doing anything to improve the position of the poor requires breaking the political power of the rich, since their party (or parties, hi morbs!) stands in the way.
― goole, Friday, January 17, 2014 4:13 PM (48 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
what are you some kind of class warrior
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 17 January 2014 17:05 (ten years ago) link
tbf, brooks is otm that lack of sittlichtkeit is primary challenge of contemporary society
― Mordy , Friday, January 17, 2014 11:35 AM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
nb i haven't read most recently posted op-ed but 'social fabric' is important so
for sure the thing he just cant see tho is its the mega rich who are tearing us apart
― lag∞n, Friday, 17 January 2014 17:07 (ten years ago) link
there are obvs also all sorts of complex cause and effect questions re moral and structural problems
― lag∞n, Friday, 17 January 2014 17:08 (ten years ago) link
ya i mean brooks' thing is just to point that out and leave it at that tho, which is as one might say unhelpful
― k3vin k., Friday, 17 January 2014 17:09 (ten years ago) link
his thing is to point it out and then be all destitute teen moms really need to get their act together *pinky sips crystal on g7 en route to ideas conference*
― lag∞n, Friday, 17 January 2014 17:10 (ten years ago) link
there's no way even the pro-poor ideas bandied around by the conservatives who even give a fuck (your douthat/salam types) such as a more kid- and marriage- friendly tax credit scheme to more 'radical' things like a wage subsidy or a more generous EITC to even more crazy radical changes like maybe cooling it a little on america's hideous gulag state of mass incarceration will get ZERO look from republicans who hold office
(i take that back somewhat -- i think it will be religious conservatives who tame the carceral state, frankly, if anybody ever does. nixon in china and all that)
― goole, Friday, 17 January 2014 17:13 (ten years ago) link
new incarcerations are at a 20 year low fwiw
― lag∞n, Friday, 17 January 2014 17:15 (ten years ago) link
obvs so much more to be done
why hasn't Woody Allen created a David Brooks character in a movie
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 January 2014 17:15 (ten years ago) link
he could've dated Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 January 2014 17:16 (ten years ago) link
― lag∞n, Friday, January 17, 2014 11:15 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
pretty tall mountain to walk down from
but yeah, maybe kevin drum is right and it was lead making ppl crazy for 30-40 years
― goole, Friday, 17 January 2014 17:18 (ten years ago) link
LBJ plan to make the right crazier iirc
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 January 2014 17:20 (ten years ago) link
dean baker's takedown of this feudalistic bullshit is otm
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-primitive-defense-of-the-rich
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 17 January 2014 17:22 (ten years ago) link
As it happens, there's also this in the Economist today:
Over the past 30 years the digital revolution has displaced many of the mid-skill jobs that underpinned 20th-century middle-class life. Typists, ticket agents, bank tellers and many production-line jobs have been dispensed with, just as the weavers were. . . . Over the past three decades, labour’s share of output has shrunk globally from 64% to 59%. Meanwhile, the share of income going to the top 1% in America has risen from around 9% in the 1970s to 22% today. Unemployment is at alarming levels in much of the rich world, and not just for cyclical reasons. In 2000, 65% of working-age Americans were in work; since then the proportion has fallen, during good years as well as bad, to the current level of 59%.
. . . Over the past three decades, labour’s share of output has shrunk globally from 64% to 59%. Meanwhile, the share of income going to the top 1% in America has risen from around 9% in the 1970s to 22% today. Unemployment is at alarming levels in much of the rich world, and not just for cyclical reasons. In 2000, 65% of working-age Americans were in work; since then the proportion has fallen, during good years as well as bad, to the current level of 59%.
But I'm sure these phenomena are entirely unrelated and it's all teen moms and church attendance.
― Ian from Etobicoke (Phil D.), Friday, 17 January 2014 17:23 (ten years ago) link
― goole, Friday, January 17, 2014 12:18 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
i love this theory btw and i think its really true, also imo the drop in crime will have major positive effects beyond just like having less crime, i dont think legal weed would be happening if we had early 90s level crime, theres increased urbanization which is good for a bunch of reasons, obvs theres no way to start to roll back our horrible police state if w high crime rates etc
― lag∞n, Friday, 17 January 2014 17:24 (ten years ago) link
love this phrase: Fans of arithmetic everywhere
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 January 2014 17:26 (ten years ago) link
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, January 17, 2014 5:22 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
ty for this
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 17 January 2014 17:27 (ten years ago) link
ruling class pretty much just keeps inventing new terms for the same old class justifications
― signed, J.P. Morgan CEO (Hurting 2), Friday, 17 January 2014 17:29 (ten years ago) link
theyre quite industrious in their own way
― lag∞n, Friday, 17 January 2014 17:29 (ten years ago) link
it all translates into "if you don't come from money, go fuck yourself"
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 17 January 2014 17:30 (ten years ago) link
krugs responds to his colleague
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/why-we-talk-about-the-one-percent/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body&_r=0
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 17 January 2014 17:57 (ten years ago) link
wow the times editorial team is acknowledging each other now i thought that was a no no
― lag∞n, Friday, 17 January 2014 17:58 (ten years ago) link
they do it in their blog posts sometimes but you rarely see it in print
― k3vin k., Friday, 17 January 2014 18:03 (ten years ago) link
Krugs and David will still go out for martinis after 6 though
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 January 2014 18:03 (ten years ago) link
and talk shop about princeton vs. yale undergrads
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 17 January 2014 18:14 (ten years ago) link
I have stopped caring about this guy. feels like constantly getting outraged about him just encourages him/drives up his profile etc. he deserves anonymity.
― Ayn Rand Akbar (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 17 January 2014 18:16 (ten years ago) link
the thing that still shocks me every time I read his columns is what a terrible WRITER he is. The last generation of conservative ideologues were at least mostly good prose stylists.
― signed, J.P. Morgan CEO (Hurting 2), Friday, 17 January 2014 18:18 (ten years ago) link
This is actually my favorite part of the whole thing:
Democrats often see low wages as both a human capital problem and a problem caused by unequal economic power. Republicans are more likely to see them just as a human capital problem. If we’re going to pass bipartisan legislation, we’re going to have to start with the human capital piece, where there is some agreement, not the class conflict piece, where there is none.
See, democrats and republicans agree on the republican agenda.
― signed, J.P. Morgan CEO (Hurting 2), Friday, 17 January 2014 20:01 (ten years ago) link
"human capital" is such a gross phrase
― Ayn Rand Akbar (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 17 January 2014 20:02 (ten years ago) link
let's all agree that capital gains should be taxed no higher than 15%, and that the estate tax is theft, and the jobs will flow!
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 17 January 2014 20:03 (ten years ago) link
I feel like he's not the kind of writer that actually shapes policy; his role is more to attempt confuse democrats away from feeling too left about things.
― signed, J.P. Morgan CEO (Hurting 2), Friday, 17 January 2014 20:08 (ten years ago) link
yeah, i mean what has the middle class ever done for america anyways? rich people are the best
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 17 January 2014 20:09 (ten years ago) link
his role is more to attempt confuse democrats away from feeling too left about things.
no wonder Obama listens to him
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 January 2014 20:42 (ten years ago) link
12 Years as Human Capital
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 18 January 2014 01:35 (ten years ago) link
i mostly feel bad for people who are having things explained to them for the first time by david brooks
― flopson, Saturday, 18 January 2014 03:42 (ten years ago) link
i.e. NPR listeners?
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 18 January 2014 03:47 (ten years ago) link
no one really likes david brooks hes a token
― lag∞n, Saturday, 18 January 2014 05:01 (ten years ago) link
i mean
― i have the new brutal HOOS if you want it (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Saturday, 18 January 2014 09:14 (ten years ago) link
i wish that was true
i have conservative friends who call him a voice of reason on the left
lolllll
― rhyme heals all goons (m bison), Saturday, 18 January 2014 13:27 (ten years ago) link
that's hilarious
― signed, J.P. Morgan CEO (Hurting 2), Saturday, 18 January 2014 13:39 (ten years ago) link
lol but exactly and liberals call him the voice of reason on the right but he doesnt really have any influence
― lag∞n, Saturday, 18 January 2014 16:01 (ten years ago) link
liberals call him the voice of reason on the right
I don't believe this.
― channel 9's meaty urologist (WilliamC), Saturday, 18 January 2014 16:06 (ten years ago) link
thats his whole role at the times, the reasonable conservative
― lag∞n, Saturday, 18 January 2014 16:14 (ten years ago) link
its what hes for
I think that's what conservatives put him forward as, but I don't know of any liberals who buy it.
― channel 9's meaty urologist (WilliamC), Saturday, 18 January 2014 16:16 (ten years ago) link
i don't know any either but i'm sure they're out there, lotta dumb ppl across the spectrum
― call all destroyer, Saturday, 18 January 2014 16:16 (ten years ago) link
its what the new york (mfn) times puts him forward as
― lag∞n, Saturday, 18 January 2014 16:17 (ten years ago) link
but i mean hes the voice as reason in that he behaves like a nice reasonable young man, no one listens to what he says was my original point
― lag∞n, Saturday, 18 January 2014 16:18 (ten years ago) link