[GT] US election - It's 2020, what could possibly go wrong?

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by pylon

I have a question for rubecube, and this isn't a slight, just a general curiosity question.

If you were given 2 choices, and your life depends on selecting one, which would you choose?:

1) Live in a full on Communist Society modelled after mid-seventies Soviet Union. You get everything you need, nothing you don't, and every move you make, is monitored.

2) Live in the worst case scenario 'wet-dream' of a Republican 'Murica where capitalism, guns, full on Freedom!, and Trump rule.

Jumping off a bridge is not an option. This is a compromise you have to willingly make.

You should add that in option 1 you have to line up for bread, and you may not get a loaf before it’s sold out.

[GirlySports]

Or your bread might get stolen. It's never 100% equal. Some people are still elites in the so-called socialist system. It may not be measured by money but by other factors like family tree.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I don't agree with Rube on many aspects of politics (in particular where the Democratic Party should align), but comparisons to, and choosing between, the Soviets or some form of Trumpistan is just dumb.

He clearly leans left. That doesn't mean he wants to live in Venezuela. (Or maybe he does, but why would that matter?)

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

You should add that in option 1 you have to line up for bread, and you may not get a loaf before it’s sold out.

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Or your bread might get stolen. It's never 100% equal. Some people are still elites in the so-called socialist system. It may not be measured by money but by other factors like family tree.

Feels like you two missed the part of the hypothetical where "you get everything you need."

The choice wasn't between Trump's American Dream and being transported to 1970s USSR.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I don't agree with Rube on many aspects of politics (in particular where the Democratic Party should align), but comparisons to, and choosing between, the Soviets or some form of Trumpistan is just dumb.

He clearly leans left. That doesn't mean he wants to live in Venezuela. (Or maybe he does, but why would that matter?)

It's odd I grew up a leftie during the 60's and 70's when our stock answer to the age old 'do you want to live there or here?' was that the Soviet Union wasnt really communism, but when you get right down to it if you are looking to a left wing regime to fix all our problems, climate change income inequality etc then it does end up looking pretty much like late 1960's USSR, everyone living in a small but adequate house/apartment, everyone has a job that if they have to do, as I explain to my musician lefty foster son who's in his late 20's, an efficient society cant have him sitting on his arse smoking weed and inventing beats, food would be again adequate but you cant be flying fruit in from Mexico or Africa in the winter, it would be back to having 'seasons' in the grocery stores again, holidays would be local, again no cruises or jetting off to Mexico, it would be an austere life but addressing climate change requires that.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It's odd I grew up a leftie during the 60's and 70's when our stock answer to the age old 'do you want to live there or here?' was that the Soviet Union wasnt really communism, but when you get right down to it if you are looking to a left wing regime to fix all our problems, climate change income inequality etc then it does end up looking pretty much like late 1960's USSR, everyone living in a small but adequate house/apartment, everyone has a job that if they have to do, as I explain to my musician lefty foster son who's in his late 20's, an efficient society cant have him sitting on his arse smoking weed and inventing beats, food would be again adequate but you cant be flying fruit in from Mexico or Africa in the winter, it would be back to having 'seasons' in the grocery stores again, holidays would be local, again no cruises or jetting off to Mexico, it would be an austere life but addressing climate change requires that.

*citation needed

[Red Slinger]

My parents grew up in the Soviet Union and I was born there but was really young when we emigrated. For the most part, before the collapse of the USSR life was relatively good for most Soviets. There was guaranteed employment, no homelessness, free education and very little crime. However, there were very few freedoms like speech, movement, religion, association, etc and the pro-Soviet, anti-Western propaganda was massive (but similar in proportion to the pro-West, anti-Soviet propaganda during the Reagan era). Even so, people could have relatively good lives and the economy was not bad and people generally had enough to eat, right up until near the collapse of the system (that was at least partially brought on by military spending). If you were any sort of minority (Jew, Muslim, Christian, POC) you're life would be significantly harder but still not as bad as a black person in the southern US prior to the Civil Rights Act. But it's true that the USSR was not communit. It was a socialist dictatorship with fascist nationalistic tendencies.

That said, it's hard to answer whether I'd want to live there or in Trumpistan. Mostly because fortunately we don't really know the end result of Trumpistan. However, based on some historical precedent I think it's safe to assume that the wealth gap would get even bigger, the middle-class would shrink or vanish entirely, homelessness would be very high, the rate of death due to starvation, exposure and lack of medical resources would increase and the rate of property crime would likely be very high.

I guess if I had to choose between these two scenarios it would be the USSR before the 80's.

[calculoso]

What I don’t understand is why a “guaranteed income” or “guaranteed employment “ automatically means that all industries will be nationalized and our existing choices will automatically disappear. Why would rationing bread become a thing?

We have a consumer society. To me, giving the consumers more money would help things - more money to buy things... results in greater demand... results in more businesses to supply that demand... results in more jobs to staff those businesses. Seems win win win to me.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Even so, people could have relatively good lives and the economy was not bad and people generally had enough to eat, right up until near the collapse of the system (that was at least partially brought on by military spending).

I think this is something many people gloss over when it comes to the USSR. U.S. foreign policy had a huge impact on Soviet domestic policy. This isn't to absolve the Soviets of their atrocities and various, but the defense/intelligence spending and the inability to engage in trade with the U.S. and many American allies definitely impacted what happened within the country.

This is where the whole socialism vs. capitalism debate gets lost in the weeds a bit because you've rarely had instances in which the U.S. hasn't tried to undermine socialists regimes (coups, CIA operations, trade embargos, etc.) to protect their own corporate interests.

For the record, I largely am in favour of private enterprise, but with limits and regulations that prevent corporations from having outsized influence in government and society. I do think there should be some level of state or collective ownership of a country's natural resources for both economic and national security purposes. I'm also in favour of ensuring governments take care of their citizens first. Health care, education (including post-secondary), housing, and basic sustenance should be guaranteed regardless of your ability or desire to work.

How those beliefs come to pass policy-wise is obviously going to vary country to country.

Obviously a fairly left-wing ideology, but hardly a hardcore socialist by the original definition of the term.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by calculoso

What I don’t understand is why a “guaranteed income” or “guaranteed employment “ automatically means that all industries will be nationalized and our existing choices will automatically disappear. Why would rationing bread become a thing?

We have a consumer society. To me, giving the consumers more money would help things - more money to buy things... results in greater demand... results in more businesses to supply that demand... results in more jobs to staff those businesses. Seems win win win to me.

This stuff about everyone having to have a job to keep society running is outdated, thinking, too. There are quite a few green economists out there who think the expectation that everyone should work 40 hours/week is a major contributor to climate change.

Also, automation is coming for many of us, whether we like it or not. If we don't figure out a way to keep low-income and unemployed people active as consumers, we're going to see more and more recessions, civil unrest, etc. Credit and low interest rates can only keep that house of cards together for so long.

[CliffFletcher]

I suppose it would have been better to live in the Soviet Union from the 50s to the 70s than in a developing country. But compared to any Western country? Not even close. In one year almost 20 per cent of the population of East Germany fled to the West until they put up a wall to keep them in. Even KGB agents, selected for their extreme dedication to the cause and enjoying many privileges denied common citizens in the USSR, would often defect after having a taste of how good life was in the West.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by pylon

I have a question for rubecube, and this isn't a slight, just a general curiosity question.

If you were given 2 choices, and your life depends on selecting one, which would you choose?:

1) Live in a full on Communist Society modelled after mid-seventies Soviet Union. You get everything you need, nothing you don't, and every move you make, is monitored.

2) Live in the worst case scenario 'wet-dream' of a Republican 'Murica where capitalism, guns, full on Freedom!, and Trump rule.

Jumping off a bridge is not an option. This is a compromise you have to willingly make.

#2 could get pretty rough. Sell the national parks to oil exploration, let Florida sink, allow all the banks consolidate into a single institution, probably have to start shooting people at the boarder big the climate refugees will start coming...

I'm always curious about the Soviets being used as a perfect model for socialism and/or communism in rhetorical conversation. Obviously they were nothing close to the perfect model any socialist would aspire to, so you are just reframing the ideas in an uncharitable way rather than engaging with their merits. I tend to think social infrastructure is almost immeasurably important to the economies we have, so I'd say #1 is a far safer bet than #2.

By Social Infrastructure I mean:
roads
parks
schools
militaries
government structures
public health facilities
public utility regulators...

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This stuff about everyone having to have a job to keep society running is outdated, thinking, too. There are quite a few green economists out there who think the expectation that everyone should work 40 hours/week is a major contributor to climate change.

Also, automation is coming for many of us, whether we like it or not. If we don't figure out a way to keep low-income and unemployed people active as consumers, we're going to see more and more recessions, civil unrest, etc. Credit and low interest rates can only keep that house of cards together for so long.

Maybe everyone should have a part time job

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think this is something many people gloss over when it comes to the USSR. U.S. foreign policy had a huge impact on Soviet domestic policy. This isn't to absolve the Soviets of their atrocities and various, but the defense/intelligence spending and the inability to engage in trade with the U.S. and many American allies definitely impacted what happened within the country.

This is where the whole socialism vs. capitalism debate gets lost in the weeds a bit because you've rarely had instances in which the U.S. hasn't tried to undermine socialists regimes (coups, CIA operations, trade embargos, etc.) to protect their own corporate interests.

For the record, I largely am in favour of private enterprise but, with limits and regulations that prevent corporations from having outsized influence in government and society. I do think there should be some level of state or collective ownership of a country's natural resources for both economic and national security purposes. I'm also in favour of ensuring governments take care of their citizens first. Health care, education (including post-secondary), housing, and basic sustenance should be guaranteed regardless of your ability or desire to work.

How those beliefs come to pass policy-wise is obviously going to vary country to country.

Obviously a fairly left-wing ideology, but hardly a hardcore socialist by the original definition of the term.

Sounds like you would actually quite like modern China.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Sounds like you would actually quite like modern China.

Or Norway.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

What I don’t understand is why a “guaranteed income” or “guaranteed employment “ automatically means that all industries will be nationalized and our existing choices will automatically disappear. Why would rationing bread become a thing?

We have a consumer society. To me, giving the consumers more money would help things - more money to buy things... results in greater demand... results in more businesses to supply that demand... results in more jobs to staff those businesses. Seems win win win to me.

So if you take out climate change it doesnt have to but if you want/have to use state control to limit our effect on the biosphere then you need to reduce new things, capitalism is essentially unable to continue without the ability to grow and climate change needs stasis, we need to stop growing, we need to have less stuff, I drive a truck, as do 5 or 6 other guys on my street, but none of us actually need to have a truck except for maybe once or twice a month, we should all be riding bikes or using micro compact cars and having a community truck for the rare occasions we actually need to move a couch, but then the auto industry falls apart and 200,000 workers get canned in Detroit and Windsor.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I suppose it would have been better to live in the Soviet Union from the 50s to the 70s than in a developing country. But compared to any Western country? Not even close. In one year almost 20 per cent of the population of East Germany fled to the West until they put up a wall to keep them in. Even KGB agents, selected for their extreme dedication to the cause and enjoying many privileges denied common citizens in the USSR, would often defect after having a taste of how good life was in the West.

Of course, but the choice wasn't a country that is the closest the world has come to a Communist state (USSR) versus Liberal Democracy.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Maybe everyone should have a part time job

This is something I've been thinking about in conjunction with UBI. If the average full-time work went from 40 hours a week to say 30 hours does that mean that more people could be employed to cover the 25% drop in hours worked per week? I'm not sure that the correlation would be anywhere near 25% more employment but I'm guessing the level of unemployment (for those that can and want to work) would decrease substantially. This would reduce EI payments, increase payroll taxes collected by the government and also would likely decrease the amount of other social programs (social services, policing, emergency services, etc.) If you combine this with a guaranteed basic income that is enough to not starve but not enough to not want to work it could potentially alleviate some of the budgetary and societal issues governments face.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

I don't know about any of you, but it's laughable to think that most Americans have only a 40 hour work week in any meaningful job that is salary-based. Responsibilities seem to be nearly constant in most jobs and people are often working into the evenings and on weekends with increasing regularity. Throw in the fact that vacation time is rarely used and people don't want to call in sick for fear of losing their jobs. If we started by simply scaling all jobs back to a 40 hour work week that was rigidly held to, we would actually employ more people overall to do the same work. That might hurt profitability, but it would go a ways to dealing with un/underemployment.

The lack of unionized labor in America has led to this, but to be fair, unions have hurt themselves so much over the years with bad politics, unethical practice, and downright criminal influence. Have well regulated unions and you likely fix many of the problems with economic disparity in the U.S.

Now, the only problem with that is outsourcing of labor in a global market...not to mention automation, both of which negate the effectiveness of unions. It's not an easy problem to solve.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Do your best not to continuously laugh throughout this entire article.

Trump's still making money off the gullible MAGAs by drawing out the re-election fight as long as possible. Aside from avoiding prosecution for his crimes, Trump's entire re-election campaign is an operation to milk the MAGAs dry since Kushner set up a shell company to siphon off over $617Million from the re-election campaign directly to Trump family members.

Crappy thing is it undermines US democracy and a huge chunk of the GOP is supporting that.