2015 Trends - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Blog articles about news and current events.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

Forum rules: Blogosphere Rules.
By Torus34
#14497187
Do you seek comment on the list itself or on specific items? The items as a group encompass an area large enough for a decade of discussion on a forum such as this. Do you wish to narrow things down a bit?
By spodi
#14497201
Torus34 wrote:Do you seek comment on the list itself or on specific items? The items as a group encompass an area large enough for a decade of discussion on a forum such as this. Do you wish to narrow things down a bit?


Whichever items are important or interest you.
By Torus34
#14497344
OK. Let's begin at the beginning. That's income inequality, the first on the list.

As the line from the old song goes, 'The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.'* That's from a review song of the early 1920's, almost a century ago. Here in the United States we did have something of a reversal post WWII as our manufacturing industries grew and our working classes learned the value of a strong union. That lasted a while. Life was reasonably good and the ideal American family of a breadwinner, a housewife and a couple of kids seemed a real possibility. Some actually experienced it.

Then a series of forces converged. 'Globalization' and mechanization resulted in lower production costs [read: improved productivity.] The weakening of unions through both legal means ['Right to work' laws, etc.,] and campaigns to sway public opinion [the vilification of government employee unions,] ensured that the monetary benefits of increased productivity wouldn't be shared with workers.

'The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.'

Ain't we got fun?

* "Ain't We Got Fun", Whiting, Egan and Kahn.
User avatar
By quetzalcoatl
#14497533
The most interesting thing about the list (which is unexceptionable in itself) is the underlying process powering all these trends - what used to be known, in certain circles, as the crisis of capitalism.

The crisis of capitalism this time will not manifest itself in a proletarian revolution, but as a phase transition into a stasis-locked mercantilism. The remains of the liberal state are already being merged into the new Deep State.

Here are its basic attributes:

* Slow Growth/No Growth
* Controls on competition and other destabilization factors
* Widening inequality with accompanying social/political stratification
* Increasing harmonization and rationalization of interstate relations via binding legal structures (TPP is the latest iteration of an ongoing process)

Traditional political categories will be obviated. The result will look vaguely like fascism, minus the overt racism and nationalism. Indeed, nationalism will be fully deprecated in the industrial West (with holdouts in East Asia). There will be no syndicalist or union structure.

So there you are. You won't be able to stop, slow, or counter this process - at least not in the West.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14497687
Pretty much. Representative democracy is already dead in the US at the national level and all but dead at the local level. Will there be revolution? I agree. I think not. As my generation (the last to experience dramatic governmental change) is too old to take to the streets, and young people do not really think much about individual rights, constraining capitalism or even privacy, there is simply no one left to man the barricades.

Until the machines (or should I say, next evolution of human intelligence) takes over. Then what? Well I certainly could not even hazard a guess. 30 years? 50 years? Surely not as long as that. By then these arguments will all be academic. There may not even be anyone left to have them. Maybe around some campfire on the outskirts of some post-apocalyptic techno-world. I just can't imagine what it will be. I am pretty sure it won't be pleasant.
By Torus34
#14497754
The comments above suggest that a 'Max Headroom'(r) revival may be just around the corner.

Meanwhile, back to the USA. The US working man* has, in the past, shown remarkable courage when the oppression of his employers has grown too great. A history of the struggles in the coal mines of Appalachia and the victory of John L. Lewis might well be required reading for some in positions of power.

To date, the US safety net's kept the lid on such an uprising.

Interestingly, the probable return to a fully pro-business government through the medium of a Republican quatro-fecta [House, Senate and, in 2016, the Presidency and thereafter the Supreme Court,] might set the stage for a sufficiently repressive milieu, through the dismantling of the safety net, to trigger a revolt. Those with a wry sense of humor** might find amusement in the make-up of the current Republican voting base. The strongest chains ...

We will live in interesting times here in the home of the brave and the land of the free [sic].

* Basically, those who are paid an hourly wage as opposed to a salary. In current American parlance, 'middle class' is roughly equated with salaried workers and professionals.

** Essential to a full understanding of the human condition, btw.
User avatar
By Reason10
#14497768
spodi wrote:https://forumblog.org/2014/11/top-10-trends-world-2015/
Thoughts and opinions, please and thanks.


Al Gore.
Very predictable.
A liberal Democrat/EnviroFascist predicting income inequality.
Kind of like predicting that in most of the world the sun will come up tomorrow.

The following is from Human Action, by the world's greatest economist of all time: Ludwig Von Mises

3. Inequality
The inequality of incomes and wealth is an inherent feature of the market economy. Its elimination would entirely destroy the market economy."
What those people who ask for equality have in mind is always an increase in their own power to consume. In endorsing the principle of equality as a political postulate nobody wants to share his own income with those who have less. When the American wage earner refers to equality, he means that the dividends of the stockholders should be given to him. He does not suggest a curtailment of his own income for the benefit of those 95 per cent of the earth's population whose income is lower than his.


That says it all.
By spodi
#14497800
Yeah lol I love the irony too of seeing someone like an ex vice President talking about income inequality. A lot of em have no self awareness.

Image
By Torus34
#14497811
Reason10 wrote:
The following is from Human Action, by the world's greatest economist of all time: Ludwig Von Mises

3. Inequality
The inequality of incomes and wealth is an inherent feature of the market economy. Its elimination would entirely destroy the market economy."
What those people who ask for equality have in mind is always an increase in their own power to consume. In endorsing the principle of equality as a political postulate nobody wants to share his own income with those who have less. When the American wage earner refers to equality, he means that the dividends of the stockholders should be given to him. He does not suggest a curtailment of his own income for the benefit of those 95 per cent of the earth's population whose income is lower than his.


That says it all.


Let's parse the Mises statements one by one.

"The inequality of incomes and wealth is an inherent feature of the market economy. Its elimination would entirely destroy the market economy."

Yup! I agree.

"What those people who ask for equality have in mind is always an increase in their own power to consume. In endorsing the principle of equality as a political postulate nobody wants to share his own income with those who have less. When the American wage earner refers to equality, he means that the dividends of the stockholders should be given to him."

There are some interesting assumptions here. One is that no-one will speak for a reduction in income inequality if he/she will lose by it. What about those who give to charities? Are they not reducing their own net income by giving to those who have less? Mises takes a very dim view of humanity indeed. This is sometimes seen in the writings of those who postulate man as an economic rationalist without the leavening influence of morality and, dare I say it, human kindness.

Note the 'straw man' of 'equality' as opposed, say, to a tolerable level of inequality. I rather doubt that any educated person would suggest that absolute equality should prevail.

As to having the dividends of the stockholders given to him, again note the absolutes. Many would argue that what should be given the worker is nothing less than a fair share for his/her expenditure of a non-renewable resource - labor.

"He does not suggest a curtailment of his own income for the benefit of those 95 per cent of the earth's population whose income is lower than his."

Again, we find man portrayed as a single-dimensioned creature. While simplification has its place, it should always be regarded with some suspicion.

Thus, I cannot subscribe to Mises 'saying it all'. Rather, I have noted what he has not said -- that man is more than a cog in the reified machine called 'Economics'.

Voting for this guy again would be a very banan[…]

...Genocide requires special intent... Jared Ku[…]

The US government does not care about the ongoing […]

I would also say that the extreme Left can be j[…]