timschochet’s Political Thread: Are terms like “socialist” and “capitalist” still relevant in the 21st Century? (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

And that leads to another point: I have always feared populism, because I believe it leads to more bad than good, and is generally anti-individualism. But it may be that social media makes populism far more powerful than it ever was before, and basically inevitable. Which also means that establishment and corporate influence, which most people dislike but which I believe in many cases (not all) leads to a solidity of our society, will have less and less power. 

Unfortunately, I think you're right about this.

 

[timschochet]

Unfortunately, I think you're right about this.

It might be unfortunate. It might not be. 

Again, my largest concerns about populism are all based on old models. The populism that emerges from social media will be a new model and it’s still too soon to determine what the results will be. Now I have to admit however that the early returns, which apparently are more isolationism and nationalism, are not good. 

 

[timschochet]

Presidential candidate Andrew Yang has a “Freedom Dividend” proposal- as best as I can understand it, give $1,000 to every American. 

His logic seems to be that the loss of jobs due to automation will only grow worse and that we are experiencing a new industrial revolution, only far bigger and faster. In essence then, the argument behind this proposal seems to be similar to that of the Basic Income Guarantee: a recognition that there are going to be large sectors of our population who will not be continuing to work in the future. 

Thoughts? 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Presidential candidate Andrew Yang has a “Freedom Dividend” proposal- as best as I can understand it, give $1,000 to every American. 

His logic seems to be that the loss of jobs due to automation will only grow worse and that we are experiencing a new industrial revolution, only far bigger and faster. In essence then, the argument behind this proposal seems to be similar to that of the Basic Income Guarantee: a recognition that there are going to be large sectors of our population who will not be continuing to work in the future. 

Thoughts? 

I've heard Yang's name - what is his background?

I always thought Alaska's version of this as a dividend from state mineral resources was a good idea, but frankly this sounds like a bad idea. The only way the word 'dividend' makes sense to me is if he somehow says there will be a single fixed source of revenue to pay out of.

 

[timschochet]

I've heard Yang's name - what is his background?

I always thought Alaska's version of this as a dividend from state mineral resources was a good idea, but frankly this sounds like a bad idea. The only way the word 'dividend' makes sense to me is if he somehow says there will be a single fixed source of revenue to pay out of.

Entrepreneur. Interesting guy: 

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

as I suspected, the “Freedom Dividend” is a downpayment on a form of BIG

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Entrepreneur. Interesting guy: 

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

as I suspected, the “Freedom Dividend” is a downpayment on a form of BIG

Just imagine where we as a nation would be if Hillary had " ...thrown caution to the wind and embraced 'Alaska for America' as a long-term goal and figured out the details later."  

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Entrepreneur. Interesting guy: 

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

as I suspected, the “Freedom Dividend” is a downpayment on a form of BIG

Check out the policy section of Yang’s website. It is packed with substance.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yaknow, I'd say the Dems could roll out a bouncing ball and I'd willingly leap into the voting booth for them, but I'm gonna make a cut line on the circumcision issue.

 

[huthut]

Presidential candidate Andrew Yang has a “Freedom Dividend” proposal- as best as I can understand it, give $1,000 to every American. 

His logic seems to be that the loss of jobs due to automation will only grow worse and that we are experiencing a new industrial revolution, only far bigger and faster. In essence then, the argument behind this proposal seems to be similar to that of the Basic Income Guarantee: a recognition that there are going to be large sectors of our population who will not be continuing to work in the future. 

Thoughts? 

I think this is essentially true, the combination of outsourcing labor, more automation, and higher populations are going to make it so that there are not nearly enough jobs to go around, especially ones that actually pay a living wage. We are already there in many parts of the country, and I feel like most people living now will see that spread to the majority of the US and other developed nations. It is essentially a continuation of a wealth disparity argument, outsourcing and automating are generating more income for the executives in charge of the company, at the cost of who would be the workers in the middle and bottom tiers of the company. It is only fair that their taxes go up to support a universal basic income, unless they want to wait too long and get dragged out of their house by a mob who are starving because there is no work left in the country. 

 

[EYLive]

I listened to Yang on Joe Rogan's podcast and am intrigued by his ideas. I'll have to read up on his policies/platform, but I think he'll do well in the debates. 

 

[pinkham13]

Continuing with our very slow analysis: in the next paragraph, the resolution attempts to tie climate change to a host of other issues that it claims are related, but no explanation is given. It claims that the rise in our climate is related to: 

1.  Life expectancy declining in the US

2. Wage stagnation

3. Lack of socio-economic mobility

4. Income inequality 

5. racial divide

6. Gender gap 

Whoah let’s stop right here, because this paragraph sets the tone for this document, which appears to be a manifesto of causes important to progressives rather than just dealing with climate change. And I honestly don’t get this. Isn’t man made climate change a big enough issue to deal with all by itself? Why the smorgasbord of other issues? And what is the basis of proof that these other issues have a direct relationship to climate change? 

Again, if we are to tackle climate change we have to have a consensus across American politics. So it seems to me that a solution that pushes a specific set of political theories that at least half of Americans oppose is working against that. 

Climate change propaganda started long long ago. All scientists once agreed the world was flat and most Dr.s supported full frontal Labotomies as a mental health tool.

At first it was gonna be another ice age. Then it was we can’t feed all these people. Then it was gonna get too warm and now it’s just called climate change.

I find it ironic that dinosaurs went extinct due to real climate change brought on by an asteroid hitting the planet. Now, the elite “bought and paid for politicians” say that burning the ancient dinosaur’s bodily remains, known today as “fossil fuels” is going to somehow result in mankind’s extinction. Truly ironic don’t you think? There weren’t any cars or industry back then but the climate truly changed in a cataclysmic way! Man had nothing to do with it. 

Another odd thing is that CO2 is required for photosynthesis and less of it means less plant food. This whole climate change propaganda is just a global governance mechanism. If the elites really cared about the planet they would have never allowed fracking.

I also wonder why no candidate ever runs on simple or easy to implement ideas on pollution and recycling. It would be unbelievably simple to require every glass bottle and aluminum can to be returned. They already do it in Michigan and in Germany, they just give people that nickel incentive to return these items.

 Maybe we’re just running out of easy to find oil and finding other comparably cheap solutions isn’t so simple but it definitely feels like a step towards total global government control of every move we make and every step we take. After all when I exhale I do emit CO2.

 

[Sand]

I listened to Yang on Joe Rogan's podcast and am intrigued by his ideas. I'll have to read up on his policies/platform, but I think he'll do well in the debates. 

Say what you want about this guy, but his website has the most complete set of policy statements and beliefs I have ever seen.  Kudos to this guy for putting this stuff out there - much respect there.

As a comparison, Beto's has a GoFundMe and a t-shirt shop.

 

[timschochet]

So the AOC thread, and the insistence by @jon_mx and a few others that she is a socialist (or communist) who hates capitalism, had me thinking about the continued relevance of these terms in today’s society. It seems to me that we are facing two existential crisis: climate change and the threat of loss of future jobs brought about by automation. These two issues should force us to come up with new terms.

For instance, if a person’s philosopy is: 

I believe in free enterprise and the less government interference the better, but I also believe that climate change can only be fought by forced government changes to industry. 

Is this person still a capitalist? Is he a socialist? My point is that neither term is accurate. But I don’t have a term to replace them either. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

For instance, if a person’s philosopy is: 

I believe in free enterprise and the less government interference the better, but I also believe that climate change can only be fought by forced government changes to industry. 

Is this person still a capitalist? Is he a socialist? My point is that neither term is accurate. But I don’t have a term to replace them either. 

Eh yes, technology and conditions in society were key bases for Marx. I am not specifically addressing Cortez or anyone else here but it’s solely a question of ownership and control of capital and labor, not *why wants to do what one wants to do with them.

 

[jon_mx]

So the AOC thread, and the insistence by @jon_mx and a few others that she is a socialist (or communist) who hates capitalism, had me thinking about the continued relevance of these terms in today’s society. It seems to me that we are facing two existential crisis: climate change and the threat of loss of future jobs brought about by automation. These two issues should force us to come up with new terms.

For instance, if a person’s philosopy is: 

I believe in free enterprise and the less government interference the better, but I also believe that climate change can only be fought by forced government changes to industry. 

Is this person still a capitalist? Is he a socialist? My point is that neither term is accurate. But I don’t have a term to replace them either. 

Noboby really lives in a purely capitalistic or socialistic society.  The terms are trypically applied relative to the current system that governs them or of that particular topic.  So that person may be a capalistic at heart, but on climate change is socialistic.    

 

[rockaction]

Actually, the environmentalism/philosophical dichotomy was likely first diagnosed by Clare Boothe Luce on Firing Line with William F. Buckley in 1970, and it was brilliant. If you can find it, it's worth a watch for the lucidity of it. She explains to a rapt Buckley how environmental problems will require totalitarian efforts (her words) to change them.  

 

[The Commish]

So the AOC thread, and the insistence by @jon_mx and a few others that she is a socialist (or communist) who hates capitalism, had me thinking about the continued relevance of these terms in today’s society. It seems to me that we are facing two existential crisis: climate change and the threat of loss of future jobs brought about by automation. These two issues should force us to come up with new terms.

For instance, if a person’s philosopy is: 

I believe in free enterprise and the less government interference the better, but I also believe that climate change can only be fought by forced government changes to industry. 

Is this person still a capitalist? Is he a socialist? My point is that neither term is accurate. But I don’t have a term to replace them either. 

That's because black/white labels don't fit individuals.  They fit the ideal they support.  It's best to focus on the philosophy and labeling the approach rather than the person.  It should also be noted that for a great majority of us, when we were taught economics the understanding of the world was completely different.  We were taught economics from a position of a US economy that was relatively closed.  Now we are part of a global economy and those terms, even for the concepts, mean different things today.

 

[timschochet]

That's because black/white labels don't fit individuals.  They fit the ideal they support.  It's best to focus on the philosophy and labeling the approach rather than the person.  It should also be noted that for a great majority of us, when we were taught economics the understanding of the world was completely different.  We were taught economics from a position of a US economy that was relatively closed.  Now we are part of a global economy and those terms, even for the concepts, mean different things today.

I think this is an excellent point. 

 

[jonessed]

So the AOC thread, and the insistence by @jon_mx and a few others that she is a socialist (or communist) who hates capitalism, had me thinking about the continued relevance of these terms in today’s society. It seems to me that we are facing two existential crisis: climate change and the threat of loss of future jobs brought about by automation. These two issues should force us to come up with new terms.

For instance, if a person’s philosopy is: 

I believe in free enterprise and the less government interference the better, but I also believe that climate change can only be fought by forced government changes to industry. 

Is this person still a capitalist? Is he a socialist? My point is that neither term is accurate. But I don’t have a term to replace them either. 

The person you are describing is a capitalist.

AOC is a socialist.  She defines herself as such.  I really don’t understand why people don’t take her word for it.

 

[timschochet]

The person you are describing is a capitalist.

AOC is a socialist.  She defines herself as such.  I really don’t understand why people don’t take her word for it.

Because she describes herself as a Democratic socialist. Not the same thing. 

But to your first point: if the theoretical person and AOC support the same policies, and for the same or similar reasons, does it make a difference that we label one a capitalist and one a socialist? 

 

[jon_mx]

We are still increasing our per capita emissions while other countries are and have taken steps to curb their emissions.  Even China.  We absolutely should be villanized for that. 

Wrong on both counts.  We have peaked and are reducing our overall and per capita emissions.  China will not peak until around 2035 and will continue to substainally increase their emissions.  Although China has been in recession the last couple of years which has lead to a decrease, they are expected to peak somewhere over 15 Gt CO2/yr.   The US has pledged to cut and reduce limits.  China has only pledge to peak before 2035 and have signed up to no limits on that peak.