I think you’ve nailed it. If you ask the folks living on the coasts and in the ~10% areas…they are going to say it’s a success.
I think most people disagree….It is played out in our politics
Democrats have left moderate voters behind
- Thread starter JamieDimonsBalls
- Start date
I think most people disagree….It is played out in our politics
The question before us is whether the government programs designed to eliminate poverty have failed because poverty continues, or does the mere fact poverty continues, and in fact may be growing, proves the programs are necessary.
Some of us think the very existence of government programs only makes people who otherwise would be self sufficient dependent on these programs.
Others accept some people may choose to game the welfare system, but point to situations such as those with disabilities and temporary setbacks who need help. Furthermore as a charitable country with great wealth we can afford to assist people in need.
Radical idea: government welfare is simply the process by which the American capitalist class externalizes the most deleterious effects of unrestrained market economics. We have food stamps and Medicaid so that Google and Amazon and the like can continue to hoard wealth, without the fear of pitchforks and guillotines.
Socialist Michael Harrington in explaining why socialism never gained ground in America called attention to what he called the "capitalist welfare state programs".
Government programs supported by the capitalists to take the sharp edges off the capitalist system to prevent socialism from gaining popularity.
It can be srgued during the Cold War both Dems and Pubs voted for increases in programs such as Social Security to prove to the world that democratic capitalism could provide for its people better than communism.
It mainly started with FDR. And he was facing a time when socialism really was a thing in the US.
The Great Transfer-mation - Economic Innovation Group
Explore your community’s reliance on government transfers through EIG’s Great Transfer-mation Project.
eig.org
What happens to a community whose economy does not produce anything that the world wants?
Link is to updated county by county view
The Great Transfer-mation - Economic Innovation Group
Explore your community’s reliance on government transfers through EIG’s Great Transfer-mation Project.
What happens to a community whose economy does not produce anything that the world wants?
Link is to updated county by county view
Brad, socialist fans of Eugene Debs who probably peaked out with his 1912 presidential campaign may not agree that socialism reached its peak in the New Deal era of the 1930s.
In fact Harrington"s notion about the New Deal programs being the death knell for the socialist party may have merit.
So the New Deal rather than taking the country down the path of socialism (as my parents believed) may have eliminated the socialist party.
Then again, many would argue who needs a socialist party when there is the Democrat party.
The aging population including all those Baby Boomers (largest generational group in history) who are retired or retiring with Social Security and Medicare transfers has to be factor in all this.
The Boomers lived in a period of prosperity so would expect their Social Security income to be surprisingly high. In addition the cost of health care for the oldsters these days has to make Medicare payments going to communities staggering.
Almost forgot Medicaid which many oldsters transition to in order to cover the astronomical costs of nursing homes.
Last edited:
hoot, I was referring to when a majority of the welfare state came into being. There were socialist movements from the late 19th Century on in the USA. FDR's moves were criticized as socialist/communist programs at the time. But one could certainly imagine a USA without FDR's programs that continued to face high % of unemployed and poor that rioted more, and maybe saw strong, radical parties and organizations form. I don't think it's radical to opine that FDR's programs staved off that possibility.
How FDR Saved Capitalism
During the economic crisis of the 1930s, many expected a socialist revolution. The revolution never came. Why? The man in the White House co-opted the left. By Hoover fellow Seymour Martin Lipset and Gary Marks.
“By squeezing nickels and dimes, the Baileys made limited resources and labor go further, producing ‘dozens of the prettiest little homes you ever saw, 90% owned by suckers who used to pay rent’ to old Potter.”
“What the Baileys’ penny pinching accomplished in moving Bedford Falls families out of Mr. Potter’s slums has been achieved by real-life Baileys throughout our nation’s history. Those who were able to save pennies enriched all mankind.”
Does Gramm get it right? Is he seeing something that wasn’t there in the movie and trying to apply to real-life?
BTW…a great movie.
Last edited:
“It has sometimes been remarked that asking five economists a question will generate 10 different answers.”
“Welcoming China into the global economic system….there has been only one answer.”
JDB, great question.
Just even starting to think about this question is wearing me down.
Instead JDB, here is wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
From 2017
“While we expect most of our production to remain in the U.S., we do need to establish local factories to ensure affordability for the markets they serve.”
Yeah yeah yeah
What do they mean by “ensure affordability”?
Odd post given the age of the article and everything that has happened since. There were previously two reasons to set up a Tesla manufacturing operation in China: 1) cheaper and quicker to get supply to the market (shipping costs are still elevated and thought improved, supply chains are not sufficient leaned out) and 2) you needed to have presence in many respects to sell product into China because of the government rules and requirements.
It’s the process that allows governments to maintain their control systems. It’s has nothing to do with capitalism.
I think it’s #2. I think they wanted to avoid the high tariffs that China had on imported vehicles.
Posted because Trump has stated his desire to impose tariffs on China
That's likely the biggest driver. In addition, China used to have limitations on foreign ownership, which required mainland presence and partnership. I don't remember when those rules changed.
Tesla likely doesn't view the Chinese market to be nearly as attractive or important as it did even seven years ago. Most multinationals would agree.
The rules accomplished what they intended. They got Tesla to invest in China.
Maybe.
It may not have been a politically astute line. But it sure hits the spot for me philosophically.
Here's a counter view.
On the Saying that “Extremism in Defense of Liberty is No Vice” - Niskanen Center
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." These deathless lines are generally credited to Barry Goldwater, but he didn't write them. Karl Hess, Goldwater's lovable anarchist speechwriter, put them in the Arizona senator's Republican convention...
www.niskanencenter.org
Yeah, break it down. Extremism is a pretty broad term, crazed. It encompasses violence and terrorism. Are you OK with people defending their own sense of "liberty" with violence and terrorism and calling that a virtue?Here's a counter view.
On the Saying that “Extremism in Defense of Liberty is No Vice” - Niskanen Center
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." These deathless lines are generally credited to Barry Goldwater, but he didn't write them. Karl Hess, Goldwater's lovable anarchist speechwriter, put them in the Arizona senator's Republican convention...
I think maybe you'd prefer "Obstinacy in defending liberty is no vice."
Yes, the Chinese economy has been reported to be in the dumps for a while now.
Meanwhile, BYD is set to import low cost BEVs in Germany where European labor unions are losing jobs as German factories close, due to a recession.
Nope, not violence.
I’d say a really good timely real-world example of the sort of liberty-oriented extremism I’m extolling is what Javier Milei is doing in Argentina.
At least some of his policies can fairly be called extreme. He’s dealing with a dire situation and is making some pretty radical changes - such as slashing some 50,000 government positions.
The shifts may be extreme. But if Argentina can stay the course he’s getting them on for the foreseeable future, they’ll become one of the wealthiest nations on earth….which is certainly no vice, in my book.
Give me some of that kind of extremism here, please.
Yes, the Democrats co-opted the (then) Socialist Party progressive agenda, but managed to avoid the label Socialist. The Socialists had been gaining in the national polls, despite being tainted by Russian Revolution and the Spanish Civil War.
Also, I have never bought into the notion that there are competing definitions of the word liberty.
I know there are people who have made that case - most notably FDR casting his vision for a right to housing and healthcare as pillars of a “freedom from want.”
Clever. But it’s bullshit. Liberty is people being able to act and interact with one another of their own accord…a lack of restriction or control by government.
People can hijack that term all they want. But language isn’t really something left up to anybody’s purposes. Words mean what they mean.
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't know how to define the difference between an extremism and radicalism. The first, for me, hints at violence being on the table and fanaticism. The second I've always associated with ideas pretty far outside the mainstream.
This, like many of my responses to you, is born out of 95% agreement and then some debate about the margins or maybe the underlying philosophy of the issue.
That said, I remain a skeptic about Argentina. I hope Milei succeeds but a lot could happen to derail that.
Upton Sinclair figured this out - that the problem wasn’t the stated aims of socialism, but merely the label.
Sinclair ran for office in California a couple times. First, as a Socialist. He got virtually no support. He later ran as a Democrat with the slogan EPIC: End Poverty in California. Same policies.
Here’s how he reflected on that:
The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them.
Hard to argue with that. Of course, the problem is that those policies don’t actually end poverty. They expand it.
Think the word might be a little bit more vague than that. Doesn't mean you can't apply your own restrictions for what you believe is appropriate.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
lib·er·ty
/ˈlibərdē/
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...2ahUKEwjj6tfbgtGKAxVsJNAFHUtuGUIQ3eEDegQIOhAM
noun
- 1.
the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
"compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty"
- 2.
the power or scope to act as one pleases.
"individuals should enjoy the liberty to pursue their own interests and preferences"
If something derails it, it will be political. What he’s aiming to do from a policy perspective will make that place a magnet for capital investment and trade.
But it’s politically treacherous for various reasons - not the least of which involve weaning people off of subsistence benefits.
I don’t know if he’ll make it to the finish line or not. But, if he does, I think the country will be richly rewarded for it. And it will be due to extremism in the defense of liberty.
@BradStevens sorry to derail crazed but for the wc book club Sinclair wrote like a mother fckr. Just an obscene number of books. Anyway everyone knows the jungle, hell from school, but he also wrote Oil. That was there will be blood. Phenomenal. Upton Sinclair to Daniel day Lewis 🐐 💩. I always think that’s what van pastor was like. Another 🐐
Maybe. I recognize the value of free markets, but am more sceptical than you about the possible outcomes here.
For example, even in a "best case" scenario, it's entirely possible that the poor and dumb in Argentina don't benefit that much from pre-Milei to post-Milei, even while overall national GDP and mean income soar. It's also not going to be quantifiable just how much Argentinian tradition and culture gets washed away by rampant capitalism and free markets there compared to the wealth created.
It's going to provide a lot of data and paper opportunities for academic economists for a long time, that's for sure.
Oh, I have no issues with those definitions.
The kind of perversions of the term I’m thinking of are like Charles Taylor’s concept of “positive liberty” - which, in his view, have egalitarian ends.
That is…negative liberty describes what the government cannot do to you, while a positive liberty describes something the government must do on your behalf.
The problem with that, of course, is that governments have no money except that which they tax away from people….meaning that providing a positive liberty for Paul necessarily means depriving Peter of his property.
This is not liberty.
Yeah, we read London from the 1910s writing about socialism. It was a weird book, unsatisfying in many ways, but still interesting as a piece of history. He knew what he was talking about in terms of American outlooks on socialism in those days.
We just read some short stories (Flannery O'Connor could write). Now onto a series of shorter novels or novellas, but @larsIU has Ulysses in his sights. If we do it, we might have to take a field trip to Dublin to celebrate.
I know you are. But I don’t think you should be. Sit back and watch.
If he (and/or his successors) can keep this ship headed in the direction he’s aiming to, it’s going to blow their economy up.
The problem (if you want to call it that, I don’t) is that the spoils will not be “distributed” equally. There will be inequality. Free markets do lead to inequality. But it’s the good kind, not the bad kind.
It’s not a coincidence that China’s liberalized economy has grown immensely, created a slew of self-made billionaires, and also lifted the living standards of average Chinese people while the Pony Ma’s of the world have become fabulously wealthy.
We need to get over our obsession with inequality. The kind this produces isn’t the same thing that tipped off the French Revolution. And I’ve never understood how so many smart people miss that distinction.
