2020 US Election (Part One)

[rah]

So really, don't think of it as reparations, so much as finally giving black Americans the opportunity which was handed on a silver platter to the white Boomers and the Great generationites and which was denied to black Americans themselves.

Find with me. But I think its still easier to sell if you don't call it reparations. Fix the injustices.

 

[Lexicus]

No, you're missing my point. You wouldn't actually pay down the debt with the money, you would just use that as your justification for seizing wealth, because most people don't understand how money works. Once you pass the wealth seizure bill, nobody will care if the debt continues to grow.

Well, I don't believe it's ethical to lie to people about what you're going to do, so I don't endorse this idea.

Reparations isn't about rectifying the sins of our great-great-great-great grandfathers - the slave owners and the Johnny Rebs, it's rather about rectifying the sins of our fathers and grandfathers, the lost generationites, greatest generationites, and boomers that established the system essential to the creation of the white middle class that politicians to this day love kowtowing to, while also creating and consistently making use of mechanisms therein to systematically preclude African Americans from accessing that system. So really, don't think of it as reparations, so much as finally giving black Americans the opportunity which was handed on a silver platter to the white Boomers and the Great generationites and which was denied to black Americans themselves.

I agree with basically everything you've said in your post, but my question is: assuming you're talking, like, the plain meaning of the word "reparations," how does the government decide who is going to receive the benefits? I assume there will have to be some sort of method of filtering out the deserving victims from everyone else, so will the government apply the one drop rule or just use the paper bag test? Or do we want to create some sort of sophisticated apparatus that sorts people into different racial groups based on a complex set of criteria?

 

[metalhead]

Well, I don't believe it's ethical to lie to people about what you're going to do, so I don't endorse this idea.

You don't have to lie about it. It's all about framing. Selling wealth taxes as sound budgeting, with "paying down the debt" as a stretch goal is not lying. It's no less ethical than what every politician does on every political campaign.

People aren't particularly likely to believe the debt would get paid down. But as an aspirational goal? Why not? Fleeting surpluses are a thing that could happen.

 

[Lexicus]

If I tax the rich I'm going to frame it as a policy to create social equality, not strengthen the cause of reaction by framing the policy in conservative terms. I've come to believe that conservative framing of policy (biggest historical example is probably Social Security) is ultimately counterproductive even where it appears necessary or helpful for narrow tactical reasons.

 

[metalhead]

If I tax the rich I'm going to frame it as a policy to create social equality, not strengthen the cause of reaction by framing the policy in conservative terms. I've come to believe that conservative framing of policy (biggest historical example is probably Social Security) is ultimately counterproductive even where it appears necessary or helpful for narrow tactical reasons.

You can frame it both ways. You're not limited to one frame.

 

[Lexicus]

My argument is that one framing is actively bad, not that we can't adopt it because we can only do one and there's a better frame available.

 

[Estebonrober]

My argument is that one framing is actively bad, not that we can't adopt it because we can only do one and there's a better frame available.

Is it so bad that you'd sacrifice the goal because the optics of it does not fit your wishes?

Whether my concern about capital flight out of the dollar is reasonable or not it is a popular source of nervousness and can be used to great effect politically.

 

[Lexicus]

Is it so bad that you'd sacrifice the goal because the optics of it does not fit your wishes?

At the end of the day, yes. If you present the policy as intending to pay down the debt, but then don't pay down the debt, you open yourself up to basically accurate accusations that you lied. I don't think the political effects of that would be very good. And I am sufficiently opposed to paying down the debt as actual policy that I believe it is harmful to lend it any credence as a serious policy idea.

Whether my concern about capital flight out of the dollar is reasonable or not it is a popular source of nervousness and can be used to great effect politically.

Concerns about capital flight out of the dollar are reasonable until you realize that the US government could essentially end international capital mobility at the stroke of a pen. That is an exaggeration, but not a huge one.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It's not a reasonable justification for anything. Taxing the rich to pay down the debt is silly as paying down the debt makes the rich richer at the expense of everyone else due to deflation. Paying down the debt is a terrible "use" of tax money that doesn't actually deliver any benefits to anyone and thus unlike many other "uses" of tax money does not create a constituency of people invested in the policy.

Practically speaking paying down the debt will cause a recession and whichever party does it will then be promptly voted out of power.

From a purely strategic standpoint, its a poor strategy for Democrats to focus on "reducing the deficit", "balancing the budget", "paying down the debt", "fiscal responsibility" and similar such policies anyway. This is because the Republicans have successfully branded the Democrats as the "tax-and-spend liberals" and that is how they are viewed in the public consciousness regardless of what they actually do while in power (like Clinton's budget surplus). The Democrats just need to do what people know and love them for, which is deliver the programs and services that people want and need. Let the Republicans howl about "deficits" and "national debts" and when the voters finally actually give a squeeze about that (which is never), they can call the Republicans bluff, elect them... after which one of two things will happen...

1) The Republicans will break their promises, and not do anything about "fiscal responsibility" and promptly be voted out for failing to deliver
2) The Republicans will have enough firebrands to actually deliver the austerity they promised along with all the misery that involves... and promptly be voted out in favor of Democrats who will be promising relief... as usual.

Its a similar situation with immigration and national security. Republicans are seen as the ones who are tough on illegal immigration and no matter how many times its pointed out that Obama out-deported Baby Bush, people still see the Republicans as the party who is "strong" when it comes to stopping "illegal immigration". Similarly, Republicans have successfully claimed the mantle of champions of national security and regardless of what the Democrats do... including capturing Bin Laden for crissakes... they will never be regarded as "strong" on national security compared to the Republicans. So they waste their time and resources trying to outdo the Republicans in these areas.

 

[Lexicus]

From a purely strategic standpoint, its a poor strategy for Democrats to focus on "reducing the deficit", "balancing the budget", "paying down the debt", "fiscal responsibility" and similar such policies anyway. This is because the Republicans have successfully branded the Democrats as the "tax-and-spend liberals" and that is how they are viewed in the public consciousness regardless of what they actually do while in power (like Clinton's budget surplus). The Democrats just need to do what people know and love them for, which is deliver the programs and services that people want and need. Let the Republican howl about "deficits" and "national debts" and when the voters finally actually give a squeeze about that (which is never), they can call the Republicans bluff, elect them... after which one of two things will happen...

1) The Republicans will break their promises, and not do anything about "fiscal responsibility" and promptly be voted out for failing to deliver
2) The Republicans will have enough firebrands to actually deliver the austerity they promised along with all the misery that involves... and promptly be voted out in favor of Democrats who will be promising relief... as usual.

Its a similar situation with immigration and national security. Republicans are seen as the ones who are tough on illegal immigration and no matter how many times its pointed out that Obama out-deported Baby Bush, people still see the Republicans as the party who is "strong" when it comes to stopping "illegal immigration". Similarly, Republicans have successfully claimed the mantle of champions of national security and regardless of what the Democrats do... including capturing Bin Laden for crissakes... they will never be regarded as "strong" on national security compared to the Republicans. So they waste their time and resources trying to outdo the Republicans in these areas.

I largely agree with this. And incidentally, the political calculus seems so obvious to me on this question that I can only assume that people like Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi are actually 100% ideologically committed to the idea of debt reduction, and genuinely believe that it would be irresponsible of them to do politics in a way that minimizes or downplays the importance of the deficit/debt.

 

[sophie]

I agree with basically everything you've said in your post, but my question is: assuming you're talking, like, the plain meaning of the word "reparations," how does the government decide who is going to receive the benefits? I assume there will have to be some sort of method of filtering out the deserving victims from everyone else, so will the government apply the one drop rule or just use the paper bag test? Or do we want to create some sort of sophisticated apparatus that sorts people into different racial groups based on a complex set of criteria?

I'm all for large infusions of cash to black Americans broadly, but I think the best way to materially rectify the situation would be:

1. reimposition of strong rent controls in urban areas, with either incentives offered for renting to people or color, or in the event of a lottery system, weighting to benefit poor people of color
2. heavy expansion of public housing spending, same accompanying stipulations as 1)
3. regulation of the principal beneficiaries of gentrification (i.e. mandates on real estate developers regarding price range/upscaling of residences; if they're destroying low-rent housing to build "luxury" high rises, they should also be responsible for additional construction to offset the the affordable housing they destroyed in the area). "Urban renewal" cannot be a one-to-one thing; that's what got us into this mess in the first place.
4. heavy investment in urban public transportation both for maintenance and expansion of existing structures. Stipulations attached to the investment regarding ethnicity of ridership principally benefited by the expansion/funds allocation. E.g.: public transit in Chicago is generally good...if you're staying north, the further south and/or further west you get the more appallingly bad it gets. Again, we got into this mess by handing gobs of money to federal administrations and said "have at it," and they did...for white people. So stipulations for this money need to be attached mandating it benefit minorities and neighborhoods of color first and principally (if not exclusively).
5. heavy federal investment in school systems in historically and currently black areas
6. enactment of strong regulation restricting private and charter school operation or expansion thereof
7. large government subsidies (either grants, subsidies, or low interest loans, but preferably the latter two) for people of color to go to university; implementation of affirmative action requirements for all accredited universities
8. government subsidized low interest loans/grants/subsidies for people of color to buy/rent homes/apartments and start small businesses
9. raising federal minimum wage to $15 or $20/hr, or else implementing a federal minimum wage system whereby local minimum wage is automatically tacked to a certain purchasing power level consistent with a living wage.
10. Universal single-payer healthcare
11. Heavy expansion of services offered and ease of access to social welfare systems, particularly foodstamps, social security, unemployment benefits, subsidized childcare/paid maternity leave guarantees
12. Dramatic alteration to voting structures: ideally the implementation of multi-member districts with some sort of ranked voting system, and regulations making the entire voting process easier, but if that's not possible: federal takeover of federal election regulation; regulations regarding maximum people-per-voting place/people-per-voting-booth, automatic voter registration; expansions to early voting access AND election day is a federal holiday AND guaranteed paid time off for voting
13. Decriminalization of drug offenses, expansion of addiction centers, broad-based fixing of criminal justice and prison systems (really 11, 12, and 13 should be top priority)

I mean, for me, ideally, we just abolish Capitalism. I'm not so naïve as to believe it solves all our problems regarding racism immediately, but it certainly would go a long way towards eliminating most of the material means and incentives that perpetuate racist structures. But if we have to be SocDems about this, then rent control/public housing (and/or abolish landlords), free universities, strong protections for and federal encouragement of broad-based unionization, and heavy injections of federal money for public transportation, public schooling, and small business creation targeted at neighborhoods of color specifically and people of color broadly seem to me the best way to go about addressing structural racism (i.e. just racism).

 

[Estebonrober]

At the end of the day, yes. If you present the policy as intending to pay down the debt, but then don't pay down the debt, you open yourself up to basically accurate accusations that you lied. I don't think the political effects of that would be very good. And I am sufficiently opposed to paying down the debt as actual policy that I believe it is harmful to lend it any credence as a serious policy idea.



Concerns about capital flight out of the dollar are reasonable until you realize that the US government could essentially end international capital mobility at the stroke of a pen. That is an exaggeration, but not a huge one.

Drawing up the legislation without some sort of international accord will in and of itself cause massive capital flight though wouldn't it? Besides although I think I understand the nationalistic premise of banning capital flight outside of one's nation the elite class of the world has no country so without an international accord we can't prevent it.

 

[rah]

Believing that the US dollar will always be the global currency is dangerous. Fortunately I'll likely be dead before that happens.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yeah, it's a massive economic advantage and we should carefully shepherd it for as long as we possibly can.

 

[Hygro]

Krugman made the case that being the reserve currency is a minor boon. I would say it's less a cause of prosperity and more a reflection of it. As long as people want what we have in terms of labor and capital, we're good.

Well hold on now, if we can use it as a reasonable justification for seizing wealthy people's assets, maybe we shouldn't be so quick to eliminate it from the public consciousness.

Hahaha

1) The Republicans will break their promises, and not do anything about "fiscal responsibility" and promptly be voted out for failing to deliver
2) The Republicans will have enough firebrands to actually deliver the austerity they promised along with all the misery that involves... and promptly be voted out in favor of Democrats who will be promising relief... as usual

This right here. This right here.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm all for large infusions of cash to black Americans broadly

I am too, in principle, as a meme. But I can't think of any way to implement that kind of policy without the government getting uncomfortably involved in racial science.

I agree with most of the items in your list, but there are a few that imply some sort of racial means-test would be applied to benefits, that again make me envision the government asking people questions that make me very uncomfortable.

• reimposition of strong rent controls in urban areas, with either incentives offered for renting to people or color, or in the event of a lottery system, weighting to benefit poor people of color

I am leery of offering incentives to developers and landlords as a means of accomplishing social goals. I would prefer massive investment in public housing to this.

But re: my initial question. In this scenario, let's say we do the lottery system, how do we preferentially weight people of color within that system? Just have people report their own race on a form?

I suppose what I'm getting at here is that the structure we've established for means-testing programs we have already strikes me as being too much of an imposition (to say nothing of its cost-benefit profile in terms of resources expended vs money saved). I am just not sure how we explicitly formulate public policies around race, without creating some sort of "racial means test"...and that will inevitably get the government into the business of drawing color lines, because it will need some framework for adjudicating claims to qualify for benefits.

Drawing up the legislation without some sort of international accord will in and of itself cause massive capital flight though wouldn't it?

You wouldn't necessarily need legislation. My preferred route would probably be to declare international moneylaundering and illicit financial flows a national emergency, then using the already-existing presidential powers to impose sanctions on individuals and businesses to de facto reimpose capital controls, and I would do this literally overnight, at like 3AM eastern time, to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to get around it.

I would say it's less a cause of prosperity and more a reflection of it. As long as people want what we have in terms of labor and capital, we're good.

Precisely this. There is also the dimension of empire to consider here. We all bag on US military spending but that more than anything else is responsible for the dollar's status as world reserve currency.

Additionally, @Estebonrober , the advantage of being the US is precisely that "people want what we have in terms of labor and capital." The US still has a tremendously disproportionate significance in world capital markets because since the 1990s the bulk of money flowing around the world goes through US-based entities subject to US law at some point in its life-cycle. At that's because at the end of the day, despite financialization, despite the decay of the manufacturing base, despite the cancer of the super-rich metastasizing through the system, the US economy is still the most dynamic in the world. It has the most stuff going on and everyone else wants a piece of that stuff.

The really funny thing is in many cases establishing a meaningful regulation of international capital wouldn't even require any major executive action let alone legislation. A lot of the actual moneylaundering could be stopped if the legal and real estate professions followed their own internal ethical rules or if the government decided to enforce already-existing laws against fraud, moneylaundering and so on.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Basically the entirety of Trump's business history is a case in point of your last paragraph. We don't need new laws to fight the corrupt practices he partook in, we need our current laws enforced. He didn't really invent new ways of committing crime, we just suck at holding the rich accountable.

Another case in point is how the GOP has systematically starved the IRS of resources to go after crooked billionaires. Adding insult to injury, Trump has directed the IRS to spend more of its efforts targeting the returns of poor and middle class Americans for audit and less of the wealthy, the inverse of Obama's directive.

 

[Estebonrober]

. A lot of the actual moneylaundering could be stopped if the legal and real estate professions followed their own internal ethical rules or if the government decided to enforce already-existing laws against fraud, moneylaundering and so on.

Considering our President and the news today this idea seems ironic. I agree of course, but it is obvious that the more rich con men acquire the more laws they become willing to break to acquire more. It almost seems to be a universal trait.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The really funny thing is in many cases establishing a meaningful regulation of international capital wouldn't even require any major executive action let alone legislation. A lot of the actual moneylaundering could be stopped if the legal and real estate professions followed their own internal ethical rules or if the government decided to enforce already-existing laws against fraud, moneylaundering and so on.

Truthfully, all law is basically unenforceable and comes down to voluntary compliance.

 

[Estebonrober]

Truthfully, all law is basically unenforceable and comes down to voluntary compliance.

It would really help if professional associations that are supposedly responsible for self regulation actually performed their job. You could make those associations failures to do so an issue and maybe make some headway on this. For example it shouldn't take a guy lying to congress openly to lose his law license.