I used to think of myself as a liberal (in the European sense) with a soft heart for social democracy. But lately, I have felt more and more alienated by the new left: race and gender-based identity politics are deeply off-putting to me, and so are the left's blind spots with regards to Islamism. At the same time, the right has not offered a coherent counter to what I see as major challenges, and instead is engaging in a funhouse mirror version of the left's identity politics. The alt-right and Trump are intellectually bankrupt and just recycle their old prejudices with a thin veneer of the kind of postmodern "power structure" terminology the left loves to use.
What's going on? Am I just getting old and crotchety, or has the tone of our public discourse really deteriorated over the last decade? Are the peddlers of oppression narratives firmly in charge? Where will all this lead? Elders of Languish, is this just a normal stage as you become older?
Soft heart for social democracy? Try soft head.
In Sweden all parties are collectivist nutjobs so I don't find any of them very attractive. Basing policy on stuff that actually works and not treating adults like toddlers would be great, but it won't happen in Sweden in my lifetime.
I reckon you spent a bunch of time on reddit and the chans and had the discourse there affect your perception of the world.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 15, 2016, 05:16:59 PM
I used to think of myself as a liberal (in the European sense) with a soft heart for social democracy. But lately, I have felt more and more alienated by the new left: race and gender-based identity politics are deeply off-putting to me, and so are the left's blind spots with regards to Islamism. At the same time, the right has not offered a coherent counter to what I see as major challenges, and instead is engaging in a funhouse mirror version of the left's identity politics. The alt-right and Trump are intellectually bankrupt and just recycle their old prejudices with a thin veneer of the kind of postmodern "power structure" terminology the left loves to use.
What's going on? Am I just getting old and crotchety, or has the tone of our public discourse really deteriorated over the last decade? Are the peddlers of oppression narratives firmly in charge? Where will all this lead? Elders of Languish, is this just a normal stage as you become older?
You should formulate your political views into a coherent ideology, publish them as a manifesto, campaign in your country's elections and over time gradually build up an unassailable electoral mandate. :cool:
Then screw around with an intern, loose all moral authority, be forced to resign and see out your retirement drinking from the bitter cup. :)
Yep. I think a lot of this is generally pretty niche stuff. It may, in twenty years when these guys are in positions of influence in terms of media and politics, become a real issue. At the minute on both sides these are groupuscules, especially the "alt-right".
Having said that I do think we're at an interesting moment politically. My view is that most of this stems from this:
(https://cdn-images-2.medium.com/max/800/1*y2ht7UBNRWCtexKGpyQoAw.jpeg)
Obviously the really sad bit is the very poor who remain locked out of growth and we should be cheering the growth incomes in emerging economies. But low-low bit who are the middle and working class of developed economies is a big problem and, because developed economies are democracies and vote, a big challenge to current politics. As a leftie I, unsurprisingly, think that we need huge redistribution in the West to keep things going and lift that "elephant's trunk" up.
Alternately, as I've said elsewhere, I think we could be at a period not unlike the seventies: an economic problem that seems insurmountable, student radicals getting involved in radical fringe politics, terrorism from radicalised young men across Europe, a collapse of trust in the establishment and a fraying political consensus (then social democracy, now liberalism). If that's the case there'll be a Thatcher and Reagan of the left or the right eventually, hopefully somewhere to devise an alternative - probably take it too far and get us back here in about 30 years time :ph34r:
If you're feeling alienated, you're free to subscribe to my nutty theory of political economy:
Globalization has turned the entire world into a single market, which applies to labor as well. Both push and pull factors (political instability + the effects of 1st world agricultural subsidies on the viability of local farming and the opportunities available in the cities/the West, respectively) are causing populations across the world to abandon their traditional lifestyles and move to places where more viable employment is available: urban areas in their home countries or Europe. This mirrors the process by which European peasants were pushed off of their land so that they could become an urban proletariat, keeping factory wages low.
Identity politics and the alt-right (which is really just white identity politics) represent a divide-and-rule tactic by the ruling elite to keep whites and minorities/immigrants from uniting and pushing for redistribution from the top or attacking the foundations of the world labor market. The elites get cheap services from the new expanded labor market, but their jobs are protected from wage suppression by the amount of education that they theoretically require. Immigrants benefit somewhat from the system as well, since their standard of living in the West, while not great, is better than what they had before, and they're more protected from conflict and can send remittances to their families. The old indigenous middle class is squeezed in the middle, but is falling into the trap of reacting by adopting grotesque and exclusionary politics.
The fact that the debate on immigration is limited to yes/no, in or out--and that the alternative solution of using increased development aid to ensure that people in the 3rd world have enough to live happily where they are and don't feel the need to leave, which would, in systems with progressive taxation, require more of a contribution by the elites--is rather telling.
[You could make the case that Islamism is also a reaction to the disruption of traditional lifestyles caused by the world market/capitalism, but I think it's a bit of a stretch.]
I think people are unhappy because they can no longer get a reasonable return from what they consider a reasonable effort. Most people realise that they can't be investment bankers or medical doctors. What they want is something less but still a reasonable status. Factory workers, truck drivers, bank tellers, etc. That used to be possible in the previous generations, but globalisation and automation have moved the effort and reward curve away from what people want. The reality is that the top gets most of the rewards. The difference between the middle and the bottom becomes increasingly indistinguishable.
People want change. I don't think they agree on what the end game is or what the path should be. But they agree that they don't like the status quo.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2016, 05:59:32 PM
As a leftie I, unsurprisingly, think that we need huge redistribution in the West to keep things going and lift that "elephant's trunk" up.
I always thought that redistribution was the key, in the first world anyway, to making this globalization neo-liberal thing work. But now I am not so sure. Even in places with well funded and generous welfare states aren't exactly happy. Pity because for the most part everything is going great. Emissions are going down everywhere but India. The world, despite the clusterfuck in the ME, has never been more peaceful or stable. Conservative towns in Texas are entirely powered by green energy. I think the future is bright.
Yet people seem to be getting so pissy. Maybe you are right and we just need to dial it back a bit.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 15, 2016, 08:10:08 PM
People want change. I don't think they agree on what the end game is or what the path should be. But they agree that they don't like the status quo.
I disagree. Everything in our lives is radically changing at a rapid pace. I think people want to return to the old days.
I remain to the right of Adolf Hitler.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 15, 2016, 07:49:30 PM
Identity politics and the alt-right (which is really just white identity politics) represent a divide-and-rule tactic by the ruling elite to keep whites and minorities/immigrants from uniting and pushing for redistribution from the top or attacking the foundations of the world labor market.
Hah. No way. The Alt-right is a creature of the internet. The elites are reacting to it, not causing it. And they seem to be taking a beating so...
QuoteThe elites get cheap services from the new expanded labor market
The elites would prefer everybody had shitloads of money, was happy, and were hailing their wise overlords. So I don't think so. It is not like they couldn't afford services in the past.
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2016, 08:33:33 PM
I always thought that redistribution was the key, in the first world anyway, to making this globalization neo-liberal thing work. But now I am not so sure. Even in places with well funded and generous welfare states aren't exactly happy. Pity because for the most part everything is going great.
Yeah but I think we've moved beyond the stage of a universal welfare state. That's why I think universal basic income may be a big part of the way forward, or maybe if someone could work out a policy for it, Ed Miliband's predistribution. The world as a whole is benefiting from globalisation, the elites of the West and the rest are benefiting - the group that is benefiting the least is the middle and working class in the developed world. There's enough of them in our democratic states to throw the whole thing away. So I think to keep the show going we need far more redistribution to that group which is huge - not means-tested or welfare measures but actually moving income.
QuoteYet people seem to be getting so pissy. Maybe you are right and we just need to dial it back a bit.
I don't want that to happen. I think it might be inevitable - if my whole seventies thing is accurate. I'd hope that what I say above would be sufficient to keep the liberal model rolling but I don't know.
... more seriously though...
I think the bottom line is that the political consensuses have gotten stale. The lessons of WWII have receded far enough that nationalism shading into bigotry is less beyond the pale than it used to be. The Soviet Union's collapse broke down the Cold War consensus (and another notable example of the ills of Totalitarianism). And the acceleration of free trade, the global marketplace, and entrepreneurial "disruption" in all sorts of areas has slowly been eating away at the social democratic consensus.
There's a bit of a malaise going around and the only big ideas being offered are re-heated nationalism, radical religion, and valorizing the entrepreneur-as-hero which isn't much to choose from IMO. Much as I'm aligned to some sort of liberal cosmopolitanism it often boils down to "let's just more or less muddle along" which frequently falls to be compelling.
So yeah... it's a bit of a mess. Gives me a bit of a before the storm vibe, to be honest.
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2016, 08:46:02 PM
So yeah... it's a bit of a mess. Gives me a bit of a before the storm vibe, to be honest.
It is a bit of a paradox isn't it? I hope you are wrong.
I think the weird thing is we are both boldly stepping forward all over the place, yet seemingly still in a bit of a muddle. The modern world is a complex beast.
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2016, 08:46:02 PM
So yeah... it's a bit of a mess. Gives me a bit of a before the storm vibe, to be honest.
Yeah. As I say it reminds me of what I've read of the 70s. I think it's potentially a similar breakdown of consensus, 'the old is dead the new cannot yet be born' sort of moment.
What's really difficult is to guess is what comes next?
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2016, 08:37:42 PM
QuoteThe elites get cheap services from the new expanded labor market
The elites would prefer everybody had shitloads of money, was happy, and were hailing their wise overlords. So I don't think so. It is not like they couldn't afford services in the past.
There's a normative element as well--they get to do well by doing good. They get to feel good about helping desperate migrants, plus now they can afford a live-in maid.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 15, 2016, 09:20:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2016, 08:37:42 PM
QuoteThe elites get cheap services from the new expanded labor market
The elites would prefer everybody had shitloads of money, was happy, and were hailing their wise overlords. So I don't think so. It is not like they couldn't afford services in the past.
There's a normative element as well--they get to do well by doing good. They get to feel good about helping desperate migrants, plus now they can afford a live-in maid.
Who are the "they" you are talking about?
Top ~5% of the income distribution. Not political elites or wealthy CEOs, per se, but thought-leaders and their extended networks--the politically-engaged lower-upper and upper-middle class.
I think we are heading (already in) a period of rapid change and that many of the changes could be very unpleasant. To answer the op, I turn 60 this year and regard the current situation as qualitatively different to earlier politics in western countries; when I was 40, for example, I was quite hopeful that New Labour would make major and lasting improvements to the UK; so I don't think one becomes an utter cynic as soon as youth departs.
I think I am doing it in reverse....
I was a Rush Limbaugh-listening, cynical, conservitard in my teenage years...now I am mostly a tree-hugging, recycling, folk music-listening, vegetarian hippie.
Winston Churchill, eat your heart out. :P
Though for actual, on-the-ground politics and politicians...I look down on them all with equal contempt. Even Bernie.
Sounds like Tony doesn't get enough protein. :P
I feel you, but I don't think the new left represents anything of the "European liberalism" any more.
From my classes on "history of ideologies" at college, I remember that, broadly speaking, the Western political thought is divided into three camps - liberalism (with John Stuart Mill and John Locke as its "fathers"), conservatism (with Edmund Burke) and collectivism (with Jean Jacques Rousseau).
It used to be that the left was a mix of liberalism and collectivism, but now I think it has moved almost entirely into the collectivist camp, with very little of true liberalism left. It may mean that liberalism has simply won and the other two ideologies describe differences within a liberal paradigm, so to speak, but I cannot help to think that both collectivism and conservatism are trying to erode liberal values, the key of which is freedom of speech.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2016, 09:16:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2016, 08:46:02 PM
So yeah... it's a bit of a mess. Gives me a bit of a before the storm vibe, to be honest.
Yeah. As I say it reminds me of what I've read of the 70s. I think it's potentially a similar breakdown of consensus, 'the old is dead the new cannot yet be born' sort of moment.
What's really difficult is to guess is what comes next?
My personal guess is the new split, at least in the wealthy West, will be between individualism and paternalism. But then libertarians have been saying this for decades and it has not materialised yet.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 16, 2016, 01:19:35 AM
I think I am doing it in reverse....
I was a Rush Limbaugh-listening, cynical, conservitard in my teenage years...now I am mostly a tree-hugging, recycling, folk music-listening, vegetarian hippie.
Winston Churchill, eat your heart out. :P
Though for actual, on-the-ground politics and politicians...I look down on them all with equal contempt. Even Bernie.
So, you mean you are both brainless and heartless? :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2016, 09:16:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2016, 08:46:02 PM
So yeah... it's a bit of a mess. Gives me a bit of a before the storm vibe, to be honest.
Yeah. As I say it reminds me of what I've read of the 70s. I think it's potentially a similar breakdown of consensus, 'the old is dead the new cannot yet be born' sort of moment.
What's really difficult is to guess is what comes next?
Which is what is different from the 70s. The post-war consensus had a clear challenger in monetarism/market economics etc. It was a reasonably coherent approach and had political support by the 1960s (Goldwater, Powell etc). It was only a matter of time before it captured the right in the US and UK.
That's not true right now. The anti-globalisation movement has no unity, no real common purpose and no coherent platform. It is purely oppositional.
What I've taken from this is that Sheilbh is a little too excited about the impact the 70s may have had on the world. And Grinning Colossus is just nuts. Well one of those things, I think we all knew coming in.
Quote from: Gups on August 16, 2016, 03:42:38 AM
The anti-globalisation movement has no unity, no real common purpose and no coherent platform. It is purely oppositional.
That's right - the idiocy of the Brexit vote is the best example. There are people who voted for Brexit because they felt the EU is too socialist and too immigrant-friendly - and those who voted for Brexit because they felt the UE is not socialist and immigrant-friendly enough.
I agree with the part that this is probably a byproduct of globalism - not globalism as an idelogy, but globalism as an economic fact of life.
As it was mentioned above, just like industrialisation uprooted the old rural communities, globalism is turning the whole world into a single market.
Objectively, this is hugely beneficial but like any big changes there are short-term losers of it and there is the significant issue of a lot of people being crap at accepting change in general.
The fusion of the world into a single economy is a huge shock, the issues within the Muslim world and Muslim immigrants into the first world (as in, cultural issues for both the migrants and the native populations) are the most prominent ones but I am quite sure there are a whole lot of others going on locally/regionally.
In the first world, I think it isn't that people (the middle class and the poor) are, in absolute terms, worst off than a few decades ago, that is just silly. Just compare the quality of life, the kind and level of services available etc.
I think that perceptation comes from two things:
1. Quality of living isn't just increased for the "lower classes" - it is increased for everyone, and due to the easy access to information and the way the media works this gap in lifestyle is probably more evident than ever. The poor is having a better lifestyle than their forefathers but apparently it's not a real consolation when the gap between what they have and what others have remained the same size.
And far more importantly:
2. With globalisation and the cultural change it has brought (political liberalism in the sense of more equal right to minorities), the ages-old protections that sheltered the economically not-so-useful parts of the population are fading. Namely, in economic terms, there are far less barriers between your low-to-no-skill job and that guy who is willing to do it for much less. You don't even need immigration for that, the job can just move abroad thanks to technology. Culturally, even if you were a largely worthless individual you were sheltered from the social implications of that due to your inherent status of being white and/or being a male. Simply, no matter what you achieved (or not), in your world you were not part of the lowest class.
To be fair, the economc uncertainty is the bigger factor.
Do not underestimate the negative effects of uncertainty. In Hungary, and I am sure in all other parts of the former Eastern bloc, many people long for the predictable secure blandness of the communist era.
Sure, your quality of life was pretty low (although nostalgia tends to blur that part out), but the little you had was guaranteed, and you could build your life with that certainty. What little was there to build, anyways.
In summary, if we scratch the surface of the problems of our times, if we remove the different ideologies used to mask and justify personal motivations, a very simple explanation remains:
The world is in an era of turbulent change for the better. Those who feel their status threatened by this change (a whole lot of people: unskilled workers, bigotted whites, muslim men used to being the dominant half of their civilisation by birthright, etc.), are more than willing to try and sabotage this rapid betterment of our human civilisation.
Yeah, in many ways, it's like the industrial revolution uprooting landed gentry. Only now it is happening on a global scale, with classes being replaced, broadly speaking, by nations.
So the Western nations are the equivalent of aristocracy - that is now being forced to compete on a global market.
Incidentally, and to go back a bit to Hami's original post, I don't think "classic liberalism" was ever truly popular as a political or social ideology. Just look at the incest thread - many people from both "left" and "right" are perfectly happy to deprive others of their freedom in the name of some nebulous "collective good", even when they admit the aforementioned "collective good" has no rational basis.
The path of freedom (especially freedom for people who are not like us to do things we do not like) is always rather lonely.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2016, 06:29:28 AM
Incidentally, and to go back a bit to Hami's original post, I don't think "classic liberalism" was ever truly popular as a political or social ideology.
Maybe you are right. At least people in postwar societies were sufficiently content to let broadly liberal elites run the show. That seems to be on the wane, and the choices are now authoritarian left and authoritarian right.
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2016, 08:46:02 PM
... more seriously though...
I think the bottom line is that the political consensuses have gotten stale. The lessons of WWII have receded far enough that nationalism shading into bigotry is less beyond the pale than it used to be. The Soviet Union's collapse broke down the Cold War consensus (and another notable example of the ills of Totalitarianism). And the acceleration of free trade, the global marketplace, and entrepreneurial "disruption" in all sorts of areas has slowly been eating away at the social democratic consensus.
There's a bit of a malaise going around and the only big ideas being offered are re-heated nationalism, radical religion, and valorizing the entrepreneur-as-hero which isn't much to choose from IMO. Much as I'm aligned to some sort of liberal cosmopolitanism it often boils down to "let's just more or less muddle along" which frequently falls to be compelling.
So yeah... it's a bit of a mess. Gives me a bit of a before the storm vibe, to be honest.
This looks basically like the POV of small-c conservatism: the present, while deeply imperfect, is actually pretty good (even if the recent past was better), the alternatives for change on offer all look like steps in the wrong direction. Better to make incremental improvements than the big, ugly changes that are being proposed; attempt to go back, insofar as possible, to a time when there was some sort of social consensus.
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2016, 08:17:18 AM
This looks basically like the POV of small-c conservatism: the present, while deeply imperfect, is actually pretty good (even if the recent past was better), the alternatives for change on offer all look like steps in the wrong direction. Better to make incremental improvements than the big, ugly changes that are being proposed; attempt to go back, insofar as possible, to a time when there was some sort of social consensus.
Small c conservatism doesn't strike me as all that bad these days. I could probably find quite a bit of common ground with someone holding this position. My problem is that they, like the old liberals, are in ever shorter supply.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 16, 2016, 09:42:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2016, 08:17:18 AM
This looks basically like the POV of small-c conservatism: the present, while deeply imperfect, is actually pretty good (even if the recent past was better), the alternatives for change on offer all look like steps in the wrong direction. Better to make incremental improvements than the big, ugly changes that are being proposed; attempt to go back, insofar as possible, to a time when there was some sort of social consensus.
Small c conservatism doesn't strike me as all that bad these days. I could probably find quite a bit of common ground with someone holding this position. My problem is that they, like the old liberals, are in ever shorter supply.
I tend to describe myself as a small-c conservative.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2016, 03:19:02 AM
From my classes on "history of ideologies" at college, I remember that, broadly speaking, the Western political thought is divided into three camps - liberalism (with John Stuart Mill and John Locke as its "fathers"), conservatism (with Edmund Burke) and collectivism (with Jean Jacques Rousseau).
Rosseau wasn't a collectivist though, he was utopian. The modern Left has drifted from both Millsianian liberalism and Bernsteinist collectivism (trade unionism, the universalist welfare state) under the influence of utopian ideals of perfectionism. That is where the oft-derided "identity politics" comes from - a drive to achieve a kind of perfected justice and meaning to every individual.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2016, 12:08:02 PM
Rosseau wasn't a collectivist though, he was utopian. The modern Left has drifted from both Millsianian liberalism and Bernsteinist collectivism (trade unionism, the universalist welfare state) under the influence of utopian ideals of perfectionism. That is where the oft-derided "identity politics" comes from - a drive to achieve a kind of perfected justice and meaning to every individual.
Is that what identity politics is about?
I mean, I get that there's a subset of people who is using political language to turn the conversation to be all about themselves; and there's another subset who seem to primarily invested in pointing out and denouncing people who are insufficiently pure in political position.
But at the core, it seems to me that a significant amount of the substance of what gets dismissed as "identity politics" are about fairly practical things - Black Lives Matter, gay marriage, trans rights, equality in the workplace and women entering various "boys clubs" are not just about utopian ideals of perfected justice and meaning to every individual, but about the distribution of power with material impact on the lives of subaltern groups much like liberalism, trade unionism, and the universalist welfare state.
BLM or gay marriage can just as easily be interpreted through the lens of Millsian liberalism. BLM is about the citizens fundamental right to security of every citizen irrespective of ethnicity - which is one reason why the response "all lives matter" is so extraordinary obtuse. Gay marriage is about a straight application (;))of liberal principles as can be imagined.
Of course the political mobilization and rhetoric underlying these movements is often cast in identity terms, both for and against.
Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2016, 12:30:31 PM
But at the core, it seems to me that a significant amount of the substance of what gets dismissed as "identity politics" are about fairly practical things - Black Lives Matter, gay marriage, trans rights, equality in the workplace and women entering various "boys clubs" are not just about utopian ideals of perfected justice and meaning to every individual, but about the distribution of power with material impact on the lives of subaltern groups much like liberalism, trade unionism, and the universalist welfare state.
Not in Sweden at least. Here it's identity politics through and through. It's no longer about women having the same opportunities as men, but about having equal numbers of men and women in various positions.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2016, 12:42:15 PM
BLM is about the citizens fundamental right to security of every citizen irrespective of ethnicity
Or rather it should be. Did you read their list of demands? Loony tunes. Pity.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2016, 12:42:15 PM
BLM or gay marriage can just as easily be interpreted through the lens of Millsian liberalism. BLM is about the citizens fundamental right to security of every citizen irrespective of ethnicity - which is one reason why the response "all lives matter" is so extraordinary obtuse. Gay marriage is about a straight application (;))of liberal principles as can be imagined.
Of course the political mobilization and rhetoric underlying these movements is often cast in identity terms, both for and against.
Yeah that makes sense to me. So, it seems to me, that the term "identity politics" is mostly used to dismiss legitimate concerns by claiming "you're just a spoiled person trying to make it all about yourself in your quixotic quest for identity, your concerns don't matter."
Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2016, 12:58:05 PM
Yeah that makes sense to me. So, it seems to me, that the term "identity politics" is mostly used to dismiss legitimate concerns by claiming "you're just a spoiled person trying to make it all about yourself in your quixotic quest for identity, your concerns don't matter."
The thing that worries me is it seems to provide excuses to attack people you disagree with as being outside enemies, if they are outside your identity, or traitors if they are inside it. Another reason to close ranks and hate outsiders and define people as 'others'. But I could be wrong about that. In any case that factor doesn't really matter in the context of whether or not concerns or causes are legitimate.
Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2016, 12:58:05 PM
Yeah that makes sense to me. So, it seems to me, that the term "identity politics" is mostly used to dismiss legitimate concerns by claiming "you're just a spoiled person trying to make it all about yourself in your quixotic quest for identity, your concerns don't matter."
That's how it is used negatively. My comment in this thread wasn't intended to take any particular position though. One could view the utopian drive to find meaning in individual identity more positively. One could also see "identity politics" as a way of forcing recognition of certain historical realities that tilt the playing field. I have sympathies for both those views. Of course all political claims can be subject to over-reaching.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2016, 01:09:31 PM
That's how it is used negatively. My comment in this thread wasn't intended to take any particular position though. One could view the utopian drive to find meaning in individual identity more positively. One could also see "identity politics" as a way of forcing recognition of certain historical realities that tilt the playing field. I have sympathies for both those views. Of course all political claims can be subject to over-reaching.
Yeah I pretty much agree.
Quote from: Tamas on August 16, 2016, 06:01:09 AM
The world is in an era of turbulent change for the better.
that is what you (edit: and everyone else, ideally. don't want to vouch for survivalists and such) hope. There are, throughout history, sufficient periods of turbulent change that were not for the better.
We'll know the answer once the turbulence end, but not before.
The problem with "identity politics" is that it often ignores a complex interplay of power dynamics between individuals and groups, reducing them to one or two defining characteristics, that could be entirely secondary in the context of a specific situation.
A perfect example is a group of hobos catcalling after a woman passing by in a Prada businesssuit. In an "identity politics" reading of the situation, she is a victim and they are oppressors - even though in fact she is infinitely more privileged than they are.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2016, 04:54:16 PM
The problem with "identity politics" is that it often ignores a complex interplay of power dynamics between individuals and groups, reducing them to one or two defining characteristics, that could be entirely secondary in the context of a specific situation.
A perfect example is a group of hobos catcalling after a woman passing by in a Prada businesssuit. In an "identity politics" reading of the situation, she is a victim and they are oppressors - even though in fact she is infinitely more privileged than they are.
They are still the aggressors in that particular situation. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2016, 04:59:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2016, 04:54:16 PM
The problem with "identity politics" is that it often ignores a complex interplay of power dynamics between individuals and groups, reducing them to one or two defining characteristics, that could be entirely secondary in the context of a specific situation.
A perfect example is a group of hobos catcalling after a woman passing by in a Prada businesssuit. In an "identity politics" reading of the situation, she is a victim and they are oppressors - even though in fact she is infinitely more privileged than they are.
They are still the aggressors in that particular situation. :huh:
Their "aggression" is relatively harmless and may be the only way they are allowed to react to a society which created such immense inequality in the first place.
In any case, if you misread a situation, you are not likely to arrive at a workable solution. Same if you concentrate on trivial things while ignoring the big problem.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2016, 05:03:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2016, 04:59:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2016, 04:54:16 PM
The problem with "identity politics" is that it often ignores a complex interplay of power dynamics between individuals and groups, reducing them to one or two defining characteristics, that could be entirely secondary in the context of a specific situation.
A perfect example is a group of hobos catcalling after a woman passing by in a Prada businesssuit. In an "identity politics" reading of the situation, she is a victim and they are oppressors - even though in fact she is infinitely more privileged than they are.
They are still the aggressors in that particular situation. :huh:
Their "aggression" is relatively harmless and may be the only way they are allowed to react to a society which created such immense inequality in the first place.
In any case, if you misread a situation, you are not likely to arrive at a workable solution. Same if you concentrate on trivial things while ignoring the big problem.
Well that's certainly a condescending response. They've no option but to yell vulgarities at the woman wearing Prada?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2016, 12:42:15 PM
BLM or gay marriage can just as easily be interpreted through the lens of Millsian liberalism. BLM is about the citizens fundamental right to security of every citizen irrespective of ethnicity - which is one reason why the response "all lives matter" is so extraordinary obtuse. Gay marriage is about a straight application (;))of liberal principles as can be imagined.
Of course the political mobilization and rhetoric underlying these movements is often cast in identity terms, both for and against.
I think this is a mischaracterisation of the "identity politics", at least to the extent it is being criticised presently.
The problem with it is that it is a reaction to the reactionary "majority is always right", by claiming that "minority is always right". Both views are dysfunctional. The proper response should be weighing of the conflicting interests of different groups and individuals and arriving at a conclusion that causes least unhappiness and most happiness (which is the classic utilitarian / eudaimonean response).
Besides I think you are tossing out all historical context. Society has always had established rules about social norms - what is and what isn't appropriate behaviour. Now previously in public what was and was not accepted was always determined by white men. What's the big shift if women and minorities have their voices heard?
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2016, 05:15:26 PM
Besides I think you are tossing out all historical context. Society has always had established rules about social norms - what is and what isn't appropriate behaviour. Now previously in public what was and was not accepted was always determined by white men. What's the big shift if women and minorities have their voices heard?
The trouble is in the example I made you are focusing on a relative inconsequential fact while ignoring a huge problem, that is income disparity and the likely fact that these men never had an opportunity to achieve the social and financial position that woman enjoys (and also that she is wearing a suit they would have to work for several years to earn). This is the problem with "identity politics" - it does not prioritise problems because of their societal effects or how badly they affect people - it prioritises them based on the identity of the victim.
So in this example, a minor inconcenience faced by the woman suddenly is more important than what seems like a huge inequality facing these men, because she is a woman and they are men. Identity politics at its finest.
And to elaborate on something Minsky said about gay marriage etc., popular attention in addressing social ills is subject to finite resources - both material ones and the number of fucks the public has to give. So while the ability to be able to get legal recognition for your marriage is indeed important, forcing some poor mom and pop to bake your rainbow wedding cake isn't - and I'd much rather have these resources being spent elsewhere - such as addressing growing functional illiteracy and reduced advancement opportunities among working class white males.
And this is not really even out of a goodness of my heart. I don't want there to be more people who would vote for more "Brexits".
It used to be that the ideal to strive for was a society where a person's race, gender, religion etc didn't matter, and what mattered was a person's ability and similar. With identity politics race etc are the things that matter, which seems to me to be a very unhealthy state of affairs and in fact the exact opposite of what would be desirable.
I think I hung out with my first transgender person on Sunday.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2016, 06:01:00 PM
I think I hung out with my first transgender person on Sunday.
As far as you know.
So how much of this is just hand-wringing from the sidelines?
I've a somewhat radical suggestion for some languishites, become involved in politics if you don't like the way things are going. :gasp:
Quote from: Gups on August 16, 2016, 03:42:38 AM
Which is what is different from the 70s. The post-war consensus had a clear challenger in monetarism/market economics etc. It was a reasonably coherent approach and had political support by the 1960s (Goldwater, Powell etc). It was only a matter of time before it captured the right in the US and UK.
That's not true right now. The anti-globalisation movement has no unity, no real common purpose and no coherent platform. It is purely oppositional.
Unless the populist right is that response? I mean Haider happened about 15 year ago and it's been a steady trend since then in Europe and now, suddenly the US. They may have less of a clear alternative but perhaps the challenger to our consensus is the populist right and the political capture will be the mainstream right sort-of capturing or falling to it.
Populist right came along in the US in the late 80s.
My take on Sheilbh's analysis from earlier is this: in the capitalist liberal system, there has always been a layer of "losers": people with poor education, skills, intelligence, what have you. As long as those people were a sufficiently small minority and they were take care of at some level, this wasn't a threat to the system. But now the constituency of these "losers" has grown such that appealing to them is close to a winning political strategy (see Trump and Trumpism).
I worry as inequality continues to soar and as the liberal elite fails to address this, the loser constituency will propel truly scary, illiberal authoritarians to power.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 16, 2016, 07:45:39 PM
My take on Sheilbh's analysis from earlier is this: in the capitalist liberal system, there has always been a layer of "losers": people with poor education, skills, intelligence, what have you. As long as those people were a sufficiently small minority and they were take care of at some level, this wasn't a threat to the system. But now the constituency of these "losers" has grown such that appealing to them is close to a winning political strategy (see Trump and Trumpism).
From what I've read, the core Trumpist constituency is not actually the losers themselves - in spite of the media narrative - but people who could perhaps be described as loser adjacent.
IIRC, the typical Trump supporter works in construction or owns a small construction company, makes above average income, has medical insurance, but knows someone who has been financially ruined by medical bills... something like that.
QuoteI worry as inequality continues to soar and as the liberal elite fails to address this, the loser constituency will propel truly scary, illiberal authoritarians to power.
I think that the scenario is possible, but if it happens it's won't be the losers who propel the scary illiberal authoritarians to power as much as the authoritarians purporting to speak for the losers and promising those scared of becoming losers that it won't happen to them.
Quite Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot shortly afterwards, but only now have they captured a major party.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2016, 06:25:35 AM
Yeah, in many ways, it's like the industrial revolution uprooting landed gentry. Only now it is happening on a global scale, with classes being replaced, broadly speaking, by nations.
So the Western nations are the equivalent of aristocracy - that is now being forced to compete on a global market.
The industrial revolution didn't uproot the landed gentry. But it did uproot, de-skill, de-value and ultimately wipe out the middle class of artisans. It pauperised them and I think that is a useful comparison. You have roles in the West that had social value. It's not unlike the weaver of old who was a Luddite who smashed looms that made his skilled, respectable work be done by women and children while his skill and social value was erased until he was a farm labourer.
The landed gentry were fine they survived for another hundred years or more - it was the skilled artisans and 'middle class' workers who were wiped out.
QuoteIncidentally, and to go back a bit to Hami's original post, I don't think "classic liberalism" was ever truly popular as a political or social ideology. Just look at the incest thread - many people from both "left" and "right" are perfectly happy to deprive others of their freedom in the name of some nebulous "collective good", even when they admit the aforementioned "collective good" has no rational basis.
That's because liberalism is the worst :x
QuoteMaybe you are right. At least people in postwar societies were sufficiently content to let broadly liberal elites run the show. That seems to be on the wane, and the choices are now authoritarian left and authoritarian right.
I think that depends on your definition of post-war. In the UK post-war society was very conservative and managed until the late sixties. It was, I think, similar in other countries like France, Germany and Italy - it was even more controlled in your Catholic authoritarian states like Spain and Portugal. The post-war era was managed economically and socially.
QuoteRosseau wasn't a collectivist though, he was utopian. The modern Left has drifted from both Millsianian liberalism and Bernsteinist collectivism (trade unionism, the universalist welfare state) under the influence of utopian ideals of perfectionism. That is where the oft-derided "identity politics" comes from - a drive to achieve a kind of perfected justice and meaning to every individual.
I don't think there's any drift though. Bernsteinist social democracy was always in competition with Kautskyist perfectionism. The argument has always been the relationship between the ideal revolutionary moment and the attainable reforms within the current system. I'm not sure the left has drifted so much as where we are in that argument has moved - from where we were in, say, 1960 to where we were in the 1910s. The argument strikes me as still very similar though there are always exceptions - historically the UK Labour Party was the only left-wing party in Europe founded on an explicitly reformist basis and now finds itself fighting off revolutionaries, the SPD were the theorists of a revolutionary and reformist ideal but now, perhaps, find themselves compromised. In the US the perfectionism has changed, elsewhere it hasn't, but it's been a fight on the left as long as there has been a left worth talking about.
QuoteThe thing that worries me is it seems to provide excuses to attack people you disagree with as being outside enemies, if they are outside your identity, or traitors if they are inside it. Another reason to close ranks and hate outsiders and define people as 'others'. But I could be wrong about that. In any case that factor doesn't really matter in the context of whether or not concerns or causes are legitimate.
Yeah. I've always viewed identity politics as the norm. What is the politics of class if not about identity? Or for that matter Conservative appeals to 'strivers' if not founded in identity? Or Maggie Thatcher's 'our people'? We've used different phrases for these sorts of politics but they're ultimately all based on how people identify and aspire - the only difference with current 'identity politics' from those is that it's being done by minorities - plus women.
QuoteTheir "aggression" is relatively harmless and may be the only way they are allowed to react to a society which created such immense inequality in the first place.
Their aggression may be relatively harmless in itself. But isn't in itself because it's happening in a context of women wearing skirts getting cat-called, women in work getting sexually harassed etc - and if you speak to women you know this stuff is so constant it's incredible. As a gay man I had no idea until recently because I don't experience it and I don't have a girlfriend so I see it as happening occasionally. But speaking with women it isn't it's several times a day at the low level - at what point does it cease to be relatively harmless?
I don't accept that the only way to react to society is through homophobia, sexism or racism. But obviously that act shouldn't somehow immunise him from compassion or anger at the structure of society - nor should it immunise him from social mores against sexism, homophobia or racism.
And I wonder, frankly, how you'd feel if he was Muslim? Would you have such sympathy for his social position in our unequal society if it was a Shah not a Shaun doing the cat-calling?
QuoteThe problem with it is that it is a reaction to the reactionary "majority is always right", by claiming that "minority is always right".
The majority is always right and there ain't nothing reactionary about it :P
QuoteAnd to elaborate on something Minsky said about gay marriage etc., popular attention in addressing social ills is subject to finite resources - both material ones and the number of fucks the public has to give. So while the ability to be able to get legal recognition for your marriage is indeed important, forcing some poor mom and pop to bake your rainbow wedding cake isn't - and I'd much rather have these resources being spent elsewhere - such as addressing growing functional illiteracy and reduced advancement opportunities among working class white males.
If only there were some middle way between forcing poor moms and pops to bake rainbow cakes and caring about illiteracy!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2016, 12:08:02 PM
Rosseau wasn't a collectivist though, he was utopian.
I would give you a substantial ration of shit about this, but you make people type too much in response, and I hate that about you.
Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2016, 08:03:41 PM
From what I've read, the core Trumpist constituency is not actually the losers themselves - in spite of the media narrative - but people who could perhaps be described as loser adjacent.
IIRC, the typical Trump supporter works in construction or owns a small construction company, makes above average income, has medical insurance, but knows someone who has been financially ruined by medical bills... something like that.
I claim nothing to understanding the Trump vote. The extent of my description would be white working class men.
I think there is useful cross-over with the analysis of which people are most likely to support Brexit and UKIP and they're not losers. They're the left behind: whiter than average, older than average, less well-educated than other generations. They're not necessarily poorer than average or the precariat. They're people who resemble the society they're from not the society they're increasingly living in and, I think crucially, they're the sort of figures who thirty years ago had quite high status but now maybe don't.
Edit: I suppose that while I think there may be a materialist element to this wing of politics, I think the immediate cause is a redistribution of status -'identity politics'. It's the loss of status that is more difficult to resolve unless we want to return to more sexist, racist or homophobic times ('fire up the Cuatro') and is more the animating factor in politics. I think there is something to Marti's industrial revolution idea even if I would focus on the artisan class and the victims of pauperisation rather than the gentry.
Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2016, 08:03:41 PM
From what I've read, the core Trumpist constituency is not actually the losers themselves - in spite of the media narrative - but people who could perhaps be described as loser adjacent.
That seems to go against the conventional narrative. Do you have some good sources? I'm genuinely curious.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2016, 08:19:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2016, 08:03:41 PM
From what I've read, the core Trumpist constituency is not actually the losers themselves - in spite of the media narrative - but people who could perhaps be described as loser adjacent.
IIRC, the typical Trump supporter works in construction or owns a small construction company, makes above average income, has medical insurance, but knows someone who has been financially ruined by medical bills... something like that.
I claim nothing to understanding the Trump vote. The extent of my description would be white working class men.
I think there is useful cross-over with the analysis of which people are most likely to support Brexit and UKIP and they're not losers. They're the left behind: whiter than average, older than average, less well-educated than other generations. They're not necessarily poorer than average or the precariat. They're people who resemble the society they're from not the society they're increasingly living in and, I think crucially, they're the sort of figures who thirty years ago had quite high status but now maybe don't.
Meh...it's really the same group of tone-deaf morons that has been convinced that welfare is destroying the economy by buying into the Welfare Queen myth, or how Affirmative Action has somehow up-ending the Order of Things, and sent the societal pendulum swinging the other way...the kind of guy that would say, "If blacks get a Black History Month, how come there's no 'White History Month'?" How Hillary is a Cunt, because...well, because. And so on.
These are not rubes or losers or redneck white trash. They're educated, professional, middle of the middle class. And a substantial number of them are not left behind; they just think they are--because they have found out that suddenly, after all this time, they are actually have to make room at the table for other chairs.
Trump consistently gets around 40% support in national polls. That has to cover a large spectrum of voters, not just the losers.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 16, 2016, 08:36:28 PM
Trump consistently gets around 40% support in national polls. That has to cover a large spectrum of voters, not just the losers.
My point is that the loser class (whether real or perceived) has swelled to a constituency large enough to fuel the Trump candidacy, even if he's well short of a real plurality.
But he only ever won a plurality of Republican primary voters. I think we overemphasise his success in a way. So in his current coalition is just the die hard Republican vote.
In my view he's adding to that in uncompetitive states and losing it elsewhere
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2016, 08:46:10 PM
But he only ever won a plurality of Republican primary voters. I think we overemphasise his success in a way. So in his current coalition is just the die hard Republican vote.
In my view he's adding to that in uncompetitive states and losing it elsewhere
Yes, I don't mean to exaggerate Trump's success. I still find it remarkable that he got this far with an "appeal to the losers" platform. This should ring alarm bells.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2016, 08:46:10 PM
But he only ever won a plurality of Republican primary voters. I think we overemphasise his success in a way. So in his current coalition is just the die hard Republican vote.
In my view he's adding to that in uncompetitive states and losing it elsewhere
Hillary Clinton is closer to winning red states than she is to losing swing states (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/16/hillary-clinton-is-closer-to-winning-red-states-than-she-is-to-losing-swing-states/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_daily202-1230p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
As an aside, Clinton is pulling her TV ads from Colorado and Virginia...some of the talking head shows were like, "huh?", as that is a questionable strategic this far out from the election...and even though it looks like it, I wouldn't take these leads for granted in a race that can still be tight, but I wouldn't want to overdose voters on her, either. Particularly hedged voters that are barely favoring her as it is, and are going to have a tough enough time being motivated to go to the polls in the first place.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 16, 2016, 08:56:34 PMYes, I don't mean to exaggerate Trump's success. I still find it remarkable that he got this far with an "appeal to the losers" platform. This should ring alarm bells.
assuming your posts here aren't trolls, I don't think it means much. his success in the primary is pretty easily explained if you think about the factors that resulted in his nomination. plus, he's a charismatic guy. you don't crash and burn an empire and bring it back as many times as him without being likeable to some degree
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 16, 2016, 08:23:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2016, 08:03:41 PM
From what I've read, the core Trumpist constituency is not actually the losers themselves - in spite of the media narrative - but people who could perhaps be described as loser adjacent.
That seems to go against the conventional narrative. Do you have some good sources? I'm genuinely curious.
This is the main article I read on the matter: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/12/a-massive-new-study-debunks-a-widespread-theory-for-donald-trumps-success/
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 16, 2016, 08:23:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2016, 08:03:41 PM
From what I've read, the core Trumpist constituency is not actually the losers themselves - in spite of the media narrative - but people who could perhaps be described as loser adjacent.
That seems to go against the conventional narrative. Do you have some good sources? I'm genuinely curious.
I think he is right. Trump supporters are not losers, they are people with something that can be described as "respect deficit".
Or as someone else has quipped, Trump put the final touch on the indentity politics but turning the white straight males into a victim group.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2016, 08:19:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2016, 08:03:41 PM
From what I've read, the core Trumpist constituency is not actually the losers themselves - in spite of the media narrative - but people who could perhaps be described as loser adjacent.
IIRC, the typical Trump supporter works in construction or owns a small construction company, makes above average income, has medical insurance, but knows someone who has been financially ruined by medical bills... something like that.
I claim nothing to understanding the Trump vote. The extent of my description would be white working class men.
I think there is useful cross-over with the analysis of which people are most likely to support Brexit and UKIP and they're not losers. They're the left behind: whiter than average, older than average, less well-educated than other generations. They're not necessarily poorer than average or the precariat. They're people who resemble the society they're from not the society they're increasingly living in and, I think crucially, they're the sort of figures who thirty years ago had quite high status but now maybe don't.
Edit: I suppose that while I think there may be a materialist element to this wing of politics, I think the immediate cause is a redistribution of status -'identity politics'. It's the loss of status that is more difficult to resolve unless we want to return to more sexist, racist or homophobic times ('fire up the Cuatro') and is more the animating factor in politics. I think there is something to Marti's industrial revolution idea even if I would focus on the artisan class and the victims of pauperisation rather than the gentry.
Yup. That's it.
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2016, 05:42:15 PM
It used to be that the ideal to strive for was a society where a person's race, gender, religion etc didn't matter, and what mattered was a person's ability and similar. With identity politics race etc are the things that matter, which seems to me to be a very unhealthy state of affairs and in fact the exact opposite of what would be desirable.
I think this ultimately comes from Marxism, which in some way and form has been dominating the left for over a hundred years. In a Marxist worldview, an individual has no autonomous agency, but rather belongs to a class or a group that defines his predominant interests, and a clash of such classes or groups is inevitable. This is really what identity politics is about, only classes based on wealth and education are replaced with classes based on sexuality, gender or race (in a sense, this shift in Marxism is not too different than the shift that occurred in Christianity in the first centuries AD - in both cases the ideologues realised that they won't get far by pandering only to the poor and need to coopt the rich somehow).
Another common thread between Marxists and identity politics "neo-Marxists" is their love for redistribution. They simply cannot fathom a situation where someone's material or symbolic status can improve without at the same time taking away from another person or group. Hence illiberal and inequitable monstrosities such as affirmative action or gender quotas.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2016, 05:19:23 PM
The trouble is in the example I made you are focusing on a relative inconsequential fact while ignoring a huge problem, that is income disparity and the likely fact that these men never had an opportunity to achieve the social and financial position that woman enjoys (and also that she is wearing a suit they would have to work for several years to earn). This is the problem with "identity politics" - it does not prioritise problems because of their societal effects or how badly they affect people - it prioritises them based on the identity of the victim.
So in this example, a minor inconcenience faced by the woman suddenly is more important than what seems like a huge inequality facing these men, because she is a woman and they are men. Identity politics at its finest.
I don't agree with that sentiment at all. I don't think a woman complaining about sexism detracts, distracts or prevents a discussion about wealth inequality. I don't think you have to be either for helping women or for reducing wealth inequality...I think you can support aims without feeling you have contradictory aims.
By the by, as S mentioned, I don't think cat calling is just minor harassment. Again not a woman, so not something I have to deal with much but I have talked with my sisters about it and how constant it is. Is it a matter of life and death? No. Is it thoroughly unpleasant? Of course. (In fact the only time I can properly recall being catcalled was at night when a car was driving slowly so the driver could shout out 'endearing' things to me. I recall being freaked the fuck out.)
Are you arguing that we can't complain or care about 'smaller' issues until we've managed to solve a problem that has more or less plagued humanity since the concept of wealth was created? What is it about complaints from women and minorities that bother you so much?
I am arguing that blowing relatively minor things out of proportion while at the same time ignoring big things is a sure road to a disaster.
Major things: Stuff that might affect Marty. Minor things: Things that probably won't.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 16, 2016, 01:23:21 PM
Quote from: Tamas on August 16, 2016, 06:01:09 AM
The world is in an era of turbulent change for the better.
that is what you (edit: and everyone else, ideally. don't want to vouch for survivalists and such) hope. There are, throughout history, sufficient periods of turbulent change that were not for the better.
We'll know the answer once the turbulence end, but not before.
Maybe, although debatable.
However, in our particular case, the positive impacts are impossible to ignore. Tens if not hundreds of millions are being rised out of poverty, there is an unprecedentedly free flow of information and knowledge that in turns fuels a level of innovation and technological progress unseen in our history.
Make no mistake: the "let's divide back into nation states and just stop this nonsense of not hating everyone outside of our tribe, because change is bad mkay" people are fighting this. Maybe not directly but in effect they are working toward stopping and reverting this process.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2016, 03:42:00 AM
Major things: Stuff that might affect Marty. Minor things: Things that probably won't.
Yes, catering for gay weddings does not affect me, but reduced opportunities for advancement for poor white kids do. Well done, Raz. You got me.
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 02:56:10 AM
I am arguing that blowing relatively minor things out of proportion while at the same time ignoring big things is a sure road to a disaster.
Are they doing that? What sort of level of discourse / engagement do these masses need to be undertaking to not be considered as ignoring "big things" in your opinion?
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2016, 05:57:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 02:56:10 AM
I am arguing that blowing relatively minor things out of proportion while at the same time ignoring big things is a sure road to a disaster.
Are they doing that? What sort of level of discourse / engagement do these masses need to be undertaking to not be considered as ignoring "big things" in your opinion?
Well, I already gave you a couple of examples. Income disparity, reduced opportunities for people born to working class parents, that kind of thing. Anything that prevents children to achieve more than their parents did.
I am not sure that focusing on homophobic bakeries and use of right bathrooms is the productive use of our resources.
Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2016, 11:17:27 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 16, 2016, 08:23:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2016, 08:03:41 PM
From what I've read, the core Trumpist constituency is not actually the losers themselves - in spite of the media narrative - but people who could perhaps be described as loser adjacent.
That seems to go against the conventional narrative. Do you have some good sources? I'm genuinely curious.
This is the main article I read on the matter: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/12/a-massive-new-study-debunks-a-widespread-theory-for-donald-trumps-success/
Thanks!
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 06:19:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2016, 05:57:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 02:56:10 AM
I am arguing that blowing relatively minor things out of proportion while at the same time ignoring big things is a sure road to a disaster.
Are they doing that? What sort of level of discourse / engagement do these masses need to be undertaking to not be considered as ignoring "big things" in your opinion?
Well, I already gave you a couple of examples. Income disparity, reduced opportunities for people born to working class parents, that kind of thing. Anything that prevents children to achieve more than their parents did.
I am not sure that focusing on homophobic bakeries and use of right bathrooms is the productive use of our resources.
That's not what I meant. I meant are you saying that people aren't discussing those topics? I think those are pretty much the main topics discussed by young liberals in America (aka those who in large part when for Bernie). Who is it that is not discussing these things?
Productive use of resources? What are these resources? People's free time spent discussing issues?
By the by, presumably it is easier for lawmakers to pass said regressive laws on bathroom use than actually fix systemic issues, no?
Most questions that you are asking have been addressed in my earlier posts. If your idea of contributing to the society is to engage in discussions (and just that), then I guess we have an entirely different view of what productive means.
Perhaps focusing less on "engaging in a discourse" would be a good start. ;)
But yes I do think that the public has a finite (and very limited) attention span, so it is very easy to distract the public (which already is quite dumb) from real and important issues by bullshit trivial stuff, such as bathrooms for trannies, cakes for gay weddings, catcalling or online bullying.
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 06:24:53 AM
Most questions that you are asking have been addressed in my earlier posts. If your idea of contributing to the society is to engage in discussions (and just that), then I guess we have an entirely different view of what productive means.
Perhaps focusing less on "engaging in a discourse" would be a good start. ;)
I just did a quick scan and I'm not sure you've actually advanced what you want to see the masses doing instead. I saw this but there's little there as to what people should actually be doing (apart from engaging in discourse ;)).
"addressing growing functional illiteracy and reduced advancement opportunities among working class white males. "
If it action you want the common citizen to be taking, then why don't you put your money where your mouth is. As a relatively well off person, you probably have a lot of money that you could be donating to make substantive changes (donations, setting up advocacy groups, funding orgs who fight about the big issues). Some of that money you set aside for holiday and redecorating for instance.
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 06:30:46 AM
But yes I do think that the public has a finite (and very limited) attention span, so it is very easy to distract the public (which already is quite dumb) from real and important issues by bullshit trivial stuff, such as bathrooms for trannies, cakes for gay weddings, catcalling or online bullying.
Who then is to be blamed for the 'distraction'? Is it the person who vents about how they were mistreated, the bloggers, the media for the stories they care to present, the lawmakers who initiate frenzies when they spend time passing regressive laws for no real reason?
It does get wearisome when hunting for something somebody did somewhere in the country that was insulting to somebody is considered bit news. But my strategy is to stay off twitter and facebook. There. Problem solved.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2016, 08:17:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2016, 12:08:02 PM
Rosseau wasn't a collectivist though, he was utopian.
I would give you a substantial ration of shit about this, but you make people type too much in response, and I hate that about you.
it's a debatable point, sure. Contrat social is not a model of clarity. But IMO Emile is the key to understanding him.
see just 22 words.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 17, 2016, 09:40:26 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2016, 08:17:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2016, 12:08:02 PM
Rosseau wasn't a collectivist though, he was utopian.
I would give you a substantial ration of shit about this, but you make people type too much in response, and I hate that about you.
it's a debatable point, sure. Contrat social is not a model of clarity. But IMO Emile is the key to understanding him.
see just 22 words.
You haven't seen how much he has to type in response yet. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 04:49:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2016, 03:42:00 AM
Major things: Stuff that might affect Marty. Minor things: Things that probably won't.
Yes, catering for gay weddings does not affect me, but reduced opportunities for advancement for poor white kids do. Well done, Raz. You got me.
You mean the ones you dismissively call "the poors" and "Crotch fruit"?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2016, 09:44:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 04:49:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2016, 03:42:00 AM
Major things: Stuff that might affect Marty. Minor things: Things that probably won't.
Yes, catering for gay weddings does not affect me, but reduced opportunities for advancement for poor white kids do. Well done, Raz. You got me.
You mean the ones you dismissively call "the poors" and "Crotch fruit"?
Does anyone know what he is talking about?
But Raz being crotch fruit unites all of humanity!
Well most of humanity. I am sure there are a few unique snowflakes out there.
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 09:59:14 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2016, 09:44:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 04:49:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2016, 03:42:00 AM
Major things: Stuff that might affect Marty. Minor things: Things that probably won't.
Yes, catering for gay weddings does not affect me, but reduced opportunities for advancement for poor white kids do. Well done, Raz. You got me.
You mean the ones you dismissively call "the poors" and "Crotch fruit"?
Does anyone know what he is talking about?
Previous statements you have made. You have demonstrated contempt for the poor, children, women who have children etc.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2016, 10:54:09 AM
Previous statements you have made. You have demonstrated contempt for the poor, children, women who have children etc.
To be fair, having children is terrible for the environment.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 17, 2016, 10:59:16 AM
To be fair, having children is terrible for the environment.
So is genocide then great for it? :hmm: ISIS environmentalists of the year?
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2016, 11:00:53 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 17, 2016, 10:59:16 AM
To be fair, having children is terrible for the environment.
So is genocide then great for it? :hmm: ISIS environmentalists of the year?
No action needed: as humanity gets wealthier and longevity increases, humans have fewer and fewer children.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 17, 2016, 11:04:50 AM
No action needed: as humanity gets wealthier and longevity increases, humans have fewer and fewer children.
Just playing with you :P
But yeah birth rates are going down everywhere. As I said almost every real indicator shows that the future will be better than the past.
Except for the climate....Probably....
Edit: Also I was speaking to someone who works in development when I was in the pub last night and she was saying one of the real issues that's emerging now is the effect of automation in terms of developing countries. The way to industrialise classically was, apparently: textiles - children's toys - high-end manufacturing (parts, cars, etc.). That last category is normally the key stage to developing beyond mass industry because of all the ancillary jobs that go with it.and the manufacturing jobs themselves are far higher skilled.
However a lot of those level of manufacturing jobs are increasingly automated which means for countries like Bangladesh for example they made it to stage one or two of industrialisation - the sweat shop stage - but it's not necessarily clear that there's a route to the next stage especially compared with China, for example, which started on this road about forty years before Bangladesh. It's even more pronounced in countries in Africa which are trying to develop.
It's not clear how those countries will develop in the future, or if they can, because if they do it will be on an entirely different model than the past 200 years of industrialisation leading to development. One possible exception is the path of reasonably well-educated English speaking countries (India, Nigeria, Ghana) which have simultaneously developed some industry but also a service economy aimed at the developing English speaking world.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2016, 11:17:20 AM
Except for the climate....Probably....
Yes but CO2 emissions are going down everywhere (except India but I think this will reverse eventually). So even if there is a problem it is one we are addressing. The climate should stabilize and we will adjust to whatever the new normal is.
I mean it is a little hard to believe we were ever going to reverse the engineering priorities of 200 years very quickly.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 17, 2016, 11:04:50 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2016, 11:00:53 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 17, 2016, 10:59:16 AM
To be fair, having children is terrible for the environment.
So is genocide then great for it? :hmm: ISIS environmentalists of the year?
No action needed: as humanity gets wealthier and longevity increases, humans have fewer and fewer children.
Not me.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 17, 2016, 11:20:24 AM
Not me.
Like Ghenghis Khan in Asia, the US will one day be populated exclusively by descendants of Ed.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2016, 11:21:17 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 17, 2016, 11:20:24 AM
Not me.
Like Ghenghis Khan in Asia, the US will one day be populated exclusively by descendants of Ed.
The buckeye-Hoosier branch, the Franco-buckeye branch......
Eeeeeeeeeeed!!!!!
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 17, 2016, 11:20:24 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 17, 2016, 11:04:50 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2016, 11:00:53 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 17, 2016, 10:59:16 AM
To be fair, having children is terrible for the environment.
So is genocide then great for it? :hmm: ISIS environmentalists of the year?
No action needed: as humanity gets wealthier and longevity increases, humans have fewer and fewer children.
Not me.
The word to describe you statistically is: anomaly. You weirdo! :P
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 17, 2016, 06:21:46 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2016, 11:17:27 PM
This is the main article I read on the matter: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/12/a-massive-new-study-debunks-a-widespread-theory-for-donald-trumps-success/
Thanks!
No prob :)
Quote from: Tamas on August 17, 2016, 04:28:10 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 16, 2016, 01:23:21 PM
Quote from: Tamas on August 16, 2016, 06:01:09 AM
The world is in an era of turbulent change for the better.
that is what you (edit: and everyone else, ideally. don't want to vouch for survivalists and such) hope. There are, throughout history, sufficient periods of turbulent change that were not for the better.
We'll know the answer once the turbulence end, but not before.
Maybe, although debatable.
However, in our particular case, the positive impacts are impossible to ignore. Tens if not hundreds of millions are being rised out of poverty, there is an unprecedentedly free flow of information and knowledge that in turns fuels a level of innovation and technological progress unseen in our history.
And it may all come to ruin still. Don't sell the bear's skin before the beast is actually dead. It's a good thing that people all over the planet are becoming richer, but that evolution is not without cost. Especially environmentally. Tech will need to advance by quite a bit still to actually enable everyone to leave abject poverty without killing everyone in the massive ecological cataclysm that would mean. The same goes for the free flow of info: that too has a dark side, given the amount of nonsense and half-truths that are sent into the aether in combination with seems to be a general deterioration of educational standards.. See Trump.
Still: lifting people out of poverty is the humane thing to do so there's no turning back there. And a free information flow is superior to the opposite. Sufficient examples about during the last century.
Quote
Make no mistake: the "let's divide back into nation states and just stop this nonsense of not hating everyone outside of our tribe, because change is bad mkay" people are fighting this. Maybe not directly but in effect they are working toward stopping and reverting this process.
a bit naive don't you think? Humans divide themselves in groups, and they will do so until the end of time. The nation-state isn't going to disappear that fast (if at all. After all: not all cultures are the same, and often have different ideas about how to organise society).
that said: it's not because one favours the nation state that this by definition means "hating everyone outside of the tribe". That is a po-co dogma.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 17, 2016, 02:43:25 PM
a bit naive don't you think? Humans divide themselves in groups, and they will do so until the end of time. The nation-state isn't going to disappear that fast (if at all. After all: not all cultures are the same, and often have different ideas about how to organise society).
that said: it's not because one favours the nation state that this by definition means "hating everyone outside of the tribe". That is a po-co dogma.
Well yes, I can see how a person whose self-identity is tied up in ethnonationalism would be convinced it is something that will be everlasting.
I think the concept of the nation state is where I diverge most sharply from the alt right. What an outdated, silly idea. Why on Earth should I feel more familiarity with some semi-literate farmer from Wroclaw, only because we share a language and ethnic ancestry, than a likeminded fellow in New York or Bangladesh?
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 03:44:44 PM
I think the concept of the nation state is where I diverge most sharply from the alt right. What an outdated, silly idea. Why on Earth should I feel more familiarity with some semi-literate farmer from Wroclaw, only because we share a language and ethnic ancestry, than a likeminded fellow in New York or Bangladesh?
Aren't there American alt-right people?
Quote from: The Brain on August 17, 2016, 03:47:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 03:44:44 PM
I think the concept of the nation state is where I diverge most sharply from the alt right. What an outdated, silly idea. Why on Earth should I feel more familiarity with some semi-literate farmer from Wroclaw, only because we share a language and ethnic ancestry, than a likeminded fellow in New York or Bangladesh?
Aren't there American alt-right people?
There are, but they exult nation state as well, as strange as it sounds.
Quote from: The Brain on August 17, 2016, 03:47:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 03:44:44 PM
I think the concept of the nation state is where I diverge most sharply from the alt right. What an outdated, silly idea. Why on Earth should I feel more familiarity with some semi-literate farmer from Wroclaw, only because we share a language and ethnic ancestry, than a likeminded fellow in New York or Bangladesh?
Aren't there American alt-right people?
Presumably alt-right Americans are not his likeminded fellows.
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2016, 03:49:30 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 17, 2016, 03:47:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 03:44:44 PM
I think the concept of the nation state is where I diverge most sharply from the alt right. What an outdated, silly idea. Why on Earth should I feel more familiarity with some semi-literate farmer from Wroclaw, only because we share a language and ethnic ancestry, than a likeminded fellow in New York or Bangladesh?
Aren't there American alt-right people?
Presumably alt-right Americans are not his likeminded fellows.
I think his point is that Americans could not be supporters of a nation state. But alt right Americans strangely are.
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 03:51:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2016, 03:49:30 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 17, 2016, 03:47:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 03:44:44 PM
I think the concept of the nation state is where I diverge most sharply from the alt right. What an outdated, silly idea. Why on Earth should I feel more familiarity with some semi-literate farmer from Wroclaw, only because we share a language and ethnic ancestry, than a likeminded fellow in New York or Bangladesh?
Aren't there American alt-right people?
Presumably alt-right Americans are not his likeminded fellows.
I think his point is that Americans could not be supporters of a nation state. But alt right Americans strangely are.
Well it just isn't one based on wholly based on ethni...well umm, that's awkward. :D
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 03:44:44 PM
I think the concept of the nation state is where I diverge most sharply from the alt right. What an outdated, silly idea. Why on Earth should I feel more familiarity with some semi-literate farmer from Wroclaw, only because we share a language and ethnic ancestry, than a likeminded fellow in New York or Bangladesh?
Because the nation state offers stability. The "like-minded" fellow in New York can change his mind overnight and refuse to group with you. The farmer can't change his ethnicity for the rest of his life.
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2016, 03:55:21 PM
Well it just isn't one based on wholly based on ethni...well umm, that's awkward. :D
Not really - don't they propose some kind of tutelary caste system?
Quote from: Monoriu on August 17, 2016, 04:08:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 03:44:44 PM
I think the concept of the nation state is where I diverge most sharply from the alt right. What an outdated, silly idea. Why on Earth should I feel more familiarity with some semi-literate farmer from Wroclaw, only because we share a language and ethnic ancestry, than a likeminded fellow in New York or Bangladesh?
Because the nation state offers stability. The "like-minded" fellow in New York can change his mind overnight and refuse to group with you. The farmer can't change his ethnicity for the rest of his life.
Ok, and?
Quote from: Monoriu on August 17, 2016, 04:08:40 PM
Because the nation state offers stability. The "like-minded" fellow in New York can change his mind overnight and refuse to group with you. The farmer can't change his ethnicity for the rest of his life.
Ethnicity isn't necessarily anything to do with it. The nation state is the best level for decision making we've got yet. We've yet to achieve a genuinely democratic political unit above it. Until then, they matter.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 17, 2016, 04:12:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2016, 03:55:21 PM
Well it just isn't one based on wholly based on ethni...well umm, that's awkward. :D
Not really - don't they propose some kind of tutelary caste system?
I don't know that much but they don't seem all that keen on ethnic minorities.
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 04:13:54 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on August 17, 2016, 04:08:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2016, 03:44:44 PM
I think the concept of the nation state is where I diverge most sharply from the alt right. What an outdated, silly idea. Why on Earth should I feel more familiarity with some semi-literate farmer from Wroclaw, only because we share a language and ethnic ancestry, than a likeminded fellow in New York or Bangladesh?
Because the nation state offers stability. The "like-minded" fellow in New York can change his mind overnight and refuse to group with you. The farmer can't change his ethnicity for the rest of his life.
Ok, and?
Yeah, I'm not sure being stuck with the farmer is a reason to feel bonded to him. Well, except if he is family. :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2016, 04:17:14 PM
The nation state is the best level for decision making we've got yet.
?
Nation-states are the product of various historical processes, much of which was happenstance, the results of which have no connection to some optimal size or composition for decision-making. Many nation-states are suboptimally tiny, others are geographically awkward (Lesotho), others are too big for centralized decision making and thus devolve very extensively to subunits (which themselves are unfortunately are often suboptimally drawn as in the US).
Look what a mess the historically derived nations have made of the British Isles - an overcentralized state struggling to keep various historical nations in line (Scotland, N Ireland, Wales), none of which is likely highly viable on its own (too small or not economically diverse), with a fourth historical nation (England) comprised in a way is to be totally inappropriate for regional delegation (too big). Because of the imbalances of the sub-nations, and the lack of any organic, historically developed political regions, there is no clear path for delegating certain powers to more tractable regional size governments. In the absence of that history, it would not be that difficult to divide the Isles up into a logical sub-national regional structure.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 17, 2016, 06:15:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2016, 04:17:14 PM
The nation state is the best level for decision making we've got yet.
?
Nation-states are the product of various historical processes, much of which was happenstance, the results of which have no connection to some optimal size or composition for decision-making. Many nation-states are suboptimally tiny, others are geographically awkward (Lesotho), others are too big for centralized decision making and thus devolve very extensively to subunits (which themselves are unfortunately are often suboptimally drawn as in the US).
Look what a mess the historically derived nations have made of the British Isles - an overcentralized state struggling to keep various historical nations in line (Scotland, N Ireland, Wales), none of which is likely highly viable on its own (too small or not economically diverse), with a fourth historical nation (England) comprised in a way is to be totally inappropriate for regional delegation (too big). Because of the imbalances of the sub-nations, and the lack of any organic, historically developed political regions, there is no clear path for delegating certain powers to more tractable regional size governments. In the absence of that history, it would not be that difficult to divide the Isles up into a logical sub-national regional structure.
Wessex FTW. :outback:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2016, 09:16:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2016, 08:46:02 PM
So yeah... it's a bit of a mess. Gives me a bit of a before the storm vibe, to be honest.
Yeah. As I say it reminds me of what I've read of the 70s. I think it's potentially a similar breakdown of consensus, 'the old is dead the new cannot yet be born' sort of moment.
What's really difficult is to guess is what comes next?
What is it about the 70s that has any similarity to now? What consensus was breaking down?
In the seventies it was the social democratic post-war consensus. Now I think it's the liberal consensus that replaced that. There were political fringes on the rise in many countries. We had the National Front and the hard-left organising and on the march. In the US you had student radicals, the Panthers and equally radical right-wing groups.
Then you had economic problems, but more importantly ones that were beyond our governments' ability to fix. So generally there was stagflation, in the UK there was a lot of industrial disputes because of it, in Europe the trentes glorieuses were coming to an end.
Right now I think we have historically low interest rates, inflation and growth (in Europe they have that plus high unemployment) and despite the extraordinary monetary policy we have it seems like the transmissions from that to the wider economy has broken down. Meanwhile a lot of new employment is incredibly precarious: people on zero-hour contracts, or being made to incorporate themselves so they're self-employed contractors rather than employees. You also have the longer term trends flatlining or declining real wages for many people in the developed West for the past 10 years or so. I think we're still recovering from that crisis (and God help us if there's another recession anytime soon) but bits of the recovery are not working in the way they should. As with the seventies, it seems beyond our leaders to return to 'normal' growth - in the 70s it was the 50s and 60s, for us it's the 90s and 00s.
Also this has been the worst year in Europe for terrorism since the 70s (though we're still below that peak) and I think there's something even in that especially the generational element.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 17, 2016, 06:15:58 PM
(which themselves are unfortunately are often suboptimally drawn as in the US).
I'm not sure that's fair though. Do we ever create units optimally? S wasn't claiming that things are optimal but that they are best option we've come up with so far. I'm not sure I'm inclined to agree, as per your UK example, but I don't think the setup of US states belie his statement.
Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2016, 07:38:52 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 17, 2016, 06:15:58 PM
(which themselves are unfortunately are often suboptimally drawn as in the US).
I'm not sure that's fair though. Do we ever create units optimally? S wasn't claiming that things are optimal but that they are best option we've come up with so far. I'm not sure I'm inclined to agree, as per your UK example, but I don't think the setup of US states belie his statement.
Yep. Sorry I meant to reply but basically this. They're not optimal but they're the best we've got. Maybe we'll get to something bigger one day, but those historical messes matter however much common sympathy may exist between the fairly successful all around the world.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2016, 07:10:50 AM
In the seventies it was the social democratic post-war consensus. Now I think it's the liberal consensus that replaced that. There were political fringes on the rise in many countries. We had the National Front and the hard-left organising and on the march. In the US you had student radicals, the Panthers and equally radical right-wing groups.
Then you had economic problems, but more importantly ones that were beyond our governments' ability to fix. So generally there was stagflation, in the UK there was a lot of industrial disputes because of it, in Europe the trentes glorieuses were coming to an end.
Right now I think we have historically low interest rates, inflation and growth (in Europe they have that plus high unemployment) and despite the extraordinary monetary policy we have it seems like the transmissions from that to the wider economy has broken down. Meanwhile a lot of new employment is incredibly precarious: people on zero-hour contracts, or being made to incorporate themselves so they're self-employed contractors rather than employees. You also have the longer term trends flatlining or declining real wages for many people in the developed West for the past 10 years or so. I think we're still recovering from that crisis (and God help us if there's another recession anytime soon) but bits of the recovery are not working in the way they should. As with the seventies, it seems beyond our leaders to return to 'normal' growth - in the 70s it was the 50s and 60s, for us it's the 90s and 00s.
Also this has been the worst year in Europe for terrorism since the 70s (though we're still below that peak) and I think there's something even in that especially the generational element.
I don't think there was ever a social democratic consensus in the US. I think there has been a fairly strong one in Canada (evidence our continuing strong commitment to single payer universal health care no matter what government is in power). I defer to your judgment about the UK.
Also the existence of fringe groups does not indicate the break down of a consensus. There are always fringe groups. The world was a much more straight forward place in the 70s. Communists were the bad guys. The bipolar world kept many of the regional conflicts in check. OPEC was perceived the cause of much of the economic disruption. But more importantly, to your point, political parties thought they did have the solution. That is what brought us Thatcher and Reagan. The main fear in the 70s, or at least the one that dominated my world as a young person, was the threat of nuclear war.
This age is entirely different. It is much more chaotic, the income disparity is much greater and social mobility has decreased. I agree with Jacob that the post WW II ties (which were very strong in the 70s) are now breaking down because people have forgotten the lessons of avoiding such a conflict. At the risk of pulling a Marty, I think Picketty was correct when he thought our age was more akin to the late 1800s. I have also heard historians like MacMillan make the same comparison.
As an aside, it is continually astonishing to me how thoroughly the fear of nuclear war has been forgotten in the public discourse. When I was a kid, it was confidently predicted to be an almost inevitable possibility. I still remember seeing the "nuclear clock" moving ever-closer to midnight.
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2016, 09:17:49 AM
As an aside, it is continually astonishing to me how thoroughly the fear of nuclear war has been forgotten in the public discourse. When I was a kid, it was confidently predicted to be an almost inevitable possibility. I still remember seeing the "nuclear clock" moving ever-closer to midnight.
And all the nuclear weapons are still there, and nearly as close to being launched.
I did notice that once the US became all about stopping the production of more Nuclear Weapons suddenly the militancy of the nuclear freeze movement really decreased. I never once saw them marching to protest North Korea or Iran :(
Nuclear weapons? They're tools.
Quote from: Malthus on August 18, 2016, 09:17:49 AM
As an aside, it is continually astonishing to me how thoroughly the fear of nuclear war has been forgotten in the public discourse. When I was a kid, it was confidently predicted to be an almost inevitable possibility. I still remember seeing the "nuclear clock" moving ever-closer to midnight.
We still have that - apparently we're as close to midnight as we were in the mid 80s.
It seems climate change is the reason. Huh. DOOOOOMED
Not sure if this belongs here or in the Brexit thread :lol:
QuoteThat voodoo that you do
The bitter, political fight to create a new macroeconomics
Aug 19th 2016, 16:52 BY R.A. | WASHINGTON
THE big debates in macroeconomics have never been polite. I suppose it's understandable that this is the case; after all, the stakes are high. Tyler Cowen excerpts a new blog post by Scott Sumner, which reads:
Quote...what's happened since 2009 involves not just one, but at least five new types of voodoo:
1. The claim that artificial attempts to force wages higher will boost employment, by boosting AD.
2. The claim that extended unemployment benefits—paying people not to work—will lead to more employment, by boosting AD.
3. The claim that more government spending can actually reduce the budget deficit, by boosting AD and growth. Note that in the simple Keynesian model, even with no crowding out, monetary offset, etc., this is impossible.
4. More aggregate demand will lead to higher productivity. In the old Keynesian model, more AD boosted growth by increasing employment, not productivity.
5. Fiscal stimulus can boost AD when not at the zero bound, because . . . ?
In all five cases there is almost no theoretical or empirical support for the new voodoo claims, and lots of evidence against. There were 5 attempts to push wages higher in the 1930s, and all 5 failed to spur recovery. Job creation sped up when the extended UI benefits ended at the beginning of 2014, contrary to the prediction of Keynesians. The austerity of 2013 failed to slow growth, contrary to the predictions of Keynesians. Britain had perhaps the biggest budget deficits of any major economy during the Great Recession, job growth has been robust, and yet productivity is now actually lower than in the 4th quarter of 2007.
Mr Cowen then makes a few points before closing:
QuoteWe do in fact need a good aggregate demand-based macroeconomics; the topic is far too important to allow it to become so politicized.
I initially read that final jab as a poke at economists like Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong: the ones arguing in favour of deficit-financed fiscal stimulus even as the American economy (in Mr Cowen's view) approaches full capacity. Thinking it over, I'm not sure it isn't meant for Mr Sumner as well.
Why? Well, I understand why Mr Sumner objects to the views in his numbered list. They are at odds with his macroeconomic worldview, which is fine. But he doesn't simply say they're wrong. He labels them voodoo; a highly politicised term of criticism, and one of the nastier things one academic can say about another. (I should be clear that Mr Sumner has lots of company in wielding the term.) If one were trying to bring neutral, academic sobriety to an overly politicised argument, this is not the way one would typically begin.
And then, Mr Sumner claims that there is "almost no theoretical or empirical support" for the views he doesn't like. But that's simply false. Mr Sumner may not care for the Summers-Delong model showing that for certain values of the hysteresis and multiplier parameters stimulus is self-financing, but it does exist. And as far as I can tell, most empirical studies of fiscal policy find a multiplier of greater than zero, if not always greater than one. His list of counterexamples in the paragraph above is just one example of not considering the counterfactual after another. Again, if one were trying to take a highly political debate and pin the thing to the wall with the best available academic work, well, this is not what one would do.
Having said all that, I think I disagree with Mr Cowen that the topic is too important to become politicised. On the one hand, politics is how we resolve lots of really important, really difficult issues. One could indeed argue that the problems we face are the worse because there has been too little politicisation. To a remarkable extent, rich-world politicians of all political stripes have been aligned in their view that deficits should be reduced as quickly as possible, while the technocrats at the central banks have been relied upon to take decisions that go wildly beyond their narrow monetary remit.
And on the other: Mr Cowen's view of dispassionate progress in macroeconomics is just not how things usually work. In the 1970s it was not the case, for example, that rival macroeconomic camps settled their differences, then alerted the world of the new consensus so it could be acted upon. Instead you had bitterly divided academics; you had a political ideology which saw some things it liked in one of the camps, which made those things a part of a successful political programme, and which took a policy gamble; and that gamble created new evidence which informed (though by no means settled) the debate over how inflation and monetary policy and expectations all work. The same thing happened in the 1930s. And in the 1980s, when the original voodoo economics had its day in the sun.
Economists might not like it, but this is how the world will find its way out of the current mess. Not by the calm resolution of disagreements between Larry Summers and John Cochrane, but by the increasing politicisation of a set of radical economic ideas, of one sort or another, which eventually find their way into the practical political programme of a party with a mandate to govern. And then they'll do what they do and we will learn something about who was right and who was wrong, and a few economists will change their minds, but most will find a way to tweak their old models so that the new evidence looks like an affirmation of what they believed all along.
So what does that tell us about how macroeconomists ought to behave? Well, as scientists, they have an obligation to state their hypotheses as clearly as possible, to make testable predictions whenever possible, and to be rigorous and transparent in gathering evidence to support or falsify those predictions. But macroeconomics is also inherently political, and the practitioners who seek to "politicise" their ideas and make them a political reality play as vital a role in the advancement of the field as the scrupulously apolitical academics who never write a public word outside a peer-reviewed journal.