Forums

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Well there is that old saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Neoliberal, globalist (your term, not mine... I prefer “free trade”), corporate policies aren’t truly compatible with progressive policies. Nor are nationalist policies.

In order:

Neoliberal free trade policies lead to labor arbitrage that costs Americans jobs. The two retorts to this are: (1) But, Americans get cheaper foreign made goods; and, (2) Over time, new jobs are created. One is frivolous, debunked with the fact that he who has no job cannot goods at any price. Two ignores the facts that the displaced are not skilled for these new jobs and that these new jobs will appear too far in the future to aid the displaced. (I’m not addressing the argument that this can all or to any significant extent be fixed by education and worker retraining, as that’s facially ludicrous and more a talking point than a serious argument [as the soon to be glut of STEM workers will be learning].)

“Corporate” middle and upper management workers, and professionals who service them, like us, are overpaid relative to value. To the extent we prop up hierarchies which should be leaner, providing more profits to be taxed, robbing recipients of tax transfers of such redistribution, and taking wages otherwise payable to those at the bottom end of the pay scale, one cannot be corporate and progressive. This person would be more of a limousine liberal.

Nationalism cannot be progressive economically because policies that stop labor arbitrage only accelerate domestic automation. It is generally not progressive because they intertwine the corporate and govt sectors in a manner that resembles fascism, which uses both to oppress the people.

Your list resembles more “upper middle class liberal” than progressive. You’re actually close to me. We both like the social elements of progressivism, but don’t like policies which would endanger the sources of our revenue. The only real difference between GOP tax voters and limousine liberals is what they seek to protect. One seeks to save his dollars by giving a bit more at the margin in taxes to protect his free trade revenues. This is near indistinguishable from the noblesse oblige (or if you prefer, “buy off the pitchforks cheaply”) view of the now extinct “Liberal Republican” of old. The other focuses on avoiding the tax bill. Neither helps the suffering below him to find a wage paying for a dignified living. One just offers a greater safety net. Which is something. But it’s not truly progressive, at least economically speaking.

I'm of the old school that believes labor missed out by going nationalist instead of internationalist. They should have listened to Trotsky.