“Eat the Rich” memes spread, but is it a political movement?

[Callatoroy]

If that's what you think of as a solid 8.5, your wife has my undying sympathy.

As she should. Having to live live with an 8 just isn't the same.

 

[finesse]

Because it has such a rich and successful history. Anything, literally anything that dumbs down innovation and de-incentivises people to work hard and be imaginative is a losing system. That includes everything from education to business. That concept is so simple that literally elementary students can grasp it in its basic form.

Then why doesn't it bother you that education is the modern Republican party's greatest enemy? If people had seen through all the misinformation. Trump would not have won. He rode to victory on the less educated, the misguided and the people that use them.

 

[Callatoroy]

Ok, I'll take this on.

1. The reaction to Mangione is a good case study. I have no sympathy for UHC. Brian Thompson may have been a terrible person. But the embrace of Mangione as some kind of populist hero is extremely disturbing to me. Violence begets violence, and it almost never begets anything other than more violence.

2. I'll pose a question to you -- what did you think about the CHIPS Act? That might be the most anti-populist bill passed by a Dem-controlled Congress in recent memory. It will use taxpayer dollars to support an industry that is highly automated and unlikely to reinvest much capital in American communities. It may even have the effect of increasing the cost of "necessities" like phones and cars for working class Americans. But in my view, it's one of the most important bills passed under Biden's stewardship. Would a populist-controlled Dem Party support legislation like that?

3. I've written about this on here in the past, but in my view, populism can only be supportive of democracy in social structures characterized by relatively high levels of trust and low levels of partisanship. Scandanavian countries, for example, can employ populist policies to great effect. Same with Switzerland. In countries with relatively low levels of social trust and high levels of partisanship, populism is far more likely to lead to authoritarianism. It's easy to remember that Hitler came to power based largely on populist rhetoric, but so did Lenin. And I don't see any way you could argue that the US circa 2024 is more socially aligned with Denmark or Switzerland than it is with 1934 Germany.

You are leaving out a couple of important variables when trying to compare the US to european countries that I think makes those comparables moot, both in 1934 and today. 1) european countries didn't, and don't have our level of racial diversity. That can't be overlooked in your discussion and is one of the things that makes it almost impossible to compare the US to europe today. It has a tremendous impact on our society. And 2) the existing governmental structures in europe (germany) in 1934 vs the US structure is also relevant to your discussion as it makes any comparison tenuous.

 

[Callatoroy]

Then why doesn't it bother you that education is the modern Republican party's greatest enemy? If people had seen through all the misinformation. Trump would not have won. He rode to victory on the less educated, the misguided and the people that use them.

education is not. there was a tremendous amount of misinformation coming from the left. I would make the same argument back to you.

 

[finesse]

education is not. there was a tremendous amount of misinformation coming from the left. I would make the same argument back to you.

But you'd be wrong. Look who Trump won with. The so called Christian Right, the high school educated and the rich grifters.

 

[lawtig02]

Well, take it in context with the rest of my answer. Populism in the United States is a movement dedicated to average, working people making decisions about how the economy should be run.

Let’s think back to a time when the U.S. actually had a lot of good paying manufacturing jobs. The decision to ship those jobs overseas wasn’t made by the people working in the factory, that’s for sure.

Having chip manufacturing in the United States is a net positive for working Americans because it creates good paying jobs (despite the automation, which would also be good for workers under worker control) and creates a domestic supply of chips.

I can’t say for sure whether an economy controlled by the people working it would create this though, that’s why I said it’s my opinion. We can look at what happened under our current system, however. That is, we went decades without significant investment in domestic chip manufacturing because the economic system was controlled by immediate profit motives. It took a global pandemic and burgeoning left-wing populist movement to force the hand on chips.

This is tangential to the rest of the post, which I hope you’ll address.

I don't think it's tangential at all. I cannot imagine an alternative history in which the chip manufacturing that is largely concentrated in Taiwan today would instead be concentrated in the US because the "people working in the factory" wanted that to be the case. The only way that would happen, absent the economic incentives afforded by legislation like the CHIPS Act, would be direct government command over economic decision-making, Which gets us back to the Lenin example. I'm just not going to agree with you that model would be better for America. And when America suffers, working class America suffers the most of all.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not in any way arguing working class Americans are too stupid to make their own economic decisions. I do think modern day America is a social experiment in disinformation, and especially economic disinformation, targeted to working class America to convince them to vote against their best interests. Dems have a lot of work to do in figuring out how to counter this disinformation. Even if that somehow proves to be successful, I'm not confident our social trust can be rebuilt. And absent at least a modicum of social trust, I just don't see how a populist model can lead to more democracy rather than more authoritarianism. If nothing else, modern day populism, both right and left, has demonstrated a lack of confidence in experience and expertise. Experience sometimes gets it wrong. Experts sometimes get it wrong. But I'm siding with the experienced experts 100 times out of 100 over the people who are making decisions based on what they're thinking and feeling in the moment.

 

[lawtig02]

You are leaving out a couple of important variables when trying to compare the US to european countries that I think makes those comparables moot, both in 1934 and today. 1) european countries didn't, and don't have our level of racial diversity. That can't be overlooked in your discussion and is one of the things that makes it almost impossible to compare the US to europe today. It has a tremendous impact on our society. And 2) the existing governmental structures in europe (germany) in 1934 vs the US structure is also relevant to your discussion as it makes any comparison tenuous.

Can you elaborate a bit on how our racial diversity impacts our society with respect to the economic issues we're discussing here?

 

[Callatoroy]

Anywhere it’s legal to write bestselling books?

And set up foundations to get large donations from entities outside of the US.

 

[4heels4evr]

By the way, eat the rich has been around long before the UHC killing. Young(er) people have been saying it since at least 2015. This isn’t a new thing. And from my experience, the sentiment tends to hold across ideological/partisan lines among young people. We’ve been radicalized but nothing has set it completely off yet.

French Revolution???

 

[Callatoroy]

Can you elaborate a bit on how our racial diversity impacts our society with respect to the economic issues we're discussing here?

I'm not trying to be obtuse but I'm not sure I follow your question. Its in every facet of our society in ways that other societies don't have to deal with.

 

[lawtig02]

Why is chip manufacturing concentrated in China and Taiwan today?

1. Natural resources
2. Economic incentives (which are largely legislative/authoritarian policy)
3. Relatively free trade among international trade partners

How would any of that be different with a more populist approach? Explain to me how we get more chip manufacturing in the US without incentivizing legislation like the CHIPS Act. I want to help working class Americans. I just can't figure out how your positions will make that happen.

 

[lawtig02]

I'm not trying to be obtuse but I'm not sure I follow your question. Its in every facet of our society in ways that other societies don't have to deal with.

That doesn't answer the question. How does our racial diversity impact the economic issues we're discussing in this thread?

 

[finesse]

I'm not trying to be obtuse but I'm not sure I follow your question. Its in every facet of our society in ways that other societies don't have to deal with.

Fairly sure that the millennium long feuds between the various nationalities strewn across Europe by the wars inspire hate for each other with a fervor unmatched by anyone in the US outside of White Christian Nationalists. Poles in Germany, Germans in Poland, Russians anywhere not to mention all the vestiges of people like the Basques and you got some long term mad going on.

 

[4heels4evr]

Because it has such a rich and successful history. Anything, literally anything that dumbs down innovation and de-incentivises people to work hard and be imaginative is a losing system. That includes everything from education to business. That concept is so simple that literally elementary students can grasp it in its basic form.

most folk I know do not do IT for the money unless you are talking about whores and drug dealers

 

[lawtig02]

The most famous examples of left wing populists in the U.S. are AOC and Bernie Sanders. Do you think people of this ilk would not support legislation that reshores certain domestic industries? That’s kind of their whole brand, so that would be weird if they didn’t.

Semiconductor bill unites Sanders, the right — in opposition

A bill to boost semiconductor production in the United States has managed to do nearly the unthinkable — unite Sen. Bernie Sanders and the tea party.

apnews.com

A bill to boost semiconductor production in the United States has managed to do nearly the unthinkable — unite the democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and the fiscally conservative right.

The bill making its way through the Senate is a top priority of the Biden administration. It would add about $79 billion to the deficit over 10 years, mostly as a result of new grants and tax breaks that would subsidize the cost that computer chip manufacturers incur when building or expanding chip plants in the United States.

Supporters say that countries all over the world are spending billons of dollars to lure chipmakers. The U.S. must do the same or risk losing a secure supply of the semiconductors that power the nation’s automobiles, computers, appliances and some of the military’s most advanced weapons systems.

Sanders, I-Vt., and a wide range of conservative lawmakers, think tanks and media outlets have a different take. To them, it’s “corporate welfare.” It’s just the latest example of how spending taxpayer dollars to help the private sector can scramble the usual partisan lines, creating allies on the left and right who agree on little else. They are positioning themselves as defenders of the little guy against powerful interest groups lining up at the public trough.

 

[aGDevil2k]

It's the basis of the French Revolution

I get why the violent rhetoric exists.... Billionaires shouldn't exist. No one needs that much money

 

[ChileG]

Because it has such a rich and successful history. Anything, literally anything that dumbs down innovation and de-incentivises people to work hard and be imaginative is a losing system. That includes everything from education to business. That concept is so simple that literally elementary students can grasp it in its basic form.

You must have really hated Trump’s first term then. It’s curious why you would vote for him again given that he is promising more of the same in his second term.

 

[superrific]

Well, take it in context with the rest of my answer. Populism in the United States is a movement dedicated to average, working people making decisions about how the economy should be run.

Let’s think back to a time when the U.S. actually had a lot of good paying manufacturing jobs. The decision to ship those jobs overseas wasn’t made by the people working in the factory, that’s for sure.

Having chip manufacturing in the United States is a net positive for working Americans because it creates good paying jobs (despite the automation, which would also be good for workers under worker control) and creates a domestic supply of chips.

I can’t say for sure whether an economy controlled by the people working it would create this though, that’s why I said it’s my opinion. We can look at what happened under our current system, however. That is, we went decades without significant investment in domestic chip manufacturing because the economic system was controlled by immediate profit motives. It took a global pandemic and burgeoning left-wing populist movement to force the hand on chips.

Even still, the chip package passed by our liberal government was just a massive giveaway to the profitable companies who dominate the industry. A populist chip plan would be much different.

This is tangential to the rest of the post, which I hope you’ll address.

there is no way for average working people to develop a semiconductor mfg policy. 0%. i don't think you understand why the chip fab business went abroad, and if you don't, what chance does a starbucks barista have? lack of investment in chip mfg was not because of "immediate profit motives."

have you ever been to nyc? when you go, try something. go to 32nd st & 6th avenue. they have the best korean food there. in fact, most of the korean food in manhattan is there. if you prefer south indian food, you can walk a few more blocks to 28th and lex. north indian food is found on 6th between first and second. of course, chinese and vietnamese food are found in chinatown. there's a little tokyo in the east village (or used to be) where there is good and affordable sushi. and so on. these restaurants could locate anywhere, but they choose to locate right next to the competition. i used to puzzle as to why, until i read about geographical clustering.

Clusters and the New Economics of Competition

Paradoxically, the enduring competitive advantages in a global economy lie increasingly in local things—knowledge, relationships, and motivation that distant rivals cannot match.

hbr.org

Today’s economic map of the world is dominated by what I call clusters: critical masses—in one place—of unusual competitive success in particular fields. Clusters are a striking feature of virtually every national, regional, state, and even metropolitan economy, especially in more economically advanced nations. Silicon Valley and Hollywood may be the world’s best-known clusters. Clusters are not unique, however; they are highly typical—and therein lies a paradox: the enduring competitive advantages in a global economy lie increasingly in local things—knowledge, relationships, motivation—that distant rivals cannot match.

the chip fab business is very much about clustering. if you want to know why we can talk about that maybe, esp if we have anyone with hardware fab experience who can add their thoughts. not in this post. the point here is that there's way, way, way more to it than just having a populist policy.

populism has very few economic successes to point to, and lots of economic disasters, like peronism. thats not a coincidence.

 

[OGtruthhurts]

Hard to fathom just how much a billion dollars is and just how many muti billionaires there are in this country.

Takes a ton of poverty to amass that much. F'd up society we allow

 

[wmheel1287]

Why is chip manufacturing concentrated in China and Taiwan today?

Regarding experience and expertise, you’re actively disparaging the experience and expertise of workers in this post while claiming that you don’t think they’re too stupid to make their own economic decisions. Left wing populists deride experts and expertise when they try to dress up their expertise as being above the fray of criticism, which happens quite often in America.

Once again, conflating left wing populism with right wing demagoguery services no one other than the ruling class. Words have meaning.

You kind of take the same approach with "neoliberals" that you disparage them for with populists. Routinely, you've devolved into acting as if the majority of the board is simply too arrogant or dumb to understand the world and what got us here.

If you think that particular approach has been so damaging as to result in the revolt of the working class against their mor natural allies, do you expect it to be successful here?

Do you not think that your particular level of frustration with us isn't precisely what we've experienced with the American Right for at least 2 decades now?

As to my own personal perspective, I lived through NAFTA as a young teen with an entire family of working class people who worked in manufacturing. You are correct that they all hated NAFTA and what it would mean. What you leave out is that none of them....absolutely zero were willing to admit that American workers might be part of the issue. American workers are also American consumers. None of them think they are the problem when they buy cheap shit from Walmart or Temu. They didn't think that back in 1993 and they don't think it now. They think everyone else should buy American and pay them wages not justified anywhere else in the world for a lesser work ethic and inferior products.

That, my friend, is the American worker. Those are our people. It's unfortunate, but it is true. We simply as a society do not want to work but expect others to compensate us at unreasonable levels while we spend our own money frugally on cheap imports.

When you can figure out a way to square that circle, i know that I will be a lot more open to populism writ large.