Boomers: The Evil Generation!

[Timsup2nothin]

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.

I think you are missing the interdependency there. Branding and media portrayal are, in large measure, results of policy positions, as are a whole lot of other aspects in that plethora of subconscious biases.

There were a whole lot of things about Nixon that were being questioned in 1972. There was a lot of fear about the economy, the cold war was a looming shadow that frankly terrified most people if you ever got them to actually acknowledge it was happening, and despite the positivity with which the social movements of the times are viewed in retrospect in the contemporary view Nixon's authoritarian responses that are viewed with horror were only being doubted in regards to their lack of effectiveness. He was actually vulnerable, which is what motivated him to go wildly outside the law in pursuit of securing his re-election.

Into this opportunity the Democrats chose to throw McGovern, who was among the among the "new voice" democrats that had massive appeal to the up and coming youth...who represented exactly what everyone else was terrified about. Yes, McGovern got horrifically smeared by the media. Yes, he got branded with any number of epithets, any one of which was probably sufficient to doom his campaign. Yes, congressional democrats running for re-election abandoned his sinking ship in droves so as not to be sucked down with it. Yes, the 'rat-____ers,' as Nixon's political team called themselves out maneuvered the democrats in every conceivable way at every turn. But none of those things happened in isolation from the fact that McGovern's positions were totally out of step with the vast majority of voters, they happened because of it.

 

[metalhead]

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.

Several European countries have nationalized oil, steel, and health care industries successfully. Well, steel falls more under the EEC, but nevertheless.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Several European countries have nationalized oil, steel, and health care industries successfully. Well, steel falls more under the EEC, but nevertheless.

So, based on those successes, do you advocate nationalizing the US oil and steel industries? Would you merge Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips into a single entity?

 

[metalhead]

So, based on those successes, do you advocate nationalizing the US oil and steel industries? Would you merge Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips into a single entity?

Don't know. I'd trust experts could figure it out though since plenty of other countries have. Could have saved lots of jobs by nationalizing the steel industry instead of letting it contract by a third overnight, I know that.

 

[Lexicus]

But the analogy between McGovern and Bernie is tenuous at best given that Bernie actually did better than centrist Clinton among the salt-of-the-earth midwestern types whose intractably right-wing views apparently need to be catered to in order to win any election. McGovern represented the Democratic party's first tentative move to a coalition based on younger professional-class people and the abandonment of working-class politics.

Bernie has in common with McGovern that he appeals to younger voters, but the class dynamics of his politics are rather different.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Don't know. I'd trust experts could figure it out though since plenty of other countries have. Could have saved lots of jobs by nationalizing the steel industry instead of letting it contract by a third overnight, I know that.

• Through the 60s, in addition, to rebuilding Europe and Japan, US cities and the Interstate system were expanding as was automobile production
• Technology changed. Nucor changed the industry in 1969 and the rest of the US industry failed to follow
• Foreign steel came on line and lowered prices
• High priced US workers were hard to maintain
• Tariffs and trade impediments failed to stop influx of foreign products
• US moved its manufacturing overseas reducing local demand

In 1958 the industry had 700,000 workers; today maybe 80,000.

So how would a nationalized industry have changed the scenario?

 

[Hygro]

The 70s enjoyed much greater GDP growth than the 80s

Also better than the 90s, 00s, and 10s.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But the analogy between McGovern and Bernie is tenuous at best given that Bernie actually did better than centrist Clinton among the salt-of-the-earth midwestern types whose intractably right-wing views apparently need to be catered to in order to win any election. McGovern represented the Democratic party's first tentative move to a coalition based on younger professional-class people and the abandonment of working-class politics.

Bernie has in common with McGovern that he appeals to younger voters, but the class dynamics of his politics are rather different.

They both represent the "we will in no way appeal to supporters of the other party, and in fact will cheerfully alienate half of our own party and dare them to switch to the infinite evil our opponents represent" approach best exemplified by the TEAParty. It doesn't work.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Also better than the 90s, 00s, and 10s.

Per capita? The work force was expanding incredibly fast through the seventies, so GDP growth was almost unavoidable, but I'd be surprised if per capita was peaking. Also, the seventies ushered in the era of uncontrolled issuing of debt by every citizen with a credit card, so it was doomed to be a boom.

 

[Lexicus]

They both represent the "we will in no way appeal to supporters of the other party, and in fact will cheerfully alienate half of our own party and dare them to switch to the infinite evil our opponents represent" approach best exemplified by the TEAParty. It doesn't work.

Yes, the Tea Party was so unsuccessful that its ideologues now control almost all the levers of state power in the US

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, the Tea Party was so unsuccessful that its ideologues now control almost all the levers of state power in the US

You think that's going to last? The TEA party, in their relatively brief existence, has done more to destroy the grip the GOP had on the electorate than anything the Democratic Party has done in my entire lifetime. Is mirroring that the "progressive" goal? Not that the Democratic party has come even remotely close to even getting a grip, much less needing any substantial effort for it to be broken.

 

[Lexicus]

I do think it's going to last. The judges Trump is appointing now will be there for decades. And besides, the American public is so relentlessly, inherently right-wing (according to you anyway) that no candidate who wants to actually change the political economy of the country such that there is a chance of getting out from under conservative rule can win an election (unless they are running to represent Fake Americans isolated in Brooklyn or whatever escape clause we need to tack on so that leftist candidates who win elections can be ignored).

 

[adcarrymaokai]

centrist Clinton

The Clintons are now centrist? lol

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I do think it's going to last. The judges Trump is appointing now will be there for decades. And besides, the American public is so relentlessly, inherently right-wing (according to you anyway) that no candidate who wants to actually change the political economy of the country such that there is a chance of getting out from under conservative rule can win an election (unless they are running to represent Fake Americans isolated in Brooklyn or whatever escape clause we need to tack on so that leftist candidates who win elections can be ignored).

They aren't fake Americans, and please remember that I live among them. California is probably more capable of electing progressives to state offices than Brooklyn, or anywhere else in the US for that matter. But, yes, USians, taken en masse, are definitely a right leaning lot.

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

And yet ...

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I dislike this trend that posts are getting shorter and shorter. two words and a few dots don't make a good post. (unless it's a joke post. those get better the shorter they are!)

 

[Lexicus]

And yet ...

And yet what? The policy doesn't move because the political system is controlled by those rich people, not because people don't want it to happen.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I dislike this trend that posts are getting shorter and shorter. two words and a few dots don't make a good post.

. . Boomer=Cylon . .

 

[El_Machinae]

And yet what? The policy doesn't move because the political system is controlled by those rich people, not because people don't want it to happen.

Sorry, I meant to write "[waves hand at the world]" in a pseudo-pessimistic way.

I mean, nearly everyone I know hates Daylight Savings Time, at yet ... [waves vaguely]. Sometimes it feels like we don't actually live in democracies. That said, an incredible portion of politicians here (Canada) actually campaign on not raising taxes for the rich, and a reasonable portion of them win elections. There's more than just 'the rich' that prevents people for voting against higher taxes for the rich. There are just minds that need to be changed.

 

[Hrothbern]

• Through the 60s, in addition, to rebuilding Europe and Japan, US cities and the Interstate system were expanding as was automobile production
• Technology changed. Nucor changed the industry in 1969 and the rest of the US industry failed to follow
• Foreign steel came on line and lowered prices
• High priced US workers were hard to maintain
• Tariffs and trade impediments failed to stop influx of foreign products
• US moved its manufacturing overseas reducing local demand

In 1958 the industry had 700,000 workers; today maybe 80,000.

So how would a nationalized industry have changed the scenario?

Some remarks:

Capital & productivity
*It all depends how hard you drive productivity (labor and capital efficiency).
When Japan started producing cheaper steel than the US late in the 80ies it had roughly 3 times as much Fixed Capital per employee than the US. (and could produce better, thinner grades that for example automotive loves)
That high capital investment rate fitting the grand plan of Japan. Steel=>steel for shipbuilding (export)=>better steel for automotive (export)=>special steel grades (to conquer high end steel market for export).
That grand plan a unique Japanese way of consensus strategic cooperation between government and big companies. A hybrid of private and nationalised, only possible in long term loyalty commitments.

Maturing & productivity
* Picking your numbers, adding to them: Since 1958 the steel industry has gone through a productivity increasing process. The same applies to the efficiency of use of amount of steel by companies that used steel (less volume growth in an economy supporting more population). The normal maturing life cycle.
The US produced in 1958 roughly 90 million metric tons crude steel. That number goes a bit up and down over the years and is now also 90. (the current import roughly 30 million metric tons).
That 700,000 employees to 80,000 emplyees is a factor 8.75 for those 60 years and corresponds to a yoy labor productivity growth of 3%-4%. The volume in tons of 90 million metric tons the same between 1958 and 2018.
Those 30 million metric tons steel imported, I guess not crude steel, would deliver 30,000 more jobs for the US if done domestic. If the US imports mainly high grade steel and shapes (I guess that), perhaps double that amount of jobs is generated, but needing high capital investments (at relatively low capital returns)..

EU
* The EU now at 320,000 direct employees in the steel industry and producing 170 million metric tons crude steel. There are no nationalised steel companies in the EU (though some countries do own stocks). The EU has regulations.
* In the EU for those 320,000 direct employees, there are 1,470,000 indirect employees, and 677,000 induced employees.
* Gross Value Added of the EU: Direct Euro 21 Billion, indirect Euro 71 Billion, induced Euro 36 Billion. => that in total is not really that much GVA (around 1% of EU GDP) => nice to have but mostly strategic.
* IDK what the reason is that the US has roughly 50% of the direct employees per metric ton as the EU. The EU for sure produces more special steel grades, but that does imo not cover the difference in direct employees.
Definition issue ? IDK.

The EU started, officially in 1952, to put steel and coal production under the joint High Authority, to have control and prevent an economical war from national subsidised companies on the essential ingedient steel for a war industry.
That risk on a proto economical push out war, driven by national subsidising, giving it urgency.