US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6976

On February 26 2017 07:59 kwizach wrote:

I think kwiz posted a succinct comment on his feelings about the election, had already explained at length previously why he supported Perez, and is tired of your passive-aggressive posting about him.

On February 26 2017 08:33 LegalLord wrote:
I think the oneofthem view - that sandernistas are just ungrateful asshats who need to learn to fall the fuck in line - is the dominant view of the party. The "party loyalists" who permeate this thread echo that view, albeit with a bit less blatant disdain for those progressive distractions.

On February 26 2017 08:34 zlefin wrote:
it does bother me. It seems like something you should read if you're actually going to be chairing something important enough to follow a rule system.

On February 26 2017 08:36 TheYango wrote:

It would seem more sensible to me if there was more substantive impact but Perez before Ellison vs. Ellison before Perez seems so inconsequential that they're just stirring the pot for no real reason.

On February 26 2017 07:52 Gahlo wrote:

The ridiculousness of the sum is better than its parts. It just has a really good punchline. After about 3 questions I realized that the answers they want to here were all "A. Yes" unless it was only a text box.

On February 26 2017 08:15 LegalLord wrote:

www.reuters.com

And in other news Iran was looking to buy more uranium ore from Kazakhstan (compliant with the Iran deal, of course).

On February 26 2017 09:08 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:

They want to designate a foreign army unit as a terrorist organization? They really want to go to war with Iran... I'm pretty sure within a year there will be an invasion at this rate. :-X Literally every step they take with Iran is warmongering. So many lives will be wasted for oil again. Disgusting.

On February 26 2017 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote:


If we're not diving headlong into a large scale conflict, the local military base is doing a great job of faking it.

On February 26 2017 09:31 Howie_Dewitt wrote:

What's happening at the local military base?

On February 26 2017 09:35 Simberto wrote:
You should realize that this time around, you are going to have a hard time finding ANYONE to help you. A lot of countries helped you in Afghanistan. A few helped you in Iraq. If you randomly invade another country in the region for no apparent reason, you are going to have to do it alone.

Just remember how much fun iraq was. And then don't do it again. Just...don't.

On February 26 2017 08:22 GreenHorizons wrote:


I give that dodge a 3 out of 10. The question wasn't why support him, it was what's to be gained from him being the chair as opposed to the deputy chair. Just say "nothing" so we can move on, or give us what it is, but don't try to play the victim and use it to deflect off of the issue.

The Anatomy of Populist Economics

[...] Given populism’s many faces, is it really possible to identify a root cause? For Warwick University’s Robert Skidelsky, it is no coincidence that the two major political upheavals of 2016 – the Brexiteers’ success in last June’s referendum and Trump’s election victory – occurred in “the two countries that most fervently embraced neoliberal economics.” The US and the UK’s economic model over the past few decades, Skidelsky observes, has allowed for “obscenely lavish rewards for a few, high levels of unemployment and underemployment, and curtailment of the state’s role in welfare provision.” And this widening inequality, he writes, “strips away the democratic veil that hides from the majority of citizens the true workings of power.”

But Gavekal Dragonomics Chief Economist Anatole Kaletsky sees another dynamic at work, and offers “several reasons to question the link between populist politics and economic distress.” For starters, he points out that “most populist voters are neither poor nor unemployed; they are not victims of globalization, immigration, and free trade.” Having analyzed Brexit exit polls and voter-survey responses, Kaletsky concludes that “cultural and ethnic attitudes, not direct economic motivations, are the real distinguishing features of anti-globalization voting.”

At first blush, these arguments may seem incompatible; but their disagreement is really only between ultimate and proximate causes. For Skidelsky, “It is when the rewards of economic progress accrue mainly to the already wealthy that the disjunction between minority and majority cultural values becomes seriously destabilizing.” Likewise, for Kaletsky, “The main relevance of economics is that the 2008 financial crisis created conditions for a political backlash by older, more conservative voters, who have been losing the cultural battles over race, gender, and social identity.”

Harvard political philosopher Michael Sandel warns against focusing exclusively on “the bigotry in populist protest” or viewing it “only in economic terms.” The fundamental issue, he argues, is “that the upheavals of 2016 stemmed from the establishment’s inability to address – or even adequately recognize – genuine grievances.” And, because these grievances “are about social esteem, not only about wages and jobs,” they are difficult to disentangle “from the intolerant aspects of populist protest” – namely, anti-immigrant sentiments.

Nobel laureate economist Edmund Phelps also links populist voters’ anger to their loss of dignity in the larger political economy. As the share of US employment in manufacturing has steadily declined, blue-collar workers, Phelps notes. “have lost the opportunity to do meaningful work, and to feel a sense of agency.” In other words, “losing their ‘good jobs’” meant losing “the central source of meaning in their lives.” And while many of the lost manufacturing jobs were replaced with new jobs in new sectors, as Oxford University historian Margaret MacMillan cautions, nuanced economic arguments “cannot counter the unhappiness of people who feel marginalized, undervalued, and scorned.” [...]

On February 26 2017 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Hey Mohdoo, you want to let us in on his secret, since several people are curious about the same thing and he's the only one with an answer it seems?