United States Politics Thread 46

[Darren]

The idea is that the fuel excise (which is around 30%) is used in lieu of a road tax - I don't know if even the government claims that it actually goes to fixing roads but in theory it helps balance everything out. I did recently hear a proposal though to switch to an actual road tax based on yearly mileage as more people use electric cars, which seems like it would be irritating.

[zompist]

The idea is that the fuel excise (which is around 30%) is used in lieu of a road tax - I don't know if even the government claims that it actually goes to fixing roads but in theory it helps balance everything out. I did recently hear a proposal though to switch to an actual road tax based on yearly mileage as more people use electric cars, which seems like it would be irritating.

Minor correction-- federal and state excise taxes are about $0.51 per gallon, which is presently 16%.

However, my point is that no one demands that our governments make citizens pay for everything they do to build and maintain roads. But they do think that money spent on rapid transit should be made up from fares. Americans love their cars.

[Darren]

Minor correction-- federal and state excise taxes are about $0.51 per gallon, which is presently 16%.

Here in Australia, they're 51c on the litre; a litre is about $1.60 - $2.20 depending on no reason I can discern in particular.

[Ahzoh]

I watch this guy a lot, in this video he reads over a news article and explains how there's a consistent media bias against Biden and Kamala:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAxMOSPBJk8

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised

[rotting bones]

The idea is that the fuel excise (which is around 30%) is used in lieu of a road tax - I don't know if even the government claims that it actually goes to fixing roads but in theory it helps balance everything out. I did recently hear a proposal though to switch to an actual road tax based on yearly mileage as more people use electric cars, which seems like it would be irritating.

It sounds nice when capitalists say words like "balance". These words hide the fact that they bear no relation to social benefit.

[rotting bones]

I watch this guy a lot, in this video he reads over a news article and explains how there's a consistent media bias against Biden and Kamala:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAxMOSPBJk8

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised

I'm hesitant. I could never get into this guy because he's not as precise as I'd like. I like Paul Cockshott's YouTube channel. It's still going, but he doesn't discuss electoral politics.

[rotting bones]

A lot of people don't even like paying their regular taxes, and you're suggesting adding more taxes to pay for this? That ain't gonna go over well.

Under my system, the state/commons/community would own so much that it wouldn't need taxes anymore.

You mention both the internet and libraries as proof that information can and should be free...even public libraries have at least one hurdle you haven't considered: access. In order to have information be free to everyone in an electorate, should transportation also be free? Should libraries be open 24/7 so work hours don't limit access?

There's a famous Nobel prize-winning Bengali economist who does articulate similar principles. But I don't think we need to implement your specific ideas.

As far as I'm concerned, being informed is a civil right. But if the people have internet access, they don't need transportation to the library. There should also be cheap public transportation, but that's a separate issue.

For entertainment value, I should think of an extreme policy proposal to argue about. Hmm... Under capitalism, it should be illegal for someone to complain about both the community going downhill and progressive taxation. The boot of the state should force people to pick a lane and stick to it.

[rotting bones]

Levinson's main idea seems to be that the postwar boom was caused by a very specific combination of circumstances, which simply couldn't last, and that therefore, attempts to extent or revive the boom were always doomed.

What were the conditions? I can think of: Apart from globalization, Europe was itself underdeveloped at the time.

The chapters on "Socialism's Last Stand" in 1980s France and Spain, and on the Reagan years in the USA, taken together, seem to assert that out of two very different approaches to economic policy, neither was able to deliver on its promises. In that context, Levinson describes the nationalizations in France during the first years of Mitterand's first term as President as a complete failure and disaster, which is worrying.

Did he mention who it was a disaster for? For example, if he's using GDP as a metric, the quality of life of the working class can actually increase when GDP goes down. This is according to mainstream economists, who point out that GDP is tied to the exchange value of products.

Personally, I'm far to the left of French socialists. Their strategy makes no sense to me. On the other hand, humans have never done anything so far that has worked without asterisks.

One piece of data that I haven't seen in any more decidedly left-wing sources might partly explain the political shift to the Right in many places during the 1970s and 1980s: Levinson claims that during the decades leading up to that point, the share of the electorate who had to pay substantial parts of their income in taxes rose from "pretty small" to "quite a lot," partly because of rising state expenditures, partly because inflation moved more and more people into higher and higher tax brackets. Interesting, and a plausible explanation why people might have gotten into a tax rebellion mood.

Why wouldn't they support progressive taxation, then?

Have you read Rust Belt Union Blues? When the social institutions in America's Rust Belt were unions, it was a hotbed of progressivism. Now that the primary social institutions are gun clubs, it's a reactionary dystopia.

This is why I find the prevalent discourses so toxic. There is no "culture". People's deepest instincts are shaped by the social institutions in which they participate. Even worse is the liberal idea that we can avoid "ideology". The only chance for a progressive victory is to form ideologically charged progressive institutions.

[rotting bones]

I don't understand what this objection is supposed to be. Do recipes, songs, conlangs, and video game reviews have to be free in order to have an informed electorate?

In this context, "information" clearly refers to the news. I'm trying to avoid every qualification in every sentence.

If you want a broader outlook, you seem to be under the impression that capitalism helps to collect and distribute information. This is not how I see it. Because of copyright, media is being lost forever. The owners of the media are not interested in distributing it. They are interested in winning lawsuits against anyone who does distribute it. Copyright law killed the Internet Archive.

There are two sources of information that should be readily available, but cost money to produce: journalism and scientific papers. The current system is to fund these via rich men and advertisers, and universities in the case of the papers; and the current hot plan is to write them with spicy autocomplete. Both the journalism and the papers are gated with subscription fees as well-- just enough to add friction for the public but not enough to make users into stakeholders. Journal publishers manage somehow to make authors pay when an article is published.

Let me ask you an honest question. Let's say you come across an article on the internet that's behind a paywall. It's interesting and you do sort of want to know what it says. Is the question you ask yourself: "Can I afford this?"

I have occasionally paid for articles on the internet that are unrelated to my livelihood (my father would have shuddered to hear of this). I only did it when it was really, really interesting, and I had the feeling I might stay awake at night if I didn't know the answer. This is how sensationalism spreads.

I see family and acquaintances all the time who would never, ever pay for anything that can't directly bring them money or health. I have cousins who break down crying if they ever find their sons playing one video game or watching one movie. Either study, play sports, eat while watching TV or sleep, all the time. Straight and narrow. Perhaps they make an exception for religion these days. Being Hitler is increasingly popular.

My proposal is to pay the journalists and scientists instead. Why it raises your hackles to pay workers for their work, I don't really get; it sure isn't any kind of leftism. Of course, quite a few people in the real world are attempting to form publishing co-operatives for these groups, but there's a lot of inertia. The one good thing about capitalist greed is that eventually it provokes communities to create alternatives.

Yep, this is how I remember the last argument going. If all progressive ideas are techbro propaganda and true leftism is charging the poor to turn them into a stakeholder class, maybe I should reserve my retirement spot under the bridge in advance.

People have to pay for Internet access today. But as a data point, Nigeria has 218 million cell phones, in a population of 233 million. (The discrepancy is larger than it looks, as some people have multiple phones.) Nigerians are more likely to have a cell phone than access to a water source.

People need phones for work. Americans aren't going to catfish themselves, apparently. And this means Nigeria is relatively integrated into the mainstream world economy. It says 51% of the population has a mobile connection in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

It does feel like you're making up fake gotchas. Did I say somewhere that poor people should be denied internet access, that no one can provide a website for free, or that the government shouldn't provide help with access costs? I did not. (I already said I was designing this for Almea, so you'll see the full plan eventually; I didn't give all the details.)

It sure sounded that way to me. Across multiple posts, I never saw any demarcation of which items ought to be free until I called you out on it. It sounded like you were calling ad-free Google and similar services a "trap", comparing the internet to the phone, where you are traditionally charged with use, and even after I asked you about it, saying that free information should be like Geocities at best.

I don't know what you wanted me to think. I only have access to the words you actually put there, and those are what I'm arguing against.

The market socialist position I was expecting is that the market would give almost everyone a decent job or something.

Getting people to care about public goods is a difficult problem. It should concern you deeply, since socialist systems greatly exacerbate the problem.

I think the right strategy is to recommend the good stuff.

Even if you insist on integrating picoeconomic motivations with macroeconomic goals, people are paying for journalism under my system. They are expending a part of their power to demand goods and services. If there's demand for a service, people are presumably consuming it. Many YouTube channels, even left-leaning content, grow into million dollar companies despite releasing their videos for free. These are supported by ad dollars and, I think, premium membership fees.

I can imagine cases where people demand a service, and then don't consume it. Maybe the content is very dry. This is why right-wing propaganda tends to be formatted as "entertainment". It's very prevalent on the internet because it's both free and heavily promoted. Your stance presupposes that the people who need the information trust trustworthy sources enough to pay them. They might already be under the thrall of these clowns on the far right.

I learn the following lessons: 1. Think about aesthetic factors when presenting information. Hire artists if necessary. 2. Make it free. 3. Promote important information relentlessly.

[zompist]

I don't understand what this objection is supposed to be. Do recipes, songs, conlangs, and video game reviews have to be free in order to have an informed electorate?

In this context, "information" clearly refers to the news. I'm trying to avoid every qualification in every sentence.

If you want a broader outlook, you seem to be under the impression that capitalism helps to collect and distribute information.

Apparently we're at the point where I need to start repeating things in larger type in the faint hope that you'll start reading it?

There are two sources of information that should be readily available, but cost money to produce: journalism and scientific papers. The current system is to fund these via rich men and advertisers, and universities in the case of the papers; and the current hot plan is to write them with spicy autocomplete. Both the journalism and the papers are gated with subscription fees as well-- just enough to add friction for the public but not enough to make users into stakeholders. Journal publishers manage somehow to make authors pay when an article is published.

Did you just skip over this in your hurry to pretend you're arguing about capitalism with a "liberal", or did you somehow take it as praise of the current system?

The reason these conversations go downhill is your conviction that you are the only real progressive or rational person. Arguing with someone who thinks they're god, and can't believe another human being has a point, is tiring and unrewarding. I am not interested in taking an hour, time after time, to refute arguments addressed to a figment of your imagination.

Let me ask you an honest question. Let's say you come across an article on the internet that's behind a paywall. It's interesting and you do sort of want to know what it says. Is the question you ask yourself: "Can I afford this?"

Yes, of course. I can't afford a subscription to every major paper, every academic gatekeeper.

I don't know what you wanted me to think. I only have access to the words you actually put there, and those are what I'm arguing against.

No, you're arguing against shit you made up that I never said. It's annoying.

The market socialist position I was expecting is that the market would give almost everyone a decent job or something.

Since you expect that everyone has read and worshiped "your system" because you explained it here once, perhaps you could do me the favor of believing that after writing as a progressive for 30 years, I am still one. I do not have to prove it again every time you feel like pretending I'm defending capitalism.

Your stance presupposes that the people who need the information trust trustworthy sources enough to pay them. They might already be under the thrall of these clowns on the far right.

Not every idea is intended to solve every problem. The problem I'm addressing is, basically, late-capitalist seizure of the potential of the internet: middlemen get all the money. This is not, I think, an analysis far from the spirit of Marx.

And again, you're misinterpreting the idea. My observation is precisely that people are not willing to pay 30¢ every time they change pages on the web.

Could it be a government utility instead, which is what I think your proposal amounts to? Probably, but have you seen the governments of Florida and Texas lately, to say nothing of Hungary or India? Did you know that Trump, if elected, plans to use the very apparatus of affirmative action, designed to help the unprivileged, to instead favor white supremacists? Putting all your power into one basket has historically been a bad idea.

I learn the following lessons: 1. Think about aesthetic factors when presenting information. Hire artists if necessary. 2. Make it free. 3. Promote important information relentlessly.

I don't disagree with your ideal here. But is something preventing you from doing this right now? I don't mean you personally need to start up a Youtube channel or something. But, there are efforts to do exactly what you're talking about: provide good progressive content, political or not, that isn't under the control of untrustworthy corporations. Or create other new, better institutions.

This would be a whole 'nother discussion— I think progressives still have a tendency to think of politics as a spectator sport, or as a problem that other people have to solve. Most people do. But conservatives learned the lesson long ago: they created their own media, worked on getting control of local government, created arrays of think tanks so there's a steady supply of well-paid conservative pundits, worked on corrupting the judiciary. I think progressives are realizing they need to be just as energetic, but it's going slowly.

[keenir]

I don't understand what this objection is supposed to be. Do recipes, songs, conlangs, and video game reviews have to be free in order to have an informed electorate?

If you want a broader outlook, you seem to be under the impression that capitalism helps to collect and distribute information. This is not how I see it. Because of copyright, media is being lost forever. The owners of the media are not interested in distributing it.

Copyright isn't the only reason why media is being lost forever. Sometimes libraries and other places get rid of the older books that nobody borrows anymore...so my local library nearly got rid of one of its two books on the planet Vulcan and the history of how we understand that world. So if nobody wants to look at that or the 1905 book on South American mammals, guess what? No more books on those topics - and at least one of those topics isn't exactly producing much new material these days either.

I see family and acquaintances all the time who would never, ever pay for anything that can't directly bring them money or health. I have cousins who break down crying if they ever find their sons playing one video game or watching one movie. Either study, play sports, eat while watching TV or sleep, all the time. Straight and narrow. Perhaps they make an exception for religion these days. Being Hitler is increasingly popular.

the views you're saying these relations of yours have, are to stay on the straight and narrow, and to pick whether to study or do sports or sleep or watch tv...making those sorts of decisions is, so far as I am aware, in no way being Hitler.

Now maybe these relations of yours, also have Hitler-leaning views -- but those aren't what you mentioned, and thus the mention of that name, strikes me as coming abruptly from left field.

People have to pay for Internet access today. But as a data point, Nigeria has 218 million cell phones, in a population of 233 million. (The discrepancy is larger than it looks, as some people have multiple phones.) Nigerians are more likely to have a cell phone than access to a water source.

People need phones for work. Americans aren't going to catfish themselves, apparently. And this means Nigeria is relatively integrated into the mainstream world economy. It says 51% of the population has a mobile connection in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.[/quote]

Great. What about the other 49% ? Are we throwing them under the figurative bus, in our rush to have all information be online and free?

The market socialist position I was expecting is that the market would give almost everyone a decent job or something.

now THAT, to me, is terrifying. Most people can work, even if a lot of them don't want to work. Some of us cannot work, for physical, emotional, mental, or other reasons - some of us cannot join the military, some of us can't join the government, etc.

So unless your Market will give some of us the job of "tears apart bread so old people can feed the ducks", there will still be unemployment.

Even if you insist on integrating picoeconomic motivations with macroeconomic goals, people are paying for journalism under my system. They are expending a part of their power to demand goods and services. If there's demand for a service, people are presumably consuming it. Many YouTube channels, even left-leaning content, grow into million dollar companies despite releasing their videos for free. These are supported by ad dollars and, I think, premium membership fees.

...and most of those channels have shops that viewers and other supporters can buy from.

[keenir]

A lot of people don't even like paying their regular taxes, and you're suggesting adding more taxes to pay for this? That ain't gonna go over well.

Under my system, the state/commons/community would own so much that it wouldn't need taxes anymore.

great...what about the family or the individual? or is everyone defined by their commons/community membership? (and isn't that exactly the conditions you said you were escaping from in your own commons? certainly sounds like it, at least)

You mention both the internet and libraries as proof that information can and should be free...even public libraries have at least one hurdle you haven't considered: access. In order to have information be free to everyone in an electorate, should transportation also be free? Should libraries be open 24/7 so work hours don't limit access?

There's a famous Nobel prize-winning Bengali economist who does articulate similar principles. But I don't think we need to implement your specific ideas.

As far as I'm concerned, being informed is a civil right. But if the people have internet access, they don't need transportation to the library.[/quote]

yes, because why should anyone have books, when they can have power outtages.

For entertainment value, I should think of an extreme policy proposal to argue about. Hmm... Under capitalism, it should be illegal for someone to complain about both the community going downhill and progressive taxation. The boot of the state should force people to pick a lane and stick to it.

well thats one way to get yourself assassinated by both sides.
/kidding

[keenir]

A lot of people don't even like paying their regular taxes, and you're suggesting adding more taxes to pay for this? That ain't gonna go over well.

Under my system, the state/commons/community would own so much that it wouldn't need taxes anymore.

great...what about the family or the individual? or is everyone defined by their commons/community membership?

It occurs to me that we have two great examples of the problem with that suggestion:

Instance One: the 49% of the Congo (which Congo?) who do not have internet access...Do they have the infrastructure available to build the terminals for internet in their neighborhoods? Or is the infrastructure largely restricted to the 51% ? And where do you say the communities should get the money to pay for all the infrastructure and anything else they need to get the internet to all the 49% ?

Instance Two: western North Carolina as it recovers from Hurricane Helene...you argue that communities should suffice to pay for everything that its people need -- but I suspect its people would prefer running water (and clean water at that) and electricity, over internet access...either way, they need to rebuild infrastructure, so we're back to needing tax money for buying supplies to ship to them.
(yes, we could say "donations only"...but ask any aid agency, even St Jude, how reliable or steady a stream donations are, and hopefully you'll reconsider)

[zompist]

Instance One: the 49% of the Congo (which Congo?) who do not have internet access...Do they have the infrastructure available to build the terminals for internet in their neighborhoods? Or is the infrastructure largely restricted to the 51% ? And where do you say the communities should get the money to pay for all the infrastructure and anything else they need to get the internet to all the 49% ?

I know this is aimed at rotting bones, but I think both of you are drawing some weird conclusions from this factoid.

RB specifically mentioned the Democratic Republic of the Congo, i.e. the former Zaire. The IMF estimates it as the fourth poorest country in the world. (The top three all adjoin it.) This country has been screwed by outsiders for the last 139 years-- starting with being the personal possession of the king of Belgium, then being the site of Cold War shenanigans including the US assassination of its prime minister and support for civil war, then installation of one of Africa's nastiest dictators. Congo didn't get free elections again till 2006. There are still rebellions and coup attempts, but by comparison with its past, things are getting better.

So, one of the most unfortunate countries in the world, brutalized by exploitation and dictatorship. And they still achieved 51% cell phone ownership. That's a rare bit of good news for the country, and indicative of the way that cell phones are transforming the developing world.

[Raphael]

Levinson's main idea seems to be that the postwar boom was caused by a very specific combination of circumstances, which simply couldn't last, and that therefore, attempts to extent or revive the boom were always doomed.

What were the conditions? I can think of: Apart from globalization, Europe was itself underdeveloped at the time.

I think he lists the urgent need for labor in order to rebuilt Europe (and Japan) as one of those conditions.

The chapters on "Socialism's Last Stand" in 1980s France and Spain, and on the Reagan years in the USA, taken together, seem to assert that out of two very different approaches to economic policy, neither was able to deliver on its promises. In that context, Levinson describes the nationalizations in France during the first years of Mitterand's first term as President as a complete failure and disaster, which is worrying.

Did he mention who it was a disaster for? For example, if he's using GDP as a metric, the quality of life of the working class can actually increase when GDP goes down. This is according to mainstream economists, who point out that GDP is tied to the exchange value of products.

I think his main metric there is to look at how much money the nationalized entities eventually needed from the state to get going.

One piece of data that I haven't seen in any more decidedly left-wing sources might partly explain the political shift to the Right in many places during the 1970s and 1980s: Levinson claims that during the decades leading up to that point, the share of the electorate who had to pay substantial parts of their income in taxes rose from "pretty small" to "quite a lot," partly because of rising state expenditures, partly because inflation moved more and more people into higher and higher tax brackets. Interesting, and a plausible explanation why people might have gotten into a tax rebellion mood.

Why wouldn't they support progressive taxation, then?

Because inflation had moved more and more people into the higher brackets of progressive taxation.

Have you read Rust Belt Union Blues? When the social institutions in America's Rust Belt were unions, it was a hotbed of progressivism. Now that the primary social institutions are gun clubs, it's a reactionary dystopia.

I haven't read it, but I can well imagine what you describe.

This is why I find the prevalent discourses so toxic. There is no "culture". People's deepest instincts are shaped by the social institutions in which they participate.

That, frankly, sounds like an example of using two different terms for the same thing to me.

Even worse is the liberal idea that we can avoid "ideology". The only chance for a progressive victory is to form ideologically charged progressive institutions.

No disagreement there.

[keenir]

Instance One: the 49% of the Congo (which Congo?) who do not have internet access...Do they have the infrastructure available to build the terminals for internet in their neighborhoods? Or is the infrastructure largely restricted to the 51% ? And where do you say the communities should get the money to pay for all the infrastructure and anything else they need to get the internet to all the 49% ?

I know this is aimed at rotting bones, but I think both of you are drawing some weird conclusions from this factoid.

RB specifically mentioned the Democratic Republic of the Congo, i.e. the former Zaire.

Okay; when I went to reply to myself's post, I only remembered seeing "Congo" and not the rest; thats on me and my brain.

. And they still achieved 51% cell phone ownership. That's a rare bit of good news for the country, and indicative of the way that cell phones are transforming the developing world.

That is quite very true. (the bold is by me)

But, good as it is, it doesn't really help with answering the question...at least, not with how I'm understanding RB's recent posts: it seems like RB wants international information (such as internet) to be free, but all individual support to be local (including payments and funding? i think, but it was hard to tell one way or the other).....and yet this wouldn't work - certainly not in my other example of western North Carolina; I don't know how well it would or wouldn't work in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

I'm really really hoping I misunderstood the part that seemed to say that, because the internet exists, we don't need to go to / use libraries.

[MacAnDàil]

Because of copyright, media is being lost forever. The owners of the media are not interested in distributing it. They are interested in winning lawsuits against anyone who does distribute it. Copyright law killed the Internet Archive.

Copyright has existed long before Internet Archive having problems. It's the interpretation thereof, not copyright itself.

[keenir]

You mention both the internet and libraries as proof that information can and should be free...even public libraries have at least one hurdle you haven't considered: access. In order to have information be free to everyone in an electorate, should transportation also be free? Should libraries be open 24/7 so work hours don't limit access?

Is this supposed to be some sort of reductio ad absurdum? "Omigod, these commies think people should be able to read books! I'll show them, I'll ask if they should be able to do that at 3 a.m!!1!"

no, its not supposed to be one...I just figured that, as some people have to work during the hours that a library is open, they don't have the opportunity that others do - local homeless or nonhomeless - to go in the library for even an hour and read, doodle, or just meet others.

I think I was more annoyed with how RB appeared to be arguing that, since everyone can get on the internet, we don't need libraries...right after RB seemed to argue that libraries and all other info should be free and easy to access at any time.

In my town-- maybe not yours?-- the library is open in the evening, and they let you take books out. So even if you hold a job (!) you can read books at 3 a.m. That noted commie Benjamin Franklin started a public library, with the same shocking practice, in 1790. Noted commie Andrew Carnegie helped build or fund 2,500 public libraries.

My local library closes anywhere from 5:30pm to 8:00pm (used to be 9), depending on the day and proximity to holidays...they let us borrow books -- but the books I find most useful (like Writing Systems Of The World) are reference material and thus nonborrowable.

If you're actually serious about free public transit: like so many things, we could do it if we wanted to.

last I checked (not recently, i confess), the free buses are only for people who are either handicapped or members. the number of buses total (free and otherwise) has done down in recent years.

[keenir]

The problem with funding public transit in the US is that people have the idea that it should pay for itself-- but the same people think that infrastructure for cars should just be provided for free to car owners. (Can't say the same of trucks, which actually pay a road use tax.)

Wait, do toll roads not exist in the US?

as Zompist says, we do have them, but they're scattered to the four winds, it seems like at times - some bridges have them, some don't...some on/off-ramps have them, most don't...some stretches of road or highway have them (usually for letting members speed through a given length without having to wait for traffic caused by construction or police cars or anything else), and, again, some don't.

[Ahzoh]

The problem with funding public transit in the US is that people have the idea that it should pay for itself-- but the same people think that infrastructure for cars should just be provided for free to car owners. (Can't say the same of trucks, which actually pay a road use tax.)

Wait, do toll roads not exist in the US?

as Zompist says, we do have them, but they're scattered to the four winds, it seems like at times - some bridges have them, some don't...some on/off-ramps have them, most don't...some stretches of road or highway have them (usually for letting members speed through a given length without having to wait for traffic caused by construction or police cars or anything else), and, again, some don't.

I know that my mom used to have to use a toll road to go to work in Houston. Also West Virginia has like three toll you have go through to drive from NC to Canada through Michigan