Houndawg Was Right...

[Ivytalk]

Then again, it might be because he's a snarky lightweight jerk.

hmmmmm.....the patient exhibits what appears to be classic symptoms of projection compounded by a textbook case of the houndawg envy that has reached epidemic proportions among ivy league charity cases.

Got it. Please pay on your way out.

[kalm]

Here's another interesting piece on the possible demise of neoliberalism. From Thatcher and Reagan to Clinton and Obama, the "hyper-globalizers" have failed to keep the working classes satisfied, and it's an indictment of both sides of the aisle.

The author does a nice job at the end with Trump's populist bona fides before throwing him under the authoritarian bus at the end...

The death of neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics

Martin Jacques

Dramatic as events have been in the UK, they cannot compare with those in the United States. Almost from nowhere, Donald Trump rose to capture the Republican nomination and confound virtually all the pundits and not least his own party. His message was straightforwardly anti-globalisation. He believes that the interests of the working class have been sacrificed in favour of the big corporations that have been encouraged to invest around the world and thereby deprive American workers of their jobs. Further, he argues that large-scale immigration has weakened the bargaining power of American workers and served to lower their wages.

He proposes that US corporations should be required to invest their cash reserves in the US. He believes that the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) has had the effect of exporting American jobs to Mexico. On similar grounds, he is opposed to the TPP and the TTIP. And he also accuses China of stealing American jobs, threatening to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports.

To globalisation Trump counterposes economic nationalism: “Put America first”. His appeal, above all, is to the white working class who, until Trump’s (and Bernie Sander’s) arrival on the political scene, had been ignored and largely unrepresented since the 1980s. Given that their wages have been falling for most of the last 40 years, it is extraordinary how their interests have been neglected by the political class. Increasingly, they have voted Republican, but the Republicans have long been captured by the super-rich and Wall Street, whose interests, as hyper-globalisers, have run directly counter to those of the white working class. With the arrival of Trump they finally found a representative: they won Trump the Republican nomination.

Trump believes that America’s pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation’s resources
The economic nationalist argument has also been vigorously pursued by Bernie Sanders, who ran Hillary Clinton extremely close for the Democratic nomination and would probably have won but for more than 700 so-called super-delegates, who were effectively chosen by the Democratic machine and overwhelmingly supported Clinton. As in the case of the Republicans, the Democrats have long supported a neoliberal, pro-globalisation strategy, notwithstanding the concerns of its trade union base. Both the Republicans and the Democrats now find themselves deeply polarised between the pro- and anti-globalisers, an entirely new development not witnessed since the shift towards neoliberalism under Reagan almost 40 years ago.

Advertisement

Another plank of Trump’s nationalist appeal – “Make America great again” – is his position on foreign policy. He believes that America’s pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation’s resources. He argues that the country’s alliance system is unfair, with America bearing most of the cost and its allies contributing far too little. He points to Japan and South Korea, and Nato’s European members as prime examples.He seeks to rebalance these relationships and, failing that, to exit from them.

As a country in decline, he argues that America can no longer afford to carry this kind of financial burden. Rather than putting the world to rights, he believes the money should be invested at home, pointing to the dilapidated state of America’s infrastructure. Trump’s position represents a major critique of America as the world’s hegemon. His arguments mark a radical break with the neoliberal, hyper-globalisation ideology that has reigned since the early 1980s and with the foreign policy orthodoxy of most of the postwar period. These arguments must be taken seriously. They should not be lightly dismissed just because of their authorship. But Trump is no man of the left. He is a populist of the right. He has launched a racist and xenophobic attack on Muslims and on Mexicans. Trump’s appeal is to a white working class that feels it has been cheated by the big corporations, undermined by Hispanic immigration, and often resentful towards African-Americans who for long too many have viewed as their inferior.

A Trump America would mark a descent into authoritarianism characterised by abuse, scapegoating, discrimination, racism, arbitrariness and violence; America would become a deeply polarised and divided society. His threat to impose 45% tariffs on China, if implemented, would certainly provoke retaliation by the Chinese and herald the beginnings of a new era of protectionism.

Trump may well lose the presidential election just as Sanders failed in his bid for the Democrat nomination. But this does not mean that the forces opposed to hyper-globalisation – unrestricted immigration, TPP and TTIP, the free movement of capital and much else – will have lost the argument and are set to decline. In little more than 12 months, Trump and Sanders have transformed the nature and terms of the argument. Far from being on the wane, the arguments of the critics of hyper-globalisation are steadily gaining ground. Roughly two-thirds of Americans agree that “we should not think so much in international terms but concentrate more on our own national problems”. And, above all else, what will continue to drive opposition to the hyper-globalisers is inequality.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-politics

[Ivytalk]

Here's another interesting piece on the possible demise of neoliberalism. From Thatcher and Reagan to Clinton and Obama, the "hyper-globalizers" have failed to keep the working classes satisfied, and it's an indictment of both sides of the aisle.

The author does a nice job at the end with Trump's populist bona fides before throwing him under the authoritarian bus at the end...

The death of neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics

Martin Jacques

Dramatic as events have been in the UK, they cannot compare with those in the United States. Almost from nowhere, Donald Trump rose to capture the Republican nomination and confound virtually all the pundits and not least his own party. His message was straightforwardly anti-globalisation. He believes that the interests of the working class have been sacrificed in favour of the big corporations that have been encouraged to invest around the world and thereby deprive American workers of their jobs. Further, he argues that large-scale immigration has weakened the bargaining power of American workers and served to lower their wages.

He proposes that US corporations should be required to invest their cash reserves in the US. He believes that the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) has had the effect of exporting American jobs to Mexico. On similar grounds, he is opposed to the TPP and the TTIP. And he also accuses China of stealing American jobs, threatening to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports.

To globalisation Trump counterposes economic nationalism: “Put America first”. His appeal, above all, is to the white working class who, until Trump’s (and Bernie Sander’s) arrival on the political scene, had been ignored and largely unrepresented since the 1980s. Given that their wages have been falling for most of the last 40 years, it is extraordinary how their interests have been neglected by the political class. Increasingly, they have voted Republican, but the Republicans have long been captured by the super-rich and Wall Street, whose interests, as hyper-globalisers, have run directly counter to those of the white working class. With the arrival of Trump they finally found a representative: they won Trump the Republican nomination.

Trump believes that America’s pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation’s resources
The economic nationalist argument has also been vigorously pursued by Bernie Sanders, who ran Hillary Clinton extremely close for the Democratic nomination and would probably have won but for more than 700 so-called super-delegates, who were effectively chosen by the Democratic machine and overwhelmingly supported Clinton. As in the case of the Republicans, the Democrats have long supported a neoliberal, pro-globalisation strategy, notwithstanding the concerns of its trade union base. Both the Republicans and the Democrats now find themselves deeply polarised between the pro- and anti-globalisers, an entirely new development not witnessed since the shift towards neoliberalism under Reagan almost 40 years ago.

Advertisement

Another plank of Trump’s nationalist appeal – “Make America great again” – is his position on foreign policy. He believes that America’s pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation’s resources. He argues that the country’s alliance system is unfair, with America bearing most of the cost and its allies contributing far too little. He points to Japan and South Korea, and Nato’s European members as prime examples.He seeks to rebalance these relationships and, failing that, to exit from them.

As a country in decline, he argues that America can no longer afford to carry this kind of financial burden. Rather than putting the world to rights, he believes the money should be invested at home, pointing to the dilapidated state of America’s infrastructure. Trump’s position represents a major critique of America as the world’s hegemon. His arguments mark a radical break with the neoliberal, hyper-globalisation ideology that has reigned since the early 1980s and with the foreign policy orthodoxy of most of the postwar period. These arguments must be taken seriously. They should not be lightly dismissed just because of their authorship. But Trump is no man of the left. He is a populist of the right. He has launched a racist and xenophobic attack on Muslims and on Mexicans. Trump’s appeal is to a white working class that feels it has been cheated by the big corporations, undermined by Hispanic immigration, and often resentful towards African-Americans who for long too many have viewed as their inferior.

A Trump America would mark a descent into authoritarianism characterised by abuse, scapegoating, discrimination, racism, arbitrariness and violence; America would become a deeply polarised and divided society. His threat to impose 45% tariffs on China, if implemented, would certainly provoke retaliation by the Chinese and herald the beginnings of a new era of protectionism.

Trump may well lose the presidential election just as Sanders failed in his bid for the Democrat nomination. But this does not mean that the forces opposed to hyper-globalisation – unrestricted immigration, TPP and TTIP, the free movement of capital and much else – will have lost the argument and are set to decline. In little more than 12 months, Trump and Sanders have transformed the nature and terms of the argument. Far from being on the wane, the arguments of the critics of hyper-globalisation are steadily gaining ground. Roughly two-thirds of Americans agree that “we should not think so much in international terms but concentrate more on our own national problems”. And, above all else, what will continue to drive opposition to the hyper-globalisers is inequality.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-politics

Fucking Brits. GlobaliZed. PolariZed. CharacteriZed. Learn to spell, why dontcha?

Substance-wise, I saw an almost identical piece in National Review Online this week. And a Peggy Noonan column just before that.

[kalm]

Here's another interesting piece on the possible demise of neoliberalism. From Thatcher and Reagan to Clinton and Obama, the "hyper-globalizers" have failed to keep the working classes satisfied, and it's an indictment of both sides of the aisle.

The author does a nice job at the end with Trump's populist bona fides before throwing him under the authoritarian bus at the end...



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-politics

Fucking Brits. GlobaliZed. PolariZed. CharacteriZed. Learn to spell, why dontcha?

Substance-wise, I saw an almost identical piece in National Review Online this week. And a Peggy Noonan column just before that.

No shit. This directional school mind has enough trouble with grammar and spelling.

And yes, the non or should I say multi-partisan twist on the rejection of the power elite is what I also find fascinating. Not that Peggy Noonan or NRO are non-establishment but at least people's minds appear to be opening.

Heck, I've heard even certain Ivy educated snob lawyers are sporting Johnson t-shirts these days.

[Ivytalk]

**** Brits. GlobaliZed. PolariZed. CharacteriZed. Learn to spell, why dontcha?

Substance-wise, I saw an almost identical piece in National Review Online this week. And a Peggy Noonan column just before that.

Heck, I've heard even certain Ivy educated snob lawyers are sporting Johnson t-shirts these days.

And buttons. And yard signs.

[houndawg]

**** Brits. GlobaliZed. PolariZed. CharacteriZed. Learn to spell, why dontcha?

Substance-wise, I saw an almost identical piece in National Review Online this week. And a Peggy Noonan column just before that.

No ****. This directional school mind has enough trouble with grammar and spelling.

And yes, the non or should I say multi-partisan twist on the rejection of the power elite is what I also find fascinating. Not that Peggy Noonan or NRO are non-establishment but at least people's minds appear to be opening.

Heck, I've heard even certain Ivy educated snob lawyers are sporting Johnson t-shirts these days.

This the long-term damage from the RNC and the DNC being exposed for the career criminals they are. And the Greed Freaks need to remember why they used to leave those crumbs on the table, before its too late.

[Chizzang]

Then again, it might be because he's a snarky lightweight jerk.

I find him charming and engaging...

[Ivytalk]

Then again, it might be because he's a snarky lightweight jerk.

I find him charming and engaging...

There's no accounting for taste.

[Chizzang]

I find him charming and engaging...

There's no accounting for taste.

Are you questioning my taste...

[houndawg]

I find him charming and engaging...

There's no accounting for taste.

Envy is such an ugly emotion....

[JohnStOnge]

John, we established quite some time ago that these "fifths" of which you speak, and speak, and speak, are meaningless and arbitrarily selected to make the statistical jabber you're spewing appear to have meaning.

With all due respect, that is a ridiculous statement. People don't describe distributions in terms of quintiles in order to make some person's "statistical jabber" have meaning. I'm not the one who decided to commonly discuss income distributions in terms of quintiles. But it is not an unreasonable approach.

Otherwise: The main point is that there's nothing in what the author cited at the beginning of this thread reportedly wrote that contradicts anything I've written about how people in the United States are better off now than they were in the perceived "glory days" of the 1950s through 1970s.

[houndawg]

John, we established quite some time ago that these "fifths" of which you speak, and speak, and speak, are meaningless and arbitrarily selected to make the statistical jabber you're spewing appear to have meaning.

With all due respect, that is a ridiculous statement. People don't describe distributions in terms of quintiles in order to make some person's "statistical jabber" have meaning. I'm not the one who decided to commonly discuss income distributions in terms of quintiles. But it is not an unreasonable approach.

Otherwise: The main point is that there's nothing in what the author cited at the beginning of this thread reportedly wrote that contradicts anything I've written about how people in the United States are better off now than they were in the perceived "glory days" of the 1950s through 1970s.

Those of us that weren't in diapers then understand that you're just making noise to amuse yourself, John.

In canem, veritas.

[houndawg]

hmmmmm.....the patient exhibits what appears to be classic symptoms of projection compounded by a textbook case of the houndawg envy that has reached epidemic proportions among ivy league charity cases.

Got it. Please pay on your way out.

I left the money on your dresser. Thanks.