Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Month: May 2017

Getting Trump Right and Wrong

By

On May 5, 2017

Comments

After the election, it seemed that I had gotten Trump more right than many others, and I had, but I had gotten two important things wrong, as well.

I assumed that because Trump was a competent campaigner, and had been willing to let competent people on his team run during the campaign, he would be a relatively competent as an bargainer about those things he cared about.

And I assumed that while he clearly didn’t have strong policy preferences about most things, that there was a good chance that his core program of hitting trade deals, the wall, immigration, and a replacement for Obamacare weren’t compete ass.

I wasn’t certain on this, because it was clear he was very non-ideological, but because it was in his self-interest in terms of being re-elected and being popular, both of which would be important to him (Trump hates losing and wants adulation), I thought a sincere effort was possible.

Certainly he wasn’t going to be a policy expert, but letting the right people run things and having a bottom line policy outcome seemed possible.

I was wrong.

Trump proves, mostly, to be far more weak than I expected. I wrote that I expected an imperial court with courtiers being important multiple times, but it has been worse than I expected.

None of this is to say that I discounted Trump breaking his core promises as a possibility, I said it could happen, but as with Obama he has been swifter and worse in this regard than I expected.

My final decision on Trump, in the campaign, was that he was beyond the pale, but that Clinton was more likely to start a serious war with Russia than he was. Trump’s actions in Syria haven’t exactly warmed the cockles of my heart, but I remain convinced that Clinton was an abomination in her foreign policy, and so far, despite saber rattling and hitting a Syrian airfield, I do not feel that he’s worse than Clinton would have been. (I would have expected a no fly zone in Syria already, if she were President and Trump has not bombed more than I think she would have–rather less, despite the howls.)

Because of this, I didn’t endorse either candidate, and I remain fine with that decision.

Neither of them is a prize. We know exactly what Clinton will be like, she confirmed in Libya that Iraq was not a misjudgment or mistake, by the way she thinks. As for Trump, well, the variance is high. He’s said all sorts of things, who the hell knows what he’ll do?

Or:

Now Trump has said all sorts of things at this point. Who knows what he’ll do? I get that, but here’s what I also get: We all know what Clinton will do.

Both are scum, Trump proves to be scum mostly in a very ordinary Republican way, rather than his own special type of scum, but he has done little that Republican Candidate X wouldn’t have done, other than his travel orders, which were struck down.

The sad part about Trump, to me, is that he’s a normal politician in the ways that matter, after all. It was clear  he wasn’t Hitler or Mussolini, but he isn’t even a right-wing populist in policy (as opposed to in rhetoric and campaign) terms. And, he hasn’t and isn’t going to keep his core promises, which will do more damage to American democracy than if he had stuck by them, like them or not.

I also feel, as I said multiple times during the election, that having Trump win 16 was dodging a bullet, because if he had lost, the next person to try the right wing populist playbook would have been far worse.

All that said, I clearly got stuff wrong about Trump, and stuff that matters, and I apologize to my readers.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Sterile Elites and the French Election

By

On May 3, 2017

Comments

France has an electoral run-off system. The top two candidates in the general poll go on to a face-to-face election. This year, that is Macron and Le Pen. Melenchon, the left-wing candidate came up just short.

What is happening was inevitable, and predicted. Europe had been sclerotic before 2008, but enough people were doing well. After 2008, Europe, more than perhaps any other areas in the world, doubled down on austerity and neoliberal policies like “labor flexibility” (code for “fire for any reason, reduced (ideally no) protection from bosses.)

And so we now have the neo-fascist (in a much more real way) vs. the neoliberal who ran Hollande’s vastly unpopular economic policy.

The French establishment has reacted predictably.

Elites simply can’t pivot. They don’t know how to do anything but keep doubling down on neoliberal austerity. It is their entire playbook, and this default strategy may wind up costing them everything.

Polls currently have Macron winning, and Le Pen has been softening her rhetoric on leaving the EU, though it’s primarily, “We can wait a bit and have a referendum.”

I consider that a mistake, not because of electoral considerations this time, but because of the electoral considerations next time. As sometime-poster Mandos has pointed out, the EU has set up both membership in the EU and the Euro so that leaving them frontloads the pain onto whoever leaves. If you’re leaving, you need to get it over with right at the start of your term so you have time to recover from the pain.

(Leaving the Euro is clearly correct on policy terms, though whether Le Pen and her team have the chops to manage it properly is another matter.)

The other consideration is that if Le Pen doesn’t win this time (and the polls are unreliable, given past performance around similar candidates and issues), she’ll be on the final ballot in the next round, because the policies Macron will pursue will make the French worse off–just as they did when he ran them from Hollande. They aren’t going to miraculously work now that Le Pen is even more of a threat, or because Mercury goes retrograde or something.

But then there’s a very real chance Melenchon will be on the last round ballot next time, too, and he’s been pulling no punches. He refused to endorse Macron (he did not play Bernie Sanders Nice) and unlike Sanders followers, who overwhelmingly voted for Clinton, about two-thirds of Melenchon supporters refuse to vote Macron.

A Melenchon deputy explained:

We don’t want to help Marine Le Pen, but we don’t want to endorse Mr. Macron,” he said.

“He’s the candidate of free trade,” Mr. Coquerel said. “He’s going to assist in the Uberization of society. Everything we are going to fight against in the coming months. There’s no possible rapprochement.”

This is correct behaviour, as far as I am concerned. Melenchon is not a colleague, he did not run under the same party, and he disagrees with almost all of Macron’s economic policies.

If Macron can’t win against Le Pen without the left’s support, he doesn’t deserve to win, because he isn’t a left-winger on non-social issues. And while social issues are important, so is whether or not you have a good job. Freedom in poverty, as those of us who have been poor know, isn’t really freedom.

Besides, Melenchon is in the same position as Le Pen. He’ll almost certainly be in the next “last round” if Macron wins, because, again, Macron is going to hurt a lot of French. It is inevitable, he cannot avoid doing so because he genuinely believes in neo-liberal austerity as the road forward.

There are a large contingent of people who are “just hanging on.” The status quo sort of works for them, but they can see the abyss, and they don’t want change, yet, even though they aren’t happy.

They will only want change if the game of economic Russian roulette that is austerity happens to take them out, and dump them into a slum. Their numbers decline every election, as some eat that austerity bullet and others die (since they tend to be older) and a very few can no longer stomach buying their present with their children’s future. (This is rare, most don’t care, and I base that on the cold hard numbers. If they cared, things would have changed long ago. Their children are expendable to them.)

So we play the game out. Time’s wheel must grind on, bodies caught in the gears, till the last neoliberal has failed, and we get either the populist right or the populist left.

Those are your choices: populist right, populist left, or continued decline into what will become an increasingly obvious dystopian surveillance state; something out of an 80s cyberpunk novel, but without the actual cool tech (as yet).

But there is no other choice that moves away from current trends except populist right or left. Those are the choices. Choose.

Update (how LePen will win, if she does):

A false story of “I will help fix your awful life” wins against a true story of “I’m going to hurt you, but the other person is lying about helping you and will hurt you even worse.”

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Trump Is Not Wrong to Be Willing to Talk to North Korea’s Leader

By

On May 2, 2017

Comments

Oh my, the wringing of hands over Trump saying he’d be willing to talk to Kim Jong Un.

Let’s get the disclaimers for idiots out of the way: Kim Jon Un appears to be a very bad man and Trump often does bad things, or rather, tries to do bad things that are then blocked.

This is not one of those things–even after one stops laughing at people pretending that the White House hasn’t entertained plenty of dictators with blood soaked hands, just as bad as Kim.

For 60 years, the policy for dealing with North Korea has been to keep them in a cage, and it hasn’t worked.

North Korea wants a formal peace treaty, and feels that, absent nukes, they would be attacked.

Given what happened to Qaddafi (sodomized with a knife, then killed) after he gave up his nuclear program, there might be something to this–especially because the West keeps laughing at the idea of a formal peace treaty. If you think they aren’t going to attack, why not give them one? Or at least offer it as a prize for cooperation, along with reducing some of the frankly insane sanctions?

(This approach, by the way, is favored by most South Koreans, the people with the most to lose if the situation turns into war and Seoul gets flattened.)

Is Trump supposed to not meet with the King of Saudi Arabia? Do you know how he treats Shi’ites and women? Do you know what he is doing to Yemen right now? Is he not supposed to meet with George W. Bush, his predecessor, the butcher of Iraq?

Stop clutching pearls. Yeah, Trump is scum, but this is ridiculous. Diplomacy is about talking with your enemies, not just your friends; it is about talking with bad people (which is why everyone keeps talking to the US) when they have something you want.

Trump is right, in this case, and the squealing about it is not only pearl-clutching bullshit, it makes an actual war more likely, as did hitting Trump so hard on Russia that better relations with Russia (the only other country with enough nukes to destroy the world) seem to be off the table. Because God knows, we wouldn’t want good relations between the two nuclear super-powers, and Russia may not be a super power in another way, but it still has a ton of nukes.

A man may be a bad man, and your political opponent, without being wrong about everything, and acting as if he is could cost hundreds of millions of people their lives.

Stop.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

A Modest Proposal to Fix the World

By

On May 1, 2017

Comments

Image by TW Collins

Fire every non-commission employee making more than seven times the median national income (all income included).

Put a 100 percent tax on all income over seven times the median, no exceptions for any type of income.

Put a 100 percent tax on on all inheritances over 50 times the median (that’s enough of a head-start on life for winning the lucky sperm contest).

Promote those who were earning less.

Secret: The people running the economy are not the best, and if they are brightest, we need stupider people. I base this on their results.

Going forward, the top income level will increase, as a percentage, equal to the average income of the bottom five percent and the median income.

This will sort out a lot of problems quickly.

First, it gets rid of the people running the economy today, who are obviously either hopeless fuck-ups or completely uninterested in results for anyone but themselves and a few cronies.

Second, it concentrates the minds of those at the top on the problems of those at the middle and bottom. They want that seven-times-the-median to be higher, so suddenly, they care about the poor and the middle class. A lot.

Third, it rather quickly deals with people with too much money now (yes, there is such a thing); if their seven-times the-median income doesn’t support their lifestyle, they will have to dip into their capital to pay for it. Because all capital gains will be treated as income, well, that should be fun.

Yes, there are all sorts of ways people can try to get around this. Plug them as fast as you find them and write the initial laws in very generous ways, like money-laundering laws. (Were you obviously trying to get around money laundering laws? If so, you’re probably going to jail. That’s how they’re written.)

Why seven times? Why not. It’s enough that no one can say they shouldn’t still feel very rich, and if they don’t, then something is deeply wrong with the median.

The general rule of policy is that policy which is good for the rich and the middle class is bad for the middle class because the rich get so much more from it. For instance, the housing bubble looked good for the middle class (and a few people won), but, really, it was so much better for the rich in that it gave them so much power along with other financial shenanigans, that they were able to gut the middle class.

Policy which is good for the middle class and the poor, or even just the poor, is good for the middle class. Poor people spend their money, and poor people who get better off become middle class people. A middle class which identifies with the poor and not the rich, will be secure, because they will support the wellspring of their own success.

There’s a bunch of moral and ethical arguments that should go into a piece like this, but it comes down to this: Every social welfare statistic worth mentioning tracks inequality, not absolute wealth, once you’re beyond the point of “enough so I’m not starving.” (See “The Spirit Level” for the nailed-down, stupidly overdetailed proving of the obvious.)

The rich are rich because society makes it possible, through aggressive enforcement of totally artificial property laws and massive infrastructure which benefits them far more than anyone else. The idea of ideas being property is completely artificial, contracts of adhesion that are standard in software are social bullshit, corporations are bundles of hugely valuable rights to avoid responsibility for losses, and all of that is before we even get to 20 trillion dollars (in the US alone) to bail out bankers who had genuinely lost everything, and that includes Goldman Sachs, because winning bets with counterparties who are bankrupt is worth ten cents on the dollar, and at that rate, Goldman is bankrupt too.

The people in charge have done a terrible job. It is a moral imperative to take that job from them and give it to people who will do it better than they do. (If they do it well, then the world and the economy won’t be so fucked.)

The people not in charge who are familiar with their jobs/businesses deserve a try.

There are bunch of things to add to this, but they all basically come down to two simple rules:

  1. Keep the rich poor.
  2. Never let money or power buy anything that matters.

A better education than normal, a jump in the healthcare queue line, avoiding airport security, flying on a private jet, avoiding traffic in a helicopter, not staying in the same hotels as anyone else. Nothing that matters. They can have nicer consumer goods, as long as they don’t matter, and that is all.

When the people running something are complete fuck-ups, you take away their power. That means their position, and as money is power, their obscene wealth. You replace them with someone else. It is that simple.

Eat the rich, or the rich will eat you.

And they have been dining well.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Page 3 of 3

Previous

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén