The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
My Review of Michael Lind's "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From my new book review in Taki’s Magazine:

Forming a More Perfect Union
Steve Sailer

February 05, 2020

Michael Lind, an old-fashioned New Deal nationalist progressive, argues in his new book, The New Class War: Saving Democracy From the Managerial Elite, that the compromises made in the 1920s–1950s that cooled off the previous class war, such as entitlements, immigration restriction, and high taxes, are overdue once again.

Of course, the class struggle of the past several decades has been a rout so far. As investor Warren Buffet explained to economist and comic Ben Stein in 2006, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

Lind contends that what the U.S. needs now is not more globalism or more populism, but what in 1952 economist John Kenneth Galbraith labeled the countervailing power of democratic pluralism. Or to reduce Lind’s high-minded jargon to the basics: restored union clout.

Otherwise, corporations will engage in “global labor arbitrage,” a game that American workers can’t win if they are only allowed to bargain as individuals. “Only power can check power,” Lind concludes, suggesting that the bottom two-thirds or so of society mostly only have power in numbers.

Of course, organizing along lines of class was easier before diversity became so divisive. Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to be admired for Social Security and winning The Big One, but recently he’s mostly notorious for redlining.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Hide 125 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Someone tell Taki to return to the old format.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    @Anonymous

    We'd like Disqus comments back too. Thanks.

    Replies: @RebelWriter

    , @vhrm
    @Anonymous

    Ok, i didn't really like the old format either, but i could sort of deal with it.

    My main issue was always what's new vs what I've already read. And/or which articles seem interesting.


    With the old more compact format somehow i could sort of remember and tell when the grid of stories changed. (annoying, but doable)

    Now, i have no idea. I literally used to check it every day, but since the switch I've given up. Haven't been there all month except when reading Steve's articles linked from here, which is ironic since it was Taki's that tended to push me here!

    How freakin' hard is it to put dates on things on the front page at least?! (an issue i have with unz too)

    , @Pericles
    @Anonymous

    I like the new format, more readable and better put together.

  2. This book has no mention of race and the great evil of white supremacy

    the explanation that results is marked by an appalling minimization of the most dangerous administration in our lifetimes and a highly distorted portrait of Trump supporters as victims.

    So eager is Lind to be sympathetic to populists that he begins to take their talking points at face value. “Unfortunately, under the logic of asymmetrical multiculturalism,” he writes, “appreciation of minority and immigrant traditions is often coupled with elite contempt for the ancestral traditions of white native and white immigrant subcultures, which are alleged by overclass intellectuals to be hopelessly tainted by white supremacy or colonialism.” This is the kind of “equality feels like oppression” logic that leads people to found White Students Associations and Men’s Rights Clubs. In a country in which every president but one has been a white man, most C.E.O.s are white men and the syllabuses in schools remain dominated by white men’s words, it is amazing to think America is white-unfriendly

    .Now, if you are going to present Trump as the receptacle of the cries of the unheard, you will need to funhouse-mirror him beyond recognition. Lind is on it. He takes the quintessential racist moment of Trump’s presidency — his famous comments on Charlottesville — and defends them: “Phrases from his remarks were taken out of context, recombined and misconstrued so they could fit into the Trump-is-Hitler narrative.” He also dismisses concerns about Russia’s role in the 2016 election as “mythological thinking.” “Liberal democracy in the West today is not endangered by Russian machinations or resurgent fascism,” Lind writes, describing a world I would love to live in. In fact, get this: Lind believes the “paranoid demonological thinking” represented by worries about Russia and fascism “has the potential to be a greater danger to liberal democracy in the West than any particular populist movements.” How

    • Troll: Lurker, IHTG
    • Replies: @anon
    @Tyrone Jefferson


    marked by an appalling minimization of the most dangerous administration in our lifetimes and a highly distorted portrait of Trump supporters as victims.
     
    Missed your lithium shot.

    He takes the quintessential racist moment of Trump’s presidency — his famous comments on Charlottesville — and defends them:
     
    Breaking: party of racists projects their racism onto others. Ignores all countervailing evidence. Charlottesville? Remember that time a radical leftist tried shooting up republican congressman Scalise? No, media minimized that -- appalling. Remember back before the election when a BLM associated terrorist shot up and murdered a bunch of cops from a rooftop? No, media minimized that. But I'm sure you think it's all the other guy's fault. Lets goad the democrat party into passing another couple of racist resolutions denouncing whites and supporting fake blood libels, which is basically what they did regardless of how you want to spin it (which you will because all your side does is lie, which is why you're obsessed with Trump's so-called lies -- he's stealing your mojo!). X 100s of other incidents -- Smollet, VA rape hoax, etc.

    most dangerous administration in our lifetimes
     
    You've witnessed a case of TDS in real time. Remember, the left works by projecting their paranoia onto others, which justifies their crimes. They are dangerous. In their warped minds, it's okay to commit horrible crimes because they've spun this psychotic narrative that they are under imminent assault by "the other" -- that it's okay to commit heinous crimes themselves because crimes are about to be visited upon them by others. I can see why Trump supporters reject these types, even despite the man's many flaws. They are dangerous. Eventually, this will come to separate countries. I don't want to live in a country with people like this poster. You have to go or we do. Irreconcilable differences. Hit the road.

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    , @black sea
    @Tyrone Jefferson

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJsCQD-I-yk

    , @Che Blutarsky
    @Tyrone Jefferson

    The only thing more tiresome than a New York Times review of a book with a "badthink" topic is someone who cuts and pastes it into an iSteve comment section.

    , @WJ
    @Tyrone Jefferson

    "in which every president but one has been a white man," Actually Obama was was white or half white. But he was raised by white people and went to white private schools and had almost all white advisors, so more white than black. You can disregard his tour of duty in South Chicago where he faked religiousity and listened to the racist black preacher. You can be assured he detested those times, being around a lot of black people.

    , @Pop Warner
    @Tyrone Jefferson

    So You're against the free speech of people you don't like? The Unite the Right protestors had a constitutional right to assemble at Lee Park and violent terrorists with the help of law enforcement prevented them from exercising their basic rights.

    Trump was wrong when he said there were good people on both sides. There were no good people on the side of the terrorists who attacked the lawful assembly

    , @Forbes
    @Tyrone Jefferson

    Shorter version. Orange Man Bad. Lather, rinse, repeat...

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

  3. Democracy can’t be fixed because it is inherently problematic and unstable. Of course, oligarchs benefit the most from democracy because they can rig the system as needed in their favor.

    • Agree: Ian M.
    • Replies: @Just passing through
    @BB753

    The problem with democracy is that someone with excellent reasoning and logical capacity gets the same amount for clout as someone who hasn't worked a day in his or her life and lives on State handouts. Both get one vote and both are equal.

    Perhaps an means tested voting license would make democracy better?

    Another problem with democracy is how decadent and costly it is, both in time and money, we have to go though the whole charade of TV debates and drama only for the script to he the same next season: Israel First, more cheap labour from abroad, weird sexual degeneracy and endless wars.

    This is of course because those who are rich can hijack the democratic process, the richer you are the more chance you have of winning, while it is technically true that anyone with charisma can be president, in reality the potential winners are chosen beforehand after being vetted by a council of financial interests, amongst others. As such, America 'democracy' is on par with that of Iran where an Islmic council vets candidates before they are allowed to run.

    Although we could engage in pilpul by saying 'but in America, you can be prevented from running', in the end the result is the same, a pre-selected group of candidates are the only ones who will win.

    This is why claims of Iran being a dictatorship are so laughable, everyone can vote there and they even have seats reserved for minorities so they can air their grievances in public.

    Overall, the Western democratic system has been hijacked by an rootless international clique, and there is no saving it.

  4. I’m a teamster. I can legitimately say unions are only as good as the people who run them. These days, there is little distinction between those people and the people who run the corporations.

    • Agree: MBlanc46
    • Replies: @Bill P
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    I’m a teamster. I can legitimately say unions are only as good as the people who run them.
     
    Funny, I remember my grandpa saying that almost verbatim back in the 70s. He added something about crooks and casinos.
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    My dad was a Teamster and complained that the Union played footsie with management instead of looking out for the employees.

    It's a bad sign when union bosses live in the elite neighborhoods and send their kids to the same elite schools that management does.

    , @Prester John
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    In other words, like the unions in Japan which Dave Halberstam described in his book "The Reckoning". In essence, they are really nothing more than an arm of management.

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike

    , @notsaying
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Unions and their leaders aren't perfect.

    But it was dislike of union corruption that made a lot of people turn anti-union and now what do we have? Income inequality that's worse than it's been for 100 years and fewer than 10% of nongovernment workers in unions.

    I would prefer a much greater number of private sector employees join unions. I think the pluses would be greater than the minuses.

    Workers need the power that comes from groups advocating for them. On their own they are toast. Maybe we'll get lucky and we'll get some new unions forming in the future that are less corrupt. Money and power are corrupting influences though. I'd rather have workers groups which have enough money and power to become corrupt vs. have no workers groups.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    , @MBlanc46
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Labor lieutenants of capitalism, Marx called them.

    , @anon
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Likewise, with Conservatism, Inc. there is little distinction between them and the Left in terms of end results.
    They sold out, and pretend fight as controlled opposition.
    Like Mitt used to sort of do, "... I'm a severe conservative ..."

  5. What do you know, a nice conclusion.
    And it’s nice to see anyone picking up on the problem being a hostile elite. But unions are a non-starter. In fact, in California (and it’s proposed nationally) labor rights are so thoroughly destroyed that free agents contracting with small businesses (which cannot afford to expand permanent staff) are categorically forbidden.

  6. What do you know, a nice conclusion.
    And it’s nice to see anyone picking up on the problem being a hostile elite. But unions are a non-starter.

    We need a white people’s union. That’s the obvious “solution”, but of course we can’t do it because 98% of white people are almost irreversibly programmed to reject the idea, and the other 2% will fear being canceled for doing what they know is necessary.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @ben tillman


    We need a white people’s union.
     
    Ridiculous. White people have no common interests. Rich whites hate non-rich whites. Middle-class whites hate working-class whites. Working-class whites hate middle-class whites. Urban whites loathe rural whites.

    You might persuade people to recognise that they have class interests. The elites already understand this. Non-elites do not, but maybe they could be persuaded. But you will never persuade whites to think in terms of racial solidarity. It's pure fantasy.

    If you want to fight the elites you can only do so on class grounds. Forget the race stuff. Racial identity is a complete non-starter for whites. Trying to forge a white identity will only lead to one embarrassing defeat after another.

    Steve is actually trying to make a constructive suggestion. As Warren Buffet pointed out, this is a class war we're in whether we want to admit it or not.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @ben tillman

    , @anon
    @ben tillman

    ... how about more of those natural conservatives from south of the Rio Grande? Jeb! says that will help

  7. Anon[886] • Disclaimer says:

    OT:

    The Kansas City Chiefs kicker, Harrison Butker, one of the most accurate NFL kickers, is a hardcore traditional Latin Mass Catholic.

    Butker is featured in this really educational Wired video (physics of distance/angle):

  8. anon[148] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrone Jefferson
    This book has no mention of race and the great evil of white supremacy

    the explanation that results is marked by an appalling minimization of the most dangerous administration in our lifetimes and a highly distorted portrait of Trump supporters as victims.

    So eager is Lind to be sympathetic to populists that he begins to take their talking points at face value. “Unfortunately, under the logic of asymmetrical multiculturalism,” he writes, “appreciation of minority and immigrant traditions is often coupled with elite contempt for the ancestral traditions of white native and white immigrant subcultures, which are alleged by overclass intellectuals to be hopelessly tainted by white supremacy or colonialism.” This is the kind of “equality feels like oppression” logic that leads people to found White Students Associations and Men’s Rights Clubs. In a country in which every president but one has been a white man, most C.E.O.s are white men and the syllabuses in schools remain dominated by white men’s words, it is amazing to think America is white-unfriendly

    .Now, if you are going to present Trump as the receptacle of the cries of the unheard, you will need to funhouse-mirror him beyond recognition. Lind is on it. He takes the quintessential racist moment of Trump’s presidency — his famous comments on Charlottesville — and defends them: “Phrases from his remarks were taken out of context, recombined and misconstrued so they could fit into the Trump-is-Hitler narrative.” He also dismisses concerns about Russia’s role in the 2016 election as “mythological thinking.” “Liberal democracy in the West today is not endangered by Russian machinations or resurgent fascism,” Lind writes, describing a world I would love to live in. In fact, get this: Lind believes the “paranoid demonological thinking” represented by worries about Russia and fascism “has the potential to be a greater danger to liberal democracy in the West than any particular populist movements.” How

    Replies: @anon, @black sea, @Che Blutarsky, @WJ, @Pop Warner, @Forbes

    marked by an appalling minimization of the most dangerous administration in our lifetimes and a highly distorted portrait of Trump supporters as victims.

    Missed your lithium shot.

    He takes the quintessential racist moment of Trump’s presidency — his famous comments on Charlottesville — and defends them:

    Breaking: party of racists projects their racism onto others. Ignores all countervailing evidence. Charlottesville? Remember that time a radical leftist tried shooting up republican congressman Scalise? No, media minimized that — appalling. Remember back before the election when a BLM associated terrorist shot up and murdered a bunch of cops from a rooftop? No, media minimized that. But I’m sure you think it’s all the other guy’s fault. Lets goad the democrat party into passing another couple of racist resolutions denouncing whites and supporting fake blood libels, which is basically what they did regardless of how you want to spin it (which you will because all your side does is lie, which is why you’re obsessed with Trump’s so-called lies — he’s stealing your mojo!). X 100s of other incidents — Smollet, VA rape hoax, etc.

    most dangerous administration in our lifetimes

    You’ve witnessed a case of TDS in real time. Remember, the left works by projecting their paranoia onto others, which justifies their crimes. They are dangerous. In their warped minds, it’s okay to commit horrible crimes because they’ve spun this psychotic narrative that they are under imminent assault by “the other” — that it’s okay to commit heinous crimes themselves because crimes are about to be visited upon them by others. I can see why Trump supporters reject these types, even despite the man’s many flaws. They are dangerous. Eventually, this will come to separate countries. I don’t want to live in a country with people like this poster. You have to go or we do. Irreconcilable differences. Hit the road.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @anon


    You’ve witnessed a case of TDS in real time.
     
    Tiny Duck Syndrome. Tiny Duck "Tyrone Jefferson" plagiarized his comment from this book review:

    https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1218181094719348736

    Replies: @Mr McKenna

  9. I’m not really familiar with Lind but his book sounds like a lot of vague, mushy middle-of-the-roadism.

    The call for unions as a political force seems like just more mush because one can dodge the issue of exactly what policies unions are supposed to advocate when they get power. I guess the idea is that participating in unions would quell populist uprisings by giving workers the illusion that they are participating in the process. (Hardly the first time trade unionism has been used in history for this purpose).

    Meanwhile, the real elites continue to make the important decisions at the grown-ups table.

    It’s all idle pontificating, however, as private sector unions are an economic dead end. And public sector unions are just money-laundering kickback schemes to turn tax revenues into political contributions.

    • Agree: Hemid
    • Disagree: Abe
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    @Hypnotoad666

    Excellent points. It seems like we should prohibit government employees from unionizing, but encourage and support private-sector workers in unionizing.

    , @Forbes
    @Hypnotoad666

    Public sector unions are a jobs program for buying votes paid for with tax revenues.

    There's never any legitimate compensation/benefits negotiation as "both sides" sit on the same side of the table. Labor is just another voter constituency that politicians buy with your taxes.

    , @Abe
    @Hypnotoad666


    The call for unions as a political force seems like just more mush because one can dodge the issue of exactly what policies unions are supposed to advocate when they get power.
     
    Disagree. Just look at what police unions did for officers caught up in BLM madness. It did not save the career of the officer who brought down Michael Brown, but that was in the face of direct and overwhelming pressure by a US President and his Attorney General. And as far as I know, the officer who tangled with Obama buddy Skip Gates got to keep his job- if it were the private sector he would have been immediately canned and his life ruined.
  10. This is kinda’ old stuff and information. It must make Steve feel like he is JAMES TAYLOR….

    • Agree: Autochthon
  11. Is there something weird about the first three hyperlinks in the article? (“Dark days on Wall Street”…”turned down a chance to work on Wall Street”…)

    Geogeghan has a good article in the New Republic about how 2020 Dems are totally disconnected from the working class in e.g. Chicago

    https://newrepublic.com/article/156000/educated-fools-democrats-misunderstand-politics-social-class

    • Thanks: notsaying
  12. “the lower ranks of the American class system need the expertise of a counter-establishment with the steady resources only available from union dues.”

    Exactly the system that worked pretty well 1945-1990.

    Now such unions and counter-establishment can’t work as we’re too diverse. Steve’s and Lind’s citizenism, Bernie’s populism, Poca’s technocratic liberalism: all very viable models for 1985 USA demographics.

    Now our choice more between Jair’s Brazil or Maduro’s Venezuela.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    @Lot

    Don't blackpill, bro! There's ALWAYS the option of Pinochet's Chile!

    Replies: @Lot

  13. Still one of the best books I’ve read on the decline and fall of US public sector Unions. Unfortunately, the author died a few years ago.

    The book talks about the structure of US vs European/Asian Unions. The latter had “company union” models while the national American steel and auto workers unions (USW and UAW) entered negotiations as a whole entity. There were advantages (and disadvantages) of having one Union deal with multiple corporations. US steel companies negotiated somewhat collectively against the USW as well.

    Here’s one example, US Steel had the highest labor costs in the industry. Higher than Republic and Bethlehem Steel. So they wanted higher unified wages to make domestic competitors less competitive. So they self-sabotaged the other steel corporations desire of lower labor costs. These types of strategies did hurt US productivity and global cost competitiveness.

    But here’s another tie in question from your previous review of Christopher Campbell’s book. Did Civil Rights eventually kill Unions?

    In many ways feminism and black empowerment severely damaged corporations and unions alike. Both were constantly exposed to “lawfare” shakedowns from Al Sharpton types. (Though many corporations were able in the phrase of Phyllis Schlafly’s “Feminist Fantasies” book “use pink collar workers to economically cripple blue collar workers.” (Or that’s how I remember that quote.)

    But Black low-IQ likely did the most damage to manufacturing corporations and private Unions, especially after the Civil Rights era. As the Huffington Post kindly points out, many people in Detroit can’t read.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/detroit-illiteracy-nearly-half-education_n_858307

    According to estimates by The National Institute for Literacy, roughly 47 percent of adults in Detroit, Michigan — 200,000 total — are “functionally illiterate,” meaning they have trouble with reading, speaking, writing and computational skills. Even more surprisingly, the Detroit Regional Workforce finds half of that illiterate population has obtained a high school degree.

    Try using that (mainly black) workforce against Japanese manufacturers. (Japan is 98% Japanese and likely doesn’t have civil rights racial legislation akin to the US.) This placed many unions and companies between a rock and a hard place. Many Unions Locals potentially died from unprofitable companies that couldn’t discriminate against black subpar labor. This could also help explain why so many US manufacturers moved to China to open shop. To increase profits and escape Civil Rights legislation.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Kronos

    But I think you meant "private sector unions" in the first sentence.

    Also, PS to Steve: first three hyperlinks in Takimag article are not coded correctly.

    , @Dieter Kief
    @Kronos

    Wow!

    70% of the GM cars - after the 80 billion tax-bailout of the company - built outside the US and 47 % of Detroit's adults functionally illiterate (with half of those holding a high school degree...).

    - What else do we have to know? - Just in case somebody would still have problems to connect these dots, he could read Heiner Rindermann's Cognitive Capitalism.

    Maybe for iSteve readers, this is all too obvious, so that we don't understand the problems of those who don't understand this almost perfect Detroit/GM-example and thus can't make sense of it. As I've said a few times already: What might make it really hard for a wider public to connect the dots of low black IQ, lack of useful popular culture and lack of industrial competitiveness is the simple question: What if you accept that there are some things really not adding up in a rational way? -I mean - what do you do with such insight? - The trillion-dollar question.

  14. @Tyrone Jefferson
    This book has no mention of race and the great evil of white supremacy

    the explanation that results is marked by an appalling minimization of the most dangerous administration in our lifetimes and a highly distorted portrait of Trump supporters as victims.

    So eager is Lind to be sympathetic to populists that he begins to take their talking points at face value. “Unfortunately, under the logic of asymmetrical multiculturalism,” he writes, “appreciation of minority and immigrant traditions is often coupled with elite contempt for the ancestral traditions of white native and white immigrant subcultures, which are alleged by overclass intellectuals to be hopelessly tainted by white supremacy or colonialism.” This is the kind of “equality feels like oppression” logic that leads people to found White Students Associations and Men’s Rights Clubs. In a country in which every president but one has been a white man, most C.E.O.s are white men and the syllabuses in schools remain dominated by white men’s words, it is amazing to think America is white-unfriendly

    .Now, if you are going to present Trump as the receptacle of the cries of the unheard, you will need to funhouse-mirror him beyond recognition. Lind is on it. He takes the quintessential racist moment of Trump’s presidency — his famous comments on Charlottesville — and defends them: “Phrases from his remarks were taken out of context, recombined and misconstrued so they could fit into the Trump-is-Hitler narrative.” He also dismisses concerns about Russia’s role in the 2016 election as “mythological thinking.” “Liberal democracy in the West today is not endangered by Russian machinations or resurgent fascism,” Lind writes, describing a world I would love to live in. In fact, get this: Lind believes the “paranoid demonological thinking” represented by worries about Russia and fascism “has the potential to be a greater danger to liberal democracy in the West than any particular populist movements.” How

    Replies: @anon, @black sea, @Che Blutarsky, @WJ, @Pop Warner, @Forbes

  15. @anon
    @Tyrone Jefferson


    marked by an appalling minimization of the most dangerous administration in our lifetimes and a highly distorted portrait of Trump supporters as victims.
     
    Missed your lithium shot.

    He takes the quintessential racist moment of Trump’s presidency — his famous comments on Charlottesville — and defends them:
     
    Breaking: party of racists projects their racism onto others. Ignores all countervailing evidence. Charlottesville? Remember that time a radical leftist tried shooting up republican congressman Scalise? No, media minimized that -- appalling. Remember back before the election when a BLM associated terrorist shot up and murdered a bunch of cops from a rooftop? No, media minimized that. But I'm sure you think it's all the other guy's fault. Lets goad the democrat party into passing another couple of racist resolutions denouncing whites and supporting fake blood libels, which is basically what they did regardless of how you want to spin it (which you will because all your side does is lie, which is why you're obsessed with Trump's so-called lies -- he's stealing your mojo!). X 100s of other incidents -- Smollet, VA rape hoax, etc.

    most dangerous administration in our lifetimes
     
    You've witnessed a case of TDS in real time. Remember, the left works by projecting their paranoia onto others, which justifies their crimes. They are dangerous. In their warped minds, it's okay to commit horrible crimes because they've spun this psychotic narrative that they are under imminent assault by "the other" -- that it's okay to commit heinous crimes themselves because crimes are about to be visited upon them by others. I can see why Trump supporters reject these types, even despite the man's many flaws. They are dangerous. Eventually, this will come to separate countries. I don't want to live in a country with people like this poster. You have to go or we do. Irreconcilable differences. Hit the road.

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    You’ve witnessed a case of TDS in real time.

    Tiny Duck Syndrome. Tiny Duck “Tyrone Jefferson” plagiarized his comment from this book review:

    https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1218181094719348736

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    @MEH 0910


    “Tyrone Jefferson”
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball_Jones_featuring_Tyrone_Shoelaces

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlhWPVJNAOo

    Daresay this one wouldn't pass muster today...
  16. @MikeatMikedotMike
    I'm a teamster. I can legitimately say unions are only as good as the people who run them. These days, there is little distinction between those people and the people who run the corporations.

    Replies: @Bill P, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Prester John, @notsaying, @MBlanc46, @anon

    I’m a teamster. I can legitimately say unions are only as good as the people who run them.

    Funny, I remember my grandpa saying that almost verbatim back in the 70s. He added something about crooks and casinos.

  17. “For example, why did American unions tend to be more mobbed up than European unions?”

    Um, I don’t know, ah, SICILIAN IMMIGRANTS?

    • Replies: @Stumpy Pepys
    @James J OMeara

    Yeah,sure. (((Sicilian))). Immigrants.

    , @Brutusale
    @James J OMeara


    Um, I don’t know, ah, SICILIAN IMMIGRANTS?
     
    In my neck of the woods, the gentlemen tend to be from the Olde Sod.

    Replies: @captflee

  18. @Tyrone Jefferson
    This book has no mention of race and the great evil of white supremacy

    the explanation that results is marked by an appalling minimization of the most dangerous administration in our lifetimes and a highly distorted portrait of Trump supporters as victims.

    So eager is Lind to be sympathetic to populists that he begins to take their talking points at face value. “Unfortunately, under the logic of asymmetrical multiculturalism,” he writes, “appreciation of minority and immigrant traditions is often coupled with elite contempt for the ancestral traditions of white native and white immigrant subcultures, which are alleged by overclass intellectuals to be hopelessly tainted by white supremacy or colonialism.” This is the kind of “equality feels like oppression” logic that leads people to found White Students Associations and Men’s Rights Clubs. In a country in which every president but one has been a white man, most C.E.O.s are white men and the syllabuses in schools remain dominated by white men’s words, it is amazing to think America is white-unfriendly

    .Now, if you are going to present Trump as the receptacle of the cries of the unheard, you will need to funhouse-mirror him beyond recognition. Lind is on it. He takes the quintessential racist moment of Trump’s presidency — his famous comments on Charlottesville — and defends them: “Phrases from his remarks were taken out of context, recombined and misconstrued so they could fit into the Trump-is-Hitler narrative.” He also dismisses concerns about Russia’s role in the 2016 election as “mythological thinking.” “Liberal democracy in the West today is not endangered by Russian machinations or resurgent fascism,” Lind writes, describing a world I would love to live in. In fact, get this: Lind believes the “paranoid demonological thinking” represented by worries about Russia and fascism “has the potential to be a greater danger to liberal democracy in the West than any particular populist movements.” How

    Replies: @anon, @black sea, @Che Blutarsky, @WJ, @Pop Warner, @Forbes

    The only thing more tiresome than a New York Times review of a book with a “badthink” topic is someone who cuts and pastes it into an iSteve comment section.

  19. As Henry Ford tried to warn us in 1920, America(and the UK)’s labor unions are almost all led by Jews. They drive a hard bargain because their main aim was to disrupt businesses and force the hands of WASP management so they’d go cap in hand to the money man on Wall Street, who are again Jews, allowing these money man to take control of their companies and hand them the humble pie. Eventually the union terms got so out of control it gave the capital owners the perfect excuse to move their jobs offshore, starving the “deplorables”. The same tribe then ply them with opioid to ease their pain.

    In contrast labor unions in Germany and their bosses are the same tribe and look out for one another. Workers in Japan are the same way. In the Japanese auto industry, management and workers look out for one another, and auto companies have great relationships with their suppliers.

    In contrast, in the US/UK, unions force workers into an adversarial relationship with management (because they are often not the same tribe, WASP management vs. Irish/Italian/Slav workers led by Jewish union leaders), and auto companies try to rip off their suppliers as much as they can. It’s the Milton Friedman mantra — profit is king, the goal of business is to maximize profit.

    In Japan/Germany, companies take on a paternal role and look out for their employees, they don’t mind sacrificing some profit to pay their employees and their suppliers better. In return, they get loyalty and good work ethic, they work as one.

    Returning to labor unions won’t work as long as we remain a “diverse” country, with unions being led by the same tribe with ulterior motives, and management having to answer to the capital owners on Wall Street who demand maximizing “shareholder value”.

    • Agree: Pop Warner, Rob, Cloudbuster
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @JUSA

    Jews of that era were primarily working class. They were immigrants or the children of immigrants, and there was less social mobility at the time. Wall St. was dominated by WASPs at the time, just as corporate management was. The consolidation of corporations, the movement and concentration of corporate headquarters into NYC, and the greater financier control of corporations was led by WASP bankers like JP Morgan in the late 19th/early 20th century.

    , @teotoon
    @JUSA

    Agree.

    , @alt right moderate
    @JUSA

    Britain and America have strong historical reasons for favouring liberal economic policies. Germany is a continental power that has been forced to rely on manufacturing because it wasn't allowed to be an imperial maritime power. Ditto for Japan.

    As far as Jews go, you have it back to front. Jews tend to gravitate towards countries where there are opportunities for them. In the modern world, that means economically liberal countries like the US. They don't create the economic policies of the host nation. Claiming that majority elites can be easily manipulated into going against their own economic interests just doesn't make sense.

    Replies: @ben tillman

  20. @MEH 0910
    @anon


    You’ve witnessed a case of TDS in real time.
     
    Tiny Duck Syndrome. Tiny Duck "Tyrone Jefferson" plagiarized his comment from this book review:

    https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1218181094719348736

    Replies: @Mr McKenna

    “Tyrone Jefferson”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball_Jones_featuring_Tyrone_Shoelaces

    Daresay this one wouldn’t pass muster today…

  21. Why would I want to save democracy? The whole premise is wrong.

    This “managerial elite” is a communist meme that needs to die. Corporate middle managers generally kind of suck, but deep-state bureaucrats and corporate middle managers aren’t a single cohesive class. As far as I know, the only person on the “right” who still promotes this Galbraith (also a dyed-in-the-wool leftist) meme is Z Man, and I guess Michael Lind now as well.

    • Replies: @eugyppius
    @Michael S


    Corporate middle managers generally kind of suck, but deep-state bureaucrats and corporate middle managers aren’t a single cohesive class.
     
    Class analysis is just a theory -- if you like a series of categories for understanding the world -- and as such it is kind of pointless to argue on its behalf. Either you find it useful or you don't.

    But, in point of fact, Corporate middle managers are not the "managerial elite" of Lind's title . At best, middle management has a bit part to play in the project of management. Must of them aren't even members of the club, though they surely aspire to join.

    In the class-theory sense, managers are the people who manage capital. Through the nineteenth century, industrial operations tended to be overseen by the actual people who owned them, namely the capitalists. But with the onset of mass society, that changed. Ownership of many companies came to be fragmented across thousands or millions of shareholders; and even in cases of privately held corporations, the temptations of wealth alongside the complexities of mass production and markets encouraged the capitalists to hire specialists to steer industry in their stead.

    In the process, they ceded their influence over culture and society to an emerging professional class, and became birds in their own guilded cages: comfortable but bereft of influence.

    At the same time, parallel processes were at work in government and within the communications apparatus (i.e. media and universities). In all three cases -- business, government and media -- a new class of people emerged, the "managers". Today these people share an entire culture and outlook: they were all educated at the same 20 or so schools; they tend to live in coastal cities and to move around a lot; many of them actually know each other. They all like sushi and gay rights and they drink but don't smoke. They are doctors, lawyers, college professors, CEOs, and New York Times journalists; they are also government technocrats (i.e., the deep state) and they form a greater part of the political establishment.

    Just because neo-Marxists like Gramsci cottoned on to some of these changes, doesn't mean we should remain blind to them. There's a reason the robber-barons like Vanderbilt and Rockefeller have been replaced by CEOs like Jamie Dimon and University presidents like Larry Bracow. It's the managers. There's a reason media, government and business have through the course of the twentieth century been increasingly on the same page, and that they have now become very closely aligned with each other. They're all run by the same collection of managers. There's a reason all three have reacted in the same russophobe woke outraged way to Trump kicking their hornet's nest. It's all the same people whose plans have been thwarted, namely the managers.

    Replies: @ben tillman

  22. @Anonymous
    Someone tell Taki to return to the old format.

    Replies: @Lurker, @vhrm, @Pericles

    We’d like Disqus comments back too. Thanks.

    • Replies: @RebelWriter
    @Lurker

    I miss Sunday mornings with TWTP and friends. Good times.

    Replies: @Lurker

  23. I’m not convinced populism can’t work in the Anglosphere. We seem to be really bad at Democratic Socialism, due to our culture’s emphasis on adversarialism/agonism. That populism doesn’t work well in Latin America doesn’t mean very much.

    Britain is currently undergoing an experiment in populist government under Dominic Cummings, the Light Side equivalent of New Labour’s Alastair Campbell. We’ll see what he can do.

    I do think the US Constitution is highly inimical to populism due to the Founders’ fear of Caesarism, and its preference for Enlightened elites. The inbuilt dominance of lawyers over politicians has neutered Trumpism pretty effectively.

  24. This is not to say that Lind is pro-Trump. He concludes his chapter on “The Populist Counterrevolution From Below” by pointing out that Latin America has long cycled unproductively between elitist oligarchy and populist demagoguery:

    Well that’s the result of an unbalanced demographic, isn’t it? The Brown indigenous people going for Marxism, the Whites fighting back with an authoritarian regime that brings some sanity.

    Here in America we have a lot more Whites, so if they get energized, well, they’d be capable of a lot more than what happened in Chile.

  25. @Anonymous
    Someone tell Taki to return to the old format.

    Replies: @Lurker, @vhrm, @Pericles

    Ok, i didn’t really like the old format either, but i could sort of deal with it.

    My main issue was always what’s new vs what I’ve already read. And/or which articles seem interesting.

    With the old more compact format somehow i could sort of remember and tell when the grid of stories changed. (annoying, but doable)

    Now, i have no idea. I literally used to check it every day, but since the switch I’ve given up. Haven’t been there all month except when reading Steve’s articles linked from here, which is ironic since it was Taki’s that tended to push me here!

    How freakin’ hard is it to put dates on things on the front page at least?! (an issue i have with unz too)

  26. @James J OMeara
    "For example, why did American unions tend to be more mobbed up than European unions?"

    Um, I don't know, ah, SICILIAN IMMIGRANTS?

    Replies: @Stumpy Pepys, @Brutusale

    Yeah,sure. (((Sicilian))). Immigrants.

  27. For example, why did American unions tend to be more mobbed up than European unions?

    Because in America, it wasn’t class war, it was race war. The bohunks and greasers were getting back at their poor fathers’ overlords. (Who invited their families in. It’s complicated.)

    Why did the Reagan administration taking a stand against the air traffic controllers’ strike in 1981 turn into a massive defeat for unions in general?

    That was the rare union that endorsed him. Yet he had no choice– he was required by law to dismiss them. It might have looked bad, but O’Neill could have impeached him for not doing so. Pelosi would have.

    Yet, how have American union-made pickup trucks, which have been protected by a 25 percent tariff since 1964, remained wildly popular with consumers?

    Detroit respects the truck buyers. They’ve condescended to car buyers since what you call the “Big One”.

    …the extremely competitive family-sedan segment, which due to its mere 2.5 percent tariff is dominated by Asian brands.

    The tariffs are zero on Asian sedans made in Ohio and Alabama. Where HQ is located is irrelevant. Okay, maybe a small tariff on the radio, but that’s made in the same sweatshop factory as Detroit’s, isn’t it? Both would pay.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    @Reg Cæsar


    That was the rare union that endorsed him.
     
    Not that rare; the Teamsters endorsed him (twice).
    , @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Reg Cæsar


    Detroit respects the truck buyers.
     
    Spend 5 minutes in any modern full-sized pickup and it's crystal clear Detroit allocates immense budgets and the best engineering talent to work on these vehicles.

    Replies: @mmack

  28. @Reg Cæsar

    For example, why did American unions tend to be more mobbed up than European unions?
     
    Because in America, it wasn't class war, it was race war. The bohunks and greasers were getting back at their poor fathers' overlords. (Who invited their families in. It's complicated.)

    Why did the Reagan administration taking a stand against the air traffic controllers’ strike in 1981 turn into a massive defeat for unions in general?
     
    That was the rare union that endorsed him. Yet he had no choice-- he was required by law to dismiss them. It might have looked bad, but O'Neill could have impeached him for not doing so. Pelosi would have.

    Yet, how have American union-made pickup trucks, which have been protected by a 25 percent tariff since 1964, remained wildly popular with consumers?
     
    Detroit respects the truck buyers. They've condescended to car buyers since what you call the "Big One".

    ...the extremely competitive family-sedan segment, which due to its mere 2.5 percent tariff is dominated by Asian brands.
     
    The tariffs are zero on Asian sedans made in Ohio and Alabama. Where HQ is located is irrelevant. Okay, maybe a small tariff on the radio, but that's made in the same sweatshop factory as Detroit's, isn't it? Both would pay.

    Replies: @snorlax, @The Wild Geese Howard

    That was the rare union that endorsed him.

    Not that rare; the Teamsters endorsed him (twice).

  29. My Review of Michael Lind’s “The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Criminal Elite”

    There, fixed it for ya.

    • LOL: Kronos
  30. @Kronos
    Still one of the best books I’ve read on the decline and fall of US public sector Unions. Unfortunately, the author died a few years ago.

    https://www.amazon.com/Wolf-Finally-Came-American-Industry/dp/0822953986

    The book talks about the structure of US vs European/Asian Unions. The latter had “company union” models while the national American steel and auto workers unions (USW and UAW) entered negotiations as a whole entity. There were advantages (and disadvantages) of having one Union deal with multiple corporations. US steel companies negotiated somewhat collectively against the USW as well.

    Here’s one example, US Steel had the highest labor costs in the industry. Higher than Republic and Bethlehem Steel. So they wanted higher unified wages to make domestic competitors less competitive. So they self-sabotaged the other steel corporations desire of lower labor costs. These types of strategies did hurt US productivity and global cost competitiveness.

    But here’s another tie in question from your previous review of Christopher Campbell’s book. Did Civil Rights eventually kill Unions?

    https://www.amazon.com/Age-Entitlement-America-Since-Sixties/dp/1501106899/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Age+of+entitlement&qid=1580875997&s=books&sr=1-1

    In many ways feminism and black empowerment severely damaged corporations and unions alike. Both were constantly exposed to “lawfare” shakedowns from Al Sharpton types. (Though many corporations were able in the phrase of Phyllis Schlafly’s “Feminist Fantasies” book “use pink collar workers to economically cripple blue collar workers.” (Or that’s how I remember that quote.)

    But Black low-IQ likely did the most damage to manufacturing corporations and private Unions, especially after the Civil Rights era. As the Huffington Post kindly points out, many people in Detroit can’t read.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/detroit-illiteracy-nearly-half-education_n_858307


    According to estimates by The National Institute for Literacy, roughly 47 percent of adults in Detroit, Michigan — 200,000 total — are “functionally illiterate,” meaning they have trouble with reading, speaking, writing and computational skills. Even more surprisingly, the Detroit Regional Workforce finds half of that illiterate population has obtained a high school degree.
     
    Try using that (mainly black) workforce against Japanese manufacturers. (Japan is 98% Japanese and likely doesn’t have civil rights racial legislation akin to the US.) This placed many unions and companies between a rock and a hard place. Many Unions Locals potentially died from unprofitable companies that couldn’t discriminate against black subpar labor. This could also help explain why so many US manufacturers moved to China to open shop. To increase profits and escape Civil Rights legislation.

    https://youtu.be/Lvl5Gan69Wo

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Dieter Kief

    But I think you meant “private sector unions” in the first sentence.

    Also, PS to Steve: first three hyperlinks in Takimag article are not coded correctly.

    • Agree: Kronos
  31. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    But as Galbraith explains here, the arrangement that persisted until the 1980s was one in which the managerial elite that ran the corporations dominated and had power over the shareholders and finance. What changed in the 80s was that finance was unshackled, and the interests of shareholders and finance took over and now dominate over the management in corporations and dictate to them. Lind gets it backwards. Corporations engage in “global labor arbitrage” not because the managerial elite have an intrinsic desire or need to, but because finance dictates and drives them to do so.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwkbA9NJy9g&feature=youtu.be&t=780

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Milken showed that if you read the fine print carefully, most of what he was doing was legal.

    Replies: @Sean

  32. @Kronos
    Still one of the best books I’ve read on the decline and fall of US public sector Unions. Unfortunately, the author died a few years ago.

    https://www.amazon.com/Wolf-Finally-Came-American-Industry/dp/0822953986

    The book talks about the structure of US vs European/Asian Unions. The latter had “company union” models while the national American steel and auto workers unions (USW and UAW) entered negotiations as a whole entity. There were advantages (and disadvantages) of having one Union deal with multiple corporations. US steel companies negotiated somewhat collectively against the USW as well.

    Here’s one example, US Steel had the highest labor costs in the industry. Higher than Republic and Bethlehem Steel. So they wanted higher unified wages to make domestic competitors less competitive. So they self-sabotaged the other steel corporations desire of lower labor costs. These types of strategies did hurt US productivity and global cost competitiveness.

    But here’s another tie in question from your previous review of Christopher Campbell’s book. Did Civil Rights eventually kill Unions?

    https://www.amazon.com/Age-Entitlement-America-Since-Sixties/dp/1501106899/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Age+of+entitlement&qid=1580875997&s=books&sr=1-1

    In many ways feminism and black empowerment severely damaged corporations and unions alike. Both were constantly exposed to “lawfare” shakedowns from Al Sharpton types. (Though many corporations were able in the phrase of Phyllis Schlafly’s “Feminist Fantasies” book “use pink collar workers to economically cripple blue collar workers.” (Or that’s how I remember that quote.)

    But Black low-IQ likely did the most damage to manufacturing corporations and private Unions, especially after the Civil Rights era. As the Huffington Post kindly points out, many people in Detroit can’t read.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/detroit-illiteracy-nearly-half-education_n_858307


    According to estimates by The National Institute for Literacy, roughly 47 percent of adults in Detroit, Michigan — 200,000 total — are “functionally illiterate,” meaning they have trouble with reading, speaking, writing and computational skills. Even more surprisingly, the Detroit Regional Workforce finds half of that illiterate population has obtained a high school degree.
     
    Try using that (mainly black) workforce against Japanese manufacturers. (Japan is 98% Japanese and likely doesn’t have civil rights racial legislation akin to the US.) This placed many unions and companies between a rock and a hard place. Many Unions Locals potentially died from unprofitable companies that couldn’t discriminate against black subpar labor. This could also help explain why so many US manufacturers moved to China to open shop. To increase profits and escape Civil Rights legislation.

    https://youtu.be/Lvl5Gan69Wo

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Dieter Kief

    Wow!

    70% of the GM cars – after the 80 billion tax-bailout of the company – built outside the US and 47 % of Detroit’s adults functionally illiterate (with half of those holding a high school degree…).

    – What else do we have to know? – Just in case somebody would still have problems to connect these dots, he could read Heiner Rindermann’s Cognitive Capitalism.

    Maybe for iSteve readers, this is all too obvious, so that we don’t understand the problems of those who don’t understand this almost perfect Detroit/GM-example and thus can’t make sense of it. As I’ve said a few times already: What might make it really hard for a wider public to connect the dots of low black IQ, lack of useful popular culture and lack of industrial competitiveness is the simple question: What if you accept that there are some things really not adding up in a rational way? -I mean – what do you do with such insight? – The trillion-dollar question.

  33. @Anonymous
    Someone tell Taki to return to the old format.

    Replies: @Lurker, @vhrm, @Pericles

    I like the new format, more readable and better put together.

    • Agree: Cloudbuster, Ian M.
  34. @Lot
    “the lower ranks of the American class system need the expertise of a counter-establishment with the steady resources only available from union dues.”

    Exactly the system that worked pretty well 1945-1990.

    Now such unions and counter-establishment can’t work as we’re too diverse. Steve’s and Lind’s citizenism, Bernie’s populism, Poca’s technocratic liberalism: all very viable models for 1985 USA demographics.

    Now our choice more between Jair’s Brazil or Maduro’s Venezuela.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer

    Don’t blackpill, bro! There’s ALWAYS the option of Pinochet’s Chile!

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Redneck farmer

    https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*v8TtAWWcNWZ6ph5RMfebUg.jpeg

  35. Otherwise, corporations will engage in “global labor arbitrage….”

    Why did you use the future tense (with a conditional modifier, no less!) to describe a phenomenon which has been common practice for more than twenty years, and was a fiat accompli in 1965, merely waiting for its inevitable perfection, like a resting steak or a cooling pie.

  36. @Anonymous
    But as Galbraith explains here, the arrangement that persisted until the 1980s was one in which the managerial elite that ran the corporations dominated and had power over the shareholders and finance. What changed in the 80s was that finance was unshackled, and the interests of shareholders and finance took over and now dominate over the management in corporations and dictate to them. Lind gets it backwards. Corporations engage in "global labor arbitrage" not because the managerial elite have an intrinsic desire or need to, but because finance dictates and drives them to do so.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwkbA9NJy9g&feature=youtu.be&t=780

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Milken showed that if you read the fine print carefully, most of what he was doing was legal.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Sean
    @Steve Sailer

    I am not convinced that Britain set up the ideal unions in post WW2 Germany. The Germans are just very good at cooperating in war or peace, their products are of superior quality. Given a level playing field (a single currency trading area) they inevitably deindustrialise, any country stupid enough to think they can compete with Germany on equal terms. As Correlli Barnett's books seem to show, Britain was not particularly interested in investing in technology and better organization, there was a fear of another recession, and it had an overvalued currency after WW2, which didn't help. the UK spent decades in financial crisis. There was real money in America so gangsters (originally strikebreakers) were hired by unions to defend them then saw the opportunity to shakedown businesses by forcing them to use various subcontractors under threat of a strike ect.

    Goldsmith was also the grandfather of Brexit. The way he took down Jonathan Bush and others led to Bloomberg dubbing Paul Singer ‘The World’s Most Feared Investor’. Singer buys into companies where he sees the management as as failing to deliver maximum value to the shareholders, then applies pressure to raise the share price (in Bush’s case extremely personal pressure) that often leads to the departure of the CEO and sale of the company. That immediate extra value for the shareholder Singer creates puts lots of working people out a job. Because of Singer and his imitators, CEO’s are outsourcing and importing replacements for indigenous workers in those services that cannot be outsourced. All the while loath to foster innovation that could bring about long term growth, because that would interfere with squeezing out more and more shareholder value. It's thanks to Singer, Buffett and their imitators forcomg CEO to grind the working class down that Trump got elected.

    Given the received wisdom of shareholder value, which only Elizabeth Warren and a few others question, hardly any basic R&D is being done. Paul Singer ect will be asset stripping the most innovative companies before they get off the launch pad. Government funded research is money down the drain, because to keep their jobs the CEOs will have to get into the Chinese market, and they are not being let in without handing over technology to China. Fearful of blacklisting, Western companies daren’t complain about the shakedowns. There will have to be a new technostructure created otherwise China is going to find it much too easy to steamroller the US even as its stock market is booming. Lind talks a lot of sense, but without serious social unrest to concentrate the government's mind, it is difficult to see how unions could be seen as part of a solution.

    Replies: @Rob

  37. @Michael S
    Why would I want to save democracy? The whole premise is wrong.

    This "managerial elite" is a communist meme that needs to die. Corporate middle managers generally kind of suck, but deep-state bureaucrats and corporate middle managers aren't a single cohesive class. As far as I know, the only person on the "right" who still promotes this Galbraith (also a dyed-in-the-wool leftist) meme is Z Man, and I guess Michael Lind now as well.

    Replies: @eugyppius

    Corporate middle managers generally kind of suck, but deep-state bureaucrats and corporate middle managers aren’t a single cohesive class.

    Class analysis is just a theory — if you like a series of categories for understanding the world — and as such it is kind of pointless to argue on its behalf. Either you find it useful or you don’t.

    But, in point of fact, Corporate middle managers are not the “managerial elite” of Lind’s title . At best, middle management has a bit part to play in the project of management. Must of them aren’t even members of the club, though they surely aspire to join.

    In the class-theory sense, managers are the people who manage capital. Through the nineteenth century, industrial operations tended to be overseen by the actual people who owned them, namely the capitalists. But with the onset of mass society, that changed. Ownership of many companies came to be fragmented across thousands or millions of shareholders; and even in cases of privately held corporations, the temptations of wealth alongside the complexities of mass production and markets encouraged the capitalists to hire specialists to steer industry in their stead.

    In the process, they ceded their influence over culture and society to an emerging professional class, and became birds in their own guilded cages: comfortable but bereft of influence.

    At the same time, parallel processes were at work in government and within the communications apparatus (i.e. media and universities). In all three cases — business, government and media — a new class of people emerged, the “managers”. Today these people share an entire culture and outlook: they were all educated at the same 20 or so schools; they tend to live in coastal cities and to move around a lot; many of them actually know each other. They all like sushi and gay rights and they drink but don’t smoke. They are doctors, lawyers, college professors, CEOs, and New York Times journalists; they are also government technocrats (i.e., the deep state) and they form a greater part of the political establishment.

    Just because neo-Marxists like Gramsci cottoned on to some of these changes, doesn’t mean we should remain blind to them. There’s a reason the robber-barons like Vanderbilt and Rockefeller have been replaced by CEOs like Jamie Dimon and University presidents like Larry Bracow. It’s the managers. There’s a reason media, government and business have through the course of the twentieth century been increasingly on the same page, and that they have now become very closely aligned with each other. They’re all run by the same collection of managers. There’s a reason all three have reacted in the same russophobe woke outraged way to Trump kicking their hornet’s nest. It’s all the same people whose plans have been thwarted, namely the managers.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @eugyppius


    There’s a reason media, government and business have through the course of the twentieth century been increasingly on the same page, and that they have now become very closely aligned with each other. They’re all run by the same collection of managers.
     
    Who have a common interest because of race, not class.

    Replies: @eugyppius

  38. Yet, how have American union-made pickup trucks, which have been protected by a 25 percent tariff since 1964, remained wildly popular with consumers?

    I’d suggest it is solely that 25% tariff. Pickups are massively useful and for people who need pickups there is no alternative.

    I have a 2007 GMC 2500 HD pickup. I recently had to replace the rear bumper because it was literally turning to powder. When I unbolted it, it was falling to pieces in my hands. The rear trailer hitch is so rust-damaged I need to replace it before I can safely pull my hay trailer again. Rust is eating the truck alive and I am probably going to have to replace it sooner rather than later strictly because of the rust.

    Meanwhile I have a 2001 Toyota Avalon and a 1996 Honda Accord both of which have solid bodies with minimal rust. Same crappy Ohio salty roads.

    If I could get a Japanese 3/4-ton HD truck I would buy one. And I like to buy American. But American pickups turning to iron oxide dust before they are 15 years old is my standard experience.

    Unfortunately new 3/4-ton HD trucks are stupidly expensive so I always buy used. Thus, even if Toyota introduced a 3/4-ton HD Tundra today, it would be years before I would get one.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Cloudbuster

    So you can explain to me what Elon Musk was thinking with the Cybertruck? A pickup truck with retro sci-fi aesthetics? I mean, I imagine there are some computer programmers in the South who are really happy, but outside of that...

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard, @Cloudbuster

  39. I can’t believe that you were able to write that review without once writing technocratic neoliberalism.

  40. @Cloudbuster
    Yet, how have American union-made pickup trucks, which have been protected by a 25 percent tariff since 1964, remained wildly popular with consumers?

    I'd suggest it is solely that 25% tariff. Pickups are massively useful and for people who need pickups there is no alternative.

    I have a 2007 GMC 2500 HD pickup. I recently had to replace the rear bumper because it was literally turning to powder. When I unbolted it, it was falling to pieces in my hands. The rear trailer hitch is so rust-damaged I need to replace it before I can safely pull my hay trailer again. Rust is eating the truck alive and I am probably going to have to replace it sooner rather than later strictly because of the rust.

    Meanwhile I have a 2001 Toyota Avalon and a 1996 Honda Accord both of which have solid bodies with minimal rust. Same crappy Ohio salty roads.

    If I could get a Japanese 3/4-ton HD truck I would buy one. And I like to buy American. But American pickups turning to iron oxide dust before they are 15 years old is my standard experience.

    Unfortunately new 3/4-ton HD trucks are stupidly expensive so I always buy used. Thus, even if Toyota introduced a 3/4-ton HD Tundra today, it would be years before I would get one.

    Replies: @SFG

    So you can explain to me what Elon Musk was thinking with the Cybertruck? A pickup truck with retro sci-fi aesthetics? I mean, I imagine there are some computer programmers in the South who are really happy, but outside of that…

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    @SFG

    No.

    The electric vehicle maker to watch in the pickup space is Rivian. If they can deliver on their promises they should do well.

    , @Cloudbuster
    @SFG

    Sorry, I got nothin. It's Elon, Musking.

  41. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Milken showed that if you read the fine print carefully, most of what he was doing was legal.

    Replies: @Sean

    I am not convinced that Britain set up the ideal unions in post WW2 Germany. The Germans are just very good at cooperating in war or peace, their products are of superior quality. Given a level playing field (a single currency trading area) they inevitably deindustrialise, any country stupid enough to think they can compete with Germany on equal terms. As Correlli Barnett’s books seem to show, Britain was not particularly interested in investing in technology and better organization, there was a fear of another recession, and it had an overvalued currency after WW2, which didn’t help. the UK spent decades in financial crisis. There was real money in America so gangsters (originally strikebreakers) were hired by unions to defend them then saw the opportunity to shakedown businesses by forcing them to use various subcontractors under threat of a strike ect.

    Goldsmith was also the grandfather of Brexit. The way he took down Jonathan Bush and others led to Bloomberg dubbing Paul Singer ‘The World’s Most Feared Investor’. Singer buys into companies where he sees the management as as failing to deliver maximum value to the shareholders, then applies pressure to raise the share price (in Bush’s case extremely personal pressure) that often leads to the departure of the CEO and sale of the company. That immediate extra value for the shareholder Singer creates puts lots of working people out a job. Because of Singer and his imitators, CEO’s are outsourcing and importing replacements for indigenous workers in those services that cannot be outsourced. All the while loath to foster innovation that could bring about long term growth, because that would interfere with squeezing out more and more shareholder value. It’s thanks to Singer, Buffett and their imitators forcomg CEO to grind the working class down that Trump got elected.

    Given the received wisdom of shareholder value, which only Elizabeth Warren and a few others question, hardly any basic R&D is being done. Paul Singer ect will be asset stripping the most innovative companies before they get off the launch pad. Government funded research is money down the drain, because to keep their jobs the CEOs will have to get into the Chinese market, and they are not being let in without handing over technology to China. Fearful of blacklisting, Western companies daren’t complain about the shakedowns. There will have to be a new technostructure created otherwise China is going to find it much too easy to steamroller the US even as its stock market is booming. Lind talks a lot of sense, but without serious social unrest to concentrate the government’s mind, it is difficult to see how unions could be seen as part of a solution.

    • Replies: @Rob
    @Sean


    ...ect...ect...ect.
     
    Etc. for et cetera.
  42. I’m not sure that unions can actually do the trick anymore, even if they came back. With an international financial system and free mobility of capital, if capital faces pressure to raise wages, they will simply re-locate to somewhere without wage pressure. Commodity businesses are operating on a razor thing profit margin as it is, and would go bust if their labor costs increase. They are forced to move to locations with low production costs to stay competitive. [There are monopolist businesses like Amazon that do quite well of course, but a lot of the economy is inputs like steel, electronic components, etc.]

    In the 30’s and 40’s, there was not anything like the capital mobility that exists today. Without restrictions on international capital flows, and protection for domestic industries (so they are not operating on a razor-thin margin), unions do nothing because there is no surplus. Even if they have a strike, and wages rise, the company either has to relocate to somewhere with lower wages or go bust. The only exception would be your monopoly players like Amazon. Of course, I would love to see Amazon’s workers organize, but that wouldn’t fix the problem, which is the integration of large swathes of extremely poor populations (with low levels of debt) with extremely wealthy populations (with high levels of debt). It completely destroyed the bargaining power of labor in developed countries, and transferred the entire share of economic growth in those regions to capital.

    It might make more sense to keep globalism, but focus on reducing domestic labor’s fixed costs. If we got health care down to OECD average costs as a percentage of GNP, re-focused and shrank higher education and reduced costs and eliminated student loans, and insured that affordable housing exists, so that our domestic labor was paying a significantly reduced cost for health care, education, and housing, then companies could reduce total effective compensation to workers, and workers would still see an increase in disposable income.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Tulip


    If we got health care down to OECD average costs as a percentage of GNP, re-focused and shrank higher education and reduced costs and eliminated student loans, and insured that affordable housing exists, so that our domestic labor was paying a significantly reduced cost for health care, education, and housing, then companies could reduce total effective compensation to workers, and workers would still see an increase in disposable income.
     
    I agree the state should lower the cost of doing business by providing infrastructure and enabling people to become qualified to become employees, but the kind of analysis where the workers get an effective increase in disposable income from government action ceases to be valid once the shareholders have power over the running of the businesses they invest in. It is dubious that CEO's with shareholders on their back to squeeze more and more value would or could pay workers extra money over and above what was needed instead of making extra profits.

    What would probably happen is business would get the government to expand welfare benefits that subsidise wages to an immense extent. We are back to Lind's problem of a lack of pressure to countervail the highly effective business lobbying. Yet government is being pressured by both workers and business to provide benefits that subsidise business and enable them to drive down wages. As I understand it, the Ron Unz argument for a high minimum wage is that more and more of "total effective compensation to workers" is increasingly paid by government.

    Replies: @iffen, @Tulip

    , @Desiderius
    @Tulip

    https://americanmind.org/essays/rip-globalism-dead-of-coronavirus/

    Replies: @Tulip

  43. @Reg Cæsar

    For example, why did American unions tend to be more mobbed up than European unions?
     
    Because in America, it wasn't class war, it was race war. The bohunks and greasers were getting back at their poor fathers' overlords. (Who invited their families in. It's complicated.)

    Why did the Reagan administration taking a stand against the air traffic controllers’ strike in 1981 turn into a massive defeat for unions in general?
     
    That was the rare union that endorsed him. Yet he had no choice-- he was required by law to dismiss them. It might have looked bad, but O'Neill could have impeached him for not doing so. Pelosi would have.

    Yet, how have American union-made pickup trucks, which have been protected by a 25 percent tariff since 1964, remained wildly popular with consumers?
     
    Detroit respects the truck buyers. They've condescended to car buyers since what you call the "Big One".

    ...the extremely competitive family-sedan segment, which due to its mere 2.5 percent tariff is dominated by Asian brands.
     
    The tariffs are zero on Asian sedans made in Ohio and Alabama. Where HQ is located is irrelevant. Okay, maybe a small tariff on the radio, but that's made in the same sweatshop factory as Detroit's, isn't it? Both would pay.

    Replies: @snorlax, @The Wild Geese Howard

    Detroit respects the truck buyers.

    Spend 5 minutes in any modern full-sized pickup and it’s crystal clear Detroit allocates immense budgets and the best engineering talent to work on these vehicles.

    • Replies: @mmack
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    Spend 5 minutes in any modern full-sized pickup and it’s crystal clear Detroit allocates immense budgets and the best engineering talent to work on these vehicles.

    Why not? It's where they make the bulk of their cash.

    When CAFE (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy) was first implemented it applied to passenger cars, and not trucks. American cars got emasculated while the Japanese and Germans, used to building smaller size, smaller engine displacement, fuel efficient cars (Exempt der grosser Mercedes and BMW for a minute) had reliable product ready to go.

    The Big Three pivoted their focus to trucks. They were built like American sedans were (full frame, body on frame construction, rear wheel drive, V8 engine) and it was the one platform for a long while the Japanese didn't aim for (Imagine trying to wheel a F-350 around tight Japanese streets). And for a while you could spin up an SUV off the mechanicals of a pickup and amortize the tooling costs over both pickups and SUVs. The SUV craze died down as more people buy CUVs (which are usually car based), but pickup trucks still sell strongly. And why not? They're the spiritual heirs of the Chevrolet Impala, Ford LTD, or Chrysler New Yorker. The switch didn't happen overnight but by the 1990s I began seeing more extended or crew cab (4 door) pickups. Now you can't get a standard (2 door, one seat) pickup unless it's an el strippo work truck.

    Replies: @anon

  44. @SFG
    @Cloudbuster

    So you can explain to me what Elon Musk was thinking with the Cybertruck? A pickup truck with retro sci-fi aesthetics? I mean, I imagine there are some computer programmers in the South who are really happy, but outside of that...

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard, @Cloudbuster

    No.

    The electric vehicle maker to watch in the pickup space is Rivian. If they can deliver on their promises they should do well.

  45. Imagine being white (“Lind is a fifth-generation Central Texan, of Swedish, British and German Jewish descent.”) and caring about/wanting to ‘save democracy’ in a multi-tribe nation state that used to belong to your tribe.

  46. I was once co-opted onto the committee of my local union branch. We were a group of varied opinions, united by only one – a deep contempt for the union’s officers in the London HQ.

    Most sane people who lived through the Trade Union years in Britain would probably prefer that every last union be destroyed than that many flourish.

    Myself, I’d settle on a compromise: unions must be forbidden in firms and other bodies that enjoy monopolies. The “forbidding” needn’t be literal – it would be enough that unions could be sued for the damage they do to the customers of the monopoly. So if, for instance, the train drivers for a railway franchise in Britain go on strike all the buggered-about commuters could sue and expect to win.

  47. @MikeatMikedotMike
    I'm a teamster. I can legitimately say unions are only as good as the people who run them. These days, there is little distinction between those people and the people who run the corporations.

    Replies: @Bill P, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Prester John, @notsaying, @MBlanc46, @anon

    My dad was a Teamster and complained that the Union played footsie with management instead of looking out for the employees.

    It’s a bad sign when union bosses live in the elite neighborhoods and send their kids to the same elite schools that management does.

    • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
  48. @Lurker
    @Anonymous

    We'd like Disqus comments back too. Thanks.

    Replies: @RebelWriter

    I miss Sunday mornings with TWTP and friends. Good times.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    @RebelWriter

    Some Taki refugees ended up here:

    https://disqus.com/home/forum/realm-channelz

    Site uses Disqus.

  49. @Tyrone Jefferson
    This book has no mention of race and the great evil of white supremacy

    the explanation that results is marked by an appalling minimization of the most dangerous administration in our lifetimes and a highly distorted portrait of Trump supporters as victims.

    So eager is Lind to be sympathetic to populists that he begins to take their talking points at face value. “Unfortunately, under the logic of asymmetrical multiculturalism,” he writes, “appreciation of minority and immigrant traditions is often coupled with elite contempt for the ancestral traditions of white native and white immigrant subcultures, which are alleged by overclass intellectuals to be hopelessly tainted by white supremacy or colonialism.” This is the kind of “equality feels like oppression” logic that leads people to found White Students Associations and Men’s Rights Clubs. In a country in which every president but one has been a white man, most C.E.O.s are white men and the syllabuses in schools remain dominated by white men’s words, it is amazing to think America is white-unfriendly

    .Now, if you are going to present Trump as the receptacle of the cries of the unheard, you will need to funhouse-mirror him beyond recognition. Lind is on it. He takes the quintessential racist moment of Trump’s presidency — his famous comments on Charlottesville — and defends them: “Phrases from his remarks were taken out of context, recombined and misconstrued so they could fit into the Trump-is-Hitler narrative.” He also dismisses concerns about Russia’s role in the 2016 election as “mythological thinking.” “Liberal democracy in the West today is not endangered by Russian machinations or resurgent fascism,” Lind writes, describing a world I would love to live in. In fact, get this: Lind believes the “paranoid demonological thinking” represented by worries about Russia and fascism “has the potential to be a greater danger to liberal democracy in the West than any particular populist movements.” How

    Replies: @anon, @black sea, @Che Blutarsky, @WJ, @Pop Warner, @Forbes

    “in which every president but one has been a white man,” Actually Obama was was white or half white. But he was raised by white people and went to white private schools and had almost all white advisors, so more white than black. You can disregard his tour of duty in South Chicago where he faked religiousity and listened to the racist black preacher. You can be assured he detested those times, being around a lot of black people.

  50. “So it’s not surprising that Democratic presidents like Bill Clinton and Labour prime ministers like Tony Blair eventually tired of union antics.”

    It’s funny that as I was reading the article I was remembering, in the back of my mind, working at a GM plant as a field engineer when Clinton was president, and NAFTA not yet approved. The UAW workers were both staunchly Democrat, and staunchly opposed to NAFTA. They grumbled and complained, but the Clinton posters stayed up in the plant, they paid their dues, they voted for Clinton, and they kept on working for a while. The plant finally closed last year.

    I don’t believe UAW leadership backed NAFTA; it was a suicide pact for the American worker, but they had little choice but to support Clinton. At any rate, it was apparent they were very, very weak, and that whatever influence they used to have in politics, it had slipped away from them.

    It was another time that the Machiavellian nature of the two-party system was on display for all who wished to see it. The Democratic union workers hated the Republicans, and opposed just enough of the Republican platform, to vote for their own eventual demise.

  51. Reminds me of George Orwell’s review of James Burnham’s book, The Managerial Revolution [1941]

    http://george-orwell.org/James_Burnham_and_the_Managerial_Revolution/0.html

  52. @James J OMeara
    "For example, why did American unions tend to be more mobbed up than European unions?"

    Um, I don't know, ah, SICILIAN IMMIGRANTS?

    Replies: @Stumpy Pepys, @Brutusale

    Um, I don’t know, ah, SICILIAN IMMIGRANTS?

    In my neck of the woods, the gentlemen tend to be from the Olde Sod.

    • Replies: @captflee
    @Brutusale

    That was my experience, as well, at least until the feds parked them in the hoosegow and elections thereafter looked a bit more on the up and up. Did have a member of the tribe for the requisite financial chicanery, though, so I guess there was some diversity after all.

  53. Why, as the reputation for American union-made cars declined in the 1970s, did the reputation of German union-made cars soar?

    I’d argue the desirability of German built cars climbed in the 1970’s and 1980’s due to the fact that:

    1) The Big Three aimed the luxury market at Greatest Generation and Silent Generation and just figured the Boomers would follow suit, missing the point that a new generation didn’t want dad or grandpa’s Cadillac:

    Or Lincoln:

    And wanted a car that combined performance and status, like BMW:

    Or wanted a more solidly built luxury car without all the gingerbread, like Mercedes:

    A special place in Hades must be reserved for anyone at GM who thought this was a BMW fighter:

    2) The 1970s hit The Big Three with the perfect storm of unexpected change:
    – The EPA and emissions controls
    – Two Oil Embargoes (1973-74 and 1979) and CAFE requirements
    – Increasing Federal Safety requirements
    – Foreign competition (Japan and Germany) who actually built better quality cars

    With such stellar products as the Vega, Pinto, and Aspen/Volare, not to mention the X-Car (Chevrolet Citation and related divisional models which came out in 1979), Detroit flailed around trying to figure out how to preserve market share. ANYTHING foreign made at that point would have a higher reputation than domestic iron.

    Oddly enough German cars now have a reputation as over engineered and trouble plagued with people giving advice to just lease the darned thing and turn it in, don’t buy it. (That is a reputation I’ve heard and read of, not a FACT). Also interesting is for all their talk of Union/Management partnership the three German makes with plants in the US (Volkswagen, BMW, and Daimler-Benz) have plants in right to work states with non-unionized workforces. (Tennessee, South Carolina, and Alabama).

    • Replies: @Just passing through
    @mmack

    As a younger reader, I find those photos quite fascinating.

    The American cars in the photos are aesthetically superior, the European ones are butt-ugly, I can't understand why a hip young person would go for the latter, perhaps as you said it was for simply new generation rebel purposes, or was there some technical difference?


    Oddly enough German cars now have a reputation as over engineered and trouble plagued with people giving advice to just lease the darned thing and turn it in, don’t buy it
     
    Remember the Tiger tank?

    But I'm a serious note, this is true. The German cars are very expensive to maintain and nowhere near as reliable as Japanese makes. A lot of people with BMWs do seem to have them on hire purchase, they are certainly a status symbol.

    Replies: @mmack

  54. @Sean
    @Steve Sailer

    I am not convinced that Britain set up the ideal unions in post WW2 Germany. The Germans are just very good at cooperating in war or peace, their products are of superior quality. Given a level playing field (a single currency trading area) they inevitably deindustrialise, any country stupid enough to think they can compete with Germany on equal terms. As Correlli Barnett's books seem to show, Britain was not particularly interested in investing in technology and better organization, there was a fear of another recession, and it had an overvalued currency after WW2, which didn't help. the UK spent decades in financial crisis. There was real money in America so gangsters (originally strikebreakers) were hired by unions to defend them then saw the opportunity to shakedown businesses by forcing them to use various subcontractors under threat of a strike ect.

    Goldsmith was also the grandfather of Brexit. The way he took down Jonathan Bush and others led to Bloomberg dubbing Paul Singer ‘The World’s Most Feared Investor’. Singer buys into companies where he sees the management as as failing to deliver maximum value to the shareholders, then applies pressure to raise the share price (in Bush’s case extremely personal pressure) that often leads to the departure of the CEO and sale of the company. That immediate extra value for the shareholder Singer creates puts lots of working people out a job. Because of Singer and his imitators, CEO’s are outsourcing and importing replacements for indigenous workers in those services that cannot be outsourced. All the while loath to foster innovation that could bring about long term growth, because that would interfere with squeezing out more and more shareholder value. It's thanks to Singer, Buffett and their imitators forcomg CEO to grind the working class down that Trump got elected.

    Given the received wisdom of shareholder value, which only Elizabeth Warren and a few others question, hardly any basic R&D is being done. Paul Singer ect will be asset stripping the most innovative companies before they get off the launch pad. Government funded research is money down the drain, because to keep their jobs the CEOs will have to get into the Chinese market, and they are not being let in without handing over technology to China. Fearful of blacklisting, Western companies daren’t complain about the shakedowns. There will have to be a new technostructure created otherwise China is going to find it much too easy to steamroller the US even as its stock market is booming. Lind talks a lot of sense, but without serious social unrest to concentrate the government's mind, it is difficult to see how unions could be seen as part of a solution.

    Replies: @Rob

    …ect…ect…ect.

    Etc. for et cetera.

  55. @SFG
    @Cloudbuster

    So you can explain to me what Elon Musk was thinking with the Cybertruck? A pickup truck with retro sci-fi aesthetics? I mean, I imagine there are some computer programmers in the South who are really happy, but outside of that...

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard, @Cloudbuster

    Sorry, I got nothin. It’s Elon, Musking.

  56. @eugyppius
    @Michael S


    Corporate middle managers generally kind of suck, but deep-state bureaucrats and corporate middle managers aren’t a single cohesive class.
     
    Class analysis is just a theory -- if you like a series of categories for understanding the world -- and as such it is kind of pointless to argue on its behalf. Either you find it useful or you don't.

    But, in point of fact, Corporate middle managers are not the "managerial elite" of Lind's title . At best, middle management has a bit part to play in the project of management. Must of them aren't even members of the club, though they surely aspire to join.

    In the class-theory sense, managers are the people who manage capital. Through the nineteenth century, industrial operations tended to be overseen by the actual people who owned them, namely the capitalists. But with the onset of mass society, that changed. Ownership of many companies came to be fragmented across thousands or millions of shareholders; and even in cases of privately held corporations, the temptations of wealth alongside the complexities of mass production and markets encouraged the capitalists to hire specialists to steer industry in their stead.

    In the process, they ceded their influence over culture and society to an emerging professional class, and became birds in their own guilded cages: comfortable but bereft of influence.

    At the same time, parallel processes were at work in government and within the communications apparatus (i.e. media and universities). In all three cases -- business, government and media -- a new class of people emerged, the "managers". Today these people share an entire culture and outlook: they were all educated at the same 20 or so schools; they tend to live in coastal cities and to move around a lot; many of them actually know each other. They all like sushi and gay rights and they drink but don't smoke. They are doctors, lawyers, college professors, CEOs, and New York Times journalists; they are also government technocrats (i.e., the deep state) and they form a greater part of the political establishment.

    Just because neo-Marxists like Gramsci cottoned on to some of these changes, doesn't mean we should remain blind to them. There's a reason the robber-barons like Vanderbilt and Rockefeller have been replaced by CEOs like Jamie Dimon and University presidents like Larry Bracow. It's the managers. There's a reason media, government and business have through the course of the twentieth century been increasingly on the same page, and that they have now become very closely aligned with each other. They're all run by the same collection of managers. There's a reason all three have reacted in the same russophobe woke outraged way to Trump kicking their hornet's nest. It's all the same people whose plans have been thwarted, namely the managers.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    There’s a reason media, government and business have through the course of the twentieth century been increasingly on the same page, and that they have now become very closely aligned with each other. They’re all run by the same collection of managers.

    Who have a common interest because of race, not class.

    • Replies: @eugyppius
    @ben tillman

    Well, I would say both; at least that's what I was trying to imply. I think class interests are real too, but when they align with particular, uh, ethnic fissures, the people on top will pursue their ends with a callousness they wouldn't otherwise.

    Replies: @Michael S

  57. @ben tillman
    @eugyppius


    There’s a reason media, government and business have through the course of the twentieth century been increasingly on the same page, and that they have now become very closely aligned with each other. They’re all run by the same collection of managers.
     
    Who have a common interest because of race, not class.

    Replies: @eugyppius

    Well, I would say both; at least that’s what I was trying to imply. I think class interests are real too, but when they align with particular, uh, ethnic fissures, the people on top will pursue their ends with a callousness they wouldn’t otherwise.

    • Replies: @Michael S
    @eugyppius

    I usually disagree with purely race-based analysis, but in this case Ben is closer to the mark. Marxist class theory is hokum and always was. There has never been a single instance of it being put into practice and not leading to catastrophic failure.

    It's really more about religion than race, with race being a decent proxy for religion, but you first have to recognize progressivism as the state religion, and the university administrators as priests. The CEOs are just bending the knee and paying for influence, which is irritating, but not the core problem.

    Replies: @eugyppius

  58. You should have a look at the book “Listen Liberal” written by the Whatsamadda Kansas dude. He lays out how the oligarch types took over the Democratic party, along with their professional class servants, Goldman, McKinsey and so on.

    Free trade, open borders of course serves these people and does jack shit for the rest of the country. You can build all the Unions you want; if they don’t get tariffs passed, their jobs will be in Shanghai and Bangalore next Tuesday.

  59. I remember when the radio personality “Mancow” Muller was asked over the radio whether he thought unions were necessary; he replied: ‘Yes, otherwise they would roll over you.’

    Public employee unions in Chicago are why taxes are out-of-sight. There are no junk cars in the parking lots of schools. What do you hear cops discussing on public transit? Overtime. Pension costs are being paid with people’s houses as collateral.

    Debt service, personnel costs and pensions account for most of Chicago’s budget, and it would be nearly impossible to achieve significant savings without confronting them.

    https://www.illinoispolicy.org/lightfoot-cant-fix-chicagos-finances-without-pension-reform/

    The sales tax ALONE in Chicago is 10.25%.

  60. @Brutusale
    @James J OMeara


    Um, I don’t know, ah, SICILIAN IMMIGRANTS?
     
    In my neck of the woods, the gentlemen tend to be from the Olde Sod.

    Replies: @captflee

    That was my experience, as well, at least until the feds parked them in the hoosegow and elections thereafter looked a bit more on the up and up. Did have a member of the tribe for the requisite financial chicanery, though, so I guess there was some diversity after all.

  61. Since when are you all pro-union? I thought your thing was “blacks are inferior” uber alles.

    Or maybe you just published this to mock pro-unionism.

    As I have been at pains to point out again and again, race is a canard, meant to divert the working class from talking about and acting on the only thing that matters, “Wha de money went?”

    As for you assholes who think unions are bad just because they are crooked, you are assholes. More unions are better. No matter how crooked. Jimmy Hoffa, for instance, was a hero. But we are just told he’s Mafia. Fine, he was Mafia. But he put dinner on a million plates, every day.

    The US must re-unionize or fold. There are no buts about it.

    • Agree: notsaying, dfordoom
  62. @Hypnotoad666
    I'm not really familiar with Lind but his book sounds like a lot of vague, mushy middle-of-the-roadism.

    The call for unions as a political force seems like just more mush because one can dodge the issue of exactly what policies unions are supposed to advocate when they get power. I guess the idea is that participating in unions would quell populist uprisings by giving workers the illusion that they are participating in the process. (Hardly the first time trade unionism has been used in history for this purpose).

    Meanwhile, the real elites continue to make the important decisions at the grown-ups table.

    It's all idle pontificating, however, as private sector unions are an economic dead end. And public sector unions are just money-laundering kickback schemes to turn tax revenues into political contributions.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Forbes, @Abe

    Excellent points. It seems like we should prohibit government employees from unionizing, but encourage and support private-sector workers in unionizing.

  63. @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Reg Cæsar


    Detroit respects the truck buyers.
     
    Spend 5 minutes in any modern full-sized pickup and it's crystal clear Detroit allocates immense budgets and the best engineering talent to work on these vehicles.

    Replies: @mmack

    Spend 5 minutes in any modern full-sized pickup and it’s crystal clear Detroit allocates immense budgets and the best engineering talent to work on these vehicles.

    Why not? It’s where they make the bulk of their cash.

    When CAFE (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy) was first implemented it applied to passenger cars, and not trucks. American cars got emasculated while the Japanese and Germans, used to building smaller size, smaller engine displacement, fuel efficient cars (Exempt der grosser Mercedes and BMW for a minute) had reliable product ready to go.

    The Big Three pivoted their focus to trucks. They were built like American sedans were (full frame, body on frame construction, rear wheel drive, V8 engine) and it was the one platform for a long while the Japanese didn’t aim for (Imagine trying to wheel a F-350 around tight Japanese streets). And for a while you could spin up an SUV off the mechanicals of a pickup and amortize the tooling costs over both pickups and SUVs. The SUV craze died down as more people buy CUVs (which are usually car based), but pickup trucks still sell strongly. And why not? They’re the spiritual heirs of the Chevrolet Impala, Ford LTD, or Chrysler New Yorker. The switch didn’t happen overnight but by the 1990s I began seeing more extended or crew cab (4 door) pickups. Now you can’t get a standard (2 door, one seat) pickup unless it’s an el strippo work truck.

    • Replies: @anon
    @mmack

    CAFE also killed the station wagon. A family with more than 2 kids is not going to easily drive around town in a sedan. The minivan and the SUV are both rational responses to CAFE, because there's room for the kids and all the baggage.

    Dodge Durango or Dodge Caravan? Either one works almost as well as the old station wagon did.

    Replies: @mmack

  64. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @JUSA
    As Henry Ford tried to warn us in 1920, America(and the UK)'s labor unions are almost all led by Jews. They drive a hard bargain because their main aim was to disrupt businesses and force the hands of WASP management so they'd go cap in hand to the money man on Wall Street, who are again Jews, allowing these money man to take control of their companies and hand them the humble pie. Eventually the union terms got so out of control it gave the capital owners the perfect excuse to move their jobs offshore, starving the "deplorables". The same tribe then ply them with opioid to ease their pain.

    In contrast labor unions in Germany and their bosses are the same tribe and look out for one another. Workers in Japan are the same way. In the Japanese auto industry, management and workers look out for one another, and auto companies have great relationships with their suppliers.

    In contrast, in the US/UK, unions force workers into an adversarial relationship with management (because they are often not the same tribe, WASP management vs. Irish/Italian/Slav workers led by Jewish union leaders), and auto companies try to rip off their suppliers as much as they can. It's the Milton Friedman mantra -- profit is king, the goal of business is to maximize profit.

    In Japan/Germany, companies take on a paternal role and look out for their employees, they don't mind sacrificing some profit to pay their employees and their suppliers better. In return, they get loyalty and good work ethic, they work as one.

    Returning to labor unions won't work as long as we remain a "diverse" country, with unions being led by the same tribe with ulterior motives, and management having to answer to the capital owners on Wall Street who demand maximizing "shareholder value".

    Replies: @Anonymous, @teotoon, @alt right moderate

    Jews of that era were primarily working class. They were immigrants or the children of immigrants, and there was less social mobility at the time. Wall St. was dominated by WASPs at the time, just as corporate management was. The consolidation of corporations, the movement and concentration of corporate headquarters into NYC, and the greater financier control of corporations was led by WASP bankers like JP Morgan in the late 19th/early 20th century.

  65. @Tulip
    I'm not sure that unions can actually do the trick anymore, even if they came back. With an international financial system and free mobility of capital, if capital faces pressure to raise wages, they will simply re-locate to somewhere without wage pressure. Commodity businesses are operating on a razor thing profit margin as it is, and would go bust if their labor costs increase. They are forced to move to locations with low production costs to stay competitive. [There are monopolist businesses like Amazon that do quite well of course, but a lot of the economy is inputs like steel, electronic components, etc.]

    In the 30's and 40's, there was not anything like the capital mobility that exists today. Without restrictions on international capital flows, and protection for domestic industries (so they are not operating on a razor-thin margin), unions do nothing because there is no surplus. Even if they have a strike, and wages rise, the company either has to relocate to somewhere with lower wages or go bust. The only exception would be your monopoly players like Amazon. Of course, I would love to see Amazon's workers organize, but that wouldn't fix the problem, which is the integration of large swathes of extremely poor populations (with low levels of debt) with extremely wealthy populations (with high levels of debt). It completely destroyed the bargaining power of labor in developed countries, and transferred the entire share of economic growth in those regions to capital.

    It might make more sense to keep globalism, but focus on reducing domestic labor's fixed costs. If we got health care down to OECD average costs as a percentage of GNP, re-focused and shrank higher education and reduced costs and eliminated student loans, and insured that affordable housing exists, so that our domestic labor was paying a significantly reduced cost for health care, education, and housing, then companies could reduce total effective compensation to workers, and workers would still see an increase in disposable income.

    Replies: @Sean, @Desiderius

    If we got health care down to OECD average costs as a percentage of GNP, re-focused and shrank higher education and reduced costs and eliminated student loans, and insured that affordable housing exists, so that our domestic labor was paying a significantly reduced cost for health care, education, and housing, then companies could reduce total effective compensation to workers, and workers would still see an increase in disposable income.

    I agree the state should lower the cost of doing business by providing infrastructure and enabling people to become qualified to become employees, but the kind of analysis where the workers get an effective increase in disposable income from government action ceases to be valid once the shareholders have power over the running of the businesses they invest in. It is dubious that CEO’s with shareholders on their back to squeeze more and more value would or could pay workers extra money over and above what was needed instead of making extra profits.

    What would probably happen is business would get the government to expand welfare benefits that subsidise wages to an immense extent. We are back to Lind’s problem of a lack of pressure to countervail the highly effective business lobbying. Yet government is being pressured by both workers and business to provide benefits that subsidise business and enable them to drive down wages. As I understand it, the Ron Unz argument for a high minimum wage is that more and more of “total effective compensation to workers” is increasingly paid by government.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Sean

    We are back to Lind’s problem of a lack of pressure to countervail the highly effective business lobbying.

    Lind is correct with his premise that the only way for working class people to exert effective power is through a dedicated group. Individualism has gone to our heads. To think that we can challenge the Borg as individuals is nonsense on its face.

    Replies: @Sean

    , @Tulip
    @Sean

    I'm sort of surprised that commodity producers aren't taking political action against the over-priced real estate, health care, and higher education sectors. After all, they have to pay their workers more than their industrial counterparts in other countries just to match the benefits in other parts of the OECD. Obviously, if we could get the costs down, the surplus will go in some share to capital and labor, so they have every economic reason to support proposals like universal health care or other schemes to reduce health care reimbursements, even without labor unions.

    I appreciate Lind's sentimentality about the trade union movement, but I doubt it is coming back, and even in Germany and France, workers are getting the same squeeze they are getting in America (even if they aren't getting completely ripped off on college and health care). The future will require a new politics, and a new set of political alliances.

    Replies: @Sean

  66. Isn’t that a violation of my sacred right as a 21st-century American to consume whatever I want right now?

    And, at the cheapest price–which means oodles of Chinese imports.

    I’ve had Millennials make that assertion to me regarding China-US trade policy. Don’t even think about addressing the current account deficit, currency value/manipulation, monetary inflation, or other such arcana.

    They want their consumer impulse satisfied NOW!

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Forbes


    I’ve had Millennials make that assertion...
     
    The Chinese are going to make Soylent out of these people.
  67. @Tyrone Jefferson
    This book has no mention of race and the great evil of white supremacy

    the explanation that results is marked by an appalling minimization of the most dangerous administration in our lifetimes and a highly distorted portrait of Trump supporters as victims.

    So eager is Lind to be sympathetic to populists that he begins to take their talking points at face value. “Unfortunately, under the logic of asymmetrical multiculturalism,” he writes, “appreciation of minority and immigrant traditions is often coupled with elite contempt for the ancestral traditions of white native and white immigrant subcultures, which are alleged by overclass intellectuals to be hopelessly tainted by white supremacy or colonialism.” This is the kind of “equality feels like oppression” logic that leads people to found White Students Associations and Men’s Rights Clubs. In a country in which every president but one has been a white man, most C.E.O.s are white men and the syllabuses in schools remain dominated by white men’s words, it is amazing to think America is white-unfriendly

    .Now, if you are going to present Trump as the receptacle of the cries of the unheard, you will need to funhouse-mirror him beyond recognition. Lind is on it. He takes the quintessential racist moment of Trump’s presidency — his famous comments on Charlottesville — and defends them: “Phrases from his remarks were taken out of context, recombined and misconstrued so they could fit into the Trump-is-Hitler narrative.” He also dismisses concerns about Russia’s role in the 2016 election as “mythological thinking.” “Liberal democracy in the West today is not endangered by Russian machinations or resurgent fascism,” Lind writes, describing a world I would love to live in. In fact, get this: Lind believes the “paranoid demonological thinking” represented by worries about Russia and fascism “has the potential to be a greater danger to liberal democracy in the West than any particular populist movements.” How

    Replies: @anon, @black sea, @Che Blutarsky, @WJ, @Pop Warner, @Forbes

    So You’re against the free speech of people you don’t like? The Unite the Right protestors had a constitutional right to assemble at Lee Park and violent terrorists with the help of law enforcement prevented them from exercising their basic rights.

    Trump was wrong when he said there were good people on both sides. There were no good people on the side of the terrorists who attacked the lawful assembly

  68. @Tyrone Jefferson
    This book has no mention of race and the great evil of white supremacy

    the explanation that results is marked by an appalling minimization of the most dangerous administration in our lifetimes and a highly distorted portrait of Trump supporters as victims.

    So eager is Lind to be sympathetic to populists that he begins to take their talking points at face value. “Unfortunately, under the logic of asymmetrical multiculturalism,” he writes, “appreciation of minority and immigrant traditions is often coupled with elite contempt for the ancestral traditions of white native and white immigrant subcultures, which are alleged by overclass intellectuals to be hopelessly tainted by white supremacy or colonialism.” This is the kind of “equality feels like oppression” logic that leads people to found White Students Associations and Men’s Rights Clubs. In a country in which every president but one has been a white man, most C.E.O.s are white men and the syllabuses in schools remain dominated by white men’s words, it is amazing to think America is white-unfriendly

    .Now, if you are going to present Trump as the receptacle of the cries of the unheard, you will need to funhouse-mirror him beyond recognition. Lind is on it. He takes the quintessential racist moment of Trump’s presidency — his famous comments on Charlottesville — and defends them: “Phrases from his remarks were taken out of context, recombined and misconstrued so they could fit into the Trump-is-Hitler narrative.” He also dismisses concerns about Russia’s role in the 2016 election as “mythological thinking.” “Liberal democracy in the West today is not endangered by Russian machinations or resurgent fascism,” Lind writes, describing a world I would love to live in. In fact, get this: Lind believes the “paranoid demonological thinking” represented by worries about Russia and fascism “has the potential to be a greater danger to liberal democracy in the West than any particular populist movements.” How

    Replies: @anon, @black sea, @Che Blutarsky, @WJ, @Pop Warner, @Forbes

    Shorter version. Orange Man Bad. Lather, rinse, repeat…

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

  69. @Hypnotoad666
    I'm not really familiar with Lind but his book sounds like a lot of vague, mushy middle-of-the-roadism.

    The call for unions as a political force seems like just more mush because one can dodge the issue of exactly what policies unions are supposed to advocate when they get power. I guess the idea is that participating in unions would quell populist uprisings by giving workers the illusion that they are participating in the process. (Hardly the first time trade unionism has been used in history for this purpose).

    Meanwhile, the real elites continue to make the important decisions at the grown-ups table.

    It's all idle pontificating, however, as private sector unions are an economic dead end. And public sector unions are just money-laundering kickback schemes to turn tax revenues into political contributions.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Forbes, @Abe

    Public sector unions are a jobs program for buying votes paid for with tax revenues.

    There’s never any legitimate compensation/benefits negotiation as “both sides” sit on the same side of the table. Labor is just another voter constituency that politicians buy with your taxes.

  70. There is also the issue of getting Democrats out of their addiction to immigration for rigging elections

    https://www.takimag.com/article/rigging_elections_steve_sailer/?utm_source=akdart#axzz5QoPFX2FL

  71. organizing along lines of class was easier before diversity became so divisive”

    Years ago I told someone that we would have had national health if we were all white
    I told that if cocaine were destroying white neighborhood,we would have got cocaine abuse as medical problem requiring medical attention Opioid crisis has proved my point

    2008 crisis was sold as Black thing. People with no money were allowed to buy houses with no job and no down payment . Someone even had the audacity to start some thing like Boston Tea Party movement from Chicago mercantile floor. Poor white did not fare well in being accused as well.

    This focus on tiny piece of historical causes essentially bailed the bank out from public consciousnesses as being the real evil .

    We are still in the mentality of the cave dweller . Diversity can be strength but can also be destructive for common folks .
    I heard that slavery initially was White thing also -white slaves from Ireland and other parts- until someone figured out to co opt them and make it pure racial.

  72. @Hypnotoad666
    I'm not really familiar with Lind but his book sounds like a lot of vague, mushy middle-of-the-roadism.

    The call for unions as a political force seems like just more mush because one can dodge the issue of exactly what policies unions are supposed to advocate when they get power. I guess the idea is that participating in unions would quell populist uprisings by giving workers the illusion that they are participating in the process. (Hardly the first time trade unionism has been used in history for this purpose).

    Meanwhile, the real elites continue to make the important decisions at the grown-ups table.

    It's all idle pontificating, however, as private sector unions are an economic dead end. And public sector unions are just money-laundering kickback schemes to turn tax revenues into political contributions.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Forbes, @Abe

    The call for unions as a political force seems like just more mush because one can dodge the issue of exactly what policies unions are supposed to advocate when they get power.

    Disagree. Just look at what police unions did for officers caught up in BLM madness. It did not save the career of the officer who brought down Michael Brown, but that was in the face of direct and overwhelming pressure by a US President and his Attorney General. And as far as I know, the officer who tangled with Obama buddy Skip Gates got to keep his job- if it were the private sector he would have been immediately canned and his life ruined.

    • Agree: vhrm
  73. @MikeatMikedotMike
    I'm a teamster. I can legitimately say unions are only as good as the people who run them. These days, there is little distinction between those people and the people who run the corporations.

    Replies: @Bill P, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Prester John, @notsaying, @MBlanc46, @anon

    In other words, like the unions in Japan which Dave Halberstam described in his book “The Reckoning”. In essence, they are really nothing more than an arm of management.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Prester John

    An arm of management with its hand reaching into my pocket.

  74. @Sean
    @Tulip


    If we got health care down to OECD average costs as a percentage of GNP, re-focused and shrank higher education and reduced costs and eliminated student loans, and insured that affordable housing exists, so that our domestic labor was paying a significantly reduced cost for health care, education, and housing, then companies could reduce total effective compensation to workers, and workers would still see an increase in disposable income.
     
    I agree the state should lower the cost of doing business by providing infrastructure and enabling people to become qualified to become employees, but the kind of analysis where the workers get an effective increase in disposable income from government action ceases to be valid once the shareholders have power over the running of the businesses they invest in. It is dubious that CEO's with shareholders on their back to squeeze more and more value would or could pay workers extra money over and above what was needed instead of making extra profits.

    What would probably happen is business would get the government to expand welfare benefits that subsidise wages to an immense extent. We are back to Lind's problem of a lack of pressure to countervail the highly effective business lobbying. Yet government is being pressured by both workers and business to provide benefits that subsidise business and enable them to drive down wages. As I understand it, the Ron Unz argument for a high minimum wage is that more and more of "total effective compensation to workers" is increasingly paid by government.

    Replies: @iffen, @Tulip

    We are back to Lind’s problem of a lack of pressure to countervail the highly effective business lobbying.

    Lind is correct with his premise that the only way for working class people to exert effective power is through a dedicated group. Individualism has gone to our heads. To think that we can challenge the Borg as individuals is nonsense on its face.

    • Agree: notsaying
    • Replies: @Sean
    @iffen

    Trump stands for middle-class social insurance (Medcare D), immigration restriction, and foreign policy realpolitik (Saudi Arabia and Western Europe are becomeing less important and must pay for the US forces defending them).

    It is the US foreign policy 'blob', the soi disant expert defenders of national security that are laggards in the international situation. China is building the UK's next power station, and America is having extreme difficulty in dissuading Britain from adopting China's 5G network. Sweden was the first Western country to establish official diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, on 9 May 1950.Sweden was the first Western country to establish official diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, on 9 May 1950, but since the Swedish culture minister presented an award to an empty chair representing Gui Minhai Swedish business can forget about contracts with China. This is the way that China is supplanting the US, and the superannuated Deep State are out of their depth in a world that for the past thirty five years Trump hasn been focusing on trade and economic power out of concern with countries that either rival the US economy (especially China) or so called allies that undermine American strength by exploiting relations with the US.



    Lind is correct with his premise that the only way for working class people to exert effective power is through a dedicated group.

     
    Affluent people (and countries like Sweden) are individualistic. Poorer people tend to be closer to their family, religious group, and more nationalistic. Trump happens to be far closer to the truth than the managerial elites economic policies are a recipe for China overtaking a hollowed out West in every respect after a very few decades. Trumanite Cold War bias among bien pensant Deep Staters makes them see the US as unbeatable, yet China is in the process of supplanting America in every index of power. Before many decades have passed China will be facing the US down. Working class nationalism is their secret weapon, by comparison the elite will seem parochial and treacherous sellers of the pass.

    Replies: @iffen

  75. Very interesting review about a rather sore subject in this country: the labor movement. The following, referring to the more than occasional hooliganism that accompanied strikes and excerpted from the Taki article, jumped out:

    “So it’s not surprising that Democratic presidents like Bill Clinton…eventually tired of union antics.”

    And so it should be equally not surprising that HILLARY Clinton, following in her husband’s footsteps in 2016 , effectively wrote off the working class–and the white working class in particular. This should be fertile ground for the likes of Bernie Sanders but to date it’s been ignored.

  76. @Prester John
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    In other words, like the unions in Japan which Dave Halberstam described in his book "The Reckoning". In essence, they are really nothing more than an arm of management.

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike

    An arm of management with its hand reaching into my pocket.

  77. There’s been talk and even a book about the GOP becoming the party of the working class. All of it is centered on macro-economic and cultural issues, such as fair trade deals and Second Amendment rights.

    This is all fine as far as it goes. But if the Republicans want to get right with labor, they better stand tall for collective bargaining and unionization.

    Failing to do that in the 1970s cost them the support of what were then called the “hard hats,” culturally conservative construction and mining workers. They stayed loyal to the Democrats even though Hollywood and the elite were denouncing them — because unions meant brotherhood, strength, community and a chance to fight the bosses. The GOP gave them Right to Work laws and horror stories about “corrupt union bosses,” which is like appealing to blacks by highlighting “welfare queens.” Stupid.

    That remained true even as the real bosses did their labor arbitrage, something already apparent in movies like “All the Right Moves” and “Slapshot,” featuring hollowed-out towns where nobody protected them and all they had were the “little platoons” of the union and VFW halls.

    It makes no sense to criticize the soulless transnationals who outsourced all the jobs, only, once the jobs start coming back, to leave the working class to fight those same soulless bastards at home as “rugged individuals.”

    In unity is strength. That means union and collective bargaining. Anything else is empty sentiment.

    • Agree: Dissident
    • Replies: @iffen
    @Starboard

    Hear! Hear!

  78. @JUSA
    As Henry Ford tried to warn us in 1920, America(and the UK)'s labor unions are almost all led by Jews. They drive a hard bargain because their main aim was to disrupt businesses and force the hands of WASP management so they'd go cap in hand to the money man on Wall Street, who are again Jews, allowing these money man to take control of their companies and hand them the humble pie. Eventually the union terms got so out of control it gave the capital owners the perfect excuse to move their jobs offshore, starving the "deplorables". The same tribe then ply them with opioid to ease their pain.

    In contrast labor unions in Germany and their bosses are the same tribe and look out for one another. Workers in Japan are the same way. In the Japanese auto industry, management and workers look out for one another, and auto companies have great relationships with their suppliers.

    In contrast, in the US/UK, unions force workers into an adversarial relationship with management (because they are often not the same tribe, WASP management vs. Irish/Italian/Slav workers led by Jewish union leaders), and auto companies try to rip off their suppliers as much as they can. It's the Milton Friedman mantra -- profit is king, the goal of business is to maximize profit.

    In Japan/Germany, companies take on a paternal role and look out for their employees, they don't mind sacrificing some profit to pay their employees and their suppliers better. In return, they get loyalty and good work ethic, they work as one.

    Returning to labor unions won't work as long as we remain a "diverse" country, with unions being led by the same tribe with ulterior motives, and management having to answer to the capital owners on Wall Street who demand maximizing "shareholder value".

    Replies: @Anonymous, @teotoon, @alt right moderate

    Agree.

  79. Anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:

    Americans love pickup trucks and have easy credit. That’s why and how they’re able to spend $50K on oversized monstrosities that rust out in 5 years:

    https://jalopnik.com/the-trucks-are-too-damn-expensive-1833634970

    If they had the choice to buy smaller and more affordable German and Japanese pickups, they’d be buying those instead. They’re a captive market essentially.

    A captive market for trucks would be fine if American automakers used those higher prices and revenues as subsidies to produce better cars and invest in making cars, but they don’t. They don’t give a shit about making decent cars and just coast on truck/SUV revenues as profits to shareholders.

    In exchange for the truck tariffs, they should be forced to plow truck profits into domestic car production.

  80. @Forbes

    Isn’t that a violation of my sacred right as a 21st-century American to consume whatever I want right now?
     
    And, at the cheapest price--which means oodles of Chinese imports.

    I've had Millennials make that assertion to me regarding China-US trade policy. Don't even think about addressing the current account deficit, currency value/manipulation, monetary inflation, or other such arcana.

    They want their consumer impulse satisfied NOW!

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    I’ve had Millennials make that assertion…

    The Chinese are going to make Soylent out of these people.

  81. @eugyppius
    @ben tillman

    Well, I would say both; at least that's what I was trying to imply. I think class interests are real too, but when they align with particular, uh, ethnic fissures, the people on top will pursue their ends with a callousness they wouldn't otherwise.

    Replies: @Michael S

    I usually disagree with purely race-based analysis, but in this case Ben is closer to the mark. Marxist class theory is hokum and always was. There has never been a single instance of it being put into practice and not leading to catastrophic failure.

    It’s really more about religion than race, with race being a decent proxy for religion, but you first have to recognize progressivism as the state religion, and the university administrators as priests. The CEOs are just bending the knee and paying for influence, which is irritating, but not the core problem.

    • Replies: @eugyppius
    @Michael S

    Whether it's explanatory or not, civilized human societies are undeniably stratified; this was known and discussed in the West centuries before Marxism. In fact the communists set off catastrophes precisely as they tried to upset or invert this stratification, not from implementing it.

    Also the Neoreactionary analysis of the Cathedral is wrong. Companies do not bend the knee before universities to pay for influence. ('Influence' over what? How would that work?) If corporations wished they could do serious harm to to the social and cultural standing of universities, for example, by refusing to consider candidates with degrees, dialing back their enormous donations, and using their political pull to reign in all the federal subsidies and other aid universities receive. And conversely notice how universities bend over backwards to cooperate with business. Earlier the New Left, now Woke ideology: The latter attaches all criticism to fake things like white privilege as the central social ill, drawing attention away from the profiteering activities of corporations and the scams of coopted govt officials.

    Progressivism is an empty self-contradictory superstructure. It is just the ideology that gets slapped on the face of what the elites want to do anyway. Some of it has a very 'for thee but not for me' aspect (race realism is more common behind closed doors in academia than you might think given what all these people are constantly saying); some of it emerges from the racial or ethnic proclivities of the kinds of people who find themselves in power these days.

  82. anon[918] • Disclaimer says:
    @mmack
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    Spend 5 minutes in any modern full-sized pickup and it’s crystal clear Detroit allocates immense budgets and the best engineering talent to work on these vehicles.

    Why not? It's where they make the bulk of their cash.

    When CAFE (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy) was first implemented it applied to passenger cars, and not trucks. American cars got emasculated while the Japanese and Germans, used to building smaller size, smaller engine displacement, fuel efficient cars (Exempt der grosser Mercedes and BMW for a minute) had reliable product ready to go.

    The Big Three pivoted their focus to trucks. They were built like American sedans were (full frame, body on frame construction, rear wheel drive, V8 engine) and it was the one platform for a long while the Japanese didn't aim for (Imagine trying to wheel a F-350 around tight Japanese streets). And for a while you could spin up an SUV off the mechanicals of a pickup and amortize the tooling costs over both pickups and SUVs. The SUV craze died down as more people buy CUVs (which are usually car based), but pickup trucks still sell strongly. And why not? They're the spiritual heirs of the Chevrolet Impala, Ford LTD, or Chrysler New Yorker. The switch didn't happen overnight but by the 1990s I began seeing more extended or crew cab (4 door) pickups. Now you can't get a standard (2 door, one seat) pickup unless it's an el strippo work truck.

    Replies: @anon

    CAFE also killed the station wagon. A family with more than 2 kids is not going to easily drive around town in a sedan. The minivan and the SUV are both rational responses to CAFE, because there’s room for the kids and all the baggage.

    Dodge Durango or Dodge Caravan? Either one works almost as well as the old station wagon did.

    • Replies: @mmack
    @anon

    True, but really, what’s an SUV? A station wagon with 4 wheel drive and lifted suspension.

    The minivan was a brilliant idea. Lee Iacocca wrote in his autobiography he had the idea at Ford using existing Ford passenger car and truck components. He had sales run the numbers and they said sales of up to 500K / year. They pitched the idea to the corporate board at Ford and got:

    “Forget it! It’ll take sales from our full size vans. No dice.”

    So when Lee went to Chrysler, he implemented the idea there. And Chrysler and the others made money until the minivan had the image of a “mom-mobile” and sales dropped off. And people shifted to SUVs.

    Replies: @black sea, @anon

  83. @BB753
    Democracy can't be fixed because it is inherently problematic and unstable. Of course, oligarchs benefit the most from democracy because they can rig the system as needed in their favor.

    Replies: @Just passing through

    The problem with democracy is that someone with excellent reasoning and logical capacity gets the same amount for clout as someone who hasn’t worked a day in his or her life and lives on State handouts. Both get one vote and both are equal.

    Perhaps an means tested voting license would make democracy better?

    Another problem with democracy is how decadent and costly it is, both in time and money, we have to go though the whole charade of TV debates and drama only for the script to he the same next season: Israel First, more cheap labour from abroad, weird sexual degeneracy and endless wars.

    This is of course because those who are rich can hijack the democratic process, the richer you are the more chance you have of winning, while it is technically true that anyone with charisma can be president, in reality the potential winners are chosen beforehand after being vetted by a council of financial interests, amongst others. As such, America ‘democracy’ is on par with that of Iran where an Islmic council vets candidates before they are allowed to run.

    Although we could engage in pilpul by saying ‘but in America, you can be prevented from running’, in the end the result is the same, a pre-selected group of candidates are the only ones who will win.

    This is why claims of Iran being a dictatorship are so laughable, everyone can vote there and they even have seats reserved for minorities so they can air their grievances in public.

    Overall, the Western democratic system has been hijacked by an rootless international clique, and there is no saving it.

    • Agree: BB753, Jonathan Mason
  84. anon[692] • Disclaimer says:

    Michael Lind, an old-fashioned New Deal nationalist progressive,

    The Progressive era of 110+ years ago was all about managing the common man for his own good. A lot of those Wilsonian Progressives got recycled into FDR’s New Deal. It is ironic for a New Deal progressive to complain about a “managerial elite” when the New Deal was an obvious form of managerial elitism derived from the previous version of managerial elitism. “it’s different when we do it” isn’t really a answer, either.

    It’s like a drunk Baptist preaching loudly about Demon Rum while swigging from the bottle. Just not a good look.

  85. @mmack
    Why, as the reputation for American union-made cars declined in the 1970s, did the reputation of German union-made cars soar?

    I'd argue the desirability of German built cars climbed in the 1970's and 1980's due to the fact that:

    1) The Big Three aimed the luxury market at Greatest Generation and Silent Generation and just figured the Boomers would follow suit, missing the point that a new generation didn't want dad or grandpa's Cadillac:

    https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Cadillac-Seville-1982-03.jpg

    Or Lincoln:

    https://i1.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/1980Lincoln01-crop-horz.jpg

    And wanted a car that combined performance and status, like BMW:

    https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/3-ad_bmw_320i_black_1980.jpg

    Or wanted a more solidly built luxury car without all the gingerbread, like Mercedes:

    https://i2.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Mercedes-W126-1980.jpg

    A special place in Hades must be reserved for anyone at GM who thought this was a BMW fighter:

    https://i1.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Cadillac-cimarron-1982-3.jpg

    2) The 1970s hit The Big Three with the perfect storm of unexpected change:
    - The EPA and emissions controls
    - Two Oil Embargoes (1973-74 and 1979) and CAFE requirements
    - Increasing Federal Safety requirements
    - Foreign competition (Japan and Germany) who actually built better quality cars

    With such stellar products as the Vega, Pinto, and Aspen/Volare, not to mention the X-Car (Chevrolet Citation and related divisional models which came out in 1979), Detroit flailed around trying to figure out how to preserve market share. ANYTHING foreign made at that point would have a higher reputation than domestic iron.

    Oddly enough German cars now have a reputation as over engineered and trouble plagued with people giving advice to just lease the darned thing and turn it in, don't buy it. (That is a reputation I've heard and read of, not a FACT). Also interesting is for all their talk of Union/Management partnership the three German makes with plants in the US (Volkswagen, BMW, and Daimler-Benz) have plants in right to work states with non-unionized workforces. (Tennessee, South Carolina, and Alabama).

    Replies: @Just passing through

    As a younger reader, I find those photos quite fascinating.

    The American cars in the photos are aesthetically superior, the European ones are butt-ugly, I can’t understand why a hip young person would go for the latter, perhaps as you said it was for simply new generation rebel purposes, or was there some technical difference?

    Oddly enough German cars now have a reputation as over engineered and trouble plagued with people giving advice to just lease the darned thing and turn it in, don’t buy it

    Remember the Tiger tank?

    But I’m a serious note, this is true. The German cars are very expensive to maintain and nowhere near as reliable as Japanese makes. A lot of people with BMWs do seem to have them on hire purchase, they are certainly a status symbol.

    • Replies: @mmack
    @Just passing through

    "I can’t understand why a hip young person would go for the latter, perhaps as you said it was for simply new generation rebel purposes, or was there some technical difference?"

    I suspect it's two things:

    1) Generational status signaling. As late stage Silent Generation and the Boomer Generation moved past high school and college, they didn't want the cars (or the lives) their parents had. As much as I like and remember the cars of that era by the 1970's American "Full Size" cars had bloated up in size and weight, like this 1978 Chrysler New Yorker:

    https://i1.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1977-Chrysler-Brochure-03.jpg?resize=564%2C386

    (There was a reason we used to say "It was like driving around in your living room.")

    https://i2.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1977-Chrysler-Brochure-04.jpg?w=974&ssl=1

    That was definitely NOT what your younger, hipper, upwardly mobile striver wanted to buy.

    By six years later, it got worse. This is what a Chrysler New Yorker was after CAFE rules were applied:

    https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1984-Chrysler-New-Yorker-Rev-03-04.jpg

    So as much as I want to support the home team, I can see the appeal in this (a 1985 BMW):

    https://i1.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/029.jpg

    2) Tying it back to the idea of unions, most of those late Silent Generation and Boomer Generation car buyers probably had a really bad experience with a small American made car in the 1970s, and said "Never Again".

    Studs Terkel wrote a book titled Working that came out in 1972. The book was full of interviews with people from all walks of life (blue collar, white collar, pink collar, union, management, retired, etc.) He has a section in the book about the automobile industry. When he talked about making cars and trucks he mainly interviewed people at the Ford plant in Chicago (Studs lived and worked in Chicago). But then there's one very interesting interview with a Gary Bryner. who is a UAW Local President for GM's Lordstown, OH plant. This is just after the big 1970 UAW strike against GM, and after multiple wildcat strikes at Lordstown.

    You read the interview and you see the rot setting in as far back as the 1970's. It's a combination of GM penny-pinching and "Profit at all costs" resulting in a very flawed design versus very entitled workers pushing back against management. The Lordstown plant at the time of the interview made the Chevrolet Vega.

    https://i1.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Vega-coupe.jpg

    The Vega was, to put it mildly, a disaster. If not for the "exploding" Ford Pinto this would probably be remembered as the worst car built in the 1970s. I'll give you a link to what's wrong with it here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/cc-chevrolet-vega-winner-of-1971-small-car-comparison-and-gms-deadly-sin-no-2/ so I don't crash Unz.com listing what's wrong with it.

    So you've got a badly flawed car, and it's being built in a plant with a "militant" workforce. Gary pointed out that GMs plan was to crank out these cars at 100+ an hour. Rightfully so the union points out that 100+ an hour is way too many cars to build but GM holds tight and the workers take the view of "F it, boss said 100 cars an hour, he didn't say 100 GOOD cars an hour". So screws, nuts, bolts, etc get missed because "Well, somebody will catch it".

    Oh, and Gary points out yes, there is some drug use on the line by younger guys, but it's just amphetamines, and maybe some marijuana to help deal with the pace.

    By this point GM is already bringing in automated welders, which replaces 200 workers.

    So given that, if you as a younger person bought a Vega or a Pinto in the early - mid 1970s, how likely would you be to buy an American made car again after the headache of owning one of those?

  86. @Sean
    @Tulip


    If we got health care down to OECD average costs as a percentage of GNP, re-focused and shrank higher education and reduced costs and eliminated student loans, and insured that affordable housing exists, so that our domestic labor was paying a significantly reduced cost for health care, education, and housing, then companies could reduce total effective compensation to workers, and workers would still see an increase in disposable income.
     
    I agree the state should lower the cost of doing business by providing infrastructure and enabling people to become qualified to become employees, but the kind of analysis where the workers get an effective increase in disposable income from government action ceases to be valid once the shareholders have power over the running of the businesses they invest in. It is dubious that CEO's with shareholders on their back to squeeze more and more value would or could pay workers extra money over and above what was needed instead of making extra profits.

    What would probably happen is business would get the government to expand welfare benefits that subsidise wages to an immense extent. We are back to Lind's problem of a lack of pressure to countervail the highly effective business lobbying. Yet government is being pressured by both workers and business to provide benefits that subsidise business and enable them to drive down wages. As I understand it, the Ron Unz argument for a high minimum wage is that more and more of "total effective compensation to workers" is increasingly paid by government.

    Replies: @iffen, @Tulip

    I’m sort of surprised that commodity producers aren’t taking political action against the over-priced real estate, health care, and higher education sectors. After all, they have to pay their workers more than their industrial counterparts in other countries just to match the benefits in other parts of the OECD. Obviously, if we could get the costs down, the surplus will go in some share to capital and labor, so they have every economic reason to support proposals like universal health care or other schemes to reduce health care reimbursements, even without labor unions.

    I appreciate Lind’s sentimentality about the trade union movement, but I doubt it is coming back, and even in Germany and France, workers are getting the same squeeze they are getting in America (even if they aren’t getting completely ripped off on college and health care). The future will require a new politics, and a new set of political alliances.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Tulip


    After all, they have to pay their workers more than their industrial counterparts in other countries just to match the benefits in other parts of the OECD.
     
    Real wages for workers are falling not rising though. As Lind points out, 'George W. Bush’s plan to partly privatize Social Security was so unpopular, even among Republican voters, that a Republican-controlled Congress did not even bother to vote on it in 2005'. Lind blames libertarian idealogues for the pushing the plans, but I suspect I suspect it is business which loathes the idea of any hint of successful working class organisation, because they think it would turn from social insurance to collective bargaining and drive wages up.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  87. Why, as the reputation for American union-made cars declined in the 1970s, did the reputation of German union Japanese-made cars soar?

    Fuel economy. Japanese econo-boxes soared in the 1970s. German-made Mercedes-Benz and BMWs luxury and high performance cars, not so much.

    Remember the 1974 OPEC oil embargo? It wasn’t so much an embargo, as a cartel price rise. Oil was sold through Rotterdam, changing title owners, and at the higher price imposed by OPEC. The posted price of crude went from $2.80 to $12 bbl. Auto fuel economy became key for middle America.

    Granted, Americans became tuned into the idea to not but a Detroit-made car on Mondays and Fridays due to rampant absenteeism and other shortcomings effecting quality.

  88. @MikeatMikedotMike
    I'm a teamster. I can legitimately say unions are only as good as the people who run them. These days, there is little distinction between those people and the people who run the corporations.

    Replies: @Bill P, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Prester John, @notsaying, @MBlanc46, @anon

    Unions and their leaders aren’t perfect.

    But it was dislike of union corruption that made a lot of people turn anti-union and now what do we have? Income inequality that’s worse than it’s been for 100 years and fewer than 10% of nongovernment workers in unions.

    I would prefer a much greater number of private sector employees join unions. I think the pluses would be greater than the minuses.

    Workers need the power that comes from groups advocating for them. On their own they are toast. Maybe we’ll get lucky and we’ll get some new unions forming in the future that are less corrupt. Money and power are corrupting influences though. I’d rather have workers groups which have enough money and power to become corrupt vs. have no workers groups.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @notsaying


    I would prefer a much greater number of private sector employees join unions.
     
    What does that mean? Unions of what? There aren't any categories of similarly situated private-sector employees, unless you mean natives, or whites or something super-broad like that.

    Replies: @notsaying

  89. @Tulip
    I'm not sure that unions can actually do the trick anymore, even if they came back. With an international financial system and free mobility of capital, if capital faces pressure to raise wages, they will simply re-locate to somewhere without wage pressure. Commodity businesses are operating on a razor thing profit margin as it is, and would go bust if their labor costs increase. They are forced to move to locations with low production costs to stay competitive. [There are monopolist businesses like Amazon that do quite well of course, but a lot of the economy is inputs like steel, electronic components, etc.]

    In the 30's and 40's, there was not anything like the capital mobility that exists today. Without restrictions on international capital flows, and protection for domestic industries (so they are not operating on a razor-thin margin), unions do nothing because there is no surplus. Even if they have a strike, and wages rise, the company either has to relocate to somewhere with lower wages or go bust. The only exception would be your monopoly players like Amazon. Of course, I would love to see Amazon's workers organize, but that wouldn't fix the problem, which is the integration of large swathes of extremely poor populations (with low levels of debt) with extremely wealthy populations (with high levels of debt). It completely destroyed the bargaining power of labor in developed countries, and transferred the entire share of economic growth in those regions to capital.

    It might make more sense to keep globalism, but focus on reducing domestic labor's fixed costs. If we got health care down to OECD average costs as a percentage of GNP, re-focused and shrank higher education and reduced costs and eliminated student loans, and insured that affordable housing exists, so that our domestic labor was paying a significantly reduced cost for health care, education, and housing, then companies could reduce total effective compensation to workers, and workers would still see an increase in disposable income.

    Replies: @Sean, @Desiderius

    • Replies: @Tulip
    @Desiderius

    Please don't read my comments as an endorsement of globalization.

    Rather, its way to keep globalization and wage stagnation in the developed world, but raise effective wages and afford a measure of security to working populations, thereby heading off the communist and/or fascist revolution before they start lining up the globalists. Thus, something Davos might even get behind, if they sense the fragility of the current liberal order.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  90. @Desiderius
    @Tulip

    https://americanmind.org/essays/rip-globalism-dead-of-coronavirus/

    Replies: @Tulip

    Please don’t read my comments as an endorsement of globalization.

    Rather, its way to keep globalization and wage stagnation in the developed world, but raise effective wages and afford a measure of security to working populations, thereby heading off the communist and/or fascist revolution before they start lining up the globalists. Thus, something Davos might even get behind, if they sense the fragility of the current liberal order.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Tulip

    I don't.

    Just saying you've got some unexamined premises there that Moldbug has examined.

  91. OT:

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @MEH 0910

    Paths of Glory.

  92. @JUSA
    As Henry Ford tried to warn us in 1920, America(and the UK)'s labor unions are almost all led by Jews. They drive a hard bargain because their main aim was to disrupt businesses and force the hands of WASP management so they'd go cap in hand to the money man on Wall Street, who are again Jews, allowing these money man to take control of their companies and hand them the humble pie. Eventually the union terms got so out of control it gave the capital owners the perfect excuse to move their jobs offshore, starving the "deplorables". The same tribe then ply them with opioid to ease their pain.

    In contrast labor unions in Germany and their bosses are the same tribe and look out for one another. Workers in Japan are the same way. In the Japanese auto industry, management and workers look out for one another, and auto companies have great relationships with their suppliers.

    In contrast, in the US/UK, unions force workers into an adversarial relationship with management (because they are often not the same tribe, WASP management vs. Irish/Italian/Slav workers led by Jewish union leaders), and auto companies try to rip off their suppliers as much as they can. It's the Milton Friedman mantra -- profit is king, the goal of business is to maximize profit.

    In Japan/Germany, companies take on a paternal role and look out for their employees, they don't mind sacrificing some profit to pay their employees and their suppliers better. In return, they get loyalty and good work ethic, they work as one.

    Returning to labor unions won't work as long as we remain a "diverse" country, with unions being led by the same tribe with ulterior motives, and management having to answer to the capital owners on Wall Street who demand maximizing "shareholder value".

    Replies: @Anonymous, @teotoon, @alt right moderate

    Britain and America have strong historical reasons for favouring liberal economic policies. Germany is a continental power that has been forced to rely on manufacturing because it wasn’t allowed to be an imperial maritime power. Ditto for Japan.

    As far as Jews go, you have it back to front. Jews tend to gravitate towards countries where there are opportunities for them. In the modern world, that means economically liberal countries like the US. They don’t create the economic policies of the host nation. Claiming that majority elites can be easily manipulated into going against their own economic interests just doesn’t make sense.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @alt right moderate


    As far as Jews go, you have it back to front. Jews tend to gravitate towards countries where there are opportunities for them. In the modern world, that means economically liberal countries like the US. They don’t create the economic policies of the host nation. Claiming that majority elites can be easily manipulated into going against their own economic interests just doesn’t make sense.
     
    How does it fail to make sense? Organisms manipulate other organisms all the time.
  93. Didn’t Thomas Geoghagen answer some of the questions you ask there? If memory serves, one of his points about the German system (imposed by the Allied occupiers after the war to reduce the appeal of communism) was that workers get their say without needing strikes, because they get board seats, and there are legal obstacles to firing workers or closing shops.

  94. This just off the top of my head, but I think a big problem with US unions is that they are just another set of powerful organizations that exist to coerce and extract wealth from workers.

    The special privileges given by government to unions and the structure of unions mean that some workers feel the unions are not on their side any more than the business owners

    Unions need to be structured to avoid consolidation of power at the top and among the professional union class — those people who work full time for the union, not the sector the union is supposed to be protecting.

  95. @ben tillman

    What do you know, a nice conclusion.
    And it’s nice to see anyone picking up on the problem being a hostile elite. But unions are a non-starter.
     
    We need a white people's union. That's the obvious "solution", but of course we can't do it because 98% of white people are almost irreversibly programmed to reject the idea, and the other 2% will fear being canceled for doing what they know is necessary.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @anon

    We need a white people’s union.

    Ridiculous. White people have no common interests. Rich whites hate non-rich whites. Middle-class whites hate working-class whites. Working-class whites hate middle-class whites. Urban whites loathe rural whites.

    You might persuade people to recognise that they have class interests. The elites already understand this. Non-elites do not, but maybe they could be persuaded. But you will never persuade whites to think in terms of racial solidarity. It’s pure fantasy.

    If you want to fight the elites you can only do so on class grounds. Forget the race stuff. Racial identity is a complete non-starter for whites. Trying to forge a white identity will only lead to one embarrassing defeat after another.

    Steve is actually trying to make a constructive suggestion. As Warren Buffet pointed out, this is a class war we’re in whether we want to admit it or not.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @dfordoom

    Class doesn't exist.

    , @ben tillman
    @dfordoom


    Ridiculous. White people have no common interests. Rich whites hate non-rich whites. Middle-class whites hate working-class whites. Working-class whites hate middle-class whites. Urban whites loathe rural whites.
     
    Those are all preposterous falsehoods, especially the first three. There are no legal or otherwise meaningful distinctions among our alleged classes. All whites are targeted by the same racist agenda, and, of course, they share obvious biological interests.

    Replies: @Dissident

  96. As much as we need tariffs, revitalized unions, industrial policy, and definancialization of the economy, we need more companies doing each thing. We need to be much closer to the classical ideal of free markets, lots of suppliers, lots of manufacturers, we already have lots of consumers. I read, but am too lazy to confirm, that American steel companies are milking the tariffs and delaying capital improvements. That will lead to even lower competitiveness when Bootigig “wins” the election and ends the tariff. How many do we need? I don’t know. At a guess, thirty or fifty in largest industries, at least. So many that a thousand corporate flowers can bloom, so many that there is a real laboratory of corporations. I wouldn’t let them merge, they’d have to compete by stealing customers from each other. We need so many companies that the executive class can’t be drawn from just a few schools, leading to a monoculture. We also need a repeal of Griggs, so that companies that hire by IQ, in part, can outcompete companies that hire by diversity.

    As the rapidly-rusting truck someone had upthread demonstrates, American companies don’t behave well towards employees, suppliers or consumers when they don’t have to. The financial and professional-managerial classes are too predatory and short-sighted to run their companies like Toyota when they don’t have too. Since we’re talking cars as an example, it is hard to tell, because technology has improved so much, but it seems that cars were better, relative to what was technologically possible, than they are today. Why did companies merge? Why not just steal the customers by making better cars? Because of economies of scale? Maybe, but economies of scale would also apply by building larger plants, if it’s that sort of scale, or by building more plants if scale works that way. Instead, they merged and kept the brands (even though those brands failed), and I think, the assembly lines.

    By the seventies, there were a handful of American car companies were making big, unreliable cars with short lifespans, seeing dying cars as sales opportunities. They competed on tail fins. The big three refused to make high quality cars, especially smaller cars, and ceded the top of the market to better, German companies. The union employees did do very well, but the costs were passed on to consumers. Did they refuse to make process or capital improvements? I don’t know, but I’d like too. When the oil shock came, consumers fled to smaller, reliable Japanese cars. The big three, when they finally realized they needed to compete, they competed the only way they new how: badly. A thousand flowers did not bloom. The corporate culture at the big three is still dysfunctional and predatory.

    I’m not sure how to handle individual owners/funds from owning multiple companies and subtly discouraging competition. I’m also not sure how to handle r&d, but the big three do very little real r&d. One’s (I forget which, maybe all of them) plan is too collect user data from GPSed cars on the internet of things, and sell it other companies. They don’t do much real R&D, or so it seems. They already know your job, your income, your assets and your debts from financing, so you are a rich data source.

    America is a big nation with lots of capital available, and a big market. Who likes their car dealership?With 50 companies there wouldn’t be the quiet, uncoordinated(?) collusion that three can manage, someone’s incentive is always defection, and the benefits of punishing defectors are diffuse, at least I think. Anyone more knowledgeable about game theory who can correct me?

    At 50 car companies, even without unions, the companies have to compete for labor, bidding up wages, and compete on price, bidding down, bidding down, um, price. At 50 companies, someone will make high-quality products, even though, yeah, most would sell fast-rusting junk with lots of eagles and flags in the commercials. At one time, there were lots of car companies, and they all merged, because profits are higher under oligopoly that they are in free markets. There would be so many companies that, if the restriction on mergers were lifted, maybe the better cultures, along with best practices would come out on top.

  97. It would be far better for the government to increase the minimum wage than to restore union power.

    If American unions were corrupted by organised crime, British unions had an even worse problem with communist infiltration. Union leaders often had communist views, and were sometimes Communist Party members. Some were agents of the USSR and its allies. Getting the best deal for their members was a small part of their activities.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2009/06/we-came-close-to-losing-our-democracy-in-1979/

  98. @MikeatMikedotMike
    I'm a teamster. I can legitimately say unions are only as good as the people who run them. These days, there is little distinction between those people and the people who run the corporations.

    Replies: @Bill P, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Prester John, @notsaying, @MBlanc46, @anon

    Labor lieutenants of capitalism, Marx called them.

  99. @Tulip
    @Desiderius

    Please don't read my comments as an endorsement of globalization.

    Rather, its way to keep globalization and wage stagnation in the developed world, but raise effective wages and afford a measure of security to working populations, thereby heading off the communist and/or fascist revolution before they start lining up the globalists. Thus, something Davos might even get behind, if they sense the fragility of the current liberal order.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    I don’t.

    Just saying you’ve got some unexamined premises there that Moldbug has examined.

  100. @anon
    @mmack

    CAFE also killed the station wagon. A family with more than 2 kids is not going to easily drive around town in a sedan. The minivan and the SUV are both rational responses to CAFE, because there's room for the kids and all the baggage.

    Dodge Durango or Dodge Caravan? Either one works almost as well as the old station wagon did.

    Replies: @mmack

    True, but really, what’s an SUV? A station wagon with 4 wheel drive and lifted suspension.

    The minivan was a brilliant idea. Lee Iacocca wrote in his autobiography he had the idea at Ford using existing Ford passenger car and truck components. He had sales run the numbers and they said sales of up to 500K / year. They pitched the idea to the corporate board at Ford and got:

    “Forget it! It’ll take sales from our full size vans. No dice.”

    So when Lee went to Chrysler, he implemented the idea there. And Chrysler and the others made money until the minivan had the image of a “mom-mobile” and sales dropped off. And people shifted to SUVs.

    • Replies: @black sea
    @mmack

    I wonder if the shift in popularity from minivan to SUV had something to do with the fact that husbands are usually more involved in the automobile purchase decision, even if it is the wife who will be driving the vehicle more.

    In other words, men couldn't get excited about the minivan because, well . . . because it's a "mom-mobile." An SUV, on the other hand . . .

    Replies: @mmack

    , @anon
    @mmack

    True, but really, what’s an SUV? A station wagon with 4 wheel drive and lifted suspension.

    It's a truck. A Sport-Utility Vehicle is a truck chassis with a passenger body on top, every one I've driven handles like a truck, rides like a truck, has the crosswind problems of a truck. Including the crossovers, which have less cargo space than many sedans. They get the fuel mileage of a truck. Because CAFE classifies them as trucks, not cars.

    SUV's are an artifact of CAFE going back to the 80's. Here's an example, the "Town & Country".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Town_%26_Country_%281941%E2%80%931988%29

    Station wagon looks like this "Town & Country"

    https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/SP84nmOt2nM/maxresdefault.jpg

    2019 "Town & Country" looks like this van:

    https://www.techweirdo.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/chrysler-town-and-country-2019-review.jpg

    A contractor I know owns a Chevy Suburban, it's about 5 years old, gets 12 miles per gallon. His father still has the 1980's Suburban that gets ... 12 miles per gallon. They are trucks, they weigh a lot, moving them around takes gasoline. Thermodynamics and stuff.

    Building a sedan-thing on top of a truck chassis doesn't really save fuel. But it does get around bureaucratic diktats like CAFE, so I guess it's sorta win-win. Dumb, though.

    Replies: @mmack

  101. @alt right moderate
    @JUSA

    Britain and America have strong historical reasons for favouring liberal economic policies. Germany is a continental power that has been forced to rely on manufacturing because it wasn't allowed to be an imperial maritime power. Ditto for Japan.

    As far as Jews go, you have it back to front. Jews tend to gravitate towards countries where there are opportunities for them. In the modern world, that means economically liberal countries like the US. They don't create the economic policies of the host nation. Claiming that majority elites can be easily manipulated into going against their own economic interests just doesn't make sense.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    As far as Jews go, you have it back to front. Jews tend to gravitate towards countries where there are opportunities for them. In the modern world, that means economically liberal countries like the US. They don’t create the economic policies of the host nation. Claiming that majority elites can be easily manipulated into going against their own economic interests just doesn’t make sense.

    How does it fail to make sense? Organisms manipulate other organisms all the time.

  102. @MEH 0910
    OT:
    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1225207015577923586

    Replies: @ben tillman

    Paths of Glory.

  103. @notsaying
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Unions and their leaders aren't perfect.

    But it was dislike of union corruption that made a lot of people turn anti-union and now what do we have? Income inequality that's worse than it's been for 100 years and fewer than 10% of nongovernment workers in unions.

    I would prefer a much greater number of private sector employees join unions. I think the pluses would be greater than the minuses.

    Workers need the power that comes from groups advocating for them. On their own they are toast. Maybe we'll get lucky and we'll get some new unions forming in the future that are less corrupt. Money and power are corrupting influences though. I'd rather have workers groups which have enough money and power to become corrupt vs. have no workers groups.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    I would prefer a much greater number of private sector employees join unions.

    What does that mean? Unions of what? There aren’t any categories of similarly situated private-sector employees, unless you mean natives, or whites or something super-broad like that.

    • Replies: @notsaying
    @ben tillman

    I am not sure what your question means.

    I do not think that unions have to be industry-specific. I saw just the other day that's there's a union of nonprofit industry workers that has fewer than 500 members.

    If we had new unions spring up -- which is a much harder process I assume than for existing unions to try to recruit employees in new companies -- they could be based on various things that haven't been covered in the past.

    Certainly any union has to accept members from all races, I am sure it would be discriminatory if they did not. The unions out in Los Vegas have lots of illegal immigrant members. I don't know how they manage that legally and I wouldn't like that but I'd rather be stuck in a union with illegal members than left out in the cold without one.

    I am sick of being powerless and sick of seeing American workers being powerless, too.

  104. @MikeatMikedotMike
    I'm a teamster. I can legitimately say unions are only as good as the people who run them. These days, there is little distinction between those people and the people who run the corporations.

    Replies: @Bill P, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Prester John, @notsaying, @MBlanc46, @anon

    Likewise, with Conservatism, Inc. there is little distinction between them and the Left in terms of end results.
    They sold out, and pretend fight as controlled opposition.
    Like Mitt used to sort of do, “… I’m a severe conservative …”

  105. @ben tillman

    What do you know, a nice conclusion.
    And it’s nice to see anyone picking up on the problem being a hostile elite. But unions are a non-starter.
     
    We need a white people's union. That's the obvious "solution", but of course we can't do it because 98% of white people are almost irreversibly programmed to reject the idea, and the other 2% will fear being canceled for doing what they know is necessary.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @anon

    … how about more of those natural conservatives from south of the Rio Grande? Jeb! says that will help

  106. @mmack
    @anon

    True, but really, what’s an SUV? A station wagon with 4 wheel drive and lifted suspension.

    The minivan was a brilliant idea. Lee Iacocca wrote in his autobiography he had the idea at Ford using existing Ford passenger car and truck components. He had sales run the numbers and they said sales of up to 500K / year. They pitched the idea to the corporate board at Ford and got:

    “Forget it! It’ll take sales from our full size vans. No dice.”

    So when Lee went to Chrysler, he implemented the idea there. And Chrysler and the others made money until the minivan had the image of a “mom-mobile” and sales dropped off. And people shifted to SUVs.

    Replies: @black sea, @anon

    I wonder if the shift in popularity from minivan to SUV had something to do with the fact that husbands are usually more involved in the automobile purchase decision, even if it is the wife who will be driving the vehicle more.

    In other words, men couldn’t get excited about the minivan because, well . . . because it’s a “mom-mobile.” An SUV, on the other hand . . .

    • Replies: @mmack
    @black sea

    I can tell you from personal experience my Brother-in-Law was thrilled to buy a Jeep Grand Cherokee after years driving a Plymouth Voyager and a Toyota Previa. He was like a new man.

  107. @Redneck farmer
    @Lot

    Don't blackpill, bro! There's ALWAYS the option of Pinochet's Chile!

    Replies: @Lot

  108. @Michael S
    @eugyppius

    I usually disagree with purely race-based analysis, but in this case Ben is closer to the mark. Marxist class theory is hokum and always was. There has never been a single instance of it being put into practice and not leading to catastrophic failure.

    It's really more about religion than race, with race being a decent proxy for religion, but you first have to recognize progressivism as the state religion, and the university administrators as priests. The CEOs are just bending the knee and paying for influence, which is irritating, but not the core problem.

    Replies: @eugyppius

    Whether it’s explanatory or not, civilized human societies are undeniably stratified; this was known and discussed in the West centuries before Marxism. In fact the communists set off catastrophes precisely as they tried to upset or invert this stratification, not from implementing it.

    Also the Neoreactionary analysis of the Cathedral is wrong. Companies do not bend the knee before universities to pay for influence. (‘Influence’ over what? How would that work?) If corporations wished they could do serious harm to to the social and cultural standing of universities, for example, by refusing to consider candidates with degrees, dialing back their enormous donations, and using their political pull to reign in all the federal subsidies and other aid universities receive. And conversely notice how universities bend over backwards to cooperate with business. Earlier the New Left, now Woke ideology: The latter attaches all criticism to fake things like white privilege as the central social ill, drawing attention away from the profiteering activities of corporations and the scams of coopted govt officials.

    Progressivism is an empty self-contradictory superstructure. It is just the ideology that gets slapped on the face of what the elites want to do anyway. Some of it has a very ‘for thee but not for me’ aspect (race realism is more common behind closed doors in academia than you might think given what all these people are constantly saying); some of it emerges from the racial or ethnic proclivities of the kinds of people who find themselves in power these days.

  109. @Just passing through
    @mmack

    As a younger reader, I find those photos quite fascinating.

    The American cars in the photos are aesthetically superior, the European ones are butt-ugly, I can't understand why a hip young person would go for the latter, perhaps as you said it was for simply new generation rebel purposes, or was there some technical difference?


    Oddly enough German cars now have a reputation as over engineered and trouble plagued with people giving advice to just lease the darned thing and turn it in, don’t buy it
     
    Remember the Tiger tank?

    But I'm a serious note, this is true. The German cars are very expensive to maintain and nowhere near as reliable as Japanese makes. A lot of people with BMWs do seem to have them on hire purchase, they are certainly a status symbol.

    Replies: @mmack

    “I can’t understand why a hip young person would go for the latter, perhaps as you said it was for simply new generation rebel purposes, or was there some technical difference?”

    I suspect it’s two things:

    1) Generational status signaling. As late stage Silent Generation and the Boomer Generation moved past high school and college, they didn’t want the cars (or the lives) their parents had. As much as I like and remember the cars of that era by the 1970’s American “Full Size” cars had bloated up in size and weight, like this 1978 Chrysler New Yorker:

    https://i1.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1977-Chrysler-Brochure-03.jpg?resize=564%2C386

    (There was a reason we used to say “It was like driving around in your living room.”)

    That was definitely NOT what your younger, hipper, upwardly mobile striver wanted to buy.

    [MORE]

    By six years later, it got worse. This is what a Chrysler New Yorker was after CAFE rules were applied:

    So as much as I want to support the home team, I can see the appeal in this (a 1985 BMW):

    2) Tying it back to the idea of unions, most of those late Silent Generation and Boomer Generation car buyers probably had a really bad experience with a small American made car in the 1970s, and said “Never Again”.

    Studs Terkel wrote a book titled Working that came out in 1972. The book was full of interviews with people from all walks of life (blue collar, white collar, pink collar, union, management, retired, etc.) He has a section in the book about the automobile industry. When he talked about making cars and trucks he mainly interviewed people at the Ford plant in Chicago (Studs lived and worked in Chicago). But then there’s one very interesting interview with a Gary Bryner. who is a UAW Local President for GM’s Lordstown, OH plant. This is just after the big 1970 UAW strike against GM, and after multiple wildcat strikes at Lordstown.

    You read the interview and you see the rot setting in as far back as the 1970’s. It’s a combination of GM penny-pinching and “Profit at all costs” resulting in a very flawed design versus very entitled workers pushing back against management. The Lordstown plant at the time of the interview made the Chevrolet Vega.

    The Vega was, to put it mildly, a disaster. If not for the “exploding” Ford Pinto this would probably be remembered as the worst car built in the 1970s. I’ll give you a link to what’s wrong with it here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/cc-chevrolet-vega-winner-of-1971-small-car-comparison-and-gms-deadly-sin-no-2/ so I don’t crash Unz.com listing what’s wrong with it.

    So you’ve got a badly flawed car, and it’s being built in a plant with a “militant” workforce. Gary pointed out that GMs plan was to crank out these cars at 100+ an hour. Rightfully so the union points out that 100+ an hour is way too many cars to build but GM holds tight and the workers take the view of “F it, boss said 100 cars an hour, he didn’t say 100 GOOD cars an hour”. So screws, nuts, bolts, etc get missed because “Well, somebody will catch it”.

    Oh, and Gary points out yes, there is some drug use on the line by younger guys, but it’s just amphetamines, and maybe some marijuana to help deal with the pace.

    By this point GM is already bringing in automated welders, which replaces 200 workers.

    So given that, if you as a younger person bought a Vega or a Pinto in the early – mid 1970s, how likely would you be to buy an American made car again after the headache of owning one of those?

  110. @black sea
    @mmack

    I wonder if the shift in popularity from minivan to SUV had something to do with the fact that husbands are usually more involved in the automobile purchase decision, even if it is the wife who will be driving the vehicle more.

    In other words, men couldn't get excited about the minivan because, well . . . because it's a "mom-mobile." An SUV, on the other hand . . .

    Replies: @mmack

    I can tell you from personal experience my Brother-in-Law was thrilled to buy a Jeep Grand Cherokee after years driving a Plymouth Voyager and a Toyota Previa. He was like a new man.

  111. @iffen
    @Sean

    We are back to Lind’s problem of a lack of pressure to countervail the highly effective business lobbying.

    Lind is correct with his premise that the only way for working class people to exert effective power is through a dedicated group. Individualism has gone to our heads. To think that we can challenge the Borg as individuals is nonsense on its face.

    Replies: @Sean

    Trump stands for middle-class social insurance (Medcare D), immigration restriction, and foreign policy realpolitik (Saudi Arabia and Western Europe are becomeing less important and must pay for the US forces defending them).

    It is the US foreign policy ‘blob’, the soi disant expert defenders of national security that are laggards in the international situation. China is building the UK’s next power station, and America is having extreme difficulty in dissuading Britain from adopting China’s 5G network. Sweden was the first Western country to establish official diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, on 9 May 1950.Sweden was the first Western country to establish official diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, on 9 May 1950, but since the Swedish culture minister presented an award to an empty chair representing Gui Minhai Swedish business can forget about contracts with China. This is the way that China is supplanting the US, and the superannuated Deep State are out of their depth in a world that for the past thirty five years Trump hasn been focusing on trade and economic power out of concern with countries that either rival the US economy (especially China) or so called allies that undermine American strength by exploiting relations with the US.


    Lind is correct with his premise that the only way for working class people to exert effective power is through a dedicated group.

    Affluent people (and countries like Sweden) are individualistic. Poorer people tend to be closer to their family, religious group, and more nationalistic. Trump happens to be far closer to the truth than the managerial elites economic policies are a recipe for China overtaking a hollowed out West in every respect after a very few decades. Trumanite Cold War bias among bien pensant Deep Staters makes them see the US as unbeatable, yet China is in the process of supplanting America in every index of power. Before many decades have passed China will be facing the US down. Working class nationalism is their secret weapon, by comparison the elite will seem parochial and treacherous sellers of the pass.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Sean

    I have doubts that the globalist elites in the US believe that a nation-state like the US is needed by them anymore. They sure aren't interested in doing anything to cultivate a healthy working class that provides a nationalist base of support for said state. I'm guessing that the Chinese elites still think that they need a strong nation-state and see the need to cultivate strong nationalist support among the working class.

    Replies: @Sean

  112. @Starboard
    There’s been talk and even a book about the GOP becoming the party of the working class. All of it is centered on macro-economic and cultural issues, such as fair trade deals and Second Amendment rights.

    This is all fine as far as it goes. But if the Republicans want to get right with labor, they better stand tall for collective bargaining and unionization.

    Failing to do that in the 1970s cost them the support of what were then called the “hard hats,” culturally conservative construction and mining workers. They stayed loyal to the Democrats even though Hollywood and the elite were denouncing them — because unions meant brotherhood, strength, community and a chance to fight the bosses. The GOP gave them Right to Work laws and horror stories about “corrupt union bosses,” which is like appealing to blacks by highlighting “welfare queens.” Stupid.

    That remained true even as the real bosses did their labor arbitrage, something already apparent in movies like “All the Right Moves” and “Slapshot,” featuring hollowed-out towns where nobody protected them and all they had were the “little platoons” of the union and VFW halls.

    It makes no sense to criticize the soulless transnationals who outsourced all the jobs, only, once the jobs start coming back, to leave the working class to fight those same soulless bastards at home as “rugged individuals.”

    In unity is strength. That means union and collective bargaining. Anything else is empty sentiment.

    Replies: @iffen

    Hear! Hear!

  113. @Tulip
    @Sean

    I'm sort of surprised that commodity producers aren't taking political action against the over-priced real estate, health care, and higher education sectors. After all, they have to pay their workers more than their industrial counterparts in other countries just to match the benefits in other parts of the OECD. Obviously, if we could get the costs down, the surplus will go in some share to capital and labor, so they have every economic reason to support proposals like universal health care or other schemes to reduce health care reimbursements, even without labor unions.

    I appreciate Lind's sentimentality about the trade union movement, but I doubt it is coming back, and even in Germany and France, workers are getting the same squeeze they are getting in America (even if they aren't getting completely ripped off on college and health care). The future will require a new politics, and a new set of political alliances.

    Replies: @Sean

    After all, they have to pay their workers more than their industrial counterparts in other countries just to match the benefits in other parts of the OECD.

    Real wages for workers are falling not rising though. As Lind points out, ‘George W. Bush’s plan to partly privatize Social Security was so unpopular, even among Republican voters, that a Republican-controlled Congress did not even bother to vote on it in 2005’. Lind blames libertarian idealogues for the pushing the plans, but I suspect I suspect it is business which loathes the idea of any hint of successful working class organisation, because they think it would turn from social insurance to collective bargaining and drive wages up.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Sean


    ... I suspect it is business which loathes the idea of any hint of successful working class organisation, because they think it would turn from social insurance to collective bargaining and drive wages up.
     
    Walmart, of all people, was praised by the left for taking a relatively "progressive" stance on health care issues. But that's because they want other employers to insure their workers. Privatize the gains, socialize the loss.

    That said, their $4 generics are a genuine help. Assuming they're effective-- and needed. We are seriously over-medicated.
  114. anon[296] • Disclaimer says:
    @mmack
    @anon

    True, but really, what’s an SUV? A station wagon with 4 wheel drive and lifted suspension.

    The minivan was a brilliant idea. Lee Iacocca wrote in his autobiography he had the idea at Ford using existing Ford passenger car and truck components. He had sales run the numbers and they said sales of up to 500K / year. They pitched the idea to the corporate board at Ford and got:

    “Forget it! It’ll take sales from our full size vans. No dice.”

    So when Lee went to Chrysler, he implemented the idea there. And Chrysler and the others made money until the minivan had the image of a “mom-mobile” and sales dropped off. And people shifted to SUVs.

    Replies: @black sea, @anon

    True, but really, what’s an SUV? A station wagon with 4 wheel drive and lifted suspension.

    It’s a truck. A Sport-Utility Vehicle is a truck chassis with a passenger body on top, every one I’ve driven handles like a truck, rides like a truck, has the crosswind problems of a truck. Including the crossovers, which have less cargo space than many sedans. They get the fuel mileage of a truck. Because CAFE classifies them as trucks, not cars.

    SUV’s are an artifact of CAFE going back to the 80’s. Here’s an example, the “Town & Country”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Town_%26_Country_%281941%E2%80%931988%29

    Station wagon looks like this “Town & Country”

    2019 “Town & Country” looks like this van:

    A contractor I know owns a Chevy Suburban, it’s about 5 years old, gets 12 miles per gallon. His father still has the 1980’s Suburban that gets … 12 miles per gallon. They are trucks, they weigh a lot, moving them around takes gasoline. Thermodynamics and stuff.

    Building a sedan-thing on top of a truck chassis doesn’t really save fuel. But it does get around bureaucratic diktats like CAFE, so I guess it’s sorta win-win. Dumb, though.

    • Replies: @mmack
    @anon

    If you wish to be literal, Subaru's Outback meets my definition:

    https://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/201904/2020-subaru-outback--26_1600x0w.jpg

    That said, notice the Chevrolet Suburban is a truck based adaptation of the old Chrysler New Yorker based Town and Country concept: A "two box" styling (box one: front bumper to windshield, box two: windshield to back bumper) vehicle where the roof extends to the rear, instead of the "three box" styling (box one: front bumper to windshield, box two: windshield to back window (passenger compartment), box three: back window to back bumper (trunk)) of a sedan. Notice on both an SUV and a classic station wagon everything past the C pillar (which would hold the back window on a sedan) is glassed in to a D pillar at the very rear. Also notice most SUVs have tailgates like station wagons do/did:

    https://2020chevyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2020-Chevrolet-Suburban-Diesel-Exterior.png

    If they tried to three box design the Suburban with a real steel trunklid. the proportions would be off.

    If the government didn't dictate what people should buy, sedans would be big enough to fit five adults and their luggage. We had a good thing going where V6 powered mid sized sedans were meeting people's needs, but the latest round of fuel economy standards have deprived sedan owners of V6 engines for turbocharged 4 cylinders. But they don't so people move up to SUVs and pickups.

  115. @Sean
    @Tulip


    After all, they have to pay their workers more than their industrial counterparts in other countries just to match the benefits in other parts of the OECD.
     
    Real wages for workers are falling not rising though. As Lind points out, 'George W. Bush’s plan to partly privatize Social Security was so unpopular, even among Republican voters, that a Republican-controlled Congress did not even bother to vote on it in 2005'. Lind blames libertarian idealogues for the pushing the plans, but I suspect I suspect it is business which loathes the idea of any hint of successful working class organisation, because they think it would turn from social insurance to collective bargaining and drive wages up.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    … I suspect it is business which loathes the idea of any hint of successful working class organisation, because they think it would turn from social insurance to collective bargaining and drive wages up.

    Walmart, of all people, was praised by the left for taking a relatively “progressive” stance on health care issues. But that’s because they want other employers to insure their workers. Privatize the gains, socialize the loss.

    That said, their $4 generics are a genuine help. Assuming they’re effective– and needed. We are seriously over-medicated.

  116. @dfordoom
    @ben tillman


    We need a white people’s union.
     
    Ridiculous. White people have no common interests. Rich whites hate non-rich whites. Middle-class whites hate working-class whites. Working-class whites hate middle-class whites. Urban whites loathe rural whites.

    You might persuade people to recognise that they have class interests. The elites already understand this. Non-elites do not, but maybe they could be persuaded. But you will never persuade whites to think in terms of racial solidarity. It's pure fantasy.

    If you want to fight the elites you can only do so on class grounds. Forget the race stuff. Racial identity is a complete non-starter for whites. Trying to forge a white identity will only lead to one embarrassing defeat after another.

    Steve is actually trying to make a constructive suggestion. As Warren Buffet pointed out, this is a class war we're in whether we want to admit it or not.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @ben tillman

    Class doesn’t exist.

  117. @dfordoom
    @ben tillman


    We need a white people’s union.
     
    Ridiculous. White people have no common interests. Rich whites hate non-rich whites. Middle-class whites hate working-class whites. Working-class whites hate middle-class whites. Urban whites loathe rural whites.

    You might persuade people to recognise that they have class interests. The elites already understand this. Non-elites do not, but maybe they could be persuaded. But you will never persuade whites to think in terms of racial solidarity. It's pure fantasy.

    If you want to fight the elites you can only do so on class grounds. Forget the race stuff. Racial identity is a complete non-starter for whites. Trying to forge a white identity will only lead to one embarrassing defeat after another.

    Steve is actually trying to make a constructive suggestion. As Warren Buffet pointed out, this is a class war we're in whether we want to admit it or not.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @ben tillman

    Ridiculous. White people have no common interests. Rich whites hate non-rich whites. Middle-class whites hate working-class whites. Working-class whites hate middle-class whites. Urban whites loathe rural whites.

    Those are all preposterous falsehoods, especially the first three. There are no legal or otherwise meaningful distinctions among our alleged classes. All whites are targeted by the same racist agenda, and, of course, they share obvious biological interests.

    • Replies: @Dissident
    @ben tillman


    There are no legal or otherwise meaningful distinctions among our alleged classes.
     
    Really? You think the Clintons, the Bushes, Nancy Pelosi, Mitt Romney, Pete Buttigieg, the Respectables in academia, George Will, Jeff Bezos, Maureen Dowd, Angela Merkel, et al., have anything but contempt and disdain for Deplorable (i.e., primarily non-cosmopolitan) Whites?

    As for legal distinctions, perhaps not de jure but if you think those, such as the aforementioned, with sufficient wealth and power are de facto subject to the same rule of law as the rest of us... I'd like to know what you're smoking.

    Replies: @ben tillman

  118. @anon
    @mmack

    True, but really, what’s an SUV? A station wagon with 4 wheel drive and lifted suspension.

    It's a truck. A Sport-Utility Vehicle is a truck chassis with a passenger body on top, every one I've driven handles like a truck, rides like a truck, has the crosswind problems of a truck. Including the crossovers, which have less cargo space than many sedans. They get the fuel mileage of a truck. Because CAFE classifies them as trucks, not cars.

    SUV's are an artifact of CAFE going back to the 80's. Here's an example, the "Town & Country".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Town_%26_Country_%281941%E2%80%931988%29

    Station wagon looks like this "Town & Country"

    https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/SP84nmOt2nM/maxresdefault.jpg

    2019 "Town & Country" looks like this van:

    https://www.techweirdo.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/chrysler-town-and-country-2019-review.jpg

    A contractor I know owns a Chevy Suburban, it's about 5 years old, gets 12 miles per gallon. His father still has the 1980's Suburban that gets ... 12 miles per gallon. They are trucks, they weigh a lot, moving them around takes gasoline. Thermodynamics and stuff.

    Building a sedan-thing on top of a truck chassis doesn't really save fuel. But it does get around bureaucratic diktats like CAFE, so I guess it's sorta win-win. Dumb, though.

    Replies: @mmack

    If you wish to be literal, Subaru’s Outback meets my definition:

    That said, notice the Chevrolet Suburban is a truck based adaptation of the old Chrysler New Yorker based Town and Country concept: A “two box” styling (box one: front bumper to windshield, box two: windshield to back bumper) vehicle where the roof extends to the rear, instead of the “three box” styling (box one: front bumper to windshield, box two: windshield to back window (passenger compartment), box three: back window to back bumper (trunk)) of a sedan. Notice on both an SUV and a classic station wagon everything past the C pillar (which would hold the back window on a sedan) is glassed in to a D pillar at the very rear. Also notice most SUVs have tailgates like station wagons do/did:

    If they tried to three box design the Suburban with a real steel trunklid. the proportions would be off.

    If the government didn’t dictate what people should buy, sedans would be big enough to fit five adults and their luggage. We had a good thing going where V6 powered mid sized sedans were meeting people’s needs, but the latest round of fuel economy standards have deprived sedan owners of V6 engines for turbocharged 4 cylinders. But they don’t so people move up to SUVs and pickups.

  119. @Sean
    @iffen

    Trump stands for middle-class social insurance (Medcare D), immigration restriction, and foreign policy realpolitik (Saudi Arabia and Western Europe are becomeing less important and must pay for the US forces defending them).

    It is the US foreign policy 'blob', the soi disant expert defenders of national security that are laggards in the international situation. China is building the UK's next power station, and America is having extreme difficulty in dissuading Britain from adopting China's 5G network. Sweden was the first Western country to establish official diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, on 9 May 1950.Sweden was the first Western country to establish official diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, on 9 May 1950, but since the Swedish culture minister presented an award to an empty chair representing Gui Minhai Swedish business can forget about contracts with China. This is the way that China is supplanting the US, and the superannuated Deep State are out of their depth in a world that for the past thirty five years Trump hasn been focusing on trade and economic power out of concern with countries that either rival the US economy (especially China) or so called allies that undermine American strength by exploiting relations with the US.



    Lind is correct with his premise that the only way for working class people to exert effective power is through a dedicated group.

     
    Affluent people (and countries like Sweden) are individualistic. Poorer people tend to be closer to their family, religious group, and more nationalistic. Trump happens to be far closer to the truth than the managerial elites economic policies are a recipe for China overtaking a hollowed out West in every respect after a very few decades. Trumanite Cold War bias among bien pensant Deep Staters makes them see the US as unbeatable, yet China is in the process of supplanting America in every index of power. Before many decades have passed China will be facing the US down. Working class nationalism is their secret weapon, by comparison the elite will seem parochial and treacherous sellers of the pass.

    Replies: @iffen

    I have doubts that the globalist elites in the US believe that a nation-state like the US is needed by them anymore. They sure aren’t interested in doing anything to cultivate a healthy working class that provides a nationalist base of support for said state. I’m guessing that the Chinese elites still think that they need a strong nation-state and see the need to cultivate strong nationalist support among the working class.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @iffen

    I don't think the economic elite ever believed a cohesive working class pressuring business for labour's share of the surplus was desirable. Globalisation eliminated the national economies and freed the elite from the constraint of working class organisation in a country that capital (at that time) could not just leave and set up in China for massive profits. Union power was in the old context of national economies, and now it doesn't matter whether there are unions because they cannot get anything for workers.


    The super elites all pose as philanthropists that gave their fortune to a charitable foundation, and they all evade tax. Their strategy is managing the decline of their host country's productive capacity while counting on their investments in China to increase their fortune, and for that reason they fear calls for reinvestment in democratic societies. Western billionaires see the Chinese Communist Party as their ally, and strong states in their own countries as the enemy.


    https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/stealth-war-how-the-us-can-counter-chinas-takeover-attempts/

    Democracies must band together and invest in their communities to revitalize infrastructure, manufacturing, science and technology, and STEM education. Military funding must be transferred into these areas to promote economic growth and resiliency. Institutions must be inoculated to prevent the erosion of rights and freedoms. We must restore confidence in democracy as an organizing principle for the digital world by securing the internet and ensuring that citizens are the masters of their data.
     

  120. @ben tillman
    @dfordoom


    Ridiculous. White people have no common interests. Rich whites hate non-rich whites. Middle-class whites hate working-class whites. Working-class whites hate middle-class whites. Urban whites loathe rural whites.
     
    Those are all preposterous falsehoods, especially the first three. There are no legal or otherwise meaningful distinctions among our alleged classes. All whites are targeted by the same racist agenda, and, of course, they share obvious biological interests.

    Replies: @Dissident

    There are no legal or otherwise meaningful distinctions among our alleged classes.

    Really? You think the Clintons, the Bushes, Nancy Pelosi, Mitt Romney, Pete Buttigieg, the Respectables in academia, George Will, Jeff Bezos, Maureen Dowd, Angela Merkel, et al., have anything but contempt and disdain for Deplorable (i.e., primarily non-cosmopolitan) Whites?

    As for legal distinctions, perhaps not de jure but if you think those, such as the aforementioned, with sufficient wealth and power are de facto subject to the same rule of law as the rest of us… I’d like to know what you’re smoking.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Dissident


    Really? You think the Clintons, the Bushes, Nancy Pelosi, Mitt Romney, Pete Buttigieg, the Respectables in academia, George Will, Jeff Bezos, Maureen Dowd, Angela Merkel, et al., have anything but contempt and disdain for Deplorable (i.e., primarily non-cosmopolitan) Whites?
     
    Those people do not constitute the category "rich whites" (or a representative sample of "rich whites").

    They aren't even a "class", and contempt and disdain aren't hatred (though some of the people you mention may in fact be guilty of hatred). The notion that rich whites hate non-rich whites, like the other propositions I disagreed with, is ridiculous. And could you people quit changing the "class" in question every time you touch the keyboard?
  121. @ben tillman
    @notsaying


    I would prefer a much greater number of private sector employees join unions.
     
    What does that mean? Unions of what? There aren't any categories of similarly situated private-sector employees, unless you mean natives, or whites or something super-broad like that.

    Replies: @notsaying

    I am not sure what your question means.

    I do not think that unions have to be industry-specific. I saw just the other day that’s there’s a union of nonprofit industry workers that has fewer than 500 members.

    If we had new unions spring up — which is a much harder process I assume than for existing unions to try to recruit employees in new companies — they could be based on various things that haven’t been covered in the past.

    Certainly any union has to accept members from all races, I am sure it would be discriminatory if they did not. The unions out in Los Vegas have lots of illegal immigrant members. I don’t know how they manage that legally and I wouldn’t like that but I’d rather be stuck in a union with illegal members than left out in the cold without one.

    I am sick of being powerless and sick of seeing American workers being powerless, too.

  122. @Dissident
    @ben tillman


    There are no legal or otherwise meaningful distinctions among our alleged classes.
     
    Really? You think the Clintons, the Bushes, Nancy Pelosi, Mitt Romney, Pete Buttigieg, the Respectables in academia, George Will, Jeff Bezos, Maureen Dowd, Angela Merkel, et al., have anything but contempt and disdain for Deplorable (i.e., primarily non-cosmopolitan) Whites?

    As for legal distinctions, perhaps not de jure but if you think those, such as the aforementioned, with sufficient wealth and power are de facto subject to the same rule of law as the rest of us... I'd like to know what you're smoking.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    Really? You think the Clintons, the Bushes, Nancy Pelosi, Mitt Romney, Pete Buttigieg, the Respectables in academia, George Will, Jeff Bezos, Maureen Dowd, Angela Merkel, et al., have anything but contempt and disdain for Deplorable (i.e., primarily non-cosmopolitan) Whites?

    Those people do not constitute the category “rich whites” (or a representative sample of “rich whites”).

    They aren’t even a “class”, and contempt and disdain aren’t hatred (though some of the people you mention may in fact be guilty of hatred). The notion that rich whites hate non-rich whites, like the other propositions I disagreed with, is ridiculous. And could you people quit changing the “class” in question every time you touch the keyboard?

  123. @RebelWriter
    @Lurker

    I miss Sunday mornings with TWTP and friends. Good times.

    Replies: @Lurker

    Some Taki refugees ended up here:

    https://disqus.com/home/forum/realm-channelz

    Site uses Disqus.

  124. @iffen
    @Sean

    I have doubts that the globalist elites in the US believe that a nation-state like the US is needed by them anymore. They sure aren't interested in doing anything to cultivate a healthy working class that provides a nationalist base of support for said state. I'm guessing that the Chinese elites still think that they need a strong nation-state and see the need to cultivate strong nationalist support among the working class.

    Replies: @Sean

    I don’t think the economic elite ever believed a cohesive working class pressuring business for labour’s share of the surplus was desirable. Globalisation eliminated the national economies and freed the elite from the constraint of working class organisation in a country that capital (at that time) could not just leave and set up in China for massive profits. Union power was in the old context of national economies, and now it doesn’t matter whether there are unions because they cannot get anything for workers.

    The super elites all pose as philanthropists that gave their fortune to a charitable foundation, and they all evade tax. Their strategy is managing the decline of their host country’s productive capacity while counting on their investments in China to increase their fortune, and for that reason they fear calls for reinvestment in democratic societies. Western billionaires see the Chinese Communist Party as their ally, and strong states in their own countries as the enemy.

    https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/stealth-war-how-the-us-can-counter-chinas-takeover-attempts/

    Democracies must band together and invest in their communities to revitalize infrastructure, manufacturing, science and technology, and STEM education. Military funding must be transferred into these areas to promote economic growth and resiliency. Institutions must be inoculated to prevent the erosion of rights and freedoms. We must restore confidence in democracy as an organizing principle for the digital world by securing the internet and ensuring that citizens are the masters of their data.

  125. I don’t think the economic elite ever believed a cohesive working class pressuring business for labour’s share of the surplus was desirable. Globalisation eliminated the national economies and freed the elite from the constraint of working class organisation in a country that capital (at that time) could not just leave and set up in China for massive profits. Union power was in the old context of national economies, and now it doesn’t matter whether there are unions because they cannot get anything for workers.

    The super elites all pose as philanthropists that gave their fortune to a charitable foundation, and they all evade tax. Their strategy is managing the decline of their host country’s productive capacity while counting on their investments in China to increase their fortune, and for that reason they fear calls for reinvestment in democratic societies. Western billionaires see the Chinese Communist Party as their ally, and strong states in their own countries as the enemy.

    https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/stealth-war-how-the-us-can-counter-chinas-takeover-attempts/

    Democracies must band together and invest in their communities to revitalize infrastructure, manufacturing, science and technology, and STEM education. Military funding must be transferred into these areas to promote economic growth and resiliency. Institutions must be inoculated to prevent the erosion of rights and freedoms. We must restore confidence in democracy as an organizing principle for the digital world by securing the internet and ensuring that citizens are the masters of their data.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Thanks: iffen

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS