8 ms·

I would love to see a parallel universe where in 2008 no one is bailed out and bankers are either on the hook for the risks they took or actually are sent to pr

• dsr_ 5y ago
  The only wrong thing you've said here is "I'm not a leftie". Why do you reject that generally accurate label? There are decades of propaganda in US society equating the left with dictatorships and totalitarian states. Only in the last few years have large numbers of young people realized that all the good things coming from society working together are being labelled as socialist: libraries, schools, firefighters, even roads and water systems. The view of the far right has narrowed the acceptable scope of government to national defense, enforcing contracts, and enforcing the existing social order via police. If you want the US government to work on behalf of all the people, your natural allies are on the left.
  • NikolaNovak 5y ago
    I see what you are saying; coming from Europe, I'm frequently astonished how much "Socialist", "Leftie" or even "Liberal" in USA is a dirty word of political death.
    • throwaway3699 5y ago
      You have to understand that the American definition for socialism completely different than Europeans. Those words evoke memories of communism and Cold War rhetoric.
      • umanwizard 5y ago
        On the other hand, the European definition seems to be “social democracy” at most. Marx would have thought the name of today’s French “Socialist” Party was ridiculous.
        • mrcode007 5y ago
          The socialism is all about nationalized means of production and lack of private enterprise. Everything is revolving around eliminating owners of capital as a social class. The often repeated American "socialism" whenever "free education" or "free healthcare" are mentioned has nothing to do with actual socialism and is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with social policies. Source: I come from a former soviet block country
        • MomoXenosaga 5y ago
          Yes socialism and communism are two very different things in European politics. In fact in many countries socialist parties pre date communist parties.
          • NikolaNovak 5y ago
            I don't think you even have to go as far as Europe. In Canada, at least until recently, Social/Socialism isn't as bad word as in USA I think. NDP is an openly "Social Democratic" party and while they are pretty much always third nationally, they do occasionally lead individual provinces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_Canada
          • umanwizard 5y ago
            Yes, but, at least in the example of the French socialist party, they have become much less radically leftist and more generically “left-leaning” — and further from the Communists — over time . Compare their mission statements from 1905 and 2008: 1905: Le Parti socialiste est un parti de classe qui a pour but de socialiser les moyens de production et d'échange, c'est-à-dire de transformer la société capitaliste en une société collectiviste ou communiste, et pour moyen l'organisation économique et politique du prolétariat. Par son but, par son idéal, par les moyens qu'il emploie, le parti socialiste, tout en poursuivant la réalisation des réformes immédiates revendiquées par la classe ouvrière, n'est pas un parti de réforme, mais un parti de lutte des classes et de révolution. 2008: Être socialiste, c'est ne pas se satisfaire du monde tel qu'il est, c'est vouloir changer la société. L'idée socialiste relève, à la fois, d'une révolte contre les injustices et du combat pour une vie meilleure. Le but de l'action socialiste est l'émancipation complète de la personne humaine. Translation: 1905: The Socialist Party is a class party whose goal is to socialize the means of production and trade; that is, to transform capitalist society into a collectivist or communist society, and whose means is the economic and political organization of the proletariat. By its goal, by its ideal, by the means it uses, the Socialist Party, while it seeks the realization of the immediate reforms demanded by the working class, is not a reform party, but a party of class struggle and revolution. 2008: To be Socialist is to be dissatisfied with the present state of the world, to want to change society. The Socialist idea simultaneously addresses a revolt against injustice, and a fight for a better life. The goal of Socialist action is the total emancipation of the human person. Source: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_socialiste_(France) https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_socialiste_(France)
  • mindslight 5y ago
    The comment you're responding to is actually a conservative perspective, one which I agree with - make big business and banksters suffer the preexisting rules, rather than changing the rules for some larger overall goal after they run into trouble. The desire to narrow the scope of government comes from a place of wanting to help all people, believe it or not. The big picture is that both professional political parties have been captured by entrenched interests. You, empathizing with the grassroots left, naturally look at the intentions of your political allies, while giving a pass where the higher level falls short. But at this point, those higher level "failings" are fundamental to the system. The more recent development is that the rightist party has seemingly gone batshit crazy - after decades of being frustrated by their moral prescriptions becoming irrelevant, they've turned down the path of destructive spite. But this doesn't invalidate conservative thinking altogether, and we still need the sane bits from both philosophical frameworks / modes of thinking.
    • dsr_ 5y ago
      A sibling comment says that this is actually a libertarian perspective. One of you might be wrong.
      • mindslight 5y ago
        I was using "conservative" as a synonym for rightist, as it is commonly (ab)used. The perspective is both rightist and libertarian. It's a product of rightist thinking - applying prescriptive rules to their logical conclusion. I consider myself a libertarian and think applying right-paradigm thinking is the most freedom-appropriate for this subject.
    • imtringued 5y ago
      A lot of it boils down to the fact that conservative thinking is needed after we have exhausted the maximum potential of the economy. Right now the economy needs to be run as hot as possible so that everyone has enough money and once it is hot we need to immediately rearrange it to become productive again. That means republicans have to shut up for a while until the economy follows the textbooks again. It has to be done in this order. The longer it takes to reach the limits of the economy the more time exists for it to become unproductive and the needed correction will have to be bigger than absolutely required. If the entire economy consisted of money losing zombies (think Uber) then a small raise in interest rates will cause the entire economy to disappear at once, if there is competition for labor and pressure to innovate and be productive then zombies will stop growing and by the time we have to raise interest rates sharply there won't be many zombies left to take the economy down.
  • BeetleB 5y ago
    > The only wrong thing you've said here is "I'm not a leftie". > Why do you reject that generally accurate label? Because most of what he wrote aligns with libertarianism, which is generally not considered left.
    • dsr_ 5y ago
      A sibling comment contends that this is a conservative position, not libertarian. One of you might be wrong.
    • rorykoehler 5y ago
      I thought libertarianism evolved from anarchism? Edit: seeing as this is being downvoted I’ll add this from Wikipedia: “Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists,[6] especially social anarchists,[7] but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists.“
    • c22 5y ago
      If you're just thinking about the political spectrum from left to right, you're missing some nuance. There is a conservative<->progressive axis as well as a libertarian<->authoritarian one. It is well not to get these conflated or mixed up.
      • atatatat 5y ago
        Right, but that doesn't help keep people divided and focused on fighting each other.
• JKCalhoun 5y ago
  I agree with your sentiment, injustice-outrage, but suspect that had things gone that way we'd be in Japan's real estate quagmire still, unemployment at 50%.
  • em500 5y ago
    Why is Japans' real estate a "quagmire" and why would unemployment be 50% when Japan post 1990 averaged 3.5% (with a few short-lived peaks up to 5.5%)?
• hellotomyrars 5y ago
  Trickle down economics. The only problem was that it was and still is a lie. Corporate welfare doesn’t translate to the general public. Cutting corporate taxes didn’t massively increase jobs. During the Trump Administration several companies made public statements that the tax cuts proposed and the enacted would allow them to keep their manufacturing in the US. Then after they were made law what did they do? Harley Davidson decided that actually they were going to offshore anyways and close their factory. Not all rich people are bad. There are very wealthy people advocating for increased taxes on themselves. But many have a vested interest in maintaining and accumulating more wealth. The government allowed these things to happen, specifically because people with wealth and in power colluded to change and create policy. This is the point of lobbying, not to mention literal regulatory capture (FCC, Ajit Pai). Republicans/conservatives howl and scream about social welfare programs but are all too happy and eager to provide corporate welfare. The result is plain to see.
• duped 5y ago
  I understand the sentiment, but even with the bailouts 2.5 million people lost their jobs and we continue to see second order effects of the crisis, like deferred home purchases, declining birth rates, low or nonexistent retirement savings, and political instability. Imagine how bad it would be if there was a total collapse of the financial system. That's what the situation was before the bail outs.
• imtringued 5y ago
  > I would love to see a parallel universe where in 2008 no one is bailed out and bankers are either on the hook for the risks they took or actually are sent to prison. That wouldn't solve anything. 2008 was 9/11 for banking. Lending is now more restrictive than before. Without a bailout people's deposits would be on the line. >Taking it further back, what if the tech bubble of the 90s is allowed to collapse, interests aren't set at almost 0, and a housing bubble isn't blown by exploiting minorities. Interest rates should be negative but that's impossible in practice so instead we are stuck with 0% interest rates and hope that inflation reduces real interest rates enough to convince people to invest their money again and by investing I mean growing their businesses by hiring people. >I am convinced the USA is in the place it is because since about 99, no rich person has been allowed to fail or lose money, not really. Well, that is close but it is not a perfect explanation. Structurally it is very easy to be rich. Inflation was low, anything you did, no matter how stupid or unproductive, was enough to get past inflation. >I'm not a leftie, but it really is capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich right now. But I have to say, the problem is collusion between the rich who are close to politics, and the problem is the GOVERNMENT enabled all this. From a hardcore capitalist productivity growth maximalist mindset the USA is doing extremely poorly. Instead, rich people get to enjoy an exploited labor force. Over the long term things can only go wrong, especially since the labor pool is shrinking through aging. When half the population consists of retirees they want to live in a world where infrastructure investments have already been made back when the labor pool was plentiful. The truth is that the only way you can save for retirement is by building something today that will keep existing by the time you retire. Housing is a good option because it can last a long time. Roads are good because they can be built in your 50s and not require maintenance until you are dead. Power generation is good because wind turbines and solar panels can last 20-30 years and preventing climate change lasts forever (hopefully). What I am seeing instead is that we are at a time where the population is still reasonably young and labor is plentiful and we waste it on doing nothing useful with it and then 30 years later the population is old and there is no way you can ever catch up on all the lost potential. The government definitively plays a big role but it is primarily the local government, the federal government mostly has complacent politicians that support the status quo (the motto of the republicans) but none of them are really trying to make things actively worse, they just hope that the problem goes away on its own. (it won't) >The problem is NOT all rich people. Only the ones who are part of this system. Yes, exactly. The problem isn't all rich people because there have been times where an effort has been made to keep things in balance. That effort is gone and there are not many counter balancing forces left. Specifically, it is rich people who do not use their wealth to grow productive companies. A lot of them just want to protect inefficient business models that are unsustainable over the long run. > And this distinction needs to be made, otherwise the US is headed for a communist disaster of hating the rich. That's true. If you can restore the balance there is no need for the guillotine, ultimately all of this is for the benefit of everyone, the poor and the rich. If they follow up on their social responsibility (invest their savings) they can keep everything they have. The problems start with the fact that they can growth their wealth without following up on their social responsibility and the first step toward a solution is raising inflation because inflation hurts those who do not invest their savings. Here is an interesting "specimen" of a self declared rich person: https://i.imgur.com/ky5uLpF.png https://i.imgur.com/ky5uLpF.png He claims that he has enough money but "oddly" enough he is scared of inflation and considers low prices thanks to exploitative wages a good thing, as if the free market (the status quo) he so praises could hurt him. It's the choice mindset mentioned in the article in action. I made this imgur album for absolutely no reason: https://imgur.com/a/Oaxrt33 https://imgur.com/a/Oaxrt33
• jjav 5y ago
  > what if the tech bubble of the 90s is allowed to collapse It collapsed in the dot.com crash (remember pets.com). > I am convinced the USA is in the place it is because since about 99, no rich person has been allowed to fail or lose money, not really. Well, I was a tech bubble paper millionaire in '99, and had nothing by 2002. It all evaporated. Then the smaller bubble of the 2000s crashed in 2008. The huge bubble of the 2010s.. hasn't crashed. I sure can't predict when, but cycles suggest it'll crash at some point.