I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'd rather the Democratic Party focused on concrete ways to make their lives better, and then communicated that.

There is very little anyone can do for these people. The sole thing I can conceive of is a guaranteed income, and that's not politically possible.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There is very little anyone can do for these people. The sole thing I can conceive of is a guaranteed income, and that's not politically possible.

Of course it's politically possible. After four years of seeing Trump and Republicans do jack sh*t for them, working-class Americans are going to be ready for something else, and if we've learned anything in this election, it's (a) that confident predictions about what's politically possible are worthless, and (b) when voters are dissatisfied with where they are, they may go for just about anything.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Of course it's politically possible. After four years of seeing Trump and Republicans do jack sh*t for them, working-class Americans are going to be ready for something else, and if we've learned anything in this election, it's (a) that confident predictions about what's politically possible are worthless, and (b) when voters are dissatisfied with where they are, they may go for just about anything.

Not if we become an authoritarian dictatorship in the interim, as that bit of doom porn you offered suggests we will.

In seriousness, I agree that Trump will likely be out on his ass in four years. But the guaranteed income thing will still be difficult. I think the idea has a lot of promise. But it is an admission that Capitalism is becoming obsolete. That's a tough sell.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Not if we become an authoritarian dictatorship in the interim, as that bit of doom porn you offered suggests we will.

Sometimes I post things here because I agree with them, and sometimes I post things because they are interesting and deserve a read. I trust you will not deny that Trump has strong authoritarian characteristics. He is essentially narcissistic, not ideological, and it's all about him.

My view right now is that he would love to be a dictator, but that he is not competent enough and will be constrained by our institutions, especially Congress. Also, he's not particularly popular. His administration is going to feature a lot of poor decisionmaking, partly because he doesn't have comprehensive policies (see above re ideology) to get everyone marching in the same direction, partly because he is hiring loyalists who are out of their depth, and partly because he likes to foster backstabbing among his underlings that ensures his relevance and primacy.

In short, I think he is a would-be authoritarian who will not be able to consolidate power. But I didn't think he would be able to win the general election, because I thought he would split the GOP, and I was wrong about the extent to which Republicans would swallow their objections to him and line up behind a bigoted, incompetent reality-TV star simply because it offered them a chance to win. For that reason, I'm worried that I am again underestimating him, and that he will be able to maintain power effectively because he will divert concerns about his self-dealing and mismanagement by scapegoating immigrants, minorities and elites. He does have a knack for that. Fool me once, etc.

In seriousness, I agree that Trump will likely be out on his ass in four years. But the guaranteed income thing will still be difficult. I think the idea has a lot of promise. But it is an admission that Capitalism is becoming obsolete. That's a tough sell.

It's not that capitalism is obsolete, it's that the promise that a rising tide would lift all boats has proved wrong in practice. It could work but it doesn't, because the system is rigged to make sure that few share the gains. Republicans' relentless efforts to redistribute upwards, and to block things that government might do for the common good, are a big part of the problem. For example: in theory, cross-border trade generates societal benefits and the government can protect those who get left behind; in practice, Republicans (and some Democrats) make sure that no one is taxed to enable the latter to happen. So Democrats need to find new ways to make sure that no one gets left behind.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not that capitalism is obsolete, it's that the promise that a rising tide would lift all boats has proved wrong in practice. It could work but it doesn't, because the system is rigged to make sure that few share the gains. Republicans' relentless efforts to redistribute upwards, and to block things that government might do for the common good, are a big part of the problem. For example: in theory, cross-border trade generates societal benefits and the government can protect those who get left behind; in practice, Republicans (and some Democrats) make sure that no one is taxed to enable the latter to happen. So Democrats need to find new ways to make sure that no one gets left behind.

You cannot tax the winners in trade (or tech, which I believe is the much bigger job killer) adequately enough to cover the general obligations govt promises to all of its citizens, and also provide special relief to provide a dignified life to those unique millions suffering as result of tech and trade. There's simply not adequate $$$ there.

I'll also note, though I agree with your assessment regarding trade and tech making so many people obsolete, it's quite a cold and defeatist policy to give up and just pay the economically useless for breathing. I prefer a massive debt workout. Cancel all unsecured and student debt. Wipe out the overhang holding us back and transfer trillions from banks and investors straight into Main Street's pockets. I mean, if we're going to talk guaranteed income, we might as well go full radical, no?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There is very little anyone can do for these people. The sole thing I can conceive of is a guaranteed income, and that's not politically possible.

It's not politically possible because one party has no interest at all in doing anything for them, except, now apparently, pander to their racism and xenophobia.

To be fair, it's not clear that the other party would be particularly keen on the idea under past leadership either, but it may well be moving in that direction.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But it is an admission that Capitalism is becoming obsolete.

No, it's an admission that the laissez faire form of capitalism that's dominated both parties over the past two and a half decades is becoming obsolete and the type of capitalism that the rest of the developed world has, and we had before we started dismantling it in 1980, was probably closer to the right track.

It bugs me when leftists say that capitalism is inherently exploitative and unequal. I mean, ours is, but it doesn't have to be. Stronger worker protections, more redistribution and stronger safety net may even be able to make us richer in the aggregate, but even if not, can make us better off as a whole. Especially if everyone has access to health care.

But bankers hedge funders would need to be happy with fewer billions, so...

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You cannot tax the winners in trade (or tech, which I believe is the much bigger job killer) adequately enough to cover the general obligations govt promises to all of its citizens, and also provide special relief to provide a dignified life to those unique millions suffering as result of tech and trade. There's simply not adequate $$$ there.

You can. You mean you won't (and we won't).

I prefer a massive debt workout. Cancel all unsecured and student debt.

So you're not interested in those who can't compete in a modern economy and instead want a hand out to the middle/upper middle class? Because cancelling student debt is wonderful for people like us (actually, I just paid the last of mine, so not me personally) and does nothing for the rural or working class poor.

They'd probably get some benefit from cancelling credit card debt, but again, the bigger debtors are going to have bigger incomes, meaning you're again going to disproportionately benefit those who are better off.

Then then there's what you mean by "cancel." If you mean have the government assume, you're probably talking about bigger obligations than UBI scheme. ETA: Numbers pulled off the internet suggest total credit card and student debt to be around $2T, which is enough to give $6,250 to every person in the U.S.

If you literally mean "cancel," you're going to have a signification taking issue (I think) and you're going to create a significant bank run.

Wipe out the overhang holding us back

I don't know why you think there's de-leverage still to happen or that what's currently holding back growth is a lack of available credit. Doesn't feel like credit is hard to come by to me. And we've already had a bunch of deleveraging (did I mention I paid off my student loans?).

I mean, if we're going to talk guaranteed income, we might as well go full radical, no?

There's nothing particularly radical about guaranteed income.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You cannot tax the winners in trade (or tech, which I believe is the much bigger job killer) adequately enough to cover the general obligations govt promises to all of its citizens, and also provide special relief to provide a dignified life to those unique millions suffering as result of tech and trade. There's simply not adequate $$$ there.

Sure you can. Look at the Scandinavian countries.

Look, the economy is still growing. The problem is not that the economy is stagnant. The problem is that the gains are not shared.

I'll also note, though I agree with your assessment regarding trade and tech making so many people obsolete, it's quite a cold and defeatist policy to give up and just pay the economically useless for breathing. I prefer a massive debt workout. Cancel all unsecured and student debt. Wipe out the overhang holding us back and transfer trillions from banks and investors straight into Main Street's pockets. I mean, if we're going to talk guaranteed income, we might as well go full radical, no?

Instead of paying people for breathing, pay people for some kind of work, whether it's picking up litter, painting roofs, or digging and filling holes. What you are describing is a one-time hit. What I am groping towards is a different social compact.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

This is a follow up: https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to...0ba#.jghzkl2y3

And now Jill Stein is raising money for a recount. http://www.wkow.com/story/33783289/2...t-in-wisconsin

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You cannot tax the winners in trade (or tech, which I believe is the much bigger job killer) adequately enough to cover the general obligations govt promises to all of its citizens, and also provide special relief to provide a dignified life to those unique millions suffering as result of tech and trade. There's simply not adequate $$$ there.

I'll also note, though I agree with your assessment regarding trade and tech making so many people obsolete, it's quite a cold and defeatist policy to give up and just pay the economically useless for breathing. I prefer a massive debt workout. Cancel all unsecured and student debt. Wipe out the overhang holding us back and transfer trillions from banks and investors straight into Main Street's pockets. I mean, if we're going to talk guaranteed income, we might as well go full radical, no?

Why is it that the immigrants who drive the lyfts (Hi David Brooks!) I order around the expensive city of Boston seem to be able to figure out how to make it work, get their kids educated, and build a life here but your imagined white dude hanging out on a Main Street in Hokum, PA needs his credit cards cancelled?

Seems like we really need more immigration, maybe more to Hokum so they can show the dude how its done.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

And now Jill Stein is raising money for a recount. http://www.wkow.com/story/33783289/2...t-in-wisconsin

Publicity. Stunt.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Instead of paying people for breathing, pay people for some kind of work, whether it's picking up litter, painting roofs, or digging and filling holes. What you are describing is a one-time hit. What I am groping towards is a different social compact.

Good luck with that from the Dems. Isn't that work-fare? Or are you limiting it to just apply to Trump voters?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Not if we become an authoritarian dictatorship in the interim, as that bit of doom porn you offered suggests we will.

I'm not a big fan of doom porn, although I like it better than angst porn. Speaking of Hank, this one goes out to him. It's the Detroit Sex Machines with The Stretch, Pts. 1 and 2. The Daily Dose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEct3f9bAOQ

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I'm not a big fan of doom porn, although I like it better than angst porn.

I live in fear that Sebby is going to advocate porn as an industry to employ his imaginary under-employed hill-willy Trumpster know-nothings (I actually think Trump gets more support from perfectly intelligent and often well employed people who have chosen their blinders for personal comfort and whose rage comes from entitlement, but that's just me). If the unemployed hill-willies really are behind Trump, I don't want to see them in porn.