A Classical Liberal & A Progressive Marxist Debate

[Doug1943]

Sure, but I think we can easily rule out illegal immigration and free trade as explanations for the inequality growth that started in the '70s, while the factors I listed I think clearly played at least *some* role, and as I said, I think that we're partly seeing mismeasurement and bad memory.



Hmm. Not sure about that one.



There are two separate issues that I think we need to address. In any market-based economy, around half the population won't get enough market income to survive, right? That's kids, the disabled, and the elderly mostly. Those people will rely on workers to take care of them, but only about half of workers will make enough market income to do so at above-poverty levels. So for a society to be viable, we need some level of redistribution toward people in those groups (that is, trying to engineer higher incomes for workers cannot possibly fix that issue, and neither is it fixed by the market itself). But then at another level, we've seen owners get an increasing share of the national pie at the expense of workers, and that's obviously a result of a change in the structure of society. That's why I see the need for an SWF (to capture a share of ownership-based income for the public as a whole) and land-value taxes (ditto) and reduced income taxes, along with a market-based economy (with taxes for externalities).



I referred to this earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dixie. If you read the forums, you see a lot of the same thing. Or look at polls of Republican voters on Republican policies. Pluralities of voters generally reject the economic platform of their own party, but they vote based entirely on identity politics (racial resentment, xenophobia, hatred of Hollywood, fear of irrelevant college students, etc.).



I don't really see what Democrats could have done differently to satisfy the right on that. I mean, yes, just blindly rubber stamping the choice would have made them happy, but in terms of realistic, responsible actions. Of course credible allegations of that sort are going to be looked into by Congress. That's their job. And generally they're going to want to vet any nominee. If they had just told Ford, "no we don't care about what happened to you," that would have sent a terrible message to the country, wouldn't it?



Yeah, I think the right-wing take on CA as some kind of hellscape is funny. Speaking as someone who lives here and follows relevant stats (rather than cherry-picking some to create a misleading picture). But definitely as someone who greatly prefers the Democratic program, I'd encourage a serious comparison between states that follow it and states like Kansas.

I think the author contrasted the wealthy coastal areas with the interior -- apparently, living in the coastal areas is pretty nice if you've got the money. I lived in California for a few years -- back in the 60s and 70s -- and loved it. Whenever we holiday in the States, we usually spend some time in California -- mainly the National Parks. The last time we were there, I was really appalled by downtown San Franciso -- I have very fond memories of it, from the 60s. I was surprised by the author's statistics on how poorly California does in national comparisons on things like education, welfare dependency, homelessness, although it confirmed my own beliefs that these are very deep-seated problems, not easily solved, and not solved by just spending more money on conventional 'solutions'.

On Kavanaugh -- I thought the charges were obviously bogus, and that he should have been questioned on his views relevant to how he would rule as a Supreme. (I didn't follow it closely, but from what I read, he seemed to be a fair-minded conservative, just as I thought Obama's appointments were fair-minded liberals.) But of course they were liberals, so most Repubicans voted against confirmation, and of course Kavanaugh is a conservative, so most (all?) Democrats voted against him.

But ... more fundamentally, I think that, since the Court has become a political battleground, we ought to have limited-term appointments, and maybe an expanded court. I think America is going down the tubes, so it wouldn't make much difference anyway, but I do understand that people will feel angry if they believe that the will of the majority is being thwarted by a minority. Part of the problem is the difficulty of making Constitutional Amendments, of course. If, as will happen within the next couple of decades, the effective majority wants to outlaw speech that they think is 'hate speech' -- anything that hurts the feelings of selected groups -- then it will eventually happen, one way or the other.

What do you or did you think of the Clinton Welfare Reforms? I was impressed by a book by a liberal academic, Robert Cherry, called Welfare Transformed -- Universalizing Family Policies that Work. Rather than debating high level principles, or difficult-to-test assertions, I prefer to look closely at actual programs, to see their effect.

I'd also be interested in your opinions about education -- pre-college education. This is a special interest of mine. It seems to me that this ought to be an area where at least some liberals and conservatives can agree on specific things -- for example, the content of what's taught in schools (not on whether there should be a federal mandate on the content) -- I'm a strong believer in 'Cultural Literacy', for example. I also believe that children should learn their times tables, but apparently there are Leftist academics in the field of mathematics education who don't believe this. Which I find astonishing.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

That was like watching two guys act out a war room thread. The American guy did all the same tricks the libs here did (like trying to co-opt 'triggered' and 'snowflake') and then even stormed off with a parting racism accusation.

Classic.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Easy test of that: Are you familiar with anyone who self-identifies as a "cultural Marxist"? What are their numbers?



People who reject Marxism, in other words. Why are they called "Marxists," then?

Why did you quote the first part of his definition and then cut out the part where he expands on it? Why are you being such a hack?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think the author contrasted the wealthy coastal areas with the interior -- apparently, living in the coastal areas is pretty nice if you've got the money. I lived in California for a few years -- back in the 60s and 70s -- and loved it. Whenever we holiday in the States, we usually spend some time in California -- mainly the National Parks. The last time we were there, I was really appalled by downtown San Franciso -- I have very fond memories of it, from the 60s. I was surprised by the author's statistics on how poorly California does in national comparisons on things like education, welfare dependency, homelessness, although it confirmed my own beliefs that these are very deep-seated problems, not easily solved, and not solved by just spending more money on conventional 'solutions'.

It does OK in education, actually. Welfare spending in CA is not high. There is, however, a housing crisis. We desperately need a few million more housing units just to accommodate people who are already here properly, and there are obstacles, both regulatory and logistic, toward getting there. I am hopeful that we'll see things turn around there, as there is widespread recognition of the problem and good ideas for a solution. Interestingly, it's not actually harder to build here than it is in most places, but it has to be easier because there is such demand.

On Kavanaugh -- I thought the charges were obviously bogus, and that he should have been questioned on his views relevant to how he would rule as a Supreme. (I didn't follow it closely, but from what I read, he seemed to be a fair-minded conservative, just as I thought Obama's appointments were fair-minded liberals.) But of course they were liberals, so most Repubicans voted against confirmation, and of course Kavanaugh is a conservative, so most (all?) Democrats voted against him.

I didn't see any basis for identifying the charges as bogus or not, but obviously they were strong enough that any responsible Senate would have looked into them. I think his conduct during the process was disqualifying, as well. But that's all beside the point. I don't see any time in history when any opposing party would simply ignore the allegations, and thus I don't see it as something that can be reasonably criticized.

But ... more fundamentally, I think that, since the Court has become a political battleground, we ought to have limited-term appointments, and maybe an expanded court. I think America is going down the tubes, so it wouldn't make much difference anyway, but I do understand that people will feel angry if they believe that the will of the majority is being thwarted by a minority.

I agree that there should be a limited term, but I couldn't disagree more about the direction that America is heading. Our best days are ahead of us.

Part of the problem is the difficulty of making Constitutional Amendments, of course. If, as will happen within the next couple of decades, the effective majority wants to outlaw speech that they think is 'hate speech' -- anything that hurts the feelings of selected groups -- then it will eventually happen, one way or the other.

I see zero possibility of that, and what's more, we've never been freer than we are now. You're old enough to remember the Hays Code, right? Probably not old enough to remember widespread Blue Laws. People with unorthodox religious and political views used to be forced underground to a far greater extent than today. Etc.

What do you or did you think of the Clinton Welfare Reforms? I was impressed by a book by a liberal academic, Robert Cherry, called Welfare Transformed -- Universalizing Family Policies that Work. Rather than debating high level principles, or difficult-to-test assertions, I prefer to look closely at actual programs, to see their effect.

I don't know enough to feel comfortable commenting on Clinton's welfare reforms in depth. I'll check your link (BTW, I think you're confusing Cherry with someone else or I am). At the moment, my broad impression is that they were a mistake.

And I think that we should look more high-level at the problem because that shows how bad a lot of proposed solutions to poverty are. People who are opposed to fixing the problem have presented it as extremely complicated and difficult, when it's actually very easy to diagnose and fix. Old people, the disabled, and children don't get market income (and that's about four-fifths of people in pre-transfer poverty). Give them money. Easy, though finding the political will to fix it is hard (well, SS, gets elderly poverty from almost half to under 10% but the other two major groups aren't similarly helped).

I agree on cultural literacy, and math and literacy literacy are the most important things kids actually learn in school. I'm somewhat skeptical about education generally, though.

 

[Doug1943]

Good post, but I honestly think Cuba would be just fine if we left then alone. The sanctions are what has been killing them.

Funny part is that I think Cuba is blacklisted over having a role in JFK being killed.

The sanctions don't help, but the problem that Cuba has is the problem all countries have if the government runs the economy.

When I was there, I recall that you couldn't buy soap -- or maybe some slightly more refined toiletry -- in Santiago. (When I lived in Kharkkov,
in the USSR, in 1985, you couldn't buy cheese. Anyone who made a trip to Moscow or Kiev came back loaded down with cheese.)

Now ... why didn't someone, or some enterprising group, set up a soap factory, and start selling soap? It's not hard to make.

Well ... the answer to that one is contained in a Soviet-era joke: It's the 1970s, and a group of British math teachers on a 'cultural exchange' visits Moscow, and is taken to one of their special schools, where the children learn English from the age of six. The headmistress proudly says, "Go to any classroom ... ask them anything ..." So the teachers walk down the hall, and stop at a class where ten-year-olds are learning arithmetic. They go in, and the teacher say, "Go ahead ... give them a math problem ... in English." One teacher says, "Now boys and girls ... if I bought twenty apples for five kopecks each, and sold twelve, for ten kopecks each, what would I get?" One little boy's hand shoots up immediately -- he is called on, and stands up and says proudly, "Comrade teacher -- six months, minimum!"

And there you are. If you start your own soap factory in Cuba, you'll go to prison. THAT's the problem with their economy. The leadership knows this. The faculty of economics at the University of Havana knows it well. But ... they fear starting down the Chinese road. Who can be sure that if they relax their grip a little bit ... that things won't get out of hand. Safer to keep almost everyone as an employee of the state.

They've done it a little bit, starting a few years ago -- you can do an 'AirBNB' kind of thing in your own home, or open your own restauarant in you living room -- hedged about with all kinds of taxes and restrictions. But they're afraid to go further. American hostility contributes to this, and it's why the embargo should be lifted immediately.

By the way, if you're a socialist, then you could advise the Cubans to allow worker-owned co-ops, like Mondragon in Spain. You could point out that they could liberalize the economy, and keep their excellent education system, and their social-welfare system. It would actually make these things better, because they would have more taxable economic activity.

It's going to happen some time. And at some point, the execrable Cuban-exile lobby -- which probably doesn't represent the views of young Cubans in America -- will lose its grip on the Dems and Repubs and then we'll have a sane attitude to Cuba.

 

[Doug1943]

It does OK in education, actually. Welfare spending in CA is not high. There is, however, a housing crisis. We desperately need a few million more housing units just to accommodate people who are already here properly, and there are obstacles, both regulatory and logistic, toward getting there. I am hopeful that we'll see things turn around there, as there is widespread recognition of the problem and good ideas for a solution. Interestingly, it's not actually harder to build here than it is in most places, but it has to be easier because there is such demand.



I didn't see any basis for identifying the charges as bogus or not, but obviously they were strong enough that any responsible Senate would have looked into them. I think his conduct during the process was disqualifying, as well. But that's all beside the point. I don't see any time in history when any opposing party would simply ignore the allegations, and thus I don't see it as something that can be reasonably criticized.



I agree that there should be a limited term, but I couldn't disagree more about the direction that America is heading. Our best days are ahead of us.



I see zero possibility of that, and what's more, we've never been freer than we are now. You're old enough to remember the Hays Code, right? Probably not old enough to remember widespread Blue Laws. People with unorthodox religious and political views used to be forced underground to a far greater extent than today. Etc.



I don't know enough to feel comfortable commenting on Clinton's welfare reforms in depth. I'll check your link (BTW, I think you're confusing Cherry with someone else or I am). At the moment, my broad impression is that they were a mistake.

And I think that we should look more high-level at the problem because that shows how bad a lot of proposed solutions to poverty are. People who are opposed to fixing the problem have presented it as extremely complicated and difficult, when it's actually very easy to diagnose and fix. Old people, the disabled, and children don't get market income (and that's about four-fifths of people in pre-transfer poverty). Give them money. Easy, though finding the political will to fix it is hard (well, SS, gets elderly poverty from almost half to under 10% but the other two major groups aren't similarly helped).

I agree on cultural literacy, and math and literacy literacy are the most important things kids actually learn in school. I'm somewhat skeptical about education generally, though.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Okay, interesting. I happen to agree with respect to old people and children -- and it depends on what you mean by 'disabled'. Regarding children, the problem is, you have to channel the money through the mother -- and it's usually a single mother -- and there is no guarantee it will be spent wisely. I would favor a really high quality -- and, yes, therefore, necessarily, expensive -- Early Childcare system, one staffed by college students in return for their tuition, aimed explicitly at improving cognitive function, expanding vocabulary, etc.

Well, the demographic composition of people in poverty isn't something to agree with or disagree with. It just is. And while it's true that you have to channel the money through the parents or guardians, that's equally true with respect to market income. Fixing poverty is a rather simple matter for the gov't, but ensuring that parents spend their money wisely is beyond the scope of the gov't, except in conspicuous cases (and, again, that applies equally to market and transfer income). So it seems equally reasonable (or unreasonable) to try to limit the amount of market income that parents or guardians get because of the possibility that they won't spend it wisely. But anyway, I'd support a universal childcare access program, and one of the benefits (?) of that is that it increases female labor-force participation.

Anyway, regarding education -- yes, skepticism is the right default mode here, because so much self-interested bs is promoted as if it were the common good, and a lot of unsound theories about learning are common in the Academy -- the fault of my generation. I remember reading Summerhill when I was young and thinking, 'how wonderful' -- dear God...

My issue is more than I'm not convinced that it's effective for most people. I know people for whom education was their salvation, but the majority of people don't seem to take much from all levels of education beyond basic literacy and numeracy. And that applies to higher education as well (signalling is another thing that they take from it, but that leads to an arm's race).

As for 'best days' ... we'll see. I am optimistic about the human species in the long run, especially once we've mastered genetic engineering and everyone has an IQ of 180 and is free of all chronic diseases, robots are doing all the nasty jobs, and the nation-state has withered into an administrative unit at best. But that's several generations away, by my calculations. Of course this depends on there being no big war, which means that the Chinese will be restrained and non-responsive to provocations as America slides down the tubes.

I'm not even going that far. There's never been a better time to live in America than now, and I think five years from now will be better, and five years after that will be better still. We're richer, freer, more secure, more enlightened than ever. A great-power war would change that, but I'm pretty optimistic (though that's one big reason we need to get Trump out ASAP).

I do remember, having grown up in, the times when the hard Right had the whip hand. I can give any one who is interested a number of unpleasant personal experiences, and reliable reports of things that happened to my friends, back in the 50s and 60s. I always remind conservatives that they were NOT generally on the side of the free speech angels back then. Where were they when the Reds were being fired from teaching positions in schools and colleges?

But the difference is that the ruling groups then did not hate their own country and kind. The intelligentsia were never convinced by the McCarthyite hysteria, just cowed. Now, it's the new generation of the people who will run society who hate their own country, despise its past, have contempt for the white working class. I have no idea how this will play out, but I'm not optimistic in the short run.

I think that it's actually a hysteria against college kids now. And I'm optimistic that we'll get past that.

I've posted this video on the forum before, but you're new:



What do you think of that? Did the producers of that (the U.S. gov't) hate their own country and kind? I think, rather, that this represents our ideals as a country then and now. When I see hatred for the country, it's mostly coming from people who are like the guy yelling in that vid.

Never mind -- it would be interesting to argue these things in person. If you're ever through London (I live not too far from it), let me know via Personal Message (this board has them, I assume), if you'd like to talk about these things directly.

Good discussion, for sure.

 

[Doug1943]

It does OK in education, actually. Welfare spending in CA is not high. There is, however, a housing crisis. We desperately need a few million more housing units just to accommodate people who are already here properly, and there are obstacles, both regulatory and logistic, toward getting there. I am hopeful that we'll see things turn around there, as there is widespread recognition of the problem and good ideas for a solution. Interestingly, it's not actually harder to build here than it is in most places, but it has to be easier because there is such demand.



I didn't see any basis for identifying the charges as bogus or not, but obviously they were strong enough that any responsible Senate would have looked into them. I think his conduct during the process was disqualifying, as well. But that's all beside the point. I don't see any time in history when any opposing party would simply ignore the allegations, and thus I don't see it as something that can be reasonably criticized.



I agree that there should be a limited term, but I couldn't disagree more about the direction that America is heading. Our best days are ahead of us.



I see zero possibility of that, and what's more, we've never been freer than we are now. You're old enough to remember the Hays Code, right? Probably not old enough to remember widespread Blue Laws. People with unorthodox religious and political views used to be forced underground to a far greater extent than today. Etc.



I don't know enough to feel comfortable commenting on Clinton's welfare reforms in depth. I'll check your link (BTW, I think you're confusing Cherry with someone else or I am). At the moment, my broad impression is that they were a mistake.

And I think that we should look more high-level at the problem because that shows how bad a lot of proposed solutions to poverty are. People who are opposed to fixing the problem have presented it as extremely complicated and difficult, when it's actually very easy to diagnose and fix. Old people, the disabled, and children don't get market income (and that's about four-fifths of people in pre-transfer poverty). Give them money. Easy, though finding the political will to fix it is hard (well, SS, gets elderly poverty from almost half to under 10% but the other two major groups aren't similarly helped).

I agree on cultural literacy, and math and literacy literacy are the most important things kids actually learn in school. I'm somewhat skeptical about education generally, though.

Okay, interesting. I happen to agree with respect to old people and children -- and it depends on what you mean by 'disabled'. Regarding children, the problem is, you have to channel the money through the mother -- and it's usually a single mother -- and there is no guarantee it will be spent wisely. I would favor a really high quality -- and, yes, therefore, necessarily, expensive -- Early Childcare system, one staffed by college students in return for their tuition, aimed explicitly at improving cognitive function, expanding vocabulary, etc.

But I fear the problems are deeper than that.

Anyway, regarding education -- yes, skepticism is the right default mode here, because so much self-interested bs is promoted as if it were the common good, and a lot of unsound theories about learning are common in the Academy -- the fault of my generation. I remember reading Summerhill when I was young and thinking, 'how wonderful' -- dear God...

You might like to go on YouTube and search for 'Sigfried Engelmann' -- there is a poor-quality video of him teaching math to young Black children in the sixties. Then Google 'Project FollowThrough' -- an empirical assessment of several approaches to education, done in the early 70s. Then back to YouTube and look for 'Marva Collins'. It shows what can be done.

Then Google 'Michaela School' and 'Brent' .... it shows what IS being done. (Albeit in the UK, but it's the same.)

As for 'best days' ... we'll see. I am optimistic about the human species in the long run, especially once we've mastered genetic engineering and everyone has an IQ of 180 and is free of all chronic diseases, robots are doing all the nasty jobs, and the nation-state has withered into an administrative unit at best. But that's several generations away, by my calculations. Of course this depends on there being no big war, which means that the Chinese will be restrained and non-responsive to provocations as America slides down the tubes.

I do remember, having grown up in, the times when the hard Right had the whip hand. I can give any one who is interested a number of unpleasant personal experiences, and reliable reports of things that happened to my friends, back in the 50s and 60s. I always remind conservatives that they were NOT generally on the side of the free speech angels back then. Where were they when the Reds were being fired from teaching positions in schools and colleges?

But the difference is that the ruling groups then did not hate their own country and kind. The intelligentsia were never convinced by the McCarthyite hysteria, just cowed. Now, it's the new generation of the people who will run society who hate their own country, despise its past, have contempt for the white working class. I have no idea how this will play out, but I'm not optimistic in the short run.

Never mind -- it would be interesting to argue these things in person. If you're ever through London (I live not too far from it), let me know via Personal Message (this board has them, I assume), if you'd like to talk about these things directly.

 

[Doug1943]

Interesting video ... sounds like something made during WWII. Do you know the source?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Interesting video ... sounds like something made during WWII. Do you know the source?

Yes, made in 1943 by the U.S. Dept. of War. Obviously the values reflected in that video didn't lead to the downfall of the country at all, and in fact, I'd argue that they're pretty central to what America is, though we've also long had people like the rabble-rouser.

 

[Doug1943]

Yes, made in 1943 by the U.S. Dept. of War. Obviously the values reflected in that video didn't lead to the downfall of the country at all, and in fact, I'd argue that they're pretty central to what America is, though we've also long had people like the rabble-rouser.

 

[Doug1943]

 

[Doug1943]