14 ms·

It's a bit terrifying how "alive" the crisis of 2008 still is. 10 years have passed and it doesn't look like the economy has recovered, not by a long shot. Ther

It's a bit terrifying how "alive" the crisis of 2008 still is. 10 years have passed and it doesn't look like the economy has recovered, not by a long shot. There are strong points in this article, I can't recall exactly, but I think it was the idea of Slavoj Zizek, that the strongest point of ideology is to define something as "non-ideological". Exactly how the crisis was communicated, like something natural, a hurricane or something. Not the ideological mechanisms that allowed for the bankers to take huge risks in their loans, for sure not Henry Paulson with his bank bailout. The link to the far-right seams scary too, thanks for sharing.

mschuster91 8y ago
> The link to the far-right seams scary too, thanks for sharing. Point is, the far-right/fascism/nazi ideology always thrives when social safety nets are being dismantled or are no longer existing. The rise of Hitler, for example, was based on him blaming the Jews for Germany's messed up economy (when it was the insane reparation load of WW1 that caused the economy situation), the rise of Trump was and is based mostly on rednecks blaming the loss of their jobs on immigrants (instead of climate change rendering e.g. coal superfluous plus decades of dismantling every social system the US has), and the rise of the AfD in Germany is based on the SPD dismantling the social safety net over a decade ago as well as stagnation in wages over the same time, which of course the AfD blames immigrants for...
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  ...when social safety nets are being dismantled or are no longer existing... I'm slowly coming to realise this. You'd think that point might be more broadly advertised.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rdm_blackhole 8y ago
  But what you describe is a real conundrum for governments isn't it? If this hypothesis is true then you would think that the government in place would do everything they can to stop the far right/far left from rising from the ashes of the failed social safety net. Instead, what we see mostly is the mainstream parties blaming the far right/far left without even addressing the issues that have led to people actually joining their ranks. Its the same in Europe. Some people say they want a different Europe, mainstream politicians say no. People then have the impression that their voices have not been heard. What do they do? They vote far right or far left and say: "now, can you hear me?" But even that's still not enough, because most politicians are only concerned with being reelected, they still don't listen and they even blame the people who now despise the mainstream parties. I can't understand this kind of logic.
  - BenjaminBlair 8y ago
    Addressing the far-right/far left for the mobilization of unheard voices is kind of like treating the symptom. What we have here is a failing economy based on the enormous banking sector, debt and trickle down economics. Most of it is based on ideological premises, the belief that big profits will be reinvested to create more jobs, the idea of "responsible business", whatever that is. I mean, I can imagine small responsibilities that successful businesses take upon themselves, but can't imagine them solving global or national-scale scale problems. Anyway, the public political discourse is usually addressing the symptoms, like far-right blaming the immigrants or far-left bringing back some welfare-state memories. Looks like ever since the iron curtain was lifted global economies have been rocked by constant crisis and the voters want an answer, so they choose either left or right or whoever is speaking "the truth". And of course it's hard to address economic problems, requires a well-educated know-how.
  - mschuster91 8y ago
    > If this hypothesis is true then you would think that the government in place would do everything they can to stop the far right/far left from rising from the ashes of the failed social safety net. The problem is that politicians care about their individual pockets, not what happens to society after their term. Politicians are not incentivized to serve the people - quite the contrary. And even if they do end up thrown out of office, a nice private sector job is waiting for those who let themselves be bribed.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    > If this hypothesis is true then you would think that the government in place would do everything they can to stop the far right/far left from rising from the ashes of the failed social safety net. I don't think they can. When the mainstream messes up really badly, people turn to the fringe. The mainstream can try to hinder them, but can't really stop them by anything other than not messing up badly. Once something like 2008 has happened, it's already too late.
- shard972 8y ago
  You do realize issues about immigration aren't just about jobs, its about having a home. Maybe it's too hard for the rootless masses on HN to understand what its like being rooted in an area over generations to just watch it become a foreign country within a decade. Then to be told if only you cared more about climate change everything would be fine...
  - bryanlarsen 8y ago
    Opposition against immigration is highest in areas with very little immigration, and support for it is highest in areas with a lot of it.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - Rubinsalamander 8y ago
      Which kinda makes sense. Why would you life in an area with high Immigration if you dont Like/Support it. You would have to look at the data of people living in areas where Immigration just begins/recently started to see if they are happy about it
      - mschuster91 8y ago
        > You would have to look at the data of people living in areas where Immigration just begins/recently started to see if they are happy about it I live in Munich. Aside from exorbitant rents caused by politicians ignoring housing issues for decades, we don't have a significant problem w/ immigrants and refugees. We do have a couple Nazi groups (two different Pegida groups, plus the "old" NPD nazi party plus the AfD neo-fash) with maybe two dozen people on the streets, but no one except Antifa gives a flying f..k about them.
        Rubinsalamander 8y ago
        The exorbitant rents were the reason i didnt move to Munich, but Nuremberg. Rent is a Gatekeeper though, only "succesfull" people can afford to live there. The conflict seems to be more about gentrification. Also i personally dont know anybody who got negatively affected (besides closed school Gyms) by the refugee crisis, but many worry anyways. Probaly Social Media makes it feel worse then it is,similar to people feeling less safe now despite way lower crime rates.
- titzer 8y ago
  > The rise of Hitler, for example, was based on him blaming the Jews for Germany's messed up economy (when it was the insane reparation load of WW1 that caused the economy situation) Hitler spent far more time blaming Democracy for that, and several missteps in a row really handed it over to him. He despised Jews and blamed them, but you don't really come to power by blaming hidden minorities. He had to first destroy Democracy, which he did, to rousing applause. He convinced everyone that autocracy was the solution. And man, was it fast. As soon as he was Chancellor, they were up and murdering what was left of the minority opposition. It was fast and ugly. And after that, it was ironclad. People should be more worried.
  - slededit 8y ago
    He doesn’t have control of the justice department. It’s also uncertain the military would violate the constitutional ban on law enforcement at his order. To get closer to autocracy he’d need better control of one of those two branches.
  - brandonmenc 8y ago
    > Hitler spent far more time blaming Democracy "democracy is fundamentally not German: it is Jewish" - Hitler Hitler believed the Jews invented and foisted democracy onto the world. So when he's blaming democracy, he's still blaming the Jews. > you don't really come to power by blaming hidden minorities Except he did exactly this, repeatedly and publicly, in his writing, speeches, and policy.
    - titzer 8y ago
      > Except he did exactly this, repeatedly and publicly, in his writing, speeches, and policy. Sure. He pointed a hell of a lot of fingers. He had a special hatred for Jews, yes. He said it publicly, but my point was that it he didn't come to power by solely blaming Jews for everything. The "humiliation" that he felt Germany suffered due to the end of WWI generally played much better.
      - brandonmenc 8y ago
- josefresco 8y ago
  "the rise of Trump was and is based mostly on rednecks blaming the loss of their jobs on immigrants" Please stop calling them "rednecks" and please don't assume that all his supporters were simply anti-immigration. While "redneckism" was a part of their campaign, Trump was elected by college educated, white suburban women too. Personally, the Trump supporters I've talked with are mostly well-off (small business owners), and mostly disconnected from world news. They don't identify as rednecks, and live in a very blue state. The usual justification goes like this "I worked for what I have, I don't think others should get hand outs" and "Politicians are all evil, I like that Trump is 'shaking things up'" To be clear, I'm not defending Trump supporters but rather advocating for looking at them with a broader view. While my state is one of the most liberal in the nation, 50% of my neighbors identify with GOP messaging.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    I think all of what you’re saying can hold for people who supported Trump before his election, to an extent. Now however? I’m not inclined to cut people who still support him any slack. He’s more than demonstrated that in addition to all of his many hideous qualities, he’s not shaking anything up. The massive tax cut, continuing with the wars, involvement in Syria, etc, are all pure status quo. The ways in which he’s demonstrably different are his open racism, misogyny, and anti-democratic, anti-immigration stances. And polls keep showing that the people who voted for him do not regret their vote. “Redneck” may be unfair, and a slur, but the spirit of it in term of cultural identity (small-minded racists) has sadly been proven through his continued support.
    - josefresco 8y ago
      "Now however?" A logical thing to assume for someone who is fully engaged with current events/news. However, most don't follow /r/politics religiously, and the nightly network news certainly isn't covering it (with the outrage that they should be) so many are still blissfully ignorant. Or is it willfully ignorant?
      - chii 8y ago
- mmjaa 8y ago
  In 2007 the World Bank issued a report stating, in effect, it wanted more right-wing governments in power around the world because they tended to borrow more (for wars) and it was better for the World Bank to have right-wing/crypto-fascsist in power than the liberal social democrats that had been paying off their bills. And now, look where we are. In short, if you're sick of all the right-wing nonsense, follow the money: who loaned them the money to get where they are today, in power? Follow that trail all the way back and you'll see the real string-pullers behind the puppets...
- petre 8y ago
  Politicians cannot and will never fix the economy by going against the business cycle. It's all just hype, lies. Polarization will happen whenever people are discontent and facing hardship. They will look for someone to blame.
Amygaz 8y ago
I feel like it’s like that everywhere. The status quo is to convenient for upper management, while adopting sustainable policies within large companies is too cumbersome and not valued.

mschuster91 8y ago

> The link to the far-right seams scary too, thanks for sharing. Point is, the far-right/fascism/nazi ideology always thrives when social safety nets are being dismantled or are no longer existing. The rise of Hitler, for example, was based on him blaming the Jews for Germany's messed up economy (when it was the insane reparation load of WW1 that caused the economy situation), the rise of Trump was and is based mostly on rednecks blaming the loss of their jobs on immigrants (instead of climate change rendering e.g. coal superfluous plus decades of dismantling every social system the US has), and the rise of the AfD in Germany is based on the SPD dismantling the social safety net over a decade ago as well as stagnation in wages over the same time, which of course the AfD blames immigrants for...

dredmorbius 8y ago
...when social safety nets are being dismantled or are no longer existing... I'm slowly coming to realise this. You'd think that point might be more broadly advertised.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rdm_blackhole 8y ago
But what you describe is a real conundrum for governments isn't it? If this hypothesis is true then you would think that the government in place would do everything they can to stop the far right/far left from rising from the ashes of the failed social safety net. Instead, what we see mostly is the mainstream parties blaming the far right/far left without even addressing the issues that have led to people actually joining their ranks. Its the same in Europe. Some people say they want a different Europe, mainstream politicians say no. People then have the impression that their voices have not been heard. What do they do? They vote far right or far left and say: "now, can you hear me?" But even that's still not enough, because most politicians are only concerned with being reelected, they still don't listen and they even blame the people who now despise the mainstream parties. I can't understand this kind of logic.
- BenjaminBlair 8y ago
  Addressing the far-right/far left for the mobilization of unheard voices is kind of like treating the symptom. What we have here is a failing economy based on the enormous banking sector, debt and trickle down economics. Most of it is based on ideological premises, the belief that big profits will be reinvested to create more jobs, the idea of "responsible business", whatever that is. I mean, I can imagine small responsibilities that successful businesses take upon themselves, but can't imagine them solving global or national-scale scale problems. Anyway, the public political discourse is usually addressing the symptoms, like far-right blaming the immigrants or far-left bringing back some welfare-state memories. Looks like ever since the iron curtain was lifted global economies have been rocked by constant crisis and the voters want an answer, so they choose either left or right or whoever is speaking "the truth". And of course it's hard to address economic problems, requires a well-educated know-how.
- mschuster91 8y ago
  > If this hypothesis is true then you would think that the government in place would do everything they can to stop the far right/far left from rising from the ashes of the failed social safety net. The problem is that politicians care about their individual pockets, not what happens to society after their term. Politicians are not incentivized to serve the people - quite the contrary. And even if they do end up thrown out of office, a nice private sector job is waiting for those who let themselves be bribed.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  > If this hypothesis is true then you would think that the government in place would do everything they can to stop the far right/far left from rising from the ashes of the failed social safety net. I don't think they can. When the mainstream messes up really badly, people turn to the fringe. The mainstream can try to hinder them, but can't really stop them by anything other than not messing up badly. Once something like 2008 has happened, it's already too late.
shard972 8y ago
You do realize issues about immigration aren't just about jobs, its about having a home. Maybe it's too hard for the rootless masses on HN to understand what its like being rooted in an area over generations to just watch it become a foreign country within a decade. Then to be told if only you cared more about climate change everything would be fine...
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  Opposition against immigration is highest in areas with very little immigration, and support for it is highest in areas with a lot of it.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Rubinsalamander 8y ago
    Which kinda makes sense. Why would you life in an area with high Immigration if you dont Like/Support it. You would have to look at the data of people living in areas where Immigration just begins/recently started to see if they are happy about it
    - mschuster91 8y ago
      > You would have to look at the data of people living in areas where Immigration just begins/recently started to see if they are happy about it I live in Munich. Aside from exorbitant rents caused by politicians ignoring housing issues for decades, we don't have a significant problem w/ immigrants and refugees. We do have a couple Nazi groups (two different Pegida groups, plus the "old" NPD nazi party plus the AfD neo-fash) with maybe two dozen people on the streets, but no one except Antifa gives a flying f..k about them.
      - Rubinsalamander 8y ago
        The exorbitant rents were the reason i didnt move to Munich, but Nuremberg. Rent is a Gatekeeper though, only "succesfull" people can afford to live there. The conflict seems to be more about gentrification. Also i personally dont know anybody who got negatively affected (besides closed school Gyms) by the refugee crisis, but many worry anyways. Probaly Social Media makes it feel worse then it is,similar to people feeling less safe now despite way lower crime rates.
titzer 8y ago
> The rise of Hitler, for example, was based on him blaming the Jews for Germany's messed up economy (when it was the insane reparation load of WW1 that caused the economy situation) Hitler spent far more time blaming Democracy for that, and several missteps in a row really handed it over to him. He despised Jews and blamed them, but you don't really come to power by blaming hidden minorities. He had to first destroy Democracy, which he did, to rousing applause. He convinced everyone that autocracy was the solution. And man, was it fast. As soon as he was Chancellor, they were up and murdering what was left of the minority opposition. It was fast and ugly. And after that, it was ironclad. People should be more worried.
- slededit 8y ago
  He doesn’t have control of the justice department. It’s also uncertain the military would violate the constitutional ban on law enforcement at his order. To get closer to autocracy he’d need better control of one of those two branches.
- brandonmenc 8y ago
  > Hitler spent far more time blaming Democracy "democracy is fundamentally not German: it is Jewish" - Hitler Hitler believed the Jews invented and foisted democracy onto the world. So when he's blaming democracy, he's still blaming the Jews. > you don't really come to power by blaming hidden minorities Except he did exactly this, repeatedly and publicly, in his writing, speeches, and policy.
  - titzer 8y ago
    > Except he did exactly this, repeatedly and publicly, in his writing, speeches, and policy. Sure. He pointed a hell of a lot of fingers. He had a special hatred for Jews, yes. He said it publicly, but my point was that it he didn't come to power by solely blaming Jews for everything. The "humiliation" that he felt Germany suffered due to the end of WWI generally played much better.
    - brandonmenc 8y ago
josefresco 8y ago
"the rise of Trump was and is based mostly on rednecks blaming the loss of their jobs on immigrants" Please stop calling them "rednecks" and please don't assume that all his supporters were simply anti-immigration. While "redneckism" was a part of their campaign, Trump was elected by college educated, white suburban women too. Personally, the Trump supporters I've talked with are mostly well-off (small business owners), and mostly disconnected from world news. They don't identify as rednecks, and live in a very blue state. The usual justification goes like this "I worked for what I have, I don't think others should get hand outs" and "Politicians are all evil, I like that Trump is 'shaking things up'" To be clear, I'm not defending Trump supporters but rather advocating for looking at them with a broader view. While my state is one of the most liberal in the nation, 50% of my neighbors identify with GOP messaging.
- GW150914 8y ago
  I think all of what you’re saying can hold for people who supported Trump before his election, to an extent. Now however? I’m not inclined to cut people who still support him any slack. He’s more than demonstrated that in addition to all of his many hideous qualities, he’s not shaking anything up. The massive tax cut, continuing with the wars, involvement in Syria, etc, are all pure status quo. The ways in which he’s demonstrably different are his open racism, misogyny, and anti-democratic, anti-immigration stances. And polls keep showing that the people who voted for him do not regret their vote. “Redneck” may be unfair, and a slur, but the spirit of it in term of cultural identity (small-minded racists) has sadly been proven through his continued support.
  - josefresco 8y ago
    "Now however?" A logical thing to assume for someone who is fully engaged with current events/news. However, most don't follow /r/politics religiously, and the nightly network news certainly isn't covering it (with the outrage that they should be) so many are still blissfully ignorant. Or is it willfully ignorant?
    - chii 8y ago
mmjaa 8y ago
In 2007 the World Bank issued a report stating, in effect, it wanted more right-wing governments in power around the world because they tended to borrow more (for wars) and it was better for the World Bank to have right-wing/crypto-fascsist in power than the liberal social democrats that had been paying off their bills. And now, look where we are. In short, if you're sick of all the right-wing nonsense, follow the money: who loaned them the money to get where they are today, in power? Follow that trail all the way back and you'll see the real string-pullers behind the puppets...
petre 8y ago
Politicians cannot and will never fix the economy by going against the business cycle. It's all just hype, lies. Polarization will happen whenever people are discontent and facing hardship. They will look for someone to blame.

Amygaz 8y ago

I feel like it’s like that everywhere. The status quo is to convenient for upper management, while adopting sustainable policies within large companies is too cumbersome and not valued.