Cont: The Biden Presidency Part II

[Lukraak_Sisser]

The moral of this story is that having the bare minimum of nominally friendly votes isn't the magic wand of fiat presidential policy that our antipodean cousins and others imagine it to be.

The truth is that senators aren't loyal to the idealized version of their party that a vocal minority of activists and pundits insist is the highest possible virtue and should be the sole standard of policy nationwide. They're loyal to the voters of their state, and whatever ideas of party and virtue and policy their own constituents hold.

It doesn't really matter how many choir-members in California Biden can "convince" with a sermon from the bully pulpit. If Biden wants the Senator from West Virginia to back his play, he needs to convince West Virginians. Which he apparently can't. So he'll have to make do without that vote. Which he apparently can't. Conclusion: He needs to stop pushing for over-ambitious policies when he doesn't have the votes, and stop blaming people who don't owe him anything for his own inability to realize his ambitions.

From an outsiders perspective this is true for the Democrats, but the Republicans are hard at work making sure that isn't true for them. Anyone not a clear yes-man/woman for the Trump line is being sidelined.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I'm not so sure that infrastructure had as much to do with that as capitalism and the worship of capitalism. There certainly is much to be said about the advantages of just in time delivery and running smoothly and efficiently with little wasted time and space and thus maximizing profits. There is national interest in redundancy in multiple ways, but it's only rarely going to be the cheapest and probably not the most profitable. Is the government/are the taxpayers willing to pay for more stability? Potentially, but not when capitalist ideology trumps all.

I can see how unbridled capitalism can lead to poor results.

But have various efforts at “State Planning” in countries around the world really fared much better?

 

[Delvo]

The "All politicians suck" thing is what got us Trump.

A poor response to the facts does not falsify the facts.

The truth is that senators aren't loyal to the idealized version of their party... They're loyal to the voters of their state, and whatever ideas of party and virtue and policy their own constituents hold... If Biden wants the Senator from West Virginia to back his play, he needs to convince West Virginians. Which he apparently can't.

This is so absolutely perfectly the opposite of reality, in such an obviously right-wing-serving way, that it's like something a Democrat professional consultant/pundit would say. The people of West Virginia wanted the bill. The Republicans of West Virginia wanted it. They wanted it when asked about the individual separate policies. They wanted it when about the bill by name instead of the policies within it. They wanted it when the question didn't specify policies or the bill's name but just called it Biden's bill. They wanted it when the question tried to poison it with built-in descriptions of how immensely overwhelming budget-crushingly expensive it supposedly would be. The will of the people was abundantly clear over and over again, more so than usual for any other subject. If Manchin cared about the people of West Virginia as much as he cares about a speck of dust aboard his yacht, he would have been a yes-vote months & months ago. He's not serving/representing them on this; he's defying them as overtly & flagrantly as it's even possible to ever defy anybody on anything.

The moral of this story is that having the bare minimum of nominally friendly votes isn't the magic wand of fiat presidential policy that our antipodean cousins and others imagine it to be.

...or else that it reveals what a party's will truly is, whether that's what it was supposed to be or not.

 

[Delvo]

But have various efforts at “State Planning” in countries around the world really fared much better?

Now would be a good time to show where anybody advocated what you're arguing against.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Now would be a good time to show where anybody advocated what you're arguing against.

I just assumed that if one thinks "capitalism and the worship of capitalism" is to blame for problems of infrastructure and/or supply chain issues, then some other mechanism must be in place to deal with them more efficiently. I made the jump to the government being the party suggested, hence "State Planning". If something else was meant, my bad.

 

[acbytesla]

Unfortunately terms like capitalism and socialism are labels that cover a wide range of sins. The world is more productive than it has ever been and that is due mostly to capitalism. But despite this, it has not benefitted the poor and middle classes.

For example, in 2020 US dollars the US GDP in 2020 was about 20 trillion dollars in 1986, it was about 4.5 trillion 2020 dollars. Per capita we are producing about 4 times more in goods and services. Yet mean wages are actually less than it was in 1986. In fact mean wages are down almost 30 percent.
That is also mostly because of capitalism.

I think capitalism can be a good thing and a bad thing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again modern times is not beholden to arbitrary categories that political/social/economic systems were divided into in Post-Napoleonic Europe.

I don't think capitalism or socialism (or anarchy or communion or...) really work under their original/popular definitions.

That shouldn't prevent us from talking about what works now with having to counter "Oh but that's this or that's that" all the time.

 

[sackett]

Unfortunately terms like capitalism and socialism are labels that cover a wide range of sins. The world is more productive than it has ever been and that is due mostly to capitalism. But despite this, it has not benefitted the poor and middle classes.

For example, in 2020 US dollars the US GDP in 2020 was about 20 trillion dollars in 1986, it was about 4.5 trillion 2020 dollars. Per capita we are producing about 4 times more in goods and services. Yet mean wages are actually less than it was in 1986. In fact mean wages are down almost 30 percent.
That is also mostly because of capitalism.

I think capitalism can be a good thing and a bad thing.

Come to that, "socialism" doesn't mean much of anything. Europeans tack the word onto party names and slogans like indigents sticking flyers under doors. The word is not the opposite of capitalism, and that's about all you can say.

Communism, revolutionary collectivism, is supposedly capatalism's opposite. I say supposedly because I don't think you can have an industrialized country without huge accumulations of wealth under the control of guys who didn't create it. They may be politruks with cheap suits and pistols, or CEOs with yachts and bodyguards, but the goal is the same: all power to the oligarchy, and divide the shortage among the proles.

 

[Aridas]

I can see how unbridled capitalism can lead to poor results.

But have various efforts at “State Planning” in countries around the world really fared much better?

First comment - you're effectively posing a false dichotomy. May as well pop to the next, though, before continuing.

I just assumed that if one thinks "capitalism and the worship of capitalism" is to blame for problems of infrastructure and/or supply chain issues, then some other mechanism must be in place to deal with them more efficiently. I made the jump to the government being the party suggested, hence "State Planning". If something else was meant, my bad.

Diagnosing fundamental issues doesn't actually indicate a specific alternative is being proposed or advocated. To add to what I said, though, there are two main potential ways to address the issue, cultural change and government involvement. Cultural change is a softer change and involves shifting the capitalist paradigm away from profit (especially when that's specifically profit for the owners/stock holders) and the pursuit of money effectively being the sole overriding value, with all other actual values being selected and shaped to try to aid that and towards a paradigm and set of values that takes more account of the issue in question. Government involvement is a harder, quicker fix, and can be as simple as making regulations and/or subsidizing particular industries that it wants to promote. If there's sufficient need, the government can step in and create an organization to meet particular needs, either as a business or otherwise, though, if it actually needs to do that, chances are that it's not going to be profitable itself, regardless of how necessary and useful it may be and how much benefit is actually gained from it. There's a couple more levels of government involvement between there and a planned economy, either way, and this particular issue fairly certainly produces no need to invoke any of them. Applied to the supply chain issues, these forms of government involvement are likely to introduce relative inefficiency and end up being more costly (or at least impact profits in ways that would drive some of those impacted crazy) than the current system, which pretty well means that they would be an ongoing investment of government resources (or, more negatively, a drain) for the sake of increased stability.

 

[Aridas]

Communism, revolutionary collectivism, is supposedly capatalism's opposite.

Actual communism is fairly described as an opposite to capitalism. In actual communism, there is no money and all people have equal power, among other things. State communism, of course, which is generally more accurately described as totalitarianism with a facade of "working towards communism" produces what you described and isn't actually much of an opposite to capitalism, even when they embrace some anti-capitalism rhetoric.

Standard disclaimer - both have serious issues, with actual communism's issues likely being notably more serious at present. A working government, even if it's quite problematic, beats one that just doesn't work.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If a concept can't actually work in real life we shouldn't have to stop the conversation every time it's mentioned to clarify whether or not we're talking a hypothetical version of it.

Why so much political discourse is about systems we all agree can't work is beyond me.

 

[Aridas]

If a concept can't actually work in real life we shouldn't have to stop the conversation every time it's mentioned to clarify whether or not we're talking a hypothetical version of it.

Why so much political discourse is about systems we all agree can't work is beyond me.

In this case, it's a long-term situation created by totalitarianism hiding behind a facade and that facade being what's railed against by those politically inclined to do so, which has created a situation where there's rampant confusion and conflation between the two, which is exploited as a weapon and shield that notably affects the national discourse on both those topics and a wide range of topics that even tangentially touch them. Working to remove the confusion and conflation and thus restore more reasonable discourse in general is not a bad thing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

In this case, it's a long-term situation created by totalitarianism hiding behind a facade and that facade being what's railed against by those politically inclined to do so, which has created a situation where there's rampant confusion and conflation between the two, which is exploited as a weapon and shield that notably affects the national discourse on the topics.

Well that's sort been one of my biggest issues with this discussion, we (too often) talk as if getting rid of the system of power is the same thing as getting rid of the desire for power.

If we magically snapped our fingers and made America a Communism or China a Democracy or Somalia a Republic or whatever the people there that misuse those systems of power would not magically go away, they would (rather quickly I'm guessing) weasel their way back into the same level of power in the new system.

Mao didn't give a crap about Communism. He liked power. If he grew up in Cold War USSR he would have done everything to be a party insider, if he grew up in America in 80s he's be a financial broker, if he grew up in Renaissance Italy he would married into the Medici, if he crash landed on the island he'd be the first to grab the conch.

People in Power very rarely give any level any crap about the system of power they are in. They are just very good at identify positions of power within systems and getting themselves into them.

 

[theprestige]

Actual communism is fairly described as an opposite to capitalism.

Sort of. The principles of private ownership of the means of production, and the freedom of private individuals to invest their capital and realize profits from that investment, is a economic system that can thrive under a variety of political systems. Democracy, repbulic, oligarchy, libertarian anarchy, even feudalism can all support a capitalistic approach to commerce and industry.

On the other hand, communism is necessarily both an economic system and a political system. Even in "actual communism" the dictatorship of the proletariat is inextricably linked with the deprecation of the capitalist system.

Communism is better described as the opposite of capitalism+individualist democracy. The abolition of private capital pisses off the 1%. The subordination of the individual to the collective pisses off the other 99%.

 

[acbytesla]

Sort of. The principles of private ownership of the means of production, and the freedom of private individuals to invest their capital and realize profits from that investment, is a economic system that can thrive under a variety of political systems. Democracy, repbulic, oligarchy, libertarian anarchy, even feudalism can all support a capitalistic approach to commerce and industry.

On the other hand, communism is necessarily both an economic system and a political system. Even in "actual communism" the dictatorship of the proletariat is inextricably linked with the deprecation of the capitalist system.

Communism is better described as the opposite of capitalism+individualist democracy. The abolition of private capital pisses off the 1%. The subordination of the individual to the collective pisses off the other 99%.

I don't see communism as a reasonable replacement for capitalism. That said pure free market capitalism is a disaster for the majority as well and the way we allow money to purchase political power, we are headed towards a dystopian Orwellian future. Capitalism doesn't need to be removed, but reformed and fine tuned.

The present curve of income and wealth distribution is untenable.

BTW, Are you going to address my post on the need to address infrastructure?

 

[Delvo]

I'd point out that both of you missed something important, then. The Atheist, you stated "years." The refutation was fairly specifically towards the years part

...years during which the Democrats' presence in the Senate was in the upper 50s. That's enough to pass anything the party wants even with a few defectors; that's total control by the party. The fact that it wasn't always 60 means nothing. 51 is enough to not cripple yourself with an entirely pointless rule that you need 60 you don't have.

They really didn't have much time at all

When you have the majority by a comfortable margin, you don't need time. You just need to actually want to do stuff. And they proved that they didn't.

and the Republicans were being extremely dishonest and obstructionist

They had no power the Democrats didn't voluntarily give them.

despite Democrats bending over backwards to include Republicans throughout

Yes, that's exactly the whole point.

 

[Aridas]

Yes, that's exactly the whole point.

I think that I'll respond to this with the next sentence that I wrote, just because.

We all saw how that turned out and how the House/Senate Republicans showed how dishonest their complaints were.

The Democrats were in the wrong for trying to act in good faith with those who kept proving that they were acting in bad faith. Not as wrong, by a long shot, though, as those who were acting in bad faith.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Good afternoon, the Biden Administration has asked the Supreme Court to rule that federal agents cannot be held accountable for retaliating against protected speech—i.e., what Trump's feds did to protesters in Lafayette Square and Portland, Oregon.

https://twitter.com/AthulKAcharya/status/1475949751954599938

Trump's a proto-authoritarian and all that, but no POTUS is ever going to endorse the idea that the office is accountable to anyone.

 

[acbytesla]

What bothers me most about this thread is the lack of discussion about infrastructure and our neglect of it and the need to address it.

 

[The Atheist]

What bothers me most about this thread is the lack of discussion about infrastructure and our neglect of it and the need to address it.

Shh! Not so loud.

It's a problem throughout the world, and the hope is that whoever the current administration is will be gone before it all falls down.