O/T:- Trump Presidency 2.0 [hic sunt dracones]

[OchPie]

The world has gone that far left over the last few years, exacerbated by the Covid era which legalised state control in the democratic world, that those that were centre, have been made to look right-wing.

There's no doubt socially, we've moved to the left. Gay marriage is legal. Racism isn't generally accepted. Reproductive health is mostly accessible. Women in the workplace are increasingly in positions of responsibility. Countries mostly look to reduce, not expand, their nuclear weapon arsenal.

At the same time, most of the West has become more capitalist and less economically equal, as the right champions.

In terms of government control, not much changes - though the British state is arguably at its smallest and weakest in decades. Austerity gutted it, especially local government.

[Jampie]

I mean we've moved socially to the left incrementally, but is any of that far left? Like what would far left social policy even be? Mandatory gay marriage? Compulsory *** change?

And we've drifted to the right economically. The only economics parameter that's changed that the left don't absolutely hate is recognition that renewable energy is cheaper and less problematic for economies. Hardly far left either is it? Basic economics 101: resources that aren't going to run out until the sun consumes the earth in 5 billion years are better for the economy than resources we're running low on already.

Meanwhile, Lullapie brings up Dutton's plan to nuclearise Australia's power grid. But neglects to mention the proposal is for the taxpayers to foot the bill because uclear power is such a bad investment no corporation will touch it unless the government fronts up the cash, at least for the public liability.

So who's a communist? Peter Dutton, leader of Australia's "right". The world hasn't gone mad, but the usual mad people are still mad, and people who consume Murdoch media are still deluded by it into thinking everyone else is crazy.

[drillerpie]

I mean we've moved socially to the left incrementally, but is any of that far left? Like what would far left social policy even be? Mandatory gay marriage? Compulsory *** change?

And we've drifted to the right economically. The only economics parameter that's changed that the left don't absolutely hate is recognition that renewable energy is cheaper and less problematic for economies. Hardly far left either is it? Basic economics 101: resources that aren't going to run out until the sun consumes the earth in 5 billion years are better for the economy than resources we're running low on already.

Meanwhile, Lullapie brings up Dutton's plan to nuclearise Australia's power grid. But neglects to mention the proposal is for the taxpayers to foot the bill because uclear power is such a bad investment no corporation will touch it unless the government fronts up the cash, at least for the public liability.

So who's a communist? Peter Dutton, leader of Australia's "right". The world hasn't gone mad, but the usual mad people are still mad, and people who consume Murdoch media are still deluded by it into thinking everyone else is crazy.

I agree witht thenidea that socially we've moved to the left and economically to the right.

I think the move to the left reached a peak during the Covid / George Floyd era. Defund the police, effectively decriminalise theft under a certain amount (is it 1000 usd?), allowing city centres to become homeless encampments, same day release after arrest, judicial reparations, obsession with DEI. All of these things are bat **** mental and helped re-elect Trump.

A good example of a longer term shift is the stigma around opposing immigration. Opposing or at least having reservations over large scale immigration is (or can be, depends how it's done) a perfectly reasonable position but was stigmatised, and it became the default position to accuse the person of being a closet racist for airing their concerns.

That has shifted people to the right as they are the only people articulating people's concerns. The parties they have found new homes in are parties that used to be ignored by pretty much everyone and get low single digits at the polls. I think we need to reflect on this.

[Med Pie]

I agree witht thenidea that socially we've moved to the left and economically to the right.

I think the move to the left reached a peak during the Covid / George Floyd era. Defund the police, effectively decriminalise theft under a certain amount (is it 1000 usd?), allowing city centres to become homeless encampments, same day release after arrest, judicial reparations, obsession with DEI. All of these things are bat **** mental and helped re-elect Trump.

A good example of a longer term shift is the stigma around opposing immigration. Opposing or at least having reservations over large scale immigration is (or can be, depends how it's done) a perfectly reasonable position but was stigmatised, and it became the default position to accuse the person of being a closet racist for airing their concerns.

That has shifted people to the right as they are the only people articulating people's concerns. The parties they have found new homes in are parties that used to be ignored by pretty much everyone and get low single digits at the polls. I think we need to reflect on this.

Haliluja, someone gets it!!!!!!!!!!

[Jampie]

I agree witht thenidea that socially we've moved to the left and economically to the right.

I think the move to the left reached a peak during the Covid / George Floyd era. Defund the police, effectively decriminalise theft under a certain amount (is it 1000 usd?), allowing city centres to become homeless encampments, same day release after arrest, judicial reparations, obsession with DEI. All of these things are bat **** mental and helped re-elect Trump.

A good example of a longer term shift is the stigma around opposing immigration. Opposing or at least having reservations over large scale immigration is (or can be, depends how it's done) a perfectly reasonable position but was stigmatised, and it became the default position to accuse the person of being a closet racist for airing their concerns.

That has shifted people to the right as they are the only people articulating people's concerns. The parties they have found new homes in are parties that used to be ignored by pretty much everyone and get low single digits at the polls. I think we need to reflect on this.

Yeah I agree with this, by and large.

"Defund the police" was a fringe view that got magnified by social media and the press because, you know, outrage clicks. I don't think it ever had popular support amongst the "left" if you include the massive moderate majority. I don't know anyone personally who supported it. But it was very loud in online spaces.

I too am irritated by the "you're racist" response to any criticism of immigration. I mean, the person could be racist. Can you address the concerns they actually raised, or is it about sticking a label on them and ignoring them from then on? My guess is B in most cases.

I also think the "left" of politics, especially in the US, has failed to actually make people's lives better in a tangible way, and folks are sick of it. Sick enough to try voting for a "burn it all down" candidate like Trump. I would never vote for him. But I understand how incredibly frustrated a lot of people are with the total lack of progress and indeed loss of progress economically for ordinary people.

Australia is indeed in a similar boat (albeit a bit less severely) and I won't be surprised if Albo loses outright or has to form a minority government after the election. Whenever he ends up calling it... presumably the last possible date since inflation is trending down now. But he just hasn't done enough for ordinary people to make a convincing case IMO.

Again, there's no way I will vote for Dutton - the last leader that party had who was actually competent was Turnbull IMO, and they knifed him for being "too left" and wanting to actually solve the energy/climate change problem. Twice. But, I do agree with the view that the left in Oz (and many places) has at least somewhat lost their way and have failed to a) improve things and b) be seen to improve things.

[BigFatPie]

The terms left and right arent really useful anymore. It may sound slightly pompous but in a world flooded with misinformation the terms evidence-based policy and non-evidence based policy seem more suitable.

Its evidential that high levels of wealth inequality lead to poorer outcomes, that children should be kept out of poverty wherever possible and by the state if necessary, that utilities, transport networks and healthcare work better when there?s no one making a profit from them, that crime is reduced through rehabilitation and lifting people out of poverty, that high levels of immigration are necessary when birth rates are low, that trade works better with fewer barriers, and the climate emergency is currently the biggest threat to humanity.

That?s not an exhaustive list, but what many people describe as the right left the scene long ago when it comes to evidence based policy, so much so that previously accepted facts like the effectiveness of vaccines or a woman?s right to reproductive autonomy are now things to be argued about. People and policies that would previously have been considered the lunatic fringe now find themselves mainstreamed and in power. Theres a reason billionaires own newspapers, tv stations and social media platforms and that?s to promote their own interests and persuade others to vote against theirs.

[Jampie]

Its evidential that high levels of wealth inequality lead to poorer outcomes

Pretty much total agreement with you except for this.

It isn't the inequality that's doing this. If you have a trillion pounds but I have everything I need, I am unharmed by this. Indeed, if you're investing wisely, I'll benefit, in the long run.

It's inequality + erosion of basic welfare + erosion of worker's bargaining power (and therefore real wages) that's causing harm, IMO.

[slack_pie]

Pretty much total agreement with you except for this.

It isn't the inequality that's doing this. If you have a trillion pounds but I have everything I need, I am unharmed by this. Indeed, if you're investing wisely, I'll benefit, in the long run.

It's inequality + erosion of basic welfare + erosion of worker's bargaining power (and therefore real wages) that's causing harm, IMO.

Actually I think it's true. Wealth inequality is a major factor in driving violent crime and a lack of social cohesion, especially if social mobility is low. This is the case even if the poorest people in such a society aren't actually that poor on a global scale.

Anecdotally, I see this first hand when I lived in the Czech Republic. Being a post-communist country, society isn't as stratified there. Most people are somewhere in the middle, with a few very rich and very poor outliers. The middle section is poorer overall than the British middle class by some way, but overall, there's much less violent crime and much higher social cohesion - at least it seemed that way. As that society becomes more stratified and the middle class shrinks, violent crime will probably go up - even if GDP per capita also goes up. I see that unfolding over the years.

I also agree that everyone having more overall helps. But "having everything I need" is subjective.

[BigFatPie]

Pretty much total agreement with you except for this.

It isn't the inequality that's doing this. If you have a trillion pounds but I have everything I need, I am unharmed by this. Indeed, if you're investing wisely, I'll benefit, in the long run.

It's inequality + erosion of basic welfare + erosion of worker's bargaining power (and therefore real wages) that's causing harm, IMO.

I would say that anyone who’s a trillionaire or even a billionaire hasnt been taxed enough personally or through their corporation. The if in that sentence is doing an awful lot of hard work. Have the likes of Musk, Zuckerberg or Bezos invested wisely for societal benefit? It’s passed me by if they have.

That last bit is 100% correct, erosion of welfare and reduction of worker’s rights are the basic tools of wealth to protect their interests.

[Jampie]

Zuckerberg did advance the field of social media massively. Bezos pioneered online retail and maintained it in the fact of ridicule in the early days. Musk brought electric motor vehicles back into the mainstream.

And all of them made mistakes. Musk appears to be an insufferable git of epic proportions.

But I ask, what is the alternative? Do you advocate total wealth equality? Everyone has to have the same income and assets? Who decides what businesses invest in? Who decides who runs the businesses? Some government board? I think the results would be far worse.

For all its faults, free market capitalism does operate more as a meritocracy than any bureaucracy or democracy I've ever witnessed. Of course there's the problem of inherited wealth and I think you could argue that doing away with that would be of benefit.

[slack_pie]

Zuckerberg did advance the field of social media massively. Bezos pioneered online retail and maintained it in the fact of ridicule in the early days. Musk brought electric motor vehicles back into the mainstream.

And all of them made mistakes. Musk appears to be an insufferable git of epic proportions.

But I ask, what is the alternative? Do you advocate total wealth equality? Everyone has to have the same income and assets? Who decides what businesses invest in? Who decides who runs the businesses? Some government board? I think the results would be far worse.

For all its faults, free market capitalism does operate more as a meritocracy than any bureaucracy or democracy I've ever witnessed. Of course there's the problem of inherited wealth and I think you could argue that doing away with that would be of benefit.

I agree with most of that. I understand what BFP is saying - it's pretty crazy that some people can acquire so much wealth that they could never conceivably spend it all. That said, on a philosophical level, I'm uncomfortable with the state having the power to decide how much money someone is allowed to acquire through legal means.

Of course mega-wealthy people should be taxed, but saying that people cannot become billionaires or trillionaires seems fundamentally wrong to me. People should be free to earn as much (or as little) as they like, with measures in place to stop people falling through the cracks and provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Free-market capitalism results in "unfairness", but that's an inevitable result of free people making free choices. And yes, we are all born with advantages and disadvantages, but you can only iron those out through extreme overreach and control that inevitably ends in tyranny.

Don't agree about inherited wealth though. A big part of the motivation for me to save money and build wealth is so that I can pass it on to my kids. It's my money, so it's their money, not the state's.

[drillerpie]

Brilliant conversation gents, long may it continue.

[Jampie]

Don't agree about inherited wealth though. A big part of the motivation for me to save money and build wealth is so that I can pass it on to my kids. It's my money, so it's their money, not the state's.

Yeah that's the counterargument and it's why I used such wishy-washy weasel words. You could argue doing away with it would be of benefit, but people also argue (compellingly) that it should stay.

Personally I would rather we worked collectively to give the next generation the best (fair) chance possible, and to an extent we do. But yeah, I don't have strong feelings about inherited wealth.

What I find interesting about threads like these is how close we are to universal agreements on so many things. And yet the media have us yelling at each other over whether dickhead of the year ten years running did a nazi salute or not, or what the liar of the year for ten years running has claimed he's going to do next. Or who should pee in which toilet.

That's not a coincidence, IMO. I really do think there's a kind of non-spiracy of those in power keeping the commoners snapping at each other so we don't guillotine them all. Because they really are screwing up a lot at the moment and while some of them got where they are at least partially on merit, a lot did not.

[BigFatPie]

Zuckerberg did advance the field of social media massively. Bezos pioneered online retail and maintained it in the fact of ridicule in the early days. Musk brought electric motor vehicles back into the mainstream.

And all of them made mistakes. Musk appears to be an insufferable git of epic proportions.

But I ask, what is the alternative? Do you advocate total wealth equality? Everyone has to have the same income and assets? Who decides what businesses invest in? Who decides who runs the businesses? Some government board? I think the results would be far worse.

For all its faults, free market capitalism does operate more as a meritocracy than any bureaucracy or democracy I've ever witnessed. Of course there's the problem of inherited wealth and I think you could argue that doing away with that would be of benefit.

There?s no doubt those three gentlemen have done things that benefit us all in the process of acquiring their wealth, but that?s not what you originally proposed. What have they done with the wealth they?ve acquired? I suppose some my say Musk has somewhat stepped into the void that has been left by US governments refusing to fund space exploration to the tune that they did, and the starlink program is good, but whether they?re done for altruistic purposes or whether that matters is another question.

No I?m by no means advocating total wealth equality, far from it. But the historic gains we made during the course of the 20th century in partially levelling up to use that awful phrase are in danger of being totally lost by unchecked capitalism, if they haven?t already done so. It will take brave politicians to grasp the nettle, and we?ve already seen the pushback even to the very modest proposals made by Starmer?s government, I?m not sure if he has the stomach to go further. People are easily seduced by demagoguery and easy solutions, and wealth is fantastically efficient at protecting wealth.

[MarcusCole]

The terms left and right arent really useful anymore. It may sound slightly pompous but in a world flooded with misinformation the terms evidence-based policy and non-evidence based policy seem more suitable.

This is completely true

Its evidential that high levels of wealth inequality lead to poorer outcomes, that children should be kept out of poverty wherever possible and by the state if necessary, that utilities, transport networks and healthcare work better when there?s no one making a profit from them, that crime is reduced through rehabilitation and lifting people out of poverty, that high levels of immigration are necessary when birth rates are low, that trade works better with fewer barriers, and the climate emergency is currently the biggest threat to humanity.

This is complete garbage, if everyone is poor like in many developing countries there isn't the resource available to invest in the young.

That?s not an exhaustive list, but what many people describe as the right left the scene long ago when it comes to evidence based policy, so much so that previously accepted facts like the effectiveness of vaccines or a woman?s right to reproductive autonomy are now things to be argued about. People and policies that would previously have been considered the lunatic fringe now find themselves mainstreamed and in power. Theres a reason billionaires own newspapers, tv stations and social media platforms and that?s to promote their own interests and persuade others to vote against theirs.

Another complete bag of garbage that is clouded by your opinion. You seem the think that those that have the same opinion as you are right and those that disagree are wrong. The social media platforms and governments colluded to cover up problems with the vaccines that were supposed to be effective against Covid. Even today you are not able to post things on youtube that goes against the left wing narrative. Experts in their field were silenced from the main platforms at the behest of the US and EU as what they were saying didn't agree with that narrative. You only have to look into the lies that the "left wing" media pushes out, the Guardian and the Independent are renown for lying about what is going on and too many "on the left" accept it as gospel.

Here's the thing, and i know I've stated it so many times. The established media all of them are lying. They push narratives that will agree with the opinions of their target audience but will also make those that disagree with them angry. If they get people angry then it is more likely that one of those angry people will post it with a link so they get more visits to their site.

You keep going on about things like the Murdock press, well what about "left wing" media sites that are controlled by billionaires, you give them a free pass but they are all doing the same thing. Push out articles that will agree with their target audience but will nudge them in the "correct" direction but will also anger those that disagree with them so that enough of them post links that will drive traffic to their sites.

Also we have people complaining about Musk getting involved with politics, where is the anger when Bill Gates and George Soros get involved or are you only angry when they are pushing opinions you disagree with