Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since you profess to be a cynic and vote on a narrow conception of your own financial self-interest, all of this comes off as concern trolling. Better to say that the problem with our country is selfishness (like yours) that gets in the way of using the government as a way to make people's lives better.
Also, this game of attacking "neoliberals" is a fundamental dodge. It's a dodge of the substantial differences between the political parties, and it's a dodge of the differences between voters and politicians.
I can't tell what you think "neoliberalism" is, which seems deliberate on your part. It's abstract enough to avoid contact with reality. You do say:
[N]either camp of neoliberals, right or left, wants a more fair system that would give the losers more money at cost to their own profits. That's false. The signature battle of the Obama Administration, which you were around for, was over health care. Democrats enacted the ACA, to provide health coverage for everyone -- i.e., the losers too. As Hank can explain, it cost some people more money. Republicans fought it every step of the way. The ACA was flawed, in large part because of the challenges of getting it passed (and not because "neoliberalism" dictated anything). Since it's enactment, Republicans have tried to roll it back, while Democrats have reacted to its shortcomings (and Republican intransigence) by moving to the left, with more and more people supporting a form of single payer. Pretending that none of this happened, or that somehow the two parties are fundamentally similar, is a lie.
I think I know why you like to pretend that Democrats are no different from Republicans, but if you can't admit that's what you're doing, there's not much point in telling you. |
Bollocks. I'm not arguing the parties are entirely similar. They are not. I am arguing that when it comes to goring the most important ox (profits and future revenue streams accruing from global trade), everyone -
everybody - is talking his book.
Business people, including me, are more than willing to do anything to help the losers, just as long as it doesn't involve raising wages to levels that provide dignified lives to those low end workers. We'll give them all sorts of things like health care (of course business likes single payer... it takes a huge cost off the books!), welfare, some BS retraining. We'll fiddle at the margins. But what would really improve those low end workers' lives? Well, I see two things. One is protectionism (but that'd be short lived at best and only accelerate automation). Another is leveling with them. Instead of pretending we'd be willing to forego some profits accruing from labor arbitrage (and automation), people of both parties argue about how much pittance noblesse oblige to shower on the poor fuckers. The victims see a false debate between their betters and don't realize how screwed they are, which if they realized, they might work harder to escape.
Look. I'm not suggesting Ds aren't better for at least giving a hint of a shit about these people. They are. But anyone suggesting that Ds trying to give Old Joe on the Streetcorner a free carton of eggs and some stale white bread is markedly different than the Rs ignoring him is deluded.
And you, a defender of the gig economy, have zero moral standing to call me selfish. I am selfish. The only difference between us is I'm willing to say it. You're pretending you're not harming these people with one hand while throwing them crumbs with the other to placate them.* Bullshit, man, bullshit. We're all doing that.
_______
* If you haven't noticed, we're running out of time to keep placating these people. They're pissed, and though many remain credulous, a lot of them are becoming just smart enough to realize people like you and me are full of shit in most of our explanations for why they are where they are. And that our politicians are terminally full of shit and don't give a fuck about them.
