USA presidential elections 2016

[Little John]

Firstly, poverty is relative. That is to say, if the disparity between rich and poor in a given society become excessive, it matters little to people that examples may be given of people who are suffering even greater poverty elsewhere. Such examples are reminiscent of the kind of bullshit that was used to keep the poor whites under control during the Great Depression with exhortations along the lines of "stop complaining, at least you are not black". That kind of bullshit stops working at a certain point

Secondly, there are two kinds of poverty; stable and unstable. If the poverty of a given people is relative stable, then they are able to tolerate such poverty for very long periods of time. That is to say, they simply adjust their material and cultural expectations to match their economic circumstances and get on with their lives. However, if their poverty is unstable, this is just about the most intolerable situation for any human. It induces massive stress and will eventually lead to extreme responses.

Both of the above two scenarios pertain in the West amongst the poor.

[careful_eugene]

Firstly, poverty is relative. That is to say, if the disparity between rich and poor in a given society become excessive, it matters little to people that examples may be given of people who are suffering even greater poverty elsewhere. Such examples are reminiscent of the kind of bullshit that was used to keep the poor whites under control during the Great Depression with exhortations along the lines of "stop complaining, at least you are not black". That kind of bullshit stops working at a certain point

Secondly, there are two kinds of poverty; stable and unstable. If the poverty of a given people is relative stable, then they are able to tolerate such poverty for very long periods of time. That is to say, they simply adjust their material and cultural expectations to match their economic circumstances and get on with their lives. However, if their poverty is unstable, this is just about the most intolerable situation for any human. It induces massive stress and will eventually lead to extreme responses.

Both of the above two scenarios pertain in the West amongst the poor.

LJ, that wasn't you on R4's moral maze last night was it? There was a guy on saying exactly that!

[Little John]

Ha! No it wasn't.

But, am going to go and have a listen now!

[johnhemming2]

However, you define poverty it remains that the main cause of suicide bombing is vengeance not related to poverty.

Secondly a big cause of income equality is technology. In fact there is not such a financial merit in moving many forms of manufacturing to lower wage environments because so much of the work is automated.

However, the effect of all of the changes in the economy related to migration, globalisation and technology is to undermine economic stability for the less well off in society.

[Little John]

However, you define poverty it remains that the main cause of suicide bombing is vengeance not related to poverty.

Secondly a big cause of income equality is technology. In fact there is not such a financial merit in moving many forms of manufacturing to lower wage environments because so much of the work is automated.

However, the effect of all of the changes in the economy related to migration, globalisation and technology is to undermine economic stability for the less well off in society.

Vengeance can easily become an all consuming priority if all you have left is honour and pride. So, the tendency to a more vengeful culture is related to poverty. That is not to say that, once established, vengefulness may not take on a cultural trajectory all of its own that is no longer immediately tethered to a poverty underpinning it. But, in the very long-run, at the most macro-scale, poverty and the ignorance and narrow horizons of self-interest it engenders is the driver of often, in the long run, self-destructive vengeful cultural practices.

Marx was right on this. In the end, it starts with geography which drives economy which, in turn, drives culture. The causal arrow, whilst capable of running in the opposite direction for relatively brief periods time due to cultural lag, does not generally do so. And certainly does not do so on the average and in the long run.

[vtsnowedin]

You guys are debating my counter example and ignoring my point, which was that there are plenty of American voters that are disgruntled enough about how the government is effecting their lives to cast their votes for an outsider promising to overhaul the system.
That would be anyone that has had their work hours cut back to less then thirty per week to keep the company from having to provide them health insurance, anyone that has their doctor retire rather then put up with the ACA, (Obama care), Anyone who now has a $10,000 deductible per year again because of the ACA, anyone who has been denied any raises for eight years while his taxes and ACA premiums have gone up, Anyone denied a building permit because the lot was a wetland,, anyone who's job moved out of the country, etc. etc.

[Little John]

I'm not ignoring the point

[woodburner]

A vengeful culture may be related to poverty, but it is not necessarily so as illustrated by many peoples around the world who's existence is mainly one of poverty. Despite this they are not vengeful in the main. There may be some in those populations who are, but no more so than richer groups. Look at trump, a greedy bully (a very nasty being if you happen to be in the way of his getting what he thinks is another money making scheme moving), but a tad away from living in poverty I think.

[Little John]

A vengeful culture may be related to poverty, but it is not necessarily so as illustrated by many peoples around the world who's existence is mainly one of poverty. Despite this they are not vengeful in the main. There may be some in those populations who are, but no more so than richer groups. Look at trump, a greedy bully (a very nasty being if you happen to be in the way of his getting what he thinks is another money making scheme moving), but a tad away from living in poverty I think.

In terms of those populations where poverty exists but where there is less of a vengeful culture, this is true to some extent and I would not discount a certain degree of variation based on culture alone. But, on this I would add the following qualifications. Firstly, if the "poverty" is merely defined as lack of modern technology, then I might question the definition. For me, poverty is a lack of technology where it is needed to maintain security of life. So, if a population lacks a well, but has easy access to a clean river two miles away, this is technologically inconvenient. But, they are in no more poverty than a population with a well. Indeed, if the population with the well is relying on a technology (in terms of the maintenance of that well) that they otherwise have little access to or understanding of, they are arguably in a greater state of poverty than the population that requires only that they take themselves to the river to drink and wash.

Which leads me onto the other issue about poverty. Namely that of stability. A population that is, by any metric, living under conditions of poverty, but whose poverty is stable; that is to say, notwithstanding the privations it imposes, life is predictable and therefore navigable, will tend to have a stable culture and one, I would argue, that will also tend to be relatively free of the kind of destructive vengeful cultural practices mentioned earlier. In other words, vengefulness, as with any other destructive cultural practice, is born of extreme stress of one form or another and there is no greater stress than unpredictable poverty.

As for the vengefulness one might find in very rich sub-populations, this is born of another phenomenon entirely, I would argue. Such sub-populations tend to have a very high proportion of congenital psychopaths amongst them and this provides a purely genetic driver of destructive behaviors like vengefulness all by itself.

The bottom line is that I do not intend to argue categorically that cultural practices such as vengefulness cannot ever exist independently of economic factors and certainly not in the short term. What I am arguing, however, is that economic uncertainty coupled with poverty is very often the driver in the medium term and, in the long term, is always the driver.

[Lord Beria3]

I would have thought the key metric is downward social mobility.

If you are born into grinding poverty, don't know anything other than it, than you probably won't be too angry about your fate.

If you are born into a comfortable middle class family, financial disaster happens, and you end up losing the trappings of middle class status (the American dream), than you probably will be very angry.

Trump, and Bernie, are just just beneficiaries of a massive social downward movement of what once was broad social layers of Middle America which are sinking into poverty.

Even those who are still materially ok, have seen others lose that status, and are terrified of going down that path themselves. Or maybe, they feel confident that they are ok (house paid off, nice pension and savings) but don't feel so confident about their children or grand-children.

The potential pool of angry and disaffected voters is much larger than you may think.

[johnhemming2]

The potential pool of angry and disaffected voters is much larger than you may think.

Peak oil will make it easily the majority.

[Little John]

I would have thought the key metric is downward social mobility.

If you are born into grinding poverty, don't know anything other than it, than you probably won't be too angry about your fate.

If you are born into a comfortable middle class family, financial disaster happens, and you end up losing the trappings of middle class status (the American dream), than you probably will be very angry.

Trump, and Bernie, are just just beneficiaries of a massive social downward movement of what once was broad social layers of Middle America which are sinking into poverty.

Even those who are still materially ok, have seen others lose that status, and are terrified of going down that path themselves. Or maybe, they feel confident that they are ok (house paid off, nice pension and savings) but don't feel so confident about their children or grand-children.

The potential pool of angry and disaffected voters is much larger than you may think.

This is a re-statement of the unpredictability I mentioned. And on that we agree.

[Lord Beria3]

Am I in danger of gaining respectability in this forum!

Seems like a broad consensus has developed across the main contributers on what is happening which is good news.

[Little John]

It is perhaps time I reiterated here, I am no supporter of Trump. Far from it. I am a socialist of the old fashioned variety. I say that by way of distinguishing myself from the faux-liberal-left that so often self-identifies as being "Left Wing". When, in reality, they are nothing of the sort. What they are, ironically, is apologists for the corporate capitalist class.

To that extent, I could never be a supporter of Trump since he is an avowed capitalist. But, what I must also recognize is that he represents an old fashioned version of capitalism that predates corporatism and, being so, he seeks to break their hold on America and, by implication, the world. In other words, the enemy of my enemy, if only for the purpose of this particular battle, is my "friend".

Trump is a crude nationalist. He is also all of the things as a person that are extremely easy to dislike. A lot. All of these things are demonstrably true.

However, he is also the only person left standing against a global economic corporate elite who do not have the interest of the American people at heart and who are busy leading the world to war. When faced with a choice between them and Trump, the choice for the average American is clear and I suspect quite a few of them will hold their noses in the ballot box and vote for Trump.

I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a few predictions;

Sometime in the next week or so, there will be false flag atrocity on American soil where it will be somehow linked to Trump and his supporters as an attempt to undermine his election prospects. And/or, if Trump actually wins the election, an immediate attempt to sabotage his presidency from the outset will be undertaken. Probably in the form of "riots" that will "spontaneously" erupt across American cities. Again, this will be attributed to Trump.

[johnhemming2]

However, he is also the only person left standing against a global economic corporate elite who do not have the interest of the American people at heart and who are busy leading the world to war.

That really is a laugh.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/27/scottish- ... p-6218253/