+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Society and Culture (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: What's your generation and how would you change your government? (/thread-19887.html)
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - David Horn - 03-26-2022
(03-24-2022, 12:21 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:(03-24-2022, 06:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Of course. I'm not sanguine either; maybe less so, because of the realization that we have to turn the corner in the next 7 years or we go off a cliff forever, and we haven't made much of a turn yet, really. The crisis mindset is increasing; perhaps that offers some hope.
This much we agree on. People still hold onto delusional ideals and want some sort of government or heroic figure to rescue them, but no one can rescue a person from bad character and principles, and this is 30x more true of a nation than it is a person.
This is the furthest into a crisis era we've come with little progress to show. With the American oligarchs firmly established as both business moguls and popular figures in nearly one half of the nation, the potential for harm is high.
I don't know about you but having organizations like Blackrock supply the politicians of the near-term future is demoralizing. We already have one here in Virginia. The primary talent of venture capital is to destroy and extract. That bodes poorly for the rest of us ... and for them as well, if they actually gave it a thought.
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - Eric the Green - 03-26-2022
(03-26-2022, 06:28 AM)David Horn Wrote:(03-24-2022, 12:21 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:(03-24-2022, 06:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Of course. I'm not sanguine either; maybe less so, because of the realization that we have to turn the corner in the next 7 years or we go off a cliff forever, and we haven't made much of a turn yet, really. The crisis mindset is increasing; perhaps that offers some hope.
This much we agree on. People still hold onto delusional ideals and want some sort of government or heroic figure to rescue them, but no one can rescue a person from bad character and principles, and this is 30x more true of a nation than it is a person.
This is the furthest into a crisis era we've come with little progress to show. With the American oligarchs firmly established as both business moguls and popular figures in nearly one half of the nation, the potential for harm is high.
I don't know about you but having organizations like Blackrock supply the politicians of the near-term future is demoralizing. We already have one here in Virginia. The primary talent of venture capital is to destroy and extract. That bodes poorly for the rest of us ... and for them as well, if they actually gave it a thought.
The irony is we have come so close to turning the corner, at least somewhat, but we are being stopped by one fossil-fuel invested phony Democrat. The center-left Party has only a 51-50 majority and has already done almost as much as the 60-40 Senate that helped Obama for 7 months. Most of the Democrats in the Senate now are real Democrats, unlike back then. But we are still 2 short. It will take a couple more Democrats in the Senate and holding the House to get progress going again for real. Prospects don't look good.
If we make the change at all, it may happen in the last 4 years of the 4T, from 2025 to 2029. And we will have to rely on an old Silent-Boomer cusper leader who lacks much charisma to get us through. That is not much of a 4T pattern, arguably; but remember the double rhythm. S&H decided not to include the 1850s in the civil war 4T, which also left only 4 years for some bloody progress to be made. But the 1850s were really a polarized "phony 4T", just like our times. We are still in about 1856-57 redux. It's how a more-domestic-oriented 4T works. Progress is much harder to make in a divided country, but the crisis trouble itself is all too evident. Of course, there's some of both foreign and domestic crises in all 4Ts, and we know that's true this time.
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - JasonBlack - 03-26-2022
1) For purposes of social security, the age of retirement should be raised to 75, and include means-testing. The original purpose of social security was to support straggling survivors in an age where the average life expectancy was well under a decade less than present. It was never intended to support the 20+ retirements of individuals with little additional savings.
2) Social Security should be a progressive tax, not a disproportionate tax on the poor and young on the much more affluent old and asset-rich. As I support a decent number of cuts thereto, the maximum marginal rate would be equal to the current rate paid by everyone including the very poor.
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - Eric the Green - 03-26-2022
(03-26-2022, 03:08 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: 1) For purposes of social security, the age of retirement should be raised to 75, and include means-testing. The original purpose of social security was to support straggling survivors in an age where the average life expectancy was well under a decade less than present. It was never intended to support the 20+ retirements of individuals with little additional savings.
2) Social Security should be a progressive tax, not a disproportionate tax on the poor and young on the much more affluent old and asset-rich. As I support a decent number of cuts thereto, the maximum marginal rate would be equal to the current rate paid by everyone including the very poor.
In concept, I could agree with raising the retirement age further, as life spans increase. Note that it has already been raised a bit. But after 40 years of Reaganomics, and recent some years of anti-vax conspiracy theory, life spans are now shrinking. So these days, I would not support it. Unless our society becomes more equal, and not one where most people have to struggle to make ends meet or suffer lousy health because they can't afford otherwise, while the rich CEOs and financial speculators get hundreds of times the income than their workers get, then what we need are MORE "entitlements" and "wealth redistribution", and not less.
Raise the cap on the social security tax. But should it be progressive, or means tested? I think that defeats its purpose as a pay as you go program. It was never a wealth redistribution program, and its revenue has been diverted. Instead, it should not be the only social and economic safety net, and not the only tax to be raised either. Other programs should supplement it. Neoliberalism is becoming unworkable in an era when only well-educated people can get a good job. The bosses are giving most of the formerly middle-class manufacturing jobs to robots, and sending many other jobs overseas. If people have no money, no-one will be able to buy the products and services of the smaller workforce unless income guarantees are put in place. Labor saving devices should not just be something that saves money and improves productivity for the bosses alone. They don't own these tech advances, and didn't create them; they belong to all the people. Everyone should benefit. Some occupations like creative people should be paid more than they earn. Hours should be cut back, with wages raised, so that more people can get jobs and more people have more free time. This is so-far the opposite of what has happened over the last 40-plus years. But neoliberalism and trickle-down economics have passed their sell-by date. It was a bad buy to begin with.
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - David Horn - 03-26-2022
(03-26-2022, 03:08 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: 1) For purposes of social security, the age of retirement should be raised to 75, and include means-testing. The original purpose of social security was to support straggling survivors in an age where the average life expectancy was well under a decade less than present. It was never intended to support the 20+ retirements of individuals with little additional savings.
2) Social Security should be a progressive tax, not a disproportionate tax on the poor and young on the much more affluent old and asset-rich. As I support a decent number of cuts thereto, the maximum marginal rate would be equal to the current rate paid by everyone including the very poor.
- Absolutely not! Yes, the intellectual elite can wait until 75 to retire, but the blue-collar workers: not so much. I have to assume you've never worked hard physical labor. I have. It sucks, and it beats on your body. By 65, most construction workers, farm laborers, timber workers and fisher folk, to name but a few of the many occupations that beat you down, are a few years away from death or, worse, permanent infirmity. Sorry, but that idea is terrible!
- Social Security is a prefunded annuity. It doesn't have to pay out on a linear basis, and doesn't today, but it shouldn't have an earnings cap. Other than that, nothing needs to be done to this program for now ... unless you wish to make it more generous. And forget about cutting this program unless you wish to see every 65+ citizen voting against every idiot who tries it. In fact, I suspect the vote will be overwhelming 50+.
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - JasonBlack - 03-26-2022
(03-26-2022, 03:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Raise the cap on the social security tax. But should it be progressive, or means tested? I think that defeats its purpose as a pay as you go program. It was never a wealth redistribution program, and its revenue has been diverted. Instead, it should not be the only social and economic safety net, and not the only tax to be raised either. Other programs should supplement it. Neoliberalism is becoming unworkable in an era when only well-educated people can get a good job. The bosses are giving most of the formerly middle-class manufacturing jobs to robots, and sending many other jobs overseas. If people have no money, no-one will be able to buy the products and services of the smaller workforce unless income guarantees are put in place. Labor saving devices should not just be something that saves money and improves productivity for the bosses alone. They don't own these tech advances, and didn't create them; they belong to all the people. Everyone should benefit. Some occupations like creative people should be paid more than they earn. Hours should be cut back, with wages raised, so that more people can get jobs and more people have more free time. This is so-far the opposite of what has happened over the last 40-plus years. But neoliberalism and trickle-down economics have passed their sell-by date. It was a bad buy to begin with.
The concept of a "pay as you go" program is flawed from the get go, since the entire point of a government program is that private savings/investment are insufficient. If pay as you go works, we might as well just get rid of it for the majority of people and say "be responsible and save" (now that I think about it, the libertarian in me likes this immensely), with possible exceptions for disability, or jobs requiring substantially taxing physical labor.
If saving is not sufficient, it makes more sense for it to be means-tested (the way other forms of welfare are) and progressive (because it doesn't make sense to put the primary burden on young people to pay for old people).
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - David Horn - 03-27-2022
(03-26-2022, 08:37 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:(03-26-2022, 03:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Raise the cap on the social security tax. But should it be progressive, or means tested? I think that defeats its purpose as a pay as you go program. It was never a wealth redistribution program, and its revenue has been diverted. Instead, it should not be the only social and economic safety net, and not the only tax to be raised either. Other programs should supplement it. Neoliberalism is becoming unworkable in an era when only well-educated people can get a good job. The bosses are giving most of the formerly middle-class manufacturing jobs to robots, and sending many other jobs overseas. If people have no money, no-one will be able to buy the products and services of the smaller workforce unless income guarantees are put in place. Labor saving devices should not just be something that saves money and improves productivity for the bosses alone. They don't own these tech advances, and didn't create them; they belong to all the people. Everyone should benefit. Some occupations like creative people should be paid more than they earn. Hours should be cut back, with wages raised, so that more people can get jobs and more people have more free time. This is so-far the opposite of what has happened over the last 40-plus years. But neoliberalism and trickle-down economics have passed their sell-by date. It was a bad buy to begin with.
The concept of a "pay as you go" program is flawed from the get go, since the entire point of a government program is that private savings/investment are insufficient. If pay as you go works, we might as well just get rid of it for the majority of people and say "be responsible and save" (now that I think about it, the libertarian in me likes this immensely), with possible exceptions for disability, or jobs requiring substantially taxing physical labor.
If saving is not sufficient, it makes more sense for it to be means-tested (the way other forms of welfare are) and progressive (because it doesn't make sense to put the primary burden on young people to pay for old people).
What makes Social Security work is its universality. If it is only for some, it will eventually be only for the few needy. Next, it will disappear entirely -- just like Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) did under Bill Clinton. What do you think the purpose of this program is and AFDC was in its day? The real purpose is to provide enough for everyone to permit them to live independent lives and not be a burden on society or even their own children. From a policy perspective, why is that important? Because we've done the math, and society as a whole does better when we all function better. For instance, it has a major impact on crime.
Why are conservatives so consistently judgmental? Take the win!
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - galaxy - 03-27-2022
(03-21-2022, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Things won't be exactly the same next time around starting in 2029, but it'll be enough alike so that the cycle goes on. Well, at least unless and until it doesn't. We get off Reaganomics in the 2020s, or we don't turn the cycle.
Not necessary to turn the cycle. Though it certainly would make the 1T a whole lot better. 1Ts are under no obligation to be "the good times." We may be heading for a turning like Moldova's current one. It's not exactly cheerful, but it is still just as much a 1T as the US had in the 1950s.
(03-24-2022, 06:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The crisis mindset is increasing; perhaps that offers some hope.
The regeneracy has been reached, at least in some countries. Germany is probably the strongest example right now, but really it's happening all over Europe. There have been some faint signs of it here (for example, the partisan gap in Ukraine/Russia support is literally zero), but I'm holding off on declaring it for now, mostly out of a feeling of "if a pandemic that sent the nation into lockdown for months and only barely avoided completely overwhelming our healthcare system didn't start it, how can anything else?"
(03-22-2022, 06:41 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: All those great Japanese video games are such precisely because they're on a different phase of the cycle than we are (or else, a different type of cycle altogether).
No, Japan is in a 4T. They're just good at making video games.
And 4T popular culture is often some of the best you'll find. I believe pbrower2a has posted several times about this, about how music and film from the 1930s and 1940s often still holds up very well today (which cannot be said for media of the 1T that followed). Perhaps in America the television of the 2010s, television's last decade before its death-by-streaming, will be remembered in the same way.
(03-22-2022, 06:41 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: Millennials are really a lot like soldiers in their constant desire to sniff out "deserters" in their midst. I don't see this going away during the 1T, in fact, I see it increasing as they fall into positions of greater institutional power.
This is something I've begun to worry about. When this characteristic really began to ramp up in 2017 I saw it as a good thing, but it's getting near-fanatical at this point.
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - Eric the Green - 03-27-2022
(03-27-2022, 12:25 PM)galaxy Wrote:I don't know about Moldova, I don't think it's on a separate cycle. Too small. However, the only place in the anglo-american cycle for 500 years that ever had a bad-times 1T is the American South, or "Dixie." It eventually got over this, to some extent (it is still an extremely backward region) because of the North's power to create the Great Power USA. But what a failed 4T will bring now will be the end of democracy, the end of our republic, the end of our climate, the end of our health, and maybe the end of peace. That will be a lot worse than no "good times." It will in-fact be the end of the cycle. Only societies that progress and develop have saecula.(03-21-2022, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Things won't be exactly the same next time around starting in 2029, but it'll be enough alike so that the cycle goes on. Well, at least unless and until it doesn't. We get off Reaganomics in the 2020s, or we don't turn the cycle.
Not necessary to turn the cycle. Though it certainly would make the 1T a whole lot better. 1Ts are under no obligation to be "the good times." We may be heading for a turning like Moldova's current one. It's not exactly cheerful, but it is still just as much a 1T as the US had in the 1950s.
Quote:(03-24-2022, 06:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The crisis mindset is increasing; perhaps that offers some hope.
The regeneracy has been reached, at least in some countries. Germany is probably the strongest example right now, but really it's happening all over Europe. There have been some faint signs of it here (for example, the partisan gap in Ukraine/Russia support is literally zero), but I'm holding off on declaring it for now, mostly out of a feeling of "if a pandemic that sent the nation into lockdown for months and only barely avoided completely overwhelming our healthcare system didn't start it, how can anything else?"
The pandemic added to our 4T crisis for sure. It rallied the nation in so far as those people who resisted the anti-vaxxers got their treatments. But the regeneracy began with the huge rallies against Trump, and in 2018 there was a rebirth of citizenship all across the country, according to Obama, because people knew that "this time's different." I hope you saw that Obama speech; it is seminal both for all Americans and for generations theory. It was FDR's speech saying "this generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny" that inspired S&H books and thus this very forum. Obama's speech is the equivalent for this generation.
https://youtu.be/7hZgg_KjvDQ?t=2574
Quote:(03-22-2022, 06:41 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: All those great Japanese video games are such precisely because they're on a different phase of the cycle than we are (or else, a different type of cycle altogether).
No, Japan is in a 4T. They're just good at making video games.
And 4T popular culture is often some of the best you'll find. I believe pbrower2a has posted several times about this, about how music and film from the 1930s and 1940s often still holds up very well today (which cannot be said for media of the 1T that followed). Perhaps in America the television of the 2010s, television's last decade before its death-by-streaming, will be remembered in the same way.
Maybe so for the previous 4T. Not for this one.
Current 4T culture is for a narrow sliver of young teenagers and maybe a few young adults. It has left me completely behind. The previous 4T culture appealed to people of all ages, and great culture always does.
Quote:(03-22-2022, 06:41 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: Millennials are really a lot like soldiers in their constant desire to sniff out "deserters" in their midst. I don't see this going away during the 1T, in fact, I see it increasing as they fall into positions of greater institutional power.
This is something I've begun to worry about. When this characteristic really began to ramp up in 2017 I saw it as a good thing, but it's getting near-fanatical at this point.
Maybe so. I don't know how such a characteristic can be demonstrated. I see it occasionally, as it impacted me, but it's hard to say overall.
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - Eric the Green - 03-27-2022
(03-26-2022, 08:37 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:(03-26-2022, 03:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Raise the cap on the social security tax. But should it be progressive, or means tested? I think that defeats its purpose as a pay as you go program. It was never a wealth redistribution program, and its revenue has been diverted. Instead, it should not be the only social and economic safety net, and not the only tax to be raised either. Other programs should supplement it. Neoliberalism is becoming unworkable in an era when only well-educated people can get a good job. The bosses are giving most of the formerly middle-class manufacturing jobs to robots, and sending many other jobs overseas. If people have no money, no-one will be able to buy the products and services of the smaller workforce unless income guarantees are put in place. Labor saving devices should not just be something that saves money and improves productivity for the bosses alone. They don't own these tech advances, and didn't create them; they belong to all the people. Everyone should benefit. Some occupations like creative people should be paid more than they earn. Hours should be cut back, with wages raised, so that more people can get jobs and more people have more free time. This is so-far the opposite of what has happened over the last 40-plus years. But neoliberalism and trickle-down economics have passed their sell-by date. It was a bad buy to begin with.
The concept of a "pay as you go" program is flawed from the get go, since the entire point of a government program is that private savings/investment are insufficient. If pay as you go works, we might as well just get rid of it for the majority of people and say "be responsible and save" (now that I think about it, the libertarian in me likes this immensely), with possible exceptions for disability, or jobs requiring substantially taxing physical labor.
If saving is not sufficient, it makes more sense for it to be means-tested (the way other forms of welfare are) and progressive (because it doesn't make sense to put the primary burden on young people to pay for old people).
Maybe. If you admit that such a progressive tax and benefits and means-tested program is no longer the social security program, but something different, then you may have a point. It isn't going to happen, though. Social Security works, its funding works, and in requiring people to save when otherwise they probably would not, it makes sure that money will be there when needed for retirement. Saying "be responsible and save" will not work, and libertarian economics ideas generally do not work well.
If we DO get rid of it, then it would need to be replaced by a more robust benefits program, including for disability, plus requirements on all businesses to pay enough minimum wages so people don't require any other government support, or else all business will dry up. As robots take over, who will buy the products they make?
If we don't get rid of SS, then we still also need other programs.
I think people are more likely to support a guaranteed income program or other income support that is paid for by all who can afford it and available to everyone. Such a program could be progressive in taxation, I imagine.
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - JasonBlack - 03-27-2022
(03-27-2022, 06:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Maybe. If you admit that such a progressive tax and benefits and means-tested program is no longer the social security program, but something different, then you may have a point. It isn't going to happen, though. Social Security works, its funding works, and in requiring people to save when otherwise they probably would not, it makes sure that money will be there when needed for retirement. Saying "be responsible and save" will not work, and libertarian economics ideas generally do not work well.
If we DO get rid of it, then it would need to be replaced by a more robust benefits program, including for disability, plus requirements on all businesses to pay enough minimum wages so people don't require any other government support, or else all business will dry up. As robots take over, who will buy the products they make?
If we don't get rid of SS, then we still also need other programs.
I think people are more likely to support a guaranteed income program or other income support that is paid for by all who can afford it and available to everyone. Such a program could be progressive in taxation, I imagine.
I would be more than happy to call it something else. The entire program was literally a Ponzi Scheme built on faulty assumptions (assumption of stable population growth, continuous good economic times and a far lower average life expectancy) I maintain that the current expectation people have of retiring comfortably for 20+ years with little to no savings is a delusion. If one is not very wealthy (say, the top 5% or so), all that does it put undo burden on the young for a purpose even the radical left FDR would not have approved of. He designed SS for what he referred to as survivors into old age. Not a program for the bottom half of the population to live like investment bankers at a country club, but a program to provide more humane final years for broken down bodies who had endured hard lives.
The "just telling people to save doesn't work" argument has some merit if we're talking about a family paying exorbitant rent in a San Francisco ghetto, a patient with lifelong chronic illness or a worker who suffered a debilitating work injury with minimal payouts. But if we're talking, say, Republican boomer doctors, corporate managers and law partners?....yes, they can absolutely save for retirement as a group, and taking money from frontline workers (even if we did have a $15 minimum wage) to give it to them makes about as much sense a a parachute that opens on impact.
The point of government aid is supposed to be about mending the snags that occasionally pop up in the market system when people need help to reintegrate into society. ex:
- disabled people
- people who need a safety net for a few months in-between jobs
- forcing jobs to pay owed compensation due to grievance or services rendered
- taxes and regulations to account for negative externalities
- relief for various unexpected disasters (ex: Flint Michigan)
It was never intended to create an entire class of people (much less a disproportionately affluent one) who could comfortable rely on it for aid a quarter century after leaving the workforce.
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - galaxy - 03-28-2022
(03-27-2022, 05:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-27-2022, 12:25 PM)galaxy Wrote:I don't know about Moldova, I don't think it's on a separate cycle. Too small. However, the only place in the anglo-american cycle for 500 years that ever had a bad-times 1T is the American South, or "Dixie." It eventually got over this, to some extent (it is still an extremely backward region) because of the North's power to create the Great Power USA. But what a failed 4T will bring now will be the end of democracy, the end of our republic, the end of our climate, the end of our health, and maybe the end of peace. That will be a lot worse than no "good times." It will in-fact be the end of the cycle. Only societies that progress and develop have saecula.(03-21-2022, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Things won't be exactly the same next time around starting in 2029, but it'll be enough alike so that the cycle goes on. Well, at least unless and until it doesn't. We get off Reaganomics in the 2020s, or we don't turn the cycle.
Not necessary to turn the cycle. Though it certainly would make the 1T a whole lot better. 1Ts are under no obligation to be "the good times." We may be heading for a turning like Moldova's current one. It's not exactly cheerful, but it is still just as much a 1T as the US had in the 1950s.
Moldova is in a 1T, along with most of the rest of Eastern Europe. I pointed to that country specifically because it is by most metrics the poorest country in Europe.
I don't believe there is such a thing as a "failed turning." The turnings happen in their order because they are caused by generations, which are shaped by their life experiences. Turnings only describe characteristics, personalities, and responses. They do not describe events. Ukraine is currently being devastated by war. It is a country in crisis. However, it is not in a Crisis (4th) turning, which is made obvious by the fact that it is responding to the crisis in a very 1T way. The kind of total unity and remarkable calm that Ukraine has right now simply does not occur in response to a crisis, except during late 4T and early-to-mid 1T.
Maybe democracy will end in America by the end of this turning. Maybe the fight against climate change will fail, and maybe the 2030s will be a dark and violent decade. I certainly hope it doesn't happen that way, but if it does, the 1T will begin regardless. It will be a dark 1T, but a 1T all the same.
(03-27-2022, 05:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-27-2022, 12:25 PM)galaxy Wrote:(03-21-2022, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The crisis mindset is increasing; perhaps that offers some hope.
The regeneracy has been reached, at least in some countries. Germany is probably the strongest example right now, but really it's happening all over Europe. There have been some faint signs of it here (for example, the partisan gap in Ukraine/Russia support is literally zero), but I'm holding off on declaring it for now, mostly out of a feeling of "if a pandemic that sent the nation into lockdown for months and only barely avoided completely overwhelming our healthcare system didn't start it, how can anything else?"
The pandemic added to our 4T crisis for sure. It rallied the nation in so far as those people who resisted the anti-vaxxers got their treatments. But the regeneracy began with the huge rallies against Trump, and in 2018 there was a rebirth of citizenship all across the country, according to Obama, because people knew that "this time's different." I hope you saw that Obama speech; it is seminal both for all Americans and for generations theory. It was FDR's speech saying "this generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny" that inspired S&H books and thus this very forum. Obama's speech is the equivalent for this generation.
https://youtu.be/7hZgg_KjvDQ?t=2574
There was a huge movement against him, but was there really any change from that? A whole lot of people were very loud, and for good reason, but it didn't seem to affect the happenings of government much, nor did it affect his level of support, because of the absurd total devotion of his supporters. Nothing has really had long-lasting effect, anywhere, in this entire turning, until now. Looking at Europe right now, it almost feels like the 4T countries are "re-learning" from 1T Ukraine how to do quick and decisive action and how to deal with crises, breaking out of the long 3T stagnation/paralysis/apathy. The regeneracy begins in February 2022. I don't agree with John J. Xenakis and his World View threads much, but he was absolutely right about this: when a regeneracy event occurs, it is clear. There is no question about it.
Obama's speech was excellent (as are almost all of his speeches), but it's not going to leave a lasting legacy like the FDR speech. Obama was ahead of his time. I wish he had been the one tasked with defeating Trump in 2020 instead of Biden. It's becoming more and more clear as time goes on what an exceptional candidate he was.
(03-27-2022, 05:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-27-2022, 12:25 PM)galaxy Wrote:(03-22-2022, 06:41 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: All those great Japanese video games are such precisely because they're on a different phase of the cycle than we are (or else, a different type of cycle altogether).
No, Japan is in a 4T. They're just good at making video games.
And 4T popular culture is often some of the best you'll find. I believe pbrower2a has posted several times about this, about how music and film from the 1930s and 1940s often still holds up very well today (which cannot be said for media of the 1T that followed). Perhaps in America the television of the 2010s, television's last decade before its death-by-streaming, will be remembered in the same way.
Maybe so for the previous 4T. Not for this one.
Current 4T culture is for a narrow sliver of young teenagers and maybe a few young adults. It has left me completely behind. The previous 4T culture appealed to people of all ages, and great culture always does.
I'll admit I'm not very attuned to current popular culture either, so I can't really speak from a place information or experience on it, but is it possible that someone your age in the previous 4T would have said the same? The word "teenager" was coined to describe the teenage GIs, after all.
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - Eric the Green - 03-28-2022
(03-28-2022, 09:42 AM)galaxy Wrote:(03-27-2022, 05:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-27-2022, 12:25 PM)galaxy Wrote:I don't know about Moldova, I don't think it's on a separate cycle. Too small. However, the only place in the anglo-american cycle for 500 years that ever had a bad-times 1T is the American South, or "Dixie." It eventually got over this, to some extent (it is still an extremely backward region) because of the North's power to create the Great Power USA. But what a failed 4T will bring now will be the end of democracy, the end of our republic, the end of our climate, the end of our health, and maybe the end of peace. That will be a lot worse than no "good times." It will in-fact be the end of the cycle. Only societies that progress and develop have saecula.(03-21-2022, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Things won't be exactly the same next time around starting in 2029, but it'll be enough alike so that the cycle goes on. Well, at least unless and until it doesn't. We get off Reaganomics in the 2020s, or we don't turn the cycle.
Not necessary to turn the cycle. Though it certainly would make the 1T a whole lot better. 1Ts are under no obligation to be "the good times." We may be heading for a turning like Moldova's current one. It's not exactly cheerful, but it is still just as much a 1T as the US had in the 1950s.
Moldova is in a 1T, along with most of the rest of Eastern Europe. I pointed to that country specifically because it is by most metrics the poorest country in Europe.
I don't believe there is such a thing as a "failed turning." The turnings happen in their order because they are caused by generations, which are shaped by their life experiences. Turnings only describe characteristics, personalities, and responses. They do not describe events. Ukraine is currently being devastated by war. It is a country in crisis. However, it is not in a Crisis (4th) turning, which is made obvious by the fact that it is responding to the crisis in a very 1T way. The kind of total unity and remarkable calm that Ukraine has right now simply does not occur in response to a crisis, except during late 4T and early-to-mid 1T.
Maybe democracy will end in America by the end of this turning. Maybe the fight against climate change will fail, and maybe the 2030s will be a dark and violent decade. I certainly hope it doesn't happen that way, but if it does, the 1T will begin regardless. It will be a dark 1T, but a 1T all the same.
What's happening now in Ukraine and Eastern Europe shatters the idea that turnings are so different in different countries now. I don't buy it; we are a global society and have been increasingly so ever since the 1890s. Ukraine is in as classic a 4T turning as can be imagined.
A failed turning is certainly what this 4T is, so far. It can be turned around, and in fact this is typical of 4Ts; there's a whole lot of darkness before the dawn. But a saeculum can stop if a society no longer progresses. That is what it's all about, and the progressive side always wins a 4T. Or it stops, unless rescued by the winning side. But who will rescue America if it fails? It will in fact bring the whole world down this time.
You could describe this upcoming turning as a dark 1T, but it will never end. 2Ts cannot begin in darkness.
We now have policies designed to create a feudal society. Take that into deep consideration. The Dark and Middle Ages did not have turnings and saecula, because societies and generations did not change. There were no generation gaps and people did what their fathers did.
A feudal police state will not have turnings and saecula.
And that is what we will become if this 4T does not turn around and rid itself of neoliberalism aka Reaganomics economic theory.
Quote:(03-27-2022, 05:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-27-2022, 12:25 PM)galaxy Wrote:(03-21-2022, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The crisis mindset is increasing; perhaps that offers some hope.
The regeneracy has been reached, at least in some countries. Germany is probably the strongest example right now, but really it's happening all over Europe. There have been some faint signs of it here (for example, the partisan gap in Ukraine/Russia support is literally zero), but I'm holding off on declaring it for now, mostly out of a feeling of "if a pandemic that sent the nation into lockdown for months and only barely avoided completely overwhelming our healthcare system didn't start it, how can anything else?"
The pandemic added to our 4T crisis for sure. It rallied the nation in so far as those people who resisted the anti-vaxxers got their treatments. But the regeneracy began with the huge rallies against Trump, and in 2018 there was a rebirth of citizenship all across the country, according to Obama, because people knew that "this time's different." I hope you saw that Obama speech; it is seminal both for all Americans and for generations theory. It was FDR's speech saying "this generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny" that inspired S&H books and thus this very forum. Obama's speech is the equivalent for this generation.
https://youtu.be/7hZgg_KjvDQ?t=2574
There was a huge movement against him, but was there really any change from that? A whole lot of people were very loud, and for good reason, but it didn't seem to affect the happenings of government much, nor did it affect his level of support, because of the absurd total devotion of his supporters. Nothing has really had long-lasting effect, anywhere, in this entire turning, until now. Looking at Europe right now, it almost feels like the 4T countries are "re-learning" from 1T Ukraine how to do quick and decisive action and how to deal with crises, breaking out of the long 3T stagnation/paralysis/apathy. The regeneracy begins in February 2022. I don't agree with John J. Xenakis and his World View threads much, but he was absolutely right about this: when a regeneracy event occurs, it is clear. There is no question about it.
Obama's speech was excellent (as are almost all of his speeches), but it's not going to leave a lasting legacy like the FDR speech. Obama was ahead of his time. I wish he had been the one tasked with defeating Trump in 2020 instead of Biden. It's becoming more and more clear as time goes on what an exceptional candidate he was.
The Obama speech had its lasting legacy, and that will be increasing civic responsibility by Millennials more able and willing to vote in midterm elections. This speech was right on time, and in fact in the same moment during the 4T as FDR's speech was.
Countries in a 1T do not unite to fight an enemy. 1Ts are placid and conformist but they don't make change and they don't fight. Ukraine is in a 4T if there ever was one.
The regeneracy started in 2017 with the movement against Trump. Obama mentioned it in his speech. But February 2022 could be another spike in it, to be sure.
Quote:(03-27-2022, 05:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-27-2022, 12:25 PM)galaxy Wrote:(03-22-2022, 06:41 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: All those great Japanese video games are such precisely because they're on a different phase of the cycle than we are (or else, a different type of cycle altogether).
No, Japan is in a 4T. They're just good at making video games.
And 4T popular culture is often some of the best you'll find. I believe pbrower2a has posted several times about this, about how music and film from the 1930s and 1940s often still holds up very well today (which cannot be said for media of the 1T that followed). Perhaps in America the television of the 2010s, television's last decade before its death-by-streaming, will be remembered in the same way.
Maybe so for the previous 4T. Not for this one.
Current 4T culture is for a narrow sliver of young teenagers and maybe a few young adults. It has left me completely behind. The previous 4T culture appealed to people of all ages, and great culture always does.
I'll admit I'm not very attuned to current popular culture either, so I can't really speak from a place information or experience on it, but is it possible that someone your age in the previous 4T would have said the same? The word "teenager" was coined to describe the teenage GIs, after all.
No, I don't think so. The culture of that time appealed to all ages, although most of all to the GIs. And not just to narrow slices of them like the video game cults appeal to.
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - Eric the Green - 03-28-2022
(03-27-2022, 10:12 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:(03-27-2022, 06:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Maybe. If you admit that such a progressive tax and benefits and means-tested program is no longer the social security program, but something different, then you may have a point. It isn't going to happen, though. Social Security works, its funding works, and in requiring people to save when otherwise they probably would not, it makes sure that money will be there when needed for retirement. Saying "be responsible and save" will not work, and libertarian economics ideas generally do not work well.
If we DO get rid of it, then it would need to be replaced by a more robust benefits program, including for disability, plus requirements on all businesses to pay enough minimum wages so people don't require any other government support, or else all business will dry up. As robots take over, who will buy the products they make?
If we don't get rid of SS, then we still also need other programs.
I think people are more likely to support a guaranteed income program or other income support that is paid for by all who can afford it and available to everyone. Such a program could be progressive in taxation, I imagine.
I would be more than happy to call it something else. The entire program was literally a Ponzi Scheme built on faulty assumptions (assumption of stable population growth, continuous good economic times and a far lower average life expectancy) I maintain that the current expectation people have of retiring comfortably for 20+ years with little to no savings is a delusion. If one is not very wealthy (say, the top 5% or so), all that does it put undo burden on the young for a purpose even the radical left FDR would not have approved of. He designed SS for what he referred to as survivors into old age. Not a program for the bottom half of the population to live like investment bankers at a country club, but a program to provide more humane final years for broken down bodies who had endured hard lives.
The idea that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme neglects that fact that it is so well funded, that if the revenue from social security taxes were actually used for social security payments, the "scheme" would have such an enormous surplus that no-one would ever possibly imagine that there was any sort of "crisis" in funding the system. Maybe, if social security taxes were actually used only for social security, the SS taxes COULD be reduced, if neoliberalism were junked and we actually faced the fact that we need to pay more taxes for the other government functions that we seem to forever want.
Quote:The "just telling people to save doesn't work" argument has some merit if we're talking about a family paying exorbitant rent in a San Francisco ghetto, a patient with lifelong chronic illness or a worker who suffered a debilitating work injury with minimal payouts. But if we're talking, say, Republican boomer doctors, corporate managers and law partners?....yes, they can absolutely save for retirement as a group, and taking money from frontline workers (even if we did have a $15 minimum wage) to give it to them makes about as much sense a a parachute that opens on impact.
Well, except many of them don't anyway; at least many upper middle class people don't. The "can" doesn't mean that they will.
Quote:The point of government aid is supposed to be about mending the snags that occasionally pop up in the market system when people need help to reintegrate into society. ex:
- disabled people
- people who need a safety net for a few months in-between jobs
- forcing jobs to pay owed compensation due to grievance or services rendered
- taxes and regulations to account for negative externalities
- relief for various unexpected disasters (ex: Flint Michigan)
It was never intended to create an entire class of people (much less a disproportionately affluent one) who could comfortable rely on it for aid a quarter century after leaving the workforce.
This neoliberal doctrine, while perhaps plausible in the old days 40 years ago, is out of date in an economy where labor saving devices enable us all to work less, and in which they could provide us all a decent life while working less, IF ONLY the upper class did not monopolize ALL the benefit from these labor saving devices just because they have the power to do so. But such neoliberal, Reaganomic, market-oriented exhortations that social security is a ponzi scheme, and that people ought to earn their own way for all their lives and not depend on government, keep the 1% well endowed with ALL the benefits of the more-productive roboticized economy, and the rest of us subjected to substandard wages that keep us poor and dependent on the bosses.
Such an AI-endowed society, even if only a partial reality, certainly allows us to have a 20+year comfortable retirement, instead of subjecting ourselves (and especially those doing hard physical work) to a total lifetime of doing work for most of our lives. Gaining such a retirement is certainly worth the social security taxes that we pay, which are really quite modest compared to the high prices which the speculators and financiers and traders have imposed upon us through deregulation and globalization. And obviously, the SS benefits are quite modest too, nothing like the country club lifestyle you portray.
That is NOT a way to live if we want to attain fulfillment and rise to the potential that humans have, which is never attained merely through carrying out tasks to keep the economy going through advertising so people can spend money for things they don't really need or want, and keep the bosses from firing us despite the low wages and salaries they pay us.
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - JasonBlack - 03-28-2022
(03-28-2022, 02:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-27-2022, 10:12 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:(03-27-2022, 06:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Maybe. If you admit that such a progressive tax and benefits and means-tested program is no longer the social security program, but something different, then you may have a point. It isn't going to happen, though. Social Security works, its funding works, and in requiring people to save when otherwise they probably would not, it makes sure that money will be there when needed for retirement. Saying "be responsible and save" will not work, and libertarian economics ideas generally do not work well.
If we DO get rid of it, then it would need to be replaced by a more robust benefits program, including for disability, plus requirements on all businesses to pay enough minimum wages so people don't require any other government support, or else all business will dry up. As robots take over, who will buy the products they make?
If we don't get rid of SS, then we still also need other programs.
I think people are more likely to support a guaranteed income program or other income support that is paid for by all who can afford it and available to everyone. Such a program could be progressive in taxation, I imagine.
I would be more than happy to call it something else. The entire program was literally a Ponzi Scheme built on faulty assumptions (assumption of stable population growth, continuous good economic times and a far lower average life expectancy) I maintain that the current expectation people have of retiring comfortably for 20+ years with little to no savings is a delusion. If one is not very wealthy (say, the top 5% or so), all that does it put undo burden on the young for a purpose even the radical left FDR would not have approved of. He designed SS for what he referred to as survivors into old age. Not a program for the bottom half of the population to live like investment bankers at a country club, but a program to provide more humane final years for broken down bodies who had endured hard lives.
The idea that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme neglects that fact that it is so well funded, that if the revenue from social security taxes were actually used for social security payments, the "scheme" would have such an enormous surplus that no-one would ever possibly imagine that there was any sort of "crisis" in funding the system. Maybe, if social security taxes were actually used only for social security, the SS taxes COULD be reduced, if neoliberalism were junked and we actually faced the fact that we need to pay more taxes for the other government functions that we seem to forever want.
Quote:The "just telling people to save doesn't work" argument has some merit if we're talking about a family paying exorbitant rent in a San Francisco ghetto, a patient with lifelong chronic illness or a worker who suffered a debilitating work injury with minimal payouts. But if we're talking, say, Republican boomer doctors, corporate managers and law partners?....yes, they can absolutely save for retirement as a group, and taking money from frontline workers (even if we did have a $15 minimum wage) to give it to them makes about as much sense a a parachute that opens on impact.
Well, except many of them don't anyway; at least many upper middle class people don't. The "can" doesn't mean that they will.
Quote:The point of government aid is supposed to be about mending the snags that occasionally pop up in the market system when people need help to reintegrate into society. ex:
- disabled people
- people who need a safety net for a few months in-between jobs
- forcing jobs to pay owed compensation due to grievance or services rendered
- taxes and regulations to account for negative externalities
- relief for various unexpected disasters (ex: Flint Michigan)
It was never intended to create an entire class of people (much less a disproportionately affluent one) who could comfortable rely on it for aid a quarter century after leaving the workforce.
This neoliberal doctrine, while perhaps plausible in the old days 40 years ago, is out of date in an economy where labor saving devices enable us all to work less, and in which they could provide us all a decent life while working less, IF ONLY the upper class did not monopolize ALL the benefit from these labor saving devices just because they have the power to do so. But such neoliberal, Reaganomic, market-oriented exhortations that social security is a ponzi scheme, and that people ought to earn their own way for all their lives and not depend on government, keep the 1% well endowed with ALL the benefits of the more-productive roboticized economy, and the rest of us subjected to substandard wages that keep us poor and dependent on the bosses.
Such an AI-endowed society, even if only a partial reality, certainly allows us to have a 20+year comfortable retirement, instead of subjecting ourselves (and especially those doing hard physical work) to a total lifetime of doing work for most of our lives. Gaining such a retirement is certainly worth the social security taxes that we pay, which are really quite modest compared to the high prices which the speculators and financiers and traders have imposed upon us through deregulation and globalization. And obviously, the SS benefits are quite modest too, nothing like the country club lifestyle you portray.
That is NOT a way to live if we want to attain fulfillment and rise to the potential that humans have, which is never attained merely through carrying out tasks to keep the economy going through advertising so people can spend money for things they don't really need or want, and keep the bosses from firing us despite the low wages and salaries they pay us.
If by "neo-liberal" you mean...basically what every Western Democracy does. Even if we look at, say, Sweden, they have much higher rates of savings because, even with more generous social programs, they have an attitude of "after a certain point, you are responsible for your own savings". It's society's job to give you the skills in order to function comfortably within society, but it isn't society's job to just provide you with a middle class job/income.
Before I continue though, are you asking for a push toward basic income? I have quite a few reservations if that's the case. Either way though, this might sound cruel, but....I think everyone needs to spend a little time being poor (including hundreds of spoiled mother fuckers I've interacted with. I'm not picking on the working class here). When you spend a good chunk of time having to worry about survival, budget, be resourceful, it changes you, gives you a combination of resilience and adaptability, but also quiet compassion, and a greater interest in solving tangible problems. Like, I'm not talking grinding poverty living in the ghetto or being unassisted with crippling illness, but enough for people to become a little more grounded. I'm pretty poor at the moment myself. I invest on the side, so I have my foot in the door to eventually make a lot more money, but my day job (retail worker) and the actual income (I can't withdraw any of that money for awhile) are solidly in the bottom quartile. My point in bringing this up isn't to talk about how I'm suffering, and certainly not to say I understand the situation of someone in life-threatening or abusive circumstances, but that the people I know who have never had to do this really don't have their head on straight, and I'm skeptical of the kind of spoiled world we would create if we just hand middle class living to people on a silver platter so they can focus on art all day. What college experience I had exposed me to some pretty nasty people who would have mellowed out quite a bit with just a little more struggle in life.
edit: this conversation is very much Civic knee-jerk reaction to overly internal societal focus vs Idealist knee-jerk reaction to an overly external societal focus
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - Eric the Green - 03-28-2022
(03-28-2022, 10:54 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:(03-28-2022, 02:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-27-2022, 10:12 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:(03-27-2022, 06:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Maybe. If you admit that such a progressive tax and benefits and means-tested program is no longer the social security program, but something different, then you may have a point. It isn't going to happen, though. Social Security works, its funding works, and in requiring people to save when otherwise they probably would not, it makes sure that money will be there when needed for retirement. Saying "be responsible and save" will not work, and libertarian economics ideas generally do not work well.
If we DO get rid of it, then it would need to be replaced by a more robust benefits program, including for disability, plus requirements on all businesses to pay enough minimum wages so people don't require any other government support, or else all business will dry up. As robots take over, who will buy the products they make?
If we don't get rid of SS, then we still also need other programs.
I think people are more likely to support a guaranteed income program or other income support that is paid for by all who can afford it and available to everyone. Such a program could be progressive in taxation, I imagine.
I would be more than happy to call it something else. The entire program was literally a Ponzi Scheme built on faulty assumptions (assumption of stable population growth, continuous good economic times and a far lower average life expectancy) I maintain that the current expectation people have of retiring comfortably for 20+ years with little to no savings is a delusion. If one is not very wealthy (say, the top 5% or so), all that does it put undo burden on the young for a purpose even the radical left FDR would not have approved of. He designed SS for what he referred to as survivors into old age. Not a program for the bottom half of the population to live like investment bankers at a country club, but a program to provide more humane final years for broken down bodies who had endured hard lives.
The idea that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme neglects that fact that it is so well funded, that if the revenue from social security taxes were actually used for social security payments, the "scheme" would have such an enormous surplus that no-one would ever possibly imagine that there was any sort of "crisis" in funding the system. Maybe, if social security taxes were actually used only for social security, the SS taxes COULD be reduced, if neoliberalism were junked and we actually faced the fact that we need to pay more taxes for the other government functions that we seem to forever want.
Quote:The "just telling people to save doesn't work" argument has some merit if we're talking about a family paying exorbitant rent in a San Francisco ghetto, a patient with lifelong chronic illness or a worker who suffered a debilitating work injury with minimal payouts. But if we're talking, say, Republican boomer doctors, corporate managers and law partners?....yes, they can absolutely save for retirement as a group, and taking money from frontline workers (even if we did have a $15 minimum wage) to give it to them makes about as much sense a a parachute that opens on impact.
Well, except many of them don't anyway; at least many upper middle class people don't. The "can" doesn't mean that they will.
Quote:The point of government aid is supposed to be about mending the snags that occasionally pop up in the market system when people need help to reintegrate into society. ex:
- disabled people
- people who need a safety net for a few months in-between jobs
- forcing jobs to pay owed compensation due to grievance or services rendered
- taxes and regulations to account for negative externalities
- relief for various unexpected disasters (ex: Flint Michigan)
It was never intended to create an entire class of people (much less a disproportionately affluent one) who could comfortable rely on it for aid a quarter century after leaving the workforce.
This neoliberal doctrine, while perhaps plausible in the old days 40 years ago, is out of date in an economy where labor saving devices enable us all to work less, and in which they could provide us all a decent life while working less, IF ONLY the upper class did not monopolize ALL the benefit from these labor saving devices just because they have the power to do so. But such neoliberal, Reaganomic, market-oriented exhortations that social security is a ponzi scheme, and that people ought to earn their own way for all their lives and not depend on government, keep the 1% well endowed with ALL the benefits of the more-productive roboticized economy, and the rest of us subjected to substandard wages that keep us poor and dependent on the bosses.
Such an AI-endowed society, even if only a partial reality, certainly allows us to have a 20+year comfortable retirement, instead of subjecting ourselves (and especially those doing hard physical work) to a total lifetime of doing work for most of our lives. Gaining such a retirement is certainly worth the social security taxes that we pay, which are really quite modest compared to the high prices which the speculators and financiers and traders have imposed upon us through deregulation and globalization. And obviously, the SS benefits are quite modest too, nothing like the country club lifestyle you portray.
That is NOT a way to live if we want to attain fulfillment and rise to the potential that humans have, which is never attained merely through carrying out tasks to keep the economy going through advertising so people can spend money for things they don't really need or want, and keep the bosses from firing us despite the low wages and salaries they pay us.
If by "neo-liberal" you mean...basically what every Western Democracy does. Even if we look at, say, Sweden, they have much higher rates of savings because, even with more generous social programs, they have an attitude of "after a certain point, you are responsible for your own savings". It's society's job to give you the skills in order to function comfortably within society, but it isn't society's job to just provide you with a middle class job/income.
Before I continue though, are you asking for a push toward basic income? I have quite a few reservations if that's the case. Either way though, this might sound cruel, but....I think everyone needs to spend a little time being poor (including hundreds of spoiled mother fuckers I've interacted with. I'm not picking on the working class here). When you spend a good chunk of time having to worry about survival, budget, be resourceful, it changes you, gives you a combination of resilience and adaptability, but also quiet compassion, and a greater interest in solving tangible problems. Like, I'm not talking grinding poverty living in the ghetto or being unassisted with crippling illness, but enough for people to become a little more grounded. I'm pretty poor at the moment myself. I invest on the side, so I have my foot in the door to eventually make a lot more money, but my day job (retail worker) and the actual income (I can't withdraw any of that money for awhile) are solidly in the bottom quartile. My point in bringing this up isn't to talk about how I'm suffering, and certainly not to say I understand the situation of someone in life-threatening or abusive circumstances, but that the people I know who have never had to do this really don't have their head on straight, and I'm skeptical of the kind of spoiled world we would create if we just hand middle class living to people on a silver platter so they can focus on art all day. What college experience I had exposed me to some pretty nasty people who would have mellowed out quite a bit with just a little more struggle in life.
edit: this conversation is very much Civic knee-jerk reaction to overly internal societal focus vs Idealist knee-jerk reaction to an overly external societal focus
"Neoliberal" has been very well-defined now. Did you see the Monbiot video? It is also exactly what Hanauer refers to when he mentions "the ideological framework that got really-rolling under Reagan, and the rest is history..." and "It is an intimidation tactic masquerading as economic theory"... very well stated.
No, I don't think anyone needs to spend anytime being poor, but some time spent making a living on your own instead of depending on government or parents is probably a good experience. But I would not judge someone as having the wrong perspective on life if they haven't done this. I don't agree with judging people based on "people I know" either. What we need is more ability to empoathize, and if this takes working for a living on one's own, or just better education and higher consciousness, it's all the same to me.
What is society's job may have to be more generous if we take away peoples' ability to make a decent living from a job. That's true whether we have replaced jobs with machines, or whether through neoliberalism we enable bosses to fail to pay people what they have rightfully earned.
http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - David Horn - 03-29-2022
As a Boomer, my focus has to be on the generations to come. My time is drawing to an end. So what changes are needed? How about a serious commitment to Civics in High School, and a lot of relevant history to go with it. We have the wacko nutbags we do, because they lack grounding in reality. Let's create some.
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - JasonBlack - 03-29-2022
(03-28-2022, 11:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: No, I don't think anyone needs to spend anytime being poor, but some time spent making a living on your own instead of depending on government or parents is probably a good experience. But I would not judge someone as having the wrong perspective on life if they haven't done this. I don't agree with judging people based on "people I know" either. What we need is more ability to empathize, and if this takes working for a living on one's own, or just better education and higher consciousness, it's all the same to me.The problem is that empathy comes as much (in fact, I would argue more) from understanding and experience than it does gut-level feeling. Don't get me wrong, I hate all those people who yell out "privilege" this, "privilege" that as an excuse to be disrespectful and not listen to what could be valid input. The problem isn't privilege, it's that many people let that privilege trap them in a bubble of delusion because they don't know how the real world works, don't know how to adapt/problem solve and have difficulty imagining themselves in situations where their primary focus needs to be practical. It's possible to be well-meaning and good natured, yet lack a reference point for what someone else is speaking about to the point where they just end up talking past you.
I realize I'm using an extreme example here, as I don't think you're proposing anything this radical, but this experiment is a good example of what happens when you take away too much personal choice and create a world where government makes the majority of important decisions for you.
Quote:What is society's job may have to be more generous if we take away peoples' ability to make a decent living from a job. That's true whether we have replaced jobs with machines, or whether through neoliberalism we enable bosses to fail to pay people what they have rightfully earned.
http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html
The bias people keep making here is that assuming an economic system is supposed to give you an identity/self-worth to begin with. No one is really telling you you need to base your self-worth based on your balance sheet or income statement. Market-based economics is simply an efficient means of letting people get their work done so that they can go home and do what they really want. We can argue about whether more or less government intervention is more efficient, what industries are best left to the state vs run by private enterprise, etc, but that's what the debate should be over. Not over issues of self-worth which people have 100% control over anyway. You can choose to have high self-esteem, you can choose how you define yourself, you can choose what you believe in. Do most people really want someone to tell them how to feel about themselves? Doesn't it make more sense to just take personal responsibility for that?
This is the main thing I don't get about other millennials....why do we need a collective purpose? I'm perfectly happy doing what I want, looking out for my friends and family, pursuing whatever projects strike my fancy. Putting aside the economic scale, the concept that government is supposed to just give people some collective purpose to live their life by seems extremely authoritarian to me. People often argue back to me like "your self-worth doesn't have to be defined by money! My self-worth comes from___", to which I respond "yes...that's literally the point".
Edit: if anything, I'd argue the point of capitalism is more "other people's opinions are irrelevant to my self-worth. the more money I have, the more freedom I have to make the rules". Speaking of compassion, this is often an extremely seductive mindset to people who have spent a good deal of their lives being poor, abused or otherwise powerless. When you are persecuted or unpopular, money is one of your only defenses, a means to fight back in a world where power normally boils down to popularity contests and connections more than competence and boundaries. I have met a lot of entrepreneurs in my time, and every...single...one grew up with peer relations that were unkind them to them, often to the point of physical violence, genuinely life-threatening situations and other forms of peer-related abuse. To a lesser extent, I relate to this myself (I consider my life to have been hard enough to teach me some good lessons, but not so hard that I was permanently damaged, and given how many people I know with far too much or too little hardship in life, I am tremendously grateful for this. In either event, my peers have never been kind to me, and any sense of community I've ever felt was found in niches of likeminded people). People like that don't want to "just get along". They don't want the government micromanaging their lives. They don't want to spend most of their time thinking about the "greater good". They want to be left alone, want peace and quiet, want to, God forbid...enjoy the fruits of their labor without the gossiping Puritans of society trying to get in their business at every turn. For many, separation brings catharsis far more readily than inclusion and big, overarching systems.
I realize this is more a point about preferences than cause/effect economics, but regardless, if you want a system like the one you're proposing to work, there needs to be a place for people like that. A place for lone wolves, rugged individualists, people who don't care about being "appropriate" and opponents of social and moral policing. Too often, big government also means nosy government, witch hunts and demanding not just behavioral, but emotional conformity. Such witch hunts are clearly happening in the modern era, and history has shown they can often continue well into the 1T.
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - pbrower2a - 03-29-2022
Nothing would have more given meaning to the mice than a cat, snake, hawk, or weasel.
RE: What's your generation and how would you change your government? - JasonBlack - 03-30-2022
@Original Topic
1) Abolish the Patriot Act and Victory Act. They are fascist abominations to a free society which should never have been tolerated in this country.
2) One thing I will give the Soviets: they got what good music and art were. Public spending on the arts is supposed to go toward epic works. Works like symphonies, grand sculptures, opera, not banal. slice-of-life pop culture. Is it any wonder modern society is grappling with such feelings of nihilism when we shun everything awe-inspiring?
3) Raise the corporate tax, but add a large range of subsidies for various eco-friendly activities. Maybe a certain amount for planting X number of trees, a small amount for installing solar panels, cleaning up industrial waste, etc)
4) I will make the environmentalists a compromise: if you ease up on aggressively slashing fuel subsidies too quickly, I will agree to pay taxes to quadruple R&D for green technology research, and double funds for general scientific research. (on a gentler note, I haven't come across any of the eco-misanthropy I so despise in many leftists, which is a big relief).