UK elections a warning for US?

[LilyLark 10,213]

49 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I know this seems really logical, but its actually just not true. Obama said something similar - most of the country isnt just leftists on twitter.

And he's right. Most of the country are notsuggesting we give all means of production to the government   Where he was wrong however is that the vast majority of Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, align economically with progressives and are susceptible to populism. It's why Trump won. By this logic, if the *majority of the country* was not in the extremes, Jeb Bush would have slid to a landslide victory in 2016, as he was the centrist, establishment candidate on the right. But obviously this can't be true, because Trump won... as an extreme. HMM. I have said it to you before, America politically is currently solidly right leaning. "Far leftist" democratic socialism is quite centrist in comparison to actual leftist ideas like flat out socialism, communism, etc. It would seem mainstream media punditry is wrong about this issue, but let's dive in shall we.

Let's take Medicare For All. Its a progressive policy, very clearly. Maybe you don't know the years of polling that has been done it, but I'll say it. Its support in the entire country is incredibly high, reaching heights of 70% Across party lines, and 81% according to people who identify as Democrats.

That is HUGE.

And it is absolutely insane to suggest that 70% of America is suddenly a progressive democrat...

Okay, but thats just one thing. I hear you.

Let's take a wealth tax.

74% of registered voters. 65% of Registered Republicans. 

Okay, but thats just another thing.

Green New Deal? 

63% of the country. 60% of registered voters for any and all parties (dem, rep, ind, etc.) Similar numbers of people want to Legalize Marijuana. It is also popular across all age ranges and demographics, white black, male female, old young middle income lower income, higher income, urban rural. Truly bipartisan. Hell, another recent poll even showed that supporting the Green New Deal in purple or even slightly red districts is a POSITIVE thing  

Okay, but thats just another thing though.

Making college tuition free/eliminating student debt?

58% of registered voters.

Okay, just another nother thing.

$15 minimum wage increase.

55% of the country. 70% of Republicans. Another 27% believe it should be raised substantially, but stop short at 15 for a slightly lower number like 12.50 or 13. (The current minimum wage is 7.25  ) This means that 80% of the country supports drastically raising the minimum wage.

Okay... but wait, at some point you realize that these things have become the bulk of the progressive's flagship policies...

But wait, isnt the country in the center? If the country is in the center... why does most of the country align economically on the progressive left?

....  maybe because Progressivism isn't leftists on twitter, its regular average Americans who know that these things would radically and materially improve their lives, and that the other proposed policies are milquetoast and change nothing for them  

This means that any candidate, on the left or the right, would be able to run on these policies, and the support is there for people to vote for them because of their support for these policies, not in spite of them.

The "loud minority" or "vocal minority" of leftists is a misunderstanding of the political sphere. We are loud because the majority of America supports us and this is a time that we absolutely should demand these things, its a turning point in history, where even politically uninvested people have begun to see that income inequality is a serious problem in this country and is hurting them. Even Republicans, for all their talk of loving billionaires and trickle down economics, say they would support these ideas because they are simple and make sense  

It is entirely centrism's point to ignore this though, because all of these things require decreasing the influence of dark money in politics... and they want to keep that, so they don't talk about this, they lie about it on air, and they hand wave polls as suddenly all unreliable but only if they support Bernie Sanders  The same pollsters results are seen as amazing signs that Joe Biden is still going to win  

Yeah...but it's also more complicated that that. There's been a series of polls which show a public option is more popular than completely destroying private insurance—some people are insanely confused on what M4All means and frankly that's on all the Dems for not being clear on the messaging until it was quite late in the game. Even Bernie was late on saying "yeah, I'm for abolishing all private insurers." 

It's a different system with different issues, but the idea that leftist economics are going to make people abandon Trump or Johnson or draw out all of the voters who stay home...doesn't necessarily seem to pan out. In the U.K., they flocked to Johnson and in the U.S. the center left did really well in the midterms...while only a few DSA members did okay outside of deep blue areas. Anyway, they are so against immigration and so on that "free college" isn't going to make them move. Plus, I honestly think people are "scared" of tearing down the system—they'd rather fix and improve the system (an argument for Warren being a stronger candidate more than Sanders, imo). Older POC voters like my parents feel like they can't risk "revolution."

And I say this as a Warren supporter who is probably more left than center left, but I do think people overestimate how willing people are to be progressive in this country.  I wish it was different, but the people who flip deep red districts blue do tend to be more moderate and the stupid, racist electoral college tends to favor "red areas." If we went off the popular vote, I think Bernie or Liz could easily win but I'm worried about the electoral college.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

2 hours ago, LilyLark said:

Yeah...but it's also more complicated that that. There's been a series of polls which show a public option is more popular than completely destroying private insurance—some people are insanely confused on what M4All means and frankly that's on all the Dems for not being clear on the messaging until it was quite late in the game. Even Bernie was late on saying "yeah, I'm for abolishing all private insurers." 

It's a different system with different issues, but the idea that leftist economics are going to make people abandon Trump or Johnson or draw out all of the voters who stay home...doesn't necessarily seem to pan out. In the U.K., they flocked to Johnson and in the U.S. the center left did really well in the midterms...while only a few DSA members did okay outside of deep blue areas. Anyway, they are so against immigration and so on that "free college" isn't going to make them move. Plus, I honestly think people are "scared" of tearing down the system—they'd rather fix and improve the system (an argument for Warren being a stronger candidate more than Sanders, imo). Older POC voters like my parents feel like they can't risk "revolution."

And I say this as a Warren supporter who is probably more left than center left, but I do think people overestimate how willing people are to be progressive in this country.  I wish it was different, but the people who flip deep red districts blue do tend to be more moderate and the stupid, racist electoral college tends to favor "red areas." If we went off the popular vote, I think Bernie or Liz could easily win but I'm worried about the electoral college.

You've answered your own question here a bit 

When you phrase it as "do you want to abolish all private insurance and take 150 million people off of their health insurance" support obviously lowers, but this framing is a misunderstanding of what m4a does, as youve acknowledged sort of in the same point. It's an aggressive stance that suggest we are taking away people's health insurance, which isn't actually true. People will not Lose their health insurance under M4A, it will be improved and made cheaper for them. What they will lose is their insurers - Aetna, united health, blue cross blue shield, etc. and we know that people have 0 personal investment or connection in their actual private insurers, but rather in their health care providers... and when you tell people that, then polling shows that support rises again. So yes, it is more complicated, but not in a way that suggests that it is not the most popular health care policy plan in America right now. The fact that despite the "abolish health care! kick people off their health insurance! removes choice!" rhetoric has only slightly dropped its approval in the last few months despite the millions being spent to attack it to this day is another testament to the resilience of the policy. It is a reason that all Democrats should be supporting it. Can you imagine how successful it would be if every Democratic candidate believed in it, and fought against these talking points with passion? They don't because they rely on money from Health Care insurers. Pete Buttigieg is funded by them and so is Joe Biden  It's really that simple. Its not that they don't want it, and about practicality, If Democrats decided to support it, it would be just as practical as anything else on the docket. (Also, a Public Option will be attacked politically from the right and the left if Joe or Pete were to win, you can count on it - Private Insurance has killed that idea for decades just like single-payer, and there is no way they will let themselves lose significant revenue from this industry.)

And yes, Corbyn and Bernie are different. Not all leftists have the same approval or success chance just based on the fact that they are leftists, that would be an extreme oversimplification of how voters vote and why they vote to suggest that every single voter is an informed policy wonk or extreme ideologue who will always turn out for whoever represents them ideologically. So, its really not *that* fruitful to make comparisons, only to look at the reasons why Corbyn lost, and see if they are applicable to someone like Bernie/Warren on a case to case basis. Many of the reasons his support dwindled and collapsed are not applicable to them, so this question is kind of pointless imo unless you believe support for X ideology is universal, and that support for an ideology is the main reason people vote (its not).

Also, no, you're wrong about voter turn out. When Hillary decided to neglect the progressive vote, she deflated turn out by running as a centrist. That's really played out a lot in recent electoral history, progressives and people who want progressive economics tend to be younger, and either highly politically active or very politically disengaged and even unregistered voters. Selecting a centrist absolutely will guarantee less voter turn out than a Progressive, because the entire way progressive candidates campaign is about increasing voter turn out, getting more people involved in the political process, and talking to them about the real way that policies like M4A would change their lives.
I really don't think that counting on what will probably be like 3000 people in Wisconsin who don't follow politics much at all to reflect and think "wow Trump has been bad for me personally"  is a winning strategy. Neither is the kinship appeal of "Well, Joe Biden is a centrist, and I'm not a strong repub/dem, so that must be me" - It's more material things like, "Joe Biden promised me.. Obama 2.0, and Trump got me more money with the tax break and  would also get rid of those pesky immigrants" - Trump wins there, no doubt. A Bernie or Warren isn't running on nothing, they are running on actual change. People like Trump, believe it or not. It will be hard to beat him in those places, but its a guaranteed loss IMO if you run with no real vision for America or any thing that will actually impact their lives.

It is true that with our current limited electorate, centrism has been successful in rural districts, red states, purple states etc. But this isn't an error of progressivism, its an error of our view about who we want as our voting base -the Democrats absolutely fatal flaw. We know that we win with increased voter turn out because most people in this country lean to the left, but we also tend to refuse to energize, excite, register, and appeal to new voters, and then we overly appeal to older voters who are more likely to turn out, but also less likely to be secure, reliable voters in the way that they swing. For most of this primary season, Biden supporters (who are majorly old people) second choice has been Bernie Sanders. So, its clearly not that they don't like him and think hes a crazy old radical left socialist, they literally, by their own admission in polling, think Biden is just more likely to win to beat Trump, and beating Trump is their #1 concern. But this is the myth of electability that mainstream news will not let die and it does a disservice to voters.  We just won't do it, and then we act surprised when we lose because of the electoral college, even when we run as centrists repeatedly which we know minimizes democratic and independent turn out. We know from polling that yes in these purple and red states/districts there are people who are potential, and even regsitered voters, who wont turn out for a Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton. They want real change, and they want someone who is believable, and not a *standard politician* on these things promising the same things they have no intention of doing. That is who Trump was for them. And in case we like to forget it, Trump ran on more than racism, bigotry, he ran on the economy. He RAN on economic populism. He said he would literally make Universal Health Care - FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT - a reality, and that we "can't just let people die in the streets" even when Republicans said they hated that idea. People liked that about him - they hate congress, they hate politicians, they hate liars and inconsistent people pandering to them, and talking down to them like children, and they like that Trump is not like that. So to act like this was not a part of his appeal as a president, to people who might not be racists or sexists, but are economically invested in him is a lie. 

As you can see, although racism, sexism, etc. were more important factors for many people, it doesnt mean that they weren't concerned about the economy at all. In fact, I bet most Trump voters that are not fanatics (and they aren't all fanatic deplorables) would tell you - "look, I don't like that he says some mean stuff, but I voted for him because of the economy"  idk about you, and this is an anecdote, but that's literally all of my conservative friends. This is the fraction of the current base that is flexible. Not the ones who voted for him "because he wanted the immigrants out" - this is the fraction who said "I'm a Republican/right leaning Independent, but I would have voted for Bernie" They believed that Trump would be good for business, good for working class Americans, and good for trade. He obviously lied. This is also why when some Bernie supporters voted for Trump, Democrats called foul, how dare they betray their party can't they see Hillary is obviously better than Trump. They didn't realize that some people who support Bernie support him because hes an anti-establishment candidate that promised economic populism and progressivism, not because they saw him as just a better than average Democrat. Trump was also an anti-establishment figure who promised economic populism, on top of racism/bigotry. 

It is true that centrism can work in purple states in terms of state wide elections, but in the general election we have plenty of evidence to show that it doesnt work just in the last 20 years. It sure as hell didn't work for Hillary Clinton in 2008 or 2016 and both times she was the presumptive nominee.

As to whether people are scared of tearing down the system or not, we really can only guess. Psychologically, people are afraid of change, that's true, so its a fair place to bet your money, but people are also generally just as willing to give new ideas a shot when everything else has failed - and that's how many people in this country feel.  

I actually think Bernie would be the most likely person to win the electoral college. The error in those states that has led them to centrism is  the constant "better of two evils" fight. So why not give them someone good with policies they actually support, like M4A, Raising the minimum wage, Free College Tuition, etc?  

About Warren... I would be *okay* with a Warren presidency, and during her meteoric rise to the top, I started to get on board with the idea that she could really really win. She was showing strength in basically every demographic including with old people. But, she fell because she backed off of M4A and became seen as an inconsistent politician, maybe even a hypocrite for talking such a big game with no backup for it. But about reform vs revolution, you know, its really the most emergent narrative. Older voters, POC are pragmatic and afraid of revolution because of how long it took them to get to have what they have, they don't want to rock the boat.

But older POC support Bernie Sanders after Joe Biden, and for current Biden supporters, he is their second choice, not Warren. (They have gone back and fourth to be fair, but both above Buttigieg and with Harris gone its looking more like Joe -> Bernie > Warren last I check) So, maybe this idea should be looked into a bit more deeply. I would argue that older black people know that tinkering around the edges isnt actually going to make their lives better. Older POC aren't IMO enthusiastic democrats, they are reluctant Democrats who know that they must vote, and obviously Republicans are racist, but its not like Democrats have a long track record of keeping their word and fighting for black people, especially poor black people. They pander to them, and then disregard them as soon as things get hard, often to the benefit of their wealthy donors. So, I would argue that black people and latinx people more than most are more likely to be amenable to revolution. Afterall, The Civil Rights movement wasn't fought by incrementalist democrats in congress, it was by socially left progressives on the ground. MLK was literally a socialist

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

3 hours ago, LilyLark said:

Yeah...but it's also more complicated that that. There's been a series of polls which show a public option is more popular than completely destroying private insurance—some people are insanely confused on what M4All means and frankly that's on all the Dems for not being clear on the messaging until it was quite late in the game. Even Bernie was late on saying "yeah, I'm for abolishing all private insurers." 

It's a different system with different issues, but the idea that leftist economics are going to make people abandon Trump or Johnson or draw out all of the voters who stay home...doesn't necessarily seem to pan out. In the U.K., they flocked to Johnson and in the U.S. the center left did really well in the midterms...while only a few DSA members did okay outside of deep blue areas. Anyway, they are so against immigration and so on that "free college" isn't going to make them move. Plus, I honestly think people are "scared" of tearing down the system—they'd rather fix and improve the system (an argument for Warren being a stronger candidate more than Sanders, imo). Older POC voters like my parents feel like they can't risk "revolution."

And I say this as a Warren supporter who is probably more left than center left, but I do think people overestimate how willing people are to be progressive in this country.  I wish it was different, but the people who flip deep red districts blue do tend to be more moderate and the stupid, racist electoral college tends to favor "red areas." If we went off the popular vote, I think Bernie or Liz could easily win but I'm worried about the electoral college.

My last post was quite long  

Basically, the party is not where the people are, so I'm mostly just concerned with the narrative that centrism is where most people actually want the country to go in terms of policy. It's not, and the fear that 3000 people in Wisconsin might think so is IMO, a faulty analysis of the problem, which is really that we must make sure that those 3000 people are energized to vote for a Democrat, not reluctant enough to vote for a centrist in fear of Trump. 

Like, Maybe if Joe Biden was at least a LITTLE progressive - like, at all... but hes actively hateful and dismissive of young people and is entirely out of touch. Why don't we expand those 3000 voters in Wisconsin, because if those 3000 voters are undecided, or even at all lean on ideology, Trump has a message to those voters that is positive and impactful in their perspective, and we dont. Why wouldnt we take every tool in arsenal to guarantee that those voters have something positive to vote for that they believe in. The 3000 apathetic, uninvolved people in Wisconsin viewpoint ignores the other 3000 would could easily swing this election towards us.

[LilyLark 10,213]

Some valid points, especially about Bernie polling second with a lot of older POC voters.

41 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

You've answered your own question here a bit 

When you phrase it as "do you want to abolish all private insurance and take 150 million people off of their health insurance" support obviously lowers, but this framing is a misunderstanding of what m4a does, as youve acknowledged sort of in the same point. It's an aggressive stance that suggest we are taking away people's health insurance, which isn't actually true. People will not Lose their health insurance under M4A, it will be improved and made cheaper for them. What they will lose is their insurers - Aetna, united health, blue cross blue shield, etc. and we know that people have 0 personal investment or connection in their actual private insurers, but rather in their health care providers... and when you tell people that, then polling shows that support rises again. So yes, it is more complicated, but not in a way that suggests that it is not the most popular health care policy plan in America right now. The fact that despite the "abolish health care! kick people off their health insurance! removes choice!" rhetoric has only slightly dropped its approval in the last few months despite the millions being spent to attack it to this day is another testament to the resilience of the policy. It is a reason that all Democrats should be supporting it. Can you imagine how successful it would be if every Democratic candidate believed in it, and fought against these talking points with passion? They don't because they rely on money from Health Care insurers. Pete Buttigieg is funded by them and so is Joe Biden  It's really that simple. Its not that they don't want it, and about practicality, If Democrats decided to support it, it would be just as practical as anything else on the docket. (Also, a Public Option will be attacked politically from the right and the left if Joe or Pete were to win, you can count on it - Private Insurance has killed that idea for decades just like single-payer, and there is no way they will let themselves lose significant revenue from this industry.)

And yes, Corbyn and Bernie are different. Not all leftists have the same approval or success chance just based on the fact that they are leftists, that would be an extreme oversimplification of how voters vote and why they vote to suggest that every single voter is an informed policy wonk or extreme ideologue who will always turn out for whoever represents them ideologically. So, its really not *that* fruitful to make comparisons, only to look at the reasons why Corbyn lost, and see if they are applicable to someone like Bernie/Warren on a case to case basis. Many of the reasons his support dwindled and collapsed are not applicable to them, so this question is kind of pointless imo unless you believe support for X ideology is universal, and that support for an ideology is the main reason people vote (its not).

Also, no, you're wrong about voter turn out. When Hillary decided to neglect the progressive vote, she deflated turn out by running as a centrist. That's really played out a lot in recent electoral history, progressives and people who want progressive economics tend to be younger, and either highly politically active or very politically disengaged and even unregistered voters. Selecting a centrist absolutely will guarantee less voter turn out than a Progressive, because the entire way progressive candidates campaign is about increasing voter turn out, getting more people involved in the political process, and talking to them about the real way that policies like M4A would change their lives.
I really don't think that counting on what will probably be like 3000 people in Wisconsin who don't follow politics much at all to reflect and think "wow Trump has been bad for me personally"  is a winning strategy. Neither is the kinship appeal of "Well, Joe Biden is a centrist, and I'm not a strong repub/dem, so that must be me" - It's more material things like, "Joe Biden promised me.. Obama 2.0, and Trump got me more money with the tax break and  would also get rid of those pesky immigrants" - Trump wins there, no doubt. A Bernie or Warren isn't running on nothing, they are running on actual change. People like Trump, believe it or not. It will be hard to beat him in those places, but its a guaranteed loss IMO if you run with no real vision for America or any thing that will actually impact their lives.

It is true that with our current limited electorate, centrism has been successful in rural districts, red states, purple states etc. But this isn't an error of progressivism, its an error of our view about who we want as our voting base -the Democrats absolutely fatal flaw. We know that we win with increased voter turn out because most people in this country lean to the left, but we also tend to refuse to energize, excite, register, and appeal to new voters, and then we overly appeal to older voters who are more likely to turn out, but also less likely to be secure, reliable voters in the way that they swing. For most of this primary season, Biden supporters (who are majorly old people) second choice has been Bernie Sanders. So, its clearly not that they don't like him and think hes a crazy old radical left socialist, they literally, by their own admission in polling, think Biden is just more likely to win to beat Trump, and beating Trump is their #1 concern. But this is the myth of electability that mainstream news will not let die and it does a disservice to voters.  We just won't do it, and then we act surprised when we lose because of the electoral college, even when we run as centrists repeatedly which we know minimizes democratic and independent turn out. We know from polling that yes in these purple and red states/districts there are people who are potential, and even regsitered voters, who wont turn out for a Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton. They want real change, and they want someone who is believable, and not a *standard politician* on these things promising the same things they have no intention of doing. That is who Trump was for them. And in case we like to forget it, Trump ran on more than racism, bigotry, he ran on the economy. He RAN on economic populism. He said he would literally make Universal Health Care - FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT - a reality, and that we "can't just let people die in the streets" even when Republicans said they hated that idea. People liked that about him - they hate congress, they hate politicians, they hate liars and inconsistent people pandering to them, and talking down to them like children, and they like that Trump is not like that. So to act like this was not a part of his appeal as a president, to people who might not be racists or sexists, but are economically invested in him is a lie. 

As you can see, although racism, sexism, etc. were more important factors for many people, it doesnt mean that they weren't concerned about the economy at all. In fact, I bet most Trump voters that are not fanatics (and they aren't all fanatic deplorables) would tell you - "look, I don't like that he says some mean stuff, but I voted for him because of the economy"  idk about you, and this is an anecdote, but that's literally all of my conservative friends. This is the fraction of the current base that is flexible. Not the ones who voted for him "because he wanted the immigrants out" - this is the fraction who said "I'm a Republican/right leaning Independent, but I would have voted for Bernie" They believed that Trump would be good for business, good for working class Americans, and good for trade. He obviously lied. This is also why when some Bernie supporters voted for Trump, Democrats called foul, how dare they betray their party can't they see Hillary is obviously better than Trump. They didn't realize that some people who support Bernie support him because hes an anti-establishment candidate that promised economic populism and progressivism, not because they saw him as just a better than average Democrat. Trump was also an anti-establishment figure who promised economic populism, on top of racism/bigotry. 

It is true that centrism can work in purple states in terms of state wide elections, but in the general election we have plenty of evidence to show that it doesnt work just in the last 20 years. It sure as hell didn't work for Hillary Clinton in 2008 or 2016 and both times she was the presumptive nominee.

As to whether people are scared of tearing down the system or not, we really can only guess. Psychologically, people are afraid of change, that's true, so its a fair place to bet your money, but people are also generally just as willing to give new ideas a shot when everything else has failed - and that's how many people in this country feel.  

I actually think Bernie would be the most likely person to win the electoral college. The error in those states that has led them to centrism is  the constant "better of two evils" fight. So why not give them someone good with policies they actually support, like M4A, Raising the minimum wage, Free College Tuition, etc?  

About Warren... I would be *okay* with a Warren presidency, and during her meteoric rise to the top, I started to get on board with the idea that she could really really win. She was showing strength in basically every demographic including with old people. But, she fell because she backed off of M4A and became seen as an inconsistent politician, maybe even a hypocrite for talking such a big game with no backup for it. But about reform vs revolution, you know, its really the most emergent narrative. Older voters, POC are pragmatic and afraid of revolution because of how long it took them to get to have what they have, they don't want to rock the boat.

But older POC support Bernie Sanders after Joe Biden, and for current Biden supporters, he is their second choice, not Warren. (They have gone back and fourth to be fair, but both above Buttigieg and with Harris gone its looking more like Joe -> Bernie > Warren last I check) So, maybe this idea should be looked into a bit more deeply. I would argue that older black people know that tinkering around the edges isnt actually going to make their lives better. Older POC aren't IMO enthusiastic democrats, they are reluctant Democrats who know that they must vote, and obviously Republicans are racist, but its not like Democrats have a long track record of keeping their word and fighting for black people, especially poor black people. They pander to them, and then disregard them as soon as things get hard, often to the benefit of their wealthy donors. So, I would argue that black people and latinx people more than most are more likely to be amenable to revolution. Afterall, The Civil Rights movement wasn't fought by incrementalist democrats in congress, it was by socially left progressives on the ground. MLK was literally a socialist

Some valid points, especially with Bernie polling second with older voters who are POC. I do feel the messaging on M4All was sh*t early on—it's easy enough to understand, that one has insurance and won't go without when people transition from private to public, but there was a lot of scare mongering. I think we just disagree on some aspects, but we're both hoping for someone who isn't  Biden or Mayo Pete lol.

My big worry, over everything, is just winning and when you look at that racist electoral college it's just terrifying. I almost feel like we have to "game" the system, and I wish there was a strong progressive candidate from a swing state. Frankly, Tammy Baldwin (who is a m4all supporter and can bring Wisconsin) or Sherrod Brown (more public option, but very union friendly and can bring Ohio) would have been optimal candidates imo. If Ruben Gallego had been in congress for several more years, he would have been perfect. Arizona congressman and former marine who supports GND and M4All (I don't think he does free tuition, tho, but I believe he is in favor of cancelling debt). A mix of progressive, with some more moderate stances, from a swing state with a service background that would appeal to a lot of people. I really wish he would have run for senate instead of Gifford's husband the astronaut dude.

[gagzus 23,637]

Conservatives won because they’re the ones who promised to do Brexit faster (even though they really won’t now that we know it’s gonna be impossible and they’re just gonna be STARTING to leave the EU and it’ll take till the next election im 5 years to fully complete unless we leave with no deal and have a mass recession again ) and because in the UK, Labour isn’t all leftists there’s plenty of xenophobia and racism amongst the working class Labour supporters believe me I live in Durham North West which has been labour since before Thatcher and it’s now conservative 💀

Hopefully localised elections pull us back into a Labour constituency.

In terms  of US elections, I think since y’all had a democrat and a BLACK one at that for two full terms there’s no way your republican senators are gonna allow Trump to lose.

Plus I don’t think in the modern era, for another few decades, can anyone win an election without some right leaning policies because the older generations are clinging for dear life and refuse to move forward so they’re not gonna vote for a more left leaning president/prime minister ever tbh.

[Economy 52,933]

5 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I know this seems really logical, but its actually just not true. Obama said something similar - most of the country isnt just leftists on twitter.

And he's right. Most of the country are notsuggesting we give all means of production to the government   Where he was wrong however is that the vast majority of Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, align economically with progressives and are susceptible to populism. It's why Trump won. By this logic, if the *majority of the country* was not in the extremes, Jeb Bush would have slid to a landslide victory in 2016, as he was the centrist, establishment candidate on the right. But obviously this can't be true, because Trump won... as an extreme. HMM. I have said it to you before, America politically is currently solidly right leaning. "Far leftist" democratic socialism is quite centrist in comparison to actual leftist ideas like flat out socialism, communism, etc. It would seem mainstream media punditry is wrong about this issue, but let's dive in shall we.

Let's take Medicare For All. Its a progressive policy, very clearly. Maybe you don't know the years of polling that has been done it, but I'll say it. Its support in the entire country is incredibly high, reaching heights of 70% Across party lines, and 81% according to people who identify as Democrats.

That is HUGE.

And it is absolutely insane to suggest that 70% of America is suddenly a progressive democrat...

Okay, but thats just one thing. I hear you.

Let's take a wealth tax.

74% of registered voters. 65% of Registered Republicans. 

Okay, but thats just another thing.

Green New Deal? 

63% of the country. 60% of registered voters for any and all parties (dem, rep, ind, etc.) Similar numbers of people want to Legalize Marijuana. It is also popular across all age ranges and demographics, white black, male female, old young middle income lower income, higher income, urban rural. Truly bipartisan. Hell, another recent poll even showed that supporting the Green New Deal in purple or even slightly red districts is a POSITIVE thing  

Okay, but thats just another thing though.

Making college tuition free/eliminating student debt?

58% of registered voters.

Okay, just another nother thing.

$15 minimum wage increase.

55% of the country. 70% of Republicans. Another 27% believe it should be raised substantially, but stop short at 15 for a slightly lower number like 12.50 or 13. (The current minimum wage is 7.25  ) This means that 80% of the country supports drastically raising the minimum wage.

Okay... but wait, at some point you realize that these things have become the bulk of the progressive's flagship policies...

But wait, isnt the country in the center? If the country is in the center... why does most of the country align economically on the progressive left?

....  maybe because Progressivism isn't leftists on twitter, its regular average Americans who know that these things would radically and materially improve their lives, and that the other proposed policies are milquetoast and change nothing for them  

This means that any candidate, on the left or the right, would be able to run on these policies, and the support is there for people to vote for them because of their support for these policies, not in spite of them.

The "loud minority" or "vocal minority" of leftists is a misunderstanding of the political sphere. We are loud because the majority of America supports us and this is a time that we absolutely should demand these things, its a turning point in history, where even politically uninvested people have begun to see that income inequality is a serious problem in this country and is hurting them. Even Republicans, for all their talk of loving billionaires and trickle down economics, say they would support these ideas because they are simple and make sense  

It is entirely centrism's point to ignore this though, because all of these things require decreasing the influence of dark money in politics... and they want to keep that, so they don't talk about this, they lie about it on air, and they hand wave polls as suddenly all unreliable but only if they support Bernie Sanders  The same pollsters results are seen as amazing signs that Joe Biden is still going to win  

But all these things you mentioned like a green deal, free tuition, Medicare for all etc don't necessarily have to be far left tho... Also some people could support some and not the other

 

I'm talking about the furthest left by US standards...

 

Like the furthest left Candidates would be Bernie followed by Warren neither of them have passed say Biden in the polls so far (although Bernie came close at times)

 

I find those most vocal on social media seem to be much more likely to be more likely to be Warren or Bernie supporters but I don't seem to see have as much talk for Biden yet on the polls he still leads

 

So to me that still gives me the impression that social media is still more vocal further left while the general population doesn't seem to necessarily follow what the social media would suggest

 

All things aside tho... There's aspects of Bernie especially that are indeed very left even by other developed nation standards not just US standards contrary to what uve implied

 

For example the 8% wealth tax or the 35% Corporate tax rates (with state taxes would be closer to 45% depending on the State) he's proposed are actually very high taxes and would be very left policies even by the standards of Countries like in Scandinavia

 

Did you know top income brackets in Canada (33% which until 2 years ago was 29%) are a lower rate than in the US (36%)? Our Corporate taxes (15%) were also far lower before Trumps cuts and even now the effective rate (ours is 27% vs 26% in US) are nearly on par. Of course many companies find ways to evaid at least some of the taxes but the US isn't the only Country with loop holes and tax evasion issues... Our investment taxes are also lower

 

When it comes to tax standards, I don't think the US is as crazy Capitalist and Far Right compared to other Nations as you might think. Maybe a bit more but not to the level I think is generally perceived. This is despite Trump's tax cuts because before that, there were literally companies moving headquarters from the US to Canada (a notable example Burger King) for more competitive tax rates

 

Even the most left leaning Countries in Europe like in Scandinavia if you look at their total government taxes (taking into account Countries like the US and Canada are quite decentralized so our States and Provinces which have a lot of responsibilities add a fair bit of taxes whereas in those more Centralized Nations what u see Federally is mostly what you get), their Corporate and and income taxes are not that much higher. In fact some of them their Corporate tax rates are quite low

 

I think the US lack of social programs has probably more to do with the reduculously high military budget sucking up all the resources tbh

 

As for Social stances or climate stances... In that aspect I agree the US is a very right wing leaning Country as a whole

[LateToCult 42,002]

I do think Trump is going to be much harder to beat than people want to believe. I’ve been surprised at the amount of people I’ve talked to in Seattle who don’t want to hear anything about impeachment anymore. They’re fed up with it but they don’t let it out onto social media. It makes me nervous that people in a place that went so hard for Bernie and Hillary back in 2016 share this sentiment. Obviously the people I’ve talked to don’t represent the entire country but it still makes me cautious to believe any candidate will be able to beat him in 2020.

[Eighteen 5,430]

it depends on how convincing a bernie sanders or an elizabeth warren would be should one of them win the primary. and that is to be counter balanced by how convincing trump would be; he will try to brand their policies as crazy (which in the context of US voters is pretty easy to do i think, plus trump can talk a really good game). i personally believe that either bernie or elizabeth can put forth convincing arguments, but it'll be teetering on the knife's edge the whole time and will be very, VERY difficult hold together all the way to the general, and even harder to sell. i think it'll be very easy for things to fall apart because a lot of people are pretty receptive to the perspective that their policies are too much, especially considering healthcare (people were literally convinced obama would murder people in line ups when he was trying to pass obamacare).  in terms of healthcare though i think elizabeth might have an advantage considering she is steadfast that she will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for her healthcare plan, whereas bernie says he will (but that it'll be cheaper for people over all). in my opinion, people hear words like "tax increase" "private healthcare taken away" and tune out to all else so that will be an obstacle they will have to surmount.

plus republicans will have the help of russians and god only knows who else who will spread propaganda all over the place. 2020 is going to get MESSY. 

if i'm honest, it's traditionally, from my perspective,  a slow trudge to move the political line, and what elizabeth and bernie are offering is pretty drastic movement (which i am for). but my gut tells me that that's not going to work in this climate. but i've decided that i'm just voting for the vision i most align with and not really gonna think about the "feasibility" of things seeing as it's so unpredictable ultimately. i'm just going to fall with the pieces, wherever they may land. if it turns out i made a huge mistake voting far left and we lose in a landslide, welp, whatever at this point f*ck it. 

 

[Eighteen 5,430]

and when i look at how republicans are pretty much aligned tightly with the president, that tells me that the people they represent are still very much so pro trump. so not really a good sign. trump will have "complete exoneration" part 2 on his side for his second run, cause i think it's pretty safe to say at this point impeachment is gonna hit the wall and die in the senate. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

But all these things you mentioned like a green deal, free tuition, Medicare for all etc don't necessarily have to be far left tho... Also some people could support some and not the other

I'm talking about the furthest left by US standards...

Like the furthest left Candidates would be Bernie followed by Warren neither of them have passed say Biden in the polls so far (although Bernie came close at times)

I find those most vocal on social media seem to be much more likely to be more likely to be Warren or Bernie supporters but I don't seem to see have as much talk for Biden yet on the polls he still leads

So to me that still gives me the impression that social media is still more vocal further left while the general population doesn't seem to necessarily follow what the social media would suggest

All things aside tho... There's aspects of Bernie especially that are indeed very left even by other developed nation standards not just US standards contrary to what uve implied

For example the 8% wealth tax or the 35% Corporate tax rates (with state taxes would be closer to 45% depending on the State) he's proposed are actually very high taxes and would be very left policies even by the standards of Countries like in Scandinavia

Did you know top income brackets in Canada (33% which until 2 years ago was 29%) are a lower rate than in the US (36%)? Our Corporate taxes (15%) were also far lower before Trumps cuts and even now the effective rate (ours is 27% vs 26% in US) are nearly on par. Of course many companies find ways to evaid at least some of the taxes but the US isn't the only Country with loop holes and tax evasion issues... Our investment taxes are also lower

When it comes to tax standards, I don't think the US is as crazy Capitalist and Far Right compared to other Nations as you might think. Maybe a bit more but not to the level I think is generally perceived. This is despite Trump's tax cuts because before that, there were literally companies moving headquarters from the US to Canada (a notable example Burger King) for more competitive tax rates

Even the most left leaning Countries in Europe like in Scandinavia if you look at their total government taxes (taking into account Countries like the US and Canada are quite decentralized so our States and Provinces which have a lot of responsibilities add a fair bit of taxes whereas in those more Centralized Nations what u see Federally is mostly what you get), their Corporate and and income taxes are not that much higher. In fact some of them their Corporate tax rates are quite low

I think the US lack of social programs has probably more to do with the ridiculously high military budget sucking up all the resources tbh

As for Social stances or climate stances... In that aspect I agree the US is a very right wing leaning Country as a whole

I feel like you aren't getting my point, re: "far left by US standards" Those things ARE the literal platform of the "far left", so yes, in America, those are far left policies, even though globally they are more center or center left. (Universal Health Care is only partisan because of money in politics, no one seriously believes not everyone should be entitled to health care unless you are literally just a racist, a bigot, or hate poor people and think they should die for being poor, like that surely is a fringe position amongst the actual population, maybe not Republicans in Congress... Like, its absolutely inhumane and immoral to have this position by any standard.)

I am purely talking about the positions and causes they champion in terms of global political spectrum comparisons. Canada isn't the richest country on the planet, America is. Canada does not have 320 million people or have such massive income inequality that it threatens its entire structure of government, Canada only has like 45 billionaires. America has over 700 and is increasing rather than decreasing like in other countries. Countries like Scandinavia, the Netherlands, etc. are much smaller than America. So yes, ofc finer details of tax policy etc. must be further left and more aggressive to meet the demands of the problem, because our problem is a lot larger. Doing things exactly like other countries is not the point of Democratic Socialism, it is to guarantee economic rights for all Americans, which is about morality, and not GDP or economic growth. I feel like you are too caught up in the actual economy to realize that this is exactly about de prioritizing our economy and instead prioritizing Human Prosperity.

For example, we as a global society, respect and cherish the importance of business and entrepreneurship. Do you know what the main hurdle preventing people in America from starting their own businesses, being risky and entrepreneurial etc. is? It's not lack of creativity or willpower or courage. It's lack of healthcare. You can't decide to start a business if you will have to go without your own healthcare until it becomes profitable, and it has to become profitable enough that you can offer healthcare for your employees as well. What an absolute limit on human freedom. That's not true in Canada.  You are right on paper, that our capitalist system does not seem especially heinous or corrupt with its current existing tax structures, but you're forgetting that  we have an extreme concentration of wealth and massive income inequality. In that regard, our slight differences create really disparate results in terms of how they affect society, even where economically they might just be flickers on the screen. There've been several threads about our public transportation system and infrastructure and how its really shitty and individualistic and personal car driven instead of communal, even when it is more efficient and saves money. Do you know why that is? It isnt just some fundamental personality difference in our country. Billionaires have literally lobbied to kill public transportation with hundreds of millions of dollars because it reduces how much money they make. How many people would be able to live better lives with better access to transportation, how less dangerous could transportation be, if we had these things that so many other countries have that just make sense  So much of what we don't have is because of money in politics, its absolutely distorting our countries values.

The majority of people agree with the people that we are calling the "far left" (Warren and Sanders), which flies in the face of any sort of suggestion that the country is in desperate need of a centrist. If this were true, centrist candidates would be winning and Bernie and Warren would be in lower positions. Establishment Democrats MIGHT (and I disagree) be able to make the claim that a Joe Biden has the potential to win, but they cannot make the argument that a Joe Biden is either what America wants or needs to improve the quality of our society in substantial ways. 

To Joe Biden, polling indicates that despite Joe Biden being in the lead, his support is soft - as in, people who have not made up their minds yet, where as Bernie Sanders is has the most secure sticky supporters who plan to definitely vote for him, caucus for him, volunteer for him, and encourage others to do so. To top it off, most people also trust someone like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on issues like Climate Change and Healthcare more than Biden, both of which are the #1 and 2 issues for most Democratic voters as of the last poll I checked. Polls also show that the main factor that is supporting Joe Biden is his name recognition and electability. They support him because they think he can beat Trump, and they are afraid of a second term, not because they agree with him politically. He really has no vision at all as a candidate other than "Look, Obama was great right?" He has no interest in progressing the party or the nation, and hes not even trying to pretend to have one. His supporters aren't dumb, they see him as a means to an end - beating Trump. 

Also, yes of course young people are on social media more, lol. Biden's support is entirely old people, young people hate him with a burning passion. He literally said he doesn't empathize with millennials re: student debt, getting a job after college, being financially stable, etc... and thinks climate change isn't as big a deal as we make it. He also said we shouldn't legalize marijuana because its a gateway drug  Like hes your out of touch old white borderline racist grandpa. Older voters are only more reliable voters because we allow young voters to remain disinterested and because we push them away from it. But we are seeing a strong surging of political energy in young people right now that hasn't been felt in decades, especially as the Millennial generation are in their prime right now, graduating college to find no jobs for them, being unable to pay off student debt because of the stagnation of wages and weak job market (we have many jobs, but many shitty jobs and useless jobs), and crippled by the financial burden of health care, ALL with the scientific understanding of climate change... 40% of America lives in financial anxiety and economic distress. But you wouldn't know that from looking at our economy's numbers alone. Democrats are shooting themselves in the foots by refusing to be the party of the people again. 

But young progressives on social media aren't creating these polling statistics out of nowhere. We arent the pollsters - independent, sometimes non partisan*analysts are - they existed before Bernie Sanders and will exist after. All of the Energy in the democratic party is on the left, not in the center, so to describe them as a "loud minority" is to ignore all of the data that shows that Most People Want Progressive Policies in Their Lives. 

 

[Economy 52,933]

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I feel like you aren't getting my point, re: "far left by US standards" Those things ARE the literal platform of the "far left", so yes, in America, those are far left policies, even though globally they are more center or center left. (Universal Health Care is only partisan because of money in politics, no one seriously believes not everyone should be entitled to health care unless you are literally just a racist, a bigot, or hate poor people and think they should die for being poor, like that surely is a fringe position amongst the actual population, maybe not Republicans in Congress... Like, its absolutely inhumane and immoral to have this position by any standard.)

I am purely talking about the positions and causes they champion in terms of global political spectrum comparisons. Canada isn't the richest country on the planet, America is. Canada does not have 320 million people or have such massive income inequality that it threatens its entire structure of government, Canada only has like 45 billionaires. America has over 700 and is increasing rather than decreasing like in other countries. Countries like Scandinavia, the Netherlands, etc. are much smaller than America. So yes, ofc finer details of tax policy etc. must be further left and more aggressive to meet the demands of the problem, because our problem is a lot larger. Doing things exactly like other countries is not the point of Democratic Socialism, it is to guarantee economic rights for all Americans, which is about morality, and not GDP or economic growth. I feel like you are too caught up in the actual economy to realize that this is exactly about de prioritizing our economy and instead prioritizing Human Prosperity.

For example, we as a global society, respect and cherish the importance of business and entrepreneurship. Do you know what the main hurdle preventing people in America from starting their own businesses, being risky and entrepreneurial etc. is? It's not lack of creativity or willpower or courage. It's lack of healthcare. You can't decide to start a business if you will have to go without your own healthcare until it becomes profitable, and it has to become profitable enough that you can offer healthcare for your employees as well. What an absolute limit on human freedom. That's not true in Canada.  You are right on paper, that our capitalist system does not seem especially heinous or corrupt with its current existing tax structures, but you're forgetting that  we have an extreme concentration of wealth and massive income inequality. In that regard, our slight differences create really disparate results in terms of how they affect society, even where economically they might just be flickers on the screen. There've been several threads about our public transportation system and infrastructure and how its really shitty and individualistic and personal car driven instead of communal, even when it is more efficient and saves money. Do you know why that is? It isnt just some fundamental personality difference in our country. Billionaires have literally lobbied to kill public transportation with hundreds of millions of dollars because it reduces how much money they make. How many people would be able to live better lives with better access to transportation, how less dangerous could transportation be, if we had these things that so many other countries have that just make sense  So much of what we don't have is because of money in politics, its absolutely distorting our countries values.

The majority of people agree with the people that we are calling the "far left" (Warren and Sanders), which flies in the face of any sort of suggestion that the country is in desperate need of a centrist. If this were true, centrist candidates would be winning and Bernie and Warren would be in lower positions. Establishment Democrats MIGHT (and I disagree) be able to make the claim that a Joe Biden has the potential to win, but they cannot make the argument that a Joe Biden is either what America wants or needs to improve the quality of our society in substantial ways. 

To Joe Biden, polling indicates that despite Joe Biden being in the lead, his support is soft - as in, people who have not made up their minds yet, where as Bernie Sanders is has the most secure sticky supporters who plan to definitely vote for him, caucus for him, volunteer for him, and encourage others to do so. To top it off, most people also trust someone like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on issues like Climate Change and Healthcare more than Biden, both of which are the #1 and 2 issues for most Democratic voters as of the last poll I checked. Polls also show that the main factor that is supporting Joe Biden is his name recognition and electability. They support him because they think he can beat Trump, and they are afraid of a second term, not because they agree with him politically. He really has no vision at all as a candidate other than "Look, Obama was great right?" He has no interest in progressing the party or the nation, and hes not even trying to pretend to have one. His supporters aren't dumb, they see him as a means to an end - beating Trump. 

Also, yes of course young people are on social media more, lol. Biden's support is entirely old people, young people hate him with a burning passion. He literally said he doesn't empathize with millennials re: student debt, getting a job after college, being financially stable, etc... and thinks climate change isn't as big a deal as we make it. He also said we shouldn't legalize marijuana because its a gateway drug  Like hes your out of touch old white borderline racist grandpa. Older voters are only more reliable voters because we allow young voters to remain disinterested and because we push them away from it. But we are seeing a strong surging of political energy in young people right now that hasn't been felt in decades, especially as the Millennial generation are in their prime right now, graduating college to find no jobs for them, being unable to pay off student debt because of the stagnation of wages and weak job market (we have many jobs, but many shitty jobs and useless jobs), and crippled by the financial burden of health care, ALL with the scientific understanding of climate change... 40% of America lives in financial anxiety and economic distress. But you wouldn't know that from looking at our economy's numbers alone. Democrats are shooting themselves in the foots by refusing to be the party of the people again. 

But young progressives on social media aren't creating these polling statistics out of nowhere. We arent the pollsters - independent, sometimes non partisan*analysts are - they existed before Bernie Sanders and will exist after. All of the Energy in the democratic party is on the left, not in the center, so to describe them as a "loud minority" is to ignore all of the data that shows that Most People Want Progressive Policies in Their Lives. 

 

 I'm not. My comment had absolutely nothing to do with who I support or don't support or what I think the problems are or arent. I was merely making the comparative analysis that in many aspects the US is not as crazy far right wing relative to many other Nations as many here claim regardless of what it's needs are

 

But anyway moving on, I'm gonna make the bolded part clear because I don't think u fully understand my stance. I actually support wealth redistribution a lot more than you might think I do

 

One thing I often talk about is how the direct correlation between economic growth and productivity to increases in standard of living and wealth of the general population has been deminishing for decades and economic growth alone no longer spreads wealth the way it once did

 

You may disagree with me here... But I think up until the first half of last century, even if it wasn't perfect, the idea of trickle down economics worked a little bit better than it does now

 

When the economies used to be more domestic and automation wasn't as advanced, if a company wanted to use it's wealth to expand, it basically had to hire workers in the Nation. But now in the last several decades, a Corporation can easily use a tax cut to just build a new plant in China or another Country with cheaper labor. Or even if it expands at home, automation means less labor is required per unit of economic output than before. An that's if tax cuts are invested at all because in this era of economic problems companies often prefer to just do share buy backs

 

So the economy has evolved and we haven't evolved with it. If trickle down economics had any benefit at all before (which people will still debate) it certainly doesn't now. And I think this broken link between economic growth and actual growth to middle class is the reason the last 4 decades or so the middle class keeps deteriorating while the rich get all the gains from growth.

 

So where does that leave us? While I still think long term economic growth is still important and we have to focus on education, infrastructure and skills programs to fix skills mismatch of the highly technical modern world (another issue slowing economy btw), I also acknowledge economic growth alone will no longer work to help the people. So we have no choice but to take a more direct approach to wealth distribution. We literally have to take more revenue out of the wealthy and redistribute it

 

So to be clear, I've never been against that... What I have questioned tho is some of the methods proposed to accomplish that, or what the right amount of tax for redistribution should be... As I've said before for example I favour big capital gains tax hikes over a wealth tax

 

But don't mistake me disagreeing with some of the methods or policies proposed (or the amounts) for me being against redistribution itself. I get the feeling u keep thinking I don't support it but I do

 

 

 

[Infinity Wave 7,635]

2 hours ago, LateToCult said:

I do think Trump is going to be much harder to beat than people want to believe. I’ve been surprised at the amount of people I’ve talked to in Seattle who don’t want to hear anything about impeachment anymore. They’re fed up with it but they don’t let it out onto social media. It makes me nervous that people in a place that went so hard for Bernie and Hillary back in 2016 share this sentiment. Obviously the people I’ve talked to don’t represent the entire country but it still makes me cautious to believe any candidate will be able to beat him in 2020.

I don't follow US politics that much obviously, I don't know that well how it works,  however

I can speak as an European who gets what the media spreads, and lemme tell you

We have been bombarded with news about Trump impeachment and Russia invalidating the elections. News about Trump separating Families and letting people die at the border, Trump being a racist bigot, anti-feminist, fascist. 

What I know, is that no one has tried to understand why he won the election. All that people seem to do is accusing who vote for him of being racist and fascist, withour trying to understand his views and points and ideas.

I'm not supporting Trump. I despise much of his politics. 

But I also despise people accusing him because they have no arguments, or they can't find some. 

I saw the last dem debate, sen Harris accused Gabbard of having a meeting with Trump in the Trump Towers. Like they were some sort of cursed place. 

This kind of "demonizing" rethoric is as bad as Trump's imo, it only makes people think you have no argument and you don't have the guts to change your mind to find better politics that can fit for everyone.

[Economy 52,933]

@ItsTommyBitch also it's not letting me edit my reply to you right now but another point I wanted to add

 

I think in addition to everything I said about redistribution... Global standards would also help the issue

 

We now have a global economy but still mostly local policies and standards... While there's a few international rules and accords for the most part each nation makes their own policy

 

As a result a big company can sell its goods and services almost anywhere but base it's operations wherever the taxes are lowest. This creates a certain level of competition between Nations to attract investment Dollars from the wealthy

 

If there was global standards set for things like Corporate taxes or Capital gains taxes for wealthy individuals for example... Nations wouldn't have to worry about how much the taxes can go up before they loose competitiveness... With a global standard, taxes could be a little higher and no where for them to run

 

Do I think a global accord like that is realistic anytime soon? No. But I'm pointing out that having a global economy without global standards is another issue creating wealth inequality