Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Capehart is correct to note someone needs to put things back in order before progress can be made. But putting things back in order isn't just reweaving the tears in our social fabric caused by Donald Trump. Putting things back in order is engaging the conversation Andrew Yang is the only candidate raising:

"How do we deliver for the many - to at least some extent that allows them to live dignified lives - in what's increasingly an extreme winner take all global economy?"

Raj Chetty, perhaps the brightest economist assessing inequality today, has stated that the typical Democrat answer - more robust safety nets - is palliative, but does not cure the resentments of the masses that fuel populism. Which in turn fuels racism and xenophobia.

I disagree with your characterization of what fuels racism and xenophobia, but that's not a discussion I want to have with you (again).

On the other stuff, while I tend to agree that there is a shift to this super-billionaire, winner-take-all, approach, whenever a Democrat tries to suggest making a major shift (let's be the country to own clean energy, let's train coal country to take these jobs and create opportunities in those places through government-backed investment), they are either ignored or shouted down like Hillary was in West Virginia. On the socialism to capitalism spectrum, we have gone way too far towards pure capitalism. And any effort--even fucking reasonable ones--to try to rebalance where we sit is fought tooth and nail by Republicans who have enabled the rich to become even more powerful than they have always been (corporations are people, unlimited campaign contributions, huge and irresponsible tax cuts, etc.).

So, yes. Big change is needed. But it's needed now because the common sense approach to change that could have come over time given a Congress, Judiciary, and Presidency that actually reflects the political leanings of this country was completely stifled by Republicans and the dozen or so people who fucking own them.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I disagree with your characterization of what fuels racism and xenophobia, but that's not a discussion I want to have with you (again).

On the other stuff, while I tend to agree that there is a shift to this super-billionaire, winner-take-all, approach, whenever a Democrat tries to suggest making a major shift (let's be the country to own clean energy, let's train coal country to take these jobs and create opportunities in those places through government-backed investment), they are either ignored or shouted down like Hillary was in West Virginia. On the socialism to capitalism spectrum, we have gone way too far towards pure capitalism. And any effort--even fucking reasonable ones--to try to rebalance where we sit is fought tooth and nail by Republicans who have enabled the rich to become even more powerful than they have always been (corporations are people, unlimited campaign contributions, huge and irresponsible tax cuts, etc.).

So, yes. Big change is needed. But it's needed now because the common sense approach to change that could have come over time given a Congress, Judiciary, and Presidency that actually reflects the political leanings of this country was completely stifled by Republicans and the dozen or so people who fucking own them.

TM

I didn't say economic factors exclusively fuel racism. But they do act like gasoline on a fire. It’s historically and anthropologically established that when times get tough, people - typically and to the greatest extent, the common - look for scapegoats.

I’m not defending Rs when I note that D policies of redistribution are palliative. My point is neither party is really interested in rebalancing the power between labor and capital. Hillary had no interest in doing that, regardless of what she said. A Green New Deal in WV or Rust Belt is not a serious effort at such rebalancing. A tax on financial speculation, OTOH, with funds going exclusively to subsidizing public universities (but only for competitive majors) would do that. But that could never happen because Clintonite capitalism favors capital. As did Obama’s moderate capitalism.

Both the Rs and Ds are largely corporatist. There is no party offering a dignified existence to those wiped out by globalization and automation. The losers get fucked by both parties. Worse by the GOP, of course. But “You’re on your own, here’s some cheap health care and safety nets” vs. “You’re on your own, period” isn’t an enticing choice for the losers. So they vote for a hand grenade candidate like Trump. (This includes the $75k middle management Trump voter who senses he or she is soon to be wiped out by economic changes.)

You think the system needs to return to normalcy. An increasingly large number of people feel that if they can’t lead productive, dignified lives, the only recourse is to blow up the system. This thinking drives both the hard left and hard right. I think a lot of people misapprehend the hard left’s hatred for Trump. They don’t hate that he’s blowing up institutions. They like that. They hate what he’s replacing them with.

Our views here, tempered, corporate, are those of a small minority in the top 5-10%. The “change” desired by most on the right and left is very different than incremental sort with which people in the top 10% are or should be comfortable.

ETA: BTW, the GOP’s line that “Employers can’t find workers, the labor market is so tight” is total BS. Employers I deal with can’t find employees who’ll work in mid to lower tier positions for the shit wages being offered. Capital and management still perceive it to be a buyer’s labor market. I know the recent jobs reports show wage increases. But we all know it’s a few outlier areas, specialized, skewing that data (sometimes changing from month to month based on seasonal factors or, the last two years, trade wars and immigration issues).

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’m not defending Rs when I note that D policies of redistribution are palliative. My point is neither party is really interested in rebalancing the power between labor and capital. Hillary had no interest in doing that, regardless of what she said. A Green New Deal in WV or Rust Belt is not a serious effort at such rebalancing. A tax on financial speculation, OTOH, with funds going exclusively to subsidizing public universities (but only for competitive majors) would do that. But that could never happen because Clintonite capitalism favors capital. As did Obama’s moderate capitalism.

Again, I'm not sure that the ideas that could have gotten somewhere wouldn't have gained traction if Republicans did not exert such outsized power relative to their numbers in this country. I'm not really debating you. But if the Republican Party were a reasonable political party interested in actually improving this country, things would be a whole lot different.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

But if the Republican Party were a reasonable political party interested in actually improving this country, things would be a whole lot different.

TM

Agreed. The modern GOP isn’t interested in governing. It’s interested in winning. Hence, Trump’s favorite word fits its voters perfectly.

ETA: We’re like a domestic Iraq, or Afghanistan. The GOP wins the election, you get a tax cut, and things fall apart. It doesn’t do rebuilding or managing very well, and doesn’t want to.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Again, I'm not sure that the ideas that could have gotten somewhere wouldn't have gained traction if Republicans did not exert such outsized power relative to their numbers in this country. I'm not really debating you. But if the Republican Party were a reasonable political party interested in actually improving this country, things would be a whole lot different.

TM

I’m answering twice, I know...

The Ds this time around need to kill this GOP argument that capitalism as it is currently practiced is meritocratic or accruing from “natural” or “market” forces.

It is not.

The McCapitalism of today is a result of policy choices and interventions. Our govt has decided to bail out certain people, subsidize others, and screw many. This is not a system where “animal instincts” prevail. It’s managed to perpetuate a status quo. It’s designed to protect those at the top, those with capital.

The GOP cannot be allowed to sustain this Horatio Alger story about the sanctity of “competitive” capitalism. They’re purveyors of a rigged system. Somebody’s got to say that as nakedly as it needs to be said.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

To some extent, I'd say the right answer to this question is "of course". If you look at the history of the early Republic, there were elections by state legislature, there were elections with very limited electorates, there were all sorts of ways in which individual states used their electors and their electoral position as bargaining chips. That's how you ended up with situations where there were four major candidates in some races, or where favorite sons tried to walk in with a group of controlled votes to the electoral college negotiations (generally not successfully), or where the top two candidates were from the same party. In the 1860 election, Lincoln won despite not even being on the ballot in 9 of the 32 states that had popular elections (South Carolina did not).

There may be an argument that the 14th and/or 15th amendment changes things, but I think the idea of states setting up rules that limit Presidential election choices is inherent in the concept of an electoral college with electors chosen under state law election procedures.

If you are going to be bound by an originalist conception, OK, but our side won the Civil War, and we now say the United States is x, not are x.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This election needs to be huge. If Kamala (or whoever) wins a squeaker, it won't matter how great her progressive ideas are.

This. We're electing a President, not a legislator in chief. If you are concerned about passing progressive legislation in the next four years, pass a President who can get shit done, and elect a more progressive Congress. The marginal Senator is going to determine what kind of laws get passed. The President will be doing all sorts of other things. Too many Democrats close their eyes to politics and think they are electing a professor of public policy to outwonk conservatives.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Both the Rs and Ds are largely corporatist. There is no party offering a dignified existence to those wiped out by globalization and automation. The losers get fucked by both parties. Worse by the GOP, of course.

If you care about these issues, and I think you do, you owe it to yourself to dwell on the differences between the parties instead of the similarities. There are real differences between what Republicans and Democrats want to do. Talking like they are the same, like you do, is a ticket to cheap cynicism instead of the possibility of making things better.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you care about these issues, and I think you do, you owe it to yourself to dwell on the differences between the parties instead of the similarities. There are real differences between what Republicans and Democrats want to do. Talking like they are the same, like you do, is a ticket to cheap cynicism instead of the possibility of making things better.

It’s all pink on the inside.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Agreed. The modern GOP isn’t interested in governing. It’s interested in winning. Hence, Trump’s favorite word fits its voters perfectly.

ETA: We’re like a domestic Iraq, or Afghanistan. The GOP wins the election, you get a tax cut, and things fall apart. It doesn’t do rebuilding or managing very well, and doesn’t want to.

It is interested in maximizing the wealth of its donor class.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’m answering twice, I know...

The Ds this time around need to kill this GOP argument that capitalism as it is currently practiced is meritocratic or accruing from “natural” or “market” forces.

It is not.

The McCapitalism of today is a result of policy choices and interventions. Our govt has decided to bail out certain people, subsidize others, and screw many. This is not a system where “animal instincts” prevail. It’s managed to perpetuate a status quo. It’s designed to protect those at the top, those with capital.

The GOP cannot be allowed to sustain this Horatio Alger story about the sanctity of “competitive” capitalism. They’re purveyors of a rigged system. Somebody’s got to say that as nakedly as it needs to be said.

I can think of two presidential candidates who are saying exactly that. One of them also got a new consumer protection agency created more or less on her own.

[Icky Thump]

Is fucking bullshit.

Switzerland is expensive as fuck. Only good thing to come out of here was Deep Purple Machine Head.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’m answering twice, I know...

The Ds this time around need to kill this GOP argument that capitalism as it is currently practiced is meritocratic or accruing from “natural” or “market” forces.

It is not.

The McCapitalism of today is a result of policy choices and interventions. Our govt has decided to bail out certain people, subsidize others, and screw many. This is not a system where “animal instincts” prevail. It’s managed to perpetuate a status quo. It’s designed to protect those at the top, those with capital.

The GOP cannot be allowed to sustain this Horatio Alger story about the sanctity of “competitive” capitalism. They’re purveyors of a rigged system. Somebody’s got to say that as nakedly as it needs to be said.

True. True capitalism would say “Fuck your trademark. Fake Nike’s all the way”.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Dude, I like Kamala. I'd rather have her than Biden. I'm not even arguing that she can't win.

But if you think she's Obama-level charismatic (and remember, he was all things to all people while basically admitting every time he was asked a question that he was center-left), you are delusional.

This election needs to be huge. If Kamala (or whoever) wins a squeaker, it won't matter how great her progressive ideas are. We need to win by huge margins just to undo the fuckery that Trump and McConnell have implemented. We need the Senate and the House and the Presidency. And we need as many votes in Congress as possible. If we win the Presidency and don't win the Senate, I suppose that's something. But it is not enough.

Biden isn't the most progressive person running, sure. But what difference does it make how progressive you are if you can't get anything even up for a fucking vote? Do you think Biden sits in office vetoing progressive legislation that a Dem House and Senate put on his desk? Do you think President Harris is ever presented with progressive legislation to sign if we don't have the Senate?

TM

I, like you, am more interested in winning than anything else. But I am not high on Biden as a campaigner, and he's not doing much to dispel that.

My point was, don't count Harris out. Dealing with the bigotry, yes, is an electability issue, but so is having trouble your feet out of your mouth.

I would not presume Biden is the most electable candidate in the field right now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you care about these issues, and I think you do, you owe it to yourself to dwell on the differences between the parties instead of the similarities. There are real differences between what Republicans and Democrats want to do. Talking like they are the same, like you do, is a ticket to cheap cynicism instead of the possibility of making things better.

You're generalizing a bit. I do not think the parties are the same in all or even most regards. I think they are the same in one enormous regard: Protecting the interests of capital and corporations above everything else.

Sure, Democrats regulate more aggressively, but that just serves corporations by creating compliance requirements that act as barriers to entry for smaller competitors. And Democrats talk a lot about the financial sector becoming too big and too powerful to the detriment of many other sectors. But do they really do anything about it? No. Their reaction to 2008 was near identical to that of Republicans: Protect the holders of capital at all costs. Labor? Main Street? You're on your own. (Some outliers like Warren and Bernie tried to rein in big finance, but Schumer and Co. blocked that. [The CFPB was a solid effort, but it was never gifted much power and was ultimately more symbolic, more placation of the angry, than anything else.]).

How have the Democrats been on globalization and automation? Crickets. Or they offer that old salve, education. TPP was intended to slow China's growing influence, but not do anything that would offend the capital holders here who profit from trade with China. On the adverse impacts of globalization, the Ds and Rs run roughly the same playbook: Shrug, say globalization is inevitable and with it many working and middle class Americans who don't have significant capital will be ruined, and mumble about "job retraining." The only difference between them is the Ds want to provide safety nets and the Rs simply don't give a fuck about people without capital. That's a huge difference, of course. But both positions are effectively distilled to:

We have decided to place the value of global trade above the interests of the workers displaced by it.

Both the Rs and the Ds don't really care much about the "forgotten people" (growth of whose ranks is going to accelerate even more in a Moore's Law fashion with AI advances).

You might say, "No party can cure the pain of job destruction occasioned by enhanced global trade and automation." And you might be right about that. But it is the most important issue in the world right now, and it will remain so for the duration of our lives. So when you ask me why I cite the similarities between the GOP and Democrats rather than the many areas in which they diverge, it's because on the most important issue - the one that eats all others - they aren't much different. They both serve corporate interests and capital first, at cost to all others.

ETA: I was with a friend in finance a while back and this issue came up. I always ask the question, "Where will all the unneeded people work?" The answer: "Wal Mart." (Democrat, by the way.) I've heard from other Democrats in that sector, "Well, look... inevitably, all societies wind up rigidly class based, like England was. That's what's happening to us." It'd probably be more productive for me to stop worrying about this stuff and just wallow in the luck of birth that put me in a safer position than these forgotten and soon to be forgotten people. But there's something deeply concerning about such attitudes. They sound a lot like this old "axiom": "Housing prices never fall." If there's Irrational Exuberance, there's certainly Irrational Complacency. I don't see Ds or Rs applying structural fixes. They're applying band aids to keep the market going and prop asset prices to ease the baby boomers to their graves -- to avoid a retirement crisis among our arguably Worst Generation. I don't know how long this can last. Trump's election should have been a warning that the problems we face are way more than political and cultural. The next recession could be cataclysmic. If we're lucky. If we're not lucky, it'll just accelerate the slow series of soft landings at lower qualities of life for more and more Americans we've been enduring since 2000. Both parties are hell bent on insuring the latter occurs.