I feel like Cassandra...

Great Debates
61

Let’s just say that if the OP wants to make a coherent case for his cause, he has to do more than say: Here are links to a bunch of stuff-- go read it and see that I’m right. Because I picked a few to read, and I didn’t see that they proved anything other than some people might have opinions similar to the OP (and not always even that). It’s not up to us to “deny” that anything the OP claims is happening-- it’s up to him to prove that it is.

My suggestion: Pick one topic, flesh it out, and make your case. But I’d suggest waiting a few months after the election when heads are calmer. There is a natural tendency to get all upset when your side loses, not realizing that your side lost all the time in the past, even going back to the Golden Age that you seem to miss (and that actually never existed).

62

The cold, hard reality is there is no reason it ever has to get any better. It’s entirely possible for the USA to remain a corrupt aristocracy for the next century.

Ultimately, if a nation has internal failures and is unable to change to fix them, the only thing that can improve it is either a revolution or an invasion by an external power.

63

Just read this in today’s NYT Review of Books: This Changes Everything; Capitalism vs The Climate. That author, Naomi Klein, makes an argument similar to at least part of what the OP seems to be getting at. And the reviewer cannot gush over it enough. However (and maybe the reviewer didn’t want to spoil the ending), there is no indication of what solution(s) Ms. Klein offers. Instead, there are anecdotes about goat farmers in Montana which I would characterize as, to be polite, underwhelming.

Maybe someone on the OP’s side can read this book and come back with what the solution is. As the saying goes, the cure ain’t much good if it’s worse than the disease.

64

With the disclaimer that I haven’t yet read the book – though I fully intend to – let me try to alleviate your perplexity. I think I can say a few things here because I’m familiar with Naomi Klein and her previous work and ideas, and I’ve read a number of the reviews, and Klein is saying much the same things that I’ve been saying for years.

A reviewer on Amazon.ca – Sean S. – posted an excellent and lengthy review which includes several key points from the book, so let me start by shamelessly ripping off a few paragraphs – pay attention to the bolded parts:

The NYT is hardly unique in its praise of the book – most of the ones I’ve come across have been positive, although the one in the Guardian reflects an element I’ve seen in some others, the assertion that although Klein makes a lot of sense, her blame is somewhat misplaced as the climate problem isn’t due to capitalism, but to the nature of human industry.

Of course it’s due to human industry, but that’s a throw-away truism that masks the real problem. Human industry physically created the problem, and human industry is capable of fixing it. But instead of being well on the way to doing so, we are recklessly careening into a dangerous future as if there was no problem whatsoever. Why? Because we are besieged by massively funded anti-science counter-movements questioning the science, much of it done anonymously with dark money funded through donor organizations and fake “science policy” front groups.

These underhanded PR initiatives make meaningful political action impossible – action that is needed to aggressively develop technologies for clean energy and for mitigation of further climate change. Indeed they have made it politically risky to even talk about climate change. Instead, we seem to prefer to provide subsidies to fossil fuel companies when in fact we should be pricing their products to reflect their true environmental costs. This ridiculous state of affairs – when it occurs in a democracy – is, in fact, a problem of capitalism. More specifically, a problem of insufficiently regulated capitalist political dominance. This is especially so in the US which, by virtue of its global status and prestige, should be taking the lead in global climate change action, and instead is perceived in the global community as being among the most egregious of the denialists.

65

Economics is boring to most people. Your generic lib might see neoliberalism as the means by which the powerful screw over the little guy as always, but if you really want to dive in you’ll read about structural adjustment programs, agricultural subsidies, tariffs, intellectual property agreements, financialization of the economy, capital account convertibility, transfer pricing, or the received wisdom of the IMF, WTO, and World Bank, or something like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Zzzzzz…huh? Oh yeah, power to the people, or whatever.

66

Well, the Koch brothers are exercising their right to free speech, which has nothing to do with capitalism. And any subsidies that oil industries might receive also have nothing to do with capitalism.

So, yeah, I’m all on board with cutting subsidies to Oil Companies. Most of us on the libertarian side of things are. But the idea that we’d be jumping on the Klein-wagon if it only were not for those evil Koch brothers is an argument I find unpersuasive. Americans were skeptical of Climate Change long before the Koch brothers showed up on the scene, so I’m equally inclined to blame the other side of the political spectrum for failing to get the message out.

67

So the Koch brothers spending $300 million on advocacy PR this year alone in self-serving campaigns to protect their industrial interests – which they can well afford to do since their industrial interests have enriched them to the tune of more than $100 billion – has nothing to do with capitalism whatsoever? :stuck_out_tongue: Did the 19th and early 20th century robber barons have nothing to do with capitalism, either?

Is that because Americans know much more about climate change than climate scientists, or is there something else going on? Like maybe the estimated $900 million a year being spent by industrial and corporate interests to undermine the public’s understanding of the science?

Funny, these same Americans for the most part seem to have no problem putting their faith in medical science, pharmacology, physics, chemistry, aeronautics – but when it comes to climate science there is suddenly a mysterious “other side” that is supposed to own the responsibility for “getting the message out” because it’s all apparently a huge “debate”. Where do you suppose that mindset came from?

One could well make the argument that totalitarian non-capitalist governments might have an equally ruthless and self-interested approach to climate change denial in pursuit of short-term economic goals. And indeed they might, and would probably lie about it in the media, too, which they would own and control. The parallel is obvious: the problem isn’t just capitalism, the problem is any system that permits the reckless exercise of power without appropriate checks and balances, regulation and accountability. It was supposedly Fran Lebowitz who said “in the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy.” And that succinctly sums it up. Capitalism is the basis for productivity and economic prosperity, but left unchecked, it also becomes the basis for abusive suppression of the public interest on behalf of a small number of its principal beneficiaries.

68

You don’t need capitalism to have rich people, and you don’t need capitalism to have free speech. The Koch brothers made a lot of money in a capitalist system, but if not for our tradition of free speech, that would be of no consequence here. And our system of free speech allows rich people on the other side of the political issue to do the same. There is no shortage of rich liberals.

Well, they certainly got a lot of help from the government, so it’s arguable how much was due to capitalism vs “crony capitalism”. But if your point is that making money is part of capitalism, then yes, that’s an effect of capitalism. What people choose to do with their money has nothing to with capitalism, so unless you’re philosophically opposed to allowing people to get very rich, I’m not sure what your point is.

A distrust in things they can’t actually see themselves-- like evolution. Couple that with an almost innate distrust of international organizations, and you’ve got fertile ground for climate change denial. It either isn’t happening, or if it is, we’re not going to take orders from “the international community” about what we need to do. We don’t play well with others.

Sorry, but I’m not going to call the exercise of free speech a “reckless exercise of power”. The information highway is wide open, and it’s easier and cheaper than ever to get your message out there.

69

I’m sure plenty of the snark is reserved for someone who is actually like they’ve been on the front lines of injustice for the last 40 years when apparently the OP was possibly still sucking her thumb when the Berlin Wall fell. I’m only 33 myself, and I’ve read a lot of history, but it’s different when you live it. And I didn’t live through the 80s politically. Sure, I picked up a few things, but a sense of world issues wasn’t one of them. And it’s the same for the OP.

And now that things seem a little shitty today, because there isn’t that history, a lot of younger folks go straight to panic mode. Well that’s silly. Because things are getting better. They’re not getting better as fast as I’d like, but they are getting better.

70

Thing is, of course it is easier, but what everyone can see is that the good information is often ignored, the powerful can afford bigger “megaphones” and also continue to finance groups that continue to tell the Republicans to ignore the scientists.

Even tools, like the perfectly acceptable in the past by Republicans, cap-n-trade (that also helped solve the acid rain issue); became anathema to people like the Kochs and so their groups did finance the current crop of Republicans that even unseated other Republicans whose only fault was that they listened to the scientists and were planning on using solutions like that one.

71

Americans’ views on Climate change have been remarkably steady for about 8 years. Scroll down to the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll June 11-15, 2014. I think the most parsimonious explanation is that they aren’t really paying much attention to this issue, or they are stuck in their views and aren’t persuaded to change them. I doubt the Koch brothers are doing much of anything to shape public opinion.

72

Oh, but I do know that already, the point was that what the Kochs and others are doing is for Republican consumption, but specially for the leadership and the leaders they help elect.

As the guys at VICE report:

73

I’ve not read Klein’s latest book, but have read others, and mentioned them at SDMB. The scorn with which she is treated here makes the the idea that this is a “liberal board” laughable! (But that’s par for America. The Democratic Party would be considered right-of-center in Europe but is called leftist in U.S.)

John Mace, who is considered a “moderate” here since he doesn’t want to abolish the F.R.B. or vaccinations, and sometimes votes for right-of-center candidates, seems to think Klein’s supporters blame the Koch Brothers specifically. With all dissent reduced to cartoonish caricatures, no wonder ideas like Klein’s get little traction. OP isn’t as eloquent as Klein, but his heart is in the right place. Yet he was mostly just ridiculed here.

Here is an excerpt from the “gushing” review:

[QUOTE=N.Y. Times’ SUNDAY BOOK REVIEW]

The voices Klein gathers from across the world achieve a choral force. We hear a Montana goat rancher describe how an improbable alliance against Big Coal between local Native American tribes and settler descendants awakened in the latter a different worldview of time and change and possibility. We hear participants in Idle No More, the First Nations movement that has swept across Canada and beyond, contrast the “extractivist mind-set” with systems “designed to promote more life.”

One quibble: What’s with the subtitle? “Capitalism vs. the Climate” sounds like a P.R. person’s idea of a marquee cage fight, but it belies the sophistication and hopefulness of Klein’s argument. As is sometimes said, it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism. Klein’s adversary is neoliberalism — the extreme capitalism that has birthed our era of extreme extraction. Klein is smart and pragmatic enough to shun the never-never land of capitalism’s global overthrow. What she does, brilliantly, is provide a historically refined exposé of “capitalism’s drift toward monopoly,” of “corporate interests intent on capturing and radically shrinking the public sphere,” and of “the disaster capitalists who use crises to end-run around democracy.”
[/QUOTE]

For most people, the highest priorities are immediate family and immediate future. This is normal, and the way things should be. But if one wants to debate a broader view (What will human society be like in a century or two? What do we need to improve it?) then much of the debate here is too trite. We hear rebuttals only slightly more intelligent than
[ul][li] Overpopulation? Heard about in the 1960’s. Got the T-shirt. Never happened. Ha, ha ha.[/li][li] Unfettered capitalism a problem? How would you like to be riding stagecoaches and burning whale oil? Move to North Korea. Ha, ha, ha.[/li][li] Global warming? Hey, even if it’s true we’ll just move to Alaska.[/li][li] Free speech? Ha! The Koch Brothers and FoxNews have all the free speech money can buy.[/li][li] et cetera[/li][/ul]

Life is still very good for most people in America. The frog won’t jump out of the slowly heating water until it’s too late.

74

It was wolfpup who brought up the Kochs in reference to Klein’s book. Methinks you are barking up the wrong tree.

A cute story, about the frog, but unfortunately it’s factually incorrect.

75

Sorry. My focus is on ideas, not the “who said what” of a junior debating society.

Whatever. A better analogy might have been Easter Island, where “somebody cut down the very last tree.”

The idea that you think what the frog really would or wouldn’t do is relevant is why this Board gets frustrating.

ETA: Mace will doubtless find a further quibble at me, irrelevant to OP. No wonder OP feels like Cassandra!

76

No doubt. But what is there always going to be more of: rich people promoting their own financial self-interest, or rich people promoting ethical behaviors?

Actually there’s plenty that one can see for oneself in the many physical changes in the Arctic, glacier losses all over the world, global temperature trends, and other physical manifestations. And climate science has nothing to do with “international organizations”. The things the IPCC is saying are just summaries of the things being said by your own scientists, your own National Academy of Sciences, your own universities, your own government agencies. You need to look much deeper to understand the engineered disconnect between the science and the American public’s extraordinary willful ignorance.

That’s fine. You go on believing that the Koch brothers – which are just one particularly egregious example of hundreds of their ilk that dominate the political system – are just some fine folks with an opinion to express, just like you and me. I myself don’t have $300 million to throw around to lie to the populace and to make sure that my opinions become everyone else’s opinions. Nor do I have a vast industrial empire to promote and protect, coincidentally one that happens to be infamous for its environmental transgressions.

You should let the Kochs and the rest of the plutocracy know that the information highway is wide open. Apparently they could have saved the $300 million they spent this year on propagandizing, and just started a personal blog instead. Who knew? :rolleyes:

In any case I’m reminded of the old adage that people get the government they deserve, and by golly, you’ve got it, especially with the recent election of a bunch of reactionary lunatics. Many of them don’t have any ideology at all – they just blather platitudes and follow the money… you know, the stuff that, according to your conservative Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, couldn’t possibly corrupt politics. It’s pretty much a standing joke now.

77

I’m not even sure what you are trying to say here, but regardless of who said it, I think it’s an accurate statement to say that those who are in Klein’s camp blame the Koch brothers for a good part of what’s wrong with the system. Not the only party to blame, maybe not the largest party, but a significant party. No?

I honestly don’t understand why you are making this so personal, but had you actually read this thread, you would have seen that I made a very similar observation to the Easter Island situation on the first page.

78

So, speaking of the ongoing erosion of the middle class:

Yes, the middle class really is sinking.

79

You realize that the title and the text are pretty much at odds with each other right? The title says, “Yes!” But the text says, “Not Really! But They Do Need Help!”

80

That’s what somebody at Brookings was trying to say, but according to the links at the beginning of the article, and the conclusions towards the end, yes, the middle class is in decline.