Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The left in the US can't comprehend how cooked the average MAGA is.
The white paranoia about CRT may have swung the election in Virginia.
Bingo. Whenever you add in a new tax you have to lower a current one to sweeten the deal. New taxes should not be about increasing the tax base but rearranging it. Only use existing taxes if you want to increase the tax base.I don't know about CRT but it seems to me like the Democrats have this perception that they've abandoned the working class and focus on identity politics, looking down on working-class and rural Americans who don't live in the blue states.
If I were them, I'd be shutting up about this rhetoric and focusing on healthcare, education, infrastructure, wages, and climate action. And the biggest one? Taxes. If you're going to tax asset-owners and carbon, great, but lower income taxes, give working-class people some tax relief or sign you're going to do so or you're not going to get swing votes your way.
For too long, wage earners have been hit the hardest, and it allows scum like Trump to fill in the vacuum and give the illusion that he's got the working classes back.
I agree. But the white working classes, partcularly in the South, have been objectively ******* insane the past few decades. Qanon an Trump yeah, but they've been easily duped by the race card playing of the GOP. The latest incarnation is CRT.I don't know about CRT but it seems to me like the Democrats have this perception that they've abandoned the working class and focus on identity politics, looking down on working-class and rural Americans who don't live in the blue states.
If I were them, I'd be shutting up about this rhetoric and focusing on healthcare, education, infrastructure, wages, and climate action. And the biggest one? Taxes. If you're going to tax asset-owners and carbon, great, but lower income taxes, give working-class people some tax relief or sign you're going to do so or you're not going to get swing votes your way.
For too long, wage earners have been hit the hardest, and it allows scum like Trump to fill in the vacuum and give the illusion that he's got the working classes back.
Bingo. Whenever you add in a new tax you have to lower a current one to sweeten the deal. New taxes should not be about increasing the tax base but rearranging it. Only use existing taxes if you want to increase the tax base.
the wealth tax needs to come with income tax declines. Then it will get broad support from the masses. Otherwise republicans can just cry socialism.
I agree. But the white working classes, partcularly in the South, have been objectively ******* insane the past few decades. Qanon an Trump yeah, but they've been easily duped by the race card playing of the GOP. The latest incarnation is CRT.
Runs along the lines of DNC is ****ed in 2020 because the NBA Finals Ratings are low.I think this is dumbest post I have read for a very long time, possibly since the Essendon Drug Saga.
I don't know either
What is wrong with these people
Question for the op Seeds
Were the left (or the right for that matter) ever really in power?
What I consider 'left' in this country at least, is someone like Bandt or SHY. I'd hardly consider they'd EVER get mojo to begin with in order to win power, just wouldn't have the electorate support.
Same as the 'right', who on here would like Hanson or Christensen in Power? Doubt you'd find anyone.
If either of those extremes were in power we'd either be an all white anglo population only speaking english, which means zero liberalism.
Or a disorganized free for all and then an epiphany there is no possible way to have a 'free for all', hierarchy would be diminished and anarchy would prevail. Even though the idea would be one big happy population singing kumbaya around the camp fire.
This is a valid question, I can't recall a time when any government with minority views as opposed to the majority views have had power in any liberal western democratic society.
Can anyone think of one to correct me?
Further, if this is the 'left' you have in mind, would the majority really want that? I doubt it.
Your definition of left is not the definition i was referring to in the op. Left in this regard is a relative term. Not an objective term. The labour party is the left party in our country compared to the liberal party which is the right. The others are just fringes with no real power.So I'll ask this question again Seeds Would wider society want a 'left' power?
Your definition of left is not the definition i was referring to in the op. Left in this regard is a relative term. Not an objective term. The labour party is the left party in our country compared to the liberal party which is the right. The others are just fringes with no real power.
Chile has a gdp per capita of 13000 us dollars. Developed countries are over 30 thousand. It's not rich. But it is the richest of Latin America. And that's largely because it embraced capitalism more than any other Latin American country.Actual leftists, not moderate neoliberals like the ALP, won in Chile. Yet another rich country goes progressive.
I may not of. But that was what I was referring to. I've told you that now. Left and right is always relative terms compared to the very centre and the magnitudes don't matter. Labour party is always left. Liberals are always right.You didn't refer to any definition in the op, just the left. Seems you've answered the question, wider society doesn't really want the 'left' or the 'right' in power.
So in relevance to the thread, the answer is the left can't (nor the right) because neither the left or the right have the support of the electorate to gain power
More like $24 000, but who's counting? PPP is the only fair way to compare prosperity among different nations, because they don't all operate in exactly the same markets. And it's in the OECD, a club of wealthy nations. And it ranks in the very high category for HDI. It's a rich country.Chile has a gdp per capita of 13000 us dollars. Developed countries are over 30 thousand. It's not rich.
At what cost? Were all the murders, rapes and tortured people worth it for a slightly higher GDP figure? And I can assure you other Latin American countries embraced rabid capitalism wholeheartedly at various times with mixed results. Brazil in the 80s is a good example, as was Peru in the Fujishock era. Both of them also involved great suffering and human rights abuses.But it is the richest of Latin America. And that's largely because it embraced capitalism more than any other Latin American country.
Thing is Seeds, I want to have a proper debate with you, but it's hard when you start from a position that's either a very shallow understanding of the real world, or deliberately disingenuous. You're making it seem as though there's a binary choice between rabid capitalism and outright socialism, when no real-world nation has either of those systems, they're all mixed economies. Chile has public enterprises and government intervention in the economy, and Cuba has had a private sector for decades (and greatly expanded it this year).Probably don't want to bring up Latin American countries when advocating the benefits of socialism. It doesn't help.
MER probably understimates prosperity but ppp overestimates it. true value probably lies in between the two measures.More like $24 000, but who's counting? PPP is the only fair way to compare prosperity among different nations, because they don't all operate in exactly the same markets. And it's in the OECD, a club of wealthy nations. And it ranks in the very high category for HDI. It's a rich country.
At what cost? Were all the murders, rapes and tortured people worth it for a slightly higher GDP figure? And I can assure you other Latin American countries embraced rabid capitalism wholeheartedly at various times with mixed results. Brazil in the 80s is a good example, as was Peru in the Fujishock era. Both of them also involved great suffering and human rights abuses.
Thing is Seeds, I want to have a proper debate with you, but it's hard when you start from a position that's either a very shallow understanding of the real world, or deliberately disingenuous. You're making it seem as though there's a binary choice between rabid capitalism and outright socialism, when no real-world nation has either of those systems, they're all mixed economies. Chile has public enterprises and government intervention in the economy, and Cuba has had a private sector for decades (and greatly expanded it this year).
There are a million shades of grey between laissez-faire and a command economy, and modern leftists' demands all fit within those bounds. They are almost all advocating for either a) social democratic policies around taxation, welfare and public investment that can work within a mostly private sector-led economy, as seen in Nordic countries, or b) democratic socialist policies in sectors like housing and energy that they feel are essential to human needs and shouldn't be treated as investments first, while leaving the remainder of the economy to the private sector with sufficient oversight and regulations.
Don't pretend "socialism" is a monolithic set of policies that can't be implemented alongside market-based economic frameworks. They can, and have been. And that is what Chile's new President proposes.
I may not of. But that was what I was referring to. I've told you that now. Left and right is always relative terms compared to the very centre and the magnitudes don't matter. Labour party is always left. Liberals are always right.
Well they're silly. Mexico is a developed country. It has the infrastructure.mexico is in the oecd too and almost everyone leaves them out of developed economy lists, except the oecd.
And what do you believe those are?I'm, however, less interested in the labels of what socialism and capitalism are and more just interested in discussing whst good economic policy And systems are.
I'm specifically referring to Pinochet overthrowing a democratically elected government and his goons embarking on a campaign of mass murder, rape and torture of anyone dissenting. Funnily enough, the guy who Boric defeated wanted to pardon everyone involved in that, probably because he thought the ends justified the means. I find that attitude abhorrent.the excess murders and capitalism in chile arent really causal. more just a correlation.
What use is growth if it only enriches a select few and the majority are struggling? Growth has to benefit the majority in a way better than trapping them into wage slavery. This hasn't happened for the past 48 years, or else people wouldn't have taken to the streets last year over something as seemingly minor as a public transport fare increase. But it was simply the straw that broke the camel's back, the issues had been building up the whole time.inequality is a problem in chile and i like some of the policies of the new chile government. but will they address inequality in a way that does or doesnt harm economic growth cos they still have catchup to go there as well. We will see.
Actual leftists, not moderate neoliberals like the ALP, won in Chile. Yet another rich country goes progressive.
They already had a taste of what repression is like, but that was under a rabid capitalist.Hopefully they don't turn out like Venezuela