Now’s not the time to disengage… Or is it?

I’m finding my pro-Clinton friends equally insufferable. The level of Trump mockery with some of them is so off the charts. I personally don’t find anything funny about him anymore. And it isn’t over. I’m not convinced Hillary has enough genuine support to actually get all of her people to the polls. Who the fuck is actually passionate about Hillary? Besides Jean Heney?

Trump’s base are people who feel that they are losing out on the future.

White Americans experienced a period from 1948-198? where jobs were plentiful, and you could have a great life with only a high-school degree.

So, it’s not surprising that they are cranky. I think their ire is directed at the wrong groups, and that Trump does not really have any solutions for them, but he is the only person to address what they see as important issues.

Unless you are Ted Kazinski, you have to engage, just don’t talk politics. At least 2/5 people will be voting for the other side. Life goes on.

Mark (because we all know that you post as “anonymous” here among other pseudonyms),

Yes, I am serious.

I had to finally stop looking at Facebook because the people around me are so far left, that they seem to live in their own reality.

Liberals love to get smug about “facts” but tend to believe (or want to believe) some extremely wacky shit because, politics.

I am for Hillary and I have been from the start. SO are many people I know. They will come out of the weeds Nov. 8th.
We have a choice between one true evil and a progressive who has spent her entire career working for liberal causes and progress for America. Bernie Sanders told his California delegation that if they withhold their votes from Hillary Clinton that they will have to look their own children in the face and explain a Trump presidency.
I am so with her. I have been from the moment she declared this time around. I have always admired and watched what she was up to. I would trust her with my own grandchildren.

As far as engaging with others…its a mixed bag, between being called nasty names ala trump or just deciding to agree to disagree. Flipping between unfollowing long time friends before the primaries and then again after…hardly engagement. I’m more bothered by progressives who are into conspiracy then the trumpites, who are beyond the pale I’m afraid.

I simply stated an opinion, but, as always, I am sorry I offended you kjc.

I hope you are well.

Responding to Bob, since he name checked me (incorrectly).
I just engaged in a FB thread with people from my hometown, from Up North, and even from Ann Arbor and none feel free to brandish a Hillary sign for fear of reprisal. My parents back home put up Obama signs at the end of their lane and those were shot at, removed, torn up, but they did not feel personally threatened. (It’s gun country, people have guns and use them, it doesn’t normally feel threatening.) This year is different. This year they are laying low. When I asked my mom why, she started rambling about how the farm lane to the house only has one way in and out.

I know there are many people passionate about Hillary. Most are not as loud-mouthed as me about it. I took relentless heat for my liberal political position growing up; I’m ok with taking heat for my anti-sexism position now. I have people, almost all women, thanking me every day in private for my open support of Clinton. Every day. Even now, many don’t feel comfortable expressing their enthusiastic support for her in A2/Ypsi. The atmosphere of suppression is intense. That’s coming from left and right. People don;t want to be insulted. They just want to go about their days in peace. Textbook suppression. I guess we could all be making it up, right? Bitches be crazy.

That kind of response is precisely why women don’t tend to express enthusiastic support. We know how to keep our mouths shut. We have all learned how to do that.

I predict Nov 8th many men will not vote at all, and women will use the privacy of the ballot box to express their enthusiasm by voting in unprecedented numbers for HRC. Then maybe you’ll see that they care about this election and adore and respect their candidate. Or maybe you’ll have another narrative about how it’s just that Trump was so bad…

I could be wrong. There is always the risk of being wrong when expressing what one thinks. I’m ok with that. That’s kind of the point. I wish more people felt their was no consequence to expressing their beliefs and experience. I wish we could all do so without engendering personal attacks.

For Mark– I do think over-coming political segregation is now as important as overcoming other forms of segregation. It’s critical to a functional democracy. I think political divisiveness is why we are gridlocked and dysfunctional governmentally. I think it’s as significant a factor as big money on our current political quagmire– and very easily played to by politicians of all persuasions. We have to overcome intolerance of other political views by the right and by the left. We all have that work to do, not just the right. Not everyone on the right is racist and ignorant. Their candidate is. But not all of them. The letter you received demonstrates that.

I appreciate this post very much.

Evangelical Christians passionately backing Trump is incredibly confusing.

I get why they might vote for him, I but I don’t get them liking him.

I haven’t yet. My finger has hovered over the button a couple of times. It’s an odd mix of wanting to keep an open dialog and “keep your enemies closer”.

From what I’ve heard from Evangelicals, they are single issue voters– abortion. They believe God has called them to this issue. They believe Trump is their flawed, sinning messenger from God. His sins are a test of their faith. They must hole to their principles. They believe this is a holy war.

Also, they believe Hillary is worse.

I am not kidding. The narrative of sin and forgiveness is applied selectively. But then Evangelicals have had a lot of experience with flawed leaders. And wholesale condemnation of others on purist ideological grounds

Not so different from leftists there.

How many Che t-shirts are out there?

Speaking of women voting, did you see Nate Silver’s map of what the election would look like if just women were voting?

https://www.facebook.com/natesilver/photos/pcb.1043108969135499/1043107115802351/?type=3&theater

Thom Elliot,

I am not trying to be funny: There are people who can help you, please seek their help.

Yes. I’ve always also held the belief that people are more than their political beliefs, but Donald Trump has changed that for me. Political beliefs rooted in aren’t “beliefs”, they are values – and those values are absolutely incongruent with my values – and distancing myself from that seems more than appropriate.

We are all human beings. We may not agree with what people say but that doesn’t mean you can’t listen. I mean step out of yourself for a moment without anger and really listen. What makes our world such an interesting place trying to understand the folks around us. More often than not, we have a lot more in common than you think.

The caricature that people present of Clinton from both the right and the left is immensely inaccurate. Certainly, all Presidents have to play to the center, and this nearly always disappoints the extremes, but Clinton is the furthest left that we’ve had in a long while.

I am sure that there will be a million “baby killer war monger capitalist” responses to this statement.

That’s ok.

not surprised by those numbers. doesn’t make it not an enclave either.

well it’s clear that if you tell a trump supporter he or she is a racist, that person will double down. because that person doesn’t hate racism. that person hates you.

FWIW, in general negative political rhetoric doesn’t sway people as much as positive political rhetoric but what it does often do is motivate that candidates opponents to get out and vote.

Eel,

Thanks for the compliment but the Konald J Crumps in the comments section of this blog deserve most all of the credit.

Distancing yourself from uncivil people should not just be something you do during divisive election seasons. However, if you want to distance yourself from people simply because you don’t like their beliefs, it’s more likely the problem is in you.

Jean, the main criticism of Clinton is actually very true. Namely, that she is essentially a moderate Republican. She has been most of her life. That’s my objection. What’s equally tired is the suggestion that not supporting Hillz is sexist. Many Democrats, men and women alike are so weary of her. We wish there was a better female choice. Or a better male choice. We don’t give a fuck. We will hold our noses and vote for her, or against Trump. It’s a stinky, uninspiring choice. But we will do it. We will all celebrate the election of the first female President. Long overdue. The first time I ever voted, there was a woman on the ticket. It’s long overdue. I will wake my young daughter up to watch. And then will brace myself for 4-8 years of Clinton scandals and compromised, Republicanish policy sausage grinding.

My own brother was rooting for Trump in March. We do not speak of it and he is 3,000 miles away. – At this point friends, are expendable. I want a country that my daughter can live in.. Good thing she is a liberal.

No, I’m not petty enough to block anyone on Facebook. I did, however, make it a point to debunk any Trump truther statements an old college roommate/friend’s brother made with facts and sources. He eventually unfriended me!

I just grind my teeth and keep shut with my old, wealthy, conservative, racist side of the family at gatherings. We have one last big hurrah left – Thanksgiving is going to be quite a site to see after Election Day.

I have two FB friends who are openly supporting Trump. One I have had rational conversations with, the other I cannot. To answer your question directly, if I thought someone was supporting Trump because they share his values (which are despicable) then yes, I would disengage on social media and possibly in real life. I’d likely ask why they feel so much hatred. If they’re rational and misinformed, I’d engage them with facts. I’ve found very few of these people though. People I’ve engaged with publicly are the same caliber of people they put on The Daily Show and make fun of. I hate to say it but I don’t think The Daily Show edits out the Trump supporters with thoughtful answers. I think it’s s representative sample. Most of them are full on idiots with internal logical inconsistencies along with two doses of hypocrisy. Just like you have the right to own a gun doesn’t mean you should get one. If you aren’t learning to be responsible with it, you shouldn’t get one. I believe voting is the same. Unless you take the time to learn about the policy positions, voting record, experience, and character of those to choose from, you probably shouldn’t vote either. So, this gets me to my final point: Trump supporters aren’t really behaving as politically engaged voters. They’re engaging with him like you would a celebrity. So, there’s no stopping fans (because they are literally fanatics). Our only option to defeat Trump is to make sure those opposing him vote and not become lazy and apathetic. So, remember, those voting for anyone but Trump are voting on Nov 8th. Trump supporters, Trump announced, because he’s so wonderful, his supporters get extra time and vote on Nov 28th. I know you don’t trust liberals so here’s a link to prove it: https://youtu.be/Rvq78VDLp4U?t=2m00s

I disagree.

White people in the US have it pretty good if they choose to do so. Protectionism won’t won’t solve the problems of white people in the US, nor will shouldering the burden for services on the most wealthy.

If you are white in the US and aren’t happy with your situation, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Pleanty of immigrants come to the US and succeed, because they have to. If anything, the biggest things keeping white people back in the US are disability checks and an unrealistic view of what their lives should be like, i.e. entitlement.

My family is fucking poor. They are also lazy. They are also drug addicts and drunks. The are poor because they are lazy and on drugs, not because the government did this or that.

As for inquality, that’s simply a political issue. You guys have the power on, you have cars, you have refrigerators and food in the house. Not sure why it matters what kind of car you have or how big your house is. How does Bill Gates’ choice of car impact mine? It doesn’t.

White America, and particuarly educated white America are falling victim to an unrealistic outlook on life (i.e. entitlement). They think they should have it easy, but life is hard. The world over.

Dirt Bag Larsen

“White Americans experienced a period from 1948-198? where jobs were plentiful, and you could have a great life with only a high-school degree.”
198? Try the mid sixties. The 70s and 80s were miserable for jobs, which was one of the reasons that Reagan got elected.
Not sure why people believe that protectionism and closed borders are going to bring back the imagine past of my grandfather (and I’m 47).”

I am 49. The 70s sucked due to stagflation and the oil crisis, but there were still a lot of jobs around that you could get w/o a college degree. This was due to a historical anomaly- a lot of the other industrial nations got bombed to hell in WWII, and it took them a while to catch up.

Also, I agree- the jobs aren’t coming back, and a lot of people have unrealistic expectations about them returning via tariffs/trade restrictions.

I do disagree about poor people being poor because it’s their fault, or due to a lack of character. I grew up middle-class, and I knew plenty of lazy mopes who are now doing fairly well. I think the issue with poor communities is that ‘good behavior’ rarely nets the person any actual rewards.

I have even less respect for young people coming from the current middle class.

These kids do cool and craetive stuff that people in the past just didn’t have the luxury of doing, yet still whine that 1% is keeping them down.

They expect too much, too fast.

It’s not to say that there aren’t problems (i.e. cost of college), but the expectations are unrealistic.

Oh yes and bootstraps. Don’t forget the bootstraps.

I’m just glad I took a vow not to bash Peter Larson anymore. It really would be harvest time.

I get along with the online version of EOS pretty well, as he at least makes an attempt to appear remotely interested in a few of the tenants of Christianity.

The offline version of EOS is another story, as I’m sure you would all have figured out by now.

So what am I like offline? What is my age, sex, marital status, and political views? If I am so remotely different from you online, why wouldn’t you expect to get along great with me as we toss a few beers down at a local dive?

While I agree to some degree about choices keeping people poor, in the sense that bad choices *can* often be a reason certain individuals are poor, I completely disagree that macroeconomic policy doesn’t have an effect. It does. When Bernie Sanders says that as a nation, we have chosen income inequality, he is right. We have through our tax code, through regulations, through education, and yes through our welfare state.

Like it or not, we used to protect the white male working class much more than we do today. We kept women and people of color from competing with them for jobs, housing, etc. and that resulted in white men having an easier time than they otherwise would have had. This is why they are angry.

“There really is not much of substance on this thread.”

You’ve left multiple comments here, as have others. Who exactly is to blame?

Jean, I’m joking in my posts.

iRobert That’s reassuring.
anonymous– If the opinions expressed here were backed up more often with facts or details or even wound out into something one could call a position, well then everything would be different.

Americans are among the richest and most secure people in the world, and yet it still isn’t enough.

That always astounds me.

Thanks Peter. The image that comes to mind in these discussions is the Ypsilanti residents, who, if you are aware of their circumstances, are in the top 10 percent in America and probably the top 98.9 percent worldwide. Yet they feel no shame, pride actually, to hold a protest signs which read things like: “we are the 99%”.

Fake.

however, fwiw, before anyone gets on my case, I think global inequality is important too especially from a climate change point of view. The richest countries got rich on fossil fuels and it seems unfair to deny developing countries the same opportunities. And yet we must. What that means is that we really are going to need to invest globally in renewable energy. We will have to pay for and give renewable power to developing nations so that they can have the same opportunities for growth that we have had without so many fossil fuels even as we must get onto totally renewable sources of energy ourselves. This will be pretty expensive and it is going to mean that the globally rich will be the ones to foot the bill.

First, credit where it is due:
Larson: “I have no respect for poor white people. It’s a failing of mine, I admit.”

Yes, it sure is a failing. And it is to your credit that you recognize it. That shows a glimmer of humanity underneath the mean Republican rhetoric.

But you’re far from being off the hook.

Larson: “I disagree”.

BFD. You can “disagree” with the facts about climate change, too, or the facts about vaccine efficacy. So what? What does your “disagreement” mean?

Your personal success anecdote is worthless, except to verify that indeed anyONE can make it, which as I said before is true. The issue again is not what anyONE can do, but what whole populations can do under actual existing conditions, and in this connection the statistical facts prove you wrong.

Some members of your family may be lazy. Such people exist, perhaps.[1] But to take the individual culpability of a few in one’s immediate experience and project it onto large classes of others, ignoring fundamental structural changes in the economy and policy that obviously impel the outcomes in question, is outrageous and inexcusable. You really believe that all ~50 MILLION of the new underclass/precariat (annual income <$20K, 45 million of them forced to resort to food stamps) are just a bunch of lazy fucks? The vast army of serfs in the developing neo-feudal order are serfs because they didn't work hard enough? It is preposterous, and an insult to the entire human race.

It is embarrassing to think that a professor of public health (or of anything) would privilege personal anecdotes over data — and data with accompanying compelling explanatory theory, at that.

It is embarrassing to think that a professor of public health (or of anything) would essentially deny the existence of massive social problems such as poverty, unemployment and underemployment except as reflections of personal moral failure. Almost no one is THAT ignorant and misanthropic, except a handful of the worst reactionaries, or a few characters from Dickens' novels.

Larson: "As for inequality, that’s simply a political issue. You guys have the power on, you have cars, you have refrigerators and food in the house. Not sure why it matters what kind of car you have or how big your house is."

"You guys"? What do "us guys" as individuals have to do with this? Are you capable of thinking outside the personal anecdote box? How did someone like you get through school — even undergrad, let alone grad?

Inequality is not about how big your car is; it is not about minor distinctions within the (rapidly-shrinking) middle middle-class. It is about millions of people being homeless with many millions more being on the brink of homelessness within a month of losing their crappy jobs. It is about millions of people being unable to afford medicine, medical care or even fucking FOOD. It is about millions of children going hungry and living in poverty. It is about millions of people being railroaded unjustly into prison. And more millions living under the constant stress of underemployment and financial precariousness and insecurity, with consequent stress-related disease, depression and other mood disorders, predisposition to alcohol and substance abuse, and on and on.

You call yourself a doctor of PUBLIC HEALTH? Your attitudes are antithetical to public health. Your attitudes are of the ugly Malthusian kind that encourage the dismantling of essential public health and other social safety net programs, with disastrous results. Most public health issues ARE, at core, social justice (inequality) issues, for fuck's sake. *I* have to tell *YOU* this?!

You are a living example of why so many millions of people have become disillusioned with "experts", "professionals" and "leaders" of all kinds, since in practice they undermine the very ideals and values their professions are supposed to represent (e.g. lawyers and judges foster injustice, religious figures promote moral depravity, police encourage criminality, etc., etc.).

Larson: "I’m a fucking idiot from a trailer park, yet I got a PhD…from a major University."

Yes, and if your case is at all representative, it reflects shockingly on the function of major Universities. Not because you're from a trailer park — that's irrelevant — but because you're a fucking idiot. The system is supposed to screen-out fucking idiots, regardless of whether they come from trailer parks or Barton Hills.

I wish I had been one of your professors at the U. I would have flunked your ass relentlessly, and sent you back to waiting tables at Appleby's — a fate you richly deserve.

…………..

1. The idea that some people are lazy is up for debate, and professional psychologists have had interesting things to say about it. It may be that there is no such thing as laziness; it may be a misanthropic myth. But I will let it pass, and assume for the sake of this discussion that there IS such thing.

Thanks Pete for winding out your position. I appreciated it, even though I didn’t agree with all of it. Unfortunately, the response here was to very clearly misread your post and then fall back to personal attacks, because people disagree with your position. Our perspectives are formed via the lens of our personal experience. Dismissing the validity of someone’s personal experience is dismissing their validity. It feels personal to many. Maybe not to Pete, because he’s used to it.

This is what political fundamentalism– like all fundamentalism– does. In the end, it dehumanizes rather than acknowledge another point of view. I’m sorry this blog has become a space that invalidates other points of view. It’s amazing how persistent that is even on a blog post about the need to listen to other points of view.

BTW, I agree that we,as a country, should be less focused on wealth inequality and more focused on alleviating poverty and creating opportunities for social mobility. this is a distinction really about angle of approach, not the final goal. I agree because I think it would work better, not politically but policy wise. I think it would work better because poverty is less a partisan issue (see Paul Ryan recent comments) than wealth inequality. I also think that political conservatives may have something of benefit to add as watchdogs on government waste in any anti-poverty programs we implemented. (that may be too much to hope for)

I have sat in rooms where liberal people who are in the 1% talked about the greed of the 1%. I suggested the problem was systemic; that the participants didn’t know they were harming others. I was told,”No it’s greed.” They literally did not know they met that ‘greedy’ category. They thought that somewhere some bad guy big shots were rubbling their hands together and hoarding all the money. They were good people, so they couldn’t possibly be part of the problem. If it’s a systemic issue and we are surviving and even thriving, then someone else has paid the cost indirectly.

It seems much more positive and productive to talk about ending poverty than to talk about ending wealth inequality within a market-based economy. It’s also easier to do. We came close in the late 60’s. The programs weren’t entirely dismantled until the Reagan years. Which, not coincidentally marks the beginning of the steady increase of wealth inequality.

The truth is wealth inequality is just a function of taxation and a corporate system that is obsessed with quarterly returns. Both are relatively easily remedied within the system and without revolution. It’s arguable that the system is showing enough distress that the necessary correction for the middle class is inevitable. I know that’s not very exciting. And guess who gets left behind when that happens? The very poor. As always.

So isn’t the truly progressive position is really to take on the charge to remedy poverty, not wealth inequality?

There’s a good little book called On Inequality by H.G. Frankfurt, the same guy who wrote On Bullshit. It challenged effectively a lot of my thinking on Wealth Inequality. I don;t agree with all of it, but learned a lot from reading it. I was certain of my position on wealth inequality for years because I never exposed myself to any other thinking in detail. It’s short but challenging, so if you want to confirm your political bias don’t read it.

Yes, Jean, it was a very clear misreading of his very clear misanthropic Republican ravings.

Consistently, historically, efforts to help the middle class have excluded the poorest of the poor. The recent recovery from the 2008 recession is a very good example. Despite the whining of the American working class, shocked that they aren’t guaranteed upward mobility, the people most negatively impacted by the recession, the people who have still not recovered and lost lots of ground are the very poor and people of color. We can go back to the true Rosie the Riveter story as revealed on this blog. The concerns of the middle class have been addressed by both corporate bosses and the unions on the backs of the most marginalized. Redlining happened during what labor activists call the golden age.

Ann Arbor cried for the middle class while ignoring the problems of the very poor and people of color. They want to have a public park on the library lot that will deny the affordable housing fund $5 million dollars. They hate capitalism but really do a great job of securing their property values by limiting growth and preventing development.

It’s critical how the issue is framed. We need to put issues of poverty first. We could address income inequality just up until the point that it actually helps the most marginalized.

Look at family planning services. We decry the limits placed on abortion services but there is not real outrage until we think it will impact use. Right now the poor are the most affected by abortion and family planning restrictions. We say we care, but we arent going to take to the streets en masse until it impacts us directly.

“It can’t think of a single policy that would help remedy poverty that wouldn’t also reduce income and wealth inequality.” — Very True!

But many many policies that help the middle class have not impacted poverty levels.

And that’s my point.

PS I have never heard a Republican talk so much about concern for poverty domestically and abroad as Pete. Maybe you got that one wrong a bit Alan2012. Or maybe you like to put anyone who disagrees with your point of view into a box named GOP and put it out on the curb. I’d suggest that’s a really shitty way to get to workable solutions in a democracy.

“The fact that a few million spoiled middle-class punks want to be spoiled UPPER middle-class punks doesn’t mean shit. It has NOTHING to do with the discussion about inequality. Why would anyone spend even 10 seconds listening to the complaints of spoiled middle-class punks, much less interpret their complaints as an “overarching theme”?”

Bernard Sanders made a whole campaign out of it.

“But Republicans think in individual, anecdotal terms; they don’t think in scientific, statistical terms (like what happens across whole populations). ”

This is untrue, in that this phenomenon is not restricted to Republicans or conservatives. Democrats and liberals also tend to think in anecdotal terms.

There’s nothing wrong with this. There is nothing inherently superior about data-based conclusions over anecdotal ones. In my work, I use both. We can learn a lot from data, but, as I said before, you are restricted by what you can measure. We also learn a whole lot from peoples’ individual stories. When I do surveys, I do both. Inevitably, one informs the other and vice versa.

I’m a fucking useless moron, but I know a lot about data collection. What you are suggesting, that certain people value data over others and that data is infallible, is simply incorrect.

I say that with all the respect that can be given. Most people don’t realize that until they do jobs like I do.

Ignoring the individual at the expense of the populace does *people* a great disservice.

“What is fake is the moral outrage people feign in order to discourage anyone from changing the system.”

Lynne,

Fake is fake. No moral outrage coming from me, rather I am just stating facts plainly. It is better than nothing when people at or near the top are trying to change things within the system that might lead to more equality, but come on….A person can just as well fight for equality,while also forcing themselves to live off the median income too, right? All they have to do is donate their income that exceeds the median to a charitable cause–you know like some charity that helps poor people….Why not?

Peter, I grew up among upper middle class people and I can tell you that they are just as lazy as the poor. They wait for things to happen for them and then often good things do happen for them. They spend their money on alcohol and drugs and would rotate in and out of prison except for the huge bias towards them from police and prosecutors along with access to good defense attorneys. Most people are like this. Yet most people are not poor.

I agree that a universal basic income will have to be paid in a large part by the middle class but with a truly progressive tax scheme, the rich will pay more. And this is important because as technology advances, you will see wealth increasingly concentrated into the hands of the few, it will be necessary to move some of the wealth back down to the poor and even the middle class if we want our economy to keep running. Scandinavian relatively flat taxes work because they don’t have a lot of wealth inequality. They also have progressive income taxes but the top rate is paid by most people who earn above the median income.

Jean, I don’t think a fear of becoming poor necessarily means that one cannot also be concerned about the fate of the poor. It is normal for people to not want to be poor.

What is measurable by the racial and economic segregation of our cities and towns? Fakeness? Some attitude of not caring about the poor? I guess that might be part of the picture but the way humans group up is way more complicated than *that*. It is true, however, that racial and economic segregation is not an issue that is high enough on the priority list for a lot of people on the left.

Lynne,
You cannot do anything to earn your way into heaven. I wondered what your motivation was when you wrote that you get drunk and write checks to charity. There is no Biblical promise of heaven as a result of doing good works.

Adherents of Islam believe that Allah holds a “scale” for each person and if the good works on the one side outweigh the bad works on the other, then they will be allowed into paradise, but it is Allah’s decision and one never knows for sure. I don’t suspect that you have become a Muslim, covering your body in submission to your husband, who will decide with Allah whether or not you get to paradise.

According to the Bible, if you lived a perfect life without any sin, and gave away everything you own to the poor, you have not earned any reward. Since everything you have is a gift from God, you can’t give it back and build up a surplus. At best – you’re even. And there is no one without sin, not even one. There is nothing you can do on your own that would put God in your debt and obligate Him to allow you into heaven.

Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” He alone paid the debt we all owe. Accept Him as Lord and Savior and you will be saved. Repent, believe, and obey. There is no other way, there are no other paths.

Jcp2,

They can’t save you either. Not since Jesus rose from the dead. You should check out Jews for Jesus.

I don’t want income equality and I am not in the top 50% of earners. I want to work to earn a living and have no desire to be rich. I don’t think the world would be better if we gave money and material things to people who willingly choose not to earn them themselves or who come up with excuses why they can’t. Charity and safety nets should be reserved for those who unfortunately lack necessities through no fault of their own.

Hillary will take on income inequallity. Both through the inheritance tax and the Buffet rule. Those added revenues will go to help the poorest of the poor. Why would anyone be trying to move the spotlight off income inequality as one of the issues that face our great country? We can tackle climate change, racism, rape culture, poverty etc. Jusst make sure you get out and vote! And if you know anyone in a district where a house seat might flip encourage them to vote.

And make sure you come down to Argus, the fall harvest is amazing. Have a great day!

Peter: “If you want a universal basic income, it can’t come from the very wealthy. It has to come from the middle class”

It does not have to be either/or. It could come from the wealthy, the “middle class” (actually quite rich), and the corporations. ALL of them. Recall that corporate taxes are only a fraction of what they were 50 years ago, just like personal income taxes on high-income people.

Or we could consider ideas like public banking and debt-free money, and more generally everything under the heading of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), as espoused by Randall Wray and others. In other words, we don’t necessarily have to think of universal basic income being funded directly from taxes on the rich, or any other party. See here for some ideas:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/07/federal-reserve-creating-debt-free-money-nothing-americans-next-step-data-show-1000000-per-us-household-benefits-emperors-new-clothes.html

I just wrote: “the ‘middle class’ (actually quite rich)”. The “middle class” is not the middle class. The “middle class” is RICH. An income of ~$33,000/year puts you in the top 1%, globally: http://www.globalrichlist.com

Domestically, the LOWER middle class is defined by some as ~32-60K/year as personal income. I would call that middle-middle, in a (high cost structure) developed-world context. Anything over 60K/year is upper-middle, quite rich. Probably too rich, though it depends on prevailing (local) cost of living, number of dependents, etc. In NYC or San Francisco, with dependents, 60K/year is not rich.

Frosted Flakes: No kidding that the top 50% are often quite happy throwing the bottom 50% under the bus. That isn;t what I got from what you said. It sounded more like you were saying that anyone who is not impoverished themselves is fake (or a hypocrite if you prefer) and that is utter BS.

As for the top 50%. Well, income inequality hurts them too. You either work to eliminate poverty or you deal with the outcomes of it. Even when poverty is ghettoized and segregated, there are still social problems can creep through. For example, if we don’t make sure everyone has clean water and access to sewers, there are real diseases that occur and diseases will hit rich people too. Crime is closely correlated with poverty as well and while the victims of poor people tend to be other poor people, that isn’t always the case. Regardless, that top 50% would rather spend MORE on things like police protection than spend money getting rid of poverty.

The good news though is that I often see young people who are in a social class that suggests they will be in the top 50% of household incomes even if they aren’t at the moment, out there protesting income inequality and working to advance a political agenda which will help the poor. You call that fake and hypocritical but I disagree. I see it as progress and a sign that the upper 50% may be coming around. I also, btw, don’t see it as hypocritical when such people also advance a political agenda that puts the burden on the top 10 or 20%. This is, as you suggest, a politically savvy move since 10-20% is a minority and you can get those who earn between 50-80% on board more easily if such a program will not crush them as much.

Look a universal basic income is a way out far in the future idea and I readily admit that the electorate is not ready for it. However, there are things we can do now that push us in that direction and those are things you will often find greater than 50% support. For instance we could remove the cap on SS taxes so all income is taxed and then we could lower the retirement age. If we did that in combination with programs that help pay for tuition and living expenses for college students, we could get a whole lot of people out of the labor market. This plan would have the middle class invested as the middle class is already invested in Social Security. People feel ashamed to accept welfare but not ashamed to retire. They *earned* their retirement after all.

And EOS. I hear you that you would rather work hard and earn your money. You are not alone. But what happens when there are not enough jobs to go around? Is this not what is behind a lot of the anger that is fueling this whole Trump thing? People want jobs! But the good paying solid jobs we used to have in this country are gone and they aren’t coming back.

One way, btw, to have something similar to a basic income is to have the government hire any takers and then put them to work. Even then, I would worry that if too many people signed up, we would run out of work but so far experiments with this sort of program have been positive.

I also completely disagree that there are no good candidates running. HRC is one of the best candidates we have ever had. She has her weaknesses and I did vote for Sanders because of them but for me, it was a nice primary because I liked them both as do a lot of people. That “we have two bad candidates” tripe suggests that the candidates are equally bad when that is less true in this election than any I have seen. As Westside said, HRC will do a lot a good in the area of income inequality which of course means that there will be help for the most impoverished among us.

Lynne: “a universal basic income is a way out far in the future idea”

Not really. Because of robotics. Robotics, self-driving cars and related technologies will be replacing jobs at a furious pace, starting about now or within the next few years. As this proceeds, unemployment will go from being a big problem (right now) to being a gigantic problem, so bad that the pressure to do something about it will be overwhelming. You can’t have many scores of millions of unemployed without revolution, civil war, or social disintegration. That’s where we are heading, ~10-15 years. Perhaps less.

Isn’t doing something about the pay gap between men and women a central tenant of HRC’s platform? Isn’t that itself an attempt to address wealth inequality? Are there really people who support HRC who don’t see a connection between wealth inequality and poverty? I’m confused.

I don’t think anyone thinks everyone should be equal. I just believe a lot of us don’t think the system should be oriented towards helping the rich at the expense of the poor as it currently is. I thought that belief was what was responsible for the popularity of Sanders and (somewhat) Trump?

I can’t wait to see what Hillary does. Can someone so enmeshed in the system actually change it? I hope so. And as our first female president I’m pretty sure she will.

P.S. Ask that Trump guy tonight when we’re going to see his tax returns?

Jean: “I have never heard a Republican talk so much about concern for poverty domestically and abroad as Pete. Maybe you got that one wrong a bit Alan2012.”

Maybe I did. But if so, then what explains the unqualified “if I can make it, ANYONE can make it”? And similar statements, repeated several times. Such remarks deny the existence of inequality except as an expression of personal moral failing. Further, such remarks are exactly the kinds of remarks made by the worst Republican fucks.

Yes, some of Peter’s words suggest an awareness of the problem of poverty; and yet, these do not square with “if I can make it, ANYONE can make it” (i.e. poverty does not exist except as a problem of personal choice, will to work, and perhaps positive thinking). As Peter wrote in another post: “It’s about making choices in life.” Right. Choices. It is all a matter of bad choices, personal moral failure. Structural social, economic and policy matters have nothing to do with it.

Here’s another example, from Peter at 2:42pm:
“Where I come from, people are lazy. They wait for things to happen for them. They spend their money on alcohol and drugs and rotate in and out of prison. I don’t feel sorry for them.”

Uh huh. Exactly the kind of sentiment you hear from the mean Republican right. Exactly the kind of sentiment that undergirds the persistent efforts to roll-back the few social democratic and safety-net gains of the past 80 years (new deal, war on poverty, etc.).

How Peter squares his own words, I do not know. Methinks Peter is dealing with an internal contradiction with no resolve as yet. Especially poignant that he is a doctor of PUBLIC HEALTH — poor or declining public health being one reflection of the toxic attitudes that he has expressed.

………….

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-paradox-of-poverty-is-almost-impossible-to-escape-2014-11
“[In the view of] conservative intellectuals and politicians… government programs could do nothing to help the poor because poverty arises from the twisted psychology of the poor themselves. By the Reagan era, it had become a cornerstone of conservative ideology that poverty is caused not by low wages or a lack of jobs and education, but by the bad attitudes and faulty lifestyles of the poor. Picking up on this theory, pundits and politicians have bemoaned the character failings and bad habits of the poor for at least the past 50 years. In their view, the poor are shiftless, irresponsible, and prone to addiction. They have too many children and fail to get married. So if they suffer from grievous material deprivation, if they run out of money between paychecks, if they do not always have food on their tables—then they have no one to blame but themselves.”

…………..

YO. NO ONE TO BLAME BUT THEMSELVES. They’re a bunch of lazy fucks, pissing away their lives. Not our problem. Don’t feel sorry for them. Let them drink and drug themselves to death. They deserve it, for their bad choices. Besides, all those dumb old social programs never worked and are a big waste of taxpayer money.

Rev Malthus would be proud. He advocated ceasing any efforts to help the poor, because (he said) any such effort would only fuel their tendency procreate excessively, thereby worsening the problems. Better to “let nature take its course”: better to let them die off without any bleeding-heart liberal relief programs. Nice guy, huh? I nominate him for the Peter Larson Humanitarian Award.

You’re all a bunch of scolds who are omitted to political doctrine over listening to anyone’s individual perspective and experience. I’m not saying Pete’s right. I don’t know if he is. I grew up around poor people and my mom is a adult education a literacy program coordinator. I helped her teach adults to read. I didn’t see much difference between poor people and the very wealthy people I’ve also spent time with. Some ARE fuck ups. Some are able to make their own lives. Some are smart, some are dumb. It seemed to me that people with in tact functional families have a better shot. money provides lots of chances too. But a lazy crazy addicted person can squander as many chances as they get. that’s my perspective. But I didn’t grow up poor from a f’d up family and make it out, like Pete did. And I’m betting none of you did either. So maybe your lecturing Pete or anyone of any political persuasion about what it’s like to be poor is some lefty dogma version of mansplaining. Lib-splaining? bourgeois splaining? dogma- Splaining? I don’t know but it’s smug as hell. It’s not discourse. And it’s not going to sway anyone or encourage a diversity of viewpoints. It’s going to make you all feel pretty swell. Moral certainty works like that.
I’d like to point out that Pete is only self-critical. He rarely disses is any of you except EOS. And yet you continue to pile on to the only person with lived and professional experience around these issues. You are near desperate to dismiss him. It’s clear you hear only the parts of his posts that provoke your political outrage. You don’t hear or think beyond doctrine. You protect it from any challenge.He IS provocative. Pete’s faux humility works like a dog whistle for all your condescension. He’s pulling a reverse Kanye on you all, but instead of conceit drawing out white liberal anxiety, he’s using self-degradation to make himself a mark for your need to pummel people with whom you disagree politically. Anyone who violates liberal doctrine. Anyone who grew up around religious fundamentalism like I did can recognize the pattern. I’m glad I came back here long enough to realize why I hate this forum in spite of Mark’s good work.

Jean: “You’re all a bunch of scolds”

All? You mean me. I think I am the only one here who is scolding Peter.

Jean: “who are omitted to political doctrine over listening to anyone’s individual perspective and experience.”

I listened to his personal experience. I believe it. I don’t doubt that some (few) people are lazy fucks. That’s not the point. What IS the point is that lazy fuckitude does not explain mass unemployment, underemployment, poverty, economic insecurity, social and medical pathologies resulting from economic insecurity, etc., etc., across large populations, though it might explain INDIVIDUAL failures. Do you understand that, Jean? Do you understand the difference between individuals and large groups?

Jean: “Some ARE fuck ups.”

Of course. People vary. Aptitudes vary. Personal decisions do make a difference. Some people are downright lazy fucks. (I personally know one. He has severe mental illness, but he is also a lazy fuck, as far as I can determine after decades of observation.) None of that is in question. Please read what I wrote.

Jean: “So maybe your lecturing Pete or anyone of any political persuasion about what it’s like to be poor is some lefty dogma version of mansplaining.”

I am not lecturing Peter or anyone about what it is like to be poor. Please read what I wrote.

Jean: “It’s not discourse. And it’s not going to sway anyone or encourage a diversity of viewpoints.”

Perhaps not.

Jean: “I’d like to point out that Pete is only self-critical. He rarely disses any of you”

That he is self-critical is a good quality of his. Seriously.

Jean: “It’s clear you hear only the parts of his posts that provoke your political outrage.”

I am hearing all parts of his posts, and as I said he apparently has an unresolved internal contradiction regarding the matter in question.

If you have the inclination, you could read my words and respond to the points I made.

Jean, let me put it another way: “if I can make it, anyone can make it” is wrong, given the implicit and unavoidable (unless explicitly denied) suggestion that “anyone” means “everyone”. Of course it is literally true that anyONE can make it, as I pointed out repeatedly. Any single individual can make it. What counts however is whether whole populations can make it in the face of massive structural impediments to making it. If the context is a discussion of society-wide poverty and inequality, mentioning a personal success anecdote, or saying “if I can make it, anyone can make it” is not only not helpful, it misleads, and indeed it fosters the ugly Malthusian sentiments that I highlighted. I would say that it inevitably fosters those ugly sentiments unless it is immediately and explicitly qualified, in the general form: “If I can make it, anyone can make it, but of course I am talking about individuals, not whole populations. Whole populations in the present economic and policy context CANNOT make it, even though a few individuals might.” See? Do you understand? I ask that sincerely. If I have not made myself clear, then tell me how I can improve. I will listen non-defensively and try to improve.

I don’t really disagree with any of your points Alan. Again it’s about angle of approach. I think Pete’s on to something when he suggests the focus should be on poverty not income inequality. they are not the same thing. Very little has been said about addressing rising poverty in the US for a very long time. Obama has hardly mentioned it in 8 years. Saying we care about it is not the same as doing something about it. We talk about income inequality because that’s a net that catches more fish. It’s an issue 99% of the population geeks affects them directly. I believe they care more about themselves than others in practice even if they believe otherwise about themselves. I have lived in Ann Arbor long enough to see that the initiatives that pass that are called progressive mostly benefit the Middle and upper classes. (The AAATA transportation bill was an exception) So I like what Pete said. You don’t. That’s fine. I’m not going to indulge your pedantic nature by diverting into a discussion of economics when you hurl insults. My point is that the commenters on this blog (not just you; read this thread) seem inclined to jump to insults of people they disagree with politically far too quickly. On that note, Bob I didn’t miss you either. And again, this post was supposed to be about the need for discourse across beliefs. Or so I had hoped.

As a white guy “if I can make it, anyone can make it” is absolutely true. There are few barriers to success for white people in the US if they work at it and use the tools available to them.

However, what is “success?” A high income? Life satisfaction? I mean, we talk over and over about income inequality, which, as I noted before, is a real political problem, but again, given that there are a lot of people who are perfectly happy to make less than national median in respect to what they do, is it a substantive problem?

Having been involved in music for decades, I know many, many broke ass musicians. It is what they do and who their friends are that make life worth living, not whether they make this or that amount of money.

I truly believe that if (as a white guy) one takes advantage of the tools available to you, you can make more money than the national median, because the system is set up to do that. Some people choose not to do that. Some of those people complain about it and look to blame the world when in fact they are just fucking lazy in achieving their goals (like my fucked up familly, or just about all the people in the trailer park). Some people don’t pursue those routes because they choose to do other things or cherish other things in life.

I am not, in any way, arguing that there are not systemic and structural barriers that keep, for example, African-Americans from succeeding. These things exist. I grew up in Mississippi and went to public schools. I can tell you they exist.

I am however, arguing that the US is still very much full of opportunity of all kinds and that simple income is a bad way to measure it.

As for “populations,” the reality is that entire populations won’t and shouldn’t get PhDs, nor should they all have jobs that make six figures. While I certainly think that we should increase the federal minimum wage and increase the EITC (preferably paid for by consumption or VAT taxes like the Scandinavians do. Why wait around all day for rich people?), we can’t assume that anything approaching perfect income equality will ever happen, given that some jobs are worth more than others in monetary terms, and people make different amounts of money through their lifetimes.

While inequality in the US is higher than other individual countries, it has to be pointed out that the US is a big, big place and the largest economy in the world. We house some of the richest people in the world, many of them non-Americans, because many companies have their headquarters here. Bill Gates (who is American) is not going to relocate to Sweden and the wealthiest of Swedes might consider a move to the US so that the entire distribution becomes skewed. Certainly, a move like that would be to take advantage of tax laws, but also because since so many businesses are based here, it just makes more sense.

It also has to be pointed out that the responsibility for dealing with inequality is not simply a federal issue. Most the States have GDPs bigger than many European Countries, yet almost none of them do simple things like provide health care or basic incomes. Any of them could. But they don’t. And you have to ask why. Sure, we can scream and yell about the 1% in Washington, but the problem starts at home, all the way down to the most local of areas. Middle class Americans do not feel that they should have to take responsibility for anyone but themselves and vote in Republican State Governors and legislatures who won’t ask it of them. This is in start contrast to European countries which are mostly tribal states beholden to themselves as a unit (even there the record is mixed.)

The problem is not “the 1%” whatever that is. The problem is that American society is compartmentalized. This is not simply a function of political lobbying, this is embedded in our immigrant culture and there’s not a whole lot that can be done about that in the short term.

I’m sorry to post here. My comments are useless rambling and full of holes. I don’t claim to be smart or capable.

“I am hearing all parts of his posts, and as I said he apparently has an unresolved internal contradiction regarding the matter in question.”

Well, I feel the need to respond to this since it comes up a lot. Yes, given that I come from the trailer and work in the ivory tower, there will inevitably be a contradiction. I fucking hate poor white people in the US. I really do. That they Trump has opportunistically taken advantage of them is offensive, but, in fact, there are a lot of stupid and useless poor white people who hold those views. Not sure how I can like that.

On the other hand, I may be stupid but I’m not a complete idiot. I get how structures can create the poor white people I hate so much so I view them as much as victims of greater wrongs as much as victims of themselves.

To me, one doesn’t have to pick a side. One can recognize that both forces are at play.

At the same time, white liberals, unfamiliar with that world in the realistic sense, attempt to coddle those who don’t need coddling, and that, in itself, is not only condescending, but works to help create policy which makes it worse (if that makes sense.) Republicans like to decry how welfare impacts black people, while ignoring how things like disability checks have enabled the laziness of white people.

Why keep working? You can just claim your back hurts and get a check every month. Or that you’re depressed. Or something. When you should be getting off your lazy white ass and working within that system that was set up for you.

A lot of how I view white poverty (relatively speaking. Even poor white people have it better than most of the world.) is emotional. I admit. But that doesn’t mean I don’t hold professional or scientific opinions on how the world works based on data. The point is that one doesn’t supercede the other.

If that makes any sense. It probably doesn’t.

It’s a strong indicator of the increasing intolerance and fundamentalism in our culture that the idea of holding two mutually contradictory, unresolved feelings,, ideas or perspectives at once is considered a moral and intellectual failing. Acknowledgement of paradox is seen as indicator of faultiness of perspective rather than integrity of perspective. It’s as though the entire intellectual history of the 20th century has been erased. I distrust logic. I’ve been called an enemy of it on this blog. I see it as a badge of honor.

Also the lauded Scandinavian model has extreme income constantly inequality but little it no poverty! — How is it that that never came up during the Dem primary when Sanders camp referred to it constantly. Even the fact that they are market based free trade economies never can up. Because sanders ideas were never vetted. He was good; she was bad. So no point of contradiction could be tolerated. Because discourse is dying and we are all becoming increasingly morally righteous and stupid as a result.

Peter: “As a white guy “if I can make it, anyone can make it” is absolutely true. There are few barriers to success for white people in the US if they work at it and use the tools available to them.”

As I’ve said now ~18 times, you are absolutely positively RIGHT, as regards individuals. Any ONE person can make it. With enough work, plus some luck, plus an odd few other advantages, a lot of people can make it: hundreds of thousands, perhaps even a few (low single-digit) millions. But whole classes in the U.S. CANNOT make it. There are not enough good jobs, and not enough opportunities. For many years, job creation has been limited to low-pay service jobs and similar, and part-time jobs. Yes, you can start your own business, but are you familiar with the failure rate of new businesses? It is a depressing number. The reality for WHOLE CLASSES (i.e. tens and scores of millions) is that THEY CANNOT MAKE IT. They are stuck in low-pay, insecure jobs, without savings, with marginal or no medical care, vulnerable to all kinds of diseases and mental disorders, and on and on.

Social mobility — i.e. the movement from one class (up) to another — is widely perceived to be much more likely than it actually is, in reality. Everyone WANTS to believe that “anyone can make it!” with enough hard work, positive thinking, etc. It is the American ethos of “unlimited opportunity”. But opportunity IS limited, highly, and social mobility is increasingly rare. The situation has become worse in recent decades. This is well-documented. Please look it up. Please become familiar with the relevant literature.

One problem in this discussion has been what seems to be a failure to appreciate the corrosive effects of inequality, and the tendency to dismiss inequality concerns as nothing but the whining of privileged people who want a little more for themselves. Now, as I already wrote, there does exist a bunch of whiners who, without suffering from any serious deprivation, want a little more for themselves; i.e. a narrow, self-centered “concern” about inequality. I get that, and I don’t approve. But that does not mean that inequality (including all the shades on the continuum which ends with its extreme: poverty) is not a serious problem that is undermining the livability and decency of our society.

I advert to the long (decades) of work by epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson, who has shown that economic inequality correlates, almost certainly causally, with much poorer health outcomes, society-wide, as well as breakdown of social cohesion, and other pathology. There is also evidence that inequality undermines democracy. (And, it can be argued that inequality is intrinsically anti-democratic.)

In contrast, and as expected, reduced inequality results in much better health outcomes (i.e. less disease) as well as better general social health and happiness. Wilkinson’s work is described in his book “The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better”, and in numerous articles which you can google up with his name and a few relevant keywords.

Here’s one:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201508/why-income-inequality-threatens-democracy
“Wilkinson…argue[s] that almost every indicator of social health in wealthy societies is related to its level of economic equality… GDP and overall wealth are less significant than the gap between the rich and the poor, which is the worst in the U.S. among developed nations. “In more unequal societies, people are more out for themselves, their involvement in community life drops away,” Wilkinson says. If you live in a state or country where level of income is more equal, “you will be less likely to have mental illness and other social problems,” he argues.”

Note well that embedded point: per capita GDP (absolute number) is less significant than the gap between rich and poor. How much everyone has in absolute terms is less important than the GAP, the relative state, the inequality. This is astonishing and counterintuitive, but there it is. Wilkinson (and now many others) have spent a lifetime researching and verifying it.

In his repeated dismissal of inequality as a significant social problem, Peter seems to be unaware of this work. This is in highly paradoxical relation to his role as doctor of public health. All doctors of public health should be acutely aware of this phenomenon, since it appears to be one of the main drivers of collectively-disastrous health outcomes (i.e. bad public health outcomes), in addition to other social pathology.

And by the way, correction of inequality does not have to mean absolute leveling with everyone getting precisely the same share or income — a common red herring. Correction of inequality starts with reducing or eliminating the EXTREMES, including but not limited to outright poverty. Extreme concentrations of wealth and income, and extreme lack of wealth and income, are the targets.

Let me put it another way: I am personally in favor of inequality. Lots and lots of inequality. I think that some people — people who work harder, have more natural talents, perhaps who have better luck, etc., etc. — should have higher incomes and more wealth than others. Maybe twice as much as others. Maybe thrice as much as others. Hell, maybe even TEN TIMES as much as others. I’m talking major inequality, here! I am 100% in favor of major inequality!

What I have a problem with is when some people have ONE HUNDRED, or ONE THOUSAND, or TEN THOUSAND times as much as others. When one person can buy Nebraska, or Berrien County, we have a ridiculous situation. No one can plausibly argue that differences of that order meaningfully represent differences in willingness to work, natural talents, etc. Differences of that order reflect not meritocracy, but the antithesis of meritocracy, and the failure of society to organize itself sanely. Differences of that order are untenable and guarantee the full array of social pathologies that Wilkinson has documented.

Extreme inequality in the U.S. makes for a sick, crappy, degenerating society full of mentally and physically sick people. If that isn’t a big deal, then what is?

Inequality should be a major concern of progressives. Poverty is naturally the worst of it, but is not all of it.

I wrote: “When one person can buy Nebraska, or Berrien County, we have a ridiculous situation.”

Let’s try a better example: when one person (*cough* Ruppert Murdoch *cough*) can buy and own a major media conglomerate that is responsible for delivering news to (and inculcating opinions and values in) scores of millions of people, then we have worse than a ridiculous situation. We have a socially catastrophic situation. The insanity of the current election cycle is but one modest symptom of what might be the terminal social cancer of wildly-extreme inequality.

At what point might doctors of public health begin to understand this?

Alan– I’m reading all of this. You have a fixed leftist narrative. It’s not all wrong or all right like any narrative– especially political ones. Your dystopic view of the future in which robots replace humans in all labor is especially suspect. That economic prediction has been dispelled countless times. It has also not held up historically. We have been Through massive technology driven economic shifts in production and we have only increased human health, wealth and economic well being. (If we see climate change — arguably a consequence of our drive to increase production but more to my mind a symptom of our habit of resource extraction– anyway if we see climate change as a systemic warning system, it too will be addressed, maybe in time, but certainly by technological advancement not regression) I don’t disagree however that income inequality is a problem and that labor currently is increasingly pressed to produce more and more for less and less, but that also gets solved systemically eventually. Because systems can only tolerate so much imbalance without signaling the need for a restoration of balance. At least for the middle class. The economic costs of a declining middle class are apparent to those who own the means of production. The economic cost of poverty is largely ignored. They are viewed as drain (Pete got to this) and treated as such even by liberals. The poor and marginalized get left behind when economic progress happens. Historically and currently. In progressive cities more so than in conservative or moderate cities. And the only way to prevent the poor from being excluded from economic progress towards equality is to focus on poverty. We did it for a short while in the 60’s and I believe we can do it again. The middle class are an anginr in the capitalist economy. In the end, they will be served. I believe the poor Represent a drain on society precisely because they are not given the means to succeed (v the middle class who are) . The middle class is being squeezed but not oppressed. That they imagine they are tells me that the limits of progress on income inequality will be found once they have been served. That’s unacceptable to me. I’ve seen it happen too many times to believe poverty will be addressed without naming it. I don’t see how it can be addressed by demonizing the wealthy. Many of our most wealthy citizens make it their life’s work to address global poverty. Why should they be demonized and dismissed as incapable of concern for the poor. It’s the middle class who hates and denigrates the poor the second they feel they will have to share any of their wealth. Maybe now having experienced economic squeezing, they will have greater empathy. But signs are no.

When I worked at Zingerman’s and they were talking about raising the base wage for employees, many managers took offense at the idea because they felt they should get a comparable wage increase immediately. Which wasn’t possible. They saw the business wealth as a fixed pie– even in a group of businesses with steady annual growth. They could not see that increasing wages for the under-paid might increase productivity and eventually allow them to benefit from wage increases too. Even though this has been shown repeatedly. Most recently at Walmart. The fixed pie scenario is a scarcity mentality. It’s fear based. And fear is the real enemy of progress.

Many of our most wealthy citizens make it their life’s work to address global poverty. Why should they be demonized and dismissed as incapable of concern for the poor. It’s the middle class who hates and denigrates the poor the second they feel they will have to share any of their wealth.

Is this really what HRC and her supporters believe? I thought she, like many Democrats thought the wealthy could contribute a bit more? Maybe there’s a wing of the party that I’m not familiar with?

Stupid Hick– Pete made that point earlier. He suggested that in a free society some choose paths that pay less and provide less security because it makes them happy.

Peter: “I take issue with the idea that inequality is the single cause of human misery.”

Who on earth ever expressed such a preposterous idea?

Peter: “correlation does not imply causation. Both the US and South Africa have long histories are racism and social exclusion and the US and South Africa have wide inequality and both experienced widespread crime and violence… but the root cause here was not inequality. The root cause was governance through state sponsored violence.”

Neither Wilkinson nor me nor anyone else (that I know) ever suggested that inequality is the cause of all social problems.

Peter: “I don’t think the Rupert Murdoch example is very useful. While FOX News exists, a large number of other news organizations exist as well, as Trump so kindly lets us know on a daily basis. Though the Times is not owned by a single person, it is owned by a group of like minded people who (in the mind of Trump) are enforcing their will in the populace.”

Trump is right, on that point.

The entirety of the mainstream media pushes the same neoliberal, neoconservative/warhawk, corporate line. They have different styles, of course, but the core messages are the same.

No, there is not a “large number” of other news organizations. There are a total of SIX that control about 90% of all viewership. An oligopoly.

I definitely do not think the United States are “unlivable.” That is probably an exaggeration. Yes, of course, some things can be improved, but in the end, Americans, even poor Americans, have an incredibly high standard of living.

Of course, liberal Americans like to fetishize Europe, and they are free to do so, but given the choice, even as a poor American, I would choose to live in the States. It is a better life, in my opinion. I found Europe quite stifling and backward. Japan is another matter.

Regardless, comparing Europe and the States is like apples and oranges. Most of the world will never be able to live as well as Americans, not to say that all of those people are living in a war torn hell, but that Americans truly don’t appreciate how good they really have it.

And not just in terms of material goods.

That statement will incense people, and that’s ok, but when you’ve been a lot of places in the world, your outlook on things begins to change radically.

Americans love to complain and whine. Whining and complaining is necessary in a democracy. The truth is, however, that most Americans have nothing to compare their situation with, outside of fairy tales passed down from their elders. We have it quite good.

I know that makes me an asshole but, given my set of experiences, I can’t simply follow a predesigned political narrative and that had always put me at odds with people. Most folks passionate about politics demand strict adherence to the accepted political narrative (see Bernard Sanders primary bid. Talk about mono-think.)

I will shut up since I am wrong.

I found this:

“In the aftermath of the loss of his first race for office, in 1964, Mr. Bush wrote a heartfelt letter to an old friend: “This mean humorless philosophy which says everybody should agree on absolutely everything is not good.” He continued, “When the word moderation becomes a dirty word we have some soul searching to do.”

in an NYT article abou tGHW Bush. I think it is appropriate.

Again, I am a shithead, simply copying and pasting crap I see on the internet. Anybody can do that. So I apologize.

“Alan: Re: “Many of our most wealthy citizens make it their life’s work to address global poverty.”
Name one.
No, not Bill Gates. He is not addressing global poverty. He is addressing developing world health issues, not poverty.””

I am afraid the writer needs to do some research. He doesn’t even seem to know a whole lot about Gates.

Jean: “Your robots projection is another manifestation of your fixed pie/scarcity mentality.”

You mean the fixed pie/scarcity mentality that wrote these words? — Alan: “robotics will also increase human health, wealth and economic well-being.” I don’t know how to be more clear than that. Could you make a suggestion as to how I could be more clear?

However, it is also true that neither robots, nor anything else foreseeable in the immediate or mid-term future, is a solution to the environmental problems caused by continual growth. Yes, robotics and other technologies will make more stuff with less toil, but we still have a serious structural problem with respect to the environmental impact of both production and consumption. Unqualified growth is not the solution.

Peter’s “zero-sum game”, rooted in what you might call a “fixed pie/scarcity mentality”,
is correct at any given moment in time. This is an unarguable truth. At any frozen moment in time, there is only so much of everything: money, resources, and so on. The escape from the zero-sum game is prospective: to GROW, to create more. We’ve done that for a long time, and it has indeed lifted all boats to some extent. But then we are faced with the environmental problems of continual growth given the current physical economy/structure . The developed world emits far more CO2, per capita, than its rightful share; the U.S. is especially remiss. And that is just one aspect of the environmental and resource stress caused by continual growth. For several reasons, the call for more growth — unqualified — is problematic, and potentially globally suicidal.

Hence, Peter’s point that wealth is not a zero-sum game is correct, but it ignores the elephant-in-the-room reality of the environmental limits to growth, at least for the foreseeable future. In the distant future it is possible, by way of great technical advances, that these limits will be lifted or modified; perhaps in century. But for now, they cannot be ignored.

We all have to adopt something of a “fixed pie/scarcity mentality”, and accept the (partial) zero-sum nature of things, if we want to have a shot at a decent future and a livable planet. It is called “living within our means”, an old axiom.

Apart from environmental destruction, continual growth has other problems which I won’t get into here; just wanted to mention it. You can learn more at the links below, or similar ones.

http://clubfordegrowth.org — “Degrowth is an essential economic strategy to pursue in overdeveloped countries like the United States–for the well-being of the planet, of underdeveloped populations, and, yes, even of the sick, stressed, and overweight “consumer” populations of overdeveloped countries.”

http://steadystate.org — “Perpetual economic growth is neither possible nor desirable. Growth, especially in wealthy nations, is already causing more problems than it solves. Recession isn’t sustainable or healthy either. The positive, sustainable alternative is a steady state economy”

http://vocabulary.degrowth.org — “We live in an era of stagnation, rapid impoverishment, rising inequalities and socio-ecological disasters. In the dominant discourse, these are effects of economic crisis, lack of growth or underdevelopment. This book argues that growth is the cause of these problems and that it has become uneconomic, ecologically unsustainable and intrinsically unjust.”

Well, your information may simply be out of date, or simply due the type of mailing list you are on, but the first part of your statement about wealthy people not doing anything about global poverty is simply wrong, I am sad to say.

People like to trade something that they have for something that they want. Money makes those trades easier to do. Even in places where money has no meaning through government decree, an unofficial market will spring to life, with a generally accepted currency of exchange to serve as a proxy for economic worth. Prisons are one example. North Korea is another.

Peter: “your statement about wealthy people not doing anything about global poverty is simply wrong”

I did not say that wealthy people are not doing anything about global poverty. I said: “name one”. Literally. Name ONE. I want to see some examples. There probably ARE some wealthy people who are doing something in this area; so let’s see it. Are there a lot of them? Do they have a serious commitment? Let’s examine it, shall we?

Unfortunately, the link that Jean gave gives almost no information about this. It is basically a list of big foundations with brief descriptions; very little about poverty. But here again, I am not saying y’all are wrong; I’m just asking for some evidence. I am prepared to be delighted by compelling evidence of a vast outpouring of philanthropic enthusiasm for fighting poverty.

But I am an asshole. I will die soon.

Jean: “We’re rich. We want to stay rich. And that’s a big part of why we are global assholes. But it’s not just the wealthy who are greedy. We are over consumers and under-payers and we are under taxed across the board and we are loaded up with debt from buy cheap shit made in poor places and educations we didn’t necessarily need at top dollar Universities v Community colleges and we want to blame someone– why not the people richer than we are? I’ll believe we care about global warming and the poor when we stop buying so much crap and complaining about taxes while saying we don’t have enough. Until then, I’m not prepared to say the wealthy in the US are any more greedy than the rest of us.”

VERY GOOD POINTS, JEAN.

There is of course the global context, which itself has several spheres, including environmental, socio-economic, etc. Americans surely are spoiled bastards, generally, though this does not mean that we do not have serious class-related (inquality) problems within the country that ought to be addressed. It is a big complex ball of wax with multiple levels, multiple spheres, multiple angles of view, multiple conflicting priorities, mujltiple interests and values. It can be dizzying.

Peter: “Well, then, what was your point? That the readership of this site can’t name anyone except Bill Gates?”

?

We were discussing the commitment (or lack thereof) of rich people to the issue of global poverty. My questions were part of that discussion. I don’t understand YOUR point.

“Americans surely are spoiled bastards.”

This seems to contradict of the arguments on this site, which suggest that Americans have it particularly hard due to forces beyond their control.

Alan: “Our society is way rich enough to allow everyone to work 10-15 hour weeks and live comfortably.”

Peter: “I just don’t see how this could work. Would houses only be built for 10 hours a week? Would my electrician only work ten hours a week? Teachers? Hospital workers? It would take a long time to get anything at all done.”

It is already working. Houses are already being built for 10 hours a week, or 15. The average person in the U.S. only works 15 hours per week, approximately. The problem is distribution — of both work, and pay for work (i.e. distribution of the fruits of work). And I am ignoring the vast amount of useless paper-shuffling and related FIRE economy crap that (if eliminated) would further reduce the number of hours, a lot.

There is abundant evidence that people are more productive, more effective, and happier with shorter work weeks. And there is without question plenty of wealth (real goods) to go around; hell, there is a huge backlog of unsold goods, waiting to be used. We’re drowning in manufactured goods, and housing is in a glut in most places (albeit with exceptions). The 40-hour week is a relic, many decades past its sell-by date.

Productivity has increased phenomenally. What has not increased is sane distribution of the fruits, as well as the hours of work itself (i.e. hours of work too concentrated in 40-hour-per-week jobs). All the wealth (fruits) got funneled to the top. The statistics are clear on this.

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2009/05/31/whats-wrong-with-a-30-hour-work-week/
“there is something problematic with advocating a 30-hour work week at the beginning of the 21st century: a 30 hour week is not short enough! There is mushrooming unemployment amidst mountains of useless products. An hour of labor now produces more goods than has ever been the case in the history of humanity. Combining these means that there is no reason for anyone to work more than 20 hours per week.”

One can only assume that Mr. 2012 was withholding that information with the hopes that one of us might mention it.

I only care about anecdotes, though.

I can tell you subscribe to a particular political ideology that you are very passionate about.

Peter: “one can only assume that Mr. 2012 was withholding that information”

?

What information?

Peter: “[it] does not seem to be the case that workers are working only 15 hours a week, at least according to the data.”

If you take all the full-time jobs and average them out over the whole population, it comes to around 15 hours per week. Give or take. Maybe 20 hours per week would be a better figure, leaving out the very young and very old, etc. And that of course ignores the massive waste, the unnecessary work, which would bring the real figure (number of hours required to provide for everone’s real need) down to ~10 hours, 15 at the most.

Productivity gains over the last 50 years have been fantastic. But most of the wealth got funneled to the top, plus new armies of workers doing unnecessary waste-work were created.

“I can tell you subscribe to a particular political ideology that you are very passionate about.”

YES, comrade Larson! On to a glorious revolution, and the dazzling new worker’s paradise — the United Soviet Socialist States of America (USSSA)!

“I can tell you subscribe to a particular political ideology that you are very passionate about.” — yep. If only everyone would get with the progrom– er program.

Alan is certain. Pete is uncertain. Jean is uncertain.∴ Alan must be right

It’s true that it’s much easier to be or appear to be ‘right’ within a rigid ideology and to come up with solutions that make total sense within a fixed reality or a fixed pie. Being right is very appealing.

It just have never seen any of those pat solutions work out as intended. Human behavior is not rational; it’s reactive, or, more kindly, responsive. I wish the answers were easy. Human beings gravitate to simple massages and simple solutions– This presidential election shows that. We all want a silver bullet. There is no silver bullet.

With all our capacity for reason, we are still the only animals on the planet likely to extinguish ourselves. Reason may just be heightened capacity for self-delusion.

It was fun (if self-indulgent) coming back here for a bit. It resembled discourse in the end, once insults (Pete’s self-assaults excepted) faded away. So maybe it sort of ties out to the intention of the original post in a round about way. Even without Mark intervening. Or mayeb we just wore out the audience.

I know you want solutions to human suffering, Alan. I think most people do, no matter their political orientation. I just think answers developed in a political vacuum don’t work. And no, I don’t have a better answer. Not by myself anyway.

I’m going for a meditative walk now to empty polluted thoughts. Cheers all. Keep up the good work Mark. I mean that.

“If you take all the full-time jobs and average them out over the whole population, it comes to around 15 hours per week.”

That sounds like forced labor.

“I know you want solutions to human suffering,”

Apparently, through forced labor.

Alan: “Americans surely are spoiled bastards.”
Peter: “This seems to contradict the arguments on this site, which suggest that Americans have it particularly hard due to forces beyond their control.”

No one said that Americans “have it particularly hard”. In relative terms, globally, they have it particularly easy. But nevertheless there are gross inequality problems in America, and some Americans (quite a few; scores of millions) live rather crappy lives, and this is wholly unnecessary. At the same time, a great many Americans really are spoiled bastards.

What a mess!

This whole discussion (and indeed the whole world, the global problematique) is a big complex ball of wax with multiple levels, multiple spheres, multiple angles of view, multiple conflicting priorities, multiple interests and values. It can be dizzying.

The world is altogether too complex. I want to be able to reduce everything to a few simple comforting generalizations, and let it go at that.

On a side note: My brother, who works for the GAO, just got back from Malawi and Guatemala where he has been evaluating anti-poverty programs funded by the US government. It will be interesting to read his report in the context of this discussion for sure!

I love Malawi. A great, but troubled place.

“This whole discussion (and indeed the whole world, the global problematique) is a big complex ball of wax with multiple levels, multiple spheres, multiple angles of view, multiple conflicting priorities, multiple interests and values. It can be dizzying.”

In my experience (which apparently doesn’t mean a whole lot), everything is.

Although my experience is limited and I am intellectually deficient, I am having doubts about Mr. 2012’s familiarity with the topic outside of ideological platitudes.

Lynne: “The technology tends to create better paying jobs but fewer of them and that tends to lead to a hollowing out of the middle class with both the upper class and the poverty class growing.”

Is the technology to blame? Or is it the distributional structure, the economic system?

Lynne: “So why aren’t we working 10-15 hours a week as predicted? We could be. We probably should be.”

Yes, could and should. But that would require a sane, human-centered economic system.

Lynne: “managers often tend to evaluate employees based on superficial metrics like how many hours they are in the office over less easy to obtain metrics like the actual amount of work that gets done. That is why you have people putting in face time at the office without actually working.”

This is another huge problem that I did not mention, which further impacts the hours-per-week estimates. There is empirical work showing exactly what you just said: that the actual work getting done in supposed 40-hour weeks is often 20 hours or even less. Add that to all the other factors, and my estimate of 10-15 hours per week as the actual needed amount, to provide everything for everyone in an advanced OECD type country, is probably considerably too high.

Lynne: “What are we going to do when we have more workers than jobs. What we do now, which is to call the poor the lazy and pretend that there are jobs for them when there really aren’t, doesn’t seem adequate.”

You’re being too kind. It is not only inadequate, it is mean and misanthropic.

Jean: “You keep going back to the extract and dispose model as the only one possible. Even though you say otherwise.”

I don’t think I could have written any clearer than I did, Jean. I spoke of how extractivity still prevails at this moment in time, but that it is changing. I certainly never said anything like extraction/disposal is the ONLY model possible! I explicitly said otherwise. I can’t be any clearer, really, so I’ll have to just let it go.

Jean: “We don’t have time for generational shifts.”

That’s the point that the climate scientists are making. Do we believe them?

Without more policy (governmental) incentives, the renewables buildout will take quite some decades (like, a generation or two). Do we have that time? How seriously do we take the climate scientists? Serious questions.

Jean: “You seem to conflate economic consumption of any kind with resource consumption.”

I do?! Again, I could not have expressed myself more clearly, so I’ll have to let it go.

Jean: “Renewable energy consumption does not consume resources.”

That’s why I am a renewables fan, and that is why I highlighted the renewables buildout in the post to which you are responding. And you think I disagree? Why?

Jean: “we did briefly though reduce domestic GHG emissions. Some countries did so brilliantly. Via technology. And market forces mostly.”

Yes, China has been doing a great job in some respects. However, note well that it cannot all be ascribed to technology and market forces. The Chinese government plays a huge role in planning, financing, incentivizing, and so forth.

We need it ALL: more technology, more smart policy guiding markets, more moderation in consumption patterns. ALL. (Note to Jean: did you see the phrase “MORE TECHNOLOGY” at the beginning of that sentence? Let me repeat: WE NEED MORE TECHNOLOGY. ALAN SAYS WE NEED MORE TECHNOLOGY. All righty then.)

How much labor, all kinds, does it take to change the way we fuel, produce and distribute everything?

Plenty.

There will be no 10 hour work weeks anytime soon. Unless humanity wants to perish from benign neglect.

The robots are terrible at system design.

Mr. 2012 is interesting. He seems to see the solutions to complex problems as simply having to do with a strong government. If government would just clamp down on business and individuals, our problems would be solved.

The problem with this thinking should be obvious. but it is an unrealistic trap that many people fall into.

Libertarians are interesting. They seem to see the solutions to complex problems as simply having to do with letting the market sector overrun the public sector, willy nilly. They think that if we just get big gubmint off our backs, all our problems would be solved. The problem with this thinking should be obvious. but it is an unrealistic trap that many people fall into.

Peter: “Now China is a model for the United States. Authoritarianism is quite popular in the United States.”

No way could China in entirety ever be a model for the U.S. Way too different culturally and in other ways. On the other hand, there are things we can learn from them. First, there is a great deal to be learned ABOUT them. I suggest spending a day or two at http://www.inpraiseofchina.com — a long-time (~40 years) China watcher and China resident who writes extensively. Really interesting stuff. Seriously. Try it.

Lynne, please STOP. Everyone knows that the only alternative to the present system is Stalinist dictatorship, mass forced labor, genocide and starvation. Further, anyone who disagrees with this is hopelessly mired in pinko ideology. Period. End of conversation.

Yes, Comrade Larson, force is the only way. Democratic, consensual change is impossible.

I would like to point out that Pete’s suggestion that the US focus on poverty not income inequality is not exactly a libertarian positions (Alan) nor is it against any form of economic redistribution (Lynne). It simply says the focus on the 99% instead of the 14% in poverty may be effective politically but it’s unlikely to serve the most needy in the end.

Because that’s how it has worked historically. We didn’t give a shit about the war on drugs until White middle class kids started getting hooked in big numbers.

But the income inequality narrative is so insistent on its correctness, that it becomes impossible for people to accept any facts that disrupt the narrative. Like, say that Black income and safety and security and health improved during Bill Clinton’s presidency– and that the rate of mass incarceration decreased. No! he instituted welfare reform and the crime bill, so Black well-being as a whole.declined. And it’s his fault. Or hers. The role of the larger economy or other factors are ignored. Only the facts that feed the narrative are allowed. Fixed pie.

Technology is not going to reduce the need for work. It may reduce the need for manual labor, somewhat. It may make physical labor less taxing on the body and improve the length of time a person is able bodied. But people like to work. When we no longer had to perform many domestic tasks like cooking for ourselves, we managed to make a lifestyle fetish of the chore. So I guess that’s not work anymore, because it’s a choice?? I certainly don’t want the government telling me what my job should be and how many hours I can work or not work. That doesn’t make me a libertarian or anti-labor.

I once did a task that was supposed to take me a week in 4 hours, because I hated it and had other work that was more important to me. My manager didn’t send me home with the same pay, or allow me to move on to other tasks. He decided that I was gifted at reading policy and tasked me with getting 4 months work done in a week, maybe two. I quit.

Sometimes people chill out at the office because they are working at warp speed the rest of the time and need a rest. No one lets them go home with pay. No one ever will.

This is a silly conversation where factors that don’t confirm the inevitability of the preferred future are dismissed.

It is however a good example of the need for multiple perspectives to weigh in on any political issue.

Jean: “This is a silly conversation where factors that don’t confirm the inevitability of the preferred future are dismissed.”

?

Jean: “I certainly don’t want the government telling me what my job should be and how many hours I can work or not work.”

Comrade Jean, you must submit to the will of the people, the dictatorship of the proletariat. All part of the glorious process of building the communist utopia.

It was implied that I was a Libertarian. Given that, I am require to defend myself.

“This is like reliving the Bernie ‘revolution’ all over. White privileged people feeling great about themselves and their concern for the little guy while proposing solutions that will mostly benefit them.”

lol

Did Mr. 2012 say that the robots would allow us to live in developing countries? I missed that.

He still doesn’t see a problem with forcing people to work and that’s strange to me.

Living in developing countries is not particularly cheap by the way.

Re: I’m simply unsure of any other way to achieve your goals, except through force.

I suppose technically, someone will be forced to accept it one way or another since our republic doesn’t require unanimous support from the people. Still, I am ok with such governance in general.

I think all of my goals can be achieved little by little over time. For instance, it really wouldn’t take much to remove the cap on Social Security and reduce the retirement age if just a few more people can be persuaded that this is a good idea. Divorcing health care from employment is more difficult but it can be done legislatively by eliminating the tax credits to employers who provide health insurance (one of many tax credits that tends to benefit the middle class so that should appeal to you) combined with a mandate that people must have insurance. Yes, some employers will still provide health insurance but over time, you would see a reduction. Is a basic income a long way off? Sure but this technology based reduction in labor is not going to happen overnight so the solution doesn’t need to either. We can take steps to get there and many of these steps are already being discussed.

Re: It simply says the focus on the 99% instead of the 14% in poverty may be effective politically but it’s unlikely to serve the most needy in the end. </i?

The privilege apparent in this part time work scenario being spun out is really something.

How so? I really don’t see this as something which would benefit the privileged excessively at the expense of the poor. Sure if someone high up on the food chain of our labor market works hard, they can sometimes provide better circumstances to their employees but they so seldom do that it is remarkable when a business treats its employees well. It seems to me that changing the system in order to empower workers to make their own choices about how much to work would be better.

Re: I propose we close the half the city-owned public parks in Ann Arbor and build affordable housing there.

Yeah, because poor people don’t enjoy parks, right? I would say that things like public parks are especially important to those with less money because they provide good healthy recreation to all citizens at low cost. And there is no reason for such a ridiculous proposal either. A better solution is to increase property density and keep the parks, speaking of an increasing amount of pie.

Given that much free time, most people would want to work and make money. I know I would.

Pete! Didn’t you hear? They are already rich enough and well cared for by the state. They don’t need to work more and I don’t think the state will let them. To work more would be greedy.

These captchas are challenging at this point…

Re: “Given that much free time, most people would want to work and make money. I know I would.”

Yep. This is one reason why I favor a solution like a universal basic income or even lowering the retirement age in SS. The idea is to get enough people out of the labor market which both increases wages and makes more jobs available. This would allow those who want to work a better chance of finding a job and a higher wage if they do get one. Alternately we could do nothing and then wait for the frustration to bubble up politically. If we do nothing, our current wage stagnation is going to get worse. Unemployment is going to get worse. People very well may want to work but the problem is that the work is not going to be available to them in the form of jobs and as a society, we should prepare for that.

Re: “We had a war on poverty. It was politically and socially effective. While it lasted. The 99% thing is so powerful politically, it can get drive populist mania around unqualified candidates with no workable plans”

It obviously wasn’t politically effective or at least not for very long. Welfare is just as powerful politically. Basically people are for it if they perceive that it is going to people wo are like them and opposed to it if they feel it is benefiting people not in their “in-group”. This is the challenge of all programs and is exactly why framing the issue as the 99% might actually be beneficial in that programs which benefit everyone are more likely to be adopted even if they happen to benefit the poor more in terms of relative benefit.

Re: “Been to San Francisco lately?” Not in the last 2 years but when I was there, it was obvious to me that the parks were an especially important resource for folks, especially homeless people who often were sleeping in them. Interesting that you should bring up that city though. It is a city where the middle class has been all but pushed out so you are left with extremes of wealth and the whole bay area has problems with that in terms of getting needed middle class workers into the area.

Re: “What would the punishment be for working too much?” Oh the usual. Time away from one’s family. Guilt at memes about how many people regret working so hard when they are on their death beds. If a whole group wants to work too much, the punishment would be that some people would do all the work leaving lots of people who want to work with no work to do. No formal punishment of course.

Honestly, I don’t think most people really understand the implications of limiting growth to preserve neighborhood character or for other reasons. I recently got into an argument with someone about the new high rises in Ann Arbor. They thought that the high rises are the cause of the high rents in town. Sometimes people do things that they think will be helpful but which are not. I am not sure that calling them selfish privileged assholes is helpful although I suppose I can understand the impulse :)

Yes, we should look to the Bay Area since similar forces are at play in Ann Arbor and yes you are correct that privileged people, and especially those who live in places like SF and AA where they pretty much are surrounded by people similarly privileged, are ignorant about the concerns of the poor. However, I wonder how things like social media might be helping or hurting. Are we exposed to poor people more? I don’t know. I know that growing up, I was exposed to a lot of poor people and now, less so even in Ypsi. I acknowledge that I may be lacking perspective in that area although I have seen NOTHING which suggests to me that you are in a better position than I am. You seem white, educated, and at least as privileged as I am.

I admit that it is true that people of privilege have more time to think of things like how our society is going to deal with the impending labor surplus crisis. I don’t understand why it matters if the good ideas come from privileged people or less privileged people as long as such programs serve everyone. I don’t even understand why you object to such programs being given political weight by making them appeal to the middle class.

Good workable ideas come from the input and engagement a diversity of people, especially the people most affected. They don’t come from smart people operating in a political and social vacuum. That’s the central tenet behind democracy. It seems very few people on the far left or right lately had to forge and implement compromise solutions. They seem short on the concept of democracy and believe participatory democracy is only about getting their perspective heard.
I’m well educated, Lynn. I grew up in a working class right wing community with back to the land parents when that wasn’t cool. My mom grew up very wealthy. I have worked in the food business for 30 years. I’ve done lots of manual labor including ranch work and truck driving. By choice.. I chose to be working class and my income says I am. But I know my privilege. I own my house in AA. My friends with similar incomes do not. And they are being pushed out. I know a lot of homeless people in town and some of the richest people in town. I don’t know what it’s like to be poor but I try to understand. I have many friends who struggle in poverty, on disability, etc. and many who have made it out. I give a shit. I try not too segregate myself from any kind of person. I try too go towards people who are different than me. I listen to them. I’ve had a rich life as a result. I’m pleased I was able to choose it for myself.

Lynn– if you look at income segregation for San Francisco, it looks like there isn’t any. Why? Because there are almost no poor people left with housing. When my mom grew up there were lots of very rich and very poor people in SF. it was a city famous for being the most diverse in the country. Not any more. But income inequality is down according to the data. So there’s that. No one cared about the poor on the tech boom90’s when I lived there. I watched each neighborhood get taken over by young ambitious people. No one takes about income inequality until there was no more room for young educated people and artists to move in or stay. They did not care about who they displaced until people like them were displaced. I left because they were destroying a place a loved. I didn’t want to raise my kid in a place so removed from everyday reality

“This is one reason why I favor a solution like a universal basic income or even lowering the retirement age in SS. The idea is to get enough people out of the labor market which both increases wages and makes more jobs available.”

I’d still work, probably under the table. One never has enough money. There are a lot of people like me. Truthfully, most people are like me. Believe it or not, most people like making money through work.

“If a whole group wants to work too much, the punishment would be that some people would do all the work leaving lots of people who want to work with no work to do.”

I’m still scratching my head. Work isn’t a finite resource. Work (like wealth) can be created or destroyed. As people become more numerous and wealthy, the number of jobs also becomes more numerous, The converse is true as well, creating a cycle of wealth creation and job creation. The problem in the States has not been that there isn’t enough work, it’s that wages haven’t kept up with inflation, a complex issue that a ten hour work week would simply make worse.

You know, automation and NAFTA happened and there was barely any effect on unemployment. The crash increased unemployment, but now we’re back again, so I’m not sure what people are talking about. There has always been work, because people like to work and like to buy things, and there are people who sell and make things for people to buy them, and hire people to do it for them. It’s pretty simple. This idea that work is an ever rarer commodity is just preposterous.

All of this sounds like what people were talking about when NAFTA was signed. Note that their predictions of massive unemployment didn’t come true. No one could have predicted that wages wouldn’t keep up, but, again, that likely has more to do with the finance sector than NAFTA or automation. Even without NAFTA, wages would still likely be stagnant.

Pete and Jean, I think Alan is mostly right about the economy. If you haven’t heard of “Modern Monetary Theory”, which he referred to earlier, read the wikipedia page. Funny thing is, it’s not really a theory, it’s description of reality. Money really isn’t what most people think it is. Take the red pill.

I am not sure why you have included my name there. I have said nothing at all about monetary policy.

While it may be true that the amount of “effort” expended in any given day of “work” may take only a fraction of the total time spent there, the exact moment that the “effort” is needed can be unpredictable. A salesperson can only make a sale when potential clients are available. A fireman can only respond to actual fires. A nurse can only provide care when a patient needs it. A chef can only prepare meals for diners in the restaurant. Part of the compensation for an employee from an employer is to ensure the availability of the employee to perform certain tasks in a reliable and consistent manner. If it helps, think of your “nonproductive” time on the job as a retainer.

It’s a crack pot theory. Amazing how sidelined one can get trying to address those with real world examples. The idea that job creation and job loss is part of the larger economy and not a static state is just conveniently, and bafflingly, excluded. There are a million holes in the theory. So many it seems plausible to some– like a lot of political ideas that are out there. We love easy answers. A perfect illustration has been made of why a few people should not try to solve problems for the many, even when (or especially when) hey imagine themselves more clever than others. Good solutions and smooth implementation derive from the participation in decision making of the many. There was a great thing on MI radio yesterday about the necessity of respectful listening to other people’s perspectives across political difference. I think that assumed people wouldn’t hold on so tightly to terrible unworkable ideas. Or maybe the woman interviewed had tremendous patience. Maybe it works better IRL. Maybe if there were more acceptance of differing opinions, people would not cling so tightly. I don’t know. I know governance in a land of ‘always righters’ is a nightmare. My fever broke and I am happy to be able to work today. Cant wait to get started.

Speaking of crackpot ideas, I’m reading the Wikipedia page for “the Population Bomb.”

This is some really out there stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

“countries would be divided into categories based on their abilities to feed themselves going forward. Countries with sufficient programmes in place to limit population growth, and the ability to become self-sufficient in the future would continue to receive food aid. Countries, for example India, which were “so far behind in the population-food game that there is no hope that our food aid will see them through to self-sufficiency” would have their food aid eliminated. Ehrlich argued that this was the only realistic strategy in the long-term. Ehrlich applauds the Paddocks’ “courage and foresight” in proposing such a solution”

“Ehrlich floats the idea of adding “temporary sterilants” to the water supply or staple foods. However, he rejects the idea as unpractical due to “criminal inadequacy of biomedical research in this area.””

“He proposes a powerful Department of Population and Environment which “should be set up with the power to take whatever steps are necessary to establish a reasonable population size in the United States and to put an end to the steady deterioration of our environment.””

Good thing no one listened to this guy.

*limbic
So many phone typos. Can’t easily correct on my phone. apologies to anyone bothering to read this garbage for frequent misspellings and autocorrect word salads

Jean: “Everything Lynn and Alan have said is premised on the idea of the end of work [i.e. jobs –alan]. There won’t be enough work [read: decent jobs –alan] to go around. They refuse to question that premise, even though it’s an absurdity.”

What you call an “absurdity” is a slowly-unfolding (over the last couple generations), continuing (for the next generation at least) reality, and a well-documented one. I can’t do your reading for you. You’ll have to do it yourself.

Jean: “This idea that we have reached a point where there will be and can be no more growth. But it’s not a fixed pie… I’m so confused.”

I can understand the confusion, if we leave “growth” undefined. Also, you seem to be fixated on this “fixed pie” idea. I explained in detail my view on this, above. Check it out. Search for the word “fixed” in my posts.

At this link, Randall Wray ( prominent exponent of Modern Monetary Theory or MMT that I mentioned above) argues against universal basic income and similar, and FOR a job guarantee at a living wage:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/12/randy-wray-answer-unemployment-problem-jobs.html

He provides a different angle of view, and an alternative prescription, for the basic problem of distribution and equity in relation to the monumental fact (mentioned above) of just how wealthy our society has become. It is obvious that the current order is insane as well as unjust, and that something has to be done to reorganize things; the question of course is *what*, and there’s much to discuss about that, without any perfectly clear-cut answers as yet.

Wray takes progressives to task in a challenging way. I enjoyed it.

Wray makes some great points, such as:

“There is no better anti-poverty program than jobs for those who want to work. Offering a job is a hand-up not a hand-out. Working promotes community. It allows for shared prosperity. We all benefit when everyone works. It is consistent with American values…. We need policies consistent with American values of work, initiative, self-sufficiency, and productivity. We need policies that promote community-building.”

Excellent point. The peculiarities of American culture must be accounted for, and in this light perhaps his job-guarantee proposal makes the most sense for the U.S.

He also makes the excellent point that a job-guarantee program could garner support from both sides of the political spectrum, unlike universal basic income and similar. Political realities should always be part of the discussion, though perhaps should not completely dominate it.

The problem(s) at issue are difficult and multi-faceted, and call for intelligent discussion. There’s no room for idiocy like Stalinistic imposition of 15-hour work weeks — which of course no one here suggested, nor would anyone ever suggest it.

BTW, nakedcapitalism.com is a great blog with many fascinating discussions. Sometimes the comments below the posts are better than the posts.

Peter: “automation and NAFTA happened and there was barely any effect on unemployment. The crash increased unemployment, but now we’re back again”

Not quite. Huge numbers of jobs have been created, yes — low-pay, no-benefit part-time and other jobs. Hence the unemployment stats from the BLS look good. But the situation in reality is bad. (There’s that nasty reality, again. Pardon.)

Also, BLS does not count discouraged or “marginally attached” workers, i.e. people who have given up looking for work, usually because they cannot find anything. Great way to do statistics, huh? Just DON’T COUNT all the ones who would cause your numbers to reflect an unpleasant reality. (There’s that nasty reality again. Pardon.)

Automation and NAFTA happened, and there has been a steady decimation of the middle-middle and lower-middle that depended on decent-paying manufacturing jobs. And, as a result of that, we’ve seen a dramatic increase in social pathology of all kinds, culminating in excess deaths of many hundreds of thousands working-class people. (There’s that nasty public health angle, again. Pardon.) Excess deaths: search for Angus and Deaton.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/white-working-class-poverty/424341/
“in the late ’90s … the number of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. dropped dramatically. Intensified by free-trade deals such as NAFTA, the hollowing-out of American industry then was much greater, in terms of the absolute number of jobs lost, than what the country experienced during its first wave of deindustrialization.”

But actually, the hollowing-out started much earlier:

http://www.basicincome.com/basic_rifkin.htm
“The father of cybernetics, Norbert Weiner, became so fearful of the high-tech future he and his colleagues were creating that he wrote an extraordinary letter to Walter Reuther, president of the United Auto Workers, pleading for an audience. He warned Reuther that the cybernetic revolution “will undoubtedly lead to the factory without employees…and the unemployment produced by such plants can only be disastrous,” and promised Reuther his full backing and personal loyalty in any concerted national campaign by organized labour to address the issue.
Reuther was initially sympathetic and began to faintly echo Weiner’s concerns before congressional committees and in public addresses. Despite all of the public rhetoric, however, organized labour proved far more conciliatory behind closed doors in the collective bargaining process. Fearful of being branded as modern-day Luddites and obstacles to progress, unions for the most part capitulated to management on the issues surrounding automation.
While the unions were correct in their belief that automation would shrink the ranks of the unskilled labour force, they grossly overestimated how many high-skilled jobs would be created by the new technologies. They failed to grasp the central dynamic of the automation revolution –management’s single-minded determination to replace workers with machines wherever possible, and, by so doing, reduce labour costs, increase quality control, and improve profit margins.”

Peter: “…people who view wealth (or jobs) as some zero sum game where everything is fixed forever.”

Where can I find someone — anyone — who views things that way?

BTW, Jean, I read your techcrunch.com link on automation and jobs. But I found this comment after the article to be more insightful than the article itself:

https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/13/robots-wont-just-take-jobs-theyll-create-them/
Andrew Dundas · University of South Florida
They ignore that the Great Depression was the result of farm workers jobs being automated, when there were no labor laws, and no social safety nets for displaced workers. They ignore the government’s part in assisting in the transition of workers into new careers, with food, housing, and education. They don’t discuss how the increases in productivity by automation in some markets is rarely distributed back throughout the economy with lower prices today. If a company automates first in their marketplace they just reap more profits. Automation is a leading cause of the extreme wealth gap that exists today.
While new jobs will form, it’s unlikely they will form at the same rate as jobs disappear. They use examples from the past centuries, but it wasn’t until the 1970’s that the “Great Decoupling” happened. Productivity decoupled from the labor markets. Since then companies across the whole economy have been able to increase production and profit, while reducing the volume of labor. The fundamental economic principles of our economy were built on the relationship of productivity and labor.
The other problem with old examples is that robots and computers today are much more capable and complex. They can analyze stocks and trade quicker than stock brokers. Both parties support a tax on “speculation” which is targeted at the quick trading machines dominating the stock market. The computer Watson just diagnosed a woman when doctors had failed, it saved her life. I have no doubt there will be a large volume of unemployment soon. In some communities there already is 30% unemployment, and in our current economy there aren’t jobs for most people in these communities.”
The point I always like to make is that we have a highly productive society, which is becoming ever more productive with less effort; we can produce the basic needs of a ever growing population with little effort. People will still want to work and lead productive lives; that’s important for humanity. So, we need an economy that distributes the gains in productivity so that everyone’s basic needs are met. Without redistribution the economy will be stagnant, with most of the gains in productivity from automation hoarded. Robots will free us up to live better lives, with more enjoyable jobs, but only if we engineer the proper economy for the futute.
Like · Reply · Aug 9, 2016 2:19pm

……………………..

worth a repeat:

“we have a highly productive society, which is becoming ever more productive with less effort; we can produce the basic needs of an ever growing population with little effort”

Yep. Technology is wonderful. Now if only we can get the distribution stuff solved.

Funny thing about solving distribution problems, comrade Alan. First you must solve greed and fear. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

That quotation was truncated. Here is the rest of the thought. “Many Americans, and most politicians, found it difficult to accept the notion of providing people a guaranteed income because they believed it would seriously undermine the work ethic and produce a generation of Americans unwilling to work at all. ”

Like I mentioned already, comrade Alan, distribution problems are limited by human nature. That can and will change, but not by dictate.

Jcp2: “That quotation was truncated. Here is the rest of the thought. “Many Americans, and most politicians, found it difficult to accept the notion of providing people a guaranteed income because they believed it would seriously undermine the work ethic and produce a generation of Americans unwilling to work at all.”

Yes, lots of people think that guaranteed income would have an adverse moral impact on people, sap the will to work, etc. That can be handily empirically refuted; i.e. it is not true.

You did a bit of quote-truncation yourself, there, Sir Jcp2. The passage that you quoted is followed by THIS: “While the commission’s recommendations languished, the federal government did carry out a number of pilot projects to test the viability of providing a guaranteed annual income. To its surprise, the government found that it did not appreciably reduce the incentive to work, as many politicians had feared.”

There has been a bunch of other work demonstrating the same thing. Guaranteed incomes do NOT result in people working less or becoming lazy.

But nevertheless, what people believe (regardless of the facts) plays a big role in this, I grant. The political palatability/possibility issue. I highlighted this issue above, in the post about Wray’s job guarantee writeup. As Wray writes: “We need policies consistent with American values of work, initiative, self-sufficiency, and productivity”, and guaranteed incomes are not all that consistent with same. I like the idea of a guaranteed income, but prevailing attitudes in the U.S. might render it politically impossible. We’ll see. The proposal has never been fully aired-out.

I don’t see what this has to do with “human nature” (whatever that means).

So, were do you stand on this? Are you still engaging, or have you given up on the idea that meaningful discussion can still be had?

Comrade Alan, if humans always said what they believed, and believed what they said, we would already be where you want us to be. However, humans can be emotional beings, selfish and altruistic, greedy and fearful. You mentioned already that certain things may be politically impossible at this time. But what is politics but one expression of these feelings? As are ethics, economics, and theology. Live a good and decent life and treat the people you meet as well as you can. In the end we are all dead to this world; if we are fortunate our ideals will persist past our earthly existence in those that we have interacted with.

I miss EOS.

You asked me what human nature had to do with a universal basic income and/or guaranteed employment with reduced hours and/or equitable distribution of produced wealth, as all of these socioeconomic initiatives are theoretically sound, with some showing promise in limited demonstrations. My response is that although I agree in principle with these proposed solutions, I do not know if they are the only solutions, or the best solutions, only that they are not currently practical solutions because these solutions require a fundamental change in societal norms, which in turn are based on prevailing individual behaviors and expectations.

This idea that people working longer hours don’t create the opportunity for other people to get work (i.e. Create employment) is completely and demonstrably wrong. It is also the basis for all sorts of xenophobic nonsense and all forms of protectionism.

The anti-globalist movement was right about the possibility of overreach but very wrong about the economic impact. World wide poverty cut in half! US employment impact is neutral overall, in spite of the recession. Wage stagnation is no due to underemployment but a financial sector out of whack trying to meet unrealistic and foolhardy quarterly profit expectations. It’s an easy fix. The system is out of balance and will self correct. The economy needs a beefy middle class. The finance sector knows that now.

There will be no 10 hour work week. It’s an absurdity.the only reason to continue talking about it is to point up how this inability to see the economic picture as dynamic feeds into a lot of bad think (esp protectionism) on the left and the right. The scarcity mentality creates greed and selfishness. I feel a need to point up again that the 10 hour work week if implemented (even with a guaranteed) would hamstring the poor from any economic mobility. But if this thread has made anything clear, it’s that the needs and concerns of the poor are easily disregarded– even by the most diehard ‘progressives.’

Jean: “World wide poverty cut in half!”

Yes, I was high on that statistic myself, and then I started reading a bit deeper. It seems that the World Bank’s portrayal of things is not 100% unbiased and reliable. Shocking, that.

Jean: “US employment impact is neutral overall, in spite of the recession.”

See posts above.

Jean: “There will be no 10 hour work week.”

See posts above.

No one ever suggested a 10 hour work week, so why you bring it up is anyone’s guess.

Jean: “if this thread has made anything clear, it’s that the needs and concerns of the poor are easily disregarded– even by the most diehard ‘progressives.’”

If this thread has made anything clear, it is that some discussants have a very hard time paying attention to the words to which they are supposedly responding.

Jcp2: “I would imagine that UBI would not be a great hit with this quarter of the worlds population.” [“this quarter” = the Muslims, right?]

Why do you imagine that? Why do you imagine that Muslims would not be receptive to socialistic or social-democratic ideas?

Take one example: Gaddafi, the Muslim leader of a Muslim nation, was a socialist (made clear in his “Green Book” published in the 70s) and was instrumental in instituting free housing, free education, free medical care, free electrical power, and numerous other social-democratic types of social supports in Libya — easily equivalent to a UBI. Citizens were also credited directly with a portion of the proceeds from oil sales; that IS a UBI of a sort. Of course, that was before Hillary et al bombed the shit out of Libya, reducing much of it to rubble. (Can’t have any pinko socialists running around creating societies that take care of their people, now can we?) Regardless, here was a Muslim nation that had either a UBI or something comparable to it, or exceeding it.

So again, tell me why you imagine that UBI or similar would be unacceptable to Muslims?

Jcp, your comment was: “I would imagine that UBI would not be a great hit with this quarter of the worlds population”, i.e. Muslims. You imply that there is something about the Islamic faith that would lead to rejection of social democracy or UBI.

I gave you an example of how a Muslim nation embraced UBI or the equivalent. Whether or not Gaddafi was an authoritarian is beside the point (i.e. the point that you raised, pertaining to whether or not Muslims would cleave to social democracy). A Muslim nation embraced UBI-like social democratic programs, and they were not prisoners. They were all free to go, but they did not go because they liked it pretty well, and for good reason. Libya, before Gaddafi was killed and before we bombed the shit out of it and reduced it to chaos, was one of the richest and best places to live in Africa. Gaddafi was an asshole in some ways, and in other ways a great leader. Mixed bag.

My comment was not intended to “advance a social agenda” in the U.S. My comment was intended to reply to what you wrote.

http://listenliberal.com

I guess they were right. The Democratic Party is now for the intellectual and financial elite. I apologize for questioning you’re insulting of poor whites and the middle class. I never got the memo. Apparently that is the party line these days.

Alan makes a plausible observation that in the USA everyone’s basic needs could be taken care of, and everyone who wants to work could have a job, and there would still be plenty of privilege left over for the rich. It might be true, so why not talk about that instead of yelling “commie”?

Fine. So you people think that I am attacking Mr. 2012 unfairly. I would remind everyone that Mr. 2012 has never been exactly friendly to me. I am sure that he will admit this.

I do not think I have been unfair to Mr. 2012 and if I have, I am sorry. I tend to be insensitive. It is one of my many major failings.

Aside from that, I understand that Mr. 2012 believes that what he suggests is necessary to providing for the welfare of whatever citizenry/residency. However, there is a balance to be drawn between the welfare of the populace and the rights of the individual, a balance he either is not aware of, or chooses to ignore. His example of Muammar Gaddafiwas especially telling (he seems to overlook who killed him and the numerous assassination attempts against him despite his financial favors to his supporters).

Not that anything I say at all matter, governments have to strike a balance between providing for the populace and protecting individual rights, that latter of which Mr. 2012 is silent on. It was clear that in Libya, many people felt disenfranchised from the leadership of MG. These people apparently don’t matter (because “free stuff”) and I find that interesting.

“Whether or not Gaddafi was an authoritarian is beside the point (i.e. the point that you raised, pertaining to whether or not Muslims would cleave to social democracy).”

That’s amazing.

Everyone in Libya were happy as clams until mean Hillary ‘bombed the shit out of them.’

Unbelievable.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/08/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war.html

Whether or not we can take resources and redistribute them and everyone would be better off is beside the point. I’m all for greater balance (I even would support reparations) but this total redistribution of assets and labor fantasy is really fucked up.

If the point was to make some point about fairness, then none of this plausibility discussion is necessary.

If the point is to really wind out this idea (and I asked for that which I regret, because a bad idea has only become exponentially worse, but Mr 2012 persists doggedly) then I think we all need to imagine that the progrom begins with us. I’d like 20% of your resources right now. I’d like to completely disrupt your life, the business you work for or own, and the same for everyone else in the country, because in the end it will be more fair. Liquidate 20 – 40% of your assets now. The entire economy will fall to pieces. But you know the finance sector already did that, so why cant we?

We will all be extremely poor and the economy domestically and globally will spiral into free fall, but you know, it will be worth it. Now. Everyone fall in line.

It’s true people will suffer and they may even rebel violently, but the State will make it clear to anyone who cares that we are doing great, that the people are happy. (And if you’re not happy, we’re coming for you.)

I’m not here to defend Alan. I think the implications of MMT are interesting. As I said earlier, I don’t think most people understand what money really is, which may be why some posters can only conceive Alan must be advocating confiscating and redistributing property. Money does not have to be dug out of the ground, it is constantly “printed” to support policy goals. The question is what goals should it serve.

“MMT over-simplifies the challenges of attaining non-inflationary full employment by ignoring the dilemmas posed by Phillips curve analysis; the dilemmas associated with maintaining real and financial sector stability; and the dilemmas confronting open economies. Its policy recommendations also rest on over-simplistic analysis that takes little account of political economy difficulties, and its interest rate policy recommendation would likely generate instability.”

http://www.thomaspalley.com/docs/articles/macro_theory/mmt.pdf

Is it time to disengage?
Yes, I think it has be shown to be so.
Elaborately. Extravagantly.
.

Peter: “First Trump, then China, now Qaddafhi. There is a pattern here.”

Yes, a distinct pattern. I called Trump an asshole, several times. I called Gaddafi an asshole; as of the last post, many times.

China… well, that is a very big subject, and one that you seem to have no interest in, so I don’t even know what you’re talking about.

Alan– you too read selectively. Pete’s point was that your program requires extensive state control to implement and maintain. And your examples all happen to be places where state control is and was oppressive. Saying Gaddafi was an asshole, does not make the rest of the idea sound. Gaddafi was an asshole in order to be able to autocratically implement the radical reforms he did. (Also Libya was extraordinarily resource rich, not rich via economic productivity like the US. He was pulling the means out of the ground; we cant do that. You objected to this pattern yourself.) A friend of mine, a political activist/artist from Chile, described American leftists like this: They are naive. They don’t understand what is required to get everyone to march in the same direction.”

Maybe Pete’s arguing with you because your ideas are unsound and their presumptions dangerous. (and increasingly common)
Maybe he’s arguing with you because you immediately jumped to personal attacks against him and assumptions about his political ideas at the beginning of the ridiculous thread, in which your ideas have been excessively and elaborately indulged. Most people would simply laugh and not argue you. Pete’s showing you more respect than they are.

My point was that we here had questions about implementation and impact that you could not answer adequately, and those points appeared to be validated by much more legitimate analysis of the policy.

I’m sorry that anyone disagreeing with you prompts you to yell.

Jean: “Pete’s point was that your program requires extensive state control to implement and maintain.”

What is “my program”? You don’t know, do you? That’s because I’ve never suggested a program, a specific path toward social justice goals. I’ve mostly pointed out how badly unjust is the existing system. And you and Peter have interpreted this, absurdly, as a demand for immediate Stalinistic societal reconstruction. You guys are like cartoon characters.

Expansion of the public sector can be a matter of consensual democratic change. I suppose, if your mind is sufficiently perverted, that this could be interpreted as wickedly Stalinistic “extensive [authoritarian] state control”. Such perversion is characteristic of right-wing assholes. I do not take you to be a right-wing asshole. But you do utter some things that are perfectly consistent with the utterances of right-wing assholes, as does Peter.

There are different ways to achieve similar ends. I’ve been attracted to libertarian socialism (libertarian in the original sense, not in the sense latterly acquired from anarcho-capitalist types) and mutualism. Free-market anti-capitalism, as Kevin Carson calls it. I see this as possibly a better way to go for the U.S., which has so deeply internalized the free market meme. We need policies, and a system, that is consistent with the American ethos and ideal. As Randy Wray wrote (quoted above): “We need policies consistent with American values of work, initiative, self-sufficiency, and productivity.” Yes. Culture is important. What we do needs to be consistent with American culture and its biases.

You didn’t know any of that, because you’ve never asked. You never inquired as to what “my program” might be. You simply took a few observations and twisted them into unrecognizable rubbish.

Jean: “your examples all happen to be places where state control is and was oppressive.”

I did not even give any examples, if by examples you mean existing systems that model what I would consider admirable and worthy of emulation. The reason Libya came up was in response to Jcp, who suggested that Muslims would necessarily reject UBI or social democratic types of policies. Libya, however deeply flawed, was a counter-example. Jcp never responded to that.

Jean: “Maybe Pete’s arguing with you because your ideas are unsound and their presumptions dangerous. (and increasingly common)”

You have failed to indicate how my ideas are unsound. You don’t have a clue as to what my ideas even ARE.

Jean: “Maybe he’s arguing with you because you immediately jumped to personal attacks against him and assumptions about his political ideas”

My points about the mean and Malthusian implications of his clearly and repeatedly stated views remain unanswered.

Jean: “Saying a criticism is also evident in Libertarian thought does not make it invalid, even if Libertarianism itself is stupid.”

Libertarianism is indeed pretty damn stupid, and consistency with libertarian (in the anarcho-capititalist sense) ideas is a fair general litmus test for probable invalidity. Not certain, just probable.

Alan you position are anti-democratic. That’s the core issue. It’s easy to come up with perfect seeming answers in an ideological vacuum and very self gratifying. It’s useless practically however.

jean: “Alan we explored in detail several of your ideas and Lynns guaranteed minimum income idea.”

The guaranteed income idea was never “explored in detail”. It was mentioned. That’s all. And that’s cool. If you don’t want to explore it, that’s fine. Personally, I don’t even think it is the best of ideas for the U.S., as I made clear several times, because of the cultural peculiarities of this country. Other approaches to similar ends would probably work better here. And if you don’t want to explore those, that’s cool too. Whatever.

Somehow you have the idea that my making of many posts, some of them passionate, means that I am insisting that everyone agree with me. That’s hardly the case. If I present some ideas with passion, that means I feel passionately about some things. If others disagree, that is fine. All I ask is that the disagreement be at least marginally intellectually respectable, not just silly talking right-wing talking points, or ignorant dismissals.

I have been reading up on MMT fwiw and have not yet formed much of an 0pinion on it but it is interesting. I do wish more economists were better writers though because wow, most of the stuff available is boring even for an economics wonk like me. :) Thanks for the links though.

I’m not ignorant Alan. I asked Stupid Hick to expand upon their statement, so I can fully understand their point. I’d rather not assume I understand his perspective. It’s clear you have no such limitation.

Jean: “quantitative easing is not subject to the democratic process in our country. We don’t get voice in what the Fed does…. the chances of enacting any policy initiative that requires Fed compliance is zero…. it’s structurally impossible … The fed chair has autocratic power”

Yes, Jean, I get it. The Fed has divine right — unquestionable, absolute and unchangeable.

Jean: “precisely so the legislative whims of our politicians and the people are not allowed to tank the entire global economy.”

Read: precisely so democratic will, for either good or ill, can never be expressed.

I get it. The fatalistic view. I used to be that way. Thank God(dess) I found my way out of it.

You know, Jean, you would make a very good propagandist for the banks and the plutocracy. Their position depends critically on widespread fatalism and deference to the power of money that you espouse.

I spent more than 20 minutes on it Alan. (Something few others would bother to do) . I’ve actually heard about it before. I’ve sat in on lectures by Charles Eisenstaedt and others who talk about the question of money theoretically. I studied Quantitative Easing fairly extendively. You are incredulous that someone who is informed adequately might disagree with you. Thanks for all the links but I’m done, you pedantic, self consumed, condescending asshat.

How’s that for discourse!

Lol

Thanks, Pete. I hear there’s a very popular musical.

Alan, who thinks Libertarians are nuts and not worth any consideration, shares with them a dislike of the independence of the Federal Reserve.

Maybe when the Federal Reserve is stripped of its autonomy, there should be a duel between Alan and a Libertarian to determine Federal monetary policy going forward,

I don’t expect anyone to actually read these books because they’re long, but maybe Google them or read a wikipedia page for background about what I’m saying. “Debt: the first 5000 years”, Graeber. “Monetary History of the United States”, Friedman. “Pigs for the Ancestors”, Rappaport. Also, neweconomicperspectives.org about MMT. About MMT, I think it may help to focus on the factual description of the US monetary system at first. You don’t have to accept the policy suggestions.

You do realize that populist means for the benefit of ordinary people don’t you?

I would consider Trump to be a populist candidate, but none of his policies are for the benefit of ordinary people.

To me, populism is a pejorative. I might be using the term incorrectly.

Populism like any form of political movement can be effective in meeting the need of its constituents (in the case of populism’s case: the people) or it can be corrupted and manipulate the bias and fear of the people to gain and hold power. There is nothing about populism that is inherently going to lead to better results than other constituent groups. This is something the left does not understand. Labor Unions are incredibly important, but they too can be abused, and have been abused, as can any form of concentrated power. It always amazes me that we on the left refuse to acknowledge the negative histories of labor unions as well as the positives. It’s a form of sacrilege. We have blinders.

Lee Atwater figured out how populist rhetoric works to sway the popular vote. Hinge your rhetoric on a little bias, seed some fear , but encode the whole thing in language that wasn’t direct– and whammo you can win elections. He, followed by Rove and Newt, used that strategy to help Reagan and Bush 1 elected and to bring about the Republican Revolution in the Congress. That Republican Revolution started in local and state races where conservative candidates were armed with talking points and language instructions so that the entire Republican Party started to feel like a movement of ‘the people’ to many bible belt conservatives.

I very much believe in grassroots change. Populist political candidates like Trump and Sanders no longer meet with grassroots activists. they just use the language, so it feels like they are speaking for those groups of people.

Obama made a speech recently saying that what Trump was doing was not populism. He was using the talking points of Jim Hightower, who is also trying to reclaim populism into a movement of integrity. http://jimhightower.com/ Hightower was a big Sanders supporter and an advisor for a while. (I’d really like to hear his take now) I wish Mr Sanders had actually lead a grassroots campaign, but he did not support lower ticket progressives on primary ballots. He did not meet with grassroots coalitions in every state. He did not listen to advocates in target policy areas who had been working on them for decades. He just used the language of populism. And when it wasn’t enough he went to seeding fear and derision of his opponent and allegations of rigged…well everything. Rigged not against people of color or the rural poor or even the working class really, but against him and his supporters.

If he had run a true grassroots campaign, maybe he would not have resorted to tactics that destroyed his legitimacy. Maybe he’d have more to build on now or the nomination. I know this will be seen by many on this site as just another chance to jab at Sanders. But I think this election has made clear the risks of corruption within populism are as powerful as those within corporate control.

I’m all for the voices of the people being heard. But the people have many voices. (When people on the left use the term participatory democracy, they often seem to assume all the people are on their side) The people are too often galvanized and energized by anger and hatred rather than hope. Nationalism and tribalism are both forms of populism. The people may have interests in common but they don’t agree at all on the best path to meet those interests. And they are very easily divided, within populism, against on another.

Which is a point that almost ties out to the intention of the original post.

Populism means a movement of the people. It can be hinge on bias, fear and anger or on hope and change. Often on both. It’s not inherently better than the party system or special interest advocacy groups and voting blocks any other way that people organize to be heard in a Democracy.

But actually, the matter of Fed independence misses the point. Money can be issued by the U.S. government directly. No need for the Fed. Historically, money HAS been issued by the U.S. government directly — “United States Notes” (versus “Federal Reserve Notes”). In any case, no need to make the discussion contingent on the matter of Fed independence.

It is not me that is “onto something”. It is a lot of smart economists. I’m not saying they are right, but I am saying that they deserve a hearing. Helicopter money is one possible solution or partial solution (among others) to current problems including deflation, poor aggregate demand, dreadful inequalities, poverty and joblessness, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_money
Supporters
Former chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke is known to be one of the proponents of helicopter money when he gave a speech in November 2002 arguing, in the case of Japan, that “a money-financed tax cut is essentially equivalent to Milton Friedman’s famous ‘helicopter drop’ of money.”[24] In April 2016, Ben Bernanke wrote a blog post arguing that “such programs may be the best available alternative. It would be premature to rule them out.”[25]
Citigroup Chief Economist Willem Buiter is also known to be a prominent advocate of the concept.[26] Other proponents include Financial Times’ Chief Commentator Martin Wolf,[27] Oxford economists John Muellbauer,[12] and Simon Wren-Lewis, Economist Steve Keen, the political economist Mark Blyth of Brown University, Berkeley economics professor and former Treasury advisor, Brad DeLong,[28] UCLA economics professor, Roger Farmer, American macro hedge fund manager Ray Dalio, Irish economist and Fund manager Eric Lonergan,[29] Anatole Kaletsky.[30]

Here’s some background on the helicopter-drop idea in the developing world:

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-money-directly-poor-people-works-surprisingly-well-it-cannot-deal
snippit:
“enough of these programmes are up and running to make a first assessment. Early results are encouraging: giving money away pulls people out of poverty, with or without conditions. Recipients of unconditional cash do not blow it on booze and brothels, as some feared. Households can absorb a surprising amount of cash and put it to good use.”

……………………..

Who is right? Hell if I know. I’m still reading and thinking. That might go on for a few years. I will let others ignorantly dismiss the whole discussion out of hand. Me, I’m rather fond of reading and thinking, and considering novel, challenging new ideas. –alan2102

Jean: “Thanks for all the links but I’m done, you pedantic, self consumed, condescending asshat.”

I love you too, Jean.
Warm Regards,
alan2102

Is the idea that printing money, and in this case giving it the poor, is just functionally a form of taxation and redistribution? Is the sidestepping of democratic processes and jumping straight to taxation the underlying feature that is appealing to some people?

Stupid Hick. I think most people get that money is a way of keeping score, a trade bead. It’s not a new human innovation. It really doesn’t matter much. I’m not sure why you think we haven’t realized that and, if we did, it would , like, blow… our… minds.

Generally speaking, people prefer an agreed upon means to ‘keep score’ in any game, or fights break out.

OK Jean, I don’t mean to belabor the point. So we’re all clear that taxation is not a prerequisite for spending, nor is borrowing, and the national debt represents private assets, not like a household debt, that our children will ever be expected to “pay off” in full.

I don’t mean to speak for Alan, but my impression is he’s upset that people are are assuming he must be a communist, and have been putting reactionary words in his mouth, when he has made no such pronouncements.

Excessively printing money to pay for government obligations is often a bad idea can have negative effects.

Ask Robert Mugabe.

But name calling?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling

And nobody thinks quantitative easing is just printing money? Or is it OK if the printed money just goes to the banks?

I am curious: Is there a political movement that is giving out gold stars after the MMT quiz? After the quiz are people made to be convinced that they have esoteric knowledge? Reading through the above thread there was a continual misplaced assumption that people taking a contrary position were disagreeing primarily because they were lacking in knowledge. I am not sure but it sure felt like a lot of the condescension was perhaps the result of systematic- thought -programming….In which case, calling someone an “ass” might be a little harsh.

Peter: “Excessively printing money to pay for government obligations is often a bad idea can have negative effects. Ask Robert Mugabe.”

Garsh. The MMT guys never thought of that. OK, so their theory is blown out of the water. End of discussion.

Printing money devalues the currency that everybody holds. It is the driving force of inflation. We haven’t seen the negative effects recently only because those holding the T-bills haven’t yet cashed in. China can destroy our economy at the time of its own choosing. Savings and investments will plummet. The only question is when.

“Garsh. The MMT guys never thought of that. OK, so their theory is blown out of the water. End of discussion.”

I wouldn’t discount it.

Lynn– Demand for labor is not decreasing and is not likely to decrease. There is zero evidence that the problem you seek to solve exists. We have been told this would happen with every new technology age. And it never happened. We experienced a major economic recession. That’s why joblessness increased. That’s all. And Obams just hit more months of steady job growth than any other president. I would suggest that before you propose a policy solution to an imagined problem, you should maybe be sure that problem actually exists or is imminent. Your whole position hinges on an undemonstrated issue. A solution in search of a problem. We have enough real problems to solve.

I’m sorry I lost my temper with Alan but he was excruciatingly, relentlessly passive aggressive and sometimes you just need to call that stuff what it is. I never called you names Lynn. Can’t say the same for you. I have always tried to address your questions seriously. I have the conviction of my point of view, but I don’t mind people disagreeing with me. In my mind, that makes no one an asshole. (I like it actually when people disagree.) That’s not my problem with Alan. I’m not sure the distinction will be clear to you. What I say rarely seems clear to you. I do my best.

the criticism section of the Wikipedia MMT post pretty much repeats the concerns weighed in here. It’s not so much a new idea as an oversimplified exaggeration of Keynesian theories. And where it is over-simplified (not too complex to understand, Alan), there are huge gaps in feasibility. I feel validated. I’m sure I’m wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory

Re: “Demand for labor is not decreasing and is not likely to decrease. There is zero evidence that the problem you seek to solve exists.”

Um, there is a lot of evidence that this is exists. Primarily the evidence is stagnant wages. If the demand for labor were not decreasing, wages would stay the same. Well, another possibility is that the supply of labor is greater even as demand for it has remained the same. It probably is a little of both. Still, the wage stagnation is there and it is meaningful.

Yes, there has been job growth recently but if you look at larger trends, there is less of a demand for labor than there was 40 years ago and it really does look like this trend will continue. You have presented absolutely no explanation of this trend and have only stomped your feet and denied that there is a problem.

Consider how something like a self driving vehicle will affect employment and you will see generally how technology progresses in labor markets. There will be jobs created to be sure. Good paying ones too for those who develop the software for these vehicles. However, many fewer will be created than will be lost when we no longer need truck drivers, cab drivers, bus drivers, etc. All those workers will be competing in a labor market that simply isn’t going to meet their needs.

It is true that in the past, technology has mostly had an effect on our manufacturing sector and that it has created many jobs (although fewer than were lost to it). This is why there was much less wage stagnation among the college educated. However, now technology is coming for many of those jobs too. This puts the owners of the technology at a huge advantage in terms of how much income they bring in in the same way that those who have control over the means of production have always had an advantage but now they need much less labor which will only make it worse. Robots don’t go on strike after all.

I see an era where maybe the top 20%-30% end up better off. They’ll get tech jobs and move to areas where those are concentrated. Maybe they will push the poor out as they have done in SF so that poverty no longer becomes a problem for them. They probably will pass laws to further reduce incidences of poverty in their city if they haven’t already. I believe we were already discussing how this is already happening? I just worry about how much more economically segregated we can become and what will happen when more than half of our country sees that they are doing less well than their parents.

I used to think we might see something positive if that happened. Now I am not so sure. At any rate, we have to start thinking of these things along with global income inequality and poverty since these things are great sources of frustration for a lot of people.

As for arguing like an asshole. I know I do it too but did want to point out that you were being very unfair to Alan to chastise him for doing something that most of the rest of us in this conversation are doing, that is all.

Would someone please explain again (in terms a simple hick can understand) why it’s “crackpot” to want our monetary policy be brought into balance to serve working people instead of just the bankers? Rising inequality is a symptom the game is out of balance.

Jean: “It’s not so much a new idea as an oversimplified exaggeration of Keynesian theories. And where it is over-simplified (not too complex to understand, Alan), there are huge gaps in feasibility. I feel validated. I’m sure I’m wrong.”

I’m not. I don’t know who is right, or wrong.

There’s plenty about this discussion that goes over my head, which is why I have not taken a position. Yet.

If you think that there are “huge gaps in feasibility”, then by all means repair to Wray’s or Mitchell’s or any of the other blogs, and bring up your objections. Some discussants will agree with you. Others won’t, and will explain why they think you are wrong. I will read it all with great interest. Be sure to post the links.

Wikipedia is only useful as a springboard into the discussion. Palley’s views were deconstructed in the links I gave. Maybe Palley is right, but it looks doubtful.

I disagree with your assessment Lynn. I see stagnant wages as a result of system in which profits were being extracted quarterly absent economic growth. productivity went up but wages did not. But the beauty of increasing employment opportunities is that wages will go up, and not at state command. Many sectors show increasing wages. I know that in Ann Arbor in the food business if you arent paying at least $12/hour now, the help wanted sign never gets taken down. Recovery takes a while. Give it time.
Technological innovation reduces manual labor but it doesn’t reduce work. If it didn’t happen with the era of tech innovation we just experienced (ultimate time saver as anyone knows who did any of these tasks before) , then it’s not going to happen because we don’t drive our own cars.

At any rate, change doesn’t happen without impetus. And impetus doesn’t happen until the change is upon us– or we would have addressed climate change 20 years ago. So plan away for the era of leisure. It’s a nice fantasy.

KJC it is true that Alan, Pete and I have a lot in common. We are a bit relentless. We actually are engaging each other’s ideas (along with Lynn) even when we find them ludicrous. That creates tension but it’s useful tension. Alan is positively tamed in his certainty now. (And Alan, my issue was with QE more than redistribution although I think one needs to be very very cautious of both. I don’t believe in silver bullets.) I have been ordered to bed rest for half the day all last week– which sucked. This thread made it easier. Even when frustrating it was better than the litany of righteous fb memes.

At any rate, I’d rather be any of us than you, kjc. You have always been condescending and nasty without cause. Maybe some of us over contribute and like to provoke, but I honestly can’t ever remember a single comment from you that stimulated any response beyond a sigh. You repeat standard taking points and when exhausted of any point usually within a paragraph, resort to name calling. I’d rather have an original thought in my head, back it up with real information, be long winded, provocative and even wrong any day than play queen bee, be nasty, dull and never wrong.

If the detail with which we are engaging is boring to you, why are you here? You had nothing to contribute but nastiness as usual.

Interesting perspectives on topics of interest to some people.

Jean: “in Ann Arbor in the food business if you arent paying at least $12/hour now, the help wanted sign never gets taken down”

$12/hour in one of the richest counties in the state. And how many jobs like that is A2 creating? Five per month? Ten?

$12, after taxes, is ~10.50. That 10.50 certainly does provide a living, if you’re young and healthy and without health insurance, (who could possibly afford insurance on 10 bucks an hour?), and if you’re single and without dependents, and if you live in a small furnished room or basement (preferably the folks’ basement), and if you live quite low. Yes, 10 bucks does suffice. With that fact well in mind, we can dismiss the mountains of evidence of mass unemployment, underemployment, homelessness or near-homelessness and general precariousness, wage stagnation, severe indebtedness to support a reasonable life, going without or with inadequate medical care, and on and on.

Peter: “Interesting perspectives on topics of interest to some people.”

Yes, some people. Not the 10K/month set.

Class determines consciousness.

I am looking at new career options.

Approximately how much does a taxi driver make in Ann Arbor?

Does anyone have a contact at one of the taxi companies?

I cared about things for a while. Then stopped.

Nothing matters.

I have now remembered who Mr. 2102 is.

I wrote a post on Ron Paul and health care several years ago, using my uncle as an example of where a Ron Paul led health care policy would go wrong. Mr. 2102 was angry that I wrote about a single person. It seemed to be lost on him that people like my uncle are not rare, which was the point of the post.

Oddly, Mr. 2102 was angry that I wrote the post, assuming that I was indifferent to war, because I didn’t write about it, as if to say that not writing the post he wanted to write was somehow an endorsement of whatever he would have written about.

It was a bizarre exchange. Mr. 2102 seemed to be unwilling to let it go.

I assumed that he had some kind of underlying mental issue and tried to be as polite as I could. It didn’t work.

Here it was:

https://peterslarson.com/2012/01/03/my-dying-uncle-vs-ron-paul-a-public-health-disaster-in-the-works/

I’m looking forward to a lot of engagement within the party and the “tension” that will create. Remember the Democrats who held up Obamacare?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-warren-trump-progressives-230260

None of your comments were deleted, Dirt Bag. Four of them, however, had been flagged as spam. I just found them and approved them, so they should be on the site now.

Peter: “Mr. 2102 was angry that I wrote the post, assuming that I was indifferent to war, because I didn’t write about it”

Partially right. Your anti-Paul diatribe (which btw made some good points, and I agreed with most of it) failed by way of not placing things in context, as I pointed out to you in my responses — unsuccessfully, as it turned out.

Peter: “Mr. 2102 seemed to be unwilling to let it go.”

Right. I was unwilling to let it go at that moment — a bad move. I was obsessional. Mea culpa.

Peter: “I assumed that he had some kind of underlying mental issue”

Right! I have serious underlying mental issues, such as a persistent interest in justice, sometimes carried to obsessional extremes. So far the DSM has no formal classification for this, but it is doubtless a mental malady.

Peter: “Apparently, Mr. 2102’s passion for Paul was intense.”

Well, you got one wrong. Still, three right in a row is pretty good; I salute you.

No, my “passion for Paul” was not intense, and really not a passion at all. My support for him was highly guarded and qualified, as I mentioned (but did not sufficiently emphasize) in the exchange to which you linked. My interest in Paul was almost wholly restricted to the issue of war. I should have been more emphatic about that, and I apologize for failing in that regard. Most of Paul’s views are crap, and most of what you wrote was correct — but still, you missed critical context.

“critical context”

To you? Who are you?

Who cares? It was a stupid blog post that no one should have ever read. I regret writing any of that stuff. I will probably take it all down soon.

The ‘critical context’ according to Alan was Pete’s one line statement that Paul supporters were more concerned with the wars and legal pot V concern for leaving the poor to die of death and disease with no insurance or government support. This was true. That was their primary concern. Alan supported their ideological anti-war fervor over any other concern, because he has ” a persistent interest in justice, sometimes carried to obsessional extremes.”

Single issue ideologues always think they are more concerned with justice than other people.

Commentary from rigged media

https://youtu.be/O7VaXlMvAvk

Re: “Also since Pete actually grew up poor, v. you and Lynn, and lives in a developing nation on a very limited income, how is it that his perspective is invalidated by your statement?”

I will just say that you should be very careful before you make judgements about me and my perspective on poverty. It is entirely possible for someone to grow up well off while still being exposed to poverty. I get it that living something and experiencing it first hand isn’t the same as simply being in an economically diverse social situation but trust me, I may not have been poor myself but I was raised amidst some serious poverty and went to schools where the majority of my fellow students were pretty poor. So I will say that I probably have some perspective that you don’t and it would be foolish of you to dismiss it.

“It is entirely possible for someone to grow up well off while still being exposed to poverty.

No, it is not. Sorry.

I mean, I’m you like to tell yourself that but you’re wrong. You can never understand poverty when you grew up in security. You can say you do, but you don’t.

I had a friend once who would comment on my blog, obsessively messaging me, chiding me for not writing about this or that thing that was important to him. I tried to be polite and point out that the post was about X and not Y, where Y was the thing that was important to my friend.

He wouldn’t let it go. I told him politely that he should write his own blog. He still wouldn’t let it go about multiple posts I had done.

I dropped him as a friend and never spoke to him again.

There are bloggers, who write about things they like to write about at the time, and then there are people who obsessively write comments. The former is just a thing that people do. the latter, in its extreme, is a form of attempted control and should be considered unhealthy.

I remembered this, as I was looking at this thread. I am not pointing fingers at any one person.

Ok. I don’t disagree with that. What I mean is that I have a perspective and experience with poverty and with very extreme income inequality. From the point of view of the top. And that perspective is not typical of people of my socio-economic class who tend to grow up very isolated from poverty. I was not poor but also was not isolated from poverty. For all but two years of my K-12, I was in Detroit Public Schools and went to school in the Cass Corridor from 7-11 grade during a time when it really was “skid row” (early 80’s) and not the trendy place it is these days. It is not at all the same perspective as actually being poor but I do have an understanding of what poverty looks like up close to someone who isn’t poor and I don’t think that is a worthless point of view in discussions of poverty.

As with everyone, financial issues are complicated.

As for poor people, I can dislike them (since that’s where I’m from, familiarity breeds contempt) and advocate for them at the same time.

The problem with people today is that they think you have to pick a single side. You have two views on the same issue, particularly in regards to family.

It isn’t that complicated.

“Clean now?” = Clear now? [was not intended as query into personal hygiene ;-) ]

Lynne: “Our 40 hour work week is pretty arbitrary. There is no real reason why we couldn’t change the FLSA to make it shorter as needed. 10 would be too low for right now but why not 35?”

Exactly. Or, say, 4-8 weeks/year paid leave, as is common in some countries. Lots of options. But for some reason Jean and others became fixated on the “10 hour week” which was never suggested.

Jean: “So only 25% of people under 10 grand/year voted in the primary. And most voted for Hillary. I guess I’m wondering how you interpret that as support for addressing wealth inequality via redistribution among the poor.”

We have not discussed the demographics of people who did or did not vote in the primary, nor their political preferences. But now that you bring it up: I interpret the low voter turnout in that group as a visceral but basically correct suspicion that their votes won’t ever actually amount to anything because the system is rigged against them. They’re right. It is.

Jean: “Pete actually grew up poor, v. you and Lynn”

You know nothing about how I grew up. But, now that you’ve brought it up, I did not grow up poor — or rich. Solidly middle-middle.

Jean: “I’m so confused.”

You could readily get un-confused by reading and paying attention to the denotations of the words.

Re: It isn’t how much we spend on this or that, it’s that people don’t want it. These lofty discussions of what “should” happen don’t mean much when we live in a society that puts a societal premium on people working and supporting themselves rather than being cared for.

This is absolutely true. We have put such a stigma on ‘welfare’ that most people would not want something like a basic income at this time. And yet people in the USA are fine with receiving government benefits when everyone gets them. i.e. you don’t hear people bitching about receiving housing subsidies when they are called a mortgage interest deduction on their taxes. People are fine accepting Social Security because they rightly feel that it is an earned benefit. People are fine with spending public money on education.

This is exactly why I feel our country is not ready for a Basic Income and why I propose lowering the retirement age and increasing college tuition subsidies. For now. Like it not, this discussion and the thousands more like it which take place every day across the internet is how the idea of the Basic Income may become more accepted. I think it can be even if it isn’t now but do admit that I could be wrong about it.

There is a real reason why a Basic Income wouldn’t work on a state level though and actually is unfortunately a real disincentive for states to offer good social welfare benefits now. If a state’s benefits are large enough, people will move into the state in order to collect them. You see this on a local level to a smaller degree when jurisdictions bus homeless people to Ann Arbor. I myself have helped a relative move out of Wayne Co and into Washtenaw Co because the mental health services were better at the time.

Federal would be better than state level but if we could eventually go global with such a thing, even better. I suppose that is long enough away though that we might have to worry about our Mars colonists moving back to reap the benefits. LOL j/k

This entire thread has been an argument against fundamentalist political thinking– at least for me. Which is ironic given the original post.

Alan re poor voters not voting because they feel systemically excluded, I agree. But you assume because they feel systemically excluded, and you have a plan to address income inequality, they will agree to your solutions. That’s a giant fucking assumption.

The results of the primary among the poor and systemically excluded who voted would indicate they don’t go in much for the solutions offered by the left. Anything else is just assumption. It’s not just you and Lynn, I have seen this a thousand times in political movements. College educated white people telling the poor and people of color what is good for them, not convincing them via discourse– telling them. White activists grabbing the bullhorn to be the loudest people in the social justice parade. White activists throwing rocks because they are so angry about systemic injustice, and who gets arrested or hurt when violence ensues– people of color.

The left really needs to step back from the high and mighty rhetoric and start listening and observing. Mostly it needs to ask itself harder questions.

Alan you are convinced the poor agree with you. I would suggest you dig into that assumption by actually engaging. (PS you did mention your middle class upbringing somewhere earlier)

Peter: “It isn’t how much we spend on this or that, it’s that people don’t want it. These lofty discussions of what “should” happen don’t mean much when we live in a society that puts a societal premium on people working and supporting themselves rather than being cared for. Sure, there are a million theoretical ideas that are out there, but most of them are politically dead on arrival. And no, it isn’t the oligarchs and the plutocrats, it’s the people.”

A half-excellent point. You should have said: “it’s SOME of the people”. There is indeed a substantial portion of the population in the grip of the ethos of personal self-sufficiency, rugged individualism, and etc. And that is why I mentioned several times up thread the point about this very cultural peculiarity vis a vis policy practicality; that is, whether this American ethos would allow for certain policies like guaranteed incomes. I am skeptical, but open. I am also open to alternative suggestions that have less cultural “radioactivity” (potential for fiery resistance), such as Wray’s job guarantee. And others.

A snippit from up thread:

Alan: “There are different ways to achieve similar ends. I’ve been attracted to libertarian socialism (libertarian in the original sense, not in the sense latterly acquired from anarcho-capitalist types) and mutualism. Free-market anti-capitalism, as Kevin Carson calls it. I see this as possibly a better way to go for the U.S., which has so deeply internalized the free market meme. We need policies, and a system, that is consistent with the American ethos and ideal. As Randy Wray wrote (quoted above): “We need policies consistent with American values of work, initiative, self-sufficiency, and productivity.” Yes. Culture is important. What we do needs to be consistent with American culture and its biases.”

But now let’s return to this matter of “SOME of the people”, i.e. not all. There is compelling evidence that substantial majorities of the U.S. population favor generally progressive policies which are not in the best alignment with said “American ethos” characterized by rugged individualism, etc. “American culture and its biases” is not uniform or homogenous. We seem to have TWO populations and TWO American ethos’ (plural). Hence your point about “the people” (as though one homogenous group) is half-excellent, because you are correctly characterizing some people, but not all.

Further, we need to ask just how many people you’ve correctly characterized. Is it a majority? We don’t know. And we don’t know the extent to which their predispositions are being (perhaps) used cynically to advance a fatalistic agenda pertaining to public policy. That fatalistic agenda would hold (for obvious political reasons) that the great majority of the people do not want economic democracy or social justice. Perhaps that is true. BUT PERHAPS IT IS NOT. You don’t know, do you?

Another snippit from up thread:

Alan: “we have cultural peculiarities that make the acceptance of some suggestions (like Wray’s job guarantee) more likely than acceptance of others (income guarantee)…. [However,] we have to FIND OUT. There is little basis for judging in advance of experience, concluding pessimistically that any creative and novel proposal will be rejected. We have to try, and find out.”

Try and find out, since we don’t really know, do we?

Yes, Jean, there I go again, “repeating dogma with absolute certainty”. I am so dogmatically certain about everything — except when I’m not.

…………….

another repeat:

http://www.basicincome.com/basic_rifkin.htm
“Although liberal and conservative economists differed in their reason for supporting a guaranteed annual income, the growing interest in the idea led President Lyndon Johnson to establish a National Commission on Guaranteed Incomes in 1967. After two years of hearings and studies, the commission, made up of business leaders, representatives of organized labour, and other prominent Americans, issued their report. Commission members were unanimous in their support of a guaranteed annual income.”

Hmmm. Conservative business leaders — imbued with rugged individualism, Protestant work ethic, etc., etc. — were unanimous in their support of guaranteed income.

Maybe we have to TRY AND FIND OUT, rather than issuing *a priori* dismissals with… um… dogmatic absolute certainty.

Jean: “I don’t buy your original scenario, backed by Alan, which was of mass unemployment driven by tech innovation in the next 1-20 years”

There is much more to it than unemployment *per se*, and we’re talking about massive structural changes over decades past, not only the next few decades.

see links here:
http://markmaynard.com/2016/10/nows-not-the-time-to-disengage-or-is-it/#comment-904794

“If employees know that they can live even if they get fired, they are way less likely to take abuse from their employers.”

Are you assuming that I abuse my employees?

I guess you have never employed people. If you are stuck with lame employees (“I can just work somewhere else”), the work won’t be productive, which means you can’t hire more people. Workers don’t improve their own skills so they can’t more one when the time comes. Motivation is low. Everyone loses.

There is a reason that people would rather invest in Kenya than TZ and a reason that standards of living are so much higher here than down there. People work here because they have to.

Lynne: “This is absolutely true. We have put such a stigma on ‘welfare’ that most people would not want something like a basic income at this time. And yet people in the USA are fine with receiving government benefits when everyone gets them. i.e. you don’t hear people bitching about receiving housing subsidies when they are called a mortgage interest deduction on their taxes. People are fine accepting Social Security because they rightly feel that it is an earned benefit. People are fine with spending public money on education.”

You contradict yourself. You point out (correctly) how people have no problem accepting e.g. Social Security, a universal benefit program, but still assert that guaranteed income would not be accepted because… stigma. Where’s the stigma against people on SS?

And if you say that guaranteed income would not be accepted (unlike SS) because people do not feel it to be an “earned benefit”, I would counter by saying that that might be a matter of education. What makes people think that they have NOT earned a basic income?

This goes to the general matter of economic democracy (or lack thereof) and perceptions as to where the public/private lines are drawn. As a human being, you have the right to breathe air, without someone coming along and charging you for it. But why? The answer should be obvious. Same with water to drink. Same with… well, how far do you go, or not go? Why do you not deserve your share of a national dividend? For the same reason that you do not deserve free-of-charge air to breathe, perhaps?

General background, including concepts such as basic income, national dividend, social credit, and similar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy

See also:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/07/economic-grace-of-social-credit-national-dividend-and-compensated-retail-prices-to-facilitate-consumer-goods-distribution-in-an-age-of-robotics.html

Can these ideas be effectively communicated, and would they have a receptive audience? I don’t know. I would like to think so, and I think there’s a good chance of it, but I don’t know.

Again I insist (contra Jean) that I do not have any final answers, only questions. If it is true, as it might be, (and as even I suspect MIGHT be), that guaranteed income would not be well-received, then so be it. It is what it is. But at this moment we don’t really know.

We have to try, and find out. This is called empiricism. It is a wonderful innovation, allowing us to learn many interesting things about the world. We don’t have to base all of our conclusions on theory, speculation, prejudice, or the received Word of God, or the received Word of Peter Larson. We can try, and find out.

Actually I mis-spoke, it wasn’t too much security at all in Eastern Europe. It was barely any. Power was solely with the state. It wasn’t even equal. There wasn’t enough to go around. People struggled. Productivity was terrible. There were few labor saving devices being invented.

re: My name is Jean.

Oh I am sorry, I thought we were dropping vowels from people’s names. My name is Lynne. As usual you have missed your own hypocrisy.

jcp2, forgive me but I think I am missing some point there. Are you saying that North Africans simply aren’t as productive as Canadians and the British even in situations where they are well provided for?

I’m interested in actual models that have been successful and then a dissection of those models. It’s also useful to look at what has not worked.

Absolutely. Luckily there are models to look at in terms of social welfare programs including things like a basic income or a guaranteed minimum income. We also have many many real world examples of what hasn’t worked. To complicate matters of course, sometimes something will work in one place and culture and not in another and all of those are valid points of discussion.

jcb2, I don’t know. I missed Alan’s Gaddafi example and probably wont dig through things to find it. I certainly don’t think anyone is not being truthful. I know very little about Libya’s labor issues or those of oil companies for that matter. But thank you for clarifying.

Lynne– Sorry I misspelled you name. I have some issues around spelling and this format is not good for correction. your point in misspelling mine was a tad too subtle for me.

As for the Gaddafi comment, your computer has this cool function: command f

cp2: “I would imagine that UBI would not be a great hit with this quarter of the worlds population.” [“this quarter” = the Muslims, right?]
Why do you imagine that? Why do you imagine that Muslims would not be receptive to socialistic or social-democratic ideas?
Take one example: Gaddafi, the Muslim leader of a Muslim nation, was a socialist (made clear in his “Green Book” published in the 70s) and was instrumental in instituting free housing, free education, free medical care, free electrical power, and numerous other social-democratic types of social supports in Libya — easily equivalent to a UBI. Citizens were also credited directly with a portion of the proceeds from oil sales; that IS a UBI of a sort. Of course, that was before Hillary et al bombed the shit out of Libya, reducing much of it to rubble. (Can’t have any pinko socialists running around creating societies that take care of their people, now can we?) Regardless, here was a Muslim nation that had either a UBI or something comparable to it, or exceeding it.
So again, tell me why you imagine that UBI or similar would be unacceptable to Muslims?”

“Lynne– Sorry I misspelled you name. I have some issues around spelling and this format is not good for correction. your point in misspelling mine was a tad too subtle for me.”

humorlessness is not jan’s strong point. she and pete have that in common.

“As for the Gaddafi comment, your computer has this cool function: command f.”

jan can’t stop making dick comments. cuz of being a dick. stop complaining about discourse for god’s sake. you’re constantly lowering the quality with ad hominem.

or tell us again about how all comments on this post are deluded and “ideological” except for your own (and pete’s perhaps, your chosen authentic voice of poverty?). i can’t believe mark doesn’t vet all his posts w/you. silly man.

Lynne: “If employees know that they can live even if they get fired, they are way less likely to take abuse from their employers. When people face starvation or homelessness from a lost job, it does make them better workers but it still isn’t right.”

But Lynne, it IS right, from the standpoint of a would-be slave owner or feudal lord. The threat of destitution or draconian punishment is integral to chattel society and feudal orders.

Honestly, I do not know enough about Libya and their UBI but will point out that we do have a state (Alaska) with something like a UBI where they take oil profits and give it to the people in the form of an annual check. It isn’t enough to live off of but it is something and it does look like it has helped both with poverty and income inequality.

It’s true I let myself get pulled down into nastiness. I regret that. It undermined my point.

It would be cool if people (all people) on this blog could actually discuss these issues in detail without dismissing people on political ideology ground. It would be cool if we wasted less time in defensiveness and talked about models. It would be cool if we could just agree to disagree on some points and talk about areas of agreement. That would be productive and interesting not mean, sour and hurtful. It would be cool, and it used to be like that here a few years ago, but now it’s just nasty.

Do I get a prize if I make comment number 500?

Jean: “you site conservatives who support your idea.”

MY idea? WTF?

Jean: “But thats just more confirmation bias. I suggested you explore ideas that don’t support your view– ideas that disrupt your hypothesis not confirm it.”

My previous posts make it abundantly clear that I am more than happy to entertain, and accept, evidence that runs contrary to my inclinations and preferences. ABUNDANTLY clear. I even went out of my way to suggest, multiple times, that (e.g.) Americans might well NOT want to accept something like guaranteed income, because of their cultural peculiarities.

But somehow — as usual — you fail to… hmm. What is it that you fail to do? Do you fail to read? Do you fail to comprehend? Do you read and comprehend, but then decide consciously to lie and misrepresent me? I honestly don’t know. It is one of those things. Maybe you could clue me in to which it is.

I did not read all your posts or links, Alan. It would be impossible for me to do so. I don’t feel at all obligated to do so. I’m not ever going to. I have wasted enough time here as is.

I stand by my assessment of that one example. It did not show that you were not ideological. That one example. I cant speak to the rest. My impression from what I did read and the nature of your attacks on contrary viewpoints was that you were determined to have your perspective validated and agreed to and would never stop trying… . You lost me at Gaddafi. This thread should have ended there.

Could you all keep it up just a little longer? Only 57 more comments till 500.

I want to win the dinner and movie with Mark.

Fair enough. It doesn’t really matter who started it. Of course people enjoy this kind of thing, that is normal. I don’t really mind it myself but I am also not really complaining about it. I can say that there are two techniques I have used in the past when discussions have started to actually bother me. 1. go high. Just refuse to get in the muck. 2. leave the conversation

re: “You lost me at Gaddafi. This thread should have ended there.”

Actually in a discussion of UBI, it probably makes a lot of sense to look at Gaddafi and how this sort of thing was implemented in Libya. Same with many other countries where there has been a lot of social welfare programs. This kind of thing has plenty of real world examples and my conclusion from looking at many of them (although I haven’t yet had time to see if there was any research done in Libya about this) is that UBI is a really good idea but can be harmful if implemented improperly.

This whole thread has been a performance piece illustrating the the difficulty of disengaging and the folly of engaging. In the end to the piece Westside gets a Dirt Sandwich dinner and a dystopian sci-fi flick with Mark. .

There Kjc – a little humor. Maybe?

I think we really need Larsn and Lan to drive up the numbers.
( get it ? I dropped their vowels.)

Lynne,

Some might argue we have an obligation to not get to 500 posts. If we get to 500 posts then Westside’s hopes will be dashed as s/he remembers there never was any promise of prize dinner date with Mark. In fact, Westside made the whole thing up.

“Actually in a discussion of UBI, it probably makes a lot of sense to look at Gaddafi and how this sort of thing was implemented in Libya.”

Yes, you can see how dolling out free shit from commodity sales to the rest of the world can suppress dissent and keep a despot in power.

It is astounding that Americans lack the ability to see what was going on in Libya. There is nothing there worth defending. Libya’s numbers have to be looked at with extreme skepticism given that it was an authoritarian government (is that so hard??). Ethiopia (moreso the latter) are notorious for skewing the books to make themselves look good to the rest of the world. Yet, despite the rosy pictures, there is rioting in Ethiopia right now and Gaddafi was killed by his own people and dragged through the streets. People cheered his death.

Plenty of countries have increased literacy without giving away free money from state owned oil companies.

Do you want me to name them?

You guys are out of your minds if you seek to lionize Gaddafi, or at least at least weak to propaganda. Perhaps you think North Korea is good model of UBI because it pays out money to elite residents of Pyongyang?

You would be better off looking at market based states like Sweden, where public services are being provided without trampling on peoples’ individual rights (or jailing and killing journalists, academics and the political opposition).

Comrade Lynne,

There was a populist movement from the last century worth studying. Among their rallying points were strict controls on immigration with a guest worker program, direct democracy by citizens, a guaranteed job program, abolition of unearned incomes and war profits, expansion of old age welfare and creation of a healthy middle class, significant land reform, a national health care program, and a change in law away from property based laws towards a common law. It was wildly popular and enjoyed national success for close to 25 years. Unfortunately, this government was destroyed by the United States and its allies because of incompatible ideologies. If you are not familiar with them, I can include a source.

Well, I certainly wouldn’t want us to emulate the authoritarian nature of Libya. FWIW though, I do worry that might be an outcome of NOT addressing economic issues early.

Westside, I think he is talking about Nazis. If so, it is a lazy argument since obviously no one is suggesting that we go that route.

And to clarify I was thinking more along the lines of takeout from Argus and a Rom-com.

Oh like you, Dirt Bag? LOL.

On the one hand, I agree. I want to learn more about the world but on the other hand, you don’t seem like someone who is really in a position to judge what I know or don’t know about anything. It is ok though, I am used to men dismissing my ideas because they falsely assume that I don’t know what I am talking about. If it matters to you, I think you could probably stand to learn more about human nature and economics and even the rest of the world outside of your perspective too. Probably everyone could stand to learn more.

“Oh like you, Dirt Bag? LOL.”

Yes. Like me. Your knowledge of American politics appears to be sorely lacking. Your knowledge of world politics appears to be nonexistent.

I mean, I’m sure your knowledge of the Ypsi Farmers Market is much wider than mine. I’m not even sure that Ypsi even has a farmers market. Does it?

It would do you good to do some reading.

The mention of historic parallels of your agenda, Lynn, is not beside the point. We talked about models. If both Libya and Nazi Germany implemented UBI under totalitarian regimes, it’s worth looking at why. It’s worth looking at how any policy can go wrong. And they can all go wrong.

“I mean, I’m sure your knowledge of the Ypsi Farmers Market is much wider than mine.”

suuuuuuch a dick.

Come on! Keep it going. Only 30 more comments to go!

I thought you all would have exchanged a lot more insults during the day. Don’t hold back.

Oh I hope you get to go on your date with Mark, Westside.

It’s interesting to be a provocative person in the era of political fundamentalism.

Is that like that “May you live in interesting times” curse?

At any rate, I can say without any doubt that Dr Larson is not without some powers of observation. I probably really do have a much wider knowledge of the Ypsilanti Farmer’s Market than he does. LOL. SMOOOOOOOOOOOCH (how’s that M?)

Lynne’s knowledge of the Ypsilanti Farmer’s Market is greater than mine since she lives somewhere near Ypsilanti. It is a fact.

I am not sure why that is perceived as insulting.

I believe she took it to mean she was provincial which was the implication of your other comments. I personally doubt that you care much about provincialism. But many people do. All people have blinders to the experience of some other groups people. These are more problematic in politics than in other areas of life.

Perhaps she is provincial. There is no shame in that. Many people are.

No, I don’t really consider myself to be provincial fwiw but it absolutely could be seen as insulting since it usually means narrow minded and unworldly. It was a dick thing to say for sure in the context in which it was said but so what? As I said before, Peter isn’t in a position to adequately judge me on such things so his opinions, while perhaps unkind, are not very meaningful to me.

“rooted in your community” is the sort of thing Petr might say to Lynn as backhanded compliment.

We’re still not to 500?

The little one isn’t sleeping well tonight so I’m up and thought I’d check. The little one overheard us talking. He wanted to know if the old lady who hates white boys lives in our neighborhood?

It’s cold outside. I’ll check again in the morning. Good night.

i do not know what those are.

i just learned of the incident. terrible.

i am sure you would all be glad if i died.

i am sorry to disappoint everyone.

Are you still engaging, or have you given up on the idea that meaningful discussion can still be had?

Jean: “Let’s produce something useful from this charade.”

It is up to you to produce something useful, by paying attention to the posts, following the links, reading, thinking, and expanding your knowledge and understanding of the very important issues that have been raised. It is only a “charade” if you disparage it while failing to use it to enhance your knowledge and understanding of the world.

5 to go. You are welcome Westside.

Jean: “Alan, if I thought you could enhance my knowledge and understanding of the world, I would have continued reading your links.”

Right. “My” links were all about Alan. The ideas themselves don’t count; the ideas themselves don’t even exist; ALAN posted them, therefore it is all about Alan.

Jean: “I stopped.”

Right.

Jean: “You don’t have to read mine either.”

I read every one of the links you posted, because my mind is open and I am anxious to gain knowledge, especially challenging new knowledge (like stuff that I don’t already agree with).

Stupid Hick. OMG yes! I had forgotten of his issue with that word!

Judging from statements made, Lynne’s knowledge of international politics is lacking if not non-existent. She would benefit from some careful study.

I have a feeling that these so called statements I have made that somehow expose a lack of knowledge of international politics are just made up in Peter’s head. Admittedly, I am lacking in certain areas and have only lived in the USA. I do read though and because my brother is an expert on International Relations and works for the GAO, I find myself reading way more GAO reports than most people. I suspect I have a better knowledge of how construction of the embassy was going in Afghanistan and embassy security in general than Peter does just from that reading. Also the effects of our anti-drug policies in Columbia, and soon, our anti-poverty programs in Malawi and Guatemala. If Peter is judging my knowledge of international relations based on what he *thinks* I was saying here, it really reflects more poorly on him than me imho. I don’t claim to be an expert in international politics but I don’t think Peter has demonstrated any great knowledge of that area either and therefore really isn’t in a position to judge me as evidenced by how wrong he gets it.

There were two people on this page who spoke highly of Gaddafi, yourself included.

No there wasn’t. I am starting to think that Dirt Bag has a reading comprehension problem

Lynne could use some time for careful study. It would help greatly.

I am unsure as to why someone would resist or take offense to a call for more careful study.

That makes little sense to me.

Pete nabbed Westside’s 500th comment sandwich with Mark prize right out from under her. We’ll have to fly him here from Kenya now. Or fly Mark out there. That’s it– fly Mark to Kenya to eat a sandwich with Pete. I don’t think that’s a bad idea. I would like to see that video. Someone make an GoFundMe page.

Can you video the visit though? I’m quite serious that I think it would be a great idea. We could crowd fund $1000 for the flight to thank Mark for tolerating us. He deserves some thanks. You deserve a sandwich.

It was all made up anyway, Pete.

Lynne: “I am starting to think that Dirt Bag has a reading comprehension problem”

He may or may not have a reading comprehension problem, but he clearly has a black-and-white thinking problem, a problem of cognitive distortion.

Absolutes don’t exist on this here earth.

Peter: consider cognitive therapy.

“Cuba provides good health care and that is an appreciable attribute. AND they commit inexcusable crimes. Clear?”

No, providing health care is what a normal state does. Jailing journalists, political dissidents and homosexuals is not.

Again, if a man feeds his kids, also normal, but beats them, is he a “mixture?”

No, he’s still an asshole.

I don’t think black and white, but there’s a point that bad governments get where they are all black. I’m sorry that you can’t see that, but I’m pretty sure you’ve never been to a place with one of these governments. I live in a country that was under a dictator for more than two decades. He left power back in 2000. You can still see the damage he did to this place, 16 years later.

You would do well to start touring these places.

As much as I am pro UBI, even I admit that it is not a solution for now. People arent ready for it. Heck, I got into a big argument with a guy about how the school district in his town decided to spend some money to give the kids free breakfast *and* lunch and he just went on a rant about how we were teaching children that someone else would feed them and it would make them dependent. We live in a country where a significant number of people actually have a problem with *children* getting government benefits.

On the other hand, a lot of those same types live in Alaska and don’t seem to have a problem with Alaska’s version of a UBI. So who knows?

Peter: “if a man feeds his kids, also normal, but beats them, is he a “mixture?” No, he’s still an asshole.”

An asshole in one respect, not an asshole in another.

It is kinda like being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, Peter. Maybe someday you’ll learn how to do that. I have my hopes.

No, he’s an asshole. Feeding kids is assumed. One doesn’t get any props for doing things that normal people should do, nor do dictators.

Again, living in a country that had one, you can see the damage they do. Having been to places that have them, you can see how awful it is for the people who have to put up with them.

But from Ann Arbor, it’s all just scientific isn’t it. They aren’t people, they’re just faceless “populations,” and that’s where a number of development economists went terribly wrong (some who keep popping up). They stopped looking at a citizenry as people from their perches at Harvard and the World Bank and just looked at them as faceless numbers, and in the end, encouraged despots because they did “good” things, without ever exploring what people had to live with on a daily basis.

I mean, I get that you think you know what you’re talking about. I’m sure given your time on the internet, it feels like you’ve got these places figured out. But you don’t. That’s not an insult, I was there at one point, too, and then spent more time on the Continent and learned a few things.

Bad governments are fucking miserable, no matter what they might get right. People like you who have no experience here, inevitably end up propping up the murderers and the thieves through the propagation of incorrect ideas.

I see people like that everywhere. Invariably, if they ever live here for a while, the learn a few things.

I hope you get that opportunity. Yes, there are grey areas in the world, but bad governments are pitch black. Even the “good” things they do, are deleterious in the end.

You can dismiss my set of experiences if you like. After all, I’m an idiot, I admit. A loser who knows nothing at all.

*Westgate was 2013, not 2012.

No, Alan is not suggesting that we prop up dictators. He is arguing the we evaluate both the good things and the bad things they as if they were normal people or normal governments.

I am arguing that that approach is flawed.

It’s really amazing the persistence with which you are willing to dismiss someone’s loved experience because it doesn’t align with your perspective Alan. All that talk of the need to accept the dialectic, and you twist yourself in knots to dismiss any perspective that’s disruptive to your sense of reality.

It seems to me that second hand reading about something is very obviously inferior to the lived experience of the same thing.

So you need to maybe look at your defensiveness instead of attacking Pete’s positions and his character.

Alan– maybe re-read your posts. You may not think you were dismissive, but it reads that way.

Well, Alan is free to think what he likes.

One thing I have learned from this blog is that there are people out there are who are very sure of their level of knowledge and eagerly dismiss peoples’ real experiences in favor of “data” and published knowledge, without, of course, addressing the limitations of both. I always took issue with that in grad school. I would advise him to do more research on the subject of the limitations of data and methodological approaches to data collection and analysis.

I encourage Alan (and most everyone on this blog) to get away from the computer and start collecting some experiences. He seems like a bright enough guy, it would be good for him. I don’t mean that as an insult in anyway.

As for straw men, I gave you examples. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Jammeh of Gambia, Ethiopia’s ruling government are not straw men, they are very real assholes and very real people live under them. Alternatively, I could have given you Museveni of Uganda, Paul Kagame of Rwanda and the current case of Burundi.

As for feeding kids, it’s a given. Not feeding kids makes one an asshole. People who oppose feeding kids are assholes. I’m not sure why you would assume that I wouldn’t think they are assholes, given that I said clearly that I think that people who abuse kids are assholes.

Let me say it again, people who abuse or neglect kids are assholes.

As for poor white people not taking care of themselves, again, barring extreme circumstances, in a system that was designed for them, if a person doesn’t take advantage of the opportunities offered to them, they will get little sympathy from me. Given that’s where I come from, my capacity for sympathy has been severely diminished. Lots of people who escaped poverty in the US will say similar things. You should talk to them and listen to what they have to say sometime. Invalidating their experiences with “data” or pseudo-academic articles isn’t fair to those people.

I’m not trying to win. You seem like a fairly smart though obstinate guy and that’s ok.

I feel as though I’m repeating myself.

Now is an excellent time for Hillary to disengage. Her treatment of emails was incredibly stupid. But the Wikileaks information of the criminality of the Clinton Foundation is far worse. If she manages to win the election, the next four years will be consumed with more criminal investigations and impeachment proceedings with a Republican plurality in both houses. She is unable to walk more than a few steps without grabbing on to something for support. Her stamina is suspect. The added stress of non-stop investigations will leave her little time to devote to the many pressing issues that we need to address. For the good of the nation, she should step down.

Westside, I believe it was Dirt Bag Larson.

Peter “there are people out there are who are very sure of their level of knowledge and eagerly dismiss peoples’ real experiences in favor of “data” and published knowledge, without, of course, addressing the limitations of both.”

I clearly (albeit briefly) addressed the limitations of both in my post to Jean, discussing “domains of knowledge”. Perhaps you did not read it.

Peter: “if a person doesn’t take advantage of the opportunities offered to them, they will get little sympathy from me. Given that’s where I come from, my capacity for sympathy has been severely diminished. Lots of people who escaped poverty in the US will say similar things. You should talk to them and listen to what they have to say sometime. Invalidating their experiences with “data” or pseudo-academic articles isn’t fair to those people.”

You still don’t get it. I have never argued with your personal experience, nor would I argue with any of the “lots of people who escaped poverty” that you cite. Everyone’s personal experience stands on its own and is unarguable. Their experiences are not “invalidated” by the data or academic articles, and I do not “dismiss” them. However, the data — which you disparage, weirdly, with sneer-quotes (odd for a scientist!) — does invalidate BROAD GENERALIZATION ***FROM*** their personal experiences. Do you understand? Their personal experiences are 100% true, valid, and unarguable. It is the generalization FROM those experiences that is in question, and indeed that is invalid IF there exists good data that suggests another interpretation or conclusion.

In the same way, I don’t dismiss the experience of an angry parent (let’s say) who thinks their child was harmed by vaccinations. Maybe their child actually WAS harmed by vaccinations; hard to say, but in any case their personal experience is unarguable. Only they know what they have actually experienced, and I am in no position to argue with it. I am, however, in a position to say that vaccinations across large populations have pronounced beneficial effects, regardless of what might happen occasionally to certain individuals within those populations. That’s the difference between personal experience and data. Do you understand, Peter? I would hope that you, a professor of public health (!), would understand.

Peter: “I encourage Alan (and most everyone on this blog) to get away from the computer and start collecting some experiences. He seems like a bright enough guy, it would be good for him.”

I encourage you, Peter, to get on the computer and start collecting some real data pertaining to your existing opinions/prejudices. You seem like a bright enough guy, and it would be good for you. Mind you, I am NOT suggesting that you pay no attention to your personal life experiences. Not at all. Those experiences are invaluable guides to some things, and offer sometimes-important clues to other things. Personal experiences are great and indispensable. However, sooner or later, when you are thinking and speaking about broad, society-wide phenomena (e.g. poverty, meritocracy or lack thereof, social mobility, and the like), your personal experiences must be subordinated to data that is collected across far, FAR larger samplings than those of your personal experiences. You will often find that your personal experiences get blown away by this data.

In other domains of knowledge, it works the opposite way. You read and read and read about restaurants in Da Nang, or about human love and sex, and think you know something. But then you actually go there, in the flesh, and the personal lived experience utterly BLOWS AWAY everything that you had read. Different domains, different epistemologies.

Lynne: “I don’t think that bringing data into a conversation necessarily invalidates lived experiences. I am sorry that you feel that way. Data can, however, offer an objective perspective that is lacking with lived experience sometimes.”

Yes, of course, and that is putting it mildly. It is amazing that this must be explained, and explained repeatedly, to a supposed academic.

Maybe Alan alone can take this thing to 600.

Yes it’s tightening up. I have friends on the ground who say that African Americans are not st all enthusiastic. The election is ugly. It’s turning them off. They don’t see the point in voting. When they have the power to turn it. The Latino population which faced direct threat from Trump is turning out though. Hard to say. She has a 75% shot. Fingers crossed. Whether it’s mourning the end of the republic or celebrating the First Woman president, I will be having a party to raise funds for planned parenthood and SOS. Seems the best way to go. They may need it.

Peter: “in analysis of any social phenomenon, one has to look at both, because “population” studies often produce digestible data in coarse form, while the stories of individuals produce precise data in a form that is difficult to digest”

Yes, the stories of individuals necessarily produce more precise data with respect to the individuals in question, and I do not dismiss it (in spite of your repeated assertions that I do). The question is: what to do with that precise data?

If a parent says that their child was harmed by vaccines, that is precise data. What is to be done with it? Should we tell parents that — based on this single case history — children can be harmed by vaccines, hence vaccinations ought to be avoided?

The answer is: no, of course we should not tell parents that. Not because the parent with the vaccine horror story is wrong, but because we cannot extrapolate from that one case history TO THE ENTIRE POPULATION. We need a sample size much larger than that, and probably multiple samples, in addition to other (mechanistic and etc.) data, before we can so extrapolate. Do you seriously not understand this?

Peter: “you discredit the experience of people due to the perceived superiority of analyses of the “population.””

Analyses of the whole population are obviously necessary and superior if we are going to draw any conclusions about the whole population. Just as analyses of an individual are obviously necessary and superior if we are going to draw conclusions about an individual. These are different domains of knowledge. They have a relationship, but it is highly uneven and spotty.

I honestly do not understand your failure to understand all this. I’m astonished. Again, I find it hard to believe you could have made it through undergrad, let alone grad school.

Peter: “It is your dismissal of peoples’ experiences and your seeming unquestioning acceptance of the published work of the educated elite that I find troubling.”

The educated elite are fine when it comes to empirical study. There’s no reason to doubt empirical scientific work, in general (though of course there are occasional exceptions); the educated elite are very good and counting and measuring things. Questioning the educated elite comes at a different level — the level of interpretation, context and conclusion. If you say you went to the store and counted four cars in the parking lot, I accept that. That’s an empirical finding; I have no reason to doubt it. If you conclude from that that there is an economic collapse underway because of so few people shopping for groceries at that moment, I question that. Do you see the difference?