danivon wrote:Ricky was not questioning the result as legitimate, so stop being ridiculous. He was questioning the result politically, which is as fair game as opposing Obama while recognising he's the legitimate President.

Apparently the electorate has become more "completely ideologically sound"

Or polarised around impractical extremes, to the detriment of reasoned political discourse, perhaps...

You must mean like You vs Steve; Me vs RickyP et al...

Difference is, we aren't running a nation, just shooting the breeze on the internet.

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

But how has the American version of capitalism worked since the 80s?

Better than Europe's, no?

My point is that American capitalism has overall worked very well since 1980. Total employment has increased by 50%. We have a range of new products, many of which were unimaginable 32 years ago. We are safer and healthier. We live longer and better. The standard of living of our median citizen has improved remarkably since 1980 in many ways. In 1980 the median household income was $44,616. In 2010 it was $49,445. It peaked at $53,252 in 1999.

http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

It isn't perfect. It never will be. We still have profound challenges including structural deficits and an excess of government spending. I would prefer less income inequality, although a government cure may be worse than the actual disease.

But in spite of all of Ricky's gobbledegook (thanks for the word) that America is filled with stupid people who have a horrid way of life, the reality is very different.

I tried to find comparable European stats but could not.

Ray Jay wrote:My point is that American capitalism has overall worked very well since 1980. Total employment has increased by 50%. We have a range of new products, many of which were unimaginable 32 years ago. We are safer and healthier. We live longer and better. The standard of living of our median citizen has improved remarkably since 1980 in many ways. In 1980 the median household income was $44,616. In 2010 it was $49,445. It peaked at $53,252 in 1999.

What was it in 1950? Just so we can see if the trends of the past 30 years are better than the preceding 30 years.

I tried to find comparable European stats but could not.

Probably because you'd have to look up individual countries, rather than Europe as a whole, and non-English speaking countries are less likely to have the stats as easily found. Not to mention that former Eastern Bloc nations are likely to have dubios stats anyway.

Are those median income figures inflation adjusted ?

Danivon:

What was it in 1950? Just so we can see if the trends of the past 30 years are better than the preceding 30 years.

The trends over the last 30 years are not as good as the previous 30. From 1950 to 1980 we saw remarkable growth in both employment and median income. My point is that by most (all?) objective measures, 2010 is much better than 1980. We don't live in a dystopia as Ricky describes.

Sass:

Are those median income figures inflation adjusted ?

Yes.

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

What was it in 1950? Just so we can see if the trends of the past 30 years are better than the preceding 30 years.

The trends over the last 30 years are not as good as the previous 30. From 1950 to 1980 we saw remarkable growth in both employment and median income.

Which kind of puts the last 30 years into a very different perspective.

My point is that by most (all?) objective measures, 2010 is much better than 1980. We don't live in a dystopia as Ricky describes.

Yes, it's better now than then, but generally that's the course of history though all our systems, particularly over the past 200 years or so.

danivon wrote:[The vital difference is that in 1981 a group of moderates broke away from Labour to form the SDP, which accelerated the process greatly (and while the 1983 Labour manifesto is reckoned to be pretty radical, it's not far from the 1974 manifestos). I can't see a centrist Republican breakaway emerging realistically.

You are correct that there is and will be no break away party. Rather, centrist Republicans are just leaving the party. It is the same thing that is happening to Democrats. There is an ideological purge happening in the Democratic party as well, where the moderates are losing out to far left candidates and the moderates are leaving the party. Independents currently make up 42% of the electorate which is up from last years high of 40%. This is accelerating the process in both parties.

Ray Jay wrote:It's also relevant that Lugar hasn't had a real address in Indiana since the 1970's and was 80 years old. I'm sure that was a factor in many people's minds.

This is part of it but it is so much more. Jay Cost writes a good article about it. Luger had a lot of problems. Namely he was a long term incumbant in a year where Congressional approval rates are in the toilet, he was to the left of the rest of the Indiana Delegation, he hasn't owned a house in Indiana since the 1970's (he stays in hotels when back in Indiana) and the guy running against him is a serious establishment candidate with a good history.

Archduke Russell John wrote:You are correct that there is and will be no break away party. Rather, centrist Republicans are just leaving the party. It is the same thing that is happening to Democrats. There is an ideological purge happening in the Democratic party as well, where the moderates are losing out to far left candidates and the moderates are leaving the party. Independents currently make up 42% of the electorate which is up from last years high of 40%. This is accelerating the process in both parties.

Eventually, we're going to have a realignment. We are due for one. It could be we wind up with a Left Party and a center-Left Party, but I would guess we will wind up with a Right Party and a Center-Right Party.

Why? Because the Debt is a real issue for most voters and it is one that Democrats, by and large, aren't willing to discuss. When they do, they trot out canards like "The Buffett Rule," which would pay for a year's deficit in what--150 years?

A realignment is going to be very unlikely because of the electoral system. If it does happen I can see it going either way. It would require one breakaway candidate somewhere to manage to break the duopoly and get him/herself elected to Congress. Support would then coalesce around that candidate. If it's a centre-left candidate then the movement that forms would be of the centre left.

Of course, this is still ultimately likely to fail because if the left splinters it would just guarantee Republican hegemony and vice versa. What would most likely then happen is that support would drain back to the traditional party. It may still be useful though because the process would inevitably serve to drag both parties back towards the centre.

Sassenach wrote:A realignment is going to be very unlikely because of the electoral system.

We've had several before. It could be the meaning of the party name simply changes.

We shall see. If Romney wins, especially if it's a convincing win, and then bellyflops, I think we're likely to see some major shifts.

ray

The standard of living of our median citizen has improved remarkably since 1980 in many ways. In 1980 the median household income was $44,616. In 2010 it was $49,445. It peaked at $53,252 in 1999.

It peaked in 1999. And through the 90's debt accumulation by the middle class, on mortgages that proved to be excessive when the mortgage bubble burst , was the one thing that kept that median going up as the debt drove the consumer market...
When income and wealth shift as dramatically as they have done in the US between 1980 and today, someone ends up with less than then used to have...Even accounting for the fact that modern manufacturing and marketing have reduced the cost of amentities and made them better: relative to the contemporary society they live in - middle class Americans have less than those in 1980.

And I've never said that the US was a dystopia. (That would be distorting what I'm saying.) I'm saying that policies that began to be followed since 1980 have worked against the lower and middle classes...
You call that gobbledegook even though you quote "peaked in 1999?"
I ask you ray, is it real or not that both income and wealth in the US are now concentrated more in fewer hands than in 1980? If so, why is it that those who are in the larger group, who've seen the income and wealth shift away from them, continue to support policies that have lead to this eventuality? I call this irrational, by the way.Not stupid. You're the one who used that characterization.

By the way, the debt that helped fuel the continued growth through the nineties is part of the problem for middle and working class families today. Both mortgages and student loans. And yet today in the US home ownership is 69%. Thats 8 points below Norway and 13 points below Canada. Thats one measure amongst a variety of ways to look at quality of life beyond income levels. Another one is social mobility. And in the US its very low. Born poor you'll likely die poor. Born poor in Germany or Sweden and you'll likely as not improve your relative position.
Is it rational to continue to support policies that hamper you and your childrens chances to advance ?

Reagans response to the recession was to stimulate the economy with enormous tax breaks. It worked well. But it created deficits and added to the real debt. He then raised taxes. Time and again, in an attempt to get the nation back to a balanced budget. Never got there, but he rationally understood that he couldn't depend on magic to get revenue.
Today, Grover Norquist would have Reagans hide for raising taxes. And yet, the Republican candidate, and most of his party, won't consider them today, on the small group who have genuinely prospered since 1980, and who can afford to contribute more to curbing the deficit.

When ron reagan would no longer be welcome as a republican, you've reached a high point of irrationality and an unworkable political environment.

rickyp wrote:ray
The standard of living of our median citizen has improved remarkably since 1980 in many ways. In 1980 the median household income was $44,616. In 2010 it was $49,445. It peaked at $53,252 in 1999.

It peaked in 1999. And through the 90's debt accumulation by the middle class, on mortgages that proved to be excessive when the mortgage bubble burst , was the one thing that kept that going...
When income and wealth shift as dramatically as they have done in the US between 1980 and today, someone ends up with less than then used to have...Even accounting for the fact that modern manufacturing and markleting have reduced the cost of amentities and made them better - relative to the society they live in - middle class Americans have less than those in 1980.

And I've never said that the US was a dystopia. (That would be distorting what I'm saying.) I'm saying that policies that began to be followed since 1980 have worked against the lower and middle classes...
You call that's gobbledegook even though you quote "peaked in 1999?"
I ask you ray, is it real or not that both income and wealth in the US are now concentrated more in fewer hands than in 1980? If so, why is it that those who are in the larger group, who've seen the income and wealth shift away from them, continue to support policies that have lead to this eventuality? I call this irrational, by the way.Not stupid. You're the one who used that characterization.

By the way, the debt that helped fuel the continued growth through the nineties is part of the problem for middle and working class families today. Both mortgages and student loans. And yet today in the US home ownership is 69%. Thats 8 points below Norway and 13 points below Canada. There's a vareity of ways to look at quality of life beyond income levels. One is social mobility. And in the US its very low.
Reagans response to the recession was to stimulate the economy with enormous tax breaks. It worked well. But it created deficits and added to the real debt. He then raised taxes. Time and again, in an attempt to get the nation back to a balanced budget. Never got there, but he rationally understood that he couldn't depend on magic to get revenue.
Today, Grover Norquist would have Reagans hide for raising taxes. And yet, the Republican candidate, and most of his party, won't consider them today, on the small group who have genuinely prospered since 1980, and who can afford to contribute more to curbing the deficit.

Objection! Foundation?

Objection! Speculation!

If the US is such an upwardly immobile place, we should expect to see our poor, huddled masses going to Norway (via convoy), right?

If Reagan was such a Leftist, why did Democrats hate him until he died?

rickyp wrote:Today, Grover Norquist would have Reagans hide for raising taxes. And yet, the Republican candidate, and most of his party, won't consider them today, on the small group who have genuinely prospered since 1980, and who can afford to contribute more to curbing the deficit.

When ron reagan would no longer be welcome as a republican, you've reached a high point of irrationality and an unworkable political environment.

This is, without question, your lamest, least supported, and "irrational" post in memory.

What's your support for asserting Reagan would no longer be welcomed as a Republican? Every primary candidate claimed the mantle of Reagan, so . . . on what basis do you claim he would not be welcome in the party?