5 ms·

Any hope for US capitalism redeeming itself in the next 4 years went out the window with Bernie Sanders's campaign.

by socialist_coder 10y ago

WalterBright 10y ago
The more power the government accretes over the market, the more potential there is for corrupt use of that power.
- MawNicker 10y ago
  That's bullshit. The government at least owes you a song and dance about how it's working for you. Even if you're too poor to pay taxes. Corporations don't owe you anything. When the masses have been squeezed dry they will have nothing to protect themselves from the externalities of corporations. The failure of this government is that it no longer exists. It's a corporation now. Sort of an inter-corporate security/insurance firm. What we actually need is a working government. I can't believe we still have the electoral college. Has no one heard of instant runoff voting? Or what happened in 2000 with Nader and Gore. The problem isn't just government period. It's this pretension of one.
  - randiantech 10y ago
    Governments are the more dangerous, objectively speaking. All of them have the monopoly of army and public forces. Not a single corporation in the world could be equally dangerous just based on this.
    - MawNicker 10y ago
      Are you sure? There are some pretty scary private security firms. Do you actually know what they have? I hope government really does have a monopoly on force.
      - randiantech 10y ago
        No private organization has committed crimes comparable to the ones committed by authoritarian governments. I could mention USSRs pogroms, concentration camps on Germany or summary executions in Cuba, to name a few.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > Has no one heard of instant runoff voting? Approval voting. You want approval voting. Range voting is actually better but approval voting is almost as good and is a lot simpler for people to understand, and both are better than IRV.
    - MawNicker 10y ago
      I agree that approval voting is simpler conceptually. I like that IRV lets me prioratize my vote. It's not that much more complicated. Counting the vote is a lot harder but the voters don't have to do that. If 60% prefer Gore to Bush and 90% of them prefer Nader to Gore then you don't get the "correct" result. You'd have Gore beating Nader with 60% vs 54% approval when 54% (the majority) of the population actually prefered Nader to Gore. They can't risk leaving Gore unapproved because then Bush might win. IRV solves this.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        You're only getting that result by having 100% of the voters who prefer Nader to Gore approve of both while 100% of the voters who prefer Gore to Nader only approve of Gore. In which case approval voting does what it's supposed to do and gives the election to the candidate with the highest approval. Moreover, the problem you're trying to solve is Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which is provably impossible to do. You could have a third of voters prefer each candidate but majorities prefer Nader to Gore, Gore to Bush and Bush to Nader.
        MawNicker 10y ago
        I see what you're saying about Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. I don't think I was specific enough. You're right in the general case and IRV doesn't solve that problem. What I mean is that 54% could prefer Nader outright. But since they also prefer Gore to Bush they have to approve of Gore or else Bush may win. This causes Gore to have the highest approval even though he wasn't the majority's most desired candidate. It wouldn't fix the bias towards those expected to win.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    There is actually quite a bit of government out there. I don't know exactly why it is the Legislature has all but collapsed, but that's not all of government. Thing is, w.r.t the economy, what can actually be done? The only thing I know of that isn't pretty disruptive is as higher inflation target - and we cannot maintain GDP growth to hit the one we have.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  The problem is there isn't a candidate running who is willing to do the right thing. The Republican Party hasn't been for small government in decades. They take your money and give it to defense contractors and banks, whereas the Democrats take your money and give it to insurance companies and banks. The Republicans eliminate regulations that protect people and competition from corporations while the Democrats enact regulations that protect corporations from people and competition. Nobody is doing the right thing. That's why the Republican voters nominated The Joker and the Democrats almost nominated Sanders. People are for someone who will shake things up. But the fact is nobody knows what Trump will actually do, so your choices this year are between "clearly bad" and "wait, what?"
dcherman 10y ago
What does that mean? Bernie is a socialist, not a capitalist. How would a Sanders campaign have redeemed US capitalism?
- futuravenir 10y ago
  Firstly, Bernie is a Social Democrat. Secondly, Capitalism has gotten so much Crony in it that the inequality is hurting the capitalism. Bernie could have swung the scales towards infrastructure, unionism, and lowering inequality, which would put dollars in the pockets of the poor, which would in turn be spent directly into the economy.
  - esgoto 10y ago
    The same Bernie that now supports Hillary and is himself a part of the incredibly corrupt DNC?
    - socialist_coder 10y ago
      He doesn't support Hillary. He is supporting a non-Trump presidency. And how can you possibly say he is part of the DNC? Do you even follow US politics at all?
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    " Bernie could have swung the scales towards infrastructure, unionism, and lowering inequality, which would put dollars in the pockets of the poor, which would in turn be spent directly into the economy." That's a little bit of a stretch. Inequality is a problem mostly because: A) The benefits of globalism go to the 1%, then to the middle class in terms of cheaper prices, but the working class lose jobs. B) US has massive importation of low-skilled immigrants. They go right at the bottom. You don't need a 'messed up system' - if you just add poor people, you increase inequality. C) Bernie is an old-time socialist - he has no new ideas, really. I've heard him talk, he wants to massive increase wealth distribution and do it by taxing 'the rich'. This never works out, really. 'Infrastructure' is a cover - really, it's a wealth transfer exercise. Europe and Canada tried that in the 1960's it didn't go s well. The problem is really difficult, and it's exacerbated by the sheer size of the US, also there are no ethnic ties. Sweden is only the size of Los Angeles - and they are 'Swedes' an ethnic group with fraternal social order, a Monarchy, a State Church, common cultural identity. It's easier to 'redistribute' when the person getting the service is someone you know. The best kind of 'redistribution' is 'jobs'. Surely, increasing the minimum wage a little bit might work, and possibly having unions where none exist (Wallmart?), but strengthening already existing unions - particularly in the auto-sector and government is not going to help anyone - they are part of the problem. Auto workers and gov. workers are massively overcompensated relative to their private sector peers. Gov unions are one of the reasons government is so massively inefficient. If Bernie could fix that, that'd be great - but he's a politician, he's never had a normal job and wouldn't have a clue how to do it. I think moving towards empowering people, making sure they can participate in the global wealth creation is very important, but 1960's style socialism is not the answer.

Any hope for US capitalism redeeming itself in the next 4 years went out the window with Bernie Sanders's campaign.

WalterBright 10y ago

The more power the government accretes over the market, the more potential there is for corrupt use of that power.

MawNicker 10y ago
That's bullshit. The government at least owes you a song and dance about how it's working for you. Even if you're too poor to pay taxes. Corporations don't owe you anything. When the masses have been squeezed dry they will have nothing to protect themselves from the externalities of corporations. The failure of this government is that it no longer exists. It's a corporation now. Sort of an inter-corporate security/insurance firm. What we actually need is a working government. I can't believe we still have the electoral college. Has no one heard of instant runoff voting? Or what happened in 2000 with Nader and Gore. The problem isn't just government period. It's this pretension of one.
- randiantech 10y ago
  Governments are the more dangerous, objectively speaking. All of them have the monopoly of army and public forces. Not a single corporation in the world could be equally dangerous just based on this.
  - MawNicker 10y ago
    Are you sure? There are some pretty scary private security firms. Do you actually know what they have? I hope government really does have a monopoly on force.
    - randiantech 10y ago
      No private organization has committed crimes comparable to the ones committed by authoritarian governments. I could mention USSRs pogroms, concentration camps on Germany or summary executions in Cuba, to name a few.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > Has no one heard of instant runoff voting? Approval voting. You want approval voting. Range voting is actually better but approval voting is almost as good and is a lot simpler for people to understand, and both are better than IRV.
  - MawNicker 10y ago
    I agree that approval voting is simpler conceptually. I like that IRV lets me prioratize my vote. It's not that much more complicated. Counting the vote is a lot harder but the voters don't have to do that. If 60% prefer Gore to Bush and 90% of them prefer Nader to Gore then you don't get the "correct" result. You'd have Gore beating Nader with 60% vs 54% approval when 54% (the majority) of the population actually prefered Nader to Gore. They can't risk leaving Gore unapproved because then Bush might win. IRV solves this.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      You're only getting that result by having 100% of the voters who prefer Nader to Gore approve of both while 100% of the voters who prefer Gore to Nader only approve of Gore. In which case approval voting does what it's supposed to do and gives the election to the candidate with the highest approval. Moreover, the problem you're trying to solve is Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which is provably impossible to do. You could have a third of voters prefer each candidate but majorities prefer Nader to Gore, Gore to Bush and Bush to Nader.
      - MawNicker 10y ago
        I see what you're saying about Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. I don't think I was specific enough. You're right in the general case and IRV doesn't solve that problem. What I mean is that 54% could prefer Nader outright. But since they also prefer Gore to Bush they have to approve of Gore or else Bush may win. This causes Gore to have the highest approval even though he wasn't the majority's most desired candidate. It wouldn't fix the bias towards those expected to win.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  There is actually quite a bit of government out there. I don't know exactly why it is the Legislature has all but collapsed, but that's not all of government. Thing is, w.r.t the economy, what can actually be done? The only thing I know of that isn't pretty disruptive is as higher inflation target - and we cannot maintain GDP growth to hit the one we have.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
The problem is there isn't a candidate running who is willing to do the right thing. The Republican Party hasn't been for small government in decades. They take your money and give it to defense contractors and banks, whereas the Democrats take your money and give it to insurance companies and banks. The Republicans eliminate regulations that protect people and competition from corporations while the Democrats enact regulations that protect corporations from people and competition. Nobody is doing the right thing. That's why the Republican voters nominated The Joker and the Democrats almost nominated Sanders. People are for someone who will shake things up. But the fact is nobody knows what Trump will actually do, so your choices this year are between "clearly bad" and "wait, what?"

dcherman 10y ago

What does that mean? Bernie is a socialist, not a capitalist. How would a Sanders campaign have redeemed US capitalism?

futuravenir 10y ago
Firstly, Bernie is a Social Democrat. Secondly, Capitalism has gotten so much Crony in it that the inequality is hurting the capitalism. Bernie could have swung the scales towards infrastructure, unionism, and lowering inequality, which would put dollars in the pockets of the poor, which would in turn be spent directly into the economy.
- esgoto 10y ago
  The same Bernie that now supports Hillary and is himself a part of the incredibly corrupt DNC?
  - socialist_coder 10y ago
    He doesn't support Hillary. He is supporting a non-Trump presidency. And how can you possibly say he is part of the DNC? Do you even follow US politics at all?
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  " Bernie could have swung the scales towards infrastructure, unionism, and lowering inequality, which would put dollars in the pockets of the poor, which would in turn be spent directly into the economy." That's a little bit of a stretch. Inequality is a problem mostly because: A) The benefits of globalism go to the 1%, then to the middle class in terms of cheaper prices, but the working class lose jobs. B) US has massive importation of low-skilled immigrants. They go right at the bottom. You don't need a 'messed up system' - if you just add poor people, you increase inequality. C) Bernie is an old-time socialist - he has no new ideas, really. I've heard him talk, he wants to massive increase wealth distribution and do it by taxing 'the rich'. This never works out, really. 'Infrastructure' is a cover - really, it's a wealth transfer exercise. Europe and Canada tried that in the 1960's it didn't go s well. The problem is really difficult, and it's exacerbated by the sheer size of the US, also there are no ethnic ties. Sweden is only the size of Los Angeles - and they are 'Swedes' an ethnic group with fraternal social order, a Monarchy, a State Church, common cultural identity. It's easier to 'redistribute' when the person getting the service is someone you know. The best kind of 'redistribution' is 'jobs'. Surely, increasing the minimum wage a little bit might work, and possibly having unions where none exist (Wallmart?), but strengthening already existing unions - particularly in the auto-sector and government is not going to help anyone - they are part of the problem. Auto workers and gov. workers are massively overcompensated relative to their private sector peers. Gov unions are one of the reasons government is so massively inefficient. If Bernie could fix that, that'd be great - but he's a politician, he's never had a normal job and wouldn't have a clue how to do it. I think moving towards empowering people, making sure they can participate in the global wealth creation is very important, but 1960's style socialism is not the answer.