In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
How many times are we going to watch a couple million in yearly salary ripping US Citizens out of their cars and manhandling them in the middle of the street for literally no reason other than to be a fascist presence?Who can actually defend this? Any Republicans care to take a stab?
This is, of course, indefensible. But Trump voters will not try to defend this. They chose Trump because he said he’d do exactly this. They WANTED this.
They’re either idiots or *******s. Or both.
How many times are we going to watch a couple million in yearly salary ripping US Citizens out of their cars and manhandling them in the middle of the street for literally no reason other than to be a fascist presence?Who can actually defend this? Any Republicans care to take a stab?
Just doing their job, right?
and if democracy dies which side will we fight on?
Maybe there's new forms of authoritarianism on the way. We could have a constitutional democracy like the UK's current constitutional monarchy where we get to vote for a 'government' but they have no real power.
No real power? Then who actually has power in the UK?
The government. Not the monarchy
Next stage of authoritarianism might be doing to government what we did to the monarchy. Keep it but just for show
The government. Not the monarchy
Next stage of authoritarianism might be doing to government what we did to the monarchy. Keep it but just for show
It's already happening. Witness the power of billionaires.
Where do you think funding for Brexit came from? Who do you think is funding Farage's lavish lifestyle?
Nonetheless government had the power. With brexit we made the decision.
There may come a time when that iactually isn't true.
Not sure what you're referring to
Democracy - where the people have direct control over the government - has never existed in the West. So democracy was never alive. What we have is a democratic process for electing representatives who then have that power. But at the end of the day, they can do whatever they want and it's always been that way.
Yes and I'm a big time fan of represntative democracy. I think it's at great risk of sucumbing to authoritarianism
Charles I, James I? Seemed like they both tried to turn parliament into mere puppets for their desires. Obviously a bit more complicated than that, maybe they were trying to get rid of them altogether, but every once in a bit would have a go at trying to do something through the proper channels.
Democracy - where the people have direct control over the government - has never existed in the West. So democracy was never alive. What we have is a democratic process for electing representatives who then have that power. But at the end of the day, they can do whatever they want and it's always been that way.
Most political scientists consider indirect democracy a form of democracy.
Okay but I don't really see that dying. Despite what we may think of things the far right is perfectly fine with how our democracy is functioning. But because things are the way they are right now, I don't think it's accurate to say the country has shifted to the right. What's shifted right is the political apparatus, not the underlying sentiments of the people.
Along the lines of what chezlaw said: the far right has power over the center right and the center left has power over the far left. That's a shift right in political structure not the people. What would be more representative of the people in a two party system is if they each went for their center, rather than the overall center. Otherwise if one quadrant is under representated politically that entire voting block gets disenfranchised.
That may not really matter all that much in any given election. But if say the electorate tired of the GOP, Warren should be the only option they're given, not Clinton.... irrespective of what the polls say.
The far right might be happy with how democracy is running. All political groups may be happy with it.
The political structures are shifting. The underlying dynamics are changing. Everyone can be happy with how it's running until afterwards when they go huh! who fault is it?
To give an example. One of many
Wealth and power are being increasingly concentrated in a small number of private hands. I claim that will most likely break democracy eventually whether or not the politicians are happy with a system where that process continues. If we want a healthy democracy then we have to tackle it but it gets increasingly tough to do so as they become wealthier and more powerful.
That varies? Plenty of people are content with very limited citizen rights. On this very forum you'll see plenty of people who argue against bedrock democratic principles like due process or free speech, because they are unable to accept that strict adherence to these principles is not at all sunshine and rainbows. ***holes also get free speech and miscreants also get due process.
Nor is it as simple as "people who believe in democracy" will fight "people who do not believe in democracy". Fighting is not for everyone and nor will it be possible for everyone. Nor will those who be divided on such neat ideological lines, plenty of people who fight oppressors will do it for other ideologies than democracy and vice versa.
Then of course there is a barrier of the forum itself. A discussion on what you should do when democracy is toppled is invariably a discussion that will venture into posts that are not acceptable discourse.
To give an example. One of manyWealth and power are being increasingly concentrated in a small number of private hands. I claim that will most likely break democracy eventually whether or not the politicians are happy with a system where that process continues. If we want a healthy democracy then we have to tackle it but it gets increasingly tough to do so as they become wealth
They’re only becoming more wealthy and powerful because the people keep spending more, saving less, and fighting with each other instead of cooperating. If people acted collectively and managed their own resources better, the “rich taking over” wouldn’t even be a conversation.
That’s not apologetics for billionaires. It’s a criticism of how we've slipped into a helpless victim narrative when we actually have more than enough political power to rebalance the capital–labor relationship... we just don’t use it.
In other words, democracy isn’t “losing.” We just have a more romantic idea of what it’s supposed to look like. But what we’re seeing is exactly what democracy looks like when the people’s interests are fragmented and in conflict.
Yes and I'm a big time fan of represntative democracy. I think it's at great risk of sucumbing to authoritarianism
It already has. America electing Trump a 2nd time made it clear authoritarianism is what the people want. Unfortunately those people are either idiots or *******s, and having such people choose our leader has led us here.
I agreecto a significant extent. We have the power within our democracies but we aren't using it.
That isn't static eventually they have two much of the power and democracy can die.
It already has. America electing Trump a 2nd time made it clear authoritarianism is what the people want. Unfortunately those people are either idiots or *******s, and having such people choose our leader has led us here.
Still, they're not going anywhere, despite the two big lies the political class keeps feeding us: that we're always just one election away from total victory or total defeat. That’s never happened in modern Western democracies, going back to the Federalists getting routed only to have their ideas regroup and come back stronger than ever.
History shows that when political factions are completely humiliated or shut out, the long-term consequences are usually destabilizing. For instance, knowing what we know now blowback wise, the West would have managed the post-WWI political landscape in Germany very differently. The same lesson applies to our own political conflicts.
They’re only becoming more wealthy and powerful because the people keep spending more, saving less, and fighting with each other instead of cooperating. If people acted collectively and managed their own resources better, the “rich taking over” wouldn’t even be a conversation.
I don't buy this at all. Our current system purposely funnels the wealth of the nation to the top. And, this funneling has progressively gotten worse due to our politicians, most notably the republicans.
I don't buy this at all. Our current system purposely funnels the wealth of the nation to the top. And, this funneling has progressively gotten worse due to our politicians, most notably the republicans.
Median household net worth rose by about 37% from 2019 to 2022. Nobody starved. And if people had kept up those same habits ie, saving more and spending less, the median net worth of about $200K today could realistically grow to well over $1M over the next twenty years.
Again, I’m not discounting what the rich are doing. I’m discounting how much that actually determines how well regular people do. So people can make huge gains despite the unfairness and inequalities
Median household net worth rose by about 37% from 2019 to 2022. Nobody starved. And if people had kept up those same habits ie, saving more and spending less, the median net worth of about $200K today could realistically grow to well over $1M over the next twenty years. Again, I’m not discounting what the rich are doing. I’m discounting how much that actually deter
Meh you play with numbers .
They have a higher net worth just because house prices went up a lot with near 0% interest rates .
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted...
Buying a home in America isn’t for the faint-hearted, with the salary needed to buy a home doubling from 2017 to 2025.
However, while home prices have risen strongly, wage growth hasn’t kept up, widening the home affordability gap.
But that is if you were lucky enough to already had a home pre 2019.
If you bought a home like 2021-22 , your still in a bad spot .
If you have no home at all, your in really bad spot .
FWIW not everyone can ge rich at the sane time .
Regardless any actions you believe they should take .
It’s a mathematical fact , there just isn’t enough money around .
The problem is how the economy and tax are working today.
it won’t get better for the people (bottom median) the way it is today without some kind of reform .
Meh you play with numbers .
They have a higher net worth just because house prices went up a lot with near 0% interest rates .
Sure that was a factor but as I said saving was up and spending was down, which caused an increase in wealth. How much or what percentage is irrelevant to my claim.
FWIW not everyone can ge rich at the sane time .
Regardless any actions you believe they should take .
It’s a mathematical fact , there just isn’t enough money around .
.
Sure they can. Money isn't wealth. Wealth is essentially the stored labor that went into creating the asset, bar productivty creep. So we could all grow berries, make and store jam and get as wealthy as we want. They'll always be worth the labor that went into producing them so long as the market is there.
The problem is how the economy and tax are working today.
it won’t get better for the people (bottom median) the way it is today without some kind of reform .
I really thinks that's mostly monetary policy. It's making it so that profits can get a better roi in areas other than investing in productivity.
Back before we went off the gold standard business invested their profits back into productivity of consumer goods. Now when we drill down into that metric, they're investing in tech to outdo the competition, which at the end of the day doesn't help the workers.
