Market politics

[neroden]

This has been going on since the 70s but accelerated in the 90s and even more so since 2008.

Tell me one law that Obama wanted to pass but couldn't that would have appreciably changed wealth inequality during his term.

Well, the problem is that Obama didn't want to fix things.

I can tell you the law I've been agitating for for most of my life. Tax capital gains and dividends the same as work (instead of the massive tax breaks for *collecting money without working* which we currently have) and have income tax rates up to 92% (as under Eisenhower) for million-dollar-plus incomes.

That would have appreciably changed wealth inequality. VERY FAST. This has been documented, since it worked when Woodrow Wilson did it and it worked when FDR did it and it worked when Atlee did it in the UK and so on....

 

[dmunjal]

What a ridiculous statement!

The fact is that the most important things the government does are actually *quite cheap*. The things the government has the most control over are often the least expensive.

The aggressive Republican project to force women to give birrth when they don't want to -- the budget is tiny, but the government has massive power by regulating medical facilities, which they can close down.

The project to clean up the environment -- OK, so cleanup of past problems is expensive, but the cost of sending regulators around to make sure companies aren't doing illegal toxic dumping is *really low*. But it's one of the most important things the government does, and the government has power nobody else has.

There's a lot of stuff like this. Transportation policy isn't really super expensive, but it's absolutely dependent on eminent domain powers. Land usage policy is kind of expensive, but again, it's the zoning and eminent domain powers which make the government *powerful*.

The most important levers of government are actually pretty cheap.


Oh, we are pretty much in charge. The DLC types (if anyone remembers them) are a waning faction.

What I'm saying is that the federal al government spends 90% of its budget in a bipartisan way. They agree a lot more than they disagree.

Let's say progressives would vote against $10T of funding that would go to defense or corporate welfare over the last 20 years. This is spending that was approved by Democrats and Republicans alike. Imagine what could be done with $10T domestically?

Establishment Democrats aren't going to go down without a fight.

Look at Donna Brazile's recent tirades. DNC chair is still an establishment figure too.

 

[dmunjal]

Well, the problem is that Obama didn't want to fix things.

I can tell you the law I've been agitating for for most of my life. Tax capital gains and dividends the same as work (instead of the massive tax breaks for *collecting money without working* which we currently have) and have income tax rates up to 92% (as under Eisenhower) for million-dollar-plus incomes.

That would have appreciably changed wealth inequality. VERY FAST. This has been documented, since it worked when Woodrow Wilson did it and it worked when FDR did it and it worked when Atlee did it in the UK and so on....

Obama didn't even want to close the carried interest loophole for hedge fund managers. The most egregious tax policy in the code, IMO.

 

[neroden]

He was naive early in his presidency, but he figured it out. By the end of his term in office it was obvious he didn't trust the Republcians. He played nice, but didn't trust them.

First he signed the bill to extend warrantless unconstitutional spying on all Americans, and continued to back unconstitutional spying in court. He refused to do what Keynes (and Christina Romer and Paul Krugman!) advised during the economic crisis, and instead helped out banks without helping out the general public. (The bankers were ungrateful.) Then he upped the drone murders and dragged out the losing wars. He attempted to open up offshore drilling, only backing off when the BP spill happened.

Then he gave away the store when he made the Bush tax cuts for billionaries permanent in exchange for a mess of pottage (temporary expiring provisions). That was the last straw for me.

Obama also enabled the spineless faction of the Senate Democrats, who allowed bills to be filibustered (the filibuster was removed as soon as the Republicans got into power, obviously -- Schumer knew this would happen).

Bluntly, Obama's long record of giving Republicans whatever they wanted is a large part of why Trump got as many votes as he did. Obama has been described as the "best right-wing President we've ever had".

Did you actually watch or listen to Obama's speech the other day? It's clear he doesn't have any illusions about the Republicans enabling Trump's dysfunctional behavior.

That's nice, but he should have done something while he was President.

I was looking at some demographic data about generation Z the other day. They are a mixed bag. Socially they are radically progressive, but they are one of the most fiscally conservative generations and are much more religious than the Millennials.

Most people don't understand money from the point of view of those who print it. I'm actually fiscally conservative, but I understand how money works. This is solvable by education.

As for "much more religious", I'm not seeing it; I think the meaning of "religious" has shifted over time. Percentage of atheists keeps rising.

The lack of youth backing for the extremists is a good sign. That reduces their chances of success. The GOP cult wants to lock in minority rule by them before the demographics makes it impossible to get anywhere.

Which they can't. Their minority isn't strong enough.

They can try to destroy democracy in an attempt to "lock in minority rule", but given their historic unpopularity, versus the very high popularity of democracy, all they'll do is lead to a bloody revolution in which the minority rulers are shot by the mob. I don't think being shot by the mob is actually what they *want*, but it seems to be what they're *aiming* for.

Putin cares about his popularity. Apparently the GOP doesn't (!?!)

The GOP has been collapsing since Bush II. The lack of an easy route for new parties to move into the majority and the vast wealth the GOP can tap, along with the alliance with Putin have kept them viable. Though the GOP will probably rip itself apart in the next few years if the Constitution holds.

If it doesn't, they'll still self-destruct. Just more bloodily.

 

[neroden]

What I'm saying is that the federal al government spends 90% of its budget in a bipartisan way.

Fair 'nuff.

I think on some of the most crucial non-budgetary issues -- like "should everyone have the right to vote" -- there are night-and-day differences. (Democrats support the right to vote, Republicans oppose it.) I think this is more important.

Establishment Democrats aren't going to go down without a fight.

That fight is happening and it's clear who's winning. Same fight happened in the UK -- establishment Labour has folded in favor of the progressives already.

 

[neroden]

One day, we'll wake up as a country and realize that the bipartisan support of the Federal Reserve is the real reason for our many problems.

Not exactly. Do you know the history of the Federal Reserve? Both supporters and opponents, generally, don't.

It comes out of a titanic political battle in the late 19th / early 20th century. On one side was the "Money Trust" (and googling "the money trust" is probably the best way to find articles about this). These were the private banks which printed nearly all the currency in the country and controlled the money supply. On the other side were Greenback supporters, Populists, Progressives, Free Silver types, and various other movements.

The power of controlling the money supply is twofold:
1 -- you make seignorage profits. You effectively skim off a portion of the economy in profits for yourself.
2 -- you can drive the economy into recession with deflation, or bring it out of recession, or cause inflation.

The private banks caused several major recessions, each worse than the last. The left-wingers fought to take control of the money supply away from them. They fought to keep control.

In the end, the final compromise was the Federal Reserve. The government received control over the policy decisions of how much money to circulate -- so that the private bankers couldn't induce recessions or inflation. But the private bankers got to keep the seignorage profits. And that is the deal which is still in place today.

I don't think the private bankers should be allowed to keep the seignorage profits. They've broken their side of the deal by lobbying government officials to try to get "backdoor" control over the money supply again.

 

[dmunjal]

Not exactly. Do you know the history of the Federal Reserve? Both supporters and opponents, generally, don't.

It comes out of a titanic political battle in the late 19th / early 20th century. On one side was the "Money Trust" (and googling "the money trust" is probably the best way to find articles about this). These were the private banks which printed nearly all the currency in the country and controlled the money supply. On the other side were Greenback supporters, Populists, Progressives, Free Silver types, and various other movements.

The power of controlling the money supply is twofold:
1 -- you make seignorage profits. You effectively skim off a portion of the economy in profits for yourself.
2 -- you can drive the economy into recession with deflation, or bring it out of recession, or cause inflation.

The private banks caused several major recessions, each worse than the last. The left-wingers fought to take control of the money supply away from them. They fought to keep control.

In the end, the final compromise was the Federal Reserve. The government received control over the policy decisions of how much money to circulate -- so that the private bankers couldn't induce recessions or inflation. But the private bankers got to keep the seignorage profits. And that is the deal which is still in place today.

I don't think the private bankers should be allowed to keep the seignorage profits. They've broken their side of the deal by lobbying government officials to try to get "backdoor" control over the money supply again.

My knowledge of the history of the Federal Reserve comes from a book called The Creature from Jekyll Island. And more recently from Collusion by Nomi Prins.

I am not against the idea of a central bank but our current Federal Reserve over the last 20-30 years has exceeded their mandate and caused more damage than benefit.

 

[Intl Professor]

Lots of interesting fireworks, guys. Thanks.

From a practical side what will save us ultimately are women, how they campaign and how they vote. The typical American male has more interest in football or women, and less on education. Look at enrollment in colleges and universities. Even in my day as a teacher women were much more numerous at the end.

 

[wdolson]

First he signed the bill to extend warrantless unconstitutional spying on all Americans, and continued to back unconstitutional spying in court. He refused to do what Keynes (and Christina Romer and Paul Krugman!) advised during the economic crisis, and instead helped out banks without helping out the general public. (The bankers were ungrateful.) Then he upped the drone murders and dragged out the losing wars. He attempted to open up offshore drilling, only backing off when the BP spill happened.

Then he gave away the store when he made the Bush tax cuts for billionaries permanent in exchange for a mess of pottage (temporary expiring provisions). That was the last straw for me.

Obama also enabled the spineless faction of the Senate Democrats, who allowed bills to be filibustered (the filibuster was removed as soon as the Republicans got into power, obviously -- Schumer knew this would happen).

Bluntly, Obama's long record of giving Republicans whatever they wanted is a large part of why Trump got as many votes as he did. Obama has been described as the "best right-wing President we've ever had".

He was a president in an era when the Republicans had the upper hand. Both Obama and Clinton had to be somewhat conservative just to get anywhere. Obama did have to make a lot of compromises. Some he did willingly, others he did unwillingly. I'm not happy with this list of sins either.

Most people don't understand money from the point of view of those who print it. I'm actually fiscally conservative, but I understand how money works. This is solvable by education.

As for "much more religious", I'm not seeing it; I think the meaning of "religious" has shifted over time. Percentage of atheists keeps rising.

I have called myself fiscally conservative at times, but that term has become muddied. I am for the sane use of money: don't spend money you don't have unless it's an emergency, try to waste as little as possible, but don't starve the system of important services in the name of "fiscal conservatism".

This is the article I found on Gen Z:
Conservative or Liberal? For Generation Z, It’s Not That Simple | HuffPost

Other sources say Gen Z has more Athiests than any previous generation. In any case, their idea of religion is probably not the same as previous generations.

I saw an interview with the plaid shirt guy the other day. He's the kid who was behind Trump in Billings, MT making faces at things Trump said. He's 17 and I was struck at how mature he sounded. Same thing with the kids from the Dorthy Stonem Douglas High School shooting. I thought the survivors of the shooting were a fluke because that school has a reputation for being above average, but here's another kid the same age from another part of the country.

I'm sure there are plenty of idiots among that generation, every generation has them, but the examples I've seen seem to be more mature than most kids that age in previous generations. I don't have kids so I don't have much first hand experience, only the kids I've seen on interviews and the kids of friends (who are mostly over achievers to begin with so I wasn't surprised their kids were driven to excel).

Which they can't. Their minority isn't strong enough.

They can try to destroy democracy in an attempt to "lock in minority rule", but given their historic unpopularity, versus the very high popularity of democracy, all they'll do is lead to a bloody revolution in which the minority rulers are shot by the mob. I don't think being shot by the mob is actually what they *want*, but it seems to be what they're *aiming* for.

Putin cares about his popularity. Apparently the GOP doesn't (!?!)


If it doesn't, they'll still self-destruct. Just more bloodily.

They are trying to and that's dangerous enough. A 2nd civil war would likely be even bloodier than the first. The geographic boundaries of the sides are not as clearly delineated as they were in the first war.

Nick Haneur, the Seattle entrepreneur has pointed out that if the wealthy continue this campaign of keeping everything for themselves, the pitchforks will come. It's happened many times throughout history. He also destroyed the trickle down myth pointing out that the last thing an employer wants to do is hire more people. They only do that if they have too many customers and you don't have customers if most people don't have money.

The push back appears to be coming electorally this year. I live in WA-3 congressional district. Our House Rep is a back bencher Republican named Jamie Herrera Buetler. This county is purple (went for Obama twice and just barely for Hillary) and has 2/3 the population of the district, but the rest of the district is fairly conservative. Buetler is from the next town over from ours and this is her home turf.

In normal election years, I see Buetler signs everywhere. The only signs for her I've seen this year have been on public property and those disappear after a few weeks. I had to take an alternative route into town today going around some road construction and went through one of the most expensive neighborhoods in this town. The only signs I saw were for Democrats. I have never seen that before.

WA-3 is a lean or likely Republican district according to the pundits, but it doesn't look like it to me. A heavy Republican turnout in the more rural parts of the district could overwhelm a mild Democratic win in this county, but it's looking less certain for Buetler.

Before we get any real change the memes we operate under need to change. It isn't enough that the Rs just change to Ds without the R messages going away. The Republican will lose the demographic war. They have backed the horse that is going to decline over time.

 

[lolachampcar]

And when a greedy, malicious jackass like Charles Koch or Robert Mercer or Sheldon Adelson decides not to do so -- and decides to instead spend his money trying to buy control of the government -- who's going to make him contribute?

Basically a government is the only thing which can force him to.


True, the guillotines of the French Revolution or the firing squads of the Bolshevik Revolution *will* make Mr. Koch and Mr. Mercer hand their wealth to society But while that *is* one way in which government can address the problem (and certainly the backstop if other methods fail), most of us would like a more peaceful option for dealing with such *antisocial rich people*.

Which is where progressive taxation comes in.

So, collectively, we are going to use the vote to elect people that are going to make amoral rich people do the right thing? Well, that is one approach but then where does the wisdom come from for government to motivate these people? This approach does not work and has been proven not to work over time.

If you want to emasculate the influential wealthy in this country and remove their undue influence over politics then simply remove the ability for them to legally use their money to influence politics.

Do not tell me it can not happen. If a vast majority of us say it happens then it happens. YOU just need to convince YOUR friends to act. I'm trying to convince mine

Now, if you want to tell me it will not happen because we can not work together to do it then I'm willing to believe that and will tell you that we have the government we deserve.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

So, collectively, we are going to use the vote to elect people that are going to make amoral rich people do the right thing? Well, that is one approach but then where does the wisdom come from for government to motivate these people? This approach does not work and has been proven not to work over time.

If you want to emasculate the influential wealthy in this country and remove their undue influence over politics then simply remove the ability for them to legally use their money to influence politics.

Do not tell me it can not happen. If a vast majority of us say it happens then it happens. YOU just need to convince YOUR friends to act. I'm trying to convince mine

Now, if you want to tell me it will not happen because we can not work together to do it then I'm willing to believe that and will tell you that we have the government we deserve.

I'm inclined towards this, because we all have different backgrounds with different ideas of what's needed to be emphasized.

Much like many of us agree that there's too much wealth inequality and then some just aren't doing their fair share, the flip side of that outlook is that there are too many free-loaders weighing down the system. The reason why some poor people voted republican, against their own interests, is because they viewed themselves as fiscal conservatives and consider the problem to be excess spending on "entitlement programs", e.g. welfare, medicare, and farm subsidies.

Although my opinion is that the abuse of the medicare and welfare system is a small price to pay for having effective programs, the fact that there is abuse stirs up righteous indignation with many people. And there's graft in various other programs as well. They're literally stealing from our hard-earned tax dollars. So while making healthcare universal would completely eliminate the issue of people underreporting income to get into the system, it won't eliminate abuse in the system (because human nature).

Can you get people to vote in higher taxes for the rich AND to turn a blind eye to graft in the various government programs?

 

[Intl Professor]

I haven't seen recent summaries, but probably the balance now favors the rich even more. The old rule of thumb was what we normally consider "welfare" costs in the budget roughly match "tax expenditures" benefitting the rich.

I wouldn't be surprised if a chart would show increases for the rich starting with Reagan and accelerating more recently.

 

[neroden]

I saw an interview with the plaid shirt guy the other day. He's the kid who was behind Trump in Billings, MT making faces at things Trump said. He's 17 and I was struck at how mature he sounded. Same thing with the kids from the Dorthy Stonem Douglas High School shooting. I thought the survivors of the shooting were a fluke because that school has a reputation for being above average, but here's another kid the same age from another part of the country.

I'm sure there are plenty of idiots among that generation, every generation has them, but the examples I've seen seem to be more mature than most kids that age in previous generations.

My strong belief about this: Less early-childhood lead poisoning. They aren't better educated (they are worse-educated actually), but they are, on average, more intelligent, less impulsive, and calmer, because of less lead exposure.

FWIW, Donald Trump probably had extremely high lead exposure as a young baby, given where and when he grew up.

 

[neroden]

Can you get people to vote in higher taxes for the rich AND to turn a blind eye to graft in the various government programs?

The government graft is almost entirely in the Department of Defense, which has never ever passed an audit. Rich military contractors just walk off with money. People seem to be willing to vote for that.

I think we can get people to vote to accept that maybe some sick people will get a little money they don't deserve, as long as we don't turn a blind eye to the funnelling of billions of dollars to rich defense contractors for weapons which don't work.

 

[neroden]

So, collectively, we are going to use the vote to elect people that are going to make amoral rich people do the right thing? Well, that is one approach but then where does the wisdom come from for government to motivate these people? This approach does not work and has been proven not to work over time.

If you want to emasculate the influential wealthy in this country and remove their undue influence over politics then simply remove the ability for them to legally use their money to influence politics.

Doesn't matter much whether it's legal to use their money to influence politics or not if they keep doing it.

Many of the ways the Koch brothers, Adelson, Mercer, Citgroup/Travellers, etc. have influenced politics *are* illegal, but they did it and got away with it by (basically) bribing politicians to stack the courts with corrupt judges.

Do not tell me it can not happen.

It cannot happen unless the money is taken away. As long as we have people with hundreds of billions of dollars in free cash which they can spend (as opposed to all tied up in R&D), they will find a way to use that money to influence politics. There are so many indirect ways to do it; it's like whack-a-mole to try to outlaw all of them, they just come up with new ways.

The only way to stop it is to take the money away. They can't use the money to influence politics if they haven't got the money. This works...

 

[wdolson]

My strong belief about this: Less early-childhood lead poisoning. They aren't better educated (they are worse-educated actually), but they are, on average, more intelligent, less impulsive, and calmer, because of less lead exposure.

FWIW, Donald Trump probably had extremely high lead exposure as a young baby, given where and when he grew up.

Probably more than just lead exposure. Though in ghettos the old lead paint has been sealed away in many places, though for the middle class and upper classes, lead paint has been out of their environment for quite a while.

In many parts of the US the environment is cleaner than it was when the Boomers and GenXers were children. I grew up when Los Angeles had many smog alerts a year. We had days when we couldn't go out for recess because the air was so bad.

I had chronic allergies throughout my childhood that left me with scarred sinuses and scarred lungs. I didn't know what it was like to breath out of both nostrils at the same time until I moved away from Los Angeles.

Before the mid-70s all cars were spouting lead into the air as well as the pollutants we could see in the air. As unleaded gas became the norm, older cars without catalytic converters were spewing toxins in the air as well as cars running cold (catalytic converters only work when they are hot). The number of cars without catalytic converters is down to a very tiny percentage of cars on the road and the newest ICE cars are cleaner than the early catalytic converter cars.

In addition to cars, a lot of other things have been cleaned up in the environment. Power plants have been switching from coal and oil (back in the 70s) to natural gas and, of course, renewables have been becoming a larger and larger part of the mix. A number of superfund sites have been cleaned up too.

 

[lolachampcar]

Doesn't matter much whether it's legal to use their money to influence politics or not if they keep doing it.

Many of the ways the Koch brothers, Adelson, Mercer, Citgroup/Travellers, etc. have influenced politics *are* illegal, but they did it and got away with it by (basically) bribing politicians to stack the courts with corrupt judges.


It cannot happen unless the money is taken away. As long as we have people with hundreds of billions of dollars in free cash which they can spend (as opposed to all tied up in R&D), they will find a way to use that money to influence politics. There are so many indirect ways to do it; it's like whack-a-mole to try to outlaw all of them, they just come up with new ways.

The only way to stop it is to take the money away. They can't use the money to influence politics if they haven't got the money. This works...

If money in politics is legal then it is legal to use money to influence politics.
First step, make money illegal in politics in all its forms. Yes, this will take a good bit of time as money, like water, seems to find its way into everything. It took a long time to get to where we are so it should not be an unreasonable concept that it will take some time to find our way out of this problem.

If money is illegal in politics then it is a crime to use money to influence politics.
Enforce the rule of law and put people in jail for using money to influence politics.
I reject the concept of taking X away from someone who is legally allowed to posses X simply to prevent them from breaking the law for multiple reasons-
(1) I prefer to live in a society where we raise people who can be trusted with sharp objects.
(2) The idea of taking cars, guns, knives, pens (for writing bomb threats) and the like away from our population to keep the very small percentage of them who might rob a bank from trying to do so is against the personal freedoms this country was founded on. Your logic would say that people get drunk and kill other people with their cars. All people that drink should have their car taken away. Sure, it works but at what cost as a society?
(3) Allowing a small group of people (those in power in government) to decide who has what money and how much money they have so as to limit those people's ability to do illegal things with that money is fraught with so many dangers I can not list them here.
(4) I know people who have money, guns and like sharp objects. They are good perfectly trustworthy people that do not deserve to be treated as you have suggested.

If bank robbery were legal, we would not have a banking system. Make money illegal in politics and you may have a functioning political system that actually represents the electorate.

Money is not the problem. Its just paper. It is what some people do with money that is the problem and that is what laws are for in a society that believes in the rule of law.

 

[neroden]

Probably more than just lead exposure. Though in ghettos the old lead paint has been sealed away in many places, though for the middle class and upper classes, lead paint has been out of their environment for quite a while.

In many parts of the US the environment is cleaner than it was when the Boomers and GenXers were children.

Practically all of it. I grew up in a nice semi-rural area with minimal industry, and the environment is *still* cleaner than it was when I was a kid -- they shut down the local lead bullet factory when I was two years old (it has been a Superfund site since then), and of course they got rid of the leaded gasoline in cars. (Horrifically, private planes are still allowed to use leaded gasoline, which is an atrocity and a crime against humanity.)

I grew up when Los Angeles had many smog alerts a year. We had days when we couldn't go out for recess because the air was so bad.

I had chronic allergies throughout my childhood that left me with scarred sinuses and scarred lungs. I didn't know what it was like to breath out of both nostrils at the same time until I moved away from Los Angeles.

Before the mid-70s all cars were spouting lead into the air as well as the pollutants we could see in the air.

Leaded gasoline burning is, historically, the major source of enviromental lead which poisons children. It's much larger than the lead paint or lead pipe sources. Trump was exposed to large amounts of all three; New York City had particularly high exposure due to high numbers of cars and trucks, ancient buildings, *and* gasoline refineries and chemical factories spewing lead in the air right across the river in New Jersey.

As unleaded gas became the norm, older cars without catalytic converters were spewing toxins in the air as well as cars running cold (catalytic converters only work when they are hot). The number of cars without catalytic converters is down to a very tiny percentage of cars on the road and the newest ICE cars are cleaner than the early catalytic converter cars.

In addition to cars, a lot of other things have been cleaned up in the environment. Power plants have been switching from coal and oil (back in the 70s) to natural gas and, of course, renewables have been becoming a larger and larger part of the mix. A number of superfund sites have been cleaned up too.

 

[neroden]

Your logic would say that people get drunk and kill other people with their cars. All people that drink should have their car taken away. Sure, it works but at what cost as a society?

Actually, I've advocated for much stricter driving exams for a long time. I have no sympathy for drunk people whatsoever. Driving a car on public roads is a privilege, and anyone who is driving while intoxicated should have that privilege permanently revoked. (Which does not happen currently.) But anyway...

The thing is, I'm practical. You're not. I've *watched* the history of "money out of politics" laws. They don't work when there are ultramegarich people around.

There's always another way to get the money back into politics, an indirect way. The only way to solve the problem is to make sure nobody is rich enough to buy Congressmen with pocket change. Otherwise there's always a way to indirectly buy a Congressman in a deniable fashion -- always. You name your set of laws, I'll tell you how to get around them.

If you reduce the maximum fortune (or increase the base wealth of Congressmen and judges) so that buying a Congressman or a judge is always *too expensive* to be done on a whim, even for the Koch Brothers, then they'll stop buying Congressmen and judges for funsies as they do now. Right now they can buy 'em without even thinking about how much it'll cost.

This is a tactical matter. I prefer to use tactics which actually work, rather than ones which don't.

 

[bhtooefr]

(Horrifically, private planes are still allowed to use leaded gasoline, which is an atrocity and a crime against humanity.)

And there's basically no emissions regulations on light planes, either, meaning that horrific amounts of unburned hydrocarbons during climb, and NOx during cruise are spewed. (This happens at high altitudes, which... is a double-edged sword, some pollutants AFAIK are worse at high altitudes, some are better at high altitudes.)

A lot of the aviation engines still being produced today are fundamentally 1930s technology: here's a huge displacement aircooled pushrod flat 4 with a carb or two on top, with manual mixture control during climb, and magneto ignition with fixed timing.

Granted, fuel injection is more common, but even then mixture control is often manual. On a few of the newer engine designs, watercooling is a thing. And, some engines are designed to run on "mogas" (unleaded, lower octane gasoline meant for cars), but often it needs to be ethanol-free for various reasons, so availability isn't great.

Europe is ahead on some of these regulations, and for a while, diesel was being pushed as the general aviation engine solution, but AFAIK the diesel stuff turned out to be too expensive and far too heavy (or rather, light diesels were tried, but they were too unreliable), so now it's basically "IDK, mogas and maybe fuel injection on a gasoline engine I guess?" for general aviation there (with some work being done on hybridization and electrics, but airplanes are far more weight sensitive than cars, and regen doesn't really help much because most flight is steady-state)...