Originally Posted by radind

The modern equipment had an effect, but it took some time for them to rebuild. The US did very well for a while.
Japan also had the good sense to listen to Deming on the value of Quality. The US Auto makers ignored this move for way too long.

Detroit tried to blame poor quality cars on the workers when the real problem in quality and cost was the old manufacturing systems.

True. The US automakers were making some crappy cars in the 1970s -- small cars by wheelbase that handled like station wagons yet devoured fuel and delivered seat space like sports cars, 'giving' American car buyers the worst of both worlds.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

People don't like Hillary not merely because of her politics and/or her record. People hate Hillary because she is the personification of yuppie globalist decadence. She is the personification of the delusional notion that has risen up and become dominant over the last 250-300 years, the idiotic belief that people can actually rule themselves. Prior to about 1700 AD if one looked just about anywhere in the world the form of government was basically the same, a military elite/aristocracy who ruled and provided military protection to the people in return for the submission of the people and the assertion leaderships right to extract produce from the populace any time the leader saw it as necessary. These leaders were usually hereditary and were trained from birth to be rulers.

If what you mean by "people " is you and the other amygdala-dominated sheeple of the Crotch Brothers, then you are exactly right. But for those of us not longing for a zombie apocalypse, not so much.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

People don't like Hillary not merely because of her politics and/or her record. People hate Hillary because she is the personification of yuppie globalist decadence. She is the personification of the delusional notion that has risen up and become dominant over the last 250-300 years, the idiotic belief that people can actually rule themselves. Prior to about 1700 AD if one looked just about anywhere in the world the form of government was basically the same, a military elite/aristocracy who ruled and provided military protection to the people in return for the submission of the people and the assertion leaderships right to extract produce from the populace any time the leader saw it as necessary. These leaders were usually hereditary and were trained from birth to be rulers.

Nowadays this is called "extortion." Gangsters practice it.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

In the 1940s and 1950s the economic elites of America dreaded Communism. To ensure that they did not have to face a sullen proletariat ready to stab the economic elites in the back the elites made sure that working people had a stake in the system -- the consumer economy. With the consumer economy also came opportunity for the smart kids of industrial workers to join the middle class by attending college, having work that used their minds instead of their bodies, and buying tract houses in the suburbs.

Today there is no such fear by the economic elites. Those elites can act without conscience and get away with it because they can promote numbing stupidity in mass media, second-rate and limited schooling (college has become expensive and in view of its costs higher education cannot justify itself for the value of learning so much as for vocational training), brutal law enforcement (Ferguson, Missouri), and politicians who thoroughly believe that the first duty of a leader is to his financial backer.

From the late 1940s to the late 1980s, the Soviet threat ensured that the economic elites needed to offer an alternative to Socialism. Now those elites can offer a New Peonage with impunity. Social mobility? The elites need no middle class -- only people in a grim contest to determine who will earn the privilege of survival through their suffering.

Hunger Games, anyone?

I am tempted to believe that labor-management relations are the essence of the domestic struggle of this 4T.

This makes a lot of sense. Of course there are still fresh living memories of the Cold War when business HAD to offer workers a consumer economy and a fairer deal and living standards WERE higher.
A big part of today's situation is that jobs are being automated away as much as they are being taken offshore. Amazon may staff it's "wish fulfillment centres" with high turnover temp workers in hundred degree heat and ambulance on standby for workers felled by heatstroke. But Amazon's newest "wish-fullfillment centres" use robots. Which means that all of those temp jobs really ARE stopgap jobs until those jobs are automated. (How many driving jobs will be eliminated by self-driving cars and drones)?
And in the face of all this, our clueless elites continue to promote a health insurance model that was created to tie people as peons to one, lifetime employer!
If we want to see just how much of a social explosion this "new peonage" "everyone is expendable" economy can cause, we need only look to where this economy is at it's most unequal--the Middle East. Unless we start to get a regeneracy quickly, this 4T could get 1790s France ugly very quickly.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

This makes a lot of sense. Of course there are still fresh living memories of the Cold War when business HAD to offer workers a consumer economy and a fairer deal and living standards WERE higher.
A big part of today's situation is that jobs are being automated away as much as they are being taken offshore. Amazon may staff it's "wish fulfillment centres" with high turnover temp workers in hundred degree heat and ambulance on standby for workers felled by heatstroke. But Amazon's newest "wish-fullfillment centres" use robots. Which means that all of those temp jobs really ARE stopgap jobs until those jobs are automated. (How many driving jobs will be eliminated by self-driving cars and drones)?
And in the face of all this, our clueless elites continue to promote a health insurance model that was created to tie people as peons to one, lifetime employer!
If we want to see just how much of a social explosion this "new peonage" "everyone is expendable" economy can cause, we need only look to where this economy is at it's most unequal--the Middle East. Unless we start to get a regeneracy quickly, this 4T could get 1790s France ugly very quickly.

Well said.

I'll add that given the continuing belief in American exceptionalism and the Horiato Alger ethos by many Americans this election campaign, featuring the cratering of support for both establishment parties elite, is already taking on more of a France circa 1788 feel than many would have thought possible not so long ago.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Well said.

I'll add that given the continuing belief in American exceptionalism and the Horiato Alger ethos by many Americans this election campaign, featuring the cratering of support for both establishment parties elite, is already taking on more of a France circa 1788 feel than many would have thought possible not so long ago.

When are boomers going to give up their tyrannical obsession with democracy and allow REAL reform. Strong Countries like Rome, Byzantium, Imperial Spain, monarchical and imperial France, Britain Pre-napoleon, various Chinese and Semi-Chinese dyansties, Imperial germany and successors, Imperial Japan. In these countries reform was able to be implemented very quickly as soon as it was demanded.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

This makes a lot of sense. Of course there are still fresh living memories of the Cold War when business HAD to offer workers a consumer economy and a fairer deal and living standards WERE higher.
A big part of today's situation is that jobs are being automated away as much as they are being taken offshore. Amazon may staff it's "wish fulfillment centres" with high turnover temp workers in hundred degree heat and ambulance on standby for workers felled by heatstroke. But Amazon's newest "wish-fullfillment centres" use robots. Which means that all of those temp jobs really ARE stopgap jobs until those jobs are automated. (How many driving jobs will be eliminated by self-driving cars and drones)?
And in the face of all this, our clueless elites continue to promote a health insurance model that was created to tie people as peons to one, lifetime employer!
If we want to see just how much of a social explosion this "new peonage" "everyone is expendable" economy can cause, we need only look to where this economy is at it's most unequal--the Middle East. Unless we start to get a regeneracy quickly, this 4T could get 1790s France ugly very quickly.

I agree that Health Care Insurance should not be tied to employers. This is left over from time when the insurance was considered a 'fringe benefit' . As the fringe became essential, the employers came to love the fact that employees were tethered.

Originally Posted by radind

I agree that Health Care Insurance should not be tied to employers. This is left over from time when the insurance was considered a 'fringe benefit' . As the fringe became essential, the employers came to love the fact that employees were tethered.

And then employers broke the tethers and stopped employing people long term. And insurance companies who used mergers and state regulations that kept outside competition out raised rates on plans that made it impossible for employers to pay for their employees health care. First employees were required to pick up more and more of the tab and then employers dropped coverage altogether. Or laid off everyone that they could.
It is a symptom of the unprofitability of the current health insurance business model that insurance companies feel that they must maximise short term rates to ensure short term profitability rather than cultivating long term relationships. It may well be that the recession we are sliding into now may start to result in hospital and insurance company bankruptcies and single-payer insurance by necessity--with very little opposition. If so, both Obama and Bernie Sanders may be seen as a lot smarter and far sided than Americans see either of them being now.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Well said.

I'll add that given the continuing belief in American exceptionalism and the Horiato Alger ethos by many Americans this election campaign, featuring the cratering of support for both establishment parties elite, is already taking on more of a France circa 1788 feel than many would have thought possible not so long ago.

If the US has an Estates-General moment, it is likely to take the form of a constitutional convention in which everything is up for grabs.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

This makes a lot of sense. Of course there are still fresh living memories of the Cold War when business HAD to offer workers a consumer economy and a fairer deal and living standards WERE higher.

The potential for cynicism toward economic elites (if you think things are bad now, then wait until you see things a few years from now) is high. Who needs a consumer when elites can simply work people to death, as on antebellum plantations or in fascist labor camps? So people keel over from overwork, illness, malnutrition, or outright hunger? There will always be more people to replace those who die young. But even if things aren't quite that bad... industrial laborers in the Gilded Age knew Hobbes' state of nature with life nasty, short, and brutish.

Who needs a consumer economy? Anyone with a conscience or who actually does the work.

A big part of today's situation is that jobs are being automated away as much as they are being taken offshore. Amazon may staff it's "wish fulfillment centres" with high turnover temp workers in hundred degree heat and ambulance on standby for workers felled by heatstroke. But Amazon's newest "wish-fullfillment centres" use robots. Which means that all of those temp jobs really ARE stopgap jobs until those jobs are automated. (How many driving jobs will be eliminated by self-driving cars and drones)?

Ironically the most efficient temperature for doing work is 'slightly chilly' -- around 20C (68F). Around 30C (86F) people are already wilting. 25C (77F) is the ideal temperature for the lazy unless one is swimming.

And in the face of all this, our clueless elites continue to promote a health insurance model that was created to tie people as peons to one, lifetime employer!

In the last Crisis Era, one in which overproduction made the sweatshop model of the Gilded Age obsolete, the political leadership chose to transform a loss of work hours into leisure. The 40-hour workweek is no longer necessary for producing the necessities of life. Germany went to the 60-hour week -- not that people could resist the demand, in view of the political system in place. But that system fully reflected the sociopathic leadership characteristic of fascism. We 'only' have greed and pathological narcissism among our economic elites, as if such is desirable.

Working for the same employer for more than ten years will be a remarkable feat for anyone not in one of the elite professions. Businesses will be establishing workplaces based upon the most advantageous site for the time. Jobs that require unusual levels of physical activity (assembly line work in heavy manufacturing, oil field work) will wear people out in ten years or so. How long people will be able to keep their sanity in jobs that call attention to the servility of the worker or compel people to reconcile the conflicting interests of customers and management is very much in question. Unemployment will be commonplace, and retraining will be commonplace too. We will need Medicare for All.

If we still have a democracy, it will be because we have cast off the idea of 'throwaway people' -- because 'throwaway people' characterize an economic order that has no respect for the masses.

If we want to see just how much of a social explosion this "new peonage" "everyone is expendable" economy can cause, we need only look to where this economy is at it's most unequal--the Middle East. Unless we start to get a regeneracy quickly, this 4T could get 1790s France ugly very quickly.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We need to keep that in mind.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

And then employers broke the tethers and stopped employing people long term. And insurance companies who used mergers and state regulations that kept outside competition out raised rates on plans that made it impossible for employers to pay for their employees health care. First employees were required to pick up more and more of the tab and then employers dropped coverage altogether. Or laid off everyone that they could.
It is a symptom of the unprofitability of the current health insurance business model that insurance companies feel that they must maximise short term rates to ensure short term profitability rather than cultivating long term relationships. It may well be that the recession we are sliding into now may start to result in hospital and insurance company bankruptcies and single-payer insurance by necessity--with very little opposition. If so, both Obama and Bernie Sanders may be seen as a lot smarter and far sided than Americans see either of them being now.

Unfortunately, you are probably correct. I would prefer a system based on the current Federal Health insurance program that would put all of us in the same pool with all plans open to everyone. This would preserve some element of individual choice on plans. I understand from prior discussions that this is not a popular approach, so have largely tabled discussion of this.
-The sticking point for my concept ( like most plans) is how to fund this and who pays.

As thing are unfolding, I expect that a single payer system will emerge out of necessity.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

If the US has an Estates-General moment, it is likely to take the form of a constitutional convention in which everything is up for grabs.

A constitutional convention looks risky to me. I am opposed to this approach.

Originally Posted by radind

A constitutional convention looks risky to me. I am opposed to this approach.

A supermajority of states still would have to approve of whatever the convention comes up with. We are currently so divided that it doesn't seem worth while to call the convention.

Changing the Constitution in a major way generally happens at the 4T 1T cusp. The 4T is a time of trial and error. By the end of the crisis people think they have figured out the correct answers and try to set them in stone. At this point we can't even manage a regeneracy. It's early to be worried about a convention.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

When are boomers going to give up their tyrannical obsession with democracy and allow REAL reform. Strong Countries like Rome, Byzantium, Imperial Spain, monarchical and imperial France, Britain Pre-napoleon, various Chinese and Semi-Chinese dyansties, Imperial germany and successors, Imperial Japan. In these countries reform was able to be implemented very quickly as soon as it was demanded.

Generals Lucius Clay (Germany) and Douglas MacArthur (Japan) were able to force major reforms upon countries that had recently been militaristic behemoths.

I'll take democracy, thank you. We Americans need to rediscover it. It probably comes with a decentralization of the economy that allows more people to be capitalists.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I hope you're not one of those Clinton supporters who will sit on their asses scolding the Sanders team if Sanders does win.

Let's face it, both of the two remaining Democratic candidates have definite flaws. In my view, Clinton has an expired "sell-by" date (too long in the public glare), plus too many ties to the establishment for the mood of the country today. Sanders lacks foreign policy chops and is viewed as too radical. Both are older than I'd like my President to be. Both are very vulnerable to Republican attacks. And both are 1,000 times better than anyone on the other side of the aisle.

Agreed in full. Neither party seems ready to supply a candidate that both suits the times and is the typical fifty-something experienced leader. Apparently, the GOP is on a self-destruct mission, and that makes it even worse. Could you even fathom 4 years of President Cruz?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Actually, my first choice would probably have been Jim Webb, who does have defence and foreign policy chops.

I see Webb as a Sec Def for Bernie, but probably not for Hillary. She has too many supporters to appoint before she picks an outsider.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Well said.

I'll add that given the continuing belief in American exceptionalism and the Horiato Alger ethos by many Americans this election campaign, featuring the cratering of support for both establishment parties elite, is already taking on more of a France circa 1788 feel than many would have thought possible not so long ago.

I agree. This is coming to a head very quickly, though it may not be a strong enough response to really change this things this saeculum.

I'm thinking that Bernie may be the regenerancy. His solutions to our problems are so different from everybody else's same old same old

Polls are now showing Sanders doing better than Clinton in the general election:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-e...ReleaseID=2324

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...able/80452560/

"Establishment" politicians (Bush, Clinton, and Kasich) are not doing so well as one usually expects of Presidential candidates.

Originally Posted by radind

A constitutional convention looks risky to me. I am opposed to this approach.

France's calling of the Estates-General was risky. As was the first US Constitutional Convention. Needs must. Nations do risky things in 4T situations when there seems to be no alternative and everything is up for grabs.

Nate Silver is starting to lay out a possible Sanders path to the Democratic nomination by showing us what the electoral landscape looks like if Sanders pulls even with Hillary, as some national polls show him now doing. See http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...he-nomination/

And apparently, this is turning out to be the case in Nevada, as Latino (and Latina) voters are starting to show the same generation gap between young and old that white voters in New Hampshire have been showing.http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/...bernie-sanders

Originally Posted by marypoza

I'm thinking that Bernie may be the regenerancy. His solutions to our problems are so different from everybody else's same old same old

All he needs to do is win, and that's still a long shot. I hope he picks a really solid VP, because he may not run again in 2020.

Then there is Trump, and the fascist option.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

And apparently, this is turning out to be the case in Nevada, as Latino (and Latina) voters are starting to show the same generation gap between young and old that white voters in New Hampshire have been showing.http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/...bernie-sanders

I think we may finally have breached the identity politics cap. So the older 'identity' voters like Hillary, but the young pocketbook voters want Bernie. Good. That had to happen if a resolution is going to actually resolve things, not just add another Band-Aid.