Workable Socialism

[Zorral]

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

There is plenty of physical space in America for enormous amounts of people. The main issue is jobs have been clustering in a few areas, then everyone naturally wants to live in those areas. And those same areas have all sorts of things people like being near, like hospitals and universities.

There is NO reason in a socialist system of health care that has a large option for non-profit health care to put the hospitals back in those places.  And oddly, in many small towns and cities, the institution of higher education such as the State Schools of Science, community colleges, and so on, continued to grow -- but the hospitals were closed, in the interest of centralized campuses far, far, far away, as the hospitals were taken over by private, for-profit first and last, entities. The argument was the health care would be more efficient and thus less expensive, which has been proven to be, well, yes, a lie.

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

6 hours ago, DMC said:

 

Of course you don't.

Look, I know you're (not on purpose) dense, so I don't hold it against you. But what you typed and what we were talking about--those things have no relation. You're just typing weird observations in an attempt to display how smart you are. But you've lost that war, so let it go. I'm sorry you're feeling defensive. Is there anything I can do to help?

[Iskaral Pust]

1 hour ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Can you expand as to what do you mean by globalism. I thought that concept was now a far right dog whislte. 

I meant globalization.  I wonder if auto-correct ambushed me again. 

Globalization is definitely the child of neoliberalism rather than a bogeyman of the far right.  The free movement of capital and trade across borders was a long-standing goal of the progressive movement in politics and economics because it would improve global GDP (the theory of relative advantage expanding the economic pie), export liberal democracy,  provide development capital to the third world, and help those third world countries access developed markets for their exports.  The combined effect would reduce global poverty and create a win-win expansion of the global economy, grow a new middle class in the third world (which typically leads to democracy, political reform, greater levels of education and life expectancy, etc) and reduce global instability from the vast gulf in living conditions.  NAFTA, WTO, EU, etc are all specific examples of the pursuit of globalization, which really peaked in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Although the progressive left very much supported globalization, e.g. Clinton and Blair, and the ideological far left would support globalization (“workers of the world unite”), the traditional pragmatic left of labor unions was bitterly opposed.  And they were proven correct as manufacturing jobs were offshored to Mexico and China.  This greatly benefited the new middle class in those countries, but did so at the expense of the middle class in the developed countries.  Europe had similar experience with manufacturing jobs shifting to lower cost peripheral countries, although more protectionist than the US.

This is where Trump siphons support from the traditional Democrat base: lots of people in the rust belt feel betrayed by NAFTA and WTO and would like to see them reversed. 

When globalization was expanded in recent years to also mean the free flow of people/labor, especially as the EU added new eastern members like Poland, Bulgaria and Romania with large populations willing to migrate to higher wage countries, and then Merkel invited a huge influx of economic migrants as supposedly Syrian asylum seekers (the vast majority were not from Syria), this became a more specific political hot topic and contributed to Brexit.  Similarly the US had a long period of tacitly allowing illegal immigration of low-cost workers who reduced wages for low-skilled/uneducated nationals.

The growing influx of low-wage immigrants became the proximate crisis in politics but the significant damage to the blue collar middle class had occurred with the original globalization of trade and capital.  Also produced huge social and economic benefits for the developing world, although China managed to capture most of those benefits (and lately countries like Vietnam who now receive offshoring from China).  

BTW, this was not the first era of globalization.  The 19th century steamships, telegraph, empires/colonies and mass migration, (e.g. the Irish Potato Famine was actually part of a wider climate-based famine in Europe causing a Malthusian collapse) was the first era of globalization and brought with it a period of anarchic violence and economic inequality.

[DMC]

30 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Is there anything I can do to help?

Quit your job and write a formal apology to each and every student you've ever taught for inflicting your idiocy on the youth of America.

Hey, you asked.

[Raja]

6 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Merkel invited a huge influx of economic migrants as supposedly Syrian asylum seekers (the vast majority were not from Syria),

Do you have some data to back this up?

[Zorral]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Quit your job and write a formal apology to each and every student you've ever taught for inflicting your idiocy on the youth of America.

Hey, you asked.

Who on this board boasts of teaching drunk?

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Who on this board boasts of teaching drunk?

First, I don't think it's ever been "boasting," or at least that's not the way I meant it.  Second, hey every student I've ever taught is paying to be there, it's not required.

[Iskaral Pust]

27 minutes ago, Raja said:

Do you have some data to back this up?

Try google.  There were credible reports i the months after the influx, including NYTimes I believe, to estimate the countries of origin.  Most of the migrants had discarded their passports so they could not be disproven as Syrians, but the processing authorities in Germany estimated that only ~10% were Syrian (based on language and inability to name a specific hometown in Syria) and the remainder were a varied mix of non-EU Balkans, Iraqis, Afghanis, central Asians, North Africans, etc.  Many of whom would have passed through Syria or close to it during their journey — I’m not minimizing the hazards they faced. 

And they were disproportionately young men traveling without families, typical of economic migrants rather than asylum seekers.

[felice]

10 hours ago, Br16 said:

But a lot of people who came and help built the US were even more dirt poor than the people we look down upon now. Such as the Irish Famine victims. 

That's fine for a country which is still being built which has a big demand for labour, plenty of resources, and not much to offer except a subsistence wage. For an established civilised country that provides free healthcare to all (at least via emergency rooms) let alone a Universal Basic Income, and is already having problems with things like fresh water in places, there needs to be some regulation of the rate of inflow.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Quit your job and write a formal apology to each and every student you've ever taught for inflicting your idiocy on the youth of America.

Hey, you asked.

I'd say, you ought to quit responding to things I post. You offer nothing of substance, your posts are clearly vindictive, and your insistence on dominating entire threads really hurts the discussion in those threads. Take a break, cool off, put me on ignore if you don't like what I'm writing, but drop the insistence on being in control of these threads. Your two points have been effectively iterated over the course of the last few years. Now, many of us don't agree with your points, but we understand your stance! Hope you get over the bitter/angry thing for your own sake!

[Raja]

10 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Try google. 

Since you're giving me anecdotal evidence without sources, or actual figures - lets look at some facts

"Merkel invited a huge influx of economic migrants as opposed to Syrian Asylum seekers (The vast majority were not from Syria)"

Because the migrant & refugee crisis is complicated, I'm going to focus on 2016, as that was the year with the highest level of asylum  applications. 2016 saw 1,255,640 applications for asylum within the European Union ( EU-28) - 29% were Syrian, 15% from Afghanistan, 10% from Iraq, 5% from Kosovo, 5% from Albania. One out of every 3 asylum seekers at the height of the crisis were Syrian (  Source: Eurostat)

Now lets look at Germany specifically in 2016 - Asylum applications 2016 - Germany (Source)

Total Applications - 745,155

Syria - 36%, Afghanistan 17%, Iraq 13%, Iran 4% & Eritrea 3%

Out of a total of 745,155 applications, decisions were made on 631,048 - 433,905 were positive decisions - clearly the German authorities were satisfied with the documents provided by, & the validity of, roughly 70% of asylum seekers in 2016.

So we've established that the majority of the people seeking asylum at the height of the crisis were from Syria, Afghanistan & Iraq in 2016. And of the people seeking asylum status, 70 percent were granted that status based on the evidence they provided.

Lastly, let's look at some recent figures. In 2018 - Syria was the main country of citizenship of asylum seekers in EU member states in 2018, a position it has held since 2013, followed by Afghanis 7%, Iraqis 6.8%. According to the Afghan government, 80 percent of the country is not safe - fair reason to seek asylum, don't you think?

Asylum seekers coming from the main countries highlighted above are fleeing persecution from countries with a history of destruction, war, & foreign intervention ( Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq). That's 73% seeking asylum for *exactly* what the asylum system is for.

Since 2016, the number of asylum requests has actually fallen in the EU ( Source)

I agree with you that some portion of the asylum seekers can be economic migrants & that there is a documented prevalence of fake documents, but it is ludicrous to think that these include the vast majority of asylum seekers, given the scale of asylum applications in Germany & Europe. There are *some* quotes at estimates, but it is a little facile to think that they make up the 'vast majority' as you stated - just look at the numbers! In addition, some of these tests used to ascertain if asylum seekers are actually Syrian have been discredited. In addition, there is a *huge* overlap between motivations to seek asylum, this is something the UNHR has recognized, it is possible, and likely, for asylum seekers to be both refugees & economic migrants. Making that distinction is not easy.

I know this is already long, but these conversations don't recognize that the majority of Syrians have been resettled in neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan & Iraq as opposed to Europe.

Edit: I don't want to derail this thread with this stuff, but I think it is prudent to be a little more aware of what you're talking about before making claims that are easily disproved by data.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Let's also not forget that globalization was one of a few alternatives to the consequences of centuries of imperialism and colonialism that resulted in a massive concentration of wealth in some countries at the expense of the rest.  Africa has been essentially raped and robbed by colonial powers for over 500 years.  (And they will likely be the last place to start seeing any returns on any globalization).  

In the absence of allowing the US to lose some manufacturing jobs to the 'developing' world, and later making agreements like NAFTA, that inequality is going to need to be managed by violence or something else.  Yeah it sucks for blue collar workers who's standard of living went down.  But it sucks a lot more to not have potable water or access to vaccines, especially when any local natural resources where sold of for pennies and trinkets and scraps generations before. 

And once climate change starts baking the world's waistline to a cinder this is only going to be exacerbated.  If the current management of the US - Mexican border is going to become the norm it's going to be a very violent and tragic next century for this planet.

The billionaires must be scared shitless.

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Let's also not forget that globalization was one of a few alternatives to the consequences of centuries of imperialism and colonialism that resulted in a massive concentration of wealth in some countries at the expense of the rest.  Africa has been essentially raped and robbed by colonial powers for over 500 years.  (And they will likely be the last place to start seeing any returns on any globalization).  

In the absence of allowing the US to lose some manufacturing jobs to the 'developing' world, and later making agreements like NAFTA, that inequality is going to need to be managed by violence or something else.  Yeah it sucks for blue collar workers who's standard of living went down.  But it sucks a lot more to not have potable water or access to vaccines, especially when any local natural resources where sold of for pennies and trinkets and scraps generations before. 

And once climate change starts baking the world's waistline to a cinder this is only going to be exacerbated.  If the current management of the US - Mexican border is going to become the norm it's going to be a very violent and tragic next century for this planet.

The billionaires must be scared shitless.

Is this sarcasm? I think they're in a pretty great position, honestly.

[Larry of the Lawn]

23 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Is this sarcasm? I think they're in a pretty great position, honestly.

Yes

[OldGimletEye]

35 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

snip

Not that I find myself in disagreement with your overall point.

But, if David Autor is correct, about the China shock, badly managed globalization likely cost Democrats Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and led to Trump getting the White House.  I think it could have been better managed.

Another example of badly managed globalization is the Euro, which I think you probably know, I think was a disaster. There was no good reason for the people of Spain to have suffered 25% unemployment for example.

[Jace, Extat]

9 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Yes

'Aight. Sorry. I'm all kinds of discombobulated since I cut back on the booze and herb. It's been a rough two weeks. 

I mean it though, the time to be rich is in the next half-century. I'm redoubling my efforts to sell my novel to that effect. It's a murder mystery set in a dystopian past where a sentient flamin' hot cheeto uses a sledgehammer to write poetry in public forums that reveals the dichotomy of man.

I mean, if anyone's lookin' for something to publish...

[Altherion]

19 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

The same mechanism, reconciliation, that was used to pass the tax cut will be used to repeal a large chunk of the tax cut and expand healthcare. Provided of course Democrats capture the Senate and Presidency. Which is why all sane people that are not millionaires or billionaires want it to happen. 

The personal tax cuts will eventually expire by themselves unless renewed, but even if the Democrats have complete control of the legislative and executive branches, the odds of them repealing the corporate tax cut are very, very low. Remember, the Democrats are not a monolithic block and the odds of them having a majority so large that the more plutocratic members of their caucus do not matter are fairly small.

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

The billionaires must be scared shitless.

Do they look scared to you? Think about it: to billionaires, any immigration (legal or illegal) is almost entirely beneficial because it means an increased labor force and more consumers. Furthermore, they live in gated compounds and communities, send their children to private schools and are otherwise insulated from the secondary effects of immigrant presence. There are things they fear (natural cataclysms, widespread nuclear or biological weapon usage, etc.), but every one of them would devastate everyone else too. On the whole, the mid 21st century is a great time to be a billionaire.

[Zorral]

6 hours ago, DMC said:

First, I don't think it's ever been "boasting," or at least that's not the way I meant it.  Second, hey every student I've ever taught is paying to be there, it's not required.

And you're squandering their money.

If there was a whiff of teaching drunk at my school the assistant, instructor, professor would be out on his / her ass so fast and slapped with a law suit or three or four.

There is NO excuse of this, unless one has just lost a beloved spouse, child, some tragedy like that.  Then we sure would cut slack.  But the parents wouldn't, and neither would the students.

How do you get away with this, inquiring minds would like to know.

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, Zorral said:

And you're squandering their money.

If there was a whiff of teaching drunk at my school the assistant, instructor, professor would be out on his / her ass so fast and slapped with a law suit or three or four.

There is NO excuse of this, unless one has just lost a beloved spouse, child, some tragedy like that.  Then we sure would cut slack.  But the parents wouldn't, and neither would the students.

How do you get away with this, inquiring minds would like to know.

Did you go to college? I drank with a professor in his classroom during class. Damn fine educator, too.

[Zorral]

9 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Did you go to college? I drank with a professor in his classroom during class. Damn fine educator, too.

I have spent more time in academia than many people have been alive.

Then was then -- and was it every class?  Now is now.  Things are really different.

And being an alcoholic is a disease, and a very unpleasant one.  And it destroys lives, and not only the life of the person who is doing the drinking.  I should be more generous to DMC perhaps, but it's a terrible waste, and I hate to see that.  Not to mention certain experiences I've suffered at the hands of a chronic drinker -- my father.

Maybe it's a time for people who care about him to do an intervention.