Watching this was very deeply depressing. Time and time again Blyth was ignored and his points were passed by in favor of more of the same old talking points. The Democrats are in big trouble.
Yep. Trump 2 is likely coming due to Democrats being paid by money to NOT do anything the left wants. The pendulum is straining with all of its might to swing back left, but is being constrained by our media and the money of Plutocrats.
Blyth (here) is intellectually head & shoulders above Margaret Weir I'm afraid. Weir spends her time virtue signalling and telling us her feelings, why she's so sad. Blyth, however, repeatedly explains WHY (Trump happened) without being judgemental about the people who voted for him. Taleb Nassim's McDonalds meal analogy (42:00) is great.
Moreso, finding excuses. _Solidarity is different here, because of our history of race._ _Blame the people's philosophy, leading to public goods shortage._ etc. I mean its an explanation... great... who's fault is that though? Who is to blame, and can this be changed? Blyth directly pins a political group for each of the symptoms at least, but with Weir its more vague and ethereal... unless its the Republicans. If its their fault, she'll pin them immediately.
I live in France and what Blyth said at the end is exactly what is going on. At work (I'm in an NGO dealing with rural development in Africa, so I'll let you guess what my colleagues' political convictions are) no one will go to vote for the left primaries and I dont think many will go to actual elections in May. The left (Socialist Party) and the right (the Republicans) are completely disconnected from reality: the former talks a progressive game, but do not criticize the EU on any aspects of its monetary and fiscal policies while the latter falls back into a discourse mixing catholic values and more austerity, trying to imitate, unsuccessfully, the National Front in its rhetoric. Bleak, bleak times
Election is in April btw. I realize that no one will probably win then and the run-off in May will most likely be the ultimate decider, but if too many people skip April 23rd, the National Front could just win outright.
It's unfortunate they couldn't bring a more nuanced speaker to counter mark's point. Would be more interesting than Margaret going off the racist tangent
Weir demonstrates the lack of self-examination that holds liberalism and Democrats back. Agrees there are problems, yet neglects examination of the sources.
It was amusing & disheartening how quickly she latched on the standard Crony Capitalist Lackey RepubliCrat Identity Politics, self-loathing “all whites are racists” trope to dismiss Blyth’s arguments.
Mark has highlighted the rise of the precariat class in other lectures, too. He has his hand on the pulse, just like Noam Chomsky, Henry Giroux, and Guy Standing. If you don't know who these guys are, look them up. They don't blame the people, but the system.
+LAFOLLETTER You assume that these products can be manufactured here. I doubt that is possible, considering the high wages expected by the american workforce. Let's assume all the products manufactured in china and india are produced locally. That would lead to significant increase in the cost of these products which in turn would increase the wage demands of the american workforce. As to my point about global warming, pointing a finger at india and china is valid but atleast these countries are trying to look at ways to use renewables for their energy needs. American consumption is a much more obscene use of fossil fueled energy. Regardless of all these points I would expect the president of the united states to acknowledge the existence of man made climate change and its serious consequences for the planet. If he had fought for protectionist trade policies with the reasoning that you follow (i.e. it doesnt make sense to manufacture goods 1000s of miles away in coal powered factories) I would still give him credit for maybe having some rational thought behind his actions. Calling climate change a hoax is just ridiculous and ignorant (in my opinion).
+LAFOLLETTER yearbook.enerdata.net America consumes 2.5 times the amount of energy india consumes while India has 4 times the population. Ofcourse that is no excuse to burn fossil fuels but America, unlike India has the technological and economic resources to do something about it. I guess the first step would be to accept that there is a problem, which, one political party, for some reason (money seems to be the driving force for both political parties in america) does not agree to.
+LAFOLLETTER I don't see what Inaction you speak of. India is taking actions towards reducing dependence on coal for energy. It's just not possible for them to switch off coal because of the huge energy demands of the population. The largest solar plant in the world was recently built in India. I didn't say manufacturing shouldn't be moved to America. That will be good for a lot of people who lost jobs due to the shut down of manufacturing plants there. I am just pointing out that it might not be so beneficial for Americans after all. Anyway, you seem to be avoiding my main point here, that Trump and most republican leaders deny the existence of man made climate change. Don't you think that is wrong and dangerous for our future (not just America's future but the world's future)?
The US just elected an egomaniac that is hellbent on destabilizing international relations and won't rule out using Nukes. I'd say we are already there. Some just haven't woken up to it yet.
One thing is very clear: Margaret weir is a politician, not an academic scholar. She talks like a demagogic speaker of the democratic party, not as an objective academic researcher who analyzing social trends without judging them according to her subjective inclinations. Now, the question is: What n the name of god is she doing as a professor in a prestigious university? Why is she making her living as an academic scholar? Who pays for this kind of cynical political activism masquerading as "social science"? This question should stand at the center of the education policy of the Trump administration. The American public should not allow this sort of extremist activism to penetrate its scientific institutions. Politicians' like Weir, should focus on politics and not pretend to be scientists.
After listening to her droning on I admire Mark's restraint and politeness regarding her 'points' when in reality he must have been thinking'what ARE you talking about you silly old bag'? How long do we have to put up with this tired old rhetoric from 'wheeled on' apologists pretending they're just trying to make the 'world' a better place ?Hippie ideals are admirable but that's all they are,they don't work,after all when a 'hippie' pushes a light switch he still expects the light to 'magically' turn on.( 'they don't work' and 'turn on' was not intentional when talking about hippies)but if the cap fits...
I love Blyth but I think Hillary Clinton is "McDonald's" in his analogy not Trump. We all knew what to expect in selecting Clinton - voting Trump was a "hail Mary" move. Let's try this other restaurant - the food may be crap but, who knows, it might be better than McD.
A great conversation. I hope for more. Mark Blyth nails it every time. Although I do disagree with Margaret Weir, it is great to see these opposing views of the democratic party.
Margaret Weir : 0 Mark Blyth : 1 We don't just need the "happy face," Dr. Weir. We need the distribution of the "happy face" that Mr. Blyth is talking about.
How is Bernie Sanders not brought up in this discussion? My mind is a little blown right now. All this talk of solidarity not from a place of hate, populism and rejection of technocratic elite and Bernie Sanders is not seriously mentioned once? How?
That is one reading, which I partially subscribe to. Another one is that, if Bernie hadn't supported Hillary, with her losing he would have been accused of being the reason she lost, and if she had won, he wouldn't have had any place in her administration. Not supporting her would have been, in a purely cynical, political calculation, much worse than endorsing her. I do agree that it was disheartening to see him backing her, but I think Bernie made a choice to shield his position and still have some relevance once the election was over. Now, whether that will pay off or not, we'll see, your guess is as good as mine.
+LAFOLLETTER No, he should aim to raise a successor and only retire when handing over the movement and its support to them. Retiring immediately would be missing a grand opportunity. Also there was a good chunk of, not wanting to be the next Ralf Nader thrown in for good measure... but even with all of that, I can't get the image of a cat turning away while another cat has sex with another cat, with the Bernie logo out of my head ¬.¬
+mrsme1234 I hate acronyms so just skirted around the term and assumed it to be Democrat institution XYZ. +LAFOLLETTER Check out the Justice Democrats. Not a new party, but its an attempt to set up a sub organisation within the Democrats to oust the Clinton wing. Being heading by a guy from Secular talk, and getting money from TYT. Before the obvious warning alarms go off, Kyle from Secular talk is the least cancerous part of TYT, and freedom of speech is mentioned before many other things within their platform. While going within the Dems may feel dirty and wrong, its going to net better results, than just abandoning them entirely. At least initially getting people involved, actively in the party would make a later split more catastrophic if it happened and an event covered by the US's media circus.
Disbanded, OK, but it's not like the people who made up the DLC all died or disappeared. They're still around and very influential in the Democratic Party: they shaped and in many cases became the party establishment that pushed to nominate Clinton. They and those friendly to them are the ones still advocating third way politics even after its total rout in general election 2016.
Because Bernie is not taken seriously except as a metaphor of sorts. This is a politician who was openly cheated by the person he then promptly endorse. He would not stand up for electoral integrity then, he is not standing for electoral integrity now, even as he calls for a fundamentally electoral revolution.
The only thing that Weir did was regurgitate retail talking points from the DNC in the most boring possible manner. She was a waste of air time. Blyth is insight personified.
I can only say that they are in a sense of denial. If they fully take in what Blyth is saying they'll have a breakdown so instead they chose to ignore it.
Blyth is tremendous and provides a correct analysis of how we got here. He also rebuts the MSDNC talking points and seems to be one of the few voices out there who looks past Obama's oratory skills and correctly analyses his presidency and sees it for what it is: The unapologetic expansion of neo-liberal market rule.
Liberalism, conservatism, social democrats, economically there is no difference between them now. They,ve bought into the so called neo liberalism and even though it is apparant that this theory is not working, especially for the working class, the polticians are doubling down on this idiotic economic plan
Well, Weir certainly explained something to me, the source of the "rot" I've been hearing about at Colleges today. Blyth is worth listening to, Weir on the other hand offered little more than a endless stream of banalities that I have read on the signs of hysterical protestors burning and breaking things.
I watched this thinking it was filmed mid 2020. Oh dear. Mark you've been calling everything as you see it and it's been one proven observation after another.
Most of capital resides in bonds, not in stock markets, which it dwarves on a scale of 9 to 1. This era will be defined by capital preservation, and when government starts to get into trouble, and in turn the bond markets, capital will flee from bonds to stocks (and other asset classes) for wealth preservation.
(The 7) Issue, solution, approach, schedule, costs, risk and mitigation, alternatives including variation on the approach toward the solution. It is good that everyone on the panel continue to explain what is wrong, how we got here, and how (beneath the top few) we wallow. The lesson must sink in deeply across the voting public. Across the doing public however, The 7, has become a bag of bones pit pulls growl about, at each other and at the fawning media. Where is the (The 3) Public/Private/Government consensus on The 7? Will it come from the top-down (of The 3)? I doubt it. The top-Down has continued to make matters worse. Will it come from the bottom-up? I fear not, as by some (or someone's design) the bottom chooses to take sides against one another rather than recognizing their disunity ensures their continued subjugation and decline. So where out of The 3 will we begin to elucidate The 7? It will not be done by party, but by people.
BIOGRAPHY Margaret Weir is Professor of Political Science and International and Public Affairs at Brown University. Before coming to Brown in 2016, she was the Avice M Saint Chair in Public Policy and Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. Her research centers on social policy, poverty, and urban politics in the United States and Europe. She is the author and editor of several books, including Schooling for All: Race, Class and the Decline of the Democratic Ideal (coauthored with Ira Katznelson, Basic Books); and Politics and Jobs: The Boundaries of Employment Policy in the United States (Princeton University Press), The Politics of Social Policy in the United States (with Ann Shola Orloff and Theda Skocpol, Princeton University Press) and The Social Divide (Brookings and Russell Sage). She is currently working on a book about the politics of spatial inequality in American metropolitan areas.
Aaaand wait for it....... Russia... tum tum tuuuuuuuum. I am sad to say that I didn't expect that. Listening to Mark shut off the crazy part of my brain I guess and I completely forgot about that dumb ass talking point.
Canadians have been subsidising big business (including political parties) for years without knowing it, whats that called? How can we say "people support" when they are not part of the decision process. The people used to tell government what they wanted, and now government tells what we want?
Blyth is the only one who talks like he lives in the real words. he has concepts and knows theory while he also knows how to speak for any person with a moderate IQ
48:40 onward: Mark Blyth hits the nail on the head here. What is the point in democracy, in voting, if all elections are is a way for lobby groups to effect the system leaving everyone else high and dry That's why the right, both hard and centre, are winning, because the left has collapsed or been destroyed leaving the voter with the stark choice of voting for the lesser of two evils or not voting at all.
We allowed or help co-create the place we are at, lets drop our mental guns become once again naked and vulnerable and write a new script for the future of the earth and our children.
Left economists aren't in short supply, but in my opinion Blyth is the most powerful, articulate orator of the group. "By Congressional rules to find money for one thing you have to take it from something else"?! In a nation with FIAT currency?! WTF?!
And Andrew Yang is the second. UBI function the same way democracy dollars does. He can't fix the system alone he means. We gotta all pitch in and the freedom dividend is a tool for that to happen just like democracy dollars
MARGARET - listen very hard to Mark - you seem to epitomise the Democratic biased attitude. No-one I know voted for Trump with Racial Motivation - They voted for HOPE. Hope of not being priced out of jobs by people in countries with lower cost of living Hope of getting a bigger share of the economic Pie back from the Elites. Sorry to be Rude but the Racial narative is pure Bull**** in my opinion.
GRANT WEBSTER Then you don't know your history, and you don't understand your present. You hope that a bunch of plutocrats from the same bunch of plutocrats that stole your jobs in the first place will stop stealing, and give back all that profit they hoovered up and give it to you for nothing? For less profit? Hmm, good luck with that.
Now I never said the end result was right or wrong , simply that in my experience the voter motivation seems very definitely not to be what Margaret Assumes. Whether or not it can work Motormouth Trump is the ONLY man in recent history with more than a snowballs chance in hell of success who has even suggested he wants to address issues for the Workers whose jobs and Pay rates have been ravaged by Immigration and Foreign Manufacture. I don't even say it is right just that we Freeze out foreign Labour and manufacture, only that people are worse off than before and are hurting. OK If Free Trade and Immigrants are so wonderful - There are Billions of very capable People Worldwide why don't we let them bid for all the Teacher, Lecturer Doctor, Government Jobs and Much Reduced Rates of Pay Get rid of the protectionist policies and recognize their perfectly good Local Degrees and Qualifications. See how the comfortable left wing like it then. Imagine yourself in the position of seeing the job you have NOW and your FRIENDS and NEIGHBORS PAY and JOBS and FUTURE sold to cheap labour over decades before judging!! 2 ears 1 mouth
The fact that addiction is kicked off with prescription pads doesn't mean what's sold on the street is irrelevant, given that is where people turn when the prescription strength fails to satisfy the inherent need for ever more.
Solution for who ? even in a 'perfect world' some are going to be more 'perfect' than others,for most people the solution would basically amount to 'bad','less bad' or at best 'ok'
*On Liberalism* Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. And a Republic, certainly a capitalist Republic, though any representative state really, is not a Democracy (see the excellent book *Against* *Elections*: *The Case for Democracy* ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KS9EMvbBq_U.html). On the contrary it is oligarchical by its very nature. *Individual Rights and Free Trade* Liberalism like all ideologies is a spectrum, but it is ultimately centred around the concept of the individual and individual rights vis a vis 'the State', the sacredness of private property (ie Land in particular), Markets and Free Trade is a term that goes back a very long time. Free Trade was used by the British and French to justify the Opium Wars (and so many others). Liberalism is associated with the emergent Bourgeoisie. In otherwords, Capitalism. *Capitalism* The Bourgeoisie are: "The class of people in a [capitalist] society who own the social means of production as their Private Property, i.e., as capital" (SOURCE www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/o.htm) The Communist Manifesto breaks it down rather well: "the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange. Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class." [.....] "The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation." "Generally speaking, for the economical development of the bourgeoisie, England is here taken as the typical country, for its political development, fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom - Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation" (SOURCE www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf) It is key to note that Liberalism is very much associated with this system being both praised and condemned by Marx and Engles as being both revolutionary in many ways but also heartless, immoral, and destructive. Sound familiar? Much of the latter critique could be made about capitalism today, the current version of which is known as neoliberalism. *Later On* The Rule of Law is another concept that is often associated with emergent post-feudal societies, prot-capitalist and then capitalist societies, for which Liberalism is the defining and justifying ideology. Other terms and concepts would also be added, including Representative Democracy (no such thing as noted above), Freedom, and Human Rights. Though much of this - not all - but much is largely window dressing. The Soft Power that is used to maintain the legitimacy and acceptance of the system. But for certain segments of the population they do experience much, if not all, of the promises of the 'Liberal Order'. Fair trials, Meritocracy, Fulfilment in their workplace, an abundance of goods and services they can afford to indulge in without amassing soul crushing levels of debt, etc. But for so many others this, most in fact, this aspect of liberalism was always a mirage. From the brutality of the police and judiciary which don't treat them fairly, the lack of political representation, or the authoritarianism in their work life. *Illiberalism* Alas, when the system falls into disrepute, as it has now, the best part of the system (ie tolerance, acceptance, pluralism, progressivism) get blamed by demagogues for what are failures of the system itself (ie capitalism). As a result faux populists ride the wave of anti-feminism, anti-LGBT rights, bigotry towards a racialised minority (be it religious or ethnic), etc. If I were to guess, Margaret Weir identifies with all of the marketing aspects of Liberalism not just because of her own education, but because of her socio-economic reality. She worked hard, 'played by the rules' and has 'advanced' as a result. She saw the same for others. For a number of years the world did really appear, for certain people and from a certain perspective, as though it was 'Marching Towards Progress, as though there was a linear development from the so-called Enlightenment. Her malaise is real and should not be discounted. Liberals are seeing the collapse of the their order and it is truly frightening to them - as it should be. The mask of the truly horrid nature of capitalist modernity has been taken off (something which Obama temporarily restored for so many of them). To understand this shock to the system is to understand the deep need of so many middle class liberals to invest themselves in Russiagate. Surley Trump is an anomaly, one we can blame on Russia or Comey. Socio-economic class is not determinant of course. You can do well but also recognise the bubble and have an analysis and critique that explains the system beyond the self-serving marketing of the system. See Blyth, Chomsky, Wolff. *These are my thoughts on the matter, and are the product of considering this concept over many years. I am by no means any more of an authority than anyone else who has considered this issue with any degree of seriousness.*
FOR THE WATSON INSTITUTE: By the way, on the opening slide, it's not Marine LE PEN on the photo you are presenting but Marion MARECHAL LE PEN !! It’s like presenting Theresa MAY and showing pictures of Margaret THATCHER. This doesn’t give much credibility to the rest… Especially when in all your symposiums you omit, bash our give wrong quotes about the French. It’s always a very poor résumé of the situation in Europe and more so in France.
All societies lash out at change, like packing up and moving your home its disruptive and easier to be angry rather than trying to understand and taking a side. Theres a lot of changes coming as our value for one another and the earth becomes front and center and for me? its about bloody time.
If someone at Watson who uploads these, could give each of the speakers, a pat on the back or a hug, and tell them to at least try acting like they aren't at a funeral? :P This is one of the greatest opportunity moments for societal change, and entering mourning will mean its not you directing that change.
I have not heard a thing about labor Law (and minimum wage) from either party nor in this discussion and fully 50% of our population lives paycheck-to-paycheck and only commands a total of slightly less then 1% of the family wealth Assets of this country...(CBO/Aug/2016) meanwhile the top 10% went from owning about 24% of all assets in 1989 to almost 80% of all assets today. The bottom is basically a straight line across that last 25 years. This is the number #1 issue of our time and it's how DeBlasio in NYC got elected twice with over 50% of the vote. The bottom 50% is looking like a 3rd world in America.
Elephants in the room: 1. International Trade Agreements were promoted by multinational corporations and their bought and paid for politicians. Multinationals moved their factories out of the US and escaped US taxation, labor laws, environmental laws, the plaintiffs' bar and class action suits, and higher costs for wages and benefits. The working class in the US was the big loser as they lost high-paying jobs and employer-provided benefits, and their standard of living was maintained only by taking on debt; 2. The American economy moved from the leading manufacturing economy at the end of WW2 to a leading consumption economy in which one of the biggest economic sectors became financialization. The excessive power and influence of the financial sector and their recklessness led to the 2008 financial crisis from which the World financial system has not recovered. Since 2008, the majority of income improvement has gone to the top 1% of the rich, while income disparity has increased badly; 3. The military and intelligence budgets are unsustainable, and the military-industrial complex enjoys very great influence and money from governments; 4. Obama's Hope and Change mantra became more and more a blatant fraud over his two terms. Federal debt almost doubled during his terms, and the government fudged unemployment figures outrageously to hide high unemployment rates; 5. The social benefit programs that were brought in since WW2 are not fully funded and when their future funding costs are taken into account, they have been estimated to put the US federal government as much as $220 Trillion underwater. The US federal government says their debt is only $20 Trillion, but that does not take into account future costs for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Veterans' benefits, government employee pensions and benefits, etc.; 6. Obamacare was sold as making medical care available to all, and as ending insurance company abuses such as cancelling coverage as soon as the insured became ill. But Obamacare turned out to be a gift to the insurance companies and for-profit medical industry, with deductibles, co-pays, and ever-increasing premiums. Only those with extreme medical problems benefited, as they would have been refused insurance before. The funding model for Obamacare depended upon forcing young and healthy persons to buy insurance and thus subsidizing the medical costs of the unhealthy, but the young and healthy have largely refused to play along, electing to pay the cheaper penalty for not buying insurance; 7. Another bad effect of Obamacare was the reduction in working hours of "full time" employees. Workers who formerly worked 40 hours or more per week had their work week cut to below 35 hours, so the employer escaped the Obamacare mandate for employer-provided medical coverage; 8. To keep the tottering finances of the US and Europe afloat, the Federal Reserve and Central Banks elsewhere pushed interest rates to near or below zero, making it possible for governments and businesses to survive on cheap credit, but making it impossible for savers, banks, pension funds, and insurance companies to get a reasonable rate of return on their funds except by engaging in risky financial strategies that may well lead to significant losses; 9. Academics tend to view the weakening of social protections as purely the result of lack of political will and cohesiveness, while ignoring how these social protections are to be paid for.
1 difficulty listening to these is when ambiguous mention of Democrat/Republican is not discerned as politicians, or voters. They are not the same, nor do not believe the same. Weir is too busy trying to redeem Democrat party support on issues throwing the public under the bus. All? No, but enough to do damage, NAFTA, perfect example. Yes, "lesser of two evils" arguments don't matter.
Marget is wrong about the problem being Republicans thwarting Obama's good intentions. How good could his intentions have been when, as Mark points out, he brought Summers, Geithner, and Rubin in to be his economic team? At the end of Dubya's second term we were fighting 2 wars. Now we're fighting 7 wars! Thomas Frank makes the case that since Obama was a beneficiary and proponent of the Democratic Neoliberal Meritocracy, what happened during his terms was pretty much exactly what he wanted to have happen.
Very patronizing how Margaret kept minimizing Blythe because he wasn't born in the States. You don't need to be born in the U.S. to understand U.S. political economy. Very impressed with his patience with this.
The main difference between these scholars (Blyth being the only one cutting the crap) in that one is European and the others are American and are used to and perfectly happy with moralising any subject and pivoting any problem towards the other "party".....The US as a political economy is utterly schizophrenic......
I might disagree with some of Mrs Weir arguments, if you see polls on Obama's Policy popularity its worst then Obama's popularity. Even ACA as a whole is unpopular, just some of its elements are popular
The problem: The people who benefit from tax money don't realize it and it isn't the helpful tax-funded program's job to communicate how many people they help and why. Also, Red states have no concept of how much of their rural life is subsidized by the money making cities they resent.
Whats the rationale that says people who voted for Obama can't be racist? On that point at least, Blythe demonstrates a shallow understanding of how racism works, and lives in people's minds. Put bluntly, every racist has "a black friend" they can tell you about whenever you call out their racism, Obama was basically that Black Friend for every racist in the country.
I hate that 'african american' label for decendents of slaves. They are humans like everybody else. Nobody gets called,'catholic american' or 'irish american' 'german american' etc.
wonder what they have to say about the staggering third world slavery. which is the most unliberal of all humanity. example the nike jacket worn by one of the speakers is made in bangladesh and vietnam for pittance. the liberal order seems to work very well only inside a room full of yes yes yes
It seems to me that one of the problems the democrats is facing is that there is money to be made in politics. The republicans have known this for a long time, of course, but that was mostly about keeping the money they already had. The rise of the professional politician is a serious problem since it completely eradicated ideology in favour of winning elections, and squeezing their position of all capital it could generate, political as well as financial. Political capital can then generate actual capital when the tenure is over and a well salaried position opens up, ready for plucking by the well informed ex-politician cum CEO. Then, of course, the democrat, turns into a republican, because now he has all this money which he would like to keep. Only he won't call himself a republican because that won't get him elected, since the people without money would like some too and republicans are only good to the select few who can afford the price of admission, and that price just keeps rising.
Weir dances around it and just about says it, Obama just couldn't roll his sleeves up and do the work. The truth is, Trump is there because Obama didn't deliver.
My brother voted for Obama twice. he voted for Trump. if Trump had not won Republican nomination, he would have voted for Bernie. This woman needs to get out of her bubble
i guess i'm a simple man. there is democracy, a society in which every citizen has an equal vote, not for a choice of who shall be his master, but for choosing 'what shall we do?' this last is realized by initiative and referendum, supported by open administration of public affairs so that the electorate has the facts to decide. or, there is oligarchy. this is rule by a few. the few come in a variety of groups: the rich, the generals, the bureaucrats, the priests, and usually all of them support one another in the enjoyment of the labor of the many. every oligarchy is unstable, since there is no limit to greed and arrogance, and society collapses when no more blood can be had from the many. and that's all i know about politics and economics. just a few simple principles. you can talk about 'bad men' all you want, whether it be lenin or reagan, but if you don't look at the system that produced them, you are wasting your time.
technocrats were correct: neoliberalism has led to the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, just that few of them were the people the policies were being sold to, and most were previously poor workers in underdeveloped and undeveloped nations, now newly developed (see: China, Vietnam, etc.). The people were correct in this case to vote for populists like Trump and solutions like Brexit, but even closing off nations from competition, either from outsourced jobs or insourced people will not bring about the solution that the people want, because the ultimate source of their misery, as it has been for centuries if not the entirety of human existence since we stopped roaming the grasslands and created fixed societies, is the moneyed elites pitting them against themselves, and creating capitalistic competition for the peons while embracing a socialized welfare club for themselves.
And you're still not getting it. The main theme you keep going back to is race and identity politics. Those are the only issues the democrats are willing to talk about. All whites are racists and they are terrible. Then the surprise that people get angry being told that the only reason they voted for change, any change, was that they are racist. Nationalism is on the rise in many parts of the world, I don't see criticism of Islamic countries not willing to have immigration, or other sovereign states keeping their own identity. Yet western countries are supposed to become a global culture, why, each country has it's own way, if you want to discard that, then you do not need the state or country anymore, have a world central government and be done with it. Somehow I don't think most westerns would enjoy that.
"Inclusion" did not provide the social progress we experienced as Weir suggests. The civil rights movement and invasive technological development provided the engine of progress.
I agree with Byth but it might because of his contrariness. Canada doesn't get a mention but Liberals do seem to have been successful. The secret is: deficits can be OK.
is the overall point here that technocracy is the problem with neoliberalism? Isn't the problem rather an intellectual one? The unifying core of Reagan's and Thatcher's politics was that markets should rule, not governments. Neoliberlism adopted and has championed that philosophy. If one looks at the natural world where predators do seem to assure the health of herbivore populations one finds a strong argument for that point of view. The intellectual failure comes in not from stepping back from a romantic view of us all getting along so long as we don't use exclusionary and especially inflammatory language, but from failing to take note when the government steps in to help the predators at the expense of the population. No better example exists than the Obama administration pulling out all stops to save the creditors in the banking crisis. People who thought or think that electing a black president was a great moral victory are totally missing the point. Obama gave great romantic speeches to the herbivores but his heart was with the predators. Free enterprise does not mean the poor are free to fail while the rich are entitled to win, no matter what.
i do hate to listen to educated people when they bring democracy into the discussion. they are always refering to elective aristocracy, quite a different thing. and it is not a harmless acceptance of modern usage of the word. the explolitation of the working people is made possible by that double-think. anyone genuinely interested in helping the ordinary people should never go along with this sham.
This guy has a much better handle on our politics, he is an immigrant who understands to a. Greater extent than this woman who has been in, what, the academic bubble?
We are seeing the Weimarization of fragmentation of political parties in the West, the political binary is realigning and recomposing itself, the political left and right is a game of dosey do, aspects of the left are now the right, and vice versa. People who don't fit into those two poles are going to opt out and not vote, if there is only a choice between two. The problems with the Democrats is that they are all things to all people and end up failing to get enough people to turnout because those people were not buying what they were selling. To keep things in perspective as time goes on, most Western countries do not have the money to pay for pensions and healthcare because of the aging of the population. The only way to solve this problem is to have more taxpayers which means more immigrants, and/or robots. Yes, with Prop 13, I live in Cali, everything is bias towards the preferences of the old, politicians are going to bend over backwards for those people, not the young. The main question should there be a property tax, is it a good tax to fund schools, why even bother having one, why is the house and the land taxed, why not just tax the land. One would also think that with driverless cars coming into the next 10 to 20 years, we will see land used for parking garages be freed up for affordable housing. Why do colleges jack up tutition midstream when a student is going to college, they could the same price for the said student until they gradudate, but make it contingent that they do in a timely matter. The young don't have the barganing power and influence to change things. The U.S is not like Europe in terms of race, but much more like other settler colonies Australia, NZ, Canada, and Latin America. Perhaps the problem with democracy is with democracy itself, elections that force people into binaries, might be better to randomly pick citizens out of a lottery, bring back the Greek sortition, because the ancient Greeks believe that Democracy lead to oligarchy and ordinary people are cut off from the opportunity of politics because of the heavy cost and huge time expense. Making it like market research where citizens study an issue and put it to the people in a referendum might be the way to go. There may be problem with this, but a good mathematical formula to pick people might work. For the UK, turning the House of Lords into a random house might be better than having an elected Senate.
This liberal women is making me mad. Csn this women have any social awareness about what white people are going through or any empathy or them or thier wants and desires?
Of all the economist or economic pundits on the internet these days Mark Blythe makes the most sense to me. it's sad to think that the policies he suggested had the chance to be acted out by world leaders (in the last decade) but they didn't. and maybe that chance is over now.
and still no one has said, usa is not, never has been, was never meant to be, a democracy. prof blyth is an amusing speaker, and a smart man, studies and teaches political economy, and never ever connects current affairs to the fact that the people do not rule. aristotle, he ain't. not even an honest man.
Disagree with the McDonalds analogy - I think it's exactly backwards. The rust belt has been eating McDonalds for decades, and now they've decided to go with that flashy new burger joint called "Carl Juniors'!", which you've heard so much about and don't you remember that Paris Hilton commercial that was banned (But wasn't it called Carl's Jr?) that might sell you the best burger you've ever had. So do you choose McDonalds again, or go with that new burger joint - it's still going to be a burger, right? Right? Trump isn't McDonalds. Trump isn't the same thing you've had all over the nation (the world!) only with slight regional flavours (wow, McLobster on the East coast! Tomato sandwich in Japan! No beef in India! Etc.) - that's the DNC and GOP. We KNOW what the DNC is going to give us, and what the GOP is going to give us. We know their menu. We know their prices. We know if we have $13, we're going to be able to get two basic meals (or a "good" meal and a Happy Meal). With Trump we are assuming we're getting a burger and fries, but until we open that door and get the food on our plates, we simply don't know. That's why Trump can't be McDonalds. Other than that, love almost everything Blyth is saying. I just hope more people listen to him than to Weir, who scares me more than Trump does. She's essentially saying "This is the Republicans fault! This is the fault of the (racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc.) GOP voter! We're the victims of their bigotry and greed! It's not our fault at all!" that I see in the DNC and other Liberal talking heads - the ones who think they're going to "fix" the DNC and beat Trump. They're going to fail and they refuse to learn why.
