All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[JB]

The question here is "why?" Essentially, it just seems like there is some sort of monopolist (or extortionist, really) structure here that is saying "we 'project' that supplies will be diminished while demand will remain constant, so... you pay more."

I mean, it looks to me like they are saving money because they aren't buying that Russian oil and then they are charging more for the oil they are selling, so big profits for them. Spending less and selling for more to people who are using less.

And then they are for certain going to tell us that the more we pay at the pump is helping the Ukrainian kids getting bombed by the Russians. "That extra expense - that's Freedom Money you're spending. You're a goddamn hero!"

Trying to make sense of Big Oil will only bring on headaches. Another oil producer may step in to fill the gap created if we ban Russian imports, but they'll likely want more money for the convenience of helping us out. Gas prices were already on the rise before the war so it's just another excuse to fleece the people. As it's always been.

[Mister Mets]

Yes, this is the thing about the benefits of the United States. Western institutions as a package are preferable to most any alternative. Would you rather live in South Korea or North Korea? Taipei or Beijing?

However, there is a broad spectrum in Western Nations, and the United States which should be a leader is pushing what are really dangerous, illiberal and anti-democratic - anti working class - economic and financial principles - I guess what most people would call "neoliberalism" - and that is actually working against and diminishing the benefits and advantages of being a Western or Western-styled nation.

People seem to think that this self-interest and pro-investor class economic model is the only kind of capitalism and has always been with us, but it isn't even as old as most people here. Cooperatives, mutual banks (what they'd call builders' banks in England, I think) and Georgist policies were crucial to the growth and development of the American economy as were the many public works and grants programs (not loans - grants, the government giving people money) and social welfare. I'm not a socialist or communist, but if we'd like an equitable and prosperous vision of the future, look at America before Reagan.

"Neoliberal" is an odd phrasing for a political ideology in that there are very few people who will call themselves neoliberal. It seems to primarily be a left-wing critique of moderate Democrats/ Labour.

[Gray Lensman]

"Neoliberal" is an odd phrasing for a political ideology in that there are very few people who will call themselves neoliberal. It seems to primarily be a left-wing critique of moderate Democrats/ Labour.

Funny considering that the first two neoliberal leaders in western democracies were Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Every US President from Reagan to Obama qualified as neoliberals.

[Mister Mets]

Funny considering that the first two neoliberal leaders in western democracies were Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Every US President from Reagan to Obama qualified as neoliberals.

Here I'm going with Jonathan Chait of New York magazine, and a critique of his article in Vox.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017...te-insult.html

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/201...anders-clinton

It does seem that no one identifies as neoliberal which makes it hard to pin down as an ideology. It's more of a label by critics.

Here's Chait's view.

The ubiquitous epithet is intended to separate its target — liberals — from the values they claim to espouse. By relabeling self-identified liberals as “neoliberals,” their critics on the left accuse them of betraying the historic liberal cause.

Indeed, the appearance of the “neoliberal” epithet in a polemic almost axiomatically implies a broader historical critique that has been repeated many, many times.

Its basic claim is that, from the New Deal through the Great Society, the Democratic Party espoused a set of values defined by, or at the very least consistent with, social democracy or socialism. Then, starting in the 1970s, a coterie of neoliberal elites hijacked the party and redirected its course toward a brand of social liberalism targeted to elites and hostile to the interests of the poor and the working class.

The first and most obvious problem with this version of history is that there is little reason to believe the Democratic Party has actually moved right on economic issues.

The Vox piece looked at multiple definitions of the phrase, while more sympathetic to its use.

Chait correctly points out that the left has historically been disappointed with the New Deal and Great Society, viewing them as lost opportunities. But he oversteps when he goes further to say that “neoliberal” is not only devoid of meaning, but that there was no essential shift in Democratic identity toward the end of the last century.

The difficulty of the term is that it’s used to described three overlapping but very distinct intellectual developments. In political circles, it’s most commonly used to refer to a successful attempt to move the Democratic Party to the center in the aftermath of conservative victories in the 1980s. Once can look to Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck’s influential 1989 The Politics of Evasion, in which the authors argued that Democratic “programs must be shaped and defended within an inhospitable ideological climate, and they cannot by themselves remedy the electorate's broader antipathy to contemporary liberalism.”

Galston and Kamarck were calling for a New Deal liberalism that was updated to be made more palatable to a right-leaning public, after Reagan and the ascendancy of conservatism. You might also say that they were calling for “triangulation” between Reaganism and New Deal liberalism — or, at worst, abandoning the FDR-style approach.

In economic circles, however, “neoliberalism” is most identified with an elite response to the economic crises of the 1970s: stagflation, the energy crisis, the near bankruptcy of New York. The response to these crises was conservative in nature, pushing back against the economic management of the midcentury period. It is sometimes known as the “Washington Consensus,” a set of 10 policies that became the new economic common sense.

These policies included reduction of top marginal tax rates, the liberalization of trade, privatization of government services, and deregulation. These became the sensible things for generic people in Washington and other global headquarters to embrace and promote, and the policies were pushed on other countries via global institutions like the International Monetary Fund.

The third meaning of “neoliberalism,” most often used in academic circles, encompasses market supremacy — or the extension of markets or market-like logic to more and more spheres of life. This, in turn, has a significant influence on our subjectivity: how we view ourselves, our society, and our roles in it. One insight here is that markets don’t occur naturally but are instead constructed through law and practices, and those practices can be extended into realms well beyond traditional markets.

Another insight is that market exchanges can create an ethos that ends up shaping more and more human behavior; we can increasingly view ourselves as little more than human capital maximizing our market values.

This is a little abstract, but it really does matter for our everyday lives.

In political discussion, it seems to be a red flag that someone on the left is preaching to the converted, and not making an effort to persuade.

[Zelena]

The question here is "why?" Essentially, it just seems like there is some sort of monopolist (or extortionist, really) structure here that is saying "we 'project' that supplies will be diminished while demand will remain constant, so... you pay more."

Why? Supply and demand. If the traders are less interested by Russian oil, they need to find elsewhere and the volume to replace is sizable…

[CaptainEurope]

There are more taxes than just the Federal income tax.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/...es-statistics/

Workers pay the majority of FICA because it was capped and not indexed by Reagan and then SS was taxed by Reagan for the first time in history. This is another BS right wing talking point.

And you can't send service jobs overseas, or Trucking, or constructions or Amazon warehouses or....

And don't those numbers also show the erosion of the middle class in the US? It seems more and more that you mostly have minimum wage and billionaires and not much in between.

[CaptainEurope]

National average for a gallon of gas tops $4, the highest price at the pump since 2008
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/06/nati...ince-2008.html

Freedom is not free.

[Tendrin]

In news that makes me mildly happy, and is sure to brighten WBE's day just a tiny bit, JAMES INHOFE is retiring.

https://t.co/MvKo5UULEo

[Catlady in training]

Russia continues to ignore any international diplomacy, they didn't show up for the hearing in Den Haag. China refuses to condemn Russia and continues to blame US and NATO for the conflict. It appears that institutions like UN are useless, if countries can decide to ignore all established principles withou consequences.

Now there are warnings that Russia is going to use chemical weapons. What more will it take for the west to get involved? Are they going to let Russia commit a total genocide?
We can't rely on China to do anything, it seems that they are just happily waiting for the west to be weakened by the impact of sanctions and for Russia to be economically ruined. Then they will help Russia, annex Taiwan and divide the world into two blocks, weakened democratic west and autocratic east, who knows where the line will be made in Europe.

Fuck this, I don't want to live in such world. Wouldn't it be worth it to risk a WW3 just to get a shot at victory of democracy?

[Catlady in training]

The free part of the world has made a grave mistake, underestimating Russia and China for the last at least 8 years, in favor of economical gain, hoping that they will not be affected. Now we will pay the price for this carelessness.

I almost envy Ukrainians in a way. At least they will end with honor, I don't think that will be able to be said about the rest of the world at the end.

[Zelena]

The free part of the world has made a grave mistake, underestimating Russia and China for the last at least 8 years, in favor of economical gain, hoping that they will not be affected. Now we will pay the price for this carelessness.

I almost envy Ukrainians in a way. At least they will end with honor, I don't think that will be able to be said about the rest of the world at the end.

The Ukrainians are doing their part, we do ours… Doing nothing is unacceptable: it would show weakness and embolden an already aggressive Russia. Becoming a belligerent is not an option: Putin has his nuclear weapons… We are treading on a narrow path and must hold firm.

[Catlady in training]

New round of "peace" negotiations today, 15:00 CET. Russians reportedly want Krym, separate republics and Ukraine confirming that they won't join any bloc. No mention of denazification this time, but they are still massive dicks about their terms.

[JackDaw]

The Ukrainians are doing their part, we do ours… Doing nothing is unacceptable: it would show weakness and embolden an already aggressive Russia. Becoming a belligerent is not an option: Putin has his nuclear weapons… We are treading on a narrow path and must hold firm.

The rouble in free fall, Russian interest rates doubled to astonishing 20 percent, 60 years of Germany refusing to take an active part in conflicts reversed in the blink of an eye, SWiFT payments made impossible, business after business refusing to operate in Russia, having to lock up thousands of Russians for protesting against the war…..the sanctions are working.

Whatever spin Putin puts on all that in public, all that is weakening his position. He’s practically acting as a recruiting sergeant for NATO.

[CaptainEurope]

The rouble in free fall, Russian interest rates doubled to astonishing 20 percent, 60 years of Germany refusing to take an active part in conflicts reversed in the blink of an eye, SWiFT payments made impossible, business after business refusing to operate in Russia, having to lock up thousands of Russians for protesting against the war…..the sanctions are working.

Whatever spin Putin puts on all that in public, all that is weakening his position. He’s practically acting as a recruiting sergeant for NATO.

Now watch the US making nice with Venezuela, and the EU with Iran.

[achilles]

The rouble in free fall, Russian interest rates doubled to astonishing 20 percent, 60 years of Germany refusing to take an active part in conflicts reversed in the blink of an eye, SWiFT payments made impossible, business after business refusing to operate in Russia, having to lock up thousands of Russians for protesting against the war…..the sanctions are working.

Whatever spin Putin puts on all that in public, all that is weakening his position. He’s practically acting as a recruiting sergeant for NATO.

I just don't get Putin at all. Thought I'd figured him out as just an ex KGB thug, but...it also seems that he's outright nuts, tossing around talk of nuking everyone in sight, even knowing that would sign his own death warrant. I don't get what he thinks he's getting from all of this. And that business about shelling a NUKE plant....no one who is sane does anything like that. Which is worrying, since we've pretty much all proceeded on the assumption that Putin is sane and a pragmatist, albeit a very evil one. Now it appears he might not be, a guy with more nukes than we have, (though I wouldn't swear to how well any of them work, considering)....that makes me very nervous, in a way Trump with nukes, or Biden with nukes never did. Largely because there are some structural limitations to the President's power, but Putin has...none at all.

Even more worrying is that his top echelon of killers seem to be going along with him. Our best hope IMO was that someone in his version of the Praetorian Guards would properly off him as was the standard way of changing Emperors from about the fist century CE. That would seem less likely, given his support among his elite.