"We will heat our homes with your dollars!"

[jimmygu3]

Re: "We will heat our homes with your dollars!"

Sorry Ma'm, I shan't do it again, I promise. I understand these are very important men, and national diplomacy is at work here. :rolleyes:

Good point, Lukester. In that spirit, I have decided to abandon my "We will shower our mistresses with your bonars!" cartoon. Wouldn't be appropriate.

[c1ue]

Re: "We will heat our homes with your dollars!"

I'm trying to figure out how the "Earth is sent hurtling toward the sun" part of the analogy works.

Jimmy,

Substitute 'retired/fixed income people' for 'Earth', and you're on the right path.

Inflation not only increases the prices of new goods, it also erodes the value of stored wealth.

So those who don't work anymore get royally screwed unless somehow they can invest ahead of the inflation curve - hence the iTulip average age being relatively high.

Similarly those in jobs with little pricing power (and those industries for that matter) are going to see their earning power get reduced.

The interesting part is that those industries at present with pricing power are not going to be the ones in the coming inflation scenario.

[jimmygu3]

Re: "We will heat our homes with your dollars!"

Similarly those in jobs with little pricing power (and those industries for that matter) are going to see their earning power get reduced. The interesting part is that those industries at present with pricing power are not going to be the ones in the coming inflation scenario.

c1ue,

What jobs & industries do you foresee losing pricing power and which ones gaining?

[necron99]

Re: "We will heat our homes with your dollars!"

iTulip writes:
<< Second, under the US single party state there is no need to apologize for fear of attack by the opposition party. >>
This seems either a controversial assertion, or an eye opener for me, and I have no idea which it of the two it may be.
...
Is there or is there not a large and still deep legacy in this country, from it's heyday as a federal republic, to still allow (fairly easily in purely legal terms) for a grassroots movement to commandeer one or the other of the main political parties, and so compel it to mandate a change of course for the country?

iTulip is not a political forum, but I find these questions very interesting, so I hope you won't mind a long post.

The first institutional barrier that leaps to mind was the Supreme Court decision, six or eight years ago [too lazy to provide citation], which equated campaign contributions with free speech. This truly crystallized an already-extant problem -- both parties became not so much for- or against- any particular philosophy, as they were "Pro-Money" parties. The result is a vociferous debate which simulates two-party opposition, but is restricted to a narrow, pre-agreed range of alternatives.

The problem doesn't reside so much in the laws and institutions as it does with the combination of: (1) the huge expense of mounting a National or State-Wide political campagin, plus (2) the winner-take-all voting system (as opposed to proportional representation or voter ranking systems), which together mean it's illogical to risk any money or effort whatsoever upon unproven ideas or candidates. Therefore, everyone who reaches the top of their political party is basically cut from the same pattern and tends to support the same interests.

This problem is significantly compounded by the fact that both parties, when in power over the last thirty years or more, have enacted such shortsighted and venal economic policies that both parties are now severely compromised and have incentives to hide the same facts. I mean, geez, think about Alan Greenspan's career, serving both types of Administrations, and you will quickly see that we have had only one flavor of economic policy for at least that long. Ben Bernanke seems determined to continue the legacy. Sure we have two parties -- but if only one policy ever results, then the number of parties is trivial.

Your question doesn't mention third parties. Historically third parties have often introduced new ideas to the public, ideas which the two major parties have then co-opted and enacted, even though the third party was often not elected. It's easy to point to institutional barriers against third parties.

For example, the Commission on Presidential Debates was taken away from the NON-partisan League of Women Voters in 1984, and given to a "bipartisan" committee composed of former heads of the Republican/Democratic National Parties, spending strictly corporate money to host the event. So it was no surprise that, after Ross Perot surprised them in 1992 with a last-minute surge of support, the Commission basically wrote it into their policies that no 3rd-party candidate can appear in the debates unless he is currently polling 5.0% more than he is currently polling. We saw this demonstrated in 2000.

This isn't a formal institutional barrier against 3rd parties, but it's an effective one. In today's culture where information is largely controlled by huge national media conglomerates, 3rd parties cannot gain support without fielding a national candidate, and they can't do that without some public face time versus the major candidates, in order to distinguish themselves as an alternative.

People frequently argue that third parties should start with State offices before fielding National candidates, but also in 2000 I remember the Greens getting the same treatment when they tried to field candidates for California Governor and Senator -- locked out of State debates.

3rd parties also complain that, in order to field a National candidate, they must spend huge amounts of time and effort complying with a patchwork of 50 different arcane and deceptive sets of laws for getting on each State ballot. Meanwhile, the two major parties are automatically on each State ballot because they were on it last election.

The component that seems lacking seems to be not the legal or electoral mechanisms for genuine multi-party power sharing, but rather a general apathy and lack of national will to confront realities. Americans prefer to hide in national slogans. The weakness is in the public, not in the institutions.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with your conclusion, that ultimately it's the voters, not just politicians, who are stubbornly bent on ignoring obvious consequences of poor economic policy, preferring to keep re-electing these goons rather than consider difficult but saner alternatives.

[Rajiv]

Re: "We will heat our homes with your dollars!"

iTulip is not a political forum, but I find these questions very interesting, so I hope you won't mind a long post.

The first institutional barrier that leaps to mind was the Supreme Court decision, six or eight years ago [too lazy to provide citation], which equated campaign contributions with free speech.

Buckley v. Valeo

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld federal limits on campaign contributions and ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. The court also stated candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.

.
.
.

Although the decision upheld restrictions on the size of campaign contributions, because it struck down limits on expenditures some argue that this precedent allows those with great wealth to effectively drown out the speech average citizens. Among those criticizing the decision on this line was philosopher John Rawls, who wrote that the Court's decision "runs the risk of endorsing the view that fair representation is representation according to the amount of influence effectively exerted." (See: wealth primary.)

On a somewhat different note, Justice Byron White, in dissent, argued that the entire law should have been upheld, in deference to Congress's greater knowledge and expertise on the issue.

From the other side, some disagree vigorously with Buckley on the grounds that it sustained some limits on campaign contributions which, they argue, are protected by the First Amendment as free speech. This position was advanced by Chief Justice Warren Burger in his dissent, who claimed that individual contributions and expenditures are protected speech acts. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, who were not on the Court at the time of "Buckley," have argued for overturning Buckley on these grounds, but their position has not been adopted by the court. Despite criticism of Buckley from both sides, the case remains the starting point for judicial analysis of the constitutionality of campaign finance restrictions. See e.g. McConnell v. FEC, upholding the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("McCain-Feingold Bill"). This legislation included a prohibition on soft money as well as limits on independent expenditures by private groups.

[Guest]

Re: "We will heat our homes with your dollars!"

Necron99 -

Very much appreciate your posts. I seem to be having problems posting any reply on the oil thread I started in Commodities that got moved to Guest Commentary - I can't seem to post further into it without being an iTulip premium member. So please pardon my lack of reply there.

Seeing Italy close up for many years, that country seems a perfect example of ultra-representative democracy run amok - I saw how the most scrupulously egalitarian parliamentary avenues carried into a cacophony of 15+ splinter group parties. Other EU countries have this syndrome also, although most display a good deal better governability than the "Italian model".

Personally, after many years there, I sometimes get to feeling almost nostalgic for the particular kind of genial anarchy (society functioning largely without any real government) which is modern Italy. If there are any Italians here reading this, please accept this from me with great admiration for the spirit of the people

The "Italian Model", curiously, is absolutely, scrupulously democratic - it's like total democracy on steroids - but there is so 'much democracy' in the electoral process there, that nothing of any lasting value for governance comes out of it. It's a testament to the Italians' considerable entreprenurial capacities (the Northern third of Italy has I think the third or fourth highest per capita GDP in Europe!) that they've maintained their national level per capita GDP in the face of such a phenomenally compromised, overly egalitarian electoral system. Fragmentation is so systemic that all coalitions there are born very fragile.

Seems the US has for many decades suffered from the opposite, a kind of monolithic political spectrum (and political culture) in some ways, together with what now looks like an increasingly ineffective fractiousness of stereotypical left-right viewpoints. The feeling of existing in a very narrow political spectrum in America in recent years is sometimes overpowering.

But back in the "good" decades, e.g. the 1950's, 1960's and possibly 1980's and even 1990's, we were, probably mistakenly, admired for the great percieved 'stability' of the essentially two-party American system.

We definitely don't have any risk of falling prey to political fragmentation over here, do we? And yet that syndrome, which is an expression of some really admirable democratic impulses, is very widespread in many EU nations (and in other parts of the world now also!) which have always had at least 3-5 viable political parties.

For them it's normal, for us it's a quite startling idea. The better run and larger of EU nations for example, have a 'core' of probably 3 main parties who coalesce into functioning and even quite stable governments. In many though, there are several more parties outside of these 'main three, or 'main four', which range out to very small political groupings.

So there seems a degree of splintering of political groups in other parts of the world which would give Americans a severe case of "political agoraphobia".

So yes, this ties in with all your observations of how the US system tends to shove out all but the main two poles, and so to produce an ever narrower political spectrum - I guess you and I agree Necron99, that the principal rot in this country however springs from electoral apathy, and not the severe advancement of electoral roadblocks to a breakup of this status quo.

I really enjoy your posts, and your (highly depressing!) fiction, which paints a picture of our future glum enough for me to want to check out of here permanently. Your vision of America's future has got to be one of the most pessimistic and utterly depressing of any I've read comments on here. As such, you've definitely found your home here at iTulip Necron99, as there are a lot of us who would regard your pessimism as the most hard headed realism around!

P.S. - I am absolutely a backer of further, even quite activist, campaign finance reform in the US. Each nation needs to aproach this problem with corrective legislation to steer it towards a moderation of it's existing tendencies. In a country like Italy, the system is seriously in need of a constitutional overhaul which culls out a tremendous amount of debilitating splinter party "noise".

In the US, exactly the opposite is required, the "purist" constitutionalist views of our more conservative Supreme Court justices on this issue can do great harm to an electoral process that has devolved into monolithic bloat in the reality of electoral finance, which merely distorts democratic impulses.

Anyone can see it. If I had a say (which I don't) I would go straight across party lines here and align myself with those seeking to sharply prune back the influence of corporate lobbies - electoral finance reform takes precedence over conservative, dogmatically libertarian constitutional purism, for any sane observer of our current system. Indeed, it's all about being "politically agnostic", which in fact (coming full circle from earlier posts) is precisely what I've noted is your own strongest suit, Necron99.

[c1ue]

Re: "We will heat our homes with your dollars!"

What jobs & industries do you foresee losing pricing power and which ones gaining?

I have not been trying to put together a common list, but in general I look at the hierarchy of needs:

1) Food and water - industries and jobs relating to these will see positive wage pressure
2) Basic services - health care outside of life extension and cosmetic, quality of life care, etc
3) Basic communications - telephone, internet access
4) Basic commodities - mining et al

Those losing pricing power:

1) marketing
2) sales
3) management
4) financial
5) luxury - including many electronics. I specifically exclude telecom but also specifically include high end software service companies such as CRM companies.

There will be exceptions to every category - these will depend on the specific company's/industry's monopolistic position.

[EJ]

Re: "We will heat our homes with your dollars!"

Buckley v. Valeo

Important reference, Rajiv.

In a democracy, an influential campaign contribution is free speech as a gun in the face of an unarmed man is a thief's exercise of his right to bear arms.

[Guest]

Re: "We will heat our homes with your dollars!"

Quite appropriate sarcasm, from Jimmygu3 on America's profligate energy budget - now we are going to be well and truly snookered by oil this time.

Jimmy Carter gave us a chance to do just one thing right in the 1970's, with a stunning degree of far seeing vision, but we declined the offer, perhaps because of the overly homespun style that went along with it.

The following administration tore his water heating solar panels off the White House roof with horror and ideological repugnance. Personally Mr. Carter's piousness gave me a headache, but on the other hand the present incumbent's piousness does also, and frankly Reagan's did too! They all give me a headache!

I glimpse another Democrat in the White House, wearing yet another fashionably bulky sweater all over again - for our future State of the Nation fireside chats. It's just as appropriate as it ever was. Does not mean it's a cheery prospect though.

This time is different, metalman. In the '70s, American consumers all drove alone in large, gas-guzzling cars. We vowed never to get caught over a barrel like that again. :rolleyes:

[necron99]

Re: "We will heat our homes with your dollars!"

Necron99 -
Very much appreciate your posts. ...
Seeing Italy close up for many years, that country seems a perfect example of ultra-representative democracy run amok - I saw how the most scrupulously egalitarian parliamentary avenues carried into a cacophony of 15+ splinter group parties. Other EU countries have this syndrome also, although most display a good deal better governability than the "Italian model".

Thank you very much for all the compliments, Lukester -- (also thanks a lot to Rajiv for pulling up the important reference that I was too lazy to look up...) Back at'cha, dude, I always look forward to reading your posts even if I don't comment on them.

It probably won't surprise you if I say I'm in complete agreement with your assessment of Italy. If you couldn't guess from my comments, I have done some political work for 3rd parties in the past, and the "mainstream" political activists I talk to always bring up the example of Italy. "If we just let any number of parties into power, there would be chaos like there is in Italy."

Well first of all, exactly as you say, I think the USA suffers from a problem that is opposite of chaos -- for lack of a better word, call it ossification, being locked by a comfortable stability into bad policies. The "mainstream" politicos will then dutifully deny to me that the USA has any problem like that whatsoever in the slightest -- and then in the next breath, talk about how screwed up is our military policy or our immigration policy or our health care system or our energy policy etcetera etcetera etcetera. As I mentioned, Americans like to personalize politics, and so we insist on blaming George Bush and only George Bush for the Iraq war; Senate Democrats for the immigration policy, etcetera, rather than for one single moment admitting that these problems are institutional and chronic, and won't vanish when the hated politician is out of office.

Something else to keep in mind about multiple parties is the example of England: the numerous and silly political parties there tend to divvy up and drain away the votes of the stupid, reactionary, or uninformed voters; making it easier for "serious" political parties to build a plurality, and therefore focus on real policies and concrete issues. By contrast, both American political parties are forced to pander to so many interest groups at opposite ends of issues within their own party, that they end up not saying or accomplishing anything whatsoever. Immigration is a great example of this. The bigot component of the Republican party wants radical action that the corporate Republicans will never, ever support; multiculturalists within the Democrats want radical action that neither the poor, nor the corporate Democrat wing will ever support either, for different reasons (recall my earlier comment that we don't have two opposition parties; we have two parties that are both pro-money). I imagine that if we had a multiplicity of parties like England, the radical anti- and pro-immigration "single-issue" parties would basically cancel each other out, and the mainstream parties might actually enact some slightly sensible compromise.

As for my "depressing" fiction -- I think it might have been Ray Bradbury who said, "I don't write [science-]fiction to predict the future, but rather to avert it." I don't hold out any hope I will be even a fraction as influential as Ray Bradbury, but ya just gotta try anyway...