(via Wikipedia)
Al Jazeera Examines Occupy Wall Street: Occupy Providence has thrown the buzzwords “American Spring” around on their Google Groups page a bit, and I’m still skeptical, but this video on Al Jazeera English’s “Fault Lines” program gives us a reminder of just what was going on then. Undoubtedly, Occupy changed the debate. Since Occupy retrospectives seem to be in vogue (bringing some attention to Rhode Island due to the negotiated ending), this one is good.
“Fault Lines” is a pretty good program, and I’ve largely enjoyed each new one. Most interesting to Occupiers is probably this one on Chile’s mass actions. I’d argue that Chile, with its Chicago School-designed free market economy, relative modernity and democratic government is far more similar to the United States than either Spain or Greece or any of the Arab nations that have faced mass movements, and it’s been far more successful at mobilizing youth despite a far more traditional organizing model.
How Underdogs Can Win: Malcolm Gladwell provides a thought-provoking essay on the idea of David vs. Goliath, and dissects how undermining the rules of the game creates havoc when facing more traditional-minded opponents. For anyone who’s ever had to run on tight resources, it’s definitely rewarding. Mr. Gladwell is/was a tobacco industry shill, but there’s no denying he’s a capable writer. Though… I’m still not sure if on closer examination the whole thing doesn’t fall apart.
RI 10th Least At-Risk for Corruption In Nation: According to the corruption risk report cards released by the State Integrity Investigation. Since I’ve previously written about how RI isn’t really corrupt versus other states, I feel vindicated. Unfortunately, we got a C overall and the least corrupt was New Jersey with a B+. The naysayers are bound to point out that we got an A in redistricting, despite the CD1 maneuvers. But we got Fs in Judicial Accountability and State Civil Service Management, so I guess that’s where the conversation should focus (it probably won’t). The next step for the Investigation is to suggest solutions. Keep an eye out.
New Hampshire Libertarian Republican/Democratic Coalition Defeats Marriage Repeal: In a 211-116 vote in the House, libertarian Republicans and state Democrats joined up to defeat a socially conservative Republican attempt at repealing the extension of marriage to cover homosexual couples. Given that in Rhode Island, it was a struggle even with a gay Speaker of the House to pass civil unions, this defense of the right of marriage by social liberals in New Hampshire proves that it doesn’t matter what letter stands next to your name, you can still defend people’s rights. The question for the Republicans is if this means that the party’s social conservatives are finally facing a backlash after their success in 2010.
96% of Americans Admit to Receiving Welfare (When Told What Counts As Welfare): Yes, apparently when you don’t have to check in with a government agency to get welfare, you don’t acknowledge it as welfare. However, when you’re aware you’re receiving government welfare, you’re much more pro-government. Ezra Klein’s post for Washington Monthly ends up reinforcing the notion that our welfare system is dangerously screwed up. Basically, tax policy transfers a lot of wealth from the poor to the wealthy. The post doesn’t go into it, but in many ways, deficit spending does the exact same thing. Poor people don’t buy government bonds.
Rhode Islanders Take On Payday Lenders:* Speaking of tax policy, over at the Barrington Patch, a large group of people, churches, politicians, and advocacy groups have a letter laying out why reforming payday loans is a smart idea. It’s pretty clear that the industry makes an exorbitant profit and won’t go belly up if they have to deal with reduced profits, nor that the current rate (260% APR) is particularly necessary. In case you missed it, Cracked.com‘s John Cheese wrote an article long ago about how one gets screwed being poor, and payday loans took #4.
__________________________________
*Correction: Earlier, this letter was falsely attributed to Barrington Patch editor William Rupp. Apologies for the mistake.
The Chilean example further illustrates to me how irrational or opportunistic this laser-like focus on income inequality is. By adopting free market reforms, Chile has in a very short time become the most prosperous nation in South America. It has increased development, opened up trade, reduced corruption, and cut its poverty rate leaps and bounds over its failed socialistic neighbors. The lowest quarter of the population in Chile is objectively far better off than in other South American countries, but simply because there is income inequality, which doesn’t affect quality of life in any meaningful way, the socialists rage and want to undo the wildly successful reforms that their country has undergone over the past 20 years. Their standards of living have improved in objective terms to such an extent that economists could not even have dreamed of it in the 1980′s, but they’d rather the country go back to all being equally worse off, apparently, because that’s more “fair.” Why don’t they choose one of the many failed countries in South America and focus there – why focus on tearing down what is clearly working?
Chile was so well off after military rule ended that its center-left coalition of parties (led by the Socialist Party) won every presidential election until 2010. It’s done so well that the Communist Party now has seats in the Chamber of Deputies. Clearly, as much as some economists feel that Chile has exceeded expectations, the Chilean people don’t feel that way.
There’s a point where increases in GDP become irrelevant to increases in quality of life. Secondly, as societies grow more unequal, their social problems increase (teen pregnancy, crime, stress, etc.) and their social positives decrease (trust, intact families, etc.).
It’s not just socialists there, it’s vast majorities of the people and virtually all students (Chilean children haven’t been to school for months now). The reason so many Chilean students are in the streets is because education is becoming increasingly the provenance of the rich, and not for the poor. Most everyone recognizes education as a way to succeed. But if we saddle children with debt, we ensure that they won’t succeed, and we’ll hold them down. Chileans are responding to problems in having an economy set up by a bunch of economists, rather than an economy created by the people who will have to function in it.
Finally, it’s kind of a joke to say that socialists are picking Chile to focus on as opposed to any country in South America (none of which have more than a warning on the Failed State Index, and of whom, Chile and Argentina have gotten worse on while other countries have improved). There’s no socialist conspiracy picking countries on a map saying “let’s go here”, any more than a bunch of Arab reformers picked Mohammed Bouazzizi to light himself on fire to ignite the Arab Spring. It’s people in these countries responding to the national environment. And if your “wildly successful” economy can’t prevent people from taking to the streets for economic reasons, then you don’t have a wildly successful economy.
I’m not saying that socialists pick on Chile for reforms more than other countries. I’m saying that the country has been improving at a phenomenal rate over the past 20 years so they should allow that trend to continue rather than try to achieve some unrealistic socialist ideal overnight and risk returning to the extremely poor standard of living that the less free market countries of South American still face.
It’s like with New Hampshire in the United States and how liberal Democrats move in from places like Massachusetts and Rhode Island and New York and try to raise taxes, run up debt, and increase government. Clearly what New Hampshire has been doing through its small government has been working for it, so just leave it alone. There are plenty of liberal, high tax, big government states to choose from if that is your inclination – California, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc., etc. Why do these people feel compelled to move to the one vaguely libertarian state in the United States, which is doing quite well, and try to overhaul it? That’s what pisses me off.
That’s so patently ridiculous. Who’s moving to states to “raise taxes, run up debt, and increase government?” I’ve never heard of something like that. I don’t think there’s anyone coordinating such an effort nor are people consciously choosing to do that.
I have heard of a movement specifically targeting New Hampshire, called the “Free State Project” which is seeking to move 20,000 libertarians into New Hampshire in an effort to create a libertarian paradise. Only 1000 people have done so so far.
What is happening is that liberal people are migrating out of the Northeast to areas where there are jobs and lower costs of living, which results in larger liberal voting blocs in states like Virginia and North Carolina.
As for Chile, clearly the citizens of Chile disagree with you. Also, I don’t believe that advocating for public schools is a particularly socialistic position.
“As for Chile, clearly the citizens of Chile disagree with you. Also, I don’t believe that advocating for public schools is a particularly socialistic position. ”
State owned means of production? That would describe what public schools are, would it not?
No. It wouldn’t.
Sam, I was actually being rhetorical. Yes, public education is socialism. I’d like to hear your argument to the contrary though.
I’d personally like to hear how they are. If I’m to reply with a contrary argument, I’d like to see the evidence marshaled to establish the point, otherwise we’re starting from the assumption that public schools are socialism without any evidence having been provided. And since I don’t agree with that point, I’m not going to debate it until the evidence has been presented.
Fair enough. As noted I defined socialism to be the State (I use that as a euphemism for gov’t, whether it’s federal, state, city, etc…) owned means of production.
To that end, the State owns the lands, the buildings, and employes the teachers, administrators and other personnel. The State plans the education, and compels both its funding and attendance through laws enforced on the populace.
But how would that fundamentally differ from a feudal society? I think we can agree that feudalism is not socialism. But your definition of state ownership of land, and employment, and planning, and compulsion, and compulsion can all be applied to a feudal society as well.
Beyond that though, I think that’s overly materialist (a great drawback of socialism). The value of providing public schooling is a recognized one stretching back throughout American history; for a long time we had common schools in this country, where everyone was able to attend, regardless of age or class (though race often factored in). Common schools were likewise funded by the local taxes and controlled by local school boards. Throughout the common school period, compulsory education was enacted throughout the states, all by non-socialist legislatures. Common schools began in 1852, the same year the first compulsory education law was enacted. The father of the Common School Movement was Horace Mann, who’s buried in North Burial Ground in Providence.
During the 1920s, there was advocacy by folks like B.F. Skinner and others to create an industrially-trained worker utilizing the public school system and reforming the common schools. Skinnerism was added to the school systems, and industrial unions (at the height of their socialism) largely opposed such reforms, fearing the division of education by class. Unfortunately, they lost out, and today our public school system is largely based on Skinner’s theories.
So historically, the tradition just doesn’t hold up. Socialists were neither involved in the inception of the American public school (Mann was a Whig), and they were opposed to its reform to its current style.
I think one of the problems here (and probably why you view public schooling as socialism) is a hesitance for different ideologies to embrace ideas that the other side also embraces. Socialists may recognize the need for public schooling, but that doesn’t make public schooling socialism. Likewise, Adam Smith recognized the need for progressive taxation, but that doesn’t make Adam Smith a socialist either. Tom Paine advocated for an old-age pension, as did Otto von Bismarck, but neither could be mistaken for socialists. I wouldn’t mistake an American economic conservative for an American libertarian, but there’s definitely an impulse to tar everyone with the same brush.
I doubt that “The People of Chile” have one collective position on anything any more than “The People of the United States” do. I don’t know what their poll data says or how content or discontent they are, but I do know that in nearly every measurable economic term, their standard of living has been greatly improving since free market reforms were made to their economy, including the poorest segments of their population. Maybe the truth of the matter isn’t being reflected in those numbers for some reason, but I haven’t seen it. My only point is that there are plenty of hellholes in South America that have lower standards of living in objective terms (regardless of income equality or inequality) and are in more need of drastic reforms than Chile, so why are the revolutionaries focusing on Chile at all?
How is the economy of Chile “set up by economists” any more than the economy of the United States or any other country? Are simple things like property rights and rule of law top-down control mechanisms? Free market reforms are decentralization of decisionmaking, not centralization, so this seems like a very strange and backwards critique to me. On that note, how is “democratizing” the economy of Chile (or the United States) suppoed to help and how would that even work – should people really be voting on how much grain/oil is produced in a given year and which products should be nationalized any time they become expensive? What does Joe Schmo voter know about any of that and what right do they have?
I don’t know what this “Failed State Index” is, or if it is an accurate indication of anything, or why we should care about it, but from my three minutes of investigation of their website, it seems intellectually dishonest to present Chile as “getting worse while other South American countries are improving” while not mentioning that Chile is listed by the same index as currently better off than all but one of the other South American countries.
Finally, just because people are protesting doesn’t mean there is a real fundamental problem. People are always going to protest and have utopian ideals, and there will be counterprotests, etc. Go down to an Occupy camp sometime and count the ipads and iphones among the 40k/year college students screaming about income inequality. A lot of those people have never worked a day in their lives.
1. The majority of the people of Chile have supported the goals of the protesting students, according to polls. Obviously, the entirety of the people of Chile haven’t supported the students.
2. This is not a revolutionary movement, it is a reform movement. It’s not as though people are specifically focusing on Chile; Chileans are focusing on Chile. In the global press, Chile has largely been ignored in favor of Europe, America, or the Middle East.
3. Chile’s economy was highly influenced by a group of Chicago School economists known as the “Chicago Boys”. They created the Chile Project, and their ideas became the foundation of Chile’s economic policy; the current president, Sebastian Pinera, is brother to Pinochet’s Minister of Labor & Pensions, who was a Chicago Boy. Chicago Boys held many of the economic positions during the Pinochet regime, and used Pinochet’s power to redesign Chile’s economy.
4. The argument you appeared to be making was that Chile was an improving state, and thus protest wasn’t useful, especially in comparison to other South American nations. However, according to the Failed State Index, conditions are improving in nearly all other South American states, whereas in Chile, conditions are getting worse. This would negate the reasoning for focusing on other South American states; since it would make the most sense to avoid tampering with improving states while focusing on preventing trouble in current states. The relative ranking on the Failed State Index matters only insofar as establishing which states are closer to being failed states (none are). I utilized the Index because there is no established, consensus definition of what a failed state is.
5. I have no idea what you mean by “democratizing” the economy. In my view, a democratic economy is one where everyone is capable of participating and competing in as well as capable of setting the rules for, as opposed to a planned economy where the state runs economic activity or a plutocratic economy where only the wealthy get to set the rules. Furthermore, the ignorance of “Joe Schmo” isn’t really an issue. We have no problem selling to Joe Schmo when he’s ignorant, but if he wants to bargain, then he’s a goddamn idiot.
6. Some folks have never worked at Occupy. But other people worked for years and lost everything through no fault of their own. Others work everyday just to get by, and they protest because they feel things are wrong. I don’t think there is ever a protest which is not in response to a problem. Occupy is clearly focusing on a problem. So is the Tea Party, for that matter. But in Chile, you don’t draw hundreds of thousands of students and teachers into the streets, putting education on hold because people are just “always going to protest”. If there are purposeless protests, they usually don’t attract people.