2020 Presidential Election

[Mike Corey]

Or underpaid and having to make hard choices.

Most are not socialists, no matter how much some groups are trying to meme this into existence.

This.

[sagegrouse]

Or underpaid and having to make hard choices.

Most are not socialists, no matter how much some groups are trying to meme this into existence.

Doing my own internal survey -- maybe better than nothing, maybe not -- I think those polling favorable for socialism are likely Bernie Sanders supporters: they like him, and he says, unapologetically, that he is a "democratic socialist." Why wouldn't many of them then approve of the label.

Why would we expect poll responders to have finally tuned antennae on the definition of socialism?

* Many think of a socialist country as having government ownership of the means of production. Not so common these days, with the quasi-privatization that has occurred in China and Russia. But heck, when I started doing business in Europe in the 1990's the French government stilled owned sizable shares of major French companies like Alcatel, Bouygues and Thomson-CSF. It was even more prevalent in Britain until Margaret Thatcher arrived on the scene.

*Then there is the role of government in distribution of income -- welfare systems, public health, progressive taxation, etc. Bernie is more on this side of the socialist encampment, I believe. And, of course, three of our four largest federal programs are "socialist" -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- with the fourth being defense.

(Although on ownership of means of production, isn't there some sentiment these days for government control of Facebook and the like?)

[Jeffrey]

Doing my own internal survey -- maybe better than nothing, maybe not -- I think those polling favorable for socialism are likely Bernie Sanders supporters: they like him, and he says, unapologetically, that he is a "democratic socialist." Why wouldn't many of them then approve of the label.

Why would we expect poll responders to have finally tuned antennae on the definition of socialism?

* Many think of a socialist country as having government ownership of the means of production. Not so common these days, with the quasi-privatization that has occurred in China and Russia. But heck, when I started doing business in Europe in the 1990's the French government stilled owned sizable shares of major French companies like Alcatel, Bouygues and Thomson-CSF. It was even more prevalent in Britain until Margaret Thatcher arrived on the scene.

*Then there is the role of government in distribution of income -- welfare systems, public health, progressive taxation, etc. Bernie is more on this side of the socialist encampment, I believe. And, of course, three of our four largest federal programs are "socialist" -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- with the fourth being defense.

(Although on ownership of means of production, isn't there some sentiment these days for government control of Facebook and the like?)

I strongly agree... excellent post!

In the not to distant future, we may get to the point where capitalism has as many negative connotations as socialism, for most U.S. citizens under 40. Many U.S. Corporations are already making material changes largely due to this sentiment shift.

[wilson]

I strongly agree... excellent post!

In the not to distant future, we may get to the point where capitalism has as many negative connotations as socialism, for most U.S. citizens under 40. Many U.S. Corporations are already making material changes largely due to this sentiment shift.

I think we're awfully close to this tipping point already. Source: Am under 40 and a teacher, and hear these kinds of comments pretty much daily from my peers who feel betrayed and abandoned by the Boomers' capitalistic promises of "work hard, pay as much as it takes for your education because you'll get ROI, and then you'll succeed." I also get questions from my (history) students almost daily along the lines of, "What exactly is so great about rapacious capitalism again?"

[budwom]

as I occasionally point out to friends of mine, public school funding is generally a socialist endeavor in that even people without kids pay to educate kids from huge families...if we wanted to avoid that, we could should tax by child, but I suspect we don't want to do that. If I may be cynical for just a moment, I've found that, for many people, government programs that benefit them are not socialist; programs that benefit others ARE socialist.

[Jeffrey]

I think we're awfully close to this tipping point already. Source: Am under 40 and a teacher, and hear these kinds of comments pretty much daily from my peers who feel betrayed and abandoned by the Boomers' capitalistic promises of "work hard, pay as much as it takes for your education because you'll get ROI, and then you'll succeed." I also get questions from my (history) students almost daily along the lines of, "What exactly is so great about rapacious capitalism again?"

Thanks, very insightful. In your situation, I would be thinking and saying the same.

Thank you, very much, for teaching our children! Yours may be the most important occupation in the world.

If you ever want any free financial advice, please send me a PM, I'll do my best.

[JasonEvans]

If I may be cynical for just a moment, I've found that, for many people, government programs that benefit them are not socialist; programs that benefit others ARE socialist.

Feels very NIMBY.

[Acymetric]

Feels very NIMBY.

Seems like kind of the opposite. OIMBY? NIYBY?

[budwom]

Interesting case in point along the NC coast which we visit very often (and I'm not debating policy here, only the nuances of the subject)...for many who own $1million+ plus homes on or very close to the ocean, storm insurance has been heavily subsidized in several ways over the years, government subsidies, or risk pools, or mandating that insurance companies have to cover a bunch of coastal properties at lower rates if they want to do business in the state.
Some years ago the government cut off the subsidies for a period of time, and the outcry was enormous...rates (based simply on realistic odds of getting whomped by a storm) skyrocketed...coastal legislators got an earful, the cuts got rolled back, the rates continue to be, to various extents, subsidized.

I've heard many good arguments about what the government should or should not do in these cases, but few are loathe to admit that a heavy government subsidy on one's storm insurance is a form of socialism.

Here's one article on flood insurance (only one form of coastal storm insurance) and the oddities therein:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/10...nce-2017-08-28

[Kdogg]

Interesting case in point along the NC coast which we visit very often (and I'm not debating policy here, only the nuances of the subject)...for many who own $1million+ plus homes on or very close to the ocean, storm insurance has been heavily subsidized in several ways over the years, government subsidies, or risk pools, or mandating that insurance companies have to cover a bunch of coastal properties at lower rates if they want to do business in the state.
Some years ago the government cut off the subsidies for a period of time, and the outcry was enormous...rates (based simply on realistic odds of getting whomped by a storm) skyrocketed...coastal legislators got an earful, the cuts got rolled back, the rates continue to be, to various extents, subsidized.

I've heard many good arguments about what the government should or should not do in these cases, but few are loathe to admit that a heavy government subsidy on one's storm insurance is a form of socialism.

Here's one article on flood insurance (only one form of coastal storm insurance) and the oddities therein:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/10...nce-2017-08-28

Just to add some context. I live on the coast of South Carolina and have a business. Yes, the government passed a law to mark premiums for National Flood to unsubsidized levels. The problem was not only did they not communicate that to policy holders then implemented it immediately. My policy went from around $5,000 for 450k of coverage to $14,000 and I didn’t find out until I got the renewal. And that was will no claims. That surprise hit millions of people like a haymaker. After the out cry the government amended the law to cap the increase to 25% a year until it hit market rate. So the subsidy is going away. For my latest renewal it was $25,000 for the same 450k of coverage.

[budwom]

thanks for adding that, Kdogg! ^^

[dudog84]

Dudog84 is prescient.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/republica...040945272.html

And it's done:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/08/rep-...&doc=106234142

Some guy in Arkansas is ticked he won't get his moment in the sun. Or maybe he's relieved.

[MIV]

I hadn’t even considered this angle to the Virginia election results. The legal issues are certainly interesting. Depending on how it plays out, it could also become a significant election issue in 2020.

https://nyti.ms/33rXRCM

[sagegrouse]

I hadn’t even considered this angle to the Virginia election results. The legal issues are certainly interesting. Depending on how it plays out, it could also become a significant election issue in 2020.

https://nyti.ms/33rXRCM

Anyway, Virginia will almost certainly become the 39th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, originally approved by the Congress in 1972. It guarantees equal rights regardless of sex. Thing is, the preamble to the Congressional amendment has a deadline of 1992 -- does this really apply? Will Congress simply again ratify the language of the original amendment?

stay tuned.

[MIV]

Anyway, Va would be the 38th and deciding state. The deadline discussed in the preamble was 1982. The interesting issues I see are:

Is the deadline both operational and constitutional?
Is the retroactive retraction of ratification by several states constitutional?
Interesting interplay between the Supreme Court Justices’ judicial philosophy (textualism) and their political philosophy (whatever that is currently).
If the House were to overturn the deadline, what would Mitch McConnell do in the Senate? Keep in mind that he’s running against a woman in 2020.
How would this issue affect the presidential election when the educated female suburban voting bloc appears to be among the most coveted in 2020?

Anyway, this seems to be an extremely fascinating twist.

[PackMan97]

Anyway, Virginia will almost certainly become the 39th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, originally approved by the Congress in 1972. It guarantees equal rights regardless of sex. Thing is, the preamble to the Congressional amendment has a deadline of 1992 -- does this really apply? Will Congress simply again ratify the language of the original amendment?

stay tuned.

As they say, may you live in interesting times. This one is going to be a big ol' court mess for a while.

It is true that 38 states have ratified the amendment, it is also true that four of those states have rescinded their ratification and an additional state put in a sunset of their ratification equal to the original 1979 deadline. So, depending on whether you believe a ratification of a not yet approved amendment can be revoked the number stands at between 33 and 38 states.

Anywho,ratification by a 39th state is going to set a whole mess of things into motion, many of which will surprise us all.

[sagegrouse]

As they say, may you live in interesting times. This one is going to be a big ol' court mess for a while.

It is true that 38 states have ratified the amendment, it is also true that four of those states have rescinded their ratification and an additional state put in a sunset of their ratification equal to the original 1979 deadline. So, depending on whether you believe a ratification of a not yet approved amendment can be revoked the number stands at between 33 and 38 states.

Anywho,ratification by a 39th state is going to set a whole mess of things into motion, many of which will surprise us all.

The best solution is to just start over again with a new constitutional amendment with the same language:

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

I think most R's and virtually all D's would support it.

[OldPhiKap]

The best solution is to just start over again with a new constitutional amendment with the same language:


I think most R's and virtually all D's would support it.

“sex” is too binary. You need to add gender-fluid-nonidentifiers.

[sagegrouse]

“sex” is too binary. You need to add gender-fluid-nonidentifiers.

Yep. I can see the Dems opposing the amendment they wrote in the first place.

[howardlander]

The best solution is to just start over again with a new constitutional amendment with the same language:


I think most R's and virtually all D's would support it.

All the Democrats for sure but I would be surprised if there was enough Republican support for it to pass.