3 ms·

> It’s not even that democracy is bad; it’s just that it’s very weak. And the fact that it’s very weak is easily seen by the fact that very unpopular policies [

> It’s not even that democracy is bad; it’s just that it’s very weak. And the fact that it’s very weak is easily seen by the fact that very unpopular policies [...] persist despite strong majorities being against them. Is this a sign democracy is weak? Or is it a sign that the political process has to choose between mutually exclusive popular policies? In my country, the average voter wants their trash hauled away, but don't want any dumps or incinerators built. They want responsive public services, but they don't want tax increases, cuts to other services, or a deficit. They want good care for the elderly, but they don't want to spend more on care workers, or to give the jobs to poorly paid immigrants. The US political system has a bunch of problems (deadlock and corruption for example) but when voters want to have their cake and eat it too, which is impossible, no political system is going to make it possible.

logicchains 2y ago
>They want good care for the elderly, but they don't want to spend more on care workers, or to give the jobs to poorly paid immigrants. The voters aren't a homogeneous group. Older voters, i.e. the baby boomers, the biggest voting block, want stability and extensive pension spending. Young people want economic opportunity and to avoid worse quality of life than their parents' generation, as evidenced by recent election results in the US and Europe, where under 30s, especially young men, voted for radical right-wing parties more than any other demographic. Due to the number of working people shrinking relative to the number of retirees, there's a fundamental conflict of interest between the older generation, and the young generation facing greater and greater financial burden to support them. The relatively greater number of voters in the older block is causing society to prioritise their needs over those of the youth, inverting the traditional structure where the old make sacrifices to support the young.
- rickydroll 2y ago
  > Due to the number of working people shrinking relative to the number of retirees, there's a fundamental conflict of interest between the older generation, and the young generation facing greater and greater financial burden to support them. The older generation's burden on the younger generation has always existed. It was paid by labor, usually uncompensated by women of earlier generations. Now, the burden is paid by money from tax revenue and/or personal savings. We need to expand the financial base for many social services, including elder care. It is long past time that we tax wealth, as the wealthy extract their money from our pockets through various rent-seeking schemes.
spwa4 2y ago
> Is this a sign democracy is weak? Or is it a sign that the political process has to choose between mutually exclusive popular policies? It is a sign democracy is fake. Democracy only exists at the grace of someone/something else that decides these very large (in terms of cost) and unpopular policies. And the only thing that really matters is whether people advance economically. This works in democracies because, in a democracy, it's very, very easy to prevent change, so the institutions and policies that existed before democracy was introduced (or before it was real democracy) persist almost everywhere. Authoritarian changes, and eventually war, is what happens when you have a sustained economic deterioration in a country. The form of governance matters on an individual level, but not on a country level. We're in the first stages of that now, and it's hard to see anything happen but it getting worse from this point forward. One application of this: if you want to defeat MAGA, you need to pay middle America. MAGA voters vote MAGA because their economic situation has been deteriorating since, well, really since 2008 (with local areas, like Detroit, further back), and accelerated since COVID. A very, very visible part of this deterioration on a household level, sorry, is the increase in household medical spending that is the result of ACA. Yes, it's a very good deal in terms of "how much medical care do I get for $x" (esp. if you're poor), but a pretty bad deal in terms of "if I don't care about medical anything, how much $ can I spend right now?" (especially if you work for those $, and what especially matters if it's more or less than last month/last year/last ... it's less) More generally, medical and pension costs for the aging population are reducing everyone's standards of living ... and this will keep getting worse for at least 2 decades. We need a solution for this. Republicans' solution is to throw everyone to the curb (less medical care, less pensions, less public transport, even less education, less universities, ...). Can we do better? How?
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  > only thing that really matters is whether people advance economically. This is such an incomplete understanding of governance and state it could only appear under already degenerate conditions of poor political education and non-participation.
  - spwa4 2y ago
cookiemonsieur 2y ago
> In my country, the average voter wants their trash hauled away, but don't want any dumps or incinerators built. They want responsive public services, but they don't want tax increases, cuts to other services, or a deficit. They want good care for the elderly, Many "undemocratic" nations have functioning public services, clean streets, low to virtually no-crime and good universities. > but they don't want to spend more on care workers, or to give the jobs to poorly paid immigrants. In a capitalist economy part of a global marketplace, you are not "owed" jobs.

logicchains 2y ago

>They want good care for the elderly, but they don't want to spend more on care workers, or to give the jobs to poorly paid immigrants. The voters aren't a homogeneous group. Older voters, i.e. the baby boomers, the biggest voting block, want stability and extensive pension spending. Young people want economic opportunity and to avoid worse quality of life than their parents' generation, as evidenced by recent election results in the US and Europe, where under 30s, especially young men, voted for radical right-wing parties more than any other demographic. Due to the number of working people shrinking relative to the number of retirees, there's a fundamental conflict of interest between the older generation, and the young generation facing greater and greater financial burden to support them. The relatively greater number of voters in the older block is causing society to prioritise their needs over those of the youth, inverting the traditional structure where the old make sacrifices to support the young.

rickydroll 2y ago
> Due to the number of working people shrinking relative to the number of retirees, there's a fundamental conflict of interest between the older generation, and the young generation facing greater and greater financial burden to support them. The older generation's burden on the younger generation has always existed. It was paid by labor, usually uncompensated by women of earlier generations. Now, the burden is paid by money from tax revenue and/or personal savings. We need to expand the financial base for many social services, including elder care. It is long past time that we tax wealth, as the wealthy extract their money from our pockets through various rent-seeking schemes.

spwa4 2y ago

> Is this a sign democracy is weak? Or is it a sign that the political process has to choose between mutually exclusive popular policies? It is a sign democracy is fake. Democracy only exists at the grace of someone/something else that decides these very large (in terms of cost) and unpopular policies. And the only thing that really matters is whether people advance economically. This works in democracies because, in a democracy, it's very, very easy to prevent change, so the institutions and policies that existed before democracy was introduced (or before it was real democracy) persist almost everywhere. Authoritarian changes, and eventually war, is what happens when you have a sustained economic deterioration in a country. The form of governance matters on an individual level, but not on a country level. We're in the first stages of that now, and it's hard to see anything happen but it getting worse from this point forward. One application of this: if you want to defeat MAGA, you need to pay middle America. MAGA voters vote MAGA because their economic situation has been deteriorating since, well, really since 2008 (with local areas, like Detroit, further back), and accelerated since COVID. A very, very visible part of this deterioration on a household level, sorry, is the increase in household medical spending that is the result of ACA. Yes, it's a very good deal in terms of "how much medical care do I get for $x" (esp. if you're poor), but a pretty bad deal in terms of "if I don't care about medical anything, how much $ can I spend right now?" (especially if you work for those $, and what especially matters if it's more or less than last month/last year/last ... it's less) More generally, medical and pension costs for the aging population are reducing everyone's standards of living ... and this will keep getting worse for at least 2 decades. We need a solution for this. Republicans' solution is to throw everyone to the curb (less medical care, less pensions, less public transport, even less education, less universities, ...). Can we do better? How?

nonrandomstring 2y ago
> only thing that really matters is whether people advance economically. This is such an incomplete understanding of governance and state it could only appear under already degenerate conditions of poor political education and non-participation.
- spwa4 2y ago

cookiemonsieur 2y ago

> In my country, the average voter wants their trash hauled away, but don't want any dumps or incinerators built. They want responsive public services, but they don't want tax increases, cuts to other services, or a deficit. They want good care for the elderly, Many "undemocratic" nations have functioning public services, clean streets, low to virtually no-crime and good universities. > but they don't want to spend more on care workers, or to give the jobs to poorly paid immigrants. In a capitalist economy part of a global marketplace, you are not "owed" jobs.