The politics of anger

[Independent voter]

Economist is one of the best business magazines around. Yes it talks about brexit voters but it also talks about voters in the US, EU countries, Asia, etc.

The article blames globalization but also some mistakes, like the US housing bubble and other global market hiccups.

Talks about the need to restore social mobility and the threat to liberalism if this isn't taken care of.

In the US, I'm thinking we should buy off our angry voters by giving them Canada like single payer universal healthcare coverage. In return they have to stop voting for crazy people.







http://www.economist.com/news/leader...ign=pockethits

MANY Brexiteers built their campaign on optimism. Outside the European Union, Britain would be free to open up to the world. But what secured their victory was anger.

Anger stirred up a winning turnout in the depressed, down-at-heel cities of England (see article). Anger at immigration, globalisation, social liberalism and even feminism, polling shows, translated into a vote to reject the EU. As if victory were a licence to spread hatred, anger has since lashed Britain’s streets with an outburst of racist abuse.

Across Western democracies, from the America of Donald Trump to the France of Marine Le Pen, large numbers of people are enraged. If they cannot find a voice within the mainstream, they will make themselves heard from without. Unless they believe that the global order works to their benefit, Brexit risks becoming just the start of an unravelling of globalisation and the prosperity it has created.

The rest of history

Today’s crisis in liberalism—in the free-market, British sense—was born in 1989, out of the ashes of the Soviet Union. At the time the thinker Francis Fukuyama declared “the end of history”, the moment when no ideology was left to challenge democracy, markets and global co-operation as a way of organising society. It was liberalism’s greatest triumph, but it also engendered a narrow, technocratic politics obsessed by process. In the ensuing quarter-century the majority has prospered, but plenty of voters feel as if they have been left behind.

Their anger is justified. Proponents of globalisation, including this newspaper, must acknowledge that technocrats have made mistakes and ordinary people paid the price. The move to a flawed European currency, a technocratic scheme par excellence, led to stagnation and unemployment and is driving Europe apart. Elaborate financial instruments bamboozled regulators, crashed the world economy and ended up with taxpayer-funded bail-outs of banks, and later on, budget cuts.

Even when globalisation has been hugely beneficial, policymakers have not done enough to help the losers. Trade with China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and brought immense gains for Western consumers. But many factory workers who have lost their jobs have been unable to find a decently paid replacement.

Rather than spread the benefits of globalisation, politicians have focused elsewhere. The left moved on to arguments about culture—race, greenery, human rights and sexual politics. The right preached meritocratic self-advancement, but failed to win everyone the chance to partake in it. Proud industrial communities that look to family and nation suffered alienation and decay. Mendacious campaigning mirrored by partisan media amplified the sense of betrayal.

Less obviously, the intellectual underpinnings of liberalism have been neglected. When Mr Trump called for protectionism this week, urging Americans to “take back control” (see article), he was both parroting the Brexiteers and exploiting how almost no politician has been willing to make the full-throated case for trade liberalisation as a boost to prosperity rather than a cost or a concession. Liberalism depends on a belief in progress but, for many voters, progress is what happens to other people. While American GDP per person grew by 14% in 2001-15, median wages grew by only 2%. Liberals believe in the benefits of pooling sovereignty for the common good. But, as Brexit shows, when people feel they do not control their lives or share in the fruits of globalisation, they strike out. The distant, baffling, overbearing EU makes an irresistible target.

Back to the future

Now that history has stormed back with a vengeance, liberalism needs to fight its ground all over again. Part of the task is to find the language to make a principled, enlightened case and to take on people like Ms Le Pen and Mr Trump. The flow of goods, ideas, capital and people is essential for prosperity. The power of a hectoring, bullying, discriminatory state is a threat to human happiness. The virtues of tolerance and compromise are conditions for people to realise their full potential.

Just as important is the need for policies to ensure the diffusion of prosperity. The argument for helping those mired in deprivation is strong. But a culture of compensation turns angry people into resentful objects of state charity. Hence, liberals also need to restore social mobility and ensure that economic growth translates into rising wages. That means a relentless focus on dismantling privilege by battling special interests, exposing incumbent companies to competition and breaking down restrictive practices. Most of all, the West needs an education system that works for everyone, of whatever social background and whatever age.

The fight for liberalism is at its most fraught with immigration. Given that most governments manage who comes to work and live in their country, the EU’s total freedom of movement is an anomaly. Just as global trade rules allow countries to counter surges of goods, so there is a case for rules to cope with surges in people. But it would be illiberal and self-defeating to give in to the idea that immigration is merely something to tolerate. Sooner than curb numbers, governments should first invest in schools, hospitals and housing. In Britain new migrants from the EU contribute more to the exchequer than they take out. Without them, industries such as care homes and the building trade would be short of labour. Without their ideas and their energy, Britain would be much the poorer.

Liberalism has been challenged before. At the end of the 19th century, liberals embraced a broader role for the state, realising that political and economic freedoms are diminished if basic human needs are unmet. In the 1970s liberals concluded that the embrace of the state had become smothering and oppressive. That rekindled an interest in markets.

When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister, amid the triumph of Soviet collapse, an aide slipped Mr Fukuyama’s essay on history into her papers. The next morning she declared herself unimpressed. Never take history for granted, she said. Never let up. For liberals today that must be the rallying cry.

[Kalis]

In the US, I'm thinking we should buy off our angry voters by giving them Canada...

You should have stopped there,

[Ripster42]

You should have stopped there,

I mean, it's not like canadians are using it for anything.

[Theodarzna]

Today’s crisis in liberalism—in the free-market, British sense—was born in 1989, out of the ashes of the Soviet Union. At the time the thinker Francis Fukuyama declared “the end of history”, the moment when no ideology was left to challenge democracy, markets and global co-operation as a way of organising society. It was liberalism’s greatest triumph, but it also engendered a narrow, technocratic politics obsessed by process. In the ensuing quarter-century the majority has prospered, but plenty of voters feel as if they have been left behind.

Their anger is justified. Proponents of globalisation, including this newspaper, must acknowledge that technocrats have made mistakes and ordinary people paid the price. The move to a flawed European currency, a technocratic scheme par excellence, led to stagnation and unemployment and is driving Europe apart. Elaborate financial instruments bamboozled regulators, crashed the world economy and ended up with taxpayer-funded bail-outs of banks, and later on, budget cuts.

Even when globalisation has been hugely beneficial, policymakers have not done enough to help the losers. Trade with China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and brought immense gains for Western consumers. But many factory workers who have lost their jobs have been unable to find a decently paid replacement.

I would argue Fukuyama was wrong, Liberalism did not triumph but one clique of elites triumphed over another, and there exists now a deep desire to preserve the Empire. I.E. now that the crown is mostly secure its about preventing the Kingdom from coming apart, which it inevitably will come apart.

This is the result of the shift to Technocracy that would inevitably come about after Fukuyama's prognostication. If we have found the last and FINAL system, the Last and Final social order, than Democracy is its greatest threat, we in theory would have no need for Democracy, thus governments shifted to technocratic management.

The point is those people were sacrificed to make others lives delicious, people on both the left and the right just expected them to die quietly I guess.

[Zelk]

"Never take history for granted, she said. Never let up"
Promptly gets kicked out of her leadership by her mates. And come on for fucks sake choosing a leader in the politics of Anger and hatred to illustrate your point against such things?

[edw]

To much gloom and doom on both parts about this subject. They will be fine outside the EU if they manage to ... you know .. don't break in 3 pices.
And the EU will do great without them, the brits were allays against any structure in the EU ... like adopting Euro

So if people chill for a moment things will be good on both sides.

[Independent voter]

Even when globalisation has been hugely beneficial, policymakers have not done enough to help the losers. Trade with China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and brought immense gains for Western consumers. But many factory workers who have lost their jobs have been unable to find a decently paid replacement.


I'm not sure what can be done to help these people. Higher education would lead to better jobs, any of them could've gone to college but they decided not to. Send them to college now? The government pays for their tuition and room and board?

[Theodarzna]

Even when globalisation has been hugely beneficial, policymakers have not done enough to help the losers. Trade with China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and brought immense gains for Western consumers. But many factory workers who have lost their jobs have been unable to find a decently paid replacement.

I'm not sure what can be done to help these people. Higher education would lead to better jobs, any of them could've gone to college but they decided not to. Send them to college now? The government pays for their tuition and room and board?

The article underestimates the damages of globalization, and radically overestimates the benefits and the amount of people suffering. By most accounts for example in the US, 70+% of Americans firmly believe the economy is rigged. The problem is now the Elite are unable to grapple with the possibility that people don't like were things are going when for a long time the increasingly deliciousness of some peoples lives has come at the expense of many MANY people.

[Wildtree]

You should have stopped there,

You know damn well, last time they tried that, they've got their asses handed back to them, and the White House was part of some lovely fireworks.

[Deleted]

Good article.

[Bollocks]

Less obviously, the intellectual underpinnings of liberalism have been neglected. When Mr Trump called for protectionism this week, urging Americans to “take back control” (see article), he was both parroting the Brexiteers and exploiting how almost no politician has been willing to make the full-throated case for trade liberalisation as a boost to prosperity rather than a cost or a concession. Liberalism depends on a belief in progress but, for many voters, progress is what happens to other people. While American GDP per person grew by 14% in 2001-15, median wages grew by only 2%. Liberals believe in the benefits of pooling sovereignty for the common good. But, as Brexit shows, when people feel they do not control their lives or share in the fruits of globalisation, they strike out. The distant, baffling, overbearing EU makes an irresistible target.

1. Protectionism will damage more the poor than help them, so a little bit of education would help there.

2. As an economist it doesn't matter how stagnant or not are the wages, its the number one priority to determine the well-being of the citizens.

3. The median wage has grown proportionatly, the minneapolis bank has a paper that deals with this topic. Where has all the income gone? In which it argued that when adjusted with inflation and the size of household families the median wage has increased.

4. I agree the effects of globalization could have been smoother if it were for an expanded social safety net.

5. Education would solve this problems as people would realize the reality of their situation instead of falling to populist leaders

Right now I'm seriously hoping Trump gets elected so people can get past over this.

[Theodarzna]

I don't really think it's fair to assume just anyone can go to college. At any rate, we need a K-12 overhaul to teach more students to higher standards and better allocation of resources, as well as probably just needing to spend more on that. When it comes to college, things like increasing the Pell Grant and the cap on federal sub/unsub loans should probably happen. Not everyone needs to go to college, but we need to make sure to invest in children from the start and do what we can to make sure they have a clear path to financial stability.

Higher ed. is also kind of a trap, not everyone can afford the ever escalating level of debt, and the declining pay of college grads.

[Theodarzna]

Which is of course a problem. Trying to improve yourself in such a basic way shouldn't be so risky.

Student loan debt is such an overwhelming problem in the US, IMHO it is the kind of self inflicted wound that will partially be responsible for bleeding the US dry in the end. I don't see ANYTHING being done about it until well past its too late to realistically undo the long term problems it will cause. If anything it is IMHO too late to do much of anything about it.

[Independent voter]

If we don't make these angry people happy, they could cause huge problems in the future, through the ballot box if nothing else.

A basic income?

It's hard to feel proud about basic income. You can feel proud when you build a car but when the government hands you a check for doing nothing it's hard to feel proud about a handout.

[PosPosPos]

If we don't make these angry people happy, they could cause huge problems in the future, through the ballot box if nothing else.

A basic income?

It's hard to feel proud about basic income. You can feel proud when you build a car but when the government hands you a check for doing nothing it's hard to feel proud about a handout.

Generally, when it comes to living, being alive, full and contented is much more important than pride, but hey, that's just me.

[Theodarzna]

If we don't make these angry people happy, they could cause huge problems in the future, through the ballot box if nothing else.

A basic income?

It's hard to feel proud about basic income. You can feel proud when you build a car but when the government hands you a check for doing nothing it's hard to feel proud about a handout.

How many people are proud of anything they do for money?

Ask the guy at Wal-Mart "Are you proud of what you do here?" That is a silly question. Almost nobody is proud of anything that makes the money. The last person I met who was proud of what she did for a living was a pornstar,

Most people are proud of things they do that brings them no income at all. Very very few have "fulfilling careers."

A Basic Income is probably necessary to stave off severe social disorder caused by failing birth rates and general dissatisfaction keeping the consumer economies in endless doldrums.

But I also believe we are very much post Second Demographic transition, and a major part of our consumer society depends on ideas of personal individual happiness and satisfaction, as well as self-actualisation ect. Our society cannot sustain itself without this sort of "Me," thinking, but at the same time making people happy is going to be a huge burden, especially if the elite classes have zero ideas about what makes people happy and more or less doesn't want to do anything materially about that.

The problem is the elite want their cake and to eat it too.

EDIT: Also from a social control standpoint, allowing people to just not be happy or not mandating optimism will cause social unrest and disarray of its own variaty, even if personally I prefer the less cheer oriented society.



Chasing happiness is be bad for you, especially when its the overriding goal in life.

[artemishunter1]

1. Protectionism will damage more the poor than help them, so a little bit of education would help there.

2. As an economist it doesn't matter how stagnant or not are the wages, its the number one priority to determine the well-being of the citizens.

3. The median wage has grown proportionatly, the minneapolis bank has a paper that deals with this topic. Where has all the income gone? In which it argued that when adjusted with inflation and the size of household families the median wage has increased.

4. I agree the effects of globalization could have been smoother if it were for an expanded social safety net.

5. Education would solve this problems as people would realize the reality of their situation instead of falling to populist leaders

Right now I'm seriously hoping Trump gets elected so people can get past over this.

Can you explain how protectionism will damage the poor in our country?

- - - Updated - - -

Even when globalisation has been hugely beneficial, policymakers have not done enough to help the losers. Trade with China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and brought immense gains for Western consumers. But many factory workers who have lost their jobs have been unable to find a decently paid replacement.


I'm not sure what can be done to help these people. Higher education would lead to better jobs, any of them could've gone to college but they decided not to. Send them to college now? The government pays for their tuition and room and board?

and what jobs would they get with their college degrees? They would then be competing against foreign workers and driving the wage down even more. Genuine question, do you honestly believe college degrees automaticly provides jobs?

[Bollocks]

Can you explain how protectionism will damage the poor in our country?

Incrementa el precio de los objetos que se importan, como consecuencia los precios de dichos objetos aumentan y los mas afectados son las personas que ahora ya no pueden comprar dichos objetos.

Protectionism increases the price of imported objects as a result the prices of such objects increase and the most affected are the people who now can no longer buy those objects.

Bare with me on this, because my english is not strong enough to construct detailed ideas, so I'm using google translate.

[Independent voter]

In the US there wasn't consensus about why people are voting for Trump, I'm talking about experts in the media. After brexit everyone is on the same page, Trump supporters are people who haven't benefited from globalization.

Not a lot of ways to fix the problem other than giving everyone a basic income.

In ancient Rome they had a similar problem, there were a lot of slaves and slaves had taken all the jobs. It was hard for the common Roman citizen to compete. The solution? The famous "bread and circuses" program, give the common folk food to eat and entertainment and maybe they won't revolt.

I'm wondering if Congress will ever get behind something like this, they haven't given out any big social programs since the 1930's.

[Theodarzna]

In the US there wasn't consensus about why people are voting for Trump, I'm talking about experts in the media. After brexit everyone is on the same page, Trump supporters are people who haven't benefited from globalization.

Not a lot of ways to fix the problem other than giving everyone a basic income.

In ancient Rome they had a similar problem, there were a lot of slaves and slaves had taken all the jobs. It was hard for the common Roman citizen to compete. The solution? The famous "bread and circuses" program, give the common folk food to eat and entertainment and maybe they won't revolt.

I'm wondering if Congress will ever get behind something like this, they haven't given out any big social programs since the 1930's.

Bread and Circuses wasn't really a program, the Roman government did not invent it as a means of social control, it sort of emerged on its own. Gladiator style combat and watching public spectacle was however as old as dirt to be honest.

The Romans had the problem of reaching the limits of their Empire and being forced to live purely on the annual revenue of their conquests, there was nothing left to loot or that they could loot. America has a somewhat similar problem, now that we have a truly GLOBAL world, a global empire, the issue is the limit is the sky. Capitalism grows or it dies and unfortunately we depend on there being bits of the world not integrated so we can integrate them into the system, BUT eventually we run out of places to go.

Yvaelle and I, as well as a few others have been talking about a basic income system for awhile. It's good to see other people are starting to get on the same page.

Basic Income is going to be a necessity to stave off social chaos. The question is will it be enacted before its too late? Or will it never come and the lazy plutocrats prefer to burn before they compromise to save their skins.