crackerjack
Well-known member
Eh? By whose standards?
Obama V. Romney
- Thread starter Leo
- Start date
Eh? By whose standards?
crackerjack
Well-known member
Why's it always have to be about the size of govt? Inequality has increased everywhere other than Latin America (where it simply started from a higher base) over the last 3-4 decades. I think that's a pretty decent measure of a rightward shift.
crackerjack
Well-known member
And presumably many feel the growth of the overtly political religious right and its media echo chamber in talk radio/Fox has legitimised their views and, in many cases, encouraged them to move further right.
And obviously pre-Johnson/southern strategy, many of the Angry White Guys had less to be angry about and were voting Democrat.
vimothy
yurp
Ah, you could probably make one if you could be bothered to fiddle about in FRED for a bit. Defence spending as a share of income is decreasing, even though, as your graph shows, the absolute level of real spending is increasing:
Sectionfive
bandwagon house
Wonder if defence income is bringing down defence 'spending' in some way there.
D
droid
Guest
...yeah. Completely disagree ala Padraig. We've had this discussion already anyway.
White hot sphere of rage for 2016?
D
droid
Guest
Yes we have a patina of social liberalism now that's true.
We also have the decimation of the labor movement, gargantuan increases in corporate power, stagnation or decline in real wages (in the US) for the vast majority of workers, the rollback of welfare states, the concentration of power and media in private hands, rampant privatisation of state assets, the massively increased influence of globalised financial markets and institutions, the atomisation and political disenfranchisement of populations.
It may be more accurate to say that rather than a swing to the right, we have simply had an obliteration of the core ideas of the left. The new deal, the welfare state, the NHS, - it is almost completely inconceivable that any of these would be implemented, or even contemplated today.
We also have the decimation of the labor movement, gargantuan increases in corporate power, stagnation or decline in real wages (in the US) for the vast majority of workers, the rollback of welfare states, the concentration of power and media in private hands, rampant privatisation of state assets, the massively increased influence of globalised financial markets and institutions, the atomisation and political disenfranchisement of populations.
It may be more accurate to say that rather than a swing to the right, we have simply had an obliteration of the core ideas of the left. The new deal, the welfare state, the NHS, - it is almost completely inconceivable that any of these would be implemented, or even contemplated today.
D
droid
Guest
Yeah, so you keep saying, despite the fact that today we have pretty much the greatest concentration of wealth and power in private hands since the industrial revolution.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
I don't understand how the current European central ground would have been regarded as far left in the 1970s, at least in economic terms. Wealth inequalities that are accepted by all centrist parties nowadays, would have been far less thinkable/tolerated by the electorate then, surely? A party like Labour was in the 1970s/1980s simply wouldn't get elected now, because it would be considered way too leftist (and was already by the early 80s, I guess)
vimothy
yurp
Modulo is basically a mathematical operator that gives you a remainder. 4 modulo 2 is 0, because 4 divided by 2 is 2 remainder 0. 5 modulo 2 is 1, because 5 divided by 2 is 2 remainder 1.
People use it in sentences in the sense of "give or take". So "A is equivalent to B modulo C" means, "A is more or less the same as B, give or take C".
People use it in sentences in the sense of "give or take". So "A is equivalent to B modulo C" means, "A is more or less the same as B, give or take C".