3 ms·

I never said they should have kept other countries poorer - if anything, they achieved the opposite with their policies. However, they were elected democratical

by epups 3y ago

I never said they should have kept other countries poorer - if anything, they achieved the opposite with their policies. However, they were elected democratically by their societies and, in my opinion, they implemented policies that were not meant for the common good, but for the profit of a minority. The rise of China may have been inevitable - was massive financial deregulation inevitable as well? Neoliberalism led to the disenfranchisement and deterioration of the quality of life of American and British low- and middle-income workers to a higher degree than in other comparable nations (Canada, France, Germany, etc.) which did not embrace these policies to the same degree. See [1]. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/ef265420-45e8-497b-b308-c951baa68945 https://www.ft.com/content/ef265420-45e8-497b-b308-c951baa68...

hash872 3y ago
Respectfully, this is par for the course in discussing public policy with populists. It's just a Gish Gallop of random disconnected arguments. OK so now you concede that Reagan and Thatcher weren't responsible for the rise of China, so you've completely switched gears to financial regulation- which has nothing to do with China. Complete non-sequitur switch of topics, but it makes sense to your worldview because you lump it all under the rubric of 'neoliberalism'. (Also, how is quality of life lower for Americans than Canada/France/Germany when the median worker is so much richer here? And I said median- not mean)
- epups 3y ago
  What I said is that wage growth in the West has been kept lower than it could have been because of their policies, including massive financial deregulation. Here is a primer in case others are interested [1]. > (Also, how is quality of life lower for Americans than Canada/France/Germany when the median worker is so much richer here? And I said median- not mean) There are multiple indicators for that. A very neutral and uncontroversial one is that life expectancy is ~5 years higher in those other countries compared to the US, a phenomenon that has only gotten worse since Reagan [2]. But we could also talk about work hours, parental leave, vacation and many other things that are much more favorable for the median worker in all of these other countries. [1] https://www.epi.org/publication/causes-of-wage-stagnation/ https://www.epi.org/publication/causes-of-wage-stagnation/ [2] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-life-expectancy-compare-countries/#Life%20expectancy%20and%20per%20capita%20healthcare%20spending%20(PPP%20adjusted),%202021 https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-lif...
  - hash872 3y ago
    US life expectancy is (slightly) lower due to guns, opioids, and traffic deaths- none of these have any connection to 'massive financial deregulation' (or China). US wages have not stagnated, and it's worth noting that the US is about middle of the pack in income inequality overall- #61 out 168 countries globally. (1) How does parental leave or vacation time connect to financial regulations? This is what I mean by, populism is a Gish Gallop of disconnected emotional non-sequiturs. There's no central coherent point, just grievances and random observations 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
    - epups 3y ago
      I posted a link detailing exactly the argument for the link you claim does not exist - in a nutshell, ever since Reagan, the richest people in America were able to multiply their earnings at the expense of the working class. They have done so by using the government to enact policies in their favor, and against the workers. Financial deregulation favored them against the interests of the majority of Americans, and their economic and political influence has only grown since then, at the expense of the working class. If you remember, the conversation started because we are talking about the general feeling of people about their well-being, so yes, I believe those things are absolutely connected. Reaganomics was not restricted to financial deregulation, it was also one of the only periods in American history where the minimum wage was not increased. Reagan opposed unions and defunded worker protection agencies like OSHA. I don't think you have to dig really deep if you are truly interested in a legitimate understanding of what I'm trying to say here. Big if, I know.

by epups 3y ago

hash872 3y ago

Respectfully, this is par for the course in discussing public policy with populists. It's just a Gish Gallop of random disconnected arguments. OK so now you concede that Reagan and Thatcher weren't responsible for the rise of China, so you've completely switched gears to financial regulation- which has nothing to do with China. Complete non-sequitur switch of topics, but it makes sense to your worldview because you lump it all under the rubric of 'neoliberalism'. (Also, how is quality of life lower for Americans than Canada/France/Germany when the median worker is so much richer here? And I said median- not mean)

epups 3y ago
What I said is that wage growth in the West has been kept lower than it could have been because of their policies, including massive financial deregulation. Here is a primer in case others are interested [1]. > (Also, how is quality of life lower for Americans than Canada/France/Germany when the median worker is so much richer here? And I said median- not mean) There are multiple indicators for that. A very neutral and uncontroversial one is that life expectancy is ~5 years higher in those other countries compared to the US, a phenomenon that has only gotten worse since Reagan [2]. But we could also talk about work hours, parental leave, vacation and many other things that are much more favorable for the median worker in all of these other countries. [1] https://www.epi.org/publication/causes-of-wage-stagnation/ https://www.epi.org/publication/causes-of-wage-stagnation/ [2] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-life-expectancy-compare-countries/#Life%20expectancy%20and%20per%20capita%20healthcare%20spending%20(PPP%20adjusted),%202021 https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-lif...
- hash872 3y ago
  US life expectancy is (slightly) lower due to guns, opioids, and traffic deaths- none of these have any connection to 'massive financial deregulation' (or China). US wages have not stagnated, and it's worth noting that the US is about middle of the pack in income inequality overall- #61 out 168 countries globally. (1) How does parental leave or vacation time connect to financial regulations? This is what I mean by, populism is a Gish Gallop of disconnected emotional non-sequiturs. There's no central coherent point, just grievances and random observations 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
  - epups 3y ago
    I posted a link detailing exactly the argument for the link you claim does not exist - in a nutshell, ever since Reagan, the richest people in America were able to multiply their earnings at the expense of the working class. They have done so by using the government to enact policies in their favor, and against the workers. Financial deregulation favored them against the interests of the majority of Americans, and their economic and political influence has only grown since then, at the expense of the working class. If you remember, the conversation started because we are talking about the general feeling of people about their well-being, so yes, I believe those things are absolutely connected. Reaganomics was not restricted to financial deregulation, it was also one of the only periods in American history where the minimum wage was not increased. Reagan opposed unions and defunded worker protection agencies like OSHA. I don't think you have to dig really deep if you are truly interested in a legitimate understanding of what I'm trying to say here. Big if, I know.