RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote: They basically said everything is fine and we are going to continue doing what we are doing; that message just doesn't resonate with the vast masses feeling the pinch.

Of course if you could choose a time to be born in the history of the US this would be it, education, health, wealth - none of these are perfect nor for me even perfect in their design and distribution, but really people have never had it so good. And yet there's the ongoing dialogue of America in crisis, which would seem an absurd notion to the overwhelming number of people on this planet.

You need to separate technological advancements from political realities. Yeah of course we are better off as healthcare, technology etc... has improved.

But people are not better off than they were in terms of economics. Real wages have fallen for the bottom 50% of Americans since 1999, and stagnated from the 50th-80th percentiles. Its only the top 20% that have seen growth. House prices have doubled or tripled. Debt is through the roof. US society is actually more unequal than it was prior to the 1929 crash, its been increasing since the 60s when the new deal poured had poured money into middle America.

jared_7 wrote:
People just want to know politicians hear their very real concerns, rather than saying "everything is fine, whats your problem?".

A huge number of Americans could solve their own problems by smoking and drinking less, certainly by eating less, by eating better, and by not buying so much commercial crap on credit.

There are of course big communities let down by a number of processes in the US public and private sector, but that's not sufficient to explain the vote for Trump. More it seems unless people and their families are attaining the American dream they want to blame someone, and really throughout history most people have never come close to the dream, most have scarce had a chance to advance their family's cause.

And there remains that of those who voted for change they've likely voted for the wrong candidate to actually address their concerns, so they've been sold a pup

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
People just want to know politicians hear their very real concerns, rather than saying "everything is fine, whats your problem?".

A huge number of Americans could solve their own problems by smoking and drinking less, certainly by eating less, by eating better, and by not buying so much commercial crap on credit.

There are of course big communities let down by a number of processes in the US public and private sector, but that's not sufficient to explain the vote for Trump. More it seems unless people and their families are attaining the American dream they want to blame someone, and really throughout history most people have never come close to the dream, most have scarce had a chance to advance their family's cause.

And there remains that of those who voted for change they've likely voted for the wrong candidate to actually address their concerns, so they've been sold a pup

And the same is true in this country. Except blaming someone else is far easier than accepting that the fault of ones problems lies within. I think it is fair to say that many of the political elite have largely ignored large swathes of voters over the past decade or so; their support has been assumed. Its not a huge surprise that an establishment candidate has been rejected in favour of someone who sounds like (I'm not convinced that he will actually give a toss) he is on their side. Build a Wall and get you your jobs back and make America great again are messages that disaffected people can understand and get behind, no matter how ludicrous they are on closer inspection.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
People just want to know politicians hear their very real concerns, rather than saying "everything is fine, whats your problem?".

A huge number of Americans could solve their own problems by smoking and drinking less, certainly by eating less, by eating better, and by not buying so much commercial crap on credit.

There are of course big communities let down by a number of processes in the US public and private sector, but that's not sufficient to explain the vote for Trump. More it seems unless people and their families are attaining the American dream they want to blame someone, and really throughout history most people have never come close to the dream, most have scarce had a chance to advance their family's cause.

And there remains that of those who voted for change they've likely voted for the wrong candidate to actually address their concerns, so they've been sold a pup

And the same is true in this country. Except blaming someone else is far easier than accepting that the fault of ones problems lies within. I think it is fair to say that many of the political elite have largely ignored large swathes of voters over the past decade or so; their support has been assumed. Its not a huge surprise that an establishment candidate has been rejected in favour of someone who sounds like (I'm not convinced that he will actually give a toss) he is on their side. Build a Wall and get you your jobs back and make America great again are messages that disaffected people can understand and get behind, no matter how ludicrous they are on closer inspection.

Blaming others is definitely not the answer, as I have said Trump's solutions to the problem are nonsensical and dangerous.

WaspInWales wrote:I've said it for a while now, but I can't wait for him to put his promises into action. That will be comedy gold. Then, his dealings with vastly more intelligent people than himself (I'm aware he considers himself a genius) should be equally entertaining. Trade deals, agreements and the like should also provide much fun, although I'm sure he can pull out of certain deals without negotiating or needing the support of the house.

At the end of the day, I'm not expecting any major changes regardless of his rhetoric. The only way to make America 'great' is at the expense of other countries and other countries are already suffering that fate.

I think this will be the danger, when he realises that he will find it very difficult to enact the promises he made during his campaign. Domestically there are check and balances although Republican control will smooth that process. In terms of foreign policy, he can create havoc by just doing what heh has been doing, i.e. having no strategy and just speaking whatever comes into his head first.

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

A huge number of Americans could solve their own problems by smoking and drinking less, certainly by eating less, by eating better, and by not buying so much commercial crap on credit.

There are of course big communities let down by a number of processes in the US public and private sector, but that's not sufficient to explain the vote for Trump. More it seems unless people and their families are attaining the American dream they want to blame someone, and really throughout history most people have never come close to the dream, most have scarce had a chance to advance their family's cause.

And there remains that of those who voted for change they've likely voted for the wrong candidate to actually address their concerns, so they've been sold a pup

And the same is true in this country. Except blaming someone else is far easier than accepting that the fault of ones problems lies within. I think it is fair to say that many of the political elite have largely ignored large swathes of voters over the past decade or so; their support has been assumed. Its not a huge surprise that an establishment candidate has been rejected in favour of someone who sounds like (I'm not convinced that he will actually give a toss) he is on their side. Build a Wall and get you your jobs back and make America great again are messages that disaffected people can understand and get behind, no matter how ludicrous they are on closer inspection.

Blaming others is definitely not the answer, as I have said Trump's solutions to the problem are nonsensical and dangerous.

Totally agree.

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote: They basically said everything is fine and we are going to continue doing what we are doing; that message just doesn't resonate with the vast masses feeling the pinch.

Of course if you could choose a time to be born in the history of the US this would be it, education, health, wealth - none of these are perfect nor for me even perfect in their design and distribution, but really people have never had it so good. And yet there's the ongoing dialogue of America in crisis, which would seem an absurd notion to the overwhelming number of people on this planet.

You need to separate technological advancements from political realities. Yeah of course we are better off as healthcare, technology etc... has improved.

But people are not better off than they were in terms of economics. Real wages have fallen for the bottom 50% of Americans since 1999, and stagnated from the 50th-80th percentiles. Its only the top 20% that have seen growth. House prices have doubled or tripled. Debt is through the roof. US society is actually more unequal than it was prior to the 1929 crash, its been increasing since the 60s when the new deal poured had poured money into middle America.

That people are taking on debt is often an individual choice, and a stupid one.

I've a huge issue with the idea that societies now run on such huge levels of debt, and frankly (and sadly) we're copying the Americans in this across the Western world. Myself I'd have preferred supporting the German idea that people should put money aside to pay for goods. However, and it is a big however, very rarely are people forced to take out credit they don't need, mostly they're far too happy to take on debt, and then to spend it on crap.

The economy based on debt clearly clearly drives a lot on the commercial and services world, it also allows various financial institutions to take a profit, and not all of that results in bad outcomes and often (arguably) good outcomes, but isn't far away from being a house of cards.

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:
Of course if you could choose a time to be born in the history of the US this would be it, education, health, wealth - none of these are perfect nor for me even perfect in their design and distribution, but really people have never had it so good. And yet there's the ongoing dialogue of America in crisis, which would seem an absurd notion to the overwhelming number of people on this planet.

You need to separate technological advancements from political realities. Yeah of course we are better off as healthcare, technology etc... has improved.

But people are not better off than they were in terms of economics. Real wages have fallen for the bottom 50% of Americans since 1999, and stagnated from the 50th-80th percentiles. Its only the top 20% that have seen growth. House prices have doubled or tripled. Debt is through the roof. US society is actually more unequal than it was prior to the 1929 crash, its been increasing since the 60s when the new deal poured had poured money into middle America.

That people are taking on debt is often an individual choice, and a stupid one.

I've a huge issue with the idea that societies now run on such huge levels of debt, and frankly (and sadly) we're copying the Americans in this across the Western world. Myself I'd have preferred supporting the German idea that people should put money aside to pay for goods. However, and it is a big however, very rarely are people forced to take out credit they don't need, mostly they're far too happy to take on debt, and then to spend it on crap.

The economy based on debt clearly clearly drives a lot on the commercial and services world, it also allows various financial institutions to take a profit, and not all of that results in bad outcomes and often (arguably) good outcomes, but isn't far away from being a house of cards.

I don't hold with the idea that people are forced to take out loans, or event that all debt is bad. Most people borrow via a mortgage for a house (at least in this country). Provided that the repayments are affordable then I don't see the problem. The issue is that the consumer society is demanding that people keep up with the Jones and buy the latest stuff, often on credit cards or via short term loan options, without a real plan to pay back the money. This is fricking stupid. But the fault here lies with the individual, no one is forcing them to take out those loans.

I would make an exception for a family which sees no other option but to borrow due to redundancy or another form of shock which has undermined their financial plans. I have huge sympathy for anyone in that situation who is faced with borrowing short term or giving up their home, even if the latter is the most sensible course of action. But frankly we have been running on a buy now pay later model for years, fuelled by cheap credit, which is finally coming home to bite.

.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
You need to separate technological advancements from political realities. Yeah of course we are better off as healthcare, technology etc... has improved.

But people are not better off than they were in terms of economics. Real wages have fallen for the bottom 50% of Americans since 1999, and stagnated from the 50th-80th percentiles. Its only the top 20% that have seen growth. House prices have doubled or tripled. Debt is through the roof. US society is actually more unequal than it was prior to the 1929 crash, its been increasing since the 60s when the new deal poured had poured money into middle America.

That people are taking on debt is often an individual choice, and a stupid one.

I've a huge issue with the idea that societies now run on such huge levels of debt, and frankly (and sadly) we're copying the Americans in this across the Western world. Myself I'd have preferred supporting the German idea that people should put money aside to pay for goods. However, and it is a big however, very rarely are people forced to take out credit they don't need, mostly they're far too happy to take on debt, and then to spend it on crap.

The economy based on debt clearly clearly drives a lot on the commercial and services world, it also allows various financial institutions to take a profit, and not all of that results in bad outcomes and often (arguably) good outcomes, but isn't far away from being a house of cards.

I don't hold with the idea that people are forced to take out loans, or event that all debt is bad. Most people borrow via a mortgage for a house (at least in this country). Provided that the repayments are affordable then I don't see the problem. The issue is that the consumer society is demanding that people keep up with the Jones and buy the latest stuff, often on credit cards or via short term loan options, without a real plan to pay back the money. This is fricking stupid. But the fault here lies with the individual, no one is forcing them to take out those loans.

I would make an exception for a family which sees no other option but to borrow due to redundancy or another form of shock which has undermined their financial plans. I have huge sympathy for anyone in that situation who is faced with borrowing short term or giving up their home, even if the latter is the most sensible course of action. But frankly we have been running on a buy now pay later model for years, fuelled by cheap credit, which is finally coming home to bite.

Like you say, most debt is on a house. House prices are now 8-10 times the average income, they were 3 times. And that is for an average size home, which has reduced in size as well. Interest rates do play a part, but basically if you want to own the roof over your head you now pay 2-3 times as much for a home that is smaller.

This is forced debt; people don't really have a choice on whether to buy a home or not. I know there are people who load their credit cards and take on unnecessary debt, but I think you will find the main culprit is people being priced out of housing so I'm not too quick to jump on the "this generation does it to themselves" bandwagon.

WaspInWales wrote:He's going to do it isn't he?

I know there's some way to go before the presidential elections but I can see him calling the White House his second home very soon.

Boom!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

WaspInWales wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Really frightening. Especially since the Republicans hold both of the houses.

Incredible how the hard-working poor have voted for someone so unlike them, and so unlikely to improve their situation.

The "Democrats" should take a hard look at themselves and a selection process that rejected Sanders and left them with such an unpalatable candidate as Clinton.

Global warming can only accelerate now. How long before Trump sells his NY real estate and moves to higher ground?

Yep.

The rural poor in the UK are always voting for the Tories. It's sad but it's not very surprising.

Sandydragon wrote: Provided that the repayments are affordable then I don't see the problem.

You make it sound like the mortgage industry is a level playing field.

It is not healthy to accept that the cost of housing is so far above real income. That's drinking some seriously bad Kool Aid, topped up with this "personal responsibility" mantra that substitutes for dialogue in zombie free market Disneyland.

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:Well, they voted for him I suppose and that's democracy for you. Still if there were a political trophy the equivalent of the Raeburn Shield for the best example of fucktard voting then the UK certainly held it for a short while over Brexit, the US has now comfortably taken the title, and they may hold it for some while unless perhaps France elects Le Pen.

It would seem(too) many people no longer want facts or policies, and simply want someone to bang the nationalistic drum, whether in building walls or imposing massive trade barriers. And really anyone in favour of building the wall should only look at countries like Australia or even the UK which have massive walls of water that don't really seem to stop people from arriving, and frankly the wall is a better idea than a 35% tariff.

The problem is its the same facts or policies that has seen inequality skyrocket, real wages stagnate or fall for 60% of the population over the last 20 years, and house prices double or triple. People are worse off. Thats the problem. But the political establishment and urban elite refuses to accept that is the case, they are completely out of touch.
.

Hang on a second, arguably there has never been a better age in which to be an American. U.S. workforce productivity rose by 3.1% in the last quarter alone. Violence and crime have been on a steadily descending trend since the mid 90's. Technology continues to develop and you can argue that schools and arts have never actually been better. You can argue that people are worse off but occasionally pausing and actually looking at the situation can help.

switchskier wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:Well, they voted for him I suppose and that's democracy for you. Still if there were a political trophy the equivalent of the Raeburn Shield for the best example of fucktard voting then the UK certainly held it for a short while over Brexit, the US has now comfortably taken the title, and they may hold it for some while unless perhaps France elects Le Pen.

It would seem(too) many people no longer want facts or policies, and simply want someone to bang the nationalistic drum, whether in building walls or imposing massive trade barriers. And really anyone in favour of building the wall should only look at countries like Australia or even the UK which have massive walls of water that don't really seem to stop people from arriving, and frankly the wall is a better idea than a 35% tariff.

The problem is its the same facts or policies that has seen inequality skyrocket, real wages stagnate or fall for 60% of the population over the last 20 years, and house prices double or triple. People are worse off. Thats the problem. But the political establishment and urban elite refuses to accept that is the case, they are completely out of touch.
.

Hang on a second, arguably there has never been a better age in which to be an American. U.S. workforce productivity rose by 3.1% in the last quarter alone. Violence and crime have been on a steadily descending trend since the mid 90's. Technology continues to develop and you can argue that schools and arts have never actually been better. You can argue that people are worse off but occasionally pausing and actually looking at the situation can help.

Since when did productivity benefit the average worker?

Like I said, Robert Reich, ex Secretary of Labour under Bill Clinton, who I follow closely posted an article a while ago, sorry I can't find it, that showed real wages since 2000 have dropped for the bottom 50%, stagnated for 50-80, and only increased for the top 20%. Housing costs have risen dramatically, and in the US education, or a good one, has also increased by 200-300%. If you want to go to a decent school you are looking at tens of thousands per semester. The current generation will be the first in human history to have less than their parents.

Regardless of all this, whether you want people to accept how things are because they are better than someone was 50 years ago, people feel pinched. People are told the universal "we" is better off - productivity, GDP etc... are rolled out - but they don't feel it has better off personally.

It comes down to what you value in life. We are better off in terms of consumer goods being cheaper and travel is affordable to the masses, but the big things in life, the basic human needs - a roof over your head, an education, savings for retirement - are more expensive than ever. Disposable incomes have actually reduced over time as more and more is eaten up by rent, before someone else comes in with a "the younger generations spend too much" line.

Oh no the celebrities are dismayed! Looking back at my voting record would suggest I ask myself "What would the majority of celebrities do?" and then do the opposite.

bruce wrote:Oh no the celebrities are dismayed! Looking back at my voting record would suggest I ask myself "What would the majority of celebrities do?" and then do the opposite.

Too right, I couldn't stand that aspect of the election. Movie stars and pop idols coming out and telling people how to vote, like earning £30m a year and schmoozing with Hillary at private fundraisers makes them some kind of political expert.

jared_7 wrote:

bruce wrote:Oh no the celebrities are dismayed! Looking back at my voting record would suggest I ask myself "What would the majority of celebrities do?" and then do the opposite.

Too right, I couldn't stand that aspect of the election. Movie stars and pop idols coming out and telling people how to vote, like earning £30m a year and schmoozing with Hillary at private fundraisers makes them some kind of political expert.

Well,.....most entertainers are particularly well travelled and meet a lot of fans/people at glad hand events.
Ted Nugent though is infamous for staying on his farm and travelling nowhere. JJ Cale was notorious for doing much the same but he wasn't a knut.

jared_7 wrote: Disposable incomes have actually reduced over time as more and more is eaten up by rent, before someone else comes in with a "the younger generations spend too much" line.

If you're wanting to say they younger generations are worse off then they do spend too much. Go back 40-50 years and people didn't have mobile phones, the internet, nothing like as many cars, holidays, people would've had a handful of clothing items, many more young couples and families had to be much more careful of their weekly food budget..., and people used to spend much longer saving a much large deposit in order to buy that first property. I'm not for one moment saying people shouldn't have phones or tablets or 5 pairs of trainers - just don't do all that and claim you don't have choices.

Now people aren't as willing to put the hard yards in (probably myself included) as we're all used to having and spending much more income.

Also if people want cheaper healthcare, cheaper education and a fairer distribution of earnings then based on what we've heard so far they've voted for the wrong candidate. The reasons to vote for Trump are if you wanted a wall, wanted to see judges appointed who are anti-choice when it comes to abortion and pro guns, major bombing campaigns in the middle east, tax cuts for the rich, seemingly abolishing the small advance Obama made in healthcare, ignoring climate change or even dismissing it... many of his supporters would thus seem barking mad, though did vote to try and protect gun rights and end legal abortion (and consequently they're barking mad)

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote: Disposable incomes have actually reduced over time as more and more is eaten up by rent, before someone else comes in with a "the younger generations spend too much" line.

stuff

Yeah? Tell that to someone stuck in a Michigan or Pennsylvania.

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote: Disposable incomes have actually reduced over time as more and more is eaten up by rent, before someone else comes in with a "the younger generations spend too much" line.

stuff

Yeah? Tell that to someone stuck in a Michigan or Pennsylvania.

Looking at the exit polling data there were plenty of people there who have money who voted for Trump, they're just angry at the government for any number of issues, though it mainly boils down to there are more non whites who're 'stealing' their future (no matter for many they were comfortably well off, and remain comfortably well off) and they don't want t be told by people with an education what to do.

And yes there are some genuine concerns, but again to solve those they're voting for the wrong candidate. Tariffs and ignoring (or denying) climate change aren't going to solve the problems of the rustbelt. I'd agree Hillary didn't have enough of a plan, but in the absence of a good plan the idea one elects raving lunacy claiming there's a void is just stupid.

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:

stuff

Yeah? Tell that to someone stuck in a Michigan or Pennsylvania.

Looking at the exit polling data there were plenty of people there who have money who voted for Trump, they're just angry at the government for any number of issues, though it mainly boils down to there are more non whites who're 'stealing' their future (no matter for many they were comfortably well off, and remain comfortably well off) and they don't want t be told by people with an education what to do.

And yes there are some genuine concerns, but again to solve those they're voting for the wrong candidate. Tariffs and ignoring (or denying) climate change aren't going to solve the problems of the rustbelt. I'd agree Hillary didn't have enough of a plan, but in the absence of a good plan the idea one elects raving lunacy claiming there's a void is just stupid.

To the average person living below he poverty line in Michigan or Pennsylvania probably would've been more interested in "I'll create more jobs! Bigly!" than what they probably saw Clinton offering them - "the status quo!" What's the status quo for them?

Oh, and Herman Melville once wrote "Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed." You might want to keep that in mind.

Where's Henry Rollins been during this campaign..?. I'd have liked to hear what he thinks.

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote:
Yeah? Tell that to someone stuck in a Michigan or Pennsylvania.

Looking at the exit polling data there were plenty of people there who have money who voted for Trump, they're just angry at the government for any number of issues, though it mainly boils down to there are more non whites who're 'stealing' their future (no matter for many they were comfortably well off, and remain comfortably well off) and they don't want t be told by people with an education what to do.

And yes there are some genuine concerns, but again to solve those they're voting for the wrong candidate. Tariffs and ignoring (or denying) climate change aren't going to solve the problems of the rustbelt. I'd agree Hillary didn't have enough of a plan, but in the absence of a good plan the idea one elects raving lunacy claiming there's a void is just stupid.

To the average person living below he poverty line in Michigan or Pennsylvania probably would've been more interested in "I'll create more jobs! Bigly!" than what they probably saw Clinton offering them - "the status quo!" What's the status quo for them?

Oh, and Herman Melville once wrote "Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed." You might want to keep that in mind.

Mate, the centrepiece of her campaign was "Putin be bad".

Bernie would have defeated the orange one.