Meanwhile, private owned (small) businesses either find private investors (same issue happens there) or they run the risk of bankruptcy. As bankruptcy occurs, market-vacuums open which can only be quickly filled by global corporations with the infrastructure required to do so.
I'm looking at a broad recession/depression like a series of industry shakeouts. There is risk and opportunity, but there is more opportunity for those who are already well positioned, and much more risk for those who are not.
Paycheck to Paycheck with no health insurance in America is not well positioned...
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
This is a good point. I think relativism holds true in this case.
Stealing a billion dollars from Jeff Bezos or mayor-what's-his-face is actually less of a crime than stealing 1000$ from a family that has less than 50k savings (which is the vast majority of them).
The closer someone is pushed toward the bottom, the exponentially worse their living conditions seem to get. Since basic nutrition is already on the concern-table for many American families, I'm confident that the breaking point isn't actually that far off. Maybe we'll just get away with some thousand dollar Trump checks; stretch-marks that remind us of a really shitty time. Or maybe global problems are about to stack themselves against us. What if there's another disastrous hurricane event this September? Or several? What if there's a problem with the flow of that sweet sweet black stuff (many states would love to pull some shit against the petro-dollar, and global crisis of any kind is an opportunity to do so).
...
The world really needs to start reassessing its "in this together-ness", because the rapidly changing future and future prospects of our society promises to filter us out of existence if we don't.
I used that example to illustrate the fact that while it is no doubt highly unlikely that Hillary will be the eventual nominee; it is nevertheless not completely beyond the pale to so speculate. That was my only point.
I think he would. Of course Trump would never do it. It's just an idea. But I do think that if they did, that ticket would win 50 states. The US is on the verge of a populist revolution. If the establishment doesn't crush us first.
I'd let this go but I'm really curious to understand your thinking.
I agree Hillary as the nominee is unlikely. But you think even mention of it is somehow beyond the pale. But I have seen much speculation along those lines from both the right and the left side of the commentariat for months. I just don't see why you think even mentioning the idea as a speculation is somehow wrong. I mean, Hillary's been all over the place in public the past few months, and when asked about her intentions she coyly says, "I never say never."
How do you figure that's not sufficient justification for raising the question?
Please try to answer this in complete logical sentences, not "Ugh . Come on," which is not helpful.
To quote a very stable genius: "I don't feel like talking about it on this thread."
But seriously: keep trying to save face, it's kind of hilarious. If you can't see how stupid your original comment was, despite multiple people explaining it to you, you're not willing to see it. Which I see is a typical pattern for you.
Lots of stupid things are discussed somewhere in the media. The fact that they appear in the media doesn't make them any less stupid. Clear enough?
One theory is that concentration of wealth eventually makes the banking system unstable. Banks have to lend money to survive, so when wealth is concentrated, they're lending to a poorer community. Poor lending practices become common. At the same time, the super wealthy create speculative bubbles.
I used to believe all that and accept that the only reason the US hasn't crashed yet is that its being artificially propped up by China, which is using it as a ladder to transformation. Maybe it's true. I'm not sure anymore.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes. I think that's what Marxists believe.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
My question is: what difference does it make what you and I support? UBI would be a profound systemic change. I think it would only happen after an unrecoverable crash of the system we have. That's not something we can plan or vote for. I'm saying: look at it mechanistically, not morally (for a while anyway). See the extent to which you are a form emerging from this integrated organism. You're not off to the side watching it and assessing your contracts with it.
Actually according to Gallup 55% of Americans hold stock. But yes, stock gains tend to go towards those who have the most invested. Similarly, stock declines hit - in dollar amounts - those with the most invested.
Yes, and this is key. What does it mean to be well positioned? Ideally, looking at it now - it means a large cash reserve that can come buy the bottom (whether that's in stocks or real estate or maybe starting a business) and basically timing things perfect. However, there are wealthy people who have most of their assets in real estate (I'd say that this is the case for a lot of wealthy people) - like an airbnb tycoon - who despite having millions in assets are also in quite a bit of debt and possibly over-leveraged and with tourism and travel on the decline these tycoons are in trouble. It's not like they can instantly sell their holdings like a stock either because it's real estate and it's less liquid. Real estate can take months to sell. Those airbnb tycoons or landlords might also have employees who could get laid off. Ripple effects.
I do believe that there is opportunity here and in a perfect world the wealthy would be able to buy the bottom and everything just turns green there. It would be the best for the lower classes as well because it would probably lead to a hiring boom if the wealthy could time it just right but it takes a lot of guts to put your money on the line after, say, 4 months of carnage.
Agreed.
The question is how do we solve it. I'm not going to complain if they start sending us $1000 checks every month. The proposals on how much to send have reached as high as $4500/month. There's no real limit to how much the government can print. Hell, they could send us $10k/month if they wanted but what happens to the value of the US dollar? Short term alleviation comes at a cost longer cost. I'm having serious doubts about the US dollar right now.
Don't get me wrong - this crisis does scare me. I'm fortunate enough to not be at the bottom, but I'm certainly not at the top either. The thing is, the crisis is with Main Street, not Wall Street. I'm in favor of implementing policies which help the poor or those in need during this time, we just need to make sure those policies come with an acceptable trade-off. As of now I tentatively support UBI. And yes, those without savings or an emergency fund will be hit hard. I personally have lost a pretty significant amount of money but I'm not threatened with homelessness or paying for expenses.
:brow:
Obviously we have a stock market crisis on our hands, but the main reason is the virus and the day to day measures that we're taking to prevent it like not leaving our houses and economic activity coming to a halt. It's a bottom up issue rather than a top down one.
The fact that the stock market reacted to predictions tells you it's only loosely bottom up. The things we do to comfort the market are usually symbolic. See the 2009 crisis for details.
The things we do for Main St are real. Or more real.
It will have to be stretched until the pips squeak before anything will change. In theory political changes would be able to turn society away from raw capitalism, to some something more social democratic. But in some countries this is being held back by the manipulation of the media and the use of populism, funded by the wealthy, the people invested in capitalism. There are established, even endemic (as in the UK) anti socialist ideologies which are fostered by this manipulation.
But as I see it following the financial crisis of 2008, more and more people have lost faith in the free market and the politics of the privelidged is loosing support amongst the young. In the UK this is becoming an existential battle, almost civil war. With older wealthier people who benefitted from the economic boom of the 1980's and 90's. Against the younger people who have had debt and unaffordable house prices holding them hostage, having to rent with higher and higher rates of rental. Meaning they can't generate their own wealth, while the older people hold onto their wealth.
Perhaps Corona will help to correct this imbalance.
Oh, political speculation is verboten? I didn't read that in the forum rules. I'll make a note of it.
So your money is on Joe Biden making it to the election in November? That's the betting favorite. I'd gladly take the other side were money at stake. He's an extremely weak candidate. If someone else gets the nomination one way or the other, it won't be one of the former candidates. It will be someone from the outside. She Who Must Not Be Indicted is certainly in that conversation if not necessarily in the lead. This is perfectly sensible political speculation. You seem to only know what you read in the papers, and you clearly don't read much.
Stupidity isn't forbidden, no. Hence why you're still allowed to post things.
Quoting fishfry
This from a guy who continues to defend a stupid, stupid statement out of embarrassment. Forgive me if I don't care.
Specifically, tax cuts for corporations.
Even in a time of crisis, they don't even pretend to be anything other than corporate slaves. It's really repugnant.
With winning "the Abroad" vote?
Just wanted to keep you abreast of the latest Hillary speculation. Micheal Goodwin of the NY Post notes that Democrats need to recruit Obama to bench Biden, find another candidate. He suggests Cuomo, Pelosi (??) and She Who Must Not Be Indicted herself.
And there is always Hillary Clinton. Insiders say she hasn’t given up despite being a two-time loser, and a rematch of 2016 would galvanize the nation. Her Trump grudge would be the only rationale she would need and might give Dems the turnout they would need.
So you all-in for Biden or what? Taking a poll of my liberal friends.
And to keep this on topic, I noticed that this is a thread about Bernie. He voted for the bailout. How do you Bernie fans feel about that? Talks the talk but he's never to be found when it's time to walk the walk.
You made a similar comment early this month referencing an article also written by Michael Goodwin about a speculative Hillary win.
Someone please pay me money to write the same dumb article twice a month.
Thank you for keeping track so assiduously.
So may I ask you: How do you feel about Biden these days? Think he's the Trump slayer?
#Reptile2020
You're welcome, it's not hard to keep track of things that happened several weeks ago - I'm sorry if you somehow face that difficulty.
Quoting fishfry
No he sucks
Ok. So do you think it's reasonable to speculate that the Dems might try to replace him? And that if that were to happen, that She Who Must Not Be Indicted is one of the names that would naturally come up? Or is Michael Goodwin simply trafficking in idle speculation with no basis in reality, in addition to lazily writing about it twice?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
??? LOL
She is a bit reptilian, don't you think?
Why would either the DNC establishment or the registered voters want to replace the guy they just build up? Has anything dramatic changed about his viability as a candidate?
Just give it up man, for the love of God. There's no chance in hell this happens. None. Zero. That some "speculate" about it to rile people up, create buzz, and broaden readership is completely irrelevant to any thinking adult. Was Sandyhook a "false flag"? I could cite Alex Jones and several articles about it. I guess that makes it plausible, in your world, and totally worth entertaining? If you think so, please remove yourself from the adult table and go have fun "speculating" about anything you want.
Quoting fishfry
I'm not liberal and I'm not your friend.
Nor am I "all in" for Biden. I've never liked Biden as a candidate. Will I vote for him over Trump? Of course I will. That decision should take about 3 minutes to make.
It's fine to speculate but it's based on little more than op-ed contributors simply trying to churn out articles.
Gradually changing for the worse by the day over the past several months. A cruel charade. The Dems are in such deep denial it's something to behold.
You'd be factually wrong about that. Here are the latest betting odds on the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. These odds reflect beliefs that people are willing to wager money on. As of 3/30 they are: Biden 83.4, Cuomo 6.9, Clinton 5.9, Sanders 5.5.
And Biden's continued to stumble badly in every podcast and every tv interview every day for a week now. His unsuitability as a presidential candidate is impossible to ignore. Surely you are not going to deny this.
Quoting Xtrix
That's a bit of a strawman argument, isn't it? How does one relate to the other? When the government tells you the North Vietnamese attacked us at the Gulf of Tonkin, or that Saddam has WMDs, are you one of those people who wave the flag for war without a moment's thought? You never question what you're told? Ever?
I'm curious, do you even read much political commentary? I agree Hillary's not getting much buzz lately but Cuomo's name keeps coming up. Just yesterday he officially denied he's running for president, saying, "This is no time for politics." Exactly what a politician would say, don't you agree?
Are you completely unaware of all of this that I'm talking about?
Quoting Xtrix
What's your political orientation? Curious to know.
Quoting Xtrix
You'd be lost without me.
Quoting Xtrix
That's why they hold elections.
So when Cuomo was asked by his brother, on tv, whether he's running for president, that was not actual news? They just made it up?
Do you think that Biden's weakness and apparent cognitive issues on display in every one of his public appearances in the past week are just clickbait? That his mind is sound as a dollar? Well actually now that you mention it ... Biden's mind IS about as sound as a dollar.
I mean seriously, you haven't heard anything about speculations about Biden not getting the nomination. You've heard nothing. Is this now the claim of at least two people on this board? Why are you even bothering to talk politics?
I'm serious about this. I consume news from a lot of sources and I see this speculation all over the place. When I tossed off my line about Hillary the other day I had no idea it would trigger anyone. It's commonplace political speculation; as is Biden's weakness as a candidate.
No.
Quoting fishfry
Because not only is there no evidence, it fails at being even interesting speculation. That's how it relates.
Quoting fishfry
Yes, questioning the motives and pretexts of government foreign policy, formulating alternative narratives, and (most importantly) relying on experts and the documentary record to support these narratives is important.
So far you've cited NY Post speculations and betting odds for a stupid, stupid idea. What's more embarrassing is that you continue on in your quest to make it look less stupid. But this isn't Fox News, and cheap spin doesn't work.
There's no way Hillary Clinton will be the democratic nominee. Ever. Put your money on it if you want. I'll gladly lay the odds.
Quoting fishfry
Right, because you've proven yourself such a very widely-read, credible source of news, you feel perfectly entitled to ask me that question.
I suppose you take seriously the "perfectly reasonable" speculation that Cuomo will jump in and be the nominee too, eh? I've got a better one: I have reason to believe, based on what "many people are saying," that Fauci will try his hand at the democratic nomination. People are saying it, so it must be credible and worth discussing. Haven't heard anything about it? Probably because you don't follow the news -- or at least aren't as well-read as I am. Pity.
I guess I'm ultimately the fool for wasting time responding to you.
This is not the same as the idea that Hillary Clinton is likely to be the Democratic nominee
You may have noticed we're in the middle of a pandemic. Bernie is principled, but also pragmatic. This bill was by no means perfect, and he spoke out against the parts he abhorred, but something needed to be done -- and quickly.
To describe this as "selling out" may sound great in conservative media (or even liberal media), but it's a complete joke. Just think about it a minute.
"What we need is [s]a revolution[/s] pragmatism."
I'm still digging into the bill. But I really don't like what I see.
Neither did Bernie, I'm sure. You're missing the point.
A "no" vote would have demonstrated a "revolution" in your mind eh?
I'll give you a concrete example. My sister and her husband are looking at probably three months of lockdown or semi-lockdown and no work. They live in LA. Their rent is 3 grand, close to a grand for health, and another 2 for bills and food. Let's say 6 grand a month. How long do you think 1200 bucks each is going to last?
In contrast, a treasure trove of $500 billion has been opened for big corporations to dig into.
The bill is shit.
Quoting Xtrix
A "no" vote would have been in keeping with everything he says he stands for. A "yes" vote looks like capitulation.
I think he thought he didn't have much of a choice.
Plus, he voted for the version with the oversight committee, a clause Trump just conveniently decided to veto upon signing the thing.
Of course he had a choice.
Depends what you mean by choice. I mean that I don't think he thought he could get the American people to understand why he would vote against them getting money.
That's plausible. But he could have said:
Quoting Baden
"And you should get the same."
When I disagree with about 1% of what a politician does, I usually just leave it at disagreeing. I save my God-slaying days for the really bad ones.
It's a little hyperbolic, but I take the attitude that you criticize decisions based on their content not who makes them. The bill is shit. Everyone who voted for it is responsible.
What part of "you're missing the point" don't you understand?
I haven't argued that it's a great bill.
Quoting Baden
We're in a pandemic. I don't think he cares about the optics right now. A "no" vote would have accomplished exactly nothing. If this truly turns you off to Bernie, by all means keep holding your breath for someone more principled.
The bill is indeed total carp.
:clap:
Quoting Xtrix
Put your attitude back in your pants. You don't own the point here.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, he obviously does, because he voted for the bill. There was no other reason to vote for it.
Quoting Xtrix
It's not about me.
Fuck you. That better? :)
You're right, Bernie's a total sellout. I'm bored talking with you.
OK, relax. I didn't intend to upset you. I still like Bernie, but in this case he did the wrong thing.
...it turns out that the provision might not preclude funds from going to companies owned by the family of Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and White House adviser, Jared Kushner, while Mr. Trump’s companies would not be barred from benefiting from other elements of the bill intended to help broad swaths of American business."
"The provision says that if a company owns multiple hotels, even if the overall hotel or restaurant chain has more than 500 employees — the limit to qualify for treatment as a small business — it will still be able to take advantage of the small-business benefits offered in the rescue package.
That means loans from the federal government worth up to 2.5 times the firm’s monthly payroll that will not have to be repaid...
Representatives from the American Hotel & Lodging Association reached out to Republicans and Democrats to push them to insert the language"
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/us/politics/virus-fineprint-stimulus-bill.html
Again, I would urge people to look past the headlines and look into the fine print of the bill. Though we're going off-topic now, so I'll leave it at that.
In this light his acquiescence with respect to the current bill is disappointing but not unexpected. Lesson: politicians won't save you, they're a means to an end, and a limited one at that, even as one should absolutely choose strategic moments to support them.
:clap:
Congratulations everyone! Four more years of Trump!
We may not be getting the candidate we wanted, but we are getting the candidate we deserve!
Something tells me that moneyed interests being afraid of Bernie had their hands in this...
P.S. Elizabeth Warren should go back to the republican party as their fucking season MVP....
P.P.S: Vote for the other Biden...
I've never understood how people can be so confident that their opinions are true, that it implies all contrary opinions are the product of stupidity.
Such arrogance.
Yes.
Not entirely their fault. They live in a failed state.
Just lazy. Millennials didn't get their shit together and actually vote in enough numbers to make a difference.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0408/1129449-us-markets-buoyed-by-coronavirus-hopes/
Quoting StreetlightX
You're way ... too ... kind ... :zip:
Harsh words towards one who is so overwhelmingly on the right side of history. He was not for the bank bailout in '08 by the way. You repeated that commonly held false belief earlier. I'm trying to disabuse you of it.
Quote me.
Curious. That doesn't sound like a loan to me.
A Tragicomedy?
Well, you do start to be like Mexico.
Mexico at least cares about religion. Here in the US, they only exist to evade taxes.
Quoting Baden
My bad. It was Street... not you.
The Kool-Aid is fruity.
No worries.
:smile:
"Stupid, lazy millennials" (and not just millennials).
It's difficult to say exactly what happened with Bernie. On the one hand, the DNC consolidated their power in a hail-Mary attempt that ended up succeeding to beat Sanders back, and never supported him from the beginning. Nor did most of the media pundits and op-ed contributors. If they had supported him, rather than playing up "socialism" and convincing voters that he had "no chance" of beating Trump (which wasn't supported by polling), who knows what would have happened.
On the other hand, the voters didn't show up in the numbers we needed. He also didn't win over the African American vote. Remember that although Elizebeth Warren was in the race, even if you counted all of her voters Bernie still only had a plurality in many states.
It's worth keeping in mind, when trying to understand what the hell is happening here, that propaganda and misinformation are everywhere, that many Americans get poor or little education, that most are living paycheck to paycheck regardless of their "class" status, that real wages have stagnated and thus they are deeper in debt than ever before, and that the neoliberal-dominant legal and economic system in which they have grown up has many built-in measures (some accidental, most deliberate) that encourages and magnifies social isolation and division (through media-fueled fear and suspicion of others, "wedge" issues, etc), constant diversion and perpetual work. These phenomena have all been studied systematically, but the evidence for this is everywhere, just look around.
So this is all as much "true" as saying that they're stupid and lazy, which may also be true.