Zohran Mamdani - Democratic Socialist Mayor of NYC

[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."

[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 ...

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[YOhio]

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.

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.

[tooblue]

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.

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/

[USUC]

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.

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.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don’t think I’m using those terms incorrectly, but maybe i should state it differently? The 90th or 95th percentiles describe 90-95% of the population. I was saying that most people, even those on the high end of income, are closer to lower income earners than the very rich.

Help me understand why that matters.

[Northwestcoug]

This is some serious socialist math there.


(I assume you mean top 1 or 1/10th percentile .)

I don’t think I’m using those terms incorrectly, but maybe i should state it differently? The 90th or 95th percentiles describe 90-95% of the population. I was saying that most people, even those on the high end of income, are closer to lower income earners than the very rich.

[beefytee]

… 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. ….

This is some serious socialist math there.


(I assume you mean top 1 or 1/10th percentile .)

[myboynoah]

Our Mamdani discussions are spread among various threads at the moment. This is a big enough story (and sufficiently interesting) that it deserves a dedicated thread.

Ben Shapiro weighs in.

tl;dr --> democrats should not be tempted to make him the face of the party

Embedded Tweet

I watched part of that discussion and disturbingly found myself agreeing a lot with Ben Shapiro.