4 ms·

>Hong Kong isn't hurting I read some opinions about HK protests, and they were saying, basically, that HK youth has no chance to buy an apartment and live a go

>Hong Kong isn't hurting I read some opinions about HK protests, and they were saying, basically, that HK youth has no chance to buy an apartment and live a good middle class life, hence the revolt. This is something that is not captured in GDP growth metric. To me it makes perfect sense. What is the point of, say, 5% GDP growth if you pay 1/2 of your salary as rent and will never accumulate enough dough for downpayment?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Hmm. By that standard, chunks of the US are also tinder waiting for a match - the coastal cities because costs (housing in particular) are too high, and the heartland because incomes are too low.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  Hence, the rise in both authoritarian and progressive populism in the US.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    In what way is Trump "authoritarian"?
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    "Authoritarian" and "progressive" are not mutually exclusive. See, for example, Venezuela.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      “Authoritarian populism” and “progressive populism” are widely-used names of particular political ideologies. While their etymology of course relates to the more general sense of, respectively, “authoritarian” and “progressive” in denoting political ideologies, in both cases the definition is not a simple combination of the general sense of one of those terms with the general sense of “populism”, but much narrower. Authoritarian populism is a particular subset of right-of-center populism and progressive populism is a particular subset of left-of-center populism, and they are, in fact, non-overlapping even if, arguably, “progressive” and “authoritarian” are not. (Similarly, “authoritarian populism” arguably is not even a subset of “authoritarianism”, though it at least overlaps with it.) > See, for example, Venezuela. “Progressive” and “socialist” aren't mutually exclusive, but neither does the latter imply the former; “progressive” and “authoritarian” might overlap, but Venezuela's government isn't an example as it isn't progressive.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        I don't recall that I've heard "authoritarian populism" as a term before, so I don't think that it's massively widely spread. (I'm not in political circles, but I do pay some attention.) My main problem is with the connotations. Progress = good, authoritarianism = bad, so "progressive populism" sounds good, and "authoritarian populism" sounds bad. The wording is probably deliberately designed to paint one side as better than the other. In fact, though, "progressive populism" can wind up being every bit as authoritarian and ugly and brutal as "authoritarian populism" can.
larnmar 7y ago
I’ve also heard that this is a deliberate propaganda message being spread by the CCP though — claiming that the protests are really about economics rather than democracy.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  Historically, political protests (and revolutions) almost always have strong economic components, political change is rarely an abstract goal but a solution sought for concrete, mostly economic, problems. Abstract political protests that have no economic component rarely become significant, because few people are willing to take substantial risks for them. The idea that the protests are principally economic doesn't contradict that they have a political dimension, indeed, it makes the likelihood that the protestors would seek and sacrifice for political change greater.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

Hmm. By that standard, chunks of the US are also tinder waiting for a match - the coastal cities because costs (housing in particular) are too high, and the heartland because incomes are too low.

dragonwriter 7y ago
Hence, the rise in both authoritarian and progressive populism in the US.
- m0zg 7y ago
  In what way is Trump "authoritarian"?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  "Authoritarian" and "progressive" are not mutually exclusive. See, for example, Venezuela.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    “Authoritarian populism” and “progressive populism” are widely-used names of particular political ideologies. While their etymology of course relates to the more general sense of, respectively, “authoritarian” and “progressive” in denoting political ideologies, in both cases the definition is not a simple combination of the general sense of one of those terms with the general sense of “populism”, but much narrower. Authoritarian populism is a particular subset of right-of-center populism and progressive populism is a particular subset of left-of-center populism, and they are, in fact, non-overlapping even if, arguably, “progressive” and “authoritarian” are not. (Similarly, “authoritarian populism” arguably is not even a subset of “authoritarianism”, though it at least overlaps with it.) > See, for example, Venezuela. “Progressive” and “socialist” aren't mutually exclusive, but neither does the latter imply the former; “progressive” and “authoritarian” might overlap, but Venezuela's government isn't an example as it isn't progressive.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      I don't recall that I've heard "authoritarian populism" as a term before, so I don't think that it's massively widely spread. (I'm not in political circles, but I do pay some attention.) My main problem is with the connotations. Progress = good, authoritarianism = bad, so "progressive populism" sounds good, and "authoritarian populism" sounds bad. The wording is probably deliberately designed to paint one side as better than the other. In fact, though, "progressive populism" can wind up being every bit as authoritarian and ugly and brutal as "authoritarian populism" can.

larnmar 7y ago

I’ve also heard that this is a deliberate propaganda message being spread by the CCP though — claiming that the protests are really about economics rather than democracy.

dragonwriter 7y ago
Historically, political protests (and revolutions) almost always have strong economic components, political change is rarely an abstract goal but a solution sought for concrete, mostly economic, problems. Abstract political protests that have no economic component rarely become significant, because few people are willing to take substantial risks for them. The idea that the protests are principally economic doesn't contradict that they have a political dimension, indeed, it makes the likelihood that the protestors would seek and sacrifice for political change greater.