American politics

[monkeybarry]

This is the inherent contradiction of capitalism. Business seek to gain a competitive advantage , by attempting to drive down their wage bill, this flows through the industry and we end up with a low wage and LOW DEMAND economy. If workers are on the minimum wage, where does the demand for all those goods and services come from?

Supply creates its own demand - except for when you stiffle the circular flow of money, then essentials demand needs supply, which creates supplier control and consumer dependency
That sums up corporate capitalism for me
There are responsible capitalists in economies, but too few with real and sustained influence

The solution - I. Bold legislation to control these corporations (irrespective of your position, we all know that won't fly) II. Teach economics from the start of secondary school - get people understanding this by 16, so when their generation are in positions to make an influence, there will enough to have an influence

 

[braineclipse]

Supply creates its own demand - except for when you stiffle the circular flow of money, then essentials demand needs supply, which creates supplier control and consumer dependency
That sums up corporate capitalism for me
There are responsible capitalists in economies, but too few with real and sustained influence

The solution - I. Bold legislation to control these corporations (irrespective of your position, we all know that won't fly) II. Teach economics from the start of secondary school - get people understanding this by 16, so when their generation are in positions to make an influence, there will enough to have an influence

Absolutely. You need checks and balances. But too much of the regulation has been washed away, not enough oversight, not enough control. And the media, the body that's supposed to blow the whistle when this happens, is also in control of pretty much the same corporations/rich elite. Either through direct or indirect ownership, or through control of the sponsorship money that runs the media.

Edit: Again, money in politics. And again why "nothing" will be fixed until money in politics is sorted out, or at least improved on.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Absolutely. You need checks and balances. But too much of the regulation has been washed away, not enough oversight, not enough control. And the media, the body that's supposed to blow the whistle when this happens, is also in control of pretty much the same corporations/rich elite. Either through direct or indirect ownership, or through control of the sponsorship money that runs the media.

Edit: Again, money in politics. And again why "nothing" will be fixed until money in politics is sorted out, or at least improved on.

Careful; you'll be accused of wearing a thin-metal hat soon..

 

[braineclipse]

Careful; you'll be accused of wearing a thin-metal hat soon..

I'll take it in equal parts as a compliment for myself and as an insult aimed at whoever made the accusation

 

[scaramanga]

Trickle down economics to me seems sketchy. The focus you talk about is essentially what has gotten the US to a massive wealth gap, a disappearing middle class and a growing working poor class.

I literally couldn't care less about wealth gaps - that's simply a problem of expectation. The wealth gap is irrelevant if those at the bottom have enough - if the whole country doubled their income the gap would be greater but the poor would have more.

There is certainly an argument to be had that those at the bottom require more but I don't believe those at the top require less - it's not a zero sum game (at least, not within a national border).

"Employ people" is a bit of a red herring in the US system for me. People should be talking about "good jobs" (paraphrase Dan Carlin). Your average US minimum wage job flipping burgers or working at Wal-Mart is "employing people", but it's the kind of jobs where people are really struggling day to day to even take care of their families even working massive hours.

Someone has to flip those burgers and ignore customers from behind a till (at least until technology can replace them). How much value do you place on the person flipping a burger? I would probably pay a little more than is currently paid, but it's not a role I value particularly highly - clearly it isn't for the market either.

 

[scaramanga]

This is the inherent contradiction of capitalism. Business seek to gain a competitive advantage , by attempting to drive down their wage bill, this flows through the industry and we end up with a low wage and LOW DEMAND economy. If workers are on the minimum wage, where does the demand for all those goods and services come from?

Erm, the products are cheaper because costs have been driven down. Or we technology the jobs away and those people are employed doing jobs we didn't realise we needed until that time was spare (see creative destruction).

 

[braineclipse]

I literally couldn't care less about wealth gaps - that's simply a problem of expectation. The wealth gap is irrelevant if those at the bottom have enough - if the whole country doubled their income the gap would be greater but the poor would have more.

There is certainly an argument to be had that those at the bottom require more but I don't believe those at the top require less - it's not a zero sum game (at least, not within a national border)...

It not being a zero sum game doesn't make it a win-win game (or whatever the true opposite of a zero-sum-game is, I had to google to even get to win-win game.)

A wage gap alone is not a problem. The wage gap in the current US system that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer in a country where almost 40 million people are living below the poverty limit is a problem. Coming back to my earlier points about education, food security and health care the importance of this on a societal level seem self evident to me. When the system is creating more poor people, whilst making the rich richer the wage gap is not only symbolic or related to expectations.

Those at the bottom do not have enough. So the wage gap is relevant. The current system is making more of those that don't have enough whilst those at the top keep getting richer, and again the middle class is also shrinking. This system is not working as it should, and the wage gap is a quick way to talk about those flaws.

I imagine your issues with the wage cap conversation is more philosophical than practically related to the current US economy?

Someone has to flip those burgers and ignore customers from behind a till (at least until technology can replace them). How much value do you place on the person flipping a burger? I would probably pay a little more than is currently paid, but it's not a role I value particularly highly - clearly it isn't for the market either.

How much value do you place on their children who are at a much higher risk for a whole host of very costly outcomes for society? And have a much lower probability of fulfilling their promise or talent of becoming one of those people you and market forces value much higher - at least on a societal level...

Again this comes back to my earlier points. To me logical conclusions from your arguments is strong nepotism and a class system. I think I can make a decent moral argument against that based on humanist ideas, but just as interesting and important are the economic costs to a society.

 

[scaramanga]

It not being a zero sum game doesn't make it a win-win game (or whatever the true opposite of a zero-sum-game is, I had to google to even get to win-win game.)

A wage gap alone is not a problem. The wage gap in the current US system that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer in a country where almost 40 million people are living below the poverty limit is a problem. Coming back to my earlier points about education, food security and health care the importance of this on a societal level seem self evident to me. When the system is creating more poor people, whilst making the rich richer the wage gap is not only symbolic or related to expectations.

Those at the bottom do not have enough. So the wage gap is relevant. The current system is making more of those that don't have enough whilst those at the top keep getting richer, and again the middle class is also shrinking. This system is not working as it should, and the wage gap is a quick way to talk about those flaws.

I imagine your issues with the wage cap conversation is more philosophical than practically related to the current US economy?

No, they're practical.

If you increase wages then you just increase inflation - everything costs a bit more and people are (eventually) back where they started. So you have to increase wages again to compensate for inflation, etc etc.

In a global market, your workforce then becomes thoroughly uncompetitive. The people who cannot do much more than flip burgers (and there's no level of education that will improve that - trust me, I've employed plenty of them) are now getting paid a few times more than more highly trained staff in the countries with which you compete for trade, your international sales dip and so now there's only an internal market for your products. This is likely to end up in a contraction of the market, as industries used to selling all over the world can now only sell in the US. You start to lose the supporting industries and jobs with them.

At this point the market is likely to do one of two things, have a race to the bottom for prices in an attempt to keep a large share of what little market is left or increase prices because of the scarcity of the products being produced. If the market tanks then we can't afford to pay the silly wages, if it bumps then we have to increase wages even more to account for the rising cost of living. Any sensible investment from this point will be in plant & machinery, not staff as even the lowest paid staff will be prohibitively expensive to employ.

All systems have flaws, all systems (in the real world) will leave people with less than they ought to have. At least a system where the government keeps out of the way wherever possible has a chance of being efficient, a chance of being even handed and a chance of giving people the freedom of choice that we all naturally crave.

How much value do you place on their children who are at a much higher risk for a whole host of very costly outcomes for society? And have a much lower probability of fulfilling their promise or talent of becoming one of those people you and market forces value much higher - at least on a societal level...

Again this comes back to my earlier points. To me logical conclusions from your arguments is strong nepotism and a class system. I think I can make a decent moral argument against that based on humanist ideas, but just as interesting and important are the economic costs to a society.

There's certainly nothing wrong with a class system - it creates a very strong force of ambition with even bigger prizes for those that succeed.

Regarding the next generation, I'm conflicted. As I'm sure you've gathered, I don't believe the government should have any right to meddle in my business. I'm an adult, I'm perfectly capable of making my own choices and I also (believe it or not) want to do my bit for those that require it. That said, some of the children that turn up at my wife's school make me wish there was an enforceable parenting license.

In the UK, even with the class system that still exists as a barrier in most people's eyes, it's entirely possible to go from a barely surviving working class family to a very comfortable middle class one in a single generation. Within my family and (close) friends I could show you at least 4 or 5 cases of this. So I don't see any evidence at all that those without cannot achieve, or that they cannot change their lot in life in a society that leans a lot further to the right than Sanders does. Is it difficult? Yes, of course - but I don't see why things with great reward should be easy.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Erm, the products are cheaper because costs have been driven down. Or we technology the jobs away and those people are employed doing jobs we didn't realise we needed until that time was spare (see creative destruction).

Leads to deflation, which, as you well know is very bad.

 

[scaramanga]

Leads to deflation, which, as you well know is very bad.

It only leads to deflation if technology stays still. More often than not, as underlying costs come down the quality of product increases and keep the market buoyant.

Look at cars for example. The costs of producing a 1980s car is now next to nothing, so people demand more from their cars. Technology improves and so does quality and prices keep up with expendable income.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

It only leads to deflation if technology stays still. More often than not, as underlying costs come down the quality of product increases and keep the market buoyant.

Look at cars for example. The costs of producing a 1980s car is now next to nothing, so people demand more from their cars. Technology improves and so does quality and prices keep up with expendable income.

How come then, with the advent of neo-liberal economics, there has been an explosion in the un-employed underclass in every developed country on the planet? Your model is predicated on there being winners and losers and there are very many more losers than winners. Why do you think there has been a resurgence of the left pretty much every where, apart from Britain? (Scotland excepted.)

 

[Jordinho]

https://twitter.com/x/status/699706718419345408

Pure comedy reading his and his brother's quotes on his timeline.

 

[scaramanga]

How come then, with the advent of neo-liberal economics, there has been an explosion in the un-employed underclass in every developed country on the planet? Your model is predicated on there being winners and losers and there are very many more losers than winners. Why do you think there has been a resurgence of the left pretty much every where, apart from Britain? (Scotland excepted.)

Unemployment is at a record low in the UK. Living standards in every country that has embraced capitalism have improved unrecognisably since the advent of modern capitalism.

Compare life in the 70s to life now - there simply isn't a comparison. Kids grow up with a better education, better prospects, a better quality of life than they ever did before.

There also hasn't been any kind of resurgence of the left, it's just that teletext and the like have given some already shouty people a louder voice. It may have escaped your notice, but there hasn't been a left of centre UK government for almost two generations now. A few shouty students who believe they deserver the world on a platter is not a political movement, it's just a pile of clam.

 

[Baleforce]

https://twitter.com/x/status/699706718419345408

Pure comedy reading his and his brother's quotes on his timeline.

"But you said..."

"No dumbass, the bullet is supposed to have your name on it"

 

[braineclipse]

No, they're practical.

If you increase wages then you just increase inflation - everything costs a bit more and people are (eventually) back where they started. So you have to increase wages again to compensate for inflation, etc etc.

In a global market, your workforce then becomes thoroughly uncompetitive. The people who cannot do much more than flip burgers (and there's no level of education that will improve that - trust me, I've employed plenty of them) are now getting paid a few times more than more highly trained staff in the countries with which you compete for trade, your international sales dip and so now there's only an internal market for your products. This is likely to end up in a contraction of the market, as industries used to selling all over the world can now only sell in the US. You start to lose the supporting industries and jobs with them.

At this point the market is likely to do one of two things, have a race to the bottom for prices in an attempt to keep a large share of what little market is left or increase prices because of the scarcity of the products being produced. If the market tanks then we can't afford to pay the silly wages, if it bumps then we have to increase wages even more to account for the rising cost of living. Any sensible investment from this point will be in plant & machinery, not staff as even the lowest paid staff will be prohibitively expensive to employ.

All systems have flaws, all systems (in the real world) will leave people with less than they ought to have. At least a system where the government keeps out of the way wherever possible has a chance of being efficient, a chance of being even handed and a chance of giving people the freedom of choice that we all naturally crave.


There's certainly nothing wrong with a class system - it creates a very strong force of ambition with even bigger prizes for those that succeed.

Regarding the next generation, I'm conflicted. As I'm sure you've gathered, I don't believe the government should have any right to meddle in my business. I'm an adult, I'm perfectly capable of making my own choices and I also (believe it or not) want to do my bit for those that require it. That said, some of the children that turn up at my wife's school make me wish there was an enforceable parenting license.

In the UK, even with the class system that still exists as a barrier in most people's eyes, it's entirely possible to go from a barely surviving working class family to a very comfortable middle class one in a single generation. Within my family and (close) friends I could show you at least 4 or 5 cases of this. So I don't see any evidence at all that those without cannot achieve, or that they cannot change their lot in life in a society that leans a lot further to the right than Sanders does. Is it difficult? Yes, of course - but I don't see why things with great reward should be easy.

Your point on the global market is a fair one. Particularly in a world where the big companies get trade agreements in place that heavily favour them sending jobs overseas and the actual protection of the working middle class disappears. Again I'm trying to not move to extremes. I'm not arguing for isolationism, and I'm trying to not make your argument one of completely open borders and completely open trade without regulations or taxation. But I think it's certainly possible that the move towards and open global market has happened too quickly.

What's the impact on the economy of having a fairly large proportion of your population living pay check to pay check, or not being able to make ends meet despite working full time jobs?

A society with no or very limited social safety nets most definitely limits social mobility. What you talk about as possible in the UK is fast becoming a pipe-dream for many of the poor in the US from my understanding. The American dream and all that, but to a larger extent an actual dream disconnected from reality.

Again the system you talk about as positive creates more of those people you see as incapable of doing more than flipping burgers "regardless of education". It also creates more criminals, drug abusers, alcoholics, mental health problems etc... These risk factors are now fairly well understood, though the effect of these risk factors on economies I'm not so sure.

 

[scaramanga]

Your point on the global market is a fair one. Particularly in a world where the big companies get trade agreements in place that heavily favour them sending jobs overseas and the actual protection of the working middle class disappears. Again I'm trying to not move to extremes. I'm not arguing for isolationism, and I'm trying to not make your argument one of completely open borders and completely open trade without regulations or taxation. But I think it's certainly possible that the move towards and open global market has happened too quickly.

I've never really stopped to think about whether globalisation should have happened or about the pace of it. That said, I've never really considered borders as anything other than a place where you show your passport.

I've always been against tariffs at borders because of the damage it did to places like Africa and its ability to trade its way out of poverty.

What's the impact on the economy of having a fairly large proportion of your population living pay check to pay check, or not being able to make ends meet despite working full time jobs?

A society with no or very limited social safety nets most definitely limits social mobility. What you talk about as possible in the UK is fast becoming a pipe-dream for many of the poor in the US from my understanding. The American dream and all that, but to a larger extent an actual dream disconnected from reality.

Again the system you talk about as positive creates more of those people you see as incapable of doing more than flipping burgers "regardless of education". It also creates more criminals, drug abusers, alcoholics, mental health problems etc... These risk factors are now fairly well understood, though the effect of these risk factors on economies I'm not so sure.

If the welfare system (at a very basic level) covers a roof over one's head and food on one's plate, then where's the barrier to entrepreneurship? If someone (and their family) has food and a home, what's to stop them knocking on doors and offering to work their garden or clean their toilet? With enough hard work, why can't that lead to savings and a proper business? There are charities all over the UK and the US that offer adult education to those who want to learn a skill - I employ an accountant who had no formal education until doing so.

As an employer of people in the UK and Europe I can tell you that it's often incredibly difficult to get British people to do the bricker jobs that need doing. More often than not (that's not an exaggeration, it's genuinely over 50%) people don't want to do the job (it's boring, it's below them, etc) or would rather stay on benefits than do a physically demanding job.

A system with a smaller safety net does not cause crime or drug use, poor personal choices cause crime and drug use. There are plenty of poor people who go to work and don't commit crime, just as there are plenty of rich drug addicts and criminals.

Mental health provision is shocking in many developed countries - I agree there. Far more needs to be done, both at a clinical level and in general attitudes.

 

[braineclipse]

I've never really stopped to think about whether globalisation should have happened or about the pace of it. That said, I've never really considered borders as anything other than a place where you show your passport.

I've always been against tariffs at borders because of the damage it did to places like Africa and its ability to trade its way out of poverty.

I think globalisation needs to happen for sure, just making a point about the pace of it. Politicians have a responsibility to those people who elected them, within their borders.

Definitely giving developing countries a chance to develop through open trade is important. But if the cost is the decimation of industry as has been seen in some US cities and the poverty and misery that follows I'm not sure the right overall balance has been found.

If the welfare system (at a very basic level) covers a roof over one's head and food on one's plate, then where's the barrier to entrepreneurship? If someone (and their family) has food and a home, what's to stop them knocking on doors and offering to work their garden or clean their toilet? With enough hard work, why can't that lead to savings and a proper business? There are charities all over the UK and the US that offer adult education to those who want to learn a skill - I employ an accountant who had no formal education until doing so.

As an employer of people in the UK and Europe I can tell you that it's often incredibly difficult to get British people to do the bricktier jobs that need doing. More often than not (that's not an exaggeration, it's genuinely over 50%) people don't want to do the job (it's boring, it's below them, etc) or would rather stay on benefits than do a physically demanding job.

A system with a smaller safety net does not cause crime or drug use, poor personal choices cause crime and drug use. There are plenty of poor people who go to work and don't commit crime, just as there are plenty of rich drug addicts and criminals.

Mental health provision is shocking in many developed countries - I agree there. Far more needs to be done, both at a clinical level and in general attitudes.

I think "cause" is a bit of a red herring here. There's not a perfect correlation and almost never a simple causation. I much prefer to talk about risk factors. That along with other risk factors, or in the absence of protective/resilience factors, are shown to cause some of the problems I highlighted (among others). These are risk factors, most certainly. Regardless of if you consider them causes or not. This is a factual question on which scientific answers can be found. I think I can present a rather convincing evidence based argument that I'm right about these risk factors. If that translates to you as a "cause" or not for any given individual seems to me to be of little consequence.

I think entrepreneurship is also somewhat a red herring. And the presence of good jobs that allows for stability is much underrated. You're presenting the pull yourself up by the bootstraps ideal, but it remains true that very few people actually manage to do that. Whereas in other conditions a lot more people manage to become very productive members of society. The story of the very few that manage the almost impossible is a great narrative, but it's not a solution.

I agree that as a society attitudes about work have changed, and not for the better. But again - unemployment runs in families. Is it a solution to point to entrepreneurship? Or is it perhaps a better solution to look for the actual societal factors that influence more people to break the circle.

I'm glad we agree on mental health. Another area where actually getting market forces to work in our favour seems extremely difficult. And for me government control and a "socialist model" seems the best way to go. Risk factors again I think are undeniable unless one wants to become a denialist.

 

[scaramanga]

I think "cause" is a bit of a red herring here. There's not a perfect correlation and almost never a simple causation. I much prefer to talk about risk factors. That along with other risk factors, or in the absence of protective/resilience factors, are shown to cause some of the problems I highlighted (among others). These are risk factors, most certainly. Regardless of if you consider them causes or not. This is a factual question on which scientific answers can be found. I think I can present a rather convincing evidence based argument that I'm right about these risk factors. If that translates to you as a "cause" or not for any given individual seems to me to be of little consequence.

I think entrepreneurship is also somewhat a red herring. And the presence of good jobs that allows for stability is much underrated. You're presenting the pull yourself up by the bootstraps ideal, but it remains true that very few people actually manage to do that. Whereas in other conditions a lot more people manage to become very productive members of society. The story of the very few that manage the almost impossible is a great narrative, but it's not a solution.

I agree that as a society attitudes about work have changed, and not for the better. But again - unemployment runs in families. Is it a solution to point to entrepreneurship? Or is it perhaps a better solution to look for the actual societal factors that influence more people to break the circle.

I'm glad we agree on mental health. Another area where actually getting market forces to work in our favour seems extremely difficult. And for me government control and a "socialist model" seems the best way to go. Risk factors again I think are undeniable unless one wants to become a denialist.

The difference between risk factor and cause is really the crux of the matter for me.

Obviously nobody chooses to have a mental health issue and as we're reasonably close on that I think it makes sense to leave it aside (I think we should have a publicly funded, privately provided model but I suspect you'd prefer public provision too).

When it comes to crime, alcohol and drug use (again, leaving aside mental health issues not caused by these choices) then it's ultimately a personal choice. That for me is the significant point - risk factors are just risk factors, the ultimate choice is still a choice. Nobody (of sound mind) is forced into those choices, no matter how difficult their lives are.

 

[braineclipse]

The difference between risk factor and cause is really the crux of the matter for me.

Obviously nobody chooses to have a mental health issue and as we're reasonably close on that I think it makes sense to leave it aside (I think we should have a publicly funded, privately provided model but I suspect you'd prefer public provision too).

When it comes to crime, alcohol and drug use (again, leaving aside mental health issues not caused by these choices) then it's ultimately a personal choice. That for me is the significant point - risk factors are just risk factors, the ultimate choice is still a choice. Nobody (of sound mind) is forced into those choices, no matter how difficult their lives are.

On mental health I think a combination of private and public providers is a good idea in deed. This is essentially what we have in Norway at the moment, though the funding is falling short imo.

So it's a personal choice... Do you expect people to start making different decisions? If not, how is pointing towards it being a personal choice anything close to a solution that will improve the situation? This could boil down to some free will argument, though I suspect it wouldn't get us anywhere. But even avoiding that rabbit hole I struggle to see how "it's a personal decision" is a good place to end up on this.

We know that in other circumstances some of those people would make different decisions. Decisions that are better for them (presumably) and society (definitely). A fairly basic socioeconomic way of looking at it could identify risk factors and protective/resilience factors that can be influenced in a way that's beneficial to society as a whole on top of decreasing individual suffering. Why isn't that a superior way of looking at it instead of stopping at "personal choice"?

(Perhaps where we will disagree more fundamentally would be where there is a socioeconomic cost to decreasing individual suffering, or rather the threshold we would find preferable here)

Though don't misunderstand me. I've had enough discussions with people way closer to the communist end of the scale than myself that present more or less a "just increase government spending ad nauseum" kind of attitude that I find extremely difficult to take seriously. I suspect we would react with an almost identical level of eye rolling and frustration at an argument like that. Sam Harris introduced me to the term the "regressive left" on different topics, but I find the term quite apt for some of the people I think we both get tired of really quickly.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

https://twitter.com/x/status/699706718419345408

Pure comedy reading his and his brother's quotes on his timeline.

WTF

I thought that was a joke. Dear GHod.

It makes you wonder it really does, what is going on over there.