Such as the abject failure of the US government to adequately regulate capitalism because billionaires habitually back candidates who promise to roll back regulation?
I see a lot of anti-capitalist sentiment from people on the left these days and I think they're wrongfully blaming capitalism for the failures of the US government.
Such as the abject failure of the US government to adequately regulate capitalism because billionaires habitually back candidates who promise to roll back regulation?
Yeah, exactly. It was a failure in regulation. I'm not advocating for a free market at all, but a competitive market where nuanced regulations are in place to keep the market operating well and...
Yeah, exactly. It was a failure in regulation. I'm not advocating for a free market at all, but a competitive market where nuanced regulations are in place to keep the market operating well and prevent things like the oligopoly we see in mobile carriers or the issues you seen in places like the California housing market. /r/neoliberal has some great discussions, as well as useful information in the sidebar and wiki.
I think you put it really well here, and I do think that even the most anti-capitalist politicians on the left are likely to be far better for the average American than anyone in the GOP, but I...
in political messaging there's no room for such nuance, so it becomes easy to paint the left as anti-capitalist rather than anti-corruption/greed.
I think you put it really well here, and I do think that even the most anti-capitalist politicians on the left are likely to be far better for the average American than anyone in the GOP, but I find that people are actually talking about policy less and less these days, despite the fact that policy is what actually changes things in the end. Finding a way to reintroduce nuance into political discourse would go a long way in creating policies that actually help people.
I'm not sure where you got that quote as I couldn't find it in the linked article. That being said... "Don't blame the guy who stabbed you, blame the guy who failed to stop him from stabbing you!"...
I'm not sure where you got that quote as I couldn't find it in the linked article. That being said...
"Don't blame the guy who stabbed you, blame the guy who failed to stop him from stabbing you!"
I don't know about you, but that logic seems a bit flimsy to me.
It wasn't a quote, but if you want a quote to chew on try this: That's from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, which enumerates the powers delegated to Congress....
I'm not sure where you got that quote as I couldn't find it in the linked article.
It wasn't a quote, but if you want a quote to chew on try this:
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
That's from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, which enumerates the powers delegated to Congress. Congress has been derelict in its duty to regulate interstate commerce in a responsible manner, and instead of a free and healthy market with vigorous competition we have monopsonies and outright monopolies as corporations gobble each other up until only a few massive players remain in each industry.
Why did this happen? Because the Republicans are closet anarchists and refuse to help govern. Instead, they want to prove that government can't do anything useful by not letting the government do anything useful, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So the party will have no choice but to support someone like Harris because the party is moving to the left on identity. The coded message here is that Sanders won't work any more because the...
So the party will have no choice but to support someone like Harris because the party is moving to the left on identity. The coded message here is that Sanders won't work any more because the optics of him being a white man don't fit with the direction the party has moved. Again they are making it about a potential candidate's identity rather than about their policies being informed by identity. Anything to keep the neo-liberal dream alive. Lose the center of the US again because your donors don't like talk about economic populism and another four years of Trump. Idiots.
The theoretical scenario the article lays out is that Sanders may not get the support of this newly energized voter base if he sticks to his guns on identity politics. It's pure political...
The coded message here is that Sanders won't work any more because the optics of him being a white man don't fit with the direction the party has moved.
The theoretical scenario the article lays out is that Sanders may not get the support of this newly energized voter base if he sticks to his guns on identity politics. It's pure political pragmatism: if a block of voters is visibly stirred by something like identity politics and you publicly disavow it then you're not going to get those voters. That's his choice to make.
My point is that the elite Democrat media is pumping up the Identity game - because it works to signal that they are "progressive" while maintaining the economic status quo. Notice that even the...
My point is that the elite Democrat media is pumping up the Identity game - because it works to signal that they are "progressive" while maintaining the economic status quo. Notice that even the ones who are adopting some of Bernie's policies are too busy with identity politics to make any noise about medicare for all or anything else. I think Kirsten Gillibrand is the only one actually talking the talk - everybody else is "minor corrections -steady as she goes".
I would say that Kamala Harris is far from a neoliberal. Neoliberals are actually very much centrist on issues of economics, but definitely side with the Dems on most social issues and things like...
I would say that Kamala Harris is far from a neoliberal. Neoliberals are actually very much centrist on issues of economics, but definitely side with the Dems on most social issues and things like immigration. I do agree that the party is moving too far to the left and leaving the center out in the cold though. I see a lot of anti-capitalist sentiment from people on the left these days and I think they're wrongfully blaming capitalism for the failures of the US government.
Ok, if you want to be as deluded as 90% of the Democratic representation who simply don't like being labeled as neo-liberals. Where did I say the party is moving too far left that you could agree...
Ok, if you want to be as deluded as 90% of the Democratic representation who simply don't like being labeled as neo-liberals.
Where did I say the party is moving too far left that you could agree with me?
I think the anti-capitalist sentiment you're seeing is warranted (whether they mistakenly generalize rather than blaming crony capitalism) - worker compensation flat for 40 years while productivity continued upward. I'm glad the current system is working so close to optimum for you - I can only imagine that's why you would defend it. I get the sense from your other comments here that you think it only needs, at best, a few "tweeks". That seems like a neo-liberal viewpoint but your comment about "government failures" belies a libertarian one.
Sorry if it wasn't clear, I think we need far more than a few "tweaks" to our regulations, and I'm saying that market regulations are the answer; that's definitely not a libertarian viewpoint. A...
Sorry if it wasn't clear, I think we need far more than a few "tweaks" to our regulations, and I'm saying that market regulations are the answer; that's definitely not a libertarian viewpoint. A market "highly regulated to encourage competition" as @super_james put it elsewhere in the thread is an ideal scenario in my mind. Introducing policies like a Negative Income Tax and a Land Value Tax while removing harmful regulations like the Jones Act would make a good start to help the disadvantaged. My comment about the government failing the people was meant to be in reference to all of the damage that the Republican party has done in my lifetime, rather than being against the idea of government.
Where did I say the party is moving too far left that you could agree with me?
I figured by you saying that they would lose the center of the US again that they were too far to the left of center, because the people we see gaining momentum like Bernie and Kamala are nowhere near right of center.
For a fivethirtyeight article they didn't seem to have a lot of statistics to back up the articles views. More Dems are pro-immigration and anti-discrimination, but seems flimsy support for the...
For a fivethirtyeight article they didn't seem to have a lot of statistics to back up the articles views. More Dems are pro-immigration and anti-discrimination, but seems flimsy support for the overall points of the article.
Fair enough I guess. I just expect a certain amount of statistical basis for all their stuff, regardless of topic. That's what I like about 538 usually, and I didn't see it here.
Fair enough I guess.
I just expect a certain amount of statistical basis for all their stuff, regardless of topic. That's what I like about 538 usually, and I didn't see it here.
It's still reasonably well sourced, and I still think 538 usually has a fairly good overview of the political situation, even when they aren't citing numbers.
It's still reasonably well sourced, and I still think 538 usually has a fairly good overview of the political situation, even when they aren't citing numbers.
Such as the abject failure of the US government to adequately regulate capitalism because billionaires habitually back candidates who promise to roll back regulation?
Yeah, exactly. It was a failure in regulation. I'm not advocating for a free market at all, but a competitive market where nuanced regulations are in place to keep the market operating well and prevent things like the oligopoly we see in mobile carriers or the issues you seen in places like the California housing market.
/r/neoliberal has some great discussions, as well as useful information in the sidebar and wiki.
I think getting a short hand term for markets highly regulated to encourage competition would go a long way to fixing this.
I think you put it really well here, and I do think that even the most anti-capitalist politicians on the left are likely to be far better for the average American than anyone in the GOP, but I find that people are actually talking about policy less and less these days, despite the fact that policy is what actually changes things in the end. Finding a way to reintroduce nuance into political discourse would go a long way in creating policies that actually help people.
I'm not sure where you got that quote as I couldn't find it in the linked article. That being said...
"Don't blame the guy who stabbed you, blame the guy who failed to stop him from stabbing you!"
I don't know about you, but that logic seems a bit flimsy to me.
It wasn't a quote, but if you want a quote to chew on try this:
That's from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, which enumerates the powers delegated to Congress. Congress has been derelict in its duty to regulate interstate commerce in a responsible manner, and instead of a free and healthy market with vigorous competition we have monopsonies and outright monopolies as corporations gobble each other up until only a few massive players remain in each industry.
Why did this happen? Because the Republicans are closet anarchists and refuse to help govern. Instead, they want to prove that government can't do anything useful by not letting the government do anything useful, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So the party will have no choice but to support someone like Harris because the party is moving to the left on identity. The coded message here is that Sanders won't work any more because the optics of him being a white man don't fit with the direction the party has moved. Again they are making it about a potential candidate's identity rather than about their policies being informed by identity. Anything to keep the neo-liberal dream alive. Lose the center of the US again because your donors don't like talk about economic populism and another four years of Trump. Idiots.
The theoretical scenario the article lays out is that Sanders may not get the support of this newly energized voter base if he sticks to his guns on identity politics. It's pure political pragmatism: if a block of voters is visibly stirred by something like identity politics and you publicly disavow it then you're not going to get those voters. That's his choice to make.
My point is that the elite Democrat media is pumping up the Identity game - because it works to signal that they are "progressive" while maintaining the economic status quo. Notice that even the ones who are adopting some of Bernie's policies are too busy with identity politics to make any noise about medicare for all or anything else. I think Kirsten Gillibrand is the only one actually talking the talk - everybody else is "minor corrections -steady as she goes".
I would say that Kamala Harris is far from a neoliberal. Neoliberals are actually very much centrist on issues of economics, but definitely side with the Dems on most social issues and things like immigration. I do agree that the party is moving too far to the left and leaving the center out in the cold though. I see a lot of anti-capitalist sentiment from people on the left these days and I think they're wrongfully blaming capitalism for the failures of the US government.
Ok, if you want to be as deluded as 90% of the Democratic representation who simply don't like being labeled as neo-liberals.
Where did I say the party is moving too far left that you could agree with me?
I think the anti-capitalist sentiment you're seeing is warranted (whether they mistakenly generalize rather than blaming crony capitalism) - worker compensation flat for 40 years while productivity continued upward. I'm glad the current system is working so close to optimum for you - I can only imagine that's why you would defend it. I get the sense from your other comments here that you think it only needs, at best, a few "tweeks". That seems like a neo-liberal viewpoint but your comment about "government failures" belies a libertarian one.
Sorry if it wasn't clear, I think we need far more than a few "tweaks" to our regulations, and I'm saying that market regulations are the answer; that's definitely not a libertarian viewpoint. A market "highly regulated to encourage competition" as @super_james put it elsewhere in the thread is an ideal scenario in my mind. Introducing policies like a Negative Income Tax and a Land Value Tax while removing harmful regulations like the Jones Act would make a good start to help the disadvantaged. My comment about the government failing the people was meant to be in reference to all of the damage that the Republican party has done in my lifetime, rather than being against the idea of government.
I figured by you saying that they would lose the center of the US again that they were too far to the left of center, because the people we see gaining momentum like Bernie and Kamala are nowhere near right of center.
For a fivethirtyeight article they didn't seem to have a lot of statistics to back up the articles views. More Dems are pro-immigration and anti-discrimination, but seems flimsy support for the overall points of the article.
Secret Identity as a column is specifically focused on discussing identity politics, it's a little bit further from the usual 538 article.
Fair enough I guess.
I just expect a certain amount of statistical basis for all their stuff, regardless of topic. That's what I like about 538 usually, and I didn't see it here.
It's still reasonably well sourced, and I still think 538 usually has a fairly good overview of the political situation, even when they aren't citing numbers.