I don't think America has had particularly liberal economic policies since the Reagan years at least, and yes that includes in blue states. For most of those years Democrats were trying to be moderates.calbear93 said:Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.sycasey said:That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.calbear93 said:Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.sycasey said:So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?calbear93 said:I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.sycasey said:Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?calbear93 said:Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.sycasey said:I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.calbear93 said:So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?sycasey said:That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.calbear93 said:Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.sycasey said:Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.LMK5 said:
I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).
Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.
Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?
Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?
And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?
And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?
Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.
Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.
Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.
People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.
And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.
And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.
Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
Which is why I favor a more progressive batch of policies now, perhaps taking some pages from the European social democracies. 40 years of Reaganism is enough.