Market politics

[RABaby]

Everyone keeps talking like their are meaningful differences. Sure, there are small difference but both parties pander to money and purchase votes with debt. There are small differences but, for the most part, they are the same.

The only possible solution to the nature of human susceptibility to corruption is term limits. But we all know it is the corrupt who hold office and those who own those in office who oppose term limits. And while most people seem to agree that politicians are corrupt, I basically hear that they only want to get rid of everyone but their own elected representatives because they have seniority and that protects some concern of these people.

Obviously people don't want to take risks or give up anything. They want roads and bridges but they don't want to pay for it. Cities want growth but the voters don't want to pay for improvements that ultimately benefit developers and big contractors. Not to mention that whatever promises a politician makes to the community doesn't carry any punishment when the promise is broken. That means a 100 million dollar project that the people oppose but the officials somehow ram through will ultimately cost 250 million and put the burden on the taxpayers.

I advocate for the end of the death penalty except for politicians. Make a promise that costs people lives or money and for which there was loud opposition and the people prove to have been right and the politician either lied or personally benefited and we get to kill you - even after you leave office.

I admit to being an extreme progressive. While Warren and Sanders espouse policies I tend to support, they have shortcomings and they have succombed to special interests. I get my hopes up when a Republican speaks out against Trump, but then realize I am kidding myself when those same Reps vote for something that helps Trump but not the citizens - although there is obviously a big disagreement there.

The only positive thing is that we are all going to die. Yes, the frustrated ramblings of an old man.

 

[neroden]

When I wrote yesterday I hadn't seen Barack Obama's speech at all. We watched it in its entirety last night and I was struck at how he touched many themes I've been thinking about lately. He's one of those pragmatists who listened to all voices, but made the pragmatic decision.

I actually found Obama remarkably unpragmatic in the past, simply because he had a delusional, idealistic belief in bipartisanship -- he really thought Republicans in Congress were honest, reasonable people. *And they weren't* -- they were cult members. Has he figured it out yet?

With the Millennials coming along, the pendulum is beginning to swing towards the left. But as they get the reigns of power

"reins of power" (it's a horse metaphor)

*Post-Millennials* are now becoming old enough to vote, and they are so anti-Republican it's extraordinary (in a good way). There hasn't been such a strong partisanship in one generation in recorded polling history. (It might be comparable to the total collapse of the Federalist Party, but polling didn't really exist then.)

It's one thing to have a fascist party with a large support base of young thugs, like Hitler and Mussolini did, or like Orban does now... it's another to try to base your fascist party in people over the age of 45, usually much older, which is what the Republican Party is trying. I don't think it works, thank goodness.

 

[neroden]

The only possible solution to the nature of human susceptibility to corruption is term limits.

Term limits have opened up new realms of corruption. The real bosses, who have the funding, simply hire a new "horse" every four years and run it. None of the term-limited guys last long enough to start fighting their bosses.

I think the way to take money out of politics is to take away the money -- for an extreme thought experiment, if everyone had the same amount of money, then the only way to have more money on your political "side" would be to have more people on your "side", in which case, democratically, you *should* win. The underlying distortion is that some people have enough money to buy politicians, buy judges, etc. Many countries have figured out the solution to this, which is simply extremely high income taxes for extremely rich people, to reduce their wealth to the point where they can't buy Congress with pocket change. (You can structure it so that it doesn't hurt billionaires who use their money the way Musk does.)

Unfortunately, the billionaires who like to buy Congressmen have run a giant media campaign to convince the general public to remove the taxes which prevented them from buying elections. Successfully. There's a long story for how they pulled this off, mostly involving Ronald Reagan and racism; but I'm not sure how to stop this sort of thing in general.

 

[Unpilot]

I actually found Obama remarkably unpragmatic in the past, simply because he had a delusional, idealistic belief in bipartisanship -- he really thought Republicans in Congress were honest, reasonable people. *And they weren't* -- they were cult members. Has he figured it out yet?


"reins of power" (it's a horse metaphor)

*Post-Millennials* are now becoming old enough to vote, and they are so anti-Republican it's extraordinary (in a good way). There hasn't been such a strong partisanship in one generation in recorded polling history. (It might be comparable to the total collapse of the Federalist Party, but polling didn't really exist then.)

It's one thing to have a fascist party with a large support base of young thugs, like Hitler and Mussolini did, or like Orban does now... it's another to try to base your fascist party in people over the age of 45, usually much older, which is what the Republican Party is trying. I don't think it works, thank goodness.

But it did work...kinda...in 2016. The republicans won because most people sat at home on there hands. I do hope that the absolutely criminal crazy things the trump admin have done will pull enough people out of their strato-loungers to vote in the midterms and change the balance of power.

Or maybe we can throw the orange one in a orange jump suit.

 

[neroden]

Everyone keeps talking like their are meaningful differences. Sure, there are small difference but both parties pander to money and purchase votes with debt. There are small differences but, for the most part, they are the same.

No, there are ludicrously huge differences. You described the Republicans.

Al Gore is exactly the opposite. A dedicated public servant, thoughtful and devoted to helping people, and his record shows it very clearly -- he's been trying to save the world from global warming, he worked in Congress to fund the development of the internet when nobody else in Congress cared, etc. He won the popular vote for President in Florida and the US a while back, if you remember.

The media trashed him and pretended that Bush and Gore were the same, when they were *polar opposites*.

 

[neroden]

But it did work...kinda...in 2016. The republicans won because most people sat at home on there hands. I do hope that the absolutely criminal crazy things the trump admin have done will pull enough people out of their strato-loungers to vote in the midterms and change the balance of power.

As long as they're respecting the will of the people, we are doing OK.

The election theft in 2000, the extreme gerrymandering and malapportionment and the attempts to overturn the nonpartisan gerrymandering in Arizona and Pennyslvania, the insertion of the loser of the popular vote into the Presidency in 2016, indicate that the Republican party leadership does *not* really respect elections.

But they haven't gotten quite blatant enough for people to react the way AMLO did when his previous election was stolen (BTW... he's President of Mexico now, because they didn't dare steal his election a *second* time), let alone for people to go full revolutionary.

The thing is, when you look at the mood of late-Gen-X, Millennials, and post-Millennials... there's only so much they're going to tolerate. The Millennials and post-Millennials are much calmer than late-Gen-X like me are (probably due to less childhood lead), but they're not going to tolerate the removal of democracy.

In Hungary, Orban stacked the Supreme Court, controlled the media, gerrymandered the legislature, and basically installed himself as President-for-Life, but he's still respecting the form of elections. The opposition failed to unify. If at the next election they do unify -- and they will -- because the top priority for everyone is getting rid of Orban, and the polls say he's very unpopular (though he's tried to ban polls, too) -- *that* is when the real crisis point will come. Will he accept the election results, falsify the ballot counts, or shut down the elections? If he tries either of the latter two, he needs a gang of young thugs, and they need to outnumber the youth who oppose him. (FWIW, I think Poland is in better shape than Hungary because its quasi-fascist party seems to genuinely respect elections. Orban doesn't respect elections and wants to be dictator for life.)

The Republican Party is heading towards a similar crisis; the polling is clear; at some point they'll have to surrender to the will of the people or attempt to end democracy. I've been expecting they'll attempt to end democracy, since all the signs show that. That's when it turns into a free-for-all, and they may have a lot of guns, but they don't have a lot of healthy young people to carry them. Republican-appointed judges -- ones who weren't really cult followers -- are starting to smack down the more extreme attempts to subvert democracy, like the attempts to force Pennsylvania and Arizona to continue being gerrymandered. (Gerrymandering is considered holy by the Republican cult leaders because it keeps them in power, but the vast majority of the population recognizes that it's evil.)

We watched something similar during the fall of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev had enough credibility and respect that the whole thing was holding together despite massive stresses; but the right-wing coup leaders were perceived as illegitimate by *the vast majority* and the secessions started immediately.

Even when you don't have a democracy, perception of legitimacy is crucial in order to retain leadership. The Supreme Court no longer has it, and the Republican Party certainly doesn't have it -- and they have less and less of it in each younger generation.

 

[Unpilot]

I think what your trying to say is they are going to "age out" .

My son who is 22 tomorrow and a Poli Sci major says it best. He feels sorry for them. Tech is leaving them behind. Demographics are not...um..favorable. They are like a dying dinosaur in a death spasm.

 

[dmunjal]

There are some large, important differences, the environment probably being the most important.
Frankly it's the "they're all the same so it doesn't matter" attitude helped give is the current dumpster fire going on in the Whitehouse.

Let me put it in terms of the budget. The things that the government has some real control over.

If you add up all the things that both parties agree on (defense, corporate welfare, public welfare, bank bailouts, monetary policy), it probably makes up 90% of what the federal government spends money on.

The real differences are so small from a budgetary perspective that it equates to pennies on the dollar. Billions vs trillions.

I think I did the math and added up all the bipartisan policies that were passed like the bank bailouts, QE, and the seven wars (all still active btw) that we began since 9/11 and I came up with over $10T. It's probably much bigger than that.

You mentioned the environment but both parties will (now) take contributions from fossil fuel companies. This is after the DNC reversed a policy on that.

The two parties are the problem. Anyone defending the Democratic Party is ignoring what is really going on. I'm hopeful that Justice Democrats and progressives like Sanders, Khanna, Gabbard, and Ocasio-Cortez are going to reform the Democratic party.

 

[woof]

They are like a dying dinosaur in a death spasm.

Unfortunately, a thrashing dinosaur can do a lot of damage to the rest of us.

 

[wdolson]

Everyone keeps talking like their are meaningful differences. Sure, there are small difference but both parties pander to money and purchase votes with debt. There are small differences but, for the most part, they are the same.

The Democrats have absolutely nothing anywhere close to Donald Trump. The Democrats have been quick to cut loose most of their members who did things inappropriate. It hasn't been universal, Menendez is still there, but Anthony Wiener and Al Franken were forced out when their inappropriate behavior came to light. Wiener did do some pretty bad things, but what Franken's sexual impropriety was tiny compared to some of the things sitting Republicans have been accused of.

The deficit peaked in 1993 after 12 years or Republicans in the White house and then declined through all of Clinton's term until the end when there was a budget surplus. In 2009, the deficit was astronomical thanks to Bush IIs big tax cuts and lavish spending. The economy was also in deep trouble. The deficit declined most years of Obama's presidency (he inherited the 2009 deficit from Bush). Now it's exploding again.

When Jerry Brown became governor in 2011, California was in bad shape thanks to Republican mismanagement. He's turned around the state. He raised taxes which ticked off a lot of people, but it was the fiscally responsible thing to do. Calafornia's state domestic product has been going up since Brown took office.

I actually found Obama remarkably unpragmatic in the past, simply because he had a delusional, idealistic belief in bipartisanship -- he really thought Republicans in Congress were honest, reasonable people. *And they weren't* -- they were cult members. Has he figured it out yet?

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.

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.

"reins of power" (it's a horse metaphor)

*Post-Millennials* are now becoming old enough to vote, and they are so anti-Republican it's extraordinary (in a good way). There hasn't been such a strong partisanship in one generation in recorded polling history. (It might be comparable to the total collapse of the Federalist Party, but polling didn't really exist then.)

It's one thing to have a fascist party with a large support base of young thugs, like Hitler and Mussolini did, or like Orban does now... it's another to try to base your fascist party in people over the age of 45, usually much older, which is what the Republican Party is trying. I don't think it works, thank goodness.

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.

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.

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.

 

[bhtooefr]

Another consideration for a progressive wing to get votes: consider that there's more eligible voters who didn't vote than people who voted for Clinton, or people who voted for Trump.

There's quite a few people who didn't vote because they didn't like either option. That is a sign of a system that's already broken.

A significant portion of those are sympathetic to progressive politics, and if they show up because there's a candidate actually worth voting for, things can swing EXTREMELY fast.

 

[Intl Professor]

A lament in the name of Yada, keeper of the Temple of Ignorance:

"With enough money and ignorance, we have moved our misnamed Republic from Democracy to Mockery in one election."

A student when drunk at UC, Santa Barbara, used to hold forth with himself as "King of the Area." Equally drunk I was dubbed "The Ambassador from Sacramento," a comely lass, "The Dutchess of Cleanser," and another guy, "The Baron of the Bathroom." When asked what form of government he presided over, in a mock W. C. Fields voice said, "A Hypocrisy."

 

[Intl Professor]

Here is a scholarly report mirroring much of the skepticism here about Trump's policies.

Trump's Economy Is on a Path to a Bust

 

[N5329K]

Everyone keeps talking like their are meaningful differences. Sure, there are small difference but both parties pander to money and purchase votes with debt. There are small differences but, for the most part, they are the same.

I don't like to use the "disagree" button...it seems like an echo of the semi-anonymous nastiness that the web is otherwise overfilled with. But I do disagree with your contention that there are only small differences between parties.
There are small differences between venal men and women of both parties. They act in similar, self-interested ways as such people always have and likely always will.
But their are enormous differences in the parties themselves. What they stand for. Who they stand for. Elections and candidates really matter and to say otherwise only encourages voters to sit on their hands (or throw them up in the air).
We have seen, twice in recent history, where "there's no difference between these two scoundrels" leads us. It's a perilous place.
Robin

 

[lolachampcar]

Is that a Navion?

N5349K,
You are absolutely correct. I did not make a distinction between the idea of the two parties and what people think they stand for and the politicians running under those party banners. I'm a pragmatist so I look more at what people do then what they say. People, of course, are the party. One may be saying good things about the environment and the other saying good things about living within your means but if neither does either, the distinction does not really exist.

As mentioned in many other threads, money is the issue. I've been blasted for it in the past but, if 80% of the voting public decided money in politics was akin to yelling fire in a movie theater, we could start fixing this problem tomorrow. The fact that not only are we not trying to address the problem but that we are accelerating in the wrong direction tells me we are likely too stupid for our own democracy.

Every time I hear "that will never happen" all I think is "yea, because you say it will never happen". Somehow we were convinced we are not in charge. I disagree. Our vote works.

 

[wdolson]

Another consideration for a progressive wing to get votes: consider that there's more eligible voters who didn't vote than people who voted for Clinton, or people who voted for Trump.

There's quite a few people who didn't vote because they didn't like either option. That is a sign of a system that's already broken.

A significant portion of those are sympathetic to progressive politics, and if they show up because there's a candidate actually worth voting for, things can swing EXTREMELY fast.

I see a lot more disaffected centrists than progressives. Most of these people are center-right. The extremism in the Republican party has turned them off there and they see the Democrats as too liberal (whether true or not). In the last election most of the men I knew in this crowd voted third party because they couldn't stand Hillary Clinton, but saw Trump as an idiot.

Is that a Navion?

N5349K,
You are absolutely correct. I did not make a distinction between the idea of the two parties and what people think they stand for and the politicians running under those party banners. I'm a pragmatist so I look more at what people do then what they say. People, of course, are the party. One may be saying good things about the environment and the other saying good things about living within your means but if neither does either, the distinction does not really exist.

As mentioned in many other threads, money is the issue. I've been blasted for it in the past but, if 80% of the voting public decided money in politics was akin to yelling fire in a movie theater, we could start fixing this problem tomorrow. The fact that not only are we not trying to address the problem but that we are accelerating in the wrong direction tells me we are likely too stupid for our own democracy.

Every time I hear "that will never happen" all I think is "yea, because you say it will never happen". Somehow we were convinced we are not in charge. I disagree. Our vote works.

I watch feet too and I think that is the only way to get the true measure of what someone's true character.

Both sides have failed to do much about money in politics even though a very large majority of Americans want to see something done. This is a problem with both parties. But I pointed out some things in my last post which are clear differences between the parties that I think are very substantive.

I also keep stressing the right have completely controlled the political narrative for 30 years. For a while "liberal" was a bad name and that's why the term "progressive" became common. Trickle down economics has been gospel for all this time even though it's complete BS. At least some Democrats acknowledge that, but are afraid to talk about it much because they will be shouted down.

Any progressive ideas face very, very strong headwinds. The ACA destroyed the careers of many Democratic politicians and swept a large number of Republicans into office because the conservative media was so good as selling horse pucky about it. When Americans are asked about the individual provisions of the ACA, most provisions are very, very popular, but when asked if they support the ACA, a majority have said they don't.

It's the same machine that has gotten a segment of the population to vote against their own best interests for 30+ years.

The left is finding it's voice and the right's ability to manipulate the conversation is falling apart, but Fox News is still the most watched channel on satellite/cable in the US and conservative networks like Clear Channel and Sinclair are not broke. It's becoming harder and harder to keep up the lie when the people in power are so blatantly bad.

Propaganda is something the right got very, very good at doing and it has crippled the left end of the political spectrum from getting as much done as they would like.

The US has been through phases of politics called "party systems". FDR swept in the 5th party system, and Reagan the 6th. During each of these eras one party controls the narratives in American politics, even if they don't directly control the government. During the 5th party system the US had Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford. Under the lens of the 6th party system, all of these presidents would be considered pretty liberal. I saw a comparison of Eisenhower and Clinton and the conclusion was Eisenhower was to the left of Clinton in many areas.

The 6th party system is falling apart. GW Bush started the decay and Trump has shown the rot is very advanced. The end of the 2nd party system saw one political party collapse, the Whigs, and the Republican party move into the ascendant. The Republican today party is teetering. Trump is very popular among Republicans, but that's only because so many Republicans have left the party.

When one party system has ended, the political pendulum has swung the other way. That's almost certainly going to happen this was as the two youngest generations are very liberal.

But these swings take some kind of leadership to cast the new mold and I don't see a strong leader emerging who will lead that charge. Obama could do it today, but he's ineligible to run for president again. I saw one analysis of Obama that pointed out he had it in him to be a great leader like Lincoln or Roosevelt, but he came on the scene too early and wasted his chance due to being too green. If he had waited and gained more experience with the snake pit in Washington before running, he would have come onto the stage with more skills to work with. He ended up wasting his talent learning the ropes his first term and was hamstrung by a Republican congress more entrenched than usual in his second term.

I don't think many saw he would become a major force in American politics either. When he lost the nomination in 1976, many probably knew he would be back in 1980, but not with the coalition he put together or that American politics was going to shift. So the seed crystal for the 7th party system could be just about anyone waiting in the wings.

 

[N5329K]

Is that a Navion?

N5349K,
You are absolutely correct. I did not make a distinction between the idea of the two parties and what people think they stand for and the politicians running under those party banners. I'm a pragmatist so I look more at what people do then what they say. People, of course, are the party. One may be saying good things about the environment and the other saying good things about living within your means but if neither does either, the distinction does not really exist.

As mentioned in many other threads, money is the issue. I've been blasted for it in the past but, if 80% of the voting public decided money in politics was akin to yelling fire in a movie theater, we could start fixing this problem tomorrow. The fact that not only are we not trying to address the problem but that we are accelerating in the wrong direction tells me we are likely too stupid for our own democracy.

Every time I hear "that will never happen" all I think is "yea, because you say it will never happen". Somehow we were convinced we are not in charge. I disagree. Our vote works.

It was a Navion. And my favorite (I have had the privilege of owning three). Unfortunately, the gentleman I sold it to crashed near Truckee in July. He was killed, as was one passenger, with one other passenger just barely surviving. The airplane is no more.
Robin

 

[dmunjal]

Here is a scholarly report mirroring much of the skepticism here about Trump's policies.

Trump's Economy Is on a Path to a Bust

How does this scholar describe the Obama economy which created more wealth inequality than any other before him?

During Obama’s Presidency Wealth Inequality has Increased and Poverty Levels are Higher

Again, I point out that the two parties only work at the margins of the economy. Whether with tax cuts or with government stimulus. The larger economy is driven by the Federal Reserve, money supply, and interest rates. The boom/bust cycle can be traced to interest rates, the resulting increase or decrease of credit, and other Fed policy (QE) and not presidential or congressional policies.

The Federal Reserve Deserves Blame For The Financial Crisis

This sould be obvious given the last 20 years of economic history.

JoelHeyman on Twitter

97% correlation since the financial crisis.

 

[wdolson]

How does this scholar describe the Obama economy which created more wealth inequality than any other before him?

During Obama’s Presidency Wealth Inequality has Increased and Poverty Levels are Higher

Again, I point out that the two parties only work at the margins of the economy. Whether with tax cuts or with government stimulus. The larger economy is driven by the Federal Reserve, money supply, and interest rates. The boom/bust cycle can be traced to interest rates, the resulting increase or decrease of credit, and other Fed policy (QE) and not presidential or congressional policies.

The Federal Reserve Deserves Blame For The Financial Crisis

This sould be obvious given the last 20 years of economic history.

JoelHeyman on Twitter

97% correlation since the financial crisis.

The changes to the banking and financial institution laws starting in the late 1990s contributed too.

Obama only had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a majority in the House for a very short period and spent all that political capital getting the ACA through. When the Republicans were able to flip Kennedy's seat after he died, they filibustered everything and ground the Senate to a halt. The House passed bills at a record clip, but all but the absolute few must pass bills died in the Senate because the Republicans filibustered absolutely everything. That was new.

The resistance to Obama by the Republicans was at a level never seen in American politics. Obama ended up doing what he could with executive orders, but getting any meaningful legislation through was pretty much impossible. The Republicans were so obstinate they held up a Supreme Court pick for a year, something unimaginable in the past.

I've heard many say it was racism, but while I think that was a factor, it was also because Obama had a D after his name and the Republicans have become so radicalized anything a Democrat does is considered evil. Obama could have risen John McCain from the dead and the Republicans would still consider him evil.

 

[dmunjal]

The changes to the banking and financial institution laws starting in the late 1990s contributed too.

Obama only had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a majority in the House for a very short period and spent all that political capital getting the ACA through. When the Republicans were able to flip Kennedy's seat after he died, they filibustered everything and ground the Senate to a halt. The House passed bills at a record clip, but all but the absolute few must pass bills died in the Senate because the Republicans filibustered absolutely everything. That was new.

The resistance to Obama by the Republicans was at a level never seen in American politics. Obama ended up doing what he could with executive orders, but getting any meaningful legislation through was pretty much impossible. The Republicans were so obstinate they held up a Supreme Court pick for a year, something unimaginable in the past.

I've heard many say it was racism, but while I think that was a factor, it was also because Obama had a D after his name and the Republicans have become so radicalized anything a Democrat does is considered evil. Obama could have risen John McCain from the dead and the Republicans would still consider him evil.

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. Infrastructure? $15 minimum wage? Higher earned income tax credit? Jobs program?

Nothing he could have done would counteract the wave of easy money engineered by the Federal Reserve, zero interest rates, and $4T of QE.

The rich don't get rich on their salaries. They get rich on stocks and real estate. Fed policy has driven the stock market to all time highs (up 4x with FANG up 10x) and real estate has more than doubled in most markets. Even our favorite billionaire hasn't earned more than minimum wage but has increased his wealth 10x in 6 years.

The poor and middle class can't keep up with this kind of wealth growth with just their salaries. No president has a policy that can even begin to keep up with this onslaught.

Trillions vs billions. Do the math.