The mystery of Millennial politics

[Eric the Green]

(02-24-2017, 03:19 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: CPAC Offers Utterly Uninspiring Vision for Millennials

Steve Bannon said yesterday that "economic nationalism" is a core tenet of Trump's vision.  If that be true, the single largest generation in US history has to be asking, "What's in it for Me-llenials?"  Not much that I can see so far.  I say that the political alignment--if not loyalty--of this huge cohort is still up for grabs.

Bannon's economic nationalism appears to be mainly neo-liberalism (somewhat in disguise, since economic nationalism usually involves tariffs which are not laissez faire). Bannon seeks to destroy all the government agencies that restrain or regulate economic activity. This is based on the neo-liberal doctrine of libertarian laissez faire (lazy and un-fair), and Bannon and Trump assume that implementing this kind of anarchism will release capitalism from its shackles and thus revive the economy and "make America great again." But in addition it appears to be laissez faire in one country (to plagiarize Stalin, Bannon's buddy), which involves stopping immigration and restricting trade, and generally building walls to make America white again. Nationalism is frequently a cover name for racism and xenophobia, which are not only good fear-based campaign tactics, but actual priorities on the part of Bannon/Trump.

[David Horn]

(02-24-2017, 12:39 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: In recent news, David Horn denies possibility of change.  In related news,

... which is better than assuming things will erupt because ... TRUMP!, or any other driver. 

My concern is simple: there is too little pain being suffered to generate the level of backlash needed for real change.  If that changes, so will the odds of a 4T level era leading to ???, which is another problem.  I don't see any vision of what should occur that is in harmony with what can occur. 

We already have a global elite that needs no fixed geography to be successful, AGW continuing and even accelerating, technological advancements that alter the capital/labor balance entirely and a generation that is emerging into power that is still navel gazing.  Show me how you manage to generate change that accommodates (or alters) that.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:... which is better than assuming things will erupt because ... TRUMP!, or any other driver. My concern is simple: there is too little pain being suffered to generate the level of backlash needed for real change.  If that changes, so will the odds of a 4T level era leading to ???, which is another problem.  I don't see any vision of what should occur that is in harmony with what can occur. 

We already have a global elite that needs no fixed geography to be successful, AGW continuing and even accelerating, technological advancements that alter the capital/labor balance entirely and a generation that is emerging into power that is still navel gazing.  Show me how you manage to generate change that accommodates (or alters) that.

The rapid changes you mentioned, among others, are precisely why the post-Cold War political here and abroad is not going to last, and is presently coming apart at the seams.  The world will look very different in 10-15 years.  It just probably won't look different in the way that you want. 

[David Horn]

(02-24-2017, 01:18 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Natural growth among the native born is way negative. Even immigrants don't pound out the bambinos like they used to. How is demand going to grow enough to spark inflation? The Mormons gonna see to it?

As for wage inflation, no way, no how. Even if globalization fails, automation shows no signs of relenting.

The easiest way is to replace human consumption with government consumption.  If borrowing is not a problem, and that seems to be true when the GOP is the party spending, then competition for resources will happen much faster than automaton can supply non-human based solutions.  I'm assuming that most of the spending will be on military and security, neither of which generates increased productivity or a consumable product. 

With so many potential knock-on effects, it's hard to know how this plays-out in the long run.

[David Horn]

(02-24-2017, 03:09 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 11:01 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: So here's my question.  As long as we're going to add another trillion dollars or so to the federal debt, what spending measure would give our economy the most bang for the buck?  I have my own idea about that.

Isn't it going be tax cuts for the rich in the end?  It's what Congress wants to do.  What else would they sign on to? They hate stimulus.  What Trump has alluded to would make them throw up.  Why would they go there?  Look Warren is a Trump fan and he has already defined Republican-friendly stimulus as "supply-side stimulus".  And what is that?  Tax cuts.  The more things change the more they stay the same.

You forgot to mention defense and security spending.  Both seems to be in play ... along with the inevitable tax cutting, of course.

Mikebert Wrote:But people are weird about Donald Trump.  Here is a Vox article with the title "Trump just made it official: transgender students no longer have an ally in the White House".  On what planet in what bizarro alternate universe, would Donald J Trump be an ally for transgender students???

Finding logic in a situation that resembles events in Gulliver's Travels is unlikely ... so pass the popcorn.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:Finding logic in a situation that resembles events in Gulliver's Travels is unlikely ... so pass the popcorn.

Which events, specifically?  

[Warren Dew]

(02-25-2017, 04:42 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 03:09 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 11:01 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: So here's my question.  As long as we're going to add another trillion dollars or so to the federal debt, what spending measure would give our economy the most bang for the buck?  I have my own idea about that.

Isn't it going be tax cuts for the rich in the end?  It's what Congress wants to do.  What else would they sign on to? They hate stimulus.  What Trump has alluded to would make them throw up.  Why would they go there?  Look Warren is a Trump fan and he has already defined Republican-friendly stimulus as "supply-side stimulus".  And what is that?  Tax cuts.  The more things change the more they stay the same.

You forgot to mention defense and security spending.  Both seems to be in play ... along with the inevitable tax cutting, of course.

The defense and security spending is not for stimulus purposes; it's to improve defense and security.  And to the extent you're using me as a barometer, I'll note that the defense budget is significantly higher than it was when Bush took office, and it's very likely that we could meet our actual requirements by reallocating money, without spending any more and possibly spending a bit less.

[Eric the Green]

Although states that get lots of money for defense jobs seem to be mostly interested in getting the jobs, whether they are needed for defense or not.

[David Horn]

(02-25-2017, 04:29 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:... which is better than assuming things will erupt because ... TRUMP!, or any other driver. My concern is simple: there is too little pain being suffered to generate the level of backlash needed for real change.  If that changes, so will the odds of a 4T level era leading to ???, which is another problem.  I don't see any vision of what should occur that is in harmony with what can occur. 

We already have a global elite that needs no fixed geography to be successful, AGW continuing and even accelerating, technological advancements that alter the capital/labor balance entirely and a generation that is emerging into power that is still navel gazing.  Show me how you manage to generate change that accommodates (or alters) that.

The rapid changes you mentioned, among others, are precisely why the post-Cold War political here and abroad is not going to last, and is presently coming apart at the seams.  The world will look very different in 10-15 years.  It just probably won't look different in the way that you want. 

Except for the issue of foot soldiers, who seem dispassionate about any process that interferes with their ability to do pretty much as they please.  The GIs were more than a bit selfish and self centered, but they had the courtesy to wait until they had actually earned the right.  Millennials seem to be easily incensed about social justice issues and they are more than a little pissed-off at the cost they have to bear to get an education.  They can find those issues by looking in the mirror.  Boomers did much the same thing, and it lead to a backlash and a coopted "revolution".  If all the talk and sign-waving leads to real actions, I'll be both happy and contrite. 

Which is not to say that these issues never get addressed.  I just don't see them being intense enough at the moment.  The one wild card is Trump.  He's trying to light the fire ... trying really hard every day.

[The Wonkette]

(02-24-2017, 03:09 PM)Mikebert Wrote: But people are weird about Donald Trump.  Here is a Vox article with the title "Trump just made it official: transgender students no longer have an ally in the White House".  On what planet in what bizarro alternate universe, would Donald J Trump be an ally for transgender students???

I read that statement differently. Transgender students had an ally in the White House under Barack Obama. Under Trump, it was questionable, and now, it's clear that they don't.

[SomeGuy]

(02-25-2017, 10:27 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 04:29 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:... which is better than assuming things will erupt because ... TRUMP!, or any other driver. My concern is simple: there is too little pain being suffered to generate the level of backlash needed for real change.  If that changes, so will the odds of a 4T level era leading to ???, which is another problem.  I don't see any vision of what should occur that is in harmony with what can occur. 

We already have a global elite that needs no fixed geography to be successful, AGW continuing and even accelerating, technological advancements that alter the capital/labor balance entirely and a generation that is emerging into power that is still navel gazing.  Show me how you manage to generate change that accommodates (or alters) that.

The rapid changes you mentioned, among others, are precisely why the post-Cold War political here and abroad is not going to last, and is presently coming apart at the seams.  The world will look very different in 10-15 years.  It just probably won't look different in the way that you want. 

Except for the issue of foot soldiers, who seem dispassionate about any process that interferes with their ability to do pretty much as they please.  The GIs were more than a bit selfish and self centered, but they had the courtesy to wait until they had actually earned the right.  Millennials seem to be easily incensed about social justice issues and they are more than a little pissed-off at the cost they have to bear to get an education.  They can find those issues by looking in the mirror.  Boomers did much the same thing, and it lead to a backlash and a coopted "revolution".  If all the talk and sign-waving leads to real actions, I'll be both happy and contrite. 

Which is not to say that these issues never get addressed.  I just don't see them being intense enough at the moment.  The one wild card is Trump.  He's trying to light the fire ... trying really hard every day.

Again, English does not appear to be your first language.  If so, please go back and edit your post to reflect this.

Things are visibly changing, they are just not changing in the way you think they should.

[David Horn]

(02-26-2017, 05:40 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 10:27 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 04:29 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:... which is better than assuming things will erupt because ... TRUMP!, or any other driver. My concern is simple: there is too little pain being suffered to generate the level of backlash needed for real change.  If that changes, so will the odds of a 4T level era leading to ???, which is another problem.  I don't see any vision of what should occur that is in harmony with what can occur. 

We already have a global elite that needs no fixed geography to be successful, AGW continuing and even accelerating, technological advancements that alter the capital/labor balance entirely and a generation that is emerging into power that is still navel gazing.  Show me how you manage to generate change that accommodates (or alters) that.

The rapid changes you mentioned, among others, are precisely why the post-Cold War political here and abroad is not going to last, and is presently coming apart at the seams.  The world will look very different in 10-15 years.  It just probably won't look different in the way that you want. 

Except for the issue of foot soldiers, who seem dispassionate about any process that interferes with their ability to do pretty much as they please.  The GIs were more than a bit selfish and self centered, but they had the courtesy to wait until they had actually earned the right.  Millennials seem to be easily incensed about social justice issues and they are more than a little pissed-off at the cost they have to bear to get an education.  They can find those issues by looking in the mirror.  Boomers did much the same thing, and it lead to a backlash and a coopted "revolution".  If all the talk and sign-waving leads to real actions, I'll be both happy and contrite. 

Which is not to say that these issues never get addressed.  I just don't see them being intense enough at the moment.  The one wild card is Trump.  He's trying to light the fire ... trying really hard every day.

Again, English does not appear to be your first language.  If so, please go back and edit your post to reflect this.

Things are visibly changing, they are just not changing in the way you think they should.

Things are in motion.  Change, on the other hand, is still in question.  That you think otherwise is OK, but don't dispute my right to an opinion. 

I've seen a lot of this before.  If it gels and becomes a cohesive force, then you had it right all along.  To be honest, with an adversary like Trump, rallying the troops should be easy.  But don't argue that change is already in the works, unless you have some real evidence that it is.  Marches and rallies are good, but they accomplish nothing in and of themselves.  All the real action to date is coming from the same global elite that have been running the show for decades.  Perhaps that's the change you see.  If so, we are in for very hard times.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:Things are in motion.  Change, on the other hand, is still in question.

Please define "in motion", and "change", as you are using them here.

Quote:That you think otherwise is OK, but don't dispute my right to an opinion.

You have an opinion?  That's disgusting, why are you displaying it in public!?! 

Quote:I've seen a lot of this before.  If it gels and becomes a cohesive force, then you had it right all along.  To be honest, with an adversary like Trump, rallying the troops should be easy.  But don't argue that change is already in the works, unless you have some real evidence that it is.  Marches and rallies are good, but they accomplish nothing in and of themselves.  All the real action to date is coming from the same global elite that have been running the show for decades.  Perhaps that's the change you see.  If so, we are in for very hard times.

And now we're back to this.  You seem to forget that I am not a progressive, and I actually voted for Trump.  You seem to be using the word "change" to mean only "progressive political reforms", which I don't think is actually the definition.  Like I said before, lots of things are changing, they just don't seem to be changing in the direction you like.  Brexit, Trump, possibly Le Pen here in a bit, the continued issues in the EU, widening war in the Middle East, climate change and all the rest, these are big changes.  The post-WWII/particularly post-Cold War order is visibly cracking, and I am willing to bet it will very much be gone in another 10-15 years.  What take its place remains to be seen, although thus far I very much doubt it is going to be the comfortable center-left changes you might like.

[FLBones]

It is aggravating as to how much our generation has to pay for college. Boomers have a very condescending attitude about it. They're so arrogant, they can't let go.

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-27-2017, 06:57 PM)FLBones Wrote: It is aggravating as to how much our generation has to pay for college. Boomers have a very condescending attitude about it. They're so arrogant, they can't let go.

Yes, y'all are getting a very raw deal indeed. 

1.  Administrative overhead.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/adminis...versities/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06...38584.html


2.  Demand plays a part as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opini...-much.html


So, why don't y'all add administrative bloat to the list of items up for protests?   In fact, I'd make it agenda item number 1.  So here's some advice for y'all in college. Burn y'alls administrators in effigy!  And be sure to put a price tag indicating the waste of said administrators on the effigies. As for the demand thingie.  What are y'all majoring in that's spiking demand like that?

Example of Bloat:

https://president.boisestate.edu/wp-cont...2016-2.pdf

chop! chop!

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-27-2017, 12:29 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: M&L  wrote

Quote:I've seen a lot of this before.  If it gels and becomes a cohesive force, then you had it right all along.  To be honest, with an adversary like Trump, rallying the troops should be easy.  But don't argue that change is already in the works, unless you have some real evidence that it is.  Marches and rallies are good, but they accomplish nothing in and of themselves.  All the real action to date is coming from the same global elite that have been running the show for decades.  Perhaps that's the change you see.  If so, we are in for very hard times.

Oh, yeah, what was old is new again.



SomeGuy wrote this:
And now we're back to this.  You seem to forget that I am not a progressive, and I actually voted for Trump.  You seem to be using the word "change" to mean only "progressive political reforms", which I don't think is actually the definition.  Like I said before, lots of things are changing, they just don't seem to be changing in the direction you like.  Brexit, Trump, possibly Le Pen here in a bit, the continued issues in the EU, widening war in the Middle East, climate change and all the rest, these are big changes.  The post-WWII/particularly post-Cold War order is visibly cracking, and I am willing to bet it will very much be gone in another 10-15 years.  What take its place remains to be seen, although thus far I very much doubt it is going to be the comfortable center-left changes you might like.

It's a mish mash.  I'd love to see the EU crater and yeah, that post-Cold War neoliberal order [refined my preference here].  May Ragnarök be upon that stuff.  Anyhow, I have to wait to see if there's a fire with the smoke, so to speak.

So,  whadda think about a US VAT tax/Medicare start @ age 0 thing.  To be honest the Republican party is a bunch of fuddy duddy pot poopers.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:So,  whadda think about a US VAT tax/Medicare start @ age 0 thing.  To be honest the Republican party is a bunch of fuddy duddy pot pooper

No real objection, though the devil, as always, is in the details.

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-27-2017, 10:19 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:So,  whadda think about a US VAT tax/Medicare start @ age 0 thing.  To be honest the Republican party is a bunch of fuddy duddy pot pooper

No real objection, though the devil, as always, is in the details.

My bad,  Rag's plan is simple, actually.

1. Enact a VAT for the sole purpose of funding Medicare starting at age 0.
2. Find ways to save on costs.
a. Enable free market access to consumers of medical supplies/meds from approved foreign countries like Canada, like this.
b. Standardize medical coding to reduce *redundant paperwork.
3. Repeal Medicare payroll tax.
4. The VAT is WTO compliant so Trump would basically get his border adjustment tax without a bunch of hassles.
5. Fold Medicaid and VA into Medicare.

*Mindless redundancy is an irksome thingie for INTP's.

[Marypoza]

(02-24-2017, 03:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 02:55 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 02:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If there's a Revolution coming, the time will be the 2020s, not the next Awakening. Revolutions are more-likely in 4Ts.

Awakenings are times when movements get going. So, the movement is going. Now is the time to bring it to fruition.

-- damn Eric, that was quick. Anyhow, the 2020s would be even better. The less time we have to put up with capitalism's death throws the better

I would say, capitalism as we know it today in America (an oligarchy in which a few CEOs and investors own most of the wealth, control politics through money, and use that politics to destroy everything valuable in order to maximize their profits) is a likely target of a genuine Revolution in the 2020s. Capitalism per se is a broader term, and an anti-capitalist revolution defined as some kind of permanent collectivist socialist takeover is less likely in America in this 4T, or any time in the future.

-- a means of production that relies on infinite resources on a planet with finite resources is unsustanable. It has to give & it is finally. Esp, since, due to automation, one of those finite resources is human labor. More ppl are competeing for less jobs, this cannot last, there wil be civil unrest. Another economic system must be implemented, & will eventually

[Marypoza]

(03-01-2017, 03:46 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(03-01-2017, 01:37 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 03:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 02:55 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 02:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If there's a Revolution coming, the time will be the 2020s, not the next Awakening. Revolutions are more-likely in 4Ts.

Awakenings are times when movements get going. So, the movement is going. Now is the time to bring it to fruition.

-- damn Eric, that was quick. Anyhow, the 2020s would be even better. The less time we have to put up with capitalism's death throws the better

I would say, capitalism as we know it today in America (an oligarchy in which a few CEOs and investors own most of the wealth, control politics through money, and use that politics to destroy everything valuable in order to maximize their profits) is a likely target of a genuine Revolution in the 2020s. Capitalism per se is a broader term, and an anti-capitalist revolution defined as some kind of permanent collectivist socialist takeover is less likely in America in this 4T, or any time in the future.

-- a means of production that relies on infinite resources on a planet with finite resources is unsustanable. It has to give & it is finally. Esp, since, due to automation, one of those finite resources is human labor. More ppl are competeing for less jobs, this cannot last, there wil be civil unrest. Another economic system must be implemented, & will eventually

Fecundity is at an all time low in the developed countries. It's falling sharply in other countries. The problem will rapidly become a problem of lack of demand for goods and services. Later, labor shortages will kick in. In this environment, continued massive capital expenditures in technology and automation will no longer be sustainable. The house of cards will come crashing down.

-- exactly. Thanx for expressing it better than me X