Zohran Mamdani - Democratic Socialist Mayor of NYC

[Clark Addison]

When I get into political discussions with my commie daughter sometimes the beguiling language of socialism allures me. But her most salient points center around the fact that the vast majority of Americans, certainly in the bottom 90 but probably closer to the bottom 95th percentile, are closer economically to a union worker (not just income but savings, retirement plans, tenuous life situations that could impact employment, etc.) than they are to the top 10th percentile. All of us, even those who make welder level money, are a couple of bad decisions or health outcomes away from fiscal insolvency. And that makes us much closer to lower income earners than the oligarchs who control so much of nation's wealth. We can argue whether or not that's a moral failure, but the reality is that the divide is continually getting worse. And both political parties haven't done much to address it.

The people who are currently enthusiastic about someone like Mamdani see the world probably clearer than my generation, who were raised on a problematic ideal of America that provided opportunity for all. They see real problems that affect their daily lives, that weren't even an issue with the generation before. I just saw that the median age for first time house owners is an incredible 40, a rise of 5 years in just a couple of years. So even if Mamdani doesn't produce all his promises (spoiler alert: he won't), he gets major points from younger people just for bringing to light some significant struggles a lot of people deal with.

That's why there is Mamdani buzz in younger voters, even though for a lot of America the more centrist wins in Virginia and New Jersey are more meaningful.

I don't want to be an annoying math pedant here but a number of people in the "bottom 95th percentile" are also in the "Top 10th percentile" so it is hard to say they are closer to union workers than they are to themselves.

[myboynoah]

This reads pretty much like the countless articles on the economic anxiety of Trump voters in 2016. Both Mamdani and Trump are flawed, inadequate for the task, and representative of a desperate electorate looking for anything but a continuation of the status quo.

Boom! This is like pure truth flowing into my brain.

[beefytee]

I don't want to be an annoying math pedant here but a number of people in the "bottom 95th percentile" are also in the "Top 10th percentile" so it is hard to say they are closer to union workers than they are to themselves.

Yes, this was my point.

[USUC]

So, there are no oligarchy in a plutocracy? There are always oligarchy in a plutocracy, and the US has always to a large extent been a plutocracy and it is only now that the oligarchy can more clearly be identified as distinct.

The economic divide has grown. That is what Northwest is writing about, not envy.

Income Inequality Is Surging In The U.S., New Oxfam Report Shows

https://www.forbes.com/sites/josieco...-report-shows/

Oligarchy is the socialist dog whistle for the rich. It just sounds more menacing that "the Plutarchs control everything." Is branding. It's also inaccurate.

But envy is the driving force of this. Income inequality isn't inherently a negative. The affordability problems we have now are simply the result of lack of supply. There aren't enough houses. The regulatory state has limited the supply of healthcare options. It doesn't matter how much you tax the billionaires to erase income inequality, unless you tackle supply issues, this is purely retribution because of envy.

[Northwestcoug]

Help me understand why that matters.

Well for someone like me who thinks the worsening income inequality can lead to destabilizing of countries, I believe it helps us all to be more cognizant of the reality 'on the ground'. The reality is that most economic indicators for the majority of the US are grim. And while that the amount of wealth created within the US is huge, income mobility is not nearly as great as advertised. These and other factors are why I believe that even the wealthy benefit from progressive policies that strive to reduce income inequality. Not only for themselves, as most of them are still affected by downturns, but for the general 'health' of the nation. And I think a healthy dose of the reality of privilege would do most of us well. Except for the very rich, most 'wealthy' people are closer to the poor than perhaps they care to admit.

That's sort of the feeling I was trying to describe with my ignorance of how to better use percentiles in an argument.

In the words of the great Norm McDonald, "no offense, but this sounds like some effin commie gobbledygook."

A philosophy driven by envy is just as bad as a philosophy driven by retribution.

Also, the term you are looking for is plutocracy. The use of oligarchy, besides being used incorrectly, is a dead giveaway you are just regurgitating Bernie/DSA talking points.

We just saw Musk circumvent constitutional norms and the legislative branch by running roughshod over the federal government. There's no way he gets to be able to do that without he being ultra-rich in the first place, and then throwing massive amounts of money Trump's way in the election. And we see the effects of other less rich people in smaller ways. They know how much it costs to get Trump's (and any other) administration to do their bidding.

How is using the term oligarchy incorrect?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Oligarchy is the socialist dog whistle for the rich. It just sounds more menacing that "the Plutarchs control everything." Is branding. It's also inaccurate.

But envy is the driving force of this. Income inequality isn't inherently a negative. The affordability problems we have now are simply the result of lack of supply. There aren't enough houses. The regulatory state has limited the supply of healthcare options. It doesn't matter how much you tax the billionaires to erase income inequality, unless you tackle supply issues, this is purely retribution because of envy.

Exactly. Well said.

[tooblue]

Oligarchy is the socialist dog whistle for the rich. It just sounds more menacing that "the Plutarchs control everything." Is branding. It's also inaccurate.

But envy is the driving force of this. Income inequality isn't inherently a negative. The affordability problems we have now are simply the result of lack of supply. There aren't enough houses. The regulatory state has limited the supply of healthcare options. It doesn't matter how much you tax the billionaires to erase income inequality, unless you tackle supply issues, this is purely retribution because of envy.

How much more condescending can you get? The dog whistle here is the word: envy. Good heavens ... it's purely a lack of supply! Well, who (or what) controls the supply. It's government regulation apparently!



It's interesting that in your entire response you failed to contend with the inconvenient truth that you can't have a Plutarch without Oligarchs. This is not a matter of branding. It's a matter of reality vs fantasy—the fantasy that if we just did away with the state and all its regulations we'd have all the supply we ever need. All while writing this on an internet message board that would not exist without ...

[tooblue]

Exactly. Well said.

Says the person that bemoans overreach, despite the fact his ability to bemoan overreach in any form is in fact the result of ... what some could rightly consider "overreach."

[Jeff Lebowski]

Says the person that bemoans overreach, despite the fact his ability to bemoan overreach in any form is in fact the result of ... what some could rightly consider "overreach."

You whine a lot.

[tooblue]

“One of the problems when you become successful is that jealousy and envy inevitably follow. There are people—I categorize them as life’s losers—who get their sense of accomplishment and achievement from trying to stop others. As far as I’m concerned, if they had any real ability they wouldn’t be fighting me, they’d be doing something constructive themselves.”

—Donald J. Trump, "The Art of the Deal"

[tooblue]

You whine a lot.

I'm not the one whining about overreach lol

[Moliere]

How much more condescending can you get? The dog whistle here is the word: envy. Good heavens ... it's purely a lack of supply! Well, who (or what) controls the supply. It's government regulation apparently!



It's interesting that in your entire response you failed to contend with the inconvenient truth that you can't have a Plutarch without Oligarchs. This is not a matter of branding. It's a matter of reality vs fantasy—the fantasy that if we just did away with the state and all its regulations we'd have all the supply we ever need. All while writing this on an internet message board that would not exist without ...

USUC is fairly correct though. Narrowing wealth inequality isn’t going to lead to increased production. You won’t magically have more new houses spring up that weren’t there before. Housing will just become more expensive as demand increases from the distributed wealth. It’s not like rich people are buying up all the Big Macs so that the poors can’t currently afford to eat.

Severe wealth inequality is a problem and the US isn’t trending in the best direction, but the presence of billionaires isn’t a bad thing and it’s not the main problem. But it’s an easy way to score political points and it is easy for people that are not economically literate to understand because it sounds right even though it’s wrong. This is why I’m never surprised when it’s people that are liberal arts majors, doctors, non-college-degrees hourly workers, etc. that push that narrative.

[tooblue]

USUC is fairly correct though. Narrowing wealth inequality isn’t going to lead to increased production. You won’t magically have more new houses spring up that weren’t there before. Housing will just become more expensive as demand increases from the distributed wealth. It’s not like rich people are buying up all the Big Macs so that the poors can’t currently afford to eat.

Severe wealth inequality is a problem and the US isn’t trending in the best direction, but the presence of billionaires isn’t a bad thing and it’s not the main problem. But it’s an easy way to score political points and it is easy for people that are not economically literate to understand because it sounds right even though it’s wrong. This is why I’m never surprised when it’s people that are liberal arts majors, doctors, non-college-degrees hourly workers, etc. that push that narrative.

I agree that narrowing wealth inequality isn't necessarily going to lead to increased production and more houses. I also don't necessarily believe that billionaires are a bad thing. And this isn't about scoring political points for the supposed economically illiterate

Simply removing government regulations won’t automatically result in more homes being built. Developers will only build if profit margins make it worthwhile. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that profit margins drive home construction If deregulation does not produce an increase in supply, property values remain high and largely out of reach for much of the population. Developers (billionaires for example) only build where and when profits are highest.

[wally]

This reads pretty much like the countless articles on the economic anxiety of Trump voters in 2016. Both Mamdani and Trump are flawed, inadequate for the task, and representative of a desperate electorate looking for anything but a continuation of the status quo.

Agree. Also, if you look at the demographics and opinions of Gen Z, they are absolutely sick of the status quo and are willing to burn it all down and vote for fascism or communism as an alternative. Many aren't even loyal to one of those alternatives over the other, as long as the rich and powerful are simultaneously pulled down and summarily burned with the system.

[Jeff Lebowski]

USUC is fairly correct though. Narrowing wealth inequality isn’t going to lead to increased production. You won’t magically have more new houses spring up that weren’t there before. Housing will just become more expensive as demand increases from the distributed wealth. It’s not like rich people are buying up all the Big Macs so that the poors can’t currently afford to eat.

With the trajectory of the US birthrate, I guarantee you that the housing crisis will be solved in 1-2 decades. Just look at Japan if you want to see our future. Used to have the most expensive real estate in the world and now houses are dirt cheap and the second you buy one, it starts to depreciate.

Severe wealth inequality is a problem and the US isn’t trending in the best direction, but the presence of billionaires isn’t a bad thing and it’s not the main problem. But it’s an easy way to score political points and it is easy for people that are not economically literate to understand because it sounds right even though it’s wrong. This is why I’m never surprised when it’s people that are liberal arts majors, doctors, non-college-degrees hourly workers, etc. that push that narrative.

We have a lot of billionaires in the USA because we have an efficient economic system and a lot of successful companies. Those companies create wealth and provide jobs for a lot of people.

This discussion me of people arguing that capitalism is bad for the environment. Really? Try traveling to a third-world country or any country with a history of authoritarian rule and let us know how that environment is doing. Economic vibrancy creates the conditions where you have the luxury to even think about preserving the environment.