Boomers: The Evil Generation!

[Timsup2nothin]

Dukakis and McGovern aren't my heroes.

NO ONE who could possibly be among your heroes, or even among your sort of tolerables, was going to get elected in the seventies, eighties, or nineties...and as I said, my concern is that someone you consider a hero probably would be the only way to give Trump a second term.

 

[rah]

Yes, I was also surprised that online didn't bring down the cost and wondered why not.

And Clinton was really a Republican dressed like a Democrat so there was no real interruption of control.

 

[Lexicus]

NO ONE who could possibly be among your heroes, or even among your sort of tolerables, was going to get elected in the seventies, eighties, or nineties...and as I said, my concern is that someone you consider a hero probably would be the only way to give Trump a second term.

Well, when you elect a President over my objections whose policy positions are not substantially different from Trump's and who will perpetuate the system that produced Trump, just don't be surprised when more Trumps show up in the future.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, when you elect a President over my objections whose policy positions are not substantially different from Trump's and who will perpetuate the system that produced Trump, just don't be surprised when more Trumps show up in the future.

Don't look at me, I'm the one leaving the country. It's the vast majority of your fellow Americans that are 'the problem' there.

 

[Lexicus]

Posadas was right all along

 

[Farm Boy]

Pray tell me, how useful is unaffordable living space? Either you flat can't get it, or it costs the labor of tomorrows to have today. Might rank as actively harmful, rather than useless, depending on who one is. Especially if they export power, no?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

NO ONE who could possibly be among your heroes, or even among your sort of tolerables, was going to get elected in the seventies, eighties, or nineties...and as I said, my concern is that someone you consider a hero probably would be the only way to give Trump a second term.

because the establishment candidate worked so well against trump?

you know, most countries have presidential candidates that people actually want to vote for, the "we always go for the lesser evil" kind of way is not, in fact, the only solution

no idea if Bern could have made it, no one knows, but it would have been a preferable scenario to at least have one good candidate..

 

[Hygro]

It was a necessary thing, given that the only real alternative - socialist revolution - was not in the cards. I don't know how that equates with me peddling any particular economic ideas. It's simply what happened. The effects were devastating to millions of workers and several industries, but that's capitalism for you. Peoples' well being is less important than wealth and, uh, not being socialists.

But even given that, Reagan was also taking the opportunity to popularize the Welfare Queen, so that the people whose livelihoods were sacrificed also got to be demonized so that government wouldn't have to be responsible for mitigating the negative consequences. This disgusting behavior led Americans to . . . [checks notes] re-elect Reagan in a historic landslide.

The 70s enjoyed much greater GDP growth than the 80s, marred by two bouts of inflation and one financial recession in between. The two inflations were driven by oil price spikes. Both were temporary shocks, the second of which prompted Carter's deregulation of natural gas which solved some of the longterm leverage OPEC had. I don't know what about Volcker's interest rate shock actually did for any longterm economic gains, but it certainly caused a lot of loss. The point was to curb demand for a (temporarily) limited supply, basically sparked a permanently stuck underclass and wiped out all the gains of the poorest made in the 70s, to which there has never been a recovery.

I'm pretty sure Volcker's interest rate hike was one of the great mistakes of the 20th century.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

because the establishment candidate worked so well against trump?

you know, most countries have presidential candidates that people actually want to vote for, the "we always go for the lesser evil" kind of way is not, in fact, the only solution

no idea if Bern could have made it, no one knows, but it would have been a preferable scenario to at least have one good candidate..

Revisionism at its most glaring. Nixon didn't get elected because people saw him as "the lesser evil." Nixon got elected because he was overwhelmingly popular. The fact that ten years later you couldn't find anyone, anywhere, who would admit to having voted for him doesn't erase that ugly reality.

"True progressives" don't miss out on getting elected because they are cheated off the ballot, they miss out on getting elected because their policies are about as popular as the policies of the hard core TEAhadists.

 

[Lexicus]

"True progressives" don't miss out on getting elected because they are cheated off the ballot, they miss out on getting elected because their policies are about as popular as the policies of the hard core TEAhadists.

Taxing the rich more, regulating banks, strengthening unions, universal free health care, good public education, lowering the cost of college...you honestly think these are unpopular policies

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Taxing the rich more, regulating banks, strengthening unions, universal free health care, good public education, lowering the cost of college...you honestly think these are unpopular policies

Yeah. Haven't you noticed that people promoting such policies get uniformly demolished at the ballot box except when they are running to represent fairly isolated unique populations?

I'm not saying that being unpopular makes them bad policies, just suggesting that you would be well served to look at electoral politics with the reality "if you don't win your policies frankly don't matter" lodged deep in your perspective.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Revisionism at its most glaring. Nixon didn't get elected because people saw him as "the lesser evil." Nixon got elected because he was overwhelmingly popular. The fact that ten years later you couldn't find anyone, anywhere, who would admit to having voted for him doesn't erase that ugly reality.

"True progressives" don't miss out on getting elected because they are cheated off the ballot, they miss out on getting elected because their policies are about as popular as the policies of the hard core TEAhadists.

you missed my main point: the establishment democrat lost against trump, and there's little evidence that leads me to believe that a clinton 2.0 would do much better. I'd rather have someone like Bernie fail spectacularly than have another election where both choices completely and utterly suck.

I also really don't believe that politicians, especially in the US of all countries, win votes because of policies. I think it has much more to do with targeted campaigns, overwhelming data analysis, media portrayal, effective campaigning, branding, influence, backroom deals, party support, a whole plethora of subconscious biases and an infinitude of other factors besides their actual platform.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Pray tell me, how useful is unaffordable living space? Either you flat can't get it, or it costs the labor of tomorrows to have today. Might rank as actively harmful, rather than useless, depending on who one is. Especially if they export power, no?

it is only useless if it is both unaffordable and empty. If people are paying for it at a high price then it is not useless. There are apparently enough people with money to maintain expensive real estate markets in many cities. Housing costs are much lower in many rural areas where there are few jobs and those jobs pay less. Why would you expect anything different?

Big government socialists might say that we need more "lower" income housing in places like Austin and SF. that might work if there are the jobs there to support the skill sets that are struggling. The ghost cities of China are an example of building housing that did not match the demand, affordability or desirability of the would be customers.

What is your solution?

 

[Farm Boy]

The statement was contextual in as far as it was considered a warning sign that there might be getting to be too many pigs for the teats*. I'd say it's a symptom, if it's a symptom of anything, of inequality. Generally speaking.

*though I suppose "too big for the trough" would be closer. I just don't like changing Lincoln quotes.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah. Haven't you noticed that people promoting such policies get uniformly demolished at the ballot box except when they are running to represent fairly isolated unique populations?

No.

 

[El_Machinae]

Taxing the rich more, regulating banks, strengthening unions, universal free health care, good public education, lowering the cost of college...you honestly think these are unpopular policies

In general, I would have to say that trickle-down is your biggest opponent when it comes to selling the policies. An incredible portion of people think that taxing the rich slows down future growth, in the same way they think that increasing government debt means that you'll be poor later.

In some ways, the voter feels like they are tightening their belt so that they can build a better future.

On my social media, I am frequently trying to figure out one sentence descriptions of how the above is not true, in a way that resonates as immediately obvious. It isn't easy. I can't just say it's wrong

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'd rather have someone like Bernie fail spectacularly than have another election where both choices completely and utterly suck.

Good morning Mr. jung. That might be fine for some places, but such an election fails to improve the lot of the people. Governments make laws and affect peoples lives. Moving the needle is important even if it is only a little.

 

[metalhead]

What are your top 5 best examples of the success of socializing industry?

Why don't you tell me? Wikipedia has a pretty exhaustive list of nationalized industries, I'm betting at least 5 of them have worked out. The UK alone has dozens of examples to work from.

 

[Lexicus]

In general, I would have to say that trickle-down is your biggest opponent when it comes to selling the policies. An incredible portion of people think that taxing the rich slows down future growth, in the same way they think that increasing government debt means that you'll be poor later.

Maybe things are different in your country but in the US I'm not aware of a single poll that doesn't show majority support for higher taxes on the rich in some form.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Why don't you tell me? Wikipedia has a pretty exhaustive list of nationalized industries, I'm betting at least 5 of them have worked out. The UK alone has dozens of examples to work from.

I'm not trying to make a case for them. I'm sure China has a bunch too. I was interested in which ones you considered to be successful under the terms of what you see as success.