DOOM, or The Official 2016 US Election Thread

[Mr. Tea]

I didn't say it had "no effect", I even posted a graph which shows the effect.

You said:

Left wing anti-immigration sentiment stems from the notion that immigration reduces wages, which the current evidence suggests isn't the case.

Again, "little effect" or "no effect" on average, in aggregate, on the whole, does not mean that some people aren't affected by it in a significant way.

 

[sadmanbarty]

And what are the benefits?

NHS staff. Increasing demand in the economy. Filling skills gap that sustain certain industries. etc.

 

[droid]

Right, but until such time as Comrade Corbyn sweeps to power in a glorious People's Revolution, bans golf outright and repurposes all the golf courses to something that benefits ordinary people - and he'd certainly have my blessing, if any such thing ever came to pass - they're going to remain golf courses. And sure, it's easy to attack golf because it's such an elitist passtime, enjoyed by a small number of overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly male and invariably wealthy people, but there's all sorts of land use that's under threat from ever-sprawling suburbs - SSSIs, AONBs, sports fields, parks and public gardens, as well as farm land, obviously.

The point being, all population growth is unsustainable in the long run, and rapid population growth in an already crowded country is unsustainable in the short-to-medium term. And this is entirely independent of any discussion about culture or even economics.

Golf courses aren't the point. Sustainability is a function of how we organise societies. Capitalism is in the process of making the survival of (even) shrinking populations untenable.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Golf courses aren't the point. Sustainability is a function of how we organise societies. Capitalism is in the process of making the survival of (even) shrinking populations untenable.

Well yes, that's true. But populations aren't shrinking, they're growing. Even if a radical reorganization of how land is used were to take place, that only postpones the crisis.

 

[droid]

Well yes, that's true. But populations aren't shrinking, they're growing.

Watch this space!

 

[Mr. Tea]

lol

 

[firefinga]

But I don't think that's true, though. The UK's population is growing, and growing fairly rapidly at that. This is putting a great deal of pressure on land and housing, which is already at a premium, and I don't think it's a satisfactory answer to say "Well it's government's fault for not building enough new houses". The pressure to build new houses wouldn't be there, or would at any rate be much less intense (yes I know people are living alone or in small households more than they used to, and of course old houses in poor condition get condemned and knocked down...) were it not for the population growth.

And even if both the money and political will were there to go a massive house-building boom, neither the government nor private companies can generate more land.

This is before you even start to consider the pressure being exerted on what's left of the country's biodiversity and its soil/air/water quality.

I dunno, perhaps this all falls outside the purview of economics, per se, in which case you're probably right. But there's more to life than economics.

Good point regarding the environment. The disappearance of farmland in favor of building houses/roads/still even more stupid supermarkets is a mid term concern which nobody really gives a thought, nowadays. But will be forced to in a not too distant future.

 

[vimothy]

The Vanderbilt University political scientist Carol Swain was among the first to describe the contours of [the Alt-Right's] worldview . In her 2002 book, “The New White Nationalism in America,” she noted that young people were quick to identify double standards, and that they sometimes did so in the name of legitimate policy concerns. “I knew that identity would come next,” she recalled. “It had to come. All they had to do was copy what they were hearing. The multiculturalist arguments you hear on every campus — those work for whites, too.” Mr. Spencer, asked in an interview how he would respond to the accusation that his group was practicing identity politics in the manner of blacks and Hispanics, replied: “I’d say: ‘Yuh. You’re right.’”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/opinion/sunday/what-the-alt-right-really-means.html

 

[sadmanbarty]

"The elite's Marie Antoinette moment", Wolfgang Munchau:https://www.ft.com/content/05c98c0e-b251-11e6-a37c-f4a01f1b0fa1

Simon Reynolds response

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/hitting-back.html

edit: Simon Wren Lewis, not Simon Reynolds

 

[vimothy]

Simon Reynolds

A very Dissensian slip.

 

[sadmanbarty]

A good point from Tim Montgomerie

"Republicans in Congress won pop vote by over 3million - underlining key point that Trump was a hindrance to winning, not a boon"

 

[sadmanbarty]

"If the big problem with Hillary Clinton’s campaign was that she was a veteran politician in a country that likes fresh faces, a Washington insider in a country that likes outsiders, and a subpar orator in a country that prizes charisma, then there’s no particular reason to think that Democrats need to revise their policy agenda in any particular way. They just need a standard-bearer who is ideologically similar to Clinton but better at electioneering and prudent enough to avoid doing buckraking speeches in the lead-up to a presidential campaign.

Not coincidentally, Barack Obama — who ran on a nearly identical agenda to that of Clinton — remains incredibly popular."

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/5/13794586/why-hillary-clinton-lost

 

[sadmanbarty]

"across the country, the story told by the exit polls seems clear: Trump didn't win because people were worried about the economy. He won thanks to people who were worried about the subjects of immigration and terrorism that he started hammering on from the very first day of his campaign."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...linton-on-the-economy/?utm_term=.a07ada1b2bc9

 

[sadmanbarty]

Sorry for all these posts in a row, this is the last one:

Krugman twitter rant on blaming the liberal elite:

"A lot of people seem to be settling on the narrative that Trumpism reflects a backlash against the arrogance of liberal elites. Really?

After all, recent policy disasters -- Iraq, financial deregulation, austerity -- mainly reflected arrogance of *conservative* elites

And these people have actually been empowered by Trumpism. Also, how can you say that liberals, who worried about wage stagnation etc. don't care about workers? IN terms of policy, liberals have been on white working class's side, much more than the election victors"

 

[Mr. Tea]

I can't recall whether I've seen more "Trump won because of racism, not because of the economy" articles or more "Trump won because of the economy, not racism" articles in the last four weeks, but I think both are into the double figures now.

 

[firefinga]

Sorry for all these posts in a row, this is the last one:

Krugman twitter rant on blaming the liberal elite:

"A lot of people seem to be settling on the narrative that Trumpism reflects a backlash against the arrogance of liberal elites. Really?

After all, recent policy disasters -- Iraq, financial deregulation, austerity -- mainly reflected arrogance of *conservative* elites

And these people have actually been empowered by Trumpism. Also, how can you say that liberals, who worried about wage stagnation etc. don't care about workers? IN terms of policy, liberals have been on white working class's side, much more than the election victors"

*on repeat* Bashing of the "liberal elite" and it's adjunct "liberal media" has been going on in one way or the other since Goldwater, sped up by Nixon, further intensified during Reagan reaching it's height under George W Bush (may I remind you Rove succesfully labelled Kerry a member of the out-of-touch-with-common-men-elite already in 2004) until Trump who took it to a whole other level yet again. Despite facts of the countless failures of Republican policies. Doesn't matter, the true media elite ("elite" in terms of reach and influence) - Fox News, talk radio, has hammered the myths of the liberal elite/media into millions of people for decades. Now, social media has taken this again to a whole new level.

 

[Leo]

I can't recall whether I've seen more "Trump won because of racism, not because of the economy" articles or more "Trump won because of the economy, not racism" articles in the last four weeks, but I think both are into the double figures now.

i'm waiting for the "trump won because americans are a bunch of fucking nitwits" article.

 

[Mr. Tea]

i'm waiting for the "trump won because americans are a bunch of fucking nitwits" article.

Liked because of

 

[vimothy]

For me, the more useful question isn’t why Trump voters voted for him, but, rather, why they wouldn’t. It seems self-evident that minorities would generally vote for the party that goes out of its way to consider — and protect — the rights of minorities. In a period of “existential” politics, that’s naturally what takes precedence over other concerns. Why would whites, or at least a large percentage of them, act any differently?

It has become common to assume a permanent Democratic majority in due time, as a result of irreversible demographic trends. In cruder terms, it amounts to longing for immigration and minority birth rates to erode white majorities on both the national and state levels. But this has profound implications, since it “practically compels whites to behave electorally like a minority constituency.” In this respect, white nationalism or white identity politics overlap with racism, but they are not quite the same thing.

After all, if I was a member of the so-called “white working class” rather than an American Muslim, I can’t be sure I wouldn’t have voted for Trump. This may make me a flawed person or even, as some would have it, a “racist.” But it would also make me rational, voting if not in my economic self-interest then at least in my emotional self-interest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...o-good-or-bad-america/?utm_term=.119e3b8a2e24

 

[sadmanbarty]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...o-good-or-bad-america/?utm_term=.119e3b8a2e24

That's working on the assumption that Trump's presidency will benefit the white working class (or at least it will do more so than a Clinton presidency).