At the Intersection of Theology and Ideology

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I don't think the ideological divide is working in our favor currently. I suspect it's because much of the fissure is defined by the culture wars rather than economics, personally. I think that would make a meaningful difference if we could step back and reframe the discussion accordingly. But I also don't think either side can without waking the middle class to it's precarious condition.

If you're familiar with cliodynamics there's a case to be made that the divide is as much as anything due to overproduction of "elites" creating an elite conflict. 

http://www.nature.com/news/human-cycles-history-as-science-1.11078

Many people in this movement (which is attempting to be a science or at least heavily data driven) saw years ago heightened tension coming around the year 2020. His blog has quite a few links to interesting studies related to this. Here's a good one clarifying what he means by elite competition.

http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/elite-collusion-competition/

[The Nehor]

"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"

People are too stupid and evil to govern themselves but in other forms the ruler is usually also too stupid and/or evil to govern. King Mosiah's endorsement of limited Nephite democracy was that if things were screwed up it would at least be everyone's fault. Hardly a slogan to inspire patriotic fervor....

[thesometimesaint]

The best type of government is a righteous king. The worst type is an unrighteous one you can't get rid off.

Edited June 26, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The best type of government is a righteous king. The worst type is an unrighteous one you can't get rid off.

So you agree with me that the US should admit the error of our ways, humble ourselves, and beg for readmittance to the British Empire and reaffirm our loyalty to the Queen?

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If you're familiar with cliodynamics there's a case to be made that the divide is as much as anything due to overproduction of "elites" creating an elite conflict. 

http://www.nature.com/news/human-cycles-history-as-science-1.11078

I think the overproduction of actual elites is cut short by the overproduction of people who perceive themselves as elite. The elite often gain power (votes) by getting others to think they are among the elite, or by instilling in them the sense that they are soon to be elite. This is interesting to me because the sense of what it means to be elite is relative according to class and its material values, which don't really change, being so deeply rooted in a person's psyche. So much so many Americans do not consciously look at things in terms of class.

[mfbukowski]

On 6/24/2017 at 9:20 PM, Five Solas said:

Right.  I saw this coming & did my best to preempt it in the OP. 

At the national level, we have a two-party system.  It may be far from perfect, but it's proved enduring.  And it's actually not hard to make the argument that it works pretty well. 

:0)

So please don't let your sense of perfection become the enemy of the good, clarkgoble.  So now tell us, which side best fits you?

--Erik

He already told you but you would not accept it.

That means you are missing a huge demographic here and your data is worthless because you refuse to accept what many many Mormons believe about politics right now.  Not to mention that in fact yes, we DO strive for perfection and want to get everything right.

It's like asking Baptists about the idea of giving up coffee because you think it's wrong to drink coffee, and then make up some false conclusion based on the fact that Baptists deliberately ignore the word of wisdom, which I am sure is analogous to the conclusion you will eventually make based on your absurdly flawed data.

Edited June 26, 2017 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

It's like that childhood game "which would you rather...?

Would you rather eat barf, or poo?

Neither thank you!

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

It's like that childhood game "which would you rather...?

Would you rather eat barf, or poo?

Neither thank you!

Life on this planet is often like an extended version of that game. This is not a nice world.

Edited June 26, 2017 by The Nehor

[RevTestament]

On 6/24/2017 at 5:09 PM, Five Solas said:

Each of the two main political parties in the US espouses values and priorities.  And I submit these are worth time and consideration. 

If you read the 2016 Republican Platform, you see phrases like “American exceptionalism,” “limited government,” “peace” through “strength” and concern for the “national debt.”

In the Democratic Platform, you’ll see a concern for “economic fairness,” “income and wealth inequality” and a focus on social justice, including “equal pay for women” and “LGBT rights.”

There’s more, of course, I’m just picking some of the highlights from the preamble of each. 

I am going to respond to this in the hopes that it may  help partisanship a little bit, which has become so pronounced as of late that we have things like the Congressional baseball shooting.

I don't believe my personal party affiliation is terribly relevant, but I am currently registered Republican. When I moved to Utah, I told the Driver's License worker I wanted to register independent, so got registered in the Independent Party, LOL. In order to be able to vote in primaries I eventually changed it to the Republican party since I tend to vote for Republican candidates here in Utah. In this last election I absolutely would not vote for Hillary, and to avoid a feud, I will not enumerate my reasons, but I could not bring myself to vote for Trump, who I believe thinks being president is like running for a Miss Popularity contest - you can always buy the pageant if you don't like the outcome. All jest aside I see politics reaching a critical stage in US history, and would like to  air my beliefs.

I consider myself to be a fiscally conservative liberal. That is how I try to rationally strike a balance between the two party system. I believe in helping the disabled and retirees to the extent that we don't spend more than we bring in. I value liberty and justice, and I see the trend toward socialist ideals to be troubling for several reasons. First, our government was not designed to be a socialist system nor to promote socialist ideals. It was designed to provide the country with organized self-defense, and to provide some basic services, and a uniform legal system to promote equal justice under the law. To try to turn this system into a socialist one, will require something like the Swedish system with 70-80% of income being taxed. The Swedes also have the advantage of basically a 0% defense budget and being a very homogeneous population. Some major problems with this system are that it squashes individual free speech and initiative. Swedes are scared to say anything which goes against the generally accepted norm. Once free speech is sacrificed to the pillar of social justice, it is difficult to ever get it back. Turning the government from a system to promote equality under the law into a system for imposing social equality means things like "right to housing," "right to work" and "right to health care" which currently are only phrases found in the Democratic party and not in the US Constitution, which leaves it to people to find their own path in the economy.

Second, socialist systems have shown themselves to be terribly inefficient compared to capitalism and incapable of providing all the needs of their populations besides being horribly totalitarian and repressive. I don't see so-called democratic socialistic systems being much more desirable. Governments are just notoriously inefficient systems for ensuring social equality. I see Americans falling for the same pipe dreams sold by communists and socialists in China, Russia, and elsewhere, which history has shown has not gone so well for them - both Russia and China have given up on purely socialist systems after committing some of the most horrible atrocities in history, and imposing horribly restrictive requirements on their peoples. When government takes control of all the reigns of the economy in order to impose "social justice" things historically have not gone well. The promises suck in enough people to take the jump, but the promises are never kept - except that most are equally poor with the exception of those in power of course.

Third, as I have alluded to our constitution is simply not designed for the federal government to make this leap into being some kind of a redistributing social justice hero. The back door attempts to make the government this hero have not gone so well to date. The housing crash was undoubtedly caused by some programs promoted under Clinton to back securities which eventually led to "liar-loans" and the artificially inflated housing values which ultimately led to the crash - all in the name of "right to housing." No one hears about this because both the Dems and Republicans are complicit in bringing this about. Republicans were too happy about all the money being made to put a stop to it even if they could. Continued efforts to reform the government into this monster will result in more decisions like the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare which route around all the guarantees in the constitution by allowing the government to do whatever it wants through taxation power.  I feel the only way to really make such efforts constitutional is to amend the constitution, but the left realizes it does not have that kind of political clout yet.

What does all this have to do with religion? Not a whole lot imho - except to a certain degree trying to force "social justice" on everyone is somewhat akin to trying to force religion on everyone - it is a value system. It just leaves out God. Is it ironic that all systems thus far imposed intentionally leave out God or even legally push out any religious worship whatsoever? Maybe that is because these governments become the new source of daily bread, and all human needs being met. Perhaps in the end that is contrary to God's will as men will forget Him.

[thesometimesaint]

44 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So you agree with me that the US should admit the error of our ways, humble ourselves, and beg for readmittance to the British Empire and reaffirm our loyalty to the Queen?

No. There has been no truly righteous king/queen anywhere so far. Maybe when Jesus comes back, but definitely not before then. King Noah was the norm, not king Mosiah.

Edited June 26, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

28 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I am going to respond to this in the hopes that it may  help partisanship a little bit, which has become so pronounced as of late that we have things like the Congressional baseball shooting.

I don't believe my personal party affiliation is terribly relevant, but I am currently registered Republican. When I moved to Utah, I told the Driver's License worker I wanted to register independent, so got registered in the Independent Party, LOL. In order to be able to vote in primaries I eventually changed it to the Republican party since I tend to vote for Republican candidates here in Utah. In this last election I absolutely would not vote for Hillary, and to avoid a feud, I will not enumerate my reasons, but I could not bring myself to vote for Trump, who I believe thinks being president is like running for a Miss Popularity contest - you can always buy the pageant if you don't like the outcome. All jest aside I see politics reaching a critical stage in US history, and would like to  air my beliefs.

I consider myself to be a fiscally conservative liberal. That is how I try to rationally strike a balance between the two party system. I believe in helping the disabled and retirees to the extent that we don't spend more than we bring in. I value liberty and justice, and I see the trend toward socialist ideals to be troubling for several reasons. First, our government was not designed to be a socialist system nor to promote socialist ideals. It was designed to provide the country with organized self-defense, and to provide some basic services, and a uniform legal system to promote equal justice under the law. To try to turn this system into a socialist one, will require something like the Swedish system with 70-80% of income being taxed. The Swedes also have the advantage of basically a 0% defense budget and being a very homogeneous population. Some major problems with this system are that it squashes individual free speech and initiative. Swedes are scared to say anything which goes against the generally accepted norm. Once free speech is sacrificed to the pillar of social justice, it is difficult to ever get it back. Turning the government from a system to promote equality under the law into a system for imposing social equality means things like "right to housing," "right to work" and "right to health care" which currently are only phrases found in the Democratic party and not in the US Constitution, which leaves it to people to find their own path in the economy.

Second, socialist systems have shown themselves to be terribly inefficient compared to capitalism and incapable of providing all the needs of their populations besides being horribly totalitarian and repressive. I don't see so-called democratic socialistic systems being much more desirable. Governments are just notoriously inefficient systems for ensuring social equality. I see Americans falling for the same pipe dreams sold by communists and socialists in China, Russia, and elsewhere, which history has shown has not gone so well for them - both Russia and China have given up on purely socialist systems after committing some of the most horrible atrocities in history, and imposing horribly restrictive requirements on their peoples. When government takes control of all the reigns of the economy in order to impose "social justice" things historically have not gone well. The promises suck in enough people to take the jump, but the promises are never kept - except that most are equally poor with the exception of those in power of course.

Third, as I have alluded to our constitution is simply not designed for the federal government to make this leap into being some kind of a redistributing social justice hero. The back door attempts to make the government this hero have not gone so well to date. The housing crash was undoubtedly caused by some programs promoted under Clinton to back securities which eventually led to "liar-loans" and the artificially inflated housing values which ultimately led to the crash - all in the name of "right to housing." No one hears about this because both the Dems and Republicans are complicit in bringing this about. Republicans were too happy about all the money being made to put a stop to it even if they could. Continued efforts to reform the government into this monster will result in more decisions like the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare which route around all the guarantees in the constitution by allowing the government to do whatever it wants through taxation power.  I feel the only way to really make such efforts constitutional is to amend the constitution, but the left realizes it does not have that kind of political clout yet.

What does all this have to do with religion? Not a whole lot imho - except to a certain degree trying to force "social justice" on everyone is somewhat akin to trying to force religion on everyone - it is a value system. It just leaves out God. Is it ironic that all systems thus far imposed intentionally leave out God or even legally push out any religious worship whatsoever? Maybe that is because these governments become the new source of daily bread, and all human needs being met. Perhaps in the end that is contrary to God's will as men will forget Him.

We don't have a purely Socialist or purely Capitalistic economic system. Without a good mix of both we get ourselves into trouble.

SEE

 

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

We don't have a purely Socialist or purely Capitalistic economic system. Without a good mix of both we get ourselves into trouble.

What "trouble" are we in? Being the wealthiest country in the world? Wealth is always relative. The poorest in America have a car, and a roof over their head. That is richer than most of the world. When did it become necessary to have socialism? Was America in "trouble" in 1900? As I have said I am not against providing a social net for those who cannot do for themselves - the disabled, and the retired. Otherwise, "providing" for people becomes a sacred cash cow which political parties begin catering to. That is the true "trouble" I see with socialistic ideals. I believe it is also contrary to God's ideal for everyone to find what they enjoy and/or are best at in order to do their part in contributing to society. I doesn't matter if 1% of the population holds > 25% of the country's wealth if everyone has enough to eat, and a means to support themselves. That is better than everyone being dirt poor and just scraping by imho. I'd rather live as a poor person in America than in "communist China" which lacks basic freedoms. And the fact that being forced to buy health insurance is seen as a "good" thing in America deeply troubles me.

[mnn727]

On 6/24/2017 at 6:09 PM, Five Solas said:

 

But more than just the utility of collective action and public funding, to me the values of the Democratic Party are best aligned to answer an ancient question—“Am I my brother’s keeper?”       

 

The problem with that is, I would rather give to the charities of my choice and not have my tax dollars confiscated for causes I do not want to support.

[mnn727]

On 6/24/2017 at 11:20 PM, Five Solas said:

Right.  I saw this coming & did my best to preempt it in the OP. 

At the national level, we have a two-party system.  It may be far from perfect, but it's proved enduring.  And it's actually not hard to make the argument that it works pretty well. 

 

It works pretty well for the two parties, its killing America though

[thesometimesaint]

We are the wealthiest country in the world. No doubt about that. But that wealth is highly segregated. Wealth is not relative in reality. If Bill Gates goes into working class bar. No one says that everyone there is rich. In 1900 there were no laws against child labor. and few if any retirement agreements. If you got sick or injured at work you were outta luck. The poorest Americans don't have cars, and many don't have a roof over their heads. The poorest American's live on less than $2.00 per day.

SEE http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/poverty/

There are about  7 billion people on this planet. Nearly 1/2 of the world's population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty.

You sound like a regular Joe Republican. SEE http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/America/DayInLifeOfJoeRepublican.html

I too would have live here than in China, But that's a Hobson's Choice.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson's_choice

Most of western Europe is far more socialist and capitalistic than we are. Their people live longer happier lives than do their American counterparts.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

We are the wealthiest country in the world. No doubt about that. But that wealth is highly segregated. Wealth is not relative in reality. If Bill Gates goes into working class bar. No one says that everyone there is rich. In 1900 there were no laws against child labor. and few if any retirement agreements. If you got sick or injured at work you were outta luck. The poorest Americans don't have cars, and many don't have a roof over their heads. The poorest American's live on less than $2.00 per day.

The guys in the bar are all rich. They just don't feel like it because wealth is relative as I said. My point about America is that your catchword "trouble" doesn't really apply. As you put it America was in more "trouble" in 1900, but you still see the glass as half-empty so for you America is now in real "trouble." To you America will always be in "trouble" unless everyone has a guaranteed job, house, and health insurance. That was just not what our Federal government was designed to provide nor our constitution written to provide.

Quote

There are about  7 billion people on this planet. Nearly 1/2 of the world's population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty.

You sound like a regular Joe Republican. SEE http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/America/DayInLifeOfJoeRepublican.htmlof western Europe is far more socialist and capitalistic than we are. Their people live longer happier lives than do their American counterparts.

In your Joe Republican world everything government does comes from "a liberal" as if Republicans never pass laws. That's absurd.

"Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised." 

I generally wake when I wake up. My water is clean because it comes from city wells, and a little chlorine is added. I don't use daily medication, and have little need of the FDA in this regard. I'm not sure who started the FDA, but Republican congresses routinely pass budgets to include the FDA, and have never voted it out of existence. 

"All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too."

I didn't have health insurance from 1999 - 2014, and now my wife's employment provides it.

"He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry."

If that means I am forced to eat preservatives, perhaps that is one reason why Americans have lots of cancer and don't live so long.

"In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained."

FDA again. See above.

"Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air."

I agree one of the functions of government is to regulate, because economic incentives do not always align with what is best for society. I am not a libertarian. As I indicated I am a fiscally conservative liberal. 

"He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor."

I believe most Republicans have no problem with eminent domain laws, publicly provided roadways, and publicly provided transportation where the market makes sense. However, when I was in college i took a history class on nuclear energy, and listened to my liberal professor spout off all the reasons we should get rid of nuclear energy rather than learn about other forms of nuclear energy the government did not pursue, which may indeed provide safe and cheap energy so that we do not need all the publicly subsidized transportation, nor the air pollution regulations.

"Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union."

My work is self-created. I am self-employed. I have no medical benefits, retirement nor paid holidays, lol. With my "wonderful" life I wonder why I still hold so many "conservative" views? Because I realize what our government was designed to be, and what government does not do well. Government did not create the wealth in the US. Contrary to Hillary's rhetoric, government does not "create" jobs - Obama may have learned that much to his dismay, but I doubt it since he is a socialist at heart.

Quote

I too would have live here than in China, But that's a Hobson's Choice.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson's_choice

Most of Western Europe is far more socialist and capitalistic than we are. Their people live longer happier lives than do their American counterparts.

Sounds to me like you'd rather live in Europe then. Hey it's America. You are free to move there! Europe is not more capitalistic than the US. In the best economy in the world what the government does do well is prevent the abuses which occur in the free capitalist markets so that opportunities are more fair, and costs of pollution, etc, are not dumped off onto the general public. Basically, we have the best system in the world because it was combined with Judeo-Christian values, but leftists want to change it. While the temporary allure of such changes are indeed powerful, I'm afraid the long-term costs of loss of freedoms will destroy the very things modern liberals want to take and distribute through governmental power. I am not so liberal so as to believe that will end well. That is not real liberalism. It is socialism in disguise. Real liberalism seeks to preserve the liberties of people - not take them away.

Edited June 26, 2017 by RevTestament

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think the overproduction of actual elites is cut short by the overproduction of people who perceive themselves as elite. The elite often gain power (votes) by getting others to think they are among the elite, or by instilling in them the sense that they are soon to be elite. This is interesting to me because the sense of what it means to be elite is relative according to class and its material values, which don't really change, being so deeply rooted in a person's psyche. So much so many Americans do not consciously look at things in terms of class.

Well effectively if you think you're an elite and ought have influence like an elite then you are in the group competing. I have zero desire to go into politics. But clearly many of elites want to be in positions of power. If there are a limited number of positions but more and more people wanting those positions you get elite competition. The Great Gatsby is sort of a tale of elite competition with new elites not being respected and thereby not allowed into certain types of soft power. The new elites very much want that. If you don't deal with that then the tension manifests itself in other ways. The entire Trump situation can easily be seen as a group of elites not respected by the traditional elite (either GOP or Democrats) who took advantage of populist anger to get themselves into positions of power. Trump and many of his cronies are not exactly traditional GOP figures after all. And notice how the anger with him often is less about actual policy than the idea that he's usurping power - power that traditional establishment figures should have. I'm no Trump fan, but the way this plays out seems very much like the establishment being far more upset that someone outside their group coming to power.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

The poorest Americans don't have cars, and many don't have a roof over their heads. The poorest American's live on less than $2.00 per day.

True but a bit misleading. A big problem that neither party wants to grapple with is the problem of labor mobility. The reality is that in many regions there are few good jobs and jobs just aren't coming back. We need to make it easier for people to be able to get to where there are jobs available.

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

True but a bit misleading. A big problem that neither party wants to grapple with is the problem of labor mobility. The reality is that in many regions there are few good jobs and jobs just aren't coming back. We need to make it easier for people to be able to get to where there are jobs available.

I have it on good authority, well okay, maybe just authority that the coal jobs are all coming back.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Well effectively if you think you're an elite and ought have influence like an elite then you are in the group competing. I have zero desire to go into politics. But clearly many of elites want to be in positions of power. If there are a limited number of positions but more and more people wanting those positions you get elite competition. The Great Gatsby is sort of a tale of elite competition with new elites not being respected and thereby not allowed into certain types of soft power. The new elites very much want that. If you don't deal with that then the tension manifests itself in other ways. The entire Trump situation can easily be seen as a group of elites not respected by the traditional elite (either GOP or Democrats) who took advantage of populist anger to get themselves into positions of power. Trump and many of his cronies are not exactly traditional GOP figures after all. And notice how the anger with him often is less about actual policy than the idea that he's usurping power - power that traditional establishment figures should have. I'm no Trump fan, but the way this plays out seems very much like the establishment being far more upset that someone outside their group coming to power.

Yes, the overproduction of actual elites inspires their peer competition. How they get there, and how they continue to compete, is by overproducing lower-class supporters, which iinspires great expectations among the supporters. When the less-powerful supporters realize how expendable they actually are (and that their sense of vicarious eliteness isn't authentic) in this war for power, they turn, and not necessarily to the other party. They often simply drop out or rebel, proving that no one is their keeper.

[halconero]

Umm,

I don't think this poll is for me...

Is there any room for a George Grant-style Red Tory with a healthy respect for Liberals like Lester Pearson, Laurier, and Martin? Add in a dose of constitutional monarchy and baby you've got a federal stew going.

That excludes provincial politics which is a whole different ball game, where I generally align with centrist parties like the Alberta Party or the Progressive Conservatives, though less so the latter since Jason Kenney took over. In fact the Alberta Party is essentially the PC Witness Protection program now that the party is imploding and all the moderates are jumping ship while the more right wing ones are looking to merge with the Tea Party-lite Wildrose Party.

I know that none of this means much to you, but the gist is that I'm thankful to high heaven for a multi-party system.

Edited June 27, 2017 by halconero

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, the overproduction of actual elites inspires their peer competition. How they get there, and how they continue to compete, is by overproducing lower-class supporters, which iinspires great expectations among the supporters. When the less-powerful supporters realize how expendable they actually are (and that their sense of vicarious eliteness isn't authentic) in this war for power, they turn, and not necessarily to the other party. They often simply drop out or rebel, proving that no one is their keeper.

That presupposes elites can't figure out how to keep the masses angry. That's partially why during periods of elite overproduction from Rome to the Civil War and so forth that violence increases often leading to war.

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

True but a bit misleading. A big problem that neither party wants to grapple with is the problem of labor mobility. The reality is that in many regions there are few good jobs and jobs just aren't coming back. We need to make it easier for people to be able to get to where there are jobs available.

SEE Iron Law of labor  The iron law of wages is a proposed law of economics that asserts that real wages always tend, in the long run, toward the minimum wage necessary to sustain the life of the worker. The theory was first named by Ferdinand Lassalle in the mid-nineteenth century. Labor per say is not mobile, except at the most basic survival level. Say you're in your mid 40's, have a house, car, kids in schools, the normal trappings of the good old American middle class life style. Your boss comes in one day and says they are moving the plant you worked in much of your adult life is moving to Bangladesh because the workers there are available at lower cost.  Sure; you can technically move to Bangladesh. But at a loss of everything you have worked for.

[boblloyd91]

All I can say is we are literally a Bipolar nation, and the mood changes every election and we get more and more angry at each other. It's sad and frustrating. I wish there were more moderates and centrists. I was initially in support of John Kasich, but when it was clear the other guy had the nomination I couldn't support the Republican party at all. 

Edited June 27, 2017 by boblloyd91

[CV75]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That presupposes elites can't figure out how to keep the masses angry. That's partially why during periods of elite overproduction from Rome to the Civil War and so forth that violence increases often leading to war.

Oh they keep us angry alright LOL... I should have placed more emphasis on the "rebel" part of my comment but I was trying to be peacable.