TeenHelp
Support Forums Today's Posts

Get Advice Connect with TeenHelp Resources
HelpLINK Facebook     Twitter     Tumblr     Instagram    Hotlines    Safety Zone    Alternatives

You are not registered or have not logged in

Hello guest! (Not a guest? Log in above!)

As a guest on TeenHelp you are only able to use some of our site's features. By registering an account you will be able to enjoy unlimited access to our site, and will be able to:

  • Connect with thousands of teenagers worldwide by actively taking part in our Support Forums and Chat Room.
  • Find others with similar interests in our Social Groups.
  • Express yourself through our Blogs, Picture Albums and User Profiles.
  • And much much more!

Signing up is free, anonymous and will only take a few moments, so click here to register now!


Current Events and Debates For discussions and friendly debates about politics and current events, check out this forum.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  (#1 (permalink)) Old
MWF Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
MWF's Avatar
 
Name: Robert
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Location: The Best City On Earth

Posts: 1,708
Join Date: May 22nd 2010

America's constant economic shift to the right (long) - February 24th 2017, 06:57 AM

Yeah, nobody will reply to this, but it explains what drives American policy.
-Rich people pay legal bribes in the form of "campaign donations" to buy politicians from both parties. The rich then buy ads from corporate media stations, exempting them from criticism.
-Congressmen and media create or rekindle a culture war (racism, abortion, gay marriage, political correctness, etc.) to mobilize the right or left. The right typically loses the battle but the war drags on forever.
-The right blames the media regardless of whether what's being said is or isn't factually true. The media tries to appear unbiased by providing equal airtime and neutral attitudes toward right-wing figures, shifting the Overton Window (the political spectrum that the public perceives) of America to the right.
-People on both sides vote based on social issues. While social issues typically move left, people stopped paying attention to the fact that economics will move right when they vote. This can still happen with Democrats because they are legally bribed.
-Middle class shrinks as a result of right-wing economics. This has happened since Reagan as a result of his ideas being continually implemented.
-Poor people are framed as lazy moochers by the media.
-The rich and the media say the solution is to cut taxes, screwing the lazy while rewarding you, the hard worker.
-Republicans cut entitlements/healthcare/education for everyone, decreasing taxes mainly for the rich. Democrats attempted a weak compromise that may or may not have worked. Poor people and middle class get poorer.
-While liberal economic ideas are actually supported according to public polling, congressmen and the media calls any and all liberal economic policies socialist handouts. Both parties keep creeping economically to the right.
-Economy gets worse despite growing work efficiency. Media shifts attention to a mildly dangerous foreign entity that typically has almost no effect on our lives.
-Economy tanks. Country makes a slight leftward turn to slowly re-steady the ship.
-Slight leftward turn isn't enough to fix economy. People blame "socialism".
-Deliberately turn right in economics.
-restart from the beginning.

God I really wish I could simplify my writing, but I still probably left out a few points. But this is why I don't vote for the American right wing no matter what and I only grudgingly vote for Democrats like Hillary Clinton. All of that can be tracked through history and by studying political science. Both sides are bought and paid for with a few exceptions like Bernie Sanders. For the wealthy who own the politicians, they DONT care about social issues or what the people want, they care about their pocketbooks. You think the fracking and oil giants who fund organizations like PragerU or Fox News really care about abortion, gay marriage, or political correctness? Of course not. You think rich Libertarians like the Kochs care about ending the drug war? No, they just don't want to pay taxes for it. You think George Soros cares about gay marriage? I'm gonna guess no, but he does care about team Democrat because he's on it. We literally are the only modern country that doesnt have sick leave or maternal leave written into law. That is so basic, and yet we're told thats "socialism". We are the richest country in the world BY FAR, yet the right actually has a debate in this country on whether or not to keep a minimum wage. If you're from Europe, you're probably rereading that sentence five times, assuming I'm bullshitting you. No. America's right wing is fucking loony tunes and slams even the most basic ideas of modern society like public education.
This is American politics. The politicians destroy the economy on purpose to earn money for themselves. We had a fantastic system that worked before Conservatives like Nixon and especially Raegan dismantled it.
THIS is what's wrong with our country. The rich are buying the government and sucking us dry.

Little side note, from what I've heard of European politics, the major liberal and conservative parties tend to usually agree for the most part on economics. This leaves the remaining differences to social views. If I'm right about that, it isn't logical to vote only on social issues.


Wish I lived in Canada. UPDATE, NOV. 9th, 2016: This statement has become even more appropriate.
I vow that I will attack this endeavor with an enthusiasm unknown to mankind. Jim Harbaugh

"Being an adult sucks. The only positives are weed, sex, and cars, and I have none of those right now." -Me

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hatred cannot drive out hatred; only love can do that." -Martin Luther King Jr.
   
  (#2 (permalink)) Old
MWF Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
MWF's Avatar
 
Name: Robert
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Location: The Best City On Earth

Posts: 1,708
Join Date: May 22nd 2010

Re: America's constant economic shift to the right (long) - February 24th 2017, 07:40 AM

No seriously. THIS is a website that often claims to be center-right. It's also a website that claims to be for free speech and against PC.
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017...overnor-video/


Wish I lived in Canada. UPDATE, NOV. 9th, 2016: This statement has become even more appropriate.
I vow that I will attack this endeavor with an enthusiasm unknown to mankind. Jim Harbaugh

"Being an adult sucks. The only positives are weed, sex, and cars, and I have none of those right now." -Me

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hatred cannot drive out hatred; only love can do that." -Martin Luther King Jr.
   
  (#3 (permalink)) Old
BDF Offline
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
BDF's Avatar
 
Name: BDF
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Europe

Posts: 2,523
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 28th 2009

Re: America's constant economic shift to the right (long) - February 24th 2017, 08:42 PM

This is a big topic, and you have seen how long some of my posts and replies can be. It's easy for me to spend more time than it's worth, going into too much detail. So I'm going to ignore a lot of things, because it's just too much.

The "right-wing shift" in economics is not quite as black & white as that. The process of globalization certainly is a large right-wing shift in economics (and appears to be favored by various left-wing thinkers for social reasons that they prefer to prioritize), because it promotes international free trade (something which large multinational corporations benefit from the most).

However, the process of creating increasing numbers of regulations, is typical of something called a "command economy", which is a distinctly left-wing approach. From what I've heard, America has generally (with some exceptions, like in the banking sector) been moving towards a "command economy" for some time, and it appears Trump has placed it towards the top of his agenda to stomp this out by pledging to remove 2 regulations for each new regulation created.

The EU has also been moving in a similar direction, in some aspects. There have been really farce regulations introduced, which even stipulate things such as what are the acceptable "diameters" for tomatoes sold in marketplaces. I don't remember exactly, but it was something like that. The EU is said to promote "free trade" between it's own member countries, but at the same time, it has some very protectionist policies towards countries outside of the EU.

The argument goes, that such regulations tend to squeeze small businesses the most, and so tend to favor large businesses more, especially because large businesses tend to have greater influence in governments and shaping regulations in their favor. The precise name for this is "corporatism", not capitalism.

So really, if you think about it too much, you ought to realize that categorizing some economic policies as "left wing", or "right wing" is quite difficult. It appears that multinational corporations favor some left wing policies, and some right wing policies.

Consider the point of "price fixing" for example. Monopolies love price fixing to push prices up, and increase their own profits. Generally, there are laws against this. In a free-trade, right-wing economy, the idea is that free market forces (supply and demand) are allowed to directly determine the prices of goods and services. Ironically, "price fixing" is opposite of this. Goods and services, also include human labor, which can be called a "service". So by the same definition, "minimum wages" could be considered "price fixing" as well, although clearly the reasons for implementing minimum wages are very different than most other forms of price fixing. Communist economies of the Soviet Bloc, engaged in widespread price-fixing themselves, which basically meant that the governments directly determined the prices of many goods, labor, services, etc. That's what a command economy is.

I find it easier to process this sort of information when I think of the "government" and "large corporations", as one entity called the "establishment", instead of separate entities. The establishment serves it's own interests. It will implement features of a command economy, if it feels it's beneficial to itself. It will implement laws and regulations which raise start-up costs for small businesses, increase risks of penalties for businesses which cannot afford a team of lawyers to constantly review stacks of regulations. All this reduces the competition which large corporations face. There is lots of criticism regarding environmental regulations on this issue, and that genuine environmental concerns were used to generate a pretext for creating the sorts of regulations which make it much harder for small businesses to develop. I'm torn on whether this truly was the objective, or whether it was an accidental side-effect. I don't know near enough about the details of this to make my own mind up. Either way, the fallout today of this is such that people on the right are criticizing environmental regulations, academic studies, and even the theory of global warming itself.
____________________________

P.S. People tend to vote on "social issues" more than "economics", because economics is superficially harder to understand. And most people who vote have jobs, families, etc. and aren't prepared to dedicate large amounts of time to understanding these things. I'd argue though that an in-depth understanding of social issues is actually harder than economics. But when you watch TV channels and how various people discuss social issues or economics, it's easier to understand the social issues, because economic discussions tend to use a lot more technical jargon language in comparison.

.


"I don't care about politics"
Then politics doesn't care about you either. Truth. You've got to make your voice heard, if you want to be listened to. But that's too logical for some people, so let me go a step further. Not making your voice heard, leaves other people free to hijack it by speaking on your behalf, even if they don't actually give a shit about you. That's politics. So, make your voice heard. That's not a quote from anywhere. That's just me.



Last edited by BDF; February 24th 2017 at 10:08 PM.
   
  (#4 (permalink)) Old
MWF Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
MWF's Avatar
 
Name: Robert
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Location: The Best City On Earth

Posts: 1,708
Join Date: May 22nd 2010

Re: America's constant economic shift to the right (long) - March 3rd 2017, 02:04 AM

Sorry, I've been on vacation, ironically freezing and without wifi for the last week.
I feel like I should have thrown in the word Corporatocracy multiple times because that actually fits the narrative better. I would agree with most of what you said; Not all of the laws that serve corporations are necessarily right-wing. Like you said, price floors and price ceilings are often used in our economy. I wouldn't say those are inherently bad, but they have to be used with nuance involved. For example, we basically let the drug companies do whatever they want; there was a problem recently in the US where Epipens were over $600. Those cost less than $100 in Britain. That's completely unacceptable, and I would argue that a price ceiling should be put in place there for the good of the people. On the other hand, we do set a price floor in some areas like agriculture. The idea was used in the 30s to help struggling farmers during the depression, but now it basically just stands there to serve Monsantos, a giant agribusiness. There are also issues with subsidies (not laizzes faire), where our tax dollars go to serve corporations. I would argue that in most sectors that's a horseshit policy. For example, we try to subsidize the ethanol industry by giving tax subsidies to corn farmers (Monsantos again). So yeah, subsidies aren't right-wing policy.
However, in the sense that we have too many common sense regulations in the US, I would argue that isn't true. To me, the 2 for 1 law for regulations is possibly the most naive Executive Order of my lifetime (pending a further search). Trump didn't do a good job of showing what the standard is for removing regulations or even which regulations are on the table for which type of situations. I don't know if my regulation to keep this river clean will sacrifice these two other rivers, for example. Problem is, those are the types of regulations Trump and the Republicans want to get rid of and that's why they put an anti-environmentalist in charge of the EPA. They also want to get rid of common sense regulations like the Dodd-Frank Act, which really wasn't all that great to begin with, but protected people from financial advisors who attempt to swindle them with bad advice. This was the regulation put in place after the Great Recession, but I would argue that they should have gone farther by reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act which kept private banking and investment banking separate (stopping bankers from gambling peoples' money). This regulation kept our banks in check until the 90s and now Trump wants to cut a weaker version than that.
It's not like I'm totally anti-right wing economics, either. Recently there was a bill by Bernie Sanders that would have allowed people to import cheaper drugs from Canada. The bill got squashed by some corporate Democrats and a large portion of the corporate Republicans. This was a total no-brainer in my opinion though because drugs cost way too much in the US.
I do think it was silly of me to leave out a key word (Corporatocracy), but I'm not gonna lie, on a scale of 1-10, I was on about a 4-level high when I wrote this. Anyway though, Republicans and a large portion of Democrats are corporate puppets who serve to do their bidding, then they divide up the electorate based on social issues.
For what its worth, I'm not a socialist in all areas of the economy, but in areas with a sick profit incentive- education, healthcare, prisons, to name a few- profit should definitely be off the table.


Wish I lived in Canada. UPDATE, NOV. 9th, 2016: This statement has become even more appropriate.
I vow that I will attack this endeavor with an enthusiasm unknown to mankind. Jim Harbaugh

"Being an adult sucks. The only positives are weed, sex, and cars, and I have none of those right now." -Me

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hatred cannot drive out hatred; only love can do that." -Martin Luther King Jr.
   
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
america, constant, economic, long, shift

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All material copyright 1998-2018, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct | Complaints

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
Theme developed in association with vBStyles.