Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 464: Hell-th Care

(+) Yeah! (+)

Metal_DK is right to bring up Nixon too. He may not have caused as much direct harm as Reagan domestically, but he set the stage. And to repeat something Ive said before (that definitely bears repeating) normalizing relations with the PRC was in the long term the greatest diplomatic blunder in the world post WWII.

That famous social democrat, Richard Nixon!

Thorn posted...

Social media (addiction) is indeed a large driver of way a lot of things are uniquely so bad right now but even if you waved a magic wand and stopped the Casual Revolution of 2007 things would still be shit because of Reagan's presidency. Those graphs that show how wage growth and productivity (and actually a whole lot of other things economic and not) all of a sudden wildly diverge after 1980 despite having been basically a single line all the decades before aren't coincidences. Reagan and his policies are the prime driver and origin point of the massive (and ever increasing) wealth inequality in society and this was decades before social media was a thing. I'm not sure I'd say Reagan's policies caused the social media shit down the road (although maybe you could make a case that all the deregulation culture set the stage) because it's not like "out-of-touch number must go up!!!" shit came into existence with him. Though he did finally manage to undo the round of regulation we put up after the last time that shit got out of hand (Great Depression) and that ethos has continued on strong ever since. That part is just a "feature" of unregulated capitalism.

We just happen to live in the wonderful era where we get to suffer through both at the same time.

Well I think its a bit more complicated than that as economic liberalisation was pursued around the world at that time, not just by Reagan in the US, even in countries that elected left-leaning governments. Accordingly wealth inequality in those countries increased at this time. However, if you look at a lot of advanced economies, wealth inequality levels off in the 1990s and has been effectively the same since then. In the US, it has gotten significantly worse. To be precise, it dips a bit in the late 90s, rapidly accelerates in the 2000s, levels off in the mid-2010s then increases again. So is this all down to Reagan? Or Bush and Trump? Using his ideology of course, but its not like the right in other countries doesnt tend to be massively neoliberal. Reagan was absolutely a key domino but things that happened after then (and before) matter a lot too. None of which is to spare Reagan he was obviously awful but just part of a whole chain of events.

Then of course there is the second point, getting rid of Reagans impact might stop the crash and even the rise in inequality. However, it certainly wouldnt stop Russia going after Ukraine.

Nixon was the origin, Reagan was stage 1 of the rocket and post-9/11 (Bush Doctrine) was the stage 2 of the rocket.

Without 9/11, there's a good chance keynesianism would've evened out similar to European countries, especially after the dotcom crash and the Japan bubble bursting. Then after 2008, Europe was afraid of being the next Greece and slowed down even more, while the US had years of experience with successful hyperkeynesianism, so they leaned into that even more.

Basically, it all comes down to war, which has driven human history for thousands of years. Our time is no different.

War. War never changes.

I certainly would not describe Reagan or Bush as Keynesian. Unless you mean Military Keynesianism, in which case maybe.

darkest timeline, etc

https://metro.co.uk/2025/09/04/donald-trump-asks-supporters-15-donations-get-heaven-24072996/

Trump is now fundraising to 'get to heaven.'

something something camel, needle

If I donate, will he go there faster?

Damn, politico isn't pulling punches with this one:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/09/04/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-appeal-column-00543196

Trump Is Trying to Blackmail the Supreme Court

.

Essentially his argument for keeping the tariffs is how expensive it would be to for the country to repay all of the improperly collected tariffs that have occurred so far.

Perhaps he should have thought of that shit before unilaterally doing things that CLEARLY exceed his constitutional authority.

It's going to be fucking gross if the Supreme Court sides with him on this.

setting a precedent that you can get away with things if you fuck everything up too much would be the actual final nail

LightningStrikes posted...

I certainly would not describe Reagan or Bush as Keynesian. Unless you mean Military Keynesianism, in which case maybe.

Why would you exclude military keynesianism?

Because it probably doesnt work for starters! Otherwise Russia would be doing a lot better than it is now. Though to be serious, it is also an ideological difference. The right (not just in the US) views military spending as separate from infrastructure and welfare spending. Which is why Republican policy is socialism for the military, neoliberalism for everyone else and has been for a long time. With Trump later turbocharging it.

You only count keynesianism that works as real keynesianism? What are the hell are they putting in that british water? Of course it doesn't work, that's why we criticize it. Neolibs are the ones who have to bend backwards to defend it.

foolm0r0n posted...

You only count keynesianism that works as real keynesianism? What are the hell are they putting in that british water? Of course it doesn't work, that's why we criticize it. Neolibs are the ones who have to bend backwards to defend it.

I dont know whats in the British water these days, I live in Ireland and have for over a decade. But it was more a general pop at Military Keynesianism as something separate from Keynesianism. Also I would not associate neoliberalism and Keynesianism at all. They are kind of fundamentally opposed.

And lots of Trumpers legitimately believe he is anti-keynesian too. Reagan figured out that rhetorical trick that people are evidently still falling for 50 years later. You should base your associations on whether their policies and actions promote keynesianism, not whether their rhetoric does.

LightningStrikes posted...

I dont know whats in the British water these days, I live in Ireland and have for over a decade. But it was more a general pop at Military Keynesianism as something separate from Keynesianism. Also I would not associate neoliberalism and Keynesianism at all. They are kind of fundamentally opposed.

These are not great labels, as there are a lot of different economic ideas that can be called liberal or neoliberal, and Keynes hasn't been around for a long time. But I think what's happened is that neoliberal ideas failed to produce any reduction in the government deficit - in fact, quite the opposite happened - and as a result we've gotten rapidly accelerated government borrowing to cover the ever increasing deficit.

I'm not sure what you mean about military Keynesianism not working - the front line is at the border of Russia with Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland. In the 1980s it was in central Germany. It seems to be working great.

FFDragon posted...

setting a precedent that you can get away with things if you fuck everything up too much would be the actual final nail

Unfortunately we already set this precedent in 2008 with the megabanks being too big to fail.

So it looks like Trump's plan to stop Mamdani is to give both Adams and Sliwa administration positions in return for the dropping out, and to have the election just be Cuomo vs Mamdani, with the goal being to have enough Republicans vote for Cuomo to push him over Mamdani.

.....Really hope this is too stupid to work.

I feel like New Yorkers are in particular contrary enough that even a lot of people that prefer Cuomo would be annoyed that the election got clearly manipulated to be a rematch of an election Cuomo just lost

UshiromiyaEva posted...

So it looks like Trump's plan to stop Mamdani is to give both Adams and Sliwa administration positions in return for the dropping out, and to have the election just be Cuomo vs Mamdani, with the goal being to have enough Republicans vote for Cuomo to push him over Mamdani.

.....Really hope this is too stupid to work.

I feel it would make the most sense to rally around Adams rather than Cuomo. I don't think Republicans are going to feel much desire to vote for a career centrist Democrat from a longstanding Democratic family.

But then, Trump is a native New Yorker and has the best political instincts, so his judgment is probably better than mine on this.

It's a solid strategy if the Trump strategists drank their own poison and believe 70% of NYC is secretly pro-Trump but just hasn't come out to vote yet

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/04/politics/transgender-firearms-justice-department-second-amendment

America is a sick little country run by sick little people.

I'm sure the NRA will protest this loudly.

Finally getting to the root of the problem I see lol clown country

Here's some more America.

https://www.kalb.com/2025/09/03/la-ag-seeks-challenge-scotus-ruling-preventing-death-penalty-crimes-committed-by-minors/

Remember working folks, they don't wanna just kill trans people, they also wanna kill your kids.

foolm0r0n posted...

And lots of Trumpers legitimately believe he is anti-keynesian too. Reagan figured out that rhetorical trick that people are evidently still falling for 50 years later. You should base your associations on whether their policies and actions promote keynesianism, not whether their rhetoric does.

Sure, there is absolutely something to the fact that the Republicans have typically made up
for their other spending cuts with increased military spending (Trump less so). However this also gets to why Military Keynesianism is a different economic approach to regular Keynesianism, because one is (in the American context) focusing on military alone while the other is investing in infrastructure and welfare. Related sure but different. The other thing is that Obama used Keynesianism as the response to the 2008 crash while Europe essentially across the board used austerity and the result was a much faster recovery for the US. The EU28 was a bigger economy than the US in 2007, now its well behind. Some are only just now getting back to 2007 levels per capita, others are well behind. Though there are exceptions like economic superstar Poland of course. So Im not sure I quite see your argument. Keynesianism seems to have worked well in the US at least. Which does not even mention how relative to the size of economy military spending has significantly declined as well.

red_sox_777 posted...

These are not great labels, as there are a lot of different economic ideas that can be called liberal or neoliberal, and Keynes hasn't been around for a long time. But I think what's happened is that neoliberal ideas failed to produce any reduction in the government deficit - in fact, quite the opposite happened - and as a result we've gotten rapidly accelerated government borrowing to cover the ever increasing deficit.

I'm not sure what you mean about military Keynesianism not working - the front line is at the border of Russia with Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland. In the 1980s it was in central Germany. It seems to be working great.

I definitely agree that labels are insufficient. The reality is that every economy on Earth is
mixed to greater and lesser extents. On your second point though Im not sure that holds given that a big part of why the Soviet Union collapsed is that they spent too much on the military!

LightningStrikes posted...

Sure, there is absolutely something to the fact that the Republicans have typically made up
for their other spending cuts with increased military spending (Trump less so). However this also gets to why Military Keynesianism is a different economic approach to regular Keynesianism, because one is (in the American context) focusing on military alone while the other is investing in infrastructure and welfare. Related sure but different. The other thing is that Obama used Keynesianism as the response to the 2008 crash while Europe essentially across the board used austerity and the result was a much faster recovery for the US. The EU28 was a bigger economy than the US in 2007, now its well behind. Some are only just now getting back to 2007 levels per capita, others are well behind. Though there are exceptions like economic superstar Poland of course. So Im not sure I quite see your argument. Keynesianism seems to have worked well in the US at least. Which does not even mention how relative to the size of economy military spending has significantly declined as well.

I definitely agree that labels are insufficient. The reality is that every economy on Earth is
mixed to greater and lesser extents. On your second point though Im not sure that holds given that a big part of why the Soviet Union collapsed is that they spent too much on the military!

Military Keynesianism is confusing to me as a term because to me, the central point of Keynes's theory was that governments can generate real value by borrowing against the future to increase spending in the present. This can reduce inefficiencies where a rational player (1) would like to borrow, (2) can repay the debt in the future, and (3) can't borrow because of liquidity issues. A government usually can borrow, so this means that they can borrow on behalf of their people when (1) and (2) are met but individuals/companies lack liquidity.

But if we apply it to the military, (1) will only be satisfied if the military spending is generating value. For the USSR, it wasn't, because given the size of their economy vs. the West, it wasn't possible for them to actually win a war even with the higher level of spending. For the West, probably (1) is satisfied, because the military spending allows the European continent to be free, productive, and allied. The alternative is that the Russians push through to the Atlantic, as in the world of the book 1984.

https://bsky.app/profile/axios.com/post/3ly236amcx22a
https://bsky.app/profile/bluegeorgia.bsky.social/post/3lxzyzgnpwp2d

DOJ Deputy Chief caught on camera saying that the Trump administration will "redact every Republican" from the Epstein client list and "leave all the liberal, Democratic people" and that they transferred Maxwell to the low security prison "as a benefit to keep her mouth shut."

Nothing we couldn't surmise from just.. knowing who these people are, but on camera lol.

DOJ response was to post on twitter a screenshot of a phone will a message from the Deputy Chief in question basically saying "oh that's just my opinion tho not the official position of the government plz believe me!!"

https://bsky.app/profile/paleofuture.bsky.social/post/3lxzyaivgws2g

LightningStrikes posted...

Sure, there is absolutely something to the fact that the Republicans have typically made up
for their other spending cuts with increased military spending (Trump less so). However this also gets to why Military Keynesianism is a different economic approach to regular Keynesianism, because one is (in the American context) focusing on military alone while the other is investing in infrastructure and welfare. Related sure but different. The other thing is that Obama used Keynesianism as the response to the 2008 crash while Europe essentially across the board used austerity and the result was a much faster recovery for the US. The EU28 was a bigger economy than the US in 2007, now its well behind. Some are only just now getting back to 2007 levels per capita, others are well behind. Though there are exceptions like economic superstar Poland of course. So Im not sure I quite see your argument. Keynesianism seems to have worked well in the US at least. Which does not even mention how relative to the size of economy military spending has significantly declined as well.

This is what I call bending backwards. This is a liberal version of the argument but there's conservative versions too. At the end of the day, you're all unified under keynesianism. It's the most universally encompassing philosophy that human history has ever seen.

By the way, 100% of US keynesianism is coupled to military spending. A large part is also driven by our inflated healthcare system, and our venture capital tech economy, but even those sectors are fully reliant on USD being the global reserve currency, which is enforced by the military.

An America without war and with universal healthcare is an austere and anti-keynesian America. I dream of it.

foolm0r0n posted...

This is what I call bending backwards. This is a liberal version of the argument but there's conservative versions too. At the end of the day, you're all unified under keynesianism. It's the most universally encompassing philosophy that human history has ever seen.

By the way, 100% of US keynesianism is coupled to military spending. A large part is also driven by our inflated healthcare system, and our venture capital tech economy, but even those sectors are fully reliant on USD being the global reserve currency, which is enforced by the military.

An America without war and with universal healthcare is an austere and anti-keynesian America. I dream of it.

What does Keynesianism mean to you?

Metal_DK posted...

Oh I'm very much real. I'm the only real one left. Internet addiction is the number one problem with all of society. It's not even close.

Jesus f***ing Christ if you hate the internet so much then get off it
also btw this:
Metal_DK posted...

I'm the only real one left.

sounds fucking weird

Artificially inflating money supply to avoid economic downturns

Oh the jobs report is still gonna be bad even after all those attempts at fuckery huh?

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3ly2dfpoomz2o

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/09/04/donald-trump-pentagon-department-of-war/85980411007/

So, thats happening

the first directive of the department of war will be to end all wars

from pentagon to pentagone

This should unequivocally end his bizarre campaign at a peace prize.

Any time he brings it up again they should just point to this executive order.

"Liz Cheney is a warhawk and should be shot"

Shit WW3 is happening

Naw he's just trying to distract from Epstein again.

CharmedDrake posted...

Jesus f***ing Christ if you hate the internet so much then get off it
also btw this:

sounds fucking weird

Lol

I have no problem with the internet. I have a problem with post 2007 internet. Thats why I post here. I maybe once every 2 days watch a youtube video or something.

Should have renamed it Ministry of Peace, or Minipax for short.

department more like depart ur ass out the white house

Department of War is much more honest than Department of Defense. It's probably too much to hope for but I would like to return to having official war declarations as well.

Well, the UK Deputy Prime Minister (who is also the Housing Minister) has just resigned over seemingly accidental failure to pay the correct amount of tax on a house she bought. This is very bad as she was very much from the left and the most prominent left wing member of government at the front of a lot of the actually good stuff its doing and largely opposed to the bad stuff its doing. She was also seen as the heir apparent to Starmer so thats done. And its going to be an enormous boost to the far right as well.

i am sorry but just reading that given the shit going on with our government just makes me laugh

although someone on the left being "held to account" by it rings true on either side of the pond i guess

Yeah the degree of corruption and incompetence right wing governments can get away with because the media is on their side is staggering. It has been pointed out that Tory ministers got away with worse repeatedly with no consequences. In the US context, the fact that heads did not roll over the signal thing says it all.

Anyway, to look on the bright side, there is a pretty big opportunity for the left here as this will likely mean a deputy leadership election. The position is historically meant to be a counter to the leadership and the party membership (especially those on the left) dont like Starmer as it stands. So there is a high chance the next deputy leader will come from the left.

Metal_DK posted...

I'm the only real one left.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/1/108499c0.jpg

man you guys really took that post that seriously. Like nobody else here has ever posted like that....

Just keep ignoring that social media addiction and the algo era is the biggest issue to modern society.

Nothing about your posting history would suggest there has ever been a single humorous word uttered in any sentence you've ever made. The difference between that and your standard posts is negligible at best.

It's because no one has seen anyone post something like that before. You should post like that much more often, and then we'll eventually get used to it.

ur mom is the biggest issue in modern society