American politics

[scaramanga]

The only reason this is seen as a negative is that there are so many macarons in this country who believe that socialism and communism are the same thing. Why is socialism a negative?

It's inherently wasteful, it discourages innovation and enterprise, it skews markets and picks its own (often undeserving) winners.

It increases the level of state theft from hardworking people and puts decisions into the hands of a few officials rather than the people themselves. It increases incentives to coast and reduces motivation to increase earnings.

It makes employing staff unaffordably expensive and discourages investment. Worst of all, it attempts to level the playing field by dragging the top down rather than the bottom up.

 

[scaramanga]

The difference is that this election has gotten younger voters excited again. Sanders is seen as unique among a sea of establishment politicians, and his policies have the ability to positively affect issues that my (I'm 32) generation has had a pretty awful time with. So many of us have crippling student loans, and the frustration that the US government has been making money off of students, and not charging interest rates nearly as high to corporate entities, will get voters out. I think that the thing people are realizing, and what has caused Sanders to surge in the polls over the past months, is that we have a chance to finally elect someone who is committed to our interests.

I may be wrong, but the groundswell of support is very real.

Interestingly we had a very similar election in the UK recently where one gormless fudge cosied up to the likes of Russell Brand in an attempt to win over the non-voting youth of the country.

The thing about targeting halfwits who don't vote is that you really shouldn't be surprised if, come the election, your support mostly comprises halfwits who didn't vote.

 

[VermontSpur]

Interestingly we had a very similar election in the UK recently where one gormless fudge cosied up to the likes of Russell Brand in an attempt to win over the non-voting youth of the country.

The thing about targeting halfwits who don't vote is that you really shouldn't be surprised if, come the election, your support mostly comprises halfwits who didn't vote.

I think you're confusing the disillusioned with the uninformed. If you put the same milquetoast candidates out there year after year and nothing changes, there's no motivation. Has nothing to do with "halfwits" as you might flippantly say. Bernie Sanders isn't some outsider; he has years of effective legislating within the current system. Democratic socialism and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive. The biggest changes would be tax rates and public benefits. It's an unfounded sound bite when people say the poor would leach off the rich' coattails. If you provide societal supports like decent healthcare, unemployment benefits a, housing subsidies, etc, you get people who can put themselves Ina position to seek employment rather than worrying every day about their next meal or medical bill. You get a more educated workforce, and consequently, a stronger economy. Theoretically, of course!

This demographic that is excited about Sanders is, counterintuitively, very educated compared to those who turn out in greater numbers. I'm not a wise enough man to know the myriad reasons for this, but the above apathy is a good guess.

As for your election, I'm not sure whether a similarity can be drawn.

And regarding your characterization of socialism stifling creativity, economy, and (though you didn't directly reference this) mental health of a nation, I would disagree. Each country has different factors that influence these kind of things, and the U.S. population is large and varied enough that you can't draw direct parallels, but I'm fairly confident there are some pretty successful socialist governments in the UK's back yard.

The U.S. needs to figure out a remedy to many things, and chief among these would be the public education and criminal justice systems. Bernie gets it.

Again, I realize not everyone sees it the same way, but to be so dismissive and condescending disregards those of us who know some things are fundamentally wrong with how things are trending over here.

I appreciate the venue for conversation on the topic, and sorry to steer the discussion away from the two-bit carnival barker.

 

[VermontSpur]

@VermontSpur Thanks for your insight. Apologies if you have already written before about this, what are your thoughts on the current administration and also policies/bills/legislations that Obama has tried (successfully and/or unsuccessfully) to pass?

@AuroRaman I'm loving 2nd term Obama, but was disappointed with his lack of force and conviction during his first term.

To be fair, he faced a ridiculously divisive majority republican house, and consistently had his platform issues rebuffed in spite of the fact many of them would benefit the constituents of the congressmen and senators representing them. Money has far too much influence in American politics today, and as a result, you have politicians who do whatever is necessary to stay in the good graces of the lobbies and corporations who fund their campaigns, rather than act in good faith on behalf of their voters.

A huge factor, in my opinion, is also that the conservatives in this country have gotten more extreme in their views, and to their constituents, supporting policy put forward by a black president would be unwelcome. Racism is alive and well in the USA.

The affordable care act was a big step in the right direction for the country. Obama is the first president of my lifetime who has tried implementing legislation that has a direct effect on me (health care, public service loan forgiveness, etc.), and I do appreciate that. And in the second term, I think we are seeing more of what he genuinely thinks is the right direction for the country.

Thanks for asking!

 

[braineclipse]

It's inherently wasteful, it discourages innovation and enterprise, it skews markets and picks its own (often undeserving) winners.

It increases the level of state theft from hardworking people and puts decisions into the hands of a few officials rather than the people themselves. It increases incentives to coast and reduces motivation to increase earnings.

It makes employing staff unaffordably expensive and discourages investment. Worst of all, it attempts to level the playing field by dragging the top down rather than the bottom up.

Aren't you putting up a false dichotomy between socialism and capitalism with this criticism? Any form of extreme capitalism can easily be criticized to a similar degree.

Most modern societies described using "the S word" have strong capitalistic forces working within them. I'm Norwegian, but even ignoring us and our oil money look at countries like Sweden and Finland. Very small countries that have produced huge businesses and often some very good technology in the process. Independent scientific research is also vital to supplement research done by for profit companies.

You claim socialism is wasteful. But the capitalist heaven that is the US has the highest health expenditure as a % of GDP of any "real nation" (ignoring microscopic Tuvalu): http://data.worldbank.org/indicator...pi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc A solid third higher than even the highest spenders in socialist Europe. Almost twice that of the "ineffective NHS" in the UK.

The way capitalism is being left unchecked in the US is also becoming a real threat to democracy in the only superpower currently in the world.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Hey Scara, the Nordic countries are doing very well thankyou, with their socialism. No lack of innovation over there methinks. I like your quaint ideas...such as your Victorian notion of the 'deserving and un-deserving'. When are your social attitudes towards class going to match your progressive credentials on religion and sexuality. You really are an enigma.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Aren't you putting up a false dichotomy between socialism and capitalism with this criticism? Any form of extreme capitalism can easily be criticized to a similar degree.

Most modern societies described using "the S word" have strong capitalistic forces working within them. I'm Norwegian, but even ignoring us and our oil money look at countries like Sweden and Finland. Very small countries that have produced huge businesses and often some very good technology in the process. Independent scientific research is also vital to supplement research done by for profit companies.

You claim socialism is wasteful. But the capitalist heaven that is the US has the highest health expenditure as a % of GDP of any "real nation" (ignoring microscopic Tuvalu): http://data.worldbank.org/indicator...pi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc A solid third higher than even the highest spenders in socialist Europe. Almost twice that of the "ineffective NHS" in the UK.

The way capitalism is being left unchecked in the US is also becoming a real threat to democracy in the only superpower currently in the world.

Great post, as it is true that the US health system is one of the least efficient on the planet. Also, what about their flagrant in-efficient use of energy?

 

[VermontSpur]

@braineclipse and @Gilzeantoscore - It's nice to see that I'm not far off the mark in my responses above; glad to have validation from the other side of the pond!

 

[scaramanga]

And regarding your characterization of socialism stifling creativity, economy, and (though you didn't directly reference this) mental health of a nation, I would disagree. Each country has different factors that influence these kind of things, and the U.S. population is large and varied enough that you can't draw direct parallels, but I'm fairly confident there are some pretty successful socialist governments in the UK's back yard.

Not with anything that could be described as larger than a very small population.

Any large left of centre countries are on their arses.

 

[braineclipse]

Not with anything that could be described as larger than a very small population.

Any large left of centre countries are on their arsed.

Care to name your examples?

Out of curiosity how would you rank South Korea and Japan in terms of left/right and/or socialist/capitalist type things?

 

[scaramanga]

Aren't you putting up a false dichotomy between socialism and capitalism with this criticism? Any form of extreme capitalism can easily be criticized to a similar degree.

I have simplified things and obviously there's no line in the sand between the two - just a gradient.

That said, I don't think it's a stretch to describe Sanders' politics as socialism in comparison to what has been the centre ground in US politics for most people's living memory.

Most modern societies described using "the S word" have strong capitalistic forces working within them. I'm Norwegian, but even ignoring us and our oil money look at countries like Sweden and Finland. Very small countries that have produced huge businesses and often some very good technology in the process. Independent scientific research is also vital to supplement research done by for profit companies.

I think small is the important word there. I've seen plenty of evidence that shows mutual group behaviour dissipating as the size of the group increases. I remain to be convinced that Scandinavian economies can be scaled up.

That part of the world has been outperforming it's population size for centuries anyway - especially in terms of exploration, trade and claiming land(s).

You claim socialism is wasteful. But the capitalist heaven that is the US has the highest health expenditure as a % of GDP of any "real nation" (ignoring microscopic Tuvalu): http://data.worldbank.org/indicator...pi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc A solid third higher than even the highest spenders in socialist Europe. Almost twice that of the "ineffective NHS" in the UK.

The are some fudged up incentives in US health care, that's for certain. Doctors taking bribes from pharmaceutical companies are a huge distortion, as are incentives to treat when the health benefits is minimal.

That said, the quality of care, both from reading about it and personal experience, is of the very highest level. It made the NHS seem centuries out of date (although even the Spanish health service managed that).

The way capitalism is being left unchecked in the US is also becoming a real threat to democracy in the only superpower currently in the world.

In what sense, investment in presidential campaigns?

If so, the evidence appears to show that the money follows the winner rather than the other way around.

 

[scaramanga]

Care to name your examples?

Out of curiosity how would you rank South Korea and Japan in terms of left/right and/or socialist/capitalist type things?

France, Spain, and Italy off the top of my head. Greece and Portugal are good smaller examples.

I don't know a huge amount about politics on that side of the world, I'd be interested to hear though.

 

[Rorschach]

I think you're confusing the disillusioned with the uninformed. If you put the same milquetoast candidates out there year after year and nothing changes, there's no motivation. Has nothing to do with "halfwits" as you might flippantly say. Bernie Sanders isn't some outsider; he has years of effective legislating within the current system. Democratic socialism and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive. The biggest changes would be tax rates and public benefits. It's an unfounded sound bite when people say the poor would leach off the rich' coattails. If you provide societal supports like decent healthcare, unemployment benefits a, housing subsidies, etc, you get people who can put themselves Ina position to seek employment rather than worrying every day about their next meal or medical bill. You get a more educated workforce, and consequently, a stronger economy. Theoretically, of course!

This demographic that is excited about Sanders is, counterintuitively, very educated compared to those who turn out in greater numbers. I'm not a wise enough man to know the myriad reasons for this, but the above apathy is a good guess.

As for your election, I'm not sure whether a similarity can be drawn.

And regarding your characterization of socialism stifling creativity, economy, and (though you didn't directly reference this) mental health of a nation, I would disagree. Each country has different factors that influence these kind of things, and the U.S. population is large and varied enough that you can't draw direct parallels, but I'm fairly confident there are some pretty successful socialist governments in the UK's back yard.

The U.S. needs to figure out a remedy to many things, and chief among these would be the public education and criminal justice systems. Bernie gets it.

Again, I realize not everyone sees it the same way, but to be so dismissive and condescending disregards those of us who know some things are fundamentally wrong with how things are trending over here.

I appreciate the venue for conversation on the topic, and sorry to steer the discussion away from the two-bit carnival barker.

milquetoast - my new favourite word

 

[Rorschach]

milquetoast - my new favourite word

Pronounced milk-toast?

 

[scaramanga]

Pronounced milk-toast?

Pronounced "milky toes" I believe.

Make sure you use that word in public a lot before anyone else replies to this thread.

 

[braineclipse]

1. I have simplified things and obviously there's no line in the sand between the two - just a gradient.

That said, I don't think it's a stretch to describe Sanders' politics as socialism in comparison to what has been the centre ground in US politics for most people's living memory.


2. I think small is the important word there. I've seen plenty of evidence that shows mutual group behaviour dissipating as the size of the group increases. I remain to be convinced that Scandinavian economies can be scaled up.

That part of the world has been outperforming it's population size for centuries anyway - especially in terms of exploration, trade and claiming land(s).


3. The are some fudgeed up incentives in US health care, that's for certain. Doctors taking bribes from pharmaceutical companies are a huge distortion, as are incentives to treat when the health benefits is minimal.

That said, the quality of care, both from reading about it and personal experience, is of the very highest level. It made the NHS seem centuries out of date (although even the Spanish health service managed that).


4. In what sense, investment in presidential campaigns?

If so, the evidence appears to show that the money follows the winner rather than the other way around.

1. Well Sanders himself uses the Socialism word. But surely you cannot accept that the criticism you aimed at socialism will all apply to a "Sanders-World", but not to a traditional republican US.

2. Seems strange that this mental group behaviour should dissipate at the 5-10m population mark to me. I don't think it's right to say that the Scandinavian countries have been outperforming the rest of western Europe for centuries. In fact I'm almost certain it's not.

3. That's part of it, but only part of it. The fact remains that in a capitalist health care system profit margins at each level will also drive up costs. It might be that this is offset by the market forces driving cost down, but this could also come at a cost to the actual health care being provided. I don't think you can look at the current situation in the US compared to more socialists countries worth comparing them to and say that the US system is superior based on cost. Inject another 40% on top of the NHS budget and I think you'd see improvement. The US health care system is also famously polarized in it's services. Sure you'd get good treatment, but that's not the situation for every citizen - or even the majority. If providing good health care to those who can afford it is the only goal it works, but for me that's not enough.

4. I remember listening to that episode of Freakonomics too I think there's almost certainly a directional problem. But only to an extent. And IIRC that's the point that was being made too in that podcast...

I think money plays a massive role in it and it's quite literally destroying the concept of democracy and turning the country into a plutocracy of sorts. It's not the done deal yet, but the trend is pretty clear.

 

[braineclipse]

France, Spain, and Italy off the top of my head. Greece and Portugal are good smaller examples.

I don't know a huge amount about politics on that side of the world, I'd be interested to hear though.

I don't know a huge amount myself, thus my curiosity.

I'm not sure it's right to say that France are "on their arse". And obviously most large countries are still feeling the effects of the financial troubles the world has been experiencing for some time now. The effects of those have been hard on some European countries, but are you really telling me the US dealt with it that much better?

Also how about Germany? A country that had to absorb a less than functional DDR some 25 years ago and has managed to do so whilst getting their own economic situation back on track. Are Germany that much further along on the capitalistic side of the scale?

 

[braineclipse]

The always interesting Dan Carlin on the US election and a few other issues in his latest podcast episode. Well worth a listen (episode 301) for anyone interested. http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-home-landing-page/

Drew an interesting larger perspective looking towards a potential 2020 election. Describing Sanders, Trump and Cruz as all anti-establishment and there being a strong anti-establishment mood around he speculated how the electorate would react 4 years down the line if another establishment candidate ends up winning this election. Trump in particular has shown that the door is open, and both good and bad potential leaders might see this as an opportunity they can take advantage of. And if the current mood of US politics is such that the electorate is almost willing to elect Trump, how does that scale up if the trend continues with anti-establishment rage for another 4 years.

Also some comparisons to the political situations in other countries.

 

[braineclipse]

At the risk of spamming the thread.

@scaramanga the influence of money on the US political system cannot be detached from some of the issues you raise and many other issues. You talk about health care and the drains in the US system. But those are drains that allow individuals and companies to make large amounts of money off the system. And those companies and individuals again have interest groups/lobbyists influencing politicians to accept those drains on the system at the cost of the people. This is organized corruption, and it's corrupting the system to the point of potential failure. The financial crisis in part caused by the banks and wall street was again in part caused the changes in regulations that allowed those banks to make those decisions. Those regulations were not changed by politicians to help the people, they were changed by politicians in response to the financial influence on politics from those making huge money from those changes.

These are not isolated cases, rather I believe these are now becoming typical. And in a two-party system whenever there's a consensus between the parties, or the two candidates put forward by the parties the power of the people to influence change is close to non-existant. And in a system where money is so important to even getting to where you can be elected this is a real issue. It's not just the support of candidates running, the parties put candidates forward only if they have the capability to raise money - way before the actual campaign the money influence has made a huge impact.

Again Dan Carlin is excellent on this issue imo. Cannot recommend some of his earlier podcasts on this issue enough. He's said repeatedly that he believes the US are reaching a point of no return with regards to money in politics.

 

[scaramanga]

1. Well Sanders himself uses the Socialism word. But surely you cannot accept that the criticism you aimed at socialism will all apply to a "Sanders-World", but not to a traditional republican US.

2. Seems strange that this mental group behaviour should dissipate at the 5-10m population mark to me. I don't think it's right to say that the Scandinavian countries have been outperforming the rest of western Europe for centuries. In fact I'm almost certain it's not.

3. That's part of it, but only part of it. The fact remains that in a capitalist health care system profit margins at each level will also drive up costs. It might be that this is offset by the market forces driving cost down, but this could also come at a cost to the actual health care being provided. I don't think you can look at the current situation in the US compared to more socialists countries worth comparing them to and say that the US system is superior based on cost. Inject another 40% on top of the NHS budget and I think you'd see improvement. The US health care system is also famously polarized in it's services. Sure you'd get good treatment, but that's not the situation for every citizen - or even the majority. If providing good health care to those who can afford it is the only goal it works, but for me that's not enough.

4. I remember listening to that episode of Freakonomics too I think there's almost certainly a directional problem. But only to an extent. And IIRC that's the point that was being made too in that podcast...

I think money plays a massive role in it and it's quite literally destroying the concept of democracy and turning the country into a plutocracy of sorts. It's not the done deal yet, but the trend is pretty clear.

1. Don't get me wrong, I'm as scared of any candidate as far to the right of the US centre as Sanders is to the left. But traditional Republicans in the US are as close to the US centre as traditional Democrats are - Sanders is an outlier (as are Trump and his ilk).

2. Again, it seems to be a sliding scale. It fits the (caveats applied) common sense test too. I'd give my life for my family, my fortune for my friends, etc. on a sliding scale down to people I've never met on the other side of the world. All lives should be equal but most (if not all) can't help but care more about those closer to home.

3. I think everyone should have access to at least a minimum level of healthcare, but I am a very firm believer in getting what you pay for. I pay a huge amount to the NHS every month and get a very shoddy service in return. Without a threat of going bust, I cannot see how any organisation can properly drive down costs - there's simply no incentive other than sitting across a table from a bunch of MPs who also make a living out of spending our money.

4. There certainly is too much money in politics, there's no doubt about that. I'd happily see that reduced, but other than being a proponent of that, I don't think any of the economic measures Sanders supports have merit.

All of that said, I agree with Sanders on pretty much all of his non-economic policies - although his "foreign policy" (AKA just do nothing) leaves a lot to be desired. Not sure what it is with Americans and the mentally deficient running for president though - have you seen his opinions on cervical cancer? Not quite Trump in his idiocy but he wouldn't get near the electorate over here.