4 ms·

Life is hugely politicized We think we’re boxing it off from that but if you look closer, through the abstract nonsense people peddle, you’ll see it comes down

by krl02 8y ago

Life is hugely politicized We think we’re boxing it off from that but if you look closer, through the abstract nonsense people peddle, you’ll see it comes down to a political yes/no process You’re welcome to pretend otherwise. I’d rather just dispense with the notion life is anything but dialog back and forth, jockeying for acceptance and access into some clique or the “right” to build useful infra

jgord 8y ago
You comment seems to suggest there is some rational decision making emerging from an open back-n-forth of facts and ideas. I wish that were the case, but the simplest explanation of political reality both in AUS and USA is that our leaders owe favors to a few very rich people, in fact work for them.
ggm 8y ago
Can you explain in this model, how any useful bipartisan investment happened, in the past wartime expediency aside? I think its true this has always been a dimension of things, but the scale of this dimension set against other dimensions has substantially changed in the last two decades. Before this, there were some things that both (notional) sides were prepared to express some unanimity on. For example: "soviet power plus electricity == socialism" did not actually stop anyone of a more rightist persuasion from investing in electic generation.. did it?
- azernik 8y ago
  Bipartisan consensus is also a political process.
  - ggm 8y ago
    Yes. One which is increasingly absent from western electoral democratic process. Oppositional politics is currently the preferred model even though it wedges capital investment in infrastructure. Are you bringing anything to this conversation or just trying to win an argument here?
    - azernik 8y ago
      krl02 made the point that all these things are political processes. You brought up the example of past bipartisan investments as a counterargument; my understanding of your point was "we've had bipartisan consensus on investments before, therefore there wasn't a political process going on around that". I was pointing out that this also is a political process, and that krl02's model of economic decision-making as a political process still stands. Were you trying to make some other point instead?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - ggm 8y ago
        All these things are political processes, but one is a trend which has swept the world. Oppositional politics has swept the world, and is impeding capital investment in public works, because it reduces to a high-tax/low-tax argument and favours low-tax reductionism, over state capital works. I was trying to make the point that if (like me) you want capital works, and national utility project investment, you don't want oppositional politics, you want the other model. I am not in denial that there is another, or other models. We had more overt bipartisan politics over a number of important things like housing, defence policy, capital works. We have gone to a more oppositional model even though this means less public utility outcomes happen.

by krl02 8y ago

jgord 8y ago

You comment seems to suggest there is some rational decision making emerging from an open back-n-forth of facts and ideas. I wish that were the case, but the simplest explanation of political reality both in AUS and USA is that our leaders owe favors to a few very rich people, in fact work for them.

ggm 8y ago

Can you explain in this model, how any useful bipartisan investment happened, in the past wartime expediency aside? I think its true this has always been a dimension of things, but the scale of this dimension set against other dimensions has substantially changed in the last two decades. Before this, there were some things that both (notional) sides were prepared to express some unanimity on. For example: "soviet power plus electricity == socialism" did not actually stop anyone of a more rightist persuasion from investing in electic generation.. did it?

azernik 8y ago
Bipartisan consensus is also a political process.
- ggm 8y ago
  Yes. One which is increasingly absent from western electoral democratic process. Oppositional politics is currently the preferred model even though it wedges capital investment in infrastructure. Are you bringing anything to this conversation or just trying to win an argument here?
  - azernik 8y ago
    krl02 made the point that all these things are political processes. You brought up the example of past bipartisan investments as a counterargument; my understanding of your point was "we've had bipartisan consensus on investments before, therefore there wasn't a political process going on around that". I was pointing out that this also is a political process, and that krl02's model of economic decision-making as a political process still stands. Were you trying to make some other point instead?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - ggm 8y ago
      All these things are political processes, but one is a trend which has swept the world. Oppositional politics has swept the world, and is impeding capital investment in public works, because it reduces to a high-tax/low-tax argument and favours low-tax reductionism, over state capital works. I was trying to make the point that if (like me) you want capital works, and national utility project investment, you don't want oppositional politics, you want the other model. I am not in denial that there is another, or other models. We had more overt bipartisan politics over a number of important things like housing, defence policy, capital works. We have gone to a more oppositional model even though this means less public utility outcomes happen.