PDA

View Full Version : Stiglitz advice for other countries.



gypsie
11-04-2018, 09:09 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/05/joseph-stiglitz-america-should-be-a-warning-to-other-countries



“Most Americans want a higher minimum wage, they want gun control, they want access to healthcare, they want stronger financial regulation – the polling on some of these issues is, you know, 75% or more – and yet our democracy can’t deliver it.

Stating the obvious to me, but it obviously needs to be stated.

Garret
11-04-2018, 09:32 PM
The simple answer is that we don't have a democracy. However, due to corporate money & politicians beholden to their sponsors, our republic can't deliver it either.

skuthorp
11-04-2018, 09:34 PM
You have a virtual oligarchy, and whilst you keep electing millionaires in a corrupt system what else do you expect.

In Aus. we run the risk of the same situation, and to an extent it is well on the way.

"Stiglitz tells Guardian Australia, in the lead-up to his trip to Australia, that this country has a lot to learn from America."
Oh, our politicians and corporates have learned all too well

CWSmith
11-04-2018, 09:35 PM
We do have a democracy, but the voters have their heads up their collective @sses. It does no good to have the vote if you waste it by being easily manipulated by advertising and social media.

And frankly, that characterization applies to both sides to a shocking degree. Ask yourself how many Sanders voters did not come to the polls when their candidate did not win the primary and you can see just how stupid a Democrat can be.

Garret
11-04-2018, 09:41 PM
We do have a democracy, but the voters have their heads up their collective @sses. It does no good to have the vote if you waste it by being easily manipulated by advertising and social media.

And frankly, that characterization applies to both sides to a shocking degree. Ask yourself how many Sanders voters did not come to the polls when their candidate did not win the primary and you can see just how stupid a Democrat can be.

Gotta disagree with you. The US is a republic - not a direct democracy - but that's something of a quibble. What I do have to really disagree on is your Sanders comment. Fact is, many who supported him were not democrats & therefore were never gonna vote for Hilary in a million years.

gypsie
11-04-2018, 09:49 PM
We do have a democracy, but the voters have their heads up their collective @sses.

Who got the most votes in the last Presidential election?
Isn't the number of people who want tighter gun control up to 80%? Yet who campaigns on tighter gun control? Why not - NRA funding dollars, maybe?

The interests of a small group of people are the only issues being presented by both sides of politics. As a result the interests of most Americans are ignored, and issues that have 70% to 80% support from the electorate are not even discussed, let alone become policy. Why, because only candidates who will represent this tiny minority will get funded to run.

sandtown
11-04-2018, 10:26 PM
Gotta disagree with you. The US is a republic - not a direct democracy - but that's something of a quibble. What I do have to really disagree on is your Sanders comment. Fact is, many who supported him were not democrats & therefore were never gonna vote for Hilary in a million years.

Respectfully disagree - virtually the entire activist base of our county Dem party was for Bernie, including me. But once he lost to HRC we got on board for her. I did too by donating thousands in in-kind donations (housing to her field workers), and other support.

Bernie did it the right way - challenge the corporatists, but join with them to oppose the greater evil. Bernie campaigned hard for HRC, as well he should have.

Do you think the corporate Dems will do the same when one of ours wins the primary?

PeterSibley
11-04-2018, 10:42 PM
We do have a democracy, but the voters have their heads up their collective @sses. It does no good to have the vote if you waste it by being easily manipulated by advertising and social media.

And frankly, that characterization applies to both sides to a shocking degree. Ask yourself how many Sanders voters did not come to the polls when their candidate did not win the primary and you can see just how stupid a Democrat can be.

No, things like voter suppression are so blatant that your ''democracy'' is a sham.

Garret
11-05-2018, 08:03 AM
Respectfully disagree - virtually the entire activist base of our county Dem party was for Bernie, including me. But once he lost to HRC we got on board for her. I did too by donating thousands in in-kind donations (housing to her field workers), and other support.

Bernie did it the right way - challenge the corporatists, but join with them to oppose the greater evil. Bernie campaigned hard for HRC, as well he should have.

Do you think the corporate Dems will do the same when one of ours wins the primary?

I think you & I are in agreement. What I was objecting to is the "mainstream Dem" claim that all the Bernie supporters abandoned the Dem party. You are yet another example of ones who did not. This has been hashed over here many times - but there are still those that think Bernie supporters lost the election for HRC.

Peerie Maa
11-05-2018, 08:09 AM
No, things like voter suppression are so blatant that your ''democracy'' is a sham.

Hey, the US has the BEST democracy that money can buy.

on the border
11-05-2018, 01:38 PM
Instead, vote for the candidate of the party that wants to take care of your mom and your dad and your sciatica.
There is no such thing. Obama and and the Clintons put Goldman into Treasury just as fast as the Turnip. None of them give a gnat's doodle about the rest of us. You remember, what used to be the middle class. The people who work. The "wwc" which y'all despise, but who in fact built all these lovely wooden boats.

The only real difference is, the Democrats lie about it better. But not better enough.

Reynard38
11-05-2018, 02:47 PM
Maybe it’s time for the other member of the Stiglitz family, Hugo.


https://youtu.be/PVLyj364wAM

sandtown
11-05-2018, 03:39 PM
Disagree that they're "all the same" - although Tim Geithner's new career (monetizing poverty) is a point for you.

Trump has more Goldman Sacks (sic) thieves than any previous president.

"They're all the same-ism" is just another version of the Reichista trope "Both Sides-ism"



There is no such thing. Obama and and the Clintons put Goldman into Treasury just as fast as the Turnip. None of them give a gnat's doodle about the rest of us. You remember, what used to be the middle class. The people who work. The "wwc" which y'all despise, but who in fact built all these lovely wooden boats.

The only real difference is, the Democrats lie about it better. But not better enough.

gypsie
11-05-2018, 06:32 PM
The only real difference is, the Democrats lie about it better. But not better enough.

My first thought was 'how naive', but you may be right.

The process for running excludes anyone but the wealthy or their acolytes - this is very true on both sides.

The Dems seem to have a policy platform that at least gives lip service to better social services and better living conditions for all. But its a house of cards, look how easily affordable healthcare was dismantled.

The reps don't even try to pretend. They just make life worse for everyone except the wealthiest. They just do it - though they do couch it in lies. Is the new healthcare system better for families than the briefly existing Obama version? They say the Dems are taking away cover for pre-existing conditions (how are they getting away with that incredible obvious lie? It is staggering.)

From the outside, looking as objectively as i can, if i were asked which party is more likely to make life worse for Americans or tell lies - it would definitely be the GOP.

Peerie Maa
11-05-2018, 06:38 PM
My first thought was 'how naive', but you may be right.

The process for running excludes anyone but the wealthy or their acolytes - this is very true on both sides.

The Dems seem to have a policy platform that at least gives lip service to better social services and better living conditions for all. But its a house of cards, look how easily affordable healthcare was dismantled.

The reps don't even try to pretend. They just make life worse for everyone except the wealthiest. They just do it - though they do couch it in lies. Is the new healthcare system better for families than the briefly existing Obama version? They say the Dems are taking away cover for pre-existing conditions (how are they getting away with that incredible obvious lie? It is staggering.)

From the outside, looking as objectively as i can, if i were asked which party is more likely to make life worse for Americans or tell lies - it would definitely be the GOP.

You cannot lay the destroying of the ACA at the Dems door, just as you cannot blame labour for underfunding our Social Safety Net.

gypsie
11-05-2018, 09:48 PM
You cannot lay the destroying of the ACA at the Dems door, just as you cannot blame labour for underfunding our Social Safety Net.

I'm not sure i understand you.
I didn't say the Dems destroyed ACA - i said it seemed to be dismantled very easily.

Which i think points more to an electorate that doesn't understand the benefits of a social healthcare system, so they let it drop. But under a cloak of lies from the GOP who said they'd improve it....

on the border
11-05-2018, 10:21 PM
You cannot lay the destroying of the ACA at the Dems door,
Did you mean Romneycare, that total sellout to the insurance companies ? Solved absolutely nothing ? This is typical of what the sainted Democrats have to offer. Pretty on the surface, a black and stinking heart underneath.


just as you cannot blame labour for underfunding our Social Safety Net.
Your social safety net ? Mr Trump is running England now as well ?

Here's the truth about "social safety nets" - you don't need them until the elite destroy the working class. When there is work, a "social safety net" is unneessary. You never heard that word in the fifties, the sixties, the seventies. It wasn't until Billy-Boy sold us out in the nineties that the expression became popular. Then Obummer, elected under the promise of change, did The Exact Same Thing.

You can look up William Clinton and Barack Obama on wikipedia if you aren't certain which party they belong to.

C. Ross
11-05-2018, 11:54 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/05/joseph-stiglitz-america-should-be-a-warning-to-other-countries

Stating the obvious to me, but it obviously needs to be stated.

Well, I think Mr. Stiglitz overstates the consensus:

Public opinion on minimum wage -it depends on how much and by what mechanism:

Seventy-four percent of respondents (including 58 percent of Republicans) said they backed boosting the minimum wage from its current level of $7.25 an hour to $9 over the course of two years. But an increase to $10.10 over three years lost Republican support; only a third of Republicans liked the idea, despite an overall majority of 57 percent of respondents thinking it was a good idea.

But when it came to how the minimum wage is set, members of both parties and independents (63 percent) agreed that it would be better for Congress to simply tie the minimum wage to inflation, instead of revisiting it through new legislation every few years.



Public opinion on gun control: Here is Pew data which I think is authoritative. The highest opinion for general gun control was 67% in 2000, now it's 50/50. (Shockingly and disappointingly considering the horrific mass killings in the last twenty years).
25818

But there is support across the aisle for specific gun control initiatives:
http://www.people-press.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/10/1-new.png

I don't post on healthcare so I'll leave that to others.

Financial regulation, again Pew:
http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FT_17.03.02_financialReg_party.png?w=310

on the border
11-06-2018, 01:47 AM
Financial regulation, again Pew:
http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FT_17.03.02_financialReg_party.png?w=310
This is misleading. When Democrats say they are in favor of more financial regulation, they actually mean they want a large bureaucracy and a ton of busywork so their friends and children can have good jobs. But they do not mean they actually want to regulate investment banking.

For example, Clinton and Summers, Rubin and Greenspan vs Brooksley Born. Or Obama putting Geithner in at Treasury. Or the most telling, Glass-Steagall was 23 pages. The Barney Frank Do-Nothing Regulatory Bill was over 2,000. But it didn't actually achieve anything. It didn't even try. It was a whitewash, a cover for the Democrats to wave around while the banksters giggled behind their handkerchiefs.

So when Pew says Democrats are more in favor of regulating banking, what does that mean out here in the real world ?

Dunno about you but pious hypocrites is what comes to my mind.

Peerie Maa
11-06-2018, 03:44 AM
This is misleading. When Democrats say they are in favor of more financial regulation, they actually mean they want a large bureaucracy and a ton of busywork so their friends and children can have good jobs. But they do not mean they actually want to regulate investment banking.

For example, Clinton and Summers, Rubin and Greenspan vs Brooksley Born. Or Obama putting Geithner in at Treasury. Or the most telling, Glass-Steagall was 23 pages. The Barney Frank Do-Nothing Regulatory Bill was over 2,000. But it didn't actually achieve anything. It didn't even try. It was a whitewash, a cover for the Democrats to wave around while the banksters giggled behind their handkerchiefs.

So when Pew says Democrats are more in favor of regulating banking, what does that mean out here in the real world ?

Dunno about you but pious hypocrites is what comes to my mind.

U R Silly.
Deregulating the financial industry allowed the fraud that was Sub Prime to happen. Deregulating the financial industry allows bad decisions that cause recessions. It only takes a little study to establish that link.

C. Ross
11-06-2018, 06:39 AM
Well, I'm with Nick that weakening Glass -Steagall is one of the proximate causes of the subprime debt bubble burst and fraud. The deregulation was well-intentioned but assumed too much self-regulation by the credit industry.

Dodd-Frank is imperfect. I think a lot of us wanted to see criminal prosecutions and heavy civil penalties for the people who screwed us.

I wouldn't hold people answering a poll to charges of hypocrisy, though. They are just saying in general they would like to see more or less regulation. Seems reasonable to me.

Peerie Maa
11-06-2018, 06:50 AM
Well, I'm with Nick that weakening Glass -Steagall is one of the proximate causes of the subprime debt bubble burst and fraud. The deregulation was well-intentioned but assumed too much self-regulation by the credit industry.

Dodd-Frank is imperfect. I think a lot of us wanted to see criminal prosecutions and heavy civil penalties for the people who screwed us.

I wouldn't hold people answering a poll to charges of hypocrisy, though. They are just saying in general they would like to see more or less regulation. Seems reasonable to me.

There is the problem. I attended a lecture by an academic economist who pointed out a cyclical mechanism.


The financial industry make dumb decisions and causes a collapse.
Regulations are put in place reflecting lessons learned.
Those living through the crash retire from work taking their expertise with them.
The next generation of whizz kids think that they know better and lobby for deregulation.
Without regulation the financial industry make dumb decisions and causes a collapse.

If you look at the time-scales between crashes it relates to the average working life of a salaried financial worker.

C. Ross
11-06-2018, 07:17 AM
There is the problem. I attended a lecture by an academic economist who pointed out a cyclical mechanism.


The financial industry make dumb decisions and causes a collapse.
Regulations are put in place reflecting lessons learned.
Those living through the crash retire from work taking their expertise with them.
The next generation of whizz kids think that they know better and lobby for deregulation.
Without regulation the financial industry make dumb decisions and causes a collapse.

If you look at the time-scales between crashes it relates to the average working life of a salaried financial worker.

Quite a bit of truth in that, along with a couple of other pendulums. In the U.S. we had a Savings & Loan bubble in the From about 1986-1995, the subprime crisis was only 13 years later.

Another cause is financial instrument engineering. Hybrid and derivative securities and the like were part of both U.S. financial debacles, and they are not well understood or regulated.

on the border
11-06-2018, 07:58 PM
U R Silly.
Deregulating the financial industry allowed the fraud that was Sub Prime to happen. Deregulating the financial industry allows bad decisions that cause recessions. It only takes a little study to establish that link.
No I am not silly. The Democrats under William Jefferson Clinton were leading the charge to deregulation. It was Summers and Rubin and the rest of Goldman-Sachs in the Clinton administration who pushed all that Adam Greenspan / Milton Friedman garbage into practice.

The point is not that financial regulation is necesary. The point is that the modern-day Democrats are exactly the same as the Republicans.

Go look at the voting records. The Democrats have done nothing to actually control or punish Wall Street.

Rah rah rah Democrats, they are so great.

My left thingy, they are on the take as deeply as the much-despised Republicans.

I have no idea why you people are so blind.

gypsie
11-06-2018, 08:12 PM
There is the problem. I attended a lecture by an academic economist who pointed out a cyclical mechanism.


The financial industry make dumb decisions and causes a collapse.
Regulations are put in place reflecting lessons learned.
Those living through the crash retire from work taking their expertise with them.
The next generation of whizz kids think that they know better and lobby for deregulation.
Without regulation the financial industry make dumb decisions and causes a collapse.

If you look at the time-scales between crashes it relates to the average working life of a salaried financial worker.

That can be applied to so many things. Climate change won't be tackled effectively until the majority of peoples lived experience tells them it must be dealt with. Same with almost anything.

OTB cynical post #21 ,has some truth. Democrat voters do want regulation, though not for jobs as he absurdly describes, but for all the right reasons.
However, the Democrat party is funded by the vastly rich as are the Republicans. They will find it hard to bite the hand that feeds them. Getting regulations on corporate America through both houses on any day is very possibly the hardest thing one could do in the USA - unless everyone's lived experience says it is urgently needed. Preventative measures are really hard to action in a corporate world obsessed with short term profits.

But by and large, globally, progressive parties seem do a better job of it.

on the border
11-07-2018, 02:37 AM
OTB cynical post #21, has some truth.
It's not cynical. It's reality. Take yourself out of the action, observe the facts. Both parties are responsible for the destruction of the middle class.

The huge middle class and social mobility were what made the US "exceptional."

That's gone. While we expect the Republicans to aim for this goal (turning the US into a medieval soceity), the Democrats are supposed to be the party of the people. Calling average people "deplorable" instead of listening to the reasons for their behavior, that's our current DNC.


Democrat voters do want regulation, though not for jobs as he absurdly describes,
Sorry, I did not make myself clear. In fact it's true of both sides - what the voters or the people want is one thing, what the leaders of the party want is something entirely different.

The leadership of the Democratic Party (including all the congressmen) have absolutely no intention of ever enacting meaningful babk regulations. They have been handing over the counting house to the banksters for about fifty years, they have no intention of stopping now. Individual people want Glass-Steagall but we won't see it unless we put up a guillotine in front of the Washington Monument and start a shuttle service over to the Senate.

Peerie Maa
11-07-2018, 08:33 AM
No I am not silly. The Democrats under William Jefferson Clinton were leading the charge to deregulation. It was Summers and Rubin and the rest of Goldman-Sachs in the Clinton administration who pushed all that Adam Greenspan / Milton Friedman garbage into practice.

The point is not that financial regulation is necesary. The point is that the modern-day Democrats are exactly the same as the Republicans.

Go look at the voting records. The Democrats have done nothing to actually control or punish Wall Street.

Rah rah rah Democrats, they are so great.

My left thingy, they are on the take as deeply as the much-despised Republicans.

I have no idea why you people are so blind.
This. :-



OTB cynical post #21 ,has some truth. Democrat voters do want regulation, though not for jobs as he absurdly describes, but for all the right reasons.
However, the Democrat party is funded by the vastly rich as are the Republicans. They will find it hard to bite the hand that feeds them. Getting regulations on corporate America through both houses on any day is very possibly the hardest thing one could do in the USA - unless everyone's lived experience says it is urgently needed. Preventative measures are really hard to action in a corporate world obsessed with short term profits.

But by and large, globally, progressive parties seem do a better job of it.

on the border
11-07-2018, 04:54 PM
This. :-
That's all you have to say ? One syllable ? What is this, a high school clique, nothing in your head but <aol mode> me too</aol mode> ? Just stand around in a butt-patting circle telling each other how great you are ? "Progressives have done a better job" has no meaning. None. It's an opinion. "This" is the same as "nothing".

Peerie Maa
11-07-2018, 05:16 PM
That's all you have to say ? One syllable ? What is this, a high school clique, nothing in your head but <aol mode> me too</aol mode> ? Just stand around in a butt-patting circle telling each other how great you are ? "Progressives have done a better job" has no meaning. None. It's an opinion. "This" is the same as "nothing".

U R wayy past Silly.

And offensive with it.
Still I suppose that is all that you have got.

sandtown
11-07-2018, 06:04 PM
Hey Maa -

Looking back decades, the economy performs better under Dems than goppers.

There are countless sources that show this . .

For openers . . https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/07/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-the-economy-does-better-under-the-democrats/#2248a7176786

So actually, to get your kid a job, you don't really have to let Trump grope your wife.

Just elect Dems.

Peerie Maa
11-07-2018, 06:49 PM
Hey Maa -

Looking back decades, the economy performs better under Dems than goppers.

There are countless sources that show this . .

For openers . . https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/07/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-the-economy-does-better-under-the-democrats/#2248a7176786

So actually, to get your kid a job, you don't really have to let Trump grope your wife.

Just elect Dems.

And you are telling me this, why? ;)

sandtown
11-07-2018, 07:58 PM
And you are telling me this, why? ;)

How many peeps posting here have actually read one or more of Stiglitz' books

not singling you out . .

gypsie
11-07-2018, 09:31 PM
"Progressives have done a better job" has no meaning. None. It's an opinion.

Well there is sandtown's link above.

Here in Australia, by every metric used to measure the economy, the Labour Party outperforms the conservatives every time for many decades.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/09/labor-v-liberal-who-best-runs-the-australian-economy
https://theconversation.com/the-idea-that-conservatives-are-better-economic-managers-simply-does-not-stand-up-56678

And even in England, where the myth of conservatives being the better economic managers is possibly the strongest anywhere, is not held up by data.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-which-party-has-a-better-track-record-on-the-economy

So i reject your assertion that the sentence has no meaning, it is supported widely by data.

on the border
11-07-2018, 09:52 PM
Well there is sandtown's link above.

Here in Australia, by every metric used to measure the economy, the Labour Party outperforms the conservatives every time for many decades.

So I reject your assertion that the sentence has no meaning, it is supported widely by data.
This is going to be off the wall for you, but I believe those data have no meaning as well. This is recently illustrated in the US by all the "economic indicators" that claim life is just peachy-keen.

But it ain't. The middle class is broke and gone. They have been bled dry for the past forty years. Most economic indicators don't show that because people choose the wrong economic indicators.

I don't want to fall into the trap of defending today's so-called "conservatives" - they are as conservative as the "progressives" are Liberal. But I'd like to point out that it's all bull droppings. I'd prefer to use the middle english term, it's more precise and compact but this website abhors Chaucer.

Let's take a quick look at your economic indicators and the data that say progressives are better than conservatives - tell me what is the goal? Destruction of the planet ? Because that is where those systems both lead to. This is what you are measuring, how fast we can eat ourselves (and everything else that used to live here) out of house and home.

By contrast the Lakota lived happily for thousands of years in North America. It took fewer than fifty years after they were killed off to create the Dust Bowl. They left the place as nice as it was when they got it. We have pretty well destroyed not only North America but most of the planet. Your progressives and their frenetic economic activity are close to ruining the place.

I don't think progressives are better than conservatives. I think they are both evil. This whole system is wrong and Mom Nature is going to do a Deus Ex Machina. In fact, she already is.

You are measuring the wrong thing. That's why I think it is meaningless.

gypsie
11-07-2018, 10:12 PM
This is going to be off the wall for you, but I believe those data have no meaning as well. This is recently illustrated in the US by all the "economic indicators" that claim life is just peachy-keen.

But it ain't. The middle class is broke and gone. They have been bled dry for the past forty years. Most economic indicators don't show that because people choose the wrong economic indicators.

I don't want to fall into the trap of defending today's so-called "conservatives" - they are as conservative as the "progressives" are Liberal. But I'd like to point out that it's all bull droppings. I'd prefer to use the middle english term, it's more precise and compact but this website abhors Chaucer.

Let's take a quick look at your economic indicators and the data that say progressives are better than conservatives - tell me what is the goal? Destruction of the planet ? Because that is where those systems both lead to. This is what you are measuring, how fast we can eat ourselves (and everything else that used to live here) out of house and home.

By contrast the Lakota lived happily for thousands of years in North America. It took fewer than fifty years after they were killed off to create the Dust Bowl. They left the place as nice as it was when they got it. We have pretty well destroyed not only North America but most of the planet. Your progressives and their frenetic economic activity are close to ruining the place.

I don't think progressives are better than conservatives. I think they are both evil. This whole system is wrong and Mom Nature is going to do a Deus Ex Machina. In fact, she already is.

You are measuring the wrong thing. That's why I think it is meaningless.

That strikes me as a very Trumpian rant.

I don't disagree with you on what i think is your broad proposition; humanity is abusing the resources of the planet. And i can't see where you think i have disagreed with that proposition in this thread.
Though it is clearly wrong to assert that progressive policies are solely responsible. Progressives have no where near the desire to voraciously rape the world as right wingnut neo-liberals, that is not in contention anywhere. I would point out that the Republicans have consistently made a point of dismantling protections for the environment, Trump going after Obama's measures with particular zeal.

I am not measuring the wrong thing, you've just decided to introduce a new thing. It's called a straw man.

on the border
11-07-2018, 10:30 PM
That strikes me as a very Trumpian rant.

I am not measuring the wrong thing, you've just decided to introduce a new thing. It's called a straw man.
I am not expressing this particularly well, but the point is, you are all nuts. The world is undergoing another great extinction, apparently 60% of the world's animals have died off within our lifetimes, but you guys insist on playing the same old game, Democrats vs Republicans.

Both of them both, okay ? have the exact same "let's ruin this planet as fast as we can !" mentality. I dare you to call Paul Krugman a conservative or a Republican :) but he is at the top of the list of the growth ! growth ! growth ! Ponzi scheme which your "indicators" measure. Yay goody, data shows the progressives destroy the place faster than the retardlicants. Be still my heart.

I don't care about stupid-ass Trump, except to giggle at how upset he makes the self-righteous do-gooders. Especially here :)

The fact is, there's not a nickel's worth of difference between them, none of them give a damn about the people of the country or the health of the planet, you guys with your fixation on Trump are beyond ridiculous; society has cancer and you're worried about whether you have raisin bran or cheerios for breakfast.

gypsie
11-07-2018, 10:51 PM
The fact is, there's not a nickel's worth of difference between them, none of them give a damn about the people of the country or the health of the planet, you guys with your fixation on Trump are beyond ridiculous; society has cancer and you're worried about whether you have raisin bran or cheerios for breakfast.

I'm not in the US, but it appears the polarisation is almost complete.
Its strong here but people still move around a bit, and extreme policies get slapped down eventually - often quickly.

Because the USA is LOCKED in a two party system, there is no other conversation in US politics except GOP verses Reps. To talk as if these two can be worked around is naive. To look for a third way in most countries is possible - in the USA, not a chance.

And as Stiglitz suggests, there will be no chance in the foreseeable future because of the way corporate funding has locked up the process. Your concerns will never be heard by either side because neither side can get corporate funding from it. And voters clearly don't matter when gerymandering (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/04/america-minority-rule-voter-suppression-gerrymandering-supreme-court), voter suppression (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/democracy-loser-us-midterms-poor-ethnic-minorities) laws and the electoral college system manipulate the numbers. Hence even though the minority of Americans vote for GOP - they are still very much in power.


The two most recent Republican presidents have entered office despite receiving fewer votes than their opponent in a national election, thanks to the electoral college


none of them give a damn about the people of the country or the health of the planet

I don't think thats accurate, but in practice it certainly feels real. It agrees perfectly with Stiglitz's point.
Of the two choices you have, one destroys regulation that protects the environment and the the other creates it. It is obvious that the GOP is far less likely to campaign on more regulation to protect the environment than the Dems. So in a one or the other choice - which can it be?

on the border
11-08-2018, 12:52 AM
Of the two choices you have, one destroys regulation that protects the environment and the the other creates it. It is obvious that the GOP is far less likely to campaign on more regulation to protect the environment than the Dems. So in a one or the other choice - which can it be?
You live far away so you an be forgiven for believing this. In fact neither party does doodly to protect the environment. What happens in the real world is that the Republicans squeak "Jobs ! We need jobs !" so that they can cut down the forests (The first time any one of them actually cared about jobs, the world would end). On the other hand the democrats shriek, "We need to save the forests !" so they make it impossible for little guys with ten acres who grow their own trees to exist, while Weyerhauser can do whatever they like, as long as it is hidden.

Neither party does anything that would make any real difference, because they are all on the payroll. The major difference is that Republicans dress up like the Marlboro Man while the Democrats wear Free Willy t-shirts. It's a costume party.

Then they go into the back room together and divvy up the thirty pieces of silver.

btw, regulations don't matter if they are not enforced, e.g. Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon should both be doing ten consecutive sentences of fifty years to life. But what is the reality ? The barons do as they please, laws are for little people, eh ?

sandtown
11-08-2018, 08:04 PM
Hey Border -

To dispute with the corporate economists, you have to know what they are talking about.

Go take an econ course or two and come back to us.

No one is interested in your personal likes.dislikes - even if we agree with you, which I think I do . .

Adios

on the border
11-09-2018, 03:40 PM
To dispute with the corporate economists, you have to know what they are talking about.
To dispute that the world is flat, you need to take a few courses in theology.

Get serious. Banksters are thieves. It's simple.

Matt Taibbi and (to an extent) Michael Lewis are the only two who have put it in stark terms. The rest of you are too nervous about your 401k's to tell the truth.

sandtown
11-10-2018, 09:48 AM
Hey Border -

You can argue "both sides-ism" all you want, but that does not make it true.

Is Sherrod Brown the same a Mitch McConnell ? No, he it not.

BS-I has been thoroughly debunked - read you some Krugman.