A Malaise Speech for the Current Time

[Ragnarök_62]

(03-28-2017, 06:16 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(03-28-2017, 12:08 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Back in 1979 then President Jimmy Carter gave a talk to the nation saying that America was experiencing a Crisis of Confidence. In that speech he mentioned the need for energy conservation, which, as we all know now, most of the public seemed to want no part of. The speech went on to be labeled the "Malaise speech", even though that word was never used in it.

...

Meanwhile, many substandard urban neighborhoods are even worse off today than they were at the heights of the civil rights struggles half a century ago. There are many areas with not a decent grocery store, leading to them being labeled as food deserts. At the same time relentless gentrification has forced many modest income yet decent folks out of the neighborhoods their families had occupied for generations. If Chicago is a prime example, and I believe that it is, nearly all the housing being built in the past 35 years has been pricey upscale condos and townhouses that the average Joe and Jane couldn't even begin to afford. The poverty in our cities is probably just the same as it was many years ago; the main difference being that it is much less visible. This may be good in some ways, but certainly not so good in others. The primary movers and shakers within our cities are without a doubt doing everything in their power to make sure that little if any so called "affordable" housing is being built. And the real estate moguls and developers have tremendous clout over what gets built and what doesn't. For a great on this, I heard a talk over the weekend about a book titled "How to Kill a City" by Peter Moskovitz.

Stories of folks trying to get by on minimum wage or even less have become legendary, as many are forced to work multiple jobs and at times even that isn't enough. The fear people have for others of the species have also become pervasive, leading to loss of social interaction despite the ascendance of so-called "social" networks such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. And yet the social stigma against those on the lower rungs of the income scale is as pervasive as ever. This implies a general attitude such as "I have, and if you will just go get a job you can have as well". It really isn't all that simple, and there are many destitute folks who actually are working. They just don't earn enough to get by, let alone live the good life.

Do we have the belief that with positive application will come positive rewards? Probably not by too many. There are a significant number who are now waking up to the idea that they have been had for the past few decades, and what is likely to happen when that number becomes the majority?

Increasingly, the disenchanted and angry subset will be Millennials. A subset of the Millennials are now combat hardened and are excellent with marksmanship. All the ingredients are there.

1. Carter.  Well, what can I say. In my 18 year old frame of mind, Carter was the penultimate oracle of doom. Obviously, doom sux, and I rushed to vote for Reagan. That, added with the failed hostage rescue indicated a note of incompetence.  [ I did vote for some Democrats down ticket though...]

2. Urban poverty:   What was old, is new again. I'd really like to say, where's this job training the Republicans keep yammering about? Whatever job training is available is half assed. It neither trains folks for actual jobs nor has much thought to it, beyond "you have to take job training to keep your food stamps."  That position is ludicrous.
The real thing is that most folks on SNAP [food stamps] are already working. The Republicans go even deeper down the rat hole with 3 contradictory positions. [ I agree with your point as stated above.]


a. A person is precious when said person is a fetus/embryo/whatever said person is before actually being born.
b. After that person is born, said person is a product of irresponsible sex.
c. Birth control should not be readily available.

The ultimate contradiction in worth is a person is precious while in the womb, but is the product of "irresponsibility"
after the person is born. I can't fathom why the Democrats haven't hammered that contradiction. The Republicans can't win , do to the inherent internal contradiction. Now, I know there's a progressive faction and a Neoliberal faction within the Democratic party. We Democrats really need to listen to Truman , who basically stated that "Given the Choice between Republican lite vs. a real Republican, the voters will select the Republican every time."
IOW, the Neoliberal/3rd way faction needs to be just chucked.

Here's the chain of internal contradictions. 
a. If you are poor, birth control is hard to come by.  Result: Women can't be "responsible" with that policy.
b. From item a, if an unplanned pregnancy happens, it's the couple's fault. The problem here is that most men with assets are opting out. Who wants to be a wallet for the biased divorce courts.  I did that and opted for career/partying/poker junkets instead of getting hitched. The reason should be obvious. The divorce courts are a codified asset confiscation scheme for successful men.  After all, there are plenty of means of scratching the sex drive besides relationships. Sorry, but partying with inanimate substances which get me off is a good trade off with that reality.
c. The result is a lot of women get knocked up with asset less men.

d. Social Networks:  Easy, those facilitate atomization. I think this forum is also an example. I sort of know folks all over the country, but lack the means to actually meet them in person. It's hard to get the travel nut to go to say California, whose denizens , the ones here at least have something in common with myself. I work minimum wage and , yes that limits the ability to travel.

e. The idea that say the denizens of Appalachia can "just get a job, if they moved". This is a really stupid argument, regardless of which side supports it. First, most rural/depressed area living areas can't be sold. That means someone from , say Oklahoma can't just move after getting dubious "skills" from retraining can just up and leave. It also means in the case "move to where the jobs are".  How the fuck can that work, when we already have a large contingent of urban area poor?  The answer is that I think that's stupid. If folks in poor urban areas can't get jobs, then how the fuck can some rural yahoo do likewise?

f. Millennials:  I don't think that would work.  Millenials as a generation are/were raised to act as a group, under a leader [Prophet/Nomad] to work for a goal set by elders [as long as the goal makes sense to them. ] So, I see the current mess as a crisis in leadership, now. XY_MOX_4AD, that means the blame falls more on elder generations than Millenials than anything. IOW, Millenials can't do their generational mission without some sort of cogent agenda set forth by said elders.

g. Real Estate-gentrification:  This is now a product of an asset bubble. I'm sure that real estate prices will correct to the point that us proles can afford it, ... provided there's a crash where real estate prices are not propped up with bailouts, etc.  Screwed up asset prices =  "what was old is new again", burn, baby, burn. May the whole rotten edifice just go in flames, baby.    -> Rags is a denizen of his "home decade", the 1970's. Damn, I miss those protest book drops in grade school.