4 ms·

While I don't really agree with the author on this point, I think the basis of the claim is implied to be the election of Trump. Trump prevailing in the primary

While I don't really agree with the author on this point, I think the basis of the claim is implied to be the election of Trump. Trump prevailing in the primary (and the general even) could be seen as a referendum of the working class on establishment politics. And yet, what has changed? Trump hasn't brought back American industry as promised, nor has he made a trillion dollars infrastructure package as promised. He has succeeded in a tax plan (approved by establishment Republicans in the Senate), supreme Court picks (approved), etc. The authors argument would be that this illustrates that picking the occasional anti establishment candidate doesn't uproot necessary structural change which happens across a large number of both elected and nonelected organizations, and well-connected elites are implied to be the only ones in a position to affect such change.

xwowsersx 7y ago
I hear you, but that's an argument that the person that the "working class" voted in has been ineffectual in bringing about the change they are looking for (debatable). That's not an argument that they are not decisive in shaping politics. If electing Trump is a referendum on "the elite" then his election proves the opposite, no?
- helen___keller 7y ago
  I think I might agree with the author in a more limited context, that on an institution by institution basis there is a fair amount of power that is outside the reach of voting and hence outside the influence of the working class. An example here is the federal reserve. Interest rate decisions and quantitative easing decisions are vastly influential, and famously independent of the president. I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories that the federal reserve is being controlled by the rich. However, I think there's no doubt that both the individuals at the top of the fed, and their professional circles, have no overlap with the working class, and in the long run this shows. For example, when the fed did their last interest rate increase near the end of 2018, the stock market essentially revolted, with a "huge" correction (to about august 2017 values). The federal reserve acquiesced to pressure and proceeded to take a much more dovish tone, following with 3 rate cuts the next year. There's another story there about a trade war, low inflation, and sustaining an expansion. But if you take a look at a long term graph of interest rates over time from 1980 to present, you see a trend of going down, down, down. It just so happens that interest rates going down also inflates asset values. I don't think it's a coincidence that the asset-owning class that populates the federal reserve often makes decision that benefit those who own assets.
  - xwowsersx 7y ago
    I agree with your points generally, but I don't think these are the claims put forward in this article. The article makes sweeping generalizations without any basis (AFAICS).
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Re interest rates: If you look longer term, after WWII there was this cycle of recession and recovery, but each recovery was at higher interest rates. This lasted until 1979. Then the Fed, led by Volcker, changed policy. Since then, each cycle has been at lower interest rates - but higher unemployment.
jhpriestley 7y ago
The working class went for Clinton though? By a large margin?
jeegsy 7y ago
> occasional anti establishment candidate doesn't uproot necessary structural change The anti-establishment is the bare minimum for structural change to happen. The difficulties that Obama and now Trump have faced in bring change (whatever their version of it), actually make the point more strongly that we need even more out of the box thinking in our leadership.
- anongraddebt 7y ago
  Underrated comment. This is deeply true, but points to something ominous. There isn't really a way that this political vortex ends except through ever more extreme policies/pendulum swings.

xwowsersx 7y ago

I hear you, but that's an argument that the person that the "working class" voted in has been ineffectual in bringing about the change they are looking for (debatable). That's not an argument that they are not decisive in shaping politics. If electing Trump is a referendum on "the elite" then his election proves the opposite, no?

helen___keller 7y ago
I think I might agree with the author in a more limited context, that on an institution by institution basis there is a fair amount of power that is outside the reach of voting and hence outside the influence of the working class. An example here is the federal reserve. Interest rate decisions and quantitative easing decisions are vastly influential, and famously independent of the president. I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories that the federal reserve is being controlled by the rich. However, I think there's no doubt that both the individuals at the top of the fed, and their professional circles, have no overlap with the working class, and in the long run this shows. For example, when the fed did their last interest rate increase near the end of 2018, the stock market essentially revolted, with a "huge" correction (to about august 2017 values). The federal reserve acquiesced to pressure and proceeded to take a much more dovish tone, following with 3 rate cuts the next year. There's another story there about a trade war, low inflation, and sustaining an expansion. But if you take a look at a long term graph of interest rates over time from 1980 to present, you see a trend of going down, down, down. It just so happens that interest rates going down also inflates asset values. I don't think it's a coincidence that the asset-owning class that populates the federal reserve often makes decision that benefit those who own assets.
- xwowsersx 7y ago
  I agree with your points generally, but I don't think these are the claims put forward in this article. The article makes sweeping generalizations without any basis (AFAICS).
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Re interest rates: If you look longer term, after WWII there was this cycle of recession and recovery, but each recovery was at higher interest rates. This lasted until 1979. Then the Fed, led by Volcker, changed policy. Since then, each cycle has been at lower interest rates - but higher unemployment.

jhpriestley 7y ago

The working class went for Clinton though? By a large margin?

jeegsy 7y ago

> occasional anti establishment candidate doesn't uproot necessary structural change The anti-establishment is the bare minimum for structural change to happen. The difficulties that Obama and now Trump have faced in bring change (whatever their version of it), actually make the point more strongly that we need even more out of the box thinking in our leadership.

anongraddebt 7y ago
Underrated comment. This is deeply true, but points to something ominous. There isn't really a way that this political vortex ends except through ever more extreme policies/pendulum swings.