Objectively intelligent.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

We usually go to Ft. Worth and cut across on 287 to Amarillo. Once you hit I-40, it's fine. That's a long, long way though.

Forgot the exact route but went through Roswell.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

High-earning professionals in a lot of blue states (like mine) were screwed by the Republicans' cap on the deduction of state and local taxes. Democrats want to fix it. I know it doesn't fit your preferred narrative about how Republicans make you money, but there it is.

I like the r/e investment deductions, the LLC deductions, and I don’t care much about SALT because the house is significantly paid down. That’s the trouble with Trump. He’s a moron... but you get your cake and you get to eat it.

I won’t miss him. But I’ll have to work harder to avoid what he’s made it easy to avoid?

ETA: SALT thing also benefited states bordering high tax blue ones. Influx of tax refugees drove up house prices and growth. Post-Covid influx is nuts. I think it’s a sucker’s bet. I think NYC will roar back in 2 years. But I’ll take the growth for now. House prices tend to be sticky. They’ll revert as people head back to center cities. But there’ll still be a nice bump.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Rental car with no sirius.

Sucker.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Forgot the exact route but went through Roswell.

Yeah, you went the route my husband took to Burning Man a few years ago. A lot of suicidal bunnies and meth fueled truckers on that route. 285. He blew out a tire on I-10 before he turned off to head north.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Whoa.

For the first time in the Democratic Party's two century history someone on their national ticket will be from west of Texas

Some dude on Twitter.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Whoa.



Some dude on Twitter.

You sure? The prez who started the EPA and made peace with China was from Cali.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You sure? The prez who started the EPA and made peace with Chiba was from Cali.

Harry Truman was from Missouri, which used to be way out west.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Sucker.

You've never rented one way from the Hertz at the Midland airport so STFU.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

https://www.amazon.com/People-No-Pop.../dp/1250220114

https://www.amazon.com/Evil-Geniuses.../dp/1984801341

I've listened to a couple excellent podcasts with these two authors recently and read a couple reviews of their above-linked most recent works. Their messages are essential, but will probably be drowned out because they offend powerful, monied interests.

Frank argues that anti-populism is predicated on a lie. That populism is largely a movement of the powerless versus the powerful. The right and left dismissal of it as movements of nativist morons, racists, and unwashed fools is largely propaganda running back to the time of William Jennings Bryan. He admits those types are present in populist movements to an extent, but a small one. He argues that neoliberals run with these false arguments because they don't like populist policies because those policies would harm their economic interests. He claims both traditional republicans and democrats swallow the line that populism = racism because it's a twofer: (1) it confers moral basis to ignore populists; and, (2) it feeds into their insecurity and ego (most upper middle class sorts with some education like the idea of feeling they're part of a class above someone else, and populists provide a perfect "other" to compare yourself to).

Anderson argues roughly the same thing, but aims the gun a bit more directly at the professional classes. He calls us capitalism's useful idiots, intentionally and unintentionally talking our books and feeding our egos. Again, his opprobrium is aimed squarely at neoliberal democrats and republicans:

Although very few people I knew voted for Reagan, affluent college-educated people, liberals and otherwise, tended not to disagree ferociously about politics in the 1980s and ’90s, and certainly not about economics. In retrospect, the rough consensus about economics looks like the beginning of an unspoken decades-long class solidarity among the bourgeoisie. Affluent college-educated people, Democrats as well as Republicans, began using the phrase socially liberal but fiscally conservative to describe their politics, which meant low taxes for higher-net-worth individuals (another new term) in return for tolerance of . . . whatever, as long as it didn’t involve big new social programs that affluent people would have to pay for. It was a libertarianism lite that kept everything nice and clubbable and it did at least have the virtue of ideological consistency.

When Gary Hart ran a second time for president, in 1988, one of his tax-policy advisers was Arthur Laffer, Reagan’s inventor of supply-side economics. When Jerry Brown ran for the 1992 Democratic nomination, he too sought Laffer’s help, to devise some kind of tax scheme “that was clear and easy to articulate,” and Laffer himself says he voted for Bill Clinton. (He’s now a Trump adviser.) The Democratic Leadership Council, co-founded by Clinton in 1985, became a think-tankish anchor for Democrats who didn’t disagree with Republicans that pretty much the only acceptable new solutions to any social problem were market based.*

For the remainder of the century, no candidate from the Democratic left became a plausible finalist for the nomination. In 1992, when Clinton won the nomination, his only serious competitors were two fellow New Democrats, Brown and Tsongas. Democrats had settled into their role as America’s economically centrist party. There was no organized, viable national economic left in the vicinity of serious power. The collapse of the Soviet Union and Communism at the beginning of the 1990s was very good news, but it had the unfortunate effect of making almost any left critique of America’s new hypercapitalism seem not just quixotic but also kind of corny and quaint.

Ouch. This explains, perhaps, why my much older republican parents sang Bill Clinton's praises through the 90s.

Effectively, Anderson argues that almost everyone is talking their book to one extent or another. Even populists, who are mad they've been left out of the gains the rest of us enjoyed from neoliberal policies.

It might also shed unique light on the fissures between people which the super-wealthy have exploited. Race is the current one, of course. But then there's party. And then there's culture, in which they pit insecure upper middle class wanna be elites against the equally insecure less coastal/less enlightened middle class. (Frank touched on this in What's the Matter with Kansas.)

You see a picture emerging (or at least I do), where everybody is either a cynic or a dupe, all serving a system that exacerbates inequality. It also draws a picture where a truly small cadre of obscenely influential interests control policy and the fools beneath argue amongst each other. Instead of a class ladder where any of us are significantly above or below others, it's a ladder to nowhere, where 99% of us are tiny increments above and below each other in relation to the enormous wealth of the true and only elite people who sit at the very top, separated from the rest of us by an expanse of ladder in which the rungs have been removed.

Anderson's book excerpt was passed to me by a professional, and I've in turn passed it on to many professionals. I don't expect anyone to admit he's a useful idiot, but what I read describes almost all professionals I know, including me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

https://www.amazon.com/People-No-Pop.../dp/1250220114

https://www.amazon.com/Evil-Geniuses.../dp/1984801341

I've listened to a couple excellent podcasts with these two authors recently and read a couple reviews of their above-linked most recent works. Their messages are essential, but will probably be drowned out because they offend powerful, monied interests.

Frank argues that anti-populism is predicated on a lie. That populism is largely a movement of the powerless versus the powerful. The right and left dismissal of it as movements of nativist morons, racists, and unwashed fools is largely propaganda running back to the time of William Jennings Bryan. He admits those types are present in populist movements to an extent, but a small one. He argues that neoliberals run with these false arguments because they don't like populist policies because those policies would harm their economic interests. He claims both traditional republicans and democrats swallow the line that populism = racism because it's a twofer: (1) it confers moral basis to ignore populists; and, (2) it feeds into their insecurity and ego (most upper middle class sorts with some education like the idea of feeling they're part of a class above someone else, and populists provide a perfect "other" to compare yourself to).

Frank is an interesting guy. Does he think Trump is essentially populist? Bernie? Who in the current landscape is a populist, according to Frank?

Anderson argues roughly the same thing, but aims the gun a bit more directly at the professional classes. He calls us capitalism's useful idiots, intentionally and unintentionally talking our books and feeding our egos. Again, his opprobrium is aimed squarely at neoliberal democrats and republicans:

Although very few people I knew voted for Reagan, affluent college-educated people, liberals and otherwise, tended not to disagree ferociously about politics in the 1980s and ’90s, and certainly not about economics. In retrospect, the rough consensus about economics looks like the beginning of an unspoken decades-long class solidarity among the bourgeoisie. Affluent college-educated people, Democrats as well as Republicans, began using the phrase socially liberal but fiscally conservative to describe their politics, which meant low taxes for higher-net-worth individuals (another new term) in return for tolerance of . . . whatever, as long as it didn’t involve big new social programs that affluent people would have to pay for. It was a libertarianism lite that kept everything nice and clubbable and it did at least have the virtue of ideological consistency.

When Gary Hart ran a second time for president, in 1988, one of his tax-policy advisers was Arthur Laffer, Reagan’s inventor of supply-side economics. When Jerry Brown ran for the 1992 Democratic nomination, he too sought Laffer’s help, to devise some kind of tax scheme “that was clear and easy to articulate,” and Laffer himself says he voted for Bill Clinton. (He’s now a Trump adviser.) The Democratic Leadership Council, co-founded by Clinton in 1985, became a think-tankish anchor for Democrats who didn’t disagree with Republicans that pretty much the only acceptable new solutions to any social problem were market based.*

For the remainder of the century, no candidate from the Democratic left became a plausible finalist for the nomination. In 1992, when Clinton won the nomination, his only serious competitors were two fellow New Democrats, Brown and Tsongas. Democrats had settled into their role as America’s economically centrist party. There was no organized, viable national economic left in the vicinity of serious power. The collapse of the Soviet Union and Communism at the beginning of the 1990s was very good news, but it had the unfortunate effect of making almost any left critique of America’s new hypercapitalism seem not just quixotic but also kind of corny and quaint.

Ouch. This explains, perhaps, why my much older republican parents sang Bill Clinton's praises through the 90s.

It's crazy to talk about Democratic positioning in the 80's and 90's as if it's just a matter of policy preferences, and not an effort about how to win power back after Reagan and the losses by Mondale and Dukakis. If Democrats backed centrists, it was because that was the path to getting elected. That has held until recently, with neoliberalism getting discredited by the financial crisis and Republican intransigence.

Effectively, Anderson argues that almost everyone is talking their book to one extent or another. Even populists, who are mad they've been left out of the gains the rest of us enjoyed from neoliberal policies.

It might also shed unique light on the fissures between people which the super-wealthy have exploited. Race is the current one, of course. But then there's party. And then there's culture, in which they pit insecure upper middle class wanna be elites against the equally insecure less coastal/less enlightened middle class. (Frank touched on this in What's the Matter with Kansas.)

So, either people vote their economic interests, or they don't (and vote on race, party or culture). That doesn't really narrow it down.

You see a picture emerging (or at least I do), where everybody is either a cynic or a dupe, all serving a system that exacerbates inequality.

This sentence is where you transition to the Sebby worldview -- everybody is a cynic or a dupe, and inequality comes from the "system," not from the political efforts and successes of individuals or groups.

It also draws a picture where a truly small cadre of obscenely influential interests control policy and the fools beneath argue amongst each other. Instead of a class ladder where any of us are significantly above or below others, it's a ladder to nowhere, where 99% of us are tiny increments above and below each other in relation to the enormous wealth of the true and only elite people who sit at the very top, separated from the rest of us by an expanse of ladder in which the rungs have been removed.

Anderson's book excerpt was passed to me by a professional, and I've in turn passed it on to many professionals. I don't expect anyone to admit he's a useful idiot, but what I read describes almost all professionals I know, including me.

Since you often describe yourself as a cynic, it's hard to tell how Frank and Anderson affect your view of the world.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Frank is an interesting guy. Does he think Trump is essentially populist? Bernie? Who in the current landscape is a populist, according to Frank?

No. He thinks Trump is a charlatan playing a populist. Frank uses a very old definition of populist from a time when it was respected. He asserts this is a true definition, prior to McKinley's campaign manager demonizing populism with a false PR campaign. The McKinley campaign manager, Mark Hanna, comes off as an evil genius who killed a legitimate third party thru brutal propaganda. He thinks Bernie is a real populist.

It's crazy to talk about Democratic positioning in the 80's and 90's as if it's just a matter of policy preferences, and not an effort about how to win power back after Reagan and the losses by Mondale and Dukakis. If Democrats backed centrists, it was because that was the path to getting elected. That has held until recently, with neoliberalism getting discredited by the financial crisis and Republican intransigence.

There's little daylight between this and Frank's or Anderson's views.

So, either people vote their economic interests, or they don't (and vote on race, party or culture). That doesn't really narrow it down.

Frank, not so much Anderson, is suggesting that neoliberals are liars. They know they're supporting policies that increase inequality and are looking for justification for doing so and finding it in bunk economic theories offered by moderate Ds and Rs.

This sentence is where you transition to the Sebby worldview -- everybody is a cynic or a dupe, and inequality comes from the "system," not from the political efforts and successes of individuals or groups.

You're right. I thought after I wrote that that I should have included, "or both at once sometimes." But the "system" is only as powerful as we allow it to be. I don't want to overthrow neoliberalism. But I also don't want to lie about the fact that I hold that view out of self interest. To be neoliberal requires that admission. Of course it's in one's self interest. The whole concept is a canard, a soft libertarianism, that allows one to to say he supports what is thoughtful, enlightened, benevolent. But it's not. It's just noblesse oblige repackaged and sold to the credulous and cynical.

Since you often describe yourself as a cynic, it's hard to tell how Frank and Anderson affect your view of the world.

They validate it. I don't think the situation is curable. I just think we ought to stop bullshitting ourselves.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. He thinks Trump is a charlatan playing a populist. Frank uses a very old definition of populist from a time when it was respected. He asserts this is a true definition, prior to McKinley's campaign manager demonizing populism with a false PR campaign. The McKinley campaign manager, Mark Hanna, comes off as an evil genius who killed a legitimate third party thru brutal propaganda. He thinks Bernie is a real populist.

Arguing that "populism" refers to Bernie supporters but not Trump supporters is like arguing that "conservatism" refers to, say, Never Trumpers but not Trump supporters. Not sure what the point is, other than to avoid reckoning with what is actually happening in the country.

There's little daylight between this and Frank's or Anderson's views.

OK, but there's a huge difference between "Democrats believe in centrist economics to please the bourgeoisie and screw the poor," and "Democrats support centrist economics because they think it's the best they can get for now."

Frank, not so much Anderson, is suggesting that neoliberals are liars. They know they're supporting policies that increase inequality and are looking for justification for doing so and finding it in bunk economic theories offered by moderate Ds and Rs.

I don't think it's fair. Democratic neoliberals would say they haven't had a chance (but for 2009-10) to enact their plans, and that bipartisan compromise is necessary for durable change. The second proposition seems discredited now, but was more plausible previously.

You're right. I thought after I wrote that that I should have included, "or both at once sometimes." But the "system" is only as powerful as we allow it to be. I don't want to overthrow neoliberalism. But I also don't want to lie about the fact that I hold that view out of self interest. To be neoliberal requires that admission. Of course it's in one's self interest. The whole concept is a canard, a soft libertarianism, that allows one to to say he supports what is thoughtful, enlightened, benevolent. But it's not. It's just noblesse oblige repackaged and sold to the credulous and cynical.

I guess I have more sympathy, historically, for supporters of neoliberalism.

They validate it. I don't think the situation is curable. I just think we ought to stop bullshitting ourselves.

It's amazing to me that you can write all these words without ever passing judgment on conservatives and the Republican Party, who are the biggest obstacle to doing anything about the things your authors are complaining about. You can complain about neoliberals all day long, but Obama got the ACA passed, over the objections of people like you, and it made a real difference in the lives of and healthcare for a lot of people. He didn't build on it because the Republicans took the Congress in 2010 and spent the next six years cynically trying to make him a failure. From what you've said, I take Frank to be a Bernie supporter who would rather complain about fellow Democrats than Republicans. Certainly, that is the net of what you've said here.

If you want to cure things, support Democrats running in November. The Republican Party is terrible for the country, and things won't get better as long as it has power.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Arguing that "populism" refers to Bernie supporters but not Trump supporters is like arguing that "conservatism" refers to, say, Never Trumpers but not Trump supporters. Not sure what the point is, other than to avoid reckoning with what is actually happening in the country.

Frank makes the the point quite well. He assumes Bernie is honest, Trump is opportunist.

OK, but there's a huge difference between "Democrats believe in centrist economics to please the bourgeoisie and screw the poor," and "Democrats support centrist economics because they think it's the best they can get for now."

That's not what either says. What both say is that that neoliberals are doing handstands to talk their book.

I don't think it's fair. Democratic neoliberals would say they haven't had a chance (but for 2009-10) to enact their plans, and that bipartisan compromise is necessary for durable change. The second proposition seems discredited now, but was more plausible previously.

Frank and Anderson both disagree.

I guess I have more sympathy, historically, for supporters of neoliberalism.

I don't. They make me money. I only say this shit here. I wink and smile at real elites. So do you. I'm happy with the scraps.

It's amazing to me that you can write all these words without ever passing judgment on conservatives and the Republican Party, who are the biggest obstacle to doing anything about the things your authors are complaining about. You can complain about neoliberals all day long, but Obama got the ACA passed, over the objections of people like you, and it made a real difference in the lives of and healthcare for a lot of people. He didn't build on it because the Republicans took the Congress in 2010 and spent the next six years cynically trying to make him a failure. From what you've said, I take Frank to be a Bernie supporter who would rather complain about fellow Democrats than Republicans. Certainly, that is the net of what you've said here.

Republicans are neoliberals. They all voted for Clinton in the 90s. And there's a whole bunch who'll vote for Biden. (It's about the pocketbook. Get yourself a better accountant.)

If you want to cure things, support Democrats running in November. The Republican Party is terrible for the country, and things won't get better as long as it has power.

The country's a fuckshow. Because of all of us, and most significantly, neoliberals.

Stop believing in things. Start protecting yourself. It's a defensive world, from an investment and general perspective, for the rest of our lives.

It's alright. It's still good. And you might be poised to capitalize like a madman. Look for the silver linings.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Frank makes the the point quite well. He assumes Bernie is honest, Trump is opportunist. ...

Republicans are neoliberals. They all voted for Clinton in the 90s. And there's a whole bunch who'll vote for Biden.

I say, you're not talking about the real problems, and you say, I'm talking about Sanders supporters and the kind of "Republicans" who voted for Clinton and will vote for Biden.

The substantial majority of the country that supports Trump is the problem. You should talk about what to do about them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I say, you're not talking about the real problems, and you say, I'm talking about Sanders supporters and the kind of "Republicans" who voted for Clinton and will vote for Biden.

The substantial majority of the country that supports Trump is the problem. You should talk about what to do about them.

I say I am. And so do Frank and Anderson, which is why I linked them. To discuss the Trump voters you say are the problem, and the Bernie voters which are similar in many regards, one must discuss the cause. The cause is neoliberalism. And when you discuss neoliberalism, you realize it’s libertarian-lite noblesse oblige.

Frank and Anderson are diagnosing the disease. You’re diagnosing one of many symptoms.

I also don’t necessarily see a problem. I see a choice, a cause. Neoliberalism is a decision to arbitrage labor costs, rendering certain lower to mid-skilled people obsolete. It’s not a problem as much as a deliberate policy choice. I’m only advocating admitting it aloud. Most proponents of it recoil or flip out when one does that. They take all sorts of crazy efforts to avoid that conversation or deflect. Why not admit it? Tell the proles what we’re doing.

I’m tired of hearing the laissez faire left blame it all on the right. The neoliberals on the right and the left are not much distinct from one another. The only difference is those on the left would give more aid to those they put out of work (to fatten their own profits). But neither camp of neoliberals, right or left, wants a more fair system that would give the losers more money at cost to their own profits.

Offering to pay a few extra dollars every year in taxes to allow the people you put out of work to have a subsistence existence doesn’t make you a hero.