11 ms·

2016 is shaping up to be an interesting year, and the worldview espoused in this article is one reason. While the EU or other institutions may be "right" in the

by basseq 10y ago

2016 is shaping up to be an interesting year, and the worldview espoused in this article is one reason. While the EU or other institutions may be "right" in their aspirations, the fact of the matter is that the status quo simply isn't working for a large number of people. It's no surprise then that these "losers" are seeking something better for themselves. They may not know what the right answer is, but no one does. And the argument that "we should keep trying the same thing" eventually falls flat with no results. So a headlong leap into the unknown looks better than pounding your head against the same wall over and over again. Which means this boils down to a very obvious realization: people who don't see the benefits of the status quo don't like the status quo. To those for whom the status quo is working, this comes as a shock. And for whatever reason, this year is the one where that minority becomes a majority. What I've found shocking in all this is the vitrol of the "winners". Brexiters (and Trump voters) have been called naive, idiots, racists, xenophobes, sheeple, and worse. ("Losers" comes to mind.) No matter what happens as a result of the UK/EU decision, the U.S. presidential election, or other policy changes around the world, we have to figure out how to fix the problem at the core of all this. Why so many people are unhappy. And name-calling isn't going to help.

capote 10y ago
It's disappointing to me that some people defend racists and xenophobes against being called racists and xenophobes. This is what they are, and it's completely appropriate to call them that, and worse. Please note the "status quo" is in fact moving away from racism and xenophobia, very slowly. This is much better than scrapping the "status quo" in favor of plunging back into racism and xenophobia. If the "status quo" isn't working for you and you want to scrap it in favor of Trump or Brexit, then you probably are not affected by issues like racism and xenophobia. And you need to look around you at minorities, immigrants, and Muslims, and consider them carefully before making a vote. For them, the "status quo" is definitely an improvement over Trump and Brexit, and we definitely shouldn't forget about them just because we're upset with things changing very slowly.
- basseq 10y ago
  This is a "guilty by association" logical fallacy. While some Brexitors are racist xenophobes, not all are. I find it hard to believe that 51% of the (voting) public is racist. This is the same thing that underpins the erroneous, "All Muslims are terrorists!" trope. Of course they're not! Your last paragraph makes a solid point, but it's a tough point to make. You're asking people to effectively vote against their own best interests because it's in the best interests of someone else. Any rational voter will rightly wonder why they should have to suffer to better someone else: shouldn't there be a solution that benefits all? (Or, bluntly, a solution that impacts a minority of voters who can't change the status quo?)
  - switch007 10y ago
    > While some Brexitors are racist xenophobes, not all are And the ones that are should not be called racist xenophobes because they they voted leave and the other 50.99% might get upset about the association?
    - Nadya 10y ago
      The point trying to be made is that they are racist because they are racist - not that they are racist because they are Brexitors. It's an important distinction to make. In the same vein of thought, terrorists should be called terrorists because they are terrorists and not because they are Muslim. And I happen to agree that Muslims shouldn't be called terrorists and not just because some majority % would be upset about the association.
    - nickik 10y ago
      Your arrogance is truly stagering. The EU is large institution and their are many reasons to be against it. I would wager that I am far more pro-immigration the you are and I would have voted leave.
  - capote 10y ago
    > You're asking people to effectively vote against their own best interests because it's in the best interests of someone else. I'm asking people to consider the fundamental rights of others and to notice that they're at risk. Compared to putting up with the status quo for a bit longer, losing fundamental rights and being discriminated against by the government is a much larger issue. I'm asking people to put up with the status quo for a bit more because the only alternative is discrimination and would take away fundamental rights of others.
whamlastxmas 10y ago
People are unhappy because as a group they're too stupid to vote for people whose interests actually align with that of the voters. So we have politicians that spend a lot of money to get the votes from the hordes of idiots who base voting decisions on things like 15 second attack ads played during commercials, and the minority of voters who make informed decisions are silenced as a result.
- basseq 10y ago
  > too stupid > hordes of idiots This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're saying that 51% of Britons (or voting Britons) are "a horde of stupid idiots" that are swayed by money spent on advertisements. Note that this also implies that the "smart people" on the "right" side haven't thought about running persuasive advertisements? Or can't do so effectively? If idiots are so easily swayed--and not only swayed, but swayed to vote against their own interests--shouldn't it be easy to get them to vote your way instead?
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    They are easily swayed, if you have a lot of money. Which is why we see such strong pro-corporatism is nearly every level of government regardless of political party. There is not much money to be had in pro-socialist, anti-war, pro-voter initiatives, which is why they get so little traction and have such low amounts of money available for advertising etc. Also, not saying 51% are idiots. Firstly, I am impartial to the Brexit vote and have no opinion on it. Secondly, you don't need 51% idiots, you only need enough idiots to change the result of the election, sometimes less than a percentage point.
    - basseq 10y ago
      Yet in the Brexit case, there was a ton of money on the Remain side, too. So...
      - whamlastxmas 10y ago
        How does that invalidate anything I said? All it really points out is that both sides had lots of money invested, and one of the sides didn't get the anticipated outcome. This happens every election in the US due to the two party system.
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Simple: globalization and automation have allowed the haves of society to make money at a faster pace than ever before. The lower costs passed onto consumers are used to blunt the effect of stagnating or falling wages. For every formerly-prosperous-now-struggling American or European, there are a hundred formerly-starving-now-stable Chinese, Indonesians, Indians - name it. That is why the global order is being railed against in developed countries while workers in developing nations are happy enough to be living considerably better than their parents or grandparents ever did. This also explains why the minority groups targeted by the DNC are favorable to Clinton: they are used to being pandered to with no results, but at least the modern Democratic Party assured them protections and higher standards of living than the alternative - why rock the boat? In the end, the ONLY solution is for the West to come TOGETHER to solve the problems that have dogged their societies and are sure to do so when developing economies become sufficiently developed. Otherwise, we will fight each other separately while the economic drivers (cheap labor) of developing economies will be happy enough with their newfound living standards to threaten to take down the global system that has benefited them directly and clearly.
- tomp 10y ago
  > That is why the global order is being railed against in developed countries while workers in developing nations are happy enough to be living considerably better than their parents or grandparents ever did. I don't think this is the cause. I think the real cause is that people in developed countries see how unfair their societies have become - it's not the problem that the incredibly poor Chinese are getting (slightly) richer instead of them, but that the local warlords, banklords and politilords are getting much, much richer while the people themselves grow poorer.
  - internaut 10y ago
    I agree with you but it's very hard for people to snap out of the idea that "society is getting richer". It took a long time for me to realize that growth had stalled for decades because I was looking at growth as measured in fiat and took for granted that the stock market returned 10% per year like clockwork. What would one expect to see if real growth ex computation had stalled or slowed? What would be the symptoms? People's lay intuitions are, I think, correct. More 'sophisticated' types have been misled. Some kinds of errors can only be reached by analysis. http://media.salon.com/1997/03/pravda970310.gif http://media.salon.com/1997/03/pravda970310.gif
rayiner 10y ago
> While the EU or other institutions may be "right" in their aspirations, the fact of the matter is that the status quo simply isn't working for a large number of people. Recent events are also a referendum on what "right" means. Even if unrestricted free trade is wealth-maximizing, such policies are not necessarily the "right ones" in a democracy. A simple analysis of the situation suggests that in fact democratic policies should generally maximize the wealth of the majority of voters, even if those same policies fail to maximize national wealth. One of the reasons for the frustration with the intellectual elite is their failure to realize that arguments in favor of the economic efficiency of free trade really miss the point.
- _yosefk 10y ago
  If you think a nation's wealth is maximized under certain conditions, isn't the majority better off taxing that maximized wealth than pursuing a different policy?
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Not necessarily. That wealth may accrue to people and in ways that are not easily taxable.
  - doktrin 10y ago
    I feel like this reasoning trivializes the redistribution of wealth. Sure, taxing "maximum wealth" and redistributing it fairly sounds like a great idea. In actuality, it's obnoxiously difficult to take something away from someone who already has it (see: salaries, housing prices being sticky downwards).
    - brbsix 10y ago
      It trivializes the initiation of force.
    - nickik 10y ago
      That is hard, but its quite a bit harder to do what you suggest. Blocking trade in favor of "the population" leads to uncompetitive buissness that produce products that people dont want to buy. The evetybody biys that stuff on the black market, you end up with unproductive buissnesses that need state support. Then when you final cut the throat of the dead animal you will get huge political problems on your hands. See for example coal-mines in england. Tracher had almost fight a civil war to get ride of that leech to society.
BallinBige 10y ago
From afar, it would appear that the middle-class would be for "Leave" not "Remain" The "Leave" movement is a denial of big business, corporations, and large government. It's a counter to income inequality, correct?
- tim333 10y ago
  I'd say mostly not. The middle-class mostly were for remain. They're not so keen on kick the immigrants out stuff. A lot of them work for big business, corporations, and large government. The effect on income inequality remains to be seen. Here's the treasury projection of the effects: >The Treasury has now followed up with a report on the short-term consequences of a vote to leave. In summarising the results, George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, has stated that the UK would suffer a “do-it-yourself” recession if it decided to leave. One might better call it a “do-it-himself” recession. For it was the government’s decision to take this risk. >The new report’s main scenario predicts that GDP would be 3.6 per cent lower after two years than if the UK voted to remain, unemployment would be 520,000 higher and the pound would be 12 per cent lower. Under a worse scenario, GDP could be 6 per cent lower, unemployment 820,000 higher and sterling 15 per cent lower. Doesn't sound like a prescription for lower inequality in the short term at any rate.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  The middle class voted remain: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LR-by-demographics.jpg http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LR-b... In this chart ABC1 together are often summerized as "middle-class"
badsock 10y ago
What I find disappointing is that the left, who used to represent the working class, is missing this opportunity to address that class's needs explicitly. The fact that this huge amount of dissatisfaction is being channelled into squabbles over immigration rather than, say, supporting massive upgrades to vocational training infrastructure, is a huge missed opportunity.
- throwanem 10y ago
  > the left, who used to represent the working class Commentators on the margins of the US left have recognized this problem, and been calling it out, for at least a decade - Joe Bageant, just to pick an example off the top of my head, was a powerful and persuasive voice on the subject, but for some reason, even as he achieved international prominence outside the US, he became ever more marginalized within. (Edited to add: Somebody elsewhere in this thread linked a Mark Ames piece in which he says the same thing. If even Mark Ames, whose major claim to fame is a multi-year exploration of street-level prostitution in newly post-Communist Russia, can see that it's a problem...)
- CM30 10y ago
  This is a really good point. The left seems to have switched from supporting the working class population and fighting for equality and better living conditions to basically supporting the 'wealthy college student' demographic and attacking their old supporters over identity politics. It used to be that parties like the UK's Labour party supported the working classes (while also supporting equality and being against prejudice). Now it seems like the average left wing political party/group mostly supports the upper middle class social media user demographic, the type who think complaints about trolling on Twitter are more important than class inequality, the lack of housing or wages stagnating.
  - nikdaheratik 10y ago
    They've stopped doing that because it doesn't win them elections. The roots of it go back to Nixon's southern strategy to split the Democratic party based on race, but the 80s also walked back alot of the strength of unions and removed other protections due to deregulation, and the 90s were how this all got finished off with the rise of talk radio and cable news dominating the conversation on the right. There should be room for a broader party that is pro-labor, but you would have to ditch alot of the links to civil rights or make a move to pick up the social conservatives in order to bring in many of the current GOP voters. It's possible, but I think the GOP as it currently exists needs to collapse before you can lose its grip on those voters.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> And the argument that "we should keep trying the same thing" eventually falls flat with no results. So a headlong leap into the unknown looks better than pounding your head against the same wall over and over again. Agreed, but it only looks better. Things are bad, but they can still get much worse (see Venezuela, Somalia, Syria...) It's not good enough to do something random. We need something that will actually help.
jandrese 10y ago
This is what it seems like to me. Lots of people see the rich getting richer and having the politicians solidly in their grip to prevent the system from changing. They're trying everything they can to try to break up this status quo and try to push some of the balance back towards the people. The Brexit is only the latest effect, we also see Donald Trump's otherwise inexplicable rise to power and Bernie Sander's incredibly impossible campaign gain way more steam than it had any business getting. People think that it's just big business rigging the system to make sure they get most of the money and the expense of the average person and politicians are along for the ride. Something about the big wall street bailouts and the skyrocketing wealth gap and years of stagnant real wages for the working class may have something to do with it. Theoretically politicians with "big government" is supposed to be the people's answer to corporate power. Also labor unions. However, globalization has weakened government power and nearly destroyed unions and now businesses are running away unchecked and creating a new guilded age. I had really hoped that bleak dystopian 80's futurism (see: Blade Runner) wouldn't come to pass, but it's looking more and more likely with each passing day.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  > I had really hoped that bleak dystopian 80's futurism Are there any other bodies of literature that you could suggest regarding the 80's dystopian futurism? I've been trying to build a reading list for the rest of summer.
  - jandrese 10y ago
    I don't have a list handy, but Wikipedia does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dystopian_literature#1980s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dystopian_literature#1... Not all of these are "corporations grew too big and absorbed all of the worlds governments until they became a tyrannical overlord", but many are.
- smsm42 10y ago
  > People think that it's just big business rigging the system to make sure they get most of the money and the expense of the average person and politicians are along for the ride. They funny thing is it's more of the reverse. The politicians are rigging the system to make sure they get most of the power, and big businesses are along for the ride because they can monetize the power. It's a symbiotic relationship - if a politician passes an expensive regulation, she gains power as champion of the people sticking it to a big business. But if the regulation does not kill the big business but kills (or forces to sell) their smaller competitor who has huge compliance costs and no lobbying connections - who exactly won here? And, more importantly, who exactly lost here? Lobbying is an insanely profitable investment, second to none. And it's not possible to do anything with it going from the business side - big businesses have much more concentrated and agile power than the society, and thus would always be able to influence a specific politician more efficiently. The only way to make a dent there is to reduce the amount of damage any particular politician can do. If only thing they control is a generic nation-wide tax rate, it's not really much space for lobbying there. If they have 2000-page tax code that is full with exclusions, deductions, special cases and targeted exceptions - oh, it's a lobbying bonanza! And so on. > Theoretically politicians with "big government" is supposed to be the people's answer to corporate power. That's like saying a diet of donuts and cola is supposed to be the answer for obesity. Or heroin is supposed to be the answer for marijuana. > now businesses are running away unchecked That's exactly the opposite of what happens. Never in history there was so many regulations as there is now. Literally never - there are 3500 to 3800 regulations created every year. Think about how many of these there are when this system runs for decades. Big businesses have army of people to deal with this cursed forest. Small businesses do not. Guess why people think the system is rigged?
switch007 10y ago
> What I've found shocking in all this is the vitrol of the "winners". Brexiters (and Trump voters) have been called naive, idiots, racists, xenophobes, sheeple, and worse. ("Losers" comes to mind.) Racism (racial discrimination and racial hate speech) is illegal in this country and given some deplorable scenes we've seen over the past few days, I think anyone being racist should be heavily reprimanded. I don't want to squash people's views by calling out racism, quite the opposite. I've been trying to have calm, rational discussions with people to try to understand why they voted out. Unfortunately I've only been told media soundbites such as "we want our country back" and "immigrants claim too many benefits". It usually ends in "I'm entitled to my opinion".
- hiram112 10y ago
  >I think anyone being racist should be heavily reprimanded. The problem with this is that many who share this idea don't have a good idea of what 'racism' actually is. Note: it is NOT racist to vote for policies that advantage yourself over someone from another group, perhaps of a different race, whom you've never met, and to whom you owe nothing.
  - chillacy 10y ago
    > Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices Literally in the first paragraph of wikipedia's article Or even Marriam-Webster: > : racial prejudice or discrimination (discrimination being the part where you advantage yourself over others). Just think: if you were a minority in some aspect, how would you like to be treated? As for the practice of always voting for your in-group, this is something our founding fathers (assuming you're american) have known was a limitation of democracies, and leads to bad times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
- nickik 10y ago
  Let me give you my views on why I would have voted against it if I were British. First, I am pro immigration, much more so then almost anybody you will meet. However their are other isses. What people who vote stay don't seem to take into account is the difference between "Europe coming togther" as an idea and the actual implentation that is the current EU. My issue with the EU are many. Its not democratic in any meaningful way and it wasn't created democratically. Why all of those leftist who usually scream "democracy!" never speak out against the EU is frankly a riddle to me. The EU economic policy rangr from stupid and pointless to stupid and harmful. The most important part of the EU, single market' could easly be done with a simple agreement. I will not go into the long list of other idiocy done by the EU. My project of european integration would start with many reginal and if possible Europe with agreements but without much of a burocracy on top of it. Every agreement should be democratically senctioned. Take Switzerland as an example. We forced a vote amd voted "no" against the EU after our government commited us to it (that called a "referendum"). For other isses like the Schengen border control agreement we voted yes. It this European integration projects need explicity institutions, they should be single pourpose, such as the European Space Agency. I am frankly sick of all the "Remain" people who are so sure about their oppinion that eveybody who disagrees must be a racist moron. And that predictions made by that, don't even have a chance to be wrong. As for Switzerland, those who wanted to join back then also had dire predictions. The loudly claimed that Switzerland would be begging to get in. Now, nobody in their right mind wants to join anymore. The EU has neatly managed to completly dicredit itself. If Britain leaves, my prediction is that in 10 years, nobody wants to join anymore.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Floegipoky 10y ago
It doesn't matter what your reasons are for putting someone in power. You or others may support anti-immigration laws to protect job markets, housing, medical care, etc. Those are valid concerns, but it doesn't matter. Trump is not the change that these people are looking for. Votes are fuel; at the end of the day, anyone who votes for him is complicit in the rhetoric he uses, and bears responsibility for the further spread of hatred and bigotry towards marginalized groups in our society. You might say that those voting for him have nobody else to turn to, that the current political system has disenfranchised them to the point where they have no choice. You'd be correct. There is always a choice to defend those who cannot defend themselves; it usually requires personal sacrifice, and it always reflects on the character of those who make it.
- throwanem 10y ago
  It is very easy to demand self-sacrifice of others. Convincing them on the subject is a great deal harder, which I think is why nobody seems much to try; simpler, after all, to compel (at least part of) the desired result by means of force majeure. But you shouldn't expect to make friends by it.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  What marginalized groups is Trumps rhetoric spreading hatred and bigotry towards?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    In roughly descending order of frequency (of the ones I've noticed), in public statements, comments, and actions this campaign season (I may be forgetting some): Hispanics/Latinos (especially Mexicans), Muslims, Women, African-Americans, and Jewish people.
- thescribe 10y ago
  I believe a good portion of those Trump voters have been the ones giving the sacrifice for an entire generation now. I can't say I'm surprised that he's popular.
smsm42 10y ago
The most interesting (though unsurprising) aspect of it is how oblivious are pro-status-quo people to the existence and interests of the contra-status-quo people. That also includes people that can't go through a day without boasting about how they support diversity and inclusion. They are genuinely stunned when people come out against the status quo - how could they? They must be complete idiots to be against this thing that works so well for me and all my friends! And then they're always surprised where election turns sour for them or somebody like Trump arises. Moreover, as they are unable to really comprehend the existence of the other group, not only they are surprised by it, but they are completely unable to manage any sensible dialog with it - thus, instead of finding common ground and figuring out maybe not ideal, but commonly beneficial solution, we have vitriol and hate from both sides. Status quo side thinks they are beset by mobs of idiots bound on mindless destruction, and contra-status-quo side thinks they are dealing with a pack of elitist snobs completely oblivious to any argument and unwilling to even deign the plebes with consideration of their needs, and thus takes anything coming from the other side as a bunch of lies only aimed at prolonging the status quo because it works for the other side. Absent any meaningful dialog, the whole picture becomes extremely tribal and the prognosis becomes very bleak.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Ignoring basic facts won't help either, it appears to have helped to get us here. A couple of relevant facts, Trump supporters earn more than the average American. Leave was pushed in the UK by two right-wing parties that cater to the rich and brought their voters along with them. Can I not blame the winners of globalisation either?

by basseq 10y ago

capote 10y ago

It's disappointing to me that some people defend racists and xenophobes against being called racists and xenophobes. This is what they are, and it's completely appropriate to call them that, and worse. Please note the "status quo" is in fact moving away from racism and xenophobia, very slowly. This is much better than scrapping the "status quo" in favor of plunging back into racism and xenophobia. If the "status quo" isn't working for you and you want to scrap it in favor of Trump or Brexit, then you probably are not affected by issues like racism and xenophobia. And you need to look around you at minorities, immigrants, and Muslims, and consider them carefully before making a vote. For them, the "status quo" is definitely an improvement over Trump and Brexit, and we definitely shouldn't forget about them just because we're upset with things changing very slowly.

basseq 10y ago
This is a "guilty by association" logical fallacy. While some Brexitors are racist xenophobes, not all are. I find it hard to believe that 51% of the (voting) public is racist. This is the same thing that underpins the erroneous, "All Muslims are terrorists!" trope. Of course they're not! Your last paragraph makes a solid point, but it's a tough point to make. You're asking people to effectively vote against their own best interests because it's in the best interests of someone else. Any rational voter will rightly wonder why they should have to suffer to better someone else: shouldn't there be a solution that benefits all? (Or, bluntly, a solution that impacts a minority of voters who can't change the status quo?)
- switch007 10y ago
  > While some Brexitors are racist xenophobes, not all are And the ones that are should not be called racist xenophobes because they they voted leave and the other 50.99% might get upset about the association?
  - Nadya 10y ago
    The point trying to be made is that they are racist because they are racist - not that they are racist because they are Brexitors. It's an important distinction to make. In the same vein of thought, terrorists should be called terrorists because they are terrorists and not because they are Muslim. And I happen to agree that Muslims shouldn't be called terrorists and not just because some majority % would be upset about the association.
  - nickik 10y ago
    Your arrogance is truly stagering. The EU is large institution and their are many reasons to be against it. I would wager that I am far more pro-immigration the you are and I would have voted leave.
- capote 10y ago
  > You're asking people to effectively vote against their own best interests because it's in the best interests of someone else. I'm asking people to consider the fundamental rights of others and to notice that they're at risk. Compared to putting up with the status quo for a bit longer, losing fundamental rights and being discriminated against by the government is a much larger issue. I'm asking people to put up with the status quo for a bit more because the only alternative is discrimination and would take away fundamental rights of others.

whamlastxmas 10y ago

People are unhappy because as a group they're too stupid to vote for people whose interests actually align with that of the voters. So we have politicians that spend a lot of money to get the votes from the hordes of idiots who base voting decisions on things like 15 second attack ads played during commercials, and the minority of voters who make informed decisions are silenced as a result.

basseq 10y ago
> too stupid > hordes of idiots This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're saying that 51% of Britons (or voting Britons) are "a horde of stupid idiots" that are swayed by money spent on advertisements. Note that this also implies that the "smart people" on the "right" side haven't thought about running persuasive advertisements? Or can't do so effectively? If idiots are so easily swayed--and not only swayed, but swayed to vote against their own interests--shouldn't it be easy to get them to vote your way instead?
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  They are easily swayed, if you have a lot of money. Which is why we see such strong pro-corporatism is nearly every level of government regardless of political party. There is not much money to be had in pro-socialist, anti-war, pro-voter initiatives, which is why they get so little traction and have such low amounts of money available for advertising etc. Also, not saying 51% are idiots. Firstly, I am impartial to the Brexit vote and have no opinion on it. Secondly, you don't need 51% idiots, you only need enough idiots to change the result of the election, sometimes less than a percentage point.
  - basseq 10y ago
    Yet in the Brexit case, there was a ton of money on the Remain side, too. So...
    - whamlastxmas 10y ago
      How does that invalidate anything I said? All it really points out is that both sides had lots of money invested, and one of the sides didn't get the anticipated outcome. This happens every election in the US due to the two party system.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

Simple: globalization and automation have allowed the haves of society to make money at a faster pace than ever before. The lower costs passed onto consumers are used to blunt the effect of stagnating or falling wages. For every formerly-prosperous-now-struggling American or European, there are a hundred formerly-starving-now-stable Chinese, Indonesians, Indians - name it. That is why the global order is being railed against in developed countries while workers in developing nations are happy enough to be living considerably better than their parents or grandparents ever did. This also explains why the minority groups targeted by the DNC are favorable to Clinton: they are used to being pandered to with no results, but at least the modern Democratic Party assured them protections and higher standards of living than the alternative - why rock the boat? In the end, the ONLY solution is for the West to come TOGETHER to solve the problems that have dogged their societies and are sure to do so when developing economies become sufficiently developed. Otherwise, we will fight each other separately while the economic drivers (cheap labor) of developing economies will be happy enough with their newfound living standards to threaten to take down the global system that has benefited them directly and clearly.

tomp 10y ago
> That is why the global order is being railed against in developed countries while workers in developing nations are happy enough to be living considerably better than their parents or grandparents ever did. I don't think this is the cause. I think the real cause is that people in developed countries see how unfair their societies have become - it's not the problem that the incredibly poor Chinese are getting (slightly) richer instead of them, but that the local warlords, banklords and politilords are getting much, much richer while the people themselves grow poorer.
- internaut 10y ago
  I agree with you but it's very hard for people to snap out of the idea that "society is getting richer". It took a long time for me to realize that growth had stalled for decades because I was looking at growth as measured in fiat and took for granted that the stock market returned 10% per year like clockwork. What would one expect to see if real growth ex computation had stalled or slowed? What would be the symptoms? People's lay intuitions are, I think, correct. More 'sophisticated' types have been misled. Some kinds of errors can only be reached by analysis. http://media.salon.com/1997/03/pravda970310.gif http://media.salon.com/1997/03/pravda970310.gif

rayiner 10y ago

> While the EU or other institutions may be "right" in their aspirations, the fact of the matter is that the status quo simply isn't working for a large number of people. Recent events are also a referendum on what "right" means. Even if unrestricted free trade is wealth-maximizing, such policies are not necessarily the "right ones" in a democracy. A simple analysis of the situation suggests that in fact democratic policies should generally maximize the wealth of the majority of voters, even if those same policies fail to maximize national wealth. One of the reasons for the frustration with the intellectual elite is their failure to realize that arguments in favor of the economic efficiency of free trade really miss the point.

_yosefk 10y ago
If you think a nation's wealth is maximized under certain conditions, isn't the majority better off taxing that maximized wealth than pursuing a different policy?
- rayiner 10y ago
  Not necessarily. That wealth may accrue to people and in ways that are not easily taxable.
- doktrin 10y ago
  I feel like this reasoning trivializes the redistribution of wealth. Sure, taxing "maximum wealth" and redistributing it fairly sounds like a great idea. In actuality, it's obnoxiously difficult to take something away from someone who already has it (see: salaries, housing prices being sticky downwards).
  - brbsix 10y ago
    It trivializes the initiation of force.
  - nickik 10y ago
    That is hard, but its quite a bit harder to do what you suggest. Blocking trade in favor of "the population" leads to uncompetitive buissness that produce products that people dont want to buy. The evetybody biys that stuff on the black market, you end up with unproductive buissnesses that need state support. Then when you final cut the throat of the dead animal you will get huge political problems on your hands. See for example coal-mines in england. Tracher had almost fight a civil war to get ride of that leech to society.

BallinBige 10y ago

From afar, it would appear that the middle-class would be for "Leave" not "Remain" The "Leave" movement is a denial of big business, corporations, and large government. It's a counter to income inequality, correct?

tim333 10y ago
I'd say mostly not. The middle-class mostly were for remain. They're not so keen on kick the immigrants out stuff. A lot of them work for big business, corporations, and large government. The effect on income inequality remains to be seen. Here's the treasury projection of the effects: >The Treasury has now followed up with a report on the short-term consequences of a vote to leave. In summarising the results, George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, has stated that the UK would suffer a “do-it-yourself” recession if it decided to leave. One might better call it a “do-it-himself” recession. For it was the government’s decision to take this risk. >The new report’s main scenario predicts that GDP would be 3.6 per cent lower after two years than if the UK voted to remain, unemployment would be 520,000 higher and the pound would be 12 per cent lower. Under a worse scenario, GDP could be 6 per cent lower, unemployment 820,000 higher and sterling 15 per cent lower. Doesn't sound like a prescription for lower inequality in the short term at any rate.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
The middle class voted remain: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LR-by-demographics.jpg http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LR-b... In this chart ABC1 together are often summerized as "middle-class"

badsock 10y ago

What I find disappointing is that the left, who used to represent the working class, is missing this opportunity to address that class's needs explicitly. The fact that this huge amount of dissatisfaction is being channelled into squabbles over immigration rather than, say, supporting massive upgrades to vocational training infrastructure, is a huge missed opportunity.

throwanem 10y ago
> the left, who used to represent the working class Commentators on the margins of the US left have recognized this problem, and been calling it out, for at least a decade - Joe Bageant, just to pick an example off the top of my head, was a powerful and persuasive voice on the subject, but for some reason, even as he achieved international prominence outside the US, he became ever more marginalized within. (Edited to add: Somebody elsewhere in this thread linked a Mark Ames piece in which he says the same thing. If even Mark Ames, whose major claim to fame is a multi-year exploration of street-level prostitution in newly post-Communist Russia, can see that it's a problem...)
CM30 10y ago
This is a really good point. The left seems to have switched from supporting the working class population and fighting for equality and better living conditions to basically supporting the 'wealthy college student' demographic and attacking their old supporters over identity politics. It used to be that parties like the UK's Labour party supported the working classes (while also supporting equality and being against prejudice). Now it seems like the average left wing political party/group mostly supports the upper middle class social media user demographic, the type who think complaints about trolling on Twitter are more important than class inequality, the lack of housing or wages stagnating.
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  They've stopped doing that because it doesn't win them elections. The roots of it go back to Nixon's southern strategy to split the Democratic party based on race, but the 80s also walked back alot of the strength of unions and removed other protections due to deregulation, and the 90s were how this all got finished off with the rise of talk radio and cable news dominating the conversation on the right. There should be room for a broader party that is pro-labor, but you would have to ditch alot of the links to civil rights or make a move to pick up the social conservatives in order to bring in many of the current GOP voters. It's possible, but I think the GOP as it currently exists needs to collapse before you can lose its grip on those voters.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

> And the argument that "we should keep trying the same thing" eventually falls flat with no results. So a headlong leap into the unknown looks better than pounding your head against the same wall over and over again. Agreed, but it only looks better. Things are bad, but they can still get much worse (see Venezuela, Somalia, Syria...) It's not good enough to do something random. We need something that will actually help.

jandrese 10y ago

This is what it seems like to me. Lots of people see the rich getting richer and having the politicians solidly in their grip to prevent the system from changing. They're trying everything they can to try to break up this status quo and try to push some of the balance back towards the people. The Brexit is only the latest effect, we also see Donald Trump's otherwise inexplicable rise to power and Bernie Sander's incredibly impossible campaign gain way more steam than it had any business getting. People think that it's just big business rigging the system to make sure they get most of the money and the expense of the average person and politicians are along for the ride. Something about the big wall street bailouts and the skyrocketing wealth gap and years of stagnant real wages for the working class may have something to do with it. Theoretically politicians with "big government" is supposed to be the people's answer to corporate power. Also labor unions. However, globalization has weakened government power and nearly destroyed unions and now businesses are running away unchecked and creating a new guilded age. I had really hoped that bleak dystopian 80's futurism (see: Blade Runner) wouldn't come to pass, but it's looking more and more likely with each passing day.

antisthenes 10y ago
> I had really hoped that bleak dystopian 80's futurism Are there any other bodies of literature that you could suggest regarding the 80's dystopian futurism? I've been trying to build a reading list for the rest of summer.
- jandrese 10y ago
  I don't have a list handy, but Wikipedia does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dystopian_literature#1980s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dystopian_literature#1... Not all of these are "corporations grew too big and absorbed all of the worlds governments until they became a tyrannical overlord", but many are.
smsm42 10y ago
> People think that it's just big business rigging the system to make sure they get most of the money and the expense of the average person and politicians are along for the ride. They funny thing is it's more of the reverse. The politicians are rigging the system to make sure they get most of the power, and big businesses are along for the ride because they can monetize the power. It's a symbiotic relationship - if a politician passes an expensive regulation, she gains power as champion of the people sticking it to a big business. But if the regulation does not kill the big business but kills (or forces to sell) their smaller competitor who has huge compliance costs and no lobbying connections - who exactly won here? And, more importantly, who exactly lost here? Lobbying is an insanely profitable investment, second to none. And it's not possible to do anything with it going from the business side - big businesses have much more concentrated and agile power than the society, and thus would always be able to influence a specific politician more efficiently. The only way to make a dent there is to reduce the amount of damage any particular politician can do. If only thing they control is a generic nation-wide tax rate, it's not really much space for lobbying there. If they have 2000-page tax code that is full with exclusions, deductions, special cases and targeted exceptions - oh, it's a lobbying bonanza! And so on. > Theoretically politicians with "big government" is supposed to be the people's answer to corporate power. That's like saying a diet of donuts and cola is supposed to be the answer for obesity. Or heroin is supposed to be the answer for marijuana. > now businesses are running away unchecked That's exactly the opposite of what happens. Never in history there was so many regulations as there is now. Literally never - there are 3500 to 3800 regulations created every year. Think about how many of these there are when this system runs for decades. Big businesses have army of people to deal with this cursed forest. Small businesses do not. Guess why people think the system is rigged?

switch007 10y ago

> What I've found shocking in all this is the vitrol of the "winners". Brexiters (and Trump voters) have been called naive, idiots, racists, xenophobes, sheeple, and worse. ("Losers" comes to mind.) Racism (racial discrimination and racial hate speech) is illegal in this country and given some deplorable scenes we've seen over the past few days, I think anyone being racist should be heavily reprimanded. I don't want to squash people's views by calling out racism, quite the opposite. I've been trying to have calm, rational discussions with people to try to understand why they voted out. Unfortunately I've only been told media soundbites such as "we want our country back" and "immigrants claim too many benefits". It usually ends in "I'm entitled to my opinion".

hiram112 10y ago
>I think anyone being racist should be heavily reprimanded. The problem with this is that many who share this idea don't have a good idea of what 'racism' actually is. Note: it is NOT racist to vote for policies that advantage yourself over someone from another group, perhaps of a different race, whom you've never met, and to whom you owe nothing.
- chillacy 10y ago
  > Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices Literally in the first paragraph of wikipedia's article Or even Marriam-Webster: > : racial prejudice or discrimination (discrimination being the part where you advantage yourself over others). Just think: if you were a minority in some aspect, how would you like to be treated? As for the practice of always voting for your in-group, this is something our founding fathers (assuming you're american) have known was a limitation of democracies, and leads to bad times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
nickik 10y ago
Let me give you my views on why I would have voted against it if I were British. First, I am pro immigration, much more so then almost anybody you will meet. However their are other isses. What people who vote stay don't seem to take into account is the difference between "Europe coming togther" as an idea and the actual implentation that is the current EU. My issue with the EU are many. Its not democratic in any meaningful way and it wasn't created democratically. Why all of those leftist who usually scream "democracy!" never speak out against the EU is frankly a riddle to me. The EU economic policy rangr from stupid and pointless to stupid and harmful. The most important part of the EU, single market' could easly be done with a simple agreement. I will not go into the long list of other idiocy done by the EU. My project of european integration would start with many reginal and if possible Europe with agreements but without much of a burocracy on top of it. Every agreement should be democratically senctioned. Take Switzerland as an example. We forced a vote amd voted "no" against the EU after our government commited us to it (that called a "referendum"). For other isses like the Schengen border control agreement we voted yes. It this European integration projects need explicity institutions, they should be single pourpose, such as the European Space Agency. I am frankly sick of all the "Remain" people who are so sure about their oppinion that eveybody who disagrees must be a racist moron. And that predictions made by that, don't even have a chance to be wrong. As for Switzerland, those who wanted to join back then also had dire predictions. The loudly claimed that Switzerland would be begging to get in. Now, nobody in their right mind wants to join anymore. The EU has neatly managed to completly dicredit itself. If Britain leaves, my prediction is that in 10 years, nobody wants to join anymore.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Floegipoky 10y ago

It doesn't matter what your reasons are for putting someone in power. You or others may support anti-immigration laws to protect job markets, housing, medical care, etc. Those are valid concerns, but it doesn't matter. Trump is not the change that these people are looking for. Votes are fuel; at the end of the day, anyone who votes for him is complicit in the rhetoric he uses, and bears responsibility for the further spread of hatred and bigotry towards marginalized groups in our society. You might say that those voting for him have nobody else to turn to, that the current political system has disenfranchised them to the point where they have no choice. You'd be correct. There is always a choice to defend those who cannot defend themselves; it usually requires personal sacrifice, and it always reflects on the character of those who make it.

throwanem 10y ago
It is very easy to demand self-sacrifice of others. Convincing them on the subject is a great deal harder, which I think is why nobody seems much to try; simpler, after all, to compel (at least part of) the desired result by means of force majeure. But you shouldn't expect to make friends by it.
oh_sigh 10y ago
What marginalized groups is Trumps rhetoric spreading hatred and bigotry towards?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  In roughly descending order of frequency (of the ones I've noticed), in public statements, comments, and actions this campaign season (I may be forgetting some): Hispanics/Latinos (especially Mexicans), Muslims, Women, African-Americans, and Jewish people.
thescribe 10y ago
I believe a good portion of those Trump voters have been the ones giving the sacrifice for an entire generation now. I can't say I'm surprised that he's popular.

smsm42 10y ago

The most interesting (though unsurprising) aspect of it is how oblivious are pro-status-quo people to the existence and interests of the contra-status-quo people. That also includes people that can't go through a day without boasting about how they support diversity and inclusion. They are genuinely stunned when people come out against the status quo - how could they? They must be complete idiots to be against this thing that works so well for me and all my friends! And then they're always surprised where election turns sour for them or somebody like Trump arises. Moreover, as they are unable to really comprehend the existence of the other group, not only they are surprised by it, but they are completely unable to manage any sensible dialog with it - thus, instead of finding common ground and figuring out maybe not ideal, but commonly beneficial solution, we have vitriol and hate from both sides. Status quo side thinks they are beset by mobs of idiots bound on mindless destruction, and contra-status-quo side thinks they are dealing with a pack of elitist snobs completely oblivious to any argument and unwilling to even deign the plebes with consideration of their needs, and thus takes anything coming from the other side as a bunch of lies only aimed at prolonging the status quo because it works for the other side. Absent any meaningful dialog, the whole picture becomes extremely tribal and the prognosis becomes very bleak.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

Ignoring basic facts won't help either, it appears to have helped to get us here. A couple of relevant facts, Trump supporters earn more than the average American. Leave was pushed in the UK by two right-wing parties that cater to the rich and brought their voters along with them. Can I not blame the winners of globalisation either?