6 ms·

Coming to a city from one of the depressed regions this rings true for me. People want themselves and their communities to matter - the cold hand of capitalism

Coming to a city from one of the depressed regions this rings true for me. People want themselves and their communities to matter - the cold hand of capitalism and progress hasn’t done them any favors in the last few decades. All it takes is a drive to the (non-coastal) countryside to see. There’s a reason voters there are more interested in being against something than for it, and our political discourse has devolved to troll tactics and attention grabbing on the rural right. We may be past the point of even being able to listen and change anyone’s mind - the solution needs to come from within the right, or a major real reworking of the economic state to include rural prosperity somehow.

bilbo0s 9y ago
I wouldn't count on any "major real reworking of the economic state". The reality is, lots of people have been asking for just that for a long time, and it's not come to fruition because it is an extremely difficult thing to do. Consider Native Americans. They wanted change for years, and essentially had to start casinos to begin making headway. Even now, a material number of tribes and reservations are still racked by poverty, and are unable to participate in the vast majority of legal industrial activities at scale. The system has not changed for them, some of them have simply been forced to find a method of adapting to the economic system that we have. Blacks are another example. They're a group that has agitated for change for what seems like an eternity. It's similarly doubtful that the system will change for them either. The ones who have found success are the ones willing to leave their neighborhoods and participate in the larger economy not on their own terms, but on terms set by that larger economy. I actually would like for a new economic state to take hold that would include people who concerned thinkers have termed "those left behind". It's just that, given the interests embedded in the current system, I can't see how it will change. As I pointed out, many groups have tried previously, and tried for a very long time, yet we still have the same system in place. The best we seem to be able to do, is to allot a few set asides for the purposes of elevating a chosen few of "those left behind". I suspect we'll follow a similar path in the instance of rural "left behinds". But my suspicion is that the inertia in our system will mean that wholesale change to accommodate the majority of "those left behind" is not likely to occur.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
  It hasn't come to fruition because the people they vote for have no intention of living up to their publicly stated goals.
  - taurath 9y ago
    Their implicit goals are “we are going to win at all costs against the other team” and at that point they’ve succeeded enough to have a huge amount of ongoing support.
- weberc2 9y ago
  > Blacks are another example. They're a group that has agitated for change for what seems like an eternity. It's similarly doubtful that the system will change for them either. What sort of change are you referring to? Surely by any metric the situation for black Americans has improved tremendously?
  - nextstep 9y ago
    Economic situation is not great for black Americans on average: https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/obama-foreclosure-crisis-wealth-inequality https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/obama-foreclosure-crisis-weal...
    - brucephillips 9y ago
      TLDR: Obama is responsible for the housing bubble. Which is absurd.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      Right, but it's undeniably better than it was, which indicates change is possible if hard.
lev99 9y ago
> include rural prosperity The United States has just shy of one billion acres of farmland. In 2014 The United States had an agriculture export surplus of almost 40 billion dollars. The current Farm Bill, and the historical trend, pushes the market towards consolidation and mono-crops. In 2014 we produced 54 billion dollars of corn, and our 10th biggest crop (barley) was 0.9 billion dollars. The median farm income in 2014 was $-118. If you want to increase the wealth of rural America I suggest looking for ways to make small to mid sized farming profitable. We are literally covered in farmable land, and rural areas will be better at it then urban areas for a long time.
- Animats 9y ago
  Why? Small to mid-sized farming is inherently less efficient than large scale farming. Yes, there's a market in designer kale, but it's tiny. Farm efficiency is a great achievement. In 1820, about 77% of US workers were in "farm occupations". Today, 1.5%. Now that's productivity.
  - User23 9y ago
    Efficiency is a lousy primary metric to run a society by.
  - rosser 9y ago
    Efficiency isn't an absolute good. It can, in cases, be an unambiguous bad. If, for example, we're going to premise a society on "having jobs" then efficiency-ing those jobs out of existence might not be the wisest move, all in — especially if, to The Fine Article's point, we do so in a manner that adversely affects some regions disproportionately. (Yes, there are always alternative jobs. They may not be palatable, or the society in question may not offer meaningful forms of skills transitioning. Or people might be stuck where they are for reasons beyond their control. "But efficiency!" isn't very comforting to someone who's out of work and starving.) EDIT: phrasing.
    - bsder 9y ago
      > Yes, there are always alternative jobs. We have no proof of this, and the "gig economy" suggests quite strongly to the contrary. Given that the "gig economy" generally represents jobs of last resort, what happens when we automate those away?
bsder 9y ago
> a major real reworking of the economic state to include rural prosperity somehow. Except that people from "flyover" areas DON'T CHOOSE POLITICIANS BASED UPON ECONOMIC POLICY. All of the things that the "flyover" areas claim to believe have been trampled on by the people they voted for without any outrage whatsoever. So, they don't actually believe them, and they sure as hell aren't going to vote based upon them. At this point, what do you do? When Cousin Cletus shoots his foot with his gun for the third time, the only thing you can do is keep him away from you.
- taurath 9y ago
  A lot of intelligent hard working people believe in a zero sum world, or at least they look at the decay around them and compare it to the idea that the rest of the country is prosperous. They vote for whomever claims to be against the “rest” of the country, or at least pretends to be on their side. Comments like Cousin Cletus make them damn certain who isn’t on their side.

bilbo0s 9y ago

I wouldn't count on any "major real reworking of the economic state". The reality is, lots of people have been asking for just that for a long time, and it's not come to fruition because it is an extremely difficult thing to do. Consider Native Americans. They wanted change for years, and essentially had to start casinos to begin making headway. Even now, a material number of tribes and reservations are still racked by poverty, and are unable to participate in the vast majority of legal industrial activities at scale. The system has not changed for them, some of them have simply been forced to find a method of adapting to the economic system that we have. Blacks are another example. They're a group that has agitated for change for what seems like an eternity. It's similarly doubtful that the system will change for them either. The ones who have found success are the ones willing to leave their neighborhoods and participate in the larger economy not on their own terms, but on terms set by that larger economy. I actually would like for a new economic state to take hold that would include people who concerned thinkers have termed "those left behind". It's just that, given the interests embedded in the current system, I can't see how it will change. As I pointed out, many groups have tried previously, and tried for a very long time, yet we still have the same system in place. The best we seem to be able to do, is to allot a few set asides for the purposes of elevating a chosen few of "those left behind". I suspect we'll follow a similar path in the instance of rural "left behinds". But my suspicion is that the inertia in our system will mean that wholesale change to accommodate the majority of "those left behind" is not likely to occur.

kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
It hasn't come to fruition because the people they vote for have no intention of living up to their publicly stated goals.
- taurath 9y ago
  Their implicit goals are “we are going to win at all costs against the other team” and at that point they’ve succeeded enough to have a huge amount of ongoing support.
weberc2 9y ago
> Blacks are another example. They're a group that has agitated for change for what seems like an eternity. It's similarly doubtful that the system will change for them either. What sort of change are you referring to? Surely by any metric the situation for black Americans has improved tremendously?
- nextstep 9y ago
  Economic situation is not great for black Americans on average: https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/obama-foreclosure-crisis-wealth-inequality https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/obama-foreclosure-crisis-weal...
  - brucephillips 9y ago
    TLDR: Obama is responsible for the housing bubble. Which is absurd.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    Right, but it's undeniably better than it was, which indicates change is possible if hard.

lev99 9y ago

> include rural prosperity The United States has just shy of one billion acres of farmland. In 2014 The United States had an agriculture export surplus of almost 40 billion dollars. The current Farm Bill, and the historical trend, pushes the market towards consolidation and mono-crops. In 2014 we produced 54 billion dollars of corn, and our 10th biggest crop (barley) was 0.9 billion dollars. The median farm income in 2014 was $-118. If you want to increase the wealth of rural America I suggest looking for ways to make small to mid sized farming profitable. We are literally covered in farmable land, and rural areas will be better at it then urban areas for a long time.

Animats 9y ago
Why? Small to mid-sized farming is inherently less efficient than large scale farming. Yes, there's a market in designer kale, but it's tiny. Farm efficiency is a great achievement. In 1820, about 77% of US workers were in "farm occupations". Today, 1.5%. Now that's productivity.
- User23 9y ago
  Efficiency is a lousy primary metric to run a society by.
- rosser 9y ago
  Efficiency isn't an absolute good. It can, in cases, be an unambiguous bad. If, for example, we're going to premise a society on "having jobs" then efficiency-ing those jobs out of existence might not be the wisest move, all in — especially if, to The Fine Article's point, we do so in a manner that adversely affects some regions disproportionately. (Yes, there are always alternative jobs. They may not be palatable, or the society in question may not offer meaningful forms of skills transitioning. Or people might be stuck where they are for reasons beyond their control. "But efficiency!" isn't very comforting to someone who's out of work and starving.) EDIT: phrasing.
  - bsder 9y ago
    > Yes, there are always alternative jobs. We have no proof of this, and the "gig economy" suggests quite strongly to the contrary. Given that the "gig economy" generally represents jobs of last resort, what happens when we automate those away?

bsder 9y ago

> a major real reworking of the economic state to include rural prosperity somehow. Except that people from "flyover" areas DON'T CHOOSE POLITICIANS BASED UPON ECONOMIC POLICY. All of the things that the "flyover" areas claim to believe have been trampled on by the people they voted for without any outrage whatsoever. So, they don't actually believe them, and they sure as hell aren't going to vote based upon them. At this point, what do you do? When Cousin Cletus shoots his foot with his gun for the third time, the only thing you can do is keep him away from you.

taurath 9y ago
A lot of intelligent hard working people believe in a zero sum world, or at least they look at the decay around them and compare it to the idea that the rest of the country is prosperous. They vote for whomever claims to be against the “rest” of the country, or at least pretends to be on their side. Comments like Cousin Cletus make them damn certain who isn’t on their side.