cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: That would, I suppose,

Or the dominance of US industrial capacity had waned while the rest of the world had caught up. 

 

You're arguing that the result was the cause.  

Highlighted
Advisor

Ffarming

is a little bit of a different kettle of fish although farmers and other small business and extractive industries undoubtedly supported Trump strongly.

 

As I've said, agriculture isn't a victim of neoliberalism, it is the laboratory of neoliberalism and the root source of most of our present religion that we call economics.

 

The story begins with the particularly sweet deal that larger farmers obtained in the initial military effort and then continuance of intermittent support to ensure that enough survived each of the cyclical downturns.

 

The remnant represent, about as purely as can be found, the folks who "did everything right" and naturally assume that support should continue. The risk is that the neoliberal project has run to some sort of an endgame where they are, for the moment, the happy cows who the agricultural complex needs to keep moderately well fed in order to fill the milk truck.

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: That would, I suppose,

Point being that the massive concentration of wealth has nothing to do with competitiveness- in fact the argument can be made that the reliance on financialization has been counterproductive to that end.

 

And what, pray tell, does the (phony and now mostly abandoned) Trump agenda do to address that?

 

Bottom line is that people who have been the beneficiaries of the upward wealth transfer simply want to keep it- in perpetuity- and need to convince the The Folk that their grievances are endless in order to get 'er done.

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: That would, I suppose,

You are under playing the cost of taxation and regulation.

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: That would, I suppose,

Regulation tends not to add net costs- it is just a question of who bears the cost- if someone has health or long term productivity costs through pollution or workplace incidents they bear most or all of the cost, but thankfully capital does not. It externalizes them.

 

Likewise, if long term investments in human productivity are underfunded- health, education, infrastructure come to mind- the wealthy can easily afford to avoid those effects- most people cannot.

 

Advisor

Re: Ffarming

For the next farm bill I generally support the notion of putting the farmer cows on a least cost ration for a five year adjustment period but with the stipulation- and teeth in the bill to ensure it- that says this time we're not backtracking at the end.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: That would, I suppose,

I don't think you can make any arguments by looking at partial pictures.  With globalism the wealthy have done well in this country, the rest not so much.  But globally poor people everywhere have risen out of poverty.  You have to compare things using the same metric.  And why wouldn't finance benefit from globalism when capital is one of the things that is allowed to flow freely across borders.

 

Goods, capital, knowledge are allowed to flow, labor and regulatory environments are not.  Not surprising who has gained from globalism and who hasn't.

 

But here is the thing, in this country you won't let a person work for 25 cents an hour, or work at a factory that dumps its waste into the river, but you'll let him but a product from a place that Will.