Why are you afraid of if the “other” party wins?

[doodle]

The way I look at it..One way or another the masses in society are going to eventually figure out a way to rebalance the growing inequality. In the past traditionally this was done through revolutions and people losing heads. In the 1930s revolution was averted and capitalism was saved by Roosevelt's new deal and the lucky timing of world war two for our nation. This pot has again been simmering away since the occupy and tea party movements during the last crash and that simmer occasionally reached a full boil at points in the last few months.

This isn't a great uprising by the poor working class.

The majority of the Antifa/BLM thugs who've been committing most of the vandalism and violence over the past several months aren't the downtrodden and oppressed. They're mostly middle-class white kids who live in their parents' comfortable basements rent-free, playing Call of Duty by day and rioting in black bloc costumes by night. The rest of them are college students -- usually transgender English Literature majors with purple hair.

How old are you, tortoise? Old enough I hope to understand that what we are seeing bubbling up in this country is nothing new throughout the sweep of history.

https://www.economist.com/open-future ... r-plague

IN AN age of widening inequality, Walter Scheidel believes he has cracked the code on how to overcome it. In “The Great Leveler”, the Stanford professor posits that throughout history, economic inequality has only been rectified by one of the “Four Horsemen of Leveling”: warfare, revolution, state collapse and plague.

So are liberal democracies doomed to a repeat of the pattern that saw the gilded age give way to a breakdown of society? Or can they legislate a way out of the ominous cycle of brutal inequality and potential violence?

I'm in a weird position with regards to what is happening. I'm an early millennial, successful..basically semi retired. Worked hard and was very focused on achieving financial freedom. I mostly worked hard jobs however...long hours, hard work, no windfalls, alongside people who were broke or scraping by. On the one hand I earned everything I made....but I had a lot of good fortune and luck along the way. Nevertheless, despite my relatively privileged position I find myself in, i'm angry at increasing disparity in our country between the haves and have nots. I believe that the enormous wealth that our society creates is the result of the collective hard work and effort of the people of our nation. Just like a championship winning team is the collective efforts of all the players. I'm not saying that a Michael Jordan shouldn't be paid more in fact Michael Jordan's salary of $33.14 million for the 1997-98 season was more than twice as much as the combined salaries of teammates Dennis Rodman, Scottie Pippen, Ron Harper and Toni Kukoč...some might say that was excessive but that pales in comparison to our country where the bottom 50% of our nation's holds only 1% of the wealth...and the bottom 80% owning less than 10% of wealth. This is a problem.

[Xan]

to our country where the bottom 50% of our nation's holds only 1% of the wealth...and the bottom 80% owning less than 10% of wealth. This is a problem.

Can you articulate what the problem is? Unlike previous situations where there's been war or revolution or plague, the bottom 90% of society is not actually starving. As long as everyone has enough, does it matter how much the rich have?

[pugchief]

https://www.economist.com/open-future ... r-plague

IN AN age of widening inequality, Walter Scheidel believes he has cracked the code on how to overcome it. In “The Great Leveler”, the Stanford professor posits that throughout history, economic inequality has only been rectified by one of the “Four Horsemen of Leveling”: warfare, revolution, state collapse and plague.

So are liberal democracies doomed to a repeat of the pattern that saw the gilded age give way to a breakdown of society? Or can they legislate a way out of the ominous cycle of brutal inequality and potential violence?

Well we've basically had a plague (Covid) and I don't see thaqt it has done anything for wealth disparity. In fact, if anything, it has made things worse.

to our country where the bottom 50% of our nation's holds only 1% of the wealth...and the bottom 80% owning less than 10% of wealth. This is a problem.

Can you articulate what the problem is? Unlike previous situations where there's been war or revolution or plague, the bottom 90% of society is not actually starving. As long as everyone has enough, does it matter how much the rich have?

Exactly Xan. A rising tide (economy) lifts all ships.

[doodle]

to our country where the bottom 50% of our nation's holds only 1% of the wealth...and the bottom 80% owning less than 10% of wealth. This is a problem.

Can you articulate what the problem is? Unlike previous situations where there's been war or revolution or plague, the bottom 90% of society is not actually starving. As long as everyone has enough, does it matter how much the rich have?

Sounds logical....too bad humans aren't too logical. It is the disparity that matters though as that is what breeds resentment. The same thing happens on a team where one star player makes all the money and lives in a mansion while the other players live in little 2 bedroom houses. When the team keeps winning championships and the star players salary keeps rising while the other players keep making the same thing eventually they are going to hate that star player. Humans have this inbuilt mechanism for perceived fairness. They can accept some level of difference but when the differences become too great...as in 80% owning just 7% of wealth then shit hits the fan.

[tomfoolery]

to our country where the bottom 50% of our nation's holds only 1% of the wealth...and the bottom 80% owning less than 10% of wealth. This is a problem.

Can you articulate what the problem is? Unlike previous situations where there's been war or revolution or plague, the bottom 90% of society is not actually starving. As long as everyone has enough, does it matter how much the rich have?

Sounds logical....too bad humans aren't too logical. It is the disparity that matters though as that is what breeds resentment. The same thing happens on a team where one star player makes all the money and lives in a mansion while the other players live in little 2 bedroom houses. When the team keeps winning championships and the star players salary keeps rising while the other players keep making the same thing eventually they are going to hate that star player. Humans have this inbuilt mechanism for perceived fairness. They can accept some level of difference but when the differences become too great...as in 80% owning just 7% of wealth then shit hits the fan.

Yup. It’s known as Kantian fairness and doodle is spot on.

[tomfoolery]

The way I look at it..One way or another the masses in society are going to eventually figure out a way to rebalance the growing inequality. In the past traditionally this was done through revolutions and people losing heads. In the 1930s revolution was averted and capitalism was saved by Roosevelt's new deal and the lucky timing of world war two for our nation. This pot has again been simmering away since the occupy and tea party movements during the last crash and that simmer occasionally reached a full boil at points in the last few months. I'm not advocating the merits of any particular solution, I'm just looking at things from a historical perspective. Things have become unbalanced and although you can make appeals to all the philosophical rights that you want, they don't really exist in a world that is governed by force when all is said and done.

This is the only compelling argument to liberal policy I have ever heard. I first heard it last year, I think from one of the Weinsteins, Brett or Eric, on Joe rogan and as a libertarian, it made me reconsider things.

[doodle]

It's a weird feature of how our economy functions. Those people at the extreme ends of the distribution take the overwhelming majority of the rewards. Usain bolt is probably only a couple milliseconds faster than the slowest runner but he earns millions while the rest sleep in their mothers basements. The difference between a pga tour pro and a club pro is a few strokes. Our economy is more like a team though than an individual sport. A great player like Michael Jordan is enough to put a team over the top and win championships...the problem is how to deal with all the other players giving it their all everyday? Are they replaceable, maybe...but it's not like the success of the Chicago bulls is because Michael Jordan gave 90% of the effort and the others only contributed 10%. I don't know the best way to deal with this but if we don't and the team starts going at each other's throats they aren't going to win any more championships anymore....that's for certain. Michael Jordan can't do it by himself.

[Tortoise]

How old are you, tortoise? Old enough I hope to understand that what we are seeing bubbling up in this country is nothing new throughout the sweep of history.

I'm not a vampire, so unfortunately I'm not old enough to have witnessed the "sweep of history" first-hand.

(Seriously, though, I'm 41. I'm assuming you're 38-40 since you refer to yourself as an "early millennial"?)

Nevertheless, despite my relatively privileged position I find myself in, i'm angry at increasing disparity in our country between the haves and have nots.

You seem to have an unusual fixation on the idea of economic inequality. Marxism, I guess. That's fine.

I don't doubt that economic inequality has played a part in many revolutions past. If people's living conditions deteriorate beyond a certain point, they will become restless and seek to overthrow those whom they perceive to be their oppressors.

The Occupy Wall Street movement definitely seemed to be rooted in the idea of economic inequality. The fact that big banks and corporations were bailed out while the average person was not was indeed outrageous, so I understood the motivation. I didn't agree with a lot of the Occupy protesters' actions, but I understood their motivation.

But it seems like the protests and riots we've been seeing in the U.S. this year aren't rooted in economic inequality. They began as a reaction to supposed racial discrimination by police, then gradually broadened into a protest of traditional American culture and institutions in general. As I pointed out in my previous post, most of the rioters aren't even poor or black. They're largely middle-class white teens and 20-somethings. They don't live in squalor. They live in Mom's basement eating food from her well-stocked fridge.

I see the root of the current unrest as decadence, not economic inequality. America has become the victim of her own success. As the nation became increasingly successful, Americans gradually abandoned the core values that formed the foundation of that success. Those core values used to unify the diverse segments of our society, so as we abandoned them, friction and strife was the inevitable result. Americans no longer all agree on what's most important in human life.

[sophie]

Well in truth there is a large group of Americans who have seen their living standard decline. That's the real problem, not "income inequality". If you're a solid, high school educated factory worker earning a good wage and enjoying a solidly middle class standard of living with home ownership, retirement savings, college for the kids and all the rest of it, what do you care how much Bill Gates makes?

Of course, this guy is either unemployed or forced to work at McDonald's, because there aren't any factory jobs left and at age 45 or so, it's a bit much to ask him to learn software engineering. Plus he'd have to compete with all those H1b's from India who are willing to work for peanuts just for the chance to get into the US.

See anything wrong with this picture? Hint, it's not the income inequality itself, it's the factors that led to it. That's why I'm interested in Trump's worldview. He's the only candidate in either party so far who has managed to identify the real problem, which leads to real solutions that aren't the "Robin Hood" approach that everyone else takes. If they care at all, which by and large they don't.

[doodle]

Well in truth there is a large group of Americans who have seen their living standard decline. That's the real problem, not "income inequality". If you're a solid, high school educated factory worker earning a good wage and enjoying a solidly middle class standard of living with home ownership, retirement savings, college for the kids and all the rest of it, what do you care how much Bill Gates makes?

Of course, this guy is either unemployed or forced to work at McDonald's, because there aren't any factory jobs left and at age 45 or so, it's a bit much to ask him to learn software engineering. Plus he'd have to compete with all those H1b's from India who are willing to work for peanuts just for the chance to get into the US.

See anything wrong with this picture? Hint, it's not the income inequality itself, it's the factors that led to it. That's why I'm interested in Trump's worldview. He's the only candidate in either party so far who has managed to identify the real problem, which leads to real solutions that aren't the "Robin Hood" approach that everyone else takes. If they care at all, which by and large they don't.

How do we get back to that without massive inflation?

[vnatale]

Stipulating all you say is true....how many of those things can Biden do on his own? Does he not need the support of both parts of Congress?

I remind you that when Obama was elected the Democrats were in control of both houses of Congress. Yet he had to exert every once of his political capital to get the Affordable Care Act passed by the barest of margins.

All you name above needs to be passed by majorities in both houses. Majorities that have to be confident that their votes will not jeopardize their re-elections. How likely do you find that to happen?

Vinny

Vinny,

If I am tracking you correctly, your defense of Biden is that it doesn’t matter what his agenda is, doesn’t matter what he promises, doesn’t matter what plans he’s outlined, because he won’t be able to follow through anyway, so we should vote for Biden because all of our fears of what he might do, which are based on what he’s promising to do, are unjustified because he can’t do them anyway.

Is that your stance or did I misunderstand?

My stance is that just because those are his positions it is far from certain that any of them come to fruition. Am I incorrect in assuming that your stance is that if he is elected then all his positions come to fruition? That may be an exaggeration of your position. But not far if taking literally what you wrote.

Vinny

[pugchief]

My stance is that just because those are his positions it is far from certain that any of them come to fruition. Am I incorrect in assuming that your stance is that if he is elected then all his positions come to fruition? That may be an exaggeration of your position. But not far if taking literally what you wrote.

Vinny

What difference does it make? We can't predict with any accuracy what he will or won't be able to do, with or without the help of congress. So it's best not to elect someone with crazy fringe ideas that would be disastrous just in case.