Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Admiral Yi]

Populism and protests are different things. 

As it is populists are just part of the political system, no better or worse than elites.  I think it's important to strike a balance between the two. 

Much worse.  Populists think there are simple, pain-free solutions to complex problems.

Europe's crisis is, to some extent, the product of an entirely elite driven process.

Could not disagree more vehemently.  Buying off voters with overpaid public sector jobs and unaffordable pensions is the quintessence of populism.

[DGuller]

The "corporations are people!!1" misunderstanding is one of things I like the least about the OWS movement and associated leftism.

Oh, you just mean you'd have sex with her?  Sure.  Me too.

That's the thing I like least about our current Supreme Court as well.    And no, I wouldn't have sex with anyone on there, and I'm not even wondering about it.

[Razgovory]

Populism and protests are different things. 

As it is populists are just part of the political system, no better or worse than elites.  I think it's important to strike a balance between the two. 

Much worse.  Populists think there are simple, pain-free solutions to complex problems.

Europe's crisis is, to some extent, the product of an entirely elite driven process.

Could not disagree more vehemently.  Buying off voters with overpaid public sector jobs and unaffordable pensions is the quintessence of populism.

I don't think that's the definition of "Populist".  What about Buying off voters with tax deductions?

[Berkut]

I wonder if the disconnect between the idea that NOT taking someone taxes is the same thing as the government handing things to people is the fundamental difference between the left and the right?

The idea that your stuff is really everyones stuff, and hence the state taking from A and giving to B is functionally identical to the state NOT taking something from A to begin with is so very....collectivist.

[garbon]

The idea that your stuff is really everyones stuff, and hence the state taking from A and giving to B is functionally identical to the state NOT taking something from A to begin with is so very....collectivist.

So very french.

[Razgovory]

I wonder if the disconnect between the idea that NOT taking someone taxes is the same thing as the government handing things to people is the fundamental difference between the left and the right?

The idea that your stuff is really everyones stuff, and hence the state taking from A and giving to B is functionally identical to the state NOT taking something from A to begin with is so very....collectivist.

At the end of the day, you end up with more cash in your pocket.  And tax deductions are very popular.  The similarities to bribing the electorate are very similar.  Whether you give money as hand outs or simply take less money the end result is the same.  An empty treasury and an entitled electorate.

[Grinning_Colossus]

I wonder if the disconnect between the idea that NOT taking someone taxes is the same thing as the government handing things to people is the fundamental difference between the left and the right?

The idea that your stuff is really everyones stuff, and hence the state taking from A and giving to B is functionally identical to the state NOT taking something from A to begin with is so very....collectivist.

The left's assumptions usually stem from a utilitarian/Rawlsian ethical framework -- the protesters are angry about society moving away from their perceived optimal utility calculus. OTOH, the right's ethics are usually underpinned by metaphysics or are otherwise somewhat... ad-hoc.

[Barrister]

I wonder if the disconnect between the idea that NOT taking someone taxes is the same thing as the government handing things to people is the fundamental difference between the left and the right?

The idea that your stuff is really everyones stuff, and hence the state taking from A and giving to B is functionally identical to the state NOT taking something from A to begin with is so very....collectivist.

The left's assumptions usually stem from a utilitarian/Rawlsian ethical framework -- the protesters are angry about society moving away from their perceived optimal utility calculus. OTOH, the right's ethics are usually underpinned by metaphysics or are otherwise somewhat... ad-hoc.

[Valmy]

I wonder if the disconnect between the idea that NOT taking someone taxes is the same thing as the government handing things to people is the fundamental difference between the left and the right?

I am unclear.  The right clearly sees tax breaks as a great way to subsidize and incentivize activity so the right clearly sees it as being the same thing to some extent does it not?

[Sheilbh]

Much worse.  Populists think there are simple, pain-free solutions to complex problems.

I suppose a definition of populism would be useful here.

My theory is that populists are basically anti-elite and anti-establishment.  They're driven by 'elite' dominated political process.  To an extent I think their politics, to the extent they have actual policy ideas at all, are driven in reaction to the perceived elite.

My example would be the Fed, which is almost the definition of an elite institution.  It's had huge influence over the past few years and a far more public role than it's used to or, I think, comfortable with.  Given that things are still tough and there's no sense of real popular control over it I think we've seen the rise of a populist anti-Fed position on the right and left (no longer just Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul working together) that maybe falls short of either extreme but is against rational, elite politics.

I'm not so sure about the OWS case because I think more time's needed to work that out.  But I read a poll of OWSers which found their number one issue was the perceived integration of business, particularly the finance sector, and politics.  As with the Fed this has always existed.  People at the top business and government will and should communicate, they'll both have knowledge that's advantageous in designing regulation or the like.  But what looked normal and acceptable a few years ago (like the Fed) can now look more like corruption and collusion - especially in the context of politics and executive remuneration carrying on as normal, even in bad year's for nationalised financial institutions.

I personally think the Fed isn't bad and has done pretty well in this crisis.  Similarly I don't think there is the massive corruption or moral failings in the finance sector or politics.  But if I speak to almost anyone else I realise I'm an outlier and there is still a huge amount of genuine anger out there (and it's not a left-right thing, my brother's a UKIP voting Cornish sailor who will breath fire on the subject of bankers) and it'll get taken advantage of by populists of all stripes to attach their policy views to the public's anger.  It's not enough for there to be reforms or change to address people's anger but it needs to look like it's being addressed or, so long as the economy's stalling, it'll just increase.  Populism's the thin-end of the revolutionary wedge and should be taken, not for something to sneer at (just look how that riles people) but as a warning that evolutionary change is needed or needs to be seen.

Could not disagree more vehemently.  Buying off voters with overpaid public sector jobs and unaffordable pensions is the quintessence of populism.

That explains budget deficits - even then scantly and with bias and I think it covers Greece and Ireland alone, at best.  But that doesn't explain the ECB's bizarrely inadequate response to the Eurozone's economic problems in general.  In addition I think Paul Krugman's right that this was an elite that created a monetary union without considering that things could go wrong, or explaining that to the people of Europe.  Now we're seeing how far they'll go to save that monetary union - having inadequately prepared voters for what could be necessary.  The problem is at no point did the elite of Europe explain that it effectively made a prosperous Dusseldorfer liable for a lazy Cretan tax assessor.  Similarly they never explained it would ultimately require swingeing budget cuts and tax rises, if things go bad, to be imposed by an outsider effectively. 

What makes the Eurozone crisis so difficult is that due to the absolute failure to countenance things going tits up, all the people of Europe, North and Southern Europeans alike, are being asked to do things they never expected and were never told would be part of the deal to keep everything going.  The danger to the Euro is the point when Greece decides they can't cut any more or the Finland stops being willing to pay for Greek profligacy. 

[Sheilbh]

I wonder if the disconnect between the idea that NOT taking someone taxes is the same thing as the government handing things to people is the fundamental difference between the left and the right?

If it's already part of revenue or proposed to be part of revenue how is it not effectively the same?

[Jacob]

I wonder if the disconnect between the idea that NOT taking someone taxes is the same thing as the government handing things to people is the fundamental difference between the left and the right?

The idea that your stuff is really everyones stuff, and hence the state taking from A and giving to B is functionally identical to the state NOT taking something from A to begin with is so very....collectivist.

I think it's more complex than just "all wealth is everybody's, let's redistribute" vs "all wealth belongs to whoever generates it".

I mean, when people are complaining about "Wall St. greed" they're also up in arms about the moral hazard of using tax money to bail out high risk investments the banks made, and the banks paying big bonuses to those self-same bankers.

As such you could argue that the disconnect is between people who think everyone's tax money should be given to corporations to line the pockets of executives (the right) and those who think it should be spent on the good of the populace as a whole (the left). Not that that is a more complex analysis than what you suggested

If I was to suggest one overarching theme to the the social and economic problems that face the US presently, it is that regulation in a number of key areas  - finance, health and education - has changed the systems such that tax money primarily goes towards generating private profit rather than provide for the needs of the populace; and furthermore, that huge amounts of personal debt has been generated for large swathes of the population to fuel the profit of the financial, health and education sectors. It's less about putting more or less money into the systems (though that might help things) than it is about making sure that the money in the systems actually serve the public good rather than simply generating profits for particular shareholders.

[fhdz]

As such you could argue that the disconnect is between people who think everyone's tax money should be given to corporations to line the pockets of executives (the right) and those who think it should be spent on the good of the populace as a whole (the left).

Actually I recall a LOT of right-wingers being upset about the bailout.

[Josephus]

Jacob: Well put.

[Berkut]

Jacob: Well put.

Oh yes, I am sure if you asked the typical tea party advocate, they would say "Oh yeah, I totally think that the government should tax us and give the money to giant corporations!"

The fundamental position of the right is that the government should not take money from anyone without a really, REALLY good reason. And even if we accept that some is necessary, it should be as little as possible.

What the government does with that money afterwards is a secondary issue, but giving it to anyone else (rather than spending it on things that only the government can do) is a bad idea.

So no, that is not "well put", it was pretty horrifically badly put - it is a caricature of the opponents position that even Jacob knew had no resemblance to what "the right" actually thinks.