INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Minister Of Silly Walks on December 28, 2019, 03:22:16 AM
-
https://youtu.be/6I_ZhGHxnHQ
Everybody needs to watch this. How oligarchs are gaming democracy with great success.
It may well change how you see the world today.
This is relevant to the US, Australia, the UK. Pretty much every democracy on the planet.
-
:LMAO:
In other words these "Woke Progressive" dimwits still can't figure out why they're losing elections across western civilization. :hahaha:
So their solution to "oligarchs gaming the system" by listening to working class frustrations and proposing policies to address their complaints about the status quo, is to subvert democracy itself and "game the system" in their favor (and the favor of THEIR oligarchs).
:LMAO:
One part lack of self awareness and two parts psychological projection. :hahaha:
-
heck, Scrap, maybe you could actually listen to the thing before commenting? Your comments make zero sense. I mean, for example, you don't seriously think that educating people to analyse the media critically would serve to subvert democracy and create an alternative oligarchy do you? :lol1:
Pity nobody else commented. Nice one, Mo :plus:
I just wish i felt so optimistic.
-
Yes Walkie. I wasn't expecting Scrap to get it.
Fascism doesn't start with dictatorship and genocide. It starts with propaganda and scapegoating of minorities and demonizing political opposition.
-
Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.
Interesting video, MOSW. +1
-
heck, Scrap, maybe you could actually listen to the thing before commenting? Your comments make zero sense.
My comments should've made it obvious that I DID watch the video and they do make sense to anyone who didn't take the blue pill.
I mean, for example, you don't seriously think that educating people to analyse the media critically would serve to subvert democracy and create an alternative oligarchy do you?
The working classes HAVE already figured out that the MSM is lying to them on behalf of international corporations who are pushing a globalist agenda. It's mostly those on the left who can't see through this agenda because it's camouflaged in humanitarian rhetoric. The populist message is winning because the working classes have figured out that center left parties like Labor have sold them out in favor of foreign immigrants.
-
Yes Walkie. I wasn't expecting Scrap to get it.
Just like the makers of this video, you're clueless as all fuck and willing to believe a conspiracy theory instead of understanding why the left continues to lose elections. Hint: the #1 issue that is driving populism is mass immigration.
Fascism doesn't start with dictatorship and genocide. It starts with propaganda and scapegoating of minorities and demonizing political opposition.
The world is in 0% danger of falling to Fascist ideologies, this isn't the 1930's. What we ARE in danger of is neo-Marxist globalist dictatorships taking form (cough, cough the EU). The propaganda of globalism scapegoats white people, especially the working class and demonizes anyone who is opposed to open borders and tidal waves of cheap brown labor pouring into their country (yes this is the point where you call me a racist and xenophobe for being opposed to Hispanics destroying the SW U.S.)
-
Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.
:LMAO:
Where is this imaginary universe where politicians don't lie?
Although I have to agree with you here, Leftist politicians should never have lied about the caustic effects of mass immigration.
Here's a taste of the "cultural enrichment" brought to my home town by Mexican gangs. We never had these problems when it was white majority.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BIXII41EIM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUxTdxuSwUQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK270e1B-I4
-
Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.
To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.
-
Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.
To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.
In which alternate universe do politicians lie to serve the interests of the poor? Unless you count having more people as serving the interests of the poor?
I do get what you are saying, but I don't think that happens any more. Politicians lie because they need to serve the interests of those who fund and support them and provide them with lucrative post-political careers, while pretending that they want to take care of the middle class and the poor.
That was one of the points that Monbiot was making, that propaganda has been so effective that people are voting against their own interests. Democracy would work better if people voted out of self interest rather than how a bunch of very wealthy and self-interested people managed to convince them to vote, using tactics like propaganda and dog-whistling and fear-mongering and various other forms of right-wing populism.
-
heck, Scrap, maybe you could actually listen to the thing before commenting? Your comments make zero sense.
My comments should've made it obvious that I DID watch the video and they do make sense to anyone who didn't take the blue pill.
I mean, for example, you don't seriously think that educating people to analyse the media critically would serve to subvert democracy and create an alternative oligarchy do you?
The working classes HAVE already figured out that the MSM is lying to them on behalf of international corporations who are pushing a globalist agenda. It's mostly those on the left who can't see through this agenda because it's camouflaged in humanitarian rhetoric. The populist message is winning because the working classes have figured out that center left parties like Labor have sold them out in favor of foreign immigrants.
Globalism is capitalism on steroids. It is the opposite of a left-wing agenda. Walkie has touched on this before, in the UK (for example) you have a choice of voting for Tories or Tory-lite. Policies are the same but Tory-lite tries to pretend that they care about you.
Right wing populism these days pushes the same globalist, corporate agenda, far more savagely, while sticking refugees in concentration camps and telling you that the lefties are responsible for sending your job overseas or for the IT companies outsourcing to HCL.
-
The world is in 0% danger of falling to Fascist ideologies, this isn't the 1930's. What we ARE in danger of is neo-Marxist globalist dictatorships taking form (cough, cough the EU). The propaganda of globalism scapegoats white people, especially the working class and demonizes anyone who is opposed to open borders and tidal waves of cheap brown labor pouring into their country (yes this is the point where you call me a racist and xenophobe for being opposed to Hispanics destroying the SW U.S.)
You wouldn't know fascism if you fell over it.
You know how people like you are increasingly terrified of certain races and blame the socialists for effectively being in league with them? Guess what kind of ideology promotes that fear and feeds off it?
Fascism isn't where you declare yourself chancellor for life and proceed to invade Poland. Fascism is the means by which increased control is exerted over a population, and democracy is undermined, through right wing populism, fear of the "other", propaganda, misinformation, and so on.
-
Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.
To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.
In which alternate universe do politicians lie to serve the interests of the poor? Unless you count having more people as serving the interests of the poor?
I do get what you are saying, but I don't think that happens any more. Politicians lie because they need to serve the interests of those who fund and support them and provide them with lucrative post-political careers, while pretending that they want to take care of the middle class and the poor.
That was one of the points that Monbiot was making, that propaganda has been so effective that people are voting against their own interests. Democracy would work better if people voted out of self interest rather than how a bunch of very wealthy and self-interested people managed to convince them to vote, using tactics like propaganda and dog-whistling and fear-mongering and various other forms of right-wing populism.
Personally think that's exactly what happened with the ACA. Believe it was never the intention to provide the middle class an affordable government healthcare option. Have to admit it really ticked me off at first, but seriously would be a jerk to stay mad about something like that, because frankly didn't really need it. It was the lower end of the middle class who needed it and most of them got it. It also forced a lot of poor people who already qualified, but were avoiding the welfare system, to sign up for healthcare, since someone forgot to mention it would be compulsory because it's in their best interest.
-
Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.
To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.
In which alternate universe do politicians lie to serve the interests of the poor? Unless you count having more people as serving the interests of the poor?
I do get what you are saying, but I don't think that happens any more. Politicians lie because they need to serve the interests of those who fund and support them and provide them with lucrative post-political careers, while pretending that they want to take care of the middle class and the poor.
That was one of the points that Monbiot was making, that propaganda has been so effective that people are voting against their own interests. Democracy would work better if people voted out of self interest rather than how a bunch of very wealthy and self-interested people managed to convince them to vote, using tactics like propaganda and dog-whistling and fear-mongering and various other forms of right-wing populism.
Personally think that's exactly what happened with the ACA. Believe it was never the intention to provide the middle class an affordable government healthcare option. Have to admit it really ticked me off at first, but seriously would be a jerk to stay mad about something like that, because frankly didn't really need it. It was the lower end of the middle class who needed it and most of them got it. It also forced a lot of poor people who already qualified, but were avoiding the welfare system, to sign up for healthcare, since someone forgot to mention it would be compulsory because it's in their best interest.
I don't know a great deal about the ACA, I still struggle to get my head around how the US has the most expensive healthcare in the world (per capita or as a % of GDP) and some of the worst outcomes in the developed world. Then again, we have universal healthcare here and it works reasonably well,.. although if the conservatives win too many more elections they will find a way to defund and then sell it off to private capital.
Based on what I've heard about the decline of empathy in the US, I'd say there's a good chance that you are onto something. I was looking for something I saw recently but found this instead on the subject:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201603/beware-americas-shocking-loss-empathy
I'm one of those weirdos who would vote for someone who would raise my taxes and help poor people.
-
Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.
:LMAO:
Where is this imaginary universe where politicians don't lie?
I guess I wasn't being clear. Would it help your limited understanding if I said "if they only told the truth by accident?"
-
Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.
To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.
How would that ever serve true democracy? Controlling the masses by lying is not about democracy.
-
You wouldn't know fascism if you fell over it.
He sort of did, already, but yeah, you're not wrong.
-
I'm one of those weirdos who would vote for someone who would raise my taxes and help poor people.
Most of them only do the former. :(
-
Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.
To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.
In which alternate universe do politicians lie to serve the interests of the poor? Unless you count having more people as serving the interests of the poor?
I do get what you are saying, but I don't think that happens any more. Politicians lie because they need to serve the interests of those who fund and support them and provide them with lucrative post-political careers, while pretending that they want to take care of the middle class and the poor.
That was one of the points that Monbiot was making, that propaganda has been so effective that people are voting against their own interests. Democracy would work better if people voted out of self interest rather than how a bunch of very wealthy and self-interested people managed to convince them to vote, using tactics like propaganda and dog-whistling and fear-mongering and various other forms of right-wing populism.
Personally think that's exactly what happened with the ACA. Believe it was never the intention to provide the middle class an affordable government healthcare option. Have to admit it really ticked me off at first, but seriously would be a jerk to stay mad about something like that, because frankly didn't really need it. It was the lower end of the middle class who needed it and most of them got it. It also forced a lot of poor people who already qualified, but were avoiding the welfare system, to sign up for healthcare, since someone forgot to mention it would be compulsory because it's in their best interest.
I don't know a great deal about the ACA, I still struggle to get my head around how the US has the most expensive healthcare in the world (per capita or as a % of GDP) and some of the worst outcomes in the developed world. Then again, we have universal healthcare here and it works reasonably well,.. although if the conservatives win too many more elections they will find a way to defund and then sell it off to private capital.
Based on what I've heard about the decline of empathy in the US, I'd say there's a good chance that you are onto something. I was looking for something I saw recently but found this instead on the subject:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201603/beware-americas-shocking-loss-empathy
I'm one of those weirdos who would vote for someone who would raise my taxes and help poor people.
When comparing poverty rates, apathy toward the poor doesn't strike as a unique US phenomenon. There's probably plenty of tax money for those who need government support. One problem here is, some of the poor shouldn't be needy; they're working people stuck in a system which allows for unlivable wages. Though raising taxes of the fairly paid working class in order to help the underpaid working class does sound like something the government would do. :laugh:
-
Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.
To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.
How would that ever serve true democracy? Controlling the masses by lying is not about democracy.
My comment was stated based on the assumption the video is being discussed. The primary point of the video is, "The oligarchs have discovered the formula for persuading the poor to vote for the interests of the very rich." The poor tend to represent a smaller percentage of the population who are less likely to vote, so have trouble agreeing the poor are swinging elections. Would have to see some stats on this particular election, but don't believe it to be true here. Though generally the middle class are the majority and people do tend to vote in their own interest, so while it's not a palatable idea, it's does seem realistic to say serving the interests of both the very rich and the poor require some manipulation of the middle class.
-
Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.
To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.
How would that ever serve true democracy? Controlling the masses by lying is not about democracy.
My comment was stated based on the assumption the video is being discussed. The primary point of the video is, "The oligarchs have discovered the formula for persuading the poor to vote for the interests of the very rich." The poor tend to represent a smaller percentage of the population who are less likely to vote, so have trouble agreeing the poor are swinging elections. Would have to see some stats on this particular election, but don't believe it to be true here. Though generally the middle class are the majority and people do tend to vote in their own interest, so while it's not a palatable idea, it's does seem realistic to say serving the interests of both the very rich and the poor require some manipulation of the middle class.
Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Someone would always find out and things would go south in some other way.
-
Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.
To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.
How would that ever serve true democracy? Controlling the masses by lying is not about democracy.
My comment was stated based on the assumption the video is being discussed. The primary point of the video is, "The oligarchs have discovered the formula for persuading the poor to vote for the interests of the very rich." The poor tend to represent a smaller percentage of the population who are less likely to vote, so have trouble agreeing the poor are swinging elections. Would have to see some stats on this particular election, but don't believe it to be true here. Though generally the middle class are the majority and people do tend to vote in their own interest, so while it's not a palatable idea, it's does seem realistic to say serving the interests of both the very rich and the poor require some manipulation of the middle class.
Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Someone would always find out and things would go south in some other way.
Not sure why it doesn't make sense. While the speaker of the video presents this idea as as a new idea, and a new global phenomenon created by the advent of modern social media, it's a message have heard all my life. There are two types of people in the world, us vs them, the poor and the very rich. The masses who toil and struggle for their manipulative and powerful overlords. Maybe it's true and maybe it's not. If it's true, then it's always been true. If it's not, then it's a lie to manipulate the public into believing they are have-nots. In the US, it's a normal point of view and keeping in custom of distrusting those in power, it's also likely effective in driving consumerism.
-
Thank goodness I'm so freaking rich. :zoinks:
-
Thank goodness I'm so freaking rich. :zoinks:
You're just manipulating us. :zoinks:
-
Thank goodness I'm so freaking rich. :zoinks:
You're just manipulating us. :zoinks:
I do have an uncanny knack for getting what I want. :zoinks:
-
Gopher Gary will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes. And we won't just blindfold him, we will wrap the stinky little blighter in masking tape.
Or, to make it more interesting, we can just use a cigar cutter for a guillotine.
-
You may find you've met your match. I've been revolting my whole life. :zoinks:
-
You may find you've met your match. I've been revolting my whole life. :zoinks:
:lol1:
-
Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.
To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.
How would that ever serve true democracy? Controlling the masses by lying is not about democracy.
My comment was stated based on the assumption the video is being discussed. The primary point of the video is, "The oligarchs have discovered the formula for persuading the poor to vote for the interests of the very rich." The poor tend to represent a smaller percentage of the population who are less likely to vote, so have trouble agreeing the poor are swinging elections. Would have to see some stats on this particular election, but don't believe it to be true here. Though generally the middle class are the majority and people do tend to vote in their own interest, so while it's not a palatable idea, it's does seem realistic to say serving the interests of both the very rich and the poor require some manipulation of the middle class.
Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Someone would always find out and things would go south in some other way.
Not sure why it doesn't make sense. While the speaker of the video presents this idea as as a new idea, and a new global phenomenon created by the advent of modern social media, it's a message have heard all my life. There are two types of people in the world, us vs them, the poor and the very rich. The masses who toil and struggle for their manipulative and powerful overlords. Maybe it's true and maybe it's not. If it's true, then it's always been true. If it's not, then it's a lie to manipulate the public into believing they are have-nots. In the US, it's a normal point of view and keeping in custom of distrusting those in power, it's also likely effective in driving consumerism.
Jack, I’m not going to try to change your opinions on this. I know from previous discussions that our starting assumptions regarding the political spectrum are profoundly different. This is not intended as some kind of snide or oblique put down, I’m simply saying that (whether you are aware of it or not) I don't believe that you are an out-of-the-box thinker on politics and related subjects. A lot of people claim to be independent thinkers who form their own views based on their own observations. You are one of the very rare few who actually are.
What you are talking about is the rhetoric of class struggle. Which has been ongoing for centuries. Just because the rhetoric is familiar, does not mean that nothing has changed. Neoliberalism and globalization have radically altered the economic landscape and obliterated the negotiating position or the working class. Combine that with the increase in downward mobility (from middle class to working class, or from working class to underclass). Much has changed. One question: Do you believe that someone like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders would have been electable 10 or 20 years ago? Because they were both certainly electable in 2016, while the established politician who most represented the political centre was not.
Also when the video talks about “the poor” I would assume that he is using a broad brush and including many people who may be able to afford to feed and clothe themselves but struggle to afford the sort of lifestyle, job security and financial security, and lack many of the related job benefits, that their parents may have taken for granted. Some of us refer to that growing portion of the population as the “precariat”. Remember that much of the population are “rusted on” supporters of a specific party in a two-party system, regardless of whether that part reflects their interests or not. If you can convince a sizeable segment of the population to shift their vote from one party to the other, then you’ve got it sewn up.
If you can convince a sizeable segment of the population that the political system is corrupt and that neither side of politics represents their interests, then people will vote for a rank outsider who promises to shake things up. Actually it isn't a particularly difficult task to convince people that the political system is corrupt and that neither side of politics represents their interests, in my opinion it is factually true and more and more people are coming to that conclusion independently.
-
Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.
To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.
How would that ever serve true democracy? Controlling the masses by lying is not about democracy.
My comment was stated based on the assumption the video is being discussed. The primary point of the video is, "The oligarchs have discovered the formula for persuading the poor to vote for the interests of the very rich." The poor tend to represent a smaller percentage of the population who are less likely to vote, so have trouble agreeing the poor are swinging elections. Would have to see some stats on this particular election, but don't believe it to be true here. Though generally the middle class are the majority and people do tend to vote in their own interest, so while it's not a palatable idea, it's does seem realistic to say serving the interests of both the very rich and the poor require some manipulation of the middle class.
Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Someone would always find out and things would go south in some other way.
Not sure why it doesn't make sense. While the speaker of the video presents this idea as as a new idea, and a new global phenomenon created by the advent of modern social media, it's a message have heard all my life. There are two types of people in the world, us vs them, the poor and the very rich. The masses who toil and struggle for their manipulative and powerful overlords. Maybe it's true and maybe it's not. If it's true, then it's always been true. If it's not, then it's a lie to manipulate the public into believing they are have-nots. In the US, it's a normal point of view and keeping in custom of distrusting those in power, it's also likely effective in driving consumerism.
Jack, I’m not going to try to change your opinions on this. I know from previous discussions that our starting assumptions regarding the political spectrum are profoundly different. This is not intended as some kind of snide or oblique put down, I’m simply saying that (whether you are aware of it or not) I don't believe that you are an out-of-the-box thinker on politics and related subjects. A lot of people claim to be independent thinkers who form their own views based on their own observations. You are one of the very rare few who actually are.
What you are talking about is the rhetoric of class struggle. Which has been ongoing for centuries. Just because the rhetoric is familiar, does not mean that nothing has changed. Neoliberalism and globalization have radically altered the economic landscape and obliterated the negotiating position or the working class. Combine that with the increase in downward mobility (from middle class to working class, or from working class to underclass). Much has changed. One question: Do you believe that someone like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders would have been electable 10 or 20 years ago? Because they were both certainly electable in 2016, while the established politician who most represented the political centre was not.
Also when the video talks about “the poor” I would assume that he is using a broad brush and including many people who may be able to afford to feed and clothe themselves but struggle to afford the sort of lifestyle, job security and financial security, and lack many of the related job benefits, that their parents may have taken for granted. Some of us refer to that growing portion of the population as the “precariat”. Remember that much of the population are “rusted on” supporters of a specific party in a two-party system, regardless of whether that part reflects their interests or not. If you can convince a sizeable segment of the population to shift their vote from one party to the other, then you’ve got it sewn up.
If you can convince a sizeable segment of the population that the political system is corrupt and that neither side of politics represents their interests, then people will vote for a rank outsider who promises to shake things up. Actually it isn't a particularly difficult task to convince people that the political system is corrupt and that neither side of politics represents their interests, in my opinion it is factually true and more and more people are coming to that conclusion independently.
The fact the rhetoric hasn't changed does support the assertion not much has changed. In the US, the long term statistical trends for income and class don't support the rhetoric. Do I think a B-list celebrity could have been elected 20 years ago? Yes, watched it happen 40 years ago. Sanders? Sure, but he would have only succeeded then the same as now, under the guise of a party he doesn't belong to. Some say he wouldn't have been the first. Doubt there are many people who don't realize the political system is corrupt. Would wager most people simply don't care as much as they care about being about to live their lives comfortably, have a decent income so they can pay their bills, save a little, and take a nice vacation each year. When there's a sizable enough segment of the population who lose that, people will vote for a rank outsider who promises to shake things up. Ergo Trump.
-
The B List celebrity who was elected 40 years ago was also a slick and experienced politician who took advice from his team, not an orange buffoon who put his foot in his mouth every time he opened it and told transparent lies constantly. I'm not a fan of Reagan by an stretch but was he really comparable to Trump?
Bernie Sanders openly declares himself a socialist. Would the voting public 20 years ago have elected someone like that?
Doubt there are many people who don't realize the political system is corrupt. Would wager most people simply don't care as much as they care about being about to live their lives comfortably, have a decent income so they can pay their bills, save a little, and take a nice vacation each year. When there's a sizable enough segment of the population who lose that, or fear that there is a very real likelihood that they will lose that and nobody will care, people will vote for a rank outsider who promises to shake things up. Ergo Trump.
Completely agree with that, which probably shows that we aren't nearly as far apart in how we see things as I thought. I added the red bit because I think that is important.
-
Not sure I agree with this statement:
In the US, the long term statistical trends for income and class don't support the rhetoric.
(https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/blog_wid2018_top_10_percent_europe_us.jpg)
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/eNFuSeCFNuTMoXThLF69TRTdcWA=/0x31:551x319/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/11839467/Screen_Shot_2018_07_29_at_10.27.09_AM.png)
-
Not sure I agree with this statement:
In the US, the long term statistical trends for income and class don't support the rhetoric.
Those graphs prove my point about the us vs them rhetoric. While poverty lines and class division are relative, they're not only relative to the 1%. Nor does it mean the other 99, or even the bottom 50, suffer something unfair or unjust. If the genuine point of it all is to say gozillionaires simply shouldn't be allowed to exist, then that should be the point made. More people might get on board if it didn't come with a dose of bullcrap. Not sure the data source of those graphs, but these are from pew research and the US Census Bureau.
While it's true the US middle class has declined 11% in the past 50 years, 7 of those 11 percent have joined the upper class. It's also true in the past 50 years the upper class median incomes have grown at greater rates, with the lower class increasing 25%, middle class increasing 27%, and upper class increasing 33%, though that does mean the financial standards for all classes have increased considerably. US poverty rates have been fairly consistent over the past 50 years, fluctuating within 4%.
(https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/12/ST_2015-12-09_middle-class-08.png)
(https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/12/ST_2015-12-09_middle-class-26.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate%2C_1959_to_2017.png)
-
The B List celebrity who was elected 40 years ago was also a slick and experienced politician who took advice from his team, not an orange buffoon who put his foot in his mouth every time he opened it and told transparent lies constantly. I'm not a fan of Reagan by an stretch but was he really comparable to Trump?
Bernie Sanders openly declares himself a socialist. Would the voting public 20 years ago have elected someone like that?
Doubt there are many people who don't realize the political system is corrupt. Would wager most people simply don't care as much as they care about being about to live their lives comfortably, have a decent income so they can pay their bills, save a little, and take a nice vacation each year. When there's a sizable enough segment of the population who lose that, or fear that there is a very real likelihood that they will lose that and nobody will care, people will vote for a rank outsider who promises to shake things up. Ergo Trump.
Completely agree with that, which probably shows that we aren't nearly as far apart in how we see things as I thought. I added the red bit because I think that is important.
It's accepted Americans didn't really identify Reagan as a politician; probably because he never held a federal seat. Both were likely results of recessions, making big promises about economic change, cutting taxes, cutting government, deregulation; they even had the same campaign slogan. Some say Trump used Regan's playbook. Sure the delivery is very different, but to imply Trump isn't slick or following advise means not taking him seriously. Some say that's why his win is such a shock, too many didn't take him seriously. Jack sure didn't.
-
Was thinking about the graphs you posted, because they start at 1980, and that was a rough time in the US even for big money. However, found a graph on wikipedia charting 100 years of the 1%, and another charting the upper class, both sourced by economic researchers Piketty and Suarez. If you happen to find any predating 1980 which include other incomes, would be interested to see them. While the 1980 economy doesn't appear to be the factor, the graph you posted does display an equal 1980 starting point, so might hypothesis the 30 year lull indicates a 30 year equal ground, and now wondering what was the equalizer.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/U.S._Pre-Tax_Income_Share_Top_1_Pct_and_0.1_Pct_1913_to_2016.png/1280px-U.S._Pre-Tax_Income_Share_Top_1_Pct_and_0.1_Pct_1913_to_2016.png)
(https://danielmiessler.com/images/income-inequality-usa-05-e1527144078489.jpg.webp)
-
Gauging from Piketty's data, it was possibly a global occurrence. What happened to the 1% from 1950-1980?
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59095148c14b3c606c103770/master/w_774,c_limit/chart-03.jpg)
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59095148c14b3c606c103775/master/w_774,c_limit/chart-04.jpg)
-
Jack, if you are interested in “what happened” during that 3 or 4 decade period, where the share of wealth of the 1% was much lower, all I can do is give you some starting points. Any of which I am happy to discuss in further depth.
#1: The Purge of the Left: You would need to approach this with a healthy amount of skepticism, but at least It does give you some historical background. I can provide a link to a video Richard Wolff weaves a compelling narrative about the “purge of the left”. Like all good theories it contains significant elements that are verifiably true. And because it’s Richard Wolff he gives the whole thing a Marxist spin, that you probably need to “filter out”.
#2: The Cold War: It wasn’t just about sabre rattling and an arms race. It was also a battle for hearts and minds, a time of unprecedented economic equality in the First World. In 1917 Russia was a poor, undeveloped, agrarian society that could barely feed its own people (not that it really bothered trying). By 1945 in terms of military and industrial strength, and certainly by the early 1950s in technology, the Soviet Union had reached (in around 3 decades) a level of development that it had taken the First World at least several times longer to achieve. This was unprecedented in world history up to that point. You can imagine how terrifying this was to the First World powers. Hence keeping the proletariat in the First World happy was a priority, for obvious reasons. (Note that I am using the outdated term “First World” in its historical context).
#3: I’ll combine a couple of interrelated ideas. Neoliberalism and globalization are probably the big two economic ideologies that have shaken up the world in recent decades. Both had strong support from both “sides” of politics (or what could better be described as “the extreme centre”). Both neoliberalism and globalization could also be simply called “capitalism on steroids”. The best critique of neoliberalism I’ve seen is “Requiem For The American Dream” with Noam Chomsky. Another good one is a written article by Monbiot. Krugman (seen by many as one of the key architects of globalization) has also made a whiny, half-baked admission that he fucked up. That globalisation didn’t work how he thought it would, and destroyed the livelihood of millions of people. Oops. I can provide a link to any of these.
Of course I doubt that you will be interested in any of this, like most of us (myself included) you are looking for something that supports your own narrative. But if you want to discuss further, I am happy to. My understanding of any of this stuff barely scratches the surface, of course.
All of that said, and as good as this video by Monbiot is, I think Monbiot is skirting around one big issue. People, generally, don’t vote according to their interests. They vote according to their values. And you can manipulate people by appealing to their values. I won’t delve further now for fear of becoming the new Al or the new Lestat.
The TLDR version, aka the defeatist version that some ascribe to, is that those few decades of relative equality were a blip. An anomaly. Normal service has been restored. The wealth of the top 1% didn’t go anywhere, governments made them pay more taxes and the labor movement (unions) made them pay fairer wages. But the 1% were still doing fine.
-
Jack, if you are interested in “what happened” during that 3 or 4 decade period, where the share of wealth of the 1% was much lower, all I can do is give you some starting points. Any of which I am happy to discuss in further depth.
#1: The Purge of the Left: You would need to approach this with a healthy amount of skepticism, but at least It does give you some historical background. I can provide a link to a video Richard Wolff weaves a compelling narrative about the “purge of the left”. Like all good theories it contains significant elements that are verifiably true. And because it’s Richard Wolff he gives the whole thing a Marxist spin, that you probably need to “filter out”.
#2: The Cold War: It wasn’t just about sabre rattling and an arms race. It was also a battle for hearts and minds, a time of unprecedented economic equality in the First World. In 1917 Russia was a poor, undeveloped, agrarian society that could barely feed its own people (not that it really bothered trying). By 1945 in terms of military and industrial strength, and certainly by the early 1950s in technology, the Soviet Union had reached (in around 3 decades) a level of development that it had taken the First World at least several times longer to achieve. This was unprecedented in world history up to that point. You can imagine how terrifying this was to the First World powers. Hence keeping the proletariat in the First World happy was a priority, for obvious reasons. (Note that I am using the outdated term “First World” in its historical context).
#3: I’ll combine a couple of interrelated ideas. Neoliberalism and globalization are probably the big two economic ideologies that have shaken up the world in recent decades. Both had strong support from both “sides” of politics (or what could better be described as “the extreme centre”). Both neoliberalism and globalization could also be simply called “capitalism on steroids”. The best critique of neoliberalism I’ve seen is “Requiem For The American Dream” with Noam Chomsky. Another good one is a written article by Monbiot. Krugman (seen by many as one of the key architects of globalization) has also made a whiny, half-baked admission that he fucked up. That globalisation didn’t work how he thought it would, and destroyed the livelihood of millions of people. Oops. I can provide a link to any of these.
Of course I doubt that you will be interested in any of this, like most of us (myself included) you are looking for something that supports your own narrative. But if you want to discuss further, I am happy to. My understanding of any of this stuff barely scratches the surface, of course.
All of that said, and as good as this video by Monbiot is, I think Monbiot is skirting around one big issue. People, generally, don’t vote according to their interests. They vote according to their values. And you can manipulate people by appealing to their values. I won’t delve further now for fear of becoming the new Al or the new Lestat.
The TLDR version, aka the defeatist version that some ascribe to, is that those few decades of relative equality were a blip. An anomaly. Normal service has been restored. The wealth of the top 1% didn’t go anywhere, governments made them pay more taxes and the labor movement (unions) made them pay fairer wages. But the 1% were still doing fine.
The TLDR version is close to what I was thinking when only looking at the 1% graphs for the US, though don't know enough about the economic history of other countries to explain the statistical mirroring. Similar to the 1% graphs, it's difficult to find well sourced decade snapshots of median income. Did find this one from the same source of the 1% graphs, displaying tax rates for the 1%. While Roosevelt did enact wealth tax, taxing the rich doesn't really fit the big picture of the other graphs.
(https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170804133536/Average-Effective-Tax-Rate-on-the-Top-1-Percent-of-U.S.-Households.png)
Also found this one for median family incomes, sourced by the US census and Tax Federation, which also accounts for inflation and tax burden. While median incomes increased during the 50s-80s, those increases aren't remarkable compared to subsequent years. Judging from these two graphs, higher taxes for the rich and higher incomes for the middle class wasn't what happened. Would have to say it was lower taxes for the middle class combined with greater purchasing power of the dollar. Maybe it just took 30 years for business to figure out they could compensate for those higher wages by charging more. :laugh: Serously, have no clue. It doesn't make sense, especially the global aspect.
(http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/mfi3.gif)
-
Beware of stats being used misleadingly. Check for biases.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tax-foundation/
Here is another graph on the actual effective tax rates payed by the 1% and the richest 400:
(http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/08/img/linden_table4.jpg)
Of course the Centre for American Progress isn't biased. Or are they?????
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-american-progress/
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg)
Corporate tax rates have declined sharply, refer to above graph. Corporations tend not to be owned primarily by poor people. Reducing tax on corprations that already make massive profits is a direct benefit to the oligarchs.
Personal taxes can be minimized in a number of ways. Warren Buffet, 4th richest man in the world, famously pays a lower rate of tax than his secretary.
A fall of tax rate from 42% to 36% (indicated by the graph you provided) is significant. Maybe not as big a drop as you'd expect based on some of the rhetoric being bandied about, but still significant enough. But is that the headline rate or the actual rate of tax paid after creative accounting?
-
Global mirroring (in the First World) in terms of inequality makes sense in the context of the Cold War. Which started and finished at the same time for everyone. Also the ideologies that disrupted the (temporarily more equal) status quo kicked off around the same time around the world.
So the mirroring makes perfect sense in terms of my world view.
-
Also found this one for median family incomes, sourced by the US census and Tax Federation, which also accounts for inflation and tax burden. While median incomes increased during the 50s-80s, those increases aren't remarkable compared to subsequent years. Judging from these two graphs, higher taxes for the rich and higher incomes for the middle class wasn't what happened. Would have to say it was lower taxes for the middle class combined with greater purchasing power of the dollar. Maybe it just took 30 years for business to figure out they could compensate for those higher wages by charging more. :laugh: Serously, have no clue. It doesn't make sense, especially the global aspect.
(http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/mfi3.gif)
Are we looking at the same graph? The blue line is the most striking, adjusted for inflation.
The red line is almost as striking, adjusted for tax burden so a better indicator of actual disposable income. From around 1940 to the peak in the late 1970s real incomes more than doubled. If you draw a straight line from that peak to the end point of the graph, it's a flat line.
Bear in mind that there was substantial increase in the size of the economy during that period, and big increases in productivity. Also bear in mind that the median income is only a tiny part of the story.
-
Beware of stats being used misleadingly. Check for biases.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tax-foundation/
Here is another graph on the actual effective tax rates payed by the 1% and the richest 400:
(http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/08/img/linden_table4.jpg)
Of course the Centre for American Progress isn't biased. Or are they?????
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-american-progress/
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg)
Corporate tax rates have declined sharply, refer to above graph. Corporations tend not to be owned primarily by poor people. Reducing tax on corprations that already make massive profits is a direct benefit to the oligarchs.
Personal taxes can be minimized in a number of ways. Warren Buffet, 4th richest man in the world, famously pays a lower rate of tax than his secretary.
A fall of tax rate from 42% to 36% (indicated by the graph you provided) is significant. Maybe not as big a drop as you'd expect based on some of the rhetoric being bandied about, but still significant enough. But is that the headline rate or the actual rate of tax paid after creative accounting?
Not sure what you're trying to say. Was looking for a century graph and found one by the same source as the 1% income graphs. While the first half of the 100 yr tax graph agreed with the income graph, the years since the 80s didn't. If Picketty's data is crap, then his entire study of the 1%, including the 50s-80s bears no discussion. If this similar graph makes you feel better about Pikkety's data, it's from the wikipedia article for Progressivity in United States income tax and sourced by the US Congressional Budget office, although it doesn't show 50-80 which makes it unhelpful to the current conversation. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Average_US_Federal_Tax_Rates_1979_to_2013.png)
Also not sure what you're trying to say with the corporate tax graph. Corporations are publicly owned and traded entities. It's true the 1% own half the country's stock and lower taxes can increase profit which is important to the value of corporations, but the economy drives the value of stock, and dividends from profit paid to shareholders are personal income to be taxed for income tax. If anything, the government gets double duty out of corporations, though with the exception of Roosevelt's tax reforms the US federal income doesn't have much of a history of relying on the taxes on corporations. The bulk of federal income comes from income and payroll tax. Payroll tax are for Social Security and Medicare.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Taxes_revenue_by_source_chart_history.png/1920px-Taxes_revenue_by_source_chart_history.png)
IRS data shows In 2016, the bottom 50% paid about 3% of all income taxes. The top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 37.3 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid about 30.5 percent of all income taxes. Those numbers leave out the top 2-9%, but my math tells me the top 10% are supporting federal tax revenue to the tune of 70%.
(https://files.taxfoundation.org/20181113154556/FF622_1.png)
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/ This link for the graph also has a data table with average tax rates since they were questioned.
-
Also found this one for median family incomes, sourced by the US census and Tax Federation, which also accounts for inflation and tax burden. While median incomes increased during the 50s-80s, those increases aren't remarkable compared to subsequent years. Judging from these two graphs, higher taxes for the rich and higher incomes for the middle class wasn't what happened. Would have to say it was lower taxes for the middle class combined with greater purchasing power of the dollar. Maybe it just took 30 years for business to figure out they could compensate for those higher wages by charging more. :laugh: Serously, have no clue. It doesn't make sense, especially the global aspect.
(http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/mfi3.gif)
Are we looking at the same graph? The blue line is the most striking, adjusted for inflation.
The red line is almost as striking, adjusted for tax burden so a better indicator of actual disposable income. From around 1940 to the peak in the late 1970s real incomes more than doubled. If you draw a straight line from that peak to the end point of the graph, it's a flat line.
Bear in mind that there was substantial increase in the size of the economy during that period, and big increases in productivity. Also bear in mind that the median income is only a tiny part of the story.
Yes, we are looking at the same graph, and seemingly saying the same thing but differently. Inflation is what made spendable income level off in the 80s. That's why I made the joke about raising prices.
-
like most of us (myself included) you are looking for something that supports your own narrative.
Not really certain I have a narrative for this, other than not buying into the poor vs very rich narrative. All stats aside, the narrative is a lie because it's based in the cause of equal distribution of wealth. The median income is the median income, so in order for an equal distribution to occur then the entire upper class, and the top half of the middle class, thus half the population, would have to experience a downgrade in their income and standard of living. One way to convince them that's a good thing is to lie and have them believe they have something to gain from it, by only going after those pesky very rich people who make everyone else feel so poor by comparison.
-
Just gonna drop this here, will get back and comment later.
This is superb. A plutocrat (very rich dude) explains the consequences of rising inequality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8
-
Extremely interesting.
-
Just gonna drop this here, will get back and comment later.
That was a good video. My takeaway was: Wages should be livable. Imagine that; it's my greatest disappointment of the Obama administration. The speaker of the video probably also realizes the pitchforks are coming because of the prolific message in the first video, which demonizes wealthy people as lying manipulators who brainwash me to serve their will. My company appears to follow the speaker's business model, with a dash of something else. Swear there's an unwritten policy out there which states, give them the very best and keep them terrified. :laugh: