Support NeoGAF

[Elaugaufein]

Well, as Napoleon supposedly said, "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake". The comparisons to the GOP become more apt by the day, really. It's gonna be interesting if the backbenchers doubling down on conservatism will either force Turnbull to accomodate them or make them chuck him out, neither of which would help their primary vote.

That being said, my main worry is Coalition voters who are defecting from them mainly moving over to One Nation instead of Labor or the Greens.

Australian sensationalist headlines excepted real support for One Nation is still from ~4% to 12% depending on state (with the 12% being Queensland). They mainly seem to have cleaned up the "too conservative for the Coalition" Other voters for the most part, with a bit of chew into the Coalition in rural areas (as always it seems to be *really* concentrated in what were traditional National Seats and to a lesser extent what were Labor Right going further back).

 

[darkace]

The small business lobby groups sure as hell are , from a quick search. Like the Council of Small Businesses is close to indistinguishable from the BCA. I guess Self-Employed don't tend to title themselves as Small Business Owners ?

The ones I know do. The moment they own anything vaguely resembling capital and assets they tend to classify themselves as a small business owner. And share inspirational quotes on Facebook about how they worked hard to make it while owning 25k in assets of which a majority is a parental loan and an app idea that hasn't gone past a sketch on a napkin.

Also ONP voters are people that were never really core LNP members, but rather attracted by the rhetoric against asylum seekers and the like. The blue-ribbon LNP constituencies had the lowest ONP vote. Many of them (like my seat) didn't even run a ONP candidate. Thankfully, unlike in the US there aren't enough of them to hijack the party like they have the GOP. And our arms length pre-selection process tends to weed out a majority of the extremists, keeping the LNP line pure in its pursuit of the interests of capital.

 

[Elaugaufein]

The ones I know do. The moment they own anything vaguely resembling capital and assets they tend to classify themselves as a small business owner. And share inspirational quotes on Facebook about how they worked hard to make it while owning 25k in assets of which a majority is a parental loan and an app idea that hasn't gone past a sketch on a napkin.

Also ONP voters are people that were never really core LNP members, but rather attracted by the rhetoric against asylum seekers and the like. The blue-ribbon LNP constituencies had the lowest ONP vote. Many of them (like my seat) didn't even run a ONP candidate. Thankfully, unlike in the US there aren't enough of them to hijack the party like they have the GOP. And our arms length pre-selection process tends to weed out a majority of the extremists, keeping the LNP line pure in its pursuit of the interests of capital.

That's just sad.

One Nation has actually done terrifyingly well in some LNP "Blue Ribbon" seats, since that includes the old National Seats that One Nation keep threatening to take (like Maranoa).

Blue Ribbon Liberal seats (the inner city LNP seats in Queensland) are pretty much dead safe from One Nation though, in some of those seats its Lib, Green , Labor for first 3 parties in order.

The Nationals are actually pretty susceptible to take over by One Nation (or similar parties too) , the parties are indistinguishable in the case of some members like say Christensen but the Liberals have usually fenced them off from significant positions , the weak majority and uneven Senate has really given them opportunity to raise hell though.

 

[darkace]

One Nation has actually done terrifyingly well in some LNP "Blue Ribbon" seats, since that includes the old National Seats that One Nation keep threatening to take (like Maranoa).

Wait aren't blue ribbon LNP seats populated by high income, educated, white-colllar suburbanites? Like Sydney North-Shore and West-side Brisbane. How is Maranoa blue ribbon?

 

[Elaugaufein]

Wait aren't blue ribbon LNP seats populated by high income, educated, white-colllar suburbanites? Like Sydney North-Shore and West-side Brisbane. How is Maranoa blue ribbon?

Blue Ribbon seats are actually seats that always vote for one party. It just seems to get applied to the Liberals more so than other parties, which means that "Blue Ribbon" seems to be associated with the kind of seat you're talking about. Seats like Maranoa are also Blue Ribbon because the Nationals have traditionally had iron holds on them, but for whatever reason the term doesn't seem to get used for them much. I'm guessing its a Linguistic thing where the Liberals color being Blue kind of led to it being used almost exclusively for those seats to avoid things like Labor Blue Ribbon seats which sounds silly.

 

[darkace]

Blue Ribbon seats are actually seats that always vote for one party. It just seems to get applied to the Liberals more so than other parties, which means that "Blue Ribbon" seems to be associated with the kind of seat you're talking about. Seats like Maranoa are also Blue Ribbon because the Nationals have traditionally had iron holds on them, but for whatever reason the term doesn't seem to get used for them much. I'm guessing its a Linguistic thing where the Liberals color being Blue kind of led to it being used almost exclusively for those seats to avoid things like Labor Blue Ribbon seats which sounds silly.

TIL.

 

[Omikron]

Dutton on an all out attack on Labor because they didn't get behind his 'ban the refugees' policy.

Not a policy to wedge labor on though. I am sure.

 

[bobnowhere]

I always thought it was Blue-riband anyway. A prize for the most loyal, best(lol) in the parties so they don't have to worry about reelections etc...

Dutton on an all out attack on Labor because they didn't get behind his 'ban the refugees' policy.

Not a policy to wedge labor on though. I am sure.

Dutton went on a rant yesterday and Albo interrupted him to make a point of order on weirdness!

 

[Quasar]

Dutton on an all out attack on Labor because they didn't get behind his 'ban the refugees' policy.

Not a policy to wedge labor on though. I am sure.

Am surprised labor isn't going along with it after some limp public hand wringing like they always seem to do .

 

[Elaugaufein]

Am surprised labor isn't going along with it after some limp public hand wringing like they always seem to do .

Still time for that yet. They equivocated, then opposed then folded on "security" before.

 

[Candescence]

It'd be difficult to make a complete reversal when the entire Labor caucus unanimously voted against the proposal.

Still, it makes the anti-immigration folks look like idiots when they fail to notice that we already have a huge immigration intake and boat people would barely make a dent on that number.

 

[Yagharek]

When does good government start?

 

[Elaugaufein]

When does good government start?

The way things are going, approximately August in 2019.

 

[bobnowhere]

When does good government start?

Tomorrow*






















* - May be delayed a day.

 

[darkace]

Whenever the senate gets their ass in gear. We just watched NZ sail past us in economic terms on the back of the exact policies the LNP are trying to enact, can the ALP at least pretend to want to implement policies that make people better off.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Whenever the senate gets their ass in gear. We just watched NZ sail past us in economic terms on the back of the exact policies the LNP are trying to enact, can the ALP at least pretend to want to implement policies that make people better off.

I'm yet to hear your plan for what to do after your economic rationalist Utopia maximizes inequality.

 

[darkace]

I'm yet to hear your plan for what to do after your economic rationalist Utopia maximizes inequality.

Who said inequality would increase under my regime? Cutting company tax and payroll tax would decrease inequality. The whole reason I want to fix the tax system is because the people hurt the most by bad tax systems are those without the ability to change their behaviour in response to tax changes. Which isn't the rich.

 

[Candescence]

I'm pretty sure you're exaggerating the effects of Key's policies on the economy - apparently New Zealand's current prosperity is mostly due to an export boom with demand from China.

Though Key also parallels Labor in that New Zealand has a not-shitty national broadband policy.

 

[darkace]

I'm pretty sure you're exaggerating the effects of Key's policies on the economy - apparently New Zealand's current prosperity is mostly due to an export boom with demand from China.

We had the exact same thing to a much, much larger extent (RIP mining boom 2005-2013) and yet NZ is outpacing us. It's almost as if dumb attempts at wealth redistribution from the ALP that don't focus on expanding human capital don't actually form a sustainable basis for wealth creation for the whole country.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Who said inequality would increase under my regime? Cutting company tax and payroll tax would decrease inequality. The whole reason I want to fix the tax system is because the people hurt the most by bad tax systems are those without the ability to change their behaviour in response to tax changes. Which isn't the rich.

The only non-regressive in terms of discretionary income policy I've see you support is land tax (and that's still going to cause problems for those with low liquidity / income stability in the middle). And externalities maybe ? Not sure at what level you plan to tax those (merely the offset value or a penalty on top), the former is mildly redistributive in that the poor are less capable of compensating for those externalities and so benefit more from abatement.

Every other form of non-regressive State money gathering power I've see you comment on is to call it economic drag.

Unless you support wealth tax which I'm down with but given our inability to maintain estate taxes that seems wildly unlikely pitically, the economic leverage of amassed wealth is already far to great in this area, in terms of distorting the hell out of who's effected.

 

[darkace]

The only non-regressive in terms of discretionary income policy I've see you support is land tax (and that's still going to cause problems for those with low liquidity / income stability in the middle). And externalities maybe ? Not sure at what level you plan to tax those (merely the offset value or a penalty on top), the former is mildly redistributive in that the poor are less capable of compensating for those externalities and so benefit more from abatement.

A negative income tax on a flat tax with a land-value tax while taxing externalities can easily be made as progressive as our current system if you set the tax free thresholds for the land-value and the flat tax high enough.

Every other form of non-regressive State money gathering power I've see you comment on is to call it economic drag.

Because it is. If you tax badly then you destroy any net benefit from the social programs you enact with the revenue. I don't have a problem with social programs, what I have a problem with is harming the poorest with policies that are ostensibly trying to help them. What's the point in enacting social programs paid for by the mining tax when the tax is the reason many people in former mining towns will need the social programs in the first place? Who have you helped in this situation?

And a company tax rate increase decreases wages by an amount greater than the revenue collected. You could directly give every single dollar from a company tax increase straight to people and it still wouldn't have been worth enacting the policy in the first place.

Compare it to a rise in the GST, which destroys 7-10 cents worth of productive activity for every dollar raised. Which of these taxes is best to enact social programs with? If you tax $5 dollars from a company tax rate rise, destroy $6 worth of wage increases, and give $10 dollars to the poorest in the form of transfers, is that better than taxing $5 in a GST raise, destroying 50 cents worth of wage increases, and then giving $10 to the poorest? Do we just like the above because a company tax means we stick it to big mean companies (even though it doesn't).

My entire ideology has always been about helping the poorest in society and those least able to help themselves. I just wish we'd do it by following what experts tell us, not what we want the world to be like.

Unless you support wealth tax which I'm down with but given our inability to maintain estate taxes that seems wildly unlikely pitically, the economic leverage of amassed wealth is already far to great in this area, in terms of distorting the hell out of who's effected.

A wealth tax is a very bad idea unless enacted globally.

 

[Elaugaufein]

A negative income tax on a flat tax with a land-value tax while taxing externalities can easily be made as progressive as our current system if you set the tax free thresholds for the land-value and the flat tax high enough.



Because it is. If you tax badly then you destroy any net benefit from the social programs you enact with the revenue. I don't have a problem with social programs, what I have a problem with is harming the poorest with policies that are ostensibly trying to help them. What's the point in enacting social programs paid for by the mining tax when the tax is the reason many people in former mining towns will need the social programs in the first place? Who have you helped in this situation?

And a company tax rate increase decreases wages by an amount greater than the revenue collected. You could directly give every single dollar from a company tax increase straight to people and it still wouldn't have been worth enacting the policy in the first place.

Compare it to a rise in the GST, which destroys 7-10 cents worth of productive activity for every dollar raised. Which of these taxes is best to enact social programs with? If you tax $5 dollars from a company tax rate rise, destroy $6 worth of wage increases, and give $10 dollars to the poorest in the form of transfers, is that better than taxing $5 in a GST raise, destroying 50 cents worth of wage increases, and then giving $10 to the poorest? Do we just like the above because a company tax means we stick it to big mean companies (even though it doesn't).

My entire ideology has always been about helping the poorest in society and those least able to help themselves. I just wish we'd do it by following what experts tell us, not what we want the world to be like.



A wealth tax is a very bad idea unless enacted globally.

Fair enough. I actually think I agree with you on this (I'm assuming your flat tax is actually relatively high and not the small values usually called for by flat tax advocates),.

Resource taxes are interesting, in that the main reason for their economic in viability is race to the bottom, everyone wants money now , despite the fact that resources are finite so their value generally rises if people decline to take them at the price you offer (except for things that turn out to have negative effects but getting economic value out of them before that's found it is still not what I'd call a win long term.).

Many of the poorest are un or underemployed though, so they don't actually have wages to be hindered. And that's not a problem that's going to improve. Companies are going to keep increasingly replacing more and more jobs with off shoring and automation.

Why do taxes cause greater drag than they raise revenue in terms of wages ? You'd expect competition for labor to cause tax to come out of profits rather than wages. But clearly it doesn't. I assume there's some administrative overhead but company and payroll taxes are generally comparatively simple for that reason (the 50 kajillion tax write offs , loopholes and depreciations introduced to avoid paying these things aside). If its merely capitals desire to protect return at all costs, then I don't see how you can construct any effective system, capital will never permit one unfavourable to themselves and their social leverage is immense in these areas.

And yes, granted , on wealth tax.

 

[darkace]

Many of the poorest are un or underemployed though, so they don't actually have wages to be hindered. And that's not a problem that's going to improve. Companies are going to keep increasingly replacing more and more jobs with off shoring and automation.

Both off-shoring and automation have the same impact in that they negatively impact small localised subsets, result in a general gain for the majority, and have a very big gain for a group larger than the first.

And people suffering in long-term poverty are very rare. We have longitudinal time series to look at now, which paints a much rosier picture of poverty than many think:

http://business.curtin.edu.au/wp-co...is-the-real-extent-of-low-income-mobility.pdf

Most notably:

Using longitudinal data a rather different picture of income poverty emerges – it seems that while many households experience poverty at some point in their lives, it is generally a short experience that typically ‘represents transitory setback for persons with adequate income over the longer term’ (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 2001, p.37). Evidence that income poverty is a short term phenomenon for most Australian households comes from five studies, three of which draw on HILDA. Headey, Marks and Wooden’s (2005) analysis of three waves of HILDA (each wave covers a 12 month period) revealed that 24.3 per cent of the population were income poor in at least one of the three waves, but only 4.2 per cent of the population cent were poor in all three when a poverty threshold based on half median current household income was applied.

Using the same threshold, but five waves of HILDA, Buddelmeyer and Verick (2008) found that 19.4 per cent of the population were income poor, but that only 1 per cent of the population were income poor for all five years. Using six waves of HILDA and the same income poverty threshold Rodgers and Rodgers (2009) reported much the same: 30 per cent of the population were income poor at some point during the six waves, but that only 2.9 per cent were poor in all six waves, although the percentage of people who were poor in at least four of the six waves was 8.4 per cent.

So while poverty does exist (and estimates also vary quite wildly depending on how you define it), it's generally a small blip rather than an issue of longer-term stagnation. Other interesting data I found said that approximately two-thirds of income earners at the end of their productive life-span will have been in the top 20% of income earners for a productive year, while about 15% will be in the top 1%. We can't see the poor and the rich as monolithic unmoving blocs.

Why do taxes cause greater drag than they raise revenue in terms of wages ? You'd expect competition for labor to cause tax to come out of profits rather than wages. But clearly it doesn't. I assume there's some administrative overhead but company and payroll taxes are generally comparatively simple for that reason (the 50 kajillion tax write offs , loopholes and depreciations introduced to avoid paying these things aside). If its merely capitals desire to protect return at all costs, then I don't see how you can construct any effective system, capital will never permit one unfavourable to themselves and their social leverage is immense in these areas.

Simply put because not all taxes are created equally. A tax on capital causes capital to flee elsewhere, harming the labour that would have been coupled with it. This is why generally taxes fall on the workers, as capital and the wealthy are very supply elastic.

We can try and tax capital, but without enacting harsh controls that harm everyone it's very difficult to actually do so.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Both off-shoring and automation have the same impact in that they negatively impact small localised subsets, result in a general gain for the majority, and have a very big gain for a group larger than the first.

And people suffering in long-term poverty are very rare. We have longitudinal time series to look at now, which paints a much rosier picture of poverty than many think:

http://business.curtin.edu.au/wp-co...is-the-real-extent-of-low-income-mobility.pdf

Most notably:



So while poverty does exist (and estimates also vary quite wildly depending on how you define it), it's generally a small blip rather than an issue of longer-term stagnation. Other interesting data I found said that approximately two-thirds of income earners at the end of their productive life-span will have been in the top 20% of income earners for a productive year, while about 15% will be in the top 1%. We can't see the poor and the rich as monolithic unmoving blocs.



Simply put because not all taxes are created equally. A tax on capital causes capital to flee elsewhere, harming the labour that would have been coupled with it. This is why generally taxes fall on the workers, as capital and the wealthy are very supply elastic.

We can try and tax capital, but without enacting harsh controls that harm everyone it's very difficult to actually do so.

So your net position still appears to be that all you can do is allow capital to further increase its power because its already passed the point where we can do anything about it. That's not exactly a point in favour of the system or the experts who condone it. Nor does it suggest that inequality is going to decrease. The glorious utopia (dystopia?) of a handful of rich people with their needs taken care of by robots is inevitable. I guess at least the poor will cease to be a problem in this situation.

 

[darkace]

So your net position still appears to be that all you can do is allow capital to further increase its power because its already passed the point where we can do anything about it.

No my position is you don't make the poorest better off by making the rich worse off for the sake of it. The economy isn't zero sum.

I just don't see the world in class conflict.

That's not exactly a point in favour of the system or the experts who condone it. Nor does it suggest that inequality is going to decrease. The glorious utopia (dystopia?) of a handful of rich people with their needs taken care of by robots is inevitable. I guess at least the poor will cease to be a problem in this situation.

It's not. Automation doesn't permanently unemploy people.

http://economics.mit.edu/files/9835

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.29.3.31

 

[bomma_man]

What the fuck is wrong with white people

 

[darkace]

You'd hope it would cause the left to look at itself and ask about what's going on. More likely we're just going to see 'everyone who voted Trump is racist', the standards for US political discussion from the left.

Maybe one day they'll realise calling everyone who doesn't view the world exactly as they do idiots and xenophobes doesn't actually win you anything but brownie points in the choir.

 

[bomma_man]

Calling people that won't help


But they unquestionably are. This is straight up white identity politics.

 

[Shaneus]

What the fuck is wrong with white people

Entitlement. Superiority complex.

Obviously not all of them/us, but the voting majority in the US.

 

[i_am_ben]

I wonder what all the Aussie politicians who backed Clinton are gonna do now?

I mean Bishop is Foreign Minister!

 

[bomma_man]

God this is just going to embolden our fuckwit right too.

Brexit.
One Nation.
Trump.
And coming up in 2017 Le Pen.

I'm genuinely scarred.

 

[Elaugaufein]

No my position is you don't make the poorest better off by making the rich worse off for the sake of it. The economy isn't zero sum.

I just don't see the world in class conflict.



It's not. Automation doesn't permanently unemploy people.

http://economics.mit.edu/files/9835

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.29.3.31

Capital effectively gets to write the laws/taxes to be benefit themselves or they nuke labor. Thats a bit beyond class conflict if anything. Thats a class war already lost. And the relevant political influence of business in policy making compared to peoples interest back that up. We can't even agree that climate change is a thing we should be averting (mirrored by the fact we're not doing enough now, nor does it appear likey we're going to in time (x2 with Republican America for the next 4+ years)

Automation hasn't yet permanently unemployed more than a narrow band of people. That doesn't mean it can't / won't. There's already several service / professional industries where automation is significantly reducing the staff time required.

There's a lot of underemployment too (which wouldn't necessarily be a problem increased leisure is the purpose of automation, but if it merely reduces the number of workers without adjusting wages it's problematic).

I'm skeptical given the structure of society we're going to be able to make the transition rather than capital effectively absorbing the benefits and an effective return to feudalism.

You'd hope it would cause the left to look at itself and ask about what's going on. More likely we're just going to see 'everyone who voted Trump is racist', the standards for US political discussion from the left.

Maybe one day they'll realise calling everyone who doesn't view the world exactly as they do idiots and xenophobes doesn't actually win you anything but brownie points in the choir.

This we agree on. GAF is sorta bad in that a mild conservative / libertarian is significantly more likely to get banned than the people who call everyone who disagrees with them racist or sexist. I'm fairly leftish but more libertarian than the GAF average and posting in certain threads still feels like a delicate tight rope walk at times (though I haven't yet been banned,).

 

[Rubixcuba]

So where are we (Australia) at? It's hard to see how people go vote for Brexit but; it's hard to see how people vote for Trum.p

The polls this week again said most Australians are happy with our immigration policy, support life ban for those on Manus. How far does it go? How insular and isolationist do Australians want us to be?

 

[darkace]

But they unquestionably are. This is straight up white identity politics.

You can't lump a diverse group numbering nearly 100 million as simply being racist. That it forms a part of his base is beyond doubt, but there's also a whole heap of other issues as well.

Capital effectively gets to write the laws/taxes to be benefit themselves or they nuke labor. Thats a bit beyond class conflict if anything. Thats a class war already lost. And the relevant political influence of business in policy making compared to peoples interest back that up. We can't even agree that climate change is a thing we should be averting (mirrored by the fact we're not doing enough now, nor does it appear likey we're going to in time (x2 with Republican America for the next 4+ years)

It's hard to see any broad economic policy implemented in the last 30 years that benefits one class to the detriment of any others. The only one I can really think of is the legislation implemented to favour unions after their part in the 2007 election win. Tax changes have favoured everyone (with the exception of the mining tax, which sucked and harmed everyone). Privatisation hasn't but it's more the governments attempting to use it as a method of revenue raising rather than as a long-term productivity enhancing tool.

This we agree on. GAF is sorta bad in that a mild conservative / libertarian is significantly more likely to get banned than the people who call everyone who disagrees with them racist or sexist. I'm fairly leftish but more libertarian than the GAF average and posting in certain threads still feels like a delicate tight rope walk at times (though I haven't yet been banned,).

I've been banned once for that thread about asylum seekers, which is fair enough in retrospect. I've been largely steering clear of other threads now, as even hinting that cultural factors may play a part in disparities between races apparently makes you David Duke (although it makes me wonder about the structural blocks facing Whites, given Asians outperform them.)

 

[Elaugaufein]

So where are we (Australia) at? It's hard to see how people go vote for Brexit but; it's hard to see how people vote for Trum.p

The polls this week again said most Australians are happy with our immigration policy, support life ban for those on Manus. How far does it go? How insular and isolationist do Australians want us to be?

It's hard to say, One Nation has much weaker support than you'd expect if we we're going to pull a Auxit. But we're fully prepared to be horrible to asylum seekers for no real reason. And explicitly racist parties like Reclaim did balls. So we're either an inconsistent mess or like our discrimination fairly low key and we're not dedicated enough to it , to wind back out welfare systems to stop them Welfare Queens. I give about even odds for which is true.

 

[bomma_man]

Well, the mid west certainly doesn't believe that free trade is helping them, and up until this point that was basically a bipartisan position. Trump won that demographic by appealing to nativist populism. I'm not sure what the left should've done about that other than by promoting redistributive policies that you seem to hate.

 

[Shaneus]

God this is just going to embolden our fuckwit right too.

Brexit.
One Nation.
Trump.
And coming up in 2017 Le Pen.

I'm genuinely scarred.

What's Le Pen?

 

[Elaugaufein]

What's Le Pen?

The leader of the French version of the White Nationalist movement. There's actually 2 significant Le Pens, the older male who founded the party and his daughter who's the current leader with a non-zero shot at the Presidency.

 

[darkace]

Well, the mid west certainly doesn't believe that free trade is helping them, and up until this point that was basically a bipartisan position. Trump won that demographic by appealing to nativist populism. I'm not sure what the left should've done about that other than by promoting redistributive policies that you seem to hate.

I like well-done redistribution. They don't. These areas have been actively ignored for decades. Infrastructure and education have been left to rot. Tax systems are decades out of date. The jobs won't come back regardless of what Trump does, but governments in the US have done nothing to bring in the jobs of the future. The free market is great, but recognising its limitations is a necessity. We've got two sides in the US both playing for policies that don't help anyone in these areas. Tax cuts won't help them, nor will redistributive policies in the long-run. Nor will empowering unions and all that stuff. These people are the forgotten members of society, and we've got people wondering why they've joined forces with an explicitly racist outside candidate?

And free trade has hurt these people. The whole idea behind free trade is that it's a Kaldor-Hicks improvement (general gain, small number of losers, medium number of big winners).

This is why I back the policies I do. When you fail to govern as a government should then you empower extremists. If the centre won't do its job and the left gives you nothing but a paternalistic attitude with one side and calls you racist with the other then turning to the right fringe is what happens.

 

[bomma_man]

The leader of the French version of the White Nationalist movement. There's actually 2 significant Le Pens, the older male who founded the party and his daughter who's the current leader with a non-zero shot at the Presidency.

She'll almost certainly get through to the second round, and given that she'll probably be against sarkozy I'm not confident.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Well, the mid west certainly doesn't believe that free trade is helping them, and up until this point that was basically a bipartisan position. Trump won that demographic by appealing to nativist populism. I'm not sure what the left should've done about that other than by promoting redistributive policies that you seem to hate.

Part of that is that countries are fucking stupid about how they do free trade. Extreme secrecy, corporations get explicit privileged seats at the table in addition to their implicit seat from the unwillingness of mainstream political parties to risk crossing them. And then you throw in a bunch of legal stuff that's only orthogonally related to free trade but is always great for corporate power. It's weird that the US / UK are having the largest rebellions though, the US is one of the few countries guaranteed real net wins from FTAs because of their privileged position. And the UK as part of the EU was in a similar position.

If you wanted to design a system to make people skeptical of free trade you couldn't do much better.

 

[bomma_man]

I like well-done redistribution. They don't. These areas have been actively ignored for decades. Infrastructure and education have been left to rot. Tax systems are decades out of date.

But thanks to who! Republicans have been systematically defunding those programs for decades. Rural white people don't vote for democrats because they're tied to black people and the gays. I'm not sure what they can really do except revert to pre civil rights dixiecratism or fully embrace economic populism? It's not like Clinton's numbers have really declined since 2012 - hell the popular vote is going to be pretty close! - but he just got the white rural uneducated vote out. Why do you think that is and how can the democrats combat it?

Edit: to the above, I don't disagree. I think it happened in the U.K. And US first because the changes were presided over by conservatives who left the working class in the shit, compared to our transition being softened somewhat by a Labor government.

 

[darkace]

But thanks to who! Republicans have been systematically defunding those programs for decades. Rural white people don't vote for democrats because they're tied to black people and the gays. I'm not sure what they can really do except revert to pre civil rights dixiecratism or fully embrace economic populism? It's not like Clinton's numbers have really declined since 2012 - hell the popular vote is going to be pretty close! - but he just got the white rural uneducated vote out. Why do you think that is and how can the democrats combat it?

You're looking at this from the wrong angle. People don't support racist policies because they're born racist, they support them because decades of declining fortunes has given them a need to latch onto somebody to blame. Acceptable racism and the empowerment of fringe candidates comes about as a failure for the centre to provide the leadership required.

People in the rust belt are living shorter lives than their parents, are fatter than their parents, smoke more than their parents, have less income than their parents, have a worse education than their parents, have fewer job prospects than their parents, and then you have somebody who comes along with all the answers to their problems. It's somebody else. The Jews destroyed the Weimar Republic. The Blacks were never a part of the American identity and must be kept from the levers of political power. The Mexicans and the Chinese took all our jobs. Racist policies do not find a home in mainstream politics without systematic economic dysfunction to drive them.

This is a direct result of the 2008 financial crisis and the inability for governments to find common cause to drive necessary reform since then. And the best part is that Trumps policies will drive further economic decline for the areas that voted most heavily for him.

If the US does not reform as required it will fail. If the Eurozone continues to drag the rest of the developed world down with it it will fail. If Australia continues to rely on mineral wealth it will fail. This should be a fucking wake up call for everyone about the dangers of not doing what is hard but necessary.

 

[bomma_man]

You're looking at this from the wrong angle. People don't support racist policies because they're born racist, they support them because decades of declining fortunes has given them a need to latch onto somebody to blame. Acceptable racism and the empowerment of fringe candidates comes about as a failure for the centre to provide the leadership required.

People in the rust belt are living shorter lives than their parents, are fatter than their parents, smoke more than their parents, have less income than their parents, have a worse education than their parents, have fewer job prospects than their parents, and then you have somebody who comes along with all the answers to their problems. It's somebody else. The Jews destroyed the Weimar Republic. The Blacks were never a part of the American identity and must be kept from the levers of political power. The Mexicans and the Chinese took all our jobs. Racist policies do not find a home in mainstream politics without systematic economic dysfunction to drive them.

This is a direct result of the 2008 financial crisis and the inability for governments to find common cause to drive necessary reform since then. And the best part is that Trumps policies will drive further economic decline for the areas that voted most heavily for him.

If the US does not reform as required it will fail. If the Eurozone continues to drag the rest of the developed world down with it it will fail. If Australia continues to rely on mineral wealth it will fail. This should be a fucking wake up call for everyone about the dangers of not doing what is hard but necessary.

This goes back to the 60s at least. They've voted like that since - now even more so than ever! I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said here, but how can democrats do anything about people that vote for the party that fucks them over and over again? In a post facts world what can they do?

 

[Yagharek]

Resentment and fear and anger are strong motivation factors when it comes to voting. People hate banks, wall st, and politicians who enabled each other to destroy people's investments and steal their homes and end their jobs. So they voted for a demagogue.

A demagogue belonging to the party who established the preconditions for the recession leading to those crimes.

The anger is understandable but the consequences are unimaginable. Their increased suffering this term will be their own fault.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Resentment and fear and anger are strong motivation factors when it comes to voting. People hate banks, wall st, and politicians who enabled each other to destroy people's investments and steal their homes and end their jobs. So they voted for a demagogue.

A demagogue belonging to the party who established the preconditions for the recession leading to those crimes.

The anger is understandable but the consequences are unimaginable. Their increased suffering this term will be their own fault.

I'm not sure that's 100% true. Its looking like either the absence of the Electoral college or presence of alternative vote would have barely scraped a Clinton win. Even if that wasn't the case the social and economic conditions that shape peoles expectations are the product of more people long in the ground than voting today.

 

[Hierophant]

so what does this mean for australia? On a train to the city and still deciding whether or not I take a long walk off of the harbour bridge (joking mostly).

At least the USD will be real low for black Friday, get ready for those bargains!!!

 

[Elaugaufein]

so what does this mean for australia? On a train to the city and still deciding whether or not I take a long walk off of the harbour bridge (joking mostly).

At least the USD will be real low for black Friday, get ready for those bargains!!!

Possibility of a global recession.

Maybe some harm to our trade to the US (but having almost no manufacturing means we're not going to get hit as hard by tariff barriers as other countries if that happens. )

Likely a distancing of our relationship from America, expect our military spending to increase and likely more diplomatic approaches in China and Russia. Might also see further a strengthening of our relationship with NZ.

Oh and a lot of shit by the Reclaim types feeling empowered.

Oh and we're probably fucked by climate change by 2100 too.


The USD isn't going to be a huge help , seems like most floated currencies are crashing at a reasonable fraction of its speed. It'll be something but not as large as it looks. People are probably investing in either holes in the ground , precious metals and utilitarian concerns.

 

[Hierophant]

Possibility of a global recession.

Maybe some harm to our trade to the US (but having almost no manufacturing means we're not going to get hit as hard by tariff barriers as other countries if that happens. )

Likely a distancing of our relationship from America, expect our military spending to increase and likely more diplomatic approaches in China and Russia. Might also see further a strengthening of our relationship with NZ.

Oh and a lot of shit by the Reclaim types feeling empowered.

Oh and we're probably fucked by climate change by 2100 too.

Ahhh yes this is what we needed as a country

Seriously the government better start thinking about teaching Asian languages more seriously in schools because I don't see English being the dominant language in business in the next couple of decades

My main concern is a nuke turning us into a crater but that's a non concern right?

 

[Quasar]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-09/has-antony-green-called-the-us-election/8009000

Well...Antony Green has called it.