Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

This is not about Trump (except of course it is) – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    edited January 2021

    Scott_xP said:
    Can I just point out the wonderful name of the governor? Perhaps he should have become a judge...
    We had Judge Judge.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Judge,_Baron_Judge
    What would be great is a Judge Dredd...
    I have a friend who thought about a career in the judiciary but she thought her surname would attract unwanted attention.

    Personally I'd have been happy to see a Judge De'Ath.
    There was a Sandra De'ath a few years ahead of me at my medical school. I am not sure if she used a different name professionally.

    I did also work with a aurgeon called Mr Pain...
  • HYUFD said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    "Patriot" is Trumpsky-Putinist code for "Fascist".

    Maybe a shock to some PBers, but strangely the Republican Party is NOT rallying around their Fearless Leader and his fellow "Patriots" in the wake of the Trumpsky Putsch.

    From Politico.com

    Election gambit blows up on Hawley and Cruz
    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/09/hawley-cruz-2024-capitol-riots-456671

    "Hawley’s political patron, former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.), turned on him, calling his support the 'biggest mistake I’ve ever made.' His top donor, David Humphreys, said he should be censured."

    McCarthy and Scalise face internal dissension after Capitol riot
    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/09/mccarthy-scalise-backlash-capitol-riot-456777

    "Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), a Navy SEAL who was wounded in Afghanistan, told the Houston Chronicle: 'All of the members who called for everyone to come and fight and make their last stand, all of those members were scattered like cowards while the Capitol Police had to do the fighting.'"

    I think Politico are being rather selective. Trump's allies easily maintain control of the RNC

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/ronna-mcdaniel-wins-third-term-as-rnc-chairman
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/trump-aligned-tommy-hicks-jr-wins-rnc-co-chair-in-key-proxy-battle

    Also, the WSJ has a poll today - 54% of Republicans consider themselves to be more of a supporter than Donald Trump vs 38% who consider themselves a supporter more of the GOP (not sure if this is behind a paywall)

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-splits-over-post-trump-path-11610147555
    Doesn't that show deterioration in the Trumpsky-Putinist position? Which is gonna increase over the next weeks.

    Remember the trajectory of Tail-Gunner Joe . . . and wait for it.
    Even the Politico article that talked about Hawley reportedly in trouble was mostly about his mentor turning against him but also pointed out that it was unlikely he would lose today.

    Maybe Trump will see a decline in support but the idea that we are going back to those "wonderful" Republicans like Romney is a fallacy. The agenda around Trump will stay, it may just be presented with a different face.
    We shall see. Surely American conservative will NOT go away. But it gave itself a REAL kick in the ass this week. And there will be consequences.

    For example, Bloody Hands Hawley will NEVER be President of the United States. Indeed, think it unlikely he will be able to win re-election, or even re-nomination, as US Senator.
    I agree on the former, I disagree on the latter.

    57% of Missouri voters voted for Trump and he is the state Senator.

    As the WSJ poll Mr Ed linked to shows most GOP voters still back Trump.
    Wait for it. Or rather, more data points.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586

    TimT said:

    TimT said:

    On topic.
    Actually, I think I WILL reserve the right to feel scorn at those who voted for Trump.

    Here is a man who, before the election, was revealed to be a racist, disability-mocking sex pest.

    Anyone who voted for him, voted to put him into a position of trust. The position where not only the buck stops in terms of overseeing the care of the vulnerable, but also the tone is set.
    Even if you thought your economic interests would be marginally better with that kind of man in the White House (and I doubt that's the case anyway), you're throwing the vulnerable under the bus.

    That's the voting equivalent of pushing a granny over to grab the last bottle of paracetamol off the pharmacy shelves, because hey, YOU want it.

    Trump is not, and has never been "at times borderline psychopathic". He's fully over the line 100% of the time. He's not just damaged, he's full-blown mad, and as much was clear LONG before even the Rep primaries were finished.

    If you aren't going to pay enough attention to whom you're voting for, don't fucking vote at all, you don't know what you're doing. If you don't care that someone is a clear and present danger to the democratic process, don't fucking vote, you don't deserve it. If all you care about is your own pocket, no matter who gets hurt then vote as you see fit but don't get your knickers in a twist when someone calls you a scumbag for your choice.

    Every single person who voted for Trump either had their eyes closed or just didn't care that people would get hurt. No exceptions. I have more respect for people who drink drive, and I really, really hate those bastards.

    Which is why you are so much a part of the problem and are as bad - in your own way - as those who voted for Trump. You live in a country that provides, for most people at least, a basic safety net. You also live a country where seeing large scale year on year drops in your income - not relative income but actual - is fairly uncommon for most people except in the times of utmost economic hardship such as the financial crash. This is not the case in the US where people live much closer to the edge of economic catastrophe on a daily basis.

    For you to sit here and scorn them for hoping to make their lives better reflects very poorly on you.
    I think it's disingenuous to say I "scorn them for hoping to make their lives better".
    I scorn them for endangering EVERYONE'S lives.
    You might as well chide me for scorning a drunk driver for just wanting to get home in good time. Nah, I don't mind that desire, and hey, perhaps you'll even make it home safe.
    But if they smash into a pedestrian because they misjudged the situation horribly are you going to sit there are stroke your chin and say hmmm, yes, I can see why they made that choice.

    It was a bad choice. And not only in hindsight. It was risky, selfish, self-defeating. And we absolutely are allowed to call out the stupid choices other people make. It's actually a necessary part of the democratic process.
    So you really think it is useful to equate 46% of an electorate to a drunk driver? You really think that the reason 46% voted the way they did could only be through stupidity or selfishness?

    You clearly have no interest in trying to learn from this situation, only to shame and blame.
    Mmmm not quite. I am very interested indeed to hear people's solutions to the profound problems affecting American society. The epidemic in deaths of despair (suicide, alcohol, illegal- and legal-drug addiction) is perhaps the most pressing issue, and the capture by the elite of the lion's share of the profits made from productivity gains is, in my view, a close second.
    And I find it understandable that faced with these problems people's voting patterns might trend somewhat more radical. All this is very reasonable stuff.

    But every so often someone comes along who is so far beyond the pale that they shouldn't be touched with a bargepole. I don't remember another American politician in my lifetime fitting into that category.

    And yes, I think anyone who voted for him was stupid or asleep. And, well, events have actually proven that those who said he was bad news were absolutely 100% right.

    You seem to be trying to say "these people had their reasons", and I don't dispute that. I'm only saying that those reasons were not good enough and they made a mistake. A gravely serious mistake. I'm quite keen that THEY learn from this situation. I've no doubt that these last few days will have shaken a few of them awake.
    I work in the field of risk management in complex adaptive systems in high risk, fast changing environments where very small changes in inputs that usually produce expected outcome can result in truly catastrophic events.

    What is a striking feature in all such industries is that, for all but those 5% of occasions where there was malintent, the persons whose decisions were the proximal cause of the catastrophe thought they were doing the right thing at the time of the decision. That being the case, it is not useful in investigating such incidents to stop your findings at 'human error'. It tells you nothing and does nothing to help you prevent recurrence of the problem going forward. Indeed, other studies show that most people with the same level of experience and training put in the position of the person who made the bad call would have made the same bad call.

    So the only way to improve is to find the characteristics of the system that made the operator think that the wrong decision was the right one.

    I take the same approach with Trump voters. It is simply unhelpful to say they made a wrong decision. It does not help us prevent a recurrence, and it does not help them, as they never thought they made a mistake, except perhaps in retrospect. What about the system made them think it was the right thing to do to vote for Trump? What can we fix in the system to prevent that same miscalculation being made by the AND OTHERS in the future? Unless we seek to answer those questions, we are doomed to repeat history, as are unsafe organizations who blame 'human error' for major accidents.

    One last thought - in all my research on trust and altruism, the only conclusion I can draw is that it is easy to stick to our morals until we are in dire straits. Then all bets are off for that vast majority of the population. There are very, very few Nelson Mandelas amongst us. It is a very brave, or overly confident person, who can state with certainty that, put in exactly the same circumstances as a Trump voter from lower middle class Michigan in 2016, they would have voted differently.
    Interesting, and something I wouldn't mind hearing more about. Yes, systems are vitally important in governing human behaviour, but let's not completely forget about personal responsibility. When we vote, we are in part responsible for what happens next (at least the actions of those you voted for), and if things go wrong it's reasonable to ask yourself "could I have known?"
    Have you read this -

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/022652583X/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

    If not, do.
    No, but thanks for the recommendation. I'm due a new audible credit in a few days time and I've listened to everything else in my audio library, so it might be timely.
    I actually disagree with some of the conclusions, but the actual interviews/conversations with people are extremely valuable and thought provoking.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,456

    TimT said:

    TimT said:

    On topic.
    Actually, I think I WILL reserve the right to feel scorn at those who voted for Trump.

    Here is a man who, before the election, was revealed to be a racist, disability-mocking sex pest.

    Anyone who voted for him, voted to put him into a position of trust. The position where not only the buck stops in terms of overseeing the care of the vulnerable, but also the tone is set.
    Even if you thought your economic interests would be marginally better with that kind of man in the White House (and I doubt that's the case anyway), you're throwing the vulnerable under the bus.

    That's the voting equivalent of pushing a granny over to grab the last bottle of paracetamol off the pharmacy shelves, because hey, YOU want it.

    Trump is not, and has never been "at times borderline psychopathic". He's fully over the line 100% of the time. He's not just damaged, he's full-blown mad, and as much was clear LONG before even the Rep primaries were finished.

    If you aren't going to pay enough attention to whom you're voting for, don't fucking vote at all, you don't know what you're doing. If you don't care that someone is a clear and present danger to the democratic process, don't fucking vote, you don't deserve it. If all you care about is your own pocket, no matter who gets hurt then vote as you see fit but don't get your knickers in a twist when someone calls you a scumbag for your choice.

    Every single person who voted for Trump either had their eyes closed or just didn't care that people would get hurt. No exceptions. I have more respect for people who drink drive, and I really, really hate those bastards.

    Which is why you are so much a part of the problem and are as bad - in your own way - as those who voted for Trump. You live in a country that provides, for most people at least, a basic safety net. You also live a country where seeing large scale year on year drops in your income - not relative income but actual - is fairly uncommon for most people except in the times of utmost economic hardship such as the financial crash. This is not the case in the US where people live much closer to the edge of economic catastrophe on a daily basis.

    For you to sit here and scorn them for hoping to make their lives better reflects very poorly on you.
    I think it's disingenuous to say I "scorn them for hoping to make their lives better".
    I scorn them for endangering EVERYONE'S lives.
    You might as well chide me for scorning a drunk driver for just wanting to get home in good time. Nah, I don't mind that desire, and hey, perhaps you'll even make it home safe.
    But if they smash into a pedestrian because they misjudged the situation horribly are you going to sit there are stroke your chin and say hmmm, yes, I can see why they made that choice.

    It was a bad choice. And not only in hindsight. It was risky, selfish, self-defeating. And we absolutely are allowed to call out the stupid choices other people make. It's actually a necessary part of the democratic process.
    So you really think it is useful to equate 46% of an electorate to a drunk driver? You really think that the reason 46% voted the way they did could only be through stupidity or selfishness?

    You clearly have no interest in trying to learn from this situation, only to shame and blame.
    Mmmm not quite. I am very interested indeed to hear people's solutions to the profound problems affecting American society. The epidemic in deaths of despair (suicide, alcohol, illegal- and legal-drug addiction) is perhaps the most pressing issue, and the capture by the elite of the lion's share of the profits made from productivity gains is, in my view, a close second.
    And I find it understandable that faced with these problems people's voting patterns might trend somewhat more radical. All this is very reasonable stuff.

    But every so often someone comes along who is so far beyond the pale that they shouldn't be touched with a bargepole. I don't remember another American politician in my lifetime fitting into that category.

    And yes, I think anyone who voted for him was stupid or asleep. And, well, events have actually proven that those who said he was bad news were absolutely 100% right.

    You seem to be trying to say "these people had their reasons", and I don't dispute that. I'm only saying that those reasons were not good enough and they made a mistake. A gravely serious mistake. I'm quite keen that THEY learn from this situation. I've no doubt that these last few days will have shaken a few of them awake.
    I work in the field of risk management in complex adaptive systems in high risk, fast changing environments where very small changes in inputs that usually produce expected outcome can result in truly catastrophic events.

    What is a striking feature in all such industries is that, for all but those 5% of occasions where there was malintent, the persons whose decisions were the proximal cause of the catastrophe thought they were doing the right thing at the time of the decision. That being the case, it is not useful in investigating such incidents to stop your findings at 'human error'. It tells you nothing and does nothing to help you prevent recurrence of the problem going forward. Indeed, other studies show that most people with the same level of experience and training put in the position of the person who made the bad call would have made the same bad call.

    So the only way to improve is to find the characteristics of the system that made the operator think that the wrong decision was the right one.

    I take the same approach with Trump voters. It is simply unhelpful to say they made a wrong decision. It does not help us prevent a recurrence, and it does not help them, as they never thought they made a mistake, except perhaps in retrospect. What about the system made them think it was the right thing to do to vote for Trump? What can we fix in the system to prevent that same miscalculation being made by the AND OTHERS in the future? Unless we seek to answer those questions, we are doomed to repeat history, as are unsafe organizations who blame 'human error' for major accidents.

    One last thought - in all my research on trust and altruism, the only conclusion I can draw is that it is easy to stick to our morals until we are in dire straits. Then all bets are off for that vast majority of the population. There are very, very few Nelson Mandelas amongst us. It is a very brave, or overly confident person, who can state with certainty that, put in exactly the same circumstances as a Trump voter from lower middle class Michigan in 2016, they would have voted differently.
    Interesting, and something I wouldn't mind hearing more about. Yes, systems are vitally important in governing human behaviour, but let's not completely forget about personal responsibility. When we vote, we are in part responsible for what happens next (at least the actions of those you voted for), and if things go wrong it's reasonable to ask yourself "could I have known?"
    Have you read this -

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/022652583X/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

    If not, do.
    No, but thanks for the recommendation. I'm due a new audible credit in a few days time and I've listened to everything else in my audio library, so it might be timely.
    I actually disagree with some of the conclusions, but the actual interviews/conversations with people are extremely valuable and thought provoking.
    I had the same thoughts about Hitler's Willing Executioners. Much of the book was tedious and repetitive, but some of the letters cited were extraordinarily thought provoking.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,200
    Too many excuses are being made for those who voted for Trump .

    All this crap about them being ignored , and the victims of globalization . Trump appealed to their worst instincts which they had to begin with. The base is nothing but a cesspit of hate and bigotry and nationalism on steroids . A minority held their nose and voted for him. The base couldn’t get enough of the hate. Trump is a cancer on humanity and a sociopath. Anyone supporting him is beneath contempt .
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    MrEd said:

    Good article, Richard.

    I thought @Sean_F put it very well when he said many Americans know he's a son of a bitch but think he's their son of a bitch.

    Sadly I think that is the great error they made. He never was 'their Son of Bitch'. To be rather crude about it, they were all his bitches and he would use them without regard until they were no longer of use to him.
    But, whatever one thinks of Trump, he has largely implemented (or at least sincerely tried to implement) the manifesto he was elected on in 2016. That will count for a lot.

    I think both @rcs1000 and myself thought he was full of hot-air in 2016, and would end-up governing as a relatively standard Republican with a lot of populist windy rhetoric on top.
    He’s a loser though.

    Lost the House.

    Lost the Presidency.

    Lost the Senate.

    Took the L on a grand scale.

    Sad!
    What do you think of the people who voted for him?
    Judging by the ones I saw this week not much to be honest.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Doubt that Trumpsky is likely to pardon ANYBODY in the time remaining, except maybe members of this own family.

    BECAUSE the ONLY thing he cares about his himself, first, last & always. AND he'd got enough problems himself, poor baby.

    Sorry, that's an insult to all babies which I now retract!

    I like the argument that pardoning people creates danger for himself, because a pardonee cannot plead the right not to self-incriminate when compelled to give evidence against Trump.
    I believe that there is some case law against that position. IIRC some of it dates to HUAC - the idea of pardoning people so as to force them to name *other*, more important people came up.
    Possibly right, but there is a distinction between immunity offered ad hoc by the prosecution and pre-existing immunity granted by the defendant.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,456
    edited January 2021

    HYUFD said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    "Patriot" is Trumpsky-Putinist code for "Fascist".

    Maybe a shock to some PBers, but strangely the Republican Party is NOT rallying around their Fearless Leader and his fellow "Patriots" in the wake of the Trumpsky Putsch.

    From Politico.com

    Election gambit blows up on Hawley and Cruz
    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/09/hawley-cruz-2024-capitol-riots-456671

    "Hawley’s political patron, former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.), turned on him, calling his support the 'biggest mistake I’ve ever made.' His top donor, David Humphreys, said he should be censured."

    McCarthy and Scalise face internal dissension after Capitol riot
    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/09/mccarthy-scalise-backlash-capitol-riot-456777

    "Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), a Navy SEAL who was wounded in Afghanistan, told the Houston Chronicle: 'All of the members who called for everyone to come and fight and make their last stand, all of those members were scattered like cowards while the Capitol Police had to do the fighting.'"

    I think Politico are being rather selective. Trump's allies easily maintain control of the RNC

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/ronna-mcdaniel-wins-third-term-as-rnc-chairman
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/trump-aligned-tommy-hicks-jr-wins-rnc-co-chair-in-key-proxy-battle

    Also, the WSJ has a poll today - 54% of Republicans consider themselves to be more of a supporter than Donald Trump vs 38% who consider themselves a supporter more of the GOP (not sure if this is behind a paywall)

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-splits-over-post-trump-path-11610147555
    Doesn't that show deterioration in the Trumpsky-Putinist position? Which is gonna increase over the next weeks.

    Remember the trajectory of Tail-Gunner Joe . . . and wait for it.
    Even the Politico article that talked about Hawley reportedly in trouble was mostly about his mentor turning against him but also pointed out that it was unlikely he would lose today.

    Maybe Trump will see a decline in support but the idea that we are going back to those "wonderful" Republicans like Romney is a fallacy. The agenda around Trump will stay, it may just be presented with a different face.
    We shall see. Surely American conservative will NOT go away. But it gave itself a REAL kick in the ass this week. And there will be consequences.

    For example, Bloody Hands Hawley will NEVER be President of the United States. Indeed, think it unlikely he will be able to win re-election, or even re-nomination, as US Senator.
    I agree on the former, I disagree on the latter.

    57% of Missouri voters voted for Trump and he is the state Senator.

    As the WSJ poll Mr Ed linked to shows most GOP voters still back Trump.
    Wait for it. Or rather, more data points.
    But don't forget he took the seat from Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, who took it from Talent, a Republican. It is a fairly strong Republican state, but not unwinnable in the right circumstances, and easily losable by the wrong GOP candidate, as Akin showed in 2012.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Can I just point out the wonderful name of the governor? Perhaps he should have become a judge...
    We had Judge Judge.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Judge,_Baron_Judge
    What would be great is a Judge Dredd...
    I have a friend who thought about a career in the judiciary but she thought her surname would attract unwanted attention.

    Personally I'd have been happy to see a Judge De'Ath.
    There was a Sandra De'ath a few years ahead of me at my medical school. I am not sure if she used a different name professionally.

    I did also work with a aurgeon called Mr Pain...
    My favourite is the Master of Queens' College, Cambridge ... Baron Eatwell.

    (Sadly, he retired in 2019)
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848
    On the topic of the header re globalisation. One of the major issues is that the benefits of globalisation only appear to be allowed to accrue to companies.

    For example fine for them to have their products made in a low wage economy so they pay less for labour but if the customer tries to buy the finished product from the market of a low wage economy then the company will go to court to have that stopped.

    A prime example
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/aug/01/clothes.marketingandpr
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    TimT said:

    On topic.
    Actually, I think I WILL reserve the right to feel scorn at those who voted for Trump.

    Here is a man who, before the election, was revealed to be a racist, disability-mocking sex pest.

    Anyone who voted for him, voted to put him into a position of trust. The position where not only the buck stops in terms of overseeing the care of the vulnerable, but also the tone is set.
    Even if you thought your economic interests would be marginally better with that kind of man in the White House (and I doubt that's the case anyway), you're throwing the vulnerable under the bus.

    That's the voting equivalent of pushing a granny over to grab the last bottle of paracetamol off the pharmacy shelves, because hey, YOU want it.

    Trump is not, and has never been "at times borderline psychopathic". He's fully over the line 100% of the time. He's not just damaged, he's full-blown mad, and as much was clear LONG before even the Rep primaries were finished.

    If you aren't going to pay enough attention to whom you're voting for, don't fucking vote at all, you don't know what you're doing. If you don't care that someone is a clear and present danger to the democratic process, don't fucking vote, you don't deserve it. If all you care about is your own pocket, no matter who gets hurt then vote as you see fit but don't get your knickers in a twist when someone calls you a scumbag for your choice.

    Every single person who voted for Trump either had their eyes closed or just didn't care that people would get hurt. No exceptions. I have more respect for people who drink drive, and I really, really hate those bastards.

    Which is why you are so much a part of the problem and are as bad - in your own way - as those who voted for Trump. You live in a country that provides, for most people at least, a basic safety net. You also live a country where seeing large scale year on year drops in your income - not relative income but actual - is fairly uncommon for most people except in the times of utmost economic hardship such as the financial crash. This is not the case in the US where people live much closer to the edge of economic catastrophe on a daily basis.

    For you to sit here and scorn them for hoping to make their lives better reflects very poorly on you.
    I think it's disingenuous to say I "scorn them for hoping to make their lives better".
    I scorn them for endangering EVERYONE'S lives.
    You might as well chide me for scorning a drunk driver for just wanting to get home in good time. Nah, I don't mind that desire, and hey, perhaps you'll even make it home safe.
    But if they smash into a pedestrian because they misjudged the situation horribly are you going to sit there are stroke your chin and say hmmm, yes, I can see why they made that choice.

    It was a bad choice. And not only in hindsight. It was risky, selfish, self-defeating. And we absolutely are allowed to call out the stupid choices other people make. It's actually a necessary part of the democratic process.
    So you really think it is useful to equate 46% of an electorate to a drunk driver? You really think that the reason 46% voted the way they did could only be through stupidity or selfishness?

    You clearly have no interest in trying to learn from this situation, only to shame and blame.
    Mmmm not quite. I am very interested indeed to hear people's solutions to the profound problems affecting American society. The epidemic in deaths of despair (suicide, alcohol, illegal- and legal-drug addiction) is perhaps the most pressing issue, and the capture by the elite of the lion's share of the profits made from productivity gains is, in my view, a close second.
    And I find it understandable that faced with these problems people's voting patterns might trend somewhat more radical. All this is very reasonable stuff.

    But every so often someone comes along who is so far beyond the pale that they shouldn't be touched with a bargepole. I don't remember another American politician in my lifetime fitting into that category.

    And yes, I think anyone who voted for him was stupid or asleep. And, well, events have actually proven that those who said he was bad news were absolutely 100% right.

    You seem to be trying to say "these people had their reasons", and I don't dispute that. I'm only saying that those reasons were not good enough and they made a mistake. A gravely serious mistake. I'm quite keen that THEY learn from this situation. I've no doubt that these last few days will have shaken a few of them awake.
    Basket of deplorables all over again.
    One key difference; I'm not asking people to vote for me
    But the attitude is the same. And as others have pointed out, it isn't helpful.
    I think the coddling attitude of the past four years hasn't helped.
    You fight fascism in your own way, and good luck to you. Personally I think it's ok to be honest about the failings of people even if they happen to be large in number.
    A few of you have had no problem telling me you think I'm wrong, which is fine. Any real difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying?
    I'm not calling half of the electorate idiots.
    Half the electorate are not idiots, for sure.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,456

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Can I just point out the wonderful name of the governor? Perhaps he should have become a judge...
    We had Judge Judge.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Judge,_Baron_Judge
    What would be great is a Judge Dredd...
    I have a friend who thought about a career in the judiciary but she thought her surname would attract unwanted attention.

    Personally I'd have been happy to see a Judge De'Ath.
    There was a Sandra De'ath a few years ahead of me at my medical school. I am not sure if she used a different name professionally.

    I did also work with a aurgeon called Mr Pain...
    My favourite is the Master of Queens' College, Cambridge ... Baron Eatwell.

    (Sadly, he retired in 2019)
    I had a dentist by the name of Dr Screech
  • A great piece Richard.

    Of course people voted for Trump. Fear of the Other is widespread and deeply embedded in America. The Other has many elements and forms - Muslims, Gays, Liberals, Rednecks etc etc. If they aren't you and yours, they are to be feared.

    I honestly don't know how America heals itself. This is far beyond fear of the other team, this is a fight for the survival of their civilisation.

    I respect Americans for their right to make the choices they make. Those choices drive the massive inequality that Richard talks about. Supports the rights of the shooter over their children shot at their school desks. Promotes education and healthcare systems that are seriously backwards compared to countries poorer than them.

    I would make different choices. I cannot understand the choices they make. But they are made honestly and passionately by people at both ends of the political spectrum. If people want to vote for a lying sexual predator who uses them for his own ends isn't that their choice when they fear the Other more?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,050
    edited January 2021
    nico679 said:

    Too many excuses are being made for those who voted for Trump .

    All this crap about them being ignored , and the victims of globalization . Trump appealed to their worst instincts which they had to begin with. The base is nothing but a cesspit of hate and bigotry and nationalism on steroids . A minority held their nose and voted for him. The base couldn’t get enough of the hate. Trump is a cancer on humanity and a sociopath. Anyone supporting him is beneath contempt .

    He appealed to all these things, but if huge numbers of Americans weren't locked out of their country's aspirational lifestyle as a result of economic and social policy decisions, which corporate-led outlets like Murdoch's Fox News then represent to them as the result of elite coastal cultural snobbery, they'd be far less receptive to his base appeals.

    Far from everyone who voted Trump was under-privileged, and many other ethnic questions, both of polarisation and just unreconstructed prejudice, are there, but a pretty significant number were.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,578
    edited January 2021
    IanB2 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    TimT said:

    On topic.
    Actually, I think I WILL reserve the right to feel scorn at those who voted for Trump.

    Here is a man who, before the election, was revealed to be a racist, disability-mocking sex pest.

    Anyone who voted for him, voted to put him into a position of trust. The position where not only the buck stops in terms of overseeing the care of the vulnerable, but also the tone is set.
    Even if you thought your economic interests would be marginally better with that kind of man in the White House (and I doubt that's the case anyway), you're throwing the vulnerable under the bus.

    That's the voting equivalent of pushing a granny over to grab the last bottle of paracetamol off the pharmacy shelves, because hey, YOU want it.

    Trump is not, and has never been "at times borderline psychopathic". He's fully over the line 100% of the time. He's not just damaged, he's full-blown mad, and as much was clear LONG before even the Rep primaries were finished.

    If you aren't going to pay enough attention to whom you're voting for, don't fucking vote at all, you don't know what you're doing. If you don't care that someone is a clear and present danger to the democratic process, don't fucking vote, you don't deserve it. If all you care about is your own pocket, no matter who gets hurt then vote as you see fit but don't get your knickers in a twist when someone calls you a scumbag for your choice.

    Every single person who voted for Trump either had their eyes closed or just didn't care that people would get hurt. No exceptions. I have more respect for people who drink drive, and I really, really hate those bastards.

    Which is why you are so much a part of the problem and are as bad - in your own way - as those who voted for Trump. You live in a country that provides, for most people at least, a basic safety net. You also live a country where seeing large scale year on year drops in your income - not relative income but actual - is fairly uncommon for most people except in the times of utmost economic hardship such as the financial crash. This is not the case in the US where people live much closer to the edge of economic catastrophe on a daily basis.

    For you to sit here and scorn them for hoping to make their lives better reflects very poorly on you.
    I think it's disingenuous to say I "scorn them for hoping to make their lives better".
    I scorn them for endangering EVERYONE'S lives.
    You might as well chide me for scorning a drunk driver for just wanting to get home in good time. Nah, I don't mind that desire, and hey, perhaps you'll even make it home safe.
    But if they smash into a pedestrian because they misjudged the situation horribly are you going to sit there are stroke your chin and say hmmm, yes, I can see why they made that choice.

    It was a bad choice. And not only in hindsight. It was risky, selfish, self-defeating. And we absolutely are allowed to call out the stupid choices other people make. It's actually a necessary part of the democratic process.
    So you really think it is useful to equate 46% of an electorate to a drunk driver? You really think that the reason 46% voted the way they did could only be through stupidity or selfishness?

    You clearly have no interest in trying to learn from this situation, only to shame and blame.
    Mmmm not quite. I am very interested indeed to hear people's solutions to the profound problems affecting American society. The epidemic in deaths of despair (suicide, alcohol, illegal- and legal-drug addiction) is perhaps the most pressing issue, and the capture by the elite of the lion's share of the profits made from productivity gains is, in my view, a close second.
    And I find it understandable that faced with these problems people's voting patterns might trend somewhat more radical. All this is very reasonable stuff.

    But every so often someone comes along who is so far beyond the pale that they shouldn't be touched with a bargepole. I don't remember another American politician in my lifetime fitting into that category.

    And yes, I think anyone who voted for him was stupid or asleep. And, well, events have actually proven that those who said he was bad news were absolutely 100% right.

    You seem to be trying to say "these people had their reasons", and I don't dispute that. I'm only saying that those reasons were not good enough and they made a mistake. A gravely serious mistake. I'm quite keen that THEY learn from this situation. I've no doubt that these last few days will have shaken a few of them awake.
    Basket of deplorables all over again.
    One key difference; I'm not asking people to vote for me
    But the attitude is the same. And as others have pointed out, it isn't helpful.
    I think the coddling attitude of the past four years hasn't helped.
    You fight fascism in your own way, and good luck to you. Personally I think it's ok to be honest about the failings of people even if they happen to be large in number.
    A few of you have had no problem telling me you think I'm wrong, which is fine. Any real difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying?
    I'm not calling half of the electorate idiots.
    Half the electorate are not idiots, for sure.
    46.9% for Trump
    51.3% for Biden

    Not far off from EURef.
  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 682
    AP Update - Final Overseas Ballots and Odds and Sods (technical term :smile: ) 99%+ Reporting

    Warnock +88K .. Ossoff +50K
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,456
    JACK_W said:

    AP Update - Final Overseas Ballots and Odds and Sods (technical term :smile: ) 99%+ Reporting

    Warnock +88K .. Ossoff +50K

    Mr Jack, do you have a source that provides a precise breakdown of the Military and Overseas ballots? My instinct is that it is marginally pro-Biden, but it is just an instinct and I'd like to know the real figures.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    JACK_W said:

    AP Update - Final Overseas Ballots and Odds and Sods (technical term :smile: ) 99%+ Reporting

    Warnock +88K .. Ossoff +50K

    Those last couple of percent take forever, are they postal votes being slow to arrive?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928
    Pagan2 said:

    On the topic of the header re globalisation. One of the major issues is that the benefits of globalisation only appear to be allowed to accrue to companies.

    For example fine for them to have their products made in a low wage economy so they pay less for labour but if the customer tries to buy the finished product from the market of a low wage economy then the company will go to court to have that stopped.

    A prime example
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/aug/01/clothes.marketingandpr

    And, of course, the poor people in developing countries. Life is much better in Bangladesh now than it was 20 years ago.

    Indeed, at a global level the last two decades has seen more people lifted out of poverty than ever before.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    Foxy said:

    Indeed we are approaching a world where the middle class everywhere lives similarly, and the working classes too. For many in the West that is a levelling down. I think though that Trump has just conned them, there was neither a real plan to reverse the situation or even real intent to do so. That was the real con, "Make America Great Again" implies a return to the economic world order of the 1950s, and that is just a fraud. It isn't going to happen.

    *cough*Brexit*cough*
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    A great piece Richard.

    Of course people voted for Trump. Fear of the Other is widespread and deeply embedded in America. The Other has many elements and forms - Muslims, Gays, Liberals, Rednecks etc etc. If they aren't you and yours, they are to be feared.

    I honestly don't know how America heals itself. This is far beyond fear of the other team, this is a fight for the survival of their civilisation.

    I respect Americans for their right to make the choices they make. Those choices drive the massive inequality that Richard talks about. Supports the rights of the shooter over their children shot at their school desks. Promotes education and healthcare systems that are seriously backwards compared to countries poorer than them.

    I would make different choices. I cannot understand the choices they make. But they are made honestly and passionately by people at both ends of the political spectrum. If people want to vote for a lying sexual predator who uses them for his own ends isn't that their choice when they fear the Other more?

    So you don't think economic desperation had anything to do with it then? It's all down to fear of the 'Other' on your analysis?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,456
    Foxy said:

    JACK_W said:

    AP Update - Final Overseas Ballots and Odds and Sods (technical term :smile: ) 99%+ Reporting

    Warnock +88K .. Ossoff +50K

    Those last couple of percent take forever, are they postal votes being slow to arrive?
    The Military and Overseas ballots in Georgia can arrive up until the Friday after the election.
  • JACK_W said:

    AP Update - Final Overseas Ballots and Odds and Sods (technical term :smile: ) 99%+ Reporting

    Warnock +88K .. Ossoff +50K

    STOLEN! :lol:
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,586
    Another great thread header. Thank-you @Richard_Tyndall.

    One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.
  • fox327fox327 Posts: 370
    edited January 2021
    If the header is right, the US support for Trump is partially caused by the economic impoverishment of many people in the US. This makes me wonder if this could also happen in the UK. Many people in the UK are now being economically damaged by the COVID restrictions. If these restrictions continue for a long time a similar loss of income to many people will happen, and this could have political consequences down the road.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    "Patriot" is Trumpsky-Putinist code for "Fascist".

    Maybe a shock to some PBers, but strangely the Republican Party is NOT rallying around their Fearless Leader and his fellow "Patriots" in the wake of the Trumpsky Putsch.

    From Politico.com

    Election gambit blows up on Hawley and Cruz
    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/09/hawley-cruz-2024-capitol-riots-456671

    "Hawley’s political patron, former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.), turned on him, calling his support the 'biggest mistake I’ve ever made.' His top donor, David Humphreys, said he should be censured."

    McCarthy and Scalise face internal dissension after Capitol riot
    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/09/mccarthy-scalise-backlash-capitol-riot-456777

    "Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), a Navy SEAL who was wounded in Afghanistan, told the Houston Chronicle: 'All of the members who called for everyone to come and fight and make their last stand, all of those members were scattered like cowards while the Capitol Police had to do the fighting.'"

    I think Politico are being rather selective. Trump's allies easily maintain control of the RNC

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/ronna-mcdaniel-wins-third-term-as-rnc-chairman
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/trump-aligned-tommy-hicks-jr-wins-rnc-co-chair-in-key-proxy-battle

    Also, the WSJ has a poll today - 54% of Republicans consider themselves to be more of a supporter than Donald Trump vs 38% who consider themselves a supporter more of the GOP (not sure if this is behind a paywall)

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-splits-over-post-trump-path-11610147555
    Doesn't that show deterioration in the Trumpsky-Putinist position? Which is gonna increase over the next weeks.

    Remember the trajectory of Tail-Gunner Joe . . . and wait for it.
    Even the Politico article that talked about Hawley reportedly in trouble was mostly about his mentor turning against him but also pointed out that it was unlikely he would lose today.

    Maybe Trump will see a decline in support but the idea that we are going back to those "wonderful" Republicans like Romney is a fallacy. The agenda around Trump will stay, it may just be presented with a different face.
    We shall see. Surely American conservative will NOT go away. But it gave itself a REAL kick in the ass this week. And there will be consequences.

    For example, Bloody Hands Hawley will NEVER be President of the United States. Indeed, think it unlikely he will be able to win re-election, or even re-nomination, as US Senator.
    I'd agree with you on Hawley but not because he is "Bloody Hands" (and, again, that Politico argument had Republicans not that supportive of him saying he was within his rights) but because he has not got the right personality and it will be a case that many in the GOP would look to take him down in the nominations race. Same with Cruz.

    If you were looking for a good bet for the 2024 Republican nomination if Trump doesn't run, go with Cotton who noticeably didn't back the amendment but who would appeal to many of Trump's supporters
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    Foxy said:

    It is a good header @Richard_Tyndall and I think the issues raised are probably as significant for Brexit in the UK or Le Pen in France. The comfortable life for the middle class in the developed world is slipping away, as countries that we once felt effortless superiority over catch up.

    Indeed we are approaching a world where the middle class everywhere lives similarly, and the working classes too. For many in the West that is a levelling down. I think though that Trump has just conned them, there was neither a real plan to reverse the situation or even real intent to do so. That was the real con, "Make America Great Again" implies a return to the economic world order of the 1950s, and that is just a fraud. It isn't going to happen.

    The root cause of the malaise is that profit accumulates to capital, rather than labour. To shareholders and the 1% ers rather than the workers. That process is accelerating too, as we see in this story of Middle American folk. Capitalism is not going to cure its own ills.

    https://twitter.com/jsunsurn/status/1344628523764490241?s=19

    As far back as the Frank Grimes episode around 25 years ago the show itself was pointing out that the Simpsons actually had an unrealistically well off life.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,586
    Hmmm..

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/09/is-hysterical-market-speculation-pushing-us-towards-another-crash

    I must admit to wondering whether it might soon be time to pull out of equities. My track record on such judgements is patchy at best though ☹️
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    edited January 2021
    Foxy said:

    It is a good header @Richard_Tyndall and I think the issues raised are probably as significant for Brexit in the UK or Le Pen in France. The comfortable life for the middle class in the developed world is slipping away, as countries that we once felt effortless superiority over catch up.

    Indeed we are approaching a world where the middle class everywhere lives similarly, and the working classes too. For many in the West that is a levelling down. I think though that Trump has just conned them, there was neither a real plan to reverse the situation or even real intent to do so. That was the real con, "Make America Great Again" implies a return to the economic world order of the 1950s, and that is just a fraud. It isn't going to happen.

    The root cause of the malaise is that profit accumulates to capital, rather than labour. To shareholders and the 1% ers rather than the workers. That process is accelerating too, as we see in this story of Middle American folk. Capitalism is not going to cure its own ills.

    https://twitter.com/jsunsurn/status/1344628523764490241?s=19

    To some extent yes but even by 2050 it will still be better to live in the West than the developing world.

    PWC for example forecasts that in 2050 US gdp per capita will be $87 700, UK gdp per capita will be $71 200, Chinese gdp per capita will be $43 400, Brazilian gdp per capita will be $31,600, Indian gdp per capita will be $25 900 and Nigerian gdp per capita will be $10 900.

    https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/research-insights/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    TimT said:

    TimT said:

    TimT said:

    On topic.
    Actually, I think I WILL reserve the right to feel scorn at those who voted for Trump.

    Here is a man who, before the election, was revealed to be a racist, disability-mocking sex pest.

    Anyone who voted for him, voted to put him into a position of trust. The position where not only the buck stops in terms of overseeing the care of the vulnerable, but also the tone is set.
    Even if you thought your economic interests would be marginally better with that kind of man in the White House (and I doubt that's the case anyway), you're throwing the vulnerable under the bus.

    That's the voting equivalent of pushing a granny over to grab the last bottle of paracetamol off the pharmacy shelves, because hey, YOU want it.

    Trump is not, and has never been "at times borderline psychopathic". He's fully over the line 100% of the time. He's not just damaged, he's full-blown mad, and as much was clear LONG before even the Rep primaries were finished.

    If you aren't going to pay enough attention to whom you're voting for, don't fucking vote at all, you don't know what you're doing. If you don't care that someone is a clear and present danger to the democratic process, don't fucking vote, you don't deserve it. If all you care about is your own pocket, no matter who gets hurt then vote as you see fit but don't get your knickers in a twist when someone calls you a scumbag for your choice.

    Every single person who voted for Trump either had their eyes closed or just didn't care that people would get hurt. No exceptions. I have more respect for people who drink drive, and I really, really hate those bastards.

    Which is why you are so much a part of the problem and are as bad - in your own way - as those who voted for Trump. You live in a country that provides, for most people at least, a basic safety net. You also live a country where seeing large scale year on year drops in your income - not relative income but actual - is fairly uncommon for most people except in the times of utmost economic hardship such as the financial crash. This is not the case in the US where people live much closer to the edge of economic catastrophe on a daily basis.

    For you to sit here and scorn them for hoping to make their lives better reflects very poorly on you.
    I think it's disingenuous to say I "scorn them for hoping to make their lives better".
    I scorn them for endangering EVERYONE'S lives.
    You might as well chide me for scorning a drunk driver for just wanting to get home in good time. Nah, I don't mind that desire, and hey, perhaps you'll even make it home safe.
    But if they smash into a pedestrian because they misjudged the situation horribly are you going to sit there are stroke your chin and say hmmm, yes, I can see why they made that choice.

    It was a bad choice. And not only in hindsight. It was risky, selfish, self-defeating. And we absolutely are allowed to call out the stupid choices other people make. It's actually a necessary part of the democratic process.
    So you really think it is useful to equate 46% of an electorate to a drunk driver? You really think that the reason 46% voted the way they did could only be through stupidity or selfishness?

    You clearly have no interest in trying to learn from this situation, only to shame and blame.
    Mmmm not quite. I am very interested indeed to hear people's solutions to the profound problems affecting American society. The epidemic in deaths of despair (suicide, alcohol, illegal- and legal-drug addiction) is perhaps the most pressing issue, and the capture by the elite of the lion's share of the profits made from productivity gains is, in my view, a close second.
    And I find it understandable that faced with these problems people's voting patterns might trend somewhat more radical. All this is very reasonable stuff.

    But every so often someone comes along who is so far beyond the pale that they shouldn't be touched with a bargepole. I don't remember another American politician in my lifetime fitting into that category.

    And yes, I think anyone who voted for him was stupid or asleep. And, well, events have actually proven that those who said he was bad news were absolutely 100% right.

    You seem to be trying to say "these people had their reasons", and I don't dispute that. I'm only saying that those reasons were not good enough and they made a mistake. A gravely serious mistake. I'm quite keen that THEY learn from this situation. I've no doubt that these last few days will have shaken a few of them awake.
    I work in the field of risk management in complex adaptive systems in high risk, fast changing environments where very small changes in inputs that usually produce expected outcome can result in truly catastrophic events.

    What is a striking feature in all such industries is that, for all but those 5% of occasions where there was malintent, the persons whose decisions were the proximal cause of the catastrophe thought they were doing the right thing at the time of the decision. That being the case, it is not useful in investigating such incidents to stop your findings at 'human error'. It tells you nothing and does nothing to help you prevent recurrence of the problem going forward. Indeed, other studies show that most people with the same level of experience and training put in the position of the person who made the bad call would have made the same bad call.

    So the only way to improve is to find the characteristics of the system that made the operator think that the wrong decision was the right one.

    I take the same approach with Trump voters. It is simply unhelpful to say they made a wrong decision. It does not help us prevent a recurrence, and it does not help them, as they never thought they made a mistake, except perhaps in retrospect. What about the system made them think it was the right thing to do to vote for Trump? What can we fix in the system to prevent that same miscalculation being made by the AND OTHERS in the future? Unless we seek to answer those questions, we are doomed to repeat history, as are unsafe organizations who blame 'human error' for major accidents.

    One last thought - in all my research on trust and altruism, the only conclusion I can draw is that it is easy to stick to our morals until we are in dire straits. Then all bets are off for that vast majority of the population. There are very, very few Nelson Mandelas amongst us. It is a very brave, or overly confident person, who can state with certainty that, put in exactly the same circumstances as a Trump voter from lower middle class Michigan in 2016, they would have voted differently.
    Interesting, and something I wouldn't mind hearing more about. Yes, systems are vitally important in governing human behaviour, but let's not completely forget about personal responsibility. When we vote, we are in part responsible for what happens next (at least the actions of those you voted for), and if things go wrong it's reasonable to ask yourself "could I have known?"
    Have you read this -

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/022652583X/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

    If not, do.
    No, but thanks for the recommendation. I'm due a new audible credit in a few days time and I've listened to everything else in my audio library, so it might be timely.
    I actually disagree with some of the conclusions, but the actual interviews/conversations with people are extremely valuable and thought provoking.
    I had the same thoughts about Hitler's Willing Executioners. Much of the book was tedious and repetitive, but some of the letters cited were extraordinarily thought provoking.
    Both had the feel of a great deal of in depth research and value, wrapped in a rather thin polemic from the author.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706
    Wow. I can’t remember the last time I read a thread header which made such an important point with such clarity. Well done Richard, a really excellent piece.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    edited January 2021
    DavidL said:

    Wow. I can’t remember the last time I read a thread header which made such an important point with such clarity.

    Take that other header writers :)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    Scott_xP said:
    What country has he been living in?

    I kid, I don't know enough about the US system to know how bad it is.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269

    Excellent article!

    Cheers

    tlg86 said:

    Interesting piece, thanks Richard. But to what extent did Trump win in 2016 and still get a lot of votes in 2020 simply by being the Republican candidate? I know he particularly well in the rust belt, which supports the globalisation argument, but the political map looks much like it has done for many years now.

    [Posted this to the wrong comment. Apologies to Casino and yourself.]

    I don't really know - although I would make two points on that.

    If any year was one where we should have seen a Democrat landslide, given how bad the Republican candidate was, it was 2020.

    And we see from the subsequent polling that there are still millions of Americans actively supporting Trump even as the Republican leadership has, at long last, abandoned him. As has already been said, they cannot all be mad or bad. Most of them will be desperate people who just need help and hope and don't see it coming from the mainstream of either party.
    Interesting article, thank you.

    How far did Trump help these desperate people? I thought most of his tax cuts went to the rich rather than to the middle classes, let alone the ones at the bottom end.

    Did he bring jobs back to areas which had lost them etc?

    I don't know.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Off-topic but this is a speech of exceptional political courage - and wisdom in hindsight - post-9/11 on the Authorisation to Use Military Force Bill. Barbara Lee was the only person to vote against it.

    https://youtu.be/Zh_sxilhyV0
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    Scott_xP said:
    I'm not known for defending Johnson, who is woefully unfit for PM, but in this case I would doubt any leading politician would not be "intrigued" as to what Trump was doing and how he was doing it.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,828
    Scott_xP said:
    A number shockingly similar to the Labour share.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    Scott_xP said:
    Since we can and do change our leaders between elections far more simply than somewhere like the USA I don't know how useful that question is, since presumably most of us who oppose him would like him to resign as we have no sense that he is owed or obliged to serve out a particular period.
  • MrEd said:

    Good article, Richard.

    I thought @Sean_F put it very well when he said many Americans know he's a son of a bitch but think he's their son of a bitch.

    Sadly I think that is the great error they made. He never was 'their Son of Bitch'. To be rather crude about it, they were all his bitches and he would use them without regard until they were no longer of use to him.
    But, whatever one thinks of Trump, he has largely implemented (or at least sincerely tried to implement) the manifesto he was elected on in 2016. That will count for a lot.

    I think both @rcs1000 and myself thought he was full of hot-air in 2016, and would end-up governing as a relatively standard Republican with a lot of populist windy rhetoric on top.
    He’s a loser though.

    Lost the House.

    Lost the Presidency.

    Lost the Senate.

    Took the L on a grand scale.

    Sad!
    What do you think of the people who voted for him?
    Misguided?
    Very.
  • Scott_xP said:
    Boris hospital photo klaxon. Jacket off, tie tucked in, sleeves rolled up.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    It is a good header @Richard_Tyndall and I think the issues raised are probably as significant for Brexit in the UK or Le Pen in France. The comfortable life for the middle class in the developed world is slipping away, as countries that we once felt effortless superiority over catch up.

    Indeed we are approaching a world where the middle class everywhere lives similarly, and the working classes too. For many in the West that is a levelling down. I think though that Trump has just conned them, there was neither a real plan to reverse the situation or even real intent to do so. That was the real con, "Make America Great Again" implies a return to the economic world order of the 1950s, and that is just a fraud. It isn't going to happen.

    The root cause of the malaise is that profit accumulates to capital, rather than labour. To shareholders and the 1% ers rather than the workers. That process is accelerating too, as we see in this story of Middle American folk. Capitalism is not going to cure its own ills.

    https://twitter.com/jsunsurn/status/1344628523764490241?s=19

    To some extent yes but even by 2050 it will still be better to live in the West than the developing world.

    PWC for example forecasts that in 2050 US gdp per capita will be $87 700, UK gdp per capita will be $71 200, Chinese gdp per capita will be $43 400, Brazilian gdp per capita will be $31,600, Indian gdp per capita will be $25 900 and Nigerian gdp per capita will be $10 900.

    https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/research-insights/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    Certainly life in the West will remain better for some time, at least for some of us, but a levelling of the world economy is inevitable, and probably necessary.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873

    Scott_xP said:
    I'm not known for defending Johnson, who is woefully unfit for PM, but in this case I would doubt any leading politician would not be "intrigued" as to what Trump was doing and how he was doing it.
    It's an interesting choice of words. I'd have assumed him to use a word like 'envious' as to what Trump was doing.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895

    I'm not known for defending Johnson, who is woefully unfit for PM, but in this case I would doubt any leading politician would not be "intrigued" as to what Trump was doing and how he was doing it.

    I think "admiring" is a more accurate term
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,586
    Pagan2 said:

    On the topic of the header re globalisation. One of the major issues is that the benefits of globalisation only appear to be allowed to accrue to companies.

    For example fine for them to have their products made in a low wage economy so they pay less for labour but if the customer tries to buy the finished product from the market of a low wage economy then the company will go to court to have that stopped.

    A prime example
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/aug/01/clothes.marketingandpr

    That's capitalism for you.
  • MrEd said:

    A great piece Richard.

    Of course people voted for Trump. Fear of the Other is widespread and deeply embedded in America. The Other has many elements and forms - Muslims, Gays, Liberals, Rednecks etc etc. If they aren't you and yours, they are to be feared.

    I honestly don't know how America heals itself. This is far beyond fear of the other team, this is a fight for the survival of their civilisation.

    I respect Americans for their right to make the choices they make. Those choices drive the massive inequality that Richard talks about. Supports the rights of the shooter over their children shot at their school desks. Promotes education and healthcare systems that are seriously backwards compared to countries poorer than them.

    I would make different choices. I cannot understand the choices they make. But they are made honestly and passionately by people at both ends of the political spectrum. If people want to vote for a lying sexual predator who uses them for his own ends isn't that their choice when they fear the Other more?

    So you don't think economic desperation had anything to do with it then? It's all down to fear of the 'Other' on your analysis?
    The Other are the people responsible. Didn't I say that people are happy to vote against their own interests? They *think* that Liberals Gays and Muslims are the people responsible for their economic problems. So they vote for the people responsible for their economic problems.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is a good header @Richard_Tyndall and I think the issues raised are probably as significant for Brexit in the UK or Le Pen in France. The comfortable life for the middle class in the developed world is slipping away, as countries that we once felt effortless superiority over catch up.

    Indeed we are approaching a world where the middle class everywhere lives similarly, and the working classes too. For many in the West that is a levelling down. I think though that Trump has just conned them, there was neither a real plan to reverse the situation or even real intent to do so. That was the real con, "Make America Great Again" implies a return to the economic world order of the 1950s, and that is just a fraud. It isn't going to happen.

    The root cause of the malaise is that profit accumulates to capital, rather than labour. To shareholders and the 1% ers rather than the workers. That process is accelerating too, as we see in this story of Middle American folk. Capitalism is not going to cure its own ills.

    https://twitter.com/jsunsurn/status/1344628523764490241?s=19

    As far back as the Frank Grimes episode around 25 years ago the show itself was pointing out that the Simpsons actually had an unrealistically well off life.
    I agree. The life depicted in the Simpsons is more typical of the 1960s or 1970s America. It has always been nostalgic.

    Nonetheless such a life is far harder now.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Wow. I can’t remember the last time I read a thread header which made such an important point with such clarity.

    Take that other header writers :)
    I didn’t mean it that way. But this piece addresses one of the biggest issues for the west over the next 20 years as the last of our competitive advantages are lost.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,586
    HYUFD said:
    Well, thanks for that post. I can breath easy again now I know.
  • HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    It is a good header @Richard_Tyndall and I think the issues raised are probably as significant for Brexit in the UK or Le Pen in France. The comfortable life for the middle class in the developed world is slipping away, as countries that we once felt effortless superiority over catch up.

    Indeed we are approaching a world where the middle class everywhere lives similarly, and the working classes too. For many in the West that is a levelling down. I think though that Trump has just conned them, there was neither a real plan to reverse the situation or even real intent to do so. That was the real con, "Make America Great Again" implies a return to the economic world order of the 1950s, and that is just a fraud. It isn't going to happen.

    The root cause of the malaise is that profit accumulates to capital, rather than labour. To shareholders and the 1% ers rather than the workers. That process is accelerating too, as we see in this story of Middle American folk. Capitalism is not going to cure its own ills.

    https://twitter.com/jsunsurn/status/1344628523764490241?s=19

    To some extent yes but even by 2050 it will still be better to live in the West than the developing world.

    PWC for example forecasts that in 2050 US gdp per capita will be $87 700, UK gdp per capita will be $71 200, Chinese gdp per capita will be $43 400, Brazilian gdp per capita will be $31,600, Indian gdp per capita will be $25 900 and Nigerian gdp per capita will be $10 900.

    https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/research-insights/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    GDP per capita is fine but can mislead. Elon Musk's share of American GDP would pay for quite a few MAGAs from Hicksville. It is a good ball park measure of countries' relative prosperity but not all wealth is equally divided or, for that matter, productively spent.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    Scott_xP said:

    I'm not known for defending Johnson, who is woefully unfit for PM, but in this case I would doubt any leading politician would not be "intrigued" as to what Trump was doing and how he was doing it.

    I think "admiring" is a more accurate term
    You might, but that is why it's interesting that Darroch, who does not mince his words about Boris, chose a different one. Doesn't mean he is pulling any punches on the man, but as you show, it would have been very easy to make that particular point more strongly.
  • Scott_xP said:
    I'm not known for defending Johnson, who is woefully unfit for PM, but in this case I would doubt any leading politician would not be "intrigued" as to what Trump was doing and how he was doing it.
    In any case, Boris was dodging media (and political) questions as Mayor of London long before Trump was elected. To the extent Boris followed Trump it was because that was the direction he was already headed.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,050
    edited January 2021
    DavidL said:

    Wow. I can’t remember the last time I read a thread header which made such an important point with such clarity. Well done Richard, a really excellent piece.

    Yes, it's an excellent header.

    That two statistics alone tell you a huge amount :

    Between 1967 and 1981 4% of Americans saw a drop of greater than 25% in their income. Between 2002 and 2016 that number was 12%.

    ..and they should be driving American debate every single day. But in America's political culture of the last 30 years, where a Panglossian free-market fundamentalism, boomed out by thousands of large-business funded intellectual institutions and media outlets has dominated discussion, they still just don't make sense to much of the political and media class.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848
    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    On the topic of the header re globalisation. One of the major issues is that the benefits of globalisation only appear to be allowed to accrue to companies.

    For example fine for them to have their products made in a low wage economy so they pay less for labour but if the customer tries to buy the finished product from the market of a low wage economy then the company will go to court to have that stopped.

    A prime example
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/aug/01/clothes.marketingandpr

    And, of course, the poor people in developing countries. Life is much better in Bangladesh now than it was 20 years ago.

    Indeed, at a global level the last two decades has seen more people lifted out of poverty than ever before.
    I was not saying that companies shouldn't outsource nor saying that people in these countries havent done well. My single complaint as for a product a company can choose where to manufacture it, but then block where a customer can buy it. If they are allowed to push manufacture to cheaper places then customers should also be allowed to source product from the cheaper places. Instead courts routinely protect them making higher profits as in the piece I linked
  • Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Can I just point out the wonderful name of the governor? Perhaps he should have become a judge...
    We had Judge Judge.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Judge,_Baron_Judge
    What would be great is a Judge Dredd...
    I have a friend who thought about a career in the judiciary but she thought her surname would attract unwanted attention.

    Personally I'd have been happy to see a Judge De'Ath.
    There was a Sandra De'ath a few years ahead of me at my medical school. I am not sure if she used a different name professionally.

    I did also work with a aurgeon called Mr Pain...
    I used to know a woman with the surname Death (which she pronouced "Deeth"); strangely when she got married, she decided to use her husbands surname.

    Also have a landlord by name of Rooks; bit too close to the bone that!

    Also worth mentioning that, one reason (supposedly anyway) why the US Army does NOT have the rank of Field Marshal, is that "Field Marshal Marshall" would NOT inspire respect in the ranks.

    Methinks this (or a joke to that effect current in WWII military circles) was the inspiration for Joseph Heller's famous character "Major Major Major" in "Catch 22".
  • Another great thread header. Thank-you @Richard_Tyndall.

    One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.

    The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.

    From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.

    I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848

    Pagan2 said:

    On the topic of the header re globalisation. One of the major issues is that the benefits of globalisation only appear to be allowed to accrue to companies.

    For example fine for them to have their products made in a low wage economy so they pay less for labour but if the customer tries to buy the finished product from the market of a low wage economy then the company will go to court to have that stopped.

    A prime example
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/aug/01/clothes.marketingandpr

    That's capitalism for you.
    It is not free market capitalism though its corporates and profits being prioritised by the legal system over customers. It is companies trying to have it both ways
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    MrEd said:

    A great piece Richard.

    Of course people voted for Trump. Fear of the Other is widespread and deeply embedded in America. The Other has many elements and forms - Muslims, Gays, Liberals, Rednecks etc etc. If they aren't you and yours, they are to be feared.

    I honestly don't know how America heals itself. This is far beyond fear of the other team, this is a fight for the survival of their civilisation.

    I respect Americans for their right to make the choices they make. Those choices drive the massive inequality that Richard talks about. Supports the rights of the shooter over their children shot at their school desks. Promotes education and healthcare systems that are seriously backwards compared to countries poorer than them.

    I would make different choices. I cannot understand the choices they make. But they are made honestly and passionately by people at both ends of the political spectrum. If people want to vote for a lying sexual predator who uses them for his own ends isn't that their choice when they fear the Other more?

    So you don't think economic desperation had anything to do with it then? It's all down to fear of the 'Other' on your analysis?
    The Other are the people responsible. Didn't I say that people are happy to vote against their own interests? They *think* that Liberals Gays and Muslims are the people responsible for their economic problems. So they vote for the people responsible for their economic problems.
    God, I'm tempted to do a Alastair here and ask for citation of that claim that Trump voters blamed "Liberals, Gays and Muslims" for their economic problems.

    Even though this is not a natural website choice for me, I think this piece sums it up very well - it's all about the jobs:

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/10/vote-n10.html
  • DavidL said:

    Wow. I can’t remember the last time I read a thread header which made such an important point with such clarity. Well done Richard, a really excellent piece.

    I can. It was yesterday's by @david_herdson. Today's is of the same high standard, as have been many of the recent headers. Well done all!
    Thanks Ben. There are a good few people on here whose opinion I really respect, including yourself and DavidL, so it is nice when I put something out and it is not greeted with the expected howls of derision. :)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    It is a good header @Richard_Tyndall and I think the issues raised are probably as significant for Brexit in the UK or Le Pen in France. The comfortable life for the middle class in the developed world is slipping away, as countries that we once felt effortless superiority over catch up.

    Indeed we are approaching a world where the middle class everywhere lives similarly, and the working classes too. For many in the West that is a levelling down. I think though that Trump has just conned them, there was neither a real plan to reverse the situation or even real intent to do so. That was the real con, "Make America Great Again" implies a return to the economic world order of the 1950s, and that is just a fraud. It isn't going to happen.

    The root cause of the malaise is that profit accumulates to capital, rather than labour. To shareholders and the 1% ers rather than the workers. That process is accelerating too, as we see in this story of Middle American folk. Capitalism is not going to cure its own ills.

    https://twitter.com/jsunsurn/status/1344628523764490241?s=19

    To some extent yes but even by 2050 it will still be better to live in the West than the developing world.

    PWC for example forecasts that in 2050 US gdp per capita will be $87 700, UK gdp per capita will be $71 200, Chinese gdp per capita will be $43 400, Brazilian gdp per capita will be $31,600, Indian gdp per capita will be $25 900 and Nigerian gdp per capita will be $10 900.

    https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/research-insights/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    PWC are guessing. China could easily near approach the UK in that time (unless they suffer major political upheaval, sanctions or war) and the US could slip relatively to barely ahead of the UK.

    India will probably be sluggish for some time. Nigeria could surprise on the upside.

    Basically, we just don't know.

    We have a better idea of the demographics. We know almost exactly how many 30+ year olds there will be in 2050, for example, because every single one of them has already been born.
  • HYUFD said:
    Two questions:

    1 What's going so well in the Midlands? Is it as simple as they are never the first to suffer from a wave?

    2 If the "Rishi caused all the trouble in the autumn by whining about the financial hit until it was too late" narrative sticks (it clearly hasn't yet), what happens next?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774

    Another great thread header. Thank-you @Richard_Tyndall.

    One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.

    The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.

    From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.

    I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
    The fall of communism had wide ranging effects that we still do not fully appreciate or understand.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Wow. I can’t remember the last time I read a thread header which made such an important point with such clarity.

    Take that other header writers :)
    I didn’t mean it that way. But this piece addresses one of the biggest issues for the west over the next 20 years as the last of our competitive advantages are lost.
    My view is the West (EU + Anglosphere + Israel + SK + Japan) is going to have to band together far more tightly and also do so with emerging democracies, such as India, Nigeria, SA and Brazil and form trade, economic and defensive alliances with them. It will also need to stop tearing itself apart in domestic political battles.

    If we can do all that - at the same time as managing climate change - we could have a bright free and prosperous future.

    Anything else and we're in trouble.
  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 682
    TimT said:

    JACK_W said:

    AP Update - Final Overseas Ballots and Odds and Sods (technical term :smile: ) 99%+ Reporting

    Warnock +88K .. Ossoff +50K

    Mr Jack, do you have a source that provides a precise breakdown of the Military and Overseas ballots? My instinct is that it is marginally pro-Biden, but it is just an instinct and I'd like to know the real figures.
    Not presently. The Georgia SoS will issue the overall numbers but the overseas ballots are not broken down between ex-pats and military. At the November GE exit poll Biden and Trump shared the military vote which was the best vote for a Dem POTUS candidate for decades. Strangely military folk weren't keen on Trump calling the fallen "losers"
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    IanB2 said:

    Another great thread header. Thank-you @Richard_Tyndall.

    One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.

    The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.

    From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.

    I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
    The fall of communism had wide ranging effects that we still do not fully appreciate or understand.
    Letting China into the WTO probably was the biggest single strategic mistake that has been made by the US in recent times, even more than the invasion of Iraq.
  • CrabbieCrabbie Posts: 55

    Scott_xP said:
    Can I just point out the wonderful name of the governor? Perhaps he should have become a judge...
    We had Judge Judge.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Judge,_Baron_Judge
    What would be great is a Judge Dredd...
    I have a friend who thought about a career in the judiciary but she thought her surname would attract unwanted attention.

    Personally I'd have been happy to see a Judge De'Ath.
    Judge Judge would have been very Catch 22
    Igor Judge says hello.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Judge,_Baron_Judge
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    On the topic of the header re globalisation. One of the major issues is that the benefits of globalisation only appear to be allowed to accrue to companies.

    For example fine for them to have their products made in a low wage economy so they pay less for labour but if the customer tries to buy the finished product from the market of a low wage economy then the company will go to court to have that stopped.

    A prime example
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/aug/01/clothes.marketingandpr

    And, of course, the poor people in developing countries. Life is much better in Bangladesh now than it was 20 years ago.

    Indeed, at a global level the last two decades has seen more people lifted out of poverty than ever before.
    And that's the other elephant in the room. If we're honest, everyone here has won a golden ticket in the lottery of life, by living in the Developed West in the 21st Century.

    It may not feel like it- especially in comparison with richer people around us, or expectations of more than our parents had. But it's still true- even post-Covid. The hard part is living and telling that story in a convincing way...
    c.1994 to c.2007 were probably the goldest of the golden years.

    I've had a pretty personal run in the 2010s - throughout all sorts of economic crises - but I was in the right industry in the right place.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    TimT said:

    On topic.
    Actually, I think I WILL reserve the right to feel scorn at those who voted for Trump.

    Here is a man who, before the election, was revealed to be a racist, disability-mocking sex pest.

    Anyone who voted for him, voted to put him into a position of trust. The position where not only the buck stops in terms of overseeing the care of the vulnerable, but also the tone is set.
    Even if you thought your economic interests would be marginally better with that kind of man in the White House (and I doubt that's the case anyway), you're throwing the vulnerable under the bus.

    That's the voting equivalent of pushing a granny over to grab the last bottle of paracetamol off the pharmacy shelves, because hey, YOU want it.

    Trump is not, and has never been "at times borderline psychopathic". He's fully over the line 100% of the time. He's not just damaged, he's full-blown mad, and as much was clear LONG before even the Rep primaries were finished.

    If you aren't going to pay enough attention to whom you're voting for, don't fucking vote at all, you don't know what you're doing. If you don't care that someone is a clear and present danger to the democratic process, don't fucking vote, you don't deserve it. If all you care about is your own pocket, no matter who gets hurt then vote as you see fit but don't get your knickers in a twist when someone calls you a scumbag for your choice.

    Every single person who voted for Trump either had their eyes closed or just didn't care that people would get hurt. No exceptions. I have more respect for people who drink drive, and I really, really hate those bastards.

    Which is why you are so much a part of the problem and are as bad - in your own way - as those who voted for Trump. You live in a country that provides, for most people at least, a basic safety net. You also live a country where seeing large scale year on year drops in your income - not relative income but actual - is fairly uncommon for most people except in the times of utmost economic hardship such as the financial crash. This is not the case in the US where people live much closer to the edge of economic catastrophe on a daily basis.

    For you to sit here and scorn them for hoping to make their lives better reflects very poorly on you.
    I think it's disingenuous to say I "scorn them for hoping to make their lives better".
    I scorn them for endangering EVERYONE'S lives.
    You might as well chide me for scorning a drunk driver for just wanting to get home in good time. Nah, I don't mind that desire, and hey, perhaps you'll even make it home safe.
    But if they smash into a pedestrian because they misjudged the situation horribly are you going to sit there are stroke your chin and say hmmm, yes, I can see why they made that choice.

    It was a bad choice. And not only in hindsight. It was risky, selfish, self-defeating. And we absolutely are allowed to call out the stupid choices other people make. It's actually a necessary part of the democratic process.
    So you really think it is useful to equate 46% of an electorate to a drunk driver? You really think that the reason 46% voted the way they did could only be through stupidity or selfishness?

    You clearly have no interest in trying to learn from this situation, only to shame and blame.
    Mmmm not quite. I am very interested indeed to hear people's solutions to the profound problems affecting American society. The epidemic in deaths of despair (suicide, alcohol, illegal- and legal-drug addiction) is perhaps the most pressing issue, and the capture by the elite of the lion's share of the profits made from productivity gains is, in my view, a close second.
    And I find it understandable that faced with these problems people's voting patterns might trend somewhat more radical. All this is very reasonable stuff.

    But every so often someone comes along who is so far beyond the pale that they shouldn't be touched with a bargepole. I don't remember another American politician in my lifetime fitting into that category.

    And yes, I think anyone who voted for him was stupid or asleep. And, well, events have actually proven that those who said he was bad news were absolutely 100% right.

    You seem to be trying to say "these people had their reasons", and I don't dispute that. I'm only saying that those reasons were not good enough and they made a mistake. A gravely serious mistake. I'm quite keen that THEY learn from this situation. I've no doubt that these last few days will have shaken a few of them awake.
    Basket of deplorables all over again.
    One key difference; I'm not asking people to vote for me
    But the attitude is the same. And as others have pointed out, it isn't helpful.
    I think the coddling attitude of the past four years hasn't helped.
    You fight fascism in your own way, and good luck to you. Personally I think it's ok to be honest about the failings of people even if they happen to be large in number.
    A few of you have had no problem telling me you think I'm wrong, which is fine. Any real difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying?
    I'm not calling half of the electorate idiots.
    If the polls are to believed many millions of Trump voters believe that it was right to storm the Capitol and overturn the election result, many millions of them believe that the election was stolen despite barely a shred of evidence being produced, many millions of them believe the Q-Anon conspiracy.

    How would you describe those voters? How far do you go in excusing them because they might eel they have been economically left-behind?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    edited January 2021

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    It is a good header @Richard_Tyndall and I think the issues raised are probably as significant for Brexit in the UK or Le Pen in France. The comfortable life for the middle class in the developed world is slipping away, as countries that we once felt effortless superiority over catch up.

    Indeed we are approaching a world where the middle class everywhere lives similarly, and the working classes too. For many in the West that is a levelling down. I think though that Trump has just conned them, there was neither a real plan to reverse the situation or even real intent to do so. That was the real con, "Make America Great Again" implies a return to the economic world order of the 1950s, and that is just a fraud. It isn't going to happen.

    The root cause of the malaise is that profit accumulates to capital, rather than labour. To shareholders and the 1% ers rather than the workers. That process is accelerating too, as we see in this story of Middle American folk. Capitalism is not going to cure its own ills.

    https://twitter.com/jsunsurn/status/1344628523764490241?s=19

    To some extent yes but even by 2050 it will still be better to live in the West than the developing world.

    PWC for example forecasts that in 2050 US gdp per capita will be $87 700, UK gdp per capita will be $71 200, Chinese gdp per capita will be $43 400, Brazilian gdp per capita will be $31,600, Indian gdp per capita will be $25 900 and Nigerian gdp per capita will be $10 900.

    https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/research-insights/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    GDP per capita is fine but can mislead. Elon Musk's share of American GDP would pay for quite a few MAGAs from Hicksville. It is a good ball park measure of countries' relative prosperity but not all wealth is equally divided or, for that matter, productively spent.
    I think that a significant cause of the middle class malaise in America. The rewards to capital accrue great wealth to those with assets, while wages stagnate or deteriorate.

    Just look at Bezos. A good service for consumers, but at the price of minimum wages and minimal job security, great and increasing wealth, and very little tax paid for amelioration his workers hardships.

    Amazon is the new world economy in a nutshell. Much like the pre revolutionary France, where the nobility were exempt from taxes and the law, at least until the sans culottes decided to sort things out a different way.
  • Cyclefree said:


    Excellent article!

    Cheers

    tlg86 said:

    Interesting piece, thanks Richard. But to what extent did Trump win in 2016 and still get a lot of votes in 2020 simply by being the Republican candidate? I know he particularly well in the rust belt, which supports the globalisation argument, but the political map looks much like it has done for many years now.

    [Posted this to the wrong comment. Apologies to Casino and yourself.]

    I don't really know - although I would make two points on that.

    If any year was one where we should have seen a Democrat landslide, given how bad the Republican candidate was, it was 2020.

    And we see from the subsequent polling that there are still millions of Americans actively supporting Trump even as the Republican leadership has, at long last, abandoned him. As has already been said, they cannot all be mad or bad. Most of them will be desperate people who just need help and hope and don't see it coming from the mainstream of either party.
    Interesting article, thank you.

    How far did Trump help these desperate people? I thought most of his tax cuts went to the rich rather than to the middle classes, let alone the ones at the bottom end.

    Did he bring jobs back to areas which had lost them etc?

    I don't know.
    My understanding is that some of his actions, particularly the protectionist measures, did help arrest the drop in Middle Class incomes and helped particular sectors such as the farmers. But they were illusory as they were unsustainable in the medium term. His term also corresponded with some improvement in the US economy but since the effects of any government action are lagged it is unlikely that anything much he did was responsible for this.

    The bigger problem is I don't think he really cared. If here was a quick and easy fix that would look good and help him in the ratings then that was fine. Anything that meant making difficult and unpopular decisions but which might have helped in the long term he was unwilling entertain. He treated the Middle classes in exactly the same way he treated the GOP. As useful idiots to be dropped as soon as they were no longer needed or became a liability.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    It is a good header @Richard_Tyndall and I think the issues raised are probably as significant for Brexit in the UK or Le Pen in France. The comfortable life for the middle class in the developed world is slipping away, as countries that we once felt effortless superiority over catch up.

    Indeed we are approaching a world where the middle class everywhere lives similarly, and the working classes too. For many in the West that is a levelling down. I think though that Trump has just conned them, there was neither a real plan to reverse the situation or even real intent to do so. That was the real con, "Make America Great Again" implies a return to the economic world order of the 1950s, and that is just a fraud. It isn't going to happen.

    The root cause of the malaise is that profit accumulates to capital, rather than labour. To shareholders and the 1% ers rather than the workers. That process is accelerating too, as we see in this story of Middle American folk. Capitalism is not going to cure its own ills.

    https://twitter.com/jsunsurn/status/1344628523764490241?s=19

    To some extent yes but even by 2050 it will still be better to live in the West than the developing world.

    PWC for example forecasts that in 2050 US gdp per capita will be $87 700, UK gdp per capita will be $71 200, Chinese gdp per capita will be $43 400, Brazilian gdp per capita will be $31,600, Indian gdp per capita will be $25 900 and Nigerian gdp per capita will be $10 900.

    https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/research-insights/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    GDP per capita is fine but can mislead. Elon Musk's share of American GDP would pay for quite a few MAGAs from Hicksville. It is a good ball park measure of countries' relative prosperity but not all wealth is equally divided or, for that matter, productively spent.
    I think that a significant cause of the middle class malaise in America. The rewards to capital accrue great wealth to those with assets, while wages stagnate or determinate.

    Just look at Bezos. A good service for consumers, but in terms for minimum wages and minimal job security, great and increasing wealth, and very little tax paid for amelioration his workers hardships.

    Amazon is the new world economy in a nutshell. Much like the pre revolutionary France, where the nobility were exempt from taxes and the law, at least until the sans culottes decided to sort things out a different way.
    It would be interesting to see two different figures I think to see how much they differ

    GDP per capita and GDP per Capita after dropping the top and bottom 10%
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    IanB2 said:

    Another great thread header. Thank-you @Richard_Tyndall.

    One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.

    The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.

    From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.

    I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
    The fall of communism had wide ranging effects that we still do not fully appreciate or understand.
    The pivot towards massively freer trade had the largest effect in all this.

    Remember when Japan was going to ruie the world? Then they became just another 1st world country.

    Ironically it was opening up to China etc that helped prick that balloon.

    The difference with the post 89 expansion in free(er) trade was that the uplift time for China, India etc is much longer.
  • DavidL said:

    Wow. I can’t remember the last time I read a thread header which made such an important point with such clarity. Well done Richard, a really excellent piece.

    Thanks David. It did benefit from Mike pointing out that the original was rather flabby (my words not his) and me doing a good edit on it.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,050
    edited January 2021
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    It is a good header @Richard_Tyndall and I think the issues raised are probably as significant for Brexit in the UK or Le Pen in France. The comfortable life for the middle class in the developed world is slipping away, as countries that we once felt effortless superiority over catch up.

    Indeed we are approaching a world where the middle class everywhere lives similarly, and the working classes too. For many in the West that is a levelling down. I think though that Trump has just conned them, there was neither a real plan to reverse the situation or even real intent to do so. That was the real con, "Make America Great Again" implies a return to the economic world order of the 1950s, and that is just a fraud. It isn't going to happen.

    The root cause of the malaise is that profit accumulates to capital, rather than labour. To shareholders and the 1% ers rather than the workers. That process is accelerating too, as we see in this story of Middle American folk. Capitalism is not going to cure its own ills.

    https://twitter.com/jsunsurn/status/1344628523764490241?s=19

    To some extent yes but even by 2050 it will still be better to live in the West than the developing world.

    PWC for example forecasts that in 2050 US gdp per capita will be $87 700, UK gdp per capita will be $71 200, Chinese gdp per capita will be $43 400, Brazilian gdp per capita will be $31,600, Indian gdp per capita will be $25 900 and Nigerian gdp per capita will be $10 900.

    https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/research-insights/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    GDP per capita is fine but can mislead. Elon Musk's share of American GDP would pay for quite a few MAGAs from Hicksville. It is a good ball park measure of countries' relative prosperity but not all wealth is equally divided or, for that matter, productively spent.
    I think that a significant cause of the middle class malaise in America. The rewards to capital accrue great wealth to those with assets, while wages stagnate or determinate.

    Just look at Bezos. A good service for consumers, but in terms for minimum wages and minimal job security, great and increasing wealth, and very little tax paid for amelioration his workers hardships.

    Amazon is the new world economy in a nutshell. Much like the pre revolutionary France, where the nobility were exempt from taxes and the law, at least until the sans culottes decided to sort things out a different way.
    Piketty is good on this. He regards himself, in an underlying way, as an admirer of America and its vaiues, but is absolutely aghast at the way in which it has become the vanguard for these exacerbating economic trends, completely unchecked by a breezily overconfident political class, drunk for years on the ultra-market "kool-aid", as Americans would say.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994

    Another great thread header. Thank-you @Richard_Tyndall.

    One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.

    The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.

    From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.

    I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
    I think it's both economic and cultural and the two interplay with each other and vice-versa.

    This article on millennials today is good and makes a similar point:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cant-even-how-millennials-became-the-burnout-generation-review-by-anne-helen-petersen-what-went-wrong-with-us-millenials-vl09x9b80
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,586
    edited January 2021

    Another great thread header. Thank-you @Richard_Tyndall.

    One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.

    The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.

    From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.

    I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
    I certainly agree with this last point, but the way to tackle that has to be to tax and regulate extreme wealth surely?

    One other issue we all have to face into is that it's irrational to expect incomes to go on increasing forever. There are not resources enough on the earth for us all to have super-yachts; we cannot all live in mansions.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Wow. I can’t remember the last time I read a thread header which made such an important point with such clarity.

    Take that other header writers :)
    It just stimulates us to do even better next time. 😀
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    OllyT said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    TimT said:

    On topic.
    Actually, I think I WILL reserve the right to feel scorn at those who voted for Trump.

    Here is a man who, before the election, was revealed to be a racist, disability-mocking sex pest.

    Anyone who voted for him, voted to put him into a position of trust. The position where not only the buck stops in terms of overseeing the care of the vulnerable, but also the tone is set.
    Even if you thought your economic interests would be marginally better with that kind of man in the White House (and I doubt that's the case anyway), you're throwing the vulnerable under the bus.

    That's the voting equivalent of pushing a granny over to grab the last bottle of paracetamol off the pharmacy shelves, because hey, YOU want it.

    Trump is not, and has never been "at times borderline psychopathic". He's fully over the line 100% of the time. He's not just damaged, he's full-blown mad, and as much was clear LONG before even the Rep primaries were finished.

    If you aren't going to pay enough attention to whom you're voting for, don't fucking vote at all, you don't know what you're doing. If you don't care that someone is a clear and present danger to the democratic process, don't fucking vote, you don't deserve it. If all you care about is your own pocket, no matter who gets hurt then vote as you see fit but don't get your knickers in a twist when someone calls you a scumbag for your choice.

    Every single person who voted for Trump either had their eyes closed or just didn't care that people would get hurt. No exceptions. I have more respect for people who drink drive, and I really, really hate those bastards.

    Which is why you are so much a part of the problem and are as bad - in your own way - as those who voted for Trump. You live in a country that provides, for most people at least, a basic safety net. You also live a country where seeing large scale year on year drops in your income - not relative income but actual - is fairly uncommon for most people except in the times of utmost economic hardship such as the financial crash. This is not the case in the US where people live much closer to the edge of economic catastrophe on a daily basis.

    For you to sit here and scorn them for hoping to make their lives better reflects very poorly on you.
    I think it's disingenuous to say I "scorn them for hoping to make their lives better".
    I scorn them for endangering EVERYONE'S lives.
    You might as well chide me for scorning a drunk driver for just wanting to get home in good time. Nah, I don't mind that desire, and hey, perhaps you'll even make it home safe.
    But if they smash into a pedestrian because they misjudged the situation horribly are you going to sit there are stroke your chin and say hmmm, yes, I can see why they made that choice.

    It was a bad choice. And not only in hindsight. It was risky, selfish, self-defeating. And we absolutely are allowed to call out the stupid choices other people make. It's actually a necessary part of the democratic process.
    So you really think it is useful to equate 46% of an electorate to a drunk driver? You really think that the reason 46% voted the way they did could only be through stupidity or selfishness?

    You clearly have no interest in trying to learn from this situation, only to shame and blame.
    Mmmm not quite. I am very interested indeed to hear people's solutions to the profound problems affecting American society. The epidemic in deaths of despair (suicide, alcohol, illegal- and legal-drug addiction) is perhaps the most pressing issue, and the capture by the elite of the lion's share of the profits made from productivity gains is, in my view, a close second.
    And I find it understandable that faced with these problems people's voting patterns might trend somewhat more radical. All this is very reasonable stuff.

    But every so often someone comes along who is so far beyond the pale that they shouldn't be touched with a bargepole. I don't remember another American politician in my lifetime fitting into that category.

    And yes, I think anyone who voted for him was stupid or asleep. And, well, events have actually proven that those who said he was bad news were absolutely 100% right.

    You seem to be trying to say "these people had their reasons", and I don't dispute that. I'm only saying that those reasons were not good enough and they made a mistake. A gravely serious mistake. I'm quite keen that THEY learn from this situation. I've no doubt that these last few days will have shaken a few of them awake.
    Basket of deplorables all over again.
    One key difference; I'm not asking people to vote for me
    But the attitude is the same. And as others have pointed out, it isn't helpful.
    I think the coddling attitude of the past four years hasn't helped.
    You fight fascism in your own way, and good luck to you. Personally I think it's ok to be honest about the failings of people even if they happen to be large in number.
    A few of you have had no problem telling me you think I'm wrong, which is fine. Any real difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying?
    I'm not calling half of the electorate idiots.
    If the polls are to believed many millions of Trump voters believe that it was right to storm the Capitol and overturn the election result, many millions of them believe that the election was stolen despite barely a shred of evidence being produced, many millions of them believe the Q-Anon conspiracy.

    How would you describe those voters? How far do you go in excusing them because they might eel they have been economically left-behind?
    There is actually not much difference between Republican and Democrat voters when it comes to whether they think violence is justified:

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/01/political-violence-424157
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848

    Another great thread header. Thank-you @Richard_Tyndall.

    One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.

    The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.

    From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.

    I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
    I certainly agree with this last point, but the way to tackle that has to be to tax and regulate extremem wealth surely?

    One other issue we all have to face into is that it's irrational to expect incomes to go on increasing forever. There are not resources enough on the earth for us all to have super-yachts; we cannot all live in mansions.
    The problem however is not necessarily incomes not increasing but the fact that the cost of living is ever increasing
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    DavidL said:

    Wow. I can’t remember the last time I read a thread header which made such an important point with such clarity. Well done Richard, a really excellent piece.

    Thanks David. It did benefit from Mike pointing out that the original was rather flabby (my words not his) and me doing a good edit on it.
    Given the comments on here, you did a great service in highlighting just how desperate people are in the US and the voting implications.
  • OllyT said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    TimT said:

    On topic.
    Actually, I think I WILL reserve the right to feel scorn at those who voted for Trump.

    Here is a man who, before the election, was revealed to be a racist, disability-mocking sex pest.

    Anyone who voted for him, voted to put him into a position of trust. The position where not only the buck stops in terms of overseeing the care of the vulnerable, but also the tone is set.
    Even if you thought your economic interests would be marginally better with that kind of man in the White House (and I doubt that's the case anyway), you're throwing the vulnerable under the bus.

    That's the voting equivalent of pushing a granny over to grab the last bottle of paracetamol off the pharmacy shelves, because hey, YOU want it.

    Trump is not, and has never been "at times borderline psychopathic". He's fully over the line 100% of the time. He's not just damaged, he's full-blown mad, and as much was clear LONG before even the Rep primaries were finished.

    If you aren't going to pay enough attention to whom you're voting for, don't fucking vote at all, you don't know what you're doing. If you don't care that someone is a clear and present danger to the democratic process, don't fucking vote, you don't deserve it. If all you care about is your own pocket, no matter who gets hurt then vote as you see fit but don't get your knickers in a twist when someone calls you a scumbag for your choice.

    Every single person who voted for Trump either had their eyes closed or just didn't care that people would get hurt. No exceptions. I have more respect for people who drink drive, and I really, really hate those bastards.

    Which is why you are so much a part of the problem and are as bad - in your own way - as those who voted for Trump. You live in a country that provides, for most people at least, a basic safety net. You also live a country where seeing large scale year on year drops in your income - not relative income but actual - is fairly uncommon for most people except in the times of utmost economic hardship such as the financial crash. This is not the case in the US where people live much closer to the edge of economic catastrophe on a daily basis.

    For you to sit here and scorn them for hoping to make their lives better reflects very poorly on you.
    I think it's disingenuous to say I "scorn them for hoping to make their lives better".
    I scorn them for endangering EVERYONE'S lives.
    You might as well chide me for scorning a drunk driver for just wanting to get home in good time. Nah, I don't mind that desire, and hey, perhaps you'll even make it home safe.
    But if they smash into a pedestrian because they misjudged the situation horribly are you going to sit there are stroke your chin and say hmmm, yes, I can see why they made that choice.

    It was a bad choice. And not only in hindsight. It was risky, selfish, self-defeating. And we absolutely are allowed to call out the stupid choices other people make. It's actually a necessary part of the democratic process.
    So you really think it is useful to equate 46% of an electorate to a drunk driver? You really think that the reason 46% voted the way they did could only be through stupidity or selfishness?

    You clearly have no interest in trying to learn from this situation, only to shame and blame.
    Mmmm not quite. I am very interested indeed to hear people's solutions to the profound problems affecting American society. The epidemic in deaths of despair (suicide, alcohol, illegal- and legal-drug addiction) is perhaps the most pressing issue, and the capture by the elite of the lion's share of the profits made from productivity gains is, in my view, a close second.
    And I find it understandable that faced with these problems people's voting patterns might trend somewhat more radical. All this is very reasonable stuff.

    But every so often someone comes along who is so far beyond the pale that they shouldn't be touched with a bargepole. I don't remember another American politician in my lifetime fitting into that category.

    And yes, I think anyone who voted for him was stupid or asleep. And, well, events have actually proven that those who said he was bad news were absolutely 100% right.

    You seem to be trying to say "these people had their reasons", and I don't dispute that. I'm only saying that those reasons were not good enough and they made a mistake. A gravely serious mistake. I'm quite keen that THEY learn from this situation. I've no doubt that these last few days will have shaken a few of them awake.
    Basket of deplorables all over again.
    One key difference; I'm not asking people to vote for me
    But the attitude is the same. And as others have pointed out, it isn't helpful.
    I think the coddling attitude of the past four years hasn't helped.
    You fight fascism in your own way, and good luck to you. Personally I think it's ok to be honest about the failings of people even if they happen to be large in number.
    A few of you have had no problem telling me you think I'm wrong, which is fine. Any real difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying?
    I'm not calling half of the electorate idiots.
    If the polls are to believed many millions of Trump voters believe that it was right to storm the Capitol and overturn the election result, many millions of them believe that the election was stolen despite barely a shred of evidence being produced, many millions of them believe the Q-Anon conspiracy.

    How would you describe those voters? How far do you go in excusing them because they might eel they have been economically left-behind?
    Voters - fully
    Lawful Protestors - mostly
    Unlawful peaceful protestors - a bit
    Traitors, violent agitators and leaders - not at all

    People can vote for who they like, if its a protest vote or even a vote for chaos, it is up to other parties to ensure they reflect the views of enough people to defeat them.

    That does involve changing some priorities from the politics of the last 25 years, but it also involves being blunt and truthful with voters that things are not going back to how they used to be.

    Immigration to the UK is a classic example. It is not really a question of how much immigration we want and giving the govt the tools to get to that level, which is how the debate is framed. We get lots of immigration because we need it. We are going to continue to need it, so we will get it regardless of the Tories or Labour in power, regardless of Brexit or no Brexit. 99% of politicians here wont say this yet it is fairly obviously true when looking at our demographics. In contrast in Germany, Merkel took an unpopular decision but importantly told the truth, that they also need immigration.
  • Finally somebody who actually knows what that song is about...unlike all the numpties who play it their high school leaving doo....

    https://twitter.com/followsfairuse/status/1311899357042536448?s=20
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,586
    Pagan2 said:

    Another great thread header. Thank-you @Richard_Tyndall.

    One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.

    The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.

    From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.

    I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
    I certainly agree with this last point, but the way to tackle that has to be to tax and regulate extremem wealth surely?

    One other issue we all have to face into is that it's irrational to expect incomes to go on increasing forever. There are not resources enough on the earth for us all to have super-yachts; we cannot all live in mansions.
    The problem however is not necessarily incomes not increasing but the fact that the cost of living is ever increasing
    Sorry, I meant "it's irrational to expect real incomes to go on increasing forever".
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,586
    What odds on Trump breaking with the GOP and setting up a 'Patriot Party' or similar?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,279
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    It is a good header @Richard_Tyndall and I think the issues raised are probably as significant for Brexit in the UK or Le Pen in France. The comfortable life for the middle class in the developed world is slipping away, as countries that we once felt effortless superiority over catch up.

    Indeed we are approaching a world where the middle class everywhere lives similarly, and the working classes too. For many in the West that is a levelling down. I think though that Trump has just conned them, there was neither a real plan to reverse the situation or even real intent to do so. That was the real con, "Make America Great Again" implies a return to the economic world order of the 1950s, and that is just a fraud. It isn't going to happen.

    The root cause of the malaise is that profit accumulates to capital, rather than labour. To shareholders and the 1% ers rather than the workers. That process is accelerating too, as we see in this story of Middle American folk. Capitalism is not going to cure its own ills.

    https://twitter.com/jsunsurn/status/1344628523764490241?s=19

    To some extent yes but even by 2050 it will still be better to live in the West than the developing world.

    PWC for example forecasts that in 2050 US gdp per capita will be $87 700, UK gdp per capita will be $71 200, Chinese gdp per capita will be $43 400, Brazilian gdp per capita will be $31,600, Indian gdp per capita will be $25 900 and Nigerian gdp per capita will be $10 900.

    https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/research-insights/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    GDP per capita is fine but can mislead. Elon Musk's share of American GDP would pay for quite a few MAGAs from Hicksville. It is a good ball park measure of countries' relative prosperity but not all wealth is equally divided or, for that matter, productively spent.
    I think that a significant cause of the middle class malaise in America. The rewards to capital accrue great wealth to those with assets, while wages stagnate or deteriorate.

    Just look at Bezos. A good service for consumers, but at the price of minimum wages and minimal job security, great and increasing wealth, and very little tax paid for amelioration his workers hardships.

    Amazon is the new world economy in a nutshell. Much like the pre revolutionary France, where the nobility were exempt from taxes and the law, at least until the sans culottes decided to sort things out a different way.
    The key is home ownership, as long as most of the middle and working class own a home then they will still have a big asset and stake in the capitalist economy.

    If however we ever get to a situation where most are renting, combined with insufficient immigration controls, then populist politics of both the nationalist right and the socialist left will become not just the occasional exception as now but the norm
This discussion has been closed.