America is a sick society

[Eric the Green]

(08-01-2017, 09:10 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-31-2017, 01:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I agree about the not-so beneficial impact of NAFTA, but your cart is before the horse on that. The Religious Right dates back to the 1970s, and probably its ancestors to the 1920s at least. Flyover country was taking refuge in and enclosing their minds in fundie churches long before NAFTA. The Bible Belt has a long history.

As the article mentions, it is more likely that fly-over country caused its own problems because of their retrograde ideas, values and votes, than by economic policies that ignored them. So, they feel their economic pain now, but their solution in 2016 was to vote for Trump. That just shows their apparently-incurable ignorance and inability to grasp solutions.

Assuming you are right, and the author of the referenced article is as well, nothing short of a cataclysmic crash that triggers mass dislocation and even starvation is going to overcome that mind set.  As a nation, we can't survive that and rebound to anything greater than second class status, so another answer needs to be found.  I don't have it, and no one seems to be proposing one either.  Bernie Sanders did yeoman's work trying to raise the flag and get things rolling, but we let that opportunity pass.  Trying a second time will be ignored in much the same way all other evidence-based solutions are ignored.

I'm convinced that this won't be fixed in our lifetimes, so our discussions here are of academic interest but little else.  If the right wins the day in this 4T, and they are heading in that direction, then the next 2T will either start the new ball rolling or it won't.  In any case, it will take another 4T to get it resolved.  The world will look dramatically different by then.

Maybe, but I think it's resolved in this 4T, or never. Otherwise, we decline fairly rapidly after this 4T, with NO further opportunity for change. There's time, because the climax is due in the mid 2020s, with the 1T due in 2028-29. That timetable is virtually certain. When 4Ts start moving toward resolution, change happens quickly, just as it also did in the 2T sixties years. It doesn't mean all problems are totally resolved in this 4T; just enough to permanently get back on the track of progress and rejoin the world movement, and put the right-wing crazies behind us as a minority no longer able to influence or dictate policy.

The only chance is if millennials vote and stay liberal, and if they and other voters stop indulging the crazies and reject their memes and slogans. If people would just vote, and vote correctly, we would resolve the problems fairly easily. We would have steady change for the better, if we could have a Democratic or otherwise moderate-to-liberal congress and president able to push past the obstructions, and stay in office longer than 1 or 2 years. I still predict this will happen, and have predicted such (and in the same time frame as I say today) for decades now. But we'll see what actually happens. I also would not rule out more drastic changes being made in the 2020s, such as transition to a parliamentary system, a new party system or a division of the country.

[pbrower2a]

(08-01-2017, 09:14 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-31-2017, 02:56 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Flyover country was on track to a better developed future with higher educational attainment, prior to being decimated by globalism.

I don't think so.  Globalism would have been replaced by automation, leading to the same end.  Industrialization impacted society in much the same way, but there was a safety valve in all those industrial jobs industrialization created.  We don't have that this time.  Working smart is good for those who have the inclination and ability.  I think the ability is there.  I'm less certain about inclination.

So long as the incentives remain remain for getting a solid education or training, people will get their educations and training. Let's remember that productivity will remain high just to produce the electronic gadgets likely to be replaced due to obsolescence.

Even if one does blue-collar work, working smart is preferable to working hard. There are still well-paid blue-collar jobs (such as machining) to be had. How important is machining? It might be necessary to replacing a critical component on a used, but generally desirable piece of expensive equipment -- like a car -- when there are no after-market manufacturers. Junk the car and buy another, or get the critical part? That could be an easy decision.

America went from being a rural society  in which many were farm workers to an industrial society in which far fewer people worked on farms. What happened to all the farm workers? They went into manufacturing which paid better and more reliably. The transition from a manufacturing economy to a service economy did not go so smoothly. Just look at all the urban wrecks -- Springfield, Massachusetts; Camden and Newark, New Jersey; Cleveland and Youngstown, Ohio; Gary, Indiana; Detroit and Flint, Michigan; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Birmingham, Alabama...

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-01-2017, 01:39 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: America went from being a rural society  in which many were farm workers to an industrial society in which far fewer people worked on farms. What happened to all the farm workers? They went into manufacturing which paid better and more reliably. The transition from a manufacturing economy to a service economy did not go so smoothly. Just look at all the urban wrecks -- Springfield, Massachusetts; Camden and Newark, New Jersey; Cleveland and Youngstown, Ohio; Gary, Indiana; Detroit and Flint, Michigan; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Birmingham, Alabama...

It's been long enough ago that people don't seem to remember how ugly the Gilded Age was for many.  It was a time of booms, busts and ugly working conditions.  I'm not saying the transition to a service economy is clean and seamless.  Hardly.  I just wouldn't say that the good old days were anything like ideal.

I recently watched a PBS TV special on this wonderful town with marble quarries and all sorts of craftsmen high grade and low.  They showed pictures of men cutting and moving large marble blocks with animal, steam and manual labor.  You ever wonder where the Gettysburg monuments came from, or the old mausoleums or even the cobblestones?  Those were the good old days?  And this was a 'lucky' town with unusual raw materials that allowed a local industry to complement the usual sweat shops...

[Mikebert]

In response to Eric's challenge.

Quote:When you have a belief system that is built on fundamentalism, it isn’t open to outside criticism, especially by anyone not a member of your tribe and in a position of power.

True. I’d suggest the author look in a mirror.
 

Quote:The problem isn’t “coastal elites don’t understand rural Americans.” The problem is rural America doesn’t understand itself and will NEVER listen to anyone outside their bubble….I’ve had hundreds of discussions with rural white Americans and whenever I present them any information that contradicts their entrenched beliefs, no matter how sound, how unquestionable, how obvious, they WILL NOT even entertain the possibility it might be true.

Pot meet kettle.
 

Quote:At some point during the discussion, “That’s your education talking,” will be said, derogatorily, as a general dismissal of everything I said. They truly believe this is a legitimate response because to them education is not to be trusted.

Replace education with indoctrination and you can see their point.
 

Quote:…no amount of evidence is going to change their minds, assuage their fears.

The author then contradicts himself….

Quote:Do you know what does change the beliefs of fundamentalists, sometimes? When something becomes personal. Many a fundamentalist has changed his mind about the LGBT community once his loved ones started coming out of the closet.

This is called personal experience.  Another word for it is evidence.
 

Quote:The catastrophe of the Great Depression along with the progressive remedies by FDR helped create a generation of Democrats from previously die-hard Republicans.

This moron seems to things that New Deal policies turned blood-red Republicans into progressive Democrats.  He apparently does not realize that the party that gave us the New Deal was the red party.  Many of those “die hard Republicans”, such as my parents, were such *because* they objected to Democratic support for racism. After the Civil Rights era both of my folks became Democrats.
 

Quote:I thought the financial crisis in 2008 would have a similar, though lesser, impact on many Republicans.

Obviously he has no comprehension of the problem.
 

Quote:The systems that were put in place after the Great Recession to deal with economic crises,

Quote:the quick, smart response by Congress and the administration….

Which prevented elites from having to deal with the economic mess they created
 

Quote:…helped make what could have been a catastrophic event into merely a really bad one. People suffered, but they didn’t suffer enough to where they were open to questioning their deeply held beliefs.

Exactly
 

Quote:…even though rural Christian white Americans were hit hard by the Great Recession, they not only didn’t blame the political party they’ve aligned themselves with for years…

I am assuming he is talking about why folks voted Republican in 2010, 2014 and then elected Trump. I would point out that Clinton gave us NAFTA and Chinese MFN status, and signed into law the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Bubble and Crash Act of 1997.
 

Quote:An even higher number believe the mortgage crisis was the result of the government forcing banks to give loans to unqualified minorities.

And what alternative explanation does he give?
 

Quote:How do you make racial equality personal to someone who believes whites are naturally superior to non-whites? How do you make gender equality personal to someone who believes women are supposed to be subservient to men by God’s command? How do you get someone to view minorities as not threatening personal to people who don’t live around and never interact with them? How do you make personal the fact massive tax cuts and cutting back government hurts their economic situation when they’ve voted for these for decades?

You do so by delivering real economic improvements to working class lives for everyone, so that minorities can gain the respect others in their stead did before, when they had a party looking out for them in Washington.

Quote:The honest truths that rural, Christian, white Americans don’t want to accept and until they do nothing is going to change..

And the same is true for the coastal elites.
 

Quote:Their economic situation is largely the result of voting for supply-side economic policies that have been the largest redistribution of wealth from the bottom/middle to the top in U.S. history.

It was Kennedy who passed the first supply-side tax cut. It was Johnson who decided we could have guns and butter with lower taxes. It was Carter who appointed Paul Volcker.

Quote:Immigrants haven’t taken their jobs. If all immigrants, legal or otherwise, were removed from the U.S., our economy would come to a screeching halt and prices on food would soar.

And elites would have to pay the full cost for the produce and personal services for the low prices paying  immigrants shit wages allows.
 

Quote:Immigrants are not responsible for companies moving their plants overseas.

No trade policies are.
 

Quote:All the economic policies and ideas that could help rural America belong to the Democratic Party: raising the minimum wage, strengthening unions, infrastructure spending, healthcare reform…all of these and more would really help a lot of rural Americans.

And when Democrats were in power in 2009-10, did  they raise minimum wage (would have taken a week).  Did they pass card check? How  long did it take Obama to raise the overtime income limit?  And did they include a public option in the ACA (i.e. what would have made it work, and which Obama has run on?).  The answer explains why Democrats lost in 2010, 2014 & 2016.

[Mikebert]

Having channeled my inner Trump and responded to the (economically) elitist screed Eric posted, I would point out that what is needed to resolve our economic problems today would require a reversal of the bad policies enacted since 1970's, plus new things specific to our present situation. I cannot speak to the latter, such policies would things for which history provides no guide.  But there are the policies that were changed in the late 1970's and after that shifted the economy from favoring working people to favoring their employers. These shifts were begun by Democrats and advanced further by Republicans later on.

My recent paper shows how the proworker policies abandoned in the 1970's were first introduced in the 1930's and early 1940's.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/42p5m46m

[Eric the Green]

(08-01-2017, 02:47 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Having channeled my inner Trump and responded to the (economically) elitist screed Eric posted, I would point out that what is needed to resolve our economic problems today would require a reversal of the bad policies enacted since 1970's, plus new things specific to our present situation. I cannot speak to the latter, such policies would things for which history provides no guide.  But there are the policies that were changed in the late 1970's and after that shifted the economy from favoring working people to favoring their employers. These shifts were begun by Democrats and advanced further by Republicans later on.

My recent paper shows how the proworker policies abandoned in the 1970's were first introduced in the 1930's and early 1940's.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/42p5m46m

Your inner Trump is smarter than the actual outer Trump.

I don't think the author of the screed needs to look in the mirror, or that his pot is black. He knows these people all too well, and I think he's right about them. There is little chance that a smart, center-left or left economic program that was actually implemented and was working-well would result in them casting votes for Democrats. Let alone what economically-liberal Democrats propose or promise.

But Democrats have been part of the problem too, no doubt. Including the bi-partisan NAFTA. But Trump only used some of the Democrats' mistakes to promote his Republican plans on steroids. It was pure deception.

What shocked me about 2010, 2014 and 2016 is how, when faced with the only-partial achievements and partial success of the Democrats in 2009, the red folks and those who indulged them voted to go in the other direction and fully embrace those aspects of the Democrats' program that were also fully the Republicans' problem. In both 1994 and 2010, the people who voted Republican who had voted Democratic in the previous election showed no patience whatever. They forgot that change takes time and is not fully implemented at once, so they deserted Obama/Clinton and company and went for full blown error instead. I don't think they voted against things like NAFTA and the public option. Liberal Democrats were mostly the ones concerned about those things, and they did not vote Republican in 1994 or 2010. No, the centrist deserters were swept up in the small government memes. These were not the red folks the author described; those other folks voted Republican throughout, honing to the Reagan dogmas.

I posted before the many benefits for workers that the Carter administration developed. Appointing Paul Vollker was necessary to stop inflation. And it worked, and Reagan got the credit.

The first Obama congress did not raise the minimum wage, but it had just been raised by the Democratic congress in 2007.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/eco...index.html

[Mikebert]

(08-01-2017, 09:10 AM)David Horn Wrote: Assuming you are right, and the author of the referenced article is as well, nothing short of a cataclysmic crash that triggers mass dislocation and even starvation is going to overcome that mind set. 

The last time it was an economic depression. They was no starvation. Indices of population well-being continued to rise: male height rose from 174.5 cm to 176 for 1930 to 1940; life expectancy rose strongly--by two years.  Neither is evidence of starvation.

Quote:As a nation, we can't survive that and rebound to anything greater than second class status, so another answer needs to be found. 

Why?

Quote:Bernie Sanders did yeoman's work trying to raise the flag and get things rolling, but we let that opportunity pass. 

No we didn't.  Electing Bernie would have been a mistake of epic proportions. Bernie is playing the role of John the Baptist.  His big accomplishment IMO opinion is in created the idea that the economy is rigged against working people. Similarly OWS created the meme of the 1%. Together the two link inequality and "rigged". 

Functionally, the *cause* of a great deal (not all) of our problems is high inequality.  "Rigging" is one way this is achieved. Republicans *after* the economy was rigged became the party of tax cuts.  Before the rigging was installed and Republicans were the party of tax increases.  You want Republicans to stop fighting tax increases tooth and nail?  To paraphrase Treebeard from LOTR: Break the rigging, release the river (of wage growth):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue_eOP4x_fo

My recent paper describes how the river was established in the first place.
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/42p5m46m

Quote:I'm convinced that this won't be fixed in our lifetimes,,

Why? So far the problem has left elites unaffected.  Do you think this situation will persist forever?

[Eric the Green]

There are virtually no "left elites." The elite are the wealthy, not the well-educated. Especially corporate CEOs and managers, and financial players. Stats show that economic elites vote overwhelmingly Republican and conservative. Meanwhile, well-educated folks can't find jobs, and employed left so-called elites like teachers and professors make only average salaries.

Republicans rigged the system, through tax cuts, gerrymandering, deregulation; substantially "30 fucking years ago" as George Carlin said in about 2000+. I agree with him!





Before that, if the economy was "rigged," it was rigged to benefit the middle class and force the upper class to contribute. To some extent, THAT rigging was bi-partisan, at least to the extent that Eisenhower and his moderate Republicans were the co-riggers. But even then, the rich Republicans protested. Remember how FDR described their hatred for him, and how he welcomed their hatred. They were outvoted, then, and through the 1960s at least. Then they were voted in, particularly in 1980 and 1984 (and of course, in 1994, 1998, 2004, 2010, 2014, 2016 etc.). But, they can be outvoted again.

[Mikebert]

Eric Wrote:There is little chance that a smart, center-left or left economic program that was actually implemented and was working-well would result in them casting votes for Democrats.

You contradict yourself here: In both 1994 and 2010, the people who voted Republican who had voted Democratic in the previous election showed no patience whatever. 
 
In both 1992 and 2008 Democrats won elections on the basis of economic issue.  They had NOT previously demonstrated their economic credibility, they won simply because voters were reacting against the prior Republican administration. And after winning control of the government what did they do economically? After 1992 it was NAFTA. After 2008 it was the stimulus.
 
I believe the stimulus was modestly successful, but such a perception is not obvious.  Democrat's own projections undermined the perceptual impact.  They issued a report that projected peak unemployment around 8%, compared to 9% without the program (see Fig 1 in ref 1)  The actual unemployment trajectory looked much like the “no stimulus” projection, which implies the stimulus did not work.  

Obama’s signature accomplishment, the ACA, was a complex program with many moving parts that was vulnerable to Republican rat-fucking.  Democrats made no effort to sell the program and they screwed up the rollout.  Recall that he 2013 rollout happened right after the Republicans had shut down the government, and were suffering the political damage from that.  Had the rollout been successful, in the wake of the Republican misstep, and then was followed the success in enrollment, the perception of the program at the beginning of the 2014 election year would have been much more positive.  Clinton had picked up seats in 1998, Obama lost the Senate in 2014 (and that cost us a SC Justice). It can be argued that the Obama administration dropped the ball on the ACA.
 

Quote:Appointing Paul Volker was necessary to stop inflation. And it worked...

What Volcker did (and subsequent Feds have done) is used interest rate policy to control inflation.  This policy works by preventing wage growth. If wages don’t rise, people stop buying stuff if the price rises, and inflation in the sort of goods and services working class people stops.  Inflation continues in the sort of stuff rich people buy (luxury goods, housing/property, education, medical care, financial assets etc.).

It DID work, wages haven’t risen significantly since and inflation in ordinary goods and services has been low.  If Democrats were willing to control inflation at the expense of their working class base, then there was no need for balanced budgets and high taxes on wealthy people that Republicans used to accept in order to get low inflation. Republicans overnight became the party of tax cuts and deficits.
 

Quote:The first Obama congress did not raise the minimum wage, but it had just been raised by the Democratic congress in 2007.

Yes they had, but to a level that Democrats believe was too low.  In 2009 they had a chance to rectify that situation.  They did not.
 

1. (http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf Figure 1).
   

[David Horn]

(08-01-2017, 10:39 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(08-01-2017, 09:14 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-31-2017, 02:56 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Flyover country was on track to a better developed future with higher educational attainment, prior to being decimated by globalism.

I don't think so.  Globalism would have been replaced by automation, leading to the same end.  Industrialization impacted society in much the same way, but there was a safety valve in all those industrial jobs industrialization created.  We don't have that this time.  Working smart is good for those who have the inclination and ability.  I think the ability is there.  I'm less certain about inclination.

Automation was being embraced by the Flyover workers. For example, the component stuffer learned first to operate the pick and place machine and then later how to program it. All of that was undercut by cheap humans, initially in Mexico and later in China. So even with automation assisted labor, the Flyover factories could not match the slave labor price point. Much later in the game, the non US places finally embraced automation. Had we kept it all here we would have been much further along with automation than the Mexicans and Chinese. We would have become the global experts in automation not to mention Boothroyd-Dewhurst.

Yes and no.  Offshore has the added cost of transportation; factories are returning as automation has improved.  Labor cost is less an issue now than it was just a few years ago.  If offshoring had been avoided, those few years would have delayed but not prevented the inevitable.  Automated production just needs many fewer workers, and they can be picky about who gets those fewer jobs, leaving the majority still in need of good paying work. 

I worked in a tech company (Ericsson) that had a design center collocated with a production facility.  In the 1990s, the factory automated rapidly, building cellphones  and cellular infrastructure.  The cellphone plant had fewer workers every year.  Only the infrastructure production needed a consistent level of human input, and they were all highly trained technicians and engineers.  Not much there for the high school graduate with no advanced training.

[David Horn]

(08-01-2017, 12:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-01-2017, 09:10 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-31-2017, 01:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I agree about the not-so beneficial impact of NAFTA, but your cart is before the horse on that. The Religious Right dates back to the 1970s, and probably its ancestors to the 1920s at least. Flyover country was taking refuge in and enclosing their minds in fundie churches long before NAFTA. The Bible Belt has a long history.

As the article mentions, it is more likely that fly-over country caused its own problems because of their retrograde ideas, values and votes, than by economic policies that ignored them. So, they feel their economic pain now, but their solution in 2016 was to vote for Trump. That just shows their apparently-incurable ignorance and inability to grasp solutions.

Assuming you are right, and the author of the referenced article is as well, nothing short of a cataclysmic crash that triggers mass dislocation and even starvation is going to overcome that mind set.  As a nation, we can't survive that and rebound to anything greater than second class status, so another answer needs to be found.  I don't have it, and no one seems to be proposing one either.  Bernie Sanders did yeoman's work trying to raise the flag and get things rolling, but we let that opportunity pass.  Trying a second time will be ignored in much the same way all other evidence-based solutions are ignored.

I'm convinced that this won't be fixed in our lifetimes, so our discussions here are of academic interest but little else.  If the right wins the day in this 4T, and they are heading in that direction, then the next 2T will either start the new ball rolling or it won't.  In any case, it will take another 4T to get it resolved.  The world will look dramatically different by then.

Maybe, but I think it's resolved in this 4T, or never. Otherwise, we decline fairly rapidly after this 4T, with NO further opportunity for change. There's time, because the climax is due in the mid 2020s, with the 1T due in 2028-29. That timetable is virtually certain. When 4Ts start moving toward resolution, change happens quickly, just as it also did in the 2T sixties years. It doesn't mean all problems are totally resolved in this 4T; just enough to permanently get back on the track of progress and rejoin the world movement, and put the right-wing crazies behind us as a minority no longer able to influence or dictate policy.

The only chance is if millennials vote and stay liberal, and if they and other voters stop indulging the crazies and reject their memes and slogans. If people would just vote, and vote correctly, we would resolve the problems fairly easily. We would have steady change for the better, if we could have a Democratic or otherwise moderate-to-liberal congress and president able to push past the obstructions, and stay in office longer than 1 or 2 years. I still predict this will happen, and have predicted such (and in the same time frame as I say today) for decades now. But we'll see what actually happens. I also would not rule out more drastic changes being made in the 2020s, such as transition to a parliamentary system, a new party system or a division of the country.

If this 4T had less in common with the last, I might agree.  This time, the reactionary side saw the problems coming (actually, much sooner than the progressive side), and prepared.  Killing off opposing power bases, like unions, and turning up the volume on religion as "the truth" makes it hard for any opposition effort to gain enough mass to succeed.  Add the use of aggressive voting tactics, and things don't look good.

[Eric the Green]

(08-02-2017, 05:06 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-01-2017, 12:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-01-2017, 09:10 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-31-2017, 01:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I agree about the not-so beneficial impact of NAFTA, but your cart is before the horse on that. The Religious Right dates back to the 1970s, and probably its ancestors to the 1920s at least. Flyover country was taking refuge in and enclosing their minds in fundie churches long before NAFTA. The Bible Belt has a long history.

As the article mentions, it is more likely that fly-over country caused its own problems because of their retrograde ideas, values and votes, than by economic policies that ignored them. So, they feel their economic pain now, but their solution in 2016 was to vote for Trump. That just shows their apparently-incurable ignorance and inability to grasp solutions.

Assuming you are right, and the author of the referenced article is as well, nothing short of a cataclysmic crash that triggers mass dislocation and even starvation is going to overcome that mind set.  As a nation, we can't survive that and rebound to anything greater than second class status, so another answer needs to be found.  I don't have it, and no one seems to be proposing one either.  Bernie Sanders did yeoman's work trying to raise the flag and get things rolling, but we let that opportunity pass.  Trying a second time will be ignored in much the same way all other evidence-based solutions are ignored.

I'm convinced that this won't be fixed in our lifetimes, so our discussions here are of academic interest but little else.  If the right wins the day in this 4T, and they are heading in that direction, then the next 2T will either start the new ball rolling or it won't.  In any case, it will take another 4T to get it resolved.  The world will look dramatically different by then.

Maybe, but I think it's resolved in this 4T, or never. Otherwise, we decline fairly rapidly after this 4T, with NO further opportunity for change. There's time, because the climax is due in the mid 2020s, with the 1T due in 2028-29. That timetable is virtually certain. When 4Ts start moving toward resolution, change happens quickly, just as it also did in the 2T sixties years. It doesn't mean all problems are totally resolved in this 4T; just enough to permanently get back on the track of progress and rejoin the world movement, and put the right-wing crazies behind us as a minority no longer able to influence or dictate policy.

The only chance is if millennials vote and stay liberal, and if they and other voters stop indulging the crazies and reject their memes and slogans. If people would just vote, and vote correctly, we would resolve the problems fairly easily. We would have steady change for the better, if we could have a Democratic or otherwise moderate-to-liberal congress and president able to push past the obstructions, and stay in office longer than 1 or 2 years. I still predict this will happen, and have predicted such (and in the same time frame as I say today) for decades now. But we'll see what actually happens. I also would not rule out more drastic changes being made in the 2020s, such as transition to a parliamentary system, a new party system or a division of the country.

If this 4T had less in common with the last, I might agree.  This time, the reactionary side saw the problems coming (actually, much sooner than the progressive side), and prepared.  Killing off opposing power bases, like unions, and turning up the volume on religion as "the truth" makes it hard for any opposition effort to gain enough mass to succeed.  Add the use of aggressive voting tactics, and things don't look good.

No, of course things don't look good. Do they ever look good in the middle of a 4T?

Saw the problems coming? I would put that differently, like, they ARE the problem. Maybe enough progressives didn't see them coming? Or if they did, they were outgunned during the 3T when neglect is acceptable.

But now we have a new generation, and a new urgency among progressives. So, things may be different, and will move forward in the 2020s. But, your pessimism does not seem unwarranted, and certainly I don't see much movement until the next cycle of the Establishment begins in Dec.2020.

As for what I predict, though, I'm sticking with what I have said about this era for decades. No reason not to; my record is good. Who woulda thought, for example, that my prediction of a refugee crisis affecting the First World after 2011 would be fulfilled? I still wonder at how fully that prediction came true.

[Eric the Green]

(08-02-2017, 09:00 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Eric Wrote:There is little chance that a smart, center-left or left economic program that was actually implemented and was working-well would result in them casting votes for Democrats.

You contradict yourself here: In both 1994 and 2010, the people who voted Republican who had voted Democratic in the previous election showed no patience whatever. 
 
In both 1992 and 2008 Democrats won elections on the basis of economic issue.  They had NOT previously demonstrated their economic credibility, they won simply because voters were reacting against the prior Republican administration. And after winning control of the government what did they do economically? After 1992 it was NAFTA. After 2008 it was the stimulus.
 
I believe the stimulus was modestly successful, but such a perception is not obvious.  Democrat's own projections undermined the perceptual impact.  They issued a report that projected peak unemployment around 8%, compared to 9% without the program (see Fig 1 in ref 1)  The actual unemployment trajectory looked much like the “no stimulus” projection, which implies the stimulus did not work.  

Obama’s signature accomplishment, the ACA, was a complex program with many moving parts that was vulnerable to Republican rat-fucking.  Democrats made no effort to sell the program and they screwed up the rollout.  Recall that he 2013 rollout happened right after the Republicans had shut down the government, and were suffering the political damage from that.  Had the rollout been successful, in the wake of the Republican misstep, and then was followed the success in enrollment, the perception of the program at the beginning of the 2014 election year would have been much more positive.  Clinton had picked up seats in 1998, Obama lost the Senate in 2014 (and that cost us a SC Justice). It can be argued that the Obama administration dropped the ball on the ACA.
 

I don't tend to agree with you there. I don't think Obama dropped the ball significantly. Obamacare was starting to work, and advertising was made to help sell the program and get people enrolled. It was voted against in 2014 because the Republican "anti-socialist" propaganda was effective. I don't think the facts had much to do with how people voted.

In 1998, if the people had had any sense, they would have voted out that right-wing "shut down" Gingrich/Lewinsky congress, not merely cut back their obscene majority a little bit.

In 1994, health care was also the issue, not NAFTA. The voters threw out the Democrats just because they tried to enact their "big government" reforms to which Rush Limbaugh and his listeners disagreed, and suffered the wrath of TV ads put out by the insurance industry (what were their names?) Meanwhile Bill Clinton succeeded to some extent to enact policies that helped the middle class do better than it had done under Reagan-Bush, including the minimum wage increase that Obama failed to enact, and refundable tax credits.

Quote:

Quote:Appointing Paul Volker was necessary to stop inflation. And it worked...

What Volcker did (and subsequent Feds have done) is used interest rate policy to control inflation.  This policy works by preventing wage growth. If wages don’t rise, people stop buying stuff if the price rises, and inflation in the sort of goods and services working class people stops.  Inflation continues in the sort of stuff rich people buy (luxury goods, housing/property, education, medical care, financial assets etc.).

It DID work, wages haven’t risen significantly since and inflation in ordinary goods and services has been low.  If Democrats were willing to control inflation at the expense of their working class base, then there was no need for balanced budgets and high taxes on wealthy people that Republicans used to accept in order to get low inflation. Republicans overnight became the party of tax cuts and deficits.
 

Republicans have been against tax hikes since the 1920s and probably the 1890s. Moderates went along with high taxes in the 1950s, which the Democrats had raised in the 1940s.

Quote:

Quote:The first Obama congress did not raise the minimum wage, but it had just been raised by the Democratic congress in 2007.

Yes they had, but to a level that Democrats believe was too low.  In 2009 they had a chance to rectify that situation.  They did not.
 

1. (http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf Figure 1).
   

I guess they failed at that. I don't remember whether a raise was even tried in 2009.

[pbrower2a]

Wherever people are on the political spectrum, people lack patience. Maybe that patience weakened as the GI Generation, with its optimism about organizations both private and public, aged out of the workforce, executive suites, and elective office. We are divided between concerns for social justice on one side profit irrespective of human and environmental cost.  It's easy to understand how to maximize profits: eliminate competition among economic elites, make sure that the common man must compete to keep his job, eviscerate unions if it is impossible to outlaw them, punish any effort at survival not approved by the elites, cut taxes for the elites, and make sure that hard work (even if mandatory) is ill-paid. For the latter the straw-man presents itself:


Suffer for MY holy greed, you expendable peon!


So far as I can tell that is what the worst of our economic elites want for us. If they get their way they can cull the population and reshape it into people who act and believe as demanded. The latter will force the needed patience until the system collapses in some war or economic calamity. 



Say what you want of the last vestiges of feudalism in western Europe, but they took a long time to die. Not until the volcano in Laki, Iceland erupted in 1784 did a series of crop failures make this caricature of a way of normal life



become untenable. There are plenty of super-volcano events possible, including the Long Valley caldera to which most of the USA is downwind, let alone the potential eruption of a volcano under Yellowstone National Park.


Maybe Donald V of the American Empire, and of the House of Trump infamous for corruption, callousness, and cruelty, will be in charge a the time... need I show an image of what happened to Louis XVI? Find your own image of a guillotine. But that assumes that our democracy dies in this Crisis with the establishment of an absolute monarchy. That will be in time for the Crisis of 2100, probably as global warming ravages coastal populations.

[David Horn]

(08-01-2017, 03:12 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-01-2017, 09:10 AM)David Horn Wrote: Assuming you are right, and the author of the referenced article is as well, nothing short of a cataclysmic crash that triggers mass dislocation and even starvation is going to overcome that mind set. 

The last time it was an economic depression. They was no starvation. Indices of population well-being continued to rise: male height rose from 174.5 cm to 176 for 1930 to 1940; life expectancy rose strongly--by two years.  Neither is evidence of starvation.

The degree of indoctrination, for lack of a better word, has been fine tuned this time -- much more so than the period leading up to the GD.  There are simply no strong countervailing institutions supported by the middle and lower middle classes similar to trade and industrial unions or even fraternal organizations.  The elites learned their lesson: kill the institutions first, and replace them with institutions favorable to the elite.  Fox News is a prime example.

Mikebert Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:As a nation, we can't survive that and rebound to anything greater than second class status, so another answer needs to be found. 

Why?

OK, a bit of hyperbole here, but one used to make the point that followed.

Mikebert Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Bernie Sanders did yeoman's work trying to raise the flag and get things rolling, but we let that opportunity pass. 

No we didn't.  Electing Bernie would have been a mistake of epic proportions. Bernie is playing the role of John the Baptist.  His big accomplishment IMO opinion is in created the idea that the economy is rigged against working people. Similarly OWS created the meme of the 1%. Together the two link inequality and "rigged". 

I agree that Bernie had little chance of winning, though beating Trump might have actually occurred.  Assuming he would have lost, he would have represented the Barry Goldwater of the left.  Goldwater lead to Reagan, and might have sooner if Nixon hadn't bungled things by being, well, Nixon.

Mikebert Wrote:Functionally, the *cause* of a great deal (not all) of our problems is high inequality.  "Rigging" is one way this is achieved. Republicans *after* the economy was rigged became the party of tax cuts.  Before the rigging was installed and Republicans were the party of tax increases.  You want Republicans to stop fighting tax increases tooth and nail?  To paraphrase Treebeard from LOTR: Break the rigging, release the river (of wage growth) ...

I assume the GOP will be the tax-cut party for the foreseeable future ... tax cuts and targeted spending cuts.  It serves their constituency.  Until their stranglehold is pried loose, I see this continuing with the increase in inequality continuing with it.

Mikebert Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:I'm convinced that this won't be fixed in our lifetimes,,

Why? So far the problem has left elites unaffected.  Do you think this situation will persist forever?

I don't see elites factoring in the decline in economic activity that too little disposable income is already creating.  So far, they've been good at squeezing more profits out of companies by squeezing the working class hard: offshoring, automaton and the use of contractors being the most prominent.  The real question, and you may have a belter handle on this than I do: when does this start to affect revenues enough to make squeezing ineffective?  In other words, when does the merry-go-round finally stop?  Will the capitalists be massively overextended when it does?  I don't see that happening soon enough to trigger the necessary backlash that would make this 4T progressive.  We have a 40 year pattern of this steadily gaing speed, and the LMC and much of the MC is firmly on the side of capital.   They blame the politicians.

Since we can agree that it isn't viable long term, then it gets resolved later.  The longer it takes to rise to the level that triggers a massive response, the greater that response will be. I'm not sure capitalism as currently understood can survive that.

[Eric the Green]

(08-01-2017, 09:10 AM)David Horn Wrote: The degree of indoctrination, for lack of a better word, has been fine tuned this time -- much more so than the period leading up to the GD.  There are simply no strong countervailing institutions supported by the middle and lower middle classes similar to trade and industrial unions or even fraternal organizations.  The elites learned their lesson: kill the institutions first, and replace them with institutions favorable to the elite.  Fox News is a prime example.

That's a good point. There are corners where the left messages get out, but they may not be venues frequented by middle and lower classes; such as late night comics, PBS and Meet the Press, the internet roots, etc. But the people in flyover country have had countervailing institutions rubbed out, and the main one left is the authoritarian church.

David Horn Wrote:I agree that Bernie had little chance of winning, though beating Trump might have actually occurred.  Assuming he would have lost, he would have represented the Barry Goldwater of the left.  Goldwater lead to Reagan, and might have sooner if Nixon hadn't bungled things by being, well, Nixon.

McGovern was already the Goldwater of the left. The hope for a Reagan of the left did not materialize. Oh well.

David Horn Wrote:Since we can agree that it isn't viable long term, then it gets resolved later.  The longer it takes to rise to the level that triggers a massive response, the greater that response will be. I'm not sure capitalism as currently understood can survive that.

I don't see that the USA can survive as a leading democratic country and economy if another entire saeculum must take place before it changes course. The forces of decline will prevail in that case. The momentum will not be stoppable. The backlash will have been robbed of any awareness or power to stop it, and the result of the overextension will be collapse pure and simple, augmented by climate collapse on a massive scale. A large middle class is usually necessary for a revolution to be successful, unless it's a temporary one soon taken over again by the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Eric the Green]

How we know America is sick.

1) There are "open carry" states.
2) The policy is carried out according to race.

[Mikebert]

Have you read my paper? http://escholarship.org/uc/item/42p5m46m
 

David Horn Wrote:I don't see elites factoring in the decline in economic activity that too little disposable income is already creating. 

You are right, but they didn’t last time either.
 

Quote:So far, they've been good at squeezing more profits out of companies by squeezing the working class hard: offshoring, automation and the use of contractors being the most prominent.

Yes, they have been. I don’t have comparative data for last time, but the crude proxy in my paper suggests they are doing a better job now, but then I would point out that we didn’t have WW I this time.
 
 

Quote:The real question, and you may have a better handle on this than I do: when does this start to affect revenues enough to make squeezing ineffective?  In other words, when does the merry-go-round finally stop? 

Short answer is I don’t know.  The experience last time suggests that once a sense of crisis was generated by the stock market collapse, elites came around. In summer 1932 Ben Graham (later called the “Dean of Wall Street”—Warren Buffet is his most famous protégé) wrote an article in which he stated one third of the NYSE was worth less than the cash they had on hand. That is, had private equity shops and the LBO existed back then those companies would have been bought, their employees dismissed and the physical assets liquidated, while the new owners would walk away with that cash they had bought for 90 cents on the dollar. Had this happened unemployment would have risen in 50%. And most of the rest of private businesses been wiped out. The state, would have had no choice but to act to prevent this by nationalizing all at-risk business in a controlled bankruptcy procedure that would wipe out the shareholders.  Much of the capitalist elite would cease to exist. Face with imminent risk of social death elites flocked to FDR and his “New Deal” as their last Best Hope. A massive bull market began (the greatest in history) in anticipation of their Savior. It was completely irrational; Wall Street later came to hate FDR. But in times of crisis human beings cling to life rafts, and FDR with his jaunty style and willingness to do what we necessary (he effectively ended the gold standard by presidential order—ending 200+ years of intra-elite argument, with the stroke of his pen). That simple act established the bottom and began 40 years of Democratic dominance.  It shows what the right person at the right time can do. But the timing is everything.  The grey champion must arise here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76cHROrZFNc
 

Quote:Will the capitalists be massively overextended when it does? 

If the capitalist crisis hypothesis is valid then the stock market has a “stealth” overvaluation.  And so yes, investors will be dangerously leveraged.
 

Quote:We have a 40-year pattern of this steadily gaining speed, and the LMC and much of the MC is firmly on the side of capital.   They blame the politicians.

They vote for the other side in times of trouble, that’s not the problem.  The issue is getting the capitalist elites to back off. Only financial collapse can do that.

[David Horn]

(08-03-2017, 11:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't see that the USA can survive as a leading democratic country and economy if another entire saeculum must take place before it changes course. The forces of decline will prevail in that case. The momentum will not be stoppable. The backlash will have been robbed of any awareness or power to stop it, and the result of the overextension will be collapse pure and simple, augmented by climate collapse on a massive scale. A large middle class is usually necessary for a revolution to be successful, unless it's a temporary one soon taken over again by the new boss, same as the old boss.

The US has a unique situation that makes a rebound possible for us that might not be for others.  First, we are very large, both in land mas and population.  Size matters.  Second, we have a wealth of natural resources to draw on.  Third, we have friendly neighbors, and one is physically as large as the US with even greater natural assets.

So, we can and most likely will recover, if it comes to that.

[David Horn]

(08-05-2017, 02:53 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Have you read my paper? http://escholarship.org/uc/item/42p5m46m
 

David Horn Wrote:I don't see elites factoring in the decline in economic activity that too little disposable income is already creating. 

You are right, but they didn’t last time either. 

Finally finished your paper, and agree with it nearly in full, including the issue of oblivious elites then and now.  It's easy to not-see something that is inherently distasteful.

Mikebert Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:So far, they've been good at squeezing more profits out of companies by squeezing the working class hard: offshoring, automation and the use of contractors being the most prominent.

Yes, they have been. I don’t have comparative data for last time, but the crude proxy in my paper suggests they are doing a better job now, but then I would point out that we didn’t have WW I this time. 

We also have technology now that was simply unimaginable then.  I'm not sure if the benefits outweigh the negatives, but the pace is certainly quicker now.  Shortening the analysis/decision cycle certainly increases risk, with extreme error being the most worrisome.

Mikebert Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:The real question, and you may have a better handle on this than I do: when does this start to affect revenues enough to make squeezing ineffective?  In other words, when does the merry-go-round finally stop? 

Short answer is I don’t know.  The experience last time suggests that once a sense of crisis was generated by the stock market collapse, elites came around. In summer 1932 Ben Graham (later called the “Dean of Wall Street”—Warren Buffet is his most famous protégé) wrote an article in which he stated one third of the NYSE was worth less than the cash they had on hand. That is, had private equity shops and the LBO existed back then those companies would have been bought, their employees dismissed and the physical assets liquidated, while the new owners would walk away with that cash they had bought for 90 cents on the dollar. Had this happened unemployment would have risen in 50%. And most of the rest of private businesses been wiped out. The state, would have had no choice but to act to prevent this by nationalizing all at-risk business in a controlled bankruptcy procedure that would wipe out the shareholders.  Much of the capitalist elite would cease to exist. Face with imminent risk of social death elites flocked to FDR and his “New Deal” as their last Best Hope. A massive bull market began (the greatest in history) in anticipation of their Savior. It was completely irrational; Wall Street later came to hate FDR. But in times of crisis human beings cling to life rafts, and FDR with his jaunty style and willingness to do what we necessary (he effectively ended the gold standard by presidential order—ending 200+ years of intra-elite argument, with the stroke of his pen). That simple act established the bottom and began 40 years of Democratic dominance.  It shows what the right person at the right time can do. But the timing is everything.  The grey champion must arise here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76cHROrZFNc

Here, we agree in full.  I can't see an emergent philosophy to counter the current one of "animal spirits will save us from ourselves if we let them".  The Democrats are lost in their own woods, looking desperately for an answer that works without alienating anyone.  So instead, they alienate nearly everyone.  The GOP has no ideas that aren't part of the problem, so where does this Grey Champion originate?

Mikebert Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Will the capitalists be massively overextended when it does? 

If the capitalist crisis hypothesis is valid then the stock market has a “stealth” overvaluation.  And so yes, investors will be dangerously leveraged. 

Unlike the time prior to the GD, huge amounts of capital exist in IRAs and 401ks.  If a massive decline ensues, I expect  an equally massive decline in spending by the not-wealthy owners of those funds.  If so this could be even larger in magnitude than the '29 crash.

Mikebert Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:We have a 40-year pattern of this steadily gaining speed, and the LMC and much of the MC is firmly on the side of capital.   They blame the politicians.

They vote for the other side in times of trouble, that’s not the problem.  The issue is getting the capitalist elites to back off. Only financial collapse can do that.

I we agree on that.